How Much Do Genes/environment Affect How Well We Handle Carbohydrates?

[roman3s]

Hello guys,

I've just recently found out about Ray Peat and, as far as I understand, he recommends a higher carb intake including fruits for everyone. However, as a more low carb guy I am conflicted about this idea...

To understand where I am coming from, I am influenced by the diet philosophy of Paul Chek. He recommends a diet based on the genes, environment and stressors of each individual.

Here are some quotes from him that should give you a better grasp of his philosphy:

We have unique genetic profiles, which have a significant influence on what foods our bodies can digest, metabolize, assimilate (utilize) and eliminate effectively.

Another clear example is the Eskimos or Inuit who traditionally lived off about 90 percent fat and flesh from deer, caribou, seals, whale and other animals and only about 10 percent plant foods (plants don’t grow in ice!).

When they started getting access to boxed cereals, cereal grains in general, processed sugar and tropical fruits such as pineapples and bananas, they started experiencing rotten teeth, getting fat and acquiring high amounts of Type II diabetes, and a whole host of chronic illnesses.

My point here is simply that if you were to feed an Eskimo a diet of the world’s best organic pineapples, bananas (or fruits in general) and high quality organic grains, they would have roughly the same problems.

Why? Their genetics and metabolic systems in general are not designed to function with such an inverted ratio of macronutrients, which at once disrupts the availability of micronutrients.

As far as I understand, Ray Peat does not question these factors in his theories. He rather provides generalized assumptions like when you eat x , y happens in your body. So can we assume that each one of us can benefit from his theories?

 

[vCity]

I think we too often use genetics as a crutch. Don't really understand why something is happening?...Attribute it to genetics! I think this way of thinking is actually holding us back. There was an article a few years back where James Watson (of Watson and Crick fame) admitted at his old age he was learning the Krebs cycle for the first time because he realized metabolism plays a huge role in cancer. I was kind of taken aback by that admission at the time.

I think that its more helpful to think of genes as resources for the cell to make proteins, and not so much as genes being a collection of immutable traits that "describe" you. While I'm sure such genes exist, they do not appear to answer the types of questions we are asking when it comes to modern health concerns. When looking at it in this way, ensuring that the cell is properly energized (while keeping structural damage at a minimum, obviously) is pushed to the forefront. This is where you see Peat's ideas shine and blend together to form a coherent explanation of health.

I believe that Peat rejects the DNA-centric view of health that is pervasive in the scientific community. However, I do not have sources at this time to back or contextualize that statement. I'm sure someone else could clarify or disprove it.