Discussion: What principles of "Ray Peatism" makes sense most, which ones make sense least?

[TripleOG]

Nobody recommended losing muscle mass to lose weight.
Weight loss should come as a natural consequence of PUFA stores depletion.
Muscle mass is a critical parameter of being healthy, Georgi reiterates this in every single discussion he has with Danny.

Huh? I’m talking about diet, not weight lifting. Peat’s favorable view of resistance training is no secret.

 

[TheBeard]

Huh? I’m talking about diet, not weight lifting. Peat’s favorable view of resistance training is no secret.

I wasn't talking about weight lifting either, where did you see this?

 

[TheBeard]

How can you have PUFA depletion without fat loss? How would you ever know if pufa is being depleted at all when there’s no way to measure it?
My body immediately sheds muscle when I try to lose weight so it’s a mystery to me that some people are able to choose their body composition.

With better dietary choices.
I'm now muscular and shredded without even weight lifting anymore, just because my diet consists of raw milk, cheese, butter, and plenty of meat.

 

[hei]

With better dietary choices.
I'm now muscular and shredded without even weight lifting anymore, just because my diet consists of raw milk, cheese, butter, and plenty of meat.

Wouldn't it have more to do with you using high doses of testosterone for a long time?

 

[TripleOG]

I wasn't talking about weight lifting either, where did you see this?

Hmm.

Then can you clarify what you meant by this...

Nobody recommended losing muscle mass to lose weight.

... since I don’t see how I implied otherwise?

 

[GreekDemiGod]

The question then becomes how to get out of that state first to then start adding more sugar etc., and that’s when things get highly individualised and is where Peat’s philosophy of experimentation and “perceive, think, act” IS key.

Sounds like fixing the liver and digestion should be the primary approaches. Pushing the pedal on metabolism hasn't really worked much, it is a higher-level optimization that IMO should be done only when in good health. I guess it all depends on your starting point.

 

[hei]

Sounds like fixing the liver and digestion should be the primary approaches. Pushing the pedal on metabolism hasn't really worked much, it is a higher-level optimization that IMO should be done only when in good health. I guess it all depends on your starting point.

But the liver depends on good thyroid function. Just another catch-22. Oh well.

 

[Ben.]

Eating enough nutrient dense food, having an ideal energy metablosim and being active is the thing i resonate with the most.


The whole PUFA being bad and toxic even in the smallest amounts thing still doesn't sit well with me. It doesn't "feel" logical considering its in nature in so many foods wether it is nuts, meat, fish or w/e. Same thing goes for starches. Also if it was as damaging as the research suggests, wouldn't we "feel" its damage everytime we ate some? It is one thing to reduce PUFAs and another to demonize it and build psychological fear towards it.

And "living" on external thyroid supplementation is so wierd too. Eating an animal nose to tail once in a while is not even slightly comparable to what many members here do with their daily hormone supplements

This is one of the things I struggle with most. It feels like the Peat approach of high sugar (which makes complete sense the way cellular function is explained) is ideal once the metabolism is already well-functioning, but high sugar is likely not the way to improve a severely inefficient metabolism. That’s when many people end up in trouble when we keep forcing the high sugar and classic Peat foods when still deep in that adrenaline/lactic acid state (e.g., the more sugar I eat the colder my hands get and the more adrenalised I feel). Plus we pile coffee/caffeine and a laundry list worth of supplements on top of that.

That has been my experience for the last 1,5 year too. Increaing energy with thing slike sugar or increased caloric load defenietly ramps up my metabolism but also worsens symptoms too.

As you've said one needs to take the inviduals situation into consideration.

 

[rr1]

Eating enough nutrient dense food, having an ideal energy metablosim and being active is the thing i resonate with the most.


The whole PUFA being bad and toxic even in the smallest amounts thing still doesn't sit well with me. It doesn't "feel" logical considering its in nature in so many foods wether it is nuts, meat, fish or w/e. Same thing goes for starches. Also if it was as damaging as the research suggests, wouldn't we "feel" its damage everytime we ate some? It is one thing to reduce PUFAs and another to demonize it and build psychological fear towards it.

And "living" on external thyroid supplementation is so wierd too. Eating an animal nose to tail once in a while is not even slightly comparable to what many members here do with their daily hormone supplements





That has been my experience for the last 1,5 year too. Increaing energy with thing slike sugar or increased caloric load defenietly ramps up my metabolism but also worsens symptoms too.

