Is LC Morphing to HAES? Part VII: It's Real HAES-pocrisy Jimmy!

*** WARNING ***
This turned out to be a long post.  There's no science in it, it's mostly about personalities and such. This is directed towards anyone looking towards anyone in the LLVLC and "friends" community and such for advice or even a bit of inspiration.  If that's not you, I suggest just moving on and waiting for me to return to more science based blogging. It's coming back, I promise.  But if it is you, this is a must read if you're interested in knowing the full story behind the real Jiiiiiiimyeeeee Mooooooooore!

I'm sure many of my readers are wondering what sparked me to start this series in the first place.  For a very long time I'd noticed that the Big Guy had been trying to shift the focus of his LLVLC empire from the weight loss success story upon which it was built.  I've always been amazed at the number of experts he's had on his regular podcast that he either interprets out of context or ignores their advice/opinions living his version of low carb.  And frankly that's not any of my concern.  How Jimmy lives is his business.  But when it becomes concerning is when Jimmy acts as a channel for these experts and doles out advice that his readers and listeners presume he has gleaned from and reflects all of their shared wisdom and knowledge.  There is certainly an effort to promote a very low carb very high fat version of low carb as *the* only *proper* way to eat even though many of his guests neither practice nor advocate this extreme lifestyle.  {Lots of folks in LLVLC-land have been shocked by Stephan Guyenet's recent blogging, but they shouldn't have been.}  While every few months Jimmy will drop a personal note on his continuing weight struggles on his regular blog, it's mostly on his menus blog that he shares snippets of what's going on in his life and with his weight.  The two don't "sync up", however, if you will.  The menus blog, started mid December 2007, banner states:
What does a low-carb dieter REALLY eat? Find out here by seeing what 180-pound Atkins diet weight loss success and "Livin' La Vida Low-Carb" blogger Jimmy Moore eats.
His "About" blurb is:
On January 1, 2004, I made it my New Year's resolution to lose weight on the Atkins diet after weighing in at a whopping 410 pounds. In just one year I lost 180 pounds and I have kept that weight off by making low-carb my permanent lifestyle change. Or, as I like to say, I'm livin' la vida low-carb. Won't you join me in this journey to a dramatically better weight and health like you've never experienced before? It can happen for you because it happened to me!
This is what is still on that blog as of today.   Despite quietly changing his Intro blurb on the Livin la Vida Low Carb Show website to "maintained over 100 lb weight loss" ... and now "maintained well over 125 lb weight loss" earlier this year, Jimmy got snippy with a reader who dared suggest he should update that blurb on his menus blog.  At this point it is outright dishonest and Jimmy knows that.  He has not seen a 23 leading his weight in over three years, and near as I can tell it's been over two years (except for a very short lived post fasting number) since he's seen anything under a 25.  Most of the past two years Jimmy has "averaged" in the 270's but even that doesn't begin to tell the whole story about his struggles as it has fluctuated considerably.  

As far as I'm concerned, Jimmy was dishonest right from the start of his menus blog with that blurb.  It would have one believe that he'd been at least close to the 230 lbs -- and consistently -- for three years.  But this isn't the case, and you would think that since he discussed his ups and downs in 2006 & 2007 publicly, he might acknowledge it and not present the LLVLC nirvana in the way that it is implied in that blurb.  I'll come back to why this matters later.  

On October 25, 2007, shortly before launching the menus blog, Jimmy blogged:  Does ‘Erratic’ Weight Management Negate Previous Triple-Digit Success?  When I happened across this one it was a real eye-opener.  I doubt many who find Jimmy today would even guess the length of time and severity of Jimmy's issues with trying to maintain his weight loss.  The post begins with a letter from a reader who regained and was struggling to lose again doing that cliche, "all the right things".  Jimmy writes:
That’s why I tell people livin’ la vida low-carb is always a work in progress and you never fully arrive. When you think you have, then you are setting yourself up for disaster. People think the fact I have maintained my weight since 2004 means I don’t struggle anymore, but nothing could be further from the truth. But the difference is I know how to respond when difficulty comes.
Do YOU get that impression from his About Me blurb on the menus blog?  Didn't think so.  :-(  Jimmy's advice?
I shared with my reader that she might want to try adding more fat to her diet and pay very close attention to the kinds of carbs she is consuming, including that soy nut butter (EWWWW!), as well as any hidden carbs. It could be her carb counts are perfect, but she’s not eating enough fat.
This kind of crap is why I care about this.  This woman was eating 4 oz cheese each morning, 3T fatty dressing with her lunch, nuts or nut butter for snack, and some sort of meat and such fried in olive oil.  Upping the fat was the last thing this person needed.  Because if she wasn't losing she was eating too many calories for her needs.  The post goes on to share an email from another reader (back when Jimmy published the occasional criticism).  The reader chronicles Jimmy's weights in 2006 & 2007.  What you realize is that the only reason Jimmy had maintained his losses is because he had actually gone on various "challenges" -- including KimKins after he almost hit 250 -- and he was already on the way up in December 2007 when he started taking creatinine and eating like a power lifter training for the Olympics along with his rather modest resistance training endeavor.  I'm surprised he didn't gain more!  You see, Jimmy actually lost almost 20 more pounds than that 230 "goal" weight, and he gained almost 20 pounds over that weight for a 35-40 lb fluctuation.  On Jan 1, 2008, amidst his "mysterious gain", Jimmy -- who wasn't posting weights -- wrote:
NOTE: HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! It has been exactly four years since I started livin' la vida low-carb beginning on the Atkins diet in 2004 and I'm just as excited about it now as I was then. It's working for me and keeping my weight off. WOO HOO!
On Jan 22, he writes:
NOTE: Finally, I stopped taking the creatine today. My progress with my resistance training is far enough along now that I don't think I need it any longer. In addition to the slight weight gain it brought on (from filling my muscles with water), it also made me very, very thirsty--which I already am even without the creatine! I'll be happy to see the scale go back down again in the next couple of weeks now that I've stopped taking creatine. Lovin' my muscle development, though!
OK ... so,  on May 20, Jimmy has this to say on his other blog
When I started working with my personal trainer in mid-December, my weight was 235 pounds. Six weeks later, I weighed 260 pounds–A 25-POUND INCREASE! Holy cow! My trainer friend sure wasn’t kidding when he said I’d gain weight on creatine. It was at this point that I decided to come off of the creatine in early February since that weight gain was sorta freakin’ me out a bit. I fully expected the weight to come back down some (but not all since I was building up some good muscles especially in my upper body).

But it didn’t happen and it hasn’t happened. In fact, although my diet didn’t really change from what I was doing before I started lifting weights (except for maybe a little more protein since I was trying to grow muscle mass), I have been hovering around 265 pounds for nearly four months in a row.
Are you seeing the pattern here?  Jimmy started his weight lifting when he kicked off the menus blog.  Now 235 would not be a significant regain or struggle were it not for the fact that he had obviously been steadily gaining back weight since reaching a low of 212 on July 20, 2007.  This means that before starting this all, he had put back over 20 lbs in 4-5 months.  And on Jan 1, 2008 he was at least 2 weeks into that 25 lb in 6 week gain - likely he weighed over 240.  On Jan 22, after that 6 week gain, he describes the 25 lbs as "slight".  At this point, he was weighing 260 lbs -- that's a 30 lb regain of his 180 lbs that he likes to use as a benchmark (even though he's lost as much as 198 lbs, and this was a 48 lb regain).  We then get to put a number on his gain and he tells us he's basically spent most of 2008 thus far averaging 35 lbs (53 lbs) over his low.  

Why should anyone reading this care?  Well, this man continues to be a big force driving the low carb movement and doling out advice.  Yet he is being less than honest about the whole of what is really going on while he's "lovin' Livin la Vida Low Carb!! Baaayybeee!!"

When he fessed up to what was going on in 2008, here's his response to reader input:
Of course, when I started sharing about this recent weight gain at my forum and at my menus blog, the typical responses started pouring in from people trying to offer their own guidance about what I should do: you’re eating too much food, your calories are way too high, you consume too many low-carb “products,” you aren’t eating often enough, you don’t exercise enough, yadda yadda yadda! I know everyone means well and I sincerely appreciate their suggestions for my diet. But I wasn’t convinced I was doing anything at all wrong with my low-carb lifestyle and I still don’t. Nevertheless, I’m stuck.
That’s why I went to see this low-carb doctor. [by all signs this is Dr. Westman]  ... His proposal for me was to put me back on a very strict Induction diet for two weeks and to cut out all of my supplements... Additionally, I reduced my diet soda consumption ... The two-week Induction period began on May 7th and ends today. Wanna know the grand total of the amount of weight loss I’ve experienced since cutting out all the low-carb “Frankenfoods” (which have never been a MAJOR part of my diet, just some chocolate and the occasional treat), eating strictly low-carb Induction for the past two weeks, and never wavering or cheating at all during that time? Zip, zero, nada! That’s right–NOTHING!

