Just Eat Less - Move Moore, Jimmy
Another timely bump to go with the Three-Year "Update" for Jimmy Moore. Seems he is receiving the expected backlash from the recent Paleof(x) CONference, and his pre-game post failed to stave off the gasps and criticisms. Andreas "look at all the fat people on this cruise" Eenfeldt has just posted a short recap video from the event. The comments on his blog are interesting to say the least. Seems to have a strange thing going with Jimmy, kind of like Tom Naughton. They both post unflattering images, etc. of their "friend". The absolute worst light to show Jimmy in is a profile, and yet this is what his "friend" Andreas chose to use a lot of. Eh ... their dysfunction.
[P.S. After this post, a troll by the name of EatLessMoveMoore started commenting on various blogs using some of my terminologies like "webpire" and such. This was NEVER me despite repeated accusations. Even Nikoley had the decency to publicly note that it wasn't me.]
ORIGINAL POST DATE 3/22/2012
Note: I wrote and never published this post a while back, but after listening to the deluded Jimmy Moore in his podcast conversation with Adam Kosloff, I decided to dust this off and publish it up. I was brought up in the discussion by Adam, and I'll be responding to that exchange on this blog shortly. Jimmy, if you're ever going to get control over your situation, you need to listen to Lalonde over Kosloff, Colpo over Eades, Me over Taubes. Or better yet, the underlying message of this post ... listen to YOURSELF. Go back and read your own blog and listen to some of your old podcasts. The answers are right there. Eat Less, Move Moore.
And now the original posting:
I don't usually get "upset" over diet/fitness/nutrition debates and discussions about the net. Moved to blog about them, yes. I'm not even sure upset would be the right word for my gut reaction to Jimmy Moore's post from a while back. But suffice it to say that the post really bothered me greatly, as did the predictable reaction in LLVLClue-land.
[P.S. After this post, a troll by the name of EatLessMoveMoore started commenting on various blogs using some of my terminologies like "webpire" and such. This was NEVER me despite repeated accusations. Even Nikoley had the decency to publicly note that it wasn't me.]
ORIGINAL POST DATE 3/22/2012
Note: I wrote and never published this post a while back, but after listening to the deluded Jimmy Moore in his podcast conversation with Adam Kosloff, I decided to dust this off and publish it up. I was brought up in the discussion by Adam, and I'll be responding to that exchange on this blog shortly. Jimmy, if you're ever going to get control over your situation, you need to listen to Lalonde over Kosloff, Colpo over Eades, Me over Taubes. Or better yet, the underlying message of this post ... listen to YOURSELF. Go back and read your own blog and listen to some of your old podcasts. The answers are right there. Eat Less, Move Moore.
And now the original posting:
I don't usually get "upset" over diet/fitness/nutrition debates and discussions about the net. Moved to blog about them, yes. I'm not even sure upset would be the right word for my gut reaction to Jimmy Moore's post from a while back. But suffice it to say that the post really bothered me greatly, as did the predictable reaction in LLVLClue-land.
In When Does Fat Become Your Fault? Jimmy has taken his state of denial to new levels ... and apparently others are still willing to give him a pass on it. I wonder if these people are in their own states of denial as well, or they just don't know enough of the full story past the occasional read of Jimmy's success story and his intermittent status updates. And while I certainly don't claim to hold the one-and-true solution to everyone's weight problems, I know the solution to Jimmy's: Eat Less, Move More -- be the Jimmy Moore of two thousand four -- and if that doesn't work for you, seek counseling/therapy of some sort to figure out why you must eat the way that you do. Anyone who has perused Jimmy's menus knows that the man eats a LOT. He often likes to describe himself as a "big guy", but I happen to live with one of those types. Mine is a bit shorter, but he also tends to gain in his gut, and I'd say that my husband's shoulders are at least as much broader as Jimmy is taller than him. Thus I've known my husband at 295 lbs and 175 lbs and while the latter may have been a bit "anorexic" for his build, when he weighs around 200 folks often assume he weighs quite a bit more b/c of his broad-shouldered build. The bottom line here is that Jimmy needs to come to grips with the fact that he is obese. Looking at pictures, and reading some classic Jimmy, one learns that he never was "skinny" -- sensationally or otherwise -- despite the subtitle of his first book. His waist size never began with a 3, and piecing various tales together, a somewhat loose 42 is as small as he attained.
Why is this important? Well when someone is giving a presentation on escaping morbid obesity, and attaining stellar health, it helps if that person actually has. Yes, it's true "he's not 410 lbs anymore", but he never would have been 410 lbs had he not been a total glutton. Yes, where Jimmy is concerned, I feel well within any normal bounds to say that. Because he himself tells the tale of eating Little Debbies by the boxES full. He pretends that the USDA and "low fat" made him fat. That is utter bullshit because he lost weight in rather impressive fashion on a low fat diet back in 1999. Nowhere on the food pyramid was there room for over a dozen Cokes per day, and donuts and cakes and pies oh my!
