I wrote an article on saturated fat and sugar...

Jam

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
2,212
Age
52
Location
Piedmont
Yawn... these discussions get very tiresome, Every once in a while we get people like @Perry Staltic on these straw man crusades against "zero PUFA", when it's virtually impossible to eat zero PUFA, and even more importantly, Ray Peat himself has never advocated such insanity. Keep PUFA to a minimum by avoiding seed oils like the plague, done. The small physiologic amounts of PUFA in real, "Peaty" food is inconsequential, just keep it below 4-5g daily. What the hell are you arguing about??
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
Yawn... these discussions get very tiresome, Every once in a while we get people like @Perry Staltic on these straw man crusades against "zero PUFA", when it's virtually impossible to eat zero PUFA, and even more importantly, Ray Peat himself has never advocated such insanity. Keep PUFA to a minimum by avoiding seed oils like the plague, done. The small physiologic amounts of PUFA in real, "Peaty" food is inconsequential, just keep it below 4-5g daily. What the hell are you arguing about??

Zero pufa is just my way of describing pufa obsession. I agree that pufa oils are probably the biggest problem and best avoided (which I now do), and IMO is probably all that is necessary. I consider a 4-5g per day target unnecessarily restrictive and burdensome. I eat to live, not live to eat.
 

Jam

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
2,212
Age
52
Location
Piedmont
Zero pufa is just my way of describing pufa obsession. I agree that pufa oils are probably the biggest problem and best avoided (which I now do), and IMO is probably all that is necessary. I consider a 4-5g per day target unnecessarily restrictive and burdensome. I eat to live, not live to eat.
Sorry that you don't enjoy eating. To each their own, de gustibus, etc. I have a very diverse diet, and I would actually have to go out of my way to eat foods I don't enjoy, like nuts and seed oil, to exceed that amount. I actually enjoy eating, and if I had to eat to live like you, life would be that much more sad and boring.
 

Dr. B

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
4,320
I think Ray has said under 4 grams is generally helpful. Not too hard IMO. Plus the ratio between fats is important. But I agree, pulse and temperature is a good gauge of your metabolism (how well your cell is producing energy) as is the Achilles reflex... so if those are good and you subscribe to the idea that energy production of the cell is important then I agree, hey whatever works.
mate do you think pufa is and was the main environmental factor preventing humans from being immortal and not aging at all? is it simply oxygen or is it pufa? because pufa is the main environmental/dietary toxin or factor present thousands of years ago correct? and those foods back then probably had much less PUFA as well?
 

CLASH

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
1,219
@Perry Staltic @RyanHeeney
Chris Masterjohn's argument was indeed that PUFA can lead to lipid peroxidation especially in states characterized by high free radical production.

However, his argument centered on avoiding the heuristic of "PUFA is toxic" because it can create a mindset that acts on the implication of "if some is toxic, less must be better". His alternative model was to focus on getting adequate amounts of the essential micros and macros first, and then limit PUFA once this threshold is reached.

In other works Masterjohn does argue for a PUFA requirement. As an example his omega 6 requirement level is set at 1g of linoleic acid a day or 133mg of arachidonic acid a day.

As @Jam pointed out, one would have to seriously alter their diet in a generally uncomfortable way to limit to only eating at this bare minimum threshold.

So with that said, the strategy that makes the most sense seems to be as follows:
1) prioritize nutrient density and nutrient ratio
2) prioritize limiting toxic factors (including PUFA, mercury, arsenic etc. )
3) prioritize the cleanest food sources of nutrients, then use supplements to fill the gaps/ optimize
4) prioritize foods that are easy to digest and work with your individual physiology

With all of the above, there is nuance to how these things play out. Each component has to be balanced to its individual goldilocks zone as well as to the other components goldilocks zone. For example while white rice is easy to digest, it can be high in arsenic and quite limited in nutrients compared to other foods. On the flip side sweet potatoes can be harder to digest but much higher in nutrients with variable toxicity. Another example is white sugar, while it is very easy to digest, it is completely devoid of almost all nutrients but it is also devoid of almost all toxins.
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
@Perry Staltic @RyanHeeney
Chris Masterjohn's argument was indeed that PUFA can lead to lipid peroxidation especially in states characterized by high free radical production.

However, his argument centered on avoiding the heuristic of "PUFA is toxic" because it can create a mindset that acts on the implication of "if some is toxic, less must be better". His alternative model was to focus on getting adequate amounts of the essential micros and macros first, and then limit PUFA once this threshold is reached.

In other works Masterjohn does argue for a PUFA requirement. As an example his omega 6 requirement level is set at 1g of linoleic acid a day or 133mg of arachidonic acid a day.

As @Jam pointed out, one would have to seriously alter their diet in a generally uncomfortable way to limit to only eating at this bare minimum threshold.

So with that said, the strategy that makes the most sense seems to be as follows:
1) prioritize nutrient density and nutrient ratio
2) prioritize limiting toxic factors (including PUFA, mercury, arsenic etc. )
3) prioritize the cleanest food sources of nutrients, then use supplements to fill the gaps/ optimize
4) prioritize foods that are easy to digest and work with your individual physiology

With all of the above, there is nuance to how these things play out. Each component has to be balanced to its individual goldilocks zone as well as to the other components goldilocks zone. For example while white rice is easy to digest, it can be high in arsenic and quite limited in nutrients compared to other foods. On the flip side sweet potatoes can be harder to digest but much higher in nutrients with variable toxicity. Another example is white sugar, while it is very easy to digest, it is completely devoid of almost all nutrients but it is also devoid of almost all toxins.

Very nicely said. I agree with 1-4, but the first part of your #3 is my #1.
 
