Ray Peat – Thyroid

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0

“Now that our public health establishment has eliminated smoking from public places, maybe they can find a way to reduce stress and disease by removing morons from positions of power.”
~Ray Peat

Not sure what that first quote has to do with the thyroid exactly, but it is awesome. Dr. Ray does coincidentally rhyme with Dr. Dre. He sounds pretty gangsta in that quote. Check yo’self fools!

If you had to summarize Peat’s primary objective in terms of his anti-aging, health problem management strategy – it would be to maximize what to him is a true evolutionary advancement – a high thyroid-generated metabolism (as opposed to like, a high amphetamine metabolism). This, in and of itself, would eliminate many health problems. But because of the thyroid hormones’ basic properties, they have a role of incalculable importance to play with the reduction of the stress and inflammation pathway of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis as well. Stress hormones and inflammation are well-known to contribute to just about every health problem known. Interestingly, thyroid hormone appears to be one of the primary governors of our response to stress, and is therefore a powerful anti-stress hormone because of it.

In fact, if you read this on how to raise your metabolism, you’ll notice in physician Henry Bieler’s description of the “adrenal type,” that many of those traits are attributable to high thyroid, not necessarily “strong adrenals” or whatever Bieler may have been attributing those characteristics to.

Anyway, here are some of the quotes I gathered from his books. They are quite revealing. We’ll discuss quite a bit more about the thyroid throughout the rest of Ray May, which is heating up! Get it? Thyroid? Heating up? Oh well, I try. Imagine how silly I’ll be once I’m eating Jello.

“Selye’s work with the diseases of stress, and the anti-stress hormones of the adrenal cortex, helped many scientists to think more clearly about the interaction of the organism with its environment, but it has led others to focus too narrowly on hormones of the adrenal cortex (such as cortisol and cortisone), and to forget the older knowledge about natural resistance. There are probably only a few physicians now practicing who would remember to check for hypothyroidism in an arthritis patient, or in other stress-related conditions. Hypothyroidism is a common cause of adrenal insufficiency, but it also has some direct effects on joint tissues. In chronic hypothyroidism (myxedema and cretinism), knees and elbows are often bent abnormally.

By the 1930’s, it was well established that the resistance of the organism depended on the energy produced by respiration under the influence of the thyroid gland, as well as on the adrenal hormones, and that the hormones of pregnancy (especially progesterone) could substitute for the adrenal hormones. In a sense, the thyroid hormone is the basic anti-stress hormone, since it is required for the production of the adrenal and pregnancy hormones.”

“Thyroid hormone is necessary for respiration on the cellular level, and makes possible all higher biological functions. Without the metabolic efficiency which is promoted by thyroid hormone, life couldn’t get much beyond the single-cell stage. Without adequate thyroid, we become sluggish, clumsy, cold, anemic, and subject to infections, heart disease, headaches, cancer, and many other diseases, and seem to be prematurely aged, because none of our tissues can function normally. Besides providing the respiratory energy which is essential to life, thyroid hormones seem to stimulate and direct protein synthesis.

In hypothyroidism there is little stomach acid, and other digestive juices (and even intestinal movement) are inadequate, so gas and constipation are common. Foods aren’t assimilated well, so even on a seemingly adequate diet there is ‘internal malnutrition.’ Magnesium is poorly absorbed, and a magnesium deficiency can lead to irritability, blood clots, vascular spasms and angina pectoris, and many other problems. Heart attacks, hardening of the arteries, and both high and low blood pressure can be caused by hypothyroidism.”

“One of the thyroid hormone’s important functions is to improve digestion and bowel health.”




  1. Ray has simply gone to the opposite extreme as the mainstream zealots and is just as wrong. We should eliminate nuts, seeds, whole grains, most vegetables (esp raw or above-ground), chicken & turkey skin fatty fish, fis eggs, and so on because of the dastardly pufas they contain. It's as stupid as saying "don't drink coffee because it will raise cortisol" and "don't drink alcohol because it will raise estrogen." It's simple-minded arm chair & test tube science, book smarts, looking at diet in isolation, blaming new scapegoats.

  2. Forgot beans. Don't eat beans ever, because they contain at least two grams of pufas per pound. All modern diseases result from eating whole grains, beans, nuts, seeds, poultry skin, fatty fish, etc. Eat only the short list of food Ray Peat approves of, it will make life simpler by not having to think. Just ignore contradictory data, like Ray. The pufas in fresh whole grains, beans, poultry, fish, nuts, and seeds are as rancid, damaged, and toxic as those in a botte of corn oil or a tub of crisco or that has been re-used in the fast food fryer all day long.

    What bad things will happen if we eat a variety of foods, mostly unrefined, not eliminating foods or ranking them by pufas, fat grams, or carbs?

    • If you study Ray’s work, he does not go opposite of what others are saying necessarily, he uses legitimate scientific studies and recommends foods based on how your body functions. What he doesn’t do is what a lot of the so called health gurus in this industry do, and that’s recommend foods based on just their nutrient profile alone, while ignoring how those foods actually affect and react in your body. I have been using ray peats suggestions to successfully overcome an autoimmune disease, and have been using them to help a couple clients that have health issues get their thyroid back to running optimally. His style of eating does limit your options to a point but most people eat the same thing day in day out anyways. So far his eating style is the only one i have seen real clinical health improvements from. Paleo seemed to cause 3 of my clients more problems than good and about 80% of my clients couldn’t follow a low carb high carb rotation eating style. If you want to up-regulate your thyroid i would give his suggestions a shot. if they don’t help within 2-3 months stop following them keep it simple and if you want real results don’t just follow part of what he says then when it doesn’t work say his way doesn’t work. Follow his suggestions to a tee. here is a link to his general guide lines http://www.raypeatforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=30
      the only thing missing from it is pickling salt that he also recommends. start with a teaspoon throughout the day and you can go up as high as 3 if needed. use your pulse and body temp. as a guideline

  3. from what i can gather ray peat has very fragile thyroid function. i think he was hyperthyroid when he was younger. he is trying to understand how to improve thyroid function as much as possible and for himself as much as anyone reading. he is not trying to sell you a diet.

  4. @Mercury He's gone the opposite way but I think rather than thinking in terms of right and wrong, the thought should be "both and." They are emphasizing different systems by which up regulate health. Peat is looking at a thyroid centric view of health. Paleo is looking at a digestive centric view of health. I'm pretty sure paleo will be tested and found inadequate if it keeps to its bubble. That's not to say it won't help most people. I think it will. It'll be inadequate in that it will not help everyone & it currently does not have the framework to explain that. We need multiple tools in our belt. Mr. Peat has a viable alternative.

  5. I think paleo dieters look at health from the standpoint of matching environment to genes. For them, a mismatch results in disease. For Peat, energy transfer (glucose being pulled through organism) builds structure, and a lack of energy will result in disease, or changes in the structure. I think Peat might think of health problems as a mismatch between the organism's expectations for energy use and the actual energy use, accounting for toxins (PUFA, culture) and other signal disruptors. Modern science is starting to look at these energy 'expecations,', calling the process epigenetics.

  6. Ray makes some pretty extraordinary claims. For instance, the one that fish oil is bad because it is PUFA and it will bring spermatozoa count to 0 and so on…. While lot of people now promote PUFAs as bad for health cuz of pro-inflammatory pathways and cuz of easy oxidation, I don't see many scientist claiming fish oil is that bad, that is, there are bunch of problems that fish oil improves – bipolar disorders, depression, imflamation (COX2 inhibitor), adhd and so on… the list is fascinating. So it looks like citation bias regarding to fish oils.

    Also, there is virtually no food that doesn't contain PUFAs in some amounts.

    He also thinks vitamins are bad, except Vitamin E, which is strange given that one of his books has 'orthomoleculary' in the title.

    On the other hand, some stuff Ray Peat writes are really intriguing… I like the fact that somebody is finally giving priority to thyroid gland.

  7. Ray's diet is highly artificial and may cause other imbalances or weaknesses. He is as blindered as Ornish and Fuhrman, he just goes to an opposite extreme of food phobias and denial. He helps to balance the other side and brings up some good points, but overall he's shallow and biased.

    Ray extrapolates from rat studies that aren't even using actual foods like full-fat red meat, bone-in skin-on poultry, whole eggs, fatty pork, rich milk, fat and lean seafood, nuts, seeds, beans, grains, fruits, and vegetables. Most studies use damaged and refined fats, proteins, and carbs. The results only apply to those foods. But Ray just dismisses the scientific method when it suits his biases and blames PUFAs, starch, and other substances. His claim that starch caused the obesity epidemic is like the zero-carbers who say the only way folks lose weight on diets is by eating less carbs. Yeah, Fuhrman and McDougall are actually a low-carb (or lower-carb) diet in disguise. LOL

  8. Mercury, did you see a list of daily foods on Ray's website? His articles are discussions, not directives. How is his diet artificial?

  9. I can understand that some people crave nuts occasionally. I don't think there is any harm for that. Nuts are salty, and their craving of nuts could reflect their body's requirement for salt.

    And there are nuts which are in the low end of the PUFA scale. Think of macadamia nuts, hazelnuts, and cashews. They don't have much PUFA's, so an occasional treat won't do much harm.

    So if you don't want to follow Jannis' advice of avoiding nuts entirely, then at least choose the nuts which are in the low end of PUFA's. Macadamias are the best. Followed by hazelnuts and cashews.

    ☑ One cup of macadamia nuts has 2 grams of PUFA's. ☺
    ☑ One cup of hazelnuts have 9 grams of PUFA's.
    ☑ One cup of cashews have 9 grams of PUFA's.
    ☐ One cup of walnuts have 55 grams of PUFA's. ☹

    But vegetables? Think of above-ground vegetables such as spinach, cabbage, and broccoli. Do you ever think of anyone who craves those vegetables? Yes, but that is likely the result of a habit, rather than a genuine craving. They each spinach and broccoli out of habit; they think they are good for you. It's not caused by a genuine craving.

    Look at children. Do children crave much spinach or broccoli? No. They are usually disgusted by them. Usually, the only time that they would eat them is when their parents force them to do so. ☹ Otherwise, they won't eat any of them.

    Maybe some do crave spinach and broccoli, beacuse they are a rich source of potassium. But if alternative sources of potassium foods are available, such as fruits, potatoes, or root vegetables, do you still think spinach would be a priority to them?

    IMO, saying that "vegetables should be in a balanced diet" is missing the point.

    Yes, Ray Peat was wrong that vegetables have large quantities of PUFA's. According to CRON-o-Meter, every vegetable that has less than 5% of their Calories as PUFA's. And vegetables, in themselves, are a poor source of Calories, so I don't think you would have a problem with PUFA's regardless of how much you eat. You could eat several pounds of above-ground vegetables, and the PUFA's would still be negligible.

    Ray Peat was wrong that "vegetables are high in PUFA's." I think that the argument that "vegetables are high in PUFA's" was just a rationalization against vegetables rather than a real argument. The reason that vegetables are unnecessarily because people don't crave them. Ray Peat, in this sense, supports intuitive eating.

    → Claiming that Ray Peat was "wrong" that vegetables are high in PUFA's is missing the point. ←

    Every food has benefits/drawbacks. For instance, potatoes have glycoalkaloids, read meat has iron, and cruciferous vegetables have goitrogens.

    But still I think it's important to understand how different foods have different drawbacks, so we could find a ways to minimize them. If you understand that potatoes have glycoalkaloids, you could peel them.¹ If you understand that red meat has iron, then you could drink coffee or green tea with red meat,² to reduce the absorption the iron. If you understand that cruciferous vegetables have goitrogens, then you could boil them for 30 minutes to eliminate its goitrogens.³

    But it all comes down to preference. Some people like to eat nuts or seeds, because they feel like it and could care less about their longevity. They know that nuts may be harmful, and are just eating them for pleasure, like how people occasionally drink beer for social reasons. So I if I see someone eating nuts or seeds, I won't judge them to be "ignorant" about how the PUFA's in nuts or seeds are harmful. There is no reason to be offended by my criticism. I still respect your dietary freedom (Eat the Food™) and I won't judge you if you eat the "unhealthy" foods.

    1. Stephan Guyenet
    2. Google "caffeine iron absorption."

  10. Mercury,
    Did you ever read only one of his articles or check his references? Everything you have said so far is not true. Peat doesn't say that starch per se is responsible for the opesity epidemic, nor does he say that you should avoid grains and beans only beause of their PUFA content. He doesn't promote an artifical diet, either and wants people to eat whole foods like some of those you mentioned above. You are just repeating the things you have heard from other people, without knowing anything about the topic yourself. Peat only cites artificial rat studies, bla bla bla
    Go and read some of his arguments and references before you waste so many words with your nonsense, please.

