Is the Ray Peat "diet" a difficult diet?

[narouz]

Just starting to eat this way so I'm sure I'm not there yet, but I do have some observations. First of all I love to cook, bake, ferment, preserve etc. so I will probably won't be able to continue to eat all those things if I keep with RP dietary guidelines. But it seems so far that it's far easier to have 2-4 oz of cheese, a glass of Orange juice and/or milk for dinner than to cook something right when I get home from work. So I like this part. I already had a habit of making food everyday and prepping for large cooking projects each morning. Now I just add things like extra gelatin to a lamb osso bucco to make it more "Peaty" In fact gelatin is one of my favorite things to make this way of eating work. Vanilla Panna Cotta, Yum! Gelatin in my tea. Coconut milk jello. Coffee and cream jello. Bring on the gelatin. It's the best part so far. I will probably still cook a lot but will focus on braises rather than steaks. I can make certain cheeses RP seems to recommend which will be fun for a DIYer like myself. All in all this way of eating is not too hard on a cook...you just have to find ways to use the foods he likes the best in all your meals.

Welcome peat415. I like your avatar!
I would also be very interested if you ever feel like posting more detailed recipes
for those gelatin dishes--the panna cotta and others. :)

 

[biggirlkisss]

It's sad people have such little control over themselves that they can't even control the foods they eat.

 

[nwo2012]

It's sad people have such little control over themselves that they can't even control the foods they eat.

Some people. Never had those issues, ever. Just bad information (low carb is healthy, starches are good for you, flaxseed oil is awesome etc).

 

[pboy]

It's sad people have such little control over themselves that they can't even control the foods they eat.

I agree...and this is a more profound statement than people realize.

By severing the connection people instinctually have with food cravings, they are basically severing trust in yourself on the deepest level...which then
leads to being open to manipulation in every other way shape and form, and people will basically always look outside themselves for the answer to almost
everything instead of trusting themselves....(because if you cant even trust your own gut, and intuition, how can you trust yourself with anything else? especially
when you're supposed to feel 'guilty' about honoring your cravings) Then comes religion and education, later advertising / 'diet' advice...but it all starts with forcing people (children), against their desires and instincts, to eat certain things

 

[charlie]

 

[narouz]

It's sad people have such little control over themselves that they can't even control the foods they eat.

I agree...and this is a more profound statement than people realize.

By severing the connection people instinctually have with food cravings, they are basically severing trust in yourself on the deepest level...which then
leads to being open to manipulation in every other way shape and form, and people will basically always look outside themselves for the answer to almost
everything instead of trusting themselves....(because if you cant even trust your own gut, and intuition, how can you trust yourself with anything else? especially
when you're supposed to feel 'guilty' about honoring your cravings) Then comes religion and education, later advertising / 'diet' advice...but it all starts with forcing people (children), against their desires and instincts, to eat certain things

In another thread,
http://www.raypeatforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1326#p14391
many have been debunking the idea that "natural" foods are superior to "man-made" or "artifical" foods or supplements:
-aspirin, white sugar = bad (man-made or artificial); avocado, peanut oil, bacon = good (natural)

It would seem a related notion
that we humans have this faculty called instinct which,
if we just get back in tune with it,
it will guide us to healthy foods.
I'm just not sold on that view.

First, it would seem difficult to me to prove what foods are instinctive.
Or, put another way: how do we design a test in which humans would obey their instincts
and eat healthy foods?

The argument is used for whatever diet someone argues is the most healthy.
The Paleo and Primals would seem to say:
"Look! We are returning to the Natural way of eating,
the way our Ancestors ate, when they were in touch with their Instincts!
Why, just think about it. It's so obvious that man was at his most healthy when he Instinctively
just killed a boar and ate it, or scarfed down some kale and collards, or ate a bunch of nuts...
Instinct at work!"