As you've said one needs to take the inviduals situation into consideration.

Regarding the thyroid supplementation, I think one thing that most people forget, not only did previous generations always have a little thyroid in their diets through nose to tail eating, but also they weren't exposed to fluoride, vegetables oils, ***t food/modified food, mold, lack of light, chronic stress like we are now. And a point that Broda Barnes made in his book is that the 'low thyroids' would have just died from sickness and disease before modern medicine came along, so there is a huge increase of hypothyroid people that were allowed to survive because of modern medicine. And these low thyroid people attract other low thyroid people and carry it on to their children.

 

[Ben.]

Regarding the thyroid supplementation, I think one thing that most people forget, not only did previous generations always have a little thyroid in their diets through nose to tail eating, but also they weren't exposed to fluoride, vegetables oils, ***t food/modified food, mold, lack of light, chronic stress like we are now. And a point that Broda Barnes made in his book is that the 'low thyroids' would have just died from sickness and disease before modern medicine came along, so there is a huge increase of hypothyroid people that were allowed to survive because of modern medicine. And these low thyroid people attract other low thyroid people and carry it on to their children.

How would've one become "low thyroid" in an environment that didn't have all these endocrine disuprtive substances? I mean if we leave out lack of food/nutrients due to starvation" or other forms of "natural extreme stress". But i imagine things like that wouldn't "just" make the thyroid suffer but all organs and cells, resulting ultimatevily in information passed on to offsprings that may or may not be desirable in regards to w/e organ/cell that took damage/stress.

And wouldn't a restoration in w/e induced the hypo- or hyperthyrodism in the environment result in reverting the functioning of the damaged organs again? (one would hope so). So i guess the external supplementation of thyroid is like a bandaid or like bloodpressure medication, it is not a cure nor a fix but just a modern measurement in slowing down the inevateble collapse of our body which is accelerated by modern, glorified capitalism.

---

There is also this phenomenon that some people are having health issues under these conditions and some don't. Is this realy just genetics? Or is it that some ancestors just indured more damage already and the sufferers got passed on a lack of "health" momentum unlike others and in the future all humans will have chronic health issues anyway?

I agree with the things you've listed tho. We and all following generations are growing up in a messed up environment that will give rise to chronic health issues in more and more people unless humanity as a whole manages to understand how sacred our soil, water, food and our endocrine system is.

If the general public (aka sheep) actually knew, realy knew ... what is done to them and their offsprings from a biological pov with the very daily products they use, they would realise under what kind of mass criminal assault they are by the very "heros" they consider succesfull buisnessman/leaders.

---

Edit: Sorry, didnt mean to go offtopic, just wanted to respond to the very good point dylan made.

 

[rr1]

How would've one become "low thyroid" in an environment that didn't have all these endocrine disuprtive substances? I mean if we leave out lack of food/nutrients due to starvation" or other forms of "natural extreme stress". But i imagine things like that wouldn't "just" make the thyroid suffer but all organs and cells, resulting ultimatevily in information passed on to offsprings that may or may not be desirable in regards to w/e organ/cell that took damage/stress.

And wouldn't a restoration in w/e induced the hypo- or hyperthyrodism in the environment result in reverting the functioning of the damaged organs again? (one would hope so). So i guess the external supplementation of thyroid is like a bandaid or like bloodpressure medication, it is not a cure nor a fix but just a modern measurement in slowing down the inevateble collapse of our body which is accelerated by modern, glorified capitalism.

---

There is also this phenomenon that some people are having health issues under these conditions and some don't. Is this realy just genetics? Or is it that some ancestors just indured more damage already and the sufferers got passed on a lack of "health" momentum unlike others and in the future all humans will have chronic health issues anyway?

I agree with the things you've listed tho. We and all following generations are growing up in a messed up environment that will give rise to chronic health issues in more and more people unless humanity as a whole manages to understand how sacred our soil, water, food and our endocrine system is.

If the general public (aka sheep) actually knew, realy knew ... what is done to them and their offsprings from a biological pov with the very daily products they use, they would realise under what kind of mass criminal assault they are by the very "heros" they consider succesfull buisnessman/leaders.

---

Edit: Sorry, didnt mean to go offtopic, just wanted to respond to the very good point dylan made.

