Science, Truth & Advocacy -- Random Thoughts

Long and rambling.  You've been warned ;-)

Disclaimer:  This post is not a discussion of peer review research of possible import to interested parties.  If that offends you, please click that X up there in the upper right corner of your browser.

There have been a lot of things going on about the net this past week that don't really deserve blog posts devoted to them by themselves, but that weave into a common theme.  Some involving this blog/blogger, most not so much though I'm ... err ... familiar with the players.  If there was ever a more honest admission of the underlying motivation of the greater LC community than that of Mark Sisson's a little over a year ago, I don't know of it.
A recent undercurrent in the blogosphere is discounting the importance of insulin, instead pointing toward leptin, among other hormones, as the “master hormone.” I disagree with this slightly, not because I discount the importance of leptin, or grehlin, or any of the nearly innumerable myriad hormonal players in this crazy, complex amalgamation of meat and bones we call the human body, but because it misses the point of what I’m trying to do: maximize buy-in and discuss what works for the largest amount of people that come looking for the type of help I provide.  .....
..... Even if “eat less, move more” is ineffective advice that rarely works over the long-term, it makes intuitive sense to someone who isn’t steeped in this stuff every day. We need simplicity.
That’s why I like focusing on insulin – because it simply works, and it’s easy to understand.  
When I found LLVLClue-land roughly three years ago, little did I know I had lost roughly a hundred pounds doing low carb the wrong way.  I mean I knew that my "planned cheats" method violated Atkins' flawed "one bite of potatoes will ruin you" law, but I knew not that eating an almost paleo diet (the occasional LC wrap made with some wheat, oat bran and flax) devoid of low carb frankenfoods (other than sucralose for coffee or mixer if I had a cocktail) was so very wrong.  My plateau was attributed to not eating enough fat and/or calories, my occasional low carb wrap, etc.etc.  And then I learned of my worst sin.  Despite it being 2009, I had not yet discovered and been baptized into the church of Gary Taubes and the Anti-Insulin Crusaders.  I quickly learned that if one doesn't believe, one doesn't belong.  Leave my intellect, knowledge and just basic common sense at the door please.  We're here to change the world with the teachings of Taubes (or fill in your favorite guru & philosophy ... it's all the same it seems).  Soon I would learn that there was a web of minions out to gather the flocks and indoctrinate those who might just be trying an Atkins-style diet with the teachings of the Great Taubesini,  so they too could go forth and spread the word.   The phrase "Gary Taubes tells us ..." abounded.  You do realize he's just making a lot of this shit up ... right?

If you don't believe, you don't belong.  Go on your merry way.  Oh ... and we really don't care about you.  If you're a low carber, you're not the right kind of low carber for our needs.  Be gone with you.  And certainly if you're not one, or not extreme enough and willing to mend your ways in that regard, be gone with you too.  In their quest to expand the community, LC'ers adopt any celeb who's ever eschewed a slice of bread as a beacon for their cause, but members?  Be silent and go along or we don't really need you ... but please visit our sponsor today!

There is a clear disdain of "authority" among the leaders and followers of this movement which presents a small problem for those seeking to replace the authority figures.  This is the main purpose for indoctrination ... to learn which authorities they must defer to.  A major theme in this vein is that against the establishment obesity researcher.  Another theme is the blanket dismissal of all so-called conventional wisdom.  This church lays claim to the "truth" about what is indisputably "healthy" ... and it is based on science.  Not just any science, mind you, but that which supports their ideology.  Everyone who disagrees just doesn't understand.  Of course to do this, they must rely on the work of your mainstream obesity and diabetes researchers, because at some point, links to Mercola dot com fall short.  So, one must learn to be a master cherry picker.  If any low carber reading this does not recognize how much the community talks down to anyone who doesn't believe in their dogma, they need to be a little more reflection.  I submit the following as just exemplary of what I'm talking about:
I have a great deal of respect for the work Sarah Fragoso, author of Everyday Paleo ... is doing to promote the healthy Paleo diet to a generation of people who are severely carbohydrate-addicted, sugar-stoned, fat-phobic and getting more obese and chronically ill than ever before.
This implication that everyone who doesn't sing the glories of eating virtually no sugar or starch must be so because they are addicted -- nay *stoned* --  permeates low carb circles.  They have so convinced everyone that carbohydrates per se are addictive that nobody can possibly control themselves around them.  Add in whole websites and books about how carbohydrates can KILL you, how a single grain is the cause of everything from obesity in the inner city to rioting in Greece, and you've got one hot mess.   So this brings me to the first topic:  a blog post Jimmy Moore entitled  Healthy Recipe Blogger Despises The ‘Hate Mail’ From The Low-Carb Community.   Here's this person's original email to JM (as posted on his blog)
Hi Jimmy,
I am a big fan of yours. I love to read science and research, and listen to ALL sides of the low-carb/low-fat debate. I think I have listened to almost all of your podcasts. I truly consider myself open minded in all sense of the word.
With that said, I have a blog read by over 10,000 people per day with healthy recipes for kids, including low carb, low sugar, and recipes that have grains! Because number one, I LOVE GRAINS! Simple as that. They taste good, and make me happy!
The reason I am writing to you, is I that I was hoping one day you would address the idea of tolerance. I get traffic from the low carb world that sees a post I do about oatmeal, or toast, or cereal and they explode with mean things to say in my email box. I can tell you that I get hate mail almost on a daily basis from the low carb world. I’ve ignored it for a long time, but now it’s really starting to affect me, and I don’t know what to do! People tell me that I’m killing the children of the world by sharing a recipe about oatmeal! Whether you agree with me or not, the hate needs to stop!
Thanks for listening to my rant! Tolerance for all!
I don't get that the blogger in question *despises* anything.  Do you?  Why would Jimmy use such a word?  Whether he realizes it or not (and I do believe he does), that word will incite, at the very least, a defensive response.  It makes the blogger sound hateful and angry by inference, although she doesn't sound like she "despises" anyone.  Jimmy's response to her was basically to share some bad emails he's received over the years as testament to some notion that this just goes with the territory.  Mr "Paula Deen is missing a golden opportunity to educate people about diabetes" Moore, is too tone deaf and full of himself to realize that this blogger was offering him a golden opportunity to address some of the ugliness that permeates the LC community.  But he doesn't even step to the plate, save for the lame disclaimer:
Let me just say up front that while I appreciate people having passion and enthusiasm for low-carb living, I have never advocated for anyone to talk down to someone or scold them for the choices they make about food.
Unless they're a diabetic eating carbohydrates I suppose. Heck ... unless they eat carbs, period.  Somehow it's perfectly acceptable for the carbophobes to rant against the inherent dangers of carbohydrate consumption because they have an intolerance to them.  It's those in the vast vast majority of the human race -- in which there are few if any conditions where humans are intolerant to glucose (including diabetes) -- who dare to condone their consumption that should not speak!
And while we have learned so much about the damaging effects of eating sugar, white flour, starchy carbohydrates, and the supposedly “healthy whole grains,” not everyone is on board with that message yet.  
The definitive nature of statements like this are those that radicalize the LC community.  They use the obvious bad guys of sugar and white flour, and extend that to all carbs.  So here we get the lackluster admonishment:
There are creative ways to share the real health concerns associated with consuming these foods, but sending “hate” messages to a blogger because she includes grain-based recipes in her posts is pretty ridiculous. No, I’m not advocating for eating these things, but she is right that this is indeed the wrong way to go about doing it and “needs to stop.” I’m not sure how she identifies that the traffic is from the “low carb world,” but I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt on that one.
Expand the hate messages to comments sections and the discussion boards of one Jimmy Moore and it becomes readily obvious that yes, he does little if anything to stop it, and does actually encourage it.  Oh yeah, this was a "JK", but here's the exchange about this very topic on his own discussion board:

