Rational Criticism
-
I've been trying to find "rational criticism" of Peat's dietary thinking. I say "rational" because most opinions I read are either totally dismissive and mocking of Peat, or, totally uncritical and accepting of everything he said.
I found an interesting long-form article/critique here:
https://optimisingnutrition.com/ray-peat-diet/
Some of the points are off-base, but others are pretty fair. For example, the author speaks about high fat and high carb mixture, which is dangerous:
"But as we can see, the percentage of total calories from protein (protein %) is just 12%. This leaves our calories from fat and carbs at 35% and 52%, respectively, which aligns with the hyper-palatable fat-and-carb danger zone that is the least satiating. This is pretty close to the hyperpalatable micronutrient profile of ultra-processed foods like a doughnut or cookies, which provides tons of energy but leads most people to overeat and gain fat."
I understand in theory what he means, but the first thing that struck me is that he isn't mentioning PUFA when comparing fat and carb mixture to "a doughnut." A donut is deep-fried in PUFA oil, then covered with typically PUFA-seed oil sweetened icings - not even real sugar!
It's an apples-and-oranges comparison, in my opinion.
Same thing when he mentions iron - saying Peat recommended limiting muscle meat. Ok, true enough, but he also claims Peat limits eggs, liver, and meat in general. Furthermore, he doesn't seem to acknowledge that nearly all foods have been fortified with high levels of iron and other minerals that, while essential in theory, are likely being over-consumed.
Finally, he makes other claims about nutrient density/availability, things like this. "Honey isn't nutrient rich," etc. First, I don't think that's true. Second, it seems to me that Peat was viewing these as tools or parts working within a mechanical system. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't agree 100% with a "mechanical" view of nature, and think it is outdated.
I take a middle-road between the author's view and Peat's, in that it's really difficult to say which minerals and vitamins are "necessary" given that the complexity and depth of interactions are unknowable. And I'm not a scientist or nutritionist, so would have even less ability to dig into this meaningfully.
Again, the article seems to have a slight tone of straw-man-ism; I don't think Peat ever said Iron was unnecessary or should be removed totally, just like pufa, tryptophan, estrogen, serotonin, etc. None of these things are bad in themselves but, arguably, very much the product of the food-environment we inhabit in the post-1950s world. What I think is that Peat only expressed ideas about limiting these because of the damage they appear to be causing. I'm always open to other theories of degenerative disease, worsening health, etc. The author doesn't seem to have read much of Peat's work to understand how all of these things relate and why certain foods and ingredients, for that matter, are viewed with scrutiny.
At the same time, I'm trying to think critically about the Peatarian ideas as I eat and plan meals. Generally what has been working is high-carb. I don't see too many problems with starches like bread or potatoes, despite Peat's ideas. I don't like OJ and have felt no better drinking it. I've reduced and avoided pufa/dead-food consciously and can say I feel a difference there. I've only had a few experiences where I think my blood sugar was a bit high for too long, due to coke, fruit, etc. but to me, the irony is that I've never felt that sort of dizzy, energetic sensation before because I've always limited sugar, as I was taught sugar is terrible for one's health. Meals with a lot of fat or protein weigh me down, and I suspect part of this is related to the fact I'm not eating lots of protein or fat on a daily basis.
Last, I think food-combinations are very interesting. Honey and yogurt, for example, work in tandem, as honey helps transport bacteria to the gut. Whether or not this is good doesn't exactly matter, because it reaffirms Peat's thinking on inter-relationships, action and counter-action, etc.
https://www.uclahealth.org/news/article/honey-helps-yogurt-bacteria-survive-digestion
-
Doesn’t look like you are asking a question
Unless I missed itBut to add to the conversation
I will give my perspectivePeat wasn't a dietician
He recommended no diet
He was a biologist of course
Looking for ways to bring health to the individual so they didn't have to rely on the MIC and be stuck in dis-easeThe old forum and other health professionals have interpreted some of his observations, recommendations etc as dietary advice
And have skewed his intent“I think people shouldn’t eat things that damage them and should eat things that taste good and provide essential nutrients while making them feel good and function well. Is that a diet?”
- Peat
-
@Peatful said in Rational Criticism:
Doesn’t look like you are asking a question
Unless I missed itThe question is rational criticism - informed criticism of Peat's ideas. Where was he right, where is he wrong?
He wasn't a dietician, but I would say the vast majority of people found Peat because of his ideas on food/nutrients because of the health problems so many people are suffering from. -
Otherwise I appreciate your response, because yes, it seems like so many things are being misconstrued. But I also think so much of the base of people reading about Peat are pushing supplements and invasive techniques to change health, which is silly.