Now ... I can't help but notice that Jimmy's real problems began right around the time that GCBC came out.  This was the beginning of the end of Jimmy's former love affair with ELMM -- even though he knew LC worked because he was eating a lot less.  Nope.  Jimmy was now hopelessly mired in the calories don't count dogma.  He's flummoxed that by returning to Induction and eating like this, the scale wouldn't budge from 266 lbs eating menus like:  "4 eggs cooked in butter with cheese; Side salad with Ranch dressing, mixed veggies (broccoli, squash, green beans, and red peppers) with butter, sausage, bacon, eggs with bacon, sausage, ham and cheese; 4 sausage patties" | "4 eggs cooked in butter with cheese, 4 sausage patties, 3 slices of tomato; Side salad with Ranch dressing, mixed veggies (broccoli, squash, green beans, and red peppers) with butter, sausage, bacon, eggs with bacon, sausage, ham and cheese; 3 chicken breasts with cheese and mayo, 3 sausage patties" | "4 eggs cooked in butter with cheese, 4 bacon slices, and 4 tomato slices; Side salad with Ranch dressing, mixed veggies (broccoli, squash, green beans, and red peppers) with butter, sausage, bacon, eggs with bacon, sausage, ham and cheese; Fried mashed cauliflower with cheese and sour cream; 2 string cheese".  Those were just three random menus I chose.  And anyone who has read his menus or watched his videos knows that when Jimmy doesn't give portions, he's eating a shitload of food.  These menus easily topped 2000 cal/day and very likely over 3000. After a week of doing this Jimmy had this to say on the menus blog:
I spoke with my low-carb doctor today about my weight since I started back on a strict Atkins Induction again with NO low-carb "products" (I haven't had chocolate in over a week, so I'm ornery! Hee hee!). The net result--maybe a pound of weight loss. UGH! Look at my menus and see exactly what I'm eating. It's the same high-fat, moderate-protein, very low-carb diet which helped me lose 180 pounds in 2004. So, why in 2008 am I suddenly stalled out at 265 pounds eating this way?
Duh!  You were eating too damned much Jimmy!  If you were eating like that back in 2004, you lost only because you were eating so much more to have weighed 410 lbs in the first place.  Now I can't imagine any low carb doctor would actually scrutinize his menus and conclude anything other than that this was Jimmy's problem.  

My doctor said this may not even be related to my diet since I have some other health issues underlying this whole process. It's one reason why there's no easy answer to the obesity problem because you can't always just change the diet and increase the exercise to bring about improvements. What's most sad is the guilt complex. People see you gaining weight and judge your behavior according to that. Nevermind the fact you're doing everything exactly right just as you always have and still the weight stays the same or goes up.
Wonder who all these judgmental folks are ... we'll get to that soon too.
In a way, I wish I'd never started lifting weights because that must have triggered something inside of me that is causing this weight gain. I don't know that for sure, but I was cruising along just fine. Yes, I love having the stronger body now, but at the price of tighter pants and shirts? I dunno. Today's just one of those times I'm pouring out everything I feel about this situation and I'd appreciate your prayers. I am at a loss right now about what to do.
As you know, that is not exactly the truth now was it.  
What I WILL do is keep on livin' la vida low-carb until my doctor figures out what to do next. He seems to think I need a biopsy done to determine what he thinks the culprit is. ...
Again, I would be shocked if any doctor, low carb or otherwise, would assess the amount Jimmy was eating and suggest there was some mystery culprit for his weight gain.  Knowing the yo-yo-ing of the previous two years and his eating habits, there was NO mystery.  I'm not going to track down the link, but Westman suggested he *cut portion sizes*.  Jimmy had his "hyperinsulinemia" assessed  but all that really showed was that he's not hyperinsulinemic!  And I can't for the life of me figure out why Westman would have put Jimmy on metformin for this phantom reactive hypoglycemia.   Are you starting to see how a lot of things Jimmy says probably get "lost in translation"?

Whatever Jimmy did the rest of 2008, however, he did get the weight back down to the pre-weight lifting mystery gains level.  He was around the mid 230's early in 2009.  But then he stepped up to a challenge or two, did the 6 Week Cure in the fall, etc. etc.  In January of 2010, Jimmy wrote:
As I documented many times in 2008, a sudden 30-pound weight gain just refused to budge and come off of my body no matter what I seemed to do. In fact, the issue continued in 2009 and got even worse with another 20-pound weight gain for a total weight gain of 50 pounds over the past two years. What the heck is going on here?! This isn’t supposed to be happening.
This, folks, is a lie.  The "sudden" 30 lb gain did budge.  It just came back -- as weight lost doing "challenges" and "quick fix" type approaches generally does.  And as is also predictable, those pounds brought still more friends as Jimmy got more and more "frustrated" over his body apparently failing him.  Back from the 2010 cruise looking quite a bit more like his before picture than his after picture, Jimmy proclaimed that "My Severe Hyperinsulinemia Has Mandated I Go On A High-Fat, Low-Carb 'Eggfest'" ... and with that proclamation, low carbers left and right followed his lead.  Indeed many come across that little adventure to this day and are inspired to give it a try.  

This goes to why one person, Jimmy Moore, and what he does IS important to address.  The results were phenomenal.  Of course.  When Jimmy puts his mind to a challenge, there's nobody who does it better (cue Bond movie song).  He's a champion loser, and I don't mean that unkindly.  I've not known anyone in my life who can lose more weight faster than the ama-aaa-zing Jimmy Moore.  But ... the real world interrupted things.  And for all the bellyaching in various low carb circles how *unsustainable* calorie counting or eating bland foods or whatever might be, none of these folks seemed at all concerned with how sustainable eating nothing but eggs and butter would be.   Jimmy lost like 30 lbs in 30 days, and it wouldn't be the first time (nor the last!).  But then as he transitioned back to his regular LC meals, the weight came back.  

By this time I had made my tiny splash onto the low carb scene with my blogging and became acquainted with  a man most readers will recognize here:  Muata.  That's an unusual name so when I was trying to help Jimmy with his mystery, trying to get him to see that calories/portions were his problem, I couldn't help but take notice that this guy who was commenting over on James Krieger's blog was mentioned by Jimmy as having offered him some advice.  The advice was simple - to basically cut his losses, if you will, and just focus on maintaining a weight in the 260's for a while.  Sadly, Jimmy would have none of that.  Healthy at Every Size my ass.  Jimmy wants to be "sensationally skinny" and he knows that some of his "cred" going forward depends on it.  He can spin his obesity every which way, he remains a WLSSC ... for now anyway.  Instead of focusing on what is actually a tenet of the HAES movement -- not yo-yo dieting in vain -- Jimmy did not heed Muata's advice (that I and a few others tried to echo, I might add).  The result?

January 2011 elicited yet another mea culpa of sorts. 
Longtime readers of “Livin’ La Vida Low-Carb” know that since my 180-pound weight loss experience in 2004 I’ve had a few struggles along the way. From being criticized in 2007 for some erratic weight management to a rapid 25-pound weight gain that I saw in early 2008 after beginning to take creatine to supplement my weight lifting. It’s continued to slowly creep up from there ever since. I’ve had some nominal success doing various tactics like a low-carb product-free dieteating “sweet” freemy “eggfest” experiment and other strategies. The problem with these was I couldn’t keep them up. By the beginning of 2010, I was up 50 pounds from my goal weight of 230 at the end of 2004 and I put on another 9 or so pounds last year. UGH! 
This is not full disclosure Mr. Moore.  It's sugar-coating the situation and misleading your readers -- especially the new ones who are not "longtime readers".  You can link around and such as much as you want, but the truth of the matter is that you didn't just have a rapid 25 lb gain that "stuck" and left you to where weight crept up a bit more since.  Nominal success????   Who are you kidding here?  You've lost over a pound a day for days on end many times in between.  As a matter of fact, your product free diet did get you down almost back to that 230 goal mark.  You didn't just drift up another 9 lbs in 2010, you took off 30-ish and gained 40-ish.    This is fully 1/3rd of your initial losses, and if you told the "truth, the WHOLE truth, etc.", you had regained 77 lbs of a 198 lb loss.  Time and again you downplay these with words like measely, slight, etc.  

