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

[Nebula]

One problem with a Peat inspired diet based on milk and fruit juice is that most commercial products that are typically available aren’t what they appear to be. They are usually highly processed and contaminated. I’ve never had good results on conventional milk, fruit juice and fruits unless I’m already in very good metabolic shape. Whenever I’ve splurged on the highest and freshest quality fruit and dairy the result is usually very good. The $10 per half gallon for milk or juice I’ve bought at a health food store that are from a small local farm with no processing have drastically different effects that warm me up and create a sense of well being, while conventional products usually make me somewhat cold and anxious.

So quality does seem to matter a lot when it comes to dairy and juice, but unfortunately most people don’t have the budget and access to these much higher quality sources.

 

[Goobz]

His ideas are often distorted in this forum (often due to people's natural tendency towards binary ways of thought: ie that estrogen must be good or bad because it does x), he is sometimes completely wrong (though it seems like his views on things are constantly shifting, which is a good thing as it emphasizes the search for truth over the ego and dogmas), and sometimes his advice is conditionally beneficial. Too many people see Ray Peat as a school of thought or a movement that must be either joined or opposed. He is an intelligent and anti-dogmatic biologist that specializes in female hormones. He is virtually absent from the public eye and is probably the last person who wants to be called a "guru". His ideas are not sacred, in fact the point of being anti-dogmatic is that ideas are not sacred. He is part of the discourse as we attempt to understand more about the human body, and I think he participates in very meaningful ways. The fact that there is often backlash when an idea of his doesn't work for an individual indicates that Ray Peat has unintentionally become an authority (and thus has the responsibility to be right in a broad sense).
“Since the contextuality of communication is always in the foreground when I talk or write, you know that someone is confusing me with an authority when they talk about my ‘protocol’ for something. Context is everything, and it’s individual and empirical.” —Raymond Peat, PhD

I couldn't agree more, with all of that!

It's when people take any single persons views as gospel that problems arise. Science is always changing. Especially these days with the amount of searchable data accumulating online.

 

[somuch4food]

Yeah, there's something about the era we live in that always seem to put the responsability on others when something is not working.

Most people find it easier to put the blame on others when life is not working for them. The only permanent way out is to take matters in your own hands with the help of others if you need it, but don't completely rely on external advice and start to think for yourself.

That's the damage of modern education I think.

 

[Kartoffel]

Estradiol appears to be a hormone that circulates in youth to signal that the body is still young and reproducing. In women, supplemental transdermal estradiol at menopause lowers all cause mortality by 40%, decreases cardiovascular disease, increases mitochondrial function, increases telomere length, etc. Google Dr Anne Hathaway for her research on this.

bull****.

Estradiol is associated with mortality in critically ill trauma and surgical patients. - PubMed - NCBI
Serum estradiol concentration as a predictor of death in critically ill and injured adults. - PubMed - NCBI
Bioavailable estradiol concentrations are elevated and predict mortality in septic patients: a prospective cohort study
Relationship Between Higher Estradiol Levels and 9-Year Mortality in Older Women: The Invecchiare in Chianti Study

 

[Goobz]

bull****.

Estradiol is associated with mortality in critically ill trauma and surgical patients. - PubMed - NCBI
Serum estradiol concentration as a predictor of death in critically ill and injured adults. - PubMed - NCBI
Bioavailable estradiol concentrations are elevated and predict mortality in septic patients: a prospective cohort study
Relationship Between Higher Estradiol Levels and 9-Year Mortality in Older Women: The Invecchiare in Chianti Study

The first three of those examples involved acute trauma or sepsis. That is very different to chronic conditions and longevity. And theres an explanation for it:

While the female immune system is more robust at dealing with many pathogens, it is also more likely to over react. Thus, many viruses are more likely to kill males, but females are more likely to die of autoimmune disease and during sepsis due to an overactive immune response. These responses are modulated by estradiol, amongst other things.

