Eating a "Pro-Metabolic Diet" Will Not Heal You
An appeal for having context and understanding the big picture
Disclaimer: Content for entertainment purposes only. Not medical or health advice.
In the last few years, thanks to Instagram and other social media such as Twitter and Facebook, the work of Dr. Ray Peat has exploded in popularity. Some would even say that it has gone mainstream. The carrot salad recipe that Dr. Peat often spoke of became a viral TikTok trend and media news outlets started putting out think pieces about the “pro-metabolic diet.”
Of course, I am very happy about this, as I have found his work to be endlessly helpful in helping me navigate my health and that of those around me. I am also implicated in being part of the movement involved in introducing his work to a larger audience.
However, as happy as I am that the work of Dr. Peat is finally getting the deserved recognition, I am not thrilled about the popularity of what has become known as the “pro-metabolic diet,” at least how it has been interpreted online. Why? Because it misses the point of Dr. Peat’s research.
Now, to preface this, I am not saying that you can’t increase your metabolic rate or improve your health with the use of food. You absolutely can, and food is probably one of the most powerful tools for doing so.
What I am saying instead is that simply eating certain foods that you see someone else eating and promoting, with the hopes that eating those exact foods will increase your metabolic rate and miraculously heal your ailments, will likely not yield much success if you are not paying attention to your biofeedback and assessing whether those foods are working for you.
However, to pay attention to your biofeedback you need to know what markers should be assessed, why these markers should be assessed, what it even means to increase the metabolic rate, and why a high metabolic rate is so important. Otherwise, how can you know that you’re solving the problem if you haven’t even fully understood and identified the problem yet?
Understanding the framework that is presented in Dr. Peat’s work, as it paints an elaborate image of how a high metabolic rate is at the core of good health and what having a high metabolic rate even means, is necessary for this.
In this article:
What is the “Pro-Metabolic Diet”?
A “Pro-Metabolic Diet” vs. Ray Peat’s Work
What does increasing the metabolic rate mean?
Connecting the dots between how various hormones and other molecules affect the metabolic rate
The ideology behind the metabolic theory of health, and how it differs from other schools of thought
Opposition to the rate of living theory
Contextualized understanding of health
Are there general dietary principles in Dr. Peat’s work?
A metabolism-supporting diet can look differently for everyone
Healing the metabolism is so much more than a diet
Conclusion
More resources
What is the “Pro-Metabolic Diet”?
One thing to get out of the way is that Dr. Peat never provided an eating plan, protocol or diet. This is also the reason why I keep putting “pro-metabolic diet” in parentheses throughout this article. The work of Dr. Peat isn’t about a diet. In the screenshot above from Danny Roddy’s Twitter account, you can see Dr. Peat saying that he has no eating plan, and the only “protocol” that he recommends is to be perceptive.
Dr. Peat’s work was always more theory-based, connecting the dots behind how different hormones and other molecules affect the body’s ability to produce energy, and how the rate of this energy production and utilization (the metabolic rate) is at the core of dictating the body’s function and structure. It was about helping lay people understand physiology contextually so that they know how to measure and define health.
The “pro-metabolic diet” evolved on social media as a way to interpret Dr. Peat’s research into practical, easily applicable findings.
Those who may have never even heard the name “Ray Peat” but who have been exposed to the term “pro-metabolic” or the “pro-metabolic diet” online will probably associate it with a protocol of sourdough bread, gelatin gummies, raw milk, liver, ice cream, Coca-Cola and beef.
However, Dr. Peat’s work wasn’t that.
It’s not that there’s anything wrong with those foods - they’re great tasty foods (in my opinion, at least). But they don’t represent what Dr. Peat’s work was about.
While Dr. Peat discussed certain foods in his work (such as gelatine, carrots or ice cream), he discussed them in the context of achieving a certain objective. This central objective is increasing the metabolic rate, and food is just one of the many tools that can help in achieving this objective. Additionally, the specific foods that might support one individual’s metabolism may not be those that will support another’s, meaning that generally, the foods discussed in Dr. Peat’s writing are examples, not prescriptions or recommendations.
The problem with social media is that it is a place where simple, short-form content thrives, and where a constant battle for an audience’s attention is taking place.
The content that performs well on social media and gets the most impressions is the “do this, don’t do that” type. Simple diet recommendations that provide a clear summary of foods to eat and foods to avoid fit perfectly with the zero-attention-span social media culture. Meanwhile, content that tries to explain the big picture “why” behind why certain things are being recommended usually gets buried and ignored in the endless sea of social media content.
Many started adopting a “pro-metabolic diet” after reading the healing success stories of others who claimed to be following a “pro-metabolic diet.” However, with word getting out about this “new diet” that “lets you heal while eating ice cream and drinking Cola,” just as many anecdotes started pouring in of those who did “the diet,” yet did not see a resolution to their gut or menstrual problems, and perhaps also experienced an increase in weight.
Seeing anecdotes of those stating that the “pro-metabolic diet” didn’t work for them upsets me, not because I have some vested interest in defending “the diet,” or because I’m on a mission to convince the world that it’s “the best diet” out there (as again, there is no “diet” that Dr. Peat promoted), but because it illustrates that, despite Dr. Peat’s work gaining popularity, most people (including many of those who I see promoting principles that have become associated with the “pro-metabolic diet” online) don’t seem to have a contextual understanding of his work.
Unfortunately, these anecdotes of a “diet” not working (especially when the diet is perceived as “his diet”) can alienate people from trying to understand Dr. Peat’s work and exploring his articles, newsletters, books and podcast appearances. That, I think, is a shame, because, in my opinion, his work can provide the clarity needed to demystify the puzzling health complaints that many struggle with, unable to make sense of them.
