Notes Toward An "Optimal Peat Diet"

[narouz]

Re: Notes Toward a Handle like a "Basic Peat Diet" (BPD)

Maybe the line in between healthy fats and coconut oil should be taken out?

That's a good point you raise there Charlie.
I did that intentionally
because there would seem to be an argument (derivable) from Peat
that Coconut Oil deserves its own unique, separate slot.

When Peat says CO has weight-loss properties,
doesn't that go beyond what he says about butter and beef fat?
Certainly it goes beyond what he says about olive oil,
which must, I think, get a big asterisk
because Peat clearly says one should limit it to less than 1 TEAspoon per day .

Peat does make some positive statements about butter and ruminant fats
(or in other words his good, saturated fats):
hasn't he said they sortuv "rinse out,'
over time,
the PUFA's stored in the tissue?

On the other hand,
I think Peat also at least tacitly agrees that
a consideration with even his "healthy fats"
is weight.
He has made statements, to those asking about weight,
saying to limit even the healthy fats:
skim milk vs. whole, lowfat cheeses, lean meats, etc.

Does he include Coconut Oil in that category?
As a saturated fat to be restricted if weight-gain is an issue?

It's not clear--at least not to me.
As I say, I tend to think Peat sees it in a different category?

I put a post out on the Diet forum some time ago trying to get more info on this:
"Coconut Oil: In a Separate, Unique Category" or somesuch.
Hasn't generated a lot of discussion, unfortunately.

But again, Charlie, this is exactly the kind of (to some rather tedious, I'm sure) threshing out
that is so valuable in working toward clear representations of Peat's ideas.
And I could see CO going in with the other "healthy fats"
with some kind of asterisk
(that's how I originally had it).

This problem is a little akin to the
Potato--"Healthy Starches" issue.
At the last minute I gave Potatoes its own separate category
because Peat has said things which,
it could reasonably be argued,
point toward potatoes as being sortuv unique.
Again, I'm open to debate about that one too!

 

[Birdie]

Re: Notes Toward a Handle like a "Basic Peat Diet" (BPD)

Just to say I am enjoying this thrashing out. I think the conclusions, even if they are temporary, or subject to changing with more info, will be valuable. For beginners it will help clarify. For olders it will help to find errors. For example, if a health problem persists, maybe fine tuning will help it. If someone is gaining weight, it should help find blindspots in the diet or provide alternatives.

You probably already said all this but I read the whole thread a week ago. Thank you for doing this work!

 

[charlie]

Re: Notes Toward a Handle like a "Basic Peat Diet" (BPD)

Birdie, I have to say I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[narouz]

Re: Notes Toward a Handle like a "Basic Peat Diet" (BPD)

One trouble I'm having with Charting
is how to meaningfully and accurately represent
the foods which Peat thinks are
clearly required
but
in very small amounts.

Like salt.
Or maybe coffee
(if you strictly interpret the amount of coffee versus the bulky milk delivery system, for most).
Or carrot.
Or maybe even healthy fats.

If I make the wedge or sliver of the orange proportionally accurate,
it will be such a slender sliver as to make labeling impossible,
unless I put the label outside the orange and draw a line
(not so elegant).

There might be creative solutions:
maybe portray the orange image as: sliced with rind and sections.
Then maybe the required-but-in-small-amounts foods
could be included around the periphery in the rind...?
That might accurately reflect that they are peripheral in terms of bulk or amount.

Another solution
might be to use the leaves and stem in a different way
(my apologies to Birdie...I know you cringe at even the mention! ).
In my first ("fixed") orange chart I used the leaves and stem to connote
foods that sortuv "aren't really recommended but probably won't kill ya."

Well...maybe those foods would be better left completely OFF the orange
(lest they might be thought to be Peat-recommended foods).

Then we might use the leaves and stem
to include the required foods that are needed only in small amounts...?

 

[narouz]

Strategic Thing I'm Wondering About

Charlie, you up there anywhere?

Ultra Beta and problematic as it (the Orange Chart) is,
I'm wondering if we might be better off
moving the chart
up to the top of this thread...?
Is that possible?

This is getting to be such a long thread,
and I already sense that new posters aren't really re-reading all of it, (understandably! )
so...
...I think the chart just gets buried...?
(Maybe it should be ),
but, on the other hand...

...as a symbol or icon or representation
it cuts to the heart of a whole lot of the essence of the struggle here
--that is, the struggle to generalize about and define some sort of
Reference Point Peat Diet
or
Peat Derived Diet.

We have the old list of Peatish Foods up near the top of the thread now,
and you (Charlie) have said you've empowered me (ha ) to edit that as we revise...
That food list should probably turn into something,
as you yourself noted a page or so back as...

Wow I really like that!

An orange I think is perfect. With a list below it spelling out everything pretty much like perfect healthy diet does. You definitely got my vote for the orange.

...that follows the chart, explaining in greater detail.

