The REAL JimKKKins Scandal: Dr. William Davis, Dr. Doug McGuff and "Dr." David Duke

In his zest to pull his a$$ out of the firestorm he created, by knowingly going on prominent white-supremacist  and anti-semite  David Duke's radio program, Jimmy Moore has done a great service to the community by "outing" two prominent MD's associations with same.  

Don't you mean disservice?  No.  Service, because nobody seemed to be aware of this, and it is important information.  Unlike the one-man Jimmy Moore show, these are prominent men with "real jobs", besides their books, blogs and whatever else, as medical doctors.  They also have books published by mainstream large publishing houses and "handlers" -- whatever the title:  managers, agents, publicists, assistants, you get the picture.

The following post was brought to my attention in comments here, and just so it doesn't get buried, I'm putting it here and encouraging all of my readers to go read it:  Two prominent physician/authors -- one a NY Times bestseller -- promoted their books on white supremacist David Duke's radio show.

I'm sure that both McGuff and Davis knew pretty quickly that Jimmy Moore had tied their names to the term neo-Nazi in a title of a blog post on a fairly well-traveled blog:  
If I’m A Neo-Nazi, Then I Guess Dr. William Davis And Dr. Doug McGuff Are Too?
I realize this was on a Saturday (Dec. 29), and it's a holiday season and all that, but the silence in a community that went viral (with disinformation) over Dr. Jack Kruse within 24 hours is rather deafening.  The accusations made by Kruse & Co. were serious -- terrorism, "calling in" fake terror attacks and all that.  The sanctimony was flying all around about how awful the three haters, especially yours truly, were, and how we should rot in jail for our crimes.  Heck, FatHead still went on in defense of JimKKKins long past the time everyone knew it was Jack that was the lying hack.  But so far ... not a whole lot except for the not-unexpected support for JimKKKins by Nikoley.

So McGuff did respond on Jimmy's blog (appropriate venue) and on Free the Animal.  I don't suppose someone who claims to be duped into appearing for not one, but two, hours on David Duke radio has kept up with paleo politiks, but just reading Richard's take should have given him a clue that it might not be the best place for a serious response.  In any case, below is a screenshot of his response on LLVLCblog.

At first blush, and especially compared to JimKKKins' lame whine and cheezy excuse rant, this was well received here.  It is how apologies are done.  Take responsibility, don't point fingers of blame, apologize.

But after mulling it over, and (forgive me for not naming names) in consideration of the questions raised by some commenters, this apology rings a bit hollow in the end and raises more questions than it answers.

First, it is missing one key component of a good apology for something of this magnitude:  What are you going to do about it?  There is no indication that McGuff plans to do anything. Specifically, the explanation is missing a direct and unequivocal denouncement of David Duke.  Just saying "I wouldn't have done the interview were I not duped" (paraphrase obviously)  is insufficient here.  And here is where I put on my what-if-I-were-in-their shoes and think on what I would do.  It is a very serious reputation killer to be associated with a notorious neo-Nazi.  If I were duped into this -- which he basically has to admit to a certain level of stupidity/idiocy expecting us to believe that -- I'd be doing all I could to expose Duke's deceptive tactics.  First, to preserve my reputation, and second, so that others are warned and spared having it done to them as well.  Indeed when (or if) we get Davis' side of the story, he could have been saved his own mistake had McGuff spoken out.  

McGuff's response was to want to hurl, but he did NOTHING???  Whomever vetted this and set me up would be fired.  Gone.  Buh bye!  I want to see the innocuous links Duke sent to his manager at Ultimate Science to see if they are really innocuous.  The way I'm reading this apology, McGuff knew he was interviewing with *A* David Duke, but he didn't realize until some weeks later that it was *THE*  David Duke?????   So nobody in his outfit bothered to listen to the radio show?  Check out the link?  C'mon!  

Here is a screenshot of a Google Search on American University England David Duke.  So here we have an MD with a popular fitness book who couldn't be bothered to spend 30 seconds to do that?   Who vetted Duke and do they have a job McGuff????    I mean this guy ain't exactly Donald Trump ... or even Wheat Belly for that matter ... but it doesn't sound like he was just fitting in one more interview if a flurry of PR appearances.  Body by Science has been out since May 2010 ... almost 2 years before this interview.  I would say this is more than sloppy.  

So as suggested here in comments, I'd be on the horn to my lawyer had I been legitimately duped.  There would be an announcement -- front and center -- on my website denouncing Duke and putting my side of the "I was duped" story out.  I would at least reach out behind the scenes to people who might be equally targeted by Duke.  

