KETO vs RAY PEAT diet , I am confused

[GeorgeMathew]

Okay so I've been fasting and on keto (no carbs) since ages, and noticed nothing bad happening

Until these days when I found a community : Ray Peat forum a huge group supporting dr. Ray Peat, a guy who swears by the dangers of low carbs. He documented everything, at the same time I don't understand what we are missing here anymore.

I read tons of accounts on low carb / keto / fasting that people reversed gray hairs and aging, yet there are a few of course who say low carb is bad for them, but the whole Ray Peat community is on high sugar and carbs, now , what are we missing here ?

Take a look on this theory :

Low Carb Diet – Death to Metabolism – Functional Performance Systems (FPS)

www.functionalps.com

What do you guys think ? let's keep in serious - mature discussion only, keep jokes for something funny.

Thanks

 

[Deleted member 4054]

If you're an athlete or trying to get strong, don't go keto. If you're a fat guy trying to lose weight, very low carb will probably make the process more tolerable. If you're neither and just following a particular diet for the purported health benefits, you'll find too much conflicting information to draw any firm conclusions

 

[Deleted member 2661]

Or you can eat whatever you want and roid

 

[GeorgeMathew]

Or you can eat whatever you want and roid

this proves the level of stupidity around these forums,
we are talking about grey hair , wrinkles, skin depigmentation, saggin skin, dark circles, skin freckles due to diet, destruction of metabolism and the list goes on forever as you are what you eat. You proved the dumbest mindset on western American diet under 18, if you are under 18 , it's evident that your post reflects your iq, if you are over 18, kill yourself.


Eat what you want and roid ? take some poison kiddo

 

[born2shitforced2wipe]

very high iq ray peat ok i will drink soda and eat sugar that will make me healthy. fucking senile retard, eat high fat carnivore with HIGH QUALITY animal foods, long run add some stuff like rye bread you made yourself or FRESH IN SEASON fruits that you pick yourself

 

[Deleted member 2661]

this proves the level of stupidity around these forums,
we are talking about grey hair , wrinkles, skin depigmentation, saggin skin, dark circles, skin freckles due to diet, destruction of metabolism and the list goes on forever as you are what you eat. You proved the dumbest mindset on western American diet under 18, if you are under 18 , it's evident that your post reflects your iq, if you are over 18, kill yourself.


Eat what you want and roid ? take some poison kiddo

Yet another high inhib cuck who thinks that he is going to look so much better than others in his 40-50s when it doesn't even matter, because you aren't attracting females anyway. While you are busting your bluepilled ass in the gym, Chads are slaying girls with their 2-3 month old physiques. Keep coping with your autistic diets and macro counting.

 

[CopeAndRope]

but the whole Ray Peat community is on high sugar and carbs

Deluded people with type 2 diabetes.

 

[OFFICER_HENRY]

Keto is better.

 

[betamanlet]

It's almost like there is no universally healthy diet, but rather all nutritional science is context-dependent. The short answer is: eat for energy, wellbeing and heat. Learn to listen to what your body wants.

Deluded people with type 2 diabetes.

Sugar does not cause diabetes and possibly even reverses it. American Diabetes Association acknowledges this:

Of note, there is little evidence that total carbohydrate intake is associated with the development of type 2 diabetes). Rather, a stronger association has been observed between total fat and saturated fat intake and type 2 diabetes [...] and in one study, a negative association was observed between sucrose intake and diabetes risk

Dietary Carbohydrate (Amount and Type) in the Prevention and Management of Diabetes: A statement by the American Diabetes Association

Diabetes has long been viewed as a disorder of carbohydrate metabolism due to its hallmark feature of hyperglycemia. Indeed, hyperglycemia is the cause of the a

care.diabetesjournals.org

 

[kalefartbomb]

If you're an athlete or trying to get strong, don't go keto. If you're a fat guy trying to lose weight, very low carb will probably make the process more tolerable. If you're neither and just following a particular diet for the purported health benefits, you'll find too much conflicting information to draw any firm conclusions

Tons of world class athletes on keto diets especially in endurance sports. The "carb up" meme is largely 70s junk science originating from Prof Tim Noakes who ironically has disowned all of his former advice to athletes (specifically runners). Look into Mark Sissons if you want to learn about how athlete diets are switching away from the 70s high carb diets.

