Peat Used To Be A Fan Of Low Carb, No Sugar Diets

[lampofred]

From Nutrition for Women:

-Says calories from sugar are far inferior compared to calories from protein and will mess up your digestion so that even other foods won't get assimilated properly
-Says atkins low carb diet is good for energy
-Says cancer lives mostly on sugar
-Says carbon dioxide is radioactive

One quote: "Many dietitians insist that you must have at least 100 grams of carbohydrate daily because the brain 'uses glucose.' However, the brain can adapt to using the ketones which result from fat oxidation."

Lmao what the... How do you literally turn 180 on two of the most fundamental parts of your research (sugar, Co2)?

Next thing you know if I dig deeper he probably praised PUFA and demonized sat fat before.

 

[Diokine]

I certainly hope I don't think the same way I do now, in twenty years.

 

[theLaw]

From Nutrition for Women:

-Says calories from sugar are far inferior compared to calories from protein and will mess up your digestion so that even other foods won't get assimilated properly
-Says atkins low carb diet is good for energy
-Says cancer lives mostly on sugar
-Says carbon dioxide is radioactive

One quote: "Many dietitians insist that you must have at least 100 grams of carbohydrate daily because the brain 'uses glucose.' However, the brain can adapt to using the ketones which result from fat oxidation."

Lmao what the... How do you literally turn 180 on two of the most fundamental parts of your research (sugar, Co2)?

Next thing you know if I dig deeper he probably praised PUFA and demonized sat fat before.

Might be more constructive to add actual quotes from the book instead of your own personal interpretation.

Also, the single quote that you posted is not necessarily pro-fat, but Peat simply noting that it can be done.

The fact that you missed this makes me wonder about the legitimacy of your other interpretations.

 

[James IV]

He actually recommended lower carb for the majority of his career. I have shared this many times, but it's usually ignored or dismissed round these parts, which is understandable based on the restrictive background, much of the community is coming from.

I still am not sure he recommends a "high" carb diet as opposed to a sufficient amount of carbs to meet liver and muscle glycogen requirements. He has said no one knows the optimal macro ratios, and it's likely very much individual.

My diet is not high carb, overall, but rather sufficient carb and fat (based on activity) with an emphasis on protein and micronutrtion. I have spoken to Dr Peat and he has told me my diet sounds "very healthy."

I think many people actually harm themselves because they are so worried about fat burning being harmful, when the reality is, your body will "burn" fat to some degree, no matter how many carbs you eat.

 

[Mito]

My diet is not high carb, overall, but rather sufficient carb and fat (based on activity) with an emphasis on protein and micronutrtion. I have spoken to Dr Peat and he has told me my diet sounds "very healthy."

Maybe you don't track your macros closely, but what would you guess for your typical C/F/P ratio?

 

[James IV]

Maybe you don't track your macros closely, but what would you guess for your typical C/F/P ratio?

Oh man, that's a tough one. My macros float depending on the day, and I don't track anything so please keep that in mind.
If I had to guess I'd estimate 30/30/40 on an average day.
40/20/40 on training/high activity days.
And an occasional 60/20/20 for hormone optimization.

But keep in mind my calories also fluctuate pretty dramatically, so those ratios are relative. Some days I'll eat probably 2000 calories, some days I'll eat 6000+. I always follow hunger, I don't consciously restrict calories.

 

[encerent]

Didn't Peat update Nutrition for Women as well?

 

[Energizer]

From Nutrition for Women:

-Says calories from sugar are far inferior compared to calories from protein and will mess up your digestion so that even other foods won't get assimilated properly
-Says atkins low carb diet is good for energy
-Says cancer lives mostly on sugar
-Says carbon dioxide is radioactive

One quote: "Many dietitians insist that you must have at least 100 grams of carbohydrate daily because the brain 'uses glucose.' However, the brain can adapt to using the ketones which result from fat oxidation."

Lmao what the... How do you literally turn 180 on two of the most fundamental parts of your research (sugar, Co2)?

Next thing you know if I dig deeper he probably praised PUFA and demonie szed sat fat before.

Nowhere in your post is there any evidence he said any of these things you are claiming he wrote. He's warned many times about people interpreting his work out of context, but you're doing the exact thing he warned about. I'm all for constructive criticism, but your post smacks of someone who doesn't really have a thorough handle on Ray's work. And obviously I am biased, but I think it's important to be fair to his work. If he did indeed say these things, please cite the page and full quote. Also you make it sound like a bad thing to change your mind once in a while, it would be worrisome if he never changed his mind. By the way, I suspect the digital version some people are reading from online (ie. from torrent sites or libgen) may not be current with the printed edition, in fact I doubt it is.

 

[DaveFoster]

I wrote my senior thesis (although in high school) on how carbohydrates cause heart disease by promoting VLDL accumulation. I made so many off-hand remarks about the "fat-phobia" in my peers. Given, I always supported saturated fat as a prime energy source, and saturated fat has been the only thing of which I've remained intellectually supportive for the totality of my journey. I've also never eaten a high-fat meal and felt bad in the least.