Speaking of websites, there is one:    What you'll see is that McGuff "blogs" on the home page.  WHERE IS HIS DENOUNCEMENT OF DAVID DUKE, A COPY OF THE COMMENT ON LLVLC & FTA THERE???  The cynic in me says he's hoping this blows over with the fewer readers/followers knowing, the better.

No folks, there is more fire to hold to this man's feet.

And now on to Dr. William "Wheat Belly" Davis.  That book is an abomination of bad science and it's no wonder Duke didn't pick up and run with the addiction and conspiracy theories nature of it all.  Davis has, thusfar, been silent.  Folks posted on his blog, and no response yet.  One responder urged Davis not to "go there".  Here is my comment in moderation.

There has been a lot of urging in comments for me to lead some kind of charge to pressure Jimmy Moore by getting "big guns" to pressure him.  I will have more to say on that shortly, but suffice it for now that I have neither the time nor inclination to do that!  Yes, I will continue to share information here, name names and connect dots and whatnot.  As this new year unfolds, I'll be on top of who is appearing with whom and invited to speak where and all of that.  And I won't hold my tongue.  It matters not if Jimmy apologizes tomorrow.  He sank his own boat and anyone that associates with him moving forward is subject to being called out here, and let the chips fall where they may.  I am sharing my opinions, not telling others how they should think, feel, respond.  

But there are bigger fish here.  Mainstream publishing houses involved.  And it's now almost a year that has elapsed, and admission by one of these authors that he knew in relatively short order but did nothing about it.  I think the questions of who booked the appearances must be answered.   If the publishers were involved, that needs to be explored further.  If they were not?  Then the onus falls more squarely on these authors and their "peeps".  

If you're so inclined to join Heimlich to contact the publishers, here ya go:
Press Contact: Staci Shands

Body by Science ISBN-10: 0071597174; ISBN-13: 978-0071597173

From WB website:  Contacts for media appearance only ... well this is about one!
Contact:Danielle Lynn
Public Relations Manager
733 Third Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, New York 10017
Dr. Davis’ Office address:2600 N. Mayfair Rd., Suite 950
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226
Phone 414-456-1123
Wheat Belly ISBN-10: 1609611543; ISBN-13: 978-1609611545

Oh ... and the publisher of some popular paleo books is set to publish a book by Jimmy Moore some time this fall.  Victory Belt.  Just saying.  Don't want to be accused of employing "gestapo tactics" by someone who never heard of a neo-Nazi.


Unknown said…
'I don't always get busted, but when I do, I make sure to throw my friends under the bus'
CarbSane said…
Thanks ... I had a lot of help :D
Anonymous said…

I think there's a heavy element of cognitive dissonance going on there.

It all boils down to the money involved, I suppose. Let's be real, Duke's audience and the market of VLC have quite a lot of interlap. No, of course not all LCers are sympathetic to Duke's agenda, but if you're trying to sell books, they're a prime market. I would not be terribly surprised the publisher would try to get their material plugged on there.

As for the authors themselves, I have to raise an eyebrow at the idea they didn't know. On level I can buy it. After all, I think it's natural to assume it wasn't *the* David Duke. Surely my manager wouldn't put me on a Neo-Nazi program. So maybe I can buy McGuff didn't know until he couldn't back out of it. And I guess it's natural to hope it would all be swept under the rug, which it was until Moore outed them.
Diana said…
McGuff's interview was in February 2011 and he knew shortly thereafter who Duke was, by his own account. Yet he didn't apologize until he got outed. And he apologized on Moore's website, not his own. His apology is well written, but the sincerity is suspect due to timing and placement.

My own suggestion would be to take the time to compose a well-written snail mail. I do think that in this world of instant e-communications, a snail mail has added impact. JMO.
Craig said…
David Duke is (allegedly) a vile and loathsome person and a divisive poltical personality who continues to have a public presence via his web site. He apparently has been able to find nonpolitical content for this site by failing to explain to potential interview subjects that he is a vile and loathsome person and divisive political personality:

"My radio programs interview a wide range of experts in many areas of life, politics, finance, health, science, and the fact that I interview them obviously does not mean I necessarily agree with every position they may represent, and certainly does not necessarily mean the individual agrees with every position that I hold. I endeavor to engage the personalities I interview in a low key, almost anonymous manner, so as not to affect the interview by issues extraneous to the subject at hand."

McGuff is a well intentioned, reasonable man who is trying to benefit his fellow man by promoting a safe and effective means of exercise that he thinks may improve the health of many people. He made a big mistake by participating in an interview with this disreputable individual. This apparently happened because the individual who manages his fitness center lacked the sophistication to properly vet the request, and because McGuff was too busy to do the vetting himself.