I suspect the chart will be controversial,
because, for one thing, it attempts to clarify
what many prefer to keep muddied up
("the Peat that can be spoken is not the True Peat"-crowd
and the
"it's all about context-crowd).

I think we need to have that conversation,
that threshing (hopefully, vs thrashing!) out....
Probably the icon (the chart) is the most powerful and succinct starting point.

Wha'd'ya think?

 

[charlie]

Re: Notes Toward a Handle like a "Basic Peat Diet" (BPD)

I'm here! About to run out for a couple hours but will chime in real quick.

I have attached a photo of where your edit button should be, just click on the button and edit your first post to include the chart, and the list to if you want.

I think the orange is where its at for right now unless someone comes up with a better choice. If you are worried about "copying" Paul over at PHD, I would simply shoot him off a email and explain what we are doing and see if he minds. He seems like a reasonable guy so I dont think it will be a problem. But honestly, we are not totally copying him because we are using a different "icon", so I dont see a problem.

Also, another thought. If we think this thread get too long. We could start a new one and lock this one up so no new posts can happen. We can do that whenever we decide its time.

Ok I gotta run, be back later to comment some more!

 

[narouz]

Re: Notes Toward a Handle like a "Basic Peat Diet" (BPD)

(Ya slippin' out for some fried plantains? )

Okay.
I'm not in any hurry at all.
But you're better at these
"how best to present info on a website" kinduv thangs.

Seems like it would be nice to preserve the running "debate" or discussion,
but still forefront the central Thesis of that discussion--
as expressed through The Orange--
at the top.
Because who but the bravest are going to wade through all my crap?!

There are several ways to go on this I guess.

 

[narouz]

The Orange thing

And about The Orange:
I'm not an expert in the area,
but as I was saying to Birdie:
Is PHD in violation of some copyright laws
because they used the Yin Yang sign?
I don't think so.
Does PHD now OWN the rights to the Yin Yang?
I don't think so.
Does PHD own all fruit images?
Don't think so.
Does PHD own all stems and leaves?
Don't think so....

 

[narouz]

How to Think about The Chart

...and some other thoughts about
How to Think about The Chart:

I've started finding the term "recommended" helpful.
In other words,
to pose the question this way:
"What foods does Dr. Peat recommend?"

As opposed to:
1. What foods does Dr. Peat qualifiedly allow under some circumstance to some people?
or
2. What foods does Dr. Peat not clearly exclude?
or
3. What foods does Dr. Peat say are safer than other more clearly bad foods?
or
4. What foods does Dr. Peat say you might eat once in a while and not kill ya?
or
5. What foods does Dr. Peat say are not ideal but may contain some good nutrients and could be consumed with some benefit in the absence of more ideal foods.
or
6. What foods does Dr. Peat say we don't have enough information about but which seem like they might be consumed in some amount without unhealthy effect?

 

[charlie]

Re: Notes Toward a Handle like a "Basic Peat Diet" (BPD)

(Ya slippin' out for some fried plantains? )

Okay.
I'm not in any hurry at all.
But you're better at these
"how best to present info on a website" kinduv thangs.

Seems like it would be nice to preserve the running "debate" or discussion,
but still forefront the central Thesis of that discussion--
as expressed through The Orange--
at the top.
Because who but the bravest are going to wade through all my crap?!

There are several ways to go on this I guess.

Nah, as much as I love them I am done with plantains for a while.

I added the chart to your first post. Really digging the concept of the orange because I drink so much orange juice so it pretty much fits the diet to a T.

...and some other thoughts about
How to Think about The Chart:

I've started finding the term "recommended" helpful.
In other words,
to pose the question this way:
"What foods does Dr. Peat recommend?"

As opposed to:
1. What foods does Dr. Peat qualifiedly allow under some circumstance to some people?
or
2. What foods does Dr. Peat not clearly exclude?
or
3. What foods does Dr. Peat say are safer than other more clearly bad foods?
or
4. What foods does Dr. Peat say you might eat once in a while and not kill ya?
or
5. What foods does Dr. Peat say are not ideal but may contain some good nutrients and could be consumed with some benefit in the absence of more ideal foods.
or
6. What foods does Dr. Peat say we don't have enough information about but which seem like they might be consumed in some amount without unhealthy effect?

Recommend or generally suggest. Or generally recommended food in the correct context.

 

[narouz]

Re: Notes Toward a Handle like a "Basic Peat Diet" (BPD)

Thanks Charlie!

 

[charlie]

Re: Notes Toward a Handle like a "Basic Peat Diet" (BPD)

aye aye captain!

 

[narouz]

Beginning a Gradual Updating of the "Basic Peat Diet" Notes

(Charlie...ya out there in the ether somewhere...? )

Beginning a Gradual Updating of the Initial "Basic Peat Diet" Explanatory Notes

(I now lean more toward the handle "Peat Derived Food Chart" for the chart, with a list following and detailing and explaining).
I'll just try to chip away at this a little at a time as I'm able.

