Unpopular Opinion: I Think Some Of Ray's Ideas Are Just Not Helpful And Actually Make Matters Worse

[Kelj]

@Kelj

Does Ray really say we should only consume 2,000 calories? Do you know where he says that?

That's pretty disappointing if true. He of all people should know better than to continue to spout that stuff.

KMUD 12-16-16 Food

 

[morgan#1]

KMUD 12-16-16 Food

He was I think going from the perspective of hypo and his response to the interviewer saying what’s the ballpark of female caloric intake....Ray said ballpark 2,000...and then he said you can be very sedentary and burn 3,000...and then he said something about 1,700...and then he said something about a female existing on 700 and gaining weight..(which I painfully did). So there’s a range. I don’t think at all we should shoot for 2,000. I think he was responding from a messed up metabolism’s view. I see it as saying we are all different organisms, there’s way too many variables that go into it. I would waste away on 2,000

17:45 time into it

 

[morgan#1]

It’s like Freud, and his take on women. I would imagine he had some pretty messed up rich women sitting on his couch. Possibly the scope of Peat is biased because our “people” are so walking off a cliff. If we had an abundance of healthy people he might have had a different answer. I think for a healthy active person, female would be 2,600-3,200 and male would be 3,500 to 4,000, my guess. Plus the macro ratio would completely alter any calories: and slow-burners, oxidizers, etc. Not talking about bodybuilders. I’ve read that females take in (give or take) 5,000 cals to maintain their muscle.

 

[Kelj]

It’s like Freud, and his take on women. I would imagine he had some pretty messed up rich women sitting on his couch. Possibly the scope of Peat is biased because our “people” are so walking off a cliff. If we had an abundance of healthy people he might have had a different answer. I think for a healthy active person, female would be 2,600-3,200 and male would be 3,500 to 4,000, my guess. Plus the macro ratio would completely alter any calories: and slow-burners, oxidizers, etc. Not talking about bodybuilders. I’ve read that females take in give or take 5,000 cals to maintain their muscle.

I take your point. Ray was asked how many calories we should eat, and he used the example of a sedentary female, saying about 2000. Then, he made the observation about taking into account metabolism. I'll clarify my view. The edinstitute has a set of guidelines for maintaining baseline metabolism. It is not 2000 for anyone. For women in a normal height range, it is 3000 calories as an absolute minimum every day of your life. It will be even more, if you are a mother of young children or carry weight over normal BMI (because fat is metabolically active). Eating well above this baseline is necessary if you want to move at all, stay healthy and have a normal metabolism. Of course, as Ray commented, it is possible for people to suppress their metabolism so much through calorie restriction (diet alone, or diet/exercise combo) that they can gain weight on 700 or 800 calories. The only way to come out of this metabolically suppressed state is to increase calorie consumption consistently every day without fail. After calorie restriction (starvation), your body will store the newly available excess calories for several months to protect against any return of the "famine". After that, the body will gradually release the fat stores on It's own schedule through a combination of oxidation and detox. Having returned to a normal metabolism, this person can now eat any amount of calories their body desires without gaining weight, provided it is consistently unrestricted daily. This is what happened to me. This is why I say I disagree with saying anyone should eat 2000 calories. It will keep a person in a metabolically suppressed state. The thyroid and every other organ or gland is recoverable with enough calories. Repair will happen with abundant calories.

 

[morgan#1]

those guidelines will destroy the human organism. The mind is very powerful, and if I went by Cronometer’s view on women (probably men as well); they say max is much lower than what I need. Nobody should listen to anyone, question everything that needs to be questioned. I don’t buy into women scaring other women, because their afraid, and discussing calories. I looked at something, swimsuit bodybuilders for women or something. And their maintaining at 1,700 and their cutting at 1,500. Some go as “high” as 2,500. They’re brainwashed and they’re brainwashing each other out of fear of a little belly fat

I did it the untraveled way, not going to any site to “help” me: gaining 10 + pounds, and then losing it once my body realized it wasn’t starving anymore. I don’t need to go to edeninstitute for that. I think it’s the utmost importance to hold your own hand, trial and error. It’s very important to have support, but who defines support? Is it a temporary crutch or an albatross

( I know this is off topic, but I want everyone reading this to know that. I was one of those scared desperate females who didn’t know things would work out. You’re body is smarter than your brain. Trust it)

 

[Ron J]

I'm currently cutting, but would appreciate suggestions to minimize fat gain after this cut. I used to eat about 4,000 calories or close to that, but I think I should have kept fat lower, and I think even on no fat, I may have gained some weight.

 

[morgan#1]

.

