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

[ShotTrue]

Nice point here Goobz. I recently read that too little estrogen can actually reduce the androgen receptors in the body. I can tell it's anti anabolic to have too little estrogen - some bodybuilders even like somewhat elevated estrogen because it helps with bulking up more mass. Estrogen is 33% as anabolic as test and better as a bulking agent. I may be wrong but deca durabolin I believe was based on estrogen.
From my experience with below healthy estrogen (sub 15-17) I had hairloss, chronic inflammation, joint pain, anhedonia, depression, anxiety, irritability, loss of muscle mass, low energy. A lot of bodybuilders who lower estro too much say it was the worst thing they ever experienced

 

[ShotTrue]

I was referring to aromatase inhibitors as the drug causing those diseases. I'm not sure, they may also effect progesterone too, I'll have to refresh myself tbh. But they're targeted anti estrogen drugs.

And you may "very much doubt" estrogens beneficial effects on those systems, but it's well established and easily searchable on the internet. I can post some studies tomorrow when I have more time, but in the meantime... type the words "estrogen mitochondria" into google and see what comes up.... with a focus on the more recent studies!

I would like to see studies/evidence AIs lower progesterone. I was called out on it and don't have any thing to back that it's true

 

[Goobz]

Hey @ShotTrue and @Kray and anyone else who has responded to my earlier post - this thread became too huge for me to wade through.

I was going to start another thread about estradiol to address those points, but thought it'd probably just turn into an argument, probably one which ends up ideological more than scientific, which I don't really have energy for at the moment.

Kray - I am in no position to give advice, really. But check out Dr Anne Hathaway, who goes deep into the research on estradiol and progesterone.

ShotTrue - yeah I haven't seen anything either about how AIs lower progesterone. Though it doesn't really matter, since a similar cognitive decline occurs with selective estrogen receptor modulators as well, which block estrogen in the brain. So many of the negative effects are clearly via from blocking estrogen, not progesterone.

Though the need to somehow blame the vast negative effect of AIs on "lowering progesterone" is just ideological bias. I've seen serious mental gymnastics on display here to re interpret and pin any beneficial effects of anything which isn't "Peaty", on a different, "Peat approved" substance or action in the body. The human body isn't divided into "good" or "bad" substances like this.

Posters here cite the WHI study as evidence that estrogen is unhealthy. The substance with the most negative effects in that study was the nasty synthetic progesterone they were using, but that isn't what people took away from it. Instead, estrogen is vilified, despite the fact they were using - wait for it - a horse derived estrogen substitute that gets converted by the liver into the pro clotting form of estrogen.

Neither of these represent the natural hormones. Progesterone supplementation has many, many benefits when done properly. The same is true for estradiol. Everything has a role. Estrogen and progesterone cycle naturally in young healthy women. One isn't a "good" and the other "bad".

EDIT - I had intended just a short answer to the posters who tagged me, but it seems once i get going it's hard to stop. Should really start a new thread :p

 

[ShotTrue]

Hey @ShotTrue and @Kray and anyone else who has responded to my earlier post - this thread became too huge for me to wade through.

I was going to start another thread about estradiol to address those points, but thought it'd probably just turn into an argument, probably one which ends up ideological more than scientific, which I don't really have energy for at the moment.

Kray - I am in no position to give advice, really. But check out Dr Anne Hathaway, who goes deep into the research on estradiol and progesterone.

ShotTrue - yeah I haven't seen anything either about how AIs lower progesterone. Though it doesn't really matter, since a similar cognitive decline occurs with selective estrogen receptor modulators as well, which block estrogen in the brain. So many of the negative effects are clearly via from blocking estrogen, not progesterone.

Though the need to somehow blame the vast negative effect of AIs on "lowering progesterone" is just ideological bias. I've seen serious mental gymnastics on display here to re interpret and pin any beneficial effects of anything which isn't "Peaty", on a different, "Peat approved" substance or action in the body. The human body isn't divided into "good" or "bad" substances like this.

