Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Primal with MOAR Peat: Food & Hormone Discussion (Ray Peat Followers)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Elliot View Post
    Cutting out the unsaturated fats should be beneficial in the long term. Cruciferous vegetables cans suppress the thyroid, though if you cook them well that can be minimized.
    I'm a bit confused about cutting out fish. Isn't the omega 3 PUFA good for minimizing harm caused by omega 6 PUFA?
    I'm concerned about the nutrients and vitamins I'd be missing ut on by cutting Cruciferous veggies too.

    Originally posted by TQP View Post
    A few additional notes:

    -if you are trying to lose weight, peat recommends cutting fat over cutting carbs. Also, try to cut fat lower as you are increasing carb intake during the primal-to-peat transition to prevent prevent eating too many calories and result in weight gain. I personally think tracking macros at first is helpful because not eating MOAR fat all the time is counterintuitive after significant time on primal.

    A good way to do this is actually to eat lower fat dairy. Cottage cheese at 1-2% fat, low fat milk are a popular choices with peaters.

    Also advised against is the consumption of too much added cooking fat. Get your fats naturally from eggs, beef, lamb, dairy, etc.

    - lean tuna should be fine. The kind I get is almost all lean protein.

    -chicken/pork fat is not recommended. Ruminants like lamb/beef is much preferred over chicken/pork as frequent consumption choices.

    -peat recommends pairing gelatin/bone broth with all muscle meat consumption to reduce cortisol levels resulting from consuming an unbalanced amino acid profile (eg proline vs glycine). Peat favors liver/other oogly bits and gelatinous cuts of animal way over muscle meat in general.

    -peat favors monomeals if you have stomach/digestion problems

    -peat favors the fruits over starches (rice/tubers/etc) as the predominant carb source.

    -other supplementation if desired: niacin, vitamin D, vitamin E (to help convert unsaturated fat into saturated fat), raw carrot a day for digestion/health/weightloss, etc.
    Thanks for the info TQP!

    I have a few questions however.
    Is there a preferred ruminant or non-ruminant animal?
    Like is beef better than lamb? Other way around? Is turkey better than chicken? Is duck better than pork? Etc

    Are there any specific cuts to look out for when buying meat?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by khi9999 View Post
      1. I'm a bit confused about cutting out fish. Isn't the omega 3 PUFA good for minimizing harm caused by omega 6 PUFA?
      2.I'm concerned about the nutrients and vitamins I'd be missing ut on by cutting Cruciferous veggies too.



      Thanks for the info TQP!

      I have a few questions however.
      3.Is there a preferred ruminant or non-ruminant animal?
      Like is beef better than lamb? Other way around? Is turkey better than chicken? Is duck better than pork? Etc

      4.Are there any specific cuts to look out for when buying meat?
      1. O3 is unnecessary if you reduce o6 way way down. If you eat mostly (somewhat lean) ruminants and dairy/coconut, you will be eating very little o-6. Plus, vitamin E will help saturate the o-6.

      2. Veggies are a poor source of *Absorbable* nutrition. Most of veggie nutrients are pooped out since the transfer process between the stomach lining and the bloodstream is very poor, and then the body needs to convert the plant forms of most absorbed nutrients (e.g. Beta carotene, etc) into an animal-useable form (e.g. Into vitamin E). Between the low efficiency rates of these two processes, the amount of nutrient you get from veggies aside from fiber is very very little. Basically... Eat grassfed dairy, ruminants, eggs, lean seafood and liver for your nutrients. Veggies should only be eaten if you enjoy them or for some other reason than vitamin/mineral intake.

      Broccoli is a poor source of pretty much anything useful. For example, the iron content might be decently high, but it's all non-heme iron which is way less absorbable than heme iron found in red meat.


      3. Not sure. I just know peat prefers lamb & beef over chicken and pork. I think pork is slightly better than chicken, just because he's okay with bacon if fried in coconut oil semi-daily, but advises not to eat chicken more than once every 10 ish days. I would personally not worry about it too much... Just buy lamb/beef to eat at home and then if you crave chicken/pork when you are out, go for it. That's what I do.

