5 ms·

A different take on PUFAs - https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsaturatedfats.shtml https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsaturatedfats.shtml

hombre_fatal 3y ago
A different take in the same way an astrologist's blog gives us a different take on the planet Saturn. If anything Ray Peat, a quack, says is true, then why do things like PUFAs improve human health outcomes in the literature? He says PUFAs cause atherosclerosis and SFA protects against it, so why does human outcome data show the opposite? And how many animal studies is he going to bring up? Ray Peat is a good example of how far contrarianism will take you in the nutrition celeb space. Probably because we like to decide on what we want to eat first and then shop for claims that support it which is 10000x easier than deciding on what to eat based on the greatest evidence. Here's a good post that summarizes some PUFA literature in response to the social media "seed oil" scare: https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-to-seed-oil-sophistry https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-...
- TylerLives 3y ago
  Great questions. I'm busy right now, but I promise to go through the article in the next few days and respond. I'm open to having my mind changed, though I must admit I started feeling better when I started following Ray Peat's advice. I wonder if it could be that different people respond differently to different diets. Have you tried sharing your article on raypeatforum? You say that he's a "quack", but I've never seen him arguing in bad faith and people there are usually friendly and try to be objective and open to new ideas.
  - hombre_fatal 3y ago
    Feel free to email me (address in profile). Nutritional arguments usually turn into epistemological inquisition: how do we know anything about anything, and what do we purport to be our standard of evidence? Do our beliefs actually entail from evidence that reaches that standard? And if evidence isn't what matters, what does matter and why?

hombre_fatal 3y ago

A different take in the same way an astrologist's blog gives us a different take on the planet Saturn. If anything Ray Peat, a quack, says is true, then why do things like PUFAs improve human health outcomes in the literature? He says PUFAs cause atherosclerosis and SFA protects against it, so why does human outcome data show the opposite? And how many animal studies is he going to bring up? Ray Peat is a good example of how far contrarianism will take you in the nutrition celeb space. Probably because we like to decide on what we want to eat first and then shop for claims that support it which is 10000x easier than deciding on what to eat based on the greatest evidence. Here's a good post that summarizes some PUFA literature in response to the social media "seed oil" scare: https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-to-seed-oil-sophistry https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-...

TylerLives 3y ago
Great questions. I'm busy right now, but I promise to go through the article in the next few days and respond. I'm open to having my mind changed, though I must admit I started feeling better when I started following Ray Peat's advice. I wonder if it could be that different people respond differently to different diets. Have you tried sharing your article on raypeatforum? You say that he's a "quack", but I've never seen him arguing in bad faith and people there are usually friendly and try to be objective and open to new ideas.
- hombre_fatal 3y ago
  Feel free to email me (address in profile). Nutritional arguments usually turn into epistemological inquisition: how do we know anything about anything, and what do we purport to be our standard of evidence? Do our beliefs actually entail from evidence that reaches that standard? And if evidence isn't what matters, what does matter and why?