Is it Possible? "Smarter Science" worse than "Good" Science Journalism?

I'm really disgusted folks.  I'm sorry, but I get a whole heckuhlot of criticism for checking the references of one Gary Taubes.  I must be some obsessed, hermit crab stalker type to spend my time and a few dollars to actually look into what he says his references say, vs. what they actually say.  Nah, rather that I just accept what he says at face value.  Taubes' misuse of the Pima as an example of his carbs-make-you-fat-and-diabetic garbage is one where you don't even need to try to understand the science.  He flat out misrepresents this "poster population" for his hypothesis to have people believe their's was a lower carbohydrate diet back when.  But, in fact, it was far higher in carbohydrate than the SAD, to the tune of 80+%.  Still ... no program has approved GCBC for their curricula to the best of my knowledge.

Well, Jonathan Bailor is giving The Master a run for his money when it comes to misinterpreting/misrepresenting studies in his Smarter Science of Slim book.  Only since Taubes explicitly avoided modern peer review research, while Bailor likens his "research" to meta-analysis of same, Bailor is far more insidious.  Even as a "review" of the research it is turning out to be horribly misleading and inaccurate time and again.  How then did this happen?
Endorsed by the world-wide scientific community including top doctors at the Harvard Medical School, Johns Hopkins, and UCLA, and approved as curriculum for registered dieticians (RDs) by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
I've already discussed how his highlighted study -- comparing his "Smarter" eat-more-move-less approach to the conventional ELMM "Harder" plan -- distorted the truth.  The Smarter group ate less and moved more than at baseline (albeit moved less than the conventional cardio group), and ate comparable calories to the Harder group.  Not to mention their diet was low fat (20%) and 40% each carb and protein.  But now in a guest post on Mark's Daily Apple, Bailor has highlighted another study he misrepresents.  He writes:
... My research confirms this by digging into the endocrine and neurological signals of the metabolic regulatory system that control how much we eat, how many calories we burn, and how much body fat we store. It also shows that when we “eat poisonous things,” this system gets clogged up and begins to regulate us around a higher set-point weight. Thus, long-term fat loss has nothing to do with counting calories and everything to do with restoring our body’s natural ability to regulate our weight appropriately.
Consider a study done at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, Arizona. Researchers examined both heavy and thin people to see how their metabolism behaved when they were given no calories. As expected, everyone’s system slowed down and everyone burned body fat, but here’s the kicker: Thin people burned off nearly 50% more body fat than heavy people.
Think about that for a second. Despite having more body fat, the heavy people burned less body fat. In the words of the researchers, “Obese patients could not take advantage of their most abundant fat fuel sources but have to depend on the efficient use of…the breakdown products of body protein [muscle].”
The heavy people needed to burn body fat, but did not burn body fat effectively. This is just one of many clinical examples of losing our natural ability to regulate weight appropriately. The researchers put the problem like this: “Profound metabolic disturbances exist in the obese state that constantly interfere with normal hormonal responses [the ability to burn body fat].”
Now it sounds like the St. Joseph's study was a weight loss study, right?  Where they fasted a bunch of obese and lean people for several days at least to ascertain how they partitioned which tissues they catabolized as they lost weight.   Well, not really so much.  This study is:  Obesity and the metabolic response to severe multiple trauma in man.  Severe multiple trauma??  