      Also, I don't see the harm in eating super lean turkey/chicken/pork occasionally, since peat advises limiting them due to o-6 content.

      4. Gelatinous cuts: neckbones/oxtail for stew, anything sinewy for stews, etc. Just more of an emphasis on eating OTHER parts of the animal than just steak steak steak on primal. Also, peat loves grassfed beef liver.
      JOURNAL..
      @BabesWithBBQ.
      Gelatin/bone broth recipes blog.
      Professional Style Website.
      #TeamBrisket Shirts

      Comment


      • Originally posted by khi9999 View Post
        I'm a bit confused about cutting out fish. Isn't the omega 3 PUFA good for minimizing harm caused by omega 6 PUFA?
        I'm concerned about the nutrients and vitamins I'd be missing ut on by cutting Cruciferous veggies too.
        khi9999, you are correct about the Omega 3 PUFA. Do not cut cold water fish out of your diet. Aside from balancing out Omega 6 PUFAs, the DHA/EPA (the omega-3 fats in cold water fish) is what your brain is made of. It's what mentally separates us from our chimp cousins. I disagree with Elliot on this point.

        I agree with Elliot that cooking mitigates the thyroid robbing characteristics of cruciferous veggies. Raw cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, etc will do more harm than good. If you like the crunch, just lightly cook, but do cook them.
        Stop by to visit at http://primalways.net
        Old Paths ... New Journeys

        Comment


        • Originally posted by John Caton View Post
          khi9999, you are correct about the Omega 3 PUFA. Do not cut cold water fish out of your diet. Aside from balancing out Omega 6 PUFAs, the DHA/EPA (the omega-3 fats in cold water fish) is what your brain is made of. It's what mentally separates us from our chimp cousins. I disagree with Elliot on this point.
          Omega-3 fat accumulates in our brain, but that does not imply it is beneficial for our brain.

          Plaque accumulates in arteries. Does that mean plaque is beneficial for arteries?
          Mercury accumulates in fish. Does that mean mercury is beneficial for fish?
          Dirt accumulates on the bottom of my feet. Does that mean dirt is beneficial for the bottom of my feet?

          The way to determine if something is beneficial is to feed it to people in a controlled experiment and observe what happens. Inferring that it must be beneficial, based on the body's ability to accumulate or excrete it, is just speculation.
          Last edited by Elliot; 01-04-2015, 08:25 AM.
          My opinions and some justification

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Elliot View Post
            Omega-3 fat accumulates in our brain, but that does not imply it is beneficial for our brain.

            Plaque accumulates in arteries. Does that mean plaque is beneficial for arteries?
            Mercury accumulates in fish. Does that mean mercury is beneficial for fish?
            Dirt accumulates on the bottom of my feet. Does that mean dirt is beneficial for the bottom of my feet?

            The way to determine if something is beneficial is to feed it to people in a controlled experiment and observe what happens. Inferring that it must be beneficial, based on the body's ability to accumulate or excrete it, is just speculation.
            Are you saying that the brain's grey matter is nothing but an accumulation? Cellular membranes of grey matter are primarily composed of DHA, an omega-3 fatty acid. Readily available from cold water fish and shell fish.
            Stop by to visit at http://primalways.net
            Old Paths ... New Journeys

            Comment


            • Originally posted by John Caton View Post
              Are you saying that the brain's grey matter is nothing but an accumulation? Cellular membranes of grey matter are primarily composed of DHA, an omega-3 fatty acid. Readily available from cold water fish and shell fish.
              Yes, it is just an accumulation. To show that omega-3 fatty acids are beneficial, you would need to perform a controlled experiment in which one group receives omega-3 fatty acids and the other group receives a placebo. We've done experiments like that. Here's one:
              European Journal of Clinical Nutrition - Lack of benefit of dietary advice to men with angina: results of a controlled trial
              Risk of cardiac death was higher among subjects advised to take oily fish than among those not so advised; the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.26 (95% confidence interval 1.00, 1.58; P=0.047), and even greater for sudden cardiac death (1.54; 95% CI 1.06, 2.23; P=0.025).
              Meanwhile, people with Alzheimer's tend to have more acrolein in their brains than healthy people. Acrolein is generally recognized to be toxic, partly by inhibiting glucose metabolism. Impaired glucose metabolism in the brain is a symptom of Alzheimer's. Acrolein is produced when unsaturated fats break down. DHA in the brain would be a perfect precursor for acrolein.

