Eat your way to destruction

[thebigpeatowski]

SCIENCE RULES!!!

https://youtu.be/tBIps187MKk


It's poetry in motion....

 

[tara]

You just can't know from the generalisations exactly what will work for a particular individual.

Let me try it this way:
Because a diet does not describe a separate set of foods
specific to each individual on the planet,
this does not preclude it from being a diet.

Diets are ever and always general.

I am happy with this use of diet. If people mean a flexible, general dietary framework when they talk about a Peat diet, that doesn't bother me.
The word diet has uses both more and less general. There are other diets prescribed that are very precise, whether in range of foods included, and /or in amounts and ratios of nutrients - perhaps neither of us would consider them reasonable as a prescription for everyone.

It is only when people start to get too specific about particular foods for everyone that I have a problem with it. That's what some people seem to try to do when they refer to 'the Peat Diet'. "I've been eating a strict Peat Diet for 2 mths and I keep getting sicker" doesn't make sense to me.

When people say they have been following a strict Peat Diet and it doesn't work, they do not seem to be talking about something flexible and general. How do you strictly follow a flexible general framework, and then conclude that it doesn't work? Because it is flexible, it is not easy to try all the possible permutations of specific diets that fall within that framework. Certainly not possible in a couple of months. As i said, this is the use I have trouble with.

 

[tara]

I guess if you use 'a Peat diet'
the way people say
'I eat a vegetarian diet'
that can make good sense.

But imagine someone saying
'I've been eating the strict lacto-ovo vegetarian diet for three months, and I'm still/more sick, so a vegetarian diet is clearly no good for me." It might just mean the've been eating too many lentils or are allergic to eggs or something.
'A Peat/vegetarian diet' can make sense, but I don't know about 'THE vegetarian diet', or 'THE Peat Diet' - that implies a much greater level of specificity.

 

[narouz]

It's not a bizarre idea when you think about it. :)

 

[XPlus]

I come across these ideas and products, everyday, along with people who make a life quest of trying to convince me that sugar is the devil's feast (well, "everybody knows that")

YES, that is why I always prepare arguments to reply!
- "How can we have a natural taste for sweet food if it is bad for us?"
- "Yes you are right, too much sugar is bad, but there is more sugar in starch than in sweet food."
Then I say that the best is to choose between starch and sugar, and that I made my choice.... And so I eat less sugar than a bread eater!
- "How much sugar can yu eat before reaching a "no more" point? Not that much. Same for fat. Or else try to eat some sugar cubes, or pure butter.... Then, can you easily reach this "no more" point with bread? ... you are more likely to over eat when you eat starch. Our instinct can regulate apetite much better with sugar and fat.

Then, I find it more difficult to explain the difference between the 2 sorts of fats. The % in mother's milk is a good help. Then I explain that saturated means stable, and unsaturated unstable, because carbons are not saturated with hydrogen. I also tell about food industry and paints, and the change for petrol products, and the new market then had to find...

Not so easy to see who is the culprit in food...
Actually, here people eat a lot of sugar, there is a high level of cancer, diabetis... So it looks like sugar is to be blamed. People used to be healthy and slim 30 years ago, as the new foods came late.
More over, spanish people use olive oil almost exclusively.
Cereals were traditional, also potatoes, and the island produces almonds....

So, their former diet promoted health though rich in starch and some PUFA... There might be starch and starch... and also a "burning life style", as people had a hard life and needed a lot of muscle use. So I guess that glucose was all burned.

Nowadays, they also eat ready made industrialized food, UHT cow milk, imported white flour for bread etc, and their animals have changed food! They eat OGM corn etc. They know that goats live half as long as before.... But they produce a more abundant fatter milk... I got confirmation that pig's fat that you can buy now is whiter and more liquid than before (it used to be more yellow and more solid 30 years ago).

it is definitely not easy to make someone understand that sugar is metabolically okay. It's this tendency to disregard all the other playing factors and focus on what an excess of sugar might do under certain (less ideal ) conditions.
No matter how you'd explain what sugar is and what how it is utilized by our system, there's always that "If you eat too much you'll get sick" idea. There's no definition of "too much" and even the slight amount of sugar seem too much. This is combined with lack of understanding of the relative liver's function, PUFA effect on beta cells as well as other related variables.