Over in the comments on Melissa McEwen's blog post on Leptin Man, a John Lushefski has taken issue with my blogging. (I'm pretty sure this is the hot head john who can't seem to unsubscribe to this blog feed.) Central to his complaint is why I care what Jimmy Moore weighs. Well, I don't care ... except that it matters given his sphere of influence. Even his podcasts are altered by his reactions, comments and questions. For as open as he is about some very personal things, Jimmy can be very deceptive at times. And when it comes to popular paleo and LC circles, Jimmy is both invited participant, and arbiter of who is an "expert". Indeed his latest podcast is "ask the LC experts", and I'm feeling my candida and diabetes flaring just thinking about some of those "experts". His "experts weigh in" posts most certainly mislead readers into the belief that sentiment is almost unanimously against the rationale of both Kreiger (insulin) and Jaminet (starches), even going so far as to not even bothering to make sure his "experts" were responding to Paul's definition of "safe starches". Next up is going to be a data dump on thyroid and LC...
So in answer to John, it matters because the Jimmy of today has widespread influence in the face of dwindling personal success in weight management. The weight issues are understandable to a degree, but listening to Jimmy give out advice now that he knows so much better after all of these years can be too much to bear in silence. Even more unbearable is the increasingly long litany of excuses and rationalizations.
So Jimmy 2012 starts out his latest don't-look-over-here-at-me post with a reference to Dr. Bryan Walsh's Fat is Not Your Fault website. Surely $197 is not too steep for Jimmy to get to the bottom of why it's not his fault, eh? Ahh but Jimmy must have Googled the phrase to also come up with a video by Jon Benson of the same name. (Jon commented here a few times long ago). The gist of Jon's video was that cravings for fat and sugar are not our fault, but Jimmy ignores the next part:
What I've believed since before I started this blog, and probably believe even more strongly today, is that if you're going to make scientific arguments for or against something, that science should be right. And by right I'm not looking for certainty and 100% settled, because that's not even possible, but I am looking for a "good faith" accounting. Not cherry picking gimmickry. Not false promises. And in terms of fitness and health, by all means not claims that a diet is healthier than some alternative, or even healthy in and of itself without having solid evidence to back that assertion up. My own reasons for looking into these issues were three-fold:
Why is this important? Well when someone is giving a presentation on escaping morbid obesity, and attaining stellar health, it helps if that person actually has. Yes, it's true "he's not 410 lbs anymore", but he never would have been 410 lbs had he not been a total glutton. Yes, where Jimmy is concerned, I feel well within any normal bounds to say that. Because he himself tells the tale of eating Little Debbies by the boxES full. He pretends that the USDA and "low fat" made him fat. That is utter bullshit because he lost weight in rather impressive fashion on a low fat diet back in 1999. Nowhere on the food pyramid was there room for over a dozen Cokes per day, and donuts and cakes and pies oh my!
Over in the comments on Melissa McEwen's blog post on Leptin Man, a John Lushefski has taken issue with my blogging. (I'm pretty sure this is the hot head john who can't seem to unsubscribe to this blog feed.) Central to his complaint is why I care what Jimmy Moore weighs. Well, I don't care ... except that it matters given his sphere of influence. Even his podcasts are altered by his reactions, comments and questions. For as open as he is about some very personal things, Jimmy can be very deceptive at times. And when it comes to popular paleo and LC circles, Jimmy is both invited participant, and arbiter of who is an "expert". Indeed his latest podcast is "ask the LC experts", and I'm feeling my candida and diabetes flaring just thinking about some of those "experts". His "experts weigh in" posts most certainly mislead readers into the belief that sentiment is almost unanimously against the rationale of both Kreiger (insulin) and Jaminet (starches), even going so far as to not even bothering to make sure his "experts" were responding to Paul's definition of "safe starches". Next up is going to be a data dump on thyroid and LC...
So in answer to John, it matters because the Jimmy of today has widespread influence in the face of dwindling personal success in weight management. The weight issues are understandable to a degree, but listening to Jimmy give out advice now that he knows so much better after all of these years can be too much to bear in silence. Even more unbearable is the increasingly long litany of excuses and rationalizations.
So Jimmy 2012 starts out his latest don't-look-over-here-at-me post with a reference to Dr. Bryan Walsh's Fat is Not Your Fault website. Surely $197 is not too steep for Jimmy to get to the bottom of why it's not his fault, eh? Ahh but Jimmy must have Googled the phrase to also come up with a video by Jon Benson of the same name. (Jon commented here a few times long ago). The gist of Jon's video was that cravings for fat and sugar are not our fault, but Jimmy ignores the next part:
I listened to the video and it wasn't an excuse-fest. More an infomercial for his book, The Every Other Day Diet, if anything. Jimmy lists the following "10 (probably) surprising truths about many fat people:"In this video I hope to shed some light on some provocative issues. First, craving fatty, sugary, high-calorie foods is not your fault. However, it is your responsibility
1. They don’t really gorge on a lot of food.Well perhaps not all do, but Jimmy did and it's what got him to 410 lbs, and he's still at it with low carb binges on ... a lot of food ... that has played a central role in his weight gain.