 

[CrystalClear]

The only way to come out of this metabolically suppressed state is to increase calorie consumption consistently every day without fail. After calorie restriction (starvation), your body will store the newly available excess calories for several months to protect against any return of the "famine". After that, the body will gradually release the fat stores on It's own schedule through a combination of oxidation and detox. Having returned to a normal metabolism, this person can now eat any amount of calories their body desires without gaining weight, provided it is consistently unrestricted daily. This is what happened to me. This is why I say I disagree with saying anyone should eat 2000 calories. It will keep a person in a metabolically suppressed state. The thyroid and every other organ or gland is recoverable with enough calories. Repair will happen with abundant calories.

enjo
I agree with this, although I haven't seen the full results of this in myself yet. After 3 years of listening to Ray, following his recommendations (not strictly), and listening to others inspired by him, calorie restriction hasn't hasn't stood out at all. After many years of dieting at last I felt free to eat what I wanted. Certainly have put on a lot of weight, but l kept in mind what you mentioned above. The body at some stage will detect when the famine is over and it will start letting go of fat stores. In the meantime I enjoy without guilt eating however much I like. Your comment made me think of female kangaroos' bodies that can put off development of embryos in times of drought and famine until food sources are rich and plentiful. :) The same kind of idea of innate body intelligence.

In response to the OP, it is my understanding that the liquid diet of oj and milk is an emergency therapeutic one for people that might need help quickly. But time and again I have seen it said there is no one size fits all and that we need to perceive, think, act. I'm REALLY glad for this forums' help lately for relief of debilitating sciatica with some extra b12. A lot actually. lol I haven't run into anything so far where Ray has been off the mark ('cept maybe evolution, but that's another story)

 

[Collden]

I think Peats work is very heavily biased towards female health and that many principles do not necessarily apply to males, depending on what you want to achieve. Frequent small meals emphasizing sugar and dairy and as little stress as possible is a lifestyle women tend to naturally gravitate to. Men on the other hand naturally gravitate towards infrequent large meals empasizing starch, meat and alcohol, and require some stress (both mental/physical) in their life lest they become soft. Men very clearly tend to gravitate towards a lifestyle that results in higher oxidative stress (less fruits/veggies, more meat, more alcohol, more physical stress) and greater reliance on fat burning for a big part of the day, and there may also be a gender difference in how we respond to that. The male physiology may in itself be less compatible with the modern western notion of health since men have shorter life expectancy and have far greater incidence of cardiovascular disease at comparable ages. Example is how western health researchers point out that the classic male "apple"-shaped fat distribution is associated with worse health, and advise that men should rather strive to attain a pear-shaped figure.

This is also reflected in our different standards for what is appealing in men and women. In women, youth is valued above all and Peats lifestyle recommendations are chiefly based on trying to maintain a youthful metabolism for as long as possible. In men however, maturity is more valued than youth, and men may gravitate towards a lifestyle that leads to accelerated aging simply because physiological maturity is part of our classic ideal of masculinity.

 

[MarcelZD]

I think Peats work is very heavily biased towards female health and that many principles do not necessarily apply to males, depending on what you want to achieve. Frequent small meals emphasizing sugar and dairy and as little stress as possible is a lifestyle women tend to naturally gravitate to. Men on the other hand naturally gravitate towards infrequent large meals empasizing starch, meat and alcohol, and require some stress (both mental/physical) in their life lest they become soft. Men very clearly tend to gravitate towards a lifestyle that results in higher oxidative stress (less fruits/veggies, more meat, more alcohol, more physical stress) and greater reliance on fat burning for a big part of the day, and there may also be a gender difference in how we respond to that. The male physiology may in itself be less compatible with the modern western notion of health since men have shorter life expectancy and have far greater incidence of cardiovascular disease at comparable ages. Example is how western health researchers point out that the classic male "apple"-shaped fat distribution is associated with worse health, and advise that men should rather strive to attain a pear-shaped figure.

This is also reflected in our different standards for what is appealing in men and women. In women, youth is valued above all and Peats lifestyle recommendations are chiefly based on trying to maintain a youthful metabolism for as long as possible. In men however, maturity is more valued than youth, and men may gravitate towards a lifestyle that leads to accelerated aging simply because physiological maturity is part of our classic ideal of masculinity.

Very interesting perspective. I've had similar suspicions to the effect that his guidelines fail to produce positive results in (especially bigger) physically active men. Some of Peat's other recommendations follow the same logic - Aspirin for example powerfully reduces muscular strength and adaptation.

It's like the often touted diet of the Okinawans, who are like 4 ft 11 in for males. Probably doesn't work for tall European men very well.

