14 replies to this topic

[rwac]

If I had to summarize the entirety of Ray's dietary philosophy in one sentence it would be to reduce stress. And by stress, I mostly mean the stress hormones, which include the catcholamines, cortisol, estrogen (of all types), serotonin, and pituitary hormones.

You need adequate carbs and protein to achieve this. We also want to avoid gluconeogenesis, since that involves a release of cortisol.

The controversy starts with the Essentiality of EFAs. Peat says that the essentiality is not adequately proven, and that the Burrs' experiment is flawed. Essentially, the symptoms of "EFA deficiency" are the same as that of a deficiency of vitamin B6, which was as yet undiscovered at the time.

Another issue is that you get approximately 2% of calories as unsaturated fat even without trying, unless you're eating specially PUFA free lab prepared food. So you're unlikely to get "EFA deficiency" on a normal diet anyways.

[Thorsten3]

So, a Peat diet is sufficient carbs and protein, with less emphasis on fat?

I've never been able to find anything concrete on what a day would look like, in terms of what's eaten, for a Peat diet. I know he likes bacon, potato and coconut oil. That's all I know. Saying that though, it was after reading his article on PUFAS where I decided to restrict them, and I started feeling a lot better immediately. To this day, I avoid them as much as I can.

[rwac]

Indeed, that would be a first approximation of a Peat diet, but the rabbit hole goes deep.

He puts less of an emphasis on fat because less CO2 is produced when you're burning fat. CO2 is a protective substance. Saturated fat is ok, but it falls below carbs as a preferred fuel source.

"In isolated heart and skeletal muscle preparations, Randle et al. showed how the utilization of one nutrient inhibited the utilization of another nutrient, without hormonal mediation. The Randle Cycle is therefore a biochemical mechanism that regulates the selection of fuels and substrate demand (and supply) in normal tissues. Hormones controlling the lypolysis of adipose tissue affect the concentration of circulating fatty acids. Fatty acids, in turn, control the fuel selection in muscle."
http://peatarian.com...e-randle-cycle/

You have to be careful about that, there are caveats. The bacon is refried in coconut oil to remove as much of the pork fat as possible. He recommends refined coconut oil since people tend to be allergic to the unrefined stuff.

[misterE]

His work on lipids is good, and there is much data to support the harmful effects of excessive omega-6 consumption. Peat believes saturated-fat is harmless... I disagree. He also believes that sugar is a better source of carbohydrates than starch (because it invokes less insulin-secretion)... I disagree. A high-fat diet (especially saturated-fat) combined with sugar has been consistently shown to quickly induce insulin-resistance.

The premise of the diet is to reduce inflammation and lower catabolic stress hormones. This is effectively done with a low-fat/high-starch diet. Removing vegetable-oils, nuts and animal-fats from the diet removes a huge amount of arachodonic-acid and its precursor: linoleic-acid. This will lower the amount of inflammatory hormones your body produces; it will also quickly improve insulin-sensitivity. Lowering catabolic- hormones involves raising anabolic-hormones, this is done primarily with insulin (the most anabolic hormone of all). When you eat starch, the glucose from the starch triggers the release of insulin, which takes the body from a catabolic-metabolism to an anabolic one. Skim-milk, potatoes, beans and bread are the most insulinogenic-foods around and are great for shutting down the stress hormones (they are also low in omega-6 and arachodonic-acid).

Still I don’t know why Ray Peats ideas are so popular, perhaps because they are so damn bizarre, but either way, a diet based off orange-juice, ice-cream and coconut-oil doesn’t sound healthy to me.

[rwac]

Well, Peat agrees that starch isn't that bad: "...a high starch diet isn't necessarily incompatible with good health...". However sugar has a few benefits. First, starch can feed gut bacteria because it's just a bit slower to digest. Also sucrose fills up liver glycogen quicker than starches. Sugar is especially useful first thing in the morning when the body is sluggish and insulin resistance is highest.

