Avoid actually buying OJ.
Store bought always make me feel like shit, just eat oranges. If you don't want the fiber just cut them in quarters, bite into them and suck the juices out. More fun that way.
this
Peat is all about the quality of the ingredient. that's what most people get wrong. they just go "ooh I bought orange juice and I feel like shit, Peat is wrong". Peat is a genius but super autistic. he describes in detail how orange juice has to be, to be a pretty much perfect food. it must be fresh, not preserved, and no acid added. also, the oranges have to be ripe, because the sugar to whatever ratio is crutial.
long story short, if you do not live in Mexico or so, rather avoid Oranges.
Only press them fresh yourself, and only if they smell ripe, are not full of toxins, and the sugar is predominant in terms of taste.
might sound like a lot of effort, but guess what, 99% of products you can buy are actually shit. avoiding whole classes of products does not help, and just buying low quality products that Peat recommends will not help you at all.
t. Peating with Raw Milk, Organic Potatoes, Organic Coconut Oil, Raw Organic Panela Sugar, Wild caught Seafood, and losing Fat while eating about 4000 Calories a Day
How bad would it be if I avoided the obviously bad processed shit, like seed oils, bleached flours etc. But stayed with mostly non-grassfed beef, butter, industrial eggs? I live in Europe btw, maybe our cows and chickens are less bogged than in the USA. Eating this way so far feels like a cheat code, I increased my TDEE by 500+ kcals and am starting to lose weight following the "croissant" diet, which is Peat-adjacent. Only saturated fats, under 10g of PUFA per day, some carbs from potatoes and getting 120-150g protein. Absolute meme diet but so fricking satisfying and my acne is clearing up and i'm fricking losing weight eating ad libidum
Tdee doesn't need to be calculated because it is entirely dependent on what you eat and your enviroment. Look up the rats drinking coke study. You could eat 8000 calories without gaining weight under the right conditions, and you could get fat on 2000 calories under the wrong ones. The main function of energy in the body is not to increase weight, but to increase structure. Increasing metabolism will make you leaner even though it generally requires an increased caloric intake. Similarily a low metabolism doesn't primarily result in high weight, but in low structure. You can discern the metabolism by visual features alone, if someone looks lika a blob, being fat, having useless unstructured mass and a round baby-face, they need to consume more calories, not fewer. That is the moronation of diet-culture. People eat less to get skinny, but that will make them fat in the long run. Long story short you shouldn't give a frick about calories either way.
go ahead and eat 8k calories/day and pls report after one month with ur results and findings. unless ur a professional endurance athlete u will gain weight.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I said under the right circumstances, obviously most of us are not living in those circumstances. But I do eat 4k kcal daily at 6'2'' 205lbs and have stayed at this weight for almost a year. They did however show that with rats you can increase their intake to the equivalent of 8k calories without weight-gain. The whole idea of calories in calories out is entirely useless when you realise that everything you eat modulates the usage of calories. >https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2913938/
2 years ago
Anonymous
>a model is entirely useless because it's not 100% accurate
This anon
>could eat 8000 calories without gaining weight
go ahead and eat 8k calories/day and pls report after one month with ur results and findings. unless ur a professional endurance athlete u will gain weight.
used the model perfectly in order to know you'll get fat as frick eating 8000 kcal per day
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's not a matter of accuracy, it simply doesn't give a usefull view of what a calorie does. Adding saturated fat to a diet will usually cause weight-loss, explain that in terms of calories.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>They did however show that with rats you can increase their intake to the equivalent of 8k calories without weight-gain.
id love to see that study. cause it must be an absolute dogshit study.
you cant do that. all the research shows that no matter what diet you eat, you gain weight in a surplus. and we got human studies for that.
I use the calculator from nSuns, over several weeks it calculates your TDEE based on calorie intake and weight change. It's quite accurate so long as there are no large swings from carb depletion/refeeds/binges etc
Ray Peat on whether he felt that the world has been rapidly changing over the past few years or not >a tribe i won't specifically mention who had their people scattered all over the globe because of the Romans, especially the ones who stayed in Europe, throughout the course of history have a tendency to weaken the economy and moral values of the nations they resided in ways that are similar to how HIV wrecks our bodies from within and causes us to have an extraordinarily difficult time in combatting external threats no matter how weak or folly they are. The media discuss things like racism, poverty and equality, but it isn't yet considered polite to discuss the tribe, probably because they own almost every media outlets in the country. - Peat
kneel
I was banned from the forum because i made fun of some moron who thought the earth was flat. Good riddance, all the advice was utterly useless or even detrimental
Thyroid is a major factor in maintaining healthy saliva quality, which protects your teeth. Swishing a bit of baking soda in water after drinking acidic stuff is protective.
I feel like I'm too stupid to understand peats actual recommendations. I read his articles and i don't understand what to do with them. Everyone seems to just understand him except for me. What the frick actually is peating? What the frick actually is the ray peat diet? It seems like you can just eat whatever and call it peating as long as you're drinking orange juice and avoiding pufa
"I recommend a diet including milk, eggs, cheese, orange juice and some other fruits, sea food, certain meats (emphasizing gelatinous things), and occasionally liver. I usually recommend some butter, coconut oil, and some occasional olive oil (for example with a carrot salad). I think any active adult should get at least 100 grams of protein per day."
Peat himself rejects the notion of a "Peat diet." His diet is what works for him, and he encourages everyone to find out what works for themselves individually. Peat writes about the qualities of various individual foodstuffs, but it was never his intent to formulate a holistic "Peat diet."
Every person is unique, and will have their own dietary needs. Follow Peat's general principles about what to avoid, but experiment and figure out what your body responds well too (which is what Peat himself does, and his own diet is constantly adapting as well. I hear nowadays he enjoys oatmeal for breakfast, whereas in the past he abstained from grains altogether.)
Honestly, if you cut out PUFAs and replace them with good saturated fats in moderation, you're already 90% of the way there, and in large part can do whatever else you want.
I buy OJ from a local bougie italian market. They squeeze it fresh every day and it's quite sweet.
Squeezing yourself is king, but it's a pain in the ass to do it every day.
>peating
already failed there is no such thing as peating. yes he has dietary advice but rays whole philosophy is trying stuff for yourself and seeing how you feel. morons on the forum take what he says and take to extremes he never suggested
>Why does this matter? "Up to date" science is dogshit and it's getting worse.
this stance is only used people who relies on old research. which were worse, you think that all modern research is bad, which is wrong. lots of research today is bad, but even more research were bad, in the past. The difference is huge. which is why so few old studies are still refered to today.
We got better methods to see if an area of research is highly flawed. like research from china and the grievance affair. pluss animal studies are dogshit. we got equalent, better controlled, human studies. We also produce more research today, which means its easier to only rely on good research, and sort out the bad ones. which is completely different that from the times of 20-30+ years ago.