 

[Kelj]

I'm currently cutting, but would appreciate suggestions to minimize fat gain after this cut. I used to eat about 4,000 calories or close to that, but I think I should have kept fat lower, and I think even on no fat, I may have gained some weight.

The only way to get past fat storage forever is to never restrict calories by diet, exercise, or a combination of the two. After restriction, the body will protect itself for a time by fat storage. Persisting through that period will allow one to arrive at the fat loss part of the process. This usually is the eight month mark and beyond, when you lose weight, instead of gain. Everyone is different, though. That is why the next recommendation is so important. Follow your body's desire for what to eat and drink (including water), when to eat and drink, and how much to eat and drink. Don't use any rules you've been following in the past. It is not your intellect that knows what your body needs, but your body that knows. This will answer Collden's point in this thread. If men and women do have different needs, a man's body will lead him to feed himself differently than a woman's will. Anything else is guesswork. The only reason to aquaint yourself with the minimum calorie baseline for gender and size via edinstitute is to break oneself of the notion that 1200, 1500, 2000 or any such number of calories is going to build or maintain a healthy body. Maybe we've never experienced allowing ourselves to eat the number of calories that will maintain a healthy body. Maybe we need to rewire our brain to accept that that amount of food is healthy and will not hurt, but rather help us. Having said that, though, the following of our bodies desire for food is the way to go, even in the amount of food. If you have been following low carb, though, you won't be very hungry for a while and must persist with consistent carb eating to gain normal hunger signals. That is because your body is in a fat burning metabolism and is catabolic, turning your tissue into glucose. It is feeding itself in a cannibalistic way. If you persist with carbs on demand, your body will switch to carb burning and you will begin to experience regular hunger signals. It is the thought of food and wanting to eat that is a hunger signal. Stomach growling and shakiness is letting it go too far. You will gain weight in this process. Your body is protecting you. It is temporary. Trust it. Buy a pair of sweat pants, make yourself comfortable and ride it out. Marvel at the way your body can recover.

 

[Ron J]

The only way to get past fat storage forever is to never restrict calories by diet, exercise, or a combination of the two. After restriction, the body will protect itself for a time by fat storage. Persisting through that period will allow one to arrive at the fat loss part of the process. This usually is the eight month mark and beyond, when you lose weight, instead of gain. Everyone is different, though. That is why the next recommendation is so important. Follow your body's desire for what to eat and drink (including water), when to eat and drink, and how much to eat and drink. Don't use any rules you've been following in the past. It is not your intellect that knows what your body needs, but your body that knows. This will answer Collden's point in this thread. If men and women do have different needs, a man's body will lead him to feed himself differently than a woman's will. Anything else is guesswork. The only reason to aquaint yourself with the minimum calorie baseline for gender and size via edinstitute is to break oneself of the notion that 1200, 1500, 2000 or any such number of calories is going to build or maintain a healthy body. Maybe we've never experienced allowing ourselves to eat the number of calories that will maintain a healthy body. Maybe we need to rewire our brain to accept that that amount of food is healthy and will not hurt, but rather help us. Having said that, though, the following of our bodies desire for food is the way to go, even in the amount of food. If you have been following low carb, though, you won't be very hungry for a while and must persist with consistent carb eating to gain normal hunger signals. That is because your body is in a fat burning metabolism and is catabolic, turning your tissue into glucose. It is feeding itself in a cannibalistic way. If you persist with carbs on demand, your body will switch to carb burning and you will begin to experience regular hunger signals. It is the thought of food and wanting to eat that is a hunger signal. Stomach growling and shakiness is letting it go too far. You will gain weight in this process. Your body is protecting you. It is temporary. Trust it. Buy a pair of sweat pants, make yourself comfortable and ride it out. Marvel at the way your body can recover.

Thanks for helping.
Eight months seems like a lot; how much fat gain on average? Is there anything that may help prevent fat accumulation while the body regulates itself?

 

[mrchibbs]

I am interested in this, could you start a new thread? Although I am mainly interested in the woman side of things. I have been on progest-e for over 4 years and feel like it's not doing all the things I thought it would. I feel better when estrogen starts rising now, like I get some more kick in my step, mood is better, appetite is better, motivation is better then after the two weeks on progest-e I'm weepy, I have hot flashes, I have literally no energy, I'm bloated, Transit time slows. Oh and also a new symptom is TMJ at that time of my cycle! Peat fans would say take WAY MORE! You need more progesterone! Well no I have never ever been a fan of of going over 20 mg. It doesn't make me feel better the more I take. I actually get high cortisol the more I take.

Hey Janelle, just wanted to comment on 2 things.