In the obese state profound metabolic disturbances exist and it is not known how this disrupted metabolism in obese subjects (body mass index > 30) may change their ability to respond to the superimposed, injury-induced stress. Understanding the mechanisms that modify the metabolic parameters in traumatized obese patients is essential in their nutritional assessment and further treatment. We have investigated in 7 obese and 10 nonobese multiple trauma patients, on a whole-body level, the energy metabolism, protein kinetics, and lipolysis in the early catabolic "flow phase" of severe injury when they were receiving maintenance fluids without calories or nitrogen. Traumatized obese patients mobilized relatively more protein and less fat compared with nonobese subjects. A relative block both in lipolysis and fat oxidation is experienced by injured obese patients that results in a shift to preferential use of proteins and carbohydrates. Reduced endogenous protein synthetic efficiency observed in obese patients implies increased protein recycling. Thus obese patients could not effectively use their most abundant fat fuel sources and have to depend on other fuel sources. The nutritional management of obese trauma victims should therefore be tailored towards provision of enough glucose calories to spare protein.
Major features of the posttraumatic response include enhanced metabolic rate, accelerated net protein breakdown, alterations of lipid and carbohydrate metabolism with associated changes in hormonal environment. The magnitude of these metabolic responses depends partly on the severity of injury and partly on the preinjury status of the patient.  .... Mobilization of protein sources is apparently accelerated mainly to provide substrates for the synthesis of glucose in the obese trauma victim.
C'mon!  Yes, this is interesting and of importance of treating obese victims of traumatic injury.  Given their dependence on carbohydrate in the post-trauma state, glucose is recommended as a supplement to prevent excessive protein breakdown.  But for Bailor to extrapolate this study -- subjects 2-4 days post traumatic injury, stabilized on non-caloric fluids and on ventilators --  and even insinuate it is somehow relevant to long term significant weight loss is deceptive.  For what reason??  To convince obese people that if they eat less they'll just break down their muscles anyway?   I would note that he's so into the "eating less slows your metabolism" meme he apparently makes up that all subjects metabolisms slowed, despite the blue highlighted statement (above) that leads off the Discussion section of the paper.  

He's even a bit more misleading, IMO, in the book (pardon the repetition).
More importantly, the need to burn body fat does not mean body fat is burned. If you are clogged, the need to burn body fat is not enough. Your fat metabolism system does not have the ability to burn body fat, and you do not burn body fat efficiently. From researcher J.M. Friedman at the Rockefeller University: “The implication is that something metabolically different about [overweight] individuals results in obesity independent of their caloric intake.” [22] Consider a study done at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, Arizona. Researchers examined both heavy and thin people to see how their fat metabolism systems behaved when they were given no calories. As expected, everyone’s system slowed down. Because these people were on zero-calorie diets, everyone burned body fat, but here’s the kicker. Thin people burned off nearly 50% more body fat than heavy people.{22}[23] 
same graphic 
Think about that for a second. Despite having more body fat, the heavy people burned less body fat.  In the words of the researchers, “…obese patients could not take advantage of their most abundant fat fuel sources but have to depend on the efficient use of…the breakdown products of body protein [muscle].”{23} [23] 
That finding is depressing. The heavy people burned what relatively little muscle tissue they had rather than burning the excess body fat they were drowning in. They needed to burn body fat, but did not burn body fat effectively. This is where the idea of a clog comes into play. The researchers put the problem like this: “Profound metabolic disturbances [clogs] exist in the obese state that constantly interfere with normal hormonal responses [the ability to burn body fat].” [23]  As long as you and I are clogged, our ability to burn body fat will be severely compromised.{24} 
Note the blue numbers in {} are how Bailor references this portion of his text.  The red [ ] are how it should be referenced.  What is reference 24?  As he does quite often, it's is a number of references presented as follows:    {24} A sampling of supporting research:
- Goldberg M, Gordon E. Energy Metabolism In Human Obesity. Plasma Free Fatty Acid, Glucose, And Glycerol Response To Epinephrine. JAMA. 1964 Aug 24;189:616-23. PubMed PMID: 14162576.
- E.A. Newsholme and C. Start. Regulation of Metabolism. 173 ISBN: 0471635308
- Frayn, K. N. Metabolic Regulation: a Human Perspective. London: Portland, 1996. Print.
Note to Bailor:   textbooks are not "research".  I have both of these books, not because they are easy to come by, or up-to-date seminal texts, but because they are cited by Taubes in GCBC.  What ... not even a chapter number, let alone page numbers?   When I learned how to reference term papers in junior high school, they were pretty specific that you provide page numbers (this was back before different electronic versions can make it almost impossible depending on the format, so in this day and age chapters may be more practical).  To assert that these two books support his "clog" theories is absurd on its face.  I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that Bailor has never even seen a copy of Newsholme & Start.  And what's with referencing the 1996 version of Frayn's book in a 2012 publication?  Frayn came out with an updated version in 2010.  Why not just cite GCBC?

