Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Peat

[Dorito Loyalist]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

Alan Aragon deconstructing Surge Recovery Drink was pretty lol.

 

[Asimov]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

Alan Aragon may as well write one critique to EVERY study (he disagrees with, anyways)

"That studies findings, while statistically significant and completely repeatable, are invalid for the following reasons:

1) The studies were done on rats, and humans aren't rats (in case ya didn't know)
2) The dosing was inconsistent with human diets, because nobody eats X amount of Y nutrient. Lords knows, in an elimination study on rats, the rats should be eating a well balanced diet, amirite???
3) Sample size was too small. You need at least 4000 humans locked down in a metabolic ward for 42 weeks to get a consistent result (unless of course, the trial is is to prove that HFCS is great for you, which can be proven on only 6 patients getting take-home dietary surveys)
4) That study wasn't perfect....so it's invalid. But all the studies I use to support my findings are perfect and beyond scrutiny, and are therefore the infallible word of God."

Kind of hard to argue with his logic on why XYZ result is invalid. It's also pretty hard to turn around and MAKE any claims using that same level of scrutiny, unless of course you want to come off completely disingenuous.

Simply put, Alan is a guy who raises the burden of proof to absurd levels when he wants to argue against something, and then lowers it to a 6" hurdle when he's trying to prove his bro-points. I'm amazed he doesn't get called out on this more often.

 

[gretchen]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

@ gretchen - Girl, you were just making lots and lots of friends weren't you? At least you tried!

I was in my early conversion state. And was also in a fair amount of shock, since I ate so much salmon in the 2000s. So no, I didn't win any friends. At least I tried to help.

I've started yet another thread, reinventing myself as a cuddly lemur:
http://skincare.boards.net/index.cgi?bo ... thread=788

 

[charlie]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

Wow gretchen. People are so loving and kind.

 

[charlie]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

You really have to have some thick skin, be very patient, and ready to take a heap of crap to clue people in on Ray Peat.

 

[gretchen]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

You really have to have some thick skin, be very patient, and ready to take a heap of crap to clue people in on Ray Peat.

People's rejection of Peat doesn't bother me. "Essential" omega-3s (and avoiding sugar, also huge in sc world) is part of the cultural dogma-- I respect people who don't want to go against it. Especially since hormonal questions come up regularly and no one ever knows the answer.

 

[frustrated]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

I think Alan Aragon laughing so hard was frankly because Alan Aragon is a troll who has made his name off insulting other's research while contributing none of his own. There's thousands of studies, tons of biological plausibility, and more than enough n-1 data to support the idea that sat fat>unsaturated fat. If you choose not to believe it, that's fine. Everyone's free to do what they wish to their body.

Alan Aragon may as well write one critique to EVERY study (he disagrees with, anyways)

"That studies findings, while statistically significant and completely repeatable, are invalid for the following reasons:

1) The studies were done on rats, and humans aren't rats (in case ya didn't know)
2) The dosing was inconsistent with human diets, because nobody eats X amount of Y nutrient. Lords knows, in an elimination study on rats, the rats should be eating a well balanced diet, amirite???
3) Sample size was too small. You need at least 4000 humans locked down in a metabolic ward for 42 weeks to get a consistent result (unless of course, the trial is is to prove that HFCS is great for you, which can be proven on only 6 patients getting take-home dietary surveys)
4) That study wasn't perfect....so it's invalid. But all the studies I use to support my findings are perfect and beyond scrutiny, and are therefore the infallible word of God."

Kind of hard to argue with his logic on why XYZ result is invalid. It's also pretty hard to turn around and MAKE any claims using that same level of scrutiny, unless of course you want to come off completely disingenuous.

Simply put, Alan is a guy who raises the burden of proof to absurd levels when he wants to argue against something, and then lowers it to a 6" hurdle when he's trying to prove his bro-points. I'm amazed he doesn't get called out on this more often.

To be fair most of the time he's trolling on fb or something (he responded to Lustig well, no?). But yes - that's exactly how he defends his beliefs. Whatever. It's only annoying because he's influenced a bunch of bro-tards who do the same thing, thinking they are geniuses.

I don't eat pufa, not because "I know" they are toxic, but simply because there is no good for me personaly to do so. It is, however, pretty hilarious watching enlightened people preach to the crowd about how pufas are non-essential and intrinsically toxic, provide weak evidence while dismissing anything contradictory as a conspiracy (or a b6 deficiency), and then become shocked at to why people don't immediately accept the idea.

