
Glycemia, starch, and sugar in context (2009) - yasp
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/glycemia.shtml
======
jl2718
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.

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

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

~~~
ucaetano
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.

~~~
tzar
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.

~~~
jdietrich
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._

~~~
tzar
> 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.

> 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.

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.

~~~
ucaetano
> 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.