People should remember that until the last few decades, strongmen, bodybuilders, powerlifers all pretty much ate like Vince Gironda said; a ton of meat, eggs, cream and calories. And natural strength competitors have certainly gone backwards since back then.

It's almost like there is no universally healthy diet, but rather all nutritional science is context-dependent. The short answer is: eat for energy, wellbeing and heat. Learn to listen to what your body wants.



Sugar does not cause diabetes and possibly even reverses it. American Diabetes Association acknowledges this:

Of note, there is little evidence that total carbohydrate intake is associated with the development of type 2 diabetes). Rather, a stronger association has been observed between total fat and saturated fat intake and type 2 diabetes [...] and in one study, a negative association was observed between sucrose intake and diabetes risk

Dietary Carbohydrate (Amount and Type) in the Prevention and Management of Diabetes: A statement by the American Diabetes Association

Diabetes has long been viewed as a disorder of carbohydrate metabolism due to its hallmark feature of hyperglycemia. Indeed, hyperglycemia is the cause of the a

care.diabetesjournals.org

There was no diabetes before the advent of modern high carb diets. It literally doesn't exist in indigenous societies that eat high saturated fat diets.

There is no clinical research to suggest sugar reverses diabetes, there is an enormous stack of evidence that a high fat diet reverses it. I am afraid you have fallen for one of the more recent vegan propaganda myths.

 

[Deleted member 4054]

Tons of world class athletes on keto diets especially in endurance sports. The "carb up" meme is largely 70s junk science originating from Prof Tim Noakes who ironically has disowned all of his former advice to athletes (specifically runners).

People should remember that until the last few decades, strongmen, bodybuilders, powerlifers all pretty much ate like Vince Gironda said; a ton of meat, eggs, cream and calories. And natural strength competitors have certainly gone backwards since back then.

Tons of world class athletes are not on Keto diets, a very small percentage of extreme endurance athletes are. I've had this conversation with people much smarter than me who have spent years looking into this, and there's no doubt low carb is suboptimal for strength and physical performance (except for maybe niche ultramarathons and the like). Natural strongmen have not gone backwards since the 50s and prior, although no one is natural in any strength sport tested or not. I won't change your mind about this and that's ok, everyone's entitled to their opinion.

 

[betamanlet]

There was no diabetes before the advent of modern high carb diets. .

Carbs alone have very little to do with the formation of diabetes. People have been eating high carb diets for as long as agriculture has been relevant, if not longer. Consider the fact that diabetes is a metabolic condition in which cells are losing more sugar than they are taking in. Eating a lot of sugar creates a situation where sugar is essentially being forced into the cells, allowing the cell to function normally and thus reverse the diabetic condition. It makes no sense for sugar to cause diabetes, since sugar is precisely what fuels the cell. It is substances and circumstances that sabotage cellular energy production that enable the diabetic state to form in the first place: fluoride, PUFA, excess fat while in glucose-burning mode, stress, lack of calories, nutrient deficiencies (especially B) and so on.

The reason ketosis "works" for diabetes is that it bypasses the sugar problem by allowing fats to be used as fuel instead. The downside is that unless you manage to also remove the reasons that originally caused the diabetic state, ketosis can be little more than a band-aid solution, in which case as soon as you get out from ketosis, the diabetic state would return.

I am afraid you have fallen for one of the more recent vegan propaganda myths.

Veganism has nothing to do with the anything here.

 

[GeorgeMathew]

Tons of world class athletes on keto diets especially in endurance sports. The "carb up" meme is largely 70s junk science originating from Prof Tim Noakes who ironically has disowned all of his former advice to athletes (specifically runners). Look into Mark Sissons if you want to learn about how athlete diets are switching away from the 70s high carb diets.

