Ray Peat orientated Wiki

[cantstoppeating]

A Ray Peat orientated wiki would be very helpful to newcomers and established members by serving as a reference and centralised resource for describing Peat's philosophy with sections dedicated to solutions (with citations) for common problems like 'Reducing estrogen', 'Depleting serotonin with BCAAs', 'Controlling blood sugar' -- gathered by the contributions made by members of this forum.

The wiki could be hosted right here on raypeatfourm, perhaps as a subdomain (wiki.raypeatforum.com) or extension (raypeatforum.com/wiki).

 

[charlie]

Ok here ya go:

http://wiki.raypeatforum.com/index.php/

I will work on customizing the design and adding a logo later.

Great idea, cantstoppeating! This could really help people a lot and simplify things for new people as you suggested.

Looking forward to all the contributions to the wiki. As many of you know, wiki's are user submitted information, so please consider contributing if you can.

 

[burtlancast]

There are 2 big problems with the way Ray presents his work:

1. Ray almost never gives direct scientific studies links to the facts in his articles, but likes to group those studies at the end, which is extremely confusing if one needs to check a specific fact he cites.

2. Ray likes sometimes to over-emphasize his facts, without any scientific study proving it.

Examples:
- Ray affirms that cultured cells don't need PUFAS to thrive. This would certainly constitute a rock solid proof of his views on PUFAS, but i'm having big difficulties in finding the published scientific studies proving it.

- Ray affirms "coconut oil's butyric acid is known to increase T3 uptake by glial cells".
Problem is, coconut oil doesn't contain any butyric acid, but does contain similar longer saturated fatty acids, which would possibly achieve the same effects, but no study can prove it yet.


To resolve these issues, i believe a database of scientific articles backing up separately each fact cited by Ray should be built in the Wiki.

That would be the surest way in disseminating his work to lay audiences.

 

[Sheik]

This is a great idea. If I were more confident in my writing ability I would actually start some articles.

 

[narouz]

burt-
You're essentially saying settled judgement is
that Peat
1. is prone to hyperbole
and
2. does not support his views scientifically.

I'm open to explorations there for sure.
But I can't say that I accept 1 and 2 as givens. :)

I do like the idea of a responsible, carefully considered Wiki project.

 

[burtlancast]

burt-
You're essentially saying settled judgement is
that Peat
1. is prone to hyperbole
and
2. does not support his views scientifically.
I can't say that I accept 1 and 2 as givens. :)

It's not a coincidence that when asked if they believe Ray's teachings, most people respond" Yes, but i need to start doing some serious studying"

I don't think Ray intentionally uses hyperbole or exaggerations, but rather that he lives in his own world of knowledge, which has no relation to "mainstream" knowledge, making it difficult for people to grasp the frontier separating Ray's facts from Ray's assumptions.

Here's another example of hyperbole by Ray: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4982

If we 're serious about implementing and disseminating his work, we must clearly make the part between what is demonstrable and what is unproven yet ( but not obligatorly false) and make our work easily accessible to lay people ( which might include our own relatives).

Look at http://www.functionalps.com/blog/2012/1 ... gs-by-fps/, and how they have themselves begun doing this work, by assembling the scientific studies backing up each Ray's facts.

Lay people would never be able to spend their energy researching this. Myself, i'm having trouble finding the studies showing human cultured cells don't need PUFAS to grow; it can take days, even weeks to go through the details burried in obscure scientific articles.

There's much work to do.

 

[narouz]

burt-
You're essentially saying settled judgement is
that Peat
1. is prone to hyperbole
and
2. does not support his views scientifically.
I can't say that I accept 1 and 2 as givens. :)

It's not a coincidence that when asked if they believe Ray's teachings, most people respond" Yes, but i need to start doing some serious studying"

I don't think Ray intentionally uses hyperbole or exaggerations, but rather that he lives in his own world of knowledge, which has no relation to "mainstream" knowledge, making it difficult for people to grasp the frontier separating Ray's facts from Ray's assumptions.