Posters here cite the WHI study as evidence that estrogen is unhealthy. The substance with the most negative effects in that study was the nasty synthetic progesterone they were using, but that isn't what people took away from it. Instead, estrogen is vilified, despite the fact they were using - wait for it - a horse derived estrogen substitute that gets converted by the liver into the pro clotting form of estrogen.

Neither of these represent the natural hormones. Progesterone supplementation has many, many benefits when done properly. The same is true for estradiol. Everything has a role. Estrogen and progesterone cycle naturally in young healthy women. One isn't a "good" and the other "bad".

EDIT - I had intended just a short answer to the posters who tagged me, but it seems once i get going it's hard to stop. Should really start a new thread :p

A new thread would be useful. I agree, in fact it wouldnt make sense to me that our bodies would all have a certain median level of estrogen yet we surmise it's a completely toxic hormone.
It's obvious none of us run on zero estrogen and the average level is like 25.

If people would back up more claims on the negative of any estrogen existing in the body I would give more fruit to the argument. Right now it seems like Peat warned of excess estrogen and users on the forum decided that it must mean any estrogen is the bane of health

You sound like you know more about it than me, just putting in my two cents

 

[Kray]

Thanks Goobz, completely understand your position on not treading too deep, it's a loaded topic, for sure! Thanks for putting it out there. I had used the patch instead of going oral route, and I remember thinking it gave me a nice balance with compounded progesterone (also topical appl.) My doc was ahead of his time-- he only did blood tests prior to Rx if patient insisted on it; otherwise, he left it up to the patient to "read" their need levels by keeping a symptoms chart which helped them to see where less or more of which hormone was needed. This was especially helpful during the "perimenopausal" stage, when there is no "normal" anymore.

 

[Goobz]

A new thread would be useful. I agree, in fact it wouldnt make sense to me that our bodies would all have a certain median level of estrogen yet we surmise it's a completely toxic hormone.
It's obvious none of us run on zero estrogen and the average level is like 25.

If people would back up more claims on the negative of any estrogen existing in the body I would give more fruit to the argument. Right now it seems like Peat warned of excess estrogen and users on the forum decided that it must mean any estrogen is the bane of health

You sound like you know more about it than me, just putting in my two cents

Very well put - it does seem to be in forums and online communities, where things get more dogmatic.

Thanks Goobz, completely understand your position on not treading too deep, it's a loaded topic, for sure! Thanks for putting it out there. I had used the patch instead of going oral route, and I remember thinking it gave me a nice balance with compounded progesterone (also topical appl.) My doc was ahead of his time-- he only did blood tests prior to Rx if patient insisted on it; otherwise, he left it up to the patient to "read" their need levels by keeping a symptoms chart which helped them to see where less or more of which hormone was needed. This was especially helpful during the "perimenopausal" stage, when there is no "normal" anymore.

This video is long but very informative on the subject:

 

[Kray]

Thanks for the link. Look forward to watching!

 

[Kartoffel]

Start with reading my first post in this thread to give you more of a clear idea to what i'm referring to.. if you have any further questions or desire to discuss anything specific past that let me know..

Just for a bit more clarity , i'm talking partly about his particular methodology.. he often attempts to interpret the mechanisms and mechanistic modes of action within human physiology from in-vitro studies, animal studies (mainly rats), some anecdotal feed back and some case studies (which are all very low tier on the evidence hierarchy), and then make broad conclusions and generalisations from these mechanistic theories into human nutrition. This is a very flawed way of utilising the science. Mechanistic interpretations of data are great for motivating more scientific exploration of certain things, and it could be said that all this experimenting with certain aspects of a ray peat inspired diet (and supplementation for that matter) are in a sense participating in such exploration. Albeit in an uncontrolled manner so only can be taken as anecdotal evidence at best for the most part.