The notion of always looking for the “right” diet to follow without prioritizing and perceiving first and foremost the body’s feedback is exactly what needs to be abolished in the health world, and understanding what Dr. Peat was about can bring about that abolition.
A “Pro-Metabolic Diet” vs. Ray Peat’s Work
Dr. Peat, was, in my opinion, a master at dot-connecting. His work formed a pretty cohesive framework showing that a high metabolic rate (which is dependent on cells having enough of the fuel, nutrients and thyroid hormone to make all the energy that they need) is at the core of optimal health and structural development.
What does increasing the metabolic rate mean?
When speaking about increasing the metabolic rate, Dr. Peat’s work focuses on increasing the rate at which cells turn fuel from food into cellular energy (the speed of which is controlled by intracellular thyroid hormone levels), and on making sure that any roadblocks that can slow down or inhibit cellular energy creation are reduced.
The research and examples presented in Dr. Peat’s work support the notion that, as long as the metabolic rate is kept high (meaning that cells have an abundance of energy for their function, maintenance and repair), the body will have a vast potential for healing and regeneration. At the same time, a low metabolic rate (resulting in a cellular energy deficiency) can be at the core of many seemingly unrelated health complaints, such as constipation, PMS, depression, insomnia, ADHD, hair loss, obesity, heart disease, etc.
The metabolic rate can be measured by taking an individual’s core body temperature and measuring their pulse. A core body temperature of 37 degrees Celsius (98.6 F) and a resting heart rate of 85 beats per minute are seen as optimal. A high core body temperature is a generally good indicator that the body is able to produce all the cellular energy that it needs and can offload some of the extra energy as heat.
Increasing the metabolic rate does not mean increasing the amount of food that can be consumed without gaining fat, as this can be achieved in ways that don’t actually alter the rate of thyroid-hormone-mediated cellular energy creation (for example, this can be achieved by putting on more muscle mass, although more muscle mass won’t necessarily increase the rate of cellular energy production).
This clarification is necessary, as many health practitioners speak about “increasing metabolism” without specifying what is meant by the statement.
Some practices recommended by various health “gurus” can increase heat expenditure without increasing cellular energy production and are mistakenly referred to as “metabolism increasing.” These are usually practices that increase reactive oxygen species levels, resulting in excessive mitochondrial uncoupling, as a protective mechanism that mitochondria employ to protect themselves against ROS-induced injury. In this instance, energy from food ends up being mostly offloaded as heat instead of being turned into cellular energy, even when cells haven’t managed to produce all the energy that they need to sustain their structure and function yet. As one example, very high-fat diets can have this effect.1 Some signs that this “offloading of fuel as heat without the body having enough cellular energy” is taking place are rapid weight loss (of both fat and muscle mass), sleep troubles, hair loss and loss of skin elasticity. This is why a holistic assessment of biofeedback is needed to asses metabolic function.
As per the research presented in Dr. Peat’s work, these markers of health that one should pay attention to would be:
A waking core temperature of 36.6 degrees Celsius (97.88 F).
A post-breakfast core body temperature of 37 degrees Celsius (98.6 F).
A resting pulse of ~85 beats per minute.
Daily, well-formed bowel movements, ideally multiple times per day.
Sleeping well through the night without waking up, for at least 7-8 hours per night.
No digestive issues, such as bloating, cramping, excessive gas, or derealization and brain fog after meals.
(For women of menstrual age) A monthly ovulation with no PMS.
Additional markers that can indicate that the metabolic rate is rising and that the foods you’ve chosen support you well are:
Being able to build and maintain muscles with relative ease.
An improvement in the appearance of your hair and skin.
An improvement in or disappearance of mental disturbances, such as OCD, depression, ADHD, anxiety, phobias, anger issues/reactivity etc.
A good appetite throughout the day, including in the morning, without symptoms of hypoglycemia.
An improvement in/resolution of lingering health complaints, including autoimmune conditions.
Not gaining fat rapidly.
Connecting the dots between how various hormones and other molecules affect the metabolic rate
Tying everything back to energy, Dr. Peat was able to generate a framework that showed how various hormones and other compounds can be helpful or harmful by either supporting the metabolic rate or interfering with it by inhibiting thyroid function or inhibiting cellular respiration (the process through which cells create energy) in some other way.
The metabolically supportive molecules include thyroid hormone, progesterone, pregnenolone, dopamine and the androgens. The metabolically suppressive molecules (when in excess) include estrogen, serotonin, prolactin, histamine, parathyroid hormone, nitric oxide, adrenaline, cortisol, and bacterial endotoxin.
Various food compounds raise or lower the levels of the metabolism-stimulating vs the metabolism-inhibiting substances, and help or hinder cellular respiration.
Many vitamins and minerals do both, depending on their levels. For example, enough iodine is needed to create thyroid hormones, but too much can injure the thyroid through oxidative stress. Enough iron is needed for the function of the mitochondrial complexes that are needed for energy creation, but too much can contribute to oxidative stress, inhibiting energy production. Enough vitamin A (retinol) is needed for the creation of the metabolically supportive hormones, but an excess of it can inhibit thyroid hormone transport into tissues. And so on…
At the same time, disturbance in the levels of these hormones also affects the retention of certain vitamins and minerals, with the ability to shift their levels in a direction that hinders energy metabolism. For example, high levels of the metabolically-inhibiting estrogens can cause excessive retention of both iron and copper (both can be detrimental to energy metabolism in excess by increasing oxidative stress), and low levels of thyroid hormones interfere with magnesium retention (without which the process of cellular energy creation will be impaired).
