Calling Time On Ray Peat

[Drareg]

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.

You have to define God before you make this statement,love is a word so just saying means you love your partner if we use your logic of it not being possible to define.
You could possible write an algebriac equation that gets close to it.

Accept the paradox brother and not knowing all in ones lifetimes,nature owns you but you are also nature ,there is no subjective just the word,our mad delusions make us think you have a subjective until your senseless then where are you?
The way up and down are one and the same said some drunk Greek guy in the past,it’s good fun sometimes to apply this quote to the action of putting ones pants on in the morning.

 

[Drareg]

Damadian isn't a discipline of Ling. The guy is a Creationist that thinks the Earth is 5000 years old.

There's a 100km wide, 300km deep crater in the Gulf of Mexico where a 12km wide asteroid slammed into the Earth 66million years ago. It was traveling at 75,000km/h and was equal to 10 billion Hiroshima H-bombs. Pressure at the epicentre was greater than pressure at the centre of the Earth itself. It's an event documented by geologists around the world, and evidenced with 600m of actual rock dug out of the crater itself, which you can inspect in a museum. It killed 75% of life on Earth. It also makes the Biblical flood sound comparatively tame.

So this guy Ramadian, he's got some funny ideas for a pioneering scientist. I wouldn't be surprised if Ray is also a Creationist to be honest, because he seems to enjoy challenging notions of entropy. He is very pejorative of chaos and quantum theory, but they are just theories, so not sure what the big problem is.

Your trying to discredit Damadian with similar tactics used on Peat,regardless of what he believed he invented it, you sound like a neo-Darwinist at this point.
Your still Demanding explanations for things you currently have no comprehension of,your taking the laziest easiest road,hey everyone prove it like.......

Your "global biologists" are majority debunked by little to no cures and fluke finds still being the major breakthroughs in most cases.
Erwin Schrodinger covers very well entropy,"what is life" spawned molecular biology,do you understand this?
With still don’t know what it is you understand,your still asking us to explain yet it’s you with big post refuting Peat,now your backtracking.

 

[Ideonaut]

yes but how do you know in what case you are, for example too low in iron?

Peat's generalization, as I remember it, is that there is a correlation between iron excess and disease. A generalization is just that, admitting of exceptions, not an "iron" law.

 

[chispas]

Science works by negatives, not positives. It doesn't matter if you have 10 pieces of data that seem to confirm receptor biology or the Na/K ATPase, one observation or piece of data can disconfirm it. That is the assymetrical way in which science is supposed to, but doesn't currently, operate.

Ling has more than 1 discomfirming observation about the pump that is yet to be addressed, such as how cells without them can maintain gradients.

So you can't volunteer a single affirmative piece of evidence of Ling's theory that you find plausible?

If I said the moon was made of cheese, and you couldn't disconfirm it, would you take the claim seriously? Of course not, it's highly improbable.

Bertrand Russell made this point when he claimed there *could* be a teapot orbiting Jupiter. No one could disconfirm the possibility, but it would be extraordinary if it were the case. And extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. So what is it about your reading of Ling that sees you give his theory credence?

 

[chispas]

Yeah theories cannot affect human reality and cannot thus be dangerous LOL

I agree about MRI though. Water crystals have a minor (significant IIRC) role in the imaging process.

Peat also puts a lot of faith in William Blake, who I am quite fond of personally, but also had a known history of severe mental illness - talking to angels, etc.

In fact, Peat's essay on Blake's relevance to science is one of his better ones, and very original.

 

[mayweatherking]

He’s at home now foaming at the mouth thinking he is stirring it up on here,this post alone will take this forum,lings theory,Peat and roddy DOWN!

Haha.. Yeah this post is about nothing. He basically slapped ray peat in the face. There is nothing even here disputing ray at all. He says he doesnt feel well eating this way so its wrong. Wat? Lol

 

[Such_Saturation]

Peat also puts a lot of faith in William Blake, who I am quite fond of personally, but also had a known history of severe mental illness - talking to angels, etc.

In fact, Peat's essay on Blake's relevance to science is one of his better ones, and very original.

You're also making a point of placing his "illness" inside a "static" mental "health" framework" of his "time". So I could just spray some WD-40 on your words and let you slide down the shoot of history. But I won't and don't. I think you'll eventually find that nobody here likes or wants an easy challenge when it comes to rationalizing Ray Peat's ideas.

 

[charlie]

-

 

[chispas]

You're also making a point of placing his "illness" inside a "static" mental "health" framework" of his "time". So I could just spray some WD-40 on your words and let you slide down the shoot of history. But I won't and don't. I think you'll eventually find that nobody here likes or wants an easy challenge when it comes to rationalizing Ray Peat's ideas.

At the time, no one knew he had mental illness. It was only inferred later, but it doesn't actually matter. I'm not making a big deal about it, it's just a detail. I haven't put him in a framework. If I did, I would say he was bipolar or something.

Also, folks here don't want a challenge at all! They just believe what they read! Any idiot can do that! I'm doing harder work doubting and wondering and asking questions among people who don't even want to know! For God sake.

 

[Xisca]

Peat's generalization, as I remember it, is that there is a correlation between iron excess and disease. A generalization is just that, admitting of exceptions, not an "iron" law.

Exactly, but also, minerals are in balance with others, can be depleted or on the contrary stocked in some organs like liver, which looks like depleted. There is bioavaibility or not... Do I have iron excess? I don't know, just my ferritin is a little low... and I do not know what this means!!!
So basically, if we do not have a way to know if we are in the most common case or an exception, then we could hurt ourselves with a bad decision.
Again, practicability of the theory is what counts!