It might be best if this list would appear at the top of the thread, following the chart (as you yourself suggested, I believe, Charlie), and if I were able to edit it as I update and revise (again, as you suggested, Charlie).
And Charlie (I know there are simpler ways of contacting you, but I love to regard you as some kind of "deus ex machina" )...not exactly sure how the opening of the thread should be handled. As it is now it reflects the origin of this thread in the "Ray Peat Debate" (or whatever it is) area. Then it got moved over here under "Diet." Maybe if we kept that introduction post, then next had a separate second post which contained a big picture of the (under construction) chart AND (following that) the (also under construction/revision) explanatory notes--of which the following is the first updating...?



-2 quarts of milks, or the equivalent thereof in cheeses, variable upwards as metabolism allows. Dr. Peat has said, when asked general questions about diet, that “everyone should probably have about 2 quarts of milk and 1 quart of orange juice.” It would seem that Peat has a rough ideal proportion or ratio in mind for protein to sugars, and his shorthand of 2:1 milk-to-OJ that as a sort of general baseline for most people. When people trying a Peat diet complained to him that they were gaining undesired weight, he said something like: “I never said to drink whole milk. If there are concerns about weight gain people should drink low fat milk or eat the lowfat cheeses” (as I say, just an approximate quote there; I’ll try to find Peat’s exact words later). And Peat would seem to be fine with replacing some or even all of the milk with cheese. Some have taken Peat’s comments about his own diet—that he himself has drunk a lot more milk and OJ than the 2 and 1 quart/s—as an ideal, general recommendation for most people. But I don’t believe Peat intended that implication. He was, rather, I think, trying to illustrate how, as one’s metabolism increases, so too will the basic food requirements.

-1 quart of OJ, or the equivalent in other acceptable fruits. Again, as above with milk, this would seem to be a general, baseline recommended amount and ratio (of fruit to milk). And the same notes about Peat’s statements regarding his own diet and his much higher intake of fruit (or OJ) also apply here. Peat recommends tropical, fresh, ripe fruit which can be eaten avoiding the seeds. He favors oranges because he says they are extremely nutritious in comparison to other fruits. Some have argued that the carbohydrates in what are sometimes (I don’t know where the language comes from or how much if any validity it has) referred to as Peat’s “safe starches” or “safer starches” (like masa harina, potato, and white rice) can be considered “Peat recommended” substitutes (or at least partial substitutes) for fruit carbs. This is one of the blurriest areas of the Peat food picture, and one which will require additional space to fully discuss. Some would even argue that Peat would have us include “roots, tubers, and shoots” (his phrase) as “Peat recommended” substitutes (or, again, at least partial substitutes) for fruits. It is not as if Peat says nothing to guide us in this ambiguous area. The problem is that he makes statements both for and against the so-called “safe starches,” probably varying sometimes because of context. But I do think we can illuminate this murky area and bring more clarity. That effort will probably take place under the category of “safe starches.”

 

[charlie]

Re: Notes Toward a Handle like a "Basic Peat Diet" (BPD)

narouz, feel free to start another thread in the diet section and I will pin it to the top just like this one. We can then work out the chart and diet guidelines in that thread. We might get a better response in a new thread. You could name it something like "Proposed food chart & food list recommendations" or something to that effect.

 

[narouz]

Re: Notes Toward a Handle like a "Basic Peat Diet" (BPD)

narouz, feel free to start another thread in the diet section and I will pin it to the top just like this one. We can then work out the chart and diet guidelines in that thread. We might get a better response in a new thread. You could name it something like "Proposed food chart & food list recommendations" or something to that effect.

OK, Charlie.
Thanks!

 

[narouz]

Wrestling with the So-Called "Peat Safe Starches"

Here, I’m starting to wrestle with the thorny area in PeatDom
which is sometimes referred to as “Peat’s Safe Starches.”

Here’s an overview of some of the questions examined:
-Where did the term “safe starches” come from?
-Is it a Peat term?
-If it’s not a Peat term, does Peat have something like it in mind?
-Is “roots, shoots, and tubers” a Peat phrase?
-Do they belong within something like a Peat “better starch” area?
-What would a list of Peat’s preferred starches look like, in order from most to least preferred.

“Safe Starches”

I’ve been trying to remember where, exactly, this phrase comes from. I’ve gotten it conflated with Peat’s language and with language others have employed to describe Peat’s ideas.

In researching, I re-read this response to a blog of
Danny Roddy’s “Carbon Dioxide: The Real Reason Safe Starches Are a Joke"

http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/2012...the-real-reason-safe-starches-are-a-joke.html

“Hey Danny, I agree with the previous commenter who pointed out that the term "safe starches" does not refer to glycemic impact or demonization of fructose. It's a term coined by the Jaminets to mean sources of starch w/o toxins like gluten, phytates, lectins and such. The arch LC'ers claim no starches are safe because they will all cause a postprandial glucose and insulin spike.
Either way, interesting article!”

