Calling Time On Ray Peat

[raypeatclips]

I asked you before but it was not answered. Out of interest, what is your current diet you have settled on?

 

[alywest]

I know that Ray Peat discusses consuming 2 qts of milk and oj, but I am concerned about people who follow that advice like it's the only thing they should be consuming. Peat says 150 g of protein (and up to 300!!!) and then says that there is no way the milk alone would provide that. You would at the very least need to put a tablespoon of collagen in each 8 oz glass of milk to get enough protein. I haven't been on this forum that long, but this is the impression i get: people are relying on milk and oj with some salt and a little gelatin. That seems destructive, especially to the liver. And then when they crash they're going to complain and say it was the Ray Peat diet's fault. He also says to eat eggs, liver, seafood, meat, carrots, etc. How can just milk and oj be enough?

 

[Xisca]

I know that Ray Peat discusses consuming 2 qts of milk and oj

You are absolutely right for all this, I feel the same, but I have listened to some podcast, and he repeats very often to basically use OJ and milk.

He also says fruits, and sugar only when fruits are not in season or anavailable, but money makes fruits out of season for many, and sugar is cheap!

And gelatine, ok, but bone broth, ox tail soup, cooking the carcass of a chicken give you gelatine for days! It is easier to use a powder too...

 

[alywest]

You are absolutely right for all this, I feel the same, but I have listened to some podcast, and he repeats very often to basically use OJ and milk.

He also says fruits, and sugar only when fruits are not in season or anavailable, but money makes fruits out of season for many, and sugar is cheap!

And gelatine, ok, but bone broth, ox tail soup, cooking the carcass of a chicken give you gelatine for days! It is easier to use a powder too...

I notice I feel a lot better when I consume actual bone broth than just the hydrolyzed collagen, but you're right, the powder is very easy.

However, I've listened to his podcasts, too, and he's always talking about eating protein, getting adequate protein. I've never once actually heard him say you can just eat milk and oj. I know he's promoting those things but if anything I look at it as the baseline, then all the other foods are adding to that protein intake and the micronutrients, etc. I mean, it's like "hey, if you live in a place that doesn't have fresh fruit and you can't get decent meat or cheese, at the very least you can do the oj and milk." But still eat some food, for goodness sake! I can certainly understand this would maybe be the only thing some people who are very sick can eat, so that's one thing. But for a perfectly normal person (such as the OP said he was before he ever found Peat) to suddenly go on a liquid diet with potentially inadequate protein doesn't mesh with what i have heard peat recommend. If anything I have felt pressure to eat way more than I used to, because I don't always get adequate calories or protein. Milk with collagen just gives me peace of mind that I'm not starving my liver, but I know it's not enough, and that's because of Ray Peat!

 

[Kyle M]

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

The most clear "affirming" experiments Ling ever did was creating a synthetic cytoplasm with no membrane, just proteinaceous solution with salts, and showed that is excluded bulk water and concentrated K against Na. Pollack has some affirming experiments where he uses different techniques, mostly materials science.

 

[Xisca]

Why does Ling say that inventing the MRI proved his theory?

 

[chispas]

The most clear "affirming" experiments Ling ever did was creating a synthetic cytoplasm with no membrane, just proteinaceous solution with salts, and showed that is excluded bulk water and concentrated K against Na. Pollack has some affirming experiments where he uses different techniques, mostly materials science.

So this is enough for you to consider that the dominant model of cell physiology should be reconsidered?

I mean, obviously science is an ongoing process - I'm not claiming the dominant model is 100% perfect at all, and I'm sure with time it will change. But will it change to anything described by Ling?Ling is strongly of the view that the entire contemporary model is mostly incorrect, which is a big call.

 

[chispas]

May I ask how old you are?

I'm an old man like you. I'm 29.

 

[m_arch]

I'm calling time on ray too, atleast in my own life. He provides interesting info, but it doesn't seem relevant to my context anymore. My health is better following gbolduevs advice.

