Posts made by honest_skeptic

Yeah... this "peaty" crowd is exactly the people I had expected them to be. "Eugenics" being Peaty... certainly a deranged crowd.

@chrome Tripping on it is a death sentance. It's one of the few deliriants, which is in the same category as Datura, so you know its some hardcore shit

@urbrainonsugar what sources are you referencing?

@Rapist Yeah... I don't this is a good idea whether your a Ray Peat follower or not... You know people often die from overdosing on DPH, right? Ever hear of Eiriel?

@waywardcloud I actually notice that when I'm taking fish oil regularly, my sleep is much high quality and I consistently wake up refreshed.

@Sugar um... twink?

@Fructose Ray Peats conclusions and advice seems to me to be a case of extrapolating from basic science to full-out clinical observations, which is often a big mistake. It's the same reason why people think antioxidants are good for you--they claim that, because on the cellular level oxidative stress can result in some damage, things that reduce free radicals must therefore be good. They fail to address the fact that free radicals may be good for other things (they have roles in cell signalling, for example).

@newmexico Exactly. I highly doubt Ray Peats authenticity.

From what I've gathered, Ray Peat is probably not a legitimate scientist.

In general, if you wonder if someone making scientific claims is legit, you should look for a publication record. The way that you know if your crazy idea is right is by testing it, and the way that you establish your testing as legitimate is by letting your peers review your work and check for errors.

Said a different, better way: If a researcher really wants to help people with a novel treatment, he needs to convince doctors that he's right, because that's how the treatment will get to patients. To convince doctors, you need to publish peer-reviewed research. Nothing else effectively changes patient care.

So, let's see if Ray Peat has done this.

First, go to pubmed.com and enter his information to see what he's published. Now wade through the "Rachel Peat" publications that aren't him.

He seems to have published three things. First, the research from his dissertation, from 1972: Estrogen stimulated pathway changes and cold-inactivated enzymes.

Second, a letter to the editor about progesterone, here: ORAL ABSORPTION OF PROGESTERONE

And finally, something titled humanistic therapy from 1971.

I can't read any of these papers today, because I'm in a waiting room without a journal-proxy.

The short version, though, is that the human body and nutritional system are very complicated. It's easy to come up with clever theories, and even easier to be completely wrong about those theories. Unless someone has formally tested his theories, you're foolish to put even an iota of faith in them.