May 23, 2012 | Evelyn aka CarbSane

So, not that this is definitive, but it does seem likely that the term “safe starches” was coined by the Jaminets in their PHD.

I’ve been seeking some clarity on this thorny issue in PeatWorld.
I guess it is clarifying a bit just to pin down that “safe starches” is not a Peat term.
And, indeed, in Roddy’s blog article noted above,
he would seem to be quite vigorously arguing against supposedly “safe starches” (and fats)
as a major part of a diet.
In the same blog, Roddy interprets and quotes Peat:

"When deciding whether to obtain carbohydrate from "safe starches," low-calorie vegetable matter, or fruit, consider that sugar (especially fructose) is supportive of CO2 production:
"It is concluded that both fructose and glucose-induced thermogenesis occurs exclusively in extrasplanchnic tissues. Compared with glucose, fructose ingestion is accompanied by a more marked rise in CO2 production, possibly reflecting an increased extrasplanchnic oxidation of lactate and an accumulation of heat in the body."
Moreover, when glucose oxidation is inhibited (diabetes, Randle cycle), fructose provides pyruvic acid for oxidative energy:
"One of the points at which fatty acids suppress the use of glucose is at the point at which it is converted into fructose, in the process of glycolysis. When fructose is available, it can by-pass this barrier to the use of glucose, and continue to provide pyruvic acid for continuing oxidative metabolism, and if the mitochondria themselves aren't providing sufficient energy, it can leave the cell as lactate, allowing continuing glycolytic energy production. In the brain, this can sustain life in an emergency." - Ray Peat

If you go to Roddy's site and read his article,
you will see that, in general, and if I'm interpreting him (who in turn is interpreting Peat) correctly,
--you will see that Roddy thinks Peat strongly prefers fruit over starches and oil because...well, I'll leave those finer points for you to master from the article! :)

I’m grappling with how to interpret Peat in this area of starches.
How they should best be represented on the food chart.
Although Peat does not use the term “safe starches,”
he would seem to have a concept and category similar to it.

From that same blog, Roddy answers another reader with a different Peat quote:

“@Evan,
Here is a quote from Peat about it:
"There is a great anti-sugar cult, with even moralistic overtones, equating sugar craving with morphine addiction. Sugar craving is usually caused by the need for sugar, generally caused by hypothyroidism. When yeasts have enough sugar, they just happily make ethanol, but when they don't have sugar, they can sink filaments into the intestine wall seeking it, and, if the person is very weak, they can even invade the bloodstream and other organs. Milk, cheese, and fruits provide a very good balance of nutrients. Fruits provide a significant amount of protein. Plain sugar is o.k. when the other nutrients are adequate. Roots, shoots, and tubers are, next to the fruits, a good carbohydrate source; potatoes are a source of good protein. Meat as the main protein can provide too much phosphorus in relation to calcium."

—Ray Peat (bolding mine)

At long last I found where
I had gotten the phrase “roots, shoots, and tubers” in my head as a Peat phrase!
This is quite a missing link for me!—the fact that Peat says that they are
“next to the fruits, a good carbohydrate source.”

Now, I would have to pause here a moment to qualify:
while Roddy’s site is wonderful and provides an abundance of Peat views and quotes
I haven’t found elsewhere...
...I do have to add that that information is very raw in many cases:
sources don’t have clear attribution or any attribution sometimes,
we often don’t know who Peat is addressing,
and what the context is—what was the question asked to him?
was Peat’s answer in a private consultation?
--it is not a scholarly journal, put it that way.

But, if the info is accurate,
and I tend to accept it as being so,
then we could round up a category of starches
which could be viewed (though not designated so by Peat)
as his “better starches” or somesuch.
And that category would comprise,
in this seeming order of quality:

1. Potatoes (being a tuber or root, I guess, and considering Peat has said “Roots, shoots, and tubers are, next to the fruits, a good carbohydrate source.”) And Peat has also said that potatoes are more like fruits than vegetables.
2. Other roots and tubers like, I guess, sweet potatoes, yams, daikon, turnips, etc
3. Shoots? What are shoots? According to one definition they are: “The aerial portions of a plant, including stem, branches, and leaves and also, new immature growth on a plant.” I think for now we need to hold this category of food in abeyance. If shoots includes “leaves,” for instance, we know that Peat strongly opposes the inclusion of “foliage” (leaves, right?) in a healthy diet. This needs more exploration. That one reference, above, to “roots, shoots, and tubers” is the only one I’ve seen, supposedly from Peat himself. Elsewhere I’ve heard, more than once, Peat use the phrase “roots and tubers.” So maybe this lone mention of “shoots” is not accurate. Until we get something more solid I suggest we leave it out of our list.
4. Masa harina: corn treated with lime and cooked
5. White rice: ideally boiled with lye for over 40 minutes
6. Brown rice: ideally boiled even longer I’d suppose and also with lye
7. Oatmeal: if boiled a long time—Peat says it will then be made “more acceptable” or something like that.

