Peat Eating And Weight Gain

[Ray-Z]

Those people do find something specific that Peat did say,
but they don't have or don't want the general context Peat provides.
Well...he does provide that general context,
but it is sortuv scattered hither and yon across a sea of different interviews and articles and personal consults,
not easily or quickly accessed and distilled.

I was having this discussion with Ray-Z a few days ago.
(Ray-Z! Where are you?)
Ray-Z was saying that the general in Peat is not that important,
because Peat is more easily understood through his specific comments.

[Ray-Z arises suddenly.] Objection!

Let me try to clarify what I wrote in our previous exchange.

It's not so much that I think Peat's general statements are unimportant, as that his more specific statements sometimes qualify or create exceptions to the general ones. (Example: Foods with significant fructose content are beneficial for metabolism [general principle], but maple syrup may be undesirable for many people because it contains allergens [exception or qualification].) IIRC, I was making this point to defend Peat from charges of inconsistency, not to argue for ignoring all his more general statements.

I agree that a snapshot of one of Peat's meals or one piece of advice in isolation can be misleading. ("Stop the presses! Ray Peat just ate an after-dinner mint! Mints are the secret to longevity! Mints cure cancer!!!") I have never advocated cherry-picking bits of Peat's specific advice and sewing them together to form a dietary Frankenstein's monster.

Instead, I have advocated examining the diets -- not individual meals! -- of experienced and well-read Peatarians, believing that these diets incorporate, however imperfectly, Peat's general principles, his more specific advice, and clever solutions to the very idiosyncratic but important problems people confront. These diets incorporate much "implicit knowledge" of which their creators -- and even Ray Peat! -- may not be aware. It goes without saying that I think reading Peat's work is much more important than studying sample diets, but I consider the latter a valuable complement to the former, and unlikely to lead to the "steak and potatoes" version of Peating.

Accordingly, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we ask that you find poor Ray-Z not guilty of these most heinous charges of corrupting the youth of Peatdom.

The defense rests its case.

 

[gretchen]

If only this country wasn't so endlessly judgemental, hypocritical and hateful about weight. Honestly, at 5'1", 100-102 is perfect. But the current culture of thin and thinner has forced a lot of people, myself included, in to unrealistic diet and exercise patterns which have done almost irreparable damage to my health. At this point, I would rather just eat my Hagen Daazs and be happy than eat kale and work out at a gym. All those years, what a horrible waste of time. And to think, even at my lowest weight (88 lbs), no one really admitted that I was anorexic; a lot of people seemed to think that was a good look. My hair dresser commented after I gained weight this summer how much healthier I look, but there are a few haters who say I'm "big". It really is so shocking and personally distressing, but also expected, given how woefully stupid and uninformed Americans are about thyroid health. It's about looking good, not feeling good or being happy, for many. Sure, you don't want to gain on Peat beyond what is healthy for your bone size/height. But to be called big when my weight is well within range? Despicable.

 

[charlie]

I dunno, I look around and all I mostly see is overweight people. Thin is minority now. Overweight is becoming the new norm it seems.

 

[gretchen]

I dunno, I look around and all I mostly see is overweight people. Thin is minority now. Overweight is becoming the new norm it seems.

Yes, but I think there is also a criticism that has increased against those of us who are essentially normal. Not runway model thin, not Hollywood skinny, but normal.

 

[Birdie]

I dunno, I look around and all I mostly see is overweight people. Thin is minority now. Overweight is becoming the new norm it seems.

Yes, but I think there is also a criticism that has increased against those of us who are essentially normal. Not runway model thin, not Hollywood skinny, but normal.

Yes. I remember one male friend coming up to me at a reception and saying, "You ought to put a little meat on those bones." I was stunned and really hurt. He wouldn't comment on a fat person's body but thought it fine to give his opinion to me on mine.

I find a definite bias against the thin in people and in the media.

I live in a small town and overweight is the norm.

 

[Birdie]

RayZ, good explanation. You pass with me.