If you abandoned me to my "Instinct" for food,
just saying to me: "Hey...forget all the mental stuff.
Just get back in touch with what you Really Want,
what you Really Desire!"...
...well, I think you'd pretty instantly find me eating pepperoni pizzas,
white flour spaghetti with butter, bacon, avocado, fatty cuts of roasted pork raised on pure PUFA,
walnuts, pecans, whole wheat toast with sesame tahini, ramen noodles, etc etc.

This realm of thinking seems akin to me to ideas about belief and God.
I tend to be agnostic there.
I just simply don't know.
I'm not against the idea that there might be a God.
I just don't Know that there is one.

Same with Instinct.
We would like to think we can trust some built-in, inerrant faculty--Instinct--
which will guide us subconsciously or unconsciously to healthy food.
Isn't it pretty to think so?

 

[Jenn]

We do not live in a paleo world, our environment is different.
We are not as healthy as our ancestors, our bodies are different.
Some of us do not know what food is, we have never experienced it. (kool aid as "juice", etc.)

That said, when you crave ramen, what are you craving? Energy? Glucose? Salt ?(I'm a sucker for the "broth") You can listen to your cravings and provide a good form of what you are craving.

 

[charlie]

This quote comes to mind:

Source

Our instincts give us a few clues about our nutritional needs, such as thirst, the hunger for salt, the pleasantness of sweet things, and the unpleasantness of certain odors or very acrid or bitter tastes. People who are constitutionally unable to taste certain bitter chemicals find certain vegetables less objectionable; their instinctive guidance has become less clear. But within the boundaries of cravings and disgust, habits and customs become the dominant forces in diet. "Professional dietitians" and other "experts" primarily function as enforcers of cultural prejudice.

 

[juanitacarlos]

I think the Peat way of eating is hard in that change can be hard.
Especially with something as intimate and vital as the food we eat (and desire).
I like: milk, orange juice, coffee, sugar, fruit, cheese, chocolate etc.
But most of my life I've eaten (generally): toast for breakfast; sandwiches or pasta for lunch; muscle meat and veges for dinner; along with favourite foods like pizza, avocado, chicken w. skin, biscuits, fish and chips etc etc.
From a Peat perspective, was that the optimal way of eating for health? Not at all.
Did I enjoy eating that way? Hell yes.
But that food made me ill, so I can't go on that way.
But if you compare the two ways of eating, they are very, very different.

So I've read some Peat articles, read many, many of the great posts here, and have some version of an optimal way of eating inspired by Peat's work.
I've then really tried to pinpoint what really applies to me in my particular set of circumstances.
But can I just switch over to that optimal way of eating? For me personally, no.
So to try and make it less 'hard', I'll slowly make some changes.

I can eat sourdough bread (as toast) for breakfast 7 days a week. I love it. But what if I just eat toast 4 times a week (w. OJ, coffee, some protein etc), and maybe have some rice or potatoes in place of the bread the other days.
Is that optimal? No. Is it an improvement? I believe so.
So in a month or two, what if get the toast down to 2 days, potatoes for 3 and have OJ, eggs, coffee w. milk and sugar the other days.
Again, not the absolute optimal way of eating, but what an improvement from a few months ago.

So that is how I am approaching adopting Peat's recommendations. I am being realistic for me. For now, I just focus on the big stuff - avoid PUFA, eat a bit more fruit, drink milk and OJ, some coffee, add some gelatin (that's easy), take any relevant supplementation etc. I still have one meal a day that is purely not 'Peatish' i.e. homemade pizza; pasta etc. I feel like even just doing that, will put me so far ahead of most people these days, but most importantly improve my health.

So yeah anyway, hopefully sometime in the near future, the Peaty way of eating won't seem hard, or different, or something I will have to think about too much.