So that's a start.
Next I'll be scrutinizing
how Peat views starches in general
and how he would seem to see them within a healthy diet.

Please let me know if you have problems with what I've said above
or additional information
or other viewpoints.
It is a blurry area.

 

[narouz]

"Roots, Shoots, and Tubers"

The phrase "root, shoots, and tubers"--it's origins and discussion--
got a little buried back in my last post about "safe starches,"
so I wanted to give it its own spot here.
It is a surprisingly important phrase and category.

I (I think like many or even most)
read so much Peat dietary stuff
scattered all over the place:
in his many articles,
collected up into Peat repositories online
like Danny Roddy's wonderful "Building Peat's Brain,"
and here and there online in sometimes very long blogs and boards and interviews...
...I have read so much Peat stuff from hither and yon,
that it is sometimes hard to figure out where I read or heard something.

Such was the case with "root, shoots, and tubers."
I couldn't remember where I'd got that Peat phrase stuck in my head.

I found rather quickly the phrase "roots and tubers" connected to Peat,
but it took me a long time to find "roots, shoots, and tubers."
I finally came across it over at Danny Roddy's website:

Carbon Dioxide: The Real Reason Safe Starches Are a Joke
http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/2012...the-real-reason-safe-starches-are-a-joke.html

Here is a quote from Peat about it:

"There is a great anti-sugar cult, with even moralistic overtones, equating sugar craving with morphine addiction. Sugar craving is usually caused by the need for sugar, generally caused by hypothyroidism. When yeasts have enough sugar, they just happily make ethanol, but when they don't have sugar, they can sink filaments into the intestine wall seeking it, and, if the person is very weak, they can even invade the bloodstream and other organs. Milk, cheese, and fruits provide a very good balance of nutrients. Fruits provide a significant amount of protein. Plain sugar is o.k. when the other nutrients are adequate. Roots, shoots, and tubers are, next to the fruits, a good carbohydrate source; potatoes are a source of good protein. Meat as the main protein can provide too much phosphorus in relation to calcium."

And that is the only place I can find the phrase.
Danny gives it as a quote from Peat,
but doesn't say where it came from.
I trust Danny about the authenticity of the quote,
but because of that rare appearance of the word "shoots,"
well...as I said in my last post about starches,
I think maybe we should leave "shoots" out of the equation for now,
until we turn up more solid backing.

I suggest we do so because
depending upon how one defines "shoots"
it becomes a very loaded word.

Here's a definition of "shoots":
"The aerial portions of a plant, including stem, branches, and leaves and also, new immature growth on a plant."

With that definition in mind,
we could sweep into a Peat recommended diet
a whole category of stuff Peat elsewhere clearly takes off the table (ha).
Peat elsewhere refers to edible leaves as "foliage,"
and clearly notes the difficulties presented by them in human consumption.
They also would not appear to be a good source of starchy carbs,
which would seem to be pretty much what we're scrutinizing here.

Okay, so we suspend judgement on "shoots."

Returning then to "roots and tubers":
I find this phrase more frequently associated with Peat,
so regard it as reliable.

The big thing for me with "roots and tubers"
is that I had somehow missed the assertion,
apparently by Peat,
that he ranks them "next to fruits" as "a good carbohydrate source":

"Roots, shoots, and tubers are, next to the fruits, a good carbohydrate source."

That's a big deal to me,
because I have long been under the impression that,
following the fruits,
Peat's ranked potatoes and then masa harina and white rice
as qualifiedly acceptable carb sources.

That opens the door to a LOT of carb sources:
yams, sweet potatoes, daikon, turnip, parsnip, taro, cassava, etc.

To tell you the truth, I'm still a little queasy about opening that door very far.
For one reason,
the opening seems to hang on that one sketchily attributed quote from Roddy (above),
which includes the dubious "shoots,"
and is also the only reference I can find
which squarely ranks roots and tubers right after fruits
(and before the grains like masa harina and white rice)
as to-some-degree acceptable starches.
So I wish we could better substantiate those seemingly Peat-endorsed rankings.

We see the phrase "roots and tubers" in Peat's article
Vegetables, etc.—Who Defines Food?
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/vegetables.shtml

"A particular plant will have a variety of defensive chemicals, with specific functions. Underground, the plant’s roots and tubers are susceptible to attack by fungi and nematodes. The leaves, stems, and seeds are susceptible to attack by insects, birds, and grazing animals...

...and the fruits, when mature, generally contain practically no toxins. Roots contain chemicals that inhibit microorganisms, but because they aren’t easily accessible by grazing animals and insects, they don’t contain the digestive inhibitors that are more concentrated in the above-ground organs of the plant."

So Peat does use the double term (not the triple) "roots and tubers" in his own article.
Notice, however, that there, in what are more clearly his own words,
his endorsement of "roots and tubers" as a food source is somewhat less ringing:
they have less of the toxic defensive chemicals contained in the above-ground parts of the plant.

