The Most OVERLOOKED Peat Quote

[Maljam]

"I think a person of average size should have at least 180 grams per day, maybe an average of about 250 grams."

In my opinion this is the most overlooked and important of Peat quotes for people on this forum to read. Many people here experiencing health problems, or even creating new health problems for themselves are eating many hundreds of grams from carbs, I have seen members attempting to reach 1000g of carbs. This ISN'T in line with what Peat thinks.

On a typical 2500 calorie diet, 180g of carbs is around 30%. This is very reasonable and a moderate amount of carbs. I truly believe many of the health problems on here are created or are fuelled by an excessive amount of carbs.

With protein at 150g of the diet and 24% calories, this leaves 127g of fat and at 46% of the diet, all within fairly moderate and sensible amounts.

People get sucked into the trap of going to extreme lengths with things Peat praises, he says around 2000IU vitamin D is good, people take 50,000 for example. If people actually read Peats guidelines and stuck to closer than 180 than 250 I bet many people would feel better.

 

[Broco6679]

It all depends on how active you are. People who are highly sedentary should not be eating 500g of carbs a day -- no matter how you view it, this isn't conducive to good health. Whilst carbs themselves don't produce insulin resistance, chronic overfeeding and the subsequent increase in adiposity will produce the same free fatty acids which do. The more active you are, the more carbs you can eat in a roughly linear fashion.

With that said, the difference between 180 and 250 as you suggest is negligible -- you're going to see zero changes to anything health wise, assuming calories are equated.

 

[Connor888]

If it wasn't for me gauging on dates i would definitely be under 250 grams of carbs a day. They are so nice though.

 

[Maljam]

People who are highly sedentary should not be eating 500g of carbs a day -- no matter how you view it, this isn't conducive to good health.

And yet they are and are unsure why they are developing health problems.

 

[Waynish]

I think the aspect of having to eat more when you're inefficient / unhealthy is undervalued - though it isn't really a quote - Peat did have a similar anecdote.

 

[Maljam]

I think the aspect of having to eat more when you're inefficient / unhealthy is undervalued - though it isn't really a quote - Peat did have a similar anecdote.

Context is everything of course, but a common trend seems to be overeating to obesity and fatty liver.

 

[Jessie]

No one should eat more sugar/carbs then what they can utilize through the energy production cycle (glycolisis, krebs cycle, electron transport chain, etc.). This is why context is everything, because this will vary extensively from person to person. Some of the main things that can interfere with glucose oxidation include endotoxin, low thyroid, and too much dietary fat in combination with too much dietary sugar (randle cycle).

I think the biggest overlooked aspect is not so much carbohydrate consumption, but perhaps caloric consumption. If you're looking to lose weight you shouldn't be eating a hypercaloric diet, period. Ray would most likely agree with this too. You can search YT for the "raypeatclips" and in one of them he specifically states subjects should have no problem losing weight in a caloric deficit provided they keep dietary protein levels adequate. This is very uncontroversial advice, and something you would get from places as mainstream as bodybuilder.com.

The difference is the bioenergetic view asserts there's several metabolic toxins in our environments that are suppressing metabolism. Stuff like PUFA, endotoxin, serotonin, estrogen, hundreds of food additives, etc. When a subject is detoxing themselves from these metabolic toxins they very well could increase the basal metabolism and their old "caloric maintenance" may now be a deficit. This is where bioenergetics parts ways with mainstream views.

Also I think it's entirely possible for many people to get trapped on liquid based diets. Fiber is important, even from a bioenergetic view. It's just some fibers are better than others. Specifically non-fermentable insoluble fibers.

 

[Tenacity]

Nice click-baity title, but no. As of recent, Peat has been advising people consume less fat.

 

[Jessie]

Nice click-baity title, but no. As of recent, Peat has been advising people consume less fat.

I feel like this is probably true for people who have been successfully applying bioenergetics. We tend to naturally drift toward lower fat foods. However if someone is in a troubleshooting phase, it may very well be better for them to ease into high sugar intake. If you're consuming more sugar then you can process for energy then it's just getting converted into lactate and is being counter productive. In these cases, people might be better served by focusing on a higher saturated fat intake, then gradually increase sugar.