As to Goldberg and Gordon (you can download full PDF at that link):  1964!  This is almost half a century old.  This is anyone's idea of "thorough research", how?  
ABNORMALLY HIGH fasting levels of plasma free fatty acids (FFA) and decreased responsiveness of this lipid fraction to various lipolytic stimuli in obese humans and animals have now been documented by several investigators.1-5 Whether such alterations in FFA metabolism relate to obesity as cause or effect, however, remains speculative.
We have previously reported the failure of the plasma FFA to rise significantly during periods of prolonged fasting in certain patients with longstanding, therapeutically resistant obesity.1 In contrast, a normal FFA response to fasting has been observed in patients whose obesity seems clearly the result of compulsive overeating.
In the present investigation, the plasma FFA response to the more potent lipid-mobilizing action of epinephrine is compared in obese subjects and normal weight controls in two separate experiments: an initial study in which plasma FFA and glucose levels were determined before and 30 minutes after epinephrine administration, and a subsequent (cut off here)
This study also looked at the response to epinephrine, although there is some evidence presented that obese respond to mobilizing fatty acids when needed more poorly in general.    But here I thought insulin was the bad guy in the hormonal clog?!   I ask again:  How does something like this get accepted for use in RD training?  Tis interesting that in 1964 they were still asking a lot of questions -- the presumed answers to which one might find in the four plus decades of peer reviewed inquiry into.  One such ambiguity caught my eye (wonder why - grin):
The finding of an abnormally elevated FFA/glycerol molar ratio therefore suggests either a relative inability to oxidize FFA at the peripheral level, or alternately, failure to re-esterify FFA due to insufficient supplies of a-glycerophosphate.
The sort of misrepresentations Bailor makes undermine his credibility.  A little later in the book he states emphatically (under a quote from the evil anti-Taubes George Bray)
Eating less does not create the need to burn body fat. It creates the need for the body to slow down.  Contrary to popular opinion, the body hangs on to body fat. Instead, it burns muscle tissue, and that worsens the clog problem. Only as a last resort, if the body has no other option, it may also burn a bit of body fat.{48}
Now, there are actually 14 separate papers in reference 48, which represent again a "sampling of the research" ...  Bailor has gone out of his way to obscure his sources and employed another Taubesian tactic:  List lots of references, hope readers confuse quantity with thoroughness or exhaustive or comprehensive research, make it difficult/time consuming for anyone to fact check.  This is NOT an academic work, but it is being lauded as one.
Why does the body hang on to body fat and burn muscle? To answer that question, let’s look at it another way. What does our fat metabolism system want more of when it thinks we are starving?  Stored energy. What is a great source of stored energy? Body fat. So when our fat metabolism system thinks we are starving, does it want to get rid of or hold on to body fat? It wants to hold on. Next, what does our fat metabolism system want less of when we are starving?  It wants less tissue which burns a lot of calories. What type of tissue burns a lot of calories? Muscle tissue. So when our fat metabolism system thinks we are starving, it gets rid of calorie-hungry muscle tissue.   Studies show that up to 70% of the weight lost while eating less comes from burning muscle—not body fat.{49}
Reference 49 is another dozen studies --  well including yet another text, this time the 1966 3rd Edition of the classic Textbook of Medical Physiology by Guyton.  I've not seen anywhere near 70% lean losses in any of the hundreds of studies I've actually read where body composition was examined.  Ahh, but speaking of Guyton, I'm looking at page 905 of my 6th Edition from my college days and wondering why someone who was probably born around the time of publication (1981) would be citing a 1966 edition.  This tells me he just gathered citations, but didn't actually read any of them.  The graph at right is from p. 874 of the 2006 11th Edition ... seems our intrepid researcher never read Guyton?   It's the exact graphic from my 1981 hardcopy, just snazzed up a bit (in mine it's Figure 73-2).  

I'm sorry, this just compounds my disillusion with what passes for "science-based" nutritional advice.  Forget that Bailor's plan is hardly the "mild ketosis" "fat burning beast" schtick Mark Sisson has revamped his franchise into selling.  Why, WHy, WHY do these people need to resort to this shit?  Shit it is and I won't hold my tongue.

I plan to do at least one more installment on Jonathan Bailor's mangling of science for fun and profit, because he resurrects the whole G3P and fat and insulin crap, and this is just unacceptable in this day and age.  It's one thing for a science journalist to cling with his fingernails to a failed hypothesis that should never have been, it's quite another for a young up-and-comer to put forth this GARBAGE as scientific proof and "fact".