 

[narouz]

Those people do find something specific that Peat did say,
but they don't have or don't want the general context Peat provides.
Well...he does provide that general context,
but it is sortuv scattered hither and yon across a sea of different interviews and articles and personal consults,
not easily or quickly accessed and distilled.

I was having this discussion with Ray-Z a few days ago.
(Ray-Z! Where are you?)
Ray-Z was saying that the general in Peat is not that important,
because Peat is more easily understood through his specific comments.

[Ray-Z arises suddenly.] Objection!

Damn! And here I thought you were gone and I could attack you with impunity!

Let me try to clarify what I wrote in our previous exchange.

It's not so much that I think Peat's general statements are unimportant, as that his more specific statements sometimes qualify or create exceptions to the general ones. (Example: Foods with significant fructose content are beneficial for metabolism [general principle], but maple syrup may be undesirable for many people because it contains allergens [exception or qualification].) IIRC, I was making this point to defend Peat from charges of inconsistency, not to argue for ignoring all his more general statements.

Sorry if I mangled your thoughts, Ray-Z. I think we are in agreement, then, perhaps,
because I do not wish to charge Peat with inconsistency
(although I understand how I may've come across like I do).
So, when you wrote earlier, in the other thread, that...

"...the apparently contradictory and relatively abstract quotes you provided shouldn't create problems for a Peatarian trying to decide what to eat, because Peat's more specific statements about sugar, starch, dairy, and so forth trump or qualify those abstract quotes.

...about the "trumping" of the general (or "abstract" as you put it) by the specific
in interpreting Peat, well...let me not put words in your mouth or misinterpret you again.
Let me instead ask: in interpreting Peat, do you prefer the specific over the general?
And to carry it a step further: do you have any reservations or concerns about
rounding up general statements Peat has made
and trying to distill them some?
I understand--because you've said as much--that you have little appetite for it personally
in that you've said that sort of thing is not what helped you to properly practice Peat.
But just philosophically or as a matter of truthful interpretation,
do you see anything wrong with trying to collect and distill Peat's general statements?

"I agree that a snapshot of one of Peat's meals or one piece of advice in isolation can be misleading. ('Stop the presses! Ray Peat just ate an after-dinner mint! Mints are the secret to longevity! Mints cure cancer!!!') I have never advocated cherry-picking bits of Peat's specific advice and sewing them together to form a dietary Frankenstein's monster."

Would you say, then, that the specific will likely be more meaningful when it is anchored
within an appropriate general context?

"Instead, I have advocated examining the diets -- not individual meals! -- of experienced and well-read Peatarians, believing that these diets incorporate, however imperfectly, Peat's general principles..."

I find the example diets concocted by various posters to be wonderful and helpful as well.
The only thing I'm curious about is this:
Are you saying that you prefer to grasp Peat's general principles
through the specific examples of various poster's example diets--
rather than grasping them directly from Peat?
I rather doubt you meant that,
but I'm just trying to make sure that you are not for some reason
queasy about, as I said, collecting and attempting to distill Peat's general statements. :)

(You continue, after I so rudely interrupted :) )

"...his more specific advice, and clever solutions to the very idiosyncratic but important problems people confront. These diets incorporate much "implicit knowledge" of which their creators -- and even Ray Peat! -- may not be aware. It goes without saying that I think reading Peat's work is much more important than studying sample diets, but I consider the latter a valuable complement to the former, and unlikely to lead to the 'steak and potatoes' version of Peating."

Again, I agree, I believe.
But let me ask, just to make sure I've got you straight:
If it "goes without saying that I think reading Peat's work is much more important than studying sample diets,"
would you agree with me, when reading Peat,
that there is nothing wrong with studying the general along with the specific?

Accordingly, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we ask that you find poor Ray-Z not guilty of these most heinous charges of corrupting the youth of Peatdom.

The defense rests its case.

The jury, after weeks of sequestration, enter the courtroom.
The jury foreman hands the judge an envelope.
A hush falls.
The judge opens the envelope, then addresses the courtroom.
Ray Peat himself is in the audience.
"The jury decides by a vote of 11-1 to declare the defendent, Ray-Z,
not guilty.
Case dismissed!"

