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.
Zachs said:Although to the ones thinking of restricting, or that have already done it, have you tried eating a surplus of calories while eating a fat deficient diet? Until you have, I would suggest not getting so riled up on the subject.
If a low calorie diet doesn't cause you headaches, starving to the point of obsessively thinking about food and your next meal or having to use sheer willpower to avoid eating anything beyond your daily targeted calories, if it doesn't cause digestive disturbances, a loss of sex drive, feeling cold, moody, depressed, isolated or fatigued, then no, I can't say it's anymore stressful than the other stressors you mentioned. I was inquiring about the 1000 calorie people and how they can get even a sustainable amount of nutrients on such little calories. My comment was never directed at you personally, Dean. I trust you're the best judge of what your limits are.Dean said:In terms of calorie restriction being stressful on the body...being overweight is stressful on the body, having a low metabolism is stressful on the body, poor digestion is stressful on the body, eating more and more difficult calories than your poor digestion can handle is stressful on the body, eating period is stressful on the body, fasting is stressful on the body, being hypothyroid is stressful on the body, being in the dark is stressful on the body, etc. Is a nutrient dense, anti-nutrient free, low calorie diet really the worst stressor of them all?
Like I said, it was a study done for 10 - 14 days. I want a study that is longer than two weeks before I'll even consider it valid. Two weeks is nothing if we care about long term effects. How many of us tried diets and saw immediate positive results and started declaring to all our friends and family how great the diet was only to have that sentiment ripped from us after the honeymoon period was over? I think most can say the honeymoon lasted much longer than two weeks so a two week study is a stay in the Bahamas. Poor analogy I know, but you get the gist.RPDiciple said:Jennifer: great quotes and all that.
And also LOOK AT WHAT RP SAID HERE
"Q: Victor Lindlahr then came up with the paper on a catabolic diet - the opposite of anabolism, which is to build muscle, and catabolism is to break it down with the production of heat.
RP: In the 50's and 60's people were experimenting with what kind of diet is efficient for losing fat and still maintain your health. They did experiments in which people would just have pure water for 10 days or 14 days, and then they would analyze what happened to their bodies, and they found that they lost pure protein during that time - very little fat. If they ate maybe 600-800 calories per day during that same 10-14 days, they would lose mostly fat and very little protein.
So from fasting to only consuming 600-800 calories mostly from protein and prob little carb and fat they lost ALMOST ONLY FAT. 600-800 that is some serious calorie deficit.
The number 1 reason so many women struggle the most is that they are beeing fed the biggest lies from all the bull**** gossip hollywood magazines on how to loose weight.
These are the usual recipes in those bull**** articles and books:
1. tons of cardio
2. liquid cleansing bull**** juicing stuff.
3. super low calories, and most coming from just some sugar from juice, and maybe little oil. very little protein
If women just did what guys do. Eat enough protein, lift weights, walk and be in a calorie deficit. I think we would not have this disussion.
And no women wil not be big and bulky from lifting weights, most guys dont do either exept if they juice :P
Dean said:Zachs said:Although to the ones thinking of restricting, or that have already done it, have you tried eating a surplus of calories while eating a fat deficient diet? Until you have, I would suggest not getting so riled up on the subject.
How would you recommend a person determining what their surplus of calories should be (in terms of a starting point)? What about fat intake %? protein?
Dean said:I'll ask again...why in the world would Ray Peat be telling a person to be careful of the extra calories in grape juice as opposed to orange juice when trying to lose weight if he, in fact, felt that calorie restriction was what, or at least part of what, inhibited weight loss?
Dean said:Zachs, thanks for your reply. I'm curious about where your 500g of carbs baseline comes from. I'd be willing to try it, but right now I just can't afford 2500+ calories in fruit. I wish I lived on some tropical island. What about getting the second half of the calories from sucrose? It seems like I'm starting to understand your argument as a calorie, any calorie, is a nutrient. I don't think Peat would agree with that. But, if I were to take it as true, wouldn't 1500 calories of sucrose be exponentially better than not having those 1500 calories at all or getting them from fat (with weight loss as a goal) or getting them from calories that throw off the calcium to phosphorus ratio?