cropped signatures and screenshot for formatting purposes

Now DFH is one of the nastier contributors over at Jimmy's forum who lobbied for my ouster.  Don't get the guy started on how idiotic intermittent fasting is ;-)  But Jimmy jokes with DFH.  I don't care if there's a "JK" there  ... this is the *real* Jimmy Moore folks.  If he truly thought this sort of thing *needs to stop*, he would have used the opportunity to "educate" DFH on how even joking about it sends the wrong message.

The truth of the matter is that Jimmy and others have no qualms sicking their followers on those with whom they disagree.  Tara Parker-Pope was the topic of some nasty rants in LLVLClue-land thanks to Taubes' publicity stunt, as was Hope Warshaw of the ADA a while back thanks to the coordinated smear campaign waged by the Feinman's Nutrition & Metabolism Society.    I have seen many doctors, authors, scientists and others lambasted in his comments over the years and called all sorts of names.   In a fit of utter hypocrisy, Jimmy closes the post patting himself on the back for his demonstration of respect and civility vis a vis Paul Jaminet:
That’s why I admire Paul Jaminet so much despite my disagreement with him over his concept of “safe starches.”   He could have lashed out at me for my opposition to his position–but he didn’t. In fact, he was quite gracious in his response and even agreed to be on a panel about this topic at the 2012 Ancestral Health Symposium coming this August in Boston, Massachusetts. Although I am no fan of the concept of eating white rice, white potatoes, etc. as a “safe starch,” that doesn’t mean I have to be ugly about it with Paul and vice versa.
Jimmy, the whole data dump post was ugly to start.  You had no qualms posting the often rude replies from many "experts" under the pretense that you didn't have any control over that.  Umm, yes you did.  You could have chosen not to include Jeff Volek's characterization of Paul as a "nut job" ... right?!  Yes, Paul showed a heckuvalot of class in response.  He's also not the kind of militant low carber who's likely to email nasties to your blogger.   Eh ... but at least Jimmy gave Paul advance warning of his data dump.  James Kreiger was offered no such courtesy that I'm aware of.   But at least Jimmy hasn't really joined in on the party ... well, other than to voice his reservations about the safety of Paul advising someone eat rice without the consent of a doctor!   And he was at it last week on Twitter dissing recent podcast guest Dr. Braverman.  I know nothing of this man ... but what's with that Jimmy?  Having opposing or controversial views on your podcasts so you can be all "aw shucks" in the interview and diss them afterwards?  Real class there.  Real class.  The sort of class with which I'm intimately familiar.   You see, Jimmy had no problems letting nasty comments stand after he and his producers misrepresented me and what I said in my own podcast interview.  I never used the words "willful fraud" before that was recorded or aired.  I wasn't a "taunter" of Taubes, let alone did I go on the podcast to "explain" that/myself.  It was supposed to be to discuss the problems with GCBC I had uncovered.  Jimmy & Gary had a nice little smearfest chuckle on the response podcast that, surprise surprise, never addressed any of the issues raised about Taubes' misrepresenting what his references said.  (We did learn he never read one of his references though!)  But I digress ...

Jimmy doesn't encourage readers to write such emails, eh?  How many times has he ended a blog post on the latest study that didn't produce the results he would like to tout posting the official email address of the lead researcher and encouraging his readers to "tell XYZ what you think about their study"?  I couldn't help being reminded of this habit of Jimmy's that he's laid off on a bit but nonetheless is part of his repertoire, because back-when I emailed him about the inappropriate nature of this blog post:  Australian Researchers Conclude That A High-Fat, Low-Carb Diet Puts You In A Permanent Bad Mood! Grrrrrr!   At the time, I thought it was odd for him to post a picture of the scientist, and I couldn't help but wonder what the reaction might have been had he been a less photogenic older person with the look of a crabbier disposition.  Like say the person below right vs. below left.

Jimmy ends his post with this:
Dr. Westman makes a good point. Dieter’s remorse about what they could be having may play a psychological effect on their mood. That’s why most low-carbers don’t count calories or portion sizes. We simply count the carbs, eat to satiety delicious real whole foods, and let the body take care of the rest. A high-fat, moderate-protein, low-carb diet is indeed a great way to go when you want to lose weight, improve your health, and yes, even improve your mood. You cannot underestimate the impact that losing weight can have on lifting your spirits and putting your mood in the right place. It’s idiotic research like this that is intended only to discourage people from healthy low-carb living. And that’s enough to make me cranky! Hee hee!
 Oh hee hee, how funny is that!  Immediately after that paragraph Jimmy writes:
Let Dr. Grant D. Brinkworth know what you think about his study by e-mailing him your thoughts directly at (hotlinked official email for correspondence to peer review journal article).
I cannot stress enough how inappropriate this is.  Really, Brinkworth is not writing articles for the NYT or even Science Magazine.  The study in question was Long-term Effects of a Very Low-Carbohydrate Diet and a Low-Fat Diet on Mood and Cognitive Function , published in the Archives of Internal Medicine (Grant D. Brinkworth, PhD; Jonathan D. Buckley, PhD; Manny Noakes, PhD; Peter M. Clifton, PhD; Carlene J. Wilson, PhD). This study rattled the cages of a lot of low carbers and there were several denunciations about the web, which begs the question:  If LC makes you so happy, why so defensive about a study pretty much nobody else paid much attention to?