People should remember that until the last few decades, strongmen, bodybuilders, powerlifers all pretty much ate like Vince Gironda said; a ton of meat, eggs, cream and calories. And natural strength competitors have certainly gone backwards since back then.


There was no diabetes before the advent of modern high carb diets. It literally doesn't exist in indigenous societies that eat high saturated fat diets.

There is no clinical research to suggest sugar reverses diabetes, there is an enormous stack of evidence that a high fat diet reverses it. I am afraid you have fallen for one of the more recent vegan propaganda myths.

Best post so far. Respect

Carbs alone have very little to do with the formation of diabetes. People have been eating high carb diets for as long as agriculture has been relevant, if not longer. Consider the fact that diabetes is a metabolic condition in which cells are losing more sugar than they are taking in. Eating a lot of sugar creates a situation where sugar is essentially being forced into the cells, allowing the cell to function normally and thus reverse the diabetic condition. It makes no sense for sugar to cause diabetes, since sugar is precisely what fuels the cell. It is substances and circumstances that sabotage cellular energy production that enable the diabetic state to form in the first place: fluoride, PUFA, excess fat while in glucose-burning mode, stress, lack of calories, nutrient deficiencies (especially B) and so on.

The reason ketosis "works" for diabetes is that it bypasses the sugar problem by allowing fats to be used as fuel instead. The downside is that unless you manage to also remove the reasons that originally caused the diabetic state, ketosis can be little more than a band-aid solution, in which case as soon as you get out from ketosis, the diabetic state would return.


Veganism has nothing to do with the anything here.

I really do think that grain carbs caused this diabetes issue, as they are the most poisonous and inflammatory of them all, mix that with gluten and you get who knows what, bread ! so carbs from starch should be very fine imho.

People have been up on wheat and bread not for long! and look what happened. You do sound like a Ray Peat'er . What's wrong with PUFA ? I don't get the PUFA MUFA hype.

Lack of calories ? calorie deficit diet was proved more than once to be the best strategy for age-reversal , that is fasting, so you do speak a lot of nonsense.

 

[betamanlet]

I really do think that grain carbs caused this diabetes issue, as they are the most poisonous and inflammatory of them all, mix that with gluten and you get who knows what, bread ! so carbs from starch should be very fine imho.

In general, grains are the least optimal type of starch, and starch the least optimal type of carb. Ultimately it is up to what makes you feel well and what you can tolerate. And even this can change depending on the time of the year, your level of activity, stress you are undergoing, the environment you are living in, emotions you are feeling and so on. A diet that works for you at one period of your life may work against you at another.

You do sound like a Ray Peat'er . What's wrong with PUFA ? I don't get the PUFA MUFA hype.

Since you mentioned Peat, go read his articles and you'll get a better answer than anything I could condense into a single forum post:

Unsaturated fatty acids: Nutritionally essential, or toxic?

Ray Peat

raypeat.com

Fats, functions and malfunctions.

There is a growing recognition that a persistent increase of free fatty acids in the serum, which is seen in shock, heart failure, and aging, indicates a bad prognosis, but there is no generally recognized explanation for the fact that free fatty acids are harmful. I want to mention some...

raypeat.com

Suitable Fats, Unsuitable Fats: Issues in Nutrition

Ray Peat

raypeat.com

Unsaturated Vegetable Oils: Toxic

Ray Peat

raypeat.com

Fats and degeneration

Ray Peat

raypeat.com

Lack of calories ? calorie deficit diet was proved more than once to be the best strategy for age-reversal , that is fasting,

It's one thing to practice fasting and another to be chronically malnourished. You are an organism the prime purpose of which is to transmute energy from one form to another. Denying such organism its energy will lead to an eventual failure of its whole system. The energy that sustains your body has to come from somewhere. As far as quality nutrition goes, the more you eat, the healthier you will be (to a certain sensible extent, of course). Consider that practically all illnesses that exist have their root in failure of energy metabolism.

you do speak a lot of nonsense.