Along other suspicious lines of thinking,
we have the example of the carrot,
a root.
Peat clearly says the carrot is a "nutritional subtractant"
(I believe those were his words)
but that the fibers have that antiseptic/antibiotic property for which he recommends them.

Haven't I read somewhere that Peat has qualms about eating much sweet potato
due to the fiber content and/or carotene content?

Anyhow:
I just wanted to shine the light a little more brightly here
upon this whole "roots and tubers" or "roots, shoots, and tubers" thing.
Still need more light, in my opinion,
but it's a start.

 

[charlie]

Re: Notes Toward a Handle like a "Basic Peat Diet" (BPD)

"A daily diet that includes two quarts of milk and a quart of orange juice provides enough fructose and other sugars for general resistance to stress, but larger amounts of fruit juice, honey, or other sugars can protect against increased stress, and can reverse some of the established degenerative conditions." - Ray Peat, PhD

 

[narouz]

Milk and Orange Juice: Stripped Down Peat

"A daily diet that includes two quarts of milk and a quart of orange juice provides enough fructose and other sugars for general resistance to stress, but larger amounts of fruit juice, honey, or other sugars can protect against increased stress, and can reverse some of the established degenerative conditions." - Ray Peat, PhD

Yes, Charlie!
In fact, that was like a starting point or foundation for this thread.
Peat may not mean that every day we drink ONLY milk and OJ,
but I think it is a shorthand of his
from which we can extrapolate
some generalizations clearly stated or strongly suggested in his dietary thought:
-his food categories
-ratios or proportions of one food category to another
-amounts

That was where I was going next,
so...serendipitous!

 

[narouz]

A Big Glob of General, Guiding Statements and Interpretation

I just thought I'd begin tackling the problem of
general ratios and proportions and amounts
by rounding up a "big glob" of guiding statements--
from Peat, or putatively from Peat (via private consultations)
or from people who have interpreted Peat.
I realize there are issues with attribution and accuracy
as typical on just about all website-gathered info about Peat.
I advocate skepticism, in general.
And, with the stuff that is not primary source (reliably from Peat himself)
I think we need to ask ourselves if the information seems to fit within Peat's general principles.
Not an exact science nor immaculate scholarly documentation to be sure, but....

I've highlighted stuff pertinent to what I'm trying to do in this thread--
to generalize about Peat's dietary ideas
in an effort to come up with a basic or strict or Peat-derived chart.
So I'm interested in his general statements about
proportions and
ratios and
amounts and
categories, etc....

This is from an article on the Funtionalalps website:
http://www.functionalps.com/blog/2011/09/30/light-is-right/

Here is a word from Ray Peat, PhD on what a metabolism-protective diet entails.
“This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption. In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements. It should be remembered that amino acids, especially in eggs, stimulate insulin secretion, and that this can cause hypoglycemia, which in turn causes cortisol secretion. Eating fruit (or other carbohydrate), coconut oil, and salt at the same meal will decrease this effect of the protein. Magnesium carbonate and epsom salts can also be useful and safe supplements, except when the synthetic material causes an allergic bowel reaction.” -Ray Peat, PhD

This is the Functional Alps guy (is that Rob Turner?) who is very Peatian in orientation.
So...interpretation of Peat, not Peat himself.
Still valuable enough to include here I think:

Anything that lowers the metabolic rate will affect sleep quality and increase exposure to darkness. A workout late in the day is correlated to poor sleep quality. Exercise suppresses metabolism, affects blood sugar, increases blood viscosity making clots more common, and raises stress hormones in a similar way that darkness does.

Digestible foods should pervade the diet and be combined in a way that balances blood sugar – meals should should contain a carbohydrate source and a protein source. Protein intake from animal sources should be a minimum of 70g of protein daily. Carbohydrate intake should often be 1.5 to 2 time higher than protein intake to energize the body and blunt the stress response and the inflammatory, anti-mitochondria mediators that accompany it.

----

from Danny Roddy's wonderful, if raw, trove "Ray Peat's Brain":
http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/2011...ding-a-foundation-for-better-understandi.html

I've always been very sedentary, but I have usually had close to 150 grams daily. The traditional meat eaters didn't waste anything,ate all the skin, ears, tails, snouts, feet,tendons, lungs, intestines, marrow, blood,brains, gonads and other glands, picked the ligaments off the bones, so they had a much better balance of amino acids. (Small town restaurants in Mexico, China, etc., still serve those.) Muscle meats are essentially a refined food.

-A daily diet that includes two quarts of milk and a quart of orange juice provides enough fructose and other sugars for general resistance to stress, but larger amounts of fruit juice, honey, or other sugars can protect against increased stress, and can reverse some of the established degenerative conditions. Refined granulated sugar is extremely pure, but it lacks all of the essential nutrients, so it should be considered as a temporary therapeutic material, or as an occasional substitute when good fruit isn't available, or when available honey is allergenic.