  11. If there is such a thing as a 'Ray Peat Diet,' I bet it's not only highly palatable but nutritious as well. Beef, pork, chicken, buffalo, fish, shrimp, oysters, milk, cheese, potatoes, tortillas, ice cream, custard, mashmallows, and candy are just some of the things that are good to eat.

  12. Is it even possible to recover from hypothyrodism without medication?

  13. Mercury,
    Very good points. I have come to the same conclusion with Peat. He is not a practitioner, he is a theorist and his conclusions didn't work for me.

    Andrew & Jannis,
    Mercury is BruceK/Ian. He knows more than anybody what Peat's theories and recommendations are.

    Nice post, you explained the points well.

  14. El, I would love to know this, too! Seems like the more I follow dietary advice to imrpove thyroid (yes, coconut oil, no gluten, etc.) the worse my thryroid gets.

    This is all prior to discovering this site.

    On the subject of thyroid, is their any consensus here about caffeine? Good, bad, indifferent, or it depends?

  15. Mercury, you wrote:

    'Ray's diet is highly artificial and may cause other imbalances or weaknesses. He is as blindered as Ornish and Fuhrman, he just goes to an opposite extreme of food phobias and denial. He helps to balance the other side and brings up some good points, but overall he's shallow and biased.'

    Reminded me of something Matt wrote, maybe in his Fat Head guest post, paraphrasing: ' The low-carbers think carbs are evil, but say saturated fat is fantastically good for us. The low-fatters say saturated fat is evil, but unrefined carbs are great for us. They're both half right.'

    Agreed that the platonic ideal of a Peat diet is probably limiting and imbalanced, and followers, as with any 'diet,' would do well on it to the extent that they cheat from time to time at least. I know when I saw the general recommendations outlined by Lita, I was struck at how much more neurosis this was capable of triggering. To her credit, she emphasized quality sources of animal foods, and plants to a lesser extent, which Matt is less adamant about. Maybe there's nuance I'm missing, but the list Mercury posted above of possibly offensive foods- nuts, seeds, whole grains, most vegetables (esp raw or above-ground), chicken & turkey skin fatty fish, fish eggs and beans- is what I gathered Peats recommendations would suggest against. I agree with his assessment that this is swinging the pendulum the other way, and with Andrew's point that it can be seen as a both/and, rather than either/or evaluating tool.

  16. JT,
    Peat has been doing nutritional consultations for more than 20 years and frequently mentions the experiences he had with his patients.

    How can you say that BruceK knows Peat better than anybody, if practically everything he has said so far is false? Peat doesn't say that starch is incompatible with good health. He doesn't only cite rat studies. He doesn't recommend artificial foods. Neither does he recommend a restricted diet. All his points against PUFA are well referenced and are supported by people like Chris Masterjohn and other scientists. And there are much more important things for him about grains, beans, and nuts than the PUFA content. They contain plant toxins, goitrogens and other substances which cause a lot of problems for many people.

    I think Ian, Mercury, BruceK or whatever he wants to call himself now, is just an annoying person, who constantly tries to proclaim his weird phantasies about his view of the world.
    There is nothing wrong with critisizing Peat or any other nutritionist, but you should at least do it on a scientific and rational level, and not with such pathetic polemic.

  17. Andrew mentioned the bit about glucose above (and Matt mentioned it in a recent post), and that is always something that gets me. What evidence is there that glucose oxidation is better? Peat always talks about fat metabolism being associated (I don't think he ever mentions it itself causes stress) with stress, but I've never seen anything showing glucose is superior. The only thing I know of is more CO2 production per unit, but that's a positive based on only [Peat's] theory as far as I know. Lucas Tarfur just posted a quite thorough comparison, and, although also having theoretical components, his conclusions have more support (Peter of Hyperlipid has done a quick summary relating to mitochondria too). Peat actually does [kind of] say, in Generative Energy, that SCFAs and ketones are superior to glucose, but he never repeats it.

    On another note, Peat does seem somewhat close-minded sometimes, despite preaching against that attitude. But, he is nothing like Ornish and Fuhrman as Ian says.

  18. John,
    I don't think that a high saturated fat diet is bad. But I think there are several indicators for the superiority of sugar/glucose.
    Our brains ultimately prefer glucose as an energy source. All the most intelligent animals favor sugar, and sugar metabolism is associated with brain size. Animals who eat sugar, generally have a bigger head/brain compared to their body size than carnivores. For example, the bigger the brain of a species the more sugar (lactose) the milk will contain, as compared to fat.
    And brain size is associated with both, success and longevity of a species.

  19. El & Steph,
    Peat thinks that thyroid meds are needed by almost everyone and he takes it himself. He thinks caffeine is really good to. I never got any pro thyroid benefits from the diet, but maybe someone can. I would just find a good medical practitioner that specializes in the area.

    I think you misunderstood Bruce/Mercury. He just thinks Peats theories are just as wrong as the mainstream dogmatists, and for the same reasons: they are focused on studies of limited value instead of real world practical results. All the mainstream dogmatists have even more studies to back up their beliefs, lets not forget this! But, that doesn't mean they are correct, just like it doesn't mean Peat is correct if he can point to a few studies.

    Mercury knows all those things you listed. He has been studying Peat for many years. I think he is calling Peats diet artificial, because Peat made it up with no historical or practical basis.

    Peat is NOT a practitioner in the sense I am referring to, he just ocasionally givea advice like many of us on here. The advice seems to be the same for everyone: drink lots of milm and orange juice. he is a theorist and researcher and that is OK and doesnt mean he is wrong.

  20. Does anybody know if Peat is a "Young Earth Creationist"? I am seriously curious about this. His diet seems to be compatible with that view and he is critical of other evolution based diets.

    If it was true, then we should be primarily fruit eaters, with maybe a few of our cow or goat friends around to give us some milk. But because of the "Fall" our bodies became corrupt so now we all need thyroid medication as this is the main generator of life and energy.

  21. JT,
    How can you know that they have no historical basis? I think we know practically nothing about our dietary history? And how can you say that they have no practical basis, when his advices worked well for a lot of people, including myself? Just because it didn't work for you, doesn't mean it can't work for others.
    I actually think that Peat sometimes focuses too much on his own experience and the experiences he has made with his patients (who I think were mostly women)and that he ignores scientific arguments which show that for some people his recommendations might have to be adjusted.
    He doesn't give the same advice to everybody. When I wrote him the first time about 15 months ago, he told me that my diet consisting of potatos, fuits, meat, and some dairy was "excellent" and when I asked him whether I should take a thyroid supplement, he replied that I should first try to fix my problems without it.
    Peat doesn't have the perfect diet or advice for everyone. I had to experiment a long time to find the best application of his theoretical work for myself. He doesn't claim to have the perfect dietary solution, but rather offers his experiences and research to the people, so that they might find something usefull for themselves.

    Bruce thinks of everybody who gives dietary advices as guru, who is ignorant and stupid. Everybody who doesn't proclaim "Eat whatever the fuck you want all the time" is a guru for him. So, he isn't able to see that Peat migh be everything, but not an authoritarian guru.

  22. "Does anybody know if Peat is a "Young Earth Creationist"? I am seriously curious about this. His diet seems to be compatible with that view and he is critical of other evolution based diets."

    Come on, what's the point of that? I think you are a reasonably intelligent person and have at least read some of Peat's articles. So, you know very well that this is bull shit.

  23. Jannis,
    I was not joking about Peat being a creationist, and I was not making fun of the view. I am not one, but I'm not saying those who believe it are stupid. peat is critical of diets that claim evolution as their basis. Peats diet does fit perfectly with this view.

    Europeans do not understand that in America many people take that view seriously. Germany is completely different, so it would be difficult for you to understand.

    Maybe you should ask him. I will not be surprised, because he rejects much of the mainstream beliefs in science, and evolution is the most mainstream belief in science.

  24. Jannis,

    Can you throw out a couple animals? It seems like there is quite a diversity of diets among the smartest ones (mostly omnivorous). Also, the brain is obviously complicated and further specifics need to be factored in as opposed to just size [weight?]. For example, did you know vitamin D deficiency increases brain growth in rats (the net result is negative though)? I'm open to the whole brain-glucose-preference idea, but I want to read more on it, so I can't really comment.

  25. John,
    No, I didn't know that. What exactely do you mean by net result?
    Ants and bees love sugar. And they have really big brains, if you compare them to the rest of their bodies. They are both higly intelligent and learn extremely fast. Peat told me that he thinks that bees are in some ways as intelligent as humans. Apes and certain birds are also fruit lovers. Hummingbirds for example, are very playfull and learn very quickly. There is some monkey (i forgot the name) who lives almost exlusively of fruit, and who lives two times longer than comparable apes.
    I have some good literature somewhere, but can't find it right now. I will dig it out.

  26. Jannis,

    The brain is overall bigger, but certains parts are structured differently, and certain proteins are expressed differently, and neurotroph levels are decreased. It's kind of weird but interesting.

    Yea, bees came to mind immediately, but then I thought about intelligent animals like ravens and dolphins and even elephants. I don't know that much on the subject though.

  27. 'Maybe you should ask him. I will not be surprised, because he rejects much of the mainstream beliefs in science, and evolution is the most mainstream belief in science.'

    Ran Prieur has written in support of morphic fields, a non-creationist alternate take on evolution proposed by Rupert Sheldrake to explain the development of new beings:


  28. Of course, it isn't just as easy as "the bigger, the better" But if you compare species, you can see that the bigger their brains as compared to the whole body, the smarter they are.
    And if you think of some really intelligent people like Einstein, Darwin, Blake, Kropotkin etc, you can see that they all had pretty large heads.

    The animals you mentioned are indeed all very intelligent, I think. And I think all of them don't eat much fruit, but I'm not sure, I don't know their diets. I didn't mean to say that such animals can't be intelligent. But a lot of highly intelligent animals
    have a sweet tooth. I can't think of an animal that likes sugar and isn't highly intelligent. It seems that sugar consumption is a distinct feature of intelligence.

  29. Peat rejects neo-Darwinism and the theory that evolution is a product of randomly changing genes. He believes that aquired traits can be inherited and knows that genes can be altered by the environment. Information can flow from protein to RNA to DNA, not just the other way around. He isn't a creationist!
    If you want to know what he thinks on that, read his articles.


  30. Jannis and john,
    there may be something to the sugar and human intelligence. Almost all of the super-intelligent people I have known consume large amount of sugar and caffeine and seem to be unable to function without it. Warren Buffett never drinks water and pretty much just drinks cherry coke.

    I doubt this is across species. Carnivores are smarter than herbivores. Dolphins and whales are carnivores and they may be some of the most intelligent in the animal kingdom.

    Some people claim that sugar harms their intellectual ability. I'm sort of in the middle, noticing a peak with higher protein and some sugar.

  31. Jannis,
    I have read ALL of Peats articles! I think he is probably a creationist, maybe he is an old earth creationist, or Intelligent Design guy. He is not an evolutionist in the darwinian sense. His diet fits very well with the creationist view too.

  32. JT,
    I'm sorry, but if you really read all his articles and think that he might be a creationist, than you're really not as intelligent as I thought you were.
    He rejects the idea of a divine beeing numerous times in several articles. Just go to his site, and enter creationist in his search function, and you will get a clear statement.

    Do you think there are only either religious nuts or neo-Darwinists?
    I don't think you even know what darwinian in it's original sense means. I doesn't have much to do with what is taught about evolution today.

  33. Jannis,
    If you are going to criticize Mercury on misrepresenting Peat then you should also please stop misrepresenting Chris Masterjohn. Chris Masterjohn and Peat do NOT have the same views on PUFAs, yes they do both advice on keeping overall PUFA's low but Masterjohn writes about the importance of arachidonic acid and DHA. So if you truly aren't a Peatard and are interested in other researchers' views then I suggest you either buy Chris Masterjohn's PUFA report or at least read his summarized article ->http://www.westonaprice.org/know-your-fats/2021-precious-yet-perilous.html

    Because you are misrepresenting his advice just as much as mercury is doing on Peat's advice

  34. John,
    I don't know which one is superior in terms of brain growth but when it comes to exercise/sports performance glucose kicks fats ass, at least in my experience. At the same time though, I think getting enough fat is important for a lot of bodily functions. Which is probably why a lot of people consuming sucrose are having success since most of the fructose is just being converted to fat anyways.

  35. steph: i think coconut oil did something bad to my thyroid too, even though it seemed to help in the short term. but i was buying it in plastic containers, so that may have been a factor. i was eating a lot of it and also used it on my skin and for oil pulling. now i use ghee.

  36. Jannis,
    I suggest you study the history of Darwinism and evolutionary theory. I have extensively. There are more types of creationists than the Christian type. Seems peat favors more of a Hindu view of crreationism and he favora the fruit and milk diet that many yogis follow. Just ask Peat and let us know.

    I had a bad reaction to coconut oil as well. So have other people I know. What happened to you?