 

[Beebop]

In another thread, viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1326#p14391many have been debunking the idea that "natural" foods are superior to "man-made" or "artifical" foods or supplements:-aspirin, white sugar = bad (man-made or artificial); avocado, peanut oil, bacon = good (natural)

I've been reading your thread narouz and thinking - the problem is that there is no natural food. Every single vegetable has been selectively bred to become another thing entirely. Carrots used to be white. Avocadoes used to be the size of olives. Big fat broccoli doesn't grow wild on the forest floor

On the subject of whether Peating is hard - I think convenience makes it hard. Giving up starch is only hard because it's inconvenient - because everyone eats it for every meal. Not eating starch raises on eyebrow or three. Giving up legumes on the other hand is much easier. I'm happy eating ice cream for breakfast instead of toast, but my mother might get worried! And I care about what she thinks

By severing the connection people instinctually have with food cravings, they are basically severing trust in yourself on the deepest level...which then leads to being open to manipulation in every other way shape and form, and people will basically always look outside themselves for the answer to almost everything instead of trusting themselves....

True, and sad. Well said.

 

[Jenn]

I knew about white carrots, but not small avocados.

If I could afford it, I would eat ice cream for breakfast all the time, and dinner too. I like something solid for lunch.

 

[narouz]

I think many here are familiar with Peat's take on "ancestral diets."
And some may know that in one essay he toyed with that line of thought by proposing a "counter-myth.'
From The problem of Alzheimer's disease as a clue to immortality - Part 2.
See my bolding for the money quote:

The changes that are known to be produced by the poisons that we are habitually exposed to are exactly the changes that occur in the aging brain. As I scan over hundreds of studies that define the effects of estrogen, unsaturated fats, excess iron, and lipid peroxidation, my argument seems commonplace, even trivial, except that I know that it clearly relates to therapies for most of the degenerative diseases, and that the great culture-machine is propagating a different view at several points that are essential for my argument.

They are advancing a myth about human nature, so I will advance a counter-myth. At the time people were growing their large brains they lived in the tropics. I suggest that in this time before the development of grain-based agriculture, they ate a diet that was relatively free of unsaturated fats and low in iron--based on tropical fruits. I suggest that the Boskop skull from Mt. Kilimanjaro was representative of people under those conditions, and that just by our present knowledge of the association of brain size with longevity, they--as various "Golden Age" myths claim--must have had a very long life-span. As people moved north and developed new ways of living, their consumption of unsaturated fats increased, their brain size decreased, and they aged rapidly. Neanderthal relics show that flaxseed was a staple of their diet.

Even living in the tropics, there are many possibilities for diets rich in signal-disrupting substances, including iron, and in high latitudes there are opportunities for reducing our exposure to them. As a source of protein, milk is uniquely low in its iron content. Potatoes, because of the high quality of their protein, are probably relatively free of toxic signal-substances. Many tropical fruits, besides having relatively saturated fats, are also low in iron, and often contain important quantities of amino acids and proteins. In this context, Jeanne Calment's life-long, daily consumption of chocolate comes to mind: As she approaches her 121st birthday, she is still eating chocolate, though she has stopped smoking and drinking wine. The saturated fats in chocolate have been found to block the toxicity of oils rich in linoleic acid, and its odd proteins seem to have an anabolic action.

I see our hankering after some idealized, infallible eating "instinct"
as likely falling into the same category--in Peat's view--as the yearning for
an idealized, romanticized ancestral diet.
The appeal of both is that they represent some kind of perfect past
to which we might return to find harmony, completion, health.

Peat does refer to eating instincts--see the quote from Charlie as one example--
but I'm not sold on the general notion that Peat
thinks there was, in the past, some perfect, guiding, eating instinct
and that eating the right foods is as simple as getting back in touch with that primitive instinct.
I can't rule it out--that Peat thinks that is possible.
I just tend not to think so.
I tend to think Peat would say that the eating of a healthy diet, for us,
requires the guidance of the intellect,
and that sticking with a healthy (Peatian) diet is not some Edenic, effortless experience--
all we gotta do is "get back to Nature."

That phrase and impulse has been around for a long time:
"The way Nature intended!"
I'm not sure Peat subscribes to it,
at least not in its simplistic and unqualified iterations.

