Words of advice from an "expert" who demolishes CICO

Note:  Regular bolding is the original author's emphasis, red or blue bolding is my own added emphasis.   I also believe the ******* are Fitday or somesuch online logger the host site must auto-edit out of posts there.

Written 7 years ago to the day:

I've been low carbing for over 4 years, and in that time I've done different things.

To lose most of the weight, before I reallly felt comfortable enough to experiment with different things, I stuck with basic Atkins induction, I followed it exactly, never cheating, and the weight just melted off. I was never hungry, and it just happened. Early on, I wouldn't even eat tomatoes or onions because I was afraid they were too sweet. The only side effects I had was that I was often tired and I would have heart palpitations... but I think that's pretty normal considering how fast I was losing weight and how I wasn't eating much (as a result of losing weight / fat so fast).

When I got around 200#s the weight loss naturally began to slow (as I became less severely obese)... and around this time I started experimenting with raising carbs and eating more foods (this was around the holidays of 2003). I was eating about 40 carbs by now, which helped reduce the symptoms I felt earlier. Calories were restricted, but it was more by a natural process (I had more of an appetite than I did when I was really fat, but it was still quite low, not high enough to maintain weight).

As I reached the end of weight loss, I started using conscious calorie restriction, so I could lose at an optimal rate. Hunger started to come back more as I got thinner, but it wasn't so bad, because I was still low carbing.

I reached 150 in a year almost exactly (150 is normal weight).

Today, I maintain my weight very simply, as stated to the left: 1650 cals, 60 carbs. My body just naturally asks for this much on average... 
Here is my ****** average intake from new year to yesterday. As you can see, it averages to 60 carb 1650 cal... fat 50%, protein 30%. It *always* works like this on average. Weird, how when we actually trust our bodies, they don't over eat on us . Every day I eat a bunch of meat or nuts is compensated by a day w here I eat less. 

As you can also see my weight is pretty much stable, hovering in that 5 lb area. 
Originally it was easy to gain weight (when I was underweight and borderline underweight)... but, DUH, that's because I was underweight. Now that I am at a more appropriate weight for my body it is not nearly as easy to gain. Don't get me wrong I could gain more weight, but it would be a little harder (because when I start to put on weight now, my hunger goes down and my energy goes up making it easier to restrict and keep weight stable.)

I do not fear food. I went through a long process of being all neurotic about food and weight. I ENJOY food and love eating it. I make all kinds of goodies, I'm not all anal about "natural" or "frankenfoods"... but I AM strict about the carb count and I keep an eye on calories. In other words, I don't eat something loaded with maltitol and lie to myself pretending it's low carb .

Most important about food? Portion size. I always take small portions. For example, I eat fiber one cereal, but never a full portion - I mix it with nuts, because the cereal alone is way too low in fat and too high in carb. So, I pretty much eat everything, brownies, cookies, but the key is ALWAYS low carb, and ALWAYS a small portion. I find, large portions just aren't as satisfying as small portions anyway - the more food on my plate, the more the game becomes just to stuff myself (vs actually enjoying the food).

Another major important thing: I document everything I eat in ****** (for me, this has helped me to obsess *less* not more, it makes me feel safe and secure, and I am sure I am never eating too much or too little). When I was crazy obsessed, starting to be MORE strict with monitoring my food intake and weight actually helped coax me to a more moderate place in behavior. Having that token bit of awareness made the "fear" of losing contorl more managable.

I don't need to weigh (my body) as much anymore... I do it every couple of days, or, if I feel like things *might* be getting out of hand. I still, however, write everything down I eat (even if I pig out at the buffet) and document it in ******. When I make a meal, I jot it down shorthand on a piece of scrap paper. I also weigh everything I eat, even to this day. 
My family makes fun of me for it, but guess what? I'm the one controlling morbid obesity. It might seem irrational or excessive, but I do it because I have to. I consider obesity a disease like diabetes, and it is my responsibility to take it seriously.
I have been able to maintain my weight without writing everything down or weighing my food (relying on a "rough estimate" system instead)... but, this is actually easier for me, because having absolute knowledge of HOW MUCH helps me to deal with any fears or doubts I have (and again,t his was crucial for me to be truly balanced and happy).

