Peat Wrong About EFA Deficiency, Omega 3s

[Ritchie]

I haven't really seen what you are talking about, people "following Peat to a tee," and then having health issues. Most don't put many of his suggestions into place (like OP, who apparently still eats bread and pasta everyday).

Of course this is merely anecdotal and based on what people report, but many do follow Peat correctly. Not just on this forum but other places. Myself included. And many complain of health issues following this path (overweight, poor sleep, the requirement for supps to boost energy, etc). You’ve been around long enough to notice, surely. As I said, there is a lot I think Peat is spot on about so I’m not trying to throw the baby out with the bath water here. However there are some things that I believe are off the mark.

I have, however, seen plenty of examples of that with all major diets (including SAD, low carb, vegan, vegetarian, Paleo, Keto, and such).

How have you concluded this? I'm assuming because people have gone into a new forum or social platform and complained about the issues they had on the previous diet, or how good they feel now that they changed up, etc.. Or people that you know personally saying the same thing. Well this happens in the Peat sphere as well, albeit a lot less because "Peating" is tiny proportionally compared to vegan, paleo, keto etc.

I certainly haven't seen people dropping off like flies, that's such a silly statement. This is an open forum where people are free to come and go as they please.

Surely you've noticed quite outspoken people on this forum, and other platforms, discussing Peat and battling with a variety of subsequent health issues and then dropping off the map. Again, just my observations, nothing solid. Also, I know people personally, myself included, that have really given "Peating" a red hot go and fallen short. I now have incorporated many of his fundamental principles (the ones that I have found really work and are backed by solid science) into my life, while leaving other more dubious less evidential claims by the wayside. Each to their own though, and if you find everything Peat recommends works well for you then thats fantastic.

I see you've been at it for a while, how is your health if you don't mind me asking? Is there anything about Peat's paradigm that you have found doesn't work or do you find that everything in its entirety fits together well for you?

 

[tankasnowgod]

However there are some things that I believe are off the mark.

This is what I was asking for a specific example of. Can you name one (or a few) things that are off the mark?

 

[Ritchie]

Ray bases his views on his broad understanding of the physiology and biochemistry of the body. He would never base his opinion on one study in isolation. The more studies I read the more I start seeing all of the connections myself. Ray has spent a lot more time than me reading studies, and is significantly smarter and better at understanding said studies. He has built his view of things over massive amounts of time and thousands of papers, not just a couple of studies. I'm sure I'm not convincing you, but am I at least making sense here?

I agree for the most part, I'm not trying to detract from Peat's body of work in it's entirety here by any means. There are however, instances where Peat takes a leap here and there based on less solid evidence than other areas. But yes, I agree that his broad understanding of physiology and biochemistry give him a great overview to base some of his conclusions on.

 

[DANIEL]

Gonna try out the probiotic supplement I mentioned and report back, maybe a few others are dealing with this skin issue as well

Apparently it has a pretty significant effect on lowering endotoxin, so I'm interested to see what it does

 

[DANIEL]

Most don't put many of his suggestions into place (like OP, who apparently still eats bread and pasta everyday).

I should have elaborated

one slice of organic sourdough bread with grass-fed butter in the morning

gluten-free, organic pasta with tomato sauce max. twice a week when I'm bored with white rice

but yes I do eat rice, gold and sweet potatoes, quite often. I've loved orange juice & milk way before discovering peat.

i really doubt that's contributing to the eczema tbh, I used to eat way more starches and gluten (non sourdough, processed bread) and had clear, hydrated skin

must be something pertaining to the gut, like others have mentioned

 

[boris]

I should have elaborated

one slice of organic sourdough bread with grass-fed butter in the morning

gluten-free, organic pasta with tomato sauce max. twice a week when I'm bored with white rice

but yes I do eat rice, gold and sweet potatoes, quite often. I've loved orange juice & milk way before discovering peat.

i really doubt that's contributing to the eczema tbh, I used to eat way more starches and gluten (non sourdough, processed bread) and had clear, hydrated skin

must be something pertaining to the gut, like others have mentioned

Starch can get persorbed into the bloodstream and cause inflammation. If it's a gut problem, all that starch is likely contributing, because part of it can't get digested and instead feeds bad bacteria further down the gut causing endotoxin, serotonin, estrogen (all involved in eczema). Sourdough bread is sadly bunk, unless you make it on your own. They leaven only part of the flour and then add fresh unleavened flour, so you're still getting all the toxic gut damaging anti-metabolic effects of the wheat.