  37. What do you sugar lovers think about cavities? Ants and Bees don't have teeth do they?

    What do you mean we don't have historical evidence of what people ate? What about cooked starchy plants(the original carb). I agree sugar tastes great but to think that Homo or ancestors of Homo just ate sugar all day in the form of fruit, honey, etc is highly optimistic. Not saying you said that but your "we don't know" argument is pretty weak.

    Sugar is okay once or twice a day but more than that is asking for cavities.

    If sugar was so great it wouldn't give us cavities.

  38. JT: i felt fine before using coconut oil, but after using it for a while i gained fat and began to tire easily. i quickly grew tired of the taste, which was my body trying to tell me something, so i mixed in salt to make it palatable. even recently, i could only eat it for a day or so before i couldn't stand it, even though it made me feel better **as long as i kept taking it**.

    regarding sugar, does it only cause cavities if one is mineral deficient?

  39. Sugar? Cavities? Durianriders….

  40. Bro, how much juice do you drink most days? How exactly do you drink it (more detail than "sipping")? And were you talking about pasteurized juice or unpasteurized/pre-frozen juice (aka sugar water or juice)?

  41. Einstein was probably munching on PUFA rich nuts all day long to fuel his brain.

  42. For those of you who've had bad responses to coconut oil, were you using the refined product, or the virgin oil? I like the refine type sold by Spectrum here in the US.

    JT, I think you're picking up on something in Peat's work, but I don't think it means he's a creationist. As Jannis mentioned, Darwin's ideas have been distorted over the years. I believe that for Peat evolution is a self-ordering process that is goal-oriented in the sense that life looks for greater consumption of energy. Peat is not the first to say this. I am just starting to read some older books mentioned in his articles, such as Vernadsky's The Biopshere, which gives a good picture of life growing to fill niches within various environmental constraints, such as radiation, atmosphere, soil, rock. etc.

    I don't think it's too much of a stretch to see different plants and animals as different stops along a continuum of energy transfer–at least that's what I take out of his work, particularly articles like his Alzheimer's/Immortality article.

    Really interesting discussion on sugar and animals. I don't have anything good to add, but I enjoy reading about bees and hummingbirds and other animals. I did try a somewhat ketogenic diet myself, and at least for me I did not feel nearly as good as when eating a lot of sugar. I found it particularly noticeable when doing things like playing chess.

  43. Andrew: my problems were with extra virgin coconut oil

  44. God I hope Peat doesn't come out with something incredibly loony one of these days. He seems just a hair away. He has alluded that he believes there is more to physics than just atomic particles, which opens the door to some sort of spiritual force, or "vibrational energies". (However, I haven't looked into experiments showing that water has "memory".) He thinks life developed on "hot lava". And he's a fan of the "Expanding Earth" theory, which, while plausible, I've seen it used to support a very Young Earth theory. Oh, and he speaks fondly of LSD, probably lives on caffeine, reveres William Blake, and sees painting (naked women) as an "essential part of grasping the world scientifically". Not very reassuring.

    But I suppose I shouldn't be too worried. Someone can be more right than others without being completely right.

    By the way, if it's really all about T3, why aren't people being healed en masse by it? I remember Peat saying it's more complicated, requiring a combination of progesterone and magnesium and so on, but why? Also there's the theory that it takes years to clear PUFAs stored in the body– could it really be that simple?

    Also, Peat doesn't recommend to avoid all foods with PUFAs. He just questions whether they are in fact essential. Extreme avoidance of PUFAs is not supposed to be a model of how to eat.

  45. rosenfeltc,

    I trust that to an extent…I've never tried long term low carb, so I don't know what'd happen, but I know that low fat and low protein are bad, despite people claiming you simply need more carbs or more food. Try a "Japanese diet" when you have a triple bodyweight deadlift & squat and see what happens. Anyway, carbs for replenishing glycogen are less important for me, as I focus on [Olympic] weightlifting and 100m sprinting.

    On Peat and Masterjohn, Masterjohn recommends levels low enough so that there is no practical difference between him and Peat. I think Masterjohn is more accurate and consistent with foods' content and reasoning/science.


    I've heard of others having the same experience with coconut oil. I've consumed lots of coconut milk over the last few years without a problem though. Does raising uncoupling proteins with salicylates* cause a decrease in thyroid hormones? Maybe that's why you need it to feel better once you've used it for a while. Emma of Plant Poisons called it a "salicylate high."

    *MCTs also raise UCPs, as does Ca and vitamin A–never checked up on any effects on thyroid though.

    I think Peat's ideas on evolution are pretty well-supported and well-reasoned. I remember "learning" in school that evolution is "natural selection and random mutations," yet I was thinking, "Hmm, a lot of species got really lucky."


    Funny about the big heads–I always check out head size and ask people if they've had braces. It's not a perfect system, but it's interesting "data."

  46. John, they're more or less likely to have braces if they have big heads?

  47. Cavities are due to mineral deficiency (right?), but lots of things can cause mineral deficiency. Fat soluble vitamins are necessary to absorb minerals, and probably hypothyroidism makes one not able to use or absorb minerals (seeing as it's responsible for EVERY disease!). The problem with sugar is that it's very satisfying, but has no vitamins and minerals. Sugar is easy to store, and people who don't have food otherwise can subsist with eating mostly sugar. Also, people are more attracted to sugar when in a stressful or disease state, because it's easy and satisfying. This is probably why sugar is so closely associated with cavities.

  48. Andrew,

    Your chess play got worse on a ketogenic diet? It seems like I go back and forth between good and bad weeks. I've always wanted to track my diet and play. I wouldn't really know what to look for though..is what I ate the this morning or yesterday or last week important?

  49. Ha, I don't know. I guess I don't know enough people with natural teeth or big heads…It's rare for me to find either!

  50. Andrew,
    As I stated before, I am very familiar with Darwinism and the history of evolutionary thinking. I am also very familiar with different types of creationist thinking, and that is why I noticed this type of thinking in Peat's work. He definitely is some variation of a creationist, even though it might not be the traditional type.

    I am wondering how this belief influences his diet recommendations? Did he back engineer his dietary beliefs based on an idealic "Eden"?

  51. bionicanna,
    I was fine with the coconut oil in the beginning and then it started to give me severe reactions. Now I can't tolerate any at all. It sucks because I used to love thai food made in coconut milk and now I cant even enjoy it because of trying to force myself to eat large quantities because I thought it was healthy.

    I have done long term low carb diets and it effects my strength levels more negatively than my endurance levels. You need carbs for explosive activities the most. I am best with high protein and carb. Fat levels dont make a difference one way or the other.

  52. MATT!!!!! You GOTTA do at least ONE Justin Bieber themed article.

    Also, would like to see a post on iridology at some point. And finally, Chuck Norris. What's a health blog without a chuck norris reference.

  53. John,
    That makes absolutely no sense, sprinting 100m and doing explosive weight lifting would actually require you to focus on restoring muscle glycogen more than if you told me that you like to run long distances at a slow pace. How many grams of protein do you consume in a day?

    Also, I still think you are just as wrong as Jannis in thinking that Masterjohn's and Peat's views are practically the same about PUFA's.

    Peat essentially claims that pufas are basically poison, they aren't even essential and one should avoid them as much as possible and it would even be optimal to not consume any at all so that the body could produce its own mead acid.

    Masterjohn on the other hand recognizes that they are essential and even though he talks about keeping linoleic acid from vegetable oils low and also fish oils low, he talks about the importance of getting long chain dha and arachidonic acid. In fact he supplements with cod liver oil and eats eggs everyday.

    This is like claiming that zerocarbers and people on the atkins are practically the same because they both keep carbs low. Yet, I see them as radically different as zerocarbers believe any carbohydrate/vegetable is poison to the body while the atkins low carbers make sure to eat plenty of greens to get nutrients and minerals.

  54. JT,

    Peat has a PHd in biology. Biology and creationism butt heads pretty quick. I think Peat might be a borderline libertarian though. Lives in Oregon, hates most aspects of the government, including fluoridating water supplies and their dietary recommendations to the unsuspecting public, etc.

    Where are you getting this creationism thing? I'm really curious. Could you provide the quotes which are exciting your brain?

    Peat recommends milk and cheese for the calcium, protein, and vitamin d. He recommends fruit (mostly orange juice) for all kinds of shit (magnesium, vitamin C, niacin, and a solid source of carbs).

  55. JT,

    Since hypothyroid is easily treated by eating part of a thyroid which is available after every hunt, I can certainly imagine hypothyroid being common in paleolithic man relative to other diseases.

    Maybe a bit of thyroid should actually be part of a real paleo diet.

  56. rosenfeltc,
    I read that article. If you read the part about William Brown again, you will see that it is like John said. There is no practical difference between Peat's and Masterjohn's ideas on PUFA. I think Chris says our need for the essential fatty acids is below 1% of our calories. And Peat questions their essentiality. If I am not mistaken, he never really says that they not essential.
    Peat doesn't recommend an artificial diet. He frequenly talks about beneficial foods like liver, seafood or organs.

  57. ______
    I think he is probably a creationist, maybe he is an old earth creationist, or Intelligent Design guy. He is not an evolutionist in the darwinian sense. His diet fits very well with the creationist view too.

    oh my, this would be such a big disappointment. Actually, it's plausible since a lot of Americans believe in it and by reading some of his articles. Damn

    you bring up some good arguments.

  58. Creationism
    Are you familiar with William Blake? If you are, you cannot possibly associate him with Creationism. Remember that Dr. Peat wrote his MA thesis on Blake. Dr. Peat is first and foremost a philosopher (true scientists usually are) – what doesn't mean he is always right…

    PUFAs X Mead Acid
    You can find interesting arguments here:

  59. Paul,
    JT knows very well that Peat is not a creationist. It's a pretty pathetic attempt to denounce him.
    You only have to read his very first article on blake and authoritarian society to know that he isn't a creationist.
    I'm not sure, but I think that Peat rejects entirely every form of religion.

  60. Hi Matt, I read, I think at westonaprice, that Vitamin K2 is good for epilepsy.

  61. rosenfeltc,

    Neither squat doubles nor 100m sprints reduce glycogen by that much, especially with long rest periods. ATP and phosphocreatine systems handle those two things fine. It's not like I don't eat carbs; I just recognize that "restoring glycogen" is crap in my case, as it's not being depleted. So, if I don't feel like gorging on potatoes or grape juice afterward, I don't, and my performace next workout isn't hurt. Interestingly, I know two pro bodybuilders who maintain full ketogenic diets without problems, and their training is much more demanding of lactic acid system. They both eat nut butters a lot though. I probably eat around 150g of protein per day.

    Masterjohn thinks AA and DHA are necessary through diet or conversion but at only about .5% of calories (there are some things that may increase needs he thinks), and Peat says they're "toxic." Again though, there is no practical difference. Explain to me how someone's food choices would change if you went from Peat's advice to Masterjohn's. Both recommend eggs and shellfish, and both of their food recommendations are inconsistent with their ideas on essential fats, but not if you consider the fact that they recommend those foods for nutrients other than just AA and DHA (and they obviously recognize an EFA deficiency is near-impossible).

    It's not the same as zero carb and Atkins because it's easy to change from 50g carbs to 5g–don't eat plants. You can't go from 1% to 0% pufa without a purified diet.

  62. Jannis,
    It seems you do not have the background to understand the subtle creationist beliefs and philisophical underpinnings that I see in his work. Europeans and especially Germans do not understand the American religious culture that he comes from. My ex girlfriend is a scientist from germany and she was shocked by how different the religious beliefs are here, even among scientists.

    It is not an attempt to denounce him, his diet reccomendations could still be correct, but I would like to know if his philosophy has influenced his work on diet. Why don't you just ask him what he believes about scientific materialism. Don't confuse creationism with fundamentalist christianity, there are many other types that still call themselves scientific or evolutionary.

  63. Great discussion peeps, some of it that is. The creationism distraction was kinda lame. Anyone who has read enough Peat should know that he is a free thinker willing to entertain a wide variety of ideas in pursuit of real knowledge.

    I believe that Peat's greatest contribution is taking much of the focus away from a set diet or ideology and putting a lot more focus on physiology of the organism and how to improve it. Nutrition can be used as great medicine for counterbalancing imbalances. Not only that, but Peat helps get us beyond the mindset that "if it's natural, it must be good," and begins to look at nutrition in terms of what really would be ideal if all foods were available at any given moment – which is precisely what the modern food environment has become.

    This fits into my accumulated ideology very well. I do think that most modern humans are very imbalanced and the belief that a low metabolism is massively prevalent is something that I can't deny. It amazes me how many people I have encountered over the last few years after having gotten turned on to the low metabolism connection to many health problems.

    But Peat, like anyone, has not solved the riddle on how to fix everyone. His diet is not magic for everybody. I do not follow his diet. I take his "glucose oxidation is superior" concept more to heart than he does, as the macronutrient composition of your diet is the greatest single indicator of the type of fuel your body will use. Having a high ratio of carbohydrate to fat in the diet is the best way to achieve this. Doing intense exercise at very high heart rates helps make this adaptation as well.

