Peat Got The Fats Quite Wrong

[Such_Saturation]

post 99701

PUFA can have beneficial effects.

Which ones ?

It can displace other PUFA

 

[XPlus]

The real flaw is evaluating your health based on random numbers established as "healthy" perameters.

+ 1

On an occasion such as this, i'd be honoured to present you with an oven-fresh RP quote:

The drug industry has been lowering the numbers for cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood glucose that are considered to be the upper limit of normal, increasing the number of customers for their prescription drugs. Recently, publications have been claiming that the upper limit of the normal range of heart rates should be lower than 100 beats per minute; this would encourage doctors to prescribe more drugs to slow hearts, but the way the evidence is being presented, invoking the discredited "wear and tear" theory of aging, could have many unexpected harmful consequences. It would reinforce existing misconceptions about heart functions.

As far as I know, the extra cholesterol is usually attributed to low thyroid function.

 

[jb116]

post 99708

post 99701

PUFA can have beneficial effects.

Which ones ?

It can displace other PUFA

 

[Such_Saturation]

post 99718

post 99708

post 99701

PUFA can have beneficial effects.

Which ones ?

It can displace other PUFA

Seriously that's what fish oil does

 

[montmorency]

I'm not saying I agree with the thesis of the following video - in fact it challenges a lot of what I thought I knew - but it raises some interesting questions, and I wouldn't now dismiss it without further investigation.

Some of it is probably compatible with what Peat says, and other parts probably are not.

See what you think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iosoXlr3ZVI

(Dr John McDougall - Ad libitum starch-based diets)

(One thing I would query with him is that for one of the patients he presents as a success, and whose blood pressure he said was good, clearly had systolic pressure welll into the hypertensive range on the data we saw. However, he was going through them so quickly it wasn't clear if that was a "before" or "after".).

Well, at least he is not pushing drugs, so that's a point in his favour. There again, he was talking about "products" - why would you need "products" if it's all supposed to be natural starches like spuds, rice and legumes? hmm. Personally I'd die of boredom on that diet, if I wasn't able to add some good butter and occasional cheese.He's pretty anti- all fats.

 

[jb116]

post 99720

post 99718

post 99708

post 99701

PUFA can have beneficial effects.

Which ones ?

It can displace other PUFA

Seriously that's what fish oil does

Such_, it's all about your delivery
no but really, yes, probably the only use for n-3 is that sort of balancing act against the inundation of n-6's. agreed.

 

[tara]

post 99706 You seem to be really hung up on your cholesterol level. I'm curious as to what it actually is?

Ditto.

 

[Steffi]

Not really hung up on those values, rather wanted to mention them as a personal sidenote. The scientific papers that strongly oppose what I understood that Ray and the community here recommend is what I wanted to point out. And I tried to link some interesting stuff for anyone. I wish I had found that kind of "critique" against Ray's theory. Initially I never found anything badly antagonizing Ray and I wanted to believe it, too. I very much agree with Ray's philosophy but I think he took it a bit too far with the biochemistry.

Thanks to everyone who pointed me towards other new information. It's a good discussion!

As for the personal stuff, I couldn't say if I am better now. Sure some things are better with the thyroid (T4 right now, desiccated didn't work for me I assume due to horrible manufacturing/standardization). Some things are also worse and I have to deal with others I never had in my life ever before (high body fat, heartburn, constipation and very slow bowels, joint problems). And I don't blame that on the diet, but it sure didn't make things just well.

 

[Giraffe]

post 99562 Further I was quite taken aback finding out that babies born to moms with untreated gestational diabetes (what Ray kind of describes as positive cause it supposedly makes the babies smarter) is also making them likely to develop diabetes later in life!

I assume that you are referring to the text below. Please note that Peat is discussing the use of insuline:

I have known adults and children who were diagnosed as diabetic, and given insulin (and indoctrinated with the idea that they had a terminal degenerative disease) on the strength of a single test showing excessive glucose. When I taught at the naturopathic medical school in Portland, I tried to make it clear that "diabetes" (a term referring to excessive urination) is a function, and that a high level of glucose in the blood or urine is also a function, and that the use of insulin should require a
greater diagnostic justification than the use of aspirin for a headache does, because insulin use itself constitutes a serious health problem. (And we seldom hear the idea that "diabetes" might have a positive side [Robinson and Johnston], for example that it reduces the symptoms of asthma [Vianna and Garcialeme], which get worse when insulin is given. Normal pregnancy can be considered "diabetic" by some definitions based on blood sugar. I got interested in this when I talked to a healthy "diabetic" woman who had a two year old child whose IQ must have been over 200, judging by his spontaneous precocious hobbies. Old gynecologists told me that it was common knowledge that "diabetic" women had intellectually precocious children.)

Diabetes, scleroderma, oils and hormones

 

[Giraffe]

post 99816 The scientific papers that strongly oppose what I understood that Ray and the community here recommend is what I wanted to point out. And I tried to link some interesting stuff for anyone. I wish I had found that kind of "critique" against Ray's theory.

In order to accept that this Swedish examination paper you linked proves Peat wrong one has to agree that blood lipids alone are a legit marker of health. The paper does not state what values are optimal. Does that mean the lower the better? I beg to differ.

The first study is full of flaws (Tara pointed that out already).

By the way, In the other two studies the total blood lipids in the coconut oil diets were 178 an 198 mg/dl. These values are in the healthy range even according to mainstream thinking.

online converter

post 99605 And before I started eating implementing Ray's philosophy I had "perfect" blood lipid levels despite being clinically hypo!