So what are the important lessons we take from this episode?

That we must punish and villify McGuff until he publically flagellates himself sufficiently for making a mistake? Because anyone who writes a blog, or book, or gives an interview, or promotes anything must be absolutely perfect and above reproach in all aspects of their lives! Clearly, the force has been disturbed, and the blood lust of the blogosphere must be satisfied. I know this may seem unreasonable, but he made a MISTAKE. He F***ed up! He didn't do this right. I don't know anything more horrifying or unforgiveable than someone making a mistake, and then not flogging themselves sufficiently for it.

But that isn't enough: We must make him fire his fitness center manager, who likely is nothing more than a low wage admin, just to be sure that this individual never again dares to fail to vet an request for an interview. Clearly, this individual should be blacklisted, and never allowed to work again for such a heinous action.

And after that, we must demand further redemption and rehabilitation: he needs to undertake expensive and possiblity futile legal action against Duke to demonstrate his commitment to.... ????

And finally, let's be sure that anyone who ever dares to publish a book, gives an interview, or publishes a blog post has the above participation and content reviewed by at least one PR professional, and at least one lawyer. Because that is how we we will make the internet a better and safer place for everyone.

an3drew said…
Your effort at sarcasm sucks.
CarbSane said…

McGuff is a well intentioned, reasonable man who is trying to benefit his fellow man by promoting a safe and effective means of exercise that he thinks may improve the health of many people.

I don't know that he's not, but how do you know that he is? Is he a personal friend? Thing is he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt from a general audience.

I don't think he should be villified without just cause, but the more one thinks of the events as he tells them, and as Diana points out, the TIMING, the more this stinks.

He claims his representation was contacted multiple times. That Duke was represented as a history professor at American U in England. What would a history prof be interested in anyway? As my Google search shows, that should be the end of it. The person who sweeps the floors in his office could do that!! I doubt it is returning different hits than a year or so ago.

So before I let him off the hook, I want to see the innocuous links. How was the interview conducted, phone? Skype? In person? Where? WHO ultimately arranged it, and with the book being involved was McGraw Hill involved in any way?

Your last paragraph is frankly absurd. Interviews don't happen spur of the moment, there is planning involved and there should be some modicum of checking and this man is not some nobody. Please tell me you are not among those who thinks Duke is a reputable source of nutrition information and nothing else matters. That seems to be the vibe I'm getting but that doesn't jibe with your posts here in the past.

I'm not sure either of these three just made a mistake. It is possible for McGuff or Davis, but if I'd really been punk'd by David Duke and there was a two part interview complete with links and commentary by Duke on that website and I'd found out about it? I'd be on it post haste to get it removed as being done under false pretenses, and if that wasn't legally possible, I'd post the communications and disconnect my self from that person. Period.
an3drew said…
Dr. Davis says:
January 1, 2013 at 11:01 am

Yes, it was indeed a mistake to go on his show.

It occurred at a time when I was being swamped with interview requests, as many as 4-20 per day. The request came from a Dr. Duke in Europe, so it didn’t even occur to me that there was a connection to the infamous Dukes.

So it was all inadvertent. Let the critics make what they will of it; it does not reflect AT ALL on my views nor of the value of these concepts.
Thanks for linking to my blog and for your interest.

Per my 12/30/12 item, I submitted inquiries to Rodale Books and McGraw-Hill in which I requested a statement.

Also, yesterday I submitted an inquiry to Dr. McGuff re: his statement.

I'll report the results in a follow-up item and will send you the link.

Cheers and Happy New Year -- Peter
an3drew said…
Wait.... 4 to 20 requests per day? 28 to 140 interview requests per week?

And the Duke interview request made the cut?

Jason Sandeman said…
Honestly, the guy is an asshat. Same with "Dr. Duke." I could care less about their apology. Why can't they just own what they are, and get over it. Why backpedal and lie about it? Never heard of a Neo-Nazi?
Better yet, if Jimmy "agrees with his ideas on nutrition" but "not with his politics," can we assume that if Hitler was still alive, and also a low-carber, could we expect to see him on his podcast? Just wondering...
Obviously Jimmy is either functionally retarded, or an asshole liar. The problem for him is - instead of admitting he goofed, he painted himself in the corner. Looks like the whole paleo movement will move away from Jimmay- if they're smart.
CarbSane said…
Beat me to it. Exactly an3drew! Who was fielding these requests anyway? That's why you have "peeps".
CarbSane said…
Cheers and Happy New Year back Peter! I look forward to the followup!!
Unknown said…
I agree with Evelyn. The thing to remember is most practicing MD's are incredibly protective of their professional reputations. If these doctors were duped, it seems likely when they found out, they would have immediately had a lawyer write a letter to Duke demanding he remove the interview from his site. If Duke refused, they could have written a message disavowing Duke on their own sites. In McGuff's case, he knew and let the interview sit on Duke's archive for almost a year. To me, none of this passes the smell test.
Diana said…
@Euclid - Maybe McGuff was too busy puking to call his lawyer, or admit up front that what he did was wrong.
CarbSane said…
Also I just looked back and Davis was making the media rounds in September of 2011 for Wheat Belly. So the 4-20/day or even week in Feb/March doesn't jive.