But "Follow Me!" down the golden path to Livin la Vida Low Carb (brought to you by the morbidly obese  internet retailer of LC candy cigarettes).

Yes I know this is getting long, but this is really important to those obese or struggling folks out there who see low carb as some magical mystical cure.   C'mon .. sign up for the Mystical Cruise!    So ..... When in all of this did I reach a final straw that got me to risk the backlash I knew would accompany exposing the ugly underbelly of the LC movement?  It would have to be Jimmy's new podcast:  Low Carb Conversations.

You see, many folks may wonder WTF the adventures of a 6'3" guy in his late 30's would have to a 5'3.5" menopausal woman anyway.  But the thing is, as I've discussed many times, I came to this having plateaued out at something around 200 lbs and looking to all the women in "the movement" for inspiration or, at least, role models for what is reasonable to expect.  Here's how Jimmy introduced his LCConvos podcast:
... While I love and adore what I do at my "Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Show" podcast and don't expect to end that show anytime soon, I've longed for a place where I can be a bit less formal, vocalized my own personal ups and downs of living the low-carb lifestyle in an open and honest way, chit-chat with other fellow low-carbers to see what their experiences are like, and have a kinda low-carb powwow about the hot health headlines making news. This was the impetus for creating a brand new podcast designed to do all of that and more ...

... We’ve got all kinds of fabulous podcasts that feature interviews ... and others that give commentary on the health news of the day.... But there aren’t any that highlight REAL PEOPLE on a low-carb lifestyle sharing their stories, exchanging ideas about how to live low-carb in a high-carb culture... Too many people start low-carb with spitfire, nothing’s-gonna-stop-’em enthusiasm only to see it all fizzle out within a few weeks or months when their lofty expectations derail their efforts. Our new show set to air every Friday hopes to give low-carbers a fresh start in their own personal journey to better health so that you can keep this going for their rest of your life!
I was thinking -- great!  Maybe, just maybe, I might get the real "skinny" on what's going on with some of these people, if not Jimmy himself -- more importantly ... I haven't given up on low carbing and wanted to hear how folks ultimately make it work for them!   I mean what really "hit the fan" here at my blog was not my post on Laura Dolson (guess she's out of the loop of got-your-back friends), but rather the "Why so many LC'ers" edition of the series.   I got kicked off Jimmy's forum faster than a stick of butter disappears from his fridge for that one.  Which was sort-of interesting given that I was mostly highlighting revelations from his own blog.   This series began after I listened to the first few episodes of LCConvo.  In the first we met Jimmy's cohost who basically has lost like 20 lbs in more than a year and poo poos how she lost weight before the wrong way (she lost all muscle you see ...).  But the one that got to me was Amy Dungan.  Here I thought FINALLY, Jimmy is going to have some honest discussions of the trials and tribulations of doing low carb.  I had listened to a podcast with her in 2010 and that was when I asked her on Jimmy's forum about her weight struggles and whether they were from going off LC or that LC wasn't working.  Fresh off her mea culpa, and knowing that Amy was back to square one -- well not really, square one as that was in the 170's and she was back up over 200 -- whatever her current success, I waited to here a little more about her "reality".  On the more formal podcasts we got "I've not been perfect" but she's a decade long dedicated low carber.  What did we get? More of the same old and, frankly, I clicked that podcast off in disgust.  

Does Jimmy pony up about his struggles?  Oh yeah, if you consider even more ambiguous references to them doing so.  We hear more about his sore muscles and whatnot, all the while his weight is no doubt back up in the 270's.

But this last week was a kicker on his podcast.  No ... I'm going to save the discussion of these folks' nasty hypocritical chucklefest hit piece (like we needed another one) of Hope Warshaw for another day.  I'm also going to save comment on Kim's story for another day as well.  What I just cannot get over from this podcast is Jimmy Moore's disgusting "nah nah nah nah" voice nonsense.  If you don't want to listen to the whole spiel about weed whacking, Eric's intro and the next LC cruise promo, FF to about the 5:30 minute mark where Jimmy introduces Kim Eidson.  

I'm not particularly sure what is so "neat" (Jimmy's words, not mine) about Kim's (or ANYONE's) "up and down story about LC" (or any weight struggle for that matter), but that's how he described it.  Thinking I would hear anything insightful I listened on....   Jimmy says:
I love that she was willing to come on because now look low carb is not this perfect reach your goal and everything is happeeeey {Kim laughs} Don't we wish, right Kim?
You cannot get the full impact of Jimmy's absurdness without listening to this -- take 30 seconds do so please! -- And I'm really not getting what fictitious folks who say LC is a panacea he's exactly making fun of there.  Ummmmmmmm Jimmy??!!  That's YOUR schtick.  Just a couple of weeks of induction and all is solved -- remember?  What we learn about Kim is that she had a "little relapse", LC is "not perfect" ... she learned a bit and gave props to the support of the LC community.  To which Jimmy chimes in:
That's a great point Kim, is ... we're not judgmental in the LC community or at least we shouldn't be {laughter} maybe there are a few people out there that are.  Um but when I see someone struggling I see it as an opportunity to say hey look I've been there ... I know what you're going through ... I've felt that here are some things that worked for me, maybe they'll work for you ...I think that's a beautiful thing  It's the loving spirit that keeps this community so strong.  Because we know it works it's just a matter of making it work.
I seem to recall Jimmy getting a bit flustered over judgmental ....    oh nevermind ......

Well, I did learn something from this podcast, which is why Kim reacted so bizarrely to me merely mentioning her name in a post!  But this post is about Jimmy and his LLVLC miracle.  How can you even talk like that when it is you and your cultish followers who are the ones touting LC as some panacea?  Sometime when I have the stomach for it, I'll address the rest of that pathetic podcast.  In the meantime, it's been a very long time without an official weigh in from you.  And you've yet to open up with anything new about what exactly it is you're up to these days.  Neither, apparently, do your guests.  :-(  Sheesh.  I probably opened up more honestly about my own weight struggles on my "regular" podcast interview (which wasn't even supposed to be about me) than these chit chatters *getting REAL*.  

Kinda makes the "postal" treatment of Hope Warshaw by these folks all the more repugnant.  


Tonus said…
You know, if the weight gain from the creatine use was due to all the extra water in his muscles, Jimmy could've solved that problem with a few cups of coffee. :)

My understanding of the LC approach is that if you are eating primarily protein and fat, your brain will flip the "satisfied" switch more quickly and keep you in that state longer. Thus, while you don't count calories or portions, your body knows what it needs and does the counting for you.

Which means that most LCers should not be having problems with their weight, doesn't it? I suppose that cannot help but sound snarky, but when I stumbled onto the LC concept, that was my concern-- will I really self-regulate without even trying? (Answer: nope!)*

If there are specific issues that are affecting Jimmy and others struggling with their weight (ie, a lifetime of sugar/carb abuse damaging their bodies) then I think it's best to confront that and find ways to deal with it and not simply expect that our bodies will take care of the portions for us. With so many people in the same boat (how many of us HAVEN'T spent our lives stuffing ourselves with candy and 'bad' carbs?) it could be a real help.

And if it ISN'T that, then it's time to confront that, instead.

* Personally, I find that a number of factors keep that from working for me. For one, as kids we were raised to clean our plates. Second, I got used to serving myself large portions. It is a combination that, unchecked, leads to the obvious-- I serve myself large portions and eat every last scrap. Without consciously controlling my portions and meal frequency, I'll eat until I'm well past "satisfied" and right into "I can't believe I ate the whooooole thing."

I can certainly eat smaller portions and feel satisfied, but I cannot rely on my body to do it for me, because my brain is wired to proceed differently. I wonder if this is an issue for some of those who are struggling on LC?
Muata said…
Tonus, I think this is an issue that all formerly obese folks face regardless of how they lost the weight. For some, like me, LC allowed for me to go from 300+ to 245 without effort, and just walking. From this point forward, I had to become a "very" active and conscious participant in the process, which continues to this very day.

Also, psychologically it takes time for a morbidly obese man to re-learn the correct portion size(s) for their reducing bodies. Yes, you can drop 200 pounds in a year, but that one year is not longer enough to reprogram your brain to proper portion sizes. And, I won't even mention the metabolic adaptations that occurs during weight loss that add an extra speed bump(s) in your way ...

I think Jimmy, and many other "weight loss" bloggers out there who lost a lot of weight quickly, didn't prepare for the eventual (and inescapable) post-diet weight gain (or is it re-gain).