Here's another example of hyperbole by Ray: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4982

If we 're serious about implementing and disseminating his work, we must clearly make the part between what is demonstrable and what is unproven yet ( but not obligatorly false) and make our work easily accessible to lay people ( which might include our own relatives).

Look at http://www.functionalps.com/blog/2012/1 ... gs-by-fps/, and how they have themselves begun doing this work, by assembling the scientific studies backing up each Ray's facts.

Lay people would never be able to spend their energy researching this. Myself, i'm having trouble finding the studies showing human cultured cells don't need PUFAS to grow; it can take days, even weeks to go through the details burried in obscure scientific articles.

There's much work to do.

I've never done any work on a Wiki page,
so I'm far from expert in what all is involved.
But I would think,
at least to begin, as a starting point,
brevity would be a consideration.

That will be difficult (impossible?) for the proponents of the
"there is no Peat diet" approach (too brief! )
and for those who believe there will be a thousand different Peat diets
for every thousand people and no general patterns are permitted;
we'd be talkin' a Wiki entry of approximately 1 trillion pages.

So...gonna have to generalize.

Also, on the challenge of brevity, burt,
it would seem to me that much of the difficulty you note
might simply be disposed of by labeling certain Peat notions as "speculative" or "controversial."
It doesn't seem to me that Wiki is the place to be attaching voluminous numbers of studies by others
in support of Peat's ideas--
though I guess such studies might be cited.
I could be wrong about that--like I say, never done a Wiki entry.
But Wiki just doesn't seem like the forum in which to argue for all of Peat's ideas,
to try to prove that all of them are right.
Nothing wrong with doing that, mind you--just that Wiki wouldn't seem to be the correct place.

 

[Such_Saturation]

So we would be the prolix ones now

 

[burtlancast]

But Wiki just doesn't seem like the forum in which to argue for all of Peat's ideas,
to try to prove that all of them are right.
Nothing wrong with doing that, mind you--just that Wiki wouldn't seem to be the correct place.

I've never said ALL.

Just the central issues.

- PUFAS aren't essential
- cholesterol and saturated fats don't cause atherosclerosis
- thyroid function is central to good health
- sugar doesn't cause diabetes
.....

Find the studies, post them and be gone with it.

 

[charlie]

It has begun.....

https://raypeatforum.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page


I will work on adding links to the wiki directly from the forum.

 

[Sirkama]

This is really cool! :)

 

[Miguel]

Wiki Suggestions:

1. Have pages for conditions like Parkinson's, IBS, ALS, Hashimoto's, etc. and then on each condition's page, add summaries and links to studies that use Peat friendly substances. (Basically I'm thinking of a way to organize all of the studies people like Haidut post that talk about using things like, the B vitamins, magnesium, aspirin, etc. for specific conditions.) This doesn't have to be the only thing on these conditions' pages.

2. Add the transcriptions

There's so much useful information on this forum but it can be hard to put the pieces together (especially for users who do not use the advance search feature.) I think organizing this information will help tremendously.

 

[dd99]

How to measure temps and pulse.

Approved fruit list, with caveat that if some other fruit doesn't irritate you, then it's probably fine.

 

[barbwirehouse]

should get some pages up on common food groups + foods + recommended diet+fats+ diseases and other topics of course, temperature, bpm, etc.

 

[narouz]

Guys,
remember: this needs to fit the basic Wiki pattern.
We shouldn't be trying, primarily,
to explain Peat
or argue for Peat.

Wiki idea
is
objective summary.
Not argumentation.
Not primarily exposition.

For starters as big topics/categories for Peat:-
-Nutrition
-pufa
-sugar
-recommended diet description
-controversial ideas
-speculative ideas
-light
-aging
-recommended supplements
-metabolism
-as science historian/scholar
-liguistics and literature
-stress
-thyroid

Just off the top of my mind.