2. They know they’re fat and really want to do something about it.Perhaps all obese try at one point or another to lose weight, but many do not do so dutifully or in serious fashion. Myself included for years at a clip. Jimmy himself mentions no attempt between 1999 and 2004.
3. They dutifully attempt to lose weight by cutting calories.
4. They are real people who have feelings and emotions, too.Yes and your point?
5. They can be extremely smart, motivated people.
6. They may have health markers better than thin people.Possibly, but likely not better than they would have if they, themselves, were thinner. Better health is not comparing yourself to some skinny college kid living on pizza and Coke, it's comparing your markers to your prior markers. It's been over two years since Jimmy posted a lipid panel and his numbers didn't look quite as stellar in 2009 as he claims.
7. They don’t appreciate being told they are overweight.Yes, and again, your point?
8. They are frustrated that weight loss isn’t happening for them.
9. They can be some of the hardest-working people you know.
10. They are quite active despite carrying around extra weight.We'll get back to what Jimmy 2007 said about Jimmy pre-2004 in a moment. Jimmy continues on:
Some of these might be shocking to people who have fallen into the trap of believing the mischaracterizations about overweight and obese people and pointing fingers at them for being something that they’re not. Society as a whole could really stand to benefit from embracing Dr. Walsh’s “Fat Is Not Your Fault” idea and realize that there is a hormonal connection at work that goes well beyond calories consumed and hours of cardio exercise notched. Things like high blood sugar and insulin levels, cortisol, gut bacteria, thyroid, environmental toxins, autoimmune issues, out of whack brain health, and more are contributing to this problem.I'm still waiting to find out what it was that has caused everyone's insulin, cortisol, gut bacteria, etc.etc. to go haywire during my lifetime to create this obesity epidemic. The best thing about these new ideas is that they can boost the economy by making it possible for many more people to write more books and make more money telling folks about the *new* secret they've discovered. The bad thing is that many more will waste their money chasing that secret.
I’m a big believer in personal responsibility for the individual to make appropriate changes in their life when there is an issue that needs to be addressed. And obesity is no different. No, I don’t think cutting calories and exercising for hours in the gym everyday is the answer but there should be some action taken that produces results. And here’s a newsflash for all of those people who think the “results” is limited to just some arbitrary number on the scale. NOPE! It could mean steady blood sugar control, stellar cholesterol numbers like high-HDL over 50 and triglycerides under 100, heart scan scores near zero, the pursuit of eating well (organic, grass-fed, pastured and other foods), and a desire to make your body stronger and fit than it has ever been. This is exactly where I find myself in 2012 despite weighing more than I’d like to right now.Jimmy loves to run straw men up the flagpole doesn't he. Few are focused solely on the scale to the exclusion of how they feel, etc. But does anyone think a reasonable "result" for someone singing the glories of a lifestyle might just be maintaining (consistently) their weight eating low carb, and not, as has been the case for several years now with Jimmy, continuously gaining weight livin la vida ad libitum low carb.
What I've believed since before I started this blog, and probably believe even more strongly today, is that if you're going to make scientific arguments for or against something, that science should be right. And by right I'm not looking for certainty and 100% settled, because that's not even possible, but I am looking for a "good faith" accounting. Not cherry picking gimmickry. Not false promises. And in terms of fitness and health, by all means not claims that a diet is healthier than some alternative, or even healthy in and of itself without having solid evidence to back that assertion up. My own reasons for looking into these issues were three-fold:
- Despite considerable (likely 100 lbs) weight loss, my weight plateaued out despite having weight left to lose. This is compounded by being one of those BMI outliers wearing size 10 jeans at almost 200 lbs.
- My body shape has changed considerably -- a change that began with how I lost weight (and what remained) the first time I tried Atkins in the late 90's when I was in mid 30's) -- from the pear to more of an apple, the former seen as metabolically preferable.
- Several years ago after losing considerable weight on LC I experienced some disconcerting health scares that seemed to be heart related. Thankfully I've not experienced them this time and I'm pretty sure at this point that they were hypoglycemia related.
It boils down to this: On what planet do we live where we have a problem -- whatever that might be -- and we look repeatedly for advice to (a) those who have never had the problem, or (b) those who have achieved only partial success or even abject failure following their approach? Really. What planet? Make no mistake about it, these days Jimmy Moore is in his "backstop" fall back position of having "maintained triple digit weight loss". At 295 lbs he's just a few more months of paleo eating away from gaining back half his full weight loss and being under that triple digit threshold. No doubt if he reads this Jimmy would say I'm rooting against him for this to happen. He's certainly convinced himself of this, yet the evidence still exists where myself and others, before we were blocked or gave up trying, tried to help him from the inevitability of reaching his current weight.