Most successful dieters want to believe that their new found lease on life and beaming self-confidence are enough to stop the body from reclaiming its "pounds of flesh" ... sadly, they're not.
Sanjeev said…
> if the weight gain from the creatine
> use was due to all the extra water

I doubt Jimmy had water retention because of Creatine; it doesn't get into muscles in any significant way


If he was taking the creatine with fatty meats he could have gotten some of the creatine into the muscles because the meat would force some insulin secretion

but to really get the creatine into muscle most strength athletes take the creatine with large carboydrate meals.

It says right on most pages that describe creatine: take it with apple or grape juice. for a long time the lay writers didn't know why it needed to be that way, they just knew it didn't work very well without the carbs. But we do know now: THE VILLAIN, INSULIN.

Otherwise all you get is expensive piss.
Sanjeev said…
> Now I can't imagine any low carb doctor would actually scrutinize his menus and conclude anything other than that this was Jimmy's problem

not low carb but "you're not eating any of the neolithic agents of disease, and all my patients lose when they do that. You would be the first .."

( Except for all those other firsts that I managed to re-classify in my mind so I can pretend you're the first ... yes, I just called somebody a liar, IMHO he's lying until he opens his records, and if he can't, why bring it up? PROOF you can't produce ... the best kind)
Dustbunny said…
I'm not sure what the point of this blog is? Are you trying to expose Jimmy Moore for claiming to be something that he's not? Every single detail you've written about him, every amount he's ever weighed, everything he eats, every diet he's ever followed, every weight loss challenge he's engaged in, every picture at his various weights - it all comes from comments he's posted himself on his own websites. It's right there in plain sight for anyone to read, so I don't see that he's misrepresenting himself. I do agree with you that he probably eats too much. His worst crime seems to be that he hasn't figured out yet that calories matter.

If you had unearthed some damning information from some other source that he hadn't revealed, himself, then you might have an interesting story. But this just looks like cyberstalking or some sick case of fatal attraction.

You seem to have a brilliant mind - surely you can put it to better use.
LynMarie Daye said…
Sanjeev just brought up a BIG pet peeve of mine: This notion that people with "clinical experience" are somehow not affected by confirmation bias and everything they observe is the "truth". Some people believe clinical observation is far superior to double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. I think clinicians can generate interesting hypotheses but those hypotheses still need to be tested scientifically.
Diana said…
"4 eggs cooked in butter with cheese; Side salad with Ranch dressing, mixed veggies (broccoli, squash, green beans, and red peppers) with butter, sausage, bacon, eggs with bacon, sausage, ham and cheese; 4 sausage patties" | "4 eggs cooked in butter with cheese, 4 sausage patties, 3 slices of tomato; Side salad with Ranch dressing, mixed veggies (broccoli, squash, green beans, and red peppers) with butter, sausage, bacon, eggs with bacon, sausage, ham and cheese; 3 chicken breasts with cheese and mayo, 3 sausage patties" | "4 eggs cooked in butter with cheese, 4 bacon slices, and 4 tomato slices; Side salad with Ranch dressing, mixed veggies (broccoli, squash, green beans, and red peppers) with butter, sausage, bacon, eggs with bacon, sausage, ham and cheese; Fried mashed cauliflower with cheese and sour cream; 2 string cheese".

It must be that dreaded carb creep!

Seriously folks....for f*ck's sake, that's the caloric intake of an entire third world village for a month! No wonder he's gained weight!
Harry said…
Jimmy reminds me of a person in that half-asleep state where you need to get up and go to the toilet, but you stay in bed because it's warm - end result: you lose a couple of hours of good sleep while fighting a full bladder.

But, there's a very compelling reason for Jimmy to 'stay in bed'. Namely, he's got a lot of paying customers in bed with him, and were he to get out all of a sudden, ructions would ensue.

Abuse and overextension of analogy ends here.

Tonus said…
@Sanjeev, I was being facetious with the coffee comment, but I did not know that about creatine. I always did wonder why they would recommend that you ingest it with grape juice! That's interesting, thanks.

@Muata, I agree with your comment. I must say, I cannot recall anyone ever explaining to dieters the importance of reducing portions as part of a maintenance after initial success on any diet. Granted, many diets tend to be 'quick fixes' that ignore the idea of what comes after, but still, it kind of annoys me that it's one of those things that I had to figure out myself (and then it annoyed me to realize that it should have been obvious).

It is definitely something that has to be focused on in my case. I have continued to remind myself that what I am doing now is not a short term thing that I can abandon once I reach my goals. Even though I've made sure to set goals that will take some time and effort to reach, I still worry that at some point I'll realize I've made a lot of progress and then begin to slip. I don't think Jimmy *wants* to go through the trials he is experiencing, but I think it just shows how tough it can be to adjust our mindset at the subconscious level (and how influential the subconscious is).
Sanjeev said…
Trying to get Jimmy to deal with his REAL problem ...

To me it looks like the complete opposite of uncaring.

But caring is not the issue. As far as I can tell, CarbSane's posts have been about trying to correct mis-information.

To the extent that Jimmy's the source of that information she has to care

If it weren't for the MIN-information, NOBODY would care what Jimmy does.

certainly not I ... If I tried hard maybe I could reduce my caring about Jimmy by a femtogram or 2.

the un-necessary spread of damaging misinformation is another matter ...
Layla said…
It's wrong for people to think that LC is some sort of miracle diet. If you want to keep overstuffing your face, you also want to stay obese.
There are soooo many people out there who eat way too much on a LC diet and don't lose any weight or regain it all.

The real deal with LC, is that it makes it somewhat easier to change your entire lifestyle.
When you have stopped your hypoglycemia and have stopped craving food every 5 minutes, you suddenly find the time to take a walk around the block. Amazingly, you don't feel the need to eat 2 pounds of chocolate while watching The Biggest Loser.
Later on, as you continue to lose weight you start thinking "Hey, I am now light enough to do some serious exercise, I am going to make an exercise schedule!"

If all that doesn't happen, then all you will have is a slightly smaller version of your heaviest self. Which is definitely not the best you can be.

Then people start to do crazy shit, like an eggfest and eating less and less until they barely eat anymore (not Jimmy, other people) and it's all downhill from there.

People always want the easy way out. Guess what: it has never been easy in the real world, not even in the LC world, so you better toughen up and put in some hardcore efford.
Diana said…
"The real deal with LC, is that it makes it somewhat easier to change your entire lifestyle."

Well Layla - we've discussed this here but since you bring it up I'll repeat myself - for some of us LC encourages bad habits. When I was a dogmatic low-carber (DLC? Can we stand another abbreviation?), I had nagging feelings low-carb encouraged me to be a binger. I was already a binger of sweets, but low-carb with it's "eat all you want of steak and whipped cream" encourages me to binge on other items.

I pointed out in the comments to another post that low-carb is an eating disorder just for men. Two of the guys who contribute comments here (Muata and Sanjeev if memory serves) agreed with me. Not that women can't partake, we can! But "eat all you want" of steak is something a guy can get away with. Stuff your face with chocolate chip cookies is kind of effeminate. But ultimately both end you up in the same place: Fatsville.
CarbSane said…
@mhb: Look at this another way for a moment. If all I'm doing is regurgitating publicly available/shared facts of Jimmy's story (and other low carbers) ... WHY are they reacting so hyperdefensively?

In Jimmy's case, the thing is that he shares so much he tries to project an image of complete openness/transparency. But folks soon realize he is evasive when it suits him. The weight gain in early 2008 was not owned up to with actual numbers until months later. When I found Jimmy's forum I had little interest in his story. Why? Because I have little in common with a late thirties 6'3" man who used to weigh over 400 lbs. This is why I looked to the women and I guess it upsets people to say that I wasn't finding much in the way of encouragement.

If anyone feels "exposed" by my relating of their public writings I'd say that is quite telling. It means they are hiding something. In Jimmy's case he is not hiding (he makes enough public appearances that he can't) but he's doing his best to downplay the impact of his reality.

Didn't Jenny Craig launch her business from her weight loss success? She was truly slim, not just a smaller version of herself for starters. I also suppose at this point - some 25 years later - even if she regained the weight there are enough JC success stories out there to carry the torch for her business. But Jimmy can boast neither achieving an optimal size nor maintaining for any length of time. And yet day in and day out he's encouraging folks to start their own LLVLC journey. Do you not see a problem with that?