And keep in mind this is just the start.
Don't even begin to try to flesh out all the fascinating (to us) specific Peat Sub-categories.
I think our treasured
Peat Areas of Special Interest
should be simply listed,
not described or argued for:
CO2, Antibiotics, Gut/Endotoxin, Thyroid, Coffee, Progesterone, Pregnenolone, Aspirin,
Red Light...on and on...
Maybe that will be added on to over time.

 

[burtlancast]

Guys,
remember: this needs to fit the basic Wiki pattern.
We shouldn't be trying, primarily,
to explain Peat
or argue for Peat.

Wiki idea
is
objective summary.
Not argumentation.
Not primarily exposition.

That would leave people hanging high and dry, uncertain about whether they should enroll on physiology classes or just let their health to deteriorate further, as Ray's work can be primarly seen as contrarian work, if one doesn't make the effort to explain it.

Ray's central points MUST be detailed and backed up.

 

[Amazoniac]

Guys,
remember: this needs to fit the basic Wiki pattern.
We shouldn't be trying, primarily,
to explain Peat
or argue for Peat.

Wiki idea
is
objective summary.
Not argumentation.
Not primarily exposition.

That would leave people hanging high and dry, uncertain about whether they should enroll on physiology classes or just let their health to deteriorate further, as Ray's work can be primarly seen as contrarian work, if one doesn't make the effort to explain it.

Ray's central points MUST be detailed and backed up.

Hi burtlan!

I think narouz meant that it is better to explain without getting into details considering that if people are presented to this new concepts or perspectives can do further research on their on in case they are interested. It should be brief in order to present such important topics for someone who is not used to them.
If you offer too many details it runs the risk of people giving up before getting curious and interested to know more.

 

[cantstoppeating]

The term 'wiki' is used loosely seeing as if one wants an objective viewpoint of Peat's ideas they're better off reading his articles or a wiki hosted officially on wikipedia. I was largely referring to 'wiki' as a good platform for organising the best of this forum's actionable advice with a simple intro to Peat.

The point here is to create a brief introduction to Peat's nutrional philosophy, with articles on common problems+solutions, in a way that's easy for a layman to understand. This resource is to help people take action towards improving their health. This is a far better approach than creating an apparent objective encyclopaedia of Peat's work that would only benefit a research scientist.

 

[burtlancast]

The reason i believe it's necessary to back up Ray's main points is that Ray's basic message is that science is rife with misrepresentation and misinformation ( and fraud).

Disinformation works by creating confusion; it's consists of inundating the medias with false and contradicting ideas, and succeeds because most folks don't have the ability, time or courage to investigate them, get desperate, and end up throwing their arms in the air .

I see no indication that people have the capacity to look by themselves at these controversies.

 

[narouz]

The reason i believe it's necessary to back up Ray's main points is that Ray's basic message is that science is rife with misrepresentation and misinformation ( and fraud).

Disinformation works by creating confusion; it's consists of inundating the medias with false and contradicting ideas, and succeeds because most folks don't have the ability, time or courage to investigate them, get desperate, and end up throwing their arms in the air .

I see no indication that people have the capacity to look by themselves at these controversies.

burt-
I have no problem with explaining and backing up stuff about Peat.
It is only the appropriate fitting of such material into Wikipedia that I believe would be problematic.

But apparently cantstoppeating does not intend a real Wiki page anyhow...

The term 'wiki' is used loosely seeing as if one wants an objective viewpoint of Peat's ideas they're better off reading his articles or a wiki hosted officially on wikipedia. I was largely referring to 'wiki' as a good platform for organising the best of this forum's actionable advice with a simple intro to Peat.

The point here is to create a brief introduction to Peat's nutrional philosophy, with articles on common problems+solutions, in a way that's easy for a layman to understand. This resource is to help people take action towards improving their health. This is a far better approach than creating an apparent objective encyclopaedia of Peat's work that would only benefit a research scientist.

...so...nevermind.