These are very good questions, and I'm really intrigued to see an answer. I wonder if it may just be some sort of genetic influences that make some people more prone to hypothyroidism than others.

 

[TheBeard]

Hmm.

Then can you clarify what you meant by this...


... since I don’t see how I implied otherwise?

You meant to write "it implies otherwise", but that's alright.
As I already said, with proper dietary changes, your muscle mass increases and your fat decreases.

We can go in circles like this forever.

 

[Jon2547]

This is one of the things I struggle with most. It feels like the Peat approach of high sugar (which makes complete sense the way cellular function is explained) is ideal once the metabolism is already well-functioning, but high sugar is likely not the way to improve a severely inefficient metabolism. That’s when many people end up in trouble when we keep forcing the high sugar and classic Peat foods when still deep in that adrenaline/lactic acid state (e.g., the more sugar I eat the colder my hands get and the more adrenalised I feel). Plus we pile coffee/caffeine and a laundry list worth of supplements on top of that.

The question then becomes how to get out of that state first to then start adding more sugar etc., and that’s when things get highly individualised and is where Peat’s philosophy of experimentation and “perceive, think, act” IS key.

This question deserves a new thread altogether.
I've done well to correct some focus/attention/cognitive issues on lowcarb/highfat, now it is time to explore higher carbs regimens that don't wreck my health but increases my metabolism.

 

[gaze]

Sounds like fixing the liver and digestion should be the primary approaches. Pushing the pedal on metabolism hasn't really worked much, it is a higher-level optimization that IMO should be done only when in good health. I guess it all depends on your starting point.

here's the problem though: rays solution to fixing the liver and digestion is: increasing metabolism. So it's a catch-22 for people who feel horrible pushing the metabolic gas peddle. and because there is no guarantee that increasing metabolism increases thyroid (because the body can up regulate adrenaline to burn off the extra sugar instead of thyroid), increasing metabolism on it's own doesn't work for some people. I think Rays diet can be optimal for some if you supplement thyroid at the same time, and even that can go wrong if you are unintentionally under eating. I think for people with severe problems, a more balanced meal plan is better, something like balanced meals at breakfast lunch and dinner, meals which include a starch, protein, fat, sugar, salt, in "normal" proportions that are more traditional and not so extreme. and then snacks in between with carrot salad, some OJ, milk, etc. not only does this promote good stomach acid production, but its easier to get a lot of calories without it being so stimulating such as grazing on OJ and milk all day would be.

 

[Vileplume]

I like most the idea that we can never have too much energy from having good metabolism as it is used on development. Developing the brain foremost, and then our outward physical attributes such as skin and hair, and our virility. In terms of personality, I think he will be very easy to get along with, given the high dopamine and the low serotonin.

What I don't like the most is the use of the simplistic metric of heart rate as a measure of metabolism, to the point of equating high heart rate to intelligence. Certainly all things being equal, I would agree that a higher heart rate would confer more intelligence. But really, if you put a good sampling of people together and measure their heart rate, you can hardly get any validation of that idea. For how can a guy with tachycardia, understood to have a high heart rate exceedng 100 bpm be smarter than a guy with no tachycardia when his heart rate is high because he has a problem with his heart pumping efficiently?

But you get the idea. I can make the same argument with a guy with a heart rate of 99 (barely passing before you call him tachycardic) or a guy with a heart rate of 89, and another with 79. They may all have very inefficient hearts that do not pump efficiently and require a higher heart rate to compensate for their inefficient hearts.

Instead, Ray should update his metric as there are better metrics these days. Heart rate is a metric used before because in earlier days it's hard to get better metrics because they are troublesome to compute. As recent as fifty years ago, engineers were using slide rules because there were no handheld calculators. People were using rules of thumb to approximate measurements. Nowadays engineers don't use slid rules anymore, People rely a lot less on rules of thumb because computing power is so cheap and powerful.

Herbal doctors, Chinese and Western, feel patients' wrists and get a measure of their health from the strength, rate, and regularity of their pulse. It's not just the heart rate they depend on. But there is a metric that can be used to quantify the strength of the pulse. It is called the perfusion index. It's now available in newer oximeters that cost around $20. It computes the ratio of the pulsatile flow of blood over the non-pulsatile flow of blood, and the range of value given is from 0-20%. The higher it goes, the better, as it can be equated to a stronger pulse. A stronger pulse easily equates to the lusitropic quality of the heartbeat, which is the strength of it. And the higher the strength, the more efficient the heart is in pumping blood.