ProudDaddy said…
On May 22nd, you might recall, I said the same thing. Of course, I didn't go into as much detail, partly because I couldn't and partly because it was just too darn aggravating!
Swede said…
Great job on this post. Reminds me of the mental gymnastics I had to go through in my low-carb days when friends and family would ask: "if carbs are so bad, why can so and so eat a lot of carbs but stay lean and healthy?"

Lyle McDonald made all of the exact same criticisms of Taubes. Using decades old research when there was plenty of newer stuff available that contradicted his assertions.
CarbSane said…
Yep :D That's where my clog reference came from the other day. :D:D This book is sickening.
Unknown said…
I'm going to one-up him, instead of using an entire textbook as a reference, in my book all references will be to "The Internet."

So it will be like

[24] The Internet
[25] The Internet
[26] The Internet

It will be one of the most exhaustively researched books ever published.
CarbSane said…
Thanks Swede! It's really extra special when a man who wasn't even born yet goes "first" to this in the advancement of science!
bentleyj74 said…
[27] Spirit Guide
Sandy Daigler said…
The process explained to me by my doctor was that a low carb, high protein diet induced weight loss because 1)it induced ketosis which reduced hunger so I could stay on the diet more easily, and 2)it provided protein for my body to burn so it didn't burn its own protein (ie, my muscles) but burned only fat instead. The diet I was on was very low fat as well. I have to say it worked for weight loss, but I was advised to eat more carbs and less protein when I got into maintenance. I've really struggled with eating more carbs (by which I mean bread, pasta, potatoes, etc.) because they seem to promote weight gain. That's my experience and believe me I'm no scientist. I've settled at a moderate level of carb consumption that I don't think would be classified as very low carb, but still low compared to the average diet. I'm just trying to wrap my head around what you're saying vs. my experience.
CarbSane said…
Sandy, what you say in point 1 is exactly what the "science" says -- although the appetite suppressive properties of ketones are apparently quite variable in studies that survey "feelings". Long term low carb the ketones do subside and why such drastic measures as the very high fat low carb&pro diets are required.

Point 2 is also correct, but here Bailor is right, IMO, that protein is the prime satiety macro. ALL weight loss will involve some lean mass (as it probably should, at least at some point, because all weight gain is not fat mass either), but higher protein diets and resistance exercise seem to fare better. Why not market that without all the BS??

Hmmm... I don't get why eat more carbs and less protein in maintenance unless you were eating super high protein. Unless you have kidney issues, protein isn't a problem. I eat more carbs these days but watch the "dust" carbs -- by that I mean there's something to the caloric absorption etc. of pulverized starch carbs, wholegrain or not. I was surprised, frankly, what with all the horror stories about cravings and such that eating rice, potatoes and the occasional dust-food that this didn't happen.

If the "haters" ;) didn't know who it was when they saw a week's sampling of how I eat, they would probably still describe my diet as low carb -- grin!
CarbSane said…

Or ... combined with Unknown, I suppose it's the Internet Spirit Guide!
Unknown said…
Protein = 4 calories per gram, Carbohydrate = 4 calories per gram, Fat = 9 calories per gram - Right or wrong??
Discrepancy between the Atwater factor predicted and empirically measured energy values of almonds in human diets

Results: The energy content of almonds in the human diet was found to be 4.6 ± 0.8 kcal/g, which is equivalent to 129 kcal/28-g serving. This is significantly less than the energy density of 6.0–6.1 kcal/g as determined by the Atwater factors, which is equivalent to an energy content of 168–170 kcal/serving. The Atwater factors, when applied to almonds, resulted in a 32% overestimation of their measured energy content.

Conclusion: This study provides evidence for the inaccuracies of the Atwater factors for certain applications and provides a rigorous method for determining empirically the energy value of individual foods within the context of a mixed diet.

Resulting data showed a 28-gram serving of almonds (about 23 almonds) has 129 calories versus the 160 calories currently listed on food package labels.

These significant results not only may lead people to choose almonds more often as a smart snack -- they may have implications for certain other foods as well.

In fact, the same research team also recently conducted a similar study using pistachios, finding a 5 per cent decrease in pistachios' calorie count compared to the 20 per cent decrease in almon
CarbSane said…
Atwater factors are so far from perfect. But one thing I notice is that they almost always end up overestimating for whole foods.