Peat still uses old animal studies cause he doesnt like the better controlled human studies, of today cause they dont agree with him. not cause hes some beacon of light, in terms of research
>Peat still uses old animal studies cause he doesnt like the better controlled human studies, of today cause they dont agree with him.
it's because while modern studies might be better, they are now more biased than ever, sure they were biased then, but the older studies look way more unbiased than modern ones
>they are now more biased than ever, sure they were biased then, but the older studies look way more unbiased than modern ones
please explain how modern research is more biased when it was easier to falsify data, use worse methodology, worse models, worse corrections, easier to hide who paid you and your research, easier to hide your associations? and there were less people looking at research in general, too see how bad that area was, and they had way worse tools to do it with
id love to hear it
you litterally ignored all my points and brought up something i talked about earlier. and act like its a catcha moment. its litterally research 101. and then you think it only/mostly applies to modern research, when it applies old research even more than modern research.
it mostly applies to some fields(like psychology, medicine and research from china). lots of nutritional research have been replicated beyond necessary. Especially at the topics Peat talks about. Just say you got no clue what youre talking about, cause its really obvious. you think the replication crisis applies to mostly modern research, and to all modern research. which is a joke.
2 years ago
Anonymous
i mean you can always email the man himself anon, he's open for discussions like this
2 years ago
Anonymous
its probably futile. ive never met someone who base a lot of their views on animal studies to be able to even change their view an inch. even if you show them same type of study on humans. Theyre usually too stuck on the animal findings and mechanistic research that they cant see the forest for the trees, and completely ignore outcome studies, cause they value their speculative research.
2 years ago
Anonymous
you litterally ignored all my points and brought up something i talked about earlier. and act like its a catcha moment. its litterally research 101. and then you think it only/mostly applies to modern research, when it applies old research even more than modern research.
it mostly applies to some fields(like psychology, medicine and research from china). lots of nutritional research have been replicated beyond necessary. Especially at the topics Peat talks about. Just say you got no clue what youre talking about, cause its really obvious. you think the replication crisis applies to mostly modern research, and to all modern research. which is a joke.
i would like to add that research that was used in the replication crisis findings were older then 2003. youd know that if you actually took your own advice and googled the replication crisis
2 years ago
Anonymous
That was specifically 1990-2003, not that old.
2 years ago
Anonymous
20-30 year old research is kinda old. there are some good studies from then. but we usually got better and larger studies, today, in nutrition.
usually when i find and old, good, study in nutrition i usually find the same study, done in a better way, with more people, and better controlled. which i use when i refer to research, cause trolls just gonna say its old to dismiss it. and i rarely do not find a better, more modern study
there are replication issues in nutrition, but its very little compared to other areas. and it was worse 30+ years ago. just go and look up google scholar how many studies there were in a specific field of nutrition, pre 1990. and compare them to the amound there is today
2 years ago
Anonymous
the problem today is that the various industries and moneyed interests have such a grip over medicine, food, science, and so on.
like the media can condemn any truth to death, simply by ignoring it. If all the funding is going to a specific area of research, whilst ignoring others, does that make the others not true?
in practice, where is this 'new modern' research taking us? people are still getting fatter, balder, uglier, and dying sooner.
People were healthier 50-60 years ago. "new" research decided that old methods of understanding hypothyroidism were wrong, despite the fact that they were perfectly effective. Now, despite prevalent obesity, supposedly only 1-5% of people are "hypothyroid". Can you understand why maybe someone might trust older studies over newer ones?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the problem today is that the various industries and moneyed interests have such a grip over medicine, food, science, and so on.
you mean like the smoking industry and the anti fat and cholestrol research in the olden days? like how most of the medicine we have issues with today where research pre- 1990?
Btw, the political climate, today, tells that vegan diet is great. Nearly all research says otherwise.
if you compare healthy people of the 50s-60s to today, they lived short lives than obese people of today. I know this cause obese people use this research to prove that you can be healthy at all sizes. but the reality is that medicine today is so much better, and obese people get more aggresivly treated
also why people are dying at younger ages has nothing to do with research. research shows that all the cheap, non medicine options like a good diet, sleep, exercise and social circle is better than any medical treatment. and this applies all fields, even psychology and physiotherapy.
people who dont read research blame their obesity on things like "hypothyroidism" when in reality their obesity caused it.
I dont understand how people are blaming research when research have ALWAYS shown exercise, weightloss and a healthy diet to be better. even in 1970s. and a mediterranian style of diet(not specifically the mediterranian diet itself) to be the healthiest type of diet for 70+ years now
2 years ago
Anonymous
Modern medicine is really good at keeping people alive with chronic illness. It hasn't improved much at all in actually fixing chronic issues whatsoever.
>people who dont read research blame their obesity on things like "hypothyroidism" when in reality their obesity caused it.
Oh, this is why you're afraid to email Dr Peat. You're a moron.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The hypothyroidism and obesity are both caused by modern foods. People don't want to accept that their modern (post agricultural age) foods cause disease. Peat advocates for modern foods which is highly irresponsible. We are not adapted to optimally digest anything introduced in the past 10,000 or so years.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The hypothyroidism and obesity are both caused by modern foods. People don't want to accept that their modern (post agricultural age) foods cause disease. Peat advocates for modern foods which is highly irresponsible. We are not adapted to optimally digest anything introduced in the past 10,000 or so years.
then what do you suggest eating?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The hypothyroidism and obesity are both caused by modern foods
whatever "modern foods" are, our diet is not the same as it was 60 years ago. Don't be dishonest
replacing saturated fats with seed oils, making food out of cheap toxic ingredients, additives, and so on, these things lower thyroid function and promote obesity. The food people ate in the 30s did not do nearly as much damage as the food we eat does today. Industry meddling to sell cheap garbage is what made the food supply toxic trash.
>We are not adapted to optimally digest anything introduced in the past 10,000 or so years.
don't get me started on >muh ancestral diet
your ancestors did not have to deal with even half of the environmental stressors we do. you're free to LARP in the woods eating bison meat all day though
You're also assuming that everyone in the past ate the same things, as if no-one 10,000 years ago ever ate fruit, kek
2 years ago
Anonymous
even though i agree with some of your points i do think that people glorify older days. Then ignore how the average height was lower due to lack of nutrients.
The largest issues of today stems from obesity, being born by an obese woman have longterm effects, and we really how no data on how it affects people. im not recommending processed foods, cause eating mostly processed foods is more of an issue in a few countries, where USA and britain have the worst food culture, in these terms.
But we do know how obesity absolute wrecks every single part of your body. Weight gain itself have a negative snowball effect. Which is why you see issues even in obese peopel who eat mostly healthy foods.