Peat has made some absolutely ridiculous errors in his interpretation of data and studies (citing studies of uncooked starch in rats as a reason to avoid starch in general - 1. cooking starch is an obvious thing that most people eating starch do, 2. we have vastly different digestive systems than rats. And then seemingly ignores all subsequent studies and data, after the old initial rat study, on starch that points to it being well utilised and digested by humans). He has made similar conclusions about legumes, examining issues with them in an uncooked state ignoring the fact that noone eats them raw, and unwilling to even look at high level evidence that suggests very good nutritional value for humans. He recently started recommending mushrooms after considering that cooking them alters their "toxicity" to being unproblematic. I mean this is such a basic thing that took him decades to work out. Has he considered how cooking starch or cooking legumes solves many of his so claimed problems with them? It seems such an obvious consideration, but one still wonders.

Further, Peat very rarely if ever looks at, considers or discusses high level research and evidence that goes against his narrative. For example, very well conducted, high level randomised controlled studies and meta analyses on dairy and its negative effects on human health (of which the literature is abundant - Dairy products, calcium, and prostate cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. - PubMed - NCBI ; Does milk intake promote prostate cancer initiation or progression via effects on insulin-like growth factors (IGFs)? A systematic review and meta-... - PubMed - NCBI ; Dairy intake after prostate cancer diagnosis in relation to disease-specific and total mortality. - PubMed - NCBI ; A milk protein, casein, as a proliferation promoting factor in prostate cancer cells. - PubMed - NCBI ; The impact of cow's milk-mediated mTORC1-signaling in the initiation and progression of prostate cancer. - PubMed - NCBI, just to name a few) When faced with such evidence, be it old or new, that challenges his beliefs very often he will allude to some conspiracy theory and brush them off without actually delving into the science. Just as a side note, even when examined from Peat's own point of view, dairy is horrible and his constant recommendation of consuming it and making it a dietary staple is very contradictory in his paradigm: High in tryptophan, high in methionine, very high in mammalian estrogen (particularly when milked from pregnant cows which most milk comes from), high in IGF-1. In case that's not enough, there are also the casomorphins and their associated issues and the issues with the pasteurisation and homogenisation of dairy, of which "travis" covered quite considerably and methodically in his thread. And that's not even mentioning that a conservative estimation of some 65% of the worlds population are dairy intolerant and that rate rises to 90% in some areas of the world.



Agreed.
Also just want to say that there are many gems in Peat, like I said i'm not discrediting EVERYTHING, but the idea that he is just right as a blanket and taking the things he says as gospel is problematic for many reasons, some of which are explained above. For example, I think the emphasis he places on providing the body with adequate glucose as a fuel source is a great one, and one that is seemingly very timely considering the anti sugar movement of current. I think his emphasis on the issues associated with refined vegetable oils and consuming high levels of cooked refined PUFAs is a good one as well.

I'm sorry but all your points are ridiculous. You're implying that Peat doesn't know that cooking alters the persorption potential of starches, and you're basically saying that he is a moron. He said many times that cooked starches such as rice and potatoes are quite safe, I guess you must have missed that. In western countries, wheat products such as bread, pasta, etc, are the main starch sources and the issue is therefore far from redundant. Starch is also problematic for several other reasons. It strongly stimulates insulin, and can therefore promote the synthesis and uptake of serotonin and hypoglycemia. In people with SIBO it can aggravate bacterial overgrowth since some of it always escapes digestion in the small intestine.

You accuse him of having a mechanistic view of science (lol) but you seem not understand even the most basic physiological aspects of starch digestion.

For example, very well conducted, high level randomised controlled studies and meta analyses on dairy

You mention high level randomised controlled studies but don't cite a single one. Essentially all meta analyses are junk science and circle-jerking. Why did you leave out the meta analyses that show milk to be protective in your balanced selection of good science?

Milk Drinking and Mortality: Findings From the Japan Collaborative Cohort Study
Daily milk consumption and all-cause mortality, coronary heart disease and stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational cohort studies
Milk and dairy consumption and risk of cardiovascular diseases and all-cause mortality: dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[SuperStressed]

Ray Peat: For people with really sensitive intestines or bad bacteria, starch should be zero.
Ray Peat: Starch-grain embolisms can cause brain damage

 

[CrystalClear]

Ray Peat: For people with really sensitive intestines or bad bacteria, starch should be zero.
Ray Peat: Starch-grain embolisms can cause brain damage

Good reminder.