I don't deal in nonsense. Feel free to highlight the parts that puzzle you and I'll do my best to explain my reasoning.

 

[spark]

100-200 grams of carbs a day is ideal

 

[GeorgeMathew]

In general, grains are the least optimal type of starch, and starch the least optimal type of carb. Ultimately it is up to what makes you feel well and what you can tolerate. And even this can change depending on the time of the year, your level of activity, stress you are undergoing, the environment you are living in, emotions you are feeling and so on. A diet that works for you at one period of your life may work against you at another.



Since you mentioned Peat, go read his articles and you'll get a better answer than anything I could condense into a single forum post:

Unsaturated fatty acids: Nutritionally essential, or toxic?

Ray Peat

raypeat.com

Fats, functions and malfunctions.

There is a growing recognition that a persistent increase of free fatty acids in the serum, which is seen in shock, heart failure, and aging, indicates a bad prognosis, but there is no generally recognized explanation for the fact that free fatty acids are harmful. I want to mention some...

raypeat.com

Suitable Fats, Unsuitable Fats: Issues in Nutrition

Ray Peat

raypeat.com

Unsaturated Vegetable Oils: Toxic

Ray Peat

raypeat.com

Fats and degeneration

Ray Peat

raypeat.com

It's one thing to practice fasting and another to be chronically malnourished. You are an organism the prime purpose of which is to transmute energy from one form to another. Denying such organism its energy will lead to an eventual failure of its whole system. The energy that sustains your body has to come from somewhere. As far as quality nutrition goes, the more you eat, the healthier you will be (to a certain sensible extent, of course). Consider that practically all illnesses that exist have their root in failure of energy metabolism.


I don't deal in nonsense. Feel free to highlight the parts that puzzle you and I'll do my best to explain my reasoning.

I highlighted the level of ignorance that you dwell in, you don't know what fasting is or calorie restriction. Yet, you scream about dangers of calorie deficit.

This summed it all up, I have no clue why I responded to your post in the first place, but this got it evident to me that Ray Peaters are some sort of sect or cult praising ignorance, as you do.

I wonder how did that senile young looking dead body start his own community and got so many followers; really
Ray Peaters on sugar issue (when sugar was evident to blast the skin in all ways ) :

1) no glucose will not destroy the collagen matrix. In the absence of glucose, once glycogen is majorly depleted cortisol rises to induce gluconeogenesis which is the creation of glucose. The glucose is created from amino acids. These amino acids come from the muscle tissue, connective tissue, skin etc. Thus a lack of glucose over a period of time directly degrades the collagen matrix. Thats why people keep harping on cortisol here. Testosterone to cortisol ratio is an effective relative indicator of anabolism vs. catabolism. If testosterone is high and cortisol is low, it is likely that your body is not degrading its tissues to produce energy, Its actually in a state of building its tissues. I think some mechanisms of testosterone may have beneficial effects but I think high testosterone and low cortisol is more indicative of the the underlying state of the body, which is more important in the grand scheme. I wouldnt get caught up in the specifics of the test: cortisol ratio, but look at it overall as a general indicator of anabolism/ catabolism.

2) Yes Fruit, 100% juice and tubers are the best source of carbs for multiple reasonse. Some people handle white potatoes better than sweet potatoes due to sweet potatoes fodmap content and type of starch (amylose), thats why I left it broad at tubers.

3) See number 1 above. Testosterone may help with skin health, but whats more likely is that a high testosterone to cortisol ratio is indicative of a general state of health for a man with less catabolic function occuring and more anabolic function. The catabolic function is what breaks down the skin. Elevated cortisol is generally related to either lack of glucose or and excess of inflammation.

4) Testosterone may have some benefit. But again, I think high T, with a lower cortisol is a symbol of the bodies physical state. Just having high T or artificially elevating your T isnt neccesarily the answer. Its the bodies environment overall that matters. These markers are indicators.