2 years ago
Anonymous
And obesity doesn't come out of nowhere now, does it?
2 years ago
Anonymous
The reason for obesity is many. its a combination of societal change, general modern lifestyle, food choice, culture and general activit. to namy a few.
one exmaple of this is why we generally see less obesity in cultures where they make food from scratch("hurr durr imma post an exception, cause i think exceptions changes the rule"). You may blame the processed food. but the reality stem from a culture of not making your own food. and the reasons for why that is
2 years ago
Anonymous
>obesity isn't caused by poor metabolism, its caused by culture!
2 years ago
Anonymous
the fact that you think obesity is caused by bad metabolism is absolutely ridiculous. are you one of those people who think obesity stems from insulin issues? and say a kcal isnt a kcal cause of some miniscule effects?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>in a Peat thread >baffled by the idea that metabolism matters
you really don't know who you're arguing against, do you?
2 years ago
Anonymous
you dont know that your argument is the same as the fat acceptance group?
please show any study where the metabolism is the cause of obesity(like you claim)
2 years ago
Anonymous
>you dont know that your argument is the same as the fat acceptance group? >i've only heard the word 'metabolism' in relation to HAES, so its just fat cope!
tired of this argument
2 years ago
Anonymous
and im tired of dumbasses, who dont read research, think they actually know anything on the matter.
Beneficial Outcomes of Omega-6 and Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids on Human Health: An Update for 2021 >https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/13/7/2421
"Longitudinal prospective cohort studies demonstrate that there is an association between moderate intake of the omega-6 PUFA linoleic acid and lower risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), most likely as a result of lower blood cholesterol concentration. Current evidence suggests that increasing intake of arachidonic acid (up to 1500 mg/day) has no adverse effect on platelet aggregation and blood clotting, immune function and markers of inflammation, but may benefit muscle and cognitive performance."
Omega-6 fatty acids and inflammation
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29610056/ > studies in healthy human adults have found that increased intake of acid arachidonic acid (ARA) orlinoleic acid (LA does not increase the concentrations of many inflammatory markers. Epidemiological studies have even suggested that ARA and LA may be linked to reduced inflammation. Contrastingly, there is also evidence that a high omega-6 fatty acid diet inhibits the anti-inflammatory and inflammation-resolving effect of the omega-3 fatty acids
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're such an obvious midwit its unbelievable. All those studies are useless if you're too dumb to see the bigger picture.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You're such an obvious midwit its unbelievable. All those studies are useless if you're too dumb to see the bigger picture.
aarguing i cant see the bigger picture when i post meta analysis, is really hilarious. I havent met this level of irony in years.
theyre litterally meta analysis of all the evidence on the topic. your moronic brain are too stuck in animal studies and shitty mechanistic study cause you dont understand that outcome and intervention studies are the best evidence. you post no research, cause you dont actually read it and have absolutely no clue how it really is, or the neuances of the topic.
you just make a bunch of claims, with no actual proof, cause its the only way your dumbass brain can protect your ego from the truth
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why does every moron feel the need to "debunk" an opinion they're too lazy to actually grasp?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Why does every moron feel the need to "debunk" an opinion they're too lazy to actually grasp?
youre litterally the one who dont read up on the topic. Just cause you cant fathom not thinking in black and white terms. youre at the same mental level as extreme feminists and general social media degenerates
2 years ago
Anonymous
stupid esl
2 years ago
Anonymous
>i only believe what social media tells me, cause im to dumb to read and analyse research
2 years ago
Anonymous
>i have to construct generic caricatures to argue against, because I'm too stupid to understand who I'm arguing against
2 years ago
Anonymous
> because I'm too stupid to understand who I'm arguing against
by the take of it, it seems like you think youre THE authority on the issue. and at the same time havent actually read anything on the topic.
i bet most of your view stems from youtube vids, social media and maybe an article or two, at best. no different than from those who believe in apple cider vinegar to be the cure for everything
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I CAN'T READ
2 years ago
Anonymous
ironic
2 years ago
Anonymous
>pufa stresses your body >stress releases stress hormones >stress hormones counterbalance inflammation >moron shill academics give two thumbs up and conclude that pufa reduces inflammation
C'mon man you can shill better than this
2 years ago
Anonymous
The Science of Fatty Acids and Inflammation
https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/6/3/293S/4568626 > the often-repeated claim that dietary linoleic acid promotes inflammation was not supported in a recent systematic review of the evidence.
Linoleic Acid, Vegetable Oils & Inflammation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6179509/ >Based on the current evidence from RCT and observational studies there appears to be virtually no data available to support the hypothesis that LA in the diet increases markers of inflammation among healthy, non-infant humans.
mega‐6 fats for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease >https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011094.pub3/abstract
"Primary outcomes: we found low‐quality evidence that increased intake of omega‐6 fats may make little or no difference to all‐cause mortality or CVD events . We are uncertain whether increasing omega‐6 fats affects CVD mortality , coronary heart disease events, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, or stroke, as we assessed the evidence as being of very low quality. We found no evidence of dose‐response or duration effects for any primary outcome, but there was a suggestion of greater protection in participants with lower baseline omega‐6 intake across outcomes."
2 years ago
Anonymous
Dunning Kruger on full display. If you frick someones thyroid up by irradiating them they will quickly become obese even without consuming more calories. Obesity is largely a result of the body not being able to process fluids. Why do you think fat people look like fricking waterbeds? They are.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The hypothyroidism and obesity are both caused by modern foods.
yes, mainly seed oils which nuke your metabolism >Peat advocates for modern foods
modern foods such as fruits, dairies, organs, tough gelatinous cuts of meat, potatoes, and lean seafoods? yeah coke is a modern food and i still don't buy his shilling of coke not because of the sugar but because of the other ingredients like the food colourings
2 years ago
Anonymous
>yes, mainly seed oils which nuke your metabolism
oh, please post any research that shows seed oils ruining your metabolism, in humans, in the way you said it. in research where its not taken at an insane amount(anything in excess is bad, even water)
2 years ago
Anonymous
you said that modern foods are the roots of our modern illness and seed oils are the epitome of modern foods since they've only existed since what? 60 years ago? and the rates of obesity, cancer, diabetes and other metabolic ailments have only risen higher and higher in correlation with the seed oil consumptions? >inb4 correlation =/= causation
yes, i know, but i think we're at that point of time in which we have to question the so called benefits of seed oils and whether they're the likeliest devil that have been making us sick
2 years ago
Anonymous
seed oil use stems from the banning of of sugar and saturated fats in fast food. its simply to fill a void.