 

[thomas00]

So many of the negative effects are clearly via from blocking estrogen, not progesterone.

Is there definitive evidence of this?

I've taken AIs and they've tanked my sex drive. But I've also taken things which reduce estrogen a lot, probably not as much as AIs no doubt, and experienced the exact opposite effect on my libido.

I'm no expert on AIs but I'm sure like all drugs they have a multitude of effects. Perhaps some that aren't even known yet. I have read people on this forum saying Ray thinks they are toxic to the liver. Doesn't seem justifiable to attribute the bad effects of those drugs simply to estrogen destruction.

 

[Goobz]

Is there definitive evidence of this?

I've taken AIs and they've tanked my sex drive. But I've also taken things which reduce estrogen a lot, probably not as much as AIs no doubt, and experienced the exact opposite effect on my libido.

I'm no expert on AIs but I'm sure like all drugs they have a multitude of effects. Perhaps some that aren't even known yet. I have read people on this forum saying Ray thinks they are toxic to the liver. Doesn't seem justifiable to attribute the bad effects of those drugs simply to estrogen destruction.

We touched on this on the other estrogen thread recently. Here is my opinion:

I actually find the opposite - this forum is full of people making creative excuses for the undesirable effects of AIs, pinning these nasty effects on anything they can other than the natural result of lowering aromatase and estrogen. For example the idea that lowering estrogen is good, but AIs are bad because they are liver toxic. Yes, they are liver toxic. But they are liver toxic partly because aromatase and estradiol are critical for overall liver health, so of course blocking them will be liver toxic.

Estradiol Accelerates Liver Regeneration in Mice

Or even in this thread - "cracking joints are due to iron overload" when estrogen plays a critical part in excreting iron.

Aromatase is such a basic and fundamental enzyme it's no wonder all these negative effects arise when it is inhibited. I don't see why it has to be some toxic side effect of these drugs, all these negative effects on joints, liver, iron, brain, mitochondria, etc. can easily be explained as the drugs simply doing their job - blocking this critically important enzyme

In regards to DHT and arthralgia - Im not sure if DHT inhibits aromatase in the tissue as well as lowering circulating estrogen, but if it doesn't then that would explain the lack of arthralgia imo. Because bringing down serum E and aromatase inhibition are two different things. Even with very low serum E, if aromatase is still functioning properly then circulating T can still exert it's normal effects by being aromatised in the tissue. Aromatase plays a far broader role than keeping circulating E levels high enough, though this is obviously also important.

Neuroprotection by the steroids pregnenolone and dehydroepiandrosterone is mediated by the enzyme aromatase. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[thomas00]

if aromatase inhibition is so bad wouldn't we see the same negative effects on the liver with progesterone?

 

[Goobz]

if aromatase inhibition is so bad wouldn't we see the same toxic effects with progesterone?

Well progesterone has similar beneficial effects on mitochondria and cycles naturally with estrogen. I’ve seen studies where these effects disappear when they administered together, as if they can cancel each other out.

But an AI simply blocks estrogen / aromatase, without all of progesterones beneficial actions, so the effect is very different.

Type “aromatase deficiency” into google images and see what happens when it’s reduced massively. These people have high testosterone with negligible estrogen. They have bone deformities, skin problems, and interestingly, fat accumulation around the chest and nipples that looks like what people usually label gyno

 

[lvysaur]

I find myself experiencing secondhand shame whenever people preface their opinions with "This will be unpopular"

 

[thomas00]

But an AI simply blocks estrogen / aromatase

can anyone be sure that's all it does?


so many other substances that lower estrogen don't have toxic effects

 

[Sefton10]

I’d love to know what Peat is wrong about? Perhaps particular recommendations may not work for everyone, but I would say his general premise is pretty spot on...

It takes time and experimentation to properly implement the premise he provides into your own context. Peat’s genius is in his principles not his specific recommendations.