I used to become happy to see my heart rate go to 85 from my regular 68, and I thought "Gee, I am getting better. My metabolism is going up. Wow!" Not anymore, I am satisfied with the 68 given that it is very difficult to really change your regular heart rate. Not that it's impossible. It's just difficult. Only because the body has to find the rate that suits your level of health. And that level is hard to change if you don't know what you're doing. And most of us, including me, don't.

Instead, I look at the Perfusion Index or PI for short, and see how high it can get. And I also look at the graph called a plethysmograph, to see how the wave looks like and to see if it has a regular pattern to it. And the shape of the curve tells a story as well, about how healthy my heart is .

Maybe Ray is content using heart rate as the metric as it is easier to understand for most people. At best, though, it is just a rule of thumb.

Here is the one I'm using:
Amazon product ASIN B083JT4S8V

I agree that as a metric, heart rate is inconsistent and can be brought up or down by many things, both good and bad. I used to have a frequently low heart rate, and recently, my heart rate has gotten too high because it's fueled by adrenaline. Usually when Ray refers to pulse as a metric, he refers to it in conjunction with temperature, which, while still not totally reliable (because adrenaline can raise temps and pulse), gives a fuller picture than heart rate alone.

I appreciate your information about the PI--I never knew about that, and I'd like to be able to measure mine. Didn't you also post about oxygen saturation recently? That's another one I'd like to research for myself. What do you think about heart rate variability (HRV) as a measure of cardiovascular resilience?

 

[yerrag]

I agree that as a metric, heart rate is inconsistent and can be brought up or down by many things, both good and bad. I used to have a frequently low heart rate, and recently, my heart rate has gotten too high because it's fueled by adrenaline. Usually when Ray refers to pulse as a metric, he refers to it in conjunction with temperature, which, while still not totally reliable (because adrenaline can raise temps and pulse), gives a fuller picture than heart rate alone.

Yes, temperature with heart rate gives a better idea of metabolic health, but I've found it helps little when my temperature is already normal. At this point, I can only really on heart rate, and since being able to have normal temperature (assuming it's not raised by adrenaline or by low-level infection) is just a minimum requirement of metabolic health, there is a wide latitude from minimum to maximum metabolic health from that point one, it is hard to rely on heart rate alone. For reasons I've mentioned in the earlier post.

I appreciate your information about the PI--I never knew about that, and I'd like to be able to measure mine. Didn't you also post about oxygen saturation recently? That's another one I'd like to research for myself. What do you think about heart rate variability (HRV) as a measure of cardiovascular resilience?

I've posted about oxygen saturation also, and I'm glad Ray Peat has also mentioned the use of spO2 as well. It's very different from the conventional use of spO2 is hospital settings, where getting 99% is seen as good. But they only seen it from a crisis perspective where there is low oxygen transport in the circulatory system. From being able to survive or not. From an optimal health perspective, the use of oxygen saturation as a marker is not understood by hospital staff. Their training is like limited to what is black and what is white. Very binary. They lack nuance. Looks like they passed tests using multiple choice exams or fill in the blanks. They could not reason out with well-written essays, much less sentences, to justify their conclusions. From such exams, they get their certification or degree.

I read about HRV many times and I can't make sense of it. The concept is nebulous. But maybe it's just not been explained well enough from I've read.

 

[Sefton10]

here's the problem though: rays solution to fixing the liver and digestion is: increasing metabolism. So it's a catch-22 for people who feel horrible pushing the metabolic gas peddle. and because there is no guarantee that increasing metabolism increases thyroid (because the body can up regulate adrenaline to burn off the extra sugar instead of thyroid), increasing metabolism on it's own doesn't work for some people. I think Rays diet can be optimal for some if you supplement thyroid at the same time, and even that can go wrong if you are unintentionally under eating. I think for people with severe problems, a more balanced meal plan is better, something like balanced meals at breakfast lunch and dinner, meals which include a starch, protein, fat, sugar, salt, in "normal" proportions that are more traditional and not so extreme. and then snacks in between with carrot salad, some OJ, milk, etc. not only does this promote good stomach acid production, but its easier to get a lot of calories without it being so stimulating such as grazing on OJ and milk all day would be.