    The ideal sources of fat are just as Peat says they are – the shortest chain fatty acids, which are fatty acids that we obtain by eating more carbohydrate foods – and I do believe that their absorption directly into the digestive tract is superior to oral ingestion via supplements or tons of butter.

    But we shall see. As always, everything is perpetually up for debate. What matters at the end of the day is what works for an individual to rebalance the body into the state with its highest metabolic potential. And the imbalances that people have accumulated are always very unique.

  64. Coconut oil-

    This is why I recommend refined coconut oil. It is more free of impurities. I had the same experience as JT in terms of suddenly getting really sick of the virgin oil (loved it at first, then gag reflex).

    Tooth decay-

    My teeth are in great condition now on a high sugar diet and they don't have any pain. In fact, the more sweets I consume the better my teeth feel. I had all kinds of tooth pain on a very low-carb diet (50-ish grams per day) with not a single trace of simple sugar other than what is found in the occasional potato, vegetable, or scoop of rice.

    Sugar is not the cause of cavities.

    Tooth decay starts, I believe, with the saliva becoming more acidic and wearing down tooth enamel. This state emerges due to mineral imbalances, and eating a lot of nutrient-free sugar could probably be a root cause of many cases of tooth decay.


    Thanks. But I hear from that site that K2 is awesome for every health condition known to man, and that we will all suddenly go extinct without gobs of it.

  65. matt, you said: "the shortest chain fatty acids, which are fatty acids that we obtain by eating more carbohydrate foods"… glucose is not a short chain fatty acid or do I misinterpret something??

  66. Speaking of evolution and bees and sugar. I just found this little tidbit of information:

    "Almost all hunter-gatherers have a passion for honey, wherever it’s available, and EP, WP and Bu are no exception. It might seem easy to challenge the distinctiveness of this trait, since honey is prized as a treat just about everywhere. However, the hives of wild bees are not easily accessible in either the tropical forest or the desert, where honey-gathering is both a challenge and an art…"

    (Any distinctive tradition, in the form of a value system, belief system, performance practice, behavior pattern, artifact or attribute, not likely to be the result of outside influence, found among at least three different groups representing each of the three populations with the deepest genetic clades, i.e., Eastern Pygmies, Western Pygmies and Bushmen (EP, WP, Bu), may be regarded as a potential survival from an older tradition traceable to the historical “moment” of earliest divergence, and thus ascribable to HBC.)

    Source: http://soundingthedepths.blogspot.com/2011/02/chapter-four-baseline.html

    So what this basically could mean is that honey played an important role in the human diet since, well, very, very early.

  67. I developed the coconut oil intolerance using the unrefined stuff, But now, I even have a bad reaction to the refined stuff too. Definitely not good stuff for everyone. I prefer ghee, no bad reactions and it tastes MUCH better.

  68. And about dolphins and whales.
    I don't think that dolphins and whales are a good example. They are sea animals. I'm not sure about this, but I don't think there are that many sources of sugar in a marine ecosystem. (That's really just a guess. Does anyone know more about this?) So the most intelligent marine animals are pretty much bound to eat something that is not sugar. But that only shows that intelligence can be sustained without sugar. But then again, we still don't know how whales and dolphins became that intelligent. Both dolphins and whales are mammals, so who knows how smart those fuckers were before they jumped into the sea and what exactly made them that smart?

    I also don't think that insects are a good example/comparison. Because
    1)They are quite different from us. Why not stay within the taxon of mammals or even vertebrates to see what smart animals usually eat. Introducing a class of animals to the discussion that has seperated from the class we evolved out of so early only seems to make any possible analogies between them and us less likely to have any meaning.

    2) The intelligence of bees and ants seems very different from human intelligence to me. They possess "swarm intelligence" (that would be the direct translation of the German term, dunno if that term exists in English). How smart is a single ant or bee really?

  69. Wow, this comment thread is off the hook. How about we say there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy and leave it at that. I think Peat is a bit kooky and that's what I like about him.

    The whole bean thing puzzles me because, as I've pointed out hundreds of millions of people in India have eaten beans every day of their life without calamitous effects. The boy just craves beans like you wouldn't believe. He will actually choose a can of Bush's baked beans over a cookie. And it's not just the sugar in them. I make very bland lentils for him and he will eat them up like they are crack. His digestion isn't perfect, but I feel like maybe his intuition is trying to tell him something so I just relax and let him eat the beans.

  70. Fascinating point madMUHH- "They possess "swarm intelligence" (that would be the direct translation of the German term, dunno if that term exists in English). How smart is a single ant or bee really?"

    Being an ecologist of sorts, I wonder about the deeper philosophical distinction of a single human being. How much can we say we're apart from others. Even if we think about researching and drawing our own conclusions, we're doing so by engaging with these proxy humans who have transmitted their experience to us (through writing, art, and demonstrating behavior). Bees and ants may not have so sophisticated or mediated a way of transmitting their intelligence to one another, but it seems to me that humans are not solitary either.

    Not that I disagree with your point really- I think the collective intelligence of hives maybe more akin to the coordinated collective intelligence of the humans organism, which actually houses all sorts of non-human cells (by some measures 10x as many non-human cells in our body as human cells, once again pressing the question of how legitimate it is to think of ourselves as discrete beings). And we seem to organize our human society in a way that permits maybe some higher degree of individual expression. But then again, there's a lot of incentive to follow the pack in human culture too, and misfits lose some of the support they'd have if they fit better.

    Just riffing here- no conclusions really.

  71. John,'

    Do you know of any low carb sprinters? Or olympic lifters that are high level?

    You could do a marathon low carb, but I dont think you could ever be a successful sprinter.

  72. Jennythenipper-

    Peat thinks beans have an estrogenic effect and also that their protein is not very usable. maybe this is stupid but indian men, other asians and maybe bean eaters in general aren't exactly known for their size in the pants department. indian men in general aren't the most masculine looking. i've always wondered how diet effects things like this.

  73. JT,

    I got the same feeling as you when reading Peat. Being a Bible thumping creationist myself, I feel like I recognize when someone is out of the mainstream. I don't see many people outside Christianity quoting C.H. Spurgeon.

    With there being so many macroevolutionists here, I have a question for you's (<–that was on purpose). If there is no purpose and no meaning to life and we all came from a one-celled organism, then what harm is there in killing, stealing and pillaging my way through life? I've heard the argument that through evolution we have an instinct to help each other, to enhance our survival, but that doesn't apply now. It would be a lot easier to just rob banks instead of working 84 hours, like I did last week. Who's to say that's wrong? Is there a moral standard or just something each culture creates?

    Creationist's are viewed as intellectually incapable and narrow-minded so use small words. I'm serious, I don't want to look them up.

  74. Madmuhh,

    Yea, I think it's too difficult to compare animals' intelligence and then look to their diets in hopes of getting much useful information–unless there was some consistent evolutionary & dietary trend across species?…That's be interesting to find out.


    By what they say, yes*, but they tend to have little nutritional knowledge, so…

    *Maurice Greene and Usain Bolt both eat "high protein, low carb" diets. Naim Suleymanoglu (and I think other Bulgarians though not sure) ate "high protein, high fat, high red meat." Mardy Fish (tennis) recently had success by "replacing carbs with protein."

    I don't know how very low carb would affect max power athletes like weightlifters or powerlifters or throwers, but I think popular emphasis on glycogen stores is overblown. There's no reason to think that 20% calories as carbs leads to any problems, which would be especially evident in tennis. Of course I don't know what they're truly eating: Some "vegetarians" eat chicken and and fish.

  75. John,
    Do you have any sources for Usain Bolt's diet? Last I knew he ate high protein and also a lot of yams so probably moderate carb at minimum.

  76. Jt,
    If you are so convinced and find your idea so interesting, why don't you write a him a short mail and ask him if he considers himself a creationist?

    I don't think you can compare the swarm intelligence of bees and ants to that of fish. If ants and bees possess a swarm intelligence, than we possess the same swarm intelligence, too. Careful observers of ants and bees have concluded that they, the species studied, are as competent with calculation and communication as humans. I think the idea that they only possess a so called swarm intelligence, and that they don't care about themselves as individual beings is just a rationale for insecticides.
    Haven't you ever seen an ant panic in fear or anxiety?

  77. John & rosenfelt,
    Ive read some articles on Bolts diet and I think he ate lots of junk food. 20% carb could still be fairly high if total calories are high. I guess we need to define what we need by low carb, there is probably a threshold where going to low hurts performance. For me it is not a percentage, but total amount, which is about 150 grams. Going to much higher can hurt my performance too because chatecholamine levels drop.

    You should ask him because you already have a relationship with him and you are his follower. He will not say he is a creationist because he knows it sounds bad, so he might try to call his view something that sounds more scientific.

  78. rosen,


    Like I said though, it could be way off. Nobody who knows anything about nutrition thinks that a 60% protein diet is good or realistic. Also, claiming 200g of protein per day at 60% of calories is ridiculously stupid too, and Maurice Greene says similar things.

    Well what do you consider "moderate" carb, 30% like in the article? This is a pointless argument. If you prefer carbs post-workout or whenever, eat them. I'd be more than happy to change my diet if you can show me that a 60% carb diet is better than 40% is better than 20%. I just think the common idea of replenishing glycogen only applies to people who engage in HIIT and such, which is not how elite power athletes train, including 100m sprinters. Running 5 90m sprints over the course of an hour is not lactic acid-system intensive.

  79. "He will not say he is a creationist because he knows it sounds bad, so he might try to call his view something that sounds more scientific."

    Yeah right, so there is no way to prove that he is not a creationist, no way to prove that you are wrong. If he told me personally, than he would just be lying. There is no way to have a discussion with you, man.

    And besides, if Peat cared about if what he says sounds good or not, he wouldn't mention that he is influenced by people like Lenin, Lysenko, Kropotkin or other communists.

  80. @john
    "This is a pointless argument". I didn't even realize we were arguing, I was just curious on where you read about Bolt since I had read something similar about him eating high protein but also quite a bit of yams (which your article mentions as well).

    I also don't know why I have to prove to you that 60% carb is better than 40% carb since I have never claimed that to be the case, in fact I came out saying a few posts ago that I was upping my protein back to 1 gram per pound because i was losing muscle and strength on the lower protein/higher carb that Matt was talking about.

    My only point is that carbs are still important to do what you do which is in fact why you still eat enough carbs. I lost muscle and decreased my performance when doing zerocarb so I don't think low carb diets are optimal for exercise but low carb to me means anything lower than 50 grams. So if you are averaging around 100 grams of carbs a day (sometimes higher and sometimes lower) then I can believe you that those amounts are enough for what you do.

  81. John,
    Also I agree that article doesn't make much sense. If he eats 1 gram of protein per pound but protein is 60% of his diet then he is only eating 1333.33 calories in a day which I highly doubt.

  82. Rob A
    "Being an ecologist of sorts, I wonder about the deeper philosophical distinction of a single human being. How much can we say we're apart from others."

    Actually, I would even expand on that. How much can we say we're apart from not just other humans, but other beings and nature in general. If ecology shows us anything, it is that there are complex dependencies and subtle influences everywhere and that ecosystems are in a very intricate balance. So to some degree you could say that your environment is also part of ourselves, whether it's biological, intellectual, emotional or whatever.

    That's kinda off-topic, but you were the one starting to make philosophical distinctions. ;-)

    "I don't think you can compare the swarm intelligence of bees and ants to that of fish."
    I agree.

    "If ants and bees possess a swarm intelligence, than we possess the same swarm intelligence, too."
    I disagree. What role we play in society is not determined at or before our birth, or at least not completely. There may be similarities, perhaps more than we are even aware of, but calling it the "same" swarm intelligence is a far stretch in my opinion.

    "Careful observers of ants and bees have concluded that they, the species studied, are as competent with calculation and communication as humans."
    Interesting. Are we talking about a group of insects or individuals here? And what kind of communication and calculations are we talking about here? Could you give more details on that?

    "I think the idea that they only possess a so called swarm intelligence, and that they don't care about themselves as individual beings is just a rationale for insecticides."
    That wasn't exactly my point. They do possess individual intelligence, no doubt. But my question is, how much of the intellectual feats and systematic actions could one single individual perform on its own? And that's not because I want to diss swarm intelligence. I think whether one individual or several are performing a certain task, ultimately is irrelevant. In the end, as Rob said, you can't that easily draw a line between one individual and the next, especially not when talking about insects like bees. It's because the intelligence of bees simply cannot easily be compared to the intelligence of humans, because the mechanisms through which that intelligence expresses itself are different.