If you eat ground turkey and bacon and chicken (depending on the cut) everyday, you are already fairly high in PUFA, so it seems likely that you are supressing inflammation with the O-3s.

 

[tankasnowgod]

I should have elaborated

one slice of organic sourdough bread with grass-fed butter in the morning

gluten-free, organic pasta with tomato sauce max. twice a week when I'm bored with white rice

but yes I do eat rice, gold and sweet potatoes, quite often. I've loved orange juice & milk way before discovering peat.

i really doubt that's contributing to the eczema tbh, I used to eat way more starches and gluten (non sourdough, processed bread) and had clear, hydrated skin

must be something pertaining to the gut, like others have mentioned

Still sounds like regular bread consumption. If your gut got compromised over time, smaller amounts of starches and wheat may become a problem, when they weren't a problem, previously.

Regardless of whether they were a problem previously or not, a starch free diet would still be a worthy experiment.

 

[DANIEL]

Starch can get persorbed into the bloodstream and cause inflammation. If it's a gut problem, all that starch is likely contributing, because part of it can't get digested and instead feeds bad bacteria further down the gut causing endotoxin, serotonin, estrogen (all involved in eczema). Sourdough bread is sadly bunk, unless you make it on your own. They leaven only part of the flour and then add fresh unleavened flour, so you're still getting all the toxic gut damaging anti-metabolic effects of the wheat.

If you eat ground turkey and bacon and chicken (depending on the cut) everyday, you are already fairly high in PUFA, so it seems likely that you are supressing inflammation with the O-3s.

Still sounds like regular bread consumption. If your gut got compromised over time, smaller amounts of starches and wheat may become a problem, when they weren't a problem, previously.

Regardless of whether they were a problem previously or not, a starch free diet would still be a worthy experiment.

hmm, okay. interesting. I'll experiment and report back in a few weeks. thanks guys

 

[JeffsDunham]

You obviously have other issues going on.The EFA is temporarily helping but is detrimental in the long run.
It's like curing your hangover with more alcohol.

 

[tca300]

OK so what do you think causes skin issues like eczema?

Immune system/inflammatory reaction to allergins/gut irritation. My daughter will get a patch of it on her arm when the inlaws sneak her chocolates, or wheat containing foods. After a few days it goes away.

The omega - 3 is just acting as an immunosuppressant , which can hide symptoms of food allergies/gut irritation.

Sea food is important for trace minerals, I personally just choose varieties much lower in fats.

 

[ursidae]

In 2017 I was on extremely low PUFA for over a year ~1 gram per day ( skim milk, hydrogenated coconut or mct oil, orange juice, and small amounts of liver ) then for the tail end of it for multiple months I switched from orange juice to honey and was getting no more than about 300mg of total pufa per day. I never had skin issues.

Weren’t you getting acne that you had to control with ridiculous doses of vitamin A (over 60K IU)?

 

[tca300]

Weren’t you getting acne that you had to control with ridiculous doses of vitamin A (over 60K IU)?

At first I thought is was vitamin A stopping the acne, but later I stopped and realized dehydration was the cause. I haven't used a vitamin A supplement in years.

Fish oil reliability gave me cystic acne in my late teens though.

Also teens and adults living on PUFA foods regularly have very bad acne so a PUFA " deficiency " obviously isn't the cause of acne.

That being said you brought up a good point and I should have specified that I never got eczema like skin issues, instead of saying no skin issues.

Anyways, drinking water to appetite was what cleared my acne, not eating omega 3 or vitamin A.

 

[boris]

hmm, okay. interesting. I'll experiment and report back in a few weeks. thanks guys

Serotonin As Inflammatory Mediator Of Chronic Eczema
Ray Peat: "Oh well - Coeliac disease is one of the causes of both skin disease and Arthritis. Coeliac disease, among other things, will allow endotoxin into your circulation and low thyroid is probably the most common thing associated with just ordinary eczema and that's because when your thyroid is low the circulation to your intestine is poor, the serotonin is high. The combination of endotoxin and the serotonin for example will cause the skin to have abnormal growth patterns."

Immunohistochemical study of serotonin in lesions of chronic eczema - PubMed
There was a significantly stronger expression of serotonin in the prickle cells, sweat gland cells, sebaceous gland cells, and hair roots of the lesions in patients with chronic eczema. There was no positive expression of serotonin in normal skin.
Serotonin is probably important in the pathogenesis of chronic eczema. We demonstrated alterations in the expression of serotonin in chronic eczema lesions, which may in turn provide new insight into the pathogenesis of chronic eczema. Serotonin, along with cytokines, T lymphocytes, B lymphocytes, and macrophages, participates in the immune response and influences the inflammatory process by means of keratinocytes.