Cyberstalking? LOLOL For what it's worth, most of these links/posts have been gathered over the course of two years of participating on Jimmy's forum and such. Often it was someone sending me a link and my filing it away. I've also spent a bit of time trying to help Jimmy solve his "mystery" -- others call that selfless caring and support -- but ultimately it was a waste of time on a thankless cause. Not to mention appearing as a guest on his podcast at his request and at some cost to me (I did not own audio equip at the time, and I spent time compiling my case against Taubes that was the purported subject of the interview).
Dustbunny said…
Who is "they" and where is this "hyperdefensive" reaction you speak of? And all you're doing IS regurgitating what Jimmy says, of which you also say, "folks soon realize he is evasive when it suits him". So I guess we low carbers aren't as blind and stupid as you think and we don't need your in depth analysis after all. :)
CarbSane said…
From the comments here, "they" would be Amy Dungan, Regina Wilshire and Ailsa Bolt Washington and to a much lesser extent, Kent Altena. Jimmy for throwing me off his forum even though I did nothing wrong there. From their comments elsewhere I'll include at least Kim Eidson. And, I'd have to say someone named "mhb" seems to have an disproportionate interest in what I'm blogging about. Again, if that's all I'm doing why are your panties/boxers all twisted up?
Anonymous said…
Being thrown off a forum is kind of like being expelled as a heretic. Sticking with my analogy of the low-carb movement with religious fervor!

As a low-carb blogger, if you keep emphasizing 'the science,' it's going to be annoying to be challenged. Jimmy could cut the 'science' out of his pitch for low-carb, and still do very well! For most religions of the world, the emphasis is not on scientific proof of their beliefs.
Sanjeev said…
Being thrown off a forum is kind of like being expelled as a heretic. Sticking with my analogy of the low-carb movement with religious fervor!


Dustbunny said…
What's disproportionate about my interest? I haven't been reading your blog that long but so far I think I've commented on a couple blogs about Moore, a couple about Eades and one on Stephan Guyenet. Sorry I can't comment on most of the more technical ones but I don't have the in-depth scientific knowledge that you have.

But I'm not defending Jimmy Moore, hyperdefensively or any other way. I'm just saying, if you've got some dirt on him, spill it. If he's a fraud I'd like to know it. Meanwhile, I'm not very impressed with all your regurgitation.
Diana said…
"Are you trying to expose Jimmy Moore for claiming to be something that he's not?....I do agree with you that he probably eats too much. His worst crime seems to be that he hasn't figured out yet that calories matter."

Let me try to explain the situation to you. I don't speak for Evelyn, this is just my perspective.

Yes, Evelyn is trying to expose Jimmy Moore for being something he's not. He claims to have lost 180 pounds via low-carb dieting. In fact, he has not lost 180 pounds, his weight fluctuates by a rather shocking 70 pounds, and he didn't lose weight by low-carbing. He lost weight by inducing a caloric deficit. Is that clear enough for you?

"His worst crime" - is that he hawks a failed weight loss method. He's a phony, like Eades and Taubes. They are all part of the same self-referential group of hucksters, they fool a lot of desperate people, and Evelyn has written one post to point that out.

Is this clear enough for you? Something tells me not.
Layla said…
"I was already a binger of sweets, but low-carb with it's "eat all you want of steak and whipped cream" encourages me to binge on other items. "

Diana, my point exactly. LC didn't encourage that, YOU did ;) LC has literally nothing to do with your brain chemistry, your will power, your flaws, your personality or your stomach.

We need to learn to see things separate from us. The diet isn't us and thus it can't encourage anything inside of us. You are always there to make a decision and in the end, it's your fault if you stuff yourself, not the LC diet.
Layla said…
and btw, I don't know what kind of LC diet you did, but I have never heard of unlimited amounts of steak and whipped cream. I am on Atkins (phase 4) and the diet is strict when it comes to cream, cheese and meat.
CarbSane said…
Hi Layla, While binging and such is ultimately a personal issue, I do have to agree with Diana here. The portrayal of "ad libitum" as eating unlimited amounts of LC foods is pervasive in LC plans. I'm re-reading the original Atkins and it's in that book. Gary Taubes has gone so far as to claim that fat intake has NO impact on body fat. And he did use the word gluttony in a speech. When any plan allows something without limit it's an invitation for the binge eater to do just that. On "regular" diets, these foods aren't all that inviting -- one can only eat so much celery and lettuce -- but on low carb? This is the appeal of LC for many and why I believe many binge eaters gravitate to the plan with such fervor once they discover it. Initially it works very well, but eventually it catches up. Some binge on LC foods then "tighten things up" by going back to Induction or other "clean eating", others go on carb binges then go back to LC to fix the damage.

While most of the books don't come out and actually say it in their plans, the anecdotes or featured success stories (not to mention just about every other post on the internet in favor of LC) etc. include some version of "I'm eating more now than I did on the SAD and I lost weight effortlessly".

And then the stall ...
Tonus said…
That is the impression I get every now and then from comments and posts from LC and LCHF adherents. On an LCHF blog I read, one person was worried about her weight gain after starting LCHF and asked if it was possible to gain weight from eating coconut oil. I pointed out that like any other food, if you eat enough of it you will indeed gain weight.

Two weeks later, another person replied that no, it doesn't work like that. Using his own anecdotal weight loss ("Having once lost 4 pounds in a weekend in a significant caloric surplus by drinking coconut milk cans until I was full and doing zero exercise") he explained that if you eat the right foods, the amounts don't really matter.

When you consider that this was a reply to a person confused by her weight gain on LCHF, it's pretty mind-boggling. Never mind that she's gaining weight, simply remind her to ignore calories and portions and trust her body to regulate itself. You know, the way it ISN'T DOING RIGHT NOW? Geez...
CarbSane said…
In WWGF Taubes actually says point blank that fat has no impact on body weight. That is just so ridiculous but many folks still take it as truth no matter how counter to their own experiences such nonsense seems. Because of the extensive -- mistaken for exhaustive -- research Taubes did for GCBC, they presume it must back such a contention.

My response to anyone asking if they can gain weight on LCHF is this: If calories didn't matter, why was the highest fat version of Atkins - the fat fast - calorie restricted? Why not just let them non-caloric sweetened cheesecake? Atkins was no dummy!!
CarbSane said…
Which reminds me of back when folks were trying to help Jimmy with his "frustrating" problem, and he was eating "cheesecake" every day, sometimes twice a day after large meals. He would not hear that this might be part of the problem. Then someone asked his recipe and he was essentially mixing a tub of whipped cream cheese with sweetener and eating the whole thing sometimes. Mystery?
Diana said…

OK, I shouldn't have used the phrase "steak and whipped cream" a humorous phrase which I got from a nutritionist in one of those lectures at Stanford on Youtube about low-carb dieting. Perhaps I should have used the phrase "steak and butter." OK?

But that's not really the issue Layla, which is, you contradict yourself. First you say that LC "makes it somewhat easier for you to change your lifestyle" and then you say that "LC didn't encourage that [binging], YOU did ;"

So, which is it? I adopted LC, a WOE that makes it easier for me to change my lifestyle, but that WOE didn't encourage my binging, I did?

Let me repeat, loud and clear: low-carb isn't a lifestyle change at all. It is a gimmicky elaboration of the worst of modern Western (and especially American) lifestyle habits. It's legalized gluttony. As such it's the perfect diet for Westerners with eating disorders who don't want to face facts: they eat too much, exercise too little and they are fat as a result. It tells them just what they want to hear. I understand their feelings because I was one such myself.

For those of us for whom LC doesn't work (I suspect the majority), it encourages people to retain the very thing that got them fat in the first place - overeating - except that you can overeat certain foods and not eat others at all.

Of course you won't be stuffing your face with chocolate! It's not allowed. But you can stuff your face with something else. How is that a lifestyle change?

Regarding what foods you can eat ad libitum, yes, you are right, not cream, but what about any zero carb food? Can you stuff your face with zero carb pork rinds? Beef jerky? Bacon? Layla, if you say that is not allowed, you are not being honest.

"It's wrong for people to think that LC is some sort of miracle diet. If you want to keep overstuffing your face, you also want to stay obese."

I'm sorry but that is not the LC dogma I learned and keep hearing at the Church of Eades, Taubes and Atkins. (Well, up until about 6 months ago when I quit paying attention to them.) LC says, in a nutshell, that you CAN eat what you want of proteins and fats and you won't gain weight because your insulin levels won't rise. This will create the "metabolic advantage".

The latter is something Atkins fabricated without any scientific evidence and without discussing insulin, but which Gary Taubes' book was a monumental effort to justify by cherrypicking data from disparate sources.

Layla, the entire low-carb dogma is one that encourages one form of overeating, which is why, when people go off low-carb, they are in such a bind, having developed even worse eating habits than they had before.