I emailed Jimmy at the time about the inappropriate nature of encouraging emails to the scientist (poo pooed that, how dare I tell him what to blog about, he's not going to change for anyone!  What's with the overreaction to any criticism there?) but moreso to point out a potentially embarrassing part of his blog post.  You see, earlier in the article Jimmy quoted comments by Brinkworth, and had this to say:
“Both an energy-reduced, very low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet and a conventional high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet are equally effective for achieving weight loss in overweight and obese individuals,” Dr. Brinkworth explained. “The conventional high-carbohydrate, low-fat weight-loss diet was shown to have more positive effects on mood compared to the very low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet.”
(Seems to me he didn't say LC makes you crabby, but the LLVLCluers did a fine job of demonstrating that by their reaction to this study.)  Jimmy:
Oh REALLY?! What about previous research that shows eating fat improves mental health? Or how about this CSIRO study published in September 2007 that found mood improvements were identical with both the high-carb, low-fat diet and the high-fat, low-carb diet. How does this study by Dr. Brinkworth explain previous evidence that runs diametrically opposed to his from the exact same research institute?
That pink highlighted sentence caught my eye.  In High-Carb, Low-Fat Or Low-Carb, High Fat Diet Equally Lower Weight, Improve Mood And Memory, Jimmy had some nice things to say indeed.   Here's the study:  Low- and high-carbohydrate weight-loss diets have similar effects on mood but not cognitive performance.  Angela K Halyburton, Grant D Brinkworth, Carlene J Wilson, Manny Noakes, Jonathan D Buckley, Jennifer B Keogh and Peter M Clifton.   Whoa, backupaminute.  Who is that second author?  Why none other than Grant Brinkworth!!  Here's how Jimmy ended that blog post:
I was pleased that this research from CSIRO, where researcher Dr. Manny Noakes is doing some fabulous work into ketogenic diets and she was a part of this study, put forth the conclusions that it did because it very well could be the beginning of the end for yet another false stereotype of livin’ la vida low-carb.
“Short-term consumption of a moderately energy-reduced LCHF diet has an effect on the psychological well-being of overweight and obese persons similar to that of consumption of an isocaloric conventional HCLF diet,” the researchers proclaimed.
And that my friends is a beautiful thing! Spread the word!
What?  No "write these researchers and tell them how much you appreciate their work" with an email link?  Nah ... Jimmy only encourages negative correspondence.  Irony of ironies, it was Grant Brinkworth's email that was provided for official correspondence.  So I wrote to Jimmy that his accusation that they had ignored their other research was pretty absurd given that it wasn't only CSIRO study, but that Brinkworth had been a researcher on both studies.  But it gets worse because that former research was NOT "diametrically opposed" to the current study that had Jimmy's boxers all bunched.  The prior study ended with:
In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that short-term consumption of a moderately energy-reduced LCHF diet has an effect on the psychological well-being of overweight and obese persons similar to that of consumption of an isocaloric conventional HCLF diet. However, there was evidence of a somewhat smaller improvement in speed of processing with an LCHF diet. Further studies are required to determine the replicability of this finding and to determine whether similar outcomes are evident over the long term.
I pointed out to Jimmy that the research he was blasting, rather than ignoring prior studies, was actually an extension of them.  This WAS, by all indications, one of those "further studies" the researchers stated needed to be done in 2007.  Jimmy would have none of that in the email exchange.    I would also note that the effects on cognition went largely ignored.  So then these were praiseworthy researchers, and now?  IDIOTIC.  My what a difference a couple of years makes.

Gossip Tangent Alert!  (Remember, that X is always up there):  It's interesting to note the timing of the older study in context with what Jimmy had to say about it and what was going on behind the scenes for Jimmy at the time.  The 2007 article was published on Sept. 27 ... still relatively fresh off of KimKins K/E plan -- low fat, low calorie, low carb -- which took him down to the low 2-teens (< 215 lbs).  In June of 2007 Jimmy's weight was creeping up, from a prior low of 215 to 248 lbs.  Jimmy's wild yo-yoing never seems quite so bad when he insists on using 230 as his "goal" despite not wearing a waist size pants with a "3" in front at that weight.  He embarked on an effort to lose 50 lbs that year and reach One-derland.  His relationship with KK -- including raking in some big bucks as an affiliate -- was the cause of much controversy in the LC world.  Wanna peek into it all?  Check out this thread on the ALC Forums:  Jimmy Moore Lost 13 Pounds In First Four Days On Kimkins ... Only by July 27 of this year, despite his success on the plan, Jimmy had some 'splaining to do:  From The Bottom Of My Heart, I’m Sorry
Before I continue, I first owe everyone–whether you are friend or foe–a very big apology for taking liberties with a highly critical comment of me at my sister web site earlier this month. I didn’t simply ignore the comment or even delete the comment in question. I admit that I modified it to be positive and replied in kind. When called on it, I replied it was a joke and did not show the remorse I should have for something I should not have done in the first place.

Not only was this an abuse of my editorial powers at that site, but it was highly unethical and wrong. For that I am truly sorry, and promise that in the future when I find myself frustrated, I will simply leave comments as they are, step away and remember that not everyone will agree with me. If you go to that forum, then you will see I have apologized in like manner there making it clear to everyone that I was wrong and am truly sorry.
Seems like Jimmy is up to the same shenanigans with the comments.  Surely by only posting pro-LC Kumbaya! comments, he's contributing the narrow minded group think that encourages folks to email that blogger with disparaging comments.  The fall of 2007 was when Jimmy's weight problems started.  He started weight training and ate like a power lifter training for the Olympics with extra fat.  He "mysteriously" gained 35 lbs in like 6 weeks ... you've heard the story many times.  One might wonder if his metabolism is indeed broken, if he didn't break it after this blog wolfing down the fat. 

OK ... that tangent over.

So back to crabby low carbers.  In 2009, Fat Head weighed in with some humorous(?) commentary (linked to in Jimmy's post).  So while the memory machine was whirring on this whole notion of nasty comments, idiot researchers and good or bad reporting about what is healthy, Fat Head weighs in on a recent study with a snark-laden post about the following study:  Obesity is associated with hypothalamic injury in rodents and humans.  Most of you recognize that one, because Dr. Stephan Guyenet is fourth author, and his mentor, research director, and corresponding author is Dr. Michael Schwartz co-authored the study.  How does old Fat Head handle this?   Does he link to the study?  No.  Not even an abstract?  No.  For Fat Head, only the best of the best of "science journalism" apparently is good enough for him to unleash a sarcastic rant.  He probably had to search to find an article this short and devoid of science.    Fat Head quotes the first half of the article:
Fatty food linked to brain damage, new study shows
EATING too much fatty food causes brain damage linked to obesity, according to new research.