How come it's not on his media page? He has an interview with Joan Hamburg from WOR radio in NY (pretty well known locally but not a big name, so if he's only highlighting the "highlights" ......)

Unknown said…
There are problems with Dr. Davis's "let the critics make of it what they will" response.

First, where's the outrage for allegedly being duped into doing the interview? It was "inadvertent" and "make of it what you will"? That's surprisingly passive language when your reputation has been damaged by links to a notorious Nazi.

Dr. Davis also seems to have missed the "I'm sorry" portion of this train wreck -- unless he's not sorry.

Also, why aren't he and McGuff taking action now to demand that Duke remove the interviews from his website? If, as they claim, they were duped, their attorneys are on firm ground to go after Duke for misrepresentation.

Methinks they protest too little.

Me also wonders if the idea was to move some product to the white supremacist and/or apocalyptic preppers who listen to Duke. These people buy a lot of expensive goods as they prepare for their delusional end-of-the-world scenarios.

Then there's McGuff's statement posted on Moore's blog: "I did not find out I had granted an interview with THE Dr. David Duke until a few weeks later when someone I had done a consult with about a year prior, left a voicemail saying how much he enjoyed the interview and gave the name of the website."

He has a client who listens to the David Duke Show? Interesting connection.

Finally, when Dr. McGuff made this discovery -- eight months ago -- did he inform his co-author, John Little, or his publisher that he had just promoted their book for two hours on Nazi radio? If not, why not?
Diana said…
Oh God, I just tried to listen to the Duke interview. With McGuff's statement in mind that Duke was an excellent interviewer, I didn't last long. Duke pretty quickly switched to the subject of the "My Plate" effort. He claimed it was grain heavy, and a government plot to get people sick and fat on "sugar." I had to turn it off, I was so disgusted. I don't need this.

For Jimmy to decry "My Plate" is worse than appalling. If he tried it, he'd lose weight. This is man who wants sympathy because he used to eat dozens of donuts, claiming that grains by definition are fattening. It is galling. I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can stand him, can't see thru his lies and bullshit.

For an example of how fattening the "My Plate" concept is, look here:


Read the whole thing but I can't resist a quote: "There was nothing in the MyPlate guidelines that required me to eat pizza or soda or twinkies or high fructose corn syrup (or refined grains or seed oils, for that matter). In fact, the guidelines discourage all those things."

Hear that, Jimmy? I know you're reading this!

For the record, "My Plate" ISN'T grain heavy - it's balanced. A concept they don't understand. They are literally unbalanced.
Ev Barney said…
Yes, I did say I hoped he would not 'go there.' As I also said in that same post, my reason was that what I had read on the topic (I specifically mentioned Jimmy Moore's post on the subject as embarrassingly defensive and juvenile) was just making my skin crawl. And, it's not as if (correct me if I'm wrong on this - I don't care to listen to the interviews) any of these authors were there in support of Duke's Nazi-esque agenda.

Was their presence tacit support? Maybe, but all this drama over these appearances, in my opinion, is serving to raise Duke's profile. Isn't Duke the real problem here?
blogblog said…
Doug McGuff is an ignorant clown. Any undergraduate kinesiology student would have a much better knowledge of exercise physiology.

'Body by Science' is nothing more than a half-arsed re-hash of 20 year old medical textbooks. It is filled with nonsense such as the non-existent Type IIab muscle fibres and the supposed (but unproven)benefits of Nautilis machines.
Michael said…
Hi Evelyn,

and while we're at it: I distinctly remember a post about a recent interview that Paul Jaminet gave, where on his own site someone remarked that the interviewer linked to some pretty extreme right wing stuff from his web site.

Jaminet's answer was something like "the interview was one focused on nutrition, everything else is merely down to free speech", continuing a theme that seems to be very dear to free market liberals (right now Robb Wolf is probably thinking very carefully about what to write in his book on the topic).

I have the utmost respect for PJ as a researcher, but we might as well get it over with once and for all (once someone finds that comment; I haven't been able to yet).
CarbSane said…
Hi Evelyn! I was hoping you'd find me here b/c I doubt WB will let any more comments from me go through.

