Peat Wrong About EFA Deficiency, Omega 3s

[Cloudhands]

I think that its pretty goofy how people say things like "a peat inspired diet isnt a diet" "he doesnt reccomend any particular foods just ideas" etc then we see people just on milk and oj. I think cutting out whole food groups, including pufa, is a diet dogma and pretty neurotic. I agree that canola oil is bad, and we dont need fish oil per se either, but the attitude of ignoring loads of evidence just because people (who usually havent read many of the studies peat cites) cant beleive someone peats stature could be wrong is nuts. Id even consider alot of the habits on here OCD and BPD etc. People are always like "i used to be vegan, then i was paleo, then i was keto, then i was carnivore, well im glad im done with all that and ive finally found peat, this must be the one!"...like whoa lmao just eat normal, whole foods, cut out things that cause u problems, do some of your own research and its probably a good idea to recognize that EFA deficiency exists lol, even some of the most revered writers on this forum have admitted to such a thing ( @tyw , @Travis , etc) but yeah, dont just watch danny roddy, ray peat and georgi dinkov talk and then be like damnit theyre right i agree with every word they say....also probably not a good idea to obsess over diet in the first place....u become neurotic...its a "high seritonin" behavior lol

 

[Ritchie]

I appreciate your honesty here Tara. I do think those more seasoned in the Peat sphere and who have experimented with his recommendations should be more vocal about the apparent and clear flaws in some of his nutritional approaches and recommendations.

But I do think he is often much more cautious in his claims than some people give him credit for

The issue comes when he states things as matter of fact when they are based on not fully realised or potentiated science. Ie. in vitro studies or a couple of animal studies. He never mentions the lack of weight a scientific claim he makes may have, or the lack of further exploration that may be needed for solid conclusions. He rather just lists some studies. Most people don't know the first thing about science, the hierarchy of evidence in scientific exploration (particularly in physiology and how it relates to nutrition), and so they think any citation is great scientific evidence. What would be better would be to state something like "some experimentation has indicated that X may be the case, however research has been limited to in-vitro and animal studies and so further research is needed to be conclusive."

I'm not sure I know what contradictions you are talking about.

There are many, and this is partly because Peat's scientific perspective is great in one sense but problematic in another. On the one hand he has a very holistic and great overview of physiology, yet on the other he looks at mechanisms almost in isolation via in vitro or questionable animal studies, and then makes general nutritional conclusions and recommendations in the human context (possibly over-confidently due to his expansive knowledge of physiology). His position on starch is a perfect example. Based on some animal studies from decades ago, feeding rats uncooked starch particles and/or inserting said starch particles up the animals anus, and then scientists observing some amount of persorption. From this he concluded persorption of starch in humans. I mean...
He recommends against fibre and vegetables yet advises people to eat raw carrots every day for the fibre, due to an animal study where they fed rats carrots and the carrot fibre helped their endotoxin etc. He'll say that carrot fibre is unique, however there is no evidence of this being the case, apart from said animal study. Mind you he recommends against betacarotene consumption yet carrots everyday. He recommended against eating mushrooms for decades then did a 180 when he realised that cooking mushrooms eliminated the toxic issues. It goes on...
At the end of the day Peat's mind is amazing, and it is fascinating to explore his theories. However it is important to realise we are essentially engaged in experimentation when applying them in our lives to a degree.

There're lots of interpretations of Peat's 'advice' on here.

That's because many of his recommendations are at loger heads with each other - High sugar/energy diet yet starch to be avoided or at least sugar over starch. Low iron yet red meat, (same with tryptophan). Low IgF-1 and casomorphins yet dairy. etc

And his specific advice is intended for specific people and contexts (not intended for everybody all the time).

That's true however he certainly gives general overall dietary advice - something like a diet high in dairy, sugar, low pufa and some liver etc.

I think some of Peat's information and views have been useful.
He offers explanations about mechanisms, references to studies, anecdotes, and sometimes specific advice for particular situations 'have you tried...?'.

Agreed.

It wouldn't work for me (or anyone, I think) to follow all the advise Peat has ever given to anybody, indefinitely.
I've tried out some ideas, kept some and modified some.

Same.

 

[Ritchie]

He definitely makes these sorts of leaps, but I think he bases them off of not necessarily direct evidence but I guess what you might call indirect evidence. He uses what he has read or learned from reading through many other books or papers and sort of pieces together a theory which makes the most sense to him

Yes I agree.