>and the rates of obesity, cancer, diabetes and other metabolic ailments have only risen higher and higher in correlation with the seed oil consumptions?
its risen with the rise in obesity. but your too stuck on details that you cant see the forest for the trees. im not saying seed oils doesnt ahve any negative effect, but its only a slight negative effect, some aspect, and neutral/slight postive effect in other areas
Omega-3, omega-6 and total dietary polyunsaturated fat on cancer incidence: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials (google the title for the meta analysis, 4 chan wont let me post the link)
"The most extensive systematic review to assess the effects of increasing PUFAs on cancer risk found increasing total PUFA may very slightly increase cancer risk, offset by small protective effects on cardiovascular diseases."
Biomarkers of Dietary Omega-6 Fatty Acids and Incident Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality >https://wwwDOTahajournals"org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038908
"It is striking that a higher level of linoleic acid was associated with lower risks of total cardiovascular disease, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular mortality, whereas arachidonic acid was not associated with cardiovascular risk
2 years ago
Anonymous
animals fed coconut oil vs seed oils in same proportion as the typical american diet become obese diabetic and they develop nafld. calories being equal
2 years ago
Anonymous
He doesn't "shill coke", he just said it CAN (key word) be therapeutic under some circumstances.
2 years ago
Anonymous
does coke even still use coca leaves? pretty sure it's just some flavouring now, could be wrong though
2 years ago
Anonymous
They do, they have some special permit to import and use coca leaves under the surveillance of some fed agencies. The amounts are small though and the bigger picture is probably just that cane sugar and caffeine is good for people with a working metabolism.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Thats moronic, we are perfectly "optimized" to digest refined sugar. We are however not able to digest vegetables, grains, or nuts very well. How well you can digest something depends on what you are trying to digest, not merely on how long you've been eating it for. Our ancestors ate leaves for 100million years, guess we can perfectly digest it then. Rediculous.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Peat has so many flaws in his views. just cause someone is 50% correct doesnt mean everything they say is true. Which is very prevalent with Peat. And why he uses research from the 1960s-1990s, only. and heavily depend on animal studies with insane scenarios
2 years ago
Anonymous
>too scared he'll get BTFO by Peat if he tells him this directly
KEK
2 years ago
Anonymous
i also dont argue with people who believe the sun rotates around the earth. People who completely ignore modern medicine then use "remedies" like apple cider vinegar for everything. people who who believe in astrology, etc.
Peat is no different than any other diet guru on tik tok, or gurus like Dr.Sebi
2 years ago
Anonymous
there's no reason to not argue with Peat. Unlike physics and astrophysics which are "established" science with hard evidences left and right, health and nutrition are utter shitshows with contradicting findings depending on corporate interests
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the anti fat and cholestrol research in the olden days
Notice how everyone talks about how its fat vs sugar and not saturated fat vs polyunsaturated fat.
High cholesterol is a symptom of hypothyroidism. It means your body is not turning cholesterol into steroid hormones. It's an entire fake medical problem, created by the "hypothyroidism doesn't matter" conclusion made by idiotic trends in the 60s and 70s.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's not old at all. "Old" research really means stuff journalised before the current meta of activist-researchers on peer review panels, which was between WW2 and the 70s depending on the journal. The 20th century more broadly was the time of an overall shift from genuine scientific inquiry into corporate activist science, and the 90s were at the tail end of that shift.
2 years ago
Anonymous
whats considered old depends on the field. in nutritional research there is so much research being done, every year, that you could argue that 20 year old studies is considered old. i usually go for the post 2010 studies. simply cause there are so many studies done on the same topic that i can pick and chose which year i want that kinda study to be from. So why would i chose a study from 2000s when i can find the equalent from 2018?
and we do more research on niche topics, and theyre getting better at making comaparisons.
Like the one they did on IF vs regular kcal deficit, and equated kcals.
Or the study where they compare low carb vs high carb, and equated kcals and protein
Or the one where they compared meat eaters vs non meat eaters, and equated plant intake.
all of these are only done in more modern times(the past 5 years to be more specific)
with older research they tend to compare low fat with normal diet, and the diets would have a 300kcal difference, and then say one diet is better. completely ignoring how the weightgain would completely change the results(it still happens, but we got better research these days to base our views from)
2 years ago
Anonymous
> there are replication issues in nutrition, but its very little compared to other areas
In what fricking universe do you live Black person?
The Peat diet is great if you take out all the sugar, coca cola, and plant crap. Then it becomes a sensible traditional diet. A lot of his ideas on carbs are based on debunked mid-20th century pseudoscience that was popular at the time
>study using isocaloric diets with 3 different groups: LCHF, MCMF, HCLF using s0ibean oil (aka "vegetable oil" most common oil in murica and most of the world) >the study used too low calories accidentally so they all lost weight >least weight lost correlated directly to amount of s0ibean oil consumed
another study
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7598063/ >We overfed isoenergetic amounts (50% above energy requirements) of fat and carbohydrate (for 14 d each) to nine lean and seven obese men. >Carbohydrate overfeeding produced progressive increases in carbohydrate oxidation and total energy expenditure resulting in 75-85% of excess energy being stored. Alternatively, fat overfeeding had minimal effects on fat oxidation and total energy expenditure, leading to storage of 90-95% of excess energy. Excess dietary fat leads to greater fat accumulation than does excess dietary carbohydrate, and the difference was greatest early in the overfeeding period.
I don't know what fats they used here though
I found the actual study if you want to delve deeper or just not watch the carnivoremd video https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352396417302529
i would also like to add the the study is about different macro nutrients, and in these types of studies you can really pull out any data you want from it. like arguing omega-6 is the cause of the difference in weight loss. its a common error made by gurus who promote their idea
isnt pau saladino the guy who goes shirtless in stores, and rant about arbitrary foods? and the guy who also dont shower and dont use deoderant. and cant put 2 and 2 together when people ask him if he uses deoderant.
and the guy who says vegetables are bad for you
also that study is from china. trusting it is dubious at best. and the groups verent kcal equated
btw, no wonder you got your views if you listen to Pau Saladino. that guy is a joke. Dr.idz keeps making videoes on his dumb rants and the shitty studies he refers too.
NAFLD
>sugar le bad
get a new material Shlomo
This guy's advice gave some 70 year old woman diabetes
proof?
Well 70 year old women are very stupid so that doesn't suprise me.
Avoid actually buying OJ.
Store bought always make me feel like shit, just eat oranges. If you don't want the fiber just cut them in quarters, bite into them and suck the juices out. More fun that way.
this
Peat is all about the quality of the ingredient. that's what most people get wrong. they just go "ooh I bought orange juice and I feel like shit, Peat is wrong". Peat is a genius but super autistic. he describes in detail how orange juice has to be, to be a pretty much perfect food. it must be fresh, not preserved, and no acid added. also, the oranges have to be ripe, because the sugar to whatever ratio is crutial.
long story short, if you do not live in Mexico or so, rather avoid Oranges.