-Progest-e can be a problem if you're still stressed since some of it will be converted to cortisol. (The author of this article refers to it as the progesterone 'steal' Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Natural Progesterone)

So yeah taking way-more Progest-e if you don't feel good is not a good approach. Ray has said many time that high doses can make you feel light headed. In his books Ray even says that it shouldn't be necessary to keep using it long term. It's not a Panacea and fixing the thyroid and metabolism and liver to make your own instead of supplementing is the most important thing. I tend to see Progest-e as a good supportive tool. I still think it's so generally protective that a small daily dose on the gums before eating is a superb supplement.

-TMJ and Bruxism and other similar issues are linked to high serotonin based on what little studies there are on the topic. So making sure to avoid intestinal irritation and inflammation might be key in your case as 95% of serotonin comes from the intestines.

I'm not convinced at all about the benefits of estrogen. To his credit, Goobz has acknowledged that he hasn't read much of Ray's ideas, but I think the overwhelming evidence he's presented over the past 40 years is hard to contradict. There seems to be a few studies on the benefits of estradiol, so let's keep an open mind here of course. That being said, Ray's perspective seems to me like it focuses on the state where estrogen is unopposed by progesterone, which can happen when thyroid function falters or your menstrual cycle becomes affected and you stop ovulating for a time. All in all, many more people have suffered from high estrogen than low, and that's where I'll disagree with Goobz.

 

[Cirion]

@Ron J

Take my lessons I learned the hard way. Yes eat as much as you want... With the following two caveats

- Don't eat too much fat (even saturated)
- Don't go tooo crazy on protein... 100 grams is enough and anything more than 150 is too much, I started having problems with high protein.

Other than that, have at it. It's very hard to over-eat on carbs when you're eating low fat in particular.

I absolutely agree on ample calories, but be very careful about dietary fat. I gained 90 lbs because I was extremely liberal with dietary fat. You will gain weight regardless, but I think most of my weight gain could have been avoided if I focused on carbs as the main macronutrient. I didn't stop my weight gain (Scale was still going up 90 lbs later) until I stopped eating dietary fat. To be clear, I still eat high calorie (4000-5000) so that point is still critical. I'm still fat, but I have finally stopped the scale from increasing and I hope in a few months it will begin to drop. I am not worried that I am destroying my metabolism, because I still eat high calorie. But it can be easy to accidentally drop calories too low when dropping dietary fat, so be aware of this.

I eat huge meals. You will likely need to rethink what a "meal" is to eat enough. I eat several cups of rice, upwards of 3 lbs of potatoes at a time, or several cups of oatmeal... pounds or even a kg or two of grapes... etc...

I am pretty sure Haidut experienced the same thing, and also said the same thing-If he could have done it all over again, he would have eaten much lower fat. One guy here put it simply - Carbs are the gas pedal to your metabolism, and fats are the brakes. So, fats have no place in a hypo metabolism diet. In my opinion and experience at least.

 

[MarcelZD]

@Ron J

Take my lessons I learned the hard way. Yes eat as much as you want... With the following two caveats

- Don't eat too much fat (even saturated)
- Don't go tooo crazy on protein... 100 grams is enough and anything more than 150 is too much, I started having problems with high protein.

Other than that, have at it. It's very hard to over-eat on carbs when you're eating low fat in particular.

I absolutely agree on ample calories, but be very careful about dietary fat. I gained 90 lbs because I was extremely liberal with dietary fat. You will gain weight regardless, but I think most of my weight gain could have been avoided if I focused on carbs as the main macronutrient. I didn't stop my weight gain (Scale was still going up 90 lbs later) until I stopped eating dietary fat. To be clear, I still eat high calorie (4000-5000) so that point is still critical. I'm still fat, but I have finally stopped the scale from increasing and I hope in a few months it will begin to drop. I am not worried that I am destroying my metabolism, because I still eat high calorie. But it can be easy to accidentally drop calories too low when dropping dietary fat, so be aware of this.

I eat huge meals. You will likely need to rethink what a "meal" is to eat enough. I eat several cups of rice, upwards of 3 lbs of potatoes at a time, or several cups of oatmeal... pounds or even a kg or two of grapes... etc...

I am pretty sure Haidut experienced the same thing, and also said the same thing-If he could have done it all over again, he would have eaten much lower fat. One guy here put it simply - Carbs are the gas pedal to your metabolism, and fats are the brakes. So, fats have no place in a hypo metabolism diet. In my opinion and experience at least.

90lbs is a lot. Do you have a history of high PUFA and/or calorie restriction?

