Ray Peat and Turnips

[Such_Saturation]

Well, if Ray Peat's thinking is a shapeless continuum, concerned mainly with the maintenance of certain foundational conditions for a highly functioning organism in accord with its surroundings, you are expecting permanent condensation into dietary guidelines, which are discrete elements. Thus you may find limits and boundaries, but never will say (if you are honest with yourself and others) that those limits actually exist.

Such-
For instance: in your opinion,
does Peat think an optimal longevity/health diet
should include a lot of starch?
Or very little starch?

In my opinion, Ray Peat thinks intestinal bacteria should be as little as possible without the bacteria actually being angry. Also, he thinks nutrients should be as ready for absorption and burning as possible. Naturally so, he thinks that in the spectrum of available nutrient forms that our planet gives us, what is commonly called a starchy food is not entitled to occupying our bodies with its breakdown at any time, and lies in the far end of that very wide spectrum (i.e. the spectrum of an honestly administered planet). Thus, a conscious approach to our own nutrition (one that tries to make us happy at the most profound level) should always prefer a well expressed nutrient (for example a completely ripe fruit) to a food which contains starch, aside from paradoxical effects (like carrots which mechanically cleanse the intestine and act opposite to other starches) which are best investigated by keeping a close contact with our bodies.

These are my opinions about his premises and conclusions, gotten from reading and listening to him. However, my own reasoning resonates with these very thoughts, giving a bit of a window into how and why they would have been formulated. This to me confirms a little bit to what actual extent Ray Peat feels comfortable in saying "yes, absolutely eat this" or "no, never eat this".

 

[aquaman]

I got an answer from the BIg Fella RP himself on this:

I asked if he eats root vegetables at all or often:

Rarely I eat some small fresh turnips for their flavor; they happen to be high in fructose, low in starch.

Interesting!

 

[narouz]

Well, if Ray Peat's thinking is a shapeless continuum...

I do think I depart from you here, Such, if I'm understanding your drift.
Let's say my long driveway is lit by 214 cheap Lowe's sun-powered lights.
Let's say the neighborhood punks have stolen 19 of them--rest are working fine.
Imagine it's nighttime.
I invite you over for a gluten-free beer.
You approach the driveway.
Do you ring me on my cellphone and tell me you can't come
because my driveway is a shapeless continuum?
Or do you take heart and believe you will find your way?

...you are expecting permanent condensation into dietary guidelines....

Nopesters.
I'm fine with tentative-starting-point-type statements.
Fine with acknowledging gaps in understanding.
Fine with open-ended revision.
Etc.

Thus you may find limits and boundaries, but never will say (if you are honest with yourself and others) that those limits actually exist.

Come awn, mayan!
I am being honest.
If I find limits or boundaries, I ain't gonna lie about 'em.
Hell...I already find 'em!

 

[narouz]

I got an answer from the BIg Fella RP himself on this:

I asked if he eats root vegetables at all or often:

Rarely I eat some small fresh turnips for their flavor; they happen to be high in fructose, low in starch.

Interesting!

Damn, aquaman.
Now I feel a little guilty for causing you to bother him.
(No--it is interesting.
Could you ask him if I should go see
Birdman
or
Nightcrawler...?)

 

[narouz]

Well, if Ray Peat's thinking is a shapeless continuum, concerned mainly with the maintenance of certain foundational conditions for a highly functioning organism in accord with its surroundings, you are expecting permanent condensation into dietary guidelines, which are discrete elements. Thus you may find limits and boundaries, but never will say (if you are honest with yourself and others) that those limits actually exist.

Such-
For instance: in your opinion,
does Peat think an optimal longevity/health diet
should include a lot of starch?
Or very little starch?

In my opinion, Ray Peat thinks intestinal bacteria should be as little as possible without the bacteria actually being angry. Also, he thinks nutrients should be as ready for absorption and burning as possible. Naturally so, he thinks that in the spectrum of available nutrient forms that our planet gives us, what is commonly called a starchy food is not entitled to occupying our bodies with its breakdown at any time, and lies in the far end of that very wide spectrum (i.e. the spectrum of an honestly administered planet). Thus, a conscious approach to our own nutrition (one that tries to make us happy at the most profound level) should always prefer a well expressed nutrient (for example a completely ripe fruit) to a food which contains starch, aside from paradoxical effects (like carrots which mechanically cleanse the intestine and act opposite to other starches) which are best investigated by keeping a close contact with our bodies.

These are my opinions about his premises and conclusions, gotten from reading and listening to him. However, my own reasoning resonates with these very thoughts, giving a bit of a window into how and why they would have been formulated. This to me confirms a little bit to what actual extent Ray Peat feels comfortable in saying "yes, absolutely eat this" or "no, never eat this".

Hmm...
I think we're in agreement! :)

 

[Such_Saturation]

Well, if Ray Peat's thinking is a shapeless continuum...

I do think I depart from you here, Such, if I'm understanding your drift.
Let's say my long driveway is lit by 214 cheap Lowe's sun-powered lights.
Let's say the neighborhood punks have stolen 19 of them--rest are working fine.
Imagine it's nighttime.
I invite you over for a gluten-free beer.
You approach the driveway.
Do you ring me on my cellphone and tell me you can't come
because my driveway is a shapeless continuum?
Or do you take heart and believe you will find your way?

