Calling Time On Ray Peat

[moss]

Why do alcoholics keep drinking? There is evidence that many are deficient in certain nutrients, particularly b vitamins. Is their craving for alcohol some sort of desperate attempt of the body to fulfill some physiological requirement? Or is it a sign of a morally bankrupt character? I mean, it's easy to throw stones...I think if you get to the point where those real, fresh foods are all you are craving, then that is part of the health journey and you have probably made quite a bit of progress. Some of us struggle a bit more, but I'm certainly not going to blame Peat for my shortcomings. Could it possibly be his fault that I like bread? I mean, Oprah loves bread and Oprah's a good person. (That last part was a joke in case you think i'm totally crazy at this point.)

As Tom Lehrer sings

If it is, try playin' it safer
Drink the wine and chew the wafer
Two, four, six, eight
Time to transubstantiate

 

[Such_Saturation]

Always can call the time when I'm feeling good metabolically. Very peculiar. Also can tell when an egg timer is about to go off and get lots of ascending numbers when I look at the time

 

[alywest]

As Tom Lehrer sings

If it is, try playin' it safer
Drink the wine and chew the wafer
Two, four, six, eight
Time to transubstantiate

Amen, sister!

 

[lollipop]

Also can tell when an egg timer is about to go off and get lots of ascending numbers when I look at the time

I am in search of the meaning and context here @Such_Saturation . Care to end my suffering? - lol.

 

[michael94]

Always can call the time when I'm feeling good metabolically. Very peculiar. Also can tell when an egg timer is about to go off and get lots of ascending numbers when I look at the time

Synchronicity?

 

[Kartoffel]

I appreciate Ray's thoughts as an internet health personality, and I think he has some good points, but I think his ideas are an incomplete picture, and ultimately they don't lead to any new or helpful knowledge.

I suppose I humbly disagree that a "good diet" and a "good environment" can preserve health. I think both can contribute substantially, but I don't think that Ray's picture is the full picture.

I do agree that modern medicine is dogmatic and illogical at times, and this is a tragic misuse of science and technology. But writing lonely articles about it won't create change. Ray is very talented, but he hasn't attempted to use his talents to strongly disrupt the prevailing powers he dissents against.

He defers key aspects of his reasonings to Gilbert Ling, but Ray isn't a qualified chemist, and I believe he is using his talent as a linguist to blush over the finer points, as well as disguise the failings in Ling's claims. I don't really know why he does this. I mean, there is crystal spectrometry imaging of human cells that demonstrate reality aligning with the current model. Also, the current model is far more sophisticated than the "bags of water" description Ray often alleges. It is a straw man argument. No one says this.

I asked Danny Roddy about this, and he said he doesn't understand Gilbert Ling at all, but still believes Peat is absolutely right. To date, no one on this forum can engage directly with the claims of Ling. Even if turns out Ling is absolutely correct, no one has specified what the consequences of Ling's model are. Ling himself uses the term Hypothesis, which indicates there is further room for discussion.

Anyway, I've started consuming less sugar and nothing bad happened. I returned to eating normally, enjoying a few scrambled eggs. I no longer drink juice and crappy light milk. Over time this high liquid protocol lowered my cholesterol, and flattened my sex drive. I feel hungry now in a good, heathy way that feels good and stimulates my appetite, and I don't worry about food and iron and vitamin C and all that stuff, it just causes unnecessary concern.

If Ray Peat even lives to 100, I will eat my shoe with PUFA sauce drizzled on top.

You do realize that he has a PhD in biochemistry, right? That doesn't mean that he knows everything, but they usually don't hand those to people, who are not qualified chemists. And yes, they do say that. My chemistry professor literally said that animal cells are just compartments of water, where molecules randomly meet under the assistance of enzymes. Cells are really just one big Darwinian coincidence. Most people here that are accusing Ray of simplifying biochemistry and rambling on about pH concepts probably can't tell the difference between a Lewis acid and the Bronsted-Lowry model

 

[lollipop]

Synchronicity?

Okay, now @Such_Saturation post makes sense. Thank you @michael94. I would think it relates to the “consciousness and intuitive” conversation discussed before.

Edit: meant to say precognition more than “consciousness and intuition”.