So here was Jimmy New Years 2007 (2 years post 180 lb weight loss):
... Now it's three years since the day I began my low-carb lifestyle and I've been able to keep that weight off with relative ease now for two years. Unbelievable and amazing all at the same time!
While I don't think I'm out of the woods yet until I can keep the weight off for a minimum of three years (which will be one year from now on January 1, 2008), I do think I've proven that livin' la vida low-carb is indeed a long-term solution to obesity. There's no denying it based on my own experience. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't walked a mile in my shoes.
With all that said, I believe there are areas of my health that still need some additional work and I'm willing to resolve to work on them in 2007. That's right, I am making a list of New Year's resolutions for 2007 to improve my health even more.
After a good deal of thought, here's what I want to do:
1. Get below 200 pounds
Currently I weigh 220 pounds and I've been unable to go below 215 pounds since my weight loss in 2004. While I am certainly NOT bemoaning my situation because at least the weight is staying off, I'd personally LOVE to get down to 199 just to say I'm back in the 100's again (or that coveted ONE-derland!). I haven't been at that weight since the 5th grade! Yeah, I was pretty chunky as a kid, but not anymore. Considering I've lost 20 pounds since August, I don't think losing 21 pounds in 2007 is unreasonable. That's less than two pounds a month. It's doable and I'M GONNA DO IT!
2. Get my body fat percentage down to 6% ...
3. No more diet sodas ...
4. Consistency with cardio workouts
Everyone who knows me will tell you I am a workout fiend. Since I began my low-carb program, I have committed myself fully to walking on the treadmill, getting on the elliptical machine, playing volleyball at my church and many other aerobic activities that get my heart rate up and makes me sweat. I LOVE cardio workouts tremendously! But I noticed in 2006 that I'd allow myself to slack off to only 30 minutes per day and sometimes skipping a day or two here and there. It's not a big deal, but enough for me to want to resolve to be more consistent with my cardio in 2007. I will be!
5. Get serious about resistance training
... So that's it! Those are Jimmy Moore's 5 New Year's Health Resolutions for 2007 and I fully intend to do them all. I'm all about incremental changes and believe in my heart that NOW is the right time to do these things for myself. Of course, you know I'll keep you informed about my progress on each one at my blog and will share with you my success as it happens.
There's no doubt I'll hit the weight loss goal with the focus on reducing my body fat and lifting weights. I should be able to hit my body fat percentage goal as well and remaining consistent on the cardio. While it will be tough, giving up diet sodas shouldn't be that hard either. The most difficult one will be the weight lifting. I'm PUMPED to do this, so I think I'll be ready to show off my improved physique before the end of 2007. Again, I'm skeptical about it doing much for my loose skin, but here's hoping!So that was the Jimmy Moore of 2007. Cardio?? Cardio??!! I think all of these endurance athletes and such going on about how useless cardio is should STFU and realize that for the formerly obese, it is probably THE best insurance policy against regain there is for most. Surely Jimmy himself thought as much -- based on his own experience -- back in October 2005:
This article cites a government review that came out in March 2005 that states two-thirds of people who diet gain back all their weight in a year and a whopping 97 percent gain it all back within 5 years. That's why I keep telling people that I don't think I've accomplished anything with my 180-pound weight loss because I haven't kept it off over the long-term yet. I strongly believe that I will, but I have no evidence to back up that claim at this point. Yet, I do not plan on getting back to 410 ever again. Or even 310 for that matter! I'm just not going to allow that to happen.
One of the things that was an integral part of my weight loss and has helped me keep it off is exercise. It has boosted my strength and energy and allows my body to eat more food (and, yes, that means more carbs!) without having a negative effect on my weight. Except for the few pounds of muscle weight I have developed, my weight has remained stable. And my waist size has continued to shrink!
He used to exercise 45 minutes daily or almost daily. But Gary Taubes says exercise just makes us hungry, and paleo man didn't walk on treadmills for 45 minutes a day so all of a sudden cardio is useless to Jimmy. If I could speak to all of the exercise/fitness gurus out there -- if you really want to help the obese and formerly obese -- just encourage them to be active, and if walking or running on a treadmill is what they can manage in their schedule, stop with this HIIT is the best exercise for everyone nonsense. The obese probably shouldn't be sprinting despite the fact that nobody's sustained serious injury or died on TBL yet.
Now here's a 2005 blog post where Jimmy acknowledges that low carbers eat less spontaneously. Jimmy Moore lost control of his LC-cart when he started selectively listening to the experts. In the Summer of 2008 he was talking about being hungry all the time on his menus blog. He was experiencing reactive hypoglycemia and went to Dr. Westman to get an oral glucose tolerance test. Only it wasn't an OGTT, it was testing glucose and insulin after he ate FIVE eggs with cheese and a chicken breast. You will note his insulin levels were stellar at the time, and his "reactive" glycemic response was to go from fasting BG of 87 to 78 at the 1 & 2 hour marks before returning back to normal. Now Dr. Westman counseled that Jimmy should eat less protein and more fat as a percentage, and reduce portion size. Guess which advice Jimmy took? This is when the half-sticks of butter on a slice of LC bread nonsense began, and Jimmy half-heartedly tried limiting portions but abandoned it. But note Jimmy: Dr. Eric Westman believes ultimately calories count, and if memory serves he told you that in your 2010 podcast interview.