 

[Asimov]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

To be fair most of the time he's trolling on fb or something (he responded to Lustig well, no?). But yes - that's exactly how he defends his beliefs. Whatever. It's only annoying because he's influenced a bunch of bro-tards who do the same thing, thinking they are geniuses.

I don't eat pufa, not because "I know" they are toxic, but simply because there is no good for me personaly to do so. It is, however, pretty hilarious watching enlightened people preach to the crowd about how pufas are non-essential and intrinsically toxic, provide weak evidence while dismissing anything contradictory as a conspiracy (or a b6 deficiency), and then become shocked at to why people don't immediately accept the idea.

When you're talking science, i think it's fair to say no one "knows" anything, but are only in the process of confirming or disconfirming their ideas.

But at this point, I think it's fair to say that there's much more evidence to disconfirm the idea of EFA than there is confirming it. I've personally read dozens of studies where EFA deficiency was resolved through various B vitamin and mineral supplements. Conversely I've never read a study that failed to resolve EFA deficiency with B vitamins and minerals. That doesn't mean that the opposing evidence doesn't exist, just that I haven't seen it. That also doesn't PROVE that PUFA is not essential...it certainly leans in that direction.

I also personally know that I don't eat any significant amount of EFA yet my skin and nails are just beautiful. n=1 is pretty powerful.

That's the difference between say, me, and say, Alan Aragon. I fully truly believed in the EFA paradigm before I started doing intense research. I took fish oil tablets daily. The evidence formed me to throw them out. Pure and simple, the evidence is stronger. Alan Aragon has too much on the line with his "contrarian to everything but the FDA food pyramid" to actually let the strong evidence change his course.

It's much easier (and undoubtedly, far more profitable) for him to dismiss overwhelming evidence on the basis of it being imperfect, even when it's far MORE perfect than his current understanding.

 

[nwo2012]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

Hope this isn't serious.

PUFA avoidance is never going to take off because almost all the evidence against them are from animal models. Why do you think Alan Aragon was laughing so hard at the idea? Most of the human trials comparing sat fat to pufa certainly aren't damning of the stuff either. To test what Ray is saying, you'd need people, e.g., diabetics, to go on near efa deficient diet for at least two years and see what happens -- that's expensive and does not have the political backing to happen.

People here are sure pufa avoidance improved their health, but that's really not known. Almost everyone here jumped on a high milk/fruit/gelatin diet at the same time they started avoiding pufa, so it could just be the former that offer the improvements.

You are jesting of course right?

 

[nwo2012]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

To be fair most of the time he's trolling on fb or something (he responded to Lustig well, no?). But yes - that's exactly how he defends his beliefs. Whatever. It's only annoying because he's influenced a bunch of bro-tards who do the same thing, thinking they are geniuses.

I don't eat pufa, not because "I know" they are toxic, but simply because there is no good for me personaly to do so. It is, however, pretty hilarious watching enlightened people preach to the crowd about how pufas are non-essential and intrinsically toxic, provide weak evidence while dismissing anything contradictory as a conspiracy (or a b6 deficiency), and then become shocked at to why people don't immediately accept the idea.

When you're talking science, i think it's fair to say no one "knows" anything, but are only in the process of confirming or disconfirming their ideas.

But at this point, I think it's fair to say that there's much more evidence to disconfirm the idea of EFA than there is confirming it. I've personally read dozens of studies where EFA deficiency was resolved through various B vitamin and mineral supplements. Conversely I've never read a study that failed to resolve EFA deficiency with B vitamins and minerals. That doesn't mean that the opposing evidence doesn't exist, just that I haven't seen it. That also doesn't PROVE that PUFA is not essential...it certainly leans in that direction.

I also personally know that I don't eat any significant amount of EFA yet my skin and nails are just beautiful. n=1 is pretty powerful.

That's the difference between say, me, and say, Alan Aragon. I fully truly believed in the EFA paradigm before I started doing intense research. I took fish oil tablets daily. The evidence formed me to throw them out. Pure and simple, the evidence is stronger. Alan Aragon has too much on the line with his "contrarian to everything but the FDA food pyramid" to actually let the strong evidence change his course.

It's much easier (and undoubtedly, far more profitable) for him to dismiss overwhelming evidence on the basis of it being imperfect, even when it's far MORE perfect than his current understanding.

I think you are wasting your efforts on a lost cause. Save it for someone with ears and eyes.

 

[frustrated]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

To be fair most of the time he's trolling on fb or something (he responded to Lustig well, no?). But yes - that's exactly how he defends his beliefs. Whatever. It's only annoying because he's influenced a bunch of bro-tards who do the same thing, thinking they are geniuses.