 

[Kyle M]

So this is enough for you to consider that the dominant model of cell physiology should be reconsidered?

I mean, obviously science is an ongoing process - I'm not claiming the dominant model is 100% perfect at all, and I'm sure with time it will change. But will it change to anything described by Ling?Ling is strongly of the view that the entire contemporary model is mostly incorrect, which is a big call.

I'm convinced as I walk around the halls of a major biomedical institution that none of these people are:
1) even aware that there is a question of the theory of the cell, or it's mainstream and alternative theories
2) don't care about ultimate truths like that and are 99% concerned with their next grant or promotion
3) are selected to be followers (see book "Disciplined Minds" but ignore the Marxist points)
4) are, post-selection, incentivized to be followers through the granting and peer review and promotion committee processes

edit: I'm writing a book about this actually, and one of the concepts I use is "Star Trek" science. Everyone implicitly knows that in some distant future most of our scientific paradigms will be overturned, but the way science is set up today with government monopoly funding there is no point in the real timeline that any paradigm can be overturned. So someone would say "in 1000 years we will look at everything having to do with cellular biology differently" but they also simultaneously (and with much cognitive dissonance) hold the view that we basically have it all figured out now and it's just tinkering around the edges to be done on a day to day basis.

If there is a scientific truth, it doesn't care how many of these career scientist follower losers believe in it or not, keep that in mind

 

[Xisca]

If there is a scientific truth, it doesn't care how many of these career scientist follower losers believe in it or not, keep that in mind

lol... like it... The truth knows us and we do not know the truth?

Believing has nothing to do with the truth but with the use we make of it! A belief has to serve somebody. Who are actual scientific believes serving? And your believes can still serve you even if they are not the same as somebody else's. If you believe that believing is related to the truth, then it causes you a problem when people believe in something different. This has even been the source of religious wars... If you know that the strength of a believe is in the belief itself, then you are not bothered by others believes at all (except when they try to kill you for your believes... all about tolerance).

 

[Kyle M]

So this is enough for you to consider that the dominant model of cell physiology should be reconsidered?

Rereading this and it really shocks me. You think that a piece of information that cannot be explained by the current theory may NOT be a reason to reconsider it?

 

[meatbag]

I'm convinced as I walk around the halls of a major biomedical institution that none of these people are:
1) even aware that there is a question of the theory of the cell, or it's mainstream and alternative theories
2) don't care about ultimate truths like that and are 99% concerned with their next grant or promotion
3) are selected to be followers (see book "Disciplined Minds" but ignore the Marxist points)
4) are, post-selection, incentivized to be followers through the granting and peer review and promotion committee processes

edit: I'm writing a book about this actually, and one of the concepts I use is "Star Trek" science. Everyone implicitly knows that in some distant future most of our scientific paradigms will be overturned, but the way science is set up today with government monopoly funding there is no point in the real timeline that any paradigm can be overturned. So someone would say "in 1000 years we will look at everything having to do with cellular biology differently" but they also simultaneously (and with much cognitive dissonance) hold the view that we basically have it all figured out now and it's just tinkering around the edges to be done on a day to day basis.

If there is a scientific truth, it doesn't care how many of these career scientist follower losers believe in it or not, keep that in mind

 

[Kyle M]

Great post. I'll definitely check out that book

For a more balanced perspective also see Terence Kealey's The Economics of Scientific Research. Unfortunately it's expensive, but if you have access to a university library it's probably there. I bought the paperback for like $70, hard cover is well over $100.

 

[charlie]

"With the institutions of research and education controlled by pharmaceutical, military and industrial interests for their own benefit, fundamental progress in knowledge is a threat to the system." ―Ray Peat

 

[meatbag]

For a more balanced perspective also see Terence Kealey's The Economics of Scientific Research. Unfortunately it's expensive, but if you have access to a university library it's probably there. I bought the paperback for like $70, hard cover is well over $100.