-Milk, cheese, and fruits provide a very good balance of nutrients. Fruits provide a significant amount of protein. Plain sugar is o.k. when the other nutrients are adequate. Roots, shoots, and tubers are, next to the fruits, a good carbohydrate source; potatoes are a source of good protein. Meat as the main protein can provide too much phosphorus in relation to calcium.

-I have often had a gallon of orange juice in a day, with 100 grams of other sugar, and didn't see any problem, even while being sedentary. If your metabolic rate is high, with a pound of sugar you will still have an appetite for quite a bit of fat and protein.
People can do well on high or low fat or carbohydrate, but when the carbohydrate is very low, some of the protein will be wasted as fuel, replacing the missing glucose.
Appetite should be the basic guide. When your liver has enough glycogen stored, sweet things aren't appetizing.

-It's better to take your protein during the day, sugar and fat in the evening. The powdered protein lacks most of the nutrients, so you probably need some fruit, eggs, and liver, for the other nutrients, including potassium and magnesium.

-----------

Interesting stuff from this website thead:
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=419742

[Again, not quotes from Peat, but a round-up of info from posters on that forum.
Interpretation of Peat and purported consultation advice from Peat.
Take with a grain of salt.]

Fats: Best sources are coconut oil and butter; olive oil and macadamia nut oil sparingly. He is a big fan of (refined) coconut oil to stimulate the metabolism. Among nuts and nut oils, macadamia is probably the safest. See the Omega-6 list below for more info.

Orange juice is great because of it’s potassium and magnesium content.

Beverages: Coffee supports the metabolism but has to be consumed with some sugar or with meal to prevent stress response due to low blood sugar. Because of the tannins in tea, it's important to use either lemon or milk (or cream). The histamine in red wine is a special problem for hypothyroid people, usually it isn't harmful

Regarding his recommendation of daily gelatin: For an adult, gelatin can be a major protein in the diet, since the need for cysteine and tryptophan decreases greatly when growth slows.

-----------

from another Danny Roddy blog article:
Carbon Dioxide the Real Reason Safe Starches Are a Joke
http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/2012...the-real-reason-safe-starches-are-a-joke.html

Milk, cheese, and fruits provide a very good balance of nutrients. Fruits provide a significant amount of protein. Plain sugar is o.k. when the other nutrients are adequate. Roots, shoots, and tubers are, next to the fruits, a good carbohydrate source; potatoes are a source of good protein. Meat as the main protein can provide too much phosphorus in relation to calcium."--[attributed to Peat, I believe]

and an interesting comment from a reader to Roddy:

Hey Danny, I agree with the previous commenter who pointed out that the term "safe starches" does not refer to glycemic impact or demonization of fructose. It's a term coined by the Jaminets to mean sources of starch w/o toxins like gluten, phytates, lectins and such. The arch LC'ers claim no starches are safe because they will all cause a postprandial glucose and insulin spike.
Either way, interesting article!
May 23, 2012 | Evelyn aka CarbSane

-----------
from that Shomon interview:

Mary Shomon: You've mentioned eggs, milk and gelatin as good for the thyroid. Can you explain a bit more about this?

Dr. Ray Peat: Milk contains a small amount of thyroid and progesterone, but it also contains a good balance of amino acids. For adults, the amino acid balance of cheese might be even better, since the whey portion of milk contains more tryptophan than the curd, and tryptophan excess is significantly antagonistic to thyroid function. The muscle meats contain so much tryptophan and cysteine (which is both antithyroid and potentially excitotoxic) that a pure meat diet can cause hypothyroidism. In poor countries, people have generally eaten all parts of the animal, rather than just the muscles--feet, heads, skin, etc. About half of the protein in an animal is collagen (gelatin), and collagen is deficient in tryptophan and cysteine. This means that, in the whole animal, the amino acid balance is similar to the adult's requirements. Research in the amino acid requirements of adults has been very inadequate, since it has been largely directed toward finding methods to produce farm animals with a minimum of expense for feed. The meat industry isn't interested in finding a diet for keeping chickens, pigs, and cattle healthy into old age. As a result, adult rats have provided most of our direct information about the protein requirements of adults, and since rats keep growing for most of their life, their amino acid requirements are unlikely to be the same as ours.

Dr. Ray Peat: An important function of coconut oil is that it supports mitochondrial respiration, increasing energy production that has been blocked by the unsaturated fatty acids. Since the polyunsaturated fatty acids inhibit thyroid function at many levels, coconut oil can promote thyroid function simply by reducing those toxic effects. It allows normal mitochondrial oxidative metabolism, without producing the toxic lipid peroxidation that is promoted by unsaturated fats.

Mary Shomon: Do you have any thoughts for thyroid patients who are trying to do everything right, and yet still can't lose any weight?