As to your last point, no, I don't think this helps Duke. Any such "help" is on the heads of Jimmy Moore, Davis and McGuff.

The circumstances of each appearance seem to differ. I'll be blogging on that at some point. I'm interested to see the publisher responses.

CarbSane said…
BTW -- in the interview, Duke says to WB that he's in Central Europe. He does at the end also mention his anti-globalist views (no Zionism). So it seems plausible Davis was lied to. Which raises the question as to how this was accomplished. If he was so in demand as to even be receiving ONE request per day, how does a 1 hour interview with a no-name in undisclosed location in another country come to be. Davis SHOULD answer to that. WHO facilitated this, how was it done (phone? Skype?) etc. Davis is in "professional" territory and these things don't just happen.

I'm sorry but I'm still not buying that someone like Davis gets punked like this. If you give an interview, don't you at least follow up to find when/where/etc. it is aired? The Rense distribution is notorious as well. These people are NOT this stupid.
CarbSane said…
I responded to your last comment about this. Please link me to where I can see for myself the "pretty extreme right wing stuff" linked to. Who the interviewer was and the website. Also links to the remark on PHD and the response by Paul.

That you've posted this charge twice now with no further information, tells me you are trying to stir the pot and paint others with the same brush. No -- I'm not going to "get it over with once and for all -- UNTIL someone finds what you're looking for.

Even these 3 cases have some key differences that I'll be summarizing in a post here soon.
CarbSane said…
Yeah, never heard of neo-Nazi should be a deal breaker for everyone. And he's dug his heels in on that one.

And he's lied. The story he tells doesn't jive with the events as they occurred. And he's outed these two docs, and their circumstances are slightly different.
Michael said…
Sorry for the double-post - I thought my first comment hadn't made it onto the site (where did number one go?). I'll do my best to find it.
Unknown said…
It seems to me that his program is a good weight-lifting system for people who do not like to lift weights.

A professional weight lifter said:

"Everybody wants to be a bodybuilder, but ain't nobody wanna lift no heavy ass weights!"

The "Body By Science" thing seems to appeal to people who want to look like they exercise, but don't want to actually exercise. I guess it is fine for people who consider lifting weights to be a chore like trimming your nose hair, but I don't see how it can produce better results than a system designed for people who actually enjoy lifting weights.

If you hate to exercise then there are a bunch of systems geared towards you but I don't think they will produce the same results as the systems designed for people who consider physical activity to be the best part of their lives, for me the reward of going from obese to non-obese is that I get to do the things I enjoyed doing when I was young.

Imo people who need to lose 50 pounds or more would be better served by walking than the Body By Science nonsense, people say "I don't have time to walk for 40 minutes a day," which is an illusion, in fact they have time to walk 2 hours a day, they just won't admit it to themselves.
blogblog said…
There is no conclusive evidence to support any particular form of weight training.

Walking is a complete waste of time as a method for weight loss. This is because humans are ultra-efficient walkers.

Exercise only causes weight loss in conjunction with calorie restriction. Exercise without calorie restriction typically causes a GAIN of both weight and body fat.
Unknown said…
So hypothetically speaking, if 'My Plate' was grain heavy, then the critics would have a point? I guess I better have a word with those rascals in Japan, and more specifically, in Okinawa.
Diana said…
"Walking is a complete waste of time as a method for weight loss. This is because humans are ultra-efficient walkers."

Except when they are fat, out-of-shape and inefficient walkers. As was I, in March 2011. Part of my weight loss program was lots of brisk walking - and calorie restriction. It helped me lose 20 pounds. It wouldn't help me lose weight now, because I'm adapted.

"Exercise only causes weight loss in conjunction with calorie restriction."


"Exercise without calorie restriction typically causes a GAIN of both weight and body fat."

I don't think this is true.
Hiit Mama said…
"Exercise without calorie restriction typically causes a GAIN of both weight and body fat."

Some people say this depends on the type of exercise. Marathons and long distance running can cause a paradoxical insulin resistance. I think it's attributed to the large amounts of free fatty acids in circulation after so much running for such a long period of time. This may be why it is sometimes hard for those who do long duration moderate to intense exercise have a hard time losing fat. (I do not think this counts walking though. Since I really like to do it and am very biased toward promoting it for everyone.)

Others might say that resistance training, particularly heavy weight training, will partition energy to lean tissue, even if it is in excess, at least for a period of time post exercise. Perhaps this will increase lean mass, but not so much fat mass, unless you are talking about gorging which will certainly pack on pounds since calories will always matter.