"Fatality rates of infectious diseases are often higher in men than women. Although this difference is often attributed to a stronger immune response in women...."
The evolution of sex-specific virulence in infectious diseases

The last study you posted is interesting, counter to what I would expect, but I'll have to read it properly later. It could perhaps be explained by the old "timing" hypothesis, which suggested that estradiol in older women isn't as beneficial, once they've gone through years of having low levels.

"Data on the health benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) are derived mainly from the use of conjugated equine estrogens. Estradiol-based regimens may have a different risk-benefit profile."
"Risk of CHD death was significantly reduced.....
Risk of all-cause mortality was reduced in HT users ...."
Estradiol-based postmenopausal hormone therapy and risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. - PubMed - NCBI

"The mortality toll of estrogen avoidance"
"Estrogen therapy in younger postmenopausal women is associated with a decisive reduction in all-cause mortality, but estrogen use in this population is low and continuing to fall."
The Mortality Toll of Estrogen Avoidance: An Analysis of Excess Deaths Among Hysterectomized Women Aged 50 to 59 Years

Estradiol levels linked to lower biological age in males:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cen.13918?af=R

But in any case thanks for the links. I am interested in having holes poked in my ideas and learning more about the negative side of estrogen for sure.

 

[somuch4food]

Relationship Between Higher Estradiol Levels and 9-Year Mortality in Older Women: The Invecchiare in Chianti Study

That's the kind of study I find completely absurd. Don't use those to make a point please. Total estradiol was 6.0 ± 3.0 in survivors and 7.5 ± 5.0 in those that died during the study. Free estradiol was respectively 0.22 ± 0.16 and 0.27 ± 0.14 and they find this statistically significant!

Of all the variables they list, physical activity seems to be the most correlated with survival, 56% of those that died were sedentary:

 

[Kartoffel]

Three of those examples involved acute trauma or sepsis. That is very different to chronic conditions and longevity. And theres an explanation for it:

While the female immune system is more robust at dealing with many pathogens, it is also more likely to over react. Thus, many viruses are more likely to kill males, but females are more likely to die of autoimmune disease and during sepsis due to an overactive immune response. These responses are modulated by estradiol, amongst other things.

"Fatality rates of infectious diseases are often higher in men than women. Although this difference is often attributed to a stronger immune response in women...."
The evolution of sex-specific virulence in infectious diseases

The last study you posted is interesting, counter to what I would expect, but I'll have to read it properly later. It could perhaps be explained by the old "timing" hypothesis, which suggested that estradiol in older women isn't as beneficial, once they've gone through years of having low levels.

"Data on the health benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) are derived mainly from the use of conjugated equine estrogens. Estradiol-based regimens may have a different risk-benefit profile."
"Risk of CHD death was significantly reduced.....
Risk of all-cause mortality was reduced in HT users ...."
Estradiol-based postmenopausal hormone therapy and risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. - PubMed - NCBI

"The mortality toll of estrogen avoidance"
"Estrogen therapy in younger postmenopausal women is associated with a decisive reduction in all-cause mortality, but estrogen use in this population is low and continuing to fall."
The Mortality Toll of Estrogen Avoidance: An Analysis of Excess Deaths Among Hysterectomized Women Aged 50 to 59 Years

Estradiol levels linked to lower biological age in males:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cen.13918?af=R

But in any case thanks for the links. I am interested in having holes poked in my ideas and learning more about the negative side of estrogen for sure.

I doubt that the strength of the female immune system has anything to do with higher estrogen levels since progesterone's effect on the immune system are well established. Increased estrogen is associated with basically every disease there is. Don't you find it odd that the direction of correlation would be in opposite direction among normal women and those receiving ET? After reading Carla Rothenberg's Rise and Fall of Estrogen Therapy I ignore these results and continue to assume that most of the studies showing benefical effects of ET are fabricated. I haven't heard of the old timing hypothesis, but it just sounds like another clumsy attempt to hide the harmful effects of extra estrogen.