In the quote Charlie provides earlier Peat says:
"But within the boundaries of cravings and disgust, habits and customs become the dominant forces in diet."
When some here say that they have tapped into their Natural Man or Natural Woman
and that eating a Peat diet is easy as pie (well...easy as eating oranges would be more apropos ),
my suspicion is that they have simply brainwashed themselves very effectively--
into a healthy Peatian way of eating.
It is doubly effective because they aren't even aware that they did it!
They like to fancy themselves the emergent New Peat Natural Man
living in a veritable Eden with their Rare Secret of
Knowing
the healthy foods Without Even Thinking!
The Fully Instinctive New Peat Man/Woman!!

I think, as I said, that it is much more likely
they have simply substituted one "habit and custom" (Peatian)
for another (low-carb or primal or paleo, for many of us).
Note: I am not disparaging the Peat diet.
I am simply saying that I suspect the eating of it
relies much more on an intellectual component (habit, custom, self-indoctrination, belief)
than many like to think.

 

[Jenn]

If you are saying that our beliefs can override our taste buds, I agree 100%.

 

[narouz]

If you are saying that our beliefs can override our taste buds, I agree 100%.

Yes.
When I was eating a Caveman/Paleo/Primal/Raw-ish diet
I thought of my raw kale salads as poetically ancestral and powerfully healthy.
They tasted really good to me then!

A long long time ago when I tried to be a vegetarian
and bought into all sorts of rational sounding propaganda about how we are not designed to eat meat
and it putrefies in the stomach and all that...
I brainwashed myself into thinking a steak tasted disgusting.

 

[kiran]

You're right narouz, kale tastes good. Makes me feel bad if i eat too much, but still tastes good.

 

[Jenn]

So we have to take a longer view and pay attention to how we feel after eating what we think tastes good.

I am the first to admit, this whole low/no pufas diet thing can be seen as totally foo-foo. I tried initially because it was cheap. My nutritionist is totally about food first, then supplements as a temporary support. I continue to eat this way because it works.

 

[narouz]

You're right narouz, kale tastes good. Makes me feel bad if i eat too much, but still tastes good.

Well, it was a bit of mental feat
for me to make myself think RAW kale tasted good.

But I have little doubt that if I cooked up a batch of kale or collards with bacon fat,
and buttered and salted them heavily as was my wont...
I bet I would still love them.

 

[gretchen]

I think many here are familiar with Peat's take on "ancestral diets."
And some may know that in one essay he toyed with that line of thought by proposing a "counter-myth.'
From The problem of Alzheimer's disease as a clue to immortality - Part 2.
See my bolding for the money quote:

The changes that are known to be produced by the poisons that we are habitually exposed to are exactly the changes that occur in the aging brain. As I scan over hundreds of studies that define the effects of estrogen, unsaturated fats, excess iron, and lipid peroxidation, my argument seems commonplace, even trivial, except that I know that it clearly relates to therapies for most of the degenerative diseases, and that the great culture-machine is propagating a different view at several points that are essential for my argument.

They are advancing a myth about human nature, so I will advance a counter-myth. At the time people were growing their large brains they lived in the tropics. I suggest that in this time before the development of grain-based agriculture, they ate a diet that was relatively free of unsaturated fats and low in iron--based on tropical fruits. I suggest that the Boskop skull from Mt. Kilimanjaro was representative of people under those conditions, and that just by our present knowledge of the association of brain size with longevity, they--as various "Golden Age" myths claim--must have had a very long life-span. As people moved north and developed new ways of living, their consumption of unsaturated fats increased, their brain size decreased, and they aged rapidly. Neanderthal relics show that flaxseed was a staple of their diet.

Even living in the tropics, there are many possibilities for diets rich in signal-disrupting substances, including iron, and in high latitudes there are opportunities for reducing our exposure to them. As a source of protein, milk is uniquely low in its iron content. Potatoes, because of the high quality of their protein, are probably relatively free of toxic signal-substances. Many tropical fruits, besides having relatively saturated fats, are also low in iron, and often contain important quantities of amino acids and proteins. In this context, Jeanne Calment's life-long, daily consumption of chocolate comes to mind: As she approaches her 121st birthday, she is still eating chocolate, though she has stopped smoking and drinking wine. The saturated fats in chocolate have been found to block the toxicity of oils rich in linoleic acid, and its odd proteins seem to have an anabolic action.