Is it appropriate to compare us to our ancestors. Our ancestors did not have the same lifestyles and environmental stressors we had. Their tolerance for the extra bit of nuts, fiber or lactic acid - as an example - must have been different. Prenatal imprinting is a large part of it I believe. In this age, the ability of a grandfather who comes from a rural background to handle estrogen is likely to be much better compared to a grandchild who've been born and raised in a modern city. The grand father might lose some hair, have back and knee pain and have bulgy belly, while the kid already have these problems at 25, along with man boobs as a bonus.

 

[XPlus]

Big thank you, Tara. You summarized everything I'd want to say to Narouz.

@ narouz, I agree you can generalise about diet according to the quotes you have so beautifully extracted for us. :) I think these generalisations are golden and can well be used for guidance.
You just can't know from the generalisations exactly what will work for a particular individual.
It is only when people start to get too specific about particular foods for everyone that I have a problem with it. That's what some people seem to try to do when they refer to 'the Peat Diet'. "I've been eating a strict Peat Diet for 2 mths and I keep getting sicker" doesn't make sense to me. To me, a Peat-inspired diet involves paying attention to what's happening and thinking about it and making course corrections - isn't that a key part of what Peat encourages? 'Perceive, think, act.' Not continuing to follow a rigid diet that isn't doing any good. That's the use of "the Peat Diet" that I object to.

 

[XPlus]

Narouz, I like the list you put together. It gives a nice sense of some of peat's recommendations especially when they're all put together.
you’re also right. For the most of us, when we each analyze the general and specific guidelines of Peat’s, we can arrive at what looks like diets that are mostly the same. I think it is when we tend to reduce Peat’s work to a diet, it is when it is least likely to work for us - like Tara said.

From what I understand, Ray Peat’s theory is to minimize stress while giving the body the necessary tools and resources to take care of itself. If we look at this as a process, it is not the specific foods that we eat that matter the most. It is the effect of those foods along with other environmental variables on the whole-body physiology. This concept eases the tension on the diet part.

For example, I noticed that I can process more of the less ideal foods (e.g. raw vegetables and starches, gluten) when I’m least stressed. This is an event where dietary guidelines are less relevant.

The lack of self-observation may be a major drawback from looking at Peat’s work as a diet. It becomes a routine target – a pillar – that must be looked up to and achieved in itself.

Take this gentleman, for example:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6486

Recently – without discredit to him – he crammed himself with all the Peaty stuff (i.e. the Peat’s diet) based on his own understanding of other people’s interpretation of Peat’s. He mentions that he used to have 4tbsps of salt every day as well as brute-force other foods into his system to “fulfill all Peat's recommended food in certain amount of calories all in one sitting.”

I’ve seen quite few cases that had similar outcome. May be it is this overwhelmingly twisted idea of “diet and exercise” that prevents us from properly tuning into our own physiology.

It is not simple to come into Peat and visualize health in an unconventional view . It takes lots of time, effort and experimentation to acquire the necessary understanding.

 

[XPlus]

mercola is the one I hate most

lives on salmon, raw kale (health foods apparently)

and whey shakes

Well, despite the fact that his thoughts over health are inconsistent, shallow, even chaotic at times, his stand for less intensive farming, food processing practices and against the large corporations is worth admiring.

 

[XPlus]

Of course, we all know Ray Peat is all about esotericism... free articles what?? Lock them up in a cave in Romania I suggest.

This cracked me up.

Yes!

This obsession with "there is no Ray Peat diet" is weird and misplaced.

It wouldn't be wrong to say that as Narouz puts it. Still, there's a very good reason for that obsessive persistence as you like to refer to. If everyone agrees there's a Ray Peat diet, then we'll already be selling Aspirin and CO2 gas tanks on the front page, and disciples will be writing the new Peatestament.
I can think of one good reason why Peat offers his life work on the web, for free - like Such_ noted.
It is that same reason a diet description doesn't not fit Peat's work. To avoid reductionisim.