Skim-milk(good), potatoes(great!), beans and bread (booo)

As for beans, they contain indigestible substances which feed bacteria, and these bacteria release endotoxins in the process which are harmful. Especially if you're starting from an already compromised state, you're better off avoiding it. Wheat gluten promotes a leaky gut even if you're not celiac, which in turn worsens the endotoxin issues, since a lot of stuff now goes enters your body from your gut.

Ray Peat's ideas are kindof a generalization of say 80/10/10 and Paleo. Once Paleo/low carb/80-10-10/vegan don't work...

a diet based off orange-juice, ice-cream and coconut-oil doesn’t sound healthy to me.

That's a mischaracterization. OJ is merely the easiest available "fruit" for most people, if you have access to genuine tree-ripened fruit there's nothing better.
Ice-cream is more of a luxury, you'll put on weight if you eat too much!
You're not supposed to eat too much coconut oil either...

[misterE]

However sugar has a few benefits.

But it has some drawbacks that starch doesn’t have. For one, a fraction of the calories in sugar (30%) converts into triglycerides, which can contribute to atherosclerosis and insulin-resistance. Sugar doesn’t promote leptin-sensitivity like starch does (starch is more satisfying to the body than sugar). Also sugar is more palatable and easier to overeat.

First, starch can feed gut bacteria because it's just a bit slower to digest. Also sucrose fills up liver glycogen quicker than starches.

Starch (and fiber) feeds gut-bacteria that produce beneficial substances like acetate and butyrate, which defend against disease. Beans are a perfect example of this; beans are very high in resistant-starch and soluble-fiber which feeds the healthy gut-bacteria and acts like a probiotic.

Sugar is especially useful first thing in the morning when the body is sluggish and insulin resistance is highest.

I would agree here. In the morning your body is craving insulin big-time because your body was in an overnight fast. Another time sugar can be useful is after exercise. Adding a spoonful of brown-sugar to your morning oatmeal or drinking Gatorade after exercise isn’t problematic (and is probably helpful). The problem I see with Peats ideas; is that sugar should be the carbohydrate-staple of the diet (sugar should be emphasized over starch)… I think he has it backwards.

Wheat gluten promotes a leaky gut even if you're not celiac.

Can you list some citations for this? I always thought that having a leaky-gut allowed large proteins (like gluten or casein) to enter the body before being broken down completely. Having a healthy microflora-population in the intestines (by eating lots of starch and fiber) is essential for someone suffering from a leaky-gut.



Below is a video on youtube that I found of an independent-researcher who does a very good job critiquing Ray Peats controversial views on carbohydrates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onbFRioZel4

Edited by misterE, 08 September 2013 - 06:54 PM.

[Chupo]

Wheat gluten promotes a leaky gut even if you're not celiac.

Can you list some citations for this? I always thought that having a leaky-gut allowed large proteins (like gluten or casein) to enter the body before being broken down completely. Having a healthy microflora-population in the intestines (by eating lots of starch and fiber) is essential for someone suffering from a leaky-gut.

CONCLUSIONS:

Based on our results, we concluded that gliadin activates zonulin signaling irrespective of the genetic expression of autoimmunity, leading to increased intestinal permeability to macromolecules.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16635908



Here, at the 13.00 minute mark, Nora Gedgaudas discusses a patient who didn't have "leaky gut" or reactivity to wheat itself yet it still exacerbated a reactivity he had to eggs.

Edited by Chupo, 09 September 2013 - 02:09 PM.

[rwac]

But it has some drawbacks that starch doesn’t have. For one, a fraction of the calories in sugar (30%) converts into triglycerides, which can contribute to atherosclerosis and insulin-resistance. Sugar doesn’t promote leptin-sensitivity like starch does (starch is more satisfying to the body than sugar). Also sugar is more palatable and easier to overeat.

Actually, starch seems to promote overeating once you eat sugar all day. Sugar isn't that palatable at all once you're basing your diet on it. Eating some rice makes you hungrier. It's also easy to mistake bloating for satisfaction.

