Learned a bunch thanks to Dr.Peat but...

taesch

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
45
Hi I'm new to the forum but have been reading it voraciously. I realize there's a wealth of information here to help fill in some of the advanced concepts that are beyond me. Having listened to all the available Ray Peat interviews over the past two monthns over and over, I'm on board with most of Ray Peats nutritional suggestions.

What's your age? 35

How did you find the forum? searching Ray Peat

How did you find Ray Peat's work? 180degreehealth

How long have you been Peating? loosely been Peating for a month

What is your favorite part about Peating? energy and ice cream.

What is the worst part? food availability and the nagging skepticism for his support for structured water and other 'out-there' anti-establishment endorsements. I was temporarily relieved to have spoken to a friend in the food industry who I trust and who knows about Ray Peat. She said that the Ray Peat knowledge quest is quite the 'Rabbit Hole' and that she can't bring up his ideas or name amongst other people in the industry for fear of getting blacklisted. She's a chef/writer. I was relieved to have someone to acknowledge my interests and validate the many things I've learned about PUFAs, estrogen and other marketing myths exposed by Ray Peat. However, I'm still very disturbed about the structured water connection to Ling and when I search things like Homeopathy in this forum search and nothing comes up I feel like there is a censoring function amongst it's members to not focus too much on Ray Peats MOST controversial tennents. Much of the water theory that was talked about on the Danny Roddy podcast was too over my head although they acknowledged that much of the quackery surrounding energized water tainted their initial understanding of Peats views. So that's the worst part of Peating...the nagging sense that Ray himself is biased against established science to a point of defect.

What are your health issues?
No health issues.
 

kiran

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
1,054
taesch said:
However, I'm still very disturbed about the structured water connection to Ling and when I search things like Homeopathy in this forum search and nothing comes up I feel like there is a censoring function amongst it's members to not focus too much on Ray Peats MOST controversial tennents. Much of the water theory that was talked about on the Danny Roddy podcast was too over my head although they acknowledged that much of the quackery surrounding energized water tainted their initial understanding of Peats views. So that's the worst part of Peating...the nagging sense that Ray himself is biased against established science to a point of defect.

Well, structured water hardly comes up in normal discussions which involve the practical aspects.
Also, MRI scans which were designed using Ling's ideas are based on the concept of structured water, so there must be something to it. Do you believe in MRI ?
 

jaguar43

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
1,310
taesch said:
Hi I'm new to the forum but have been reading it voraciously. I realize there's a wealth of information here to help fill in some of the advanced concepts that are beyond me. Having listened to all the available Ray Peat interviews over the past two monthns over and over, I'm on board with most of Ray Peats nutritional suggestions.

What's your age? 35

How did you find the forum? searching Ray Peat

How did you find Ray Peat's work? 180degreehealth

How long have you been Peating? loosely been Peating for a month

What is your favorite part about Peating? energy and ice cream.

What is the worst part? food availability and the nagging skepticism for his support for structured water and other 'out-there' anti-establishment endorsements. I was temporarily relieved to have spoken to a friend in the food industry who I trust and who knows about Ray Peat. She said that the Ray Peat knowledge quest is quite the 'Rabbit Hole' and that she can't bring up his ideas or name amongst other people in the industry for fear of getting blacklisted. She's a chef/writer. I was relieved to have someone to acknowledge my interests and validate the many things I've learned about PUFAs, estrogen and other marketing myths exposed by Ray Peat. However, I'm still very disturbed about the structured water connection to Ling and when I search things like Homeopathy in this forum search and nothing comes up I feel like there is a censoring function amongst it's members to not focus too much on Ray Peats MOST controversial tennents. Much of the water theory that was talked about on the Danny Roddy podcast was too over my head although they acknowledged that much of the quackery surrounding energized water tainted their initial understanding of Peats views. So that's the worst part of Peating...the nagging sense that Ray himself is biased against established science to a point of defect.

What are your health issues?
No health issues.

Do you work within the science field ?

Do you work work in the medical field ?