 

[narouz]

Big thank you, Tara. You summarized everything I'd want to say to Narouz.

@ narouz, I agree you can generalise about diet according to the quotes you have so beautifully extracted for us. :) I think these generalisations are golden and can well be used for guidance.
You just can't know from the generalisations exactly what will work for a particular individual.
It is only when people start to get too specific about particular foods for everyone that I have a problem with it. That's what some people seem to try to do when they refer to 'the Peat Diet'. "I've been eating a strict Peat Diet for 2 mths and I keep getting sicker" doesn't make sense to me. To me, a Peat-inspired diet involves paying attention to what's happening and thinking about it and making course corrections - isn't that a key part of what Peat encourages? 'Perceive, think, act.' Not continuing to follow a rigid diet that isn't doing any good. That's the use of "the Peat Diet" that I object to.

XPlus and tara--
Stimulating thoughts here
and, XPlus, in your longer post too.
I would like to get to these when I have more time.

 

[gretchen]

7. “People can do well on high or low fat or carbohydrate, but when the carbohydrate is very low, some of the protein will be wasted as fuel, replacing the missing glucose.”-Peat from http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/2011/12/ ... tandi.html

So he actually says there's no problem with eating lower carb. Interesting. I've dropped from 150+ grams to 80-100 recently and feel just fine.

Why hate Mercola? He looks healthy (relatively so) to me. No one would have gotten in to grass fed meat if it wasn't for him.

 

[narouz]

Big thank you, Tara. You summarized everything I'd want to say to Narouz.

@ narouz...You just can't know from the generalisations exactly what will work for a particular individual. It is only when people start to get too specific about particular foods for everyone that I have a problem with it. That's what some people seem to try to do when they refer to 'the Peat Diet'. "I've been eating a strict Peat Diet for 2 mths and I keep getting sicker" doesn't make sense to me. To me, a Peat-inspired diet involves paying attention to what's happening and thinking about it and making course corrections - isn't that a key part of what Peat encourages? 'Perceive, think, act.' Not continuing to follow a rigid diet that isn't doing any good. That's the use of "the Peat Diet" that I object to.

Sorry for the delay getting back to you, tara and XPlus.
Breaking it down into bite-size chunks:

@ narouz...You just can't know from the generalisations exactly what will work for a particular individual.

This is true.

It is only when people start to get too specific about particular foods for everyone that I have a problem with it.

Well...in this case it is possible you might be said more accurately to have a problem with Dr. Peat. :)
Because he has made "specific" recommendations about "particular foods for everyone"...
-sesame oil, cottonseed oil, soy oil, etc, etc, etc
-avocado
-gluten
-raw kale
-nuts
-lentils
-cabbage
...just to name a few off the top of my head.

I've been eating a strict Peat Diet for 2 mths and I keep getting sicker" doesn't make sense to me.

Nor to me.
But this means some elements of a Peat diet don't work for said 2 month Peater.
Not that "there is no Peat diet." :)

This brings us to one of the many important reasons for acknowledging that there is a Peat diet:
we give ourselves a scientific chance to know if it works.
As long as we hide behind things like
"There is no Peat diet,"
or
"the only Peat diet is to perceive, think, act" or whatever...
no chance.

Moreover, such intentional obscurantism (not you, tara)
should give off a very suspicious odor
to an objective person.
Because it allows someone or, say, a forum
to make sweeping claims like
"I've never seen anyone fail on a Peat diet"
while never having to be held accountable.

Returning to your quote above, tara...

I've been eating a strict Peat Diet for 2 mths and I keep getting sicker" doesn't make sense to me.

...here's the thing.
Peat does lay out a general diet.
He also does make recommendations about specific, particular foods
as I discussed above.

But Peat's doing so
does not mean that
Peat commands anyone to eat anything.
We really do carry this "Despise All Authority!" thing to silly lengths here.
Does anyone believe Peat will come after them with gun in hand if they don't comply with his ideas?