US scientists found a sudden change to a high-fat diet triggered inflammation in a key area of rodent brains responsible for regulating body weight.
The inflammation produced distinctive scarring similar to that seen in stroke patients - and that brain scarring was then observed in humans who were overweight.
While the research does not unequivocally prove brain damage caused by fatty food is linked to obesity, it provides strong indications for further research.
"It would be unlikely you could injure that part of the brain and not affect the level of bodyweight, because that's what that area does," said Michael Schwartz, who is the director of the University of Washington's Diabetes and Obesity Centre of Excellence. {--- article break occurs here --- I've included the rest below}
"Fast foods are more likely to do this sort of damage."
Most people have a natural equilibrium bodyweight, and although they can lose or gain kilos by adjusting their diet, their body will tend to return to its natural weight once those restrictions are removed.
Thus, obesity is often less a problem of losing weight than of keeping it off.
The brain area that regulates metabolism, the hypothalamus, relies on a hormone called leptin to measure the changes in body weight - and leptin is produced in fat.
"So you have a situation where if you have an inflammatory response in the hypothalamus you need more leptin to do the same job, and the only way to have more leptin is to have more fat," Professor Schwartz said.
The findings are published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation today.
Bottom line, in his exuberance for sharing his sarcastic wit, Fat Head implies that Dr. Schwartz is saying fatty foods cause brain damage -- as in cognition impairing, motor-skills impairing brain damage.  He wants his readers to focus on the words "brain damage" to rile up their anti-scientist bent.  Why not direct the ire at the "journalist", Amos Aikman?  At least for the irresponsible headline?  Nah ... it's much more fun to poke at the scientists, because we know they're all idiots and liars to boot.   I suppose it's just a coinky dink that the authors on that study are who they are.  Not!  Taubes is still smarting from Stephan's smackdown of TWICHOO and we can't have any more splintering of the low carb factions.  Rally the troops!  Rile up the masses ... who cares if you have to resort to ridiculous implications like the conclusions one would draw from Fat Head's post that Schwartz is trying to say that LC diets cause brain damage.  It's all about a desperate attempt to stop the exodus from the Church of Taubes.  Forget that Schwarz was talking damage to the hypothalamus.  These folks can't even objectively look at fat in the diet as ever being detrimental so sure are they that we evolved to eat upwards of 75% fat and by some magic it must be the carbs that accompany it in the SAD that are responsible for every single negative consequence attributed to the innocent fatty acid.  Nah ... Lookie there, his daughters can walk a balance beam and one just got a 98 on a math exam!  Gee ... it's like peering into my own childhood through bologna glasses.  I'm pretty sure that despite eating my fair share of carbs as a child (mostly brown rice, potatoes, beans and Ezekiel style bread when we had it), I also excelled in math and could do far more than just walk the balance beam. 

Perhaps Fat Head is an n=1 example of how a high fat diet or carbohydrate restriction does impact the critical thinking region of the brain.  How else to explain a post boasting about his girls' motor skills and mathematical prowess in response to a study that explicitly looked at damage to the hypothalamus?  Is he using that region of his brain to think these days or something?  Does he have a bumpersticker on his car saying "My Hypothalamus is My Navigator"?  Ahh ... perhaps that is the problem.  Fat Head would like you to believe that the grand conspiracy against your health is grasping at straws lately.  The heart disease scares aren't working.  They tried to scare you a few years ago with all those "LC will make you crabby" studies.  Now the need for the specter of brain damage!  Oh yeah!

To wrap this up, Tom Naughton came immediately to mind when Jimmy posted that blog about hate speech in LC circles.  It's one thing to allow it to foment in the comments sections of your blog (or in Jimmy's case also his discussion board).   For me this is personal, because it was quite another thing when Fat Head joined in with public statements questioning my mental stability and calling me a stalker, because -- gasp! -- I tried to post a few comments to a post of his on a mouse study.  From the first communications with Jimmy regarding my podcast, I shared with him -- I presumed in confidence -- my concerns about my then anonymity and issues I had in the past.  Jimmy promptly violated that confidence and shared the information with Gary Taubes.  There was no reason Taubes needed to know that information.  I knew from the get-go the purpose of my podcast wasn't to give a fair airing to contrary opinion.  And so the LC Lewinsky was set in motion.  Starting with Taubes' sniveling description of how he tried to talk to me and calling me a stalker in his podcast response.  His buddy Tom was onboard and ready on alert to continue that smear.  All three let the free for alls go on in their respective public fora.  All three should answer to their own behavior and lead by example so their followers will see that such is not acceptable behavior. 

Jimmy bemoans that he's been called fat and delusional (angry and a slob of a man) by people who don't know him.  Jimmy, you are an obese man.  It is delusional to not recognize this, it is delusional to not acknowledge the role of the quantity of food you consume (LC or not) in your obesity, and it is delusional to keep seeking some solution to a mystery about your weight when there is none.  But I don't ever recall portraying you as someone with psychiatric issues or mentally unstable.  Those would be the only two things on the list Jimmy could accuse me of.  But when someone lives their life on their blogs like Jimmy does, perhaps he forgets that people do *know* him -- if not personally.  I know all I need to from our brief personal interactions to know that Jimmy is not the happy-go-lucky aw-shucks regular Joe just trying to support his family off of his weight loss success.  He may once have been ....  Meanwhile, if you read the comments on that blog post you notice that he ultimately doesn't feel so badly about what the blogger is being subjected to.

You see, we're all free to eat as we please as adults.  Even to feed our own children as we please (well, some would like to see otherwise).  But for God's sake there's KIDS involved.  How many unintended consequences in the name of the children do we have to endure?  The blogger's sin is in calling fruit layered oatmeal a healthy meal for a child.  Look folks, just because you've beaten your pancreas to a pulp so it can't handle a bowl of oatmeal with some fruit, doesn't mean it's not a perfectly acceptable food for humans -- adults and children alike.  Likely she was talking about a rolled or steel cut oatmeal, perhaps prepared with almond milk or low fat milk with some slices of apple instead of a packet of Quaker Instant Maple & Brown Sugar flavor.  Ya think?  I *get* the arguments about grains, really I do.  But white wheat flour based junk vs. whole grains are really different, and the vast majority of humans over tens of thousands of years now have flourished on a diet containing grain as a staple.  This much cannot be denied.  So please keep your judgmental paws off of those who advocate for such foods (including Weston Price if I'm not mistaken) because we really don't know that raising humans from fetus-hood to adulthood on a your version of a  ketogenic diet is even healthy, let alone healthiER than a whole-foods vegan diet.  I'm not advocating either, or, etc.  Just saying, that the "she crossed the line when she advocated for kids to eat a diet that will make them grow up to be fat and diabetic" crap really has got to go.  The comments like, well, she NEEDS to be set straight -- you know, kinda like all those blogs about how Hope Warshaw was a criminal, add Dr. Oz to that list, etc.etc. -- tell it all.  These folks think they are in the right emailing bloggers like this one and harassing them.  Yours truly gets her own fair share of these even though I don't really advocate for any specific diet. 

