Peer Reviews/Critiques?

Discussion in 'Health' started by Rodzilla, Feb 25, 2013.

Tags:
  1. Rodzilla

    Rodzilla Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    Messages:
    6
    Not so much a debate or critique of my one. I've read a number of Peat's articles, and find them very informative - however, I'm curious as to how his views are seen by others in the medical and or biological field.

    Does he have any peer reviewed articles/research? Have any others in the field spoken against his theories? (Not just Stone, or the Paleo camp)

    Thanks!
     
  2. j.

    j. Guest

    Mary Enig, on "EFA", but most people agree she didn't do a good job. Peat's rebuttals to her statements can be found in his articles, but Mary Enig didn't respond to these.
     

    Attached Files:

  3. Dan Wich

    Dan Wich Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2013
    Messages:
    1,528
    Gender:
    Male
  4. Mittir

    Mittir Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2013
    Messages:
    2,034
    I think Rodzilla meant real biologist and medical professionals. Andrew Kim is not a professional. His writing on half life is very silly and misleading. I seriously doubt he has any training in medical science. Does anyone know what is his educational background? He is lot like that Matt from 180health.

    I heard RP saying that he does not trust most scientific journals, as they are mostly funded by pharmaceuticals and food industries. His early articles against danger of Estrogens were rejected and then she stopped submitting. But he was right about estrogen's dangers. Most of his conclusions are against mainstream believes. It is hard to find professionals from medical field who would agree with RP. But things are changing now. In recent years, mainstream scientists has changed their views on saturated fats. http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400919/R ... d-Fat.html . RP was writing against PUFA decades ago and only now science agrees that omega 6 is bad. RP is simply ahead of his time.
     
  5. OP
    Rodzilla

    Rodzilla Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    Messages:
    6
    Thanks Mary. I would hope for someone who can at least make a sound argument. Do you now of any Peer reviewed articles on any of these topics?

    Thanks Dan, I've been following along with Andrew's articles and really enjoying them - he generally has been adding even more support for Ray's theories.

    I would be particularly interested to see other researchers weigh in on his articles about various neurotransmitters.
     
  6. j.

    j. Guest

    They (Ray and the others) seem to have entirely different frameworks. And this goes down to the cell level. Ray believes the theory of the cell accepted by mainstream scientists is wrong. He uses Gilbert Ling's cell theory. To illustrate the point, Gilbert Ling doesn't even have a wikipedia page. Mainstream medicine believes estrogen is the female hormone. Ray Peat that it's the shock hormone. They disagree on serotonin. Ray Peat considers that a general approach to keep thyroid function and biological energy at a high level would prevent most diseases. Mainstream medicine considers each disease influenced by a gene, and each disease needs one specific drug.
     
  7. OP
    Rodzilla

    Rodzilla Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    Messages:
    6
    Thanks so much for that j! I'll have to look more into Gilbert Ling's cell theory.

    It was really the serotonin I was looking for, I've seen a number of articles where he discusses what he believe's the role of serotonin to be in various conditions, but do you have any specific articles that discuss this difference in view points more generally?
     
  8. jyb

    jyb Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2012
    Messages:
    2,769
    Location:
    UK
    Your critic on Kim is harsh... What's wrong with his article on half life, btw?
     
  9. jyb

    jyb Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2012
    Messages:
    2,769
    Location:
    UK
    @Rodzilla: I don't think you'll find many researchers commenting on RP himself. But more and more you'll see confirmation of bits and bits of his theory. For example omega 6, PUFA, thryoid supplementation (both what type of supplementation and how to do it)...
     
  10. cliff

    cliff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    425
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Ray peat has said in interviews the number depends, it's not just 600 days. That's based on one study, it's different for skinny/fat people. He kinda did the same thing with the first critique, he worded the quote in a way that it looked like an anecdotal claim but if you read the whole quote you know it's from a study.

    The problem with andrew kim's critiques imo is that apparently he doesn't really read too much of ray's stuff or listen to the interviews so his critiques will generally not have context of the whole picture. He's just going off of random quotes and what other people say.
     
  11. eggshellness

    eggshellness Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2012
    Messages:
    8
    From what I understand, Andrew didn't make the assumption that Dr. Peat was making an anecdotal claim. In the second "fact check", he went directly to the study Dr. Peat used, in making the 600 day claim, an abstract that alluded to the original study in which the estimate was made. The subjects in that original study were not obese either from what I understand of it.

    Andrew has respect for Peat, this is nothing personal against him. It's good for different scientists to look over each other's work. They are used to this. The best thing is to go to Andrew's blog in the comment section where he has presented an easy platform for interaction on this and give him a chance to respond instead of all this postulation that is he is going off what other people are saying, etc.
     
Loading...