(The one dissenting juror, was a certain "Charlie." )

 

[Ray-Z]

If only this country wasn't so endlessly judgemental, hypocritical and hateful about weight. Honestly, at 5'1", 100-102 is perfect. But the current culture of thin and thinner has forced a lot of people, myself included, in to unrealistic diet and exercise patterns which have done almost irreparable damage to my health. At this point, I would rather just eat my Hagen Daazs and be happy than eat kale and work out at a gym. All those years, what a horrible waste of time. And to think, even at my lowest weight (88 lbs), no one really admitted that I was anorexic; a lot of people seemed to think that was a good look. My hair dresser commented after I gained weight this summer how much healthier I look, but there are a few haters who say I'm "big". It really is so shocking and personally distressing, but also expected, given how woefully stupid and uninformed Americans are about thyroid health. It's about looking good, not feeling good or being happy, for many. Sure, you don't want to gain on Peat beyond what is healthy for your bone size/height. But to be called big when my weight is well within range? Despicable.

Very sorry to hear about these experiences, Gretchen. Sounds awful. Especially the part about people thinking you looked best when you were anorexic. Ugh. Hope you can find ways to deal with the haters. (Besides leaving their corpses in garbage dumpsters, a course of action I do not recommend. )

[Aside: I think people often feel more free to make snide, hurtful comments about women's waistlines (whether, as in your case, "You're looking big," or as in Birdie's case, "You need a little meat on those bones") than about men's.]

 

[chris]

The whole mindset of some women wanting to become as skinny as possible is horrible, I don't see the appeal at all. A girl I met a few weeks ago said "I think curvy women look more attractive than skinny but at the moment I just want to be as skinny as possible" Sad really.

 

[Ray-Z]

I dunno, I look around and all I mostly see is overweight people. Thin is minority now. Overweight is becoming the new norm it seems.

Yes, but I think there is also a criticism that has increased against those of us who are essentially normal. Not runway model thin, not Hollywood skinny, but normal.

Yes. I remember one male friend coming up to me at a reception and saying, "You ought to put a little meat on those bones." I was stunned and really hurt. He wouldn't comment on a fat person's body but thought it fine to give his opinion to me on mine.

I find a definite bias against the thin in people and in the media.

I live in a small town and overweight is the norm.

Birdie: What a rude comment for your friend to make.

Birdie, Charlie, and Gretchen:

Although you seem to be disagreeing with each other, I think you're all accurately reporting what you observe around you.

I have spent a lot of time in circles in which women (and sometimes, to a much lesser degree, men) faced substantial social pressure to be extremely thin by any means necessary. I have also spent some time in circles in which excess weight was the norm and naturally thin people were considered likely to be sick or have eating disorders. Change location or social group, and you can get a completely different set of (messed up) attitudes about weight.

Minor edits for clarity.

 

[Ray-Z]

RayZ, good explanation. You pass with me.

Thanks, Birdie.

 

[gretchen]

If only this country wasn't so endlessly judgemental, hypocritical and hateful about weight. Honestly, at 5'1", 100-102 is perfect. But the current culture of thin and thinner has forced a lot of people, myself included, in to unrealistic diet and exercise patterns which have done almost irreparable damage to my health. At this point, I would rather just eat my Hagen Daazs and be happy than eat kale and work out at a gym. All those years, what a horrible waste of time. And to think, even at my lowest weight (88 lbs), no one really admitted that I was anorexic; a lot of people seemed to think that was a good look. My hair dresser commented after I gained weight this summer how much healthier I look, but there are a few haters who say I'm "big". It really is so shocking and personally distressing, but also expected, given how woefully stupid and uninformed Americans are about thyroid health. It's about looking good, not feeling good or being happy, for many. Sure, you don't want to gain on Peat beyond what is healthy for your bone size/height. But to be called big when my weight is well within range? Despicable.