Only press them fresh yourself, and only if they smell ripe, are not full of toxins, and the sugar is predominant in terms of taste.
might sound like a lot of effort, but guess what, 99% of products you can buy are actually shit. avoiding whole classes of products does not help, and just buying low quality products that Peat recommends will not help you at all.
t. Peating with Raw Milk, Organic Potatoes, Organic Coconut Oil, Raw Organic Panela Sugar, Wild caught Seafood, and losing Fat while eating about 4000 Calories a Day
Why are you actually doing the diet? What benefits have you noticed?
>Why are you actually doing the diet?
>athletic performance
>longevity
>rawdogging my gf for orgasmmaxxing
>racismmaxxing
>rawdogging my gf for orgasmmaxxing
what did you mean by this?
Pretty much my experience after 2 years of peating. People take Peat way out of context and end up hurting themselves
How bad would it be if I avoided the obviously bad processed shit, like seed oils, bleached flours etc. But stayed with mostly non-grassfed beef, butter, industrial eggs? I live in Europe btw, maybe our cows and chickens are less bogged than in the USA. Eating this way so far feels like a cheat code, I increased my TDEE by 500+ kcals and am starting to lose weight following the "croissant" diet, which is Peat-adjacent. Only saturated fats, under 10g of PUFA per day, some carbs from potatoes and getting 120-150g protein. Absolute meme diet but so fricking satisfying and my acne is clearing up and i'm fricking losing weight eating ad libidum
how did you accurately calculate your TDEE anon?
Tdee doesn't need to be calculated because it is entirely dependent on what you eat and your enviroment. Look up the rats drinking coke study. You could eat 8000 calories without gaining weight under the right conditions, and you could get fat on 2000 calories under the wrong ones. The main function of energy in the body is not to increase weight, but to increase structure. Increasing metabolism will make you leaner even though it generally requires an increased caloric intake. Similarily a low metabolism doesn't primarily result in high weight, but in low structure. You can discern the metabolism by visual features alone, if someone looks lika a blob, being fat, having useless unstructured mass and a round baby-face, they need to consume more calories, not fewer. That is the moronation of diet-culture. People eat less to get skinny, but that will make them fat in the long run. Long story short you shouldn't give a frick about calories either way.
>could eat 8000 calories without gaining weight
go ahead and eat 8k calories/day and pls report after one month with ur results and findings. unless ur a professional endurance athlete u will gain weight.
I said under the right circumstances, obviously most of us are not living in those circumstances. But I do eat 4k kcal daily at 6'2'' 205lbs and have stayed at this weight for almost a year. They did however show that with rats you can increase their intake to the equivalent of 8k calories without weight-gain. The whole idea of calories in calories out is entirely useless when you realise that everything you eat modulates the usage of calories.
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2913938/
>a model is entirely useless because it's not 100% accurate
This anon
used the model perfectly in order to know you'll get fat as frick eating 8000 kcal per day
It's not a matter of accuracy, it simply doesn't give a usefull view of what a calorie does. Adding saturated fat to a diet will usually cause weight-loss, explain that in terms of calories.
>They did however show that with rats you can increase their intake to the equivalent of 8k calories without weight-gain.
id love to see that study. cause it must be an absolute dogshit study.
you cant do that. all the research shows that no matter what diet you eat, you gain weight in a surplus. and we got human studies for that.
He literally linked the fricking study dude
I use the calculator from nSuns, over several weeks it calculates your TDEE based on calorie intake and weight change. It's quite accurate so long as there are no large swings from carb depletion/refeeds/binges etc
yeah but he's also said that store-bought is ok if you can't press it yourself, and that even orange juice from concentrate is better than nothing.
i think you're talking out yer ass
Rediculous. Nothing like putrefied mold spores picked by migrant workers and shipped to me in a nice plastic container by some rich boomer.
avoid pulp because it is inflammatory for some people
best thing to do is to buy sweet oranges and juice them yourself.
Is Ray Peat a nazi?
Ray Peat on whether he felt that the world has been rapidly changing over the past few years or not
>a tribe i won't specifically mention who had their people scattered all over the globe because of the Romans, especially the ones who stayed in Europe, throughout the course of history have a tendency to weaken the economy and moral values of the nations they resided in ways that are similar to how HIV wrecks our bodies from within and causes us to have an extraordinarily difficult time in combatting external threats no matter how weak or folly they are. The media discuss things like racism, poverty and equality, but it isn't yet considered polite to discuss the tribe, probably because they own almost every media outlets in the country. - Peat
kneel
>it's real
wtf, i've always thought that Peat is redpilled but not this kind of redpilled
Where did you verify it
holy frick kneel you morons
Jews fear the right-wing anti-establishment stalinist esoteric biologist
IST is a shithole but these kinds of memes never fail to make me laugh
obviously fake. ray would never say that HIV 'wrecks the body.' it's curable with vitamin d and niacinamide btw
I was banned from the forum because i made fun of some moron who thought the earth was flat. Good riddance, all the advice was utterly useless or even detrimental
He has stated that he has no connection to the forum and considers most on there to be nut jobs.
Yeah i know, though his personal advice didn't really get me anywhere either
Wouldnt drinking coke and oj all the time rot your teeth? Has Peat ever addressed this?
>he fell for the dentistisraelite psyop
Thyroid is a major factor in maintaining healthy saliva quality, which protects your teeth. Swishing a bit of baking soda in water after drinking acidic stuff is protective.
I like the Natalie’s brand it tastes really fresh. Ideally you would squeeze your own but that can be time consuming
I feel like I'm too stupid to understand peats actual recommendations. I read his articles and i don't understand what to do with them. Everyone seems to just understand him except for me. What the frick actually is peating? What the frick actually is the ray peat diet? It seems like you can just eat whatever and call it peating as long as you're drinking orange juice and avoiding pufa
Ray Peat wrote:
"I recommend a diet including milk, eggs, cheese, orange juice and some other fruits, sea food, certain meats (emphasizing gelatinous things), and occasionally liver. I usually recommend some butter, coconut oil, and some occasional olive oil (for example with a carrot salad). I think any active adult should get at least 100 grams of protein per day."
Peat himself rejects the notion of a "Peat diet." His diet is what works for him, and he encourages everyone to find out what works for themselves individually. Peat writes about the qualities of various individual foodstuffs, but it was never his intent to formulate a holistic "Peat diet."
Every person is unique, and will have their own dietary needs. Follow Peat's general principles about what to avoid, but experiment and figure out what your body responds well too (which is what Peat himself does, and his own diet is constantly adapting as well. I hear nowadays he enjoys oatmeal for breakfast, whereas in the past he abstained from grains altogether.)