OP
RyanHeeney

RyanHeeney

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2021
Messages
105
@Perry Staltic @RyanHeeney
Chris Masterjohn's argument was indeed that PUFA can lead to lipid peroxidation especially in states characterized by high free radical production.

However, his argument centered on avoiding the heuristic of "PUFA is toxic" because it can create a mindset that acts on the implication of "if some is toxic, less must be better". His alternative model was to focus on getting adequate amounts of the essential micros and macros first, and then limit PUFA once this threshold is reached.

In other works Masterjohn does argue for a PUFA requirement. As an example his omega 6 requirement level is set at 1g of linoleic acid a day or 133mg of arachidonic acid a day.

As @Jam pointed out, one would have to seriously alter their diet in a generally uncomfortable way to limit to only eating at this bare minimum threshold.

So with that said, the strategy that makes the most sense seems to be as follows:
1) prioritize nutrient density and nutrient ratio
2) prioritize limiting toxic factors (including PUFA, mercury, arsenic etc. )
3) prioritize the cleanest food sources of nutrients, then use supplements to fill the gaps/ optimize
4) prioritize foods that are easy to digest and work with your individual physiology

With all of the above, there is nuance to how these things play out. Each component has to be balanced to its individual goldilocks zone as well as to the other components goldilocks zone. For example while white rice is easy to digest, it can be high in arsenic and quite limited in nutrients compared to other foods. On the flip side sweet potatoes can be harder to digest but much higher in nutrients with variable toxicity. Another example is white sugar, while it is very easy to digest, it is completely devoid of almost all nutrients but it is also devoid of almost all toxins.
I’ll look more into what you said here and what Masterjohnn says, thanks.
 

revenant

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Messages
300
Nice articles, but some of the links don't work (the methylene blue one for example).
 

DennisX

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2016
Messages
247
In your article you used the Maasai as an example of a tribe that used cow milk for 50% of there diet. I would like to point out that the Maasai are a backward people. In all these years of their existance what did they invent? How did they advance mankind? Did they invest the steam engine? The telephone? electricity? anything? No nothing! So anecdotically can we correlate their milk drinking to sub-par mental abilities? What I'm pointing out here is that's it's ridiculous to use the Maasai as a good anecdotal example of why cow's milk is good!
 
OP
RyanHeeney

RyanHeeney

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2021
Messages
105
In your article you used the Maasai as an example of a tribe that used cow milk for 50% of there diet. I would like to point out that the Maasai are a backward people. In all these years of their existance what did they invent? How did they advance mankind? Did they invest the steam engine? The telephone? electricity? anything? No nothing! So anecdotically can we correlate their milk drinking to sub-par mental abilities? What I'm pointing out here is that's it's ridiculous to use the Maasai as a good anecdotal example of why cow's milk is good!
Are you sure they’re “backward”? I wonder if you somehow developed a “well-being” survey how they would score versus your average cubicle slave living in New York City and how the results might come out? Maybe your idea of “backwards” is backwards. My anecdote was that a diet full of whole milk gives them the bodies of Olympic sprinters, not fat blobs like the mainstream says. Pretty odd critique on your part to be honest.
 

area51puy

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 21, 2021
Messages
899
Agree. I stopped worrying about PUFA from foods like eggs, milk and shellfish. It just makes the rest of the diet too restrictive trying to get under the magical 4g of PUFA per day and the other benefits of those foods (for me) outweigh any costs of the PUFAs they contain. Individual balance is key, with everyone’s sweet spot for most foods and nutrients likely quite different.
I’ve wondered the same thing since learning the dangers of PUFAs. Before that fat was pretty much all the same to me. So I wonder what health effects of pufa coming from an animal vs pufa from seed oils.
 

Serge

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2020
Messages
179
I have a question. So breast milk contains only 6% of protein caloriewise. For a growing baby! This is like 30g for the standard 2000 calories for an adult. RP though suggests >100g a day (see the last Danny Roddy podcast). Why is that?
 

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
I have a question. So breast milk contains only 6% of protein caloriewise. For a growing baby! This is like 30g for the standard 2000 calories for an adult. RP though suggests >100g a day (see the last Danny Roddy podcast). Why is that?
my guess would be a babys metabolic rate is so fast that they burn through energy (carbs + fat) so fast that they really have no room for a lot of protein but as their metabolic rate goes down to normal they need a lot of protein to grow properly.
 

Serge

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2020
Messages
179
a baby has way less muscle mass and smaller organs so they need less. but after that short time period kids need protein to grow properly
well, yeah, I kind of ignored the trivial size difference :) stupid...
 

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
well, yeah, I kind of ignored the trivial size difference :) stupid...
as you sent that, i edited my post changing my mind because i actually don't think that comment holds up to logic. i think the fast metabolic rate is more likely the reason.
 

Serge

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2020
Messages
179
as you sent that, i edited my post changing my mind because i actually don't think that comment holds up to logic. i think the fast metabolic rate is more likely the reason.
But the whole baby is like one average muscle of an adult! Lots of building blocks are simply nowhere to use. As the baby grows, the need for protein grows in proportion to the volume I guess...
 

Juandelacruz

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2021
Messages
20
So it’s not possible that one side MIGHT be correct and the other side isn’t? So is everything is just relative and there is no such thing as truth?
It’s the ancient conundrum of absolutism and relativism. In the context of this discussion I tend to side with the “the less PUFA, the better” argument.
 
OP
RyanHeeney

RyanHeeney

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2021
Messages
105
It’s the ancient conundrum of absolutism and relativism. In the context of this discussion I tend to side with the “the less PUFA, the better” argument.
True ?? I guess I just get frustrated at the “everything in moderation” idea in nutrition sometimes.
 

Similar threads

M
Replies
9
Views
1K
Back
Top Bottom