 

[theLaw]

It should be noted that Peat has not yet released digital versions of his books claiming that the file size is too large to email, which doesn't seem to make sense in the current digital publishing climate.

To be fair, if Peat doesn't want others misrepresenting his work, then he should also be willing to make those updated texts available.

 

[Energizer]

It should be noted that Peat has not yet released digital versions of his books claiming that the file size is too large to email, which doesn't seem to make sense in the current digital publishing climate.

To be fair, if Peat doesn't want others misrepresenting his work, then he should also be willing to make those updated texts available.

Not trying to start a flame war, but I don't think Peat is responsible for how other people choose to interpret his work. His current stuff is on his website and newsletters, and people should be able to figure out that his books may not be as current as the articles. Also I thought he was working on a way to release the digital copies online with his publisher (he mentioned that in a podcast recently I forget which one, might have been with Danny Roddy), I'm not sure what happened with that but maybe he is still working on it. Maybe he's not very tech savvy or perhaps that's just not his top priority since he seems to have a lot going on at once.

 

[lvysaur]

I've also never eaten a high-fat meal and felt bad in the least.

until you get the shits

 

[Energizer]

I wrote my senior thesis (although in high school) on how carbohydrates cause heart disease by promoting VLDL accumulation. I made so many off-hand remarks about the "fat-phobia" in my peers. Given, I always supported saturated fat as a prime energy source, and saturated fat has been the only thing of which I've remained intellectually supportive for the totality of my journey. I've also never eaten a high-fat meal and felt bad in the least.

It's disturbing how ingrained the cult against against saturated fat is. As a kid I never thought butter is bad (it always tasted delicious to me). But people in my family think butter and saturated fat "clogs your arteries" and gives you high cholesterol, and I've spoken to many acquaintances who seem to think the same thing sadly. It's a huge uphill battle to defend your life choices when you have so many people who think you're insane. And you can nearly forget about trying to talk about saturated fat as a positive thing unless you're with a close friend, to me it's rather absurd, but hey at least it seems like more people are becoming aware that it's good for you.

 

[DaveFoster]

It's disturbing how ingrained the cult against against saturated fat is. As a kid I never thought butter is bad (it always tasted delicious to me). But people in my family think butter and saturated fat "clogs your arteries" and gives you high cholesterol, and I've spoken to many acquaintances who seem to think the same thing sadly. It's a huge uphill battle to defend your life choices when you have so many people who think you're insane. And you can nearly forget about trying to talk about saturated fat as a positive thing unless you're with a close friend, to me it's rather absurd, but hey, at least it seems like more people are becoming aware that it's good for you.

It's much more satisfying to sarcastically mock people for their various illnesses when they espouse their condescending lectures on health.

"Oh yeah Mr. Hypertension, I'll stop salting my food so much because it's obviously working for you."

"Okay there Shakers, I'm sure your Parkinson's reflects your credibility that milk causes brain diseases. Oh, you never used to drink much milk? Well that's working out for you quite nicely, isn't it."

 

[Energizer]

It's much more satisfying to sarcastically mock people for their various illnesses when they espouse their condescending lectures on health.

"Oh yeah Mr. Hypertension, I'll stop salting my food so much because it's obviously working for you."

"Okay there Shakers, I'm sure your Parkinson's reflects your credibility that milk causes brain diseases. Oh, you never used to drink much milk? Well that's working out for you quite nicely, isn't it?"

That's funny, I might try that tactic out myself.

 

[theLaw]

Not trying to start a flame war, but I don't think Peat is responsible for how other people choose to interpret his work. His current stuff is on his website and newsletters, and people should be able to figure out that his books may not be as current as the articles. Also I thought he was working on a way to release the digital copies online with his publisher (he mentioned that in a podcast recently I forget which one, might have been with Danny Roddy), I'm not sure what happened with that but maybe he is still working on it. Maybe he's not very tech savvy or perhaps that's just not his top priority since he seems to have a lot going on at once.

To a degree you're right, but then why release his book digitally at all?

Keep in mind, Danny asked him about his books in December of last year, and he mentioned the file size as the issue hindering him from moving forward.

But, as you mentioned, perhaps Peat doesn't see that material as a priority. Maybe the digital publication is just a practical matter giving the rising costs of analog publishing.

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

Lmao what the... How do you literally turn 180 on two of the most fundamental parts of your research (sugar, Co2)?

LOL. Well, sugar being super yummy probably made the 180 slightly easier.

 

[lvysaur]

Well, sugar being super yummy probably made the 180 slightly easier.

Is it more yummy than fat though?

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Is it more yummy than fat though?

Yes because sugar is yummy by itself but fat needs salt or sugar to be yummy. You can have sweet fat like ice cream or a sorbet so that's both sugar and fat. Pure sucrose is sweet and doesn't need salt or anything else to be yummy. But if you're not craving sweet then you crave salt. Fat without salt is not yummy, outside of the sweet fat. Trying to swallow pure oil of any kind makes me vomit. Saltless butter is disgusting but with salt it's just right. Saltless cheese would be inedible. It's the combination of fat and salt or fat and sugar that is yummy.

 

[Such_Saturation]