Most of my advice is really more appropriate for maintenance... sorry I can't help more with weight loss, it's been a quite long time since then.

The best advice I can give someone losing weight is to absolutely FOCUS on losing weight, make every food choice with this in mind... however, at the same time, focus on learning how to make this a livable, comfortable, completely satisfying lifestyle. If you are trying not to eat any artificial sweeteners, for example, but you have a major sweet tooth, odds are you won't be ablet o do that for life. Learn how to cook and how to eat the foods you want to eat now. If you save learning all of that for some vague "when I get to maintenence" stage you are setting yourself up with problems.

Also, don't get too obsessed with keeping cals low, or reaching meaningless goals. I am a firm believer that for some people, calorie restriction really screws brain chemistry and triggers obsessions and disordered eating. I went through a little phase of it, and it was NOT fun.
Keep sight of the big goal. The big goal is to eat low carb every day. That's all. As long as you are doing that, you WILL succeed... you WILL be a success.

Which brings me to a final point... always eat low carb. Don't fool yourself into believing that you can have pasta "sometimes" or that at goal you will "add back in x y and z". The magic that allows this metabolic change to occur is in keeping insulin low, and appropriately balanced. This is only possible when carbs are low.
Do not buy into the popular myth that "natural" food is good, even if it has a lot of carbs. "Natural" oranges messes up blood sugar just as well, if not *better*, than a cookie (the cookie at least has fat from nuts and butter). 

Processed food is sometimes less healthy, but it isn't automatically okay to eat if you have a weight problem. Think of your obesity in terms of a disease: for example, someone with a peanut allergy cannot eat peanuts, even though peanuts are a healthy "natural" food. Carbs are like that for us with obesity. When it comes to weight, don't make it more difficult than it has to be: it's all about keeping carbs low; carbs dictate metabolism which controls long term food intake and body fat storage.

Don't restrict food more than you have to.
Enjoy food, enjoy life, and always focus on eating low carb no matter what, even at restaurants, even on holidays... and the rest follows.

A follow-up:

I did not really exercise although I went through bouts of running to speed up weight loss... and, I did and still do walk regularly (a few hours a week). I do not really depend on exercise to maintain weight, it's more just a little "extra" ... like buying a reduced fat product or something. I also walk more for enjoyment than I do weight control.

I have really baggy skin. Just didn't get lucky there, either. My skin looks firm but that's only because I'm at a pretty low weight. You can see the arm skin and the looseness of my belly/back in the 2007 pics :/

I am going to have a lower body lift this month, as a matter of fact (and in the future I fully intend to do my bat wings and get breast implants). 
Keep up the good work. You can definitely make that goal if you stick to acheiving it.

This "expert" was recently quoted sharing this sage wisdom:
So, when [the CICO advocates] for years and years and *years* keep writing mind numbingly stupid shit like this:
‘We again are asked to ignore the obvious — that Americans are definitely eating more, on average, with no concurrent need for those calories, and likely moving a bit less as well.’ 
I just don’t know what to think anymore. Are they morons?
That "CICO advocate", aka someone who acknowledges that calories ALWAYS count whether or not you have to count them, as a matter of physical scientific law, is yours truly.

In his opening salvo for "the hypothesis", Gary Taubes erroneously stated that the obese eat no more than the lean.  This is not true.  It is not true at the population level or at the individual level.  As Americans we are eating more -- somewhere in the 300-600 cal/day range on average since 1970.  As individuals, when we eat more (calories) we gain weight, and when we eat less, we lose it.  Everything in the above commentary can be explained by this person's low carb diet allowing them to eat less either spontaneously or consciously with reduced hunger vs. your standard relatively low protein reducing CRD.

The "expert" is, in case you didn't recognize her somewhat more sane prose, ItstheWooo.   And nothing's really changed except that she reports eating a few more calories these days, and ... weighs more.  Except when she's dieting and/or exercising and/or sitting in cold water because she complains she's gotten too fat from being a protein glutton or whatever it is these days.   In other words, she's a perfect example of CICO in action.  