 

[damngoodcoffee]

It is amazing how some new members, being here for less then a month, seem to put all the people on this board into a little box and diagnose it as cultish/sect behavior. Being unread, uninformed, and seemingly unwilling to look around at the myriad of people and different experiences discussed on this board makes comments like this worth less then toilet paper.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Synchronicity?

Okay, now @Such_Saturation post makes sense. Thank you @michael94. I would think it relates to the “consciousness and intuitive” conversation discussed before.

Edit: meant to say precognition more than “consciousness and intuition”.

Yes but only when my health is very good... Also was disappointed when I saw the thread wasn't about this

You do realize that he has a PhD in biochemistry, right? That doesn't mean that he knows everything, but they usually don't hand those to people, who are not qualified chemists. And yes, they do say that. My chemistry professor literally said that animal cells are just compartments of water, where molecules randomly meet under the assistance of enzymes. Cells are really just one big Darwinian coincidence. Most people here that are accusing Ray of simplifying biochemistry and rambling on about pH concepts probably can't tell the difference between a Lewis acid and the Bronsted-Lowry model

Amen

 

[michael94]

Yes but only when my health is very good... Also was disappointed when I saw the thread wasn't about this

By the way, this is the reason why the "Elite" code dates and events. It is a crude plagiarization of Synchronicity, attempting to recreate ( and mock ) it by controlling the times/circumstances of major events.

 

[lollipop]

Yes but only when my health is very good... Also was disappointed when I saw the thread wasn't about this

Right?!?! LOVE this topic

 

[chispas]

Ray Peat states his ideas are an incomplete picture so you have made one big straw man for attention. You offer no examples just opinions so essentially this is an opinion piece with nothing to counter!

Your second paragraph is hilarious a good diet and good environment can preserve health so please clarify in your hubris fueled opinion what additionally preserves health more so than what you project onto Peat that he somehow forgot ? Another who is fed up Peat doesn’t offer immortality!

A lot of passionate words here. I'll respond to you because your message contains many of the same remarks made by others. Psychology, genetics, socio-cultural influences all play a role in health, wouldn't you say? I'm not trying to counter or contradict Peat or anyone's personal testimony, I'm actually on Ray Peat's side in terms of the general direction of his thought - I just don't see it holding together very well. He is keen on coherency, and so am I, yet his writings are disjointed and the ideas are incomplete. He did once say his goal was to "change the culture". I don't see him achieving that using the current amount of obscurantism that blurs the finer points. He would probably say in reply to me that he is non-systematic because he is anti-authoritarian and there are no truths, or something along those lines, but this is like a "get out of jail free card" - at some point you have to stand up and defend your own ideas and risk being vilified like I currently am on this thread.

Also, Ray did speak recently of human cells being "practically immortal", which I thought was a bit interesting. Not sure what he means by that. I thought immortality was just an a priori concept, like infinity.

[QUOTE="Please clarify where he defers key reasoning to Ling,clarify what you feel is key? The only one using linguistic tricks here is you to offer an opinion under the illusion you have any idea about the cell physiology or biochem spoken about.
Yes Peat understands the current model(you dont) and uses the bags of water in jest to the past yet you use it to attack Peats argument,are you actually for real? Rofl!

Why bring Danny roddy into it and why do you care if roddy doesn’t understand Ling,roddy is studying it all so I’m sure it will take time,head over to Lings website where he discusses the consequences of his theory,also read Peats articles where he discuss it also. There a multitude of People who are using Lings theory,the hubris to state this sums you up,look into mri machines from the beginning as a start,Gerald Pollack and host more.[/QUOTE]

Here is Peat quoting Ling - there are many - I'm not cherry-picking, but this is a good one: "Gilbert Ling's biophysical calculations were useful to physical chemists, and were soon put to practical use for understanding ion exchange resins, such as water softeners. Many sorts of evidence showed their validity for cell physiology, but nearly all biologists rejected them, preferring to talk about membranes, pumps, and channels, despite the evidence showing that the properties ascribed to those are simply impossible. NMR imaging (MRI) was developed by Raymond Damadian specifically as an application of Ling's description of cell physiology."