Very sorry to hear about these experiences, Gretchen. Sounds awful. Especially the part about people thinking you looked best when you were anorexic. Ugh. Hope you can find ways to deal with the haters. (Besides leaving their corpses in garbage dumpsters, a course of action I do not recommend. )

[Aside: I think people often feel more free to make snide, hurtful comments about women's waistlines (whether, as in your case, "You're looking big," or as in Birdie's case, "You need a little meat on those bones") than about men's.]

Yeah, the cultural fanaticism is really out of control. I'm very happy with my waistline actually which is still pretty small; 24.5 inches as opposed to spooky skinny runway model thin 23 inches. If 24.5 inches is really "big", people's attitudes are totally effed up.

 

[narouz]

Just to counter-balance a bit....

If someone says to a male or female something like:
"You're going to dry up and blow away.
You need to put some meat on your bones!"

Well...they might not be coming from a sexist or mean place, in my opinion.
Yes, the comment--any comment--concerning weight or body image,
might not be appreciated and be uncalled for.

But to me it's a little like older black women in the U.S.
sometimes calling me (white guy) "honey."
Yes, it's a little weird,
and maybe I should give them a stern lecture,
but...I just can't muster that indignation.
There's probably some kind of subtle racism/sexism afoot but...
I have bigger fish to fry.

Now, on the other side,
if somebody says to a anorexic-tinged girl, size 22 (was that it? don't know girl sizes),
"You're getting big,"
when the skinny girl expands to 23+....
well, that is more dumb.
But, it might be that the speaker feels dispensed to say something like that
because the skinny girl is so obviously not getting "big."
So the speaker feels safe, thinking that his/her comments will not be taken seriously,
as would be the case with something like, "Man, you are getting fat as a pig!"

None of this is meant to argue against the general notion
that we have some weird things going on with body image today in the modern world.
Just feeling like a glutton for punishment, I guess,
in tossing out those not-very-PC viewpoints.

 

[gretchen]

America sucks. Period. I've watched this country get fatter and fatter for decades, meanwhile I've been on a fairly strict regimen since the late 90s. I've consistently weighed 90-102 lbs for 15 years. However, unfortunately, I've found the best way to beat the haters down is to stay slightly below BMI (97 lbs or less), which, um, has seriously damaged my health. And the answer always of course is that I should JUST WORK OUT!

 

[Birdie]

If only this country wasn't so endlessly judgemental, hypocritical and hateful about weight. Honestly, at 5'1", 100-102 is perfect. But the current culture of thin and thinner has forced a lot of people, myself included, in to unrealistic diet and exercise patterns which have done almost irreparable damage to my health. At this point, I would rather just eat my Hagen Daazs and be happy than eat kale and work out at a gym. All those years, what a horrible waste of time. And to think, even at my lowest weight (88 lbs), no one really admitted that I was anorexic; a lot of people seemed to think that was a good look. My hair dresser commented after I gained weight this summer how much healthier I look, but there are a few haters who say I'm "big". It really is so shocking and personally distressing, but also expected, given how woefully stupid and uninformed Americans are about thyroid health. It's about looking good, not feeling good or being happy, for many. Sure, you don't want to gain on Peat beyond what is healthy for your bone size/height. But to be called big when my weight is well within range? Despicable.

Gretchen,
Were you actually suffering from the disease of anorexia? I was wondering if you meant that or just that you were very thin.

I am surprised that anybody calls you big. That shows I was wrong in thinking people never do that. It's wrong for anybody to comment on anybody else's body without being asked. Really mean of them. None of their business. (It's different if someone says you look healthier.) I don't know what people are thinking when they make these remarks.