The LC Community needs to state their case, forcefully if they must, as to WHY the high fat, moderate protein, low carb diet should be the gold standard for health.  And they have to lead by example.  If they make a good case, the following and recognition will come.  Trying to shout down those with opposing opinions, especially without anything to substantiate your view (Fred Hahn comes to mind, in drone like fashion repeating and repeating how we know diabetics all do better without carbs and the only healthy diet is VLC). 

OK ... Rant over.  Carry on!


Tonus said…
I like that the pink arrow at the top of the post is actually pointing to the DONATE button. :)
bentleyj74 said…
In response to the rant though...he has created a bit of a one way street haven where his boldness exceeds his depth or ability to defend his position .

"Well f*ck you right back you fat lazy slob. JK. Hee hee"

Takes all the sting out, right? [Does the passive aggressive cha cha]
Tonus said…
Movements of this type eventually reach a crossroads, where you have to temper the message with a bit of reason or dig in your heels. If you choose the former, the message will become a bit diluted and interest will fade. If you choose the latter, you wind up painting yourself into a corner. From a standpoint of integrity, the first option is better.

But if you want to build up the interest and finally go out in a spectacular and unforgettable nuclear explosion of melodrama, the latter is much more effective. And definitely more fun to watch from the outside. :)
"I mean I knew that my "planned cheats" method violated Atkins' flawed "one bite of potatoes will ruin you" law, but I knew not that eating an almost paleo diet (the occasional LC wrap made with some wheat, oat bran and flax) devoid of low carb frankenfoods (other than sucralose for coffee or mixer if I had a cocktail) was so very wrong." I was recently watching that fiendish foe of good LC'ers everywhere, Dr. Oz (who btw looks fabulous & I sincerely doubt owns a girdle) and his series on cheat days, which he's dubbed Fat-urday. He talks a bit about some of the biochemistry but what really seemed to resonate with people was the emotional component of what he was doing: by giving them license to eat formerly forbidden foods, parsed out over three meals & two planned snacks, he explained they could then mentally relax and actually savor their food and allow their bodies to feel satiated. (The fact that the Fat-urday meals & snacks were planned reminded me of when people do IF and specifically plan when they're going to eat.)

I actually liked Dr. Oz's holistic approach. While still controlling the calories on this planned cheat to around 1400 total for the day, he also made sure to address the context in which a lot of overeating & bingeing occurs, by laying down some Fat-urday "rules" dealing with the context of eating: no eating while standing in front of the fridge, walking around the house or in the car. You had to be sitting down using utensils like a civilized person.

Anyway, speaking of Dr. Oz, it also cracked me up that JK was all excited the good doc had invited him on his discuss eating disorders! :)
fr said…
There is definitely a relationship between low-carb diets and rage. Humans naturally crave a diet with 40% or more calories from carbs, especially from starches. If they can't get these starches, then they just suffer. Think Eskimos in the old days, for example. (Humans also crave warmth, freedom from interference by other humans, and freedom from hunger, no matter how the hunger is satisified. The Eskimos chose to tolerate lack of starches and cold in order to get the freedom and other humans and abundant non-starchy food. Note that as soon as Eskimos could, they started consuming imported carbs, even though these imported carbs are quite expensive for them, and now they have as much obesity as everyone else.)

However, stoically accepting no carbs as the consequence of making a rational tradeoff decision is not the same as denying yourself carbs for no good reason Pointless denial fills people with rage. Fruitarians are the best example of the relationship between pointless self-denial (pointless self-denial of protein in this case) and rage, since they are some of the most raged-filled people on the planet. The low-carbers are another example, especially the low-carbers who combine dietary deprivation with pointlessly painful exercise regimes, such as Fred Hahn and others like him. (These painful exercise regimes are pointless because they are not related to true health, but rather to superficial measures of health like bulging body-builder muscles.)

The basic blindspot with the low-carb cult is they don't admit that denying oneself carbs requires WILLPOWER, yet they decry the eat less and move more theory because it requires WILLPOWER. The fact that the eat less and move more people are less rage-filled than the low-carb people should tell you which group is engaged in greater self-denial and thus using more of our precious and limited capacity for WILLPOWER.
bentleyj74 said…
OK, all joking aside the inability to differentiate between blame and responsibility leads to "shirking" responsibility and blaming food [good foods/bad foods], metabolism, other people, big pharma/ag etc and so forth.

I have actually never met a very overweight person who really was just fat and happy or lazy or "insert stereotype here". What I have seen in a lot of people were perfectionists who were intensely critical of themselves and approval seeking of others whose relationships with food and other forms of reward and even their means of motivation and soothing were complicated and had a lot of self abuse involved.
bentleyj74 said…
I think I at least partially agree with you frank. I think it is taking a lot of effort for people to uphold dietary regimes of any sort and that might contribute to some emotional fragility [it would do it to me for sure] but I think it's also relevant that they engage with these practices because they believe/perceive that it is either necessary or somehow "right" and that if it isn't doing what it promised it's a result of being "not perfect" or having that single bite of potato or whatever. All protests to the contrary the framing of the diet requires moralizing and categorizing choices as either right and good or wrong and bad. I think the reductionist thinking involved in nutritionism plays a role in failing to recognize the role that food does play in our lives other than to refuel the tank.
fr said…
Just to clarify. I don't think paying attention to diet is neurotic, and I pay attention to my diet. (I'm of the eat less, move more persuasion.) There is a fundamental conflict between 4 basic humans desires: (a) be attractive to the opposite sex and have high social status; (b) be physically healthy; (c) eat a lot; (d) avoid exercise. The first desire is socialized and can be changed to some extent, but the other 3 desires are firmly rooted in our genes. So to be happy, you have to come to some sort of compromise, since you can't solve all the desire simultaneously. Everyone has to find their own compromise. I'm a man and my natural physique is lean, so as long as I'm tending towards physical health, I also satisfy the social desires (attractive-looking). Thus all I have to do is work on controlling how much I eat and designing a lifestyle so that I naturally move more (I do this by walking rather than using a car). But I think there are lots of people, especially women, for whom perfect physical health means being a lot plumper than what society currently considers attractive. For these people, the compromise is going to be much more difficult, since the body will rebel ferociously if denied physical health and the conditioned mind will rebel ferociously if denied social status and attractiveness to the opposite sex. Regardless of what your natural body type is, you'll know you're on the wrong track if the compromise you make between these 4 desires results in rage, and conversely on the right track if it results in serenity. I don't see a lot of meat-eating Crossfit or Fred Hahn HIT® high-intensity-training types tending towards serenity.
bentleyj74 said…
"I don't think paying attention to diet is neurotic, and I pay attention to my diet."