Unfortunately science is almost certainly never that clear. Even those studies are subject to the parameters the researchers have dialed in, or the pre-conceived ideas the researchers have, etc. It can just take one "assumption" to ruin a study

Agreed, however human studies are certainly a good start and far better than animal or in-vitro. Many replicable and repeated human studies with the same or similar outcomes is even better and so forth.

What Ray has done is actually only the first few steps. Ideally, if he had unlimited resources, he would start testing his ideas and using his knowledge to do experiments. I think this would propel his ideas forward. But he would need a lot of money to do this I think

100%. Hence those who follow Peat's advise are in a sense part of the experimentation of his ideas. The proof will be in the pudding, so to speak. Some of his ideas will work, some won't.

 

[boris]

His position on starch is a perfect example. Based on some animal studies from decades ago, feeding rats uncooked starch particles and/or inserting said starch particles up the animals anus, and then scientists observing some amount of persorption. From this he concluded persorption of starch in humans. I mean...

Ray Peat: “When starch is well cooked, and eaten with some fat and the essential nutrients, it’s safe, except that it’s more likely than sugar to produce fat, and isn’t as effective for mineral balance.”

He recommends against fibre and vegetables yet advises people to eat raw carrots every day for the fibre [...]

Ray Peat: “The food industry is promoting the use of various gums and starches, which are convenient thickeners and stabilizers for increasing self-life, with the argument that the butyric acid produced when they are fermented by intestinal bacteria is protective. However, intestinal fermentation increases systemic and brain serotonin, and the short-chain fatty acids can produce a variety of inflammatory and cytotoxic effect. Considering the longevity and stress-resistance of germ-free animals, choosing foods (such as raw carrots or cooked bamboo shoots or cooked mushrooms) which accelerate peristalsis and speed transit through the bowel, which suppressing bacterial growth, seems like a convenient approach to increasing longevity.”

Ray Peat: "The right kind of fiber can benefit a variety of bowel problems. However, some types of fiber can exacerbate the problem[...]"

Ray Peat: "In general, cellulose fibers do protect against bowel cancer, but a few plant fibers that contain lignin or that are fermentable increase cancer. Wheat bran is the only common cereal fiber that’s protective."

Ray Peat: "Keeping a fairly quick transit time usually goes with an abundance of digestive secretions, keeping the small intestine free of bacteria. Fiber, good thyroid function, and antiseptic foods such as cooked mushrooms, bamboo shoots, and raw carrots help."

Ray Peat: "A high fiber diet also lowers the risk of bowel cancer, and is being used increasingly for preventing and treating conditions such as colitis and diverticulitis."

Ray Peat: “Undigestible fiber, if it isn’t broken down by bowel bacteria, increases fecal bulk, and tends to speed the transit of material through the intestine, just as laxatives do. But some of these “fiber” materials, e.g., lignin, are themselves estrogenic, and other fibers, by promoting bacterial growth, can promote the conversion of harmless substances into toxins and carcinogens. When there is a clear “antiestrogen” effect from dietary fiber, it seems to be the result of accelerated transit through the intestine, speeding elimination and preventing reabsorption of the estrogen which has been excreted in the bile. Laxatives have this same effect on the excretion of estradiol.”



The problem are people like you, confusing others by making things up and taking his comments out of context.

 

[gaze]

I follow Rays typical advice (and his advice he's kind enough to email me) and his own personal diet almost exactly and I have for about a year, I guess im in the minority. 2 quarts of milk, around 1.5 quarts of OJ, an egg, cream and coffee, cafe con leche, a carrot, shellfish once a week, some meat sometimes, salty cheese. The whole point is to eat to maintain a body temp of 98.6 throughout the day, you should feel "normal" not overly hot or sweaty, if a diet makes you feel "normal", with balanced blood sugar, no crashes after eating something, then its probably working for you. I've tried just eating more food in conventional type of meals to raise temperature usually what ends up happening is it leads to lactic acid problems and feelings of slight mineral deficiencies, especially if using refined starches, and whole grains and potatoes cause gas. I think where people go wrong with the RP diet is they force a food. You shouldnt be thinking to eat a food only to reach a quota of milk and OJ in amounts, but those foods ultimately make you crave them more after theyve been digested, and as you begin to satisfy your appetite intuitively more and more with those foods it naturally ended up at 2 quarts for me personally. I used to have blood sugar problems eating a starch, but after following rays advice exactly and raising my temperature, I can eat pretty much anything with no blood sugar effect, but I can still feel some gas or something from a grain, so I can definitely see why ray views certain foods as suboptimal, although with good thyroid any food can be tolerable to a degree. Honestly, Ray pretty much saved my life, I had gone years with serotonin problems and neuroticism and negative thinking, and his advice made me feel like a normal human again who can make decisions with a clear mind and notice the finer details of how I feel in regards to my motivation and outlook on life.