 

[gretchen]

If only this country wasn't so endlessly judgemental, hypocritical and hateful about weight. Honestly, at 5'1", 100-102 is perfect. But the current culture of thin and thinner has forced a lot of people, myself included, in to unrealistic diet and exercise patterns which have done almost irreparable damage to my health. At this point, I would rather just eat my Hagen Daazs and be happy than eat kale and work out at a gym. All those years, what a horrible waste of time. And to think, even at my lowest weight (88 lbs), no one really admitted that I was anorexic; a lot of people seemed to think that was a good look. My hair dresser commented after I gained weight this summer how much healthier I look, but there are a few haters who say I'm "big". It really is so shocking and personally distressing, but also expected, given how woefully stupid and uninformed Americans are about thyroid health. It's about looking good, not feeling good or being happy, for many. Sure, you don't want to gain on Peat beyond what is healthy for your bone size/height. But to be called big when my weight is well within range? Despicable.

Gretchen,
Were you actually suffering from the disease of anorexia? I was wondering if you meant that or just that you were very thin.

I am surprised that anybody calls you big. That shows I was wrong in thinking people never do that. It's wrong for anybody to comment on anybody else's body without being asked. Really mean of them. None of their business. (It's different if someone says you look healthier.) I don't know what people are thinking when they make these remarks.

I was a little bit, in the 2000s. After my weight-loss success in the late 90s, I wanted to keep it going for as long as possible. My background is filled with a lot of criticism, and staying slightly thinner than normal (I actually have some mesomorph traits, so I never really look *that* thin) seemed to help me cope. I've been shocked how mean people in my town are, though honestly, they called me big at the size 24 also. It's my LEGS. Or so I'm told........ I need to let it go because I'm not going back to my old life!!

 

[Ray-Z]

Sorry if I mangled your thoughts, Ray-Z.

No problem. I was probably unclear.

I think we are in agreement, then, perhaps,
because I do not wish to charge Peat with inconsistency
(although I understand how I may've come across like I do).
So, when you wrote earlier, in the other thread, that...

"...the apparently contradictory and relatively abstract quotes you provided shouldn't create problems for a Peatarian trying to decide what to eat, because Peat's more specific statements about sugar, starch, dairy, and so forth trump or qualify those abstract quotes.

...about the "trumping" of the general (or "abstract" as you put it) by the specific
in interpreting Peat, well...let me not put words in your mouth or misinterpret you again.
Let me instead ask: in interpreting Peat, do you prefer the specific over the general?
And to carry it a step further: do you have any reservations or concerns about
rounding up general statements Peat has made
and trying to distill them some?

When I speak of specific statements trumping or qualifying more general ones, I don't think I'm preferring one to the other, but rather applying an interpretive rule of thumb for reconciling what might otherwise appear to be conflicting statements. This rule of thumb is often sensible (as I think it is in the example of the 4-5 statements you provided), but we can think up cases in which it would not be.

I think you've addressed my concerns (with appropriate disclaimers) about summarizing or outlining Peat's basic dietary ideas.

Yes, people could use the summary as a crutch when they might be better served by reading Peat and generating their own understanding of his work, and thereby cultivating the intellectual self-reliance that is Peat's most important teaching. (IIRC, I have just stolen one of peatarian's themes.) But they would not have to use the summary in a slavish way, as a substitute for Peat's writing, and might instead use it as a friendly sparring partner, or a sherpa who points out pitfalls along the path but will not carry you. So while I think much (perhaps most) of the benefit of the summary or outline would accrue to its creator(s), I'm not so sure it would on bakance lower Peat's readership. Perhaps Danny's site is a "gateway drug" for Ray Peat.

Any summary of Peat will be provisional, incomplete, interpretive, and simplified, like a student's notes in the margin of a classical text, or an iphone photograph of a distant statue. But the student's notes help him understand, and if your summary or outline advances your understanding of Peat, you need no other justification.

.
I understand--because you've said as much--that you have little appetite for it personally
in that you've said that sort of thing is not what helped you to properly practice Peat.
But just philosophically or as a matter of truthful interpretation,
do you see anything wrong with trying to collect and distill Peat's general statements?

I hope I've answered this question above.

Would you say, then, that the specific will likely be more meaningful when it is anchored
within an appropriate general context?

Context is everything! (I do more or less subscribe to this view, but I'm just baiting you here.)

