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

[MarcelZD]

There is no perfect diet for all occasions and phenotypes.

It would be interesting to have a survey of people for whom the standard protocol doesn't work well.

As for me, Central European, tall and inclining towards leanness. When I go purist Peat, I tend to have significantly less energy and after a few weeks I even lose weight, some of which is without a doubt muscle. It's extremely difficult to offset even with copious amounts of sweets. Starch gives me stable energy, sleep and enables me to maintain body mass.

 

[jb116]

It would be interesting to have a survey of people for whom the standard protocol doesn't work well.

As for me, Central European, tall and inclining towards leanness. When I go purist Peat, I tend to have significantly less energy and after a few weeks I even lose weight, some of which is without a doubt muscle. It's extremely difficult to offset even with copious amounts of sweets. Starch gives me stable energy, sleep and enables me to maintain body mass.

What is purist peat?

 

[MarcelZD]

What is purist peat?

No starch, legumes and reduced muscle meat intake in particular. Dairy and fruit making up the bulk of the diet.

 

[Amazigh]

I've been reading/listening to RP and his advice for 9 years now, and I've seen a lot of stuff be taken out of context. For example, he talks about drinking a qt of OJ and milk every day in his own diet, but also eats (and sometimes recommends) cheese, stuff made from masa harina (eg. tortillas), bone broth, coffee, liver, carrot salad, bamboo shoots, mushrooms, eggs, occasionally chicken, coconut oil, well-cooked greens, tropical fruits, an occasional Mexican Coke (with real sugar), etc. During any given interview or article, he focuses on one specific thing, but if you look at the rest of his material and put it together, a different picture emerges. He has never stated any particular "diet" per se, so we get it in bits and pieces, which makes it harder to synthesize into one complete picture. Also he often does not get into the nuances of his recommendations. This is why I think it leaves room for a lot of confusion to step in.

I have also heard him mention that it's NOT good to have a bunch of liquid in one sitting, since it could distend the digestive tract and thereby increase serotonin. He also mentions that as you get older, you need less and less muscle meat, but if you have it, try to have some bone broth or gelatin with it to mitigate inflammatory aminos in it. He has also mentioned that your liver need ~100mg protein/day in order to function optimally. And if you have starch, make sure it's well-cooked and you have it with plenty of butter or coconut oil.

I've concluded that addressing health issues with diet and supplementation REQUIRES experimentation. Therefore, not everything is going to work as you hoped. In my experiences, I have thought I was addressing an issue (eg. high estrogen) and as I "peeled the layers of the onion," discovered the underlying cause of digestive issues, and underlying THAT issue was some allergic reaction to something in my diet, and so on. It's never just one thing.

BTW to address the progesterone conversation above, I had been taking about 70mg per day for a while and seeing only some minor improvements (multiple uterine fibroids + heavy periods). When my bloodwork revealed that I STILL had high estrogen--a 2:10 ratio--it took 500 mg/day + ~180 mg of progesterone to begin to see real progress. Therefore, more experimentation, but also confirming with labs in addition to tracking symptoms.

 

[InChristAlone]

One thing I agree with Peat on is that he never recommends going over physiological amounts of thyroid and progesterone. He says if progesterone doesn't work in normal amounts that you are likely low thyroid or not eating enough protein. I will never use the advice to go way over what my body would naturally produce to somehow solve estrogen dominance, I think it's a dangerous approach that will never cure anyone. You'll be chained to hormones and continuing to get worse and possibly overloaded with progesterone and experiencing toxicity symptoms in the long run.

 

[schultz]

@Sugar Bun

lol

@Kartoffel

Imagine someone suffering from low-thyroid and putting them on all liquids (virtually). That sounds like a death wish.

It isn't ironic if I'm just one guy going off of my experience and I'm just using common sense. Cold liquids (milk, OJ) are cold and will chill the body causing body temperatures to potentially drop even lower. Not to mention OJ and Milk don't contain complex carbs.

It's ironic when you're whole focus is to promote thyroid health and yet your dominant diet suggestions will undoubtedly extinguish whatever body temperature a person has left.

So it is the temperature of the liquids, not the liquids themselves, that you object to?

I drink 95% of my milk as latte's, so it is very warm. In the winter I make hot chocolate and warm milk with vanilla and gelatin.

No one said you had to drink cold milk....