    "Haven't you ever seen an ant panic in fear or anxiety?"
    No, I have not. Because I do not possess the ability to know whether those ants feel what we call "fear" or "anxiety". All I know is, that they are running away. For all I know, this could be nothing but a mere instinct, ensuring the survival of the individual (and thus ensuring the survival of the swarm), perhaps even causing the emotions of fear and anxiety. But that alone is not an indicator of higher intellect in my opinion. Pretty much any animal does that.

    Oh, and btw. I do not want to picture animals as dumb, unemotional beings. Actually I think that animals probably are more aware or conscious than most people assume.

    And finally, I think I found the English word for "swarm intelligence". It's "hive mind", isn't it? I think I once read that word somewhere.

  83. rose,

    I didn't mean it in an angered way–just making the point that any reasonable carb intake takes care of glycogen.

    Yep, that's what happens when you get a nutritionist's opinion on nutrition. I remember during the Beijing Olympics, they were talking about gymnasts needing "low carb, high protein, for high intensity energy," whatever that means. I learned quickly that getting tips directly from the horse's mouth is usually a bad idea.

  84. Hookay, I am expecting my delivery of a big tub o' refined coconut oil (I was using virgin) and I hope I don't wind up tossing it. I have a salicylate sensitive son, and I tend to only remember to be careful with fuits…I totally forgot coconut oil has salicylates, too.

    And coconut oil is so often trotted out as pro thyroid, it never occured to me that it could be why my thyroid is dis-improving (that non word is intentional, an homage to that Johnny Lawrence guy).

    Jenny, my fussy five-year-old loves his rice and beans, and since starting us all on Perfect Health Diet I've not made them, and every so often he asks for them and I put him off…maybe this is another area where I trust his instincts? I just don't know.

  85. Jannis,
    That is why you have to be able to read between the lines and interpret what he us saying. That is why you would need him to describe what he believes withoutt the label. If you know what to look for then you would be able to spot it.

  86. "It seems you do not have the background to understand the subtle creationist beliefs and philisophical underpinnings that I see in his work. Europeans and especially Germans do not understand the American religious culture that he comes from."

    "That is why you have to be able to read between the lines and interpret what he us saying. That is why you would need him to describe what he believes withoutt the label. If you know what to look for then you would be able to spot it."

    Honestly, instead of telling people that they are not able to understand what you are talking about, why not try to explain it to them or at least hint at what you are talking about?
    I don't think that, through this entire discussion, you have given a single hint/reason/evidence/anything as to why Peat might actually be a creationist.

  87. Whatever JT

    Maybe an ant or a bee doesn't want to play another role. Maybe it knows that the role he plays is the best to secure survival of it's family.
    The idea of such a group intelligence, the accumulated cultural richness, applies to humans, too. But then that stored knowledge mostly has the function of improving
    the self esteem of a species that spends most of its time in bizarre,
    useless and harmful activities.

    It has been shown that ants can count very well. They are also capable of devolping complex problem solving strategies. They are also able to communicate with each other. We don't know to which extent, but both ants and bees are at least capable of communicating locations and other usefull information.

    I know that you didn't mean to say that animals are dumb and without emotions. I just wanted to point out that I think animals, like humans, have an active conscience, are aware of themselves as individual beings, and suffer just as much as we do.

    Did you ever read "Life without bread" by Wolfgang Lutz? He is the father of Low Carb science and provided a lot of research in that area

  88. "Hive mind". madMUHHH is definitely a StarCraft player.

  89. Johnny Lawrence:
    "If there is no purpose and no meaning to life and we all came from a one-celled organism, then what harm is there in killing, stealing and pillaging my way through life?"

    I'm sorry, but what does purpose of life have to do with the existence or non-existence of evolution?

    Assuming that evolution is a fact does not equal assuming that life has no purpose, just as assuming evolution is bogus does not automatically lead to believing that life has a purpose.

    "I've heard the argument that through evolution we have an instinct to help each other, to enhance our survival, but that doesn't apply now."

    Well according to the same line of thought your instincts still would be there. Why are many women afraid of spiders? It also does not apply now that spiders (at least the smaller ones) are in any way dangerous. So in both cases the instincts would still "overwrite" reality.
    And to be clear, I am not saying that morality is nothing more than instinct. I am just saying that even from the perspective you mentioned, which is not necessarily mine, one could explain in a reasonable manner why people all over the world are not suddenly starting to rob banks.

    And apart from that robbing a bank is a pretty stupid thing to do. You would either get caught or live the rest of your life in constant paranoia about getting caught. And most baks don't even have that much money within the building nowadays. ^^

  90. Jannis,
    I think we are more or less on the same page.

    "I know that you didn't mean to say that animals are dumb and without emotions. I just wanted to point out that I think animals, like humans, have an active conscience, are aware of themselves as individual beings, and suffer just as much as we do."

    Do you mean conscience or consciousness?

    Anyway, I mostly agree with that. Just that I think that there are different levels of self-awareness/consciousness. For example some animals are able to recognize themselves in a mirror, while others aren't, which makes it reasonable to assume that some animals possess a higher/better self-awareness than others.

  91. My kid LOVES beans and rice too. He asks for lentils and rice for dinner most nights (and I oblige because I feel great eating that way.)

    I seriously doubt there are real problems with beans and grains for most people, but if there are, eating those has to be better than eating a slice of bread which is his other favorite dinner.

  92. madMUHH,

    I think Johnny Lawrence is just fooling, and mocking strawmen. :-)

    Also agreed that we probably can't accurately be described as distinct from our environment One definition I heard of 'me' is everything I depend on to survive, and without which I couldn't. So the fields and forests that make our food and clean our water and provide us our oxygen, etc. are all us. Makes sense to me.

    I continue to push the locavore, eco- connection here, just on the fringe a bit, since that doesn't seem to be Matt's focus. I think it's still key. I sent him some books, one of which looks at the notion that we can't disentangle our health woes from the ones 'outside' ourselves, like social dislocation and isolation, and ecological degradation. To think that we can just pump iron and take care of ourselves and ignore the world burning, is to invite disharmony and ill health back in. That by crafting stories and engaging in lives that take the rest of our human and other than human neighbors an their health into account, we run a better chance of actually living exuberantly.

    So yeah man, no argument here.

  93. MATT

    I think you should do a post on RAY MAY DOES SUGAR ROT YOUR TEETH.

    So you can explain why you think sugar doesn't cause cavities.

  94. Traditional societies practice a variety of methods in food preparation techniques. Those techniques were practiced universally, across all cultures who have the practice of consuming neolithic foods, foods which are brought by the migration of Homo sapiens out of Africa. Those foods, being virtually nonexistent during the Paleolithic era, before 10,000 years ago, were introduced to humans fairly recently. Those so-called "neolithic foods", which were introduced within the past 10,000 years, have been a significant factor in contributing a vast majority of Calories, across many traditional cultures worldwide.

    Those neolithic foods were fairly ubiquitous. Humans have adopted those neolithic foods, likely because they provide a sufficient amount of Calories for human population to grow. However, despite the almost universal ubiquity of those "neolithic foods", there the neolithic foods have a resemblance to the double-edged sword. In spite of their ubiquity, Calories, and nutrients, those foods have a variety of plant toxins within them, which interferes with human health.

    For example, foods such as grains and legumes have an abundant type of toxins. Toxins inhibiting the absorption of minerals is one example. These are called "phytase inhibitors", which could cause mineral deficiencies and physical degeneration when consumed as a staple. Indeed, it is not common to find humans with physical deterioration and cavities.

    Another type of toxin found in plant foods are "trypsin inhibitors", which inhibit the digestion of protein. This could cause protein deficiency and could also be a known cause of hypothyroidism.

    Other toxins such as "lectins," have been shown to interfere with leptin signaling, and this disruption leptin signaling has been shown by many studies to be the cause of the obesity epidemic.

    Other toxins include "protease inhibitors" and "phytoestrogens" which are found, not only in soy, but with all types of whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds. While not abundant in those grains and legumes other than soybeans, they are shown to severely interfere with the reproductive systems of both males and females.

    Legumes are described as being a "good source of protein". However, it's not uncommon to realize that there are trypsin and protease inhibitors which interferes with the assimilation of protein. In addition, legumes have been shown to have a fairly large quantity of lectins, which inhibit leptin signaling.

    Since legumes have a variety of toxins inhibiting mineral and protein absorption, and leptin signaling—does this mean to avoid it all together?

    Well, let us take a look at the traditional cultures. A renowned researcher named Weston A. Price has observed that some African societies eat legumes to a large amount. However, there is an interesting observation. In those who consume legumes rather than animal protein, the prevalence of cavities found to be in a greater extent than those who are based on animal protein.

    The toxins found in legumes require extensive preparation to minimize it's toxins: phytic acid, trypsin inhibitors, protease inhibitors, and lectins. In order to greatly reduce its toxins, legumes are required have tedious preparation methods. They are required to be soaked, sprouted for a day, and then cooked in a Crock-Pot for a day, to eliminate all of their toxins. It requires all of these to eliminate all of their toxins.

    Not to mention that they have indigestible starch which may cause problems in the gut.

    This is not to say to eliminate legumes all together. Those who crave legumes may have a nutrient deficiency, such as a mineral or protein deficiency, and their craving of legumes may signal serious imbalances which are to be corrected.

  95. Fine summary, Organism. Thanks for sharing.

  96. "It seems you do not have the background to understand the subtle creationist beliefs and philisophical underpinnings that I see in his work. Europeans and especially Germans do not understand the American religious culture that he comes from."

    "That is why you have to be able to read between the lines and interpret what he us saying. That is why you would need him to describe what he believes withoutt the label. If you know what to look for then you would be able to spot it."

    JT, what exactly are you *looking* for? You sound just as vague and unscientific as most new-age and/or new and old creationist folks. btw, I am American too, and I don't see what you mean.

    This article should help clarify how Peat regards the neodarwinists work within the early creationist environment.


    I don't think he's in favor of any ideology that leads to eugenics, either.

  97. Madmuhh,
    There is no point in discussing it here as this is not the place. And, it would take too much time to list and explain all of the philosophical subtleties.

    His ideal diet is fruit and milk. These are basically the only 2 foods you can eat without killing or causing harm. I have read of other religionists recommend the same diet for this reason, so it caused me to think Peat could be coming from a similar place.

  98. Wow, something like 80 comments have been wiped out, with the system down for most of the day. Great job blogger.com.

  99. Yeah- noticed that too. Ah well gummy bear ice cream. ah well…

  100. Matt..! We have an urgent need for a forum!!

  101. Damn .. there was some really good discussion going on in this thread.

    Quick summary:

    JT thinks Peat is a creationist .. most others disagree

    Jannis commented about sugar and intelligence .. larger brain size.
    Swarm intelligence discussed.

    John and Jannis stating the views of Peat and Masterjohn are relatively identical on PUFAs.

    I know I'm missing more ..

    Continue on though .. good stuff.

  102. Jannis,

    Since you started following Peat diet 15 monthes ago did you noticed any improvments in thyroid function?

  103. Thanks for the recaps Tyler. I myself was going to respond to some earlier comment about a Peat-oriented diet being satisfying and can confirm it is. Every day it is a pleasure to wake up (from a refreshing sleep) and cook and eat according to Peatian principles. I guess I'm missing out on some great vegetable toxins and rancid seed oils, mood swings, tiredness, and the wondrous living death of thyroid malfunction, but oddly enough I'll pass.

  104. Why are we talking nutrition when the world is gonna hypothetically end in hypothetically literally hypothetically logically 8 days!!! Repent bitches, repent!

  105. JT

    "Since I was following N.A. Kozyrev's work (on stellar and planetary energy) from the late fifties through the sixties, I thought of volcanism as a process essentially equivalent to solar energy. Then, in 1968, I read Sidney Fox's experiments with heated amino acids, and saw that volcanism was a more appropriate energy than sunlight for driving the origin of life. In some of his experiments, Fox put nearly dry amino acids onto hot volcanic rocks, and when he added a little water, the amino acids polymerized spontaneously, and nonrandomly, into peptide chains; when these were put into water, they spontaneously formed microspheres, that looked like, and behaved very much like, bacteria. Fox saw his work as a validation of the principle that nature itself created higher order spontaneously.

    Deep in the volcanic earth, or deep in the ocean, life would be protected from destructive ultraviolet radiation, whether or not the atmosphere contained enough oxygen/ozone to screen out that radiation. And thinking about volcanoes, I questioned the idea that life had to originate in the "reducing atmosphere" that was dogmatically required by the conventional protobiologists. Volcanoes emit water, carbon dioxide, and a variety of strong oxidants. I think it is possible that atmospheric oxygen preceded green plants.