In a nutshell, I think it's important to be more specific when talking about "exercise."
Ev Barney said…
"Exercise without calorie restriction typically causes a GAIN of both weight and body fat."

Why would that ever be true? Eating more than you use = gain, exercise can increase muscle mass which is heavier than fat . . .okay. But, what does exercise have to do with increased body FAT? I assume that since exercise is in the equation, it's not the same as just gaining fat form eating too much.
Diana said…
@HIIT Mama, Your grafs #2 and #3 are what discourage a lot of people and make them throw up their hands in despair, though I am sure that is not your intent. In my own nutshell, overexercising of any kind causes me to want to eat as compensation, unless I am VERY careful. I think that a lot of other people do, too. For most people, marathoning is just torture. NOVA had an episode on this. Most people did not lose weight, except one woman who was obese to begin with and even she didn't lose all the weight she'd gained two years prior due to life catastrophes, etc. Instead of complicating things with insulin resistance, etc., why not just admit that they are compensating w/calories?

@EvelynLB - exactly.
Ev Barney said…
What I don't understand is why, if he did know, he'd ever want to do that interview anyway. As you've said yourself - he's getting a lot of high-profile play. He certainly didn't NEED the air time. It's just all too odd. I don't get it.
Hiit Mama said…
Egads not all at my intent! Actually I have been trying to unwind the differences between various exercise regimes particularly for women for some time. I guess what I was trying to say is that marathon type/overexercise does seem to be counter productive. But exercise that serves to preserve lean mass (which will presumably require more calories, in the form of fat at rest, to maintain)seems to be worth the investment. FWIW, I was a long distance runner for years, I now mostly walk and lift. For sure I feel hungrier on days when lifting was particularly heavy, but my body composition does seem to be much much better with the resistance exercise.

But really, I bet dollars to donuts that just sitting less is probably the best "exercise" for metabolic function. This is a very hard thing to control for most people in their jobs though. It was for me when I was working.
CarbSane said…
Ev it truly does defy logic either way, right? He knew ... makes no sense. He didn't know ... makes no sense either. I am awaiting the results of Peter Heimlich's inquiry to Rodale. This will hold the key, and if they do not respond to his inquiry, I'll help spearhead an effort to make sure there is a formal response.

I own a copy of WB and have read parts. His blog went downhill for a year prior to publication with whacky theories like the battery acid post. Conspiracy theorists make strange bedfellows and in an effort to fight "Big Whatever" I can see (not saying it happened, but I can see!) these two concocting a cover to reach Duke's audience with the WHeat Belly message.
Diana said…
@HIIT Mama, Actually, I meant grafs #1 and #2, come to look at it again. (I was counting your quotation as a graf.)

Be assured, I realize you didn't mean to overcomplicate things or put non-exercisers off - but I think a lot of non-exercisers, embarking on a weight loss program, are put off by the technical talk about insulin, etc., ya know?

Yes, exercise that preserves or increases lean mass is best. But here's what I wonder and please correct me if I'm wrong - that despite all that we see on the Internet, even on good, well-intentioned sites, that the vast majority of women won't put appreciable amounts of muscle on, even if go as heavy as they can (without injury). Even if they become fanatical. I have seen a lot of "Yes you can!" and "You go girl!" lifting websites, but I think their results are atypical. But I'm willing to be corrected.