For example:
-Peat says coconut oil is good, saturated fat is good, PUFA is bad
-ray peat forum member john doe reads this and then decides to eat 30% of his calories as coconut oil
-john doe develops intestinal issues
-john doe now believes saturated fat is bad despite the fact that coconut oil is known to irritate the intestine in large quantities in certain people
-john doe write off saturated fat. I mean why wouldnt he, it causes bacterial translocation, endotoxemia, obesity, and heart disease despite that fact that it has been a traditional food in cultures without obesity and other diseases for many generations....
-john doe then goes to a ultra low fat, high carb diet; he feels better for a week. He proceeds to give advice to others to lower thier fat, you know cuz the randle cycle bro
-2 weeks later he has bloating, brain fog, loss of libido and needs to eat constantly to avoid adrenaline rushes. Liver must be shot—> 1000mg of caffiene 6x per day
-john doe comes back to forum, asks for help. People say that he needs to go lower fat to clear his PUFA so his liver can store glycogen better.
-john doe goes lower fat, feels worse. Only 4 more years buddy, your PUFA will be gone: Enter Valhalla
-john doe invests in idealabs supplements
-john doe feels better now, hes taking lisuride, metergoline, thyroid, pansterone, oxidal, mitolipin, tocovit, kuinone. All are applied to his scrotum, except for metergoline that goes to his sphincter. He decided to take them all at once, he doesnt need to test each one out, the plain packaging indicates extreme safety of course
-john doe developes side effects, he now believes all supplements are bad and stops using them.... excipients (cue smeagle voice)
-john doe then reads that vitamin A is a poison so he goes on a low vit A diet to clear his stores. Franco aka grant genereux, aka edward j. Edmonds aka gbolduev aka tyw PM’s the secret anti- vit a diet that also happens to avoid alot of other problematic food components, its the vit a tho, grant said so... enter: meat and rice diet
-he also reads travis post on veganism and decides that meat is bad because it causes cancer because of its amino acids. Goddam polyamines, all growth, no diferentiation
-john doe then reads a westside PUFA post on starch. He goes on a high starch diet. Feels better. Determines that sugar is bad. The stars are aligning now travis, westside PUFA, and grants principles are all making sense, especially because all major civilizations lived on starch, I mean why wouldnt they, its what made humans so smart: wheat the staff of life
-eventually john doe becomes bloated and constipated. He hears peat talk about antibiotics, he decided to use penicillin after much debating about destroying his microbiome
-Uses penicillin, feels better for a day and then gets diarrhea. Microbiome is now...... Trumps hairline
-now his guts messed up, he cant eat anything, his anxiety is through the roof, and cant sleep. Good thing he can still post on the forum, phew...
-answer: fruitarian diet, kidney detox, peeing cloudy
-after a while his teeth erode and hes colder than travis after a disparaging joke about vegans
-so now, sugars, meat, iron, pufa, vit a, saturated fat, grains, dairy, fruit, masturbation, caretenoids, ejaculation, blue light, all electronics, exercise, supplements, sleeping facing south, oxygen, and living in society are all “stress”, nitric oxide, serotonin, estrogen oh my (apparently estrogen is beneficial now)
-john doe concludes Ray Peat is an A** hole, haidut is a used car salesman and the forum is filled with morons except for CLASH, his sarcastic humor and obvious bias towards the use of saturated fats even though they cause bacteria to be spread to your organs was very helpful in john does recovery
-john doe goes on a carnivore diet in the domican republic after creating a patreon account and youtube series called Locks like a mare

THE END


EDIT: added more sarcastic humor

First time I've seen this post. Genuine tears of laughter

 

[facesavant]

It can be difficult to make the distinction between healing and worsening when the pain is dull or chronic.

I do think I'm now able to feel systemic inflammation. It might sound weird, but I can feel my whole body vibrating when I'm highly inflamed and know that I won't be feeling too well for the next few hours. It's usually accompanied by low motivation to do anything.

Otherwise, I can feel tired/achy and still have enough drive to get through my todos for the day without feeling like complaining for each one of them. That's probably when I'm healing.

Have you found an answer to your vibration and achyness?
Lately I've been waking up in the middle of the night with that exact feeling internally. But when I get get up out of bed it goes away. I'm not sure what it is for me I have a few ideas, dehydration, eating too much fat, too much sugar.