Likewise,
if we simply put together a straight, objective, vanilla, transparent summary
of Peat's dietary views,
would that be tantamount to us then coming after the disobedient with guns
or other kinds of force,
seeking compliance?

Making an objective summary
is not an act of Authoritarianism.

To me, a Peat-inspired diet involves paying attention to what's happening and thinking about it and making course corrections - isn't that a key part of what Peat encourages? 'Perceive, think, act.' Not continuing to follow a rigid diet that isn't doing any good. That's the use of "the Peat Diet" that I object to.

It surely is a "a key part of what Peat encourages."
But I bet that just as surely
you would not be happy to see the other 99.999% of what Peat has said about diet
to vanish,
to be erased from your memory and from the human record of knowledge,
thinking
oh, all that other stuff is not necessary,
because I have in my possession the only thing that is important from Peat:
"perceive, think, act."

Would you?

 

[narouz]

For the most of us, when we each analyze the general and specific guidelines of Peat’s, we can arrive at what looks like diets that are mostly the same.

Yes, I do agree,
and I think this is clear evidence that
an objective, faithful, transparent summary of a Peat diet is possible.
Duh.

I think it is when we tend to reduce Peat’s work to a diet, it is when it is least likely to work for us - like Tara said.

Again, I agree.
I mean, I'm a huge fan of red light,
of avoiding harmful exercise and other stress,
and of perceiving, thinking, and acting.
I've even taken to imagining my sex organ to be a
"male animal-flower, a soft-firm dildo, a warm dream." (Peat)
Etc.

On the other hand,
I wouldn't want to diminish Peat's lifelong emphasis upon diet and nutrition.
A review of all of his thousands of pages of scholarly writing
and his hundreds of hours of interviews...
I'd have to guesstimate that about 90% to 95% of that body of work
is about diet and nutrition.

I would also note,
although I would think it should be obvious,
that by producing a faithful, objective, transparent summary of a Peat diet
we would not be implying:
"Just read this.
This is all you need to know about Peat.
Don't waste your time with the rest.
Do not perceive, think, act."

It takes lots of time, effort and experimentation to acquire the necessary understanding.

I agree.
But I think you knew that. :)

 

[narouz]

Yes!

This obsession with "there is no Ray Peat diet" is weird and misplaced.

It wouldn't be wrong to say that as Narouz puts it. Still, there's a very good reason for that obsessive persistence as you like to refer to. If everyone agrees there's a Ray Peat diet, then we'll already be selling Aspirin and CO2 gas tanks on the front page, and disciples will be writing the new Peatestament.
I can think of one good reason why Peat offers his life work on the web, for free - like Such_ noted.
It is that same reason a diet description doesn't not fit Peat's work. To avoid reductionisim.

There are a couple of general ideas here that...
I see where you are coming from, XPlus,
but I can't really agree that they are well-founded.

1. It is dangerous to summarize regarding Peat.
2. It is sortuv evil to summarize Peat
because such summary will surely be taken up
by evil mercenary hands and misused, falsified, corrupted, etc.

On #1:
Scholars have summarized Gandhi.
Scholars have summarized Albert Szent-Györgyi.
Scholars have summarized Dr. William F. Koch.
Has such summary led to a net gain for evil in the world? :)

Or, on the other hand,
isn't summary an indispensable part
of the history of human knowledge?

On #2:
You do know that some have already summarized and sold
their spins on Peat's diet, yes?
It has been done and it will be done.
(And some of those interpretations are probably okay...I don't know.)
With those facts in mind,
wouldn't this forum be a good body to attempt
a free, faithful, transparent, careful, accurate summary?

Such a summary could be very helpful for a lot of reasons.

 

[Blossom]

Hasn't the forum done that under 'general dietary guidelines'? :?

 

[narouz]

@Blossom-
Well...if you mean the 2012 post...?
With "information drawn from other sites."
And the 2012 graphic by Steven Smith...?