5) I dont think the carotenese are neccesarily helpful or harmful. Theres alot more to the sweet potato than copper and carotene. The carbohydrate, multiple vitamins, multiple minerals, plant compounds, and lack of toxins compared to other foods like grains make it a relatively good food overall. Same goes for fruit. As for the longevity aspect, the element of community, living at altitude, quality of food and water, dietary choices, low level moderate activity, lack of unneccesary stress etc. are all factors. I doubt its just the sweet potatoes alone. People in the US could easily live to blue zone ages if thier diet was better, they had less stress, they had more community/ family, they stayed away from doctors and pharma, they stopped drinking and smoking, and they did some moderate level enjoyable activity like dancing, hiking, martial arts, some sports, real hobbies like gardening, fencing, archery, etc.

 

[betamanlet]

I highlighted the level of ignorance that you dwell in, you don't know what fasting is or calorie restriction. Yet, you scream about dangers of calorie deficit.

Sorry, I have not the faintest idea what you are going on about. It seems that you are either unable or unwilling to differentiate between temporary caloric restriction and chronic under-eating. The former has situational benefits, the latter does not.

sugar was evident to blast the skin in all ways

This belongs to a group of common dietary memes that are largely based on poorly constructed studies, misunderstood metabolic mechanisms and misinterpreted test results. Sugar is basic fuel. As such, it requires several nutrients in order to be metabolized (for ex. B vitamins, magnesium, selenium). In presence of all the necessary nutrients, sugar will perform the basic task of fueling the cells. In absence of these nutrients, the improperly metabolized sugar will result in significant metabolic stress, which can manifest in a plethora of ways (such as the bad skin you mention), depending on where exactly in the complex chain of metabolic processes the failure occurs. In every study in which sugar is deemed harmful, the latter circumstances exist by default, as it is impossible for sugar to cause damage as long as it is properly metabolized. Any energy excess generated by the cells will simply be turned into bodily heat.

I have no clue why I responded to your post in the first place

Well, for starters, you appear more interested in arguing with your idea of me rather than what I actually represent. Perhaps this allows for a convenient way to establish a rewarding sense of superiority?

 

[GeorgeMathew]

No, you Ray Peaters are plain retarded.

SUGAR is nothing but pure poison, too much fruit is the same. What elementary shit you don't get from it ? I mean really, western diet is the living proof of how high sugar high carbs can destroy a nation from within : America,

Yet you come here and claim that that corpse Ray Peat is true about Mexican Cola and Ice Cream being part of a good diet, good for fucking what ? for ending life faster ?

Why do I even have to post these links ?

Nutrition and aging skin: sugar and glycation - PubMed

The effect of sugars on aging skin is governed by the simple act of covalently cross-linking two collagen fibers, which renders both of them incapable of easy repair. Glucose and fructose link the amino acids present in the collagen and elastin that support the dermis, producing advanced...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Sugar Sag: Glycation and the Role of Diet in Aging Skin - PubMed

First described in the context of diabetes, advanced glycation end products (AGEs) are formed through a type of non-enzymatic reaction called glycation. Increased accumulation of AGEs in human tissue has now been associated with end stage renal disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Collagen Glycation and Diabetes | Duer Research Group

www.ch.cam.ac.uk

even fruits (fructose) too much of them is bad !

Long-term fructose consumption accelerates glycation and several age-related variables in male rats - PubMed

Fructose intake has increased steadily during the past two decades. Fructose, like other reducing sugars, can react with proteins through the Maillard reaction (glycation), which may account for several complications of diabetes mellitus and accelerating aging. In this study, we evaluated the...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

High Dietary Fructose: Direct or Indirect Dangerous Factors Disturbing Tissue and Organ Functions

High dietary fructose is a major contributor to insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome, disturbing tissue and organ functions. Fructose is mainly absorbed into systemic circulation by glucose transporter 2 (GLUT2) and GLUT5, and metabolized in liver ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Where is that god damn senile dead body bastard right now promoting fruits and mexican cola after banning me on his website ? why doesn't he admit that he's a senile corpse ?