I'm also going to add something:  Heart palpitations are not innocuous side effects. Neither is the insomnia so many low carbers report suffering from.  Nor the thyroid dysfunction, nor any of the other metabolic derangements so, SO, many report suffering from years, and even decades after adopting their so-called healthy diets.  Time for a reality check ... or we can just keep promoting an unproven diet that no human culture ever ate.   Many end up taking years to recuperate from the metabolic damage these diets can cause, if they ever do.  

There are rare endocrine conditions that do predispose towards obesity.  There are more of these naturally or that can be produced in rodents.  Every single one abides by CICO.  Every single one.  This does not make these people (or rodents) gluttons and/or sloths or impart moral judgment on anyone.  REPEAT:  CICO is not a moral judgment.  PERIOD.  That is what the denialists want you to believe.   But these conditions are also rare, and absolutely cannot explain the obesity epidemic as insulin and carbs have been around since waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before 1970.  It's time to ditch the gimmicks.  The obesity epidemic was not caused by Americans replacing fat calories with carb calories, jacking up insulin and initiating a hormonally driven horizontal growth disorder.  We didn't cut fat, we simply added more carb than any other macro to our diets.  Fact.


charles grashow said…
But - she's an "EXPERT"


8. “ItsTheWoo” — “Are they so rigid minded and dogmatic, not unlike a cartoonish villian such as Javert, that they can’t at all waver from their convictions no matter how ridiculous those convictions reveal themselves to be?”

Firebrand blogger ItsTheWoo lost well over 100 pounds on a low carb diet… and kept it off for over a decade. Known for her take no prisoners rants that spare no one, “Woo” is one of the most impassioned critics of CICO in the blogosphere. Here’s a juicy quote from one of her rants (names have been redacted):

“Ya know blog, I’m not sure if [the CICO advocates] are actually purposefully pretending to misunderstand the hormone hypothesis argument, or if they really are too stupid to understand it. I just can’t tell. In my view it is beyond evident physiological factors are responsible for fat mass gain; calories and the mechanisms to obtain them (sloth/gluttony) are merely reactive to the body state which is controlled by baseline physiology. So, when [the CICO advocates] for years and years and *years* keep writing mind numbingly stupid shit like this:

‘We again are asked to ignore the obvious — that Americans are definitely eating more, on average, with no concurrent need for those calories, and likely moving a bit less as well.’

I just don’t know what to think anymore. Are they morons? Are they so, so stupid they really can’t see the inverse projection of this system, which much more intelligent people have gone to great lengths to simplify and make child-friendly illustrations for them? Are they *pretending* not to understand because they have a vested interest in eating as much neurotransmitter plastering glucose/insulin whenever they want? Are they so rigid minded and dogmatic, not unlike a cartoonish villian such as Javert, that they can’t at all waver from their convictions no matter how ridiculous those convictions reveal themselves
to be?”
Nigel Kinbrum said…
I used to be an Atkins fanboi, from 1997 until ~2005 when I discovered Lyle McDonald's forum.
hmavros said…
"The obesity epidemic was not caused by Americans replacing fat calories with carb calories, jacking up insulin and initiating a hormonally driven horizontal growth disorder"

Perfectly put.

I wonder why LC fans who concede (either explicitly like Taubes, or accidentally like ItstheWoo) that calories do count can't seem to take the next logical step, as follows: "eating low carb makes me consume less energy > I lose weight when I consume less energy".

Instead, they get stuck in a question-begging logical prison, to wit, "eating low carb makes me consume less energy > I lose weight because I eat low carb".

It's not as if there aren't a host of studies/trials that show that non-water weight loss is equal at similar energy deficits, irrespective of macro-nutrient diet composition. What's more, these studies are so numerous, and so clear in their findings...many of them conducted in metabolic wards no less. It's quite a feat of cognitive dissonance management that LC fans continue to cultivate the notion that this domain is still contestable.
Karl said…
From what I gather, proponents of the "alternate hypothesis" usually dismiss the metabolic ward studies by claiming that calories and carbs are always reduced in tandem in these, and that until these two factors are teased apart in a very well-designed/controlled study, we don`t really have the assurance that "calories are it" (alternatively, they criticise sample size/duration of the studies). Personally, I have been into natural bodybuilding for about a decade, during which CiCo has worked just fine for me, but I know scores of people (predominantly women, who are, in turn, predominantly middle-aged) who doggedly claim that they haven`t lost or even gained weight on a low-calorie diet (mostly ridiculuously low, to the tune of less than 1500 kcal/day) while exercising for at least an hour a day. Can these people really all be deluding themselves so utterly? I am not sure.
carbsane said…
Hi Karl, The thing is, there was likely under-reporting to some extent, but the average American woman in the 1970's consumed 1550 cal/day. http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2011/05/starvation-diets.html