 

[gaze]

There are many, and this is partly because Peat's scientific perspective is great in one sense but problematic in another. On the one hand he has a very holistic and great overview of physiology, yet on the other he looks at mechanisms almost in isolation via in vitro or questionable animal studies, and then makes general nutritional conclusions and recommendations in the human context (possibly over-confidently due to his expansive knowledge of physiology). His position on starch is a perfect example. Based on some animal studies from decades ago, feeding rats uncooked starch particles and/or inserting said starch particles up the animals anus, and then scientists observing some amount of persorption. From this he concluded persorption of starch in humans. I mean...
He recommends against fibre and vegetables yet advises people to eat raw carrots every day for the fibre, due to an animal study where they fed rats carrots and the carrot fibre helped their endotoxin etc. He'll say that carrot fibre is unique, however there is no evidence of this being the case, apart from said animal study. Mind you he recommends against betacarotene consumption yet carrots everyday. He recommended against eating mushrooms for decades then did a 180 when he realised that cooking mushrooms eliminated the toxic issues. It goes on...
At the end of the day Peat's mind is amazing, and it is fascinating to explore his theories. However it is important to realise we are essentially engaged in experimentation when applying them in our lives to a degree.

Rays entire premise is to help hypothyroid people, often people who are on the brink of death, have cancer, dealing with radiation in the past and present, extreme PUFA overloads throughout their lives, are in a chronic state of oxidative stress, chemicals in the environment, infertility problems, psychosis and anger problems. For someone whos dealing with these problems whos system is failing, it is absolutely justified to be cautious of starchy foods for a variety of reasons, and persorption (often people eat undercooked starch) can be a bigger problem when the health issues and digestive problems are more severe. Not to mention the problems with the wrong types of fiber, which can vastly exacerbate serotonin problems with people who have these issues (cancer tumors produce a lot of serotonin on their own, any more from bacteria just makes it harder to live and think). Ray is simply providing his warnings, he doesn't care whether someone eats something or doesn't, he's just offering help and things to be cautious about for people to make their own decisions. He has said repeatedly that with good digestion starch is OK, but it doesn't provide anything extremely special that ripe fruit cant provide, with fruit being safer for compromised people. While all his advice is intended for hypothyroid people, if its safe for hypo people then its even safer for healthy people. Healthy people can get away with eating pretty much anything, but from a preventative standpoint theres good reason to follow a "peaty" diet for the most part.

 

[Steven Bussinger]

I could be wrong, but I've never heard Ray ever outline some diet protocol telling people what foods to eat. He prefers to keep things contextual, recommendations are ad hoc.

As Tara said, it's common to hear him say "have you tried...?" When he is pressed for general diet guidelines, he says "oh, having adequate calcium that is balanced with phosphorous... minimizing the consumption of seed oils... adequate protein... minimizing the inflammatory amino acids... eating ripe fruit... " and stuff like that. That doesn't sound at all like "you need to be drinking a half gallon of low fat milk every day with a half cup of refined sugar".

Ray is providing us with a framework to evaluate our dietary choices. It's up to you to make that framework work for you. You decide where to start and what to focus on.

I get it. There are so many variables to juggle that it's pretty much impossible for a newbie. OP focused on PUFA restriction instead of gut issues. Maybe we need some kind of flow chart for newbies, because it's really a process. It's a journey, and your diet will change because you will change.

I see lots of people get hyper focused on PUFA restriction: they do lots of vitamin E, ask about how to speed up the process, what supplements can I take, etc. It's sexy, it's the "big idea" of Peatarianism. It's how we get people interested in "peating". It's something that most dietary gurus of any camp will agree on, and that's probably why everyone starts there -- that good old scientific consensus.

I can say that now I'm of the opinion that PUFA restriction should take a back seat. Yes, stop eating things covered in canola oil, but otherwise focus on other things. Sort that out later. The real big effects of PUFA intake (high or low) do not reveal themselves for years. Things that, for example, fix glycogen/blood sugar and lower stress hormones are things that are going to have effects today. Use your inner Tim Ferriss and prioritize. Get some quick wins in first to gain inertia.

If you're eating starch, cook it very well until you know for a fact that it won't bother you. It should be very soft. If starch works for you, keep using it. Don't let other people's experience/position in life over-rule your own. Sourcing good fruit can be difficult and very expensive. Well cooked starch is a more achievable starting point.