Also, why don't you kill yourself ?

 

[betamanlet]

No, you Ray Peaters are plain retarded.

I'm not a Peater. As I said, you evidently are arguing with your idea of me instead of the real me. Which, as you may understand, is kind of boring to the real me.

SUGAR is nothing but pure poison, too much fruit is the same. What elementary shit you don't get from it ?

Nonsense. Nothing about your stance can be backed up with reason. If it could, I bet you would've already done so.

I mean really, western diet is the living proof of how high sugar high carbs can destroy a nation from within : America,

I wonder if you even read my posts. I already addressed this. Here is a condensed point for your lowly attention span: high sugar high nutrition = no problem, high sugar low nutrition = problem.

Why do I even have to post these links ?

My question exactly. These links are hardly relevant to anything we are discussing. Are you just CTRL+F'ing buzzwords and linking me to random studies, hoping that this would somehow prove you right? Hint: such cheap tricks do not work on an intellectual giant like me.

Also, why don't you kill yourself ?

I am sorry you find it hard to cope with my refusal to validate your pop-scientific understanding of nutrition.

 

[GeorgeMathew]

Mate, read the studies.

SUGAR causes indirectly , skin aging . It's not a mumbo-jumbo study, it's not one study .

Intellectual giant ? are you trolling on this thread?

 

[betamanlet]

SUGAR causes indirectly

Exactly! Sugar only reveals flaws and deficiencies that already exist within your metabolic pathways. Blaming sugar for these problems is like blaming the water when your kitchen sink floods over. While it is water that floods over, it is the blockage in the drain that causes the problem.

Indirectly! You are starting to understand.

 

[GeorgeMathew]

Dude, sugar causes glycation, directly

Glycation is death for youth;

What part we don't understand ?

1. Refined sugar will kill your looks
2. Fructose from fruits will kill your looks if eaten enough < so there you go with fruits overdosing

IT's still sugar

It's still poison

Ray peat and his peaters are frauds or mentally ill. Icecream and mexican cola ! holy mother of LOL

 

[GeorgeMathew]

I found this on reddit, as one guy pretends that his best friend died after following Ray Peat diet :

this single study (primary science) obliterates senile zombie Ray Peat into oblivion :

The role of glycation in the pathogenesis of aging and its prevention through herbal products and physical exercise

Advanced glycation end products (AGEs) are non-enzymatic modifications of proteins or lipids after exposure to sugars. In this review, the glycation process and AGEs are introduced, and the harmful effects of AGEs in the aging process are discussed.Results ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

And his whole community of dumb sheeps; I mean, how idiot can one be to follow up a crazy man with weird fantasies who pretends that sugar and ice cream is healthy ?

 

[Deleted member 3593]

I'm gonna be honest, all these diets (carnivore, paleo, atkins, keto, etc) are all super retarded. Any type of exclusionary diet will almost always, 9 times out of 10 trigger a binge eating cycle and will make you feel like shit. IMO the moment you start excluding stuff or start CONSCIOUSLY restricting calories is when you already failed, you don't want to "feel" like you're on a diet. But what helps is to just scrap out calorie dense carbs like bread, rice, pasta and start SLOWLY subbing in veggies instead. Snack on fruits, have some form of protein every meal. Still have that 1-2 days out of the week where you enjoy your tastier foods so you don't feel deprived mentally. The best way it to just track your calories for 2-3 weeks, get an idea of portions, then just delete the app and go about your life now that you have a better feel for what your eating patterns are and how to manage.

EDIT: All that being said, if you really dont care about your health and just wanted to fastest result possible and dont care about sustainability then just employ some type of keto appraoch with intermittent fasting/OMAD, but glhf if you're an active person or athlete doing this. You will lose weight so fast it's not even funny, you can drop 5-6% of your weight via carb + water depletion in less than a week.

 

[robtical]

I think the problem is nutrients. If your body have nutrients to process the sugar, it is good. Refined sugar and food nowadays have no nutrients