Honestly, if you cut out PUFAs and replace them with good saturated fats in moderation, you're already 90% of the way there, and in large part can do whatever else you want.
I buy OJ from a local bougie italian market. They squeeze it fresh every day and it's quite sweet.
Squeezing yourself is king, but it's a pain in the ass to do it every day.
>peating
already failed there is no such thing as peating. yes he has dietary advice but rays whole philosophy is trying stuff for yourself and seeing how you feel. morons on the forum take what he says and take to extremes he never suggested
>"peating"ddddddddddd
>using the terminolgy of the soccer moms who use Ray Peat as an excuse to binge ice cream and sugar
ngmi
>what should i avoid while on a grifter facebook diet
Sanity
peat isn't a grifter he doesn't even have ads on his website, let alone selling shits
Peat is the anti-grifter, he gave away the rights to progest-e
first time i'm hearing about this, no wonder the israelites hate him
>tfw progest-e isn't made worldwide
youll eat a bit better, but that guy relies on 40-60 year old animal studies.
people who follow Peat is just one step above people who believe in "Dr"Sebi and the alkaline people
>40-60 year old animal studies.
Why does this matter? "Up to date" science is dogshit and it's getting worse.
>Why does this matter? "Up to date" science is dogshit and it's getting worse.
this stance is only used people who relies on old research. which were worse, you think that all modern research is bad, which is wrong. lots of research today is bad, but even more research were bad, in the past. The difference is huge. which is why so few old studies are still refered to today.
We got better methods to see if an area of research is highly flawed. like research from china and the grievance affair. pluss animal studies are dogshit. we got equalent, better controlled, human studies. We also produce more research today, which means its easier to only rely on good research, and sort out the bad ones. which is completely different that from the times of 20-30+ years ago.
Peat still uses old animal studies cause he doesnt like the better controlled human studies, of today cause they dont agree with him. not cause hes some beacon of light, in terms of research
>Peat still uses old animal studies cause he doesnt like the better controlled human studies, of today cause they dont agree with him.
it's because while modern studies might be better, they are now more biased than ever, sure they were biased then, but the older studies look way more unbiased than modern ones
>they are now more biased than ever, sure they were biased then, but the older studies look way more unbiased than modern ones
please explain how modern research is more biased when it was easier to falsify data, use worse methodology, worse models, worse corrections, easier to hide who paid you and your research, easier to hide your associations? and there were less people looking at research in general, too see how bad that area was, and they had way worse tools to do it with
id love to hear it
google the replication crisis
you litterally ignored all my points and brought up something i talked about earlier. and act like its a catcha moment. its litterally research 101. and then you think it only/mostly applies to modern research, when it applies old research even more than modern research.
it mostly applies to some fields(like psychology, medicine and research from china). lots of nutritional research have been replicated beyond necessary. Especially at the topics Peat talks about. Just say you got no clue what youre talking about, cause its really obvious. you think the replication crisis applies to mostly modern research, and to all modern research. which is a joke.
i mean you can always email the man himself anon, he's open for discussions like this
its probably futile. ive never met someone who base a lot of their views on animal studies to be able to even change their view an inch. even if you show them same type of study on humans. Theyre usually too stuck on the animal findings and mechanistic research that they cant see the forest for the trees, and completely ignore outcome studies, cause they value their speculative research.
i would like to add that research that was used in the replication crisis findings were older then 2003. youd know that if you actually took your own advice and googled the replication crisis
That was specifically 1990-2003, not that old.
20-30 year old research is kinda old. there are some good studies from then. but we usually got better and larger studies, today, in nutrition.
usually when i find and old, good, study in nutrition i usually find the same study, done in a better way, with more people, and better controlled. which i use when i refer to research, cause trolls just gonna say its old to dismiss it. and i rarely do not find a better, more modern study
there are replication issues in nutrition, but its very little compared to other areas. and it was worse 30+ years ago. just go and look up google scholar how many studies there were in a specific field of nutrition, pre 1990. and compare them to the amound there is today
the problem today is that the various industries and moneyed interests have such a grip over medicine, food, science, and so on.
like the media can condemn any truth to death, simply by ignoring it. If all the funding is going to a specific area of research, whilst ignoring others, does that make the others not true?
in practice, where is this 'new modern' research taking us? people are still getting fatter, balder, uglier, and dying sooner.
People were healthier 50-60 years ago. "new" research decided that old methods of understanding hypothyroidism were wrong, despite the fact that they were perfectly effective. Now, despite prevalent obesity, supposedly only 1-5% of people are "hypothyroid". Can you understand why maybe someone might trust older studies over newer ones?
>the problem today is that the various industries and moneyed interests have such a grip over medicine, food, science, and so on.
you mean like the smoking industry and the anti fat and cholestrol research in the olden days? like how most of the medicine we have issues with today where research pre- 1990?
Btw, the political climate, today, tells that vegan diet is great. Nearly all research says otherwise.
if you compare healthy people of the 50s-60s to today, they lived short lives than obese people of today. I know this cause obese people use this research to prove that you can be healthy at all sizes. but the reality is that medicine today is so much better, and obese people get more aggresivly treated
also why people are dying at younger ages has nothing to do with research. research shows that all the cheap, non medicine options like a good diet, sleep, exercise and social circle is better than any medical treatment. and this applies all fields, even psychology and physiotherapy.
people who dont read research blame their obesity on things like "hypothyroidism" when in reality their obesity caused it.
I dont understand how people are blaming research when research have ALWAYS shown exercise, weightloss and a healthy diet to be better. even in 1970s. and a mediterranian style of diet(not specifically the mediterranian diet itself) to be the healthiest type of diet for 70+ years now
Modern medicine is really good at keeping people alive with chronic illness. It hasn't improved much at all in actually fixing chronic issues whatsoever.
>people who dont read research blame their obesity on things like "hypothyroidism" when in reality their obesity caused it.
Oh, this is why you're afraid to email Dr Peat. You're a moron.
The hypothyroidism and obesity are both caused by modern foods. People don't want to accept that their modern (post agricultural age) foods cause disease. Peat advocates for modern foods which is highly irresponsible. We are not adapted to optimally digest anything introduced in the past 10,000 or so years.
>The hypothyroidism and obesity are both caused by modern foods. People don't want to accept that their modern (post agricultural age) foods cause disease. Peat advocates for modern foods which is highly irresponsible. We are not adapted to optimally digest anything introduced in the past 10,000 or so years.
then what do you suggest eating?
>The hypothyroidism and obesity are both caused by modern foods
whatever "modern foods" are, our diet is not the same as it was 60 years ago. Don't be dishonest
replacing saturated fats with seed oils, making food out of cheap toxic ingredients, additives, and so on, these things lower thyroid function and promote obesity. The food people ate in the 30s did not do nearly as much damage as the food we eat does today. Industry meddling to sell cheap garbage is what made the food supply toxic trash.
