Emstar1892
Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2015
- Messages
- 346
Yes of course there are, that's why his articles are there in the first place. There are universal guidelines for all kinds of things but there are always certain people, certain cases where things may need to be slightly different. But in any case, don't read too much into that quote, like I said, Tara's comment sums it up very nicely. He never said anything like 'actually fish oil is fine' even for that single particular person. He even suggest perhaps having cheese instead. A person with cancer might need chemotherapy, it doesn't mean you do too.
A better guide are the articles on his website. And don't forget its an overall blueprint with a goal in mind, so eating lots of sugar while not limiting PUFAs may for example have disastrous effects. He advises to eat things that contain iron while also wanting to limit iron....therefore he suggests things you can do to reduce iron absorption at the same time. Missing out or changing any of these steps might not have the overall desired effect.
Although equally you may achieve the desired result (high pulse and temp) through other means, like for example the teachings of Matt Stone.
But a lot of his articles are to raise low thyroid, or to fix calcium deficiency, or to lower high PUFA accumulation, or to lower high estrogen, or to raise low progesterone, or to lower cortisol - as in, to *correct* a specific issue. You're not meant to just follow each and every piece of advice for each and every individual issue on the basis of nothing. For instance, my estrogen was low and I didn't realise it - I assumed that the "modern day" life would give me excess estrogen no matter what. I carrot-saladed the hell out of myself and then my estrogen got even lower, so I had to stop until I had in-range levels again. Were I a man, then perhaps Peat's estrogen guidelines could be followed blindly.
Regardless, Peat is a good scientist - what I mean by that is that he looks at evidence and makes conclusions, always prepared to falsify his claims. Which he has done (occassionally) in the past. As a subject, I assume the same potential falsifiability. The antithesis of good science, on the other hand, is to look at another's conclusions and suggest that only good followers/researchers take them as gospel, as opposed to work to be built upon/negated. I feel like that's the danger here.