A little while back, Lerner asked if Jimmy Moore had ever been a podcast guest. Well, I found one where he was, and a recent one at that Jimmy Moore Interviewed by Abel James. {Curiously, I didn't see where Jimmy "pay it forward with link love" Moore promoted this interview?} If you have about a half hour, have a listen. You'll learn some things about the guy you didn't know before. But why does it matter? Because this guy has influence in shaping the debate and choosing the advisors and experts. Somehow what he's doing now is presented as "doing everything right" vis a vis LC (high fat) and exercise (resistance). Then he describes how he did some things wrong in 2005 and laments not reaching his ultimate goal of 200 lbs. What does he blame? That damned cardio! WHA??? So let's see. In 2005 he ate LC as proscribed by Atkins, which was never an "up the fat" smother your bacon in butter approach. I've read his books. And in 2005 Jimmy exercised 45 minutes daily or nearly daily. And in 2005 he weighed 225 at year's end. After 3+ years of upping the fat in his diet and ditching the cardio, Jimmy Moore now weighs close to 300 lbs. Apparently cardio WAS working quite well for you Jimmy. Any browse through his menus will show that when he has cut calories or portions or otherwise eaten less, this has worked swimmingly for him.
Might wanna dust off that eliptical and purchase a food scale Jimmy. LC + conventional wisdom on calories = success/maintenance. LC + current "wisdom" on hormones = failure.
Comments
Re exercise, I think it's important, but as with diet, I don't really think we understand exactly what is useful. I was essentially exercise bulemic in the early 90s and was at my goal weight for nearly 2 years (until my mom died and went to hell in a handbasket). The crazy PA calories I was expending worked for a while, but it wasn't a great long-term solution (clearly). I've got a post in my queue about why I think Mark Sisson's approach (lots of low and slow, some resistance training, a little bit of sprinting) is ideal for weight loss and that a little bit of HIIT is very helpful. But I think the research linking exercise and compliance as far as eating is also interesting too.
I was thinking this morning that the biggest problem with weight loss is how seductive crazy weight loss gimmicks can be. Who doesn't want fast weight loss? But it sure does seem like that doesn't do anything but lead to can't-be-good-for-you weight cycling. I sure hope I'm gonna avoid that this time!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01dzfgb
Since not believing in the CIH I've come to appreciate your skepticism and integrity as qualities that will ultimately strengthen the community, rather than confuse people (what the LC crowd say).
I think we should look at Jimmy Moore's great appetite and weight gain as a sign of something being not quite right. Obviously Jimmy isn't getting fat because those 40g of carbs are spiking insulin (duh). His testosterone is probably more an effect rather than a cause of weight gain (aromatase).
Highly carb restricted diets done over a long time signal starvation in many ways: chronically elevated AMPK, reduced leptin transport, a hypothyroidism-like state and increased cortisol leading to more ghrelin. These factors increase appetite and promote weight gain
Highly carb restricted diets are low in nutrients such as copper, manganese and glucose. Nutrient insufficiencies may increase appetite as an attempt to become sufficient in these nutrients, which leads to weight gain.
1 find a physical activity that intrinsically motivates
AND in order to not get sidetracked
2 spend a good 2 months minimum making the activity a habit
This should prevent "skipping a session when one feels like cr*p" to become "skipping 2, 3, then 10 sessions, then quitting"
IMHO, in the long term, intrinsically motivating exercise will be far more effective.
If asked I suggest people try
1 trampoline (the real ones that can shoot you up 30 feet). workload can be varied from minimal to incomprehensible intensity
2 judo/surfing (exercise PLUS these really, really work one's balance skill). Just don't kid yourself and think the judo will be useful againsta real street fighter
3 wrestling, cycling, swimming, rowing a boat ... all done FOR THE JOY OF THE ACTIVITY, not for the exercise.
I would prefer NO weightlifting, running, nordictrack, spinning, aerobics (all are too monotonous and hard to maintain long-term, IMHO)
Doing the activity for the activity also could prevent "virtuous overcompensation" ... eating 1,000 calories because one feels virtuous for having burned 100 calories.
I greatly appreciate your blog and your critical analysis in this sphere.
I went from a 320lb. offensive lineman to 215lbs. with abs in < 1 year by folling a no carb/lc approach. It was easy to attribute it to some magical attribute of LC. It's not.
Why does LC work?
Because you can't binge on hot'n'spicys at 2300 if you're not eating carbs.
Because you can't binge on kids cereal and ice cream.
Because you can't load up on waffles and syrup in the morning.