              Furthermore, DHA only accumulates in the brains of people who eat omega-3 fatty acids. They can't be produced endogenously. So this claim that grey matter is primarily composed of DHA only applies to people who are eating it.
              My opinions and some justification

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TQP View Post
                1. O3 is unnecessary if you reduce o6 way way down. If you eat mostly (somewhat lean) ruminants and dairy/coconut, you will be eating very little o-6. Plus, vitamin E will help saturate the o-6.

                2. Veggies are a poor source of *Absorbable* nutrition. Most of veggie nutrients are pooped out since the transfer process between the stomach lining and the bloodstream is very poor, and then the body needs to convert the plant forms of most absorbed nutrients (e.g. Beta carotene, etc) into an animal-useable form (e.g. Into vitamin E). Between the low efficiency rates of these two processes, the amount of nutrient you get from veggies aside from fiber is very very little. Basically... Eat grassfed dairy, ruminants, eggs, lean seafood and liver for your nutrients. Veggies should only be eaten if you enjoy them or for some other reason than vitamin/mineral intake.

                Broccoli is a poor source of pretty much anything useful. For example, the iron content might be decently high, but it's all non-heme iron which is way less absorbable than heme iron found in red meat.


                3. Not sure. I just know peat prefers lamb & beef over chicken and pork. I think pork is slightly better than chicken, just because he's okay with bacon if fried in coconut oil semi-daily, but advises not to eat chicken more than once every 10 ish days. I would personally not worry about it too much... Just buy lamb/beef to eat at home and then if you crave chicken/pork when you are out, go for it. That's what I do.

                Also, I don't see the harm in eating super lean turkey/chicken/pork occasionally, since peat advises limiting them due to o-6 content.

                4. Gelatinous cuts: neckbones/oxtail for stew, anything sinewy for stews, etc. Just more of an emphasis on eating OTHER parts of the animal than just steak steak steak on primal. Also, peat loves grassfed beef liver.
                Thanks TQP. I'll start buying some different cuts and less poultry/pork.

                Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                Yes, it is just an accumulation. To show that omega-3 fatty acids are beneficial, you would need to perform a controlled experiment in which one group receives omega-3 fatty acids and the other group receives a placebo. We've done experiments like that. Here's one:
                European Journal of Clinical Nutrition - Lack of benefit of dietary advice to men with angina: results of a controlled trial


                Meanwhile, people with Alzheimer's tend to have more acrolein in their brains than healthy people. Acrolein is generally recognized to be toxic, partly by inhibiting glucose metabolism. Impaired glucose metabolism in the brain is a symptom of Alzheimer's. Acrolein is produced when unsaturated fats break down. DHA in the brain would be a perfect precursor for acrolein.

                Furthermore, DHA only accumulates in the brains of people who eat omega-3 fatty acids. They can't be produced endogenously. So this claim that grey matter is primarily composed of DHA only applies to people who are eating it.
                So you're saying essentially is what Ray Peat is saying, all PUFA, omega 3 or omega 6, is bad and should be avoided.

                Comment


                • I can't figure out if the thread died or if there is a glitch but my computer seems to be stuck on page 219 and I cant get past it. Feels like Groundhog Day.

                  Anyway, if it is still breathing, I'd love to talk a little about eating high carb (with the bulk coming from fruit) and people with high disposition to diabetes. Also, how are people who are a little ................ ummm ............. older doing with this type of eating? Especially overweight people with some age. And female? I'm not female but asking questions for both myself and my wife.