Ray Peat is clear on what "type" of science he considers real science. His nutritional/endocrinology theories are correlated with his ideas on cell physiology. So if you don't agree with Gilbert Lings,albert szent-gyorgyi,mae-wan ho,Boris Deryagin, and others scientist ray promotes. Then you won't truely understand his nutritional/endocrinology ideas. Gerald Pollack is basically aligned with gilbert ling's work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnGCMQ8TJ_g
 

juanitacarlos

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
417
I think this is an interesting comment on skepticism and belief and truth. No one is infallible - no one. So what do you do when you read someones work, adopt their principles, and then you read they were -shock/horror- wrong about something? I struggle with this all the time on many subjects. Taesch, I think your doubts are valid, whatever they may be, because only you can decide what you choose to believe. I don't have the intelligence to know everything myself, so I have to trust people like Ray Peat to a certain extent. I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water because you have doubts about one aspect of Peat's work. Find the stuff that works for you, if something doesn't sound right to you, don't accept it. That's ok and should totally encourage on a Ray Peat forum. I know personally some of the general advice that Peat gives, especially about thyroid medication, just does not work for me. That came through experience, so I just don't apply that aspect of 'Peating' to my life. Doesn't mean he is wrong, or I can't trust his other research, or recommendations, it just shows the complexities of life and health. Thanks for your comment!
 
OP
taesch

taesch

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
45
ttramone: I especially like the analogy you chose of 'not throwing out the baby with bath WATER'. I have been hesitant to explore Gerald Pollack for a few reasons and I just found that he is not without his critics (http://jcs.biologists.org/content/115/19/3717). On the other hand, Chem1.com doesn't lump him in with the charlatans of aqua-fraud (http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/aboutwater.html).

I love the spirit of Ray Peat's work opposing established dogma. The most fascinating interview I heard with him was on the history of the Origins of Life.

Thanks to the other repliers who I respond by saying I have no opinion one way or the other on LIng or the MRI machine but have been set to caution by a recent podcast of the skeptics guide to the universe which dismissed a 'radio-wave energized water' product called V-AQUA at the
http://ec.libsyn.com/p/6/5/1/651e6f0ac57013d9 7:00min mark /skepticast2013-08-31.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01c08634d9c9595f64&c_id=6074999
 

jaguar43

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
1,310
taesch said:
ttramone: I especially like the analogy you chose of 'not throwing out the baby with bath WATER'. I have been hesitant to explore Gerald Pollack for a few reasons and I just found that he is not without his critics (http://jcs.biologists.org/content/115/19/3717). On the other hand, Chem1.com doesn't lump him in with the charlatans of aqua-fraud (http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/aboutwater.html).

I love the spirit of Ray Peat's work opposing established dogma. The most fascinating interview I heard with him was on the history of the Origins of Life.

Thanks to the other repliers who I respond by saying I have no opinion one way or the other on LIng or the MRI machine but have been set to caution by a recent podcast of the skeptics guide to the universe which dismissed a 'radio-wave energized water' product called V-AQUA at the
http://ec.libsyn.com/p/6/5/1/651e6f0ac57013d9 7:00min mark /skepticast2013-08-31.mp3?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d01c08634d9c9595f64&c_id=6074999


Whats so wrong about the work of gilbert lings and gerald pollack. Do you work in the science or medical field ? Do you have a degree in science or something?
 
OP
taesch

taesch

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
45
Jag2594, I do not work in either science or medical field and possess no degrees in science. The work of Ling and Pollack is well over my head. I'm merely a health-conscious individual intrigued by Dr.Peat.
 

jaguar43

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
1,310
taesch said:
Jag2594, I do not work in either science or medical field and possess no degrees in science. The work of Ling and Pollack is well over my head. I'm merely a health-conscious individual intrigued by Dr.Peat.

sorry if that came out the wrong way.

Yea just keep reading ray peats work. It takes time to understand it.
 
J

j.

Guest
It's kinda pointless to have arguments if you're criticizing Ling and others based on what other people say instead of disagreeing with his arguments.
 

kiran

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
1,054
j. said:
It's kinda pointless to have arguments if you're criticizing Ling and others based on what other people say instead of disagreeing with his arguments.

Especially since that other person didn't even criticize Ling, just someone selling "structured water".
 

gretchen

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2012
Messages
816
I was not aware that Peat wrote or said anything about homeopathy. In any case, many people are opposed to it in general, not just on this forum.