I see our hankering after some idealized, infallible eating "instinct"
as likely falling into the same category--in Peat's view--as the yearning for
an idealized, romanticized ancestral diet.
The appeal of both is that they represent some kind of perfect past
to which we might return to find harmony, completion, health.

Peat does refer to eating instincts--see the quote from Charlie as one example--
but I'm not sold on the general notion that Peat
thinks there was, in the past, some perfect, guiding, eating instinct
and that eating the right foods is as simple as getting back in touch with that primitive instinct.
I can't rule it out--that Peat thinks that is possible.
I just tend not to think so.
I tend to think Peat would say that the eating of a healthy diet, for us,
requires the guidance of the intellect,
and that sticking with a healthy (Peatian) diet is not some Edenic, effortless experience--
all we gotta do is "get back to Nature."

That phrase and impulse has been around for a long time:
"The way Nature intended!"
I'm not sure Peat subscribes to it,
at least not in its simplistic and unqualified iterations.

In the quote Charlie provides earlier Peat says:
"But within the boundaries of cravings and disgust, habits and customs become the dominant forces in diet."
When some here say that they have tapped into their Natural Man or Natural Woman
and that eating a Peat diet is easy as pie (well...easy as eating oranges would be more apropos ),
my suspicion is that they have simply brainwashed themselves very effectively--
into a healthy Peatian way of eating.
It is doubly effective because they aren't even aware that they did it!
They like to fancy themselves the emergent New Peat Natural Man
living in a veritable Eden with their Rare Secret of
Knowing
the healthy foods Without Even Thinking!
The Fully Instinctive New Peat Man/Woman!!

I think, as I said, that it is much more likely
they have simply substituted one "habit and custom" (Peatian)
for another (low-carb or primal or paleo, for many of us).
Note: I am not disparaging the Peat diet.
I am simply saying that I suspect the eating of it
relies much more on an intellectual component (habit, custom, self-indoctrination, belief)
than many like to think.

Hi Narouz, I was just reading the Alzheimer's pt 2 article a while ago. Really! And I agree with you somewhat. I think Peat is saying some aspects of the best way of eating are from perfected cultures. Dairy food, for example, has always been a staple in India where they revere cows and look down on killing them for meat. Coconuts have to be one of the oldest foods, probably from Lemuria, and something with so many positive health effects that it's something we're supposed to eat:
http://www.spiritualhealing-now.com/lemuria.html

I agree also that this way of eating isn't instinctive. If it wasn't for posts like those on Low Carb Friends (gives the cliff notes on how to eat Peat) and later watching a PUFA video by Josh Rubin, I would have never figured it out. I found Peat through a search about coffee and noticed there were hints here and there about what to eat but at the time I was blocked mentally due to decades of accumulated misinformation and couldn't see myself doing it.

Which is pretty normal really, except most people can't admit they don't understand it. They're programmed due to corporate and media influences. I just read this blog post earlier today in which the person claims what women need in terms of diet is very different than men. Obviously, to be really feminine one has to shun the high protein diet, and indulge needs for bread, cheese and chocolate. These are all just programmed beliefs with no nutritional/scientific basis (science isn't girlie):
http://lipstickageing.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... e.html?m=1

This blogger also wrote a book called Radical Rejuvenation.

 

[Jenn]

I think women do have different needs then men. We have ovaries and they do not. We bleed monthly, they do not.

I don't want to be the same as a man, nor treated as such.

 

[gretchen]

I think women do have different needs then men. We have ovaries and they do not. We bleed monthly, they do not.

I don't want to be the same as a man, nor treated as such.

I agree but the blogger characterizes the "high protein diet" as something only men should eat, which seems pretty sexist to me. I agree a diet with a lot of meat didn't work for me either, but I disagree with her use of the term, since everyone regardless of sex should eat a lot of protein.