Where he says, "despite the evidence showing that the properties ascribed to those are simply impossible", he doesn't demonstrate what this evidence is. Unfortunately, as much as I want to take Ray's line of thinking on this matter, there are a global community of biologists and chemists who seem to agree membranes do exist. As I said, and some others tried to contradict me, there is NMR spectroscopy of the cell membrane, ion pumps, etc: http://www.jbc.org/content/291/8/3776.full

Here's another quote that sides with Ling, but provides no evidence of why Ling is correct: "Ling has demonstrated in many ways that the ruling dogma of "cell membrane" function isn't coherently based on fact. He found that hormones such as progesterone regulate the energetic and structural stability of cells. Many people, unaware of his work, have felt that it was necessary to argue against the idea that there are anesthetic steroids with generalized protective functions, because of their commitment to a textbook dogma of "cell membrane" physiology."

Notice the phrases where adjectives are unnecessarily paired with nouns: "many ways", "ruling dogma", "coherently based". this is a known logic strategy known as "guarding your argument". I want to agree with Peat, but this is weak writing that wouldn't hold up in an academic context.

I asked Danny about Ling in a straightforward way, because he's obviously read and written a lot about Peat's ideas, and I thought he might have something to share that would help me. I was actually really surprised he didn't comprehend Ling very well at all, and had a poor understanding of the relationship between Ling and Peat.

I don't know how you made the leap that I am some hateful person pursuing attention - I'm just trying to appreciate what I've read, and obtain the constructive views of others - something that seems to be in scant supply on this forum sadly.

I'm "calling time" in the sense that I'm tired to trying to "wonder what Ray means" when he says "X and Y is good and A and B should be avoided". It's just a minefield of claims that I'm sure are partly right in some contexts, but I suspect the foundations are unstable. I also think someone with a PhD in Biology and Masters in Linguistics would have the training to present all of this great information in a really concise, easy to digest way. But for some reason, he's chosen to leave it all disjointed across tens of articles for the misinformed and undertrained to attempt to understand. I worry that if it was easier to understand, it would also be easier to debunk.

 

[chispas]

I don't think Peat recommends "crappy" light milk. It sucks if thats all you can get. Whats your current diet now?

Crappy is ALDI's 1% UHT milk. My advice, is don't do it to yourself. It's depressing.

 

[chispas]

He's not an internet personality. He's a biologist who's done many radio interviews that were put on the net, and 2 of his lectures at schools have also been put online. He didn't ask for that. His articles are free to the public but he's not advertising himself and doesn't sell anything.



Sounds like you're complaining about nothing. He doesn't owe you anything. He's not going to wipe your bum for you. You take what you want from him and do what you want. Saying that serotonin is not the feel good hormone and that there is no such thing as an EFA is certainly helpful knowledge.



He's made it to 81 so it is the full picture for him.



What a weird thing to say. He's not obligated to change anything.



Good for you. That's what you're supposed to do. No need to bash the guy though. You sound like one of those whiny victims and not a fun person to be around.

I don't even do the true "Peat" diet myself but I would never blame him for my own problems like SJW's do. Take responsibility for yourself.

.

You seemed to overlook all the times I said he was talented.

Have you ever read Kafka? He has a funny remark: "Live with what you know." If what you know turns out to not "be knowable" because it doesn't match up with reality, obviously you are living in partnership with an illusion. Which is fine, but then you have to ask, why this particular illusion and not any other illusion, if correct knowledge is not a prerequisite for you basing your life choices on it?

 

[chispas]

I agree with a few things you said, however I think posts like these make the Freud mistake. Freud gets a lot of crap for mistakes while people skim over the fact that he really developed the idea of the unconscious, which is so rooted in our understanding of our mind that it goes without saying. However there was a time when the idea of an unconscious was unconscionable.

So yes, I cringe a little when I see him recommend 2 Qts of milk and OJ to someone. I wonder if all that liquid is really what they need.

However, I am not going to go pick up some fishoil to down with my acacia gum fiber smoothie which will raise my serotonin even higher then my SSRI so I will be super happy....basically key parts of your understanding of the health world have been shaped by Peat, and you may not even notice that it comes from him.

I think Peat is definitely an interesting read, and he has made me think, which I am grateful for, and I have cited this gratitude many times on this forum. At various times I thought I was doing really well, and I'm sure others will now enjoy humiliating me for that. That's OK.