 

[MarcelZD]

I've been reading/listening to RP and his advice for 9 years now, and I've seen a lot of stuff be taken out of context. For example, he talks about drinking a qt of OJ and milk every day in his own diet, but also eats (and sometimes recommends) cheese, stuff made from masa harina (eg. tortillas), bone broth, coffee, liver, carrot salad, bamboo shoots, mushrooms, eggs, occasionally chicken, coconut oil, well-cooked greens, tropical fruits, an occasional Mexican Coke (with real sugar), etc. During any given interview or article, he focuses on one specific thing, but if you look at the rest of his material and put it together, a different picture emerges. He has never stated any particular "diet" per se, so we get it in bits and pieces, which makes it harder to synthesize into one complete picture. Also he often does not get into the nuances of his recommendations. This is why I think it leaves room for a lot of confusion to step in.

For those failing on a diet of mostly fruit and dairy plus liver, gelatin an occasional Mexican coke and Tortillas are unlikely to make a difference.

As per Popper, the mark of pseudoscience is a lack of falsification criteria. If the basic diet doesn't work for some, it likely isn't due to dietary minutiae - it's because for them the Peatarian approach is fundamentally wrong.

 

[jb116]

No starch, legumes and reduced muscle meat intake in particular. Dairy and fruit making up the bulk of the diet.

He has never said "no starch." In fact he has actually said he thinks a person should eat as much sugar and starch as possible.
In context, his caution with starch is such that first, if somebody has poor digestion or is very hypothyroid, he is bringing to your attention the potential issues with starch. Secondly, even in approaching starch, one still needs to understand prep and cooking in order to make it safe and more nutritious. None of that equates to "no starch."
He has never really said reduce muscle meat in such words. He implies that one should eat according to needs but more importantly, balance the meat with gelatin and be mindful of calcium to phosphate. That's not saying the same thing as simply "reduce red meat."
Legumes I'm sure he doesn't eat. But for example, myself who studies Peat's work, will eat legumes occasionally. However, once again, it is still accordingly to a Peat perspective. That is, prepping and cooking the correct way and being mindful of the pitfalls of legumes if they so happen to affect digestion.

Peat is taken out of context way too much and the conclusions made therein are not accurate but mistakenly attributed to "Peating" or "Purist Peat."
"Peating" should be understood to be a way of thinking and approaching things.

 

[jb116]

One thing I agree with Peat on is that he never recommends going over physiological amounts of thyroid and progesterone. He says if progesterone doesn't work in normal amounts that you are likely low thyroid or not eating enough protein. I will never use the advice to go way over what my body would naturally produce to somehow solve estrogen dominance, I think it's a dangerous approach that will never cure anyone. You'll be chained to hormones and continuing to get worse and possibly overloaded with progesterone and experiencing toxicity symptoms in the long run.

This is not accurate either. Context.
He has actually stated that in times of extreme need, big amounts can be taken. I've used it in huge amounts for Crohn's with great success. And as a male!
Reasonably, overall one shouldn't be taken huge amounts of anything day to day as maintenance. That doesn't even make sense since the idea is that good health perpetuates life and those things being taken (as supplements) should therefore resume being produced by the healthy body itself once it crosses that threshold.

 

[MarcelZD]

He has never said "no starch." In fact he has actually said he thinks a person should eat as much sugar and starch as possible.
In context, his caution with starch is such that first, if somebody has poor digestion or is very hypothyroid, he is bringing to your attention the potential issues with starch. Secondly, even in approaching starch, one still needs to understand prep and cooking in order to make it safe and more nutritious. None of that equates to "no starch."
He has never really said reduce muscle meat in such words. He implies that one should eat according to needs but more importantly, balance the meat with gelatin and be mindful of calcium to phosphate. That's not saying the same thing as simply "reduce red meat."
Legumes I'm sure he doesn't eat. But for example, myself who studies Peat's work, will eat legumes occasionally. However, once again, it is still accordingly to a Peat perspective. That is, prepping and cooking the correct way and being mindful of the pitfalls of legumes if they so happen to affect digestion.

Peat is taken out of context way too much and the conclusions made therein are not accurate but mistakenly attributed to "Peating" or "Purist Peat."
"Peating" should be understood to be a way of thinking and approaching things.

I'm not really interested in new ways of thinking. I want a diet that works. Starch does work better for me than sugar, meat better than dairy protein - those are contradictions with respect to Peat's thought.

 

[jb116]

I'm not really interested in new ways of thinking. I want a diet that works. Starch does work better for me than sugar, meat better than dairy protein - those are contradictions with respect to Peat's thought.

lol that makes ZERO sense. If you aren't interested in new ways of thinking then why be online in forums? Just figure it out yourself according to what you think is right.
Apart from that, don't go missing the mark on what somebody else is saying or implying then say it's wrong.
I mean I explained it and you are apparently still thinking there are contradictions. There are none. Only unique exceptions and applications within a context of knowledge of how things work. That is Peat thinking.