>We are not adapted to optimally digest anything introduced in the past 10,000 or so years.
don't get me started on >muh ancestral diet
your ancestors did not have to deal with even half of the environmental stressors we do. you're free to LARP in the woods eating bison meat all day though
You're also assuming that everyone in the past ate the same things, as if no-one 10,000 years ago ever ate fruit, kek
even though i agree with some of your points i do think that people glorify older days. Then ignore how the average height was lower due to lack of nutrients.
The largest issues of today stems from obesity, being born by an obese woman have longterm effects, and we really how no data on how it affects people. im not recommending processed foods, cause eating mostly processed foods is more of an issue in a few countries, where USA and britain have the worst food culture, in these terms.
But we do know how obesity absolute wrecks every single part of your body. Weight gain itself have a negative snowball effect. Which is why you see issues even in obese peopel who eat mostly healthy foods.
And obesity doesn't come out of nowhere now, does it?
The reason for obesity is many. its a combination of societal change, general modern lifestyle, food choice, culture and general activit. to namy a few.
one exmaple of this is why we generally see less obesity in cultures where they make food from scratch("hurr durr imma post an exception, cause i think exceptions changes the rule"). You may blame the processed food. but the reality stem from a culture of not making your own food. and the reasons for why that is
>obesity isn't caused by poor metabolism, its caused by culture!
the fact that you think obesity is caused by bad metabolism is absolutely ridiculous. are you one of those people who think obesity stems from insulin issues? and say a kcal isnt a kcal cause of some miniscule effects?
>in a Peat thread
>baffled by the idea that metabolism matters
you really don't know who you're arguing against, do you?
you dont know that your argument is the same as the fat acceptance group?
please show any study where the metabolism is the cause of obesity(like you claim)
>you dont know that your argument is the same as the fat acceptance group?
>i've only heard the word 'metabolism' in relation to HAES, so its just fat cope!
tired of this argument
and im tired of dumbasses, who dont read research, think they actually know anything on the matter.
Beneficial Outcomes of Omega-6 and Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids on Human Health: An Update for 2021
>https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/13/7/2421
"Longitudinal prospective cohort studies demonstrate that there is an association between moderate intake of the omega-6 PUFA linoleic acid and lower risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), most likely as a result of lower blood cholesterol concentration. Current evidence suggests that increasing intake of arachidonic acid (up to 1500 mg/day) has no adverse effect on platelet aggregation and blood clotting, immune function and markers of inflammation, but may benefit muscle and cognitive performance."
Omega-6 fatty acids and inflammation
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29610056/
> studies in healthy human adults have found that increased intake of acid arachidonic acid (ARA) orlinoleic acid (LA does not increase the concentrations of many inflammatory markers. Epidemiological studies have even suggested that ARA and LA may be linked to reduced inflammation. Contrastingly, there is also evidence that a high omega-6 fatty acid diet inhibits the anti-inflammatory and inflammation-resolving effect of the omega-3 fatty acids
You're such an obvious midwit its unbelievable. All those studies are useless if you're too dumb to see the bigger picture.
>You're such an obvious midwit its unbelievable. All those studies are useless if you're too dumb to see the bigger picture.
aarguing i cant see the bigger picture when i post meta analysis, is really hilarious. I havent met this level of irony in years.
theyre litterally meta analysis of all the evidence on the topic. your moronic brain are too stuck in animal studies and shitty mechanistic study cause you dont understand that outcome and intervention studies are the best evidence. you post no research, cause you dont actually read it and have absolutely no clue how it really is, or the neuances of the topic.
you just make a bunch of claims, with no actual proof, cause its the only way your dumbass brain can protect your ego from the truth
Why does every moron feel the need to "debunk" an opinion they're too lazy to actually grasp?
>Why does every moron feel the need to "debunk" an opinion they're too lazy to actually grasp?
youre litterally the one who dont read up on the topic. Just cause you cant fathom not thinking in black and white terms. youre at the same mental level as extreme feminists and general social media degenerates
stupid esl
>i only believe what social media tells me, cause im to dumb to read and analyse research
>i have to construct generic caricatures to argue against, because I'm too stupid to understand who I'm arguing against
> because I'm too stupid to understand who I'm arguing against
by the take of it, it seems like you think youre THE authority on the issue. and at the same time havent actually read anything on the topic.
i bet most of your view stems from youtube vids, social media and maybe an article or two, at best. no different than from those who believe in apple cider vinegar to be the cure for everything
>I CAN'T READ
ironic
>pufa stresses your body
>stress releases stress hormones
>stress hormones counterbalance inflammation
>moron shill academics give two thumbs up and conclude that pufa reduces inflammation
C'mon man you can shill better than this
The Science of Fatty Acids and Inflammation
https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/6/3/293S/4568626
> the often-repeated claim that dietary linoleic acid promotes inflammation was not supported in a recent systematic review of the evidence.
Linoleic Acid, Vegetable Oils & Inflammation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6179509/
>Based on the current evidence from RCT and observational studies there appears to be virtually no data available to support the hypothesis that LA in the diet increases markers of inflammation among healthy, non-infant humans.
mega‐6 fats for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease
>https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011094.pub3/abstract
"Primary outcomes: we found low‐quality evidence that increased intake of omega‐6 fats may make little or no difference to all‐cause mortality or CVD events . We are uncertain whether increasing omega‐6 fats affects CVD mortality , coronary heart disease events, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, or stroke, as we assessed the evidence as being of very low quality. We found no evidence of dose‐response or duration effects for any primary outcome, but there was a suggestion of greater protection in participants with lower baseline omega‐6 intake across outcomes."
Dunning Kruger on full display. If you frick someones thyroid up by irradiating them they will quickly become obese even without consuming more calories. Obesity is largely a result of the body not being able to process fluids. Why do you think fat people look like fricking waterbeds? They are.
>The hypothyroidism and obesity are both caused by modern foods.
yes, mainly seed oils which nuke your metabolism
>Peat advocates for modern foods
modern foods such as fruits, dairies, organs, tough gelatinous cuts of meat, potatoes, and lean seafoods? yeah coke is a modern food and i still don't buy his shilling of coke not because of the sugar but because of the other ingredients like the food colourings
>yes, mainly seed oils which nuke your metabolism
oh, please post any research that shows seed oils ruining your metabolism, in humans, in the way you said it. in research where its not taken at an insane amount(anything in excess is bad, even water)
you said that modern foods are the roots of our modern illness and seed oils are the epitome of modern foods since they've only existed since what? 60 years ago? and the rates of obesity, cancer, diabetes and other metabolic ailments have only risen higher and higher in correlation with the seed oil consumptions?
