Low Toxin Lifestyle "Ray Peat followers seem overly defensive when vitamin A toxicity is mentioned."

[charlie]

I unfollowed many Ray Peat promoters and replaced them with vitamin A toxicity researchers. No offense. It's nothing personal. I'm here to learn, not to make friends or bicker. This choice will lead to less bickering, I think.

Ray Peat followers seem overly defensive when vitamin A toxicity is mentioned. They keep unsolicitedly telling me the mainstream view on vitamin A—what everyone already thinks about vitamin A—as if I don't already know what everyone already thinks about vitamin A.

View: https://x.com/tao_lin/status/1786753259035926800

 

[Aleksandr]

View: https://x.com/tao_lin/status/1786753259035926800

posting this here is like inception

 

[DKayJoe]

So did this guy get turned away from a Peaty perspective more in line with Ray Peats direct work because he didn't want to bicker or because it follows a more mainstream view of Vitamin A?

What would be the difference between someone who is pro milk and OJ arguing against vitamin A being toxic and someone who is on a carnivore diet for example? Is he saying the majority of this forums past users vehemently pushed a pro Vitamin A stance as like a central pillar to their lifestyle or something? Because it was rarely focused on until the Vit A toxicity pivot right? And more specifically the insinuation that Ray Peat thought it was toxic by attaching his name to this view?

I think if people in the Vit A toxic group could provide a more structured evidential approach to why Ray Peat may agree with, or was wrong about Vit A toxicity, most of this 'defensiveness' that is mentioned would dissipate. The vast contention with the pivot clearly comes from the move away from the "perceive, think, act" mindset that the forum fostered and the move towards more authoritarian views on medicine (how pro Vit a discussions were banned for a time and the massive amount of people who have been banned for saying things that previously would not have been ban offenses or even close.

At this point wherever this forum goes I don't think many care too much, but this Vit A toxicity stuff is supposedly gods chosen path and the only way to heal our society. If people truly want to save people with this stuff surely focusing on studies and articles that reconcile Peat's actual documented views with Vitamin A toxicity theory rather than highlighting and pushing the division between the two is the way to go? With the greatest respect the traffic on this forum has plummeted over the past few months and it is clearly because of the divisions and point scoring between the two approaches most people came here for a place to discuss ways to improve their health, not to dictate/be dictated to.

People were doing all sorts of Peaty/non Peaty things on this forum for years with no one needing to be banned or moderators needing to step in with posts like these... can't everyone just move on and focus on the research again at this point? You may find it helps with an uptick in traffic...

 

[charlie]

So did this guy get turned away from a Peaty perspective more in line with Ray Peats direct work because he didn't want to bicker or because it follows a more mainstream view of Vitamin A?

What would be the difference between someone who is pro milk and OJ arguing against vitamin A being toxic and someone who is on a carnivore diet for example? Is he saying the majority of this forums past users vehemently pushed a pro Vitamin A stance as like a central pillar to their lifestyle or something? Because it was rarely focused on until the Vit A toxicity pivot right? And more specifically the insinuation that Ray Peat thought it was toxic by attaching his name to this view?

I think if people in the Vit A toxic group could provide a more structured evidential approach to why Ray Peat may agree with, or was wrong about Vit A toxicity, most of this 'defensiveness' that is mentioned would dissipate. The vast contention with the pivot clearly comes from the move away from the "perceive, think, act" mindset that the forum fostered and the move towards more authoritarian views on medicine (how pro Vit a discussions were banned for a time and the massive amount of people who have been banned for saying things that previously would not have been ban offenses or even close.

At this point wherever this forum goes I don't think many care too much, but this Vit A toxicity stuff is supposedly gods chosen path and the only way to heal our society. If people truly want to save people with this stuff surely focusing on studies and articles that reconcile Peat's actual documented views with Vitamin A toxicity theory rather than highlighting and pushing the division between the two is the way to go? With the greatest respect the traffic on this forum has plummeted over the past few months and it is clearly because of the divisions and point scoring between the two approaches most people came here for a place to discuss ways to improve their health, not to dictate/be dictated to.

