• @Blossom Is A Blessing To This Community, Let Us Be A Blessing To Her
    Click Here For More Information
  • Due to excessive bot signups along with nefarious actors we are limiting forum registration. Keep checking back for the register link to appear. Please do not send emails or have someone post to the forum asking for a signup link. Until the current climate changes we do not see a change of this policy. To join the forum you must have a compelling reason. Letting us know what skills/knowledge you will bring to the community along with the intent of your stay here will help in getting you approved.

Why prefer that very scant, loose one....?

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Edward said:
When people start asking about PUFA I usually get the impression that people are getting bored with drinking milk and orange juice. Who would want to eat that way for the rest of their life? You have teeth. Use them. But let me remind those of you who feel that way that nowhere does Dr. Peat recommend drinking milk and orange juice for the rest of your life. They are simple tools to emphasize at certain periods and in normal periods a welcome addition to a rational diet.

“Well the only foods I would suggest eliminating would be the grains and beans, and most of the nuts, and probably reducing most meats. Gelatin happens to be the part of the meat that doesn’t have so many of the disturbing acidic pro-inflammatory effects.” ~Ray Peat, March 16, 2012. Radio interview on Ask Your Herb Doctor.

There is exponential variety within Dr. Peat’s paradigm.

The PUFA/ROS/mitochondria/thyroid discussion at the center of your post is great
and I read it with interest--thanks!

At the end you make some rather peripheral comments on a Peat diet I wanted to comment on.

You quote again Peat's radio comment about foods.
It seems to me that to return repeatly to that one quote of Peat's
may reveal a bias when considered against the totality of what Peat says about an ideal diet.
You seem to prefer to focus upon the loosest expression he makes.

Well...you could have (and I'm surprised you haven't) cited Peat's even looser quote:
"“My recommendation is to eat to increase the metabolic rate (usually temperature and heart rate), rather than any particular foods.”

Let's stick with that quote for a moment.
I have sometimes felt it is a little evasive,
when one considers that the first question out most people's mouths upon hearing it would be:
"Well...how do I increase metabolism?"
And then, in answering,
I think it would be hard for Dr. Peat to avoid his usual, general dietary recommendations
(and--yes, yes--his other recommendations about red light and exercise, etc.)

But back to what seems to be your go-to quote about a Peat diet:
“Well the only foods I would suggest eliminating would be the grains and beans, and most of the nuts, and probably reducing most meats. Gelatin happens to be the part of the meat that doesn’t have so many of the disturbing acidic pro-inflammatory effects.”

Why prefer that very scant, loose one
to some of his other dietary generalizations like these, say
(just to pick a couple close at hand)?:

"Besides fasting, or chronic protein deficiency, the common causes of hypothyroidism are excessive stress or "aerobic" (i .e., anaerobic) exercise, and diets containing beans, lentils, nuts. unsaturated fats (including carotene), and undercooked broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, or mustard greens. Many health conscious people become hypothyroid with a synergistic program of undercooked vegetables, legumes instead of animal proteins, oils instead of butter, carotene instead of vitamin A, and breathless exercise instead of a stimulating life."

"The starch-based diet, emphasizing grains, beans, nuts, and vegetables, has been promoted with a variety of justifications. When people are urged to reduce their fat and sugar consumption, they are told to eat more starch. Starch stimulates the appetite, promotes fat synthesis by stimulating insulin secretion, and sometimes increases the growth of bacteria that produce toxins..... Various studies have demonstrated that starch (composed of pure glucose) raises blood glucose more quickly than sucrose (half fructose, half glucose) does.”-Ray Peat, "Diabetes, Scleroderma, Oils and Hormones"
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/diabetes.shtml

In fact, why try to sum up Peat's general dietary recommendations
in any one quotation?
We don't have to--we have a lot of general statements from Peat about diet
to add to the one you frequently cite.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to look at all of his general recommendations
and distill the general commonalities
than to pick the loosest of his statements
and attach to it some special importance?

Having preferred that very loose dietary comment from Peat,
you then proceed to make these generalizations about what a Peat diet would look like:

Edward said:
When people start asking about PUFA I usually get the impression that people are getting bored with drinking milk and orange juice. Who would want to eat that way for the rest of their life? You have teeth. Use them. But let me remind those of you who feel that way that nowhere does Dr. Peat recommend drinking milk and orange juice for the rest of your life. They are simple tools to emphasize at certain periods and in normal periods a welcome addition to a rational diet
...
There is exponential variety within Dr. Peat’s paradigm.

If one's methodology is
to find the very least restrictrive of Peat's statements about diet,
assign it a special importance,
and generalize about a Peat diet based upon that,
well...yes, I guess you could say
"There is exponential variety within Dr. Peat’s paradigm."

But, if one surveys all of Peat's general statements about diet--
a very healthy diet or an optimal diet--
I think it might be a bit misleading to say
that there is "exponential variety" in such a diet.
(I guess we would have to pin down what exactly you mean by "exponential,"
but most will take that to mean something like "infinite.")

On your point about the drinking of orange juice and milk:
Yes, of course one could substitute the eating
of oranges and cheese.
I just don't think of such shifts as representing an exponential variety.

And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh.--Friedrich Nietzsche
 

4peatssake

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
2,055
Age
61
Re: How relevant are studies on rodents?