>inb4 correlation =/= causation
yes, i know, but i think we're at that point of time in which we have to question the so called benefits of seed oils and whether they're the likeliest devil that have been making us sick
seed oil use stems from the banning of of sugar and saturated fats in fast food. its simply to fill a void.
>and the rates of obesity, cancer, diabetes and other metabolic ailments have only risen higher and higher in correlation with the seed oil consumptions?
its risen with the rise in obesity. but your too stuck on details that you cant see the forest for the trees. im not saying seed oils doesnt ahve any negative effect, but its only a slight negative effect, some aspect, and neutral/slight postive effect in other areas
Omega-3, omega-6 and total dietary polyunsaturated fat on cancer incidence: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials (google the title for the meta analysis, 4 chan wont let me post the link)
"The most extensive systematic review to assess the effects of increasing PUFAs on cancer risk found increasing total PUFA may very slightly increase cancer risk, offset by small protective effects on cardiovascular diseases."
Biomarkers of Dietary Omega-6 Fatty Acids and Incident Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality
>https://wwwDOTahajournals"org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038908
"It is striking that a higher level of linoleic acid was associated with lower risks of total cardiovascular disease, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular mortality, whereas arachidonic acid was not associated with cardiovascular risk
animals fed coconut oil vs seed oils in same proportion as the typical american diet become obese diabetic and they develop nafld. calories being equal
He doesn't "shill coke", he just said it CAN (key word) be therapeutic under some circumstances.
does coke even still use coca leaves? pretty sure it's just some flavouring now, could be wrong though
They do, they have some special permit to import and use coca leaves under the surveillance of some fed agencies. The amounts are small though and the bigger picture is probably just that cane sugar and caffeine is good for people with a working metabolism.
Thats moronic, we are perfectly "optimized" to digest refined sugar. We are however not able to digest vegetables, grains, or nuts very well. How well you can digest something depends on what you are trying to digest, not merely on how long you've been eating it for. Our ancestors ate leaves for 100million years, guess we can perfectly digest it then. Rediculous.
Peat has so many flaws in his views. just cause someone is 50% correct doesnt mean everything they say is true. Which is very prevalent with Peat. And why he uses research from the 1960s-1990s, only. and heavily depend on animal studies with insane scenarios
>too scared he'll get BTFO by Peat if he tells him this directly
KEK
i also dont argue with people who believe the sun rotates around the earth. People who completely ignore modern medicine then use "remedies" like apple cider vinegar for everything. people who who believe in astrology, etc.
Peat is no different than any other diet guru on tik tok, or gurus like Dr.Sebi
there's no reason to not argue with Peat. Unlike physics and astrophysics which are "established" science with hard evidences left and right, health and nutrition are utter shitshows with contradicting findings depending on corporate interests
>the anti fat and cholestrol research in the olden days
Notice how everyone talks about how its fat vs sugar and not saturated fat vs polyunsaturated fat.
High cholesterol is a symptom of hypothyroidism. It means your body is not turning cholesterol into steroid hormones. It's an entire fake medical problem, created by the "hypothyroidism doesn't matter" conclusion made by idiotic trends in the 60s and 70s.
It's not old at all. "Old" research really means stuff journalised before the current meta of activist-researchers on peer review panels, which was between WW2 and the 70s depending on the journal. The 20th century more broadly was the time of an overall shift from genuine scientific inquiry into corporate activist science, and the 90s were at the tail end of that shift.
whats considered old depends on the field. in nutritional research there is so much research being done, every year, that you could argue that 20 year old studies is considered old. i usually go for the post 2010 studies. simply cause there are so many studies done on the same topic that i can pick and chose which year i want that kinda study to be from. So why would i chose a study from 2000s when i can find the equalent from 2018?
and we do more research on niche topics, and theyre getting better at making comaparisons.
Like the one they did on IF vs regular kcal deficit, and equated kcals.
Or the study where they compare low carb vs high carb, and equated kcals and protein
Or the one where they compared meat eaters vs non meat eaters, and equated plant intake.
all of these are only done in more modern times(the past 5 years to be more specific)
with older research they tend to compare low fat with normal diet, and the diets would have a 300kcal difference, and then say one diet is better. completely ignoring how the weightgain would completely change the results(it still happens, but we got better research these days to base our views from)
> there are replication issues in nutrition, but its very little compared to other areas
In what fricking universe do you live Black person?
The Peat diet is great if you take out all the sugar, coca cola, and plant crap. Then it becomes a sensible traditional diet. A lot of his ideas on carbs are based on debunked mid-20th century pseudoscience that was popular at the time
>otto warburg
>pseudoscience
Where do you shils get this garbage from?
Try uigeadail, it's pretty good.
FRICK YOU GUYS YOU'LL NEVER TAKE AWAY MY DEENZ AND BEANZ
BRRAPPPP
Deenz are fine beans not so much
>study using isocaloric diets with 3 different groups: LCHF, MCMF, HCLF using s0ibean oil (aka "vegetable oil" most common oil in murica and most of the world)
>the study used too low calories accidentally so they all lost weight
>least weight lost correlated directly to amount of s0ibean oil consumed
another study
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7598063/
>We overfed isoenergetic amounts (50% above energy requirements) of fat and carbohydrate (for 14 d each) to nine lean and seven obese men.
>Carbohydrate overfeeding produced progressive increases in carbohydrate oxidation and total energy expenditure resulting in 75-85% of excess energy being stored. Alternatively, fat overfeeding had minimal effects on fat oxidation and total energy expenditure, leading to storage of 90-95% of excess energy. Excess dietary fat leads to greater fat accumulation than does excess dietary carbohydrate, and the difference was greatest early in the overfeeding period.
I don't know what fats they used here though
I found the actual study if you want to delve deeper or just not watch the carnivoremd video https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352396417302529
i would also like to add the the study is about different macro nutrients, and in these types of studies you can really pull out any data you want from it. like arguing omega-6 is the cause of the difference in weight loss. its a common error made by gurus who promote their idea
It's hardly a surprise, DNL is a super inefficient process
If you're gonna eat in a surplus, make it carbs and protein
isnt pau saladino the guy who goes shirtless in stores, and rant about arbitrary foods? and the guy who also dont shower and dont use deoderant. and cant put 2 and 2 together when people ask him if he uses deoderant.
and the guy who says vegetables are bad for you
also that study is from china. trusting it is dubious at best. and the groups verent kcal equated
btw, no wonder you got your views if you listen to Pau Saladino. that guy is a joke. Dr.idz keeps making videoes on his dumb rants and the shitty studies he refers too.
still shan't be eating the sneed oil
Comments getting HEATED in this thread. Midwits and seed oil shills out in force today.
I just gave up on OJ, quality fricking sucks. I just drink lemonade and tea instead.