The recent paleo study on postmenopausal women had some interesting insights (I thought) regarding calories, and Iooked into various calorie estimators: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2014/02/lessons-from-diet-rcts-i-calories.html

Then there's this regarding menopause: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2010/10/changes-in-energy-balance-and-body.html

Then of course there are the various studies some will drag out about women underreporting by 50% which can be angering. If most people weigh/measure and real-time log their food, they will find they consume more than they think they do.

I dunno, it is frustrating to say the least, but this is perhaps a reason for older women to take up resistance/muscle building exercise to at least preserve lean mass and baseline expenditure. It seems that when one looks at caloric expenditure in HG women, it is generally below 2000 cal/day.

What's ironic in a way, as I've become friends with many in the BB world, is that the cyclic approach can be very helpful for women. If one tries to eat 1500 cal/day, across 3 meals and perhaps a snack, day in and day out, it does become rather difficult. Cycling, refeeds, etc. can all really help make the same average calorie intake more doable.
Nigel Kinbrum said…
Who's appointing these people as "experts"?

'Cos there's a saying:- "Self-praise is no recommendation!" :-D
Nigel Kinbrum said…
There's also these arguments against CICO:- https://twitter.com/praguestepchild/status/483925757669146624

LWC said…
The article in the menopause related post has been retracted (at least that's what it said when I clicked on the title to see the abstract.) I couldn't see why it was retracted because I'm not a subscriber to the Annals of Internal Medicine.
carbsane said…
That's so stupid. Lipodystrophy -- note to TWICHOOBS, they once hypothesized that such might be explained by selective lipophilia. But they never found any difference wrt insulin or insulin receptrs in LD.

Is it my imagination or is Sean beginning to look more and more like her bff?
carbsane said…
Montgomery Burns (evil grin)
carbsane said…
Thanks for the heads up on that. I'll see if I can find out why. It could be something unrelated, like some technicality (e.g. why the Dreamfields expose article was retracted).
Nigel Kinbrum said…
I've just unfollowed & blocked Sean on Twitter, so I don't have to put up with any more of his crap.

He seems to be disappearing down Itsthewoo's TWICHOOB rabbit-hole.
Kevin said…
There are two ways I go about calorie counting as a way to maintain my weight. Protein and leafy green vegetables give you the best "bang for your caloric buck". I eat these first if I am hungry. Other foods, namely starches, sweets, and natural fats, are very easy to over-consume, and also very easily converted to lipid tissues. I just count fats, starches, and sweets. It's less tedious than counting everything, while easiest to maintain a calorie goal without breaking out in hunger. Then, usually by the weekend, I stop caring and realize nobody else does either. It's a good middle ground between those who advise eating two pounds of spinach a day (12 servings) as a calorie-counting-free way to lose weight.
H Ford said…
Fabrication and falsification of data in several papers and also in grant applications

There was an internal investigation at the U of Vermont and this resulted in the retraction by the editor. Criminal charges followed and as part of a settlement, Poehlman wrote a letter acknowledging the fraud in this paper. He exonerated his co-authors.
charles grashow said…
Mediterranean diet and public health: personal reflections
Ancel keys
charles grashow said…
Food consumption patterns in the 1960s in seven countries
Daan Kromhout, Ancel Keys et al
charles grashow said…
Mediterranean diet pyramid: a cultural model for healthy eating
Walter C Willett
Donnie Reilly said…
Off topic interesting article: http://nutrevolve.blogspot.com/2014/07/paleo-its-time-for-name-change-please.html
carbsane said…
Uggh ... this is awful. Well, perhaps there's hope :)
carbsane said…
Thanks! Shared that on Twitter :-)
carbsane said…
The derp is strong with that one :p
thoroughlyconfused said…
We did cut animal fat though. Fact?
pastafariancolander said…
Hi Evelyn, this post looks like it will dovetail nicely into the lipid hypothesis stuff I was asking about earlier... just doing as you requested :-)
Nigel Kinbrum said…
Can you still see that thread? I can't, 'cos I've blocked him for tagging me after I told him to stop.
carbsane said…
Thanks for the nudge! I'm actually working on it!!
carbsane said…

It's probably debatable as the NHANES data is flawed. Still these are the numbers these folks work off of (I got this pic from Richard Feinman), and I note that Teicholz likes to cite figures for the men whilst decrying the damage low fat has done to women (and children! always the children!).