 

[yashi]

On a typical 2500 calorie diet, 180g of carbs is around 30%. This is very reasonable and a moderate amount of carbs. [...]
With protein at 150g of the diet and 24% calories, this leaves 127g of fat and at 46% of the diet, all within fairly moderate and sensible amounts

For ~2500kcal I like 250g carbs, 125g protein and 100g of fat (this is 2400kcal but it's easy to remember and obviously nobody is gonna hit it exactly each day. I just try to hover around each of those values each day).
This also fullfilles the twice as many carb grams as protein recommendation and has more than enough fat for good digestion and fat soluble vitamins. Fat could also be reduces a bit and carbs raised a bit to still stay at 2500kcal or if someone wanted a caloric deficit they could just lower fat to 50g-60g.

 

[Twohandsondeck]

Context is everything of course, but a common trend seems to be overeating to obesity and fatty liver.

I'll throw in 2 cents here.

I think most people who have health problems that find their way here for answers have the same primary root problem with one or more of several secondary problems.

The primary cause is inefficient carbohydrate metabolism, plain and simple. Sugar goes in which produces too much lactic acid and not enough carbon dioxide.

The secondary problems which can potentially surround this are many:
-SIBO, dysbiosis, fungal infection or parasitic infestation
-low vitamin D status
-high phosphorus:calcium ratio
-quantitative and qualitative lack of sleep
-sedentary lifestyle
-overabundance of liver congesting substances like emulsifiers, thickeners, anti-caking agents, supplement excipients, etc
-low stomach acid
-weak adrenals from chronic stress
-lack of electrolytes, namely salt and potassium
-high methionine:glycine ratio
-lack of organic plant minerals such as shilajit, trace minerals, etc

I'm sure I'm missing some stuff, but it seems like everyone who has a health problem has...
1) adrenals that are in the dumpster which creates blood sugar and
2) liver glycogen storage (liver moreover) issues which then creates a lack of
3) thyroid hormone conversion

Meanwhile the lungs are trying to mop of the excess serotonin production of the sluggish gastrointestinal tract, the kidneys are dumping electrolytes in the process of preventing over-acidity of the blood... And whatever other downstream issues are hitting the gall bladder, pancreas, and gonads.

If a cold person with a slow metabolism eats too many carbs, they're going to slam white fat as a defense reaction for sure. Seems pretty straightforward

 

[Maljam]

Nice click-baity title, but no. As of recent, Peat has been advising people consume less fat.

Has he been advising people to eat more carbs? Does he disagree with his old 180-250 recommendations?

 

[shine]

He also says an active person might need 400g carbs. I stick to 250g carbs on normal days and increase to 500g on workout days for better recovery.

 

[YourUniverse]

"I think a person of average size should have at least 180 grams per day, maybe an average of about 250 grams."

In my opinion this is the most overlooked and important of Peat quotes for people on this forum to read. Many people here experiencing health problems, or even creating new health problems for themselves are eating many hundreds of grams from carbs, I have seen members attempting to reach 1000g of carbs. This ISN'T in line with what Peat thinks.

On a typical 2500 calorie diet, 180g of carbs is around 30%. This is very reasonable and a moderate amount of carbs. I truly believe many of the health problems on here are created or are fuelled by an excessive amount of carbs.

With protein at 150g of the diet and 24% calories, this leaves 127g of fat and at 46% of the diet, all within fairly moderate and sensible amounts.

People get sucked into the trap of going to extreme lengths with things Peat praises, he says around 2000IU vitamin D is good, people take 50,000 for example. If people actually read Peats guidelines and stuck to closer than 180 than 250 I bet many people would feel better.

Sensible approach. On the subject of vitamin D, hes more commonly prescribing a blood level of 40 ng/mL which can take any dose necessary to reach (and lower doses to maintain)

 

[Maljam]

The difference is the bioenergetic view asserts there's several metabolic toxins in our environments that are suppressing metabolism. Stuff like PUFA, endotoxin, serotonin, estrogen, hundreds of food additives, etc. When a subject is detoxing themselves from these metabolic toxins they very well could increase the basal metabolism and their old "caloric maintenance" may now be a deficit. This is where bioenergetics parts ways with mainstream views.