I find Dr. Peat’s work brilliant in that it creates a coherent framework. Suppose everything always boils down to cellular energy. In that case, it becomes easier to understand why high or low levels of certain hormones or other molecules can bring on disease, through their effect on energy metabolism.
His work provides an anchor that allows for assessing a substance based on more than just how it seemingly affects symptoms.
For example, nitric oxide boosters are often recommended for improving blood flow and are highly regarded as healthful in both allopathic and alternative health spheres. Yet, nitric oxide is also implicated in aging and degeneration, giving rise to research that supports the nitric oxide hypothesis of ageing. How nitric oxide can be both “anti-ageing” and “pro-ageing” becomes a health world paradox, unless nitric oxide is perceived through the metabolic lens, where its acceleration of the degenerative ageing process starts to make sense, due to its ability to inhibit energy production, which outweighs its short-term vasodilating benefit.
When we think of things in terms of energy (as in, the energy that our cells make), it also makes it easier to understand why compounds such as heavy metals or estrogenic plastics are harmful and carcinogenic - they interfere with energy metabolism.
Either way, the point that I am trying to get across is that Dr. Peat’s work has been mostly focused on contextualization and helping to connect the dots. It has not been focused on creating the perfect “metabolism optimizing” protocol that can simply be prescribed and will work for anyone and everyone. This is because, due to bio-individual differences, doing so would be impossible.
There is no perfect metabolism-boosting diet because diets don’t work.
I don’t mean this only in the sense of calorie-restricted diets not working. What I mean is that generalized nutrition recommendations will not work for everyone.
As already mentioned in the introduction of this article, based on your current state of health, including your gut health, hormonal profile, toxic/pathogenic burden, and any underlying deficiencies/excesses, the foods that will be supportive for you may be different than those that will be supportive for another person. Alternatively, at different points in your life, you may tolerate some foods while not tolerating others.
Helping us understand how we can define health and how we can assess whether or not a food or a way of eating is supportive of our well-being is where Dr. Peat’s work comes in.
The ideology behind the metabolic theory of health, and how it differs from other schools of thought
I think that an easy way to help better illustrate the general principles behind Dr. Peat’s work is by comparing it to how health is perceived by some of the other schools of thought in the health world.
There are two main differences between the overall perception of health that Dr. Peat popularized vs. the perception of health that is popular among many other health figures.
The view that increasing the metabolic rate is at the core of health and longevity (opposing the rate of living theory of ageing).
Contextualization
Opposition to the rate of living theory
One of the oldest theories that strived to explain why humans (and other living organisms) eventually age and die is the rate of living theory of ageing.
The rate of living theory postulates that living organisms have a finite number of breaths and heartbeats, and that, once this “pre-set” number of breaths and heartbeats is used up, the organism dies.
In line with this theory came the belief that the lower an organism’s metabolic rate (which results in a lower core body temperature and a much slower heart rate), the longer this predetermined “budget” of available heartbeats will last, and the longer the organism will live.
If this idea sounds a bit ridiculous it’s because it is. Much of it was built on a fallacy that compared living organisms to machines.
When this theory was first suggested as the explanation for why we age back in the early 1900s, the thinking behind the theory went something like this: In a machine (such as a car), the bolts, turbines and other mechanical components can handle only so much use until they wear out and stop functioning. With more use, the machine wears out quicker, meanwhile, the less it’s used, the longer it lasts. If a machine wears out the more you use it, so must the body.
But living beings are not machines. When we view the organism as a living ecosystem as opposed to a complicated machine, we realize that, as the metabolic rate increases, more cellular energy is made. This is the energy that sustains life. It’s what’s needed to power the function, creation, repair and maintenance of all cells, organs, and bodily processes, including tissue healing, DNA repair, liver function, immune function, cell-to-cell communication, the maintenance of skin elasticity, protection against environmental toxins, and every other function and structure of an organism.2345678 This energy is packaged for use into a molecule called ATP.
“All living things, plants and animals, require a continual supply of energy in order to function. The energy is used for all the processes which keep the organism alive. Some of these processes occur continually, such as the metabolism of foods, the synthesis of large, biologically important molecules, e.g. proteins and DNA, and the transport of molecules and ions throughout the organism. Other processes occur only at certain times, such as muscle contraction and other cellular movements. […] However, before the energy can be used, it is first transformed into a form which the organism can handle easily. This special carrier of energy is the molecule adenosine triphosphate, or ATP.” - Paul May, PhD., Molecule of the Month: Adenosine Triphosphate, Chemistry in Britain, November 1997, Bristol University
Noble laureate Albert Szent-Györgyi writes in his book “The Living State” about how his main observed difference between inanimate machines and living beings is that, unlike machines that wear out the more that they function, in a living organism, function generates more lifeforce.
One of the earliest experiments in which this phenomenon has been observed was the “staircase effect,” documented in the 1800s.
“I always searched for essential differences between the living and the inanimate. One such difference is known to everybody: inanimate machinery gets worn out by use, while live machinery improves by use and is impaired by inactivity. If you use your car too much it becomes worn out, while if you walk your legs become stronger.