 

[Cirion]

90lbs is a lot. Do you have a history of high PUFA and/or calorie restriction?

I ate high PUFA back in my keto days but that is somewhat far in my past now. The trigger to my metabolism breakdown was complex and involved many things, but ultimately involved carb/calorie restriction primarily. Bringing back calories was the right choice, but it should have been primarily from carbs especially seeing as how that was the main macronutrient that was limited.

Looking at RP as an example, he eats something like 400 gram carbs and 60 gram fat a day. That kind of ratio is probably fine as well as long as you aren't fat. The problem is I ate 2-4x that amount every day in fat. Now I am paying the price. I think if you're fatter, your dietary fat intake should probably be even lower (I'm aiming to be no more than 10-20 gram a day currently). Because my intake is so low, I DO allow myself some "cheats" now and then like some semi-fatty pasta sauce which does make some starchy meals a lot tastier. Listening to cravings can be useful. I was definitely craving some pasta and nice sauce with it so I had some brown rice/quinoa pasta along with it (Most commercial pastas are garbage, so I was careful what I got... not Kraft or any of that crap lol)

 

[Ron J]

@Ron J

Take my lessons I learned the hard way. Yes eat as much as you want... With the following two caveats

- Don't eat too much fat (even saturated)
- Don't go tooo crazy on protein... 100 grams is enough and anything more than 150 is too much, I started having problems with high protein.

Other than that, have at it. It's very hard to over-eat on carbs when you're eating low fat in particular.

I absolutely agree on ample calories, but be very careful about dietary fat. I gained 90 lbs because I was extremely liberal with dietary fat. You will gain weight regardless, but I think most of my weight gain could have been avoided if I focused on carbs as the main macronutrient. I didn't stop my weight gain (Scale was still going up 90 lbs later) until I stopped eating dietary fat. To be clear, I still eat high calorie (4000-5000) so that point is still critical. I'm still fat, but I have finally stopped the scale from increasing and I hope in a few months it will begin to drop. I am not worried that I am destroying my metabolism, because I still eat high calorie. But it can be easy to accidentally drop calories too low when dropping dietary fat, so be aware of this.

I eat huge meals. You will likely need to rethink what a "meal" is to eat enough. I eat several cups of rice, upwards of 3 lbs of potatoes at a time, or several cups of oatmeal... pounds or even a kg or two of grapes... etc...

I am pretty sure Haidut experienced the same thing, and also said the same thing-If he could have done it all over again, he would have eaten much lower fat. One guy here put it simply - Carbs are the gas pedal to your metabolism, and fats are the brakes. So, fats have no place in a hypo metabolism diet. In my opinion and experience at least.

I'm sure I gained some weight while on high carb, no fat, but I think it may have been due to lack of nutrients. I was consuming table sugar for a large part of carb calories. Perhaps it'll work with nutrient dense foods.
Edit: And most of my fat gain was prior to that with higher fat in addition to the carbs.

 

[Cirion]

I'm sure I gained some weight while on high carb, no fat, but I think it may have been due to lack of nutrients. I was consuming table sugar for a large part of carb calories. Perhaps it'll work with nutrient dense foods.
Edit: And most of my fat gain was prior to that with higher fat in addition to the carbs.

Ahh yes that would likely do it. I never use straight sugar for anything. If I really want to sweeten something I'll use something that actually has nutrition like maple syrup. Also I find sugar in general is something that can be over-done, and I actually use starch for most of my carbs. For me sugar is too unstable of an energy source for the primary source, but I do still have a good amount of it in my diet, at least 33% of my carbs.

Also, it still won't insulate you from fat gain. If you've been hypo, you can usually expect some gain, but it will be less.

Additionally, a lot of the gain will be just water weight - additional glycogen in the system and whatnot.

 

[Ron J]

Ahh yes that would likely do it. I never use straight sugar for anything. If I really want to sweeten something I'll use something that actually has nutrition like maple syrup. Also I find sugar in general is something that can be over-done, and I actually use starch for most of my carbs. For me sugar is too unstable of an energy source for the primary source, but I do still have a good amount of it in my diet, at least 33% of my carbs.

After reading a comment about bodybuilders looking unhealthy(stressed) due to lack of nutrients, I think nutrient dense foods is a must if you have more muscle mass than average or a larger than average individual.

 

[Kelj]

Cirion is right. If you have been restricting calories you will absolutely gain weight temporarily when you are eating enough. If you Don't gain more weight than you would normally carry, you are still restricting. May I ask Cirion and RonJ, would you say when you were eating plenty of calories, were you following your body's desire for fats, carbs and proteins or were you deciding ahead of time and making rules about ratios?