Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
He said almost. That pesky little thing called fiber.narouz said:I enjoyed it too, Mittir.
Not my personal favorite, but as you say,
in its broad generality it does make a good introduction.
One detail does stick in my head as a curiosity:
I believe Peat said to the host
that potatoes are almost the perfect food.
Maybe I got that wrong--have to listen again.
But if that is what he said,
then I would say this might be a good example of why one shouldn't always
put too much weight on a single instance of Peat expression.
Because if you read/listen to the totality of Peat's work
(not addressing that to you, Mittir--I know you know your Peat)
it's abundantly clear that potatoes are not the perfect food.
narouz said:Yes, duly noted :>) "almost perfect."
Still, personally, I would not judge that Peat's work, as a whole,
would even reflect the evaluation of "almost perfect."
In addition to the fiber,
there's the starch.
And then there's the phosphate to calcium ratio.
narouz said:(Actually, I believe Peat's exact wording might have been
"in some ways almost perfect."
Have to listen again.)
narouz said:Another mysterious tidbit, loose bit, for me:
Near the end he comments about milk:
"It is the best practical protein, because of its calcium : phospate ratio."
Makes me wonder:
what is the best unpractical protein?
-------------
I tend to recoil at the deployment of the "context is everything" chestnut.
But in this situation, this radio interview, the context does seem important.
Peat was trying his best to be nice with the interviewer,
who wished Peat a "pleasant" day twice in his first sentence,
and went on to show that he didn't really know very much about Peat's ideas.
He seemed very attached to keeping his rice and salad,
and made remarks like "isn't that interesting."
Oh, he was nice enough, I don't mean to be mean.
My point is that Peat really attenuated his content and tone because of the interviewer.
This was nice in some ways, as it allowed a review or summary of the Peat Basics.
And we got a few little surprises thrown in.
Peat tried to be pleasant and to paint a welcoming picture of a really good diet.
He didn't want to give the feeling that a good diet would be restrictive, in my opinion.
So, for instance, when Timpone asked about
"all those potatoes, sweet potatoes, regular potatoes...are they good food?"
Peat responded,
"Yes, Indians lived on a pure potato diet for 51 weeks, then had pork feasts on the 52nd week."
So there he seemingly endorses sweet potatoes as "good food."
My opinion is that Peat was speaking loosely, trying not to be overly stringent.
He sortuv let Timpone believe he was going to be significantly better off with eating rice soaked before cooking, and made it all sound fine and consonant with a really good Peat diet.
Peat is not confrontational in interviews, especially with a host like Timpone and all his pleasantness.
That is fine with me.
But as I said earlier, this is a good example of why we shouldn't assign the gold standard to every single expression of Peats.
The best way, IMO, to understand what he really thinks
is to do a careful reading/listening to his stuff.
On the other hand, a way to possibly get distorted Peat info
is to grant undeserved legitimacy to every poster who insinuates they are buddies with Peat,
and attest that he said their "diet was fine."
He also made an interesting point about the relative evilness of n-3 vs n-6 oils--
which was more evil.
I'll come back to that maybe.