-
@Corngold said in Rational Criticism:
I've been trying to find "rational criticism" of Peat's dietary thinking. I say "rational" because most opinions I read are either totally dismissive and mocking of Peat, or, totally uncritical and accepting of everything he said.
Hi,
There is no Peat diet as already said, even if some people have tried to do as if, and have even written a book. Not Peaty.
If you want to debate one point, in an article written by RP, you're welcome.
raypeat2.com = & Articles.
I suggest to begin by- Hormones, energy, aging and endogenous carbon dioxide.
- When energy fails: Edema, hypertension, heart failure, sarcopenia, cramps, etc.
Steroids. Thyroid. - Glycemia, starch, and sugar in context.
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml
Advise: Don't try to generalize if you've got a problem, especially for digestion or mood ((brain). Correction has to take place when energy fails. Adapt yourself to your ground (sensibilities and needs) but don't go on the same way when your body tells you sth is getting wrong. Learn to listen to your metabolism...
PS: One or two questions by post, and wait for the answer before putting another one
-
@Corngold said in Rational Criticism:
@Peatful said in Rational Criticism:
Doesn’t look like you are asking a question
Unless I missed itThe question is rational criticism - informed criticism of Peat's ideas. Where was he right, where is he wrong?
He wasn't a dietician, but I would say the vast majority of people found Peat because of his ideas on food/nutrients because of the health problems so many people are suffering from.I found his website first
Raypeat dot com
Grateful
I was looking for hormonal help and found these articles that took time to even begin to understandUnlearning the medical dogma
If I had found the old forum first
I would have been confused at bestYes
Silly with all the supplement pushing…At work
Gotta run -
This is a hit job on Ray Peat.
I took the pains of reading through it. This is a very skewed interpretation of Ray Peat
At best, author picks up wrong ideas from the most clueless members of RPF and then claims these ideas are Ray's.
I will rebut later by the many screenshots of different sections of that very tiresomely long article.
Too many screenshots so I'll just do it screenshot by screenshot.
That piece has no iota of rationality in its criticism, and does a poor job of being accurate.
-
I'm posting screenshots of each statement in the article which are patently false. But I will invite members to explain why each of them is false.
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
@yerrag said in Rational Criticism:
I'm posting screenshots of each statement in the article which are patently false. But I will invite members to explain why each of them is false.
Im all in if you are
One act of obedience is better than one hundred sermons.
-DB
-
I would appreciate it. I see Georgi is going on other shows which is really neat. The science is often over my head
-
@Corngold said in Rational Criticism:
I've been trying to find "rational criticism" of Peat's dietary thinking.
Peats approach is to universally support and strengthen metabolic health, notably by protecting mitochondria. This is fully outlined in the link below.
https://www.functionalps.com/blog/2012/11/24/protect-the-mitochondria/
-
I find it hard to post images. It's easier at RPF. Can someone show me how to use the markup language below? @brad
-
@yerrag said in Rational Criticism:
I find it hard to post images. It's easier at RPF. Can someone show me how to use the markup language below? @brad
@ThinPicking
Can you help him?One act of obedience is better than one hundred sermons.
-DB
-
This is the best I could do:
Images are in Google Photos.
I could not do a copy and paste either as it ends up as gibberish.
-
I'm consulting the AIs, because it is a pretty daunting task to try and learn these in-depth biological processes. It's always fun because AIs are generally 50/50, so it makes "learning" sort of more rapid.
Ex: "Are most people calcium deficient?"
Answwer: "Based on the available research, calcium deficiency appears to be a widespread global issue, though not necessarily affecting "most" people: ..."
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/was-ray-peat-right-about-seed-07KBpUdYSUOErBAbFrXv0Q
-
I don't think I was able to join Ray Peat Forum or else I would have. Did they create a new one?
-
afaik, this forum is the new one. the former RPF is now the LTF (low toxin forum).
-
@Corngold said in Rational Criticism:
I'm consulting the AIs, because it is a pretty daunting task to try and learn these in-depth .biological processes. It's always fun because AIs are generally 50/50, so it makes "learning" sort of more rapid.
Ex: "Are most people calcium deficient?"
Answwer: "Based on the available research, calcium deficiency appears to be a widespread global issue, though not necessarily affecting "most" people: ..."
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/was-ray-peat-right-about-seed-07KBpUdYSUOErBAbFrXv0Q
It is daunting to learn Ray Peat. AI may be helpful, but its accuracy is dependent on what it is fed into it. It doesn't mean its answers are going to be wrong. But neither can you count on it to be rellable.
If it were that simple, you need not go to K12 at all, as AI will fill you in. But I doubt you will have the confidence to figure out many answers yourself, as the quality of your answer will depend highly on the process of determining your answers yourself.