If you use the data for men, they got the message in the 90's and reduced fat cals from 900 to what appears too be just over 850 -- to use a round number of 45 cals that's 5 grams or about 1 teaspoon of fat per day reduction. The 14% reduction in sat fat? Laughable!! Looks like around 30 cals at most so roughly 3 grams of sat fat, just over half a teaspoon.

Meanwhile women increased fat intake a wee bit.
carbsane said…
I use an "in cognito" window in my browser which effectively logs me out of FB. Since Fred's posts are public I can see them. Kinda makes his blocking me pretty stupid but whatevs.
NS said…

I think there are strong points in your argument but I don't agree with everything. In fact, both your blog and Woo's are among the best on the net, imo. For now, I'd just like to ask you what you make of Rudolph Liebel's assertion, along with those of his colleagues, that the biochemical landscape of weight-reduced individuals is fundamentally hormonally different from never before dieted people and that this condition never reverses. Liebel et al as you know are not some flaky internet bloggers. They are the elite.... and their assertions about leptin and post weight reduced phenomenological conditions coincide with Woo's assertions on the same topic. Also, their suggestions certainly seem to match what almost always actually occurs in the rwal world - the "inexorable" regain - except in a minority of cases.
carbsane said…
It doesn't argue against CICO though. This is the point. This idea that carbs and insulin are the culprits is also totally unsubstantiated by the scientific evidence.

It is somewhat maddening that leptin is not still being investigated further for the reduced obese. One also has to wonder about the truthfulness of ItstheWooo who sings the praises of leptin from the trial she claims to have been in -- in Boston for strenuous exercisers -- instead of the more local one in NYC that was conducted at around the same time specifically geared towards replacement of leptin in reduced obese.

Look around at the long term low carbers when they finally acknowledge the role of calories. Their metabolic rates have been pummeled to nothing by metabolic starvation. The scientists like Feinman all know this to be true, they just pretend it doesn't exist and spin tales of metabolic advantage.
Nigel Kinbrum said…
I might try that. Then again, reading his stuff makes my brain hurt, so I probably won't.
billy the k said…
Would it be possible to call upon your remarkable internet detective skills to locate another Keys article?  [it appears to be behind a $35.95 pay-wall, but you may be able to find a way around it!];

Ancel Keys.  Wine, Garlic, and CHD in Seven Countries.
Lancet (January 1980) Vol 315; issue 8160; p145-146
charles grashow said…
A Keys
Nigel Kinbrum said…
I see that Tom Traynor & Ted Naiman are still leaving stupid comments. I've PM'ed the parties involved... :-D
billy the k said…
Charles you are an amazing internet sleuth. Thanks mucho. I could only get the first page of Keys' 2-page letter from this link, but it's still a big help.  I thought it'd be good to find out how much vino to quaff per day and how much garlic to put in my next Ragù Bolognese to make it to 100 like Uncle Ancel.
charles grashow said…
The link has both pages (pgs 145-146)

Here's page 2

"Netherlandsand the U.S. while the "very strong smell" and "acrid, pungent taste" (to quote the Oxford English Dictionary) of Allium sativum almost never contribute to the cookery of rural Finland. All around the Mediterranean garlic is used in abundance--in excess Britons might say-and in all that region CHD is far less common than it is in Britain and northern Europe where garlic is used timidly if at all. But there is no lack of other parallel differences between the regions—wine v. milk or beer, olive oil v. butter, small v. large portions of meat, strong v. weak coffee or tea, masses of leafy vegetables….you name it

The development of atherosclerosis and the clinical disease may be promoted or hindered by a host of things, known and unknown, and simple associations, such as those with the use of wine or garlic, warrant no conclusions about cause and effect. At best it might be stated that the observed association is or is not
consistent with a certain hypothesis, a hypothesis derived from a reasonable concept of pathogenesis and a clear understanding of relevant facts of physiology and biochemistry. But in regard to wine and garlic the hypothesis is missing.