The analogy between legs and cars may be fascinating but is useless experimentally. However, a century ago Bowditch, a young American working in Ludwig's laboratory (1871), described a simple experiment which may be a related phenomenon. What Bowditch did was to eliminate the normal apparatus of excitation in a frog's heart, making it dependent on electric stimulation. Then he stopped stimulation for a little while, probably expecting to find the first beats after the pause stronger, the heart having rested. What he found was the opposite: the first beat after the pause was weaker, the weaker the longer the pause. The second beat was somewhat better, each successive beat being somewhat stronger than the previous one, the peaks on his tracing rising as a staircase. This phenomenon, accordingly, is called "the staircase." What does this mean? It means that function generates function, motion generates motion, life generates life, while inactivity begets inactivity, makes motion and life fade away.” - from the book: “The Living State: With Observations on Cancer” by Albert Szent-Györgyi
Once more scientific thinking started being applied to the rate of living theory, it gave rise to the explanation that a higher metabolism would lead to a shorter lifespan due to higher ROS (reactive oxygen species) production, as ROS are produced as a normal byproduct of cellular respiration (which is the process through which cellular energy is created). So the thinking went - higher levels of metabolic activity = more reactive oxygen species.
The theory that implicates ROS as the cause of ageing is another theory of ageing, aptly called the reactive oxygen species theory of ageing.
Here’s the thing - While I think that the ROS theory of ageing (now renamed to the oxidative stress theory of ageing) is actually quite valid since reactive oxygen species can and do injure and kill cells, especially when the body doesn’t have enough antioxidants to neutralize them, research shows that a low metabolic rate leads to the production of more ROS than a high metabolic rate.910111213
This is because, although mitochondrial respiration always produces some ROS, the reductive stress and the consequent oxidative stress brought on by a low metabolic rate ends up generating more ROS. What this means in “human speak” is that when the rate at which mitochondria make energy is slow (as in the case of a low metabolism), the electrons that pass through mitochondria pass through them too slowly, with this slow-moving traffic allowing more than the usual number of electrons to “slip out” and react with oxygen to become free radicals. Additionally, the synthesis of endogenous antioxidants, such as glutathione, is ATP-dependent and can become impaired in a low-energy state.
The rate of living theory was also built on the observation that animals with a higher metabolic rate (such as mice) tend to have a shorter lifespan than animals with a lower metabolic rate, such as tortoises, which tend to live slower and longer. However, the classification used to come to this conclusion was largely built on cherry-picking certain species and omitting others. For example, the bat is one such species of small animal with a remarkably long lifespan for animals of its size and an unusually high metabolic rate. Parrots are another obvious outlier. The cockatoo can live up to age 60 and its resting heart rate is usually around 120 beats per minute.
The rate of living theory also ignores other factors that differ between species and might explain the altered lifespans (such as cell membrane saturation).
When metabolic rate is assessed within species, it is found that members of the same species live longer when their metabolic rate is higher.
In hamster experiments, hamsters with a genetic mutation that increased their metabolic rate by about 20% had a 14-16% longer lifespan compared to the non-mutants.14 In a different study, mice with the highest metabolic rates were seen to live 36% longer than mice with the lowest metabolic rates in the study cohort.15 The same phenomenon has been observed in dogs, where smaller dogs have a higher metabolic rate and live longer than bigger dogs with comparatively lower metabolic rates.16 (Before someone points out that the above experiments are all in animals, I want to mention that the main species studied to back up the rate of living theory was the fruit fly.)
To summarize the rate of living theory, the theory believes that reducing the metabolic rate will extend lifespan by lowering ROS and making an organism “wear out” slower by “preserving” the “limited” number of breaths and heartbeats that a living being is presumably born with. Live slow, live long - live fast, die young. The theory was built on shaky foundations and fallacies from the start, and even the mainstream scientific community considers it lacking, especially since there is plenty of newer research opposing it.
Unfortunately, once an idea permeates mainstream culture it tends to stick. There is still a general colloquial belief that a high metabolic rate will make a person “burn out quickly like a candle” or that the heart will “wear out” eventually with use.
“Longevity” gurus to this day employ methods to lower their metabolic rates with the misguided conviction that this will help them live longer. This is part of the reason why practices such as caloric restriction, fasting, and anything else that lowers the metabolic rate (as reflected by a lower-than-normal core body temperature and a very slow heart rate) have gained popularity as far as “longevity” goes. The best, latest example of someone who’s keeping this school of thought alive well past its expiry date is the biohacker Bryan Johnson, who proudly boasts about his multiple-degrees-lower-than-normal core body temperature which, he believes, will extend his lifespan.
“When Johnson first wakes up before 5 am, he weighs himself on a high-tech scale that looks not just at his weight, but his body fat and hydration level. Then he measures his body temperature – through the ear, thankfully. (Johnson has learned that his body temperature runs a few degrees Fahrenheit lower than the average; a good sign, he says, as scientific research suggests that cooler running of the body extends its lifespan.)” - from an February 2023 interview with Bryan Johnson in the magazine GQ
Dr. Peat’s perspective is in opposition to the rate of living theory, as it instead views a high metabolic rate as the ultimate key to keeping an organism in good health and maintaining its structural integrity. His view took note of the phenomenon showing that a higher metabolic rate allows for a smooth flow of electrons through the mitochondrial complexes, which helps prevent excessive ROS production and makes ample energy for cells to use to maintain and repair themselves. Just as Albert Szent-Györgyi, Dr. Peat concluded that, in a living organism, function generates function, and that “energy and structure are interdependent, at every level.”
Contextualized understanding of health
In my opinion, the most helpful and profound piece of the framework that Dr. Peat presented in his work is his contextualization of various hormones and other compounds, always tying their function back to how they affect energy metabolism.
What’s even more profound is that he was able to show that all the substances that promote energy metabolism potentiate one another’s function, while all the substances that inhibit energy metabolism tend to increase the levels of other substances that inhibit energy metabolism.
