"Translating" Ray Peat's Work

[nigma]

Ray's work is amazing. He has a unique way of documenting the history of ideas and their effect on the scientific and public perception of biology. I often ponder what it is actually about his writing style or way of thinking that is unique. Perhaps it was caused by his being subjected to a high dose of progesterone as a child (or was it in the womb?) as he shared in an interview once, since his mother was taking it per a naturopath's suggestion. Maybe that allowed his brain to develop in a way that was different to most. Perhaps it allowed him to have a significantly higher level of working memory from a young age, which would influence how one perceives history and its relation to modern times. For people who really are ahead of their time, their ideas don't gel with the current paradigm to such an extent that they cannot even participate in the field they might be most interested in. Ray, when asked how he views his role in science, has said that he considers himself a critic of science, rather than being part of it. If his ideas are essentially correct, then eventually the majority view will accept it. Which is a good thing. It also offers an advantage to anyone that is able to have access to his ideas before they become accepted.

However, his work is also not the most accessible. People like to point out how many times they reread an article of his, or how slowly they have to work through them. Others come along and in a way "translate" his work into their own form, and to the benefit of others, make him more accessible. I wonder if this is the natural progression of ideas ahead of their time?

Everyone has a subjective view of the world, based on how their brain's neural net mapped out their entire life's stimuli. Because of this, it is easier to follow another person's writing or speech if it is coming from a brain that is mapped out similar to your own. So then as someone's work is "translated", it is made intelligible to more people. There is always the fact that something is lost in translation, but there is a benefit in a larger pool of people becoming familiar with the ideas. I think this is maybe how revolutionary ideas catch on. At first, they can only be understood by a small set of people, who meet a certain set of criteria. Then as more and more varied neural nets "translate" it, other neural nets get access to it. There probably comes a critical time, when there is a large enough group of people that understand the work and its implications, that it just naturally takes over, I imagine this kind of "sense" just resonates within groups of people.

My own experience for example... I had been reading Rays work on and off for years. Later Danny Roddy translated some of it. Then later Haidut came along and translated it, and some point after, I finally "got it", I could better appreciate its value. This has got me thinking about translating it myself.

I know my own way of thinking is quite different to Ray's so I'm not sure how to tackle it. Whenever you decide to write something, you have the problem of setting a scope. Rays articles are often focused on a particular nutrient or disease and their interactions, coupled with a historical context which informs a particular view toward either the nutrient or the disease. This is such a brilliant way to encapsulate a piece of writing... I mean there is a lot going on but he seems to do it so concisely. I feel like putting together articles on particular chemicals or hormones would be helpful, but I'd want to draw together everything Ray has ever written about a particular chemical, like say histamine for example. I like the way the Functional Performance Systems website will pull out and put together quotes from Ray on a particular subject. Although of course this necessarily removes almost all of the context and in a way makes it more usable by the left brain hemisphere's way of thinking (an Iain McGilchrist idea), which one would want to avoid.

 

[Amazoniac]

Toxic silence.

Raj's language is already accessible, it can't get simpler without compromising quality or becoming informal. However, having someone to bridge is justifiable, we can't expect the same receptiveness from different people and it can be discouraging when topics is too unfamiliar.

His ideas are being rehashed everywhere, it's going to be difficult to be authentic being one more doing it. I think what would be unique for you or someone to do as an effective means for your intention is to prepare graphical abstracts for each of his articles.

There are many serious musicians that trash André Rieu, but he must've been responsible for introducing new music to a lot of people that otherwise wouldn't have had their interests piqued for it.

 

[johnwester130]

Ray's work is amazing. He has a unique way of documenting the history of ideas and their effect on the scientific and public perception of biology. I often ponder what it is actually about his writing style or way of thinking that is unique. Perhaps it was caused by his being subjected to a high dose of progesterone as a child (or was it in the womb?) as he shared in an interview once, since his mother was taking it per a naturopath's suggestion. Maybe that allowed his brain to develop in a way that was different to most. Perhaps it allowed him to have a significantly higher level of working memory from a young age, which would influence how one perceives history and its relation to modern times. For people who really are ahead of their time, their ideas don't gel with the current paradigm to such an extent that they cannot even participate in the field they might be most interested in. Ray, when asked how he views his role in science, has said that he considers himself a critic of science, rather than being part of it. If his ideas are essentially correct, then eventually the majority view will accept it. Which is a good thing. It also offers an advantage to anyone that is able to have access to his ideas before they become accepted.