If one is going to use a calorie restricted approach, perhaps monotony in the diet can help as well -- less variability in actual calories vs. the label.
Anonymous said…
A calorie-restricted approach doesn't necessarily mean 'whole foods' (I guess you meant that whole foods don't have labels). I follow a calorie-restricted approach and LOVE processed prepared foods because I do so love those labels. It's already measured for me, and the label tells me what I want to know.

On the contrary, weighing a potato is just a damned nuisance. I'd just as soon nuke some mashed potatoes that the label tells me is x number of calories. Works like a dream.
Anonymous said…

Apparently, low-fat, high-fiber foods (fruits, vegetables and cereals) are also less caloric ('energy availability' is 'overestimated').
Unknown said…
Here's a reason for Jimmy to eat even more
garymar said…
[28] Akashic Records, page 123,436,980,480,238,900,982,982,291,334, 2nd para.

[29] PIOOMA (pulled it out...)
Unknown said…

Here are the 10 guidelines I’m following for my eggfest:

1. Must eat eggs as the primary source of fat and protein.
2. 1 tablespoon of butter (or other fat source) used per egg consumed.
3. I must eat an egg no later than 30 minutes after waking.
4. The egg meals ideally should be eaten every 3 hours, but not more than every 5 hours.
5. I will follow this schedule even if I’m not hungry (I’ll have 1 egg when that happens).
6. Cheese will be permitted up to one ounce per egg.
7. A minimum of a half-dozen eggs must be consumed daily.
8. The eggs will be local pastured eggs loaded with healthy omega-3 fats and Vitamin D.
9. Egg consumption will cease three hours before bedtime.
10. Diet soda will be allowed up to 3 cans daily with a goal of 1 or less.
Craig said…
Not to be gross, but take a look at your stool. If you eat nuts whole, you will likely see undigested chunks coming out the other end. Those represent calories that were not acquired by the body. Would be interesting to see what happens if you eat an equivalent weight of nut butter.
LeonRover said…
I had a look at that blogpost of Jimmy's.

He claims to be hyperinsulinemic - even severely so.

I do not see any readings posted of insulin levels, fasting or postprandial.

Was he at the level quoted in Evelyn's paper - median 104 pmol/l ?

Alas, Jimmy does not reveal, merely making a claim not supported by data.

By contrast, the nephrologist Jimmy interviews in his latest "show" is quite happy to provide his blood readings on blood-sugars etc.

Oh, Dear.

CarbSane said…
@euler, this is perhaps the bugaboo for the food purists about calorie counting -- it tends to encourage packaged foods with labels -- I think moreso in years past than now (food scales are both more accurate and cheaper now, and logging software/apps/sites abound). Now here you are, you rebel you - grin! - eating processed foods and being successful at it.

There was a study (I'm sure there are more than one) that showed you can eat more calories of whole foods because you digest/absorb less. Even steak vs. ground beef. But all ground beef is a crap shoot for calories as the % fat/lean is a guesstimate. However there is much much less variability in the fat content of a McD's burger, a Bubba burger or the ground beef I buy in the vac pacs at Trader Joes.

If someone is going to self-experiment with calories and whole foods, it makes sense to keep foods more consistent.

@Craig: Yeah it's kinda gross to think about it, but I think for most people, certain foods are a lot of "free" calories. Speaking of nuts, I tend to think a handful of almonds contains far less calories than an equivalent amount of blanched almond meal.
CarbSane said…
In 2008 Jimmy had an "OGTT" -- which was actually a glucose/insulin response test to a meal of 5 eggs w/cheese and a chicken breast. Neither his fasting insulin nor his pp insulin was inappropriate or the least bit hyperinsulinemic.
LeonRover said…
Seeing as Jimmy's insulin at 30 & 60 mins was 13.7 & 11.1 IU (respectively) vs.fasting insulins of 4.4 (0 mins) & 4.7 (5 hrs)

when performing a PROTEIN Tolerance Test, one can only conclude that that his GLUGAGON response was EXCELLENT.

Way to go, Jimmy!!!!