 

[Ritchie]

Ray Peat: “When starch is well cooked, and eaten with some fat and the essential nutrients, it’s safe, except that it’s more likely than sugar to produce fat, and isn’t as effective for mineral balance.”


Ray Peat: “The food industry is promoting the use of various gums and starches, which are convenient thickeners and stabilizers for increasing self-life, with the argument that the butyric acid produced when they are fermented by intestinal bacteria is protective. However, intestinal fermentation increases systemic and brain serotonin, and the short-chain fatty acids can produce a variety of inflammatory and cytotoxic effect. Considering the longevity and stress-resistance of germ-free animals, choosing foods (such as raw carrots or cooked bamboo shoots or cooked mushrooms) which accelerate peristalsis and speed transit through the bowel, which suppressing bacterial growth, seems like a convenient approach to increasing longevity.”

Ray Peat: "The right kind of fiber can benefit a variety of bowel problems. However, some types of fiber can exacerbate the problem[...]"

Ray Peat: "In general, cellulose fibers do protect against bowel cancer, but a few plant fibers that contain lignin or that are fermentable increase cancer. Wheat bran is the only common cereal fiber that’s protective."

Ray Peat: "Keeping a fairly quick transit time usually goes with an abundance of digestive secretions, keeping the small intestine free of bacteria. Fiber, good thyroid function, and antiseptic foods such as cooked mushrooms, bamboo shoots, and raw carrots help."

Ray Peat: "A high fiber diet also lowers the risk of bowel cancer, and is being used increasingly for preventing and treating conditions such as colitis and diverticulitis."

Ray Peat: “Undigestible fiber, if it isn’t broken down by bowel bacteria, increases fecal bulk, and tends to speed the transit of material through the intestine, just as laxatives do. But some of these “fiber” materials, e.g., lignin, are themselves estrogenic, and other fibers, by promoting bacterial growth, can promote the conversion of harmless substances into toxins and carcinogens. When there is a clear “antiestrogen” effect from dietary fiber, it seems to be the result of accelerated transit through the intestine, speeding elimination and preventing reabsorption of the estrogen which has been excreted in the bile. Laxatives have this same effect on the excretion of estradiol.”



The problem are people like you, confusing others by making things up and taking his comments out of context.

Couple of things -
1. I don't think you quite understood what I was getting at when talking about Peat's lack of scientific weight to back up some (not all) of his claims. I know he says things like what you quoted above, and he does say that people should eat fibre, for a number of reasons that mainstream medicine also says to eat fibre - being aiding smooth transition, helping to eliminate endotoxin, antiestrogenic and so forth. The point I was making is that he selects specific foods like raw carrots, bamboo shoots and cooked mushrooms and basically says only these are safe for sources of fibre. Without solid scientific evidence as to why, just some animal studies. Why carrots but not celery? Why bamboo but not cooked kale, or why mushrooms but not broccoli, cabbage or cucumbers.. And where is the science to back this up?
There were some animal studies done decades ago where the researchers fed rats raw carrot and bamboo and found positive results and he is basing much of these recommendations on that, he mentions it quite often in his writings. Mushroom fibre, well it is similar to many other vegetable fibres, nothing unique there. Again, if there is I'd like to see the studies.

2. Surely you have read Peat enough to know he recommends against eating starch citing persorption issues? And I don't mean just in specific instances, he generally recommends against starch due to this and advises people to choose sugar over starch for this reason. Again, a real lack of science backing this claim up. Persorption issues, if they are of concern for cooked starch, then they are equally for meat, dairy, and other food groups. When pressed by someone who really wants to eat starch, he has given an answer like what you quoted above. However, his claim even in that quote that starch is more likely than sugar to produce fat is again not backed by the science. I would like to see the scientific study/studies that he bases that quote on... This has been hashed out quite extensively by @tyw and others in the past..

 

[tankasnowgod]

Couple of things -
1. I don't think you quite understood what I was getting at when talking about Peat's lack of scientific weight to back up some (not all) of his claims. I know he says things like what you quoted above, and he does say that people should eat fibre, for a number of reasons that mainstream medicine also says to eat fibre - being aiding smooth transition, helping to eliminate endotoxin, antiestrogenic and so forth. The point I was making is that he selects specific foods like raw carrots, bamboo shoots and cooked mushrooms and basically says only these are safe for sources of fibre. Without solid scientific evidence as to why, just some animal studies. Why carrots but not celery? Why bamboo but not cooked kale, or why mushrooms but not broccoli, cabbage or cucumbers.. And where is the science to back this up?
There were some animal studies done decades ago where the researchers fed rats raw carrot and bamboo and found positive results and he is basing much of these recommendations on that, he mentions it quite often in his writings. Mushroom fibre, well it is similar to many other vegetable fibres, nothing unique there. Again, if there is I'd like to see the studies.