I’ll use the example of growth hormone to illustrate this.
Most bio-hackers and health nuts are constantly on the lookout for the next hack to increase their levels of growth hormone, due to its ability to stimulate bone and muscle growth.
What I don’t see being asked by these people is, if high levels of growth hormone were generally beneficial for the body then why are all the the things that increase growth hormone major stressors, such as starvation or all forms of psychological stress?1718 Why do animals (and humans!) with lower growth hormone levels live longer?1920 If growth hormone was systemically beneficial then why does it contribute to edema?21 Why does it upregulate gluconeogenesis, cause an excessive release of free fatty acids into the blood, and contribute to glucose intolerance, insulin resistance and diabetes?22 Why does it increase levels of nitric oxide,23 which is a free radical that inhibits mitochondrial respiration?24 Why are individuals with a growth hormone deficiency seemingly protected against developing cancer and why are those with higher growth hormone levels more likely to develop it?25
If growth hormone stimulates cell division by acting as a stressor then perhaps artificially increasing it is not such a good idea.
I recently saw a post from Andrew Huberman promoting back-to-back sauna sessions on the same day, coupled with fasting and cold exposure because all of these factors increase growth hormone, and they increase it even more when combined.
I did not see anyone stop and ask…”If all the things that increase growth hormone are stressors, and the more stressors that you stack together the more growth hormone is released, then perhaps high growth hormone levels are not all that good?”
I bring this up because this is the reductionist type of thinking that all of the health world is built on. The thinking goes something like this “Compound X is good because it has [insert specific effect.]” For example, “nitric oxide is good because it increases blood flow,” or “growth hormone is good because it increases bone growth.”
What I don’t see is big-picture contextual thinking that considers the effect that each of these molecules has on the body, and energy metabolism, overall.
The focus is always on one specific marker or metric that’s affected by the molecule. The living organism is treated as if it were a robot with an intricate control panel, one that can be outsmarted or “hacked,” where “twisting one knob” will affect only one organ or function. Rarely is the body viewed as a living ecosystem where all cells interact and communicate and where “hacking” is impossible. The mechanistic perspective prevails, always focused on manipulating one specific pathway or one marker without ever asking - How is this affecting the living organism as a whole? What is the evolutionary purpose of this molecule that we call estrogen, nitric oxide or growth hormone? Does increasing the levels of this molecule support overall energy metabolism or are its elevations an adaptive response to stress, with high levels of it being destructive to the organism at large over time?
Dr. Peat was able to connect the dots on how compounds such as growth hormone, nitric oxide, estrogen, serotonin, histamine, cortisol and prolactin, although necessary for proper function in adequate amounts, are also all part of the stress response, with elevated levels of all being systemically dangerous, degenerative, and inhibitory of energy metabolism in some way. He showed how they all potentiate each other’s function, while also seemingly opposing the action of hormones that support proper cellular respiration and energy metabolism. For example, estrogen increases nitric oxide, growth hormone, serotonin, cortisol and histamine levels, while having an inhibitory effect on thyroid function. On the other hand, progesterone, one of the hormones that support energy metabolism, opposes the function of estrogen and lowers the levels of prolactin, histamine, and cortisol while stimulating thyroid hormone release.
The foods mentioned in Dr. Peat’s writing all had to do with helping to support the levels of the hormones that support thyroid-mediated energy metabolism while lowering the levels of those that interfere with energy metabolism.
For example, the role of the famous carrot salad was to lower the levels of bacterial endotoxin, as bacterial endotoxin increases nitric oxide levels, and to prevent the re-absorption of metabolized estrogens. The role of calcium-rich foods is to lower prolactin, as a calcium deficiency contributes to increasing the levels of both prolactin and parathyroid hormone. The role of carbohydrate-rich foods containing vitamin C and magnesium (such as the famed orange juice) is to prevent hypoglycemia and lower the levels of adrenal hormones. Orange juice specifically also provides the flavonoid naringenin, which helps to inhibit the enzyme that turns androgens to estrogen and inhibits histamine release. These foods are not prescribed as part of a diet but were rather given as examples of how to achieve the objective of shifting the body to a more metabolically supportive hormonal milieu.
Are there general dietary principles in Dr. Peat’s work?
While Dr. Peat’s work does not prescribe a dietary protocol, there are a few principles mentioned in his work that, based on the research presented, work in favour of supporting energy metabolism. These principles include:
Avoiding potentially harmful food additives and contaminants
These contaminants include heavy metals, carrageenan, and various gums added to foods. All of these can injure cells, including those of the gut and liver, which can increase the entry of bacterial endotoxin into the bloodstream and inhibit its effective detoxification. Heavy metals can also synergize with estrogen and inhibit the absorption of minerals needed for energy metabolism.
Keeping a 2:1 calcium-to-phosphorous ratio
Dr. Peat observed that human breastmilk contains a 2:1 calcium-to-phosphorous ratio, which suggests a higher calcium requirement than most other mammals. He noted that in humans, a dietary calcium deficiency (or a deficiency of calcium relative to phosphorous) can upregulate certain hormones, such as prolactin and parathyroid hormone, elevations of which can increase cortisol and other hormones of the stress cascade.
Preventing bacterial overgrowth in the gut
This usually means avoiding foods that cause clear digestive distress, such as bloating, excessive gas, diarrhea, brain fog, sudden bouts of depression or derealization. Excessive bacterial activity can injure the gut, increasing the levels of histamine and serotonin, and bacterial endotoxin can interfere with liver function, hampering its ability to convert thyroid hormone to its active form and detoxify estrogens.