Right, likewise...and I do think there are overweight people who became so passively that will resolve it simply by exercising more attention to their diet. Very overweight people who struggle for years are not these people.

"There is a fundamental conflict between 4 basic humans desires: (a) be attractive to the opposite sex and have high social status; (b) be physically healthy; (c) eat a lot; (d) avoid exercise. The first desire is socialized and can be changed to some extent, but the other 3 desires are firmly rooted in our genes."

You could reduce that to seek pleasure and avoid'd be over simplistic but no more than it already is. People dealing with behavioral pathology often mix pain and pleasure in unhealthy ways.

"But I think there are lots of people, especially women, for whom perfect physical health means being a lot plumper than what society currently considers attractive."

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. The markers of physical health are pretty reliably considered attractive. I am a woman and I'm not aware of any such compromise.
Sanjeev said…
> Everyone who disagrees just doesn't understand.

I've been accused a bunch of times of not having read GC,BC.
Despite copying and pasting exact text, despite posting links to an Amazon preview page and documenting the deception.

IMHO we now need a batman decoder ring ... "you coudn't have read it" means "you managed to stay awake long enough through the hypnotic drone not to be brainwashed"

> "maximize buy-in"
Like I've written before, Sisson's the best marketer / "brander" in the paleo world.

Anthony missed a golden opportunity
> Stop getting angry over the fact your metabolic advantage beliefs have been repeatedly shat all over

... greasy turds included ...

> does not present any personal blood work, muscle biopsy results, or calorimetry data to document the existence of this defect.

> That’s because it does not exist.

C'mon Anthony, it sure do. Even been named[0] ... the nonesuch.

> But for God's sake there's KIDS involved.

Before high fat dieting became as dogmatic as it is now, folks like Mauro DiPasquale, who advocated cyclic ketogenic diets[1] repeatedly warned readers not to put kids on his diets.

[0] Like Dibbler's sausages inna bun ... full of named meats, names like "spot", "spuds mckenzie", "black beauty" and "morris the c*t".

[1] DISTANTLY related to Lyle's UD2, but where Lyle strictly limits calories and dietary fat Dr. D. didn't, and while some claimed success, many gained a lot of fat on Dr. D's diet
Anonymous said…
You can't read an article anywhere without some troll coming forth with "not true, read GCBC or anything by Taubes, and then, you too, will understand how you're doing it all WRONG" I just roll my eyes. In my N=1, eat less move more worked, though it was (is) not as easy as it sounds, but still, anyone, be it a low-carber or fat accepter, who tells me that it's inane and NEVER works for anyone, well it worked for me.

BTW, I'm usually really good at reading people, and when Taubes spoke nearby a few weeks back, I didn't get the impression that he sincerely believes what he's saying. I hate physics, but have taken enough of it to know that a physics major knows better. I mostly just went to see who are these people who worship him, but I couldn't get a feel for what he really believes.
Anonymous said…
Yes, the Weston A. Price folks are pro-grain, but favor sprouted. I wish I knew how much of a difference that makes!

I am still burned about the whole "stalker" thing. Not only outrageous, but sexist, too, if you ask me.

And WOW! Unreal that JM changed a comment! That is off the rails.
@justjuliebean "I couldn't get a feel for what he really believes" IMO he believes in (1) $$$ - of which there's probably a lot more of telling people the "one, true" answer to how to lose weight than writing about fusion; and (2), as you point out, being worshipped.

Actually his whole schtick reminds me of that Robert Crumb character Mr. Natural who runs around with a Santa Claus beard and robe-thing but HATES hippies. The hippies however love him & venerate him as a guru. They follow him & clamor for the answers to the Big Questions. Mr. Natural spends most of his time either trying to make money off them or running away from them & trying to shake them.
CarbSane said…
Welcome to the Asylum Frank (I do believe you are a different Frank than has posted here before!). Very interesting observations and I tend to agree. Attention to diet, as with any behavior, is not necessarily neurotic, but it can be ... and often it's a fine line. I was never obsessed with food until I went on a crash diet in HS. From then on for many years I was calorie obsessed (though not fat obsessed other than that fat calories add up fast). It's scary how easily that happened and how long it took to break from.

Not to answer for you, but to Bentley, I think what Frank means about women's healthy weight being more than societal norms dictate, this is probably true. When I weighed 105-110 lbs my thighs still were not thin -- there was no JLo, Beyonce, Fergie, etc. back then. I lost my period for several months and do not know if I would have regained it naturally for quite a while longer (put on BC pills for cycles). Women are not intended to carry single digit body fat.
bentleyj74 said…

Did society tell you that you weren't acceptable because your thighs were a dominant feature or did you tell yourself that?

Our societal norms dictate that women should have a lean waist with visible waist/hip ratio and round fleshy boobs and butt. Women with single digit body fat would not fit the societal norm. I think every woman has a trait she'd like to exchange for a refund because no one gets a slam dunk. People whose job it is to work on camera know it is easier to put on a padded bra than it is to take off the fat suit but the silhouette they are going for is still predictable.

We are [weirdly?] resistant to acknowledge to ourselves that the person with the long lean thighs probably also has a flat chest because we seem to WANT to believe that perfection is achievable in biologically imperfect beings then indulge in some self beating for falling short of it.