Low carb is a means to curtail calorie intake. I believe it is functionally that simple. I believe that metabolically beneficial things happen during the LC process... but that's cherry picking variables. Could have been the automatic decrease in calorie intake.
I believe the great success of low carb for many people is that it prevents binging on comfort foods. Is it the carbs in donuts that make you fat? Or the ~60% of calories from fat, that make you fat? You don't have to know the answer to get results - if your current diet approach leads to you not eating those f'n donuts and thusly being in a caloric defecit, then it will work.
I have been horribly carb-phobic since my weight loss.. the blinds are being pulled back. Currently I'm experimenting with a very low fat, higher carb, moderate protein approach to support my very high activity levels. I'm getting leaner and feel good. Wow.
Also, I know I'm rambling, but I think one of the romantic but terrible sides of being LC is glycogen levels and their effect on weight. I'm a fairly muscular guy - atheltic - lift weights. When I'm LC my weight can flucuate 8-10lbs based on my glycogen levels. This leads to one insidious thing:
When I ate carbs, I gained weight. Was it fat? Probably not, it was glycogen. Yet, seeing the scale go up 3lbs. was frightening and reinformed the "carbs = evil" mentality.
Now that I'm low fat, high carb experimenting, my weight doesn't bounce around so dramatically and I have a much healthier relationship with food.
I appreciate your work Evelyn.
Thank you.
Sanjeev, I don't think we disagree on this. I don't think the "moving more" part need include any formal "exercise". But Jimmy went from formal exercise + a job outside the home (albeit sedentary) to blogging full time and playing volleyball or refereeing a time or two a week. When I taught exclusively online it was not a good thing. I deliberately get up and run up and down my stairs on my way to the bathroom, walk a lap or two around the house, do "flashdance" while something is heating in the microwave, etc. All of which makes me feel good. When I had a treadmill, I used to still watch my "stories", and they made the time fly by.
While I'm not into 30 bananas a day by any means, as I understand the only thing Durian Rider is deficient in from his diet is B12. Compare that to the laundry list of supplements VLC'ers take despite eating their nutrient dense foods?
I think "losing weight" is addictive. Not that anyone consciously wants to regain, but things are far more exciting when folks see you and the compliments shower down. I think Jimmy's "challenges" are at least part of that mindset. I was kinda surprised he didn't start a new one in 2012, but perhaps he felt that jig was up?
IMO, I think one of the worst side effects of continually trying to rely on bad science is that it obscures the true benefits of a low carb diet - namely that most people spontaneously reduce their caloric intake without constantly feeling hungry. So many low-carb experts try to deny the CICO model of obesity, they forget that low-carb diets (particularly when paired with some form of exercise) are one of the more clinically successful ways of changing the CICO equation. It seems like, in order to believe in the 'magic' of low carb, they sacrifice the practicality. It also obscures the fact that low-carb doesn't need to mean zero or VLC - it's almost laughable to me that so many people don't consider Paul's PHD to be low-carb, when it's significantly lower carb (in a very good way) than the SAD.
But I do think the point about chronic cardio is likely important and that exercise is perhaps beneficial when it is hormetic ... enough to bring about a helpful response, not too much that creates different problems.
100% agree
I may have mis-stated my position: once a habit of exercise is established and proven un-shake-able - once the individual proves to themselves they can sustain the activity through difficult periods (exams and heightened workload at their job) using the intrinsically motivating activity,
THEN use that habit as a base to add activities which are beneficial but not as intrinsically motivating.
Start where it's easy.
And none of us has yet touched on what may the the most effective long term method of exercise (and "dieting"), tying one's self into a social network where membership is rewarding and membership depends on being active.
In this case IMHO for the long term (for the rest of one's life) cycling, judo, and group/team sports can be superior to most of what I listed ... the trampoline work can be highly motivating and fun for many but it's largely solitary.
I think that speaks to the religious aspect of any 'dietary cult.' Having found a diet that seems to work miraculously, no one wants their epiphany to be ruined by reality. It's tempting to build a myth around it, and one of the most important factors in any myth are the explanations that you use when reality intrudes. The broken metabolism is a classic mechanism; nearly impossible to define and equally impossible to diagnose, it allows for the old "you can't prove it isn't" argument to be used.
Plus what of choline, and animal-based vitamin A (many people of northern European descent are not efficient converters of beta-carotene) and adequate amounts of DHA.
Long term (10 years+) raw-vegans either admittedly cheat often or look like skelator.
It's easy to bash VLC (speaking as a person who felt way better adding in some carbs) but it's miles better than eating literally nothing but fruit. Let's get some perspective here!
Name names. This is whiny, non-specific bullshit, and could possibly be referring to anyone, but we're left to guess, which is the way you want it, of course. I want names of fitness gurus who discourage you from walking or running if that the only thing they can do. I want NAMES of fitness gurus who say sprinting is appropriate for the obese.
