This archived forum used to be called 'Peatarian' (in reference to Ray Peat).

Why none feels pregnenolone despite RP anectodes?

You know Dr. Peat anectodes about it. But why does it never happens in anyone such "miracles" Dr. Peat described in his books, ecc.?

asked Mar 1, 2015 by John Frusciante

Pregnenolone was awful for me, until I started taking it in combination with thyroid hormone. Now I don't know what I would do without it. I think it has to be the right environment for pregnenolone to work.

I think he mentioned that the effects of Pregnenolone would only be noticeable after a certain age - 40 or 45 if I remember.

Also, he is skeptical about the quality of the products that are available. Where do you get your powder ?

I used 2 products and never felt anything (MRM and LEF capsules. Maybe I'll get a powder somewhen but I don't think anything will change). He said it is effective in stressed people even if young...

2 Answers

If just 50% of ray peats anecdotes were true, many of us would be healthy now. But that is not the case. He should present his observations (true or not) in a less absolute and generalizing manner. There is a huge mismatch between his writing and objective results.

answered Mar 2, 2015 by Bukowski

Just to clarify, not to suggest that you are wrong: When you state "if just 50% of ray peats anecdotes were true.....", it seems that you are implying that the events in question did not happen as described. If so, can you give examples of what you consider to be dishonest statements on his part?

I do understand what you mean about presenting his observations "in a less absolute and generalizing manner".

Hey, CB, are you not feeling healthy? Can you say what the issue is? PM me if you'd prefer to keep it confidential.

Even if I think some anectodes, especially when it comes to pregnenolone and related things seem unreal, I think if its use was more widespread we could jump on conclusion much better. Why do you think some anectodes are false? RP isn't selling anything himself.

I feel pretty reasonable right now, the reflux i got on peat eating has gotten significantly better since loosing the excess abdominal fat (it came off by itself just by avoiding isolated sugar and sticking with my starch rich diet). I still have some fissure caries that needs treatment (first caries ever in my life, developed while following peatarian recommendations as well).

Many of his anecdotes simply sound too good to be true. I find them very dangerous, as many people fall for them. Peat wouldnt have gathered such a dogmatic bunch of people around him who think they harbor the truth, if it werent for his unscientific ways to bring down his points.

You ate isolated sugar Bukowski? No wonder you got fat.

I added it to my drinks just like everyone else. Did you know that adding sugar to milk makes the milk as cariogenic as just drinking sugar water by itself?

I doubt it. I think alkaline minerals intake, fat soluble vitamins, and thyroid function are other important variables. I would expect the poor intake of alkaline minerals from most sources of starch would be a contributing factor.

Glad you're doing better, CB. Are you referring to the Matt Stone et al, approach to diet? Basically, "refeed" by eating to excess and it's ok to get fat? I don't think that view is shared by Peat, though I agree it does seem popular both here and in raypeatforum.

Do you know if you lost subcutaneous fat, which you can grab with your fingers and falls to the side when you are lying down, or visceral fat, which protrudes even when you are lying down?

Subcutaneous fat may be healthy, or at least not unhealthy, while visceral fat is stored as a result of cortisol or adrenaline, and is associated with fatty liver and diabetes type 2.

And CB, don't let the bastards get you down.

Mainly my stomach diameter got smaller and this was parallel to a near complete resolution of reflux symptoms. For me this is a sign that I developed excess visceral fat that impaired gastric sphincter function which is now slowly disappearing again.

And I dont think starch is an issue in my case. It provided the bulk of my calories fro 25 years without any major problems - bread, pasta, potatoes, rice you name it. Why should it be the cause of several developing cavities within one year when the major thing that changed was increase in sugar, juices and milk?

@Bukowski:
You know that I appreciate much of your work here, and I realize that you are much more knowledgeable about Peat's work than I am, but I feel compelled to respond to this extremely serious charge:

You're effectively accusing this man of grossly unethical and unprofessional behavior. If all you've got on him are that "his anecdotes simply sound too good to be true", then at least it behooves you to list exactly which ones and why.

Kapow you have a problem. You direct most of your posts here to morally depraved people, trying to fix what is likely not possible to fix

If you listen to interviews of Peat and read his newsletters and articles you notice that a significant fraction of his recommendations is based on anecdotes only, either he observed on himself or on others. I.e. recommendation of the carrot but avoidance of other fibers, recommendation against virgin coconut oil but recommending refined oil, moles completely disappearing with DHEA, dementia cured with hormones, cancer cured, hypertension cured with K2 etc.

