evidence based medicine?

[Blossom]

These same drugs are typically used more conservatively in older people due to their horrendous side effects and the unethical nature of drugging helpless people to better control them- yet it's okay for children and teens?!

Vast sectors of society seem to have a let's just kill everybody attitude.

Especially if one is sick or debilitated in any way. Watch out! It's pretty sad actually. Doesn't seem much different from a pack of wolves in the wild killing off the weak. We just have people walking around in white lab coats feeling important while they do it.

 

[sm1693]

I have a persuasion success story:

I told my dad that I was trying a new diet several months ago and he seemed very interested when I told him about all the success I was having. I later sent him some stuff such as a rough meal and supplement plan that I follow. Once he saw that I was taking several tbsp's of white sugar per day, he basically laughed in my face and called the whole thing off and gave me a dire warning to stop, lest I ruin my health forever (what a jerk!).

Fast forward to a few weeks ago and my dad called me and said he wasn't feeling too great on his current diet and could I please give him more info on the Ray Peat thing. Now, he has read a ton of articles and has even helped me learn a few Peat facts.

Come to think of it... I didn't do too much persuading, he basically just came crawling back to me in poor health. Haha, all is forgiven :)

I see this diet gaining in popularity the same way crossfit has done in the last decade (not that crossfit is beneficial, of course).
1. The original core group of early adopters is fanatically devoted to the diet, they struggle to convince others because they are so "weird" and outside of mainstream, but eventually a secondary adopter group is created.

2.The secondary group is less "weird" and closer to mainstream so they have an easier time convincing the tertiary group of the diet's perfection.

3. It spreads like wildfire from there and its only limiting factor is the number of months it takes to properly understand the complexities of the diet.

To be fair, both my dad and myself are relatively adventurous and weird. We may be in the earlyish adopter category which is where a phenomenon can turn into a dud. But, if there were a Ray Peat stock on the nasdaq, I would buy it.

A loosely related theory:

Theory 1: poor nutrition is what makes people have an outside "NEED," which may be a sportscar, solid gold toilet, corporate jet usage, or celebrity status. This "NEED" takes the place of the subtle "want" they may normally have. Needy people end up starting wars over oil, women, embarrassment, etc.

Theory 2: as more and more people eat Peaty, human society will slowly change from a bloodthirsty, war-torn chimpanzee type society, to a free spirited, sex-all-day bonobo society. The only difference I have read about the two types of monkeys is that the bonobos have "better access to easily digestible food."

Patiently waiting for the all-day-sexathon...

 

[burtlancast]

I believe that for Ray's work to really catch fire, one would need to come across a more "accessible" version of his teachings, as it presently constitutes a rather "dry" reading, extremely technical, and (very) unlikely to be followed by casual people not particularly interested in health.

It took me a few days to warm up to his ideas.
And i've read quite a few health books ()

Also, the picture of a young man that he displays on his website kind of sends the wrong message to the new viewer, as it gives the impression the author has just finished highschool, which contrasts with the depth of the articles.

 

[SaltGirl]

I wouldn't say Ray Peat's writings are dry(perhaps I am just weird) as I find them very entertaining.

However, what is perhaps needed is a more "dumb" version of it. Whenever people ask me about Ray Peat I can easily go into how the hormones and enzymes work on each other and that will usually have people in a tailspin and on their way out of there.

If you think about the usual myths of normal society about diet they are most often wrapped into easily digestible wordings such as "natural", "unrefined", "nutritious", "evolutionary", and so on. If it were possible to compact Ray Peat's stuff into something that you'd see on web MD or any other national source I believe it would be more easier to get people along.

We must also remember that people won't go searching for any solutions unless their current solution doesn't work or has stopped working. A lot of people who go into LC/ZC and/or Paleo are doing so after the SAD failed utterly. Same goes for anything really, whether it would be a Fruitarian or the McDougall diet.

