Anti-Peat New Soundbite- Jack Kruse on Ray Peat

Joined
Oct 13, 2019
Messages
124
Depending on format, Peat talk is -11:11 remaining on the Spotify embed, or 1:03:38-1:08:06 on apple podcast -. I’m sure many of you know and have at least entertained the ideas of Jack Kruse’s work since they share some ideas with Ray Peat and both put mitochondrial energy at the forefront. In this interview with Matt Maruca, I heard him for the first time talk about Ray Peat and thought others would be curious to see what he had to say and want to respond.


Spotify link:

Apple podcast link:

He basically says Peat’s big problem is “he has never been able to explain...why DHA has never been replaced one time in 650 million years of mammalian evolution” in the brain or peripheral nervous system. He says there’s been radio silence on Peat’s end about this.

If anyone is actually interested in entertaining Jack Kruse’s ideas, I highly recommend getting that info through Matt Maruca instead of Jack himself. Matt talks about his ideas in a sensible and intriguing way (albeit wrong from a Peaty perspective), and is basically the Danny Roddy of that side of the field.
 
Last edited:
J

jb116

Guest
Is it just me, I'm not hearing about Peat at those timestamps. You sure you got it right?
 

Doc Sandoz

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
102
Don't know much about Jack Kruse, and have insufficient knowledge to pass judgment on the DHA question, but Kruse comes off as an arrogant blowhard, and it appears he has a big financial stake in what he says. If I have to take someone's word on DHA, I trust Ray.
 

joshquintanilla

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Oct 13, 2019
Messages
124
Yeah he comes off that way which is why I’m learning through Matt Maruca to try and see what he has to say lol. His ideas are very interesting though because they are looking at the same issues, share some commonalities within them, but come to different conclusions. Two sides of the same coin in a lot of ways
 

Doc Sandoz

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
102
It is interesting to see another POV that has commonalities with Ray's, just because Ray's ideas are so advanced and so different from the mainstream. I see Kruse cites Gilbert Ling and other sources Peat relies on as well. Seems to me the DHA question is moot, since we get it in our diet without making any special effort at supplementation. Can't completely avoid DHA either, just as eliminating all PUFA is nearly impossible.
 

generalbill

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2020
Messages
11
I happen to be a big Jack Kruse fan, and found him through this forum a while back. Actually, I should say that I'm a big fan of the sun now. I think getting out under the sun has been one of the biggest things that's been helping me, along with using it to change my circadian rhythm to wake up early and go to bed early. Instead of thinking about him as right or wrong, I would look at him like this forum. He comes across a lot of interesting ideas, some of them can be used, some discarded. But trust me, he has some good ideas. What I find fascinating about the Ray Peat forum, is that it attracts a lot of sick people that have mysterious problems that can't seem to figure out how to get better. These people tend to keep searching and come across really interesting ideas. Some of them are pretty good. Throwing away Jack Kruse cuz he is arrogant, would be throwing away the baby with the bath water. I think DHA is a fantastic thing and I've been doing very well on it. I eat a lot of salmon eggs now to get it. Other than that, I do like to avoid PUFAs from seed and nut oils.
 

Hugh Johnson

Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
1,680
Location
The Sultanate of Portugal
What is he even claiming? That somehow metabolism fundamentally changes depending on the climate?

Is there even one piece of evidence that DHA is needed for a brain? Pretty sure that babies tend to be efa deficient. I have never heard of any problems caused by pufa restriction.
 

LeeLemonoil

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
2,469
The problem with JK among others is that he has researched and developed a lot of good thoughts resolving around light and emf.
But messes up complexity and causality. Everything now begins and ends with the things he knows about best. A massive bias that in turn falsified many approaches. And he made the biased idea a unique selling point in The actual meaning of the word. Increasing the bias again


Edit:
And Boy is he an ugly guy, but can’t hold that against him. All those spots though and inflammation marks don’t look like a sensible handling of sun and fatty acids
 

GenericName86

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2018
Messages
231
The problem with JK among others is that he has researched and developed a lot of good thoughts resolving around light and emf.
But messes up complexity and causality. Everything now begins and ends with the things he knows about best. A massive bias that in turn falsified many approaches. And he made the biased idea a unique selling point in The actual meaning of the word. Increasing the bias again


Edit:
And Boy is he an ugly guy, but can’t hold that against him. All those spots though and inflammation marks don’t look like a sensible handling of sun and fatty acids
Yep, a lot of the stuff about light is good and pretty damn interesting but his bias really gets in the way. Plus he sometimes likes to come off like some cryptic messiah which is pretty off-putting.
 

haidut

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
17,613
Location
USA / Europe
He basically says Peat’s big problem is “he has never been able to explain...why DHA has never been replaced one time in 650 million years of mammalian evolution” in the brain or peripheral nervous system. He says there’s been radio silence on Peat’s end about this.

Aahh, good 'ol fashioned "evolutionary biology" argument - the favorite tool of mainstream medicine. Pretty much any argument can be made to sound plausible from an "evolutionary" perspective but cannot be proven/disproven because evolution takes eons to do its magic. How about HE (Jack Kruse) proves that DHA is "essential" or necessary for health. There is only one way to settle this really - perform experiments to reproduce (or invalidate) the EFA hypothesis (which is based on a single study from the 1930). Everything else is just talk.
 

mrchibbs

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
2,516
Location
Atlantis
Jack Kruse has spoken about Ray many time disingenuously and a bit incoherently about how he didn't consider electromagnetic radiation, which is blatantly false. You can find these comments on his forum.

Not to say there isn't anything valid in his ideas.
 

Similar threads

Top