Most of the differences in the incidence of ischemic heart-disease among the cohorts of the Seven Countries Study are accounted for by two variables-the concentration of cholesterol in the serum and the arterial blood-pressure. Now if it could be
shown that the habit of drinking wine and/or eating garlic lowers the serum cholesterol or the blood pressure, or both, we could urge a campaign to use more wine and garlic. I live much of the time in southern Italy and need no such persuasion happily
to embrace the local customs of the kitchen and the dinner table.

Laboratory of Physiological Hygiene
School of Public Health
University Of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S.A.

Ancel Keys
billy the k said…
GOT IT! Gracias, amigo.
StellaBarbone said…
I have found some interesting blogs since finding your website. Wooo's was a doozy -- that is some amazing circular reasoning and lack of self-awareness.
thoroughlyconfused said…
Why doesn't it make sense to focus on the children? What most parents feed their children is representative of what the average person considers a healthy diet. Is it not?

One of your recurring themes seems to be that Americans never listened to the low fat or anti-sat fat dietary advice. Why are we eating so many chicken and turkey breasts than? Your view on this issue doesn't seem to reconcile with experience.
Appeal to anecdote. Shifting goal posts.

Yes, we're all dying of a red meat and SFA deficiency, even though these haven't had any meaningful change. Just because one tosses in more lean meats, or even dares to switch one for the other--on less than a meaningful level--doesn't address the graphic above.

But o teh experizne!

Well since we're appealing to anecdote... No. People still consume MORE of everything, so even with reductions, red meat and SFA have their beloved place.
thoroughlyconfused said…
-14% biatch
"People still consume MORE of everything, so even with percentage reductions, *red meat and SFA have a firm and beloved place at the table.*"

Reading comprehension, bitch!
Please, people carrying a chip the size of a cognitive bias on their shoulders rarely accept solved mysteries as much as they insist on creating mysteries out of the obvious.
carbsane said…
Teicholz makes it out that the women and children have suffered the most on a low fat diet. This is frank BS. While I'm no fan of our school lunch programs and the like, their zeal to include the children in their pet nutritional experiments is quite disturbing.

-14% is for men. +3% is for women. The lines are for absolute number of calories. We have not as a country cut fat in any meaningful manner. But I suppose now you'll be off to find another data base that says we're eating less? It's like if something bad is 1% in the 80's and 2% in the 2010's the scaremonger brigade will be out there decrying the 100% increase in bad stuff. Same nonsense going on here. Yes, it's nonsense.

Here's an anecdotal thought since you seem fond of them. Do you remember the McLean Deluxe? It didn't last long, though I recall them being quite good. They were always fresh and hot b/c not enough people ordered them to have soggy ones sitting under the heat lamp, and came with lettuce and tomato. The McLD is loooonnnnnng gone. How about the Taco Bell low fat menu? That was pretty good too and it mostly meant the meat was less greasy and you got low fat sour cream and cheese on stuff. Those low fat items need not be "fake" though I don't know what TB did with them. That lasted longer, but ... gone. Subway is probably the only FF chain I can think of that has flourished with "low fat" ... but imagine that, many cold cuts have been LF forever.
carbsane said…
LULZ -- the okitivans :-)

There is no dietary need for saturated fat. The human body can make all that it needs from the carbohydrate in the diet :p
Mike Victor said…
I kid you not. I was debating Fred Hahn on his YouTube channel once, and he actually posted the graph on the right as evidence that fat consumption has decreased in the United States. The man is mentally ill. He did a myriad of other things which were almost as disconcerting:

• Perpetuating a straw man argument that FH isn't caused by overconsumption of dietary cholesterol, something I, nor anyone else, with a scintilla of education on the subject would claim

• Claiming the Inuit were "robustly healthy" on their traditional diet, while claiming to have watched all of Plant Positive's videos; Plant Positive has at least three videos highlighting health problems in the traditional Inuit

• Claiming a study on the Ornish diet showed an increase in small, dense LDL particles when it never measured LDL particle size