...you are expecting permanent condensation into dietary guidelines....

Nopesters.
I'm fine with tentative-starting-point-type statements.
Fine with acknowledging gaps in understanding.
Fine with open-ended revision.
Etc.

Thus you may find limits and boundaries, but never will say (if you are honest with yourself and others) that those limits actually exist.

Come awn, mayan!
I am being honest.
If I find limits or boundaries, I ain't gonna lie about 'em.
Hell...I already find 'em!

I'm trying to say why it is entirely possible to claim there is no "diet" and still try to eat towards one. It is "shapeless" in the sense that it knows this: if you depart thinking you will settle everything and live by it, you will accomplish less of that objective than by just keeping open to whatever experience comes your way. Claiming you found the limit would be like saying "sugar is the devil, and all human illnesses point towards sugar", and things like that.

 

[narouz]

I'm trying to say why it is entirely possible to claim there is no "diet" and still try to eat towards one. It is "shapeless" in the sense that it knows this: if you depart thinking you will settle everything and live by it, you will accomplish less of that objective than by just keeping open to whatever experience comes your way. Claiming you found the limit would be like saying "sugar is the devil, and all human illnesses point towards sugar", and things like that.

You gotta have more confidence in me than that, Such!
I don't have an itch to leave off with thinking.

Let me put it this way.
If you're trying to be scientific about things,
you do an experiment.
To do an experiment,
you gotta have a working hypothesis.
You wanna test the working hypothesis to see what the result is,
and you want to repeat the experiment to see if you get the same result.

Is it okay to start without the working hypothesis?
Is it okay to start with one working hypothesis
and then try to repeat the experiment with a different working hypothesis?

 

[tara]

There are different kinds of turnips. Some of them taste sweet when young. If the 4% carbs is a generic turnip, I would expect a bit of variation between varieties, as well as age, and as always the soil and growing conditions. But as such says, not exactly bred or pasta, and way below potatoes.
By the way, I thought carrots were more sugar than starch too?

 

[tara]

This one says for 100g boiled: 5g carbs of which 2g fibre, 3g sugar (so ~0 starch, right?)
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/veg ... cts/2700/2

And it says carrots more sugar than starch too.

 

[narouz]

This one says for 100g boiled: 5g carbs of which 2g fibre, 3g sugar (so ~0 starch, right?)
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/veg ... cts/2700/2

And it says carrots more sugar than starch too.

I'm still not really grasping what the hell they are, then?
Are they mostly water?
Forgive my denseness.

 

[tara]

I'm still not really grasping what the hell they are, then?
Are they mostly water?

I think so, yes.
As with many fruits and vegetables.

 

[tara]

Potatoes are unusually calorie-dense, and I think they are still more than half water.

 

[narouz]

Before I started this thread yesterday
I had a dish of small turnips with butter.
I cooked them about an hour
and added quite a bit of butter and,
sinfully and excitotoxically,
some nutritional yeast.

Quite delicious and comforting and filling.

 

[Zachs]

Yes, water. If you check the bottom of nutritiondatas page it lists water as 119g out of a total 136g.

 

[aguilaroja]

Are they mostly water?

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/vegetables.shtml

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

While nutritional reference tables often show fruits and potatoes as having about 2% protein content, while nuts, grains, and legumes are shown with a high protein content, often in the range of 15% to 40%, they neglect to point out that fruits and potatoes have a very high water content, while that of the seeds is extremely low."

 

[Such_Saturation]

I'm trying to say why it is entirely possible to claim there is no "diet" and still try to eat towards one. It is "shapeless" in the sense that it knows this: if you depart thinking you will settle everything and live by it, you will accomplish less of that objective than by just keeping open to whatever experience comes your way. Claiming you found the limit would be like saying "sugar is the devil, and all human illnesses point towards sugar", and things like that.

You gotta have more confidence in me than that, Such!
I don't have an itch to leave off with thinking.

Let me put it this way.
If you're trying to be scientific about things,
you do an experiment.
To do an experiment,
you gotta have a working hypothesis.
You wanna test the working hypothesis to see what the result is,
and you want to repeat the experiment to see if you get the same result.

Is it okay to start without the working hypothesis?
Is it okay to start with one working hypothesis
and then try to repeat the experiment with a different working hypothesis?

Well, anything goes, does it not? The worst thing is denying this. What I mean is "if you go out there, thinking you will settle every issue and live by the truths you thus created..."

 

[narouz]

Well, anything goes, does it not?

Pop Quiz

Is a turnip:

1. a mostly starchy, carbohydrate-y root vegetable?
2. a nut containing a lot of PUFA?
3. a fruit composed mostly of sugars with about 50% fructose and 50% glucose?
4. an effective, albeit somewhat painful, baby suppository?
5. a root vegetable composed of about 95% water plus a slight amount of sugar and fiber?
6. all of the above?
7. none of the above?

 

[pboy]

its 4

 

[narouz]

its 4

...warm...

 

[tara]

Is a turnip:
1. ...

[OT]Do you play the dictionary game? I think you might enjoy it. :) [/OT]