People were doing all sorts of Peaty/non Peaty things on this forum for years with no one needing to be banned or moderators needing to step in with posts like these... can't everyone just move on and focus on the research again at this point? You may find it helps with an uptick in traffic...

Thank you for proving the tweet is 100% correct.

 

[DKayJoe]

Thank you for proving the tweet is 100% correct.

Well it goes either way pal, you went out of your way to post this on the forum, it contains no scientific or nutritional content what-so-ever, this thread is bickering at it's foundation, also note how you haven't managed to respond to any of the many valid points I made either, not to mention my post makes no attempt to invalidate or refute your opinion on nutrition, it's a commentary on the way the shift has been handled which once again, by the huge drop in forum traffic and substantial nutritional discussion could easily be gauged as badly regardless of whether it's Pro A or not. Just trying to help your you get your traffic back up.

Can you honestly say to yourself that the way this shift in paradigm has been handled and not the paradigm itself has had no negative impact on people who were simply trying to bridge the gap between Pro A and Toxic A, and that this has not had an affect on the amount of people willing to even try and engage withvtje Toxic A view?

 

[Peater]

Was it ever even established if Ray was drinking 'normal' store-bought milk that was fortified with A (And/or D?)

I don't think there's much point in arguing about how "Peaty" something is when:

-We don't even have accurate information for basic details about what the man himself was doing
-If you do try and form a coherent analysis you just get hard-reset back to "There is no Ray Peat diet"

Which I agree, there isn't - I don't think Ray ever made generalised broad dietary prescriptions. So why shouldn't a low A diet also be Peaty?

 

[DKayJoe]

Was it ever even established if Ray was drinking 'normal' store-bought milk that was fortified with A (And/or D?)

I don't think there's much point in arguing about how "Peaty" something is when:

-We don't even have accurate information for basic details about what the man himself was doing
-If you do try and form a coherent analysis you just get hard-reset back to "There is no Ray Peat diet"

Which I agree, there isn't - I don't think Ray ever made generalised broad dietary prescriptions. So why shouldn't a low A diet also be Peaty?

@Peater

Completely agree, yet at the top of this forum there is a heading that says "Ray Peat Rejected the Ray Peat Diet"...there is no absolutely no documentation of Ray Peat ever endorsing or even reading a "Ray Peat Diet". The thread in question infers Ray Peat now recomends far lower protein intake because that's what he did shortly before his death. The quotes from Peat in the thread in no way infer that Ray recomended lower protein intake for everyone or anyone other than himself because there is no Ray Peat diet.
So now instead of getting to read through a new treasure trove of information on health in the lens of a Pro A / Toxic A debate based on science and rational thinking which most likely would of turned people, including myself, onto at least experimenting with the new ways of thinking that were pushed (and let's be honest...they were PUSHED), people were banned en mass, many for rational reasons and far more for trying to engage in some sort of debate by stress testing the ideas against the more traditional thinking that was on this forum TO FIGURE IT OUT.

Now the vast majority of users that were here are either banned or on the new forum and are completely unwilling to entertain any of this because not only is a "Ray Peat Diet" clearly being pushed here (which admittedly was pushed before the Toxic A stuff) but this brand spanking new toxic A diet which is repeatedly inferred to be what Ray Peat settled on before his death directly contradicts his actual documented work (but not evidenced because it clearly isn't what he settled on).

This approach has quite obviously obliterated this forums traffic and it's ability to allow people to nurture their own health, it has done absolutely nothing for the Toxic A movement, Grants Vit A thread was massively more active BEFORE all these bickering 'Peaters' were silenced. Which leads me full circle back to my original point...threads and posts like this do NOTHING but damage the reputation and validity of the more traditional Peat perspectives (based on his actual work) AND the Toxic A movement so just stop with all the petty point scoring, focus on the actual science and research and maximize your health and lifestyle in whatever way works best FOR YOU. This playground crap is overly played out.