• Pushing the "large, fluffy LDLs are benign" trope while citing Peter Attia's cholesterol lecture, which explicitly rebuffs this

• Rejecting meta-analyses of double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials demonstrating the benefits of statins "because METAs are only as good as the studies they're made up of," but not explaining what was wrong with any of the individual studies in the metas I referenced

• Claiming that lowering LDL cholesterol is important, and that low carb diets are good at doing this (not true), while calling the Lipid Hypothesis a hoax

It's sort of a chicken and the egg problem with these LCHF advocates. Does ketosis make them insane? Or does insanity lead them to seek out ketosis in the first place?
Mike Victor said…
I think "It'sTheWooo" wins the Straw Man Of The Year Award with her second-most recent post, in which you apparently think a meal of shrimp, avocado, Greek yogurt, and kale would exert identical effects on fat mass, muscle mass and overall health and wellbeing vs. two Twix bars. Why would a CICO advocate believe this when the former meal, through its higher protein, fiber, and water content, would cause more satiety (fewer calories in), and lead to greater thermogenesis (more calories out)? Who doesn't have the plain f***in common sense to know that someone's going to have better health, with respect to things like blood lipids, energy levels, digestion, etc. eating real food vs. processed, micronutrient poor junk food? And she accuses you of straw manning? Ridiculous.
Mike Victor said…
BTW, Wooo is railing against you for not posting full body photos. But I couldn't find even a single full body shot of her, and what's more is that all of her photos are either extremely blurry, or have some kind of airbrushing effect going on. She looks like a cartoon character in her current one.
carbsane said…
I don't really know or care why she posts all the pictures of herself that she does. All I can think is that she wants to be "discovered" by her coworkers so that she'll lose her job and have someone else to blame for it. It won't be me.

This is not a personal weight loss blog. I'm not sure if I'll go into all of this in a future post, but when Richard Nikoley declared open internet war on me almost 2 years ago now, encouraging people to go after me in real life, I removed the few pictures that were associated with this blog and have posted very limited pictures anywhere on the internet since. This was on the advice of legal counsel. Hopefully someday that changes, it's actually in the long term plan :)

Meanwhile it is rather hilarious that I'm being accused of slander and misrepresentation for posting her words. Her defense is that she was lying back then? She's also quite insecure as I didn't imply a damn thing about her weight gain other than that it accompanied eating more calories. I'm not the one tweeting incessantly about what a lard ass I am in my size 2 pants looking for "you're not fat Wooo" attention. It's quite sad really.
Nigel Kinbrum said…
"I was debating Fred Hahn on his YouTube channel once..."
I've debated Fred Hahn twice on his Facebook page. The first thread was epic & got to 2,000+ comments with contributions from lots of people. Fred finally scraped the bottom of the barrel by using an appalling ad-hominem and deleted the thread shortly after Regina Wilshire tore him a new orifice! :-D

The second thread is still there, at https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152172820437864&set=a.37386692863.51256.633467863&type=1&comment_id=10152189219167864&offset=0&total_comments=203 , but I've blocked Fred for excessive tagging.

Does that make me insane, too? ;-)
Nigel Kinbrum said…
Oh, the percentages! Oh, the humanity! See http://nigeepoo.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/lies-damned-lies-and-statistics-part-n1.html
Nigel Kinbrum said…
The biochemical landscape of weight-reduced individuals depends on the amount of adipocyte hyperplasia that occurred during weight gain. See http://nigeepoo.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/adipocyte-hyperplasia-good-or-bad.html for more information.

I now think that hyperplasia is more bad than good, as it delays the onset of a diabetes diagnosis, thus allowing weight gain to carry on for longer than it would have done, with no hyperplasia. Plus the problems of losing weight after significant hyperplasia has occurred.
carbsane said…
Debating with Fred

Only at least with these you end up with pretty patterns :)