    If Sidney Fox's spontaneously formed proteins and microspheres are similar to the original living cells, these forms of life appearing in volcanic seeps would have originated in an environment rich in carbon dioxide, and I have gradually come to imagine that the present ordinary respiration based on oxygen might have originated as an adaptation to an environment deficient in carbon dioxide, as life spread out from its volcanic origins." "http://members.westnet.com.au/pkolb/peat2.htm&quot;

    Peat is clearly NOT a creationist. And I, short of saying someone who is one is stupid, would say that being a creationist means you're quite blind to good science, and are missing a huge part of what modern biology offers. I don't see a creationist having ideas such as Peat has, not even close. In my opinion, that was quite stupid from you. Nothing personal.


    Do show the data, please.

  106. Well there are creationists who believe that God created the world in 7 days and dismiss evolution.

    Then there are people who believe in evolution and that life arise from dead matter through random mutations and natural selection.

    There are also the intelligent design camp who believes that evolution did occur but that the role of God played a hand in it.

    And then there are people who believe that there is some creative impulse in matter itself that cause matter to self organize into great and greater wholes.

    Then there are people such as Pierre Teilhard De Chardin in the West and Sri Auribindo in the East who believes that the Spirit of God continually involves into the lowest form of matter and then evolves back into spirit. So there is some Omega point in evolution whereby an evolved individual comes to realize Spirit as their true source and suchness (the goal of evolution). So the stages through which we evolve have been embedded in matter itself.

    And then of course there are many variations of Darwinism.

    Certain forms of evolution tend to reduce everything to cascading surfaces. There is no interior reality. Only exterior. No consciousness or if there is consciousness it is an epiphenomena of matter.

    And those views of evolution that believe there is an interior of all matter. Consciousness is primary to all matter. There is an exterior and interior. You can't cut open someone's head for example and find their experience anywhere.

    So for example the external neocortex will allow for different types of interior experiences such as pre operational thoughts. And this development will manifest a collective interior such as magic, mythic, or rational ways of thinking. And will manifest collective exterior societies such as families, tribes, early states, empires, nations, etc…

    I'm no expert on evolution or different religious belief systems but just saying there are many schools of thought from very simplistic to very complex.


  107. I think Peat was getting at is that there seems to be some drive in the universe to order and greater and greater wholes that is the exact opposite of randomness or chance. This drive towards orderness and greater wholes is fighting against randomness.


  108. EL66k,
    Read Adam Prince's excellent post, I think Peat is somewhere similar to Chardin. There is much more philosophical subtlety than you and Jannis understand.

  109. Hey Adam Prince,

    It looks like you have been reading some Ken Wilber. I was really into him in the past, but I needed to ground myself into something that would directly affect my health and that's how I ended up here.

    BTW, I think you and JT are defintely shining a deeper light into Peat's thinking that is important for us to chew on if we want to know how valid his theories really are.

  110. Thanks Adam- a good bunch of points there. Not everyone who doesn't buy the popular conception of Darwinian evolutionism is a fundamentalist bible-thumper.

    There's definitely some fascinating stuff out there, and I try to remain humble and recognize that, as much as we like to believe we have the big picture mostly figured out and are just filling in the details, it's quite possible, likely maybe, that we're missing huge pieces of the story of life, and what we're sure about today will look silly and naive when we look back from the future.

  111. From Ran Prieur, sort of on this topic: http://www.ranprieur.com/archives/009.html

    October 13-14. At the end of this article (link broken) about Earth without people, it says "If another intelligent species ever evolves… it may well have no inkling that we were ever here." But at the beginning it says, "Humans are undoubtedly the most dominant species the Earth has ever known."

    How do we know? If future dominant species won't know about us, we might not know about past dominant species. Or more likely, since humans are so weedy, and the article has no serious idea of how we could vanish, and we know we're able to build complex societies, we are really talking about past and future human societies.

    Suppose the orthodox primitivists are right, and civilization can only start in rare conditions, and industrial collapse will take us all the way to another stone age, where we'll stay for a million years. Then suppose the conditions are right again and we build another highly complex society. Here's another earth without humans page ( images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,351113,00.jpg ) focusing on how long it takes stuff to break down, and it looks like almost everything is gone in 200,000 years.

    So how do we know it hasn't happened before? Well, if it had, there would be artifacts of anatomically modern tool-making humans in rock strata millions of years old. But there are! In The Book of the Damned, chapter 9 ( http://www.resologist.net/damn09.htm ), Charles Fort writes of worked objects found sealed in coal and quartz. Michael Cremo's Forbidden Archaeology has hundreds of pages of evidence. Cremo's motives are suspect but his data is good. Much of it comes from 19th century archaeology that was at least as rigorous as new archaeology. But respectable scientists see an arrowhead or a statue in ten million year old rock and say there must have been some mistake because that's impossible. Because they care more about credibility than honesty, they do science backwards, going from theory to evidence. If we accept the evidence, it undermines the neo-Darwinian story of human origins and our own desire to think we're the first civilization.

    So where did humans come from? Cremo's latest book, Human Devolution, argues that we came from "the realm of pure consciousness," and that other hominids evolved from us! In The Book of the Damned, chapter 7 ( http://www.resologist.net/damn07.htm ), Charles Fort argues that rains of frogs and fishes were not sucked up in whirlwinds, but got here in some way we cannot presently explain. Then why not humans? Maybe some occult entity really did put us here. I don't know!

    I don't want anyone to become a true believer in Michael Cremo's theories. On a deeper level, what I'm trying to do with the fortean posts is what Fort himself was trying to do: influence readers toward intellectual habits of acceptance and not belief, or being scouts and not cartographers.


    The bottom paragraph is most important to me. Just a call to be actually broad-minded and keep our eyes and ears open, rather than being quick to defend what, in the long view, may not be so certain after all.

  112. EL66K,
    Peat clearly is a creationist. As opposed to JT, we just don't have the intellectual capacity to see the subtle clues.

    The list:
    the author says ravens are highly intelligent because they can count up to three, but ants, who can count up much larger numbers, are not even on the list. The author doesn't give any evidence for his random ranking whatsoever, although some of the animals are indeed quite smart.

  113. "…be actually broad-minded and keep our eyes and ears open, rather than being quick to defend what, in the long view, may not be so certain after all."

    "…what we're sure about today will look silly and naive when we look back from the future."

  114. Hey, my comments disappeared!! What's with this site? Blogger has issues. I know my comments posted because Danny Roddy friended me because of them.

  115. Wow, Rob A., that seems awesome, specially the possibility of a much older great human civilization. Gotta take a look… Damm, is it dense!


    One thing is the subtle phylosophy that permeates Peat's work, that in my humble opinion, transmits the idea that live matter is in itself much more intelligent and capable of evolution and directed adaptation than what most genetists would be willing to accept, and another is to say that the freakin' man is a "young earth creationist". I still think that was quite stupid.

    "And then there are people who believe that there is some creative impulse in matter itself that cause matter to self organize into great and greater wholes."

    That's closer, I think.

  116. Loving all the discussion of who and why we are–creationism is a great metaphor, not necessarily 'stupid.'

    And wondering how 'thyroid' got us there.

    I'd love to hear more about the interrelationship between thyroid/HPA/adrenals a la Peat and how to make the feedback loop positive. I know that that discussion comes around and goes around quite a lot, but it does seem to be key. Thanks!

  117. JT,

    There are lots of lists of smart animals. and they're only somewhat consistent. But yes, none of them [the lists] are composed only of sugar eaters. There is a study that correlates bat intelligence [across species] with fruit consumption.


    Regarding Wolfgang's book, I jumped around and looked at references of interest. There's a lot of fluff.

  118. why does a capacity towards organization equal "subtle creationism"?

    JT, "There is much more philosophical subtlety than you and Jannis understand."

    seriously? This again" Please enlighten us with specific evidence.

  119. About my last comment, I would add that, for what I've read, Peat is not a believer in religion, and even if he believes life is intelligent and driven, it does not need to mean that there's any mystic energy behind it. Maybe he does believe in such a thing, but it hasn't been made clear.

    "http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/william-blake.shtml&quot; For the matter of his view of the world, a very good article would be that one, I think.

  120. Ivan,
    Thank you for understanding me! I just wanted to see if other people noticed the religious undertones in Peats writings. If it is true, I would like to know how this has influenced his dietary reccomendations. I don't think his ideal diet of milk and fruits comes from purely scientific reasoning.

    EL66K and Jannis,
    It is my fault for wording it badly, sorry. I don't think Im smarter than you, I just seem to have more study this area, so I noticed certain things. I am sure there are many subject you would know much more than I. This is not the right forum to discuss and explain philosophy of science and theories of evolution. I was just curious if other people who have studied these subjects saw the same things I did in Peat's writings.

    I am familiar with all of Cremo's work. I think he is very interesting. I wonder what Peat thinks of his theories?

    John & Jannis,
    Regarding animal intelligence. I agree that the list is not perfect. I was just curious, so I looked up a few rankings and posted a list to see if any of you guys had an opinion.

    Other than primates, it seems like the smartest animals are pure carnivores like dolphins and whales. I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up being smarter than primates.

    It would be interested to pursue this topic further. Mental function is just as important as physical. I think pursuing a diet that optimizes brain function is more interesting than just focusing on fat loss.

  121. More on animal intelligence and sugar consumption. Some scientists are concluding that the non sugar eating dolphins are smarter than primates.


    Jannis, check out the brain size compared sugar eaters.

    "Researchers have found that brain size varies hugely from around 7oz for smaller cetacean species such as the Ganges River dolphin to more than 19lb for sperm whales, whose brains are the largest on the planet. Human brains, by contrast, range from 2lb-4lb, while a chimp’s brain is about 12oz."

    “Many dolphin brains are larger than our own and second in mass only to the human brain when corrected for body size,”

  122. Some interesting facts about hummingbirds-

    Brain: A hummingbird's brain is approximately 4.2% of its body weight, the largest proportion in the bird kingdom. Hummingbirds are very smart and they can remember every flower they have been to, and how long it will take a flower to refill.

    Temperature: A hummingbird's normal body temperature runs right around one hundred five (105) degrees Fahrenheit (or forty point five (40.5) degrees Celsius). When a hummingbird sleeps, this temperature will drop to as low as seventy (70) degrees Fahrenheit (or twenty (20) degrees Celsius).

  123. But how can you say his "ideal" diet is purely milk and fruits based "not from purely scientific reasoning" when a. his "ideal" diet is not purely milk and fruits. Have you even read through his articles and theories at length? Milk and fruit happen to contain many, if not most, of the beneficial things for our organism, but there is a lot less subtle and very complex and developed (although I think John's criticisms of him are on point) ideas he discusses about how we work and generate energy and acquire, in some cases, degenerative disease.

    How come you keep projecting this assumption and then fail to back it up. If you think that his philosophical beliefs influence his research and recommendations, then isn't this indeed the place you should discuss and explicate and not be so vague with your supporting statements and use excuses like "it's too subtle for you to see" or "this isn't the place to discuss it"…it just makes you seem rather unscientific.


    this got wiped out before, but he talks about what happened to early neodarwinist genetic research being shaped in an environment of early creationism.

  124. JD,
    Read some of the posts on here from a few years ago and see that I am the one defending Peat before it became fashionable here. Yes, I have read Peat's articles, and I have corresponded with Peat personally. I am familiar with his diet. I spent a lot of time following his diet reccomendations. I think he is a really nice guy and probably a genius.

  125. Melvin Page says eating concentrated sugar creates a disturbance in the Ca/P ratio.

    Can someone please explain why ray peat thinks concentrated sugar doesn't do this?

  126. Are you being sarcastic? I don't get that response, but whatever.
    I don't personally think he is a genius, but I think he is definitely one of the most interesting thinkers out there with an unusual perspective on a lot of dogma and conventions. I thought maybe you could see something everyone else is missing and i was/am open to that as long as you can explain what you mean without silly attacks and more supportive and specific evidence. lol. Guess I was too open minded.

  127. JD,I just noticed that you misquoted me. I don't know if this was intentional dishonesty, but I can't discuss with someone who does this. Of course he doesn't recommend a diet of PURELY milk and fruit, you need coffee too! And now that humans are in a fallen state they all need thyroid medication.

    Seriously man, there are religious connotations to the milk and fruit diet and this made me curious.

    I am not sure I know what you mean by sounding "unscientific"? I never claim to sound scientific.

  128. I didn't mean that as a direct quote. I meant it for emphasis, because those were the only two foods you mentioned. Again, there is still more too his ideas then just milk, fruit and coffee.

    With regard to "fallen state", if you read the article, that is the kind of ideology Peat is not in favor of. In fact, higher levels of organization are always possible…I still don't get what you are implying.

    Well if this isn't science (in kind), then what is it for you? Why bother experimenting with these theories and your health at all?

  129. JT, do please develop that topic. This is 180 degree health after all, and cognitive dissonance is our friend. And for the sake of that, where is the quote of a penis being a "warm dream"?

    MMM… Ray Peat was born in 1936. We was associated with reknown atheist activist Madalyn Murray. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/message/40460 He also follows or followed Lenin, I believe, and someone mentioned it here before. Of that, however, I'm NOT SURE. Memory fails, and I didn't delve in to the matter.

    And, BTW, JT, if you really are interested in Ray's phylosophy, maybe looking into his love for Blake make help. Take a look at this and give us your opinion: http://www.albion.com/blake/archive/volume1999/15.html&quot; There's more from where that came.

    Uff, anyway, I still think that what you say was just non-sensical. I mean, a "young earth creationist"!

  130. After doing the high-sugar thing for a while (over a month), I have concluded that it wasn't really working for me. Maybe I wasn't doing it right, but anytime a diet has to have very precise instructions to work, I get skeptical.

    Stephan at whole health source blog recently posted his theory that the taste of foods, regardless of the their actual nutritional content, can cause weight gain. Let's slightly generalize the concept. Maybe consistently eating delicious food is bad for your overall health (and thus resulting in weight gain). This is a fascinating idea. Consider:

    - Diet foods with sugar substitutes have never been found to reduce weight.

    - Traditional people, with their varied macro-diets, tend to be healthy. I find it likely (though I have no proof) that traditional people eat largely bland food.

    - Modern people tend to be unhealthy. And very tasty foods exist in almost all modern 'diets'. Pick any diet you like and you'll find that it's rich in one or more of HFCS, dairy, fat, salt, MSG, sugar, or other flavor enhanceres. So people could succeed or fail on any diet given the specific food choices they make. Extreme diets that avoid this (raw food only) can still fail for other reasons.

    Ok, what about a mechanism? I dunno. The basic premise might be (which I believe Stephan offered) that highly tasty foods override our sense of hunger. That is, you might *crave* food more than you *hunger* for it. Chocolate milkshakes, for example, set off the same parts of the brain in chocolate-craving subjects as drugs do in drug-addicted subjects. So if that's the case, perhaps delicious food is monkeying with our reward centers in our brains similar to how addictive drugs do.

    Imagine that all the food you eat is delicious, and that such food really does release a more-than-natural release of food-good chemicals (endorphins, or natural opioids) in your brain. Then it's plausible that your brain would down-regulate the effects of these chemicals over time, and two things would happen: You'd find 'normal' food to be extremely bland, and you'd feel increasingly worse over time because your normal levels of brain chemicals would produce an attenuated effect (since they're being down-regulated).

    Consider the amount of condiments/salt/spices you require in your food now, compared to when you were a kid. If you're like me, it's night and day — I need lots more salt, ketchup, mayo, etc.

    About a week ago, I started eating very blandly. White rice or mashed potatoes, both seasoned to the minimum need to make it non-horrible. What I noticed is that within a couple of days, I did get some physical side effects, such as shaky hands, chills, and nervousness. That went away pretty quickly, and it's always possible it was mostly in my head. Since then, physically I've felt pretty good, including the warmest my hands + feet have ever felt. However, mentally I still often feel crappy. Brain fog, no drive, and dysphoria.

    Perhaps that will take longer to resolve given how long I've been eating highly palatable foods. Or perhaps the whole theory is bunk.

    Has anything else tried anything like this? What were your results?

  131. jd said:

    But how can you say his "ideal" diet is purely milk and fruits based "not from purely scientific reasoning" when a. his "ideal" diet is not purely milk and fruits. Have you even read through his articles and theories at length? Milk and fruit happen to contain many, if not most, of the beneficial things for our organism, but there is a lot less subtle and very complex and developed (although I think John's criticisms of him are on point) ideas he discusses about how we work and generate energy and acquire, in some cases, degenerative disease.

    I think you were missing the point. JT does not believe that Peat's diet entirely focuses on those two food groups. I think JT was just making a point that Peat's diet, on a practical level, resembles the "purified" diets of certain religions.

    JT was also making a point that the fruit and milk diet are not optimal at all. JT thinks that a diet high on fruits would blunt the metabolism, as fruits are only available in fall at the temperature climates. JT theorizes that fruits are only available during the fall in temperate climates, fruits tiggers the organism's hybernation response by prepering them for the winter. One way of preparing hibernation is to slow down the metabolism.

    That is what JT meant by "fallen state" (which means the metabolic state when the organism encounters fall (autumn). JT was being entirely unclear by that comment.)

    (I personally disagree with his theory, as humans have evolved the tropical climate of Africa. Humans only migrated out of Africa during the previous 70,000 years, which is not enough time for them to adapt.)

    I don't think JT was attacking any Ray Peat followers in that post. Yes, JT said that Ray Peat is a genius, but he was meaning that he really believes that Peat is a genius. This does not imply that all Peat followers worship him as some unquestionable authority figure. JT was not belitting any of Peat's followers.

    An incident in the past has evoked similar accusations. In a previous comment, JT had compliment Matt for "writing something he is good at." (See his comment at Matt's 80-10-10 post.)

    However, Brock misinterpreted JT compliment as an "attack", because Brock thought JT implied that Matt wasn't good at writing anything other than the article JT was complimenting.

    The point is that JT's reputation was being harmed by that incident, and it may have contributed to an impression that JT is dishonest and is a liar, when he is indeed honest.

    Tip: Do not read in-between-the-lines.

  132. Jannis said…

    Ants and bees love sugar. And they have really big brains, if you compare them to the rest of their bodies. They are both higly intelligent and learn extremely fast. Peat told me that he thinks that bees are in some ways as intelligent as humans.


    it's totally bullcrap that ants are highly intelligent. I have seen a true documentation about the intelligence of ants, a woman studied it. She found out that ants are stupid like a piece of bread because she found out that their memory lasts max. 10 seconds. Ants have maybe 20 possibilities to operate, more they simply can't and they can't learn anything. Ants do the 20 things which they know from birth their whole life and dont learn anything, because of their 10 second memory.

    The thing about ants is that: One ant is stupid and cant live for itself. But it is the group which makes them able to live. Together they are able to find ressources to built their house, food etc. One ant alone will not even find back they way home, if there is not an "ants-street".

  133. Anonymous,

    That may be, but I'd still bet on an ant in a writing competition versus you.

  134. Seriously, JT. You talk about philosophical subtleties and then the main reason you cite for your "hypothesis" is that some of the foods Peat emphasizes are also being emphasized by certain religious groups? WTF.
    Apart from that, the fact that Peat does not only emphasize milk and fruit is huge in regard to this aspect in my opinion. There's gelatin (dead animals), coconut oil (nuts), salt (rocks) and some animal protein like white fish (more dead animals). You know, the thing about "purified" diet is that they are supposed to be, well, pure. Peat does not recommend such a thing. His recommendations are more varied and I really think that this makes all the difference in the world. If he really reverse engineered his articles to his believes, why would he emphasize gelatin so much?

    Rob A,
    I already mentioned that you are my current 180 comment board hero and I am gonna repeat that.

    I do think that the current theory of evolution most likely will undergo some major revisions and that the current theory is influenced a lot by a worldview that is probably too materialistic. Which direction the theory will take, however, I really don't know. There are a lot of fascinating sounding theories, some more plausible than others.

  135. madmuh are you female or male?

  136. Uaaa. That comment just made me update my profile pic.

    Honestly, I don't look all that androgynous

  137. Organism,
    I appreciate your input. You are very good at explaining what is going on.

    EL66k, Maddmuh, JD,
    There is much more to it that his reccomendations of milk and fruit. It would take a lot of time and effort knowto got through all of peats works and explain what I am referring to. Maybe I will work on something in the future and post it somewhere else, because it is not appropriate here. I will let you if I do.

  138. Zogby,
    Good points, and I have also found Stephan's recent posts to be very interesting and convincing.

    Food addiction, especially to these highly rewarding foods is real in my experience. Your reaction to getting rid of those foods sounds very similar to drug addicts going through rehab. I have know other people who have had severe physical withdrawl symptoms when trying to stop eating junk food.

  139. Thanks el66k, Anonymous, JT and madMUHHH. Defnitely fascinating stuff there- glad it's valuable to you.

    And madMUHHH- didn't think you looked androgynous in that last pic either. sharp red tie, ehough!

  140. maddmuh,
    You dont have too worry about the androgyny, you look masculine enough, and you are young and still maturing. Can you grow facial hair? I have known several guys that were very androgynous, and they seemed to attract a lot of females.

  141. You guys should look at your eyebrows…I have what looks like it could be the Sign of Hertoghe, which supposedly is a sign of hypothyroidism.

    Maybe in some people, the eyebrows have nothing to do with the thyroid. Apparently there is supposed to be a connection.

  142. Lol. Why the hell is my outer apppearance suddenly the center of this discussion?
    And yes, I do possess the wonderful and utterly practical ability to grow facial hair. And yes, I definitely am still maturing and developing in quite a favourable direction. (btw RRARF seems to have sped up that process quite a lot, which is a good thing, as I tend/ed to develop/mature much later than most. And I've grown quite a lot throughout the last year (fuck yeah!))

    And no, I might continue to mature, but I won't get less silly anytime soon.

    Goddammit, I have to learn how to write.

  143. MadMuhhh,

    Your pic is fine. Delayed maturation may be a sign of intelligence, anyway. People that develop more slowly may benefit from their brains staying plastic for longer — and you also might live longer for it.

  144. Hi madMUHHH, just want to say you look very handsome in a suit jacket and tie – Lieta

  145. God this comment thread is so weird…

  146. @Zogby

    I wonder if the malnourished young people around here will live longer like the small dogs/starved mice Matt has been talking about. A lot of Asians for example look small and slightly malnourished, but they seem to live long lives nonetheless. Lower body mass means fewer calories/nutrients to stay energized maybe?

  147. MadMUHHH,

    I say go with it. You can be the ziggy stardust era david bowie of 180degree health.

  148. I thought it's either an ugly woman or a malnurished young boy. LOL. What is your age madmuh?

  149. Wow Anonymous, you're really drinking the haterade.

    Let's see your picture :)

  150. Well, that malnourishment statement actually wouldn't have been that far off, if you had commented a picture 2 years older than the current one. I certainly was one malnourished/frail/thin-looking boy back then and probably have been way too thin for a great part of my life. But I don't think that I look particularly malnourished in both the previous and the current picture. And as I said, I actually think I'm turning out quite well and I'm also not the only one to notice that.
    But whatever, this topic is lame, evolution is much more fun.

    Oh, and I'm 19 years old.

  151. Articles on paleo diets often reference a dietary "fall," like:

    "Adherents of so-called Paleolithic diets believe that in the 10,000 years or so since the invention of agriculture, humans' digestive systems have still not adapted to these newly available foods. In response, they restrict their nutritional intake to foods that would have been available to our ancient ancestors in an effort to mimic what they believe is humanity's natural state" (http://bigthink.com/ideas/38410?utm_source=Daily+Ideafeed+Newsletter&utm_campaign=aa50a7552e-Daily_Ideafeed_May_14_2011&utm_medium=email).

    Peat writes "When Blake’s idea, that 'without Contraries there is no progression,' is seen in context, I think it is appropriate to think that to a great extent, Blake derived the idea from a consideration of the sexes. 'Generation,' so often discussed in relation to the biblical “fall of man,” always leads to the issue of the productive interaction of the sexual contraries" (http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/william-blake.shtml).

    He also writes "The tyger, at least, would be too much for a creationist doctrine to handle."

    ["And was Blake as much of a "Christian" as much as
    *used* the religion that his country-men and women understood, and which
    also happened to be conquering the world, for more subversive themes,

    Thanks for the link to the Blake discussion. Do you have any more like it?

    ["And was Blake as much of a "Christian" as much as
    *used* the religion that his country-men and women understood, and which
    also happened to be conquering the world, for more subversive themes,
    Peat: "I think the ramifications of that insight are very far-reaching and important. It's hard for many intellectual types to see that whole idea-complexes, as well as particular words, can be "used" creatively or for oppression and manipulation."

    Do you think that Peat is using modern biology in the way that Blake used Christianity? This might explain his attitude toward studies. I get the sense he has bigger plans–

  152. Peaty lost me when I heard he thinks carrots have too much PUFA. LOL. Carrots barely have any fat anyway.

  153. Yeah, but didn't Matt (or someone else) say that Peat considers beta-carotene to be very similar to PUFAs? Perhaps that's why he said that.

  154. isn't beta carotene itself unsaturated? i thought that's why it gives smokers more cancer in the supplement studies

  155. Andrew

    I don't have more links, but I posted some others in other comments in this post. BTW, what do you mean by "his attitude toward studies"?

  156. madmuh: You should stop masturbating so much, lowers testosterone and you look like a gay / woman.

  157. Come on, whats up with this MadMUHHH bashing?.. (you look great..)

    Also I think it's great that there is actually another person in here who is 19! :D

    @ Anonymous
    I'm actually quite curious about what you think makes a person look gay, and why?..

    There was such a good discussion just some comments ago.. Maybe we can hope for another comment wipe??