                  Anyway, I 'm doing some searching and reading and thought maybe some conversation here would be helpful .............. for me.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                    Yes, it is just an accumulation. To show that omega-3 fatty acids are beneficial, you would need to perform a controlled experiment in which one group receives omega-3 fatty acids and the other group receives a placebo. We've done experiments like that. Here's one:
                    European Journal of Clinical Nutrition - Lack of benefit of dietary advice to men with angina: results of a controlled trial
                    You do realize that this is essentially only as good as epidemiology (and maybe not even that good) right? I can appreciate the difficulty to produce significant statistically significant facts in long term dietary studies. Really I can. But this is not even enough to dispute the data that they recognize in the introduction....

                    "Various dietary factors appear to influence the mortality and morbidity of ischaemic heart disease (IHD). The evidence for a protective effect of fish oil is principally derived from two controlled trials (Burr et al 1989; GISSI-Prevenzione Investigators, 1999), several cohort studies (Marckmann & Grønbæk, 1999), and a body of animal experiments (McLennan & Charnock, 1988; Charnock 1994; Billman et al, 1997). The overall conclusion is that marine n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reduce mortality among persons at high risk of death from IHD, particularly patients who have recently recovered from myocardial infarction (MI), and that this effect is probably mediated by a reduction in the incidence of fatal arrhythmia."

                    Definitely consider scanning down and reading the whole study. The authors lay out 6 viable explanations for why the fish/fish oil group suffered a slightly higher mortality...none of which are associated with increased O3 intake and all need be considered.

                    "The higher incidence of cardiac and sudden death associated with fish advice was wholly unexpected. There are six possible explanations that should be considered.

                    1 It may have arisen by chance. Misleading associations can always occur, and the reported P values do not necessarily require rejection of the null hypothesis if a Bayesian approach is taken, taking prior evidence into account (Sterne & Davey Smith, 2001). Nevertheless it is prudent to consider other possibilities.
                    2 Fish or fish oil may have an adverse effect in angina patients. No previous study (observational or interventional) specifically addressed this group, so such an effect cannot be wholly excluded. However, the DART and GISSI-Prevenzione studies give no evidence of an adverse effect after the immediate post-MI period, when many of the subjects are likely to have had stable angina. Fish appeared to be protective in a Dutch cohort of elderly people, 19% of whom initially had angina (Kromhout et al, 1995). An adverse effect of fish oil as distinct from dietary fish is unlikely: GISSI-Prevenzione used fish oil, and in DART the effects of fish oil and dietary fish were similar (Burr et al, 1994). It is difficult to see how fish or fish oil could be protective after MI and in other high-risk groups but harmful in patients with angina.
                    3 Some contaminant of fish or fish oil could be responsible. A study in Finland showed an excess risk of MI associated with the concentration of mercury in hair and with the intake of fish, which was apparently contaminated with mercury (Salonen et al, 1995). Other toxic contaminants such as dioxin and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) can be found in fish. However, the Finnish study related to non-fatty fish from locally polluted inland waters, whereas this study concerned mainly saltwater fatty fish. Levels of dioxins and PCBs in inland waters, estuaries and seas have declined during recent decades, leading to a substantial reduction in the concentrations found in fish and other foods, so that the average UK dietary exposure has fallen by about 75% since 1982 (Liem & Theelen, 1997; Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1997; Food Standards Agency, 2001). The fish oil preparation in this study was derived from fish in the southern hemisphere, where pollution is particularly low, so it is likely to have made only a minor contribution to the daily intake of these contaminants.
                    4 Fish oil could interact adversely with drugs taken by angina patients. There are other examples of common foods that are beneficial in themselves but have potentially adverse interactions with drugs (eg grapefruit juice with calcium-channel blockers, green vegetables with warfarin). There was no evidence of such interactions; indeed, beta-blockers appeared to interact favourably with fish in this study.
                    5 The taking of fish oil may modify the patient's treatment. It is possible that men who took three large capsules daily were disinclined to take additional capsules or tablets. Their doctors may even have tended not to prescribe further medication in the belief that it would interfere with the trial, despite instructions to the contrary. It is noteworthy that the effect was confined to the second phase of the trial, when a higher proportion of subjects were issued with capsules, and greater in those subrandomized to capsules. Information about medication was obtained on all patients at entry to the trial, after 6 months, and at the end; there were no clear differences between the randomized groups' drug usage, but 6 months was probably too short an interval for such an effect to occur, while the data at the end of the trial related only to the survivors. Thus although there is no evidence that treatment was affected, it is still a possibility.
                    6 If people believe that taking certain capsules greatly reduces the danger of death from heart disease, they may feel at liberty to increase their risk-taking behaviour in relation to issues such as diet, lifestyle, and compliance with treatment. The phenomenon of risk compensation is well documented in other contexts (Richens et al, 2000), and there is no reason to suppose that patients with angina would be immune from it. Furthermore, these men are likely to have a different perception of risk from that of patients recovering from a life-threatening MI, who were the subjects in the DART and GISSI-Prevenzione studies."
                    Last edited by Neckhammer; 06-22-2015, 07:23 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jacksson View Post
                      I can't figure out if the thread died or if there is a glitch but my computer seems to be stuck on page 219 and I cant get past it. Feels like Groundhog Day.