Peat has some of the best ideas; I wouldn't listen to a chef. Many people our age (mid 30s-early 40s) aren't that bright..... the concern of what the "real world" thinks is always an issue which gets really old. Yes, Ray Peat is somewhat anti-establishment. You would think by now that most people would understand that this is good. I guess for some there really is no hope.
 
OP
taesch

taesch

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
45
Ray Peat only mentioned homeopathy as one of the books he read as a kid or something. So I'm not too concerned about that.

I'm more convinced now, thanks to the responses I've gotten, that LIng and Pollack are very legitimate scientists even though they are challenging the mainstream.
 
J

j.

Guest
taesch said:
I'm more convinced now, thanks to the responses I've gotten, that LIng and Pollack are very legitimate scientists even though they are challenging the mainstream.

That seems to imply the mainstream is usually right. I think it's the other way around. Whether it's about economics, health, education, the mainstream is typically wrong.
 
OP
taesch

taesch

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
45
j. said:
That seems to imply the mainstream is usually right. I think it's the other way around. Whether it's about economics, health, education, the mainstream is typically wrong.

I get your point but I submit that science mainstream does not heed claim that it's correct in the way that it's interpretations do. Science is literally the pursuit of what's provable. Mainstream science does not claim that it's right, as it requires specific proof. It's medicine, commerce, education, health etc...that take the proven work of science and dogmatically apply it for their ideological needs. Therefore as you stated, the mainstreams are intrinsically false. That's where the mainstreams lose the virtrues of provability. Additionally, science is distorted in a capitalist culture predicated on the mediaiton of mass deceptions to maximize 'markets'. That's where Ray Peat has been very enlightening to me in giving example after example of the industrial interests actually re-framing science-proofs over the years to current day. That said, there are many interests trying to infiltrate the scientific community with their own insideous interests. This clip reminds me of the value of someone like Ray Peat to question and expose the ethics of scientists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el5jYoaoV_E

"Science is the only thing that disproves science and it does it all the time." Matt Delahunt
 
OP
taesch

taesch

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
45
gretchen said:
Yes, Ray Peat is somewhat anti-establishment. You would think by now that most people would understand that this is good. I guess for some there really is no hope.

Hey Gretchen, I gotta love Dr.Ray Peat for keeping hope alive that the truth is out there...way out there. Sawdust in our bread? That's far out dude!

Are you telling me there's no hope for me if I question Ray Peat's motives? Are you teaching me learned helpless-ness?

Anti-establishment as good depends on the establishment. Science is 'anti-establishment' since it's ALWAYS questioning it's own establishments. Semantically speaking, if you were to say anti-establishment is good, then that's a statement of establishment. What the heck am I going on about? I'm clearly not being clear.

"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge"

there.
 

kiran

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
1,054
taesch said:
Are you telling me there's no hope for me if I question Ray Peat's motives? Are you teaching me learned helpless-ness?
lol
Science is 'anti-establishment' since it's ALWAYS questioning it's own establishments. Semantically speaking, if you were to say anti-establishment is good, then that's a statement of establishment. What the heck am I going on about? I'm clearly not being clear.
Yes, this is how things should work... in theory. Science has it's own establishment, and thinking outside the box isn't always rewarded.
"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge"

there.
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=761
 

natedawggh

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
649
I hear what you are saying about going against the established science, but if you take for instance the fact that so many people die from cancer every day, week, and year and yet none of the mainstream establishment actually knows what causes it, you could get the sense they SHOULD know what causes it with our advanced technology and resources and the time invested. Especially considering the failure of the establishment to abolish any of these problems, if someone came along to explain science and the science was proven, you'd think they might take it seriously, since they don't have an answer. Isn't it suspicious then that they dismiss it outright without serious investigation.

Structured water can be described by the way jello is formed by the presence of gelatin. In fact, it's kind of exact proof that water can be structured. The jello isn't made by little sacs forming to hold the water in... The protien is naturally inclined to hold the water by its own innate charge. If a cook can understand why it's structured, why can't a doctor with eight+ years of medical school? But whether or not it's correct really doesn't matter for the lay person. If you get a tummy ache or diarrhea after eating certain foods, or get migraines with low blood sugar, or experience decades of insomnia only to find sleep at last from the work of Dr Peat, then you don't really need to understand structured water.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom