3 ms·

I'm not actually that young, I'm 33. (I also haven't been training very long, about 2 years now) I agree though, I am a sample size of one. There are forums of

I'm not actually that young, I'm 33. (I also haven't been training very long, about 2 years now) I agree though, I am a sample size of one. There are forums of people who follow Ray Peat's ideas, and some do consume large amounts of sugar, and do really well.

justinator 10y ago
But think about when people succumb to problems because of poor diet choices: it's not 33. It's more like 65, for heart disease or 45 for Type 2 Diabetes. Not that you CAN'T see differences, in some instances. I look at former classmates from college and they look horrible when I compare myself (and they know it) - but it's mostly from abuse of alchohol, which I think we can all agree will age you. > There are forums of people who follow Ray Peat's ideas, and some do consume large amounts of sugar, and do really well. How are their teeth?
- sean_patel 10y ago
  > How are their teeth? This.
- greywolve 10y ago
  I haven't heard any reports of people getting teeth issues, assuming they actually look after them. The community there is quite skeptical, and very much for experimenting on themselves, having blood tests taken, etc. Here's another article that explains the alternative view point on this: http://digestiblekitchen.com/2013/10/confused-about-sugar-one-year-since-i-brought-sugar-back/ http://digestiblekitchen.com/2013/10/confused-about-sugar-on... Note that I'm not recommending processed foods either. I actually think it's much harder to eat lots of sugar, if you are only consuming it in non-processed foods. But then is it sugar itself that is the problem?
- iopq 10y ago
  I know sugar affects my teeth so I brush them after I eat a sugary meal. But a carby meal is just as bad.
coldtea 10y ago
>There are forums of people who follow Ray Peat's ideas Sorry, but this sounds like a personality cult. How about following the state of the art dietary advice? Sure, consensus scientific advice can change over time, and be conflicting at times. But it will always be better than following some individual's opinions.
- greywolve 10y ago
  How about considering different viewpoints? Main stream advice should always be questioned. Also, different diets work for different types of people, and there are 10000 other factors. You can't simply isolate one variable, complex systems don't care about your linear ideas. A an upcoming documentary an alternative theories related to this: http://perceivethinkact.com/ http://perceivethinkact.com/ Also checkout the forums yourself, and then decide if these people are unreasonable: https://raypeatforum.com https://raypeatforum.com That is assuming you are not suffering from a bias towards authoritarian sources. ;)
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >How about considering different viewpoints? There's already consideration for different viewpoints inside the scientific consensus -- that's how it's formed. Yes, it's not perfect but better than its absense. So, unless those different viewpoints follow the scientific method and are part of the scientific discussion, they are basically either kooks (like Willhelm Reich) or snake-oil salesmen (like, too many to mention). >Main stream advice should always be questioned. Usually mainstream advice on pragmatic issues is exactly what works and has been tried and true. (Not to be conflated with mainstream opinion -- on flakey matters, such as personal, political, aesthetic, moral etc subjects). >Also, different diets work for different types of people, and there are 10000 other factors. You can't simply isolate one variable, complex systems don't care about your linear ideas. All those are things that the scientific community knows already. So I don't see their relevance here. Plus, while "different diets work for different types of people", they are not that different in the end, unless someone has a specific genetic condition. At best, some diets are easier, as a habit, for some people to follow than others (some can count calories, some can cut some specific food more easily, etc). But the ways they work (nutritionally) are the same, and the principles are the same. People are not unique snowflakes. >That is assuming you are not suffering from a bias towards authoritarian sources. ;) It's precisely the single person that's the "authoritarian source", and the scientific consensus, formed in a discussion, and under experimentation across the globe, that's the flexible and non-authoritarian source.
Noseshine 10y ago
I'm not actually that young, I'm 33. That is young. Health effects (for many things) show up much later, past 50 or even 60. Until then most bodies can compensate for quite a lot of stuff that has gone wrong earlier. If you take cancer rates by age as an indicator you can see age 33 barely registers: https://canceraustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/statistics/2016/all-cancers-fig1.png https://canceraustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/statistic... Or diabetes: http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/age/fig1.gif http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/age/fig1.gif
- greywolve 10y ago
  That's true, though surely there are already signs in your 30's of later health problems (Obesity, etc)
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    Obesity is a sign for everything related to (and around) obesity. There is plenty of other things that have no connection with obesity, like drugs, alcohol, or too much sun exposure. Aging brings everything to the surface. Obesity is just one specific area with a cluster of diseases.