Consuming gelatin/tryptophan restriction
Tryptophan excess can increase levels of serotonin and has been shown to suppress the action of the enzyme TPO, responsible for creating thyroid hormones.26 Gelatin is a protein source void of tryptophan and its inclusion in the diet can make it easier to prevent excessive tryptophan consumption. This is mentioned together with the fact that the amino acids in gelatin (such as glycine) support the body’s antioxidant defences and support liver health.
Avoiding inhibitors of iodine transport
Goitrogens (found in soybeans and raw cruciferous vegetables, such as kale) can prevent the formation of thyroid hormones by interfering with iodine transport. Dr. Peat mentioned the importance of limiting or thoroughly cooking these foods if dealing with a low metabolism.
Prioritizing carbohydrate oxidation
Carbohydrate oxidation creates fewer ROS than fat oxidation, produces more ATP per molecule of oxygen,27 and improves oxygen entry into cells by producing more carbon dioxide than fat oxidation.
Avoiding polyunsaturated fats
Polyunsaturated fats provide a substrate for reactive oxygen species creation, increase the levels of inflammatory prostaglandins, inhibit the liver’s ability to detoxify estrogens28 and interfere with thyroid hormone’s transport.29
Preventing iron toxicity
Iron, being a very reactive metal, can increase oxidative stress (which inhibits cellular respiration), and iron toxicity has been linked to the development of diabetes and liver failure.
As you can see, all the principles always boil down to one general idea - Increasing the metabolism-supportive substances (and helping the body make cellular energy) and decreasing the metabolism-interfering substances.
The above doesn’t elaborate on all the ways in which the above-mentioned molecules (such as calcium or polyunsaturated fats) promote or interfere with energy metabolism, respectively, but the goal here was just to provide a general idea as to why certain compounds are discussed within this framework.
A metabolism-supporting diet can look differently for everyone
There are many ways in which the above principles can be applied. Calcium can be increased with the use of dairy, but even a dairy-free diet can be rich in calcium, with the inclusion of eggshell powder, cooked greens and/or nixtamalized corn.
The carbohydrates that someone does well with could be oranges, or apples, or potatoes, or maybe rice or oats.
The goal is not to eat certain foods but to increase the metabolic rate as measured by the biofeedback markers discussed earlier. The foods that will help achieve this will vary to some extent from person to person.
For each person, they will usually vary from time to time too, depending on the current state of their health and life circumstances. Some individuals might need a very simplified diet until their body gains enough resilience to handle more foods. This resilience should come with increases in the metabolic rate.
Diet is also just one of the ways to increase the metabolic rate. Again, the main goal is to perceive biofeedback and observe symptomatic improvements that suggest that the metabolic rate is increasing.
If a diet of nothing but dairy helps you achieve these biomarkers, that’s your “pro-metabolic diet.”
If what helps you achieve this is a diet that includes grains and beans, that’s your “pro-metabolic diet.”
If what helps you achieve this is a dairy-free diet with other calcium sources, that’s your “pro-metabolic diet.”
If what helps you achieve this is a diet where all your carbs come from starches, that’s your “pro-metabolic diet.”
If what helps you achieve this is a diet where none of your carbs come from starches, that’s your “pro-metabolic diet.”
If what helps you achieve this is a diet of nothing but potatoes and cheese, that’s your “pro-metabolic diet.”
If, at your current state of gut health, what helps you achieve this is a diet of nothing but animal foods, that’s your “pro-metabolic diet.”
If you manage to somehow achieve all this on a vegan diet without somehow developing deficiencies or seeing signs of degeneration, then that is your “pro-metabolic diet.”
There is no set list of foods. There is no protocol or diet plan that will help everyone achieve the above at any point in their life. There is just a set of principles and an end objective to increase the metabolic rate. The rest will have to be curated to your unique needs, by you. What your body might need today might not be the support that it needs a month from now.
A healthy body should be able to handle as many foods as possible, but it’s important to meet the body where it’s at. If, at your current state of health, you can handle a total of 5 foods, and these foods help you get your metabolism up without interfering with it by causing allergies or gut issues, then eat that, while supporting your body, and helping it become more resilient so that you can eat more foods in the future.
Healing the metabolism is so much more than a diet
While food is the most powerful tool for increasing the metabolic rate (after all, cells’ ability to make energy is dependent on having enough fuel and having enough of the vitamins and minerals needed for energy metabolism), if a person is coming from a lifetime of depressed metabolism, food alone might not be enough.
Since the stress substances all potentiate one another, sometimes interventions in addition to food might be needed to break the stress response.
These could be the use of red light therapy, supplemental progesterone or desiccated thyroid, extra B vitamins or magnesium, or maybe something more “powerful” in cases of very serious dysfunction, such as a drug that lowers cortisol or blocks estrogen.
It could also be taking a vacation to experience novelty, as that alone can lower some of the substances that interfere with metabolism. Or it could be making sure to spend more time in the sun.
The overall theme of the “pro-metabolic” perspective, if we stick with that name, is to increase the metabolic rate. So in a nutshell, the “pro-metabolic” way is about that end objective, not so much about how that objective is achieved.
In conclusion…
I felt this article to be necessary, considering how profound, in my opinion, the general framework behind Dr. Peat’s work is. It’s a shame that even though his name may have gained popularity, his work hasn’t.
Instead, his name became associated with a diet, and with a list of foods, with the overall contextual framework from which physiology can be understood that his work focuses on going completely over most people’s heads.