Blocking Serotonin May Treat Allergies And Inflammatory Diseases
"...A class of immune cells push themselves into an inflammatory state by producing large quantities of a serotonin-making enzyme, according to a study in mice led by scientists at Weill Cornell Medicine. The study, published March 10 in Immunity, found that the inflammatory and infection-fighting abilities of the cells, called type 2 innate lymphoid cells (ILC2s), are much impaired without the enzyme. The finding suggests possibilities for new treatments targeting ILC2s, which have been linked to asthma and other allergic disorders, to suppress their activation in inflammatory disorders. The work also hints at what could be a major mechanism of “cross-talk” between the nervous system, which uses serotonin as a signaling molecule or neurotransmitter, and the immune system."

Inflammatory ILC2s in particular are suspected of playing important roles in allergic airway diseases such as asthma and hay fever, and eczema, an allergic skin condition."



Ray Peat, PhD – Concerns with Starches – Functional Performance Systems (FPS)
Starches can feed bacteria in the lower portion of the intestines if not digested quickly, increasing intestinal toxin burden and fermentation of carbohydrates which can stress the liver and produce changes in the metabolic rate, mood, and mediators of inflammation (like serotonin, estrogen, endotoxin).

“Besides avoiding foods containing fermentable fibers and starches that resist quick digestion, eating fibrous foods that contain antibacterial chemicals, such as bamboo shoots or raw carrots, helps to reduce endotoxin and serotonin.”

There isn’t anything wrong with a high carbohydrate diet, and even a high starch diet isn’t necessarily incompatible with good health, but when better foods are available they should be used instead of starches. For example, fruits have many advantages over grains, besides the difference between sugar and starch. Bread and pasta consumption are strongly associated with the occurrence of diabetes, fruit consumption has a strong inverse association.”

“When starch is well cooked, and eaten with some fat and the essential nutrients, it’s safe, except that it’s more likely than sugar to produce fat, and isn’t as effective for mineral balance.”

Starch can irritate the gut lining, and starch granules can enter the bloodstream and urine (persorption) inappropriately. Chronic irritation of the gut lining makes serotonin, endotoxin, nitric oxide, and estrogen serious threats to the metabolism, the liver, and overall well being. Persorption promotes tissue injury and circulatory issues.

“Persorption refers to a process in which relatively large particles pass through the intact wall of the intestine and enter the blood or lymphatic vessels. It can be demonstrated easily, but food regulators prefer to act as though it didn’t exist. The doctrine that polymers–gums, starches, peptides, polyester fat substitutes–and other particulate substances can be safely added to food because they are “too large to be absorbed” is very important to the food industry and its shills.

“Volkheimer found that mice fed raw starch aged at an abnormally fast rate, and when he dissected the starch-fed mice, he found a multitude of blocked arterioles in every organ, each of which caused the death of the cells that depended on the blood supplied by that arteriole. It isn’t hard to see how this would affect the functions of organs such as the brain and heart, even without considering the immunological and other implications….”

“Tiny particles of insoluble materials — clay, starch, soot, bacteria — are all potential sources of serious inflammatory reactions, and the ultra-small particles are potentially ultra-numerous and harder to avoid.”

“Around 1988 I read Gerhard Volkheimer’s persorption article, and after doing some experiments with tortillas and masa, I stopped eating all starch except for those, then eventually I stopped those. Besides grains of starch entering the blood stream, lymph, and cerebral spinal fluid, starch feeds bacteria, increasing endotoxin and serotonin.”

“For people with really sensitive intestines or bad bacteria, starch should be zero.”



Ray Peat, PhD on Endotoxin – Functional Performance Systems (FPS)
“It takes a few days for the intestine to adjust to raw carrot, but the indigestible fiber is very protective for the intestine. Boiled bamboo shoots, which are also mostly indigestible, have a similar effect. These fibers prevent the reabsorption of estrogen in the intestine, and can shift the balance away from cortisol and estrogen, toward progesterone and thyroid, in just a few days of regular use. Oatmeal and potatoes do provide fiber, but they are good food for bacteria, and bacterial endotoxin is usually the basic problem causing hormone imbalance, by being a chronic burden for the liver, keeping it from storing enough sugar to process thyroid and the other hormones effectively.”