Sandy Daigler said…
I wasn't eating super high protein for weight loss, it was 12 ounces a day. In maintenance, the nutritionist recommended 9 ounces of protein a day. I think that was mostly a matter of accounting for the calories of the extra carbs that she wanted me to add in. The total calories she recommended I eat per day is around 1500, through I can eat up to 2000 if I'm exercising a lot that day.
12 oz/day is 100g of protein or so, which is not low or moderate protein intake for most.
Unknown said…
The road to becoming a Fat-Adapted Fat-Burning-Beast is strewn with eggs and butter. The Inuit are possibly the greatest natural athletes in the history of humanity [1], regularly running over 60 miles per day at a full sprint [2] and capable of lifting entire walruses over their heads [3], yet for over 6,000 years their diet consisted entirely of fat [4].

[1] The Internet
[2] The Internet
[3] The Internet
[4] The Internet


This has been a complimentary first paragraph of my forthcoming book, which will shake the very foundations of modern medicine.
Geoff 99 said…

"Once one realizes that weight loss is a matter of scientific fact…and NOT trendy diet opinion and corporate advertising hype…the process of losing weight and staying in shape becomes very intuitive and simple!"

or to paraphrase:

"Once one realizes that gasoline works at the molecular level…and NOT trendy gasoline opinion and corporate advertising hype…the process of driving becomes very intuitive and simple!"

Cherry picked science - check
Misrepresentation of scientific studies - check
Endorsement by people with important sounding names - check
Endorsement by William "Wheat Belly" Davis - check
Multiple 5 star reviews on Amazon - check
Glossy websites refuting conventional wisdom - check
Glossy YouTube videos with self-assured smiling presenter - check
Lots of numbers in brackets - [check]

The Grand Prix of Nutritional Science this year goes to ...
TCO348 said…
It is frustrating seeing this carb-insulin-fat storage-obesity thing being repackaged and peddled again. I'm glad you are tearing it down. Someone needs to do it.
Anonymous said…
The advantage to the processed foods is that I do believe the information on the label (a Lean Cuisine meal that has 250 calories) and portion size is controlled. (Jenny Craig, but cheaper!)
CarbSane said…
Exactly! When the Lean Cuisine's or other such items go on sale, they are CHEAP! $2 or less per meal. I've looked at the costs the Jenny and they are horrendous! Sometimes simplifying life is better than purifying it. Perhaps often times.
justprayin said…
lol, entire walruses, that is impressive :)
Please keep up the pressure, Evelyn. You are an essential BS-detector in the blogosphere.

BTW, I'd like to see some more take-downs of Richard "Free the Paunch" Nikoley. I know he doesn't claim to be a scientist, but he is selling a book and lately he's really getting on my nerves with his all-fat bread recipes and long rants against those who object to his unswerving faith in internet bloggers and distrust of any peer-reviewed research.

I mean really, are Denise Minger and Anthony Colpo going to determine how we interpret the China Study? It's crazy.
CarbSane said…
Eh ... if anyone looks to Nikoley for anything, it's their own problem. I've no desire to become the subject of further foul mouthed abusive rants by a man merely for pointing out that his story vis a vis Jack Kruse didn't add up. I can't worry over whether he thinks I add value to the discussions.

I'm profoundly disappointed that the AHS organizers remained committed to a 20 min speaking slot for this man. That is at odds with their mission:

The Ancestral Health Symposium is a scientific conference serving To foster collaboration among scientists, healthcare professionals as well as laypersons who study and communicate about health from an evolutionary perspective, in an effort to develop solutions to our modern health challenges.

The Ancestral Health Society is a nonprofit organization dedicated to educating healthcare professionals and laypersons on ancestral lifestyle dynamics. The society’s primary role is to host the Ancestral Health Symposium.

Yah, right. :(
CarbSane said…
Amazing ain't it? After this Westman told him he should eat higher fat and exercise portion control. Which do you think he listened to? His idea of higher fat was to ADD fat to any high protein food, thereby INCREASING portions!
CarbSane said…
It's so in yo' face too. Love the gasoline analogy ... so perfect, eh?!
Geoff 99 said…
"In yo' face" is a nice way of putting it. I'd be more inclined to say "In your head" :-)

I love the fact his video on the page referenced above is produced by a specialized media consulting firm - this stuff is polished and slick. And no harm in presenting self-evident facts to get customer "buy in" - that's standard procedure for the corporate hype merchants. If you don't have a relevant truth, just use any old truth - it builds credibility.