I think I understand Peat's logic on this one. Carrot he likes not only for the fiber, but for the antibacterial compounds that come with in, due to it being a root vegetable, so it being preferable to lots of other vegetables. Mushrooms for a similar reason, as he suggested they grow in an environment very similar to the intestine and colon, so also has some antibacterial compounds. Don't quite know much about bamboo shoots.

Celery he prolly doesn't like because of the high amount of nitrates, that could become NO. Broccoli and cabbage, prolly because of the goitrogens. He recommends "a daily carrot," so while the goitrogens likely aren't a concern for occasional eating, they might be an issue if eaten every day. Cucumbers are delicious, but they really don't offer much in the way of fiber, or any nutrient, really. Kale, probably again because it doesn't offer much in the way of fiber. But likely would be part of his "cooked leafy greens."

And are you seriously asking for studies just because he prefers some vegetables over others? That is getting very nit picky.

2. Surely you have read Peat enough to know he recommends against eating starch citing persorption issues? And I don't mean just in specific instances, he generally recommends against starch due to this and advises people to choose sugar over starch for this reason. Again, a real lack of science backing this claim up. Persorption issues, if they are of concern for cooked starch, then they are equally for meat, dairy, and other food groups. When pressed by someone who really wants to eat starch, he has given an answer like what you quoted above. However, his claim even in that quote that starch is more likely than sugar to produce fat is again not backed by the science. I would like to see the scientific study/studies that he bases that quote on... This has been hashed out quite extensively by @tyw and others in the past..

He recommends sugar over starch for more reasons than just the persorption issue. He says he started recommending eating extra sugar to people who were highly stressed because of the arguments made in John Yudkin's book-



Did you even read this article in full?

Glycemia, starch, and sugar in context

"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. Eating “complex carbohydrates,” rather than sugars, is a reasonable way to promote obesity. Eating starch, by increasing insulin and lowering the blood sugar, stimulates the appetite, causing a person to eat more, so the effect on fat production becomes much larger than when equal amounts of sugar and starch are eaten. The obesity itself then becomes an additional physiological factor; the fat cells create something analogous to an inflammatory state. There isn't anything wrong with a high carbohydrate diet, and even a high starch diet isn't necessarily incompatible with good health, but when better foods are available they should be used instead of starches. For example, fruits have many advantages over grains, besides the difference between sugar and starch. Bread and pasta consumption are strongly associated with the occurrence of diabetes, fruit consumption has a strong inverse association.

Although pure fructose and sucrose produce less glycemia than glucose and starch do, the different effects of fruits and grains on the health can't be reduced to their effects on blood sugar."

Not a single word about persorption there.

"Antiserotonin drugs can sometimes alleviate stress and normalize blood sugar. Simply eating sucrose was recently discovered to restrain the stress hormone system (“A new perspective on glucocorticoid feedback: relation to stress, carbohydrate feeding and feeling better,” J Neuroendocrinol 13(9), 2001, KD Laugero)."

Also, this one-

Glucose and sucrose for diabetes.

"Besides being one of the forms of sugar involved in ordinary energy production, interchangeable with glucose, fructose has some special functions, that aren't as well performed by glucose. It is the main sugar involved in reproduction, in the seminal fluid and intrauterine fluid, and in the developing fetus. After these crucial stages of life are past, glucose becomes the primary molecular source of energy, except when the system is under stress. It has been suggested (Jauniaux, et al., 2005) that the predominance of fructose rather than glucose in the embryo's environment helps to maintain ATP and the oxidative state (cellular redox potential) during development in the low-oxygen environment. The placenta turns glucose from the mother's blood into fructose, and the fructose in the mother's blood can pass through into the fetus, and although glucose can move back from the fetus into the mother's blood, fructose is unable to move in that direction, so a high concentration is maintained in the fluids around the fetus."