Agreed on the job thing. My own sad conclusion is that the vast majority of modern people are as thin as they are paid to be. Models, dancers, actors, athletes are paid to be lean. Manual laborers as well - my professional waiter father was thin. (He also didn't overeat.) The rest of us have to consciously compensate. It's damn hard. Who wants to exercise after a full day of office work? And if you have a family, it is REALLY difficult.
Hiit Mama said…
Here's my ununun expert thoughts on this. If you lift heavy you will gain heavy muscle. Some people want this. But if you do resistance exercise a la lighter more volume, even yoga, that heavy muscle won't grow. Muscle fiber type is something I know little about, but endurance (type I) vs. power strength (type II) are like the ballerina (type I) vs. the "lifter sprinter" (type II). But yeah, the Fitspo pictures are horrible. None of them are realistic. And if women want to have normal hormones, for the most part visible abs are not to be desired, (some outliers may be fine but I cannot be "ripped" and be a normal lady).
Galina L. said…
Exercise also affects leptin levels. According to the wiki article about leptin "Leptin level is chronically reduced by physical exercise training.[47]". So it increases hunger , reduce energy expenditure and promotes weight regain .
Body gets adopted to a new exercise activity pretty fast. Once I lost between 5 - 10 lb when soon after arriving to US went to work in a department store in order to get more fluent with my English. We had to walk fast most of the time from one end of a big department to another, put clothes on and off hangers, things like that. After initial weight loss, it stopped. Other ladies who worked in store were different in body types, but everybody complained on aching feet.
Diana said…
"If you lift heavy you will gain heavy muscle." Ah, but most women can't lift heavy and couldn't (without injury or doing crazy stuff to their reproductive capacity) even with training. And even then - there's a genetic limit.
Unknown said…
I assume "heavy" is meant relatively. Either way, I would disagree with Hiit Mama as moderate weight/moderate volume is basically the classic approach to achieve hypertrophy (a mistake I feel many women make - the nadir of which is IMO Gywneth Paltrow-style 5lb weights, which achieve basically none of the benefits of weight training). Conversely, weight-class athletes (e.g. weightlifters) will perform low volume of high-intensity (measured as % of 1 rep max) as this specifically does not cause much hypertrophy. Therefore, to maintain strength and LBM the logical approach is to lift in the 3-6 repetition range with a total volume of no more than 25 repetitions per exercise. Obviously within considerations of joint health and overall safety of exercise selection.
Galina L. said…
Yoga builds strength quite well, it also produces "toned" look. However,it doesn't happen fast.
Diana said…
@Chris, "hypertrophy" - I just don't think that most women can add much muscle, period. Muscular women are one of three categories: truly muscular genetically (Serena Williams); juiced (no further comment); or fake muscular (Madonna- so fatless you can see every striation; some ballerinas are "muscular" like that). I saw pictures of Indian untouchables whose village had been enslaved, transported en masse to a city, where they had to break rocks all the livelong day. The men were skinny and muscular. The women were just skinny.

I am starting a resistance program. I am all in favor of resistance training. It's healthy and will, I hope, make me more functional and help me to stave off bone loss and other bad signs of aging. But I don't think I'll add much more muscle.
Diana said…
"3-6 repetition range with a total volume of no more than 25 repetitions per exercise."

I don't understand this.
Anonymous said…
How to gain muscle is as widely debated as how to lose weight. Seems to be another of those things where different programs work for different people for different reasons.
Hiit Mama said…
^agreed. I've done it all exercise and diet wise. The worst body comp I had was when I was doing just high fat #paleo-ish with only heavy lifting and sprinting. That's all high intensity so I could not do a volume of work and just ended up feeling, as much as I hate the term, bulky. I really feel best when I walk briskly a lot and lift at a moderate volume.

Also @Diana I suspect he means that each set should be 2-6 reps. Your number of sets should be limited to how many reps you can do in each set not to exceed 25 reps for that particular exercise. For example, if you are deadlifting, performing 5 reps per set, then you should do only 5 sets for 25 total reps.

I do like the 5 x 5 program. But as a lady I sometimes like to see ladies leading me, so maybe you'd like CAthe or Jari Love.
Diana said…
@HIIT Mama - I'll check them out. I still doubt I'll put on much muscle. I think I'll be lucky to put on 6 pounds. If that. I haven't seen any hard proof that unjuiced average women put on more muscle than that. I'd be quite happy with that, actually, and a 5 pound fat loss.
Diana said…
PS I looked up Jari Love. She just looks like a lean woman to me - her muscularity is a by-product of her extreme leanness. She would probably get the same results from push-ups.
Anonymous said…

"That's all high intensity so I could not do a volume of work and just ended up feeling, as much as I hate the term, bulky."

That was my experience as well. I can't say whether or not I gained muscle doing all HI exercises, but what I do know is I felt pretty crappy. Could be because doing all HI work, for me, produced all the stress and anxiety of a marathon without all the calorie burn.

"I really feel best when I walk briskly a lot and lift at a moderate volume. "

Same. I walk about an hour a day in the evening plus whatever I do just going about my day, plus a routine of bodyweight exercises. It was actually delving into the Paleo world that made me give up heavy weightlifting, mostly because it largely didn't make sense to me.
Diana said…
Walking helped my weight loss routine as well in conjuction with short bursts of VLC eating. I even discovered recently that "the experts" have a name for it: LISS (low intensity steady state). I just call it brisk walking. It's actually enjoyable.

Again, and sorry for sounding like a broken record, but I don't think most unjuiced women have the capacity to put on much muscle at all. The only claims for such are on bodybuilding forums, "broscience" forums, etc. I have looked on Pubmed and I cannot find one study that quantifies how much muscle women put on as a result of resistance training. I've read about improved body composition, etc., but I haven't read anything that measures how much muscle a woman can put on as a result of resistance training.