                      Anyway, if it is still breathing, I'd love to talk a little about eating high carb (with the bulk coming from fruit) and people with high disposition to diabetes. Also, how are people who are a little ................ ummm ............. older doing with this type of eating? Especially overweight people with some age. And female? I'm not female but asking questions for both myself and my wife.

                      Anyway, I 'm doing some searching and reading and thought maybe some conversation here would be helpful .............. for me.
                      Fanatic Cook: High-Carb, Low-Fat Diet For Diabetes

                      It works in reversing Diabetes type 2...

                      (The original study: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/29/8/1777.full)
                      CONCLUSIONS—Both a low-fat vegan diet and a diet based on ADA guidelines improved glycemic and lipid control in type 2 diabetic patients. These improvements were greater with a low-fat vegan diet.
                      http://www.medpagetoday.com/Columns/At-Large/31400
                      JOURNAL..
                      @BabesWithBBQ.
                      Gelatin/bone broth recipes blog.
                      Professional Style Website.
                      #TeamBrisket Shirts

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                        You do realize that this is essentially only as good as epidemiology (and maybe not even that good) right? I can appreciate the difficulty to produce significant statistically significant facts in long term dietary studies. Really I can. But this is not even enough to dispute the data that they recognize in the introduction....Definitely consider scanning down and reading the whole study. The authors lay out 6 viable explanations for why the fish/fish oil group suffered a slightly higher mortality...none of which are associated with increased O3 intake and all need be considered.

                        "Various dietary factors appear to influence the mortality and morbidity of ischaemic heart disease (IHD). The evidence for a protective effect of fish oil is principally derived from two controlled trials (Burr et al 1989; GISSI-Prevenzione Investigators, 1999), several cohort studies (Marckmann & Grønbæk, 1999), and a body of animal experiments (McLennan & Charnock, 1988; Charnock 1994; Billman et al, 1997). The overall conclusion is that marine n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reduce mortality among persons at high risk of death from IHD, particularly patients who have recently recovered from myocardial infarction (MI), and that this effect is probably mediated by a reduction in the incidence of fatal arrhythmia."
                        That's why we need to look at all such studies and see the overall trend. I posted this one as an example.

                        In the past, in debate, I've posted all relevant links to a topic, so someone could read them and develop a full understanding on the topic. But I've found that people usually just skip over them because it's too much work to read it all. Perhaps I should go back to doing that.
                        My opinions and some justification

                        Comment


                        • I know a debate is going on here about other things, but given that the title of the thread mentions hormones and it seems that Peat is a dairy fan, I wanted to ask a question.

                          I have always been told that dairy is quite a source of hormones which may not be so great to be taking in in large quantities. And I mean even organic dairy, because there is hormones in the milk for the baby cow. So does Peat have any opinion on whether or not this is a safe thing?