“Bacteria thrive on starches that aren’t quickly digested, and the bacteria convert the energy into bulk, and stimulate the intestine. (But at the same time, they are making the toxins that affect the hormones.)”

Bacterial endotoxin increases serotonin release from the intestine, and increases its synthesis in the brain (Nolan, et al., 2000) and liver (Endo, 1983). It also stimulates its release from platelets, and reduces the lungs’ ability to destroy it. The formation of serotonin in the intestine is also stimulated by the lactate, propionate and butyrate that are formed by bacteria fermenting fiber and starch, but these bacteria also produce endotoxin. The inflammation-producing effects of lactate, serotonin, and endotoxin are overlapping, additive, and sometimes synergistic, along with histamine, nitric oxide, bradykinin, and the cytokines.

 

[ursidae]

At first I thought is was vitamin A stopping the acne, but later I stopped and realized dehydration was the cause. I haven't used a vitamin A supplement in years.

Fish oil reliability gave me cystic acne in my late teens though.

Also teens and adults living on PUFA foods regularly have very bad acne so a PUFA " deficiency " obviously isn't the cause of acne.

That being said you brought up a good point and I should have specified that I never got eczema like skin issues, instead of saying no skin issues.

Anyways, drinking water to appetite was what cleared my acne, not eating omega 3 or vitamin A.

you cleared it up by drinking water, how much do you drink? It must have been exceptionally mild.

edit: I found this quote by Travis, maybe that could explain your water needs

Something also overlooked by Ray Peat had been the 50% increase in water consumption in 'essential fatty acid-deficient' rats. Since the degree of unsaturation on a cell's membrane is correlated with water affinity and permeability, I am convinced the scaly dermatitis had essentially been 'dry skin.'

 

[tca300]

@ursidae I drank to appetite, I'm not sure, probably in the ballpark of 8 cups. Correct! The acne wasn't serious, but I'm especially vain so it was also.... serious.

 

[Hgreen56]

@ursidae I drank to appetite, I'm not sure, probably in the ballpark of 8 cups. Correct! The acne wasn't serious, but I'm especially vain so it was also.... serious.

how is your diet and supps intake looks like these days?

 

[tara]

Skin cells turnover frequently. I imagine many imbalances of nutrients or energy could result in some impairment of this.
For me, zinc seems to have been key. Vit C is essential for building cells. So that's another micro to consider.

Of course this is merely anecdotal and based on what people report, but many do follow Peat correctly. Not just on this forum but other places. Myself included. And many complain of health issues following this path (overweight, poor sleep, the requirement for supps to boost energy, etc).

?
This seems like an description of it sometimes being hard to follow Peat's advice. That is, to learn about physiology, observe how foods affect you and then think and act on that.

 

[Ritchie]

This seems like an description of it sometimes being hard to follow Peat's advice. That is, to learn about physiology, observe how foods affect you and then think and act on that.

Actually I think it is quite easy to follow Peat's advise and dietary recommendations, the complications (and hence debate that is characteristic around his position on things) come due to some contradictions within his suggestions but if they are ignored it's quite straight forward.

I would argue it is quite the opposite - many don't perceive, think and act due to their attachment to Peat's recommendations and the fact that acting may lead one outside of Peat's recommendations.. For example, one may put on a lot of weight while following Peat, suffer sleep issues, lethargy and other complications etc yet continue on the same dietary path due to the perception that Peat's advice is infallible - and perhaps in time this will balance out, or other rationalisations.
Curious, are you suggesting Peat's advise is without its errors? Have you found everything he recommends works for you? Or have you found some things led to some detrimental health consequences over time? I do understand that it is all experimentation and sometimes things are hard to pinpoint..

 

[tara]

Curious, are you suggesting Peat's advise is without its errors? Have you found everything he recommends works for you? Or have you found some things led to some detrimental health consequences over time? I do understand that it is all experimentation and sometimes things are hard to pinpoint..

I think some of Peat's information and views have been useful.
He offers explanations about mechanisms, references to studies, anecdotes, and sometimes specific advice for particular situations 'have you tried...?'.
Probably some people think they are reading Peat's advice when they read forum members advice - ie they've got 2nd or 3rd hand interpretations. Peat himself is often quite precise about what he says.
I certainly don't think Peat's infallible. But I do think he is often much more cautious in his claims than some people give him credit for. I'm not sure I know what contradictions you are talking about.

It wouldn't work for me (or anyone, I think) to follow all the advise Peat has ever given to anybody, indefinitely.
I've tried out some ideas, kept some and modified some. I continue to eat more fruit, vegetables, and overall alkaline minerals, and less grains than before. I abandoned experiments with very high sugar/low or no starch, and am back to a moderately starchy diet.