  158. @RC,

    No I'm talking about people that get plenty to eat. There's some evidence that some people develop more slowly due to genetics, and this slower development allows them to achieve higher levels of intelligence. IIRC, it's true that smart people generally live longer, so perhaps this is because they age slower, on the whole.

    It would also explain why smart kids sometimes get picked on more in school — they tend to be underdeveloped compared to their peers of the same age.

  159. to all the anonymous hating on Madmuh,
    at least he has the testicular fortitude to register a blogger name and put up a picture unlike all you pussies that just like to criticize while hiding in the dark

  160. Ignore the haters Muhhh ;)

    For those interested, my own recent experiments with sugar are actually going extremely well (I'm pleasantly surprised to say) Got to add this caveat though, I'm controlling my stress levels a whole lot better on top of this.
    If you want to know the most effective (in my opinion) use of sugar, it has to be sipping on fruit juice between meals – I can't recommend it highly enough – keeps your concentration levels sharp and any nerves at bay.

    My guts hated me initially for adding the sweet stuff back into my diet, but after a few days getting use to it and better stress management I'm really pleased with the outcome.

  161. Masturbation does lower testosterone in the long term, but so does sex.

    Maybe practice abstinence from sex and masturbation altogether? I tried that once, but I can't help it because I would stare at women and look like a creep. (I am too shy to talk to women.)

    Yes, Anonymous was correct. Testosterone does promote height, but it the reverse may be true.

    A lower testosterone level has an advantage, as it inhibits the endogenous production of estradiol by aromatase. It is estradiol which causes the fusion of growth plates, which may prematurely affect growth. So a decreased level of estradiol may prolong your growth period by delaying the maturation of your growth plates.

    But minimizing estrogens is a better alternative than abstinence. Also, taking an aromatase inhibitor would have the same effect of prolonging your growth period.

    Search in pubmed for "Letrozole growth" for studies showing that aromatase inhibitors can increase height.

    I was just defending Anonymous. No need to read between the lines and infer Anonymous was "trolling." Anonymous was just talking about a topic (masturbation) in which men (including me) are too shy to talk about. That's all.

    I was never picked on at school, even though I am short, skinny, shy, and Asian.

  162. Jannis' post about hummingbirds intrigued me. Move aside Eskimo, Masai & Kitavan – here comes the Hummingbird Diet!

    From wikipedia:

    Hummingbirds drink nectar, a sweet liquid inside certain flowers. They reject flower types that produce nectar that is less than 10% sugar and prefer those whose sugar content is stronger. Nectar is a poor source of nutrients, so hummingbirds meet their needs for fat, protein, amino acids, vitamins, minerals, etc. by preying on insects and spiders.

    With the exception of insects, hummingbirds while in flight have the highest metabolism of all animals, a necessity in order to support the rapid beating of their wings. Their heart rate can reach as high as 1,260 beats per minute, a rate once measured in a Blue-throated Hummingbird.

    Because of their tremendous metabolic requirements, hummingbirds have voracious appetites. Equivalent to the average human consuming an entire refrigerator full of food, hummingbirds eat roughly their own body weight in flower nectar every day.

    Hummingbirds are capable of slowing down their metabolism at night, or any other time food is not readily available. They enter a hibernation-like state known as torpor. During torpor, the heart rate and rate of breathing are both slowed dramatically (the heart rate to roughly 50–180 beats per minute), reducing the need for food.

    Studies of hummingbirds' metabolisms are highly relevant to the question of how a migrating Ruby-throated Hummingbird can cross 800 km (500 mi) of the Gulf of Mexico on a nonstop flight. This hummingbird, like other birds preparing to migrate, stores up fat to serve as fuel, thereby augmenting its weight by as much as 100 percent and hence increasing the bird's potential flying time.

    Hummingbirds have long lifespans for organisms with such rapid metabolisms. Though many die during their first year of life, especially in the vulnerable period between hatching and leaving the nest (fledging), those that survive may live a decade or more.

    Hummingbirds will also take sugar-water from bird feeders. Such feeders allow people to observe and enjoy hummingbirds up close while providing the birds with a reliable source of energy, especially when flower blossoms are less abundant.

    White granulated sugar is the best sweetener to use in hummingbird feeders. Brown, turbinado, and "raw" sugars contain iron, which can be deadly to hummingbirds if consumed over long periods.

  163. Yeah, tons of my comments are gone. I was really enjoying the discussion here too. Frickin' blogger. I will hopefully be switching everything over to the http://www.180degreehealth.com domain later this year, which should solve all those issues.

  164. Wow, sweet hummingbird find. Screw iron, bring on the nectar! And I will pretend cheeseburgers are insects and call it a hummingbird diet.

  165. Zogby-

    I've talked about this at length for years now.

    I do think that the pleasure centers in the brain can override the leptin system when it comes to weight regulation. And I too have theorized that those who gain weight on RRARF are typically only the ones whose diet increases in palatability (the scientific defition of palatability – the book The End of Overeating provides a good discssion on this).

    But one factor is left out, which is susceptibility to addiction, as most people don't gain weight eating to appetite of highly palatable food – at least for the first few decades they do.

    Scott Abel talks about this at great length as well.

  166. Yeah, I was wondering if the reason why iron is harmful to hummingbirds is the same as the reason why it's harmful to us (according to Peat).

    From Ray Peat:

    "Q: You believe iron is a deadly substance. Why?

    Iron is a potentially toxic heavy metal. In excess, it can cause cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses."


  167. About the fear / demonization of sugar:

    The more I think about it the more stupid it seems. Ponder this for a minute: what is sugar?

    Glucose and fructose are structural isomers with the same molecular formula C 6 H 12 O 6. Most sugars have that molecular formula: C(n) H(2n) O(n)

    That's carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.

    Could there be 3 elements more essential to life on Earth than these? In various combinations they form carbon, water, oxygen and carbon dioxide.

    Combined into sugar's formula they are the most pure and fundamental form of food energy.

    And the sweet taste!

    Is there anything more universally appealing to all life? Is that supposed to be a coincidence?

    How long would a species survive its actions were based on denying all of its body's primal urges: to eat, to drink, to mate, to survive, etc.

    "Glucophobia" will probably go down in history as one of humankind's stupidest dietary dogmas.

  168. Matt and Zogby–interesting on the pleasure centers/palatability a la Kessler/End of Overeating.

    I'm always puzzled when I read those by the fact that my husband is a massive, excessive responder to 'palatability,' eats unreal amounts of candy/ice cream/brownies when he's in the mood, but has always been lean (has always been a manic exerciser too). I guess he doesn't do it every day or all the time and I guess (he's 62) he is getting a lot of inflammatory symptoms nowadays… But it seems to me a conundrum that he totally has that pleasure/addiction response but doesn't get fat at all.

  169. What about blackstrap molasses which has high levels of iron?

  170. I can just see it now. Based on my last paragraph, some fool, if he/she bothers to respond, is going to accuse me of being a creationist and thus state that my point is irrelevant, etc.

    I am not going to state whether I am or not –a creationist, that is, because it doesn't matter.

    It doesn't matter because the point I made must stand on its own merit (I acknowledge I didn't argue/defend the point completely, I might later) independent of my views on evolution and creation.

    To accuse me of being a "creationist" so one can gloss over my point is dishonest and nothing more than an ad hominem fallacy.

    One of the ways science advances is by ruthlessly critiquing "theories" and seeing if they stand up to reason and evidence. Blind acceptance of something, just because people say it is true –and can laboriously argue for its truth– and it "seems" true to you, is not the mark of reason. Reason means facing honest critiques head-on and being willing to challenge ones must cherished beliefs. Reason means following where logic and evidence leads, or appears to lead, even if it means going against the mainstream and being labeled a "kook."

    OK, I'll get off my soapbox now. I might sound like I'm lecturing people; I hope not, there are simply some things that must be said to a candid world.

  171. Aw, darn! The comment that proceeded the one I just left disappeared. It's late…I'll try to post it again at some point. Without it, my remaining comment makes no sense…

  172. DML,
    Glad you posted that second comment man. I was reading that first one really trying to figure out what was going on!

  173. Andrew,
    Very insightful comment! And exactly what I am seeing as well. You stated:
    "Do you think that Peat is using modern biology in the way that Blake used Christianity? This might explain his attitude toward studies. I get the sense he has bigger plans–"

    Yes, i was getting the feeling there were bigger plans as well, and this is why I brought it up. Definitely more going on than him just relaying info from studies.

  174. OK I haven't caught up on the comments here but I'm seeing talk of hummingbirds and it reminded me of Dr. Katz's lame "rebuttal" of Gary Taubes sugar article in which he asks "how evil can hummingbird fuel be?":

    Yes hummingbirds thrive on nectar, but… they are BIRDS. Not mammals. They are essentially reptiles, right? I think their endocrine and digestive system are a leeeeetle bit different than ours.

    His argument came across as pretty lame to most intelligent readers as reflected in the comments. He did write a follow-up:

  175. Hey, to everyone who believes that Anonymous was "hating" on madMUHHH, please read this comment.

    Let's us see the series of comments made by Anonymous. Here is his/her first comment:

    madmuh are you female or male?

    I believe that Anonymous sincerely was unsure if madMUHHH is a male or female. It may be obvious for you that madMUHHH is a male, but for Anonymous, it may be different. It may not be obvious to Anonymous if madmuhhh was a male or female. So do not presume that Anonymous was intentionally questioning his masculinity. We all should presume that Anonymous was unsure if madMUHHH is a male or female, until there suggests evidence on the contrary.

    Anonymous was just confused and curious. There was no evidence that Anonymous was making fun of madMUHHH.

    Okay. The first comment by Anonymous was not "trolling." So let's look at Anonymous' second comment and determine if he/she was "trolling":

    I thought it's either an ugly woman or a malnurished young boy. LOL. What is your age madmuh?

    Let's analyze the above. Anonymous said that he/she thought madMUHHH was either an "ugly woman" or a "malnourished young boy." We should assume that it was what Anonymous honestly believed. But Anonymous wrote "LOL" right after that sentence.

    What does the "LOL" mean? The "LOL" means that Anonymous was kidding, and was not serious. The "LOL" implies laughter, and laughter can be a signal of submission. This means that Anonymous respects the honor of madMUHHH (at least to some extent), and Anonymous was not serious with that statement. So if madMUHHH requests Anonymous to "shut up," then Anonymous would obey and "shut up" and withdraw every statement which ends in an "LOL."

    Let's look at the second statement. This time, Anonymous asks a question to madMUHHH. His/her question is "What is your age?"

    Yes, asking someone's age is considered "impolite" in North America, so Anonymous was being kinda harsh. But MadMUHHH is a male, so that question shouldn't bother him as much as a female would be bothered. (In North America, it is considered "impolite" to ask how old a woman is, because women don't want to be embarrased if her real age is older than she looks.)

    Again, Anonymous' second comment might be perceived as harsh. But we should presume that Anonymous was just curious. That's all. No need to accuse Anonymous of "trolling" when Anonymous might just being curious.

    There was no evidence that Anonymous was "hating" on madMUHHH.¹

    Okay. Let's look at Anonymous third, comment:

    madmuh: You should stop masturbating so much, lowers testosterone and you look like a gay / woman.

    Anonymous might be unclear with that comment. Some people may misinterpret that Anonymous was "attacking" madMUHHH in that comment.

    But look closer.

    Anonymous said "madmuh: You should stop masturbating so much, lowers testosterone."

    Don't be confused. Anonymous was not attacking madMUHHH for suggesting him to stop masturbating. Anonymous was just trying to say that masturabation would lower testosterone. So Anonymous made a recommendation to madMUHHH to stop masturbating so he would increase testosterone.

    Yes, Anonymous' recommendation may seem harsh to madMUHH and may embarass madMUHHH for asking such a question, but I still don't consider that as "trolling." I don't think Anonymous was "trolling" or "hating" or madMUHHH, Anonymous was just being kinda harsh in his criticism. That is far from "trolling."


    [1] At least Stancel put a smiley after his comment:

    Stancel said…
    [Anonymous], Let's see your picture :)

  176. To clarify, I will say that I was not "condoning" Anonymous' criticism to madMUHHH. I just think you guys have took it too far because you accused Anonymous of "hating" on madMUHHH, when no evidence that Anonymous "hate" madMUHHH.

    There is a difference between a "hater" and someone who was just being harsh. I think you guys took it too far and accused Anonymous of "hate" when that was not the case.

  177. @ orgasm as a whole

    Have you considered writing a PhD thesis about this?

  178. Some of u have way too much time on your hands

  179. OAAW – The lady doth protest too much.

    Ela – are you a man or woman?

  180. Holy crap–first MadMUUUHH gets the gender runaround and now it's me??

    Since I mentioned _my husband_ in my last comment on here, even if my blogger profile pic is kinda blurry, it should be obvious that I'm a girl, right? And I know my name is unusual, but its morphology is pretty solidly feminine also, no?


  181. Bump.


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>