And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh.--Friedrich Nietzsche

dancing-smiley-face-emoticon.gif
laughing-hysterically-smiley-emoticon.gif
 

Edward

Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
134
Age
39
Re: How relevant are studies on rodents?

narouz said:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUc62jD-G0o[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYxEIyNA_mk[/media]
 

4peatssake

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
2,055
Age
61
Re: How relevant are studies on rodents?

narouz said:
Edward said:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUc62jD-G0o[/media]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYxEIyNA_mk[/media]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v325wdgoFH4[/media]


popcorn.gif
 

Wilfrid

Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
723
Re: How relevant are studies on rodents?

4peatssake said:
And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh.--Friedrich Nietzsche

dancing-smiley-face-emoticon.gif
laughing-hysterically-smiley-emoticon.gif

:D
 

narouz

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
Re: How relevant are studies on rodents?

Edward said:
But a cell adapting to stress—well—Dr. Peat believes that it is the stress of the adaptation process that is a central cause of ageing—I disagree—I can understand how one can come to that conclusion but I disagree.
I am heartened to see you clarify the separation in your views from Dr. Peat's.

Edward said:
I think that nutrition plays a role in “aging” but I think psychology is a primary factor and nutrition secondary. I am writing a book about this idea titled: “Your Ideas on Nutrition are Superstitious”...

Just for the record, Edward,
I don't have any problem with you having that view
about the relative importance to health of psychology and nutrition.
In fact, I am open to the view myself.

What I was disagreeing with
(in our apparently disappeared discussion :>))
was your seeming implication that
that Dr. Peat shares your view on that.

In your opening remarks in this thread,
when you say...

But let me remind those of you who feel that way that nowhere does Dr. Peat recommend drinking milk and orange juice for the rest of your life. They are simple tools to emphasize at certain periods and in normal periods a welcome addition to a rational diet.

...you are, of course,
caricaturing an extreme presentation of some "strict Peat diet."
Even someone like myself,
who is interested in distilling something like a strict Peat diet,
would not interpret Dr. Peat as recommending
a lifetime diet of only orange juice and milk
(though, for a lot of Peaters, heavy doses of both will likely be involved:>)).

On the other hand,
I think it would be pretty accurate to say
that a good Peat diet would likely consist of
a lot of Peat fruits (or juices thereof)
and a lot of milk (or cheeses).
And some liver.
And some eggs.
And coffee.
And salt and perhaps sugar and gelatin,
and maybe some limited amounts of muscle meats,
and some appropriate seafood,
some low to moderate consumption of Peat starches like potatoes, rice, masa harina, etc....

That rough and general and off-the-top-of-my-head expression
of a good Peat diet is, I think,
fairly faithful to Dr. Peat's writings and interviews.

So a good Peat diet, in my judgement, is by no means a limitless, unrestrictive diet.
While it goes a good ways beyond "drinking milk and orange juice for the rest of your life,"
at the same time I think it is important to note
that it is by no stretch infinitely inclusive
and its variety is not "exponential,"
as you interpret it
(depends what you mean by the word):
Edward said:
There is exponential variety within Dr. Peat’s paradigm.

In the same vein,
I think it is flawed scholarship/research
to select one terse quote from all of Dr. Peat's writings and interviews...

“Well the only foods I would suggest eliminating would be the grains and beans, and most of the nuts, and probably reducing most meats. Gelatin happens to be the part of the meat that doesn’t have so many of the disturbing acidic pro-inflammatory effects.” ~Ray Peat, March 16, 2012. Radio interview on Ask Your Herb Doctor.

...and from that isolated quote
to leap to the implication
that Dr. Peat shares your views about the relative importance
of nutrition and psychology in health.

I am not arguing that Peat thinks psychology unimportant to health.
He does discuss psychological and political and emotional and artistic realms,
and their effects upon health.
But I don't see how one reads/listens to all of Peat's work
and comes away without a clear view
that his work is strongly weighted towards the role of nutrition.

And nowhere does he say/write something like:
"You know, you can throw all that stuff I wrote and said about nutrition out the window:
the most important thing is to maintain a healthy psychology."

Again, it is fine with me for you to challenge, as you do,
the relative importance of nutrition to health,
and to argue for the importance of psychological factors.

I'm just distinguishing those views of yours
from Dr. Peat's.

Edward said:
The idea that there is an optimal diet is extremely mechanical thought. And again, that is not to say some ways of eating aren't better than others, merely, the outcome of such ideas is problematic.
So too here.
It's fine with me for you to make this assertion.
Moreover, I'm open to it.

I just wish to point out that I don't see the evidence that Dr. Peat is on-board with you on this.

I don't want to quibble or get stuck in semantic wrangling about the word "optimal"
because I'm not married to the term and have said that it may not be ideal.

But if you believe that "the idea that there is an optimal diet is extremely mechanical thought,"
then I would have to judge that
you think Peat's work is, largely, "extremely mechanical."

Now: Peat might not like the word "optimal."
And he wouldn't like some simplistic, one-size-fits-all straight-jacket, approach.
And he frequently notes that there is a lot that we don't know about an ideal diet.

But: It seems plain to me that Peat is very much interested in figuring out
what an ideal diet would, generally, be.
And I don't think an interest in such an idea is "extremely mechanical."

You might!
And that is fine with me--for you to make that assertion and that challenge!
I would even be interested in hearing your arguments.
I'm just trying to de-couple your views from Peat's.
 

Similar threads

Top