 

[Blossom]

Benedicte Lerche PhD has a nutritional program based on Peat's work that is very simple and straight forward. I believe she has taken his key ideas and presented them in a manner that is understandable and fairly easy to implement for the average person not necessarily interested in physiology, hormones and metabolism etc. People who want to get well, or function optimally and just want to be told how. I have been meaning mention her program on the forum for a few months. I think it would be the perfect intro to Peat for people who don't really care about understanding the intricate details. She explains a bit about things but it's not overwhelming and she outlines measures to get people on the right track! I have read through it a couple times, have really enjoyed it and refer back to it occasionally. I feel really good about the fact that Ray approved the content. I think it would be an excellent starting point for people unfamiliar with Peat. I'm not affiliated with her in any way other than as a paying client.

 

[Mittir]

I wouldn't say Ray Peat's writings are dry(perhaps I am just weird) as I find them very entertaining.

However, what is perhaps needed is a more "dumb" version of it. Whenever people ask me about Ray Peat I can easily go into how the hormones and enzymes work on each other and that will usually have people in a tailspin and on their way out of there.

His on-line articles are more science oriented than simple advices. But his books,
especially nutrition for women is an easy read with good amount of details.
I think this books is a good introduction to easy understanding of his dietary
guidelines. It is quite easy to convince people to have a dairy and fruit (ripe)
based low fat diet than to go into detail of PUFA science. Most people are
already convinced that oil is bad and fruits and low-fat dairy are good.
Most adults who are not used to drinking milk can easily tolerate cheese.
I have better success in convincing people giving up fat than to adopt
butter and coconut oil. I do not bring up simple sugar, but most are open to
honey. Unless someone has significant health issue he/she does not have
any incentive to dig deeper into RP science. I think accepting RP
is more problematic for people who are well-versed in wrong science
of nutrition like Ketosis, paleo etc. Bone broth is a easy sell.
Most people know meat is bad. I use example of French cuisine to
sell butter. I think in most cultural tradition strained yogurt, milk
and cheese are considered as healthy foods. I also give nutritional
advices in small doses. If that helps they are more open to newer ideas
and they often ask for it. I only do this for my friends and relatives.

 

[Blossom]

Mittir-I love all your tips for helping family and friends!

 

[Philomath]

Doctors will do anything to protect their commodity, the medical degree.
They paid good money for it and will do anything to protect their investment. Including, but not limited to, disregarding the Hippocratic oath, ignoring science, demeaning other forms of healthcare and beholding themselves to the AMA and their lawyers.
I mean really, after spending 10+ years in school who would jeopardize their prestige and value by admitting they honestly don't know?

 

[burtlancast]

From PMS to Menopause:

Pharmaceutical misrepresentations regarding the estrogens rank, in terms of human consequences, with the radiation damage from fall-out from bomb tests and reactor-leaks, with industrial pollution, with degradation of the food supply--with genocide, in fact.

Advertising gets a bad name when it can't be distinguished from mass murder. At a certain point, we can't afford to waste our time making subtle distinctions between ignorance and malevolence. If we begin pointing out the lethal consequences of "stupid" or quasi-stupid commercial/governmental policies, the offenders will have the burden of proving that their actions are the result of irresponsible ignorance, rather than criminal duplicity. From the tobacco senators to the chemical/pharmaceutical/food/energy industries and their agents in the governmental agencies, those who do great harm must be held responsible.

The idea of corporate welfare, in which public funds are given in massive subsidies to rich corporations, is now generally recognized. Next, we have to increase our consciousness of corporate responsibility, and that ordinary criminal law, especially RICO, can be directly applied to
corporations. It remains to be seen whether a government can be made to stop giving public funds to corporations, and instead, to begin enforcing the law against them--and against those in the agencies who participated in their crimes.

In the U.S., the death penalty is sometimes reserved for "aggravated homicide." If those who kill hundreds of thousands for the sake of billions of dollars in profits are not committing aggravated homicide, then it must be that no law written in the English language can be objectively
interpreted, and the legal system is an Alice in Wonderland convenience for the corporate state.​