 

[MarcelZD]

lol that makes ZERO sense. If you aren't interested in new ways of thinking then why be online in forums? Just figure it out yourself according to what you think is right.
Apart from that, don't go missing the mark on what somebody else is saying or implying then say it's wrong.
I mean I explained it and you are apparently still thinking there are contradictions. There are none. Only unique exceptions and applications within a context of knowledge of how things work. That is Peat thinking.

I'm trying to optimize my diet, simple as that. You'd construe even a high PUFA, vegan diet as being in line with Peat's thought if it produced good results. Extremely cult-like.

 

[jb116]

I'm trying to optimize my diet, simple as that. You'd construe even a high PUFA, vegan diet as being in line with Peat's thought if it produced good results. Extremely cult-like.

Nope. Because like most comprehensive perspectives, there are basic things in tact, things that tie together the thinking process i.e. minimizing PUFA, getting sufficient protein, minimizing harmful chemicals, getting sufficient carbs, etc. So, no, you are wrong. It's not about "anything goes," it's about adjusting variables within a given, reasonable range while keeping in mind the functions and effects of given variables. There is still plenty of room to play. Brute force and indolence is no excuse to say somebody is wrong.

 

[MarcelZD]

Nope. Because like most comprehensive perspectives, there are basic things in tact, things that tie together the thinking process i.e. minimizing PUFA, getting sufficient protein, minimizing harmful chemicals, getting sufficient carbs, etc. So, no, you are wrong. It's not about "anything goes," it's about adjusting variables within a given, reasonable range while keeping in mind the functions and effects of given variables. There is still plenty of room to play. Brute force and indolence is no excuse to say somebody is wrong.

You've come up with a relatively arbitrary framework. A standard diet of bread, pasta, vegetables and meat for instance would still fulfill these criteria, but it would be very different from what the man himself recommends or eats.

Personally I tolerate most whole-food PUFA sources just fine. Dairy/fruit based diets I fail to thrive on. That's my n = 1 evidence against Peat.

 

[schultz]

So it is the temperature of the liquids, not the liquids themselves, that you object to?

I drink 95% of my milk as latte's, so it is very warm. In the winter I make hot chocolate and warm milk with vanilla and gelatin.

No one said you had to drink cold milk....

Almost forgot. I also drink warm apple juice in the winter. Mmmm.

 

[jb116]

You've come up with a relatively arbitrary framework. A standard diet of bread, pasta, vegetables and meat for instance would still fulfill these criteria, but it would be very different from what the man himself recommends or eats.

Personally I tolerate most whole-food PUFA sources just fine. Dairy/fruit based diets I fail to thrive on. That's my n = 1 evidence against Peat.

It isn't arbitrary at all. That's what you aren't getting. You are missing the details, the contingencies, and the approach. And if you've read the depth of his work you'd understand that a metabolism has certain adaptations and foods that may not be optimal for the long-run may serve to "quite" a "noisy" system that is perhaps otherwise not healthy. Just as fish oil can calm inflammation acutely. Again, if you understood the work in depth you wouldn't say such a over-simplified blanket statement "bread would fulfill the criteria."
You haven't mentioned how the bread is prepared or cooked.
Does it contain harmful fillers?
Does it have PUFA oil added (as much commercial bread does out there).
You haven't mentioned is it the only source of carbs available?
Is it the best carb available for that moment?
Is it better than nothing since carbs should ideally accompany protein?
Does bread, prepped and cooked in any way bother me that much?
It's that line of thinking, it is a line of thinking and being reactive and intelligent about how and what you eat, that is Peating.

Same goes for the pasta.
Same goes for the vegetables. One could even argue, it would be a somewhat Peaterian approach excluding vegetables altogether. But! That is contingent on how your nutritional needs are being met. Are there deficiencies that need to be made up a certain way? Are there particular effects a certain vegetable has for me that is beneficial? Prep? Cooking method? etc.

As much as you want to over-simplify things because it's easy to do so, you aren't being "Peaty" or whatever you want to call it. You are missing the mark and jumping to conclusions.

 

[MarcelZD]

It isn't arbitrary at all. That's what you aren't getting. You are missing the details, the contingencies, and the approach. And if you've read the depth of his work you'd understand that a metabolism has certain adaptations and foods that may not be optimal for the long-run may serve to "quite" a "noisy" system that is perhaps otherwise not healthy. Just as fish oil can calm inflammation acutely. Again, if you understood the work in depth you wouldn't say such a over-simplified blanket statement "bread would fulfill the criteria."
You haven't mentioned how the bread is prepared or cooked.
Does it contain harmful fillers?
Does it have PUFA oil added (as much commercial bread does out there).
You haven't mentioned is it the only source of carbs available?
Is it the best carb available for that moment?
Is it better than nothing since carbs should ideally accompany protein?
Does bread, prepped and cooked in any way bother me that much?
It's that line of thinking, it is a line of thinking and being reactive and intelligent about how and what you eat, that is Peating.