Those have always been here.
They're not nuthin'.
I've always said so.
Lots of good info there.
A good beginning.

Not really a summary.
The single graphic is helpful,
but leaves out a lot of important stuff.
For instance, it shows a lot of different seafoods as belonging on a Peat diet.
But...can you make a Peat diet of all of those seafoods?
Seafood all day?
And can you just eat those with Cokes--also shown (correctly, with qualifications)
as belonging on a Peat diet...with no qualifications?
No approach to ratios, main foods, peripheral foods, when certain foods are best eaten, etc etc etc etc.

Also, why do we feel we can't tackle the project ourselves?
Why must we rely on other sites to pull the info from?
(Hint: because we've unfortunately been side-tracked/retarded by...you know...
"There is no Peat diet" )

 

[uuy8778yyi]

don't forget the almond butter and almond cheese
wash it down with a raw broccoli/kale smoothie because raw food is superior
and supplement with fish oil. walnut oil for essential omega 3 is also okay.
avoid all fruit - contains toxic sugar
burn fat because it is more efficient
don't forget the chia/hemp/flax cereal
also remember the raw chinese herbs.
also eat raw omega 3 salmon because cavemen did

you can add in avocados/olives/ raw nuts and seeds for energy

basically this man . excellent dietary advice.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6491

It won't cause hunger, eating disorders, or a lack of energy.

 

[narouz]

Another pointed example of the usefulness of providing an excellent Peat diet summary.

 

[XPlus]

You have an interesting train of thoughts, narouz. I wouldn't call it faulty.

It's a diet if you would like to look at it as such.
Perception sets the basis of how we approach things.

I've been overwhelmed with Peat's writing when I started studying his work.
The saying that "Peat isn't a diet" encouraged me to challenge myself to understand the complexity of how he lays out things.

The preaching that "This is a diet" - though not incorrect - automatically shuts down the investigative instincts of the reader.
It discourages them to take responsibly for their health and, simultaneously, does not add up to their self-development.
Eventually, we might fail to realise that the answer to any health challenge starts from within.
We start looking to others for answers.
We blame Peat and those who gave us advice when things go wrong.


Telling someone to have 2 litres of OJ - for example, as part of a diet - is similar to telling someone, with possibly impaired liver function, to start burning fat for fuel.
People reading the first statement start gulping orange juice in hopes to warm up, fix hormones, blood sugar and digestion.
Because the perception is already set to "a diet", that's exactly how it's approached.
In comparison, someone who understands insulin sensitivity, PUFA damage, Ph balance, thyroid's function, SIBO and overall hormone balance, knows better when and when not to take the orange juice as well as how much to take.

Take another example: Peat emphasizes that coffee is good and caffeine is vitamin-like.
Looking around the forum, you'll find quite few dieters reporting to have problems with coffee.
This is likely because liver function (and therefore digestion) is impaired; and thyroid isn't optimized - there might have a lot of PUFA to deal with, and estrogen along with it.
Tackling this problem requires an understanding of the issue.
Understanding leads to proper experimenting with coffee: gradual amount build up, steeping in milk, having it with buffers (i.e. sugar and/or cream), improving thyroid, possibly vitamin A increase and E in needed against estrogen and to counter PUFA damage, all while avoiding other potential intestinal irritants and using gut sweepers.
Add insulin sensitivity to that, and the number of variables increases.

 

[XPlus]

Why hate Mercola? He looks healthy (relatively so) to me. No one would have gotten in to grass fed meat if it wasn't for him.

I like Mercola as much as I love to make fun of him.
He looks okay but rather uncomfortably stressed to me. He has that Paleo look on him.
This might be because he heavily limits toxins but doesn't have an optimal metabolism.
That also explains why he's so into digestive aids. He probably needs them to compete against his 10billion cfu probiotics. Also, he sells tens of supplements to aid joints, ED, sleep, memory, immunity, vision, etc. If they really work, this tells you how's he's compensating for the lack of proper metabolism.
I bet that 20 years ago, if we put Peat next to him, Peat would have looked like his grandson.