Starch (and fiber) feeds gut-bacteria that produce beneficial substances like acetate and butyrate, which defend against disease. Beans are a perfect example of this; beans are very high in resistant-starch and soluble-fiber which feeds the healthy gut-bacteria and acts like a probiotic.

Bacteria also produce bad substances like lactic acid and other immune reactive substances. Lactic acid is cleared by the liver and that is stressful on the liver. (Excess blood lactate is also considered a sign of stress)

[kismet]

Accidentally, I found his blog a few days ago. Unfortunately, a lot of it is humbug.

The best supported diet is still a Mediterranean-style diet with normal macros (30-40% fat, 1.x times protein RDA).

[misterE]

Actually, starch seems to promote overeating once you eat sugar all day. Sugar isn't that palatable at all once you're basing your diet on it. Eating some rice makes you hungrier.

I completely disagree. Sugar is much more palatable and easy to over consume. Just try to overeat on barley, or potatoes, or even white-rice. It is very hard to do because grains and other starches are very bulky (take up a lot of room in the stomach), induces insulin-secretion (which suppresses appetite) and tastes very bland (which makes eating them less enjoyable). Eating a starch-diet allows you to effectively shut-off the stress response and lower the catabolic-hormones involved, plus it allows you to practice calorie-restriction without ever restricting the amount of food (or the times) you eat (by lowering the calorie-density of the diet by 55%).



Sugar as a peripheral part of the diet (say some sugar in your cup of green-tea, or some jam on toast) is fine, but to eat a high-carbohydrate diet in the form of sugar (like Ray Peat does), in favor of a high-carbohydrate diet in the form of starch is foolish. No major population(s) of people have lived on a sugar-based diet to my knowledge. However most populations of people have traditionally lived on a starch based diet (with minor exceptions).





--rwac, will you post the abstract of the citation in reference to wheat-gluten causing leaky-gut please? I’m personally interested in this.


http://youtu.be/gpfPnlgnrJQ

Edited by misterE, 10 September 2013 - 11:29 PM.

[misterE]

The best supported diet is still a Mediterranean-style diet

There is no doubt that a Mediterranean-style diet is healthier than the rich American-diet, mainly in part because they incorporate much more whole-grains and legumes and excluded animal-fats and processed-foods. But the countries that surround the Mediterranean-sea still have much higher rates of obesity and related diseases, compared to the truly low-fat/starch-based diets of the Orientals; eating primarily rice with fish and vegetables.

[Adaptogen]

i remember reading that in one of the world's most supercentenarian dense islands, rice had never even reached them, so they consumed pretty much nothing but sweet potatoes, fish, vegetables, and homemade wine.

[misterE]

Okinawa.

Edited by misterE, 11 September 2013 - 02:18 AM.

[DAMI]

Accidentally, I found his blog a few days ago. Unfortunately, a lot of it is humbug.

The best supported diet is still a Mediterranean-style diet with normal macros (30-40% fat, 1.x times protein RDA).

What would be the supposedly detrimental effects of eating even more fat at the expense of carbs?

[kismet]

There is no doubt that a Mediterranean-style diet is healthier than the rich American-diet, mainly in part because they incorporate much more whole-grains and legumes and excluded animal-fats and processed-foods. But the countries that surround the Mediterranean-sea still have much higher rates of obesity and related diseases, compared to the truly low-fat/starch-based diets of the Orientals; eating primarily rice with fish and vegetables.

And Japan has the highest life expectancy of any reasonably large country. Nonetheless it does not follow that all their dietary habits are healthy (eg salt consumption). Looking at the best evidence, we do find strong support for high intakes of olive oil. I discuss the recently published PREDIMED study at my second link.

What would be the supposedly detrimental effects of eating even more fat at the expense of carbs?

Not much, necessarily. In fact, there are a few reasons to go higher or lower.

In the end you'll want to balance the consumption of olive oil/nuts (fat sources) vs fruits, veggies, legumes, etc. At some point you will benefit more from adding fruits, etc. than upping intake of olive oil due to the law of diminishing returns.

Edited by kismet, 11 September 2013 - 12:06 PM.