If he supports his claims with science, he does cite the evidence in a very selective way, leaving out a large base of publications that dont support his claims. Some may call this a form of scientific misconduct and by all means he certainly isn't the only person in the nutrition/health/science world who is doing that. Interestingly most of his articles start with the usual rant about corruption and evilness of all other scientists that dont share or support his views, as if that is enough to wash away all other arguments and studies. I find that a very poor way of scientific reasoning. I feel he uses this strategy to convince people of his argument that dont read a whole lot scientific studies themselves. I would call the rhetoric strategy "persuasion by inducing anger". For people purely interested in the science or the evidence, with a more unemotional view, it seriously raises an eyebrow.

I can only speak for myself, but I too noticed that nobody has achieved a level of euphoric health following a Peat diet through the Roddy-lense. When I studied Peat, I thought that if I could optimize thyroid function and lower serotonin that I would somehow become impervious to stress, regrow my hairline from high school, and have boners that lasted for hours. Instead I got what felt like ulcers, a serious case of insomnia, and a few extra chest hairs. Still have a 6-pack, but I don't even look at weight as a good health marker anymore. Good sleep, sustainable energy, curiosity, and playfulness are much more important in my book. One last thing. Sugar did give me more boners, so that was a win.

There seem to be two ends of the Peat spectrum, One is, your liver, gut and other organs are basically healthy and you may feel better with a little tweaking of hormones such as thyroid, pregnenolone, progesterone, DHEA or testosterone.

The other is, your liver, gut or other organs are damaged and you need to regenerate your tissue before you can feel better.

There are often no symptoms of organ damage. Some people experience fatigue or vague abdominal discomfort. If the liver has become inflamed, there may be other symptoms, such as poor appetite, weight loss or weight gain, and feeling extremely weak, sick, or tired.

To check your liver, you might want to get an MRI or a blood test for liver enzymes, especially triglycerides and GGT.

In theory, the liver and other tissue can be regenerated with fructose and a very low fat diet, aspirin and coffee, urea, magnesium bicarbonate , sodium chloride, thiamine, niacinamide and the other B vitamins, and Vitamins A and K2-MK4, combined with plenty of high altitude exercise and daylight (or emulation of that).

In theory, the gut can be regenerated with tetracyclines and activated charcoal, cascara/emodin, raw carrot and coconut oil, and by eliminating antigens from your diet.

Please PM me if you'd like to talk about experimenting to find your own unique Peatarian diet.

answered Mar 2, 2015 by visionofstrength

My liver enzyme levels havent changed on and before peat, despite symptoms of gastric inflammation. An MRI is prohibitively expensive just as a screening test for unspecific symptoms. I know two people that have developed fatty liver shown by ultrasonography on the peatarian diet, in one I know it reverted back to normal after stopping the diet. Others noticed an increase in fasting glucose and triglycerides which can indicate an increase in insulin resistance. Some people develop very low HDL and high LDL, a pattern that is consistently associated with elevated risk for cardiovascular disease and insulin resistance. I would not feel comfortable at all, walking around with such a pattern for a prolonged period of time.

Yes, I've been very concerned by people adopting "refeeding" diets without regard to what they to do the liver or visceral fat. It saddens me to see people getting fat both here and on the raypeatforum under a misguided, often blind adherence to something called "youreatopia".

I think such a poorly designed "peatarian" diet can be just as dangerous as a high-carb starch diet, a low-carb ketosis diet, assorted "health food" packaging, and so many other food fads that are nothing but profit-seeking scams.

In Peat's defense, he's made it clear that sugar is very pure and should only be taken in the short term to resolve stress, but that certain fruit juices have the magnesium and other nutrients that are needed to metabolize sugar and protein properly.

Here's an example that happens to be trending today:
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/mar/03/that-sugar-film-how-60-days-eating-health-food-led-fatty-liver-disease

I had understood that given the range of options, including liver biopsy, the MRI is relatively inexpensive, non-invasive, safe, and avoids the use of ionizing radiation, making it a very attractive cost-effective alternative for early diagnosis and subsequent disease monitoring during therapy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989464/

Top
...