Err...okay!? My comment was in response to what you wrote here:Dean said:LOL...This is getting more than a little bizarre. I'm not feeling attacked in this thread; I'm just a little bewildered by it. Since this is the "Ray Peat forum", I don't think it's being defensive to inquire why the prevailing wisdom on the Ray Peat forum has moved into diametric disagreement with Ray Peat on something as integral to any nutritional theory as what causes weight gain/inhibits weight loss.
I'm sorry if my choice of the word "feeling attacked" wasn't a good description of your statement above. My bad!Dean said:As far as logging it, I don't know. I wouldn't want to set off a firestorm of disapproval (or increase my stress by having to be on the defensive justifying myself throughout.) We'll see.
I apologize in advance if the rest of your comments aren't directed toward me, but you never stated so I'm just going to answer them.Dean said:I'll ask again...why in the world would Ray Peat be telling a person to be careful of the extra calories in grape juice as opposed to orange juice when trying to lose weight if he, in fact, felt that calorie restriction was what, or at least part of what, inhibited weight loss?
Ray constantly makes mention of getting all the essential nutrients met so I don't think my question is without validity. In fact, I even emailed him this past February and he made mention of the essential nutrients when I asked if the diet I was doing was safe. He brought up that it has all the essential nutrients.Dean said:How in the world is Ray Peat saying "not getting enough nutrients is stressful for the body", the equivalent of saying any type of calorie restriction/deficit is extremely detrimental? What in the world do the recommended nutrient intakes on cron-o-meter, taken from government standards based on their corrupt food pyramid, have to do with someone following a nutrient-dense diet, devoid of the anti-nutrients prevalent not only in the standard American diet, but the so-called optimal diet recommended by those who set the nutritional standards?
I'm not parting with Ray in this context, but when I do, I have never had an issue in saying so. I don't claim that Ray is for eating beyond what your body deems necessary, but I also don't believe a huge calorie deficit that's devoid of all the essential nutrients for daily maintenance and regeneration is what Ray advises either.Dean said:I think though that if you are going to part with Peat, you should just say so (and be willing to explain why), instead of trying to parse his words to fit your own conclusions.
Yeah, this is something I've been thinking about and I even saved that extensive thread where you asked her about her diet and she stated what she ate. She ate plenty of starch and seemed to think Ray was fine with it yet we know his stance on that one, don't we, narouz?narouz said:2. One of our former posters, peatarian...
Well, "former poster" doesn't really do her justice. :)
She is more like a Forum Myth or Legend.
Anyhow...I did value her and her info.
But some of it...I think was maybe a little off.
Once she referred to Coca-Cola
as "such an important part of a Peat diet."
I bring this up not to impugn peatarian's mythic resonance,
because she had a lot of great Peat info and experience.
But the Coca-Cola thing...
When I started having trouble with my metabolism and gaining weight
(after enjoying a period of metabolic success)
it was following a period of drinking a lot of Cokes.
I kinda slipped into it because I liked the Cokes,
and I got away from drinking, instead, a lot of orange juice.
So...another little minor data point.
Jennifer said:If you listen to some of the older interviews with Ray, I remember one in particular where Josh asks Ray what he had consumed for the day and he mentioned steak and coke.
Jennifer said:And you bring up a very good point with number seven. Ray's newsletter from February, I think it was, talked all about a germ-free gut and the studies so he clearly is in favor of that. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I think his older stance about keeping the bacteria in the right place, the large intestine and having the small intestine relatively sterile makes more logical sense to me given we'd be hard pressed to avoid bacteria in the world we live in. We might as well be living in bubbles at that point.
Peata said:
I'm glad you posted all that, it's interesting and useful.
A few thoughts from me:
I am glad to see that protein needs aren't always intuited, because left on my own, I wouldn't eat anywhere near 80+ grams. I've felt improvements though from raising my intake, though haven't lost weight from it.