IF your contention is that all forms of exercise are appropriate, or equivalent, or equally efficacious per unit of time, then make it. Note that you don't get to steal any bases here: if some "fitness guru" suggests that dumbell circuit rather than the elliptical machine might be a better use of time, this does not make your case.
C'mon. Lets see it. Blow some life into that strawman.
YES, it does. Oh, hang on, let me do the obligatory CS voir dire first: I affirm, under penalty of lightnin' from Jeebus, that pulsatile insulin secretion does not a priori cause insulin resistance, amen. Now, however, there is a compensatory hunger effect when one performs exercise. This is obvious, as perfectly obvious as the fact that some foods are palatable or hyperpalatable or overly rewarding, and that eating way too much of anything will put weight on you, or eating too little will eventually take it off. This is not the same as saying that exercise is worthless.
Wait, I missed you stealing another base. Did Taubes ever say that JUST makes you hungry? OR, did he say that a lot of exercise literature didn't show a weight loss benefit to increased exercise, and make the perfectly obvious point that normal walking, or other light exertion, burns a miniscule amount of calories.
Whoever said that exercise JUST makes you hungry, well, then fuck them. I'm pretty sure these "fitness gurus", you know--! the same ones imploring obese people to CrossFit or just stay on the couch, know that the hormonal changes associated with the exercise and not just the # of calories burned are the real goods. But, how're we to know what the fitness gurus, gameshow hosts, encyclopedia salesmen or endocrinologists inside your head say, anyway?
Why is it so difficult for you to be honest? Why exaggerate so much?
You haven't heard the phrase "working up an appetite"?
Please.
BEHAR: Now, you say in your book that exercise doesn't make you lame. You say that sugar is more dangerous than cigarettes. And you say that carbs can cause Alzheimer's.
Those are pretty extreme claims.
Let's start with the first one.
Why don't I have to exercise?
TAUBES: Well, exercise may be good for you for a lot of different reasons. And I'm saying that it's not. I'm just pointing out that one thing we've never been able to demonstrate is that you can lose weight exercising. And the answer has always been fairly obvious. If you asked somebody 50 years ago what the result was of going for a long hike or a run or playing 18 holes of golf or a couple of sets of tennis, they would have said you work up an appetite.
BEHAR: Right.
TAUBES: That's what exercise does. It makes you work up an appetite. You get hungry.
There you go, CS. I win. What's your opinion, that exercise doesn't work up an appetite? I've heard of that saying before 2007, haven't you? Because that's the corner you've backed yourself into. You said that Taubes says that exercise ONLY works up an appetite, when he didn't say that. He clearly says that there are probably other benefits, and you caricatured him as saying that it OMLY works up a appetite. Again, why exaggerate and misrepresent? There's plenty of things to hang Gary on. Can't you do it without bullshit?
Reading is fundamental, CS, although I always like slam dunking, so thanks for the assist. LOL, indeed. I can't believe that I'm here defending Taubes, when I do think exercise is good for you (I guess we're all in agreement there, excepting the Taubes in your head) and that it probably contributes to weight stabilization, and likely as well weight LOSS.
So, let me be clear. Do you believe that there is no such thing as working up an appetite? I would walk it back, CS. Walk. It. Back.
"Now, however, there is a compensatory hunger effect when one performs exercise."
Oh no there isn't!
If you're getting hungry after performing exercise, you're doing something wrong.
P.P.S. There you go, dj. You lose.
Which is to say, no, you're not hungry right at the moment you stop chopping wood or running. Maybe not even for a day. Makes some sense, if you don't want to thermogenesis yourself into flames. Even though, what I will argue, after reading your research that was published one year after GCBC, is that working up an appetite -- you do a bunch of work, later you are hungrier than before -- is not a stupid idea, and your paper has not disabused me of the idea. Those of us who have performed hard physical work or play in our lives are completely familiar with the phenomenon of working up an appetite. Nigel, would you like to assert that working up an appetite is a stupid idea, and is can be completely dismissed with this paper?
Also notice that the results are for resistance and aerobic exercise, and that they are different. Is this important? Might be! But that doesn't make sense...boy, I can't wait for CS to explain it all to us! She's probably too busy emailing Mat Lalonde to explain that "metabolic derangement" is a made-up, stupid idea.
Let me repeat myself: Did Taubes ever say that JUST makes you hungry? OR, did he say that a lot of exercise literature didn't show a weight loss benefit to increased exercise, and make the perfectly obvious point that normal walking, or other light exertion, burns a miniscule amount of calories.
Let's say that point 2 is wrong (in that exercise makes you waif-thin). Does that mean swinging an axe produces no compensatory hunger? If it does produce compensatory hunger, does it JUST produce compensatory hunger? Does compensatory necessarily mean more, or greater than the energy burned performing the exercise? The answer to all three is NO, which is really easy to understand, unless you have invested your ego and blog in not understanding it.
So I lose, right, of course, ouch. Why not fill in the gaps on this last zinger a bit, so I can understand how badly I've lost.