So you can't volunteer a single affirmative piece of evidence of Ling's theory that you find plausible?

+

He says he doesnt feel well eating this way so its wrong.

= I think it is Kyle who says there are not enough proofs to say that Ling is right, and Peat is based somehow on Ling being right...
And if you add what ideonaut says (nothing personal, you are just the last one to remind us of something that has been said), we do not all follow the same rules. And after so many talks about all of us having different responses to food and supps, nobody can make the shortcut that a personal reactions means bad or wrong! Nor can we suggest that somebody talks rigidly about bad or wrong when all is about complexe reactions. Maybe some people are rigid and believe in rigid right or wrong. But I would not risk to hurt somebody by being so sure. When we look at details like ants, there are right and wrongs too. But with a wider view and for a practical use, we end up with trial and errors!

Peat also puts a lot of faith in William Blake, who I am quite fond of personally, but also had a known history of severe mental illness - talking to angels, etc.

According also to many things some members already mentionned about Peat, they are both, like many others and I count myself in this type of person, personnalities with tendency to dissociation. Deep practionners of meditation also know this, when they know how to use dissociated states for a very deep relaxation. A rave party also creates this with rythms. And shamans teaching is also about learrning how to go in that state. They learn to go and come back from what seems an outside world (talking to angels is exactly this). But this correspond with inner states in the body, so it is not easy to manage, and you can also be managed by those states. But it also allows some deep understandings that can be understood or transmitted only by connexions with different level of languages. That it why you have to read a Blake poem several times. That is why it is also possible to write many pages explaining one poem. I have also stydied English litterature at university... Another case is about NDE. People come back with some deep and deeply felt understanding of life. Dissociation is also the source of knowledge of many traditional medecine, and that is why that could make medecine from plants and animals. Nowadays it is thought they found all this through trial and errors, or experiments on other people, but we have some clues that they did found out by using dissiociated states. I have never tried lsd, but it seems that some people used it also with this kind of purpose.

 

[yerrag]

As YOU told me you found irrelevant to talk about the pufas, I explained why I did and asked YOU if then it was more relevant... at least I hoped so... So for me you're not the wrong guy to ask.
2nd time, and now I think I understand the 2nd part. But were are you from?
Are you telling me that I go ahead too much instead of having a conversation as in a face to face conversation? Which is often true...

From Manila. I think it's very cultural the way we talk. From my limited interactions, the way people talk is already a giveaway where they're from, assuming everything else - language, accent - doesn't give them away. Americans, especially from less laidback places like NYC, tend to be brief. It reflects the hurried life - longer work hours, juggling many things. Answers they look for are more immediate. The whys and wherefore can come later. Europeans have more vacation time, a more relaxed pace, they can afford a little more information, even if the information doesn't have an immediate significance. I've been in the US long enough to find myself, even now, adjusting to my siblings, whom I find can't be direct to the point, and has to have some kind of preface to every conversation. I actually myself prefer being brief, dispensing with the preface, and if more information is needed, the other party can ask when he needs more information.

 

[Xisca]

lol I give the information I have, help yourself as needed in the buffet!

Hurried life needs recipes. Thus the success of those web programs "I will give you your daily helthy recipes with weekly lists of what to buy, and save you time"
I cannot imagine feeding a lot of people without a buffet, my favorite type of restaurant! Look, smell and go for your instinct!

 

[yerrag]

lol I give the information I have, help yourself as needed in the buffet!

Hurried life needs recipes. Thus the success of those web programs "I will give you your daily helthy recipes with weekly lists of what to buy, and save you time"
I cannot imagine feeding a lot of people without a buffet, my favorite type of restaurant! Look, smell and go for your instinct!

If you call it a buffet, everyone will be happy, especially if it's free! But, in the era of unlimited talk and video streaming, what we realize what's not - is our time.

 

[Xisca]

Time is like money. When there is a crisis, people spend less money but on more cheap useless items. Made in China, getting richer.

 

[Dhair]

Peat also puts a lot of faith in William Blake, who I am quite fond of personally, but also had a known history of severe mental illness - talking to angels, etc.

In fact, Peat's essay on Blake's relevance to science is one of his better ones, and very original.

Blake is an interesting case. He didn't appear to be violent or dysfunctional like many "mentally ill" people. He was certainly functional despite his hallucinations. What kind of mental illness do you think he had?

 

[Xisca]

General dissociation. It does not lead to violence but to clear understandings.

 

[chispas]

Blake is an interesting case. He didn't appear to be violent or dysfunctional like many "mentally ill" people. He was certainly functional despite his hallucinations. What kind of mental illness do you think he had?

I don't know if it's really valuable to speculate about the guy, he deserves better than that. I know his wife wasn't too well either. I attended a museum exhibition about him, as well as studying him at uni. He is a fantastic artist and poet, one of the best English Romantics. He may have just had a history of trauma, or someone treated him badly. This is where a lot of mental issues stem from.

 

[yerrag]

-

When you got something to show, don't just show, strut it!

 

[Xisca]

He may have just had a history of trauma, or someone treated him badly. This is where a lot of mental issues stem from.

Yes that is why I said that it is not needed to tell anything further than a freeze response. It is the body natural response whenever there is something we cannot deal with a fight or flight response. That easy.

 

[OldMan]

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.

May I ask how old you are?