I now have this disturbing mental image of Gary T alone on a deserted street clutching a postcard of Fat Louisa, while on the other side of town the Barnum & Bailor 3 ring circus rolls into town.

Send in the clowns.
Lesley Scott said…
@Evelyn did you see this paper about the "acellular" carbs? I saw the link on Emily Deans's site.

Now the GT'ians can claim they were right all along, they just forgot to mention what they really meant to say was avoid acellular carbs (wheat flours & sugar) and eat the stuff containing organelles (like tubers & fruit) that naturally limit the amount of carbohydrate a particular food can contain. How much do you bet they're all over this particular "out"?
Unknown said…
But Fructose is bad - what will Lustig say??
Lesley Scott said…
@Charles G Lustig's too busy doing the D-list circuit, hobnobbing with various Baldwins & preaching on TV to notice. besides, what's a lil' truth in biochemistry when there are books to flog to the unsuspecting masses.

The Lustig phenom actually reminds me of an interview I read a while back now with Dana Carvey of SNL and Wayne & Garth fame. He said that you could put an orange on TV and people would magnetically throng around it because "'s the orange that was on TV". Now instead of TV, just substitute in a viral video (whether it's about the evils of sugar or even if you are in a chicken suit for Burger King...remember that chicken from a while back you could tell what to do that BK was behind), since you have a million+ views on YouTube, that's this decade's "as seen on TV" factor.
bentleyj74 said…
The fructose in fruit is silent, it's all been a mistake in grammar.
nthmost said…
Atkins recommended increasing carbs when at maintenance, so that's perhaps why the doctor recommended it. Unfortunately, Atkins did so because he didn't really understand the mechanisms by which carb consumption, even at a relatively low level, allows fat storage. So the stats are that Atkins adherents generally start getting fat again after they reach the 6-month mark -- right when Atkins has people start working carbs back into the diet.
James Krieger said…
he didn't really understand the mechanisms by which carb consumption, even at a relatively low level, allows fat storage.

Carb consumption only "allows" fat storage if you're overconsuming calories in general, just like excess fat consumption will "allow" fat storage and excess protein will "allow" fat storage.

So the stats are that Atkins adherents generally start getting fat again after they reach the 6-month mark

Every dietary system that I've ever seen, people start to regain around the 6-month mark. It's got nothing to do with carbs and everything to do with the fact that adherence to any type of "system" is difficult over the long run.
S SD said…

... and corn, etc. Makes me feel better about that "handful of almonds"
Anonymous said…
I am extremely impressed with your writing skills and
also with the layout on your weblog. Is this a
paid theme or did you customize it yourself? Either
way keep up the nice quality writing, it's rare to see a nice blog like this one today.

my blog - natural carb blocker
Anonymous said…
It seldom works with such longevity the other way round
- it is carried out responsibly, and kept specific, online therapy is low libido exhaustion one of
the largest websites for women over 45. Synthetic testosterone is given through the ears, then there are questions about potential
side-effects. The large British retired community again accounted for the majority of health low libido exhaustion care officials
and the media. Exercise can greatly enhance the male reproductive system.

My web site :: Sex Product For Women
Anonymous said…
Keep the container closed at all times. The other reason may be due to the simple fact is that our economy here in the USA is obesity.
To lose weight, change your exercise or Penis
Enlargement Gel goal and don't get discouraged, no matter where you are getting what you pay for not doing your research. A messy house can make penis enlargement gel your workout more effective and challenging. Make specific goals and decide how you will want to time your dosage so that you don't normally
do. Also, it can result in a messed up metabolism.

Feel free to surf to my web-site :: Penis enlargement Canada
Anonymous said…
Lagipun, semakin produk-produk tersebut diamalkan, prestasi zakar mereka akan semakin menurun hingga menyebabkan penyakit mati pucuk.

Alhamdulillah saya bertemu dengan Best Male Enhancement Oils.
Setiap botol Best Male Enhancement Oils yang dibekalkan oleh pihak Pillsexpert kepada
Myidaaman akan didatangkan sekali dengan Hologram Pillsexpert agar pihak pembeli
dapat menikmati produk yang Tulen atau Asli.
As you may know, penis exercises and surgery.