Now, as to low-carb having nothing to do with my "brain chemistry" - sorry, but the low-carb gurus would say just the opposite! I have read numerous times that eating proteins and fats has some kind of magical effect on my brain chemistry due to its regularizing of my blood sugars. Regular blood sugars, regular brain overeating. (Although what overeating means in the circular logic of low-carb dieting is a mystery to me.)

Anyway Layla, what you are saying isn't low-carb. It sounds to me like you are doing a low-calorie high protein restricted eating plan, and I wish you all success with it. So far doing ELMM with emphasis in the EL I have lost 12 pounds. What's more I feel confident that I can reach my goal because I have NO MORE EXCUSES.

That's a very important thing. When you know that you have run out of excuses you are in a very free and freeing place. You are never going to go back to where you were. This is not what I read on the low-carb sites - I see a bunch of people fooling themselves, and it's sad.
Diana said…
PS I suspect that LC success stories are that subset of the population that got fat without binging. I think mostly they are middle-aged guys who packed on the pounds 5 pounds here, 5 pounds there and pretty soon you are talking real money. They are 40 pounds overfat at age 45 and feeling shitty. So they cut out the beer, fries and cheesecake, and don't overcompensate with (excuse me) steak and whipped cream binges, and they lose the flab. If that's LC, I say, "great."

What we are opposing here is an ideology.

I totally agree with the LCers with respect to fat deprivation in the diet. It's horrible. Where I go off the rez is their attitude towards carbs. Carb deprivation, to this gal, is as disorienting and depriving as fat deprivation. My body (my eyes are moist!) just tells me to eat carbs. I must obey. A case for Dr. Eades!
CarbSane said…
@Tonus: As regards the weight gain, here is where Jimmy has a history of lack of disclosure. Indeed when he's losing weight he's quick to share the results, but when he's gaining, he's much more vague. Now he may have fessed up somewhere on the menu blog before May, but he wasn't giving details as it was ongoing. When someone gains 25-30 lbs in a month or so that is huge. Personally, I would have stopped taking it with 5 lbs if nothing else had changed in my diet.

@mhb: I'm not sure what it is you're looking for in these posts. They are what they are and if they're unimpressive to you so be it. Who they may be of use to are the casual LC'er who has hit a plateau, finds Jimmy, sees 180 lb weight loss success since 2004/5 and writes him for advice. Most won't ever find or check the menus blog so when he says something there and leaves out those details on the regular blog, or vice versa, it becomes misleading. His regular blog readers actually need to look around quite a bit to see that his weight struggles continue - and they are considerable. This is true for many bloggers and what I find rather dishonest is that it's NOT up front and center all the while these folks are hawking products, doling out advice (just eat more fat my pretty!) and encouraging others to follow them down the path to healthful living when they are not themselves living as healthfully as they should. And filling their minds with junk pseudoscience while they're at it.

Then if someone does read various blogs over the years and put 2 & 2 together to show the full picture, they're somehow stalking or obsessed.
Dustbunny said…
Wow, Diana, I don't know where you get all your information about LC from but it sounds like something you might have heard in the 70's. Perhaps you get it from a bunch of misinformed low carbers at the various forums but clearly you have not actually read any of the books by the authors you name. In the last few months I've read the newest Atkins book, Dr. Eades' "Protein Power Life Plan" and Jonny Bowden's "Low Carb Living" (2010) and nowhere in any of them does it say you can eat all you want of anything. Every one one of them tells you to, "eat until you are full", which is pretty much how most people normally eat (excluding bingers). If you're a binger and that is your purpose for choosing a low carb diet so you can binge all you want, then no, you are not following the plan correctly and you won't lose weight. And it doesn't work for everyone, any more than a low calorie/low fat diet works for everyone. It works for the people who don't abuse it and who take the time to learn how to do it the right way. I'm not going to argue with you because your narrow mind is obviously made up, but I can't begin to express how horribly misinformed you are about the low carb WOE.
CarbSane said…
@mhb, I don't know what you see as the current advice, and I don't know if you read the comments, especially, on various blogs, but the current thing is "eat more fat" -- if you're not losing weight, "eat more fat" (and calories). The original Atkins is full of stories of eating a boatload while weight loss was going on. The New Atkins is more toned down, but apparently -- this is what I mean about Jimmy who interviewed Westman around the time of its release -- nobody seems to have paid much attention to the savor don't smother section. As to Eades, his blog has veered off to Met.Advantage land and 6WC was rife with encouragement to eat more and you'll just futile cycle away excesses. Gary Taubes tells us we cannot gain weight eating fat and protein. The list can go on. The message is actually out there that calories do count, and apparently it was louder and more clear in Eades' older books. I hope too many people didn't follow Jimmy's ridiculous "take home message" from the Swedes on the LC cruise and add 12T fat to their ground beef!

Part of the purpose of this blog is to dispel these myths. This is new "information" and dogma that is being circulated about.
Mirrorball said…
@mhb Have you read Gary Taubes? Diana's post describes exactly what he and his followers are disseminating. Maybe you have been spared from reading such things. If so, you are lucky.
Dustbunny said…
I can't help what a bunch of armchair quarterbacks offer for advice on the blogs and forums and you shouldn't use that as an excuse to trash an entire way of eating just because it didn't work for you. But if someone is eating too lean or too few calories, eating more fat might be the right answer. I follow the diet advice from the likes of Atkins, Eades and other professionals, who recommend an optimal percentage range for consuming fat, protein & carbs.

And Mirrorball, even Taubes just says, "eat when you're hungry and eat until you're full."
Sanjeev said…
> even Taubes just says, "eat when you're hungry and eat until you're full."

Too bad that for every time he says that he says

1. 100 times as often
2. in 100 times as many forums
3. in 100 times as many speeches

these things: (paraphrased but IMHO accurate)

"conservation laws are a tautology" [0]

"without carbs ... no voluntary restriction is needed ... nil, nada, zip, zippo, nicht, none ... ne pas de restriction ... just say no to restriction"


"the obese claim they eat less ... and the science supports them"


"insulin from carbs is such a powerful stimulus that it doesn't matter that glucose-derived g3p is not rate limiting "

[0]thereby simultaneously mutilating English vocabulary, philosophy, science, ANY semblance of real-world pragmatism AND targeted debugging and problem-solving). What a guy. To achieve so much with a single sentence (besides communicating much about him as well

If he means "well known" there are more accurate, specific, unloaded ways of saying that without drawing in all the excessive meanings.
Diana said…
"Wow, Diana, I don't know where you get all your information about LC from but it sounds like something you might have heard in the 70's. Perhaps you get it from a bunch "

This is the latest low-carb craze:

Dukan at a glance:

Kick start your diet with the rapid weightloss 'Attack' phase during which you eat unlimited meat, fish, eggs and no-fat dairy products, plus oat bran.
After two to ten days (depending on how
much weight you have to lose) switch to the 'Cruise' phase, alternating Attack days with those when you add unlimited vegetables and salad."

Let me say something about the unlimited vegetables and salad. While on the surface this appears to be quite innocuous, I still think it's a bad principle to encourage. A huge salad, with dressing, perhaps some cheese and fixins', and pretty soon you are either talking real calories or real carb grams, whatever's your poison.

Taking it a step further, I think it's a bad idea to encourage anyone to eat 50 raw celery sticks.

What's a good idea? Encouraging people to eat the least amount of food that satisfies them. Small portions. That's why I think that the divided plate idea is a huge step up from the horrible food pyramid. If you are not fat to begin with, I don't think it matters a damn how you divide the plate up, just as long as you don't heap it a foot high and don't eat more than one plate.

If you are fat, then a different intervention is required. Then it DOES matter how the plate is divided. And for some of us, one plate day plus two half-sized plates is enough.

Satisfied? Probably not. I might as well try to convince you that the earth revolves around the sun.

It's all the rage, RIGHT NOW, not from the 70s.
Diana said…
Further to the Dukan Diet, you can learn a lot from google just by observing. I keyed "Dukan Diet" in quotation marks and got nearly 5.8 million results.

Here what happens, it seems to me: there is only one low-carb diet. You don't have to read Michael Eades latest money-making scam, it's all the same recycled junk. Eat flesh proteins ad libitum, drink a lot of water, then add green vegetables, etc.

Then acolytes get sick of this, because it's crazy, so the hucksters who run the programs, in a desperate effort to stay afloat, modify the radicalism of the diet. They never come out and say that they are wrong, but they'll fiddle with the program.

Then a new program comes out that returns to the pure fundamentalism of original Atkins: see above.