There're lots of interpretations of Peat's 'advice' on here.

I think his general advice is mostly very general (perceive, think, act, bear in mind that PUFA's have some particular antimetabolic effects, etc) - but it's up to individuals to figure out how to apply what we learn.
And his specific advice is intended for specific people and contexts (not intended for everybody all the time).

I suspect difficulties often arise because people get those two kinds of advice mixed up. That is, they take a specific bit of advice that was only intended for a limited context, and try to apply it as though it is a general rule for everybody all the time. Then let that override their observations, thinking and judgement about their own situation. And then are unhappy with what happens and blame Peat. He has been quite explicit about not having a 'protocol', so it's not following Peat's advice to treat his ideas that way. When people talk about 'strictly following the Peat diet', I think they are not talking about Peat's advice at all.

Peat has mentioned more than once that some people drink more water than they need - there's a bit of a fashion that says drink ~2 litres of pure water /day, regardless of thirst or other fluids in the diet, and this can cause trouble, especially if metabolism is struggling already. He doesn't generally have to tell people to drink when they are thirsty, because most people he's come across seem to do that without prompting. But there are people here recommending that others drink extremely low amounts of fluids, maybe thinking this is Peat's general advice.

There are people here who seem to think Peat's general advice is to live almost exclusively on milk and OJ (with maybe an occasional serve of liver and oysters). Not many people are going to fare well long term on such a restricted diet. But that's not Peat's general advice - they've just extrapolated from something much more limited that he's said (AIUI , you can get essential nutrients to sustain yourself and reduce some of the key risks during a limited period of calorie restriction by ensuring you include about 1l OJ and 2 l milk in your daily diet).

Some people here have got aggressive about specific food rules, as though people who don't follow them don't belong here.

Or Peat says something like CO2 is not as dangerous as people have thought, and someone twists that to claim Peat says CO2 is completely safe. Of course Peat knows it's dangerous in high concentrations - there's just uncertainty around the boundaries.

Some people make strong claims based on not reading carefully, or not understanding about things that are well-established facts, etc. I suspect there are also some bad-faith participants who are deliberately disrupting and discrediting Peat and the forum with nonsense, too.

If someone comes along, reads the nonsense interpretations, breathes extreme levels of CO2, or completely stops drinking fluids, or lives on nothing but refined sugar and milk for years, and then suffers harm, it's not because Peat recommended it.

 

[schultz]

I agree for the most part, I'm not trying to detract from Peat's body of work in it's entirety here by any means. There are however, instances where Peat takes a leap here and there based on less solid evidence than other areas. But yes, I agree that his broad understanding of physiology and biochemistry give him a great overview to base some of his conclusions on.

He definitely makes these sorts of leaps, but I think he bases them off of not necessarily direct evidence but I guess what you might call indirect evidence. He uses what he has read or learned from reading through many other books or papers and sort of pieces together a theory which makes the most sense to him. This kind of thing can be difficult to communicate to other people (people who have no read as much as he has) although I think he does a pretty good job of it via his newsletters. Some people just want simple, direct evidence. A double blind, placebo well controlled gold standard study showing clear results. Unfortunately science is almost certainly never that clear. Even those studies are subject to the parameters the researchers have dialed in, or the pre-conceived ideas the researchers have, etc. It can just take one "assumption" to ruin a study. For example, it is assumed that the total effect of estrogen is lower in post-menopausal women (vs. pre) or ovariectomized animals (even though tissue levels are usually disregarded, as is total progesterone). So if they are studying a marker, or some other hormone level, they may use mice that have had their ovaries removed to study the effects of "low estrogen". They might actually come away with the exact opposite conclusion, as an ovariectomy may result in increased estrogenic activity (this is one of Ray's ideas, which I have also seen discussed in a few papers so it is acknowledged by others too). Anyway, all the science that is built off of one mistaken idea would need to be reexamined. Another example might be using blood markers like cholesterol. Vegetable oils reduce heart disease because they lower cholesterol. An association type thing. Or there is definitely a pandemic because the PCR test says so, and we assume it is 100% accurate and being used properly.

What Ray has done is actually only the first few steps. Ideally, if he had unlimited resources, he would start testing his ideas and using his knowledge to do experiments. I think this would propel his ideas forward. But he would need a lot of money to do this I think. If I ever win millions of dollars I may donate some to him so that he can buy laboratory equipment.