However, his work is also not the most accessible. People like to point out how many times they reread an article of his, or how slowly they have to work through them. Others come along and in a way "translate" his work into their own form, and to the benefit of others, make him more accessible. I wonder if this is the natural progression of ideas ahead of their time?

Everyone has a subjective view of the world, based on how their brain's neural net mapped out their entire life's stimuli. Because of this, it is easier to follow another person's writing or speech if it is coming from a brain that is mapped out similar to your own. So then as someone's work is "translated", it is made intelligible to more people. There is always the fact that something is lost in translation, but there is a benefit in a larger pool of people becoming familiar with the ideas. I think this is maybe how revolutionary ideas catch on. At first, they can only be understood by a small set of people, who meet a certain set of criteria. Then as more and more varied neural nets "translate" it, other neural nets get access to it. There probably comes a critical time, when there is a large enough group of people that understand the work and its implications, that it just naturally takes over, I imagine this kind of "sense" just resonates within groups of people.

My own experience for example... I had been reading Rays work on and off for years. Later Danny Roddy translated some of it. Then later Haidut came along and translated it, and some point after, I finally "got it", I could better appreciate its value. This has got me thinking about translating it myself.

I know my own way of thinking is quite different to Ray's so I'm not sure how to tackle it. Whenever you decide to write something, you have the problem of setting a scope. Rays articles are often focused on a particular nutrient or disease and their interactions, coupled with a historical context which informs a particular view toward either the nutrient or the disease. This is such a brilliant way to encapsulate a piece of writing... I mean there is a lot going on but he seems to do it so concisely. I feel like putting together articles on particular chemicals or hormones would be helpful, but I'd want to draw together everything Ray has ever written about a particular chemical, like say histamine for example. I like the way the Functional Performance Systems website will pull out and put together quotes from Ray on a particular subject. Although of course this necessarily removes almost all of the context and in a way makes it more usable by the left brain hemisphere's way of thinking (an Iain McGilchrist idea), which one would want to avoid.

have you read this ??

Simple Newbie Guide To Peat's Work :

 

[mrchibbs]

Ray's work has a certain barrier to entry.

Because to understand it, we need energy, and typically only the very metabolically impaired or sick people stumble upon his work.

And even then, it takes years of reading, and re-reading to understand, largely because we don't have (most of us) a good physiological understanding of the biological processes he talks about.

There is no way to bypass this stage of learning. That's how we arrive at reductionist ideas of a ''Ray Peat Diet'' of Milk and OJ.
It should be fun. Get a notes app, and take notes, read and re-read Ray's articles. Read Danny's. Listen to podcasts on your daily walks.
It's a journey, and you should dig further into his references when he sends a Newsletter, and not take him at his word. At that point,
you realize that he's never bullshitting, he always refers to real scientific papers, and it's there verbatim when you read those papers.

Where a lot of people err is when they try to apply cookie cutter approaches to their lives; like take thyroid or drink two gallons of milk and then bitching about how their lives aren't 10x better after a few days.

Ray has said that the process of learning about foods, light, and health is like going to therapy...and I agree. It's a process where you discover yourself and grow into a better human. It's very rewarding. And the more you fix your metabolism, the greater your experience with it becomes.

 

[LeeLemonoil]

I would welcome a sort of concise Glossar for reference.
I see two essential motives here on RPF repeatedly from where the need for „Peat for dummies“ or a Peat-Primer stem.

Convince ignorants with now, little or pseudo-knowledge (vegetable oil-„health“lunatics for example)

Or science and medical pros or students/enthusiast that have formal education/knowledge but heed the wrong Dogmas of estrogens, metabolism, genetics and the like. To argue with these, accessible but serious info and description of Peats work needs to be referred.


If you know what Peat and those he derives his knowledge from wrote, you know Estrogen/Sero Bad for example (though there is always context) because you have the fundamentals and implications in mind. If you don’t, than someone telling you the „female hormone“ is bad in that and this situation they call you a misogynist or something.

I would write the fundamental concepts first:
Cell energy, respiration, metabolism, why it masters, what mechanisms are protective and functional, how it intertwines With immunity

And maybe from there go to more specific topics (like Ray Peat concepts and it’s implications for cancer / Alzheimer ....)

And then a Glossar for central substances, like progesterone.
Don’t only say Prog is protective but wrote out why. What does it fundamentally do in different contexts that makes it protective / it’s lack or antagonism hazardous? How can that be explained evolutionarily?