If anyone can find such, please let me know! I want to be wrong.
CarbSane said…
I don't know what proportion of women you are thinking of when you say "most", but I'm capable of putting on muscle. Back when I did Nautilis in the early 90's, during a period when I was pretty fit (though stupidly thought I was fat) I probably didn't help matters to progress on each machine. I was way up there on the leg press which was bulking my short legs. No special diet regime whatsoever either. Probably the most consistent thing would be PWO beer (LOL) as after lifting I often played several games of racquetball and then socialized at the bar IN our club. I'd say I was "on a diet" half the time, just eating intuitively other times and slowly losing weight during that period because I loved racquetball and excelled at it so I was playing a ton of it. Great exercise. Wish it would come back into vogue!!
CarbSane said…
No probs. I'm happy to address this if you can provide a link. I'm thinking the first one is buried amongst over 200 on the first JimKKKins thread.
Diana said…
@Evelyn, "most"-- any woman who falls into the normal testosterone range for a woman of her age & BMI.

Since this is the Carb Sane Asylum, I have to ask you some questions. Did you measure how much muscle you put on and at what rate? Did you lose fat, thereby exposing the muscular structure underneath?

I'm not saying women can't put ANY muscle on - esp. young women. But promising gains of 10 pounds of muscle or more - I am deeply skeptical of this. I think that 5 pounds would be the max. But I don't know. I have to admit that when I saw JM's Dexascans I hadn't known that they can measure how much muscle a person can put on, in each extremity, etc. I would be fascinated to see such a study with women.

Alcohol has a high thermogenic rate, haha. I think that the highest dietary thermogenetic diet would be beer and steak, hold the potatoes.
Diana said…
I finally found what I am looking for:

RESULTS: Increases in muscle strength of the weight trainers were significant for all seven exercises (5%-65%), with the greatest gains in the shoulder and trunk muscles. Percent body fat of weight trainers decreased significantly (from 38.8% to 37.9%, P < 0.05), while lean tissue mass increased by 1.5 kg (P < 0.01).

Note: these women were over 60.

That's 3.3 pounds, even less than I had thought possible. Of course it was also accompanied by body fat percentage decrease, although it doesn't seem as significant to my unscientifically trained eyes as it does to the scientists.

And it doesn't mention diet. I guess their diet remained the same.

I assume that younger women could add more muscle. But not a lot more. Let's be generous and double the amount of muscle young women could add: 6.6 pounds? Not a lot.
Unknown said…
Apologies for any confusion from my post. Indeed, I would agree that the potential for the majority of women to put on appreciable muscle mass is very limited. However, what I was saying is that to avoid "bulkiness" whilst gaining the benefits of weights (strength, bone density etc) a good approach would be to train in the heavier weight/low repetition/low volume area. Instinctively it seems many women when taking up weight training will ironically actually follow more of a bodybuilding template without intentionally doing so (higher reps/higher volume - "pump training") or even worse a very high volume/very low weight (eg 100 reps with a can of beans) which won't do much of anything past burn a few cals. I guess in short I'm saying heavier weights (in the 3-6 rep range with low volume) are LESS likely to make a person bigger.
Anonymous said…

It's interesting that the improvements were greatest in the shoulders and trunk (I'm assuming erector spinae). Perhaps because those muscle groups are typically underdeveloped in non-resistance training?
Diana said…
Chris, according to the evidence, most women can't get "bulky" no matter what they do. Perhaps in your anecdotal experience the women you've seen (trained? are you a trainer?) compensate heavy lifting with some heavy eating. They then end up looking like well-conditioned weight lifters. I'm familiar with that syndrome. It happened to me when I was younger. I looked "bulky" but really I had the same LBM as I do now, except now I'm 20 pounds lighter and I don't look bulky anymore.
Giuseppe said…
Don't know about the recent interview, but I remember something similar happening a while ago (see first few comments):

Is there anyone among the big paleo bloggers who's not a right-winger anyway? I used to follow blog like PHD but the screeds about the evils of socialized medicine, links to quacks and cranks and the like put me off them even more than the diet they promote (since I never liked meat much anyway).

Unknown said…
Wasn't aware of this, but despite not being surprised, I am disappointed. I always assumed that they were politically moderate and turns out I was wrong. I myself am starting to wonder if some of these people getting into 'food wars' are doing so with a political chip on their shoulders.
CarbSane said…
This is very disturbing. I can see an oversight, but defending it? Sigh. What is wrong with this community? I will email Paul about this.
Anonymous said…
Hello there, just became aware of your blog through Google, and found that it is really informative.

I am gonna watch out for brussels. I'll be grateful if
you continue this in future. Lots of people will
be benefited from your writing. Cheers!

Also visit my site; Get Auto Commissions from home (