I don't eat pufa, not because "I know" they are toxic, but simply because there is no good for me personaly to do so. It is, however, pretty hilarious watching enlightened people preach to the crowd about how pufas are non-essential and intrinsically toxic, provide weak evidence while dismissing anything contradictory as a conspiracy (or a b6 deficiency), and then become shocked at to why people don't immediately accept the idea.

When you're talking science, i think it's fair to say no one "knows" anything, but are only in the process of confirming or disconfirming their ideas.

But at this point, I think it's fair to say that there's much more evidence to disconfirm the idea of EFA than there is confirming it. I've personally read dozens of studies where EFA deficiency was resolved through various B vitamin and mineral supplements. Conversely I've never read a study that failed to resolve EFA deficiency with B vitamins and minerals. That doesn't mean that the opposing evidence doesn't exist, just that I haven't seen it. That also doesn't PROVE that PUFA is not essential...it certainly leans in that direction.

I also personally know that I don't eat any significant amount of EFA yet my skin and nails are just beautiful. n=1 is pretty powerful.

That's the difference between say, me, and say, Alan Aragon. I fully truly believed in the EFA paradigm before I started doing intense research. I took fish oil tablets daily. The evidence formed me to throw them out. Pure and simple, the evidence is stronger. Alan Aragon has too much on the line with his "contrarian to everything but the FDA food pyramid" to actually let the strong evidence change his course.

It's much easier (and undoubtedly, far more profitable) for him to dismiss overwhelming evidence on the basis of it being imperfect, even when it's far MORE perfect than his current understanding.

Yes. Alan, Lyle, and other fitness nutrition guys have to much on the line to ever do a 180 on fish oil (didn't Lyle recommend something crazy like 10 tabs/day?). I actually have one of Alan's reviews where he back pedals like crazy to his "everything in moderation" bs when this study came out http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20694407 . It's pretty funny.

None the less, RP himself has said, or so I've heard second hand, that he wanted to encourage skepticism -- not prove anything. He doesn't review opposing arguments thoroughly enough and he just presents a very one sided argument. That's fine imo -- it's refreshing and interesting in light of the EFA more-is-better mania. I just don't think he provides a lock down case against EFA that people here think he does. (This is a tangent, but there are a few reasons I disagree, e.g., cells deprived of EFA fill up with mead acid and die http://www.pnas.org/content/92/4/1147.abstract. I'm also not convinced b6 prevents EFAD rather than attenuates it -- masterjohn has written about this somewhere,)

However, to my actual point of "ray peat will never take off" -- You need transparent studies with humans, not speculation (even if it's good), to get the public on board. People here rejoice when a long term fish oil study shows no benefits, as if it proves Ray's anti n-3 ideas or something. Further, the fact that so many people "swear" by fishoil isn't very helpful.

Btw, I've avoided pufa for several years now and I also noticed the skin and nails thing you described as well.

 

[frustrated]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

You are jesting of course right?

Nope. Conspiracy theories are a dime dozen, and most of them are lame as f**k.

 

[Asimov]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

Yes. Alan, Lyle, and other fitness nutrition guys have to much on the line to ever do a 180 on fish oil (didn't Lyle recommend something crazy like 10 tabs/day?). I actually have one of Alan's reviews where he back pedals like crazy to his "everything in moderation" bs when this study came out http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20694407 . It's pretty funny.

I'd love to see Alan's backpedal if you have a link to it. These things would be comic gold if they were genuinely harming people in the process.

 

[frustrated]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

Yes. Alan, Lyle, and other fitness nutrition guys have to much on the line to ever do a 180 on fish oil (didn't Lyle recommend something crazy like 10 tabs/day?). I actually have one of Alan's reviews where he back pedals like crazy to his "everything in moderation" bs when this study came out http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20694407 . It's pretty funny.

I'd love to see Alan's backpedal if you have a link to it. These things would be comic gold if they were genuinely harming people in the process.

Excuse me, his response was to one of chris kresser's article's http://chriskresser.com/when-it-comes-t ... not-better -- which mentioned that study I linked to. Re-reading it now, he didn't actually even address that particular one lol.

Btw can't post it cause it's private material (yes he trolled me into buying his research review )

 

[j.]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

That also doesn't PROVE that PUFA is not essential.

I don't think he attempted to do that. What he claimed is that the idea that PUFAs are essential hasn't been proven.

Polyunsaturated fats are nearly ubiquitous, but if they are "essential nutrients," in the way vitamin A, or lysine, is essential, that has not been demonstrated. It seems clear that they are essential for cancer, and that they have other properties which cause them to be toxic at certain levels.