Limiting all fats has been good for me. I don't know if it's just ADDED fats that are the problem, as in using cooking oils, butter, for cooking and flavoring and so on, or if it's also fattier types of foods like full fat milk or meat that can be a problem. I haven't lost weight from limiting pufa or overall fat so far but it my skin is less inflamed and not breaking out like it was.
Cutting starch and grains hasn't helped me lose weight, but I feel it helped me sleep better (no adrenaline attacks now). I'm OK with eating some, but will avoid it when able and convenient.
Adding that I look forward to seeing how the higher protein and lower fat and starch helps now that I'm cutting the calories more.
Thanks for your input, narouz. Did you find a way to lose any of the weight you gained from Cokes?
Yep, I agree with you that Ray often mentions the 2 liters of milk and 1 liter of OJ to cover our nutrient requirements and that's one of the reasons I chose the quote I did, but I never said you need to be getting double the amount of calories Ray recommends. I think you may be confusing me with someone else? I did write that the one thing I find interesting about what the MSE study found/concluded is it didn't matter how much extra vitamins and protein they gave the participants after the starvation phase of the experiment was over. If they didn't get at least 4,000 calories daily, they weren't recovering. Was that what you were referring to? If so, that doesn't mean I believe you need to be getting at least 4000 calories. You're not the participants from that study anymore than you're the participants of the 600-800 calorie study I quoted from Ray's interview.Dean said:Let me try this another way, in terms of essential nutrients. I think (hope) we can all agree that Peat believes 2 liters of milk and a liter of oj, pretty much rings the bell for meeting just about anybody's basic nutritional needs. If you plug just that into cron-o-meter it does do a pretty, darn good job of hitting most of them at, above, or a bit below 100% the daily recommendations. But if you listen to Peat's advice about using 1% milk (if you need to lose weight), you are looking at 1266 calories. What you would need to knock everything else above 100% is pretty negligible in terms of calories (zinc-an oyster or two, B vitamins-a bit of liver). So again, I'm still confused how not getting more than double the number of calories Peat's baseline nutritional recommendations provide is tantamount to juggling a nuclear bomb.
LOL Take Minocycline for months on end and you'll be downing the protein like a champ.narouz said:Peata said:
I'm glad you posted all that, it's interesting and useful.
A few thoughts from me:
I am glad to see that protein needs aren't always intuited, because left on my own, I wouldn't eat anywhere near 80+ grams. I've felt improvements though from raising my intake, though haven't lost weight from it.
Limiting all fats has been good for me. I don't know if it's just ADDED fats that are the problem, as in using cooking oils, butter, for cooking and flavoring and so on, or if it's also fattier types of foods like full fat milk or meat that can be a problem. I haven't lost weight from limiting pufa or overall fat so far but it my skin is less inflamed and not breaking out like it was.
Cutting starch and grains hasn't helped me lose weight, but I feel it helped me sleep better (no adrenaline attacks now). I'm OK with eating some, but will avoid it when able and convenient.
Adding that I look forward to seeing how the higher protein and lower fat and starch helps now that I'm cutting the calories more.
Thanks for your input, narouz. Did you find a way to lose any of the weight you gained from Cokes?
I've been following you and Jennifer's and bigp's exploits
and have been impressed by you gals' protein consumption. :)
I've said to myself, damn, if those girls can do it,
I should get my **** in gear and get the damn protein down!
Actually, the Coke's were only one strand in my perplexing weight-gain scenario.
I'm not sure what part they played.
They were just one thing of many I've considered as possible suspects.
I thought:
well, that orange juice had a lot of magnesium,
and the Coke probably has none, so...
...one of the things that happened when my metabolism when south
was I started getting palpitations.
I had to lower my thyroid supps.
Magnesium seems to be the first thing Peat mentions
when asked about palpitations and thyroid supps.
The whole Peat and weight-gain thing is damn confusing! :)