110 is the UPPER weight range for me in terms of body fat before I start to look a little blurry unless I'm carrying a lot of muscle in proportion to fat and throw 10 or 20 pounds on top of that and my cycles will start to get wonky. My husband is always in the upper range of the bmi charts even when he is shredded lean because he carries a lot of muscle and just seems...denser than average. For him to be lower weight he starts to look shrink wrapped and people start to comment that he's too thin even if he's technically heavier than average for his height. He's working with a friend who has spent his life as a tall underdeveloped very thin person who is extremely self conscious and actually used to believe he "can't" gain muscle and felt doomed to be an undesirable male. Lo and behold weight lifting produces muscles even in people who are genetically predetermined to be smaller than my viking. Every person has a more or less optimal range that is individual to them and only generally accounted for by standardized charts. People are generally at their most attractive when they are flexibly within that optimal range imo. The rest is smoke and mirrors and I'm not knocking as I love to play with them both :)
CarbSane said…
Sprouting grains (something Mom did with lentils at home and purchased sprouted grain bread) converts some starch to undigestible structural carb (e.g. fiber) and the proteins produced are better quality.

Yes, the stalker thing was truly outrageous. It amazes me that more women in the LC community put up with some truly bad sexist behavior from their male "friends" ... is the ideology that compelling that they are willing to accept it? Apparently! I haven't spent most of my life in male-dominated fields -- though that's changing, they were more male dominated when Taubes, Naughton & Eades started out -- to recognize it. In his interview with Jimmy Taubes made it a point to identify me as an anonymous "female" blogger. I doubt highly my gender would have entered into it were I male.

Lastly, yes ... and an awful lot of LC'ers who were around at the time have given him a pass since he "came clean". Only there have been reports of it being done again more recently. Not sure what platform he uses, but since he claims to this day to post all comments that aren't blatantly derogatory (FALSE!), I tend to believe reports by those who say he's up to his old tricks. I'm surprised such platforms exist for comments that wouldn't at least give notice that editing was done. Pretty sleazy to use the option if it's available if you ask me.
CarbSane said…
It was both. Summer before my senior year in high school I wore a 32B, small tops and size 11 jeans (sometimes 13's), weighed 139 at my highest if memory serves. Now take into account size inflation and Jrs sizing and I was quite a bit smaller then than I am now in size 10's. I was carrying at most 15 lbs "extra" fat weight. If you saw me from the hips up you would probably have described me as normal or even underweight. However, I had the "saddle bags" and my friends and Cheryl Tiegs did not. Coaches said I needed to lose weight, I got teased about my big butt, Misty May ass hanging out of bathing suits (and gymnastics leotards) wasn't yet in vogue. "Society" told me because from about the age of 13, clothing didn't fit me no matter the size, but it was far worse when I carried any extra weight. "Baggy" jeans were my savior ... they fit me right.

Now when I starved myself down to the 110 (and it got as low as 105 at times) I started to get a TON of attention from guys despite losing some boobage, but some of the legs remained. I didn't have big hips, it was lower down. I was pretty emaciated looking on top although I still had my arm muscles so it was mostly when I was in shirts that showed my chest or bathing suits that the bones (ribs and hip) were sticking out in an almost-anorexic fashion.

Here was where I came in, because (a) I still thought I was fat (and it probably didn't help that I would complain to my BF who assured me I wasn't b/c if I was he wouldn't be with me) and (b) I could not appreciate men appreciating my curves when the models still had none. The closest I can think to my case was Paula Abdul ... and when I read magazines it was always her workouts to keep from looking too fat and such.

It's bizarre to me these days. I'm heavier but I fit society's norms better these days apparently. I get a lot of male attention from young and old. I tend to think it's two things (1) butts are back *in*, and (2) somehow the boobs have stayed this time and I'm finally in proportion or even top-heavy ;) It's part of my own balancing act these days. The only reason I feel any "need" to lose much more is to give the joints a break. For vanity, maybe a bit, but then I have to deal with looking a bit older (unlike Nigella, I stretched things past the bounce back point).
CarbSane said…
You just crack me up sometimes Sanjeev! Thanks :-)

I think that those boldly raising their kids on VLC diets should be held to their own standards of responsibility. Their children may grow up thin, but it will remain to be seen what that sets them up for in adulthood when they may well choose not to continue that lifestyle. Are they going to blame their offspring when they become obese if KD depressed their metabolic rate during development? Or when they didn't get fatter but got fattier during childhood? I'm not saying this will happen, but unless you're of Inuit stock or similar, looking to those isolated cultures to justify eating massive amounts of animal fats that in no way resemble the fats these cultures even ate, doing so is at least fair game to scrutinize.
Anonymous said…
Better quality proteins? In sprouted wheat, is the gluten changed?

Didn't one of GT's flying monkeys call you a "chick"?
TWJS said…
The 'stalker' part of Jimmy's interview didn't bother me nearly as much as the 'twisted', 'confused' and 'obsessed' part did. (Taubes replies to his...) That's hardly the tenor our most trusted investigative journalist should take in response to conflicting scientific inquiry, is it?
MM said…
Glad you finally called out FatHead! He jumped on the "CarbSane is insane" bandwagon way too quickly in my opinion. I doubt he even visited your blog first, or ever really.
CarbSane said…
How dare you use a $ FTD!!! I think Taubes has repeated his schtick enough times now that he probably "believes it" -- as in I think if you asked him if about his hypothesis while wired to a polygraph, he'd probably pass. It's the truth to him. I imagine sometime when the money from that huge advance was running out, Taubes had doubts about the whole thing. He had to if he is as smart as everybody says he is but the advance was all gone.