                          Comment


                          • Does anyone here supplement NONI juice or capsules?
                            @goodiesforme

                            Comment


                            • So, what I am gathering is, it seems that weight loss can be achieved with low carb and higher fat OR higher carb and low fat. So I want to give this a shot for me and mostly for my wife. I know she struggles with a meat-centric diet and hoping that eating more fruit and not restricting carbs so much will be easier for her to maintain over time.

                              I have been experimenting with it and although I am not craving fat, it is hard to change my mindset about what a meal looks like. So if I start off with eggs I have to be careful about lunch or I wont be able to have meat at dinner or I will go too high on fat. On the days I plan well it is no big deal. So we are going to give it a shot for a month to start and see how we feel about it.

                              When we say HCLF vs. HFLC my assumption is we are referring to a way of eating over time. But when I have restricted carbs, at least at the beginning I needed to be really strict or weight wouldnt come off. If I cheated a little, nothing would happen. If I went for it 100% for a few weeks and got things going, I could then cheat here and there and still keep losing weight. In fact, a lot of people talk about a carb re-feed at some point.

                              So is it the same the other way around? If I am going to eat HCLF, do I need to go really tight for a while before I have a high fat day? Obviously I am just talking about while we are trying to lose fat. My hope is that this is a easier way to continue eating after weight loss goals are met. But I got to thinking about it because I have a birthday coming and work peeps are going to want to take me out for lunch. Then we will of course have some sort of ridiculous bbq on the weekend. So does having a day where I just want to destroy some bbq halt whatever it is I am achieving with the high carb diet?

                              Generally speaking I am fine with a smoothie or some fruit and cottage cheese in the morning during the week and some eggs/omelette on the weekend. Lunch can alternate between smoothie or fruit and leftover meat from the night before and dinner will mostly look like a traditional dinner. Meat or seafood with veggies, potato or whatever or maybe some sort of one dish meal like a soup or stew, casserole, etc. My assumption is once I reach goals, I can have those leftovers a little more often but not go crazy on fat.

                              Comment


                              • I finally read a whole thread

                                So I totally changed my diet and right now it is almost 10 days of eating more in a Peat style. Before that I was more into low carb (but not zero carb).
                                I am still struggling with fruits since I have a strong belief that fructose in overdose is bad. Knowing that liver can handle about only 100 g of glycogen I am in dilemma while eating a whole melon for breakfast (90g of carbs).
                                I rather choose starches than fruit and then again I have a second thought about my food choices
                                I mostly eat melons, apples, bananas, buckwheat groats, oats, rice, curd or cottage cheese (light), coffe no milk, no added sugars, no fatty food, 2-3 eggs daily, chicken breast, beef, lots of gelatin, cocoa powder, whey after training...
                                I do weightlifting 3-4 times a week. I ride a bicycle for daily business. I am an active person.

                                So I still have some more questions:

                                1. If I have a muscle meat for a lunch without gelatin, is it okay if I eat gelatin later at dinner or does it have to be applied directly to that muscle meat at lunch? Can I balance gelatin doses at the end of the day? Something like IIFYM principle...?

                                2. What is the difference if I eat 2 oranges instead of drinking OJ? You all only drink OJ but does anyone here eat oranges as a whole fruit?

                                3. I read a lot that melon should be eaten mono. Would it be still mono meal if I combine it with gelatin coffee (no milk, no added sugar)?

                                4. I am thinking to have all fats of the day at the breakfast (eggs) and than try not to have more. I guess that is okay?

                                5. Chicken meat without skin - safe choice? I eat a lot of chicken/turkey but always breast... no skin.

                                6. I eat a lot of curd. I see it almost the same as a cottage cheese. Am I correct? I always buy light versions.

                                Thank you all for helping me come out of dilemma storm.

                                TQP - you are the best. Like many here I also think that without your writing many of us girls would be still lost and desperate in low carb plateau zone.

                                This is my form right now. I would like to get a little bit leaner. And so again I get these second thoughts about fructose. Do you have any kind words to encourage me to eat more fruit and less starch? I hope you understand that being two years deeply in low carb has some consequences...

                                @goodiesforme

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X