I'll check it out thanks

 

[chispas]

I'm convinced as I walk around the halls of a major biomedical institution that none of these people are:
1) even aware that there is a question of the theory of the cell, or it's mainstream and alternative theories
2) don't care about ultimate truths like that and are 99% concerned with their next grant or promotion
3) are selected to be followers (see book "Disciplined Minds" but ignore the Marxist points)
4) are, post-selection, incentivized to be followers through the granting and peer review and promotion committee processes

edit: I'm writing a book about this actually, and one of the concepts I use is "Star Trek" science. Everyone implicitly knows that in some distant future most of our scientific paradigms will be overturned, but the way science is set up today with government monopoly funding there is no point in the real timeline that any paradigm can be overturned. So someone would say "in 1000 years we will look at everything having to do with cellular biology differently" but they also simultaneously (and with much cognitive dissonance) hold the view that we basically have it all figured out now and it's just tinkering around the edges to be done on a day to day basis.

If there is a scientific truth, it doesn't care how many of these career scientist follower losers believe in it or not, keep that in mind

Yes I agree with you 100% here. My term for this sort of behaviour is "rote culture". "Experts" that believe what they think because of what they've learnt by rote, and not through engagement with the narrative complexity that makes life interesting, and oftentimes difficult.

It's not just in the industry you speak of, it's an epidemic. Everyone wants to be an expert these days it seems.

It's probably a means of state control, at some level. Some folks are resigned to doing the same job repeatedly throughout their lives, never trying to do anything more. People at my work refer to me as an expert and "specialist", but it's not true, I've only done my type of job for 4 years! I've got many other interests which I have greater talents in, but doing my job pays more money. It's just the nature of idiotic corporate language to say this stuff, call every colleague an expert, hopefully keep them in their jobs for another day.

 

[chispas]

Rereading this and it really shocks me. You think that a piece of information that cannot be explained by the current theory may NOT be a reason to reconsider it?

Depends how good the information is. Of course I have an open mind for Ling's ideas, I'm just trying to appreciate Ling. I'm not trying to discount him and write him off. Ling is looking to discount and write off the standard model. I'm just asking, does he have enough good evidence to warrant that?

I don't know if the evidence Ling cites is really so weighty and paradigm-busting that the current theory can't just be amended (perhaps at some later date) to include and explain the phenomenon you mention.

In my thinking, when a paradigm is truly antiquated, it is replaced by another paradigm that contradicts it across many key points. It's not enough to just cite one hole in the theory - that's why it's a theory - it has holes. As I said before, Ling's theory is called the AI Hypothesis, which suggests it also has holes, even if it were to become the dominant model. Is Ling's theory cohesive enough to be a contender? Why aren't there more vocal opponents to his ideas, if it isn't accepted by anyone? Who are the ones saying, "nope, surely not". I can't find any, perhaps you know of some?

 

[chispas]

Rereading this and it really shocks me. You think that a piece of information that cannot be explained by the current theory may NOT be a reason to reconsider it?

I also think that a piece of information which cannot be explained by a theory, must be contextualised sufficiently so that we can be certain the information isn't an associated phenomenon that originates outside of, or anterior to, the theory.

Also remember, the theory is a text. Where does the text end? Reality, or "truth" isn't a text, and it is subject to change over time.

Look at these new quant funds. They work by relating disparate theories of the world in strange and original ways. Fluctuations in stock price vs weather patterns, and all sorts of obscure stuff. They find patterns where most theories wouldn't bother attempting to describe a relationship (mostly because it's just not useful for the sake of human knowledge). The purpose of the fund is not to describe the relationship between the phenomena, because they don't actually know what the actual relationship is. They just bet on the correlation existing. Once it no longer nets any further return, they move on to something else.

 

[Kyle M]

Look at these new quant funds.

Nassim Taleb (author Fooled by Randomness, The Black Swan, Antifragile, Bed of Procrustes") has some things to say about the models quants use. Make sure you look at the graveyard of quants before deciding the ones that happened to be right were right by something other than chance.