From there I think it's way more about adulation and some sort of paradream of changing the world and perpetual fame and recognition for it. Somehow I don't think he'll have to worry as much about funding his kid's education as he likes to mention given who his wife is.
Galina L. said…
Just for the records, I am the one who raised my child on a high-fat but not LC diet with limited sugar, no snacks, chips and candies. I was not practicing any particular diet then, it was my way to fight his extreme finickiness. He would eat only snacks, candies if we had it at home, the only way to move him into the direction of normal food was to have nothing else at home but the food you have to cook before eating, and give him that without offering anything in-between. He used to eat veggies only cooked with big amount of butter, or with cream-cheese with garlic, baked with cheese, fresh ones drenched in a Ranch sauce, no milk but sour-cream with a spoon. He also liked meat. Sure, I gave him bread, rice, potatoes, buckwheat, he refused all fruits but kiwis. He grew-up thin, with no cavities, with natural preference for non-sweet food. A strong willed child is a challenge and no picnic. He also used to think it was wise to use all his creativity on avoiding doing homework. I am just happy and relieved he is 19 now, going to university(double-major chemistry-physics) and now he is his own responsibility.
From what I read in Tom's blog, his girls and wife are not on a LC diet, they don't eat grains and sweets, but fruits and starchy veggies.
CarbSane said…
For the record I wasn't mentioning anyone in particular though I do have a prominent name or two in mind. There have been women going VLC during pregnancy and I see almost nothing but encouragement for it on the boards when there are some clear cautions that should be heeded. The fetus' metabolism is highly glucose dependent, which is almost surely why IR is a normal part of pregnancy (glucose sparing for the fetus) that can go awry (gestational diabetes) in the susceptible. Forcing the liver even more to increase endogenous glucose production -- whether it's doing so well or over-doing it (hyperglycemia) -- does not seem like a good strategy, and glucose deprivation paradoxically favors fat deposition.
CarbSane said…
Yes TWJS, it was the whole of it put together, and you have to hear the confyooooosed, "a person like that", etc. that really was inexcusable. Every time I think about it, WTF does he think he is anyway when I was an obscure anonymous blogger in early 2010. Freddie comes over here to put me in my place for daring to question Taubes intellectual integrity after finding the glyceroneogenesis paper in his GCBC references and tries to start an email circlejerk with Taubes. All GT had to do was post an answer to the open question or clarify "it was mostly rat studies" (which was his ultimate excuse) and be done. But rather THROUGH FRED, he suggests I should call him on the telephone to discuss this? WHAT? And then with the email exchange he changes the rules midstream because HE wanted control over what part of our discussion of the issues (I really don't give a flying flip about his personal life, and neither should he give one about mine). Again WTF? Why should he get to decide what is pertinent or not or what that he says I'm clear to convey to my readers.
CarbSane said…
Especially when I was rather generous towards him in his installment of Insulin Wars. Nah ... he couldn't be bothered to read it and didn't want to send any traffic my way by responding.

What are these folks so afraid of? If the facts are on your side, you have nothing to fear from your readers being exposed to other opinions.
CarbSane said…
From Wiki: “Sprouting grains causes increased activities of hydrolytic enzymes, improvements in the contents of total proteins, fat, certain essential amino acids, total sugars, B-group vitamins, and a decrease in dry matter, starch and anti-nutrients. The increased contents of protein, fat, fibre and total ash are only apparent and attributable to the disappearance of starch. However, improvements in amino acid composition, B-group vitamins, sugars, protein and starch digestibilities, and decrease in phytates and protease inhibitors are the metabolic effects of the sprouting process.”
Galina L. said…
Probably, with pregnancy it depends on the situation.I remember having really swollen legs at the end and spending couple weeks in a hospital with pre-eclampcia. My guess, at that stage carb-limitation could work. I was put buy my doctor on a low-salt diet and limited water without much success.
Diet affects body to great degree, and should not be changed based on ideology without taking physiology into consideration first. There is a lot of disagreement now, but it is great all that raised an awareness of the importance of what we eat.
*sigh* sadly I think you're right about GT & the polygraph. I've thought a lot about why the JMs/JKs, Fatheads, Captain Girdle (even Weston Price from that link you posted) have continued to dig in their heels when it comes to demonizing insulin & venerating TWICHOO - and I can't help but wonder if it has something to do with our very American brand of religulous fanaticism. I mean there's the whole JK "I doctored a comment...sackcloth!...ashes!" nonsense, and b/c people love a schmoo who falls low & is then redeemed, he got a total Hallpass on that one.

And the fact the LC ringleaders all hammer the "gluttony & sloth" angle repeatedly, denying it so often & so loudly that it says to me it means just the opposite: they know somewhere inside they're really overeating to a great degree (a seven sin, so therefore a biblical one) and using the excuse of cardio being harmful somehow to avoid it & feel good about being a slug (another of the Seven) so it fits into this cycle of sin/repentance, sin/repentance, sin/repentance.

And then you come along and have the AUDACITY, you cheeky thing, you - and even worse, you're a woman - to explain why & how the actual facts according to actual science just ain't actually adding up. I'm mean cutting back on calories proves that diabetics' beta cells might not be dead, after all?? Please, everyone knows calories don't count, it's all about the "broken metabolism" and "faulty mitochondria"- which are much more glamorous, sciencey-sounding excuses to never have to observe portion sizes or get your sweat on. It's like a Monty Python skit: you keep explaining that no, the world is flat while these girdle-wearing, jowly males keep jumping up and down in place, sticking their fingers in their ears shouting "lalalalalala I can't HEAR you! So there!"

And then their followers do what any good religulously-minded mobs tend to enjoy: a good witch hunt, where they immediately call you names and try to tar & feather you, if not burn you at the stake.

What a sinking ship of fat, jowly fools.
duh, I meant to write the world ISN'T flat
bentleyj74 said…
"However, I had the "saddle bags" and my friends and Cheryl Tiegs did not. Coaches said I needed to lose weight, I got teased about my big butt, Misty May ass hanging out of bathing suits (and gymnastics leotards) wasn't yet in vogue. "Society" told me because from about the age of 13, clothing didn't fit me no matter the size, but it was far worse when I carried any extra weight. "Baggy" jeans were my savior ... they fit me right."

You see how it goes straight to the negatives though right? Clothes didn't fit me either. I "had" to buy designer jeans in order to get the waist and length to cooperate. Forget about t-shirt fits. Where was Aeropostale when I was a teenager?! Son of a bee sting I would have killed for some of those nice soft semi fitted cotton shirts.

But oh was all short and wide and boxy guaranteed to hit me just wrong in all the wrong places. My bff of course could walk into any store and buy something right off the rack despite being roughly 30 pounds overweight even as a teenager in part because of that fortunate hourglass shape which also afforded her a tummy so flat you could bounce a quarter off it. She hated her legs and still does. She might hate her "safely anonymous" appearance more than just about anything never pausing to consider the benefits.

The grass is always greener and women especially tend to be cruel towards each other. Having a body that belonged in a bikini on the cover of a magazine didn't stop me from being filled with self loathing in the ego centric manner of children when someone reacted negatively to me. I'm almost positive that some of my boyfriends mothers disliked me because they found MY mother too threatening to go after directly. I took it personally of course...especially adrift as I was in an ocean of voluptuous dutch blondes at the time and reeling from the culture shock. I was a bit glad actually at the very beginning of my weight gain because I thought...maybe...finally I'd just look like "everyone else" too without counting the cost or being realistic about the outcomes [immediate and extended].
Leila said…
I deleted LLVLC from my bookmarks on the day Jimmy (what sort of degree does he have anyway? Oh yeah, none!) attacked Dr. Paul Jaminet, PhD. I was going to sign up for the Paleo Summit, but I see he's doing a presentation on "How To Break Out Of The Grips Of Morbid Obesity And Embrace Healthy Living For Life."

On the other hand, they do say the best way to learn how to do something is to teach it.....