Just because a person is eating foods that are perceived to be “pro-metabolic,” such as milk, orange juice, ice cream or broth, this doesn’t mean that their metabolic rate is increasing if they aren’t assessing their biomarkers to verify that it is. Perhaps dairy doesn’t work for this person or perhaps they have a mild allergy to oranges, or maybe they need more carbs and less fat (or vice versa). Without paying attention to biomarkers, there’s no way to tell.
I have now been seeing social media health figures that recommend avoiding polyunsaturated fats and using red light therapy, and might even talk about the benefits of the “carrot salad” or orange juice, while in the same sentence recommending cold plunges, caloric restriction and intermittent fasting (which are stressors that negatively affect energy metabolism). It reflects the reality that even if practices related to Dr.Peat’s work (such as PUFA avoidance) have gained popularity, the overall philosophy presented in Dr. Peat’s work is not understood.
Without a unifying perspective and a clear definition of how health should be assessed, it becomes very difficult (or impossible) to effectively assess a practice or substance as health-promoting or not. Without this “anchor” of a perspective, the recommendations in the health world become an eclectic mess, with the only defining criteria for whether or not something is healthy becoming “well, someone said that it is.” It’s basically just throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks.
More resources
While I tried to do my best in this article to provide some clarity on the general views presented in Dr. Peat’s work, the body of his work cannot be summarized into a quick article. I would instead recommend that you check out more of his work for yourself to understand what it’s about.
Generative Energy Podcast (a podcast that Dr. Peat appeared on often)
The articles and podcast episodes on my Substack investigate issues from the “Ray Peat” perspective of seeing energy metabolism as the core of health, and should also help with further understanding of his work. Check them out.
My Substack is a reader-supported publication. To gain access to all of my articles and podcast episodes in full and to allow me to continue devoting my time and effort to my writing, consider becoming a paid subscriber ($15 per month or $99 for a yearly subscription).
Some of my other articles:
Disclaimer: This content is not intended as treatment or support for any medical condition. Content for entertainment purposes only. Not medical or health advice.
Schönfeld P, Reiser G. Why does brain metabolism not favor burning of fatty acids to provide energy? Reflections on disadvantages of the use of free fatty acids as fuel for brain. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2013 Oct;33(10):1493-9. doi: 10.1038/jcbfm.2013.128. Epub 2013 Aug 7. PMID: 23921897; PMCID: PMC3790936.
Szeinfeld, D. (1990). The multifactorial role of ATP in repair processes and radioprotection. , 32(3), 225–229. doi:10.1016/0306-9877(90)90127-Z
Midzak AS, Chen H, Aon MA, Papadopoulos V, Zirkin BR. ATP synthesis, mitochondrial function, and steroid biosynthesis in rodent primary and tumor Leydig cells. Biol Reprod. 2011 May;84(5):976-85. doi: 10.1095/biolreprod.110.087460. Epub 2011 Jan 12. PMID: 21228212; PMCID: PMC3080423.
Sarojini H, Bajorek A, Wan R, Wang J, Zhang Q, Billeter AT, Chien S. Enhanced Skin Incisional Wound Healing With Intracellular ATP Delivery via Macrophage Proliferation and Direct Collagen Production. Front Pharmacol. 2021 Jun 16;12:594586. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.594586. PMID: 34220491; PMCID: PMC8241909.
Khakh BS, Burnstock G. The double life of ATP. Sci Am. 2009 Dec;301(6):84-90, 92. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1209-84. PMID: 20058644; PMCID: PMC2877495.
Mo Y, Sarojini H, Wan R, Zhang Q, Wang J, Eichenberger S, Kotwal GJ, Chien S. Intracellular ATP Delivery Causes Rapid Tissue Regeneration via Upregulation of Cytokines, Chemokines, and Stem Cells. Front Pharmacol. 2020 Jan 16;10:1502. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.01502. PMID: 32009945; PMCID: PMC6976531.
Sarojini H, Billeter AT, Eichenberger S, Druen D, Barnett R, Gardner SA, Galbraith NJ, Polk HC Jr, Chien S. Rapid tissue regeneration induced by intracellular ATP delivery-A preliminary mechanistic study. PLoS One. 2017 Apr 5;12(4):e0174899. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174899. PMID: 28380006; PMCID: PMC5381896.
Faas, M.M.; de Vos, P. (2020). Mitochondrial function in immune cells in health and disease. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Molecular Basis of Disease, (), 165845–. doi:10.1016/j.bbadis.2020.165845
Salin K, Auer SK, Rudolf AM, Anderson GJ, Cairns AG, Mullen W, Hartley RC, Selman C, Metcalfe NB. Individuals with higher metabolic rates have lower levels of reactive oxygen species in vivo. Biol Lett. 2015 Sep;11(9):20150538. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0538. PMID: 26382073; PMCID: PMC4614431.
Bury S, Cichoń M, Bauchinger U, Sadowska ET. High oxidative stress despite low energy metabolism and vice versa: Insights through temperature acclimation in an ectotherm. J Therm Biol. 2018 Dec;78:36-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jtherbio.2018.08.003. Epub 2018 Aug 7. PMID: 30509659.
Ali SS, Marcondes MC, Bajova H, Dugan LL, Conti B. Metabolic depression and increased reactive oxygen species production by isolated mitochondria at moderately lower temperatures. J Biol Chem. 2010 Oct 15;285(42):32522-8. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110.155432. Epub 2010 Aug 17. PMID: 20716522; PMCID: PMC2952254.