You put the word in quotation marks. Any doubts about "perfect" being optimal?

post 99562 Palmitic acid causes insulin resistance:
..........
And causes diabetes even further by killing insulin making ß-cells of the pancreas (Maedler, 2001).
Oleic Acid seems to be the one king of FAs that is really only good (it can even reverse damage caused by palmitic acid):

Palmitic acid in coconut oil (9 %), in olive oil (11.5 %)?

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pflanzen%C3%B6le

As to these in vitro studies... Have you read the stuff jyb linked?

 

[YuraCZ]

Seriously that's what fish oil does

So you truly believe that eating some fish for example sardine has a same negative effect as ingesting sunflower oil for example? It doesn't make any sense to me..

 

[jb116]

post 99842

Seriously that's what fish oil does

So you truly believe that eating some fish for example sardine has a same negative effect as ingesting sunflower oil for example? It doesn't make any sense to me..

no actually that wasn't sarcasm. Some n3 will displace n6. It's a reason why some claim fish oil to be good for you when really its a lesser evil balancing another evil in which we should not have in our bodies to begin with and we would not need that lesser evil at all. Now, comparing them as foods? Well of course sardines will be more nutritious relative to sunflower oil, goes without saying.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Grilled with salt, lemon and fresh tomatoes

 

[Peata]

From an old post that should be of interest: A Reply to Ray Peat on Essential Fatty Acid Deficiency

 

[tara]

I forget sometimes, though of course this was me too not so long ago, that some people may not be familiar with even the simplest forms of the mainstream views about which Peat points to contrary evidence and perspectives.

Eg.
High cholesterol bad, PUFA lowers cholesterol more than SFA, therefore PUFA good and SFA bad.
High cholesterol is associated with CVD. CVD kills. Therefore lowering cholesterol will save lives.
Diabetes causes high blood sugar, diabetes causes damage, therefore lowering diabetic blood sugar to the normal range by any means is protective.
High fat mass is associated with many degenerative conditions. Therefore all fat people should lose weight as fast as possible.

I think it would be good to make an effort to understand what Peat is saying about the weaknesses in these theories, and addressing this, before proclaiming him wrong (if you still have reason to think so after getting a fuller picture).

 

[andrewdcjr]

You never addressed the question about your fat intake. I feel like a lot of people jump on the Peat wagon, misinterpret or simply are told some bad information and start adding liberal amounts of butter, coconut oil, and ice cream to everything. As stated before, that is not a good idea, nor what Peat suggests. For many this would make problems worse and because you haven't responded with your fat intake, I'm just going to assume that is what you were doing as well.

 

[Steffi]

@tara:
If you look at the thread's topic you will see that I did not generalize - generally. My critical information is targeted at the fats and questions Ray's "PUFA pure evil, SFA super, healthy, protective" paradigm. I also said that I agree with Ray's philosophy. Reading Ray's papers I can't help, though, but feel, him opposing mainstream seems to become a mission in itself sometimes. So far as to going overboard and ignoring and negating a possible truth just because it was obtained in conservative ways.
What I really dislike is when Ray praises facts as positive that may be positive in the very special circumstance he is talking about, but he fails to put that into relation and admit that it is "normally not good".

@andrewdcjr
Oh yes, I am pretty sure I increased my fat intake quite a bit. I craved coconut oil for months and I still love it. I'm talking pure! I got fatter and not more active like the pigs. Maybe 2 table spoons a day. I still had trouble covering my calories. Milkfat probably played the bigger role with me hating skim milk back then. But for the past 4 months this has been history and I'm watching my fat intake for the first time in my life. At least I don't seem to get fatter a the moment.

 

[Giraffe]

post 100254 Reading Ray's papers I can't help, though, but feel, him opposing mainstream seems to become a mission in itself sometimes. So far as to going overboard and ignoring and negating a possible truth just because it was obtained in conservative ways.
What I really dislike is when Ray praises facts as positive that may be positive in the very special circumstance he is talking about, but he fails to put that into relation and admit that it is "normally not good".

You disagree with statements Peat has made, except that he has not made them. It would help if you could quote Peat where you feel that "he fails to put [something] into relation" and discuss these quotes.

 

[schultz]

Oh yes, I am pretty sure I increased my fat intake quite a bit.

Ray doesn't really recommend eating a high fat diet if you want to remain thin. When he talks about taking teaspoons of coconut oil as a supplement, it is generally in the context of a lower fat diet. Ray himself doesn't consume coconut oil everyday, he just uses it to fry things in (I believe he says this in the second Kim Greenhouse interview).

I'm watching my fat intake for the first time in my life

Then you are now following Ray's advice.

I'm not saying this to attack you or be mean, but I'm not sure you have a very good grasp of Ray's work. People come on this forum all the time and claim Ray is wrong about things but most of the time it seems these people haven't really followed much of his work. A lot of the time it seems like these people just read one or two of his articles and then get the rest of their knowledge from reading various forums talking about Ray. One of my pet peeves is when people get misrepresented. For example, Ray has mentioned in the past that he makes "gummy bears" with gelatin and juice concentrate and he also mentions ice cream as well. I've read on other forums people saying things like "He recommends eating gummy bears and ice cream" as if that's the main focus of his diet. Now everyone who reads that post thinks that is what Ray recommends. It's information out of context.

So I encourage you to read his 5 books, the articles on his website and all the audio interviews. I believe there are 99 audio interviews and some of them are over an hour long, so that means over 100 hours of audio. Treated as a full time job it would take you 2 and a half weeks to listen to all those interviews.

 

[Such_Saturation]

So today is the 100th interview?