So if you read about depression and mental disorders you will read prog-derived neuroszerpifs and Prog itself are protective - without detailed repeated explanations- but you can quickly refer some pages prior why (see: Progesterone)

Diagrams are helpful:
Energy metabolism ->immunity <->steroids <-> epigenetics <-> environment and so forth

 

[GreekDemiGod]

Ray has said that the process of learning about foods, light, and health is like going to therapy...

Well put. It's all a form of self-nurture.

 

[LeeLemonoil]

have you read this ??

Simple Newbie Guide To Peat's Work :

That doesn’t do the matter justice. That’s like reading Peats work and what others wrote about it for buzz words and a pseudo-legit supp list

 

[LeeLemonoil]

Well put. It's all a form of self-nurture.

Yes. For us who seek information and fundamental understanding of health and physiology, that’s the way to go. Both for actually mastering the knowledge but Aldi because it had an effect and purpose in itself

 

[Energizer]

Ray's work is amazing. He has a unique way of documenting the history of ideas and their effect on the scientific and public perception of biology. I often ponder what it is actually about his writing style or way of thinking that is unique. Perhaps it was caused by his being subjected to a high dose of progesterone as a child (or was it in the womb?) as he shared in an interview once, since his mother was taking it per a naturopath's suggestion. Maybe that allowed his brain to develop in a way that was different to most. Perhaps it allowed him to have a significantly higher level of working memory from a young age, which would influence how one perceives history and its relation to modern times. For people who really are ahead of their time, their ideas don't gel with the current paradigm to such an extent that they cannot even participate in the field they might be most interested in. Ray, when asked how he views his role in science, has said that he considers himself a critic of science, rather than being part of it. If his ideas are essentially correct, then eventually the majority view will accept it. Which is a good thing. It also offers an advantage to anyone that is able to have access to his ideas before they become accepted.

However, his work is also not the most accessible. People like to point out how many times they reread an article of his, or how slowly they have to work through them. Others come along and in a way "translate" his work into their own form, and to the benefit of others, make him more accessible. I wonder if this is the natural progression of ideas ahead of their time?

Everyone has a subjective view of the world, based on how their brain's neural net mapped out their entire life's stimuli. Because of this, it is easier to follow another person's writing or speech if it is coming from a brain that is mapped out similar to your own. So then as someone's work is "translated", it is made intelligible to more people. There is always the fact that something is lost in translation, but there is a benefit in a larger pool of people becoming familiar with the ideas. I think this is maybe how revolutionary ideas catch on. At first, they can only be understood by a small set of people, who meet a certain set of criteria. Then as more and more varied neural nets "translate" it, other neural nets get access to it. There probably comes a critical time, when there is a large enough group of people that understand the work and its implications, that it just naturally takes over, I imagine this kind of "sense" just resonates within groups of people.

My own experience for example... I had been reading Rays work on and off for years. Later Danny Roddy translated some of it. Then later Haidut came along and translated it, and some point after, I finally "got it", I could better appreciate its value. This has got me thinking about translating it myself.

I know my own way of thinking is quite different to Ray's so I'm not sure how to tackle it. Whenever you decide to write something, you have the problem of setting a scope. Rays articles are often focused on a particular nutrient or disease and their interactions, coupled with a historical context which informs a particular view toward either the nutrient or the disease. This is such a brilliant way to encapsulate a piece of writing... I mean there is a lot going on but he seems to do it so concisely. I feel like putting together articles on particular chemicals or hormones would be helpful, but I'd want to draw together everything Ray has ever written about a particular chemical, like say histamine for example. I like the way the Functional Performance Systems website will pull out and put together quotes from Ray on a particular subject. Although of course this necessarily removes almost all of the context and in a way makes it more usable by the left brain hemisphere's way of thinking (an Iain McGilchrist idea), which one would want to avoid.

Ray's work also needs more translation love from bilingual speakers and polyglots and more promotion of his website elsewhere. People on the forum have already taken some initiative translating his work to other languages which I hope continues and I hope people jump in and do what needs to be done. I think English translations water down the brilliant articles that he took the time to bother writing, for free mind you, to make available to everyone. And he has plenty of interviews. So I don't really think there's much of an excuse for confusion, especially when he gives his email out over the radio. It took me years as well to figure out what was going on with my health, and put the puzzle pieces together from the humble Coconut Oil article I stumbled upon that Ray wrote, to learning about the ills of PUFA and the rest of his research and writing on nutrition. I'm not sure his work would have been done justice had I read it from some other source that was trying to summarize his work. That being said, I enjoy Danny Roddy's content, but his content is no substitute for Ray's work and doesn't claim to be (as far as I've seen).