 

[Kartoffel]

That's the kind of study I find completely absurd. Don't use those to make a point please. Total estradiol was 6.0 ± 3.0 in survivors and 7.5 ± 5.0 in those that died during the study. Free estradiol was respectively 0.22 ± 0.16 and 0.27 ± 0.14 and they find this statistically significant!

A difference of more than 20% is not significant to you?

 

[YourUniverse]

The hardest part of studying Ray's work is understanding context. I think he goes out of his way to make it ambiguous at times, so readers will take steps to test and come to their own unique conclusion.

 

[somuch4food]

A difference of more than 20% is not significant to you?

Do you see the variability for each number "± 5.0"? This means that in those that died they were anywhere between 2.5 and 12.5. Those that survived between 3.0 and 9.0. Or maybe I'm not understanding that part.

Also this image:

I really don't like statistics based correlations. It's very weak evidence at best and could be totally unrelated.

 

[jzeno]

Seems like an issue of confusing some of the ideas shared here versus what he actually says.

No, I stated I specifically was referring to things which he either wrote about or said during an interview.

@Constatine

I'm specifically referring to these two ideas (starches, high liquids), though I bet there are more out there.

I think that the combination of these two specific ideas is almost never helpful to a person suffering from low thyroid symptoms. They just don't make sense in almost any context of low-thyroid.

That's just my two cents.

 

[Kartoffel]

Do you see the variability for each number "± 5.0"? This means that in those that died they were anywhere between 2.5 and 12.5. Those that survived between 3.0 and 9.0. Or maybe I'm not understanding that part.

Yeah, that's why they compare averages, i.e. arithmetic mean.

I really don't like statistics based correlations. It's very weak evidence at best and could be totally unrelated.

Couldn't agree more. Most of it is useless bs that is easy to manipulate.

 

[somuch4food]

Yeah, that's why they compare averages, i.e. arithmetic mean.

Couldn't agree more. Most of it is useless bs that is easy to manipulate.

Then, you agree that that study is weak. Why did you use it to make a point?

If that study didn't have as much variability, the link could have been seen as stronger, but with this margin, I can only dismiss it. It doesn't give a clear cut correlation.

 

[Kartoffel]

Then, you agree that that study is weak. Why did you use it to make a point?

If that study didn't have as much variability, the link could have been seen as stronger, but with this margin, I can only dismiss it. It doesn't give a clear cut correlation.

All correlation studies are weak.

 

[Goobz]

I doubt that the strength of the female immune system has anything to do with higher estrogen levels since progesterone's effect on the immune system are well established. Increased estrogen is associated with basically every disease there is. Don't you find it odd that the direction of correlation would be in opposite direction among normal women and those receiving ET? After reading Carla Rothenberg's Rise and Fall of Estrogen Therapy I ignore these results and continue to assume that most of the studies showing benefical effects of ET are fabricated. I haven't heard of the old timing hypothesis, but it just sounds like another clumsy attempt to hide the harmful effects of extra estrogen.

That book you mentioned, I looked up briefly and it seems it was published in 2005? The WHI study showing what appeared at the time to be the negative effects of HRT came out early 2000s, so her book would have been timely then.

The WHI study used oral equine estrogen and synthetic progesterone. Oral estrogen gets converted via the liver into a form that increases clotting and vascular disease. The effects of transdermal bioidentical estradiol are very different. That's the point made by the study I posted, which shows beneficial effects.

Increased estrogen is associated with basically every disease there is.

I'm sure highly abnormally elevated estrogen is indeed harmful. But I'm personally far, far more worried about low levels of estradiol than high levels.

Estradiol has beneficial actions on the mitochondria, the skeletal system, the skin, the immune system, the vascular system, cholesterol metabolism, iron metabolism, neurological tissue and the brain, basically every major organ system.