Where are all the posts showing the raised metabolism from all those things being detoxed? A lot of your posts talk about things that "should" be happening, usually regurgitating things Peat has said, but there seems to be very little evidence of this.

I do agree with you most people are unsuited to mainly liquid diets.

No one should eat more sugar/carbs then what they can utilize through the energy production cycle (glycolisis, krebs cycle, electron transport chain, etc.).

And yet they are. I bet there are hundreds of members on here that have not seen the post I quoted above.

 

[Maljam]

He also says an active person might need 400g carbs. I stick to 250g carbs on normal days and increase to 500g on workout days for better recovery.

The point of this post was to try get through to those who are sedentary and eating an excessive amount of carbs. There are many exercise avoiders that are eating the higher amount of carbs. It is clear that for some people simply adding more and more carbs isnt beneficial.

 

[Waynish]

Context is everything of course, but a common trend seems to be overeating to obesity and fatty liver.

I don't understand what you're saying... We need some solution to overeating that we don't have yet?

 

[Jessie]

but there seems to be very little evidence of this.

Pretty sure haidut has posted more than a few studies on the forum about reduction in endotoxin and/or TLR4 antagonists being a primary driver in weight loss. Just use the search bar "endotoxin."

 

[Maljam]

Pretty sure haidut has posted more than a few studies on the forum about reduction in endotoxin and/or TLR4 antagonists being a primary driver in weight loss. Just use the search bar "endotoxin."

Once again you miss the point. Where are the testimonials showing this? A large proportion of this forum struggle with weight loss, regardless of the amount of studies around it.

 

[Jessie]

Once again you miss the point. Where are the testimonials showing this? A large proportion of this forum struggle with weight loss, regardless of the amount of studies around it.

Probably because they're eating way too many calories for their BMR to utilize. Also, to make matters worse, I bet several of them are sedentary. Exercise that doesn't leave you breathless is actually very good for the metabolism. For example a long slow walk or pushups. Weight lifting too probably, but I think some people can overdo it with the weights. As long as you aren't over training you should be good. If you're one of those hardcore 4-5 days a week iron heads you're probably overdoing it. Lifting just once a week is enough to grow lean mass.

 

[Jennifer]

Fiber is important, even from a bioenergetic view. It's just some fibers are better than others. Specifically non-fermentable insoluble fibers.

In my experience, it all depends on the person. This is an email exchange I had with Ray back in 2015 when I was misdiagnosed as not having SIBO and was having issues with most foods:

“On Feb 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Jennifer wrote:

“Do you think eating a diet that consists of milk, cheese, meat/shellfish, eggs, juice and small amounts of butter or coconut oil would be a nutritionally complete and healthy diet to do? After doing the fruitarian diet, I don't seem to tolerate fiber at all. It gives me a lot of painful trapped gas in my colon area. I could try the flowers of sulphur again and see if it helps, but for the time being I'm hoping to avoid fiber if I can.

On Feb 19, 2015, at 4:47 PM, Ray Peat wrote:

“I think fiber is always a risk (I avoid them all except for occasional well cooked mushrooms and bamboo shoots, which are germicidal). The foods you list contain all the essential nutrients.”

And from the Ray Peat email exchanges:

“They aren't necessary [FIBER], for example milk supports abundant bacterial growth that creates bulk, but when there are digestive and hormonal problems because of bad intestinal flora, the fibers of carrot and bamboo shoots have a disinfecting action. The carrots must be raw for that effect.“ Ray Peat

“[Fiber-free diet possible?] I’ve had a fiber-free diet for many years.“ Ray Peat

Ray Peat Email Exchanges - Ray Peat Forum Wiki

When my peristalsis was weak due to poor thyroid and adrenal function, I needed fiber to facilitate elimination but since following Ray’s advice, with some of my own tweaks and starting thyroid supplementation, I cleared the SIBO and now have perfect elimination despite eating zero fiber most days. Eliminating fiber helped increase my chronically low cholesterol level so I could increase my thyroid dose and finally start overcoming issues that had plagued me since falling ill 12 years prior.
​