I too am not going to "pick up some fishoil to down with my acacia gum fiber smoothie", but I already was against PUFA before I read Peat, because I was aware of the oil being rancid at room temperature. Any farmer involved in pressing the oil will tell you this. You don't need to defer to Ling and throw out the entire known physiology of the cell to explain why PUFA should not be consumed. I mean, WD-40 is fish oil, would you spray that on your salad greens? Yuck!

 

[chispas]

Good points. Certainly good to have the feeling that in you that Ray Peat doesn't provide the full picture. I feel that way myself. I've got my own issues that he can't provide answers to and solve, but that's just fine with me. What I've learned most from his writing is that I have to understand my context, and that will help me a lot. In the process of understanding my context, reading him has made it easier to work towards that better understanding. I don't fault Peat for not aiming to disrupt the establishment. Perhaps he won't be around anymore if he does so. Just being below the radar suits him fine. If he can be a good resource for the few, he will have changed a few of us for the better. Out of ten people, how many would you consider to be that inquisitive and much lacking in gullibility to want to discover things, time permitting? It's important for me that people speak with coherence. There is a structure to it, a deliberate attempt to organize and to build by putting together well-built stacks upon solid foundations. This is what gravitates me towards Ray Peat. It makes sense to me that he appreciates Gilbert Ling's work, because he appreciates the sound logic behind it. That he scoffs at the idea of pumps for every conceivable construct put in the way of explaining a condition in human physiology, is something I take delight in.

Ray Peat is for the patient person. He lays out ideas, and leaves you to think these ideas over. Often, he discovers things by experimenting, but his experimentation is not out of a whim, but out of careful thinking. If you asked him why he is doing a particular experiment on himself, I'm pretty sure he can give you a detailed explanation as to why he thinks it may work. He has a hypothesis to prove, and to craft a hypothesis one needs a bit of knowledge that existed, not like a rabbit pulled out of thin air. I think if the sugar didn't work for you, you should be the one to ask why the sugar didn't work in your context. You need to dig more into yourself and into what's available as resources - textbooks, studies, this forum, Peat's writings, interviews. Be a detective in your own right, and when you start finding answers, you'll be well along the way to the road to your own health. If you say less sugar is better for you, you'd have to explain to yourself why as well.

I understand what you say. The burden of proof is not on me, because what happens to me when I eat sugar is different to what happens to you. If I said I spoke to God, I wouldn't be able to prove it. I can't prove that I love my partner, and yet I love her. How could I prove it to you? Write a mathematical theorem? We are in the slippery world of the subjective. My point is: even when we are sure it's all working well, it's hard to prove. You might even find your blood test contradicts the way you think you feel. I'm not sure what the answer is by the way, so this isn't very constructive, but I didn't intend to be negative - I'm just thinking it through as honestly as I can.

 

[johnwester130]

it's back to fish oil,

steak,

and slow burning carbs like sweet potato and brown rice.

 

[chispas]

Just out of curiosity, are you in a better state now than you were before finding Peat?

To be honest, I have always had good health. I had a bit of mild anxiety at one point when I became under weight. I experimented with my diet, beginning with the so-called Perfect Health Diet - a terrible title - because I thought it would be a good way to put weight on. It seemed based on a lot of science. It didn't make me feel too bad. But I have to admit, I've never had health issues. The worst thing that's ever happened to me was the measles. Since then, nothing touches me. My digestion is like a steel drum, I have relatively good energy and no real issues to complain about.

Ray's guidelines only made eating more thought-provoking, but it didn't really change my health in a sustainable way for the positive, or negative.

 

[johnwester130]

I mean, WD-40 is fish oil, would you spray that on your salad greens? Yuck!

wow,

I never knew that

 

[cyclops]

WD-40 is fish oil, would you spray that on your salad greens? Yuck!

Fish Oil is NOT an ingredient in WD-40. This is another urban legend that has been around for a long time.

WD-40's main ingredients, according to its U.S. Material Safety Data Sheet* information, are:

• 
  · 51% Stoddard solvent (i.e., mineral spirits: primarily hexane, somewhat similar to kerosene)
  · 25% Liquefied petroleum gas (presumably as a propellant; carbon dioxide is now used instead to reduce WD-40's considerable flammability)
  · 15+% Mineral oil (light lubricating oil)
  · 10-% Inert ingredients