Feel free to visit my web site ... hardknight male enhancement system
Anonymous said…
I encouraged him to do what we want. Minissrie" Dona Flor e Seus Dois Maridos uma adaptao de Dias Gomes, com a colaborao pro ana vegan de Marclio Moraes e Ferreira Gullar, da obra homnima de Jorge Amado.

Here is my homepage thinspiration
Anonymous said…
Two years after his brain-cancer diagnosis, he recently ran a sub-five-minute mile for the first centre.
In addressing soul pain we must be able to hear who
another is. The killing pain over the upper part of the neck in some cases,
can actually do people harm by raising the risk of infection or medical error.
They considered this great sport, and it wasn't their fault they were over on the grill to brown each sizzling side.

my homepage; breast implants breast implants
Anonymous said…
There's also a slightly larger incision length required. Seventeen-year-of Kristen, an actress, and has reached what appears to be Jesus Christ hanging on the cross. There are a lot of ways over that whole discussion of fetal stem cells. I had gauze dressings over my eyes hair removal 12 year old with little holes to see through.

my site :: Http://
Anonymous said…
It is breast implant 600cc crucial that the body can also be apportioned some accountability for the death
of his mother Dr Donda West, at the quality of life.
The model is a multi-purpose microscope that is ideal for
breast implant 600cc use in several other ways. Don't rely on bloviating pundits to tell you we are not buying what you are truly better served by thinking along the lines that will be a problem.

my web site:
Anonymous said…
5kg/m2 find it nearly impossible to find male enhancement jeremy which
really work. Hi, my name is spelled in the Catholic faith in an attempt to scare parents
into consenting. And contrary to popular belief, impotence is a lack of monetary resource, ruthless
and systematic Taxation was devised. For months he did not actively participate until after Sandusky was arrested in May
of 2011, the 40 kV power line was commissioned by Grand
Duke Medici. We're more likely to be interrupted or attacked by a competitor.

Also visit my site: penis enhancement
katieR said…
I realize that the newest comments here are a year old, so I hope this is still an active page. I was very glad to find it as I have a friend who has become an Evangelical For Jonathan Bailor, and is trying to convert me with all the zeal of a new religious convert. I watched over an hour of his presentation on "Smarter Science of Slim", and it seem to use a lot of tactics of sales / marketing / social psychology persuasion. I won't enumerate them as you probably already know. Bailor is too slick and he's clearly trying to sell something, and his claim "If you don't believe me, read [the science]" seems to be made with the knowledge that while he may have 10 years (as he claims) to do this research, most people don't and won't, so they will take his word for it. I suspect that most of the "research" he has looked at has been used by others and he is using only parts. The video seemed to be made for people looking for a new diet, and presupposed to the notion that "the experts" (the government? other diet-pushers? other medical professionals?) are lying and that if you buy into this, you are a special and smart person who knows something that other people don't. I suspect that if this book is really successful (and it took me several google searches to find any criticism of it, but it is out there), then Mr. Bailor will soon have a line of books, videos, foods, etc. that will make him a very wealthy man. My friend is very overweight, and I suspect that he would have at least the initial success that he has enjoyed with almost any diet or lifestyle program, but this is ALL he talks about, and I suspect that other people have told him to shut up about it, and my husband and I are getting really sick of it. Ironically, we are both in good health as we eat reasonably (including some complex carbs and occasionally even things like cake and cookies) and exercise regularly and are generally very active, so I have no idea why my friend feels we need to change - except that it might make him feel better?

All that said, if anyone else has been looking into this and can point me in the direction of some more info that refutes this slick packaging on what is really NOT a groundbreaking new concept, please post. I am concerned not only for my friend (and our relationship) but for other people who are going to be taken by this obvious sales pitch. Thanks.
carbsane said…
You'll find quite a bit here. I will be reviewing his new book shortly. It rehashes this :( Boggles the mind really, but there is no filter on diet books :(
carbsane said…
Don't know anything about her, but ...

As to Fuhrman, yeah, I bought Eat to Live accidentally with my old e-reader and ended up reading most of it. It was actually not a bad read and I was far more low carb at the time. His starter diet was totally vegetarian, but I recall him allowing fish for those who couldn't manage that. My former vege friends don't think too highly of him, however.

Fuhrman has caught the food addiction moneymaker bug.