Dr. Ray Peat: Coconut oil added to the diet can increase the metabolic rate. Small frequent feedings, each combining some carbohydrate and some protein, such as fruit and cheese, often help to keep the metabolic rate higher. Eating raw carrots can prevent the absorption of estrogen from the intestine, allowing the liver to more effectively regulate metabolism. If a person doesn't lose excess weight on a moderately low calorie diet with adequate protein, it's clear that the metabolic rate is low. The number of calories burned is a good indicator of the metabolic rate. The amount of water lost by evaporation is another rough indicator: For each liter of water evaporated, about 1000 calories are burned.

------------

from An Interview With Dr. Raymond Peat:
A Renowned Nutritional Counselor Offers His Thoughts About Thyroid Disease
http://www.thyroid-info.com/articles/ray-peat.htm

-Muscle meats (including the muscles of poultry and fish) contain large amounts of the amino acids that suppress the thyroid, and shouldn't be the only source of protein. It's a good idea to have a quart of milk (about 32 grams of protein) every day, besides a variety of other high quality proteins, including cheeses, eggs, shellfish, and potatoes. The protein of potatoes is extremely high quality, and the quantity, in terms of a percentage, is similar to that of milk.

-That depends on your size, metabolic rate, and activity, and the other nutrients, but I sometimes have more than that [400 G OF CARBOHYDRATE], including the sugar in milk and orange juice (and I'm about your size, and very sedentary). The fructose component of ordinary sugar (sucrose) helps to increase the metabolic rate. I think a person of average size should have at least 180 grams per day, maybe an average of about 250 grams.

-Sugar helps the liver to make cholesterol, switching from starchy vegetables to sweet fruits will usually bring cholesterol levels up to normal. If the fat is mostly saturated, from milk, cheese, butter, beef, lamb or coconut oil, I think it's usually o.k. to get about 50% of the calories from fat, but since those natural fats typically contain around 2% polyunsaturated fats, I try to minimize my PUFA intake by having more fruit, and a little less fat, maybe 30 to 35%.

-------

from http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/AV-Skeptics/message/15989

These are not Peat quotes, but purported Peat advice related to someone who had a private consultation.
These kinds of info are great, but also requirement some skepticism.
First, the chain of communication could make the statements less that accurate.
Second, Peat may give certain advice to someone with a specific situation--but if that situation
is not presented along with the advice
it could make the advice misleading.

-he avoids most vegetables due to their intrinsic (defensive) toxins.
> He occasionally makes leaf broth for some extra minerals, but usually
> prefers for a cow to process them for him. Mainly he thinks of them as
> condiments.
>
> - underground (root/tuber) vegetables are okay if cooked for about 40
> minutes, and fruit-vegetables (tomatoes, peppers) are okay if you're
> not allergic to them.
>
> - he avoids all other above-ground vegetables, including greens and
> many herbs (basil, etc) due to toxins (even if cooked) that far
> outweigh the benefits.
>
> - says that cooked young squashes are generally good for everyone, and
> although raw shredded carrots are "nutrient subtractive," it's good to
> have a plate of them every day because they lower estrogen (and thus
> stimulate the thyroid) and accelerate peristalsis.

---------
from another Roddy blog article: Peat vs Paleo
http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/2011/4/4/peat-vs-paleo.html

As for sugar vs. starch:
"Starch and glucose efficiently stimulate insulin secretion, and that accelerates the disposition of glucose, activating its conversion to glycogen and fat, as well as its oxidation. Fructose inhibits the stimulation of insulin by glucose, so this means that eating ordinary sugar, sucrose (a disaccharide, consisting of glucose and fructose), in place of starch, will reduce the tendency to store fat."--Peat

---------------

from Peat's Vegetables, etc.—Who Defines Food?:
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/vegetables.shtml

A particular plant will have a variety of defensive chemicals, with specific functions. Underground, the plant’s roots and tubers are susceptible to attack by fungi and nematodes. The leaves, stems, and seeds are susceptible to attack by insects, birds, and grazing animals. Since the plant’s seeds are of unique importance to the plant, and contain a high concentration of nutrients, they must have special protection. Sometimes this consists of a hard shell, and sometimes of chemicals that inhibit the animal’s digestive enzymes. Many plants have evolved fruits that provide concentrated food for animals, and that serve to distribute the seeds widely, as when a bird eats a berry, and excretes the undigested seed at a great distance. If the fruit were poisonous, it wouldn’t serve the plant’s purpose so well. In general, the plant’s most intense toxins are in its seeds, and the fruits, when mature, generally contain practically no toxins. Roots contain chemicals that inhibit microorganisms, but because they aren’t easily accessible by grazing animals and insects, they don’t contain the digestive inhibitors that are more concentrated in the above-ground organs of the plant.
Animal proteins, and fruits, because they contain the lowest levels of toxins, should form the basis of the diet. Not all fruits, of course, are perfectly safe--avocados, for example, contain so much unsaturated fat that they can be carcinogenic and hepatotoxic.

Generally, fruits, roots, and tubers provide a high concentration of nutrients along with low concentrations of toxic antimetabolic substances.