"Fructose has been known for many years to accelerate the oxidation of ethanol (by about 80%). Oxygen consumption in the presence of ethanol is increased by fructose more than by glucose (Thieden and Lundquist, 1967). Besides removing the alcohol from the body more quickly, it prevents the oxidative damage, by maintaining or restoring the cell's redox balance, the relatively oxidized state of the NADH/NAD+, lactate/pyruvate, and GSH/GSSH systems. Although glucose has this stabilizing, pro-oxidative function in many situations, this is a general feature of fructose, sometimes allowing it to have the opposite effect of glucose on the cell's redox state. It seems to be largely this generalized shift of the cell's redox state towards oxidation that is behind the ability of a small amount of fructose to catalyze the more rapid oxidation of a large amount of glucose.
Besides protecting against the reductive stresses, fructose can also protect against the oxidative stress of increased hydrogen peroxide (Spasojevic, et al., 2009). Its metabolite, fructose 1,6-bisphosphate, is even more effective as an antioxidant.
Keeping the metabolic rate high has many benefits, including the rapid renewal of cells and their components, such as cholesterol and other lipids, and proteins, which are always susceptible to damage from oxidants, but the high metabolic rate also tends to keep the redox system in the proper balance, reducing the rate of oxidative damage."

So, clearly, he has more than one reason for recommending sugar over starch.

Don't know if there has ever been a study comparing a high sugar diet versus a high starch diet (prolly about a 0% chance of an RCT), so Peat may not have the studies you like to back up that point......... but, by the same token, neither would anyone who prefers starch over sugar. If you are demanding proof, it goes both ways.

I will say that after trying a no starch diet with high sugar this summer, and continuing to keep starch very low (maybe a potato a week, and/or special occasions), it has improved my moon and energy drastically, and helped me through this time when Satanic and Demonic forces are trying to crush humanity and our souls.

 

[tara]

His position on starch is a perfect example. Based on some animal studies from decades ago, feeding rats uncooked starch particles and/or inserting said starch particles up the animals anus, and then scientists observing some amount of persorption. From this he concluded persorption of starch in humans. I mean...

From this he concluded there is a risk of persorption of starch particles. He's also said at other times that starchy foods can be problematic depending on microbial imbalance, that it can have particular effects on/via insulin, etc, and also that eating starchy foods is not inconsistent with good health. I see this as a matter of considering what is most relevant for the individual context. I've been taking what he said as a caution about dry/raw starch particles, and assuming it's not likely to be relevant to well-cooked gelatinised starches. I'm currently making use of his views on starch and sugar by eating plenty of well-cooked gelatinised starch, less dry-cooked starch than I used to, and more sweet food than I have at times - mostly from foods rather than highly-refined sucrose.

Just because something may have a down-side that he mentions doesn't mean it is completely bad, or vice versa. Probably all foods have some downsides and some up-sides - there are trade-offs that can be different for different individuals depending on our individual current health states, resources, etc. I think some people come ready to categorise everything into simple categories of 'good' and 'bad'; with food, this is one of the key indicators of orthorexia. The concentration of people with such views here is possibly an internet forum artefact; most people IRL don't do this with food.

He'll say that carrot fibre is unique, however there is no evidence of this being the case, apart from said animal study. Mind you he recommends against betacarotene consumption yet carrots everyday.

Other evidence he's referred to is anecdotal - people, including himself, whose conditions improved when they added carrot salad.
There is no contradiction that I can see in observing that fibre can be helpful but excess betacarotene can be problematic, especially under conditions of low-thyroid or B12 deficiency. That's just natural complexity. I thought it was useful for me. I seem to benefit from grated carrot salad, but for a while I was rinsing it to reduce the betacarotene. My skin is less orange, and my taste for carrots (in limited amounts) has returned.

He recommended against eating mushrooms for decades then did a 180 when he realised that cooking mushrooms eliminated the toxic issues.

That's not really a contradiction - it's a healthy approach to reassess his views with more evidence. He clearly understands there is always more to learn. If others try to see him as infallible, I don't think he's encouraged it.

What would be better would be to state something like "some experimentation has indicated that X may be the case, however research has been limited to in-vitro and animal studies and so further research is needed to be conclusive."

Good point about people's ability to assess evidence.
I think Peat sometimes does say things in this cautious way you suggest, but not every time he speaks. And this is why he points people to studies and encourages people to read them critically and to think for themselves. In different formats, he has more or less space to put in the cautions. Very few people do this every time it applies in every conversation. He doesn't have a captive audience for everything he says, and he can't say everything in every conversation, so some people will miss important parts of his views if they don't read or listen to a range of topics.

At the end of the day Peat's mind is amazing, and it is fascinating to explore his theories. However it is important to realise we are essentially engaged in experimentation when applying them in our lives to a degree.

Yes!

That's true however he certainly gives general overall dietary advice - something like a diet high in dairy, sugar, low pufa and some liver etc.