 

[j.]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

He doesn't review opposing arguments thoroughly enough and he just presents a very one sided argument.

That's what the other side does. Mary Enig wrote a response to Ray Peat's views. I found all of her points addressed in Ray Peat's articles, to which Mary Enig didn't respond. Someone wanted the two to debate. Ray Peat agreed. She didn't.

EFA advocates: PUFAs are essential because when animal or humans were deprived they died or had skin issues.
Ray Peat: That's because lack of PUFA increases metabolism and the need for nutrients. In another experiment giving the PUFA-free rats B6 solved the problem.
EFA advocates: *silence*

Another argument:
EFA advocates: PUFAs are required to form the cell membrame.
Ray Peat: Human cells can grow and divide in artificial culture solutions which contain none of the polyunsaturated fats, and no one has claimed that they are growing “without membranes.”
EFA advocates: *silence*

Reading Ray Peat's arguments and those of the other side gave me the impression that the others are just a bunch of idiots and very little would be gained from paying attention or reading them.

 

[charlie]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

EFA advocates: PUFAs are essential because when animal or humans were deprived they died or had skin issues.
Ray Peat: That's because lack of PUFA increases metabolism and the need for nutrients. In another experiment giving the PUFA-free rats B6 solved the problem.
EFA advocates: *silence*

Another argument:
EFA advocates: PUFAs are required to form the cell membrame.
Ray Peat: Human cells can grow and divide in artificial culture solutions which contain none of the polyunsaturated fats, and no one has claimed that they are growing “without membranes.”
EFA advocates: *silence*

Boom! Take that EFA pushers!

 

[gummybear]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

I've seen some people pushing omega 3 as anti-depressants also. I bought some super-mega-fantastic jar of omega 3 that will help the mood a couple of years ago, and the only thing I noticed was that I gained weight.

 

[gretchen]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

Frustrated, I agree that Peat may not have the EFA thing locked down. Otoh, the Burr study sheds some possible light (increased metabolism and the need for more nutrients is even slightly over my head), and it does seem that there is a conspiracy (why is omega-3 being added to virtually everything?). Corporate greed has risen since the 80s, and the death of the middle class has led to to a culture in which people have to feel there is something they can believe in. I have a friend, a real liberal, who started taking fish oil in the early 2000s. He called it his "thing". A book-a-week type smarty pants, he was visibly upset when I told him omega 3 is a bunch of crap.

And as for weak evidence, I made point after point (albeit with weak delivery) against omega 3, citing pictures of fish oil promoting doctors and celebs. I said it caused Sheryl Crow's brain cancer (they argued it was due to cell phones). I provided links of people who said fish oil caused their insomnia. When they brought up Japan ("they live on fish"), I pointed out the Japanese have a high suicide rate. Fish oil is linked to weight gain, just google it (even gummybear says this). I posted picture after picture of wrinkled celebrity, and also a picture of someone who has eaten tons of coconut oil (the model Miranda Kerr, who could pass for 20). This is an evidential based approach. The bros and dummies are unable to agree with real world evidence because they've been brainwashed, are slavish, and enjoy the perks of being part of something. It's called the hive mentality.

 

[Asimov]

Re: Forums, Websites, Blogs Where They Are Discussing Ray Pe

And as for weak evidence, I made point after point (albeit with weak delivery) against omega 3, citing pictures of fish oil promoting doctors and celebs. I said it caused Sheryl Crow's brain cancer (they argued it was due to cell phones). I provided links of people who said fish oil caused their insomnia. When they brought up Japan ("they live on fish"), I pointed out the Japanese have a high suicide rate. Fish oil is linked to weight gain, just google it (even gummybear says this). I posted picture after picture of wrinkled celebrity, and also a picture of someone who has eaten tons of coconut oil (the model Miranda Kerr, who could pass for 20). This is an evidential based approach. The bros and dummies are unable to agree with real world evidence because they've been brainwashed, are slavish, and enjoy the perks of being part of something. It's called the hive mentality.

I've had some limited success with getting friends and family to stop eating PUFA.

The key is to match their level of science; not overly sciency or they'll just dismiss you. I'm never accusatory or negative about PUFA (because they have a lot of time invested in eating it, and saying how horrible it is will be misconstrue as calling them horrible for making that choice).

I just simply point out the science in a simple way (ie: the only long term studies ever conducted on fish oil supplements showed increased rates of CVD, CHD, and cancer), point out better alternatives (coconut oil and butter are SOOO good for you) and then let them ruminate. As long as you're not overly negative, they'll usually come around.