It's definitely the Catch-22's that are most confusing, and there are a few of them in "Peatism"! What you advise is where I keep moving back towards - more balance. I think I have heard Ray say in the past that 33/33/33 between the macros might even be the ideal.

TL;DR: Get enough protein and calories, minimise PUFA, choose carbs/fats based on individual metabolic state.

To me it's about trying to increase metabolism incrementally and slowly over time now rather than the kitchen sink approach. The worse the starting point, the slower this likely needs to be. At the same time healing the gut/liver with the same staged approach. Both aspects go hand in hand and can compliment or derail each other if one pedal is pushed too much too soon. Peat would probably advise that on an individual level when he has more context on a person too.

Protein tends to stay pretty constant, say around 120-140g (meats, fish, dairy, bone broth) then it's a case of experimenting with the fats and carbs around that to get best results. The main gauge for me is hand temperature, I know when I've eaten a meal that is better for my current state my hands will be warmer almost immediately, but it's a nice warm not a sweaty/overly energised warmth.

Lately that has meant higher fat than is typical and lower sugar. I've tried the high sugar approach and nothing is more guaranteed to lower temps - I'm just using adrenaline to burn through it, the spacey, jittery feeling attests to that. The more I push it pursuing the high-sugar ideal the deeper the hole I dig, and that then manifests in feelings of lactic acid - lethargy, more aches/pains, very low exercise tolerance etc.

Then the nuance starts to come in around types of fats/carbs. Avoiding PUFA and focussing on saturated fats is standard (in my case, cocoa butter, cream, butter and a bit of tallow work well, coconut oil doesn't). Then we're back to minimising gut issues, so starches for me at the moment are out as they noticeably lower temps and I get the same high sugar symptoms, I suspect endotoxin, which Peat would probably agree with. That leaves me with fruits (at the moment snowball melons, dried apricots, kiwis and small portions of dates), maple syrup, date syrup, some coconut water. Juices are out. A bit of butternut squash and zucchini in soups work well. Mushrooms too. I'm fine with dairy so milk in the form hot chocolate is a nice snack a couple of times a day, Skyr, small portions of ice cream and custard are in there which are the only bits of white sugar I get.

I'll eat a raw carrot daily but don't notice much from it to be honest. I just enjoy crunching on something in the afternoon. I like eggs but I think the whites might cause me some issues (again coldness in hands) so I go through phases with them, I appreciate the importance of the yolks for some vits/mins though so always get them in.

Supplements are mainly out, which again Ray would probably approve of. Some Magnesium and B1 daily and K2 every 2 or 3 days to hit clear deficiencies from diet when looking at cronometer.

So on the perceiving, thinking and acting goes! But I am also trying to be far less focused on it and just tuning into what my body is telling me - I enjoy the forum, but being overly neurotic about this stuff is also a stressor I think. It's tempting to jump on the latest testimonial from someone that went high or low something or other and turned into superman or woman, but we all know in 6 weeks they will probably post with an issue and have done a complete 180.

A big learning recently is making sure I eat enough earlier in the day - typically I've been a big dinner eater, so if I get to dinner and I'm hungry that will spell trouble for digestion when trying to sleep and the knock on effects from there are obvious. A lighter and earlier dinner works better for me and ice cream immediately before sleep definitely doesn't (another Peat paradox perhaps!).

 

[metabolizm]

The vast quantities of milk and cheese. Do we really need THAT much calcium?

re: the high pulse rate thing. I guess if a high pulse rate (in the right circumstances) is an indicator of a vigorous metabolism (which is an indicator of good health) then so be it. But literally EVERYONE I know thinks the very opposite: that a lower pulse rate is better. The high pulse rate thing is just one of Ray’s many unpopular opinions.

 

[TripleOG]

You meant to write "it implies otherwise", but that's alright.
As I already said, with proper dietary changes, your muscle mass increases and your fat decreases.

We can go in circles like this forever.

I see where the confusion lies.

To clarify, the mechanism behind "Peat fatloss" I understand. It's practicality and effectiveness as a blanket approach for all age, weight, health categories is debatable, causes confusion, and has led a lot of people in this community to gain excessive fat over the years.

 

[jdrop]

Energy & structure - elucidates most ideas.