justinator 10y ago

But think about when people succumb to problems because of poor diet choices: it's not 33. It's more like 65, for heart disease or 45 for Type 2 Diabetes. Not that you CAN'T see differences, in some instances. I look at former classmates from college and they look horrible when I compare myself (and they know it) - but it's mostly from abuse of alchohol, which I think we can all agree will age you. > There are forums of people who follow Ray Peat's ideas, and some do consume large amounts of sugar, and do really well. How are their teeth?

sean_patel 10y ago
> How are their teeth? This.
greywolve 10y ago
I haven't heard any reports of people getting teeth issues, assuming they actually look after them. The community there is quite skeptical, and very much for experimenting on themselves, having blood tests taken, etc. Here's another article that explains the alternative view point on this: http://digestiblekitchen.com/2013/10/confused-about-sugar-one-year-since-i-brought-sugar-back/ http://digestiblekitchen.com/2013/10/confused-about-sugar-on... Note that I'm not recommending processed foods either. I actually think it's much harder to eat lots of sugar, if you are only consuming it in non-processed foods. But then is it sugar itself that is the problem?
iopq 10y ago
I know sugar affects my teeth so I brush them after I eat a sugary meal. But a carby meal is just as bad.

coldtea 10y ago

>There are forums of people who follow Ray Peat's ideas Sorry, but this sounds like a personality cult. How about following the state of the art dietary advice? Sure, consensus scientific advice can change over time, and be conflicting at times. But it will always be better than following some individual's opinions.

greywolve 10y ago
How about considering different viewpoints? Main stream advice should always be questioned. Also, different diets work for different types of people, and there are 10000 other factors. You can't simply isolate one variable, complex systems don't care about your linear ideas. A an upcoming documentary an alternative theories related to this: http://perceivethinkact.com/ http://perceivethinkact.com/ Also checkout the forums yourself, and then decide if these people are unreasonable: https://raypeatforum.com https://raypeatforum.com That is assuming you are not suffering from a bias towards authoritarian sources. ;)
- coldtea 10y ago
  >How about considering different viewpoints? There's already consideration for different viewpoints inside the scientific consensus -- that's how it's formed. Yes, it's not perfect but better than its absense. So, unless those different viewpoints follow the scientific method and are part of the scientific discussion, they are basically either kooks (like Willhelm Reich) or snake-oil salesmen (like, too many to mention). >Main stream advice should always be questioned. Usually mainstream advice on pragmatic issues is exactly what works and has been tried and true. (Not to be conflated with mainstream opinion -- on flakey matters, such as personal, political, aesthetic, moral etc subjects). >Also, different diets work for different types of people, and there are 10000 other factors. You can't simply isolate one variable, complex systems don't care about your linear ideas. All those are things that the scientific community knows already. So I don't see their relevance here. Plus, while "different diets work for different types of people", they are not that different in the end, unless someone has a specific genetic condition. At best, some diets are easier, as a habit, for some people to follow than others (some can count calories, some can cut some specific food more easily, etc). But the ways they work (nutritionally) are the same, and the principles are the same. People are not unique snowflakes. >That is assuming you are not suffering from a bias towards authoritarian sources. ;) It's precisely the single person that's the "authoritarian source", and the scientific consensus, formed in a discussion, and under experimentation across the globe, that's the flexible and non-authoritarian source.

Noseshine 10y ago

I'm not actually that young, I'm 33. That is young. Health effects (for many things) show up much later, past 50 or even 60. Until then most bodies can compensate for quite a lot of stuff that has gone wrong earlier. If you take cancer rates by age as an indicator you can see age 33 barely registers: https://canceraustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/statistics/2016/all-cancers-fig1.png https://canceraustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/statistic... Or diabetes: http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/age/fig1.gif http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/age/fig1.gif

greywolve 10y ago
That's true, though surely there are already signs in your 30's of later health problems (Obesity, etc)
- Noseshine 10y ago
  Obesity is a sign for everything related to (and around) obesity. There is plenty of other things that have no connection with obesity, like drugs, alcohol, or too much sun exposure. Aging brings everything to the surface. Obesity is just one specific area with a cluster of diseases.