Some people are looking for simple guidelines. With everything other than PUFA, and maybe even with that, there is more nuance than people sometimes can/want to see - which may be natural when people are first trying to get a handle on what he's about, and they have a particular narrow focus.
He does suggest some things may be helpful in many contexts, but even so, I don't think he's ever claiming that something will work for everyone. Even on PUFA, which is perhaps the least ambiguous of his advice, he has room for contexts in which foods containing PUFA may have a place.
He certainly recognises that milk does not work for everyone. I don't think he generally says everyone should avoid starch. He observes that liver and oysters are very nutritious, but he doesn't say everyone should eat them. He's indicated that he thinks it's possible to eat healthy vegetarian diets, that potatoes are nutritious, that greens are nutritious but you can get trouble as well.

The whole point is to eat to maintain a body temp of 98.6 throughout the day, you should feel "normal" not overly hot or sweaty, if a diet makes you feel "normal", with balanced blood sugar, no crashes after eating something, then its probably working for you.

This makes sense to me.

Honestly, Ray pretty much saved my life, I had gone years with serotonin problems and neuroticism and negative thinking, and his advice made me feel like a normal human again who can make decisions with a clear mind and notice the finer details of how I feel in regards to my motivation and outlook on life.

Glad this is working so well for you.

When he is pressed for general diet guidelines, he says "oh, having adequate calcium that is balanced with phosphorous... minimizing the consumption of seed oils... adequate protein... minimizing the inflammatory amino acids... eating ripe fruit... " and stuff like that. That doesn't sound at all like "you need to be drinking a half gallon of low fat milk every day with a half cup of refined sugar".

+1

I get it. There are so many variables to juggle that it's pretty much impossible for a newbie. OP focused on PUFA restriction instead of gut issues. Maybe we need some kind of flow chart for newbies, because it's really a process. It's a journey, and your diet will change because you will change.

+1

If you're eating starch, cook it very well until you know for a fact that it won't bother you. It should be very soft. If starch works for you, keep using it. Don't let other people's experience/position in life over-rule your own. Sourcing good fruit can be difficult and very expensive. Well cooked starch is a more achievable starting point.

+1
I found it took a few days to readjust to eating potatoes when I'd been avoiding them for a few weeks. After the brief readjustment, my digestion seems to love them again.

Why carrots but not celery? Why bamboo but not cooked kale, or why mushrooms but not broccoli, cabbage or cucumbers.

I eat all of those and I don't consider it inconsistent with Peat's general advice. He's spoken positively of broccoli leaves, too. He doesn't say carrots, mushrooms, and bamboo shoots are the only ones. They are just ones he mentions as likely good. I imagine he'd be open to finding that there were others with related benefits - maybe he already knows of others that are less accessible.

His more general guidelines as I've taken on board include eating nutritious food to support a healthy metabolism, including enough protein (and some thought to amino acid balance), enough carbs (including some sweet foods), some saturated fat and not too much PUFA, reasonably balanced minerals, vitamins etc, generally from food rather than supps if possible. Observing the effects of particular foods on you personally. And attend to having a meaningful life, getting out in the sun, etc.

Cucumbers are delicious, but they really don't offer much in the way of fiber, or any nutrient, really.

Probably enough minerals to more than balance the water in them.

"... Although pure fructose and sucrose produce less glycemia than glucose and starch do, the different effects of fruits and grains on the health can't be reduced to their effects on blood sugar."

This is a nice example of Peat spelling out that there can be more factors at play.

... he has more than one reason for recommending sugar over starch.

+1

 

[Dr. B]

I also eat fish occasionlly.

Other good supps to maybe control eczema are policosanol, frankincense extracts (boswellia acids and triterpenes), iodine and taurine. All 4 are also useful in keeping PUFAs effect in check. Taurine and iodin are already present in fish in relatively hgh amounts as you might know

How do iodine, policosanol and taurine affect PUFA? Also how does policosanol reduce exzema.
I would guess pufa or fish oil reduces it because of its immune suppressing effect. Dont some of those other things boost immunity

 

[Dr. B]

I think I understand Peat's logic on this one. Carrot he likes not only for the fiber, but for the antibacterial compounds that come with in, due to it being a root vegetable, so it being preferable to lots of other vegetables. Mushrooms for a similar reason, as he suggested they grow in an environment very similar to the intestine and colon, so also has some antibacterial compounds. Don't quite know much about bamboo shoots.

Celery he prolly doesn't like because of the high amount of nitrates, that could become NO. Broccoli and cabbage, prolly because of the goitrogens. He recommends "a daily carrot," so while the goitrogens likely aren't a concern for occasional eating, they might be an issue if eaten every day. Cucumbers are delicious, but they really don't offer much in the way of fiber, or any nutrient, really. Kale, probably again because it doesn't offer much in the way of fiber. But likely would be part of his "cooked leafy greens."

