New Information

It happens quite often around here.  I post something about what Gerald or Geraldine Guru says about fill in nutrition topic du jour, and more often than not I get at least one comment notifying me that Gerry has changed his/her stance on said topic.  I'm then told that it is the mark of a thoughtful and serious person, as they have changed their position based on new information.  If this were the case, I would agree.  But more often than not, this is not new information ... outside of their world.  

The sad reality in this greater community is that the demographic most influenced by Gary Taubes was not scientists (thankfully) or the medical community (sadly, some have been), but the guru community.  They picked up and ran (and boy did they run!) with TWICHOO.  And make no mistake, many in the paleo/primal community were heavily influenced by this and seemingly did not engage in any independent, critical thinking, let alone research of their own prior to writing their own various books.

As has been discussed in the comment section here recently, "paleo" is not new.  It's also not the romanticized notion we have in this modern era.  Let's call our nutritional eras BG and AT -- for Before GCBC, and After Taubes.  The last couple of years have been (hopefully the beginning of) the BT era -- Beyond TWICHOO.   

This BT era has caused lots of problems for the Gerry Gurus in our midst.  They can change their stances, but there are always those books and blog posts and podcasts out there ... some more troublesome than others.  And many have undergone varying degrees of nuance -- from clever shifts in the semantics to out-and-out reversals.  If one points these out, we're reminded of the "goodness