I find the example diets concocted by various posters to be wonderful and helpful as well.
The only thing I'm curious about is this:
Are you saying that you prefer to grasp Peat's general principles
through the specific examples of various poster's example diets--
rather than grasping them directly from Peat?

You're correct, I did not mean to suggest that preference.

But let me ask, just to make sure I've got you straight:
If it "goes without saying that I think reading Peat's work is much more important than studying sample diets,"
would you agree with me, when reading Peat,
that there is nothing wrong with studying the general along with the specific?

Don't see how one could do otherwise.

The jury, after weeks of sequestration, enter the courtroom.
The jury foreman hands the judge an envelope.
A hush falls.
The judge opens the envelope, then addresses the courtroom.
Ray Peat himself is in the audience.
"The jury decides by a vote of 11-1 to declare the defendent, Ray-Z,
not guilty.
Case dismissed!"

(The one dissenting juror, was a certain "Charlie." )

The Ray-Z crime family will deal with you later, Charlie.

 

[charlie]

Bahumbug! Always against the grain, thats me.

You two truly sound like two lawyers going at it.

I will make a case for the people who find Ray Peat and are way too sick to read all his works and put it together, that could take a long time! When I first found Ray Peat, and people were saying read his articles, and I would try to read it, I would almost cry. Someone who is brain fogged, or really sick, or even, who doesn't have the time to put it all together because they are incredibly busy keeping their family afloat, would definitely benefit from some kind of plan to get them off the ground. And then as they are able to read Ray Peats articles then they could make adjustments.

There can always be some kind of instruction that says, this is the way I see the diet and maybe a good start for you, but it's best to read Ray Peats works to get a better and clearer picture for what my work best for yourself.

 

[Ray-Z]

I will make a case for the people who find Ray Peat and are way too sick to read all his works and put it together, that could take a long time! When I first found Ray Peat, and people were saying read his articles, and I would try to read it, I would almost cry. Someone who is brain fogged, or really sick, or even, who doesn't have the time to put it all together because they are incredibly busy keeping their family afloat, would definitely benefit from some kind of plan to get them off the ground. And then as they are able to read Ray Peats articles then they could make adjustments.

Good points.

 

[narouz]

I will make a case for the people who find Ray Peat and are way too sick to read all his works and put it together, that could take a long time! When I first found Ray Peat, and people were saying read his articles, and I would try to read it, I would almost cry. Someone who is brain fogged, or really sick, or even, who doesn't have the time to put it all together because they are incredibly busy keeping their family afloat, would definitely benefit from some kind of plan to get them off the ground. And then as they are able to read Ray Peats articles then they could make adjustments.

Good points.

Yes.
But you know
my interest in "systematizing" or distilling a good Peat diet
is not really, mainly, motivated by that goal,
worthy and desirable as it is.

I guess it just seems like an almost obligatory, "scholarly" facet
of a Peat collective like ours.
You know that I like to mock those who enjoy chanting
(with "Grasshopper" preface all but spoken and a mystic twinkle in their eye),
"There is no Peat diet."
But how much of this board's activity is related to that very thing?
How many here are trying to eat a Peat diet?

So...I think it is dishonest and coyly self-aggrandizing
to resist admitting there is a Peat diet,
roughly and generally conceived.
Moreover, as I said,
my view is that--
far from denying the existence of such a diet--
it would be natural and useful and clarifying
for us to establish the general shape of it.

Peat has provided a lot of general guidance toward it.
So it would not be an originating, creative effort in the main.
As I say: more of the "grunt work" or "scholarly" kind of project
for a group like ours.
As I've said many times before,
when we probe all sorts of Peatian questions like:
-are you feeling better on a Peat diet?
-is a Peat diet difficult?
-how strictly are you doing your Peat diet?
-is a Peat diet a mostly liquid diet?
-will I get fat on a Peat diet?
etc, etc, etc...

...when we explore such questions here
it doesn't take a genius to observe and ask:
1. There must be a Peat diet, and
2. What does that diet consist of, generally?

There is a lot of resistance to admitting the former and distilling the latter.
My main interest of late has been trying to unravel and analyze
what those resistances are.