Glycemia, starch, and sugar in context (2009) | Hacker News Reader

Glycemia, starch, and sugar in context (2009)

raypeat.com

20 pointsyasp10 comments

There are perhaps some things worth considering, much of it in wild opposition to other studies, but I’m going to say that this type of prognostication without myriad examples of success in application is probably dangerous to be considered as expert advice to the average disinterested person.

If you are interested in an example of a healthy person that eats this way, check out durianrider on YouTube. Dude lives on a bicycle though. It is actually hard to get fat on just sugar, because such a small amount produced satiety so quickly - unless you also wary regular foods like starch and fat along with it, and then you are going to explode.

So I’d say that he’s not wrong, it’s just not practical for most people. Honestly, if you’re fat, and I once was, the easiest and most reliable way to lose weight is to cut out all fats. You’ll be amazed how much that reduces total calories without affecting the way you feel.

Wow - Ray Peat here on HN. Never thought I would see the day.

I'm not familiar with Ray Peat, why's it surprising for his article to be here?

He's one of the greats of the crazy diets: people should eat more white sugar and fructose, people shouldn't exercise because it stresses the body, people should reduce or eliminate vegetables from their diets, and so on.

Also the king of cherry-picking parts of studies that agree with his view and ignoring everything else, no matter how prevalent.

Evidence of this? I've found his perspective on organisms pretty refreshing and implementing his dietary advice has been very rewarding (have never felt healthier). He does seem like a crazy whack as most of his opinions go against the accepted norms but that largely stems from him disagreeing with the fundamental tenants of molecular and cell biology. His work is heavily influenced by Gilbert Ling and Albert Szent. G who look at organisms through the prism of energy rather than the dogmatism of genetics ("energy and structure are interdependent at every level")

He also doesn't say such things at all. I haven't decided whether the impossibility of his writing to be read and discussed charitably is primarily his fault or ours, if it even makes sense to think of it that way.

I agree with the cherry-picking, though. A glaring omission in his writing is adaptation (or hormesis), which is surprising for someone who draws such inspiration from Selye.

I have no idea who he is or what he's trying to say, but his "about" page reeks of quackery.

>The key idea was that energy and structure are interdependent, at every level.

> It seems that all of the problems of development and degeneration can be alleviated by the appropriate use of the energy-protective materials. When we realize that our human nature is problematic, we can begin to explore our best potentials.

> The key idea was that energy and structure are interdependent, at every level.

This doesn't strike me as so far out there. The concepts of entropy and enthalpy are often used at the molecular and cellular levels, along with statistical mechanics, which definitely interconnect the concepts of energy and structure.

This is a strong claim, for sure. But it becomes less quacky if interpreted more plainly: our nature is to degrade under the force of entropy, which can be countered (to a limited extent) by energy.

> if interpreted

But that's the point. He doesn't claim that, he makes a vague claim with ambiguous terms that could be interpreted in any way, even if he's qualified enough to know the precise terms.

That's the health equivalent of post-modern literature.

Yep, time to start eating sugar and stop exercising. And endless coconut oil!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com