Mike Victor said…
LOL @ Fred's blatant dishonesty over his fish oil gaffe. I feel bad for this guy's kids, who are one day going to realize what an oaf their father is.
Nigel Kinbrum said…
Also from that thread:- Fredrick Hahn said...
"Forget it. I can't keep this up. Jimmy looked pretty healthy and was perfectly energetic and what have you on the ship. I did not notice anything wrong with him."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Br49BPuCMAARuCq.jpg:large :-/
O.K, folks. Nothing to see here. Move along!
Mike Victor said…
Jimmy's done the impossible: he's managed to get a beer belly without drinking beer.
Glenn Dixon said…
I feel like I'm missing something here - why are you posting something from some anonymous person from 7 years ago?
Nigel Kinbrum said…
1) She's not anonymous. Wooo's an "Expert", don't cha know? ;-)
2) She's still posting BS on her blog, now.
Do try harder, next time.
Glenn Dixon said…
1 - ok, I did find her current blog now, I think. I'm not finding where she's been proclaimed an expert, but I do see there's a lot of animosity going back and forth
2 - I also found the BS, I think. It's hard to tell. Her latest post would indicate she's completely changed from 7 yrs ago, yet there are plenty of other posts still deriding those who hold to the CICO position. Hard to pin that one down.

But Nigel, I'm puzzled about your 'try harder' comment. Try *what* harder? I wasn't 'trying' anything, merely asking a question...
carbsane said…
I think he thought you were trolling for Wooo b/c her "friends" seem to think this is irrelevant. I probably should have posted a short explanation. She was described as an expert here: http://www.donotlink.com/framed?53558

And her comment was in response to a post of mine. I mentioned this in the post I'll be publishing later today. It wasn't meant to be published yesterday ... unfortunate accident.
Glenn Dixon said…
I is not a troll. But you knew that. :)

CALORIEGATE??? What the holy hell LOL

My brain almost exploded trying to read that. Also, really loving DoNotLink.com!

FYI, the wife is still off all Metformin and her blood sugar tests, all of them, are in the perfectly normal range. All from the Newcastle diet. 800kcal/day. Yeah, she actually *counted calories* and not only lost weight beyond what she thought she needed, but completely reset her pancreas and liver in re: insulin, etc.

I am now tracking my calories and losing weight. I'm really not sure why this was so hard before, because it's not so much now. Maybe my wife just provided a good example...?
Steve G said…
You have to like the ingenuity the food truck guy in the photo. Today "More Bacon", tomorrow, depending on clientele, "Tofu > Bacon".
I mean really, check out the little cave man on his door, giving a peace sign. It reminds me of this scene from The Outlaw Josi Wales.

thoroughlyconfused said…
Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? SFA deficiency? Funny stuff. Clearly, health advice has had no effect. Calories and carbs are up nicely but SFA is flat. People are not consuming more red meat, butter and eggs than in the past. Anecdote alert! Did tofurky exist in 1970? Can you get that in the UK?
Nigel Kinbrum said…
Yup! :-D

Try harder ≡ "Do some research before posting a comment." That includes reading this blog. The information on Wooo is in this blog.
Nigel Kinbrum said…
"Calories and carbs are up nicely but SFA is flat. People are not consuming more red meat, butter and eggs than in the past."
They're eating more junk. Consumption of junk has increased with increased market penetration & more pervasive marketing.
carbsane said…
Oh I absolutely know that ... I was just saying that I think Nigel may have thought you were.

I absolutely love DoNotLink.com ... and once you're there you can check out other stuff without it helping out hit-sites like that one.

CONGRATS to your wife (and you!) -- That is wonderful news. Thanks for the update.
carbsane said…
Actually Nigel, I almost never talk about her here. These were the first posts about her specifically. Other than that I think I've linked to something on her blog once or twice.
Nigel Kinbrum said…
Your "expert" post was there before Glenn Dixon posted his comment, so he had no excuse for not knowing about her.
carbsane said…
I've learned long ago that not everyone reads everything -- especially given my wordy posts -- or clicks on every link, etc. He's also posted here in comments quite a few times.
Nigel Kinbrum said…
Sorry about that Glenn. Your post rang the "Troll" bell in my brain!
Words in your mouth? Bitch please! See below.

If you have a case to thoroughly make then make it: are you saying that more SFA, read meat, butter, and eggs are required to counteract more calories and junk? Do the aforementioned negate the latter?!

Seriously, is some organisation paying people to become self-parodies on the internet?
Blogger said…
EasyHits4U - Your Free Traffic Exchange - 1:1 Exchange Ratio, Business social network. FREE Advertising!