Low levels of estradiol are associated with almost every disease there is and removing the ovaries or taking a drug that blocks estradiol directly, will directly cause diseases such as osteoporosis, sleep apnea, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, dementia and other neurological diseases, I could go on but the list would be almost endless.

 

[Cirion]

Well, at the sake of being the "defendant of Peat" here, the fact is that most people DO implement his ideas wrong. It's true that he does say that milk and OJ can be helpful to mitigate against stressors - and that's not even wrong - IF you have quality milk and OJ. The only thing I disagree with is he thinks even low quality milk is acceptable.

One of the most common things people get wrong here is too much dietary fat. In fact next to the milk/OJ thing, it's at least the most common tripping point. It took me 2 years to realize that I was having too much dietary fat myself. This is the primary reason why people get fat. I'd argue it's dairy fat that get people fat. Peat himself says dairy fat can be fattening when he talks about drinking whole milk vs. skim milk. He doesn't flat out say dairy fat is bad (I think it is) though.

The next common thing people do get wrong is supplements. In one article he recommended people to get of all supplements! This is another point I finally only came to accept recently. Also people think he recommends to willy-nilly mega dose supplements. No, he doesn't.

All that said, he's not right on everything but if people took the time to REALLY understand what he's saying, there wouldn't be as many issues on these forums. I'm guilty of it myself so I can't really judge. If peat was actually on these forums vs. people just interpreting his ideas, I think things would be a little different.

Even on the popular subject of vitamin A - he says one should not exceed 5000 IU when hypo. A lot of people here have mega-dosed on VA in the past, far more than 5000 IU which is literally NOT what peat says to do! So it is unfair to blame him for it.

 

[somuch4food]

I'm sure highly abnormally elevated estrogen is indeed harmful. But I'm personally far, far more worried about low levels of estradiol than high levels.

Estradiol has beneficial actions on the mitochondria, the skeletal system, the skin, the immune system, the vascular system, cholesterol metabolism, iron metabolism, neurological tissue and the brain, basically every major organ system.

Low levels of estradiol are associated with almost every disease there is and removing the ovaries or taking a drug that blocks estradiol directly, will directly cause diseases such as osteoporosis, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, dementia and other neurological diseases.

Yeah, the bell curve is often forgotten. Too little or too much of something are both harmful to the organism. Ray Peat's articles rarely mention ideal levels of anything. They're really theoretical and like it's been mentioned many times, context is everything. Most symptoms can also have multiple causes. Some around the forum use supplements to play around hormone levels without proper diagnostic and wonder why they end up with more problems.

 

[Kartoffel]

That book you mentioned, I looked up briefly and it seems it was published in 2005? The WHI study showing what appeared at the time to be the negative effects of HRT came out early 2000s, so her book would have been timely then.

The book is much more elaborate than that and explains in detail how the estrogen industry fabricated hundreds of publications over half a century to sell their products.

Estradiol has beneficial actions on the mitochondria, the skeletal system, the skin, the immune system, the vascular system, cholesterol metabolism, iron metabolism, neurological tissue and the brain, basically every major organ system.

I doubt it very much.

Low levels of estradiol are associated with almost every disease there is and removing the ovaries or taking a drug that blocks estradiol directly, will directly cause diseases such as osteoporosis, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, dementia and other neurological diseases.

You know what else will be drastically reduced when you remove ovaries? Progesterone. Men don't have ovaries and can have much higher estrogen levels than women. Which drug selectively inhibits estradiol production and causes those disease?

 

[somuch4food]

I doubt it very much.

So, everyone should aim for the lowest levels of something that is produced by the body? You don't think there's a healthy level of estradiol in the body?

That's the kind of comments that gets people in trouble on the forum since it reinforces their belief that all estrogen is bad and that they should take extra steps to lower their estrogen even if they have no idea what their levels are.

 

[Goobz]

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!