Korge P, Calmettes G, Weiss JN. Increased reactive oxygen species production during reductive stress: The roles of mitochondrial glutathione and thioredoxin reductases. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2015 Jun-Jul;1847(6-7):514-25. doi: 10.1016/j.bbabio.2015.02.012. Epub 2015 Feb 19. PMID: 25701705; PMCID: PMC4426053.
Zhao RZ, Jiang S, Zhang L, Yu ZB. Mitochondrial electron transport chain, ROS generation and uncoupling (Review). Int J Mol Med. 2019 Jul;44(1):3-15. doi: 10.3892/ijmm.2019.4188. Epub 2019 May 8. PMID: 31115493; PMCID: PMC6559295.
Oklejewicz M, Daan S. Enhanced longevity in tau mutant Syrian hamsters, Mesocricetus auratus. J Biol Rhythms. 2002 Jun;17(3):210-6. doi: 10.1177/07430402017003004. PMID: 12054192.
Speakman JR, Talbot DA, Selman C, Snart S, McLaren JS, Redman P, Krol E, Jackson DM, Johnson MS, Brand MD. Uncoupled and surviving: individual mice with high metabolism have greater mitochondrial uncoupling and live longer. Aging Cell. 2004 Jun;3(3):87-95. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-9728.2004.00097.x. PMID: 15153176.
Jimenez AG. Physiological underpinnings in life-history trade-offs in man's most popular selection experiment: the dog. J Comp Physiol B. 2016 Oct;186(7):813-27. doi: 10.1007/s00360-016-1002-4. Epub 2016 May 24. PMID: 27222254.
Ho KY, Veldhuis JD, Johnson ML, Furlanetto R, Evans WS, Alberti KG, Thorner MO. Fasting enhances growth hormone secretion and amplifies the complex rhythms of growth hormone secretion in man. J Clin Invest. 1988 Apr;81(4):968-75. doi: 10.1172/JCI113450. PMID: 3127426; PMCID: PMC329619.
Ranabir S, Reetu K. Stress and hormones. Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Jan;15(1):18-22. doi: 10.4103/2230-8210.77573. PMID: 21584161; PMCID: PMC3079864.
Flurkey K, Papaconstantinou J, Miller RA, Harrison DE. Lifespan extension and delayed immune and collagen aging in mutant mice with defects in growth hormone production. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Jun 5;98(12):6736-41. doi: 10.1073/pnas.111158898. Epub 2001 May 22. PMID: 11371619; PMCID: PMC34422.
Aguiar-Oliveira MH, Bartke A. Growth Hormone Deficiency: Health and Longevity. Endocr Rev. 2019 Apr 1;40(2):575-601. doi: 10.1210/er.2018-00216. PMID: 30576428; PMCID: PMC6416709.
Brummer RJ, Bengtsson BÅ. The effects of growth hormone on body composition. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 1995 Mar;4(1):151-5. PMID: 24394272.
Kim SH, Park MJ. Effects of growth hormone on glucose metabolism and insulin resistance in human. Ann Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2017 Sep;22(3):145-152. doi: 10.6065/apem.2017.22.3.145. Epub 2017 Sep 28. PMID: 29025199; PMCID: PMC5642081.
Doi SQ, Jacot TA, Sellitti DF, Hirszel P, Hirata MH, Striker GE, Striker LJ. Growth hormone increases inducible nitric oxide synthase expression in mesangial cells. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2000 Aug;11(8):1419-1425. doi: 10.1681/ASN.V1181419. PMID: 10906155.
Tengan CH, Moraes CT. NO control of mitochondrial function in normal and transformed cells. Biochim Biophys Acta Bioenerg. 2017 Aug;1858(8):573-581. doi: 10.1016/j.bbabio.2017.02.009. Epub 2017 Feb 16. PMID: 28216426; PMCID: PMC5487294.
Guevara-Aguirre J, Peña G, Acosta W, Pazmiño G, Saavedra J, Soto L, Lescano D, Guevara A, Gavilanes AWD. Cancer in growth hormone excess and growth hormone deficit. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2023 Aug 14;30(10):e220402. doi: 10.1530/ERC-22-0402. PMID: 37428642.
Carvalho DP, Ferreira AC, Coelho SM, Moraes JM, Camacho MA, Rosenthal D. Thyroid peroxidase activity is inhibited by amino acids. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2000 Mar;33(3):355-61. doi: 10.1590/s0100-879x2000000300015. PMID: 10719389.
Brosnan JT. Comments on metabolic needs for glucose and the role of gluconeogenesis. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1999 Apr;53 Suppl 1:S107-11. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1600748. PMID: 10365987.
Lv X, Xia Y, Finel M, Wu J, Ge G, Yang L. Recent progress and challenges in screening and characterization of UGT1A1 inhibitors. Acta Pharm Sin B. 2019 Mar;9(2):258-278. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2018.09.005. Epub 2018 Sep 14. PMID: 30972276; PMCID: PMC6437557.
Bouillon, R.; Xiang, D.Z.; Convents, R.; Van Baelen, H. (1992). Polyunsaturated fatty acids decrease the apparent affinity of vitamin D metabolites for human vitamin D-binding protein. The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 42(8), 855–861. doi:10.1016/0960-0760(92)90094-Y
I’m curious about the comments about calcium and Dr Peat’s observation. I’m not convinced that means humans need higher levels of calcium. The data supports that human babies have higher calcium needs. That doesn’t necessarily translate to adulthood.
Each time I take some time off to read your articles, so much interesting information. Thank you. I've seen you mention additional things besides diet, like red light therapy - it would be great at some point if you would do a post on this one, there is so much contradictory info on it.