Lather, rinse, repeat.
Dustbunny said…
I think the Dukan Diet is a terrible plan, too, and it's not supported by science. Don't blame that one on Atkins, Eades and others who support a low carb/high fat diet. It's an entirely different plan.
Diana said…

Regarding that Taubes chestnut about the obese not eating more "and the science supports them" - I read on Weightology one instance of an obese woman on a controlled diet who "forgot" about the 8 TBSPs of peanut butter she ate per day. Her husband ratted her out, the rat.

Speaking of peanut butter, one of my all time fave foods, it is very easy to lie about how much of that stuff you are eating. I once measured out how much a tablespoon of the stuff is, and I realized how I'd been lying to myself about how many calories of PB I'd been eating. What I counted as 100 calories was really 300 to 400 calories.

That's just one example. People regularly under report how many calories they eat in good faith. They over report how much they exercise.

And (I've seen this repeatedly) overweight people are the ones after a hike who are obsessed with re-feeding. And I'm one of them. Thin people will re-feed, but not obsessively. How many times you eat in a day affects caloric intake. Six small meals a day often turns into six large meals.
Diana said…
" I think the Dukan Diet is a terrible plan, too, and it's not supported by science. Don't blame that one on Atkins, Eades and others who support a low carb/high fat diet. It's an entirely different plan."

You challenged me to find a low-carb plan that allows unlimited eating of meat, etc. I found it. You say it's a bad plan. Of course I agree, but don't say it's not the latest low-carb rage. It is.

If I cared, I'd challenge you to demonstrate exactly HOW it is different from Atkins, Eades, et al, but I'll leave that to others.

Look, it's obvious to me you are arguing in bad faith and from here on in I will ignore you. I come here to learn not to argue pointlessly.
Dustbunny said…
"You challenged me to find a low-carb plan that allows unlimited eating of meat, etc." Could you please point out where I issued this challenge? Because I certainly don't recall it. We were discussing low carb plans as promoted by Atkins and Eades. Evidently you don't know that they are low carb/high fat/moderate protein ways of eating in which you eat when you are hungry and only until you are full. There is no HEALTHY way of eating that encourages you to stuff yourself silly with mounds of bacon, oceans of whipping cream or boxes of Atkins bars at a sitting. Scientific trials show that a low carb/high fat/moderate protein diet is a healthy diet. The Dukan Diet is low fat/high protein, as was the Stillman diet and, I believe, Kimkins. Based on my reading, I don't believe any of those diets are healthy. Not all "low carb" diets are the same, you see, although that seems to be what you believe.

May I ask which books you have read about low carb diets?
Sanjeev said…
> Look, it's obvious to me you are arguing in bad faith


Taubes taught his followers how to pick cherries by leading the way, so now they're picking cherries EVEN OUT OF TAUBES's own (extreme) writings, trying (in vain) to sell Taubes to moderates.

Cherry picking squared. Taubes picks cherries to reach an extreme position, some of his readers pick cherries FROM HIM to try to moderate the stance. The ridiculosity is perverse.

Taubes in 2 sentences:


Sanjeev said…
or is the perversity ree-donk-u-lous?
Sanjeev said…
(taken from a longer post)

can't wait for the tautology bit to be trotted out again
Diana said…

Definition of a bad faith arguer.

"Wow, Diana, I don't know where you get all your information about LC from but it sounds like something you might have heard in the 70's. Perhaps you get it from a bunch of misinformed low carbers at the various forums but clearly you have not actually read...."

So I find the Dukan diet:

"'Attack' phase during which you eat unlimited meat, fish, eggs and no-fat dairy products, plus oat bran."

And Mr. (MS?) bad faith arguer pushes it aside as if it doesn't exist.

Bad faith arguing.

True, it's not Eades, Bowden, and as I understand it, the Atkins plan has become saner. Confession: I don't waste my time reading low-carb hucksters anymore.

"Eat until you are full" means nothing to obese people. That's what got them fat in the first place. Like sumo wrestlers, they have trained themselves to eat huge amounts of food that their bodies do not need, unless their bodies want to be obese.

What does "eat until you are full" mean to a woman who weighs 300 pounds? To a man who weighs 400? A lot of calories. So when you fall off the low-carb wagon, and you inevitably will, you are still trained to be a hog with the portions.
Diana said…
I'm going to address this comment to Layla in case she is reading. We were arguing past one another it seems to me. I agree with you that no food has power over someone to make them eat it.

BUT that's not what the low-carb hucksters tell us.

One of the first posts that I read here, Evelyn pointed out what a dogmatic putz Dr. "Heartscan" Davis was, in saying that carbs force us to eat them. I should look up the exact post but I remember saying to myself, "wow, this woman really has something to say" because I had the exact same feeling about Davis and I wondered why no one else had pointed it out. Specifically, Davis put it in such an offensive way, "you MUST eat it" that I just rebelled. Just became so sick of the whole dogma I couldn't stand any of it anymore. I wasn't ready to admit that calories counted though. That took a while.

So Layla, when you say that food doesn't control us, I agree with you. But that's not what the low-carb gurus say. They say that there's something uniquely drug like about carbs that makes it impossible for most people to eat them. One chocolate chip cookie....and it's addiction.

Doesn't this sound a bit like reefer madness? One joint and next week you'll be a strung-out junkie, shooting heroin in an abandoned building....
Dustbunny said…
You know what bad faith is, Diana? It's ranting on about low carb diets like you know what you're talking about when in truth you haven't read a single book on the subject and get all your information from unqualified bloggers, anonymous forum posters and celebrity gossip sites. You're like a bigot who met one bad purple person so you think all purple people are bad and hate them all.

I rest my case.
Harry said…

I've stayed out of this to-and-fro so far, but here's my 2 cents:

Yes, there are healthy ways to implement low carb ways of fact, most of my obese clients initially meet with better success on low carb plans than on alternative ways of eating...I think this is largely a function of appetite suppression.

BUT, ad libitum LC/HF is certainly NOT the best diet for some people (especially those who are actually gaining weight on the plan, or those who are already fairly lean and wanting to get even leaner; for these people, some form of portion/calorie restriction is a MUST).

Unfortunately, the prevailing view in the LC blogosphere at the moment is dominated by the Taubesian fantasy that carefully followed LC diets will always work - even under ad libitum eating conditions...this is simply an outrageous calumny. It is falsified by numerous RCTs, by a simple understanding of human metabolism, and by years of clinical and empirical observation.

Some people simply eat too much, even with the appetite suppression afforded by LC, to lose weight beyond a certain point (thus the ubiquitous weight loss "plateau").

But, rather than counselling some intelligent moderation (or god forbid, some occasional abstemiousness), we hear that the solution is to "eat more fat".

mhb, if you are a 'moderate' who doesn't truck with these extreme positions (e.g. low carb is the ONE TRUE DIET; it works for everyone; all diets that work are low carb diets), then you are probably in the minority given the current state of affairs in the blogosphere.

CarbSane (and other like-minded folk) has a stake in altering this balance towards a more rational, nuanced, and accurate understanding of the effects of low carb eating.

I, frankly, prefer her stance to that seen in many LC internet communities at the moment, which are exhibiting disturbing signs of 'religious' solidarity and group-think...that's not good for anyone.

CarbSane said…
@mhb - Please be civil if you're going to "state your case" here, whatever that might be. You don't even need to read the first Atkins book to see the implication - it's right there in the subtitle: "The high calorie way to stay thin forever"

I've heard good things about the older Eades book, but the last one and too many of his blog posts to count are just loaded with bunk. He likes to point out that while they may not lose, overeaters on LC apparently don't gain weight. This is misleading.

Taubes has now convinced people that LC will get you to your lowest possible weight and that just might be the best you can do. Sorry, but getting back to the whole HAES thing, this is what I'm taking exception with. If LC wants to present itself as a way that morbidly obese people can become less obese overweight people without ever feeling a hunger pang, be honest about it. That's pretty much what all these folks are saying.

Hmmm.... Jimmy wrote this in 2009. Why no chapter on maintenance? Is there a chapter on remaining not just technically obese but actually obese?
Diana said…
Harry, Evie,

Thank you! I composed a reply to mhb, but something screwed up. It's brutally hot even with AC, so I have to abbreviate.

In mhb, we have a LC dogmatist who denies the central tent of LC dieting! Which of course is the metabolic advantage:

Now, mhb can say that no responsible LC diet recommends "all you can eat". S/he says it's "eat until you are full" which to me is a distinction w/out a difference when you are talking about obese people who have eaten themselves to sumo wrestler size due to.....huge portions. Perhaps "eat until you are full" may make some sense with moderately overweight folks but it makes zero sense with the truly obese.