And are you seriously asking for studies just because he prefers some vegetables over others? That is getting very nit picky.



He recommends sugar over starch for more reasons than just the persorption issue. He says he started recommending eating extra sugar to people who were highly stressed because of the arguments made in John Yudkin's book-



Did you even read this article in full?

Glycemia, starch, and sugar in context

"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. Eating “complex carbohydrates,” rather than sugars, is a reasonable way to promote obesity. Eating starch, by increasing insulin and lowering the blood sugar, stimulates the appetite, causing a person to eat more, so the effect on fat production becomes much larger than when equal amounts of sugar and starch are eaten. The obesity itself then becomes an additional physiological factor; the fat cells create something analogous to an inflammatory state. There isn't anything wrong with a high carbohydrate diet, and even a high starch diet isn't necessarily incompatible with good health, but when better foods are available they should be used instead of starches. For example, fruits have many advantages over grains, besides the difference between sugar and starch. Bread and pasta consumption are strongly associated with the occurrence of diabetes, fruit consumption has a strong inverse association.

Although pure fructose and sucrose produce less glycemia than glucose and starch do, the different effects of fruits and grains on the health can't be reduced to their effects on blood sugar."

Not a single word about persorption there.

"Antiserotonin drugs can sometimes alleviate stress and normalize blood sugar. Simply eating sucrose was recently discovered to restrain the stress hormone system (“A new perspective on glucocorticoid feedback: relation to stress, carbohydrate feeding and feeling better,” J Neuroendocrinol 13(9), 2001, KD Laugero)."

Also, this one-

Glucose and sucrose for diabetes.

"Besides being one of the forms of sugar involved in ordinary energy production, interchangeable with glucose, fructose has some special functions, that aren't as well performed by glucose. It is the main sugar involved in reproduction, in the seminal fluid and intrauterine fluid, and in the developing fetus. After these crucial stages of life are past, glucose becomes the primary molecular source of energy, except when the system is under stress. It has been suggested (Jauniaux, et al., 2005) that the predominance of fructose rather than glucose in the embryo's environment helps to maintain ATP and the oxidative state (cellular redox potential) during development in the low-oxygen environment. The placenta turns glucose from the mother's blood into fructose, and the fructose in the mother's blood can pass through into the fetus, and although glucose can move back from the fetus into the mother's blood, fructose is unable to move in that direction, so a high concentration is maintained in the fluids around the fetus."

"Fructose has been known for many years to accelerate the oxidation of ethanol (by about 80%). Oxygen consumption in the presence of ethanol is increased by fructose more than by glucose (Thieden and Lundquist, 1967). Besides removing the alcohol from the body more quickly, it prevents the oxidative damage, by maintaining or restoring the cell's redox balance, the relatively oxidized state of the NADH/NAD+, lactate/pyruvate, and GSH/GSSH systems. Although glucose has this stabilizing, pro-oxidative function in many situations, this is a general feature of fructose, sometimes allowing it to have the opposite effect of glucose on the cell's redox state. It seems to be largely this generalized shift of the cell's redox state towards oxidation that is behind the ability of a small amount of fructose to catalyze the more rapid oxidation of a large amount of glucose.
Besides protecting against the reductive stresses, fructose can also protect against the oxidative stress of increased hydrogen peroxide (Spasojevic, et al., 2009). Its metabolite, fructose 1,6-bisphosphate, is even more effective as an antioxidant.
Keeping the metabolic rate high has many benefits, including the rapid renewal of cells and their components, such as cholesterol and other lipids, and proteins, which are always susceptible to damage from oxidants, but the high metabolic rate also tends to keep the redox system in the proper balance, reducing the rate of oxidative damage."

So, clearly, he has more than one reason for recommending sugar over starch.

Don't know if there has ever been a study comparing a high sugar diet versus a high starch diet (prolly about a 0% chance of an RCT), so Peat may not have the studies you like to back up that point......... but, by the same token, neither would anyone who prefers starch over sugar. If you are demanding proof, it goes both ways.

I will say that after trying a no starch diet with high sugar this summer, and continuing to keep starch very low (maybe a potato a week, and/or special occasions), it has improved my moon and energy drastically, and helped me through this time when Satanic and Demonic forces are trying to crush humanity and our souls.

What increases peroxides or hydrogen peroxide in the body? Iodine increases them i think?