I used to get hungry after going for a walk outside.
Then I learned to dress appropriately for going outside.
Now I don't get hungry after going for a walk outside.
Exercise doesn't make people waif-thin unless they have an eating disorder and grossly over-exercise. I know such people.
Please read What I believe and what I don't.
@Sam: I'm not defending veganism and I'm exaggerating a bit to make a point. Lots of VLC'ers can barely come up for air from swallowing pills long enough to sing the glories of how nutritious their diet is. Yes ... exaggeration.
On the issue of calories, funny you should bring up DR's high calories. Taubes' new sidekick Attia likes to boast that since going into "nutritional ketosis" he now eats 4500-5000 cal/day when before just regular lower carb he was eating like 3000-3500 cal/day. Now if I were to suggest that he might have a fat malabsorption problem in other circles that would be laughed at. I have no doubt that at such high caloric intakes folks absorb a lesser percentage of their intake. Probably the case for Phelps too.
"The one thing that might be said about exercise with certainty is that it tends to makes us hungry. Maybe not immediately, but eventually. Burn more calories and the odds are very good that we’ll consume more as well. And this simple fact alone might explain both the scientific evidence and a nation’s worth of sorely disappointing anecdotal experience."
If anyone wants to indict Evelyn for an essentially casual use of the word "just" well, I guess we all have our own ideas of a good time. But no one should infer that Taubes thinks highly of exercise as far as weight loss is concerned.
So, enter HIIT. The jury may still be out on this, but it sure looks promising. And it doesn't have to mean sprinting for the obese. Whatever can cause a short intense effort should do the trick. (Did WeightMaven mention doing hers in a pool?)
Finally, in regards to strength training, it is true that it probably is of marginal value to the highly obese, since they are effectively lifting heavy weights doing normal activity. But at some point during weight loss, muscle loss needs to halted or even reversed. If JM had realized this when at his skinniest (and understood that no matter the absence of carbs, you can't be a glutton), he might today be as studly as this 70 year old hunk :-)
Does exercise make you hungry?
Funny thing about Jimmy and weight lifting. Listen to him now and you'd think this was the first time he ever discovered/tried it. But he's stated he tried it in 2006, and he famously gained that 25-35 pounds (depending on the account) due to taking creatinine and weight lifting late 2007/early 2008. So resistance training is nothing new for him. He just didn't enjoy it the first time he tried it.
I don't have the patience to read Jimmy's blog at all, so I just assumed his disdain for exercise included all forms. (Note that I gave myself an out with the gluttony aside.)
I ran my last marathon 30 years ago and was skinny as a rail. I developed sciatica so bad from the daily pounding that I had to quit running. Then, even playing tennis three times a week, I quickly gained 60 pounds. Yes, it's anectodal, and yes, there are large individual differences, but I still believe that most of the treadmillers at my gym would be better served by some serious strength training with a bit of HIIT.
He should have ate in a slight calorie deficit (if he would count calories!) and lifted, he not only would have continued losing fat but probably have gained muscle as noobie lifters and the obese often do.
Lyle talks about it here:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/initial-body-fat-and-body-composition-changes.html
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html
There's always the issue of poorer absorption on a diet that is so high in water and roughage. It wouldn't surprise me if quite a few those calories could be discounted from the equation. However, in this day of excess consumption, I'd take a skeletal vegan over an overweight cafeteria diet consumer or whatever. The point being that the vegan still stands a chance of being nourished to a decent state of health.
Besides, looking deathly skinny and having an actual nutrient deficiency are still two very distinct issues. One relates to an energy deficit, while the other assumes boat-loads about nutrient absorption issues. I don't think it is that simple.
"The very fact that they can seemingly eat 4000+ calories a day and still be deathly skinny looking is a testament that they are not absorbing many other nutrients from fruit either."
Huh? Yes. They aren't getting enough calories. How do YOU know about their nutrient status (save for B12)? I'll be happy to get a perspective if you could provide something a little more substantial about your 'ample nutrients not getting absorbed' claim just because someone looks 'deathly skinny'.
I also think the calories expended in activity will become more important as you get closer to goal.
I like some the work Jimmy has done, I don't agree with him on everything and some of the guests he gets are just nuts. That is my biggest critique of Jimmy, he doesn't seem to show much discernment with who he lets on his show. He has a big influence on a lot of people and I think he should be more responsible in who he lets on his show. For the most part I ignore the ads for his podcasts.
Also the whole soy blame for the pilot wigging out is absolute crap. To even indicate that it could be a possibility is also bogus. There is no science involved in that claim and there is nothing to indicate that soy was a factor. There was a post about that on the Fat Head Facebook page and people chewed it up for the worthless claim it is. Really surprised to see something like that on a site from a key figure in the low carb community, that claims is science driven. Sorry I have not drunk any of the Kool-Aid nor do I plan to.
Post a Comment
Comment Moderation is ON ... I will NOT be routinely reviewing or publishing comments at this time..