In any case, let's not get off track here. There is either a central dogma or there isn't. That central dogma either is the metabolic advantage or it isn't. Which is it?

Eades is a true believer, see:
Muata said…
@mhb - I'm with Harry on this one. If you are part of the vast minority of folks in the LC community who preach moderation, then I commend you. However, realize that you are in the minority, and most people following most (if not all) LC plans don't believe that calories count.

So, if calories don't count, and I get to eat as much protein and fat to fill me up, why would I, as an obese man who has an ED in the first place, magically become aware of eating smaller portions?

Portion size = calories, no? Well, at least that's what every other diet (extreme or moderate) tells us, except the LC approach.

By telling the obese that all they have to do is to reduce or cut out carbs to lose weight, the focus is not placed on "how much" they're eating but "what" they're "not" supposed to be eating.

This belief is what produces the Jimmy Moore's of the world and the countless other folks in the LC community who lose only to regain, repeatedly ...
Diana said…
LOL, I suggest everyone click on the link I supplied to Eades and read the whole thing, as they say. I usually don't read the comments but if you scroll down, you'll see that someone named Malcolm questioned him - from the friendliest of perspectives - and Eades blew him off.
Diana said…
I cannot resist quoting from Eades, because I think this represents the true fraudulence of the man:

"As time goes on and you remain on the low-carb diet, you may actually eat more calories than you need to meet all your cellular requirements. What happens then? The brain can send a message to the body to dissipate more calories. You become more active. Instead of dreading working out, you want to work out. You want to move. Even better, internally, where you can’t even sense it, your mitochondria are allowing protons to drift back across the inner mitochondrial membrane and dissipating excess energy. You activate many futile cycles within the cells that ditch excess energy as heat. In short, you’re eating more calories and losing weight to a greater extent than you were when you were simply trying to restrict calories."

In plain English, CICO matters except when it doesn't. You can eat more, because you will want to exercise it off. And when you don't want to exercise it off, your mitochondria will engage in heat-dissipating activity that will get rid of those excess calories even while you sit on your tush eating beef jerky and pork rinds. Just don't eat carbs and bring on da insulin!

Folks, this is crazy talk.
Mike said…
@Diana - yup Eades pulls the "blowing off" tactic regularly. When James Krieger challenged him on an unsubstantiated remark about meta-analyses, he tried to dance his way out of it and ended up just ignoring it.

When a follower pointed out that he was the "Taubes" critic and when challeged to respond he quipped that he "didn't have time to respond to every idiot". I'm paraphrasing but that's the gist.
Diana said…
In this particular case he blew off a respectful question from someone who is (or one hopes, was) a follower. In other words, being a follower isn't enough - you've got to be a slavish devotee, yessir, nossir. Read the comment, you'll see what I mean.
Todd said…
So you are accusing a person that publicly writes about his infertility and embryo adoption as being not transparent because he hasn't changed his blog tagline stating he lost 180 pounds while he openly acknowledges the difficulty he's had maintaining his weight? Why do you think you have had such a difficult time staying thin if it is as simple as calories in calories out?
Diana said…
"Why do you think you have had such a difficult time staying thin if it is as simple as calories in calories out? "

I don't speak for anyone else, but CICO is hard. No one ever said opposite. The thing is, it works. The "metabolic advantage" doesn't because it's fiction. What about this is hard to understand?

And CS hasn't said that Jimmy isn't transparent. Hell, he lives his life online. He's just not coming clean about how la vida low-carb hasn't gotten him to the land of "sensationally skinny."

I weighed 190 in high school. That's fat. As an adult I weighed 140-155, technically normal weight but not sensationally skinny. I am determined to go down to 130 pounds which on my fame would be pretty lean. Now, I qualify as a long-term weight loss success, having kept off 35-50 pounds for more than 30 years. But I would never advertise myself as "sensationally skinny," and it is wrong for Jimmy to do so.
Sanjeev said…
> "Why do you think you have had such a difficult time staying thin if it is as simple as calories in calories out? "
Remedial English: "simple" and "easy" are NOT synonymous.

Want to know what's REALLY easy? Magical thinking.

That's one reason why conservation laws were not discovered until fairly recently.

It's also a reason people don't want to consciously and conscientiously apply conservation laws today. There are easier methods (ineffective, but who cares... they're EASIER).

I was about to post the above and I read your post again ....

> Why do you think you have had such a difficult time staying thin if it is as simple as calories in calories out?

you accuse CS of claiming CICO is easy (she doesn't, and in fact does not even promote calorie counting and food weighing like I do),

but you want to give Jimmy a pass on claiming low carb is easy (it's not) and effective (it's not) because he writes about his reproductive organs?


jeeeez ... that makes a LOT of sense ...
CarbSane said…
@Todd: Firstly, I don't see Jimmy's embryo adoption as at all relevant here. Personally I think it is a mistake for him to live all that out publicly adding to his stress he so often refers to. But that's his choice. Actually, since his weight has been going up -- and he was binging if you look at his menus -- I would find his contribution more honest and helpful were he to acknowledge his eating disorders and how LC is not a panacea for them. His snarky comment in this podcast is really so hypocritical of him. It's the LC proponents who act like LC is the cure for everything under the sun, now even if they don't lose weight or struggle. It has been many years since those outdated avatar pictures (they get preggers, Jimmy posts a picture of the two of them from 3 years ago?? whassup wid dat?) were taken and many years since his blurb on his menus blog was even remotely the truth. And yet another reader mentioned it to him and he got all huffy an nasty to that person rather than taking 5 minutes to fix it.

Jimmy Moore has regained and relost well over 300 lbs in large chunks - 30+ pounds at a time - for the past 6 years. Each time he ends up heavier than before. I think this SHOULD give him pause doling out advice to others that clearly hasn't worked for him. Not only is he not now (nor was he) "sensationally skinny", but he has NOT maintained a stable weight as Jackie Eberstein's blurb on the back of his first book implies he has after years of yo-yoing. Jimmy is the King at the Yo Yo prom, he just hasn't done an "around the world" move like the less prominent Queen of that prom.

I think it's time to post something I wrote to Jimmy on his forum in January of this year. Perhaps then where I'm coming from will make sense to all the speculators about the net these days.
Diana said…

"It's ranting on about low carb diets like you know what you're talking about when in truth you haven't read a single book on the subject "

I read GCBC cover to cover word for word. I was a bowled over true blue believer until reality overtook me.

GCBC's entire thesis rests upon Taubes' contention that CICO is a misunderstanding of the 1st law of thermodynamics, or energy balance. According to Taubes, obesity is a hormonal issue. This is the church of LC in a nutshell, and to deny it is to be a liar.

As for "ranting", I've put a few comments here. I haven't ranted at all. And I'm going to request that Evie discipline you in the future when you speak that way to me. Who do you think you are? Do you run this blog? You offer zero evidence, no arguments, and you can tell other commenters who ask you for some substance that they "rant"?

Maybe it's that chronically low insulin level brought up on by carb-starvation. It seems to make people mean.
Anonymous said…
'I don't speak for anyone else, but CICO is hard.'

I think I wouldn't have any trouble with dieting (any diet, any kind of diet...) if life didn't get in the way.

True of any diet!
Anonymous said…
The embryo thing is only relevant because it is questionable from a Christian perspective to do IVF, and Jimmy identifies as Christian, and as a walking rebuttal of claims made by low carb and low carb paleo advocates that such a diet is fertility enhancing.
CarbSane said…
Well P2.0, I'll not speculate on the religious aspects and all that. That is between Jimmy and his God. But I do find it interesting that he's now advertising (with that old picture) how he and Christine are following Chris Kresser's Healthy Baby Code. Near as I can tell, Chris is not a VLC'er and from the vids it appears Christine is eating VLC these days. So this seems odd to me. Also, Kresser's program starts with how to improve fertility through diet and get preggers without IVF. Ummmmm ... seems a huge disconnect there as it is no secret J&C not only had IVF but with embroy(s) from another couple entirely. Seems an odd sponsorship/ad fit to me.
Anonymous said…
Weight-loѕs mеdіcations, on the other hand natural pure greеn coffeе еxtract are 100% natural.

My website
Anonymous said…
Can your website be found on the first page of a search.
Another way you can update your site is to regularly check and improve upon your website's SEO status. Properly, right here are some factors you should examine just before your select an ideal search engine optimization provider for the on-line advertising and marketing.

Feel free to surf to my web site :: is my site google indexed