Same goes for the pasta.
Same goes for the vegetables. One could even argue, it would be a somewhat Peaterian approach excluding vegetables altogether. But! That is contingent on how your nutritional needs are being met. Are there deficiencies that need to be made up a certain way? Are there particular effects a certain vegetable has for me that is beneficial? Prep? Cooking method? etc.

As much as you want to over-simplify things because it's easy to do so, you aren't being "Peaty" or whatever you want to call it. You are missing the mark and jumping to conclusions.

Making your own stuff up again. Peat:

RAY PEAT: Well, they can very clearly demonstrate the enzymes involved in it. But I think gluten is toxic in itself to anyone. It's just that some people are more resistant to it. It has an overlap with the transglutaminase enzyme - there is a lot of it in the skin and the intestines - and it happens to be an enzyme that's activated by estrogen. I think that's why women have more of a problem with it. But it isn't some particular disease, it is that gluten is just absolutely not intended as a food. The seeds create the protein gluten as a storage form, but also as a byproduct it discourages animals from eating it because it contains these amino acids that contribute to inflammation. So the seed intends it to cause inflammation in the intestines and a very tough person can withstand it for a long time, but it's not a good idea for anyone to eat it.

 

[jb116]

Making your own stuff up again. Peat:

Yea, you are just not going get it. I think I have come to terms that it is a certain way of thinking. You, like many people, need linear ideas fed to you without understanding what context means. I promise you, in some situation, that even Peat himself would advise to eat something with gluten because of lack of choices or some other dire need. Here, he is talking cold hard facts about gluten itself and further, the seed! Him explaining the hazard of gluten has no bearing on what works for an individual in a given situation. You walk away though realizing there are caveats to that food. You then adjust your needs accordingly or not at all depending on your metabolic health. In that thinking, you haven't contradicted Peat. Only understood your need versus the general hazard of what you are eating. You posting that quote, in no way invalidates those questions I posted about ANY given food. Because in an less than ideal situation, Peat would be asking those questions. And you can post a quote by him representing that idea just as easily as you scrounged up that quote.

 

[MarcelZD]

Yea, you are just not going get it. I think I
have come to terms that it is a certain way of thinking. You, like many people, need linear ideas fed to you without understanding what context means. I promise you, in some situation, that even Peat himself would advise to eat something with gluten because of lack of choices or some other dire need. Here, he is talking cold hard facts about gluten itself and further, the seed! Him explaining the hazard of gluten has no bearing on what works for an individual in a given situation. You walk away though realizing there are caveats to that food. You then adjust your needs accordingly or not at all depending on your metabolic health. In that thinking, you haven't contradicted Peat. Only understood your need versus the general hazard of what you are eating. You posting that quote, in no way invalidates those questions I posted about ANY given food. Because in an less than ideal situation, Peat would be asking those questions. And you can post a quote by him representing that idea just as easily as you scrounged up that quote.

I could just buy fruit instead of pasta. The latter however gives me much more energy even after adjusting for calories.

You're resorting to mumbo-jumbo to avoid the unavoidable conclusion that a more or less stable practical approach follows from Peat's thought. That's a classic case of pseudoscience as defined by Popper.

If you like Peat as a philosopher of science that is fine. I'm personally not interested in that.

 

[jb116]

I could just buy fruit instead of pasta. The latter however gives me much more energy even after adjusting for calories.

You're resorting to mumbo-jumbo to avoid the unavoidable conclusion that a more or less stable practical approach follows from Peat's thought. That's a classic case of pseudoscience as defined by Popper.

If you like Peat as a philosopher of science that is fine. I'm personally not interested in that.

And the point is if you understand how to prep and cook it, then eat pasta. Should it take center-stage of your meal? No, probably not. A more balanced approach would be to have fruit, good protein and some pasta - prepped and cooked well. Also assuming the pasta doesn't have oils added or extra iron, as is the case a lot of the time.
It isn't mumbo-jumbo, it's refining practical approaches to secure certain basic ideas. I'm not repeating them again. Scroll up and re-read stuff if you have to. In fact, I recommend you do because you aren't there yet, not in the slightest.
Simply saying "I will eat pasta" in a more mainstream way is not the same thing as a so-called Peatarian approach. The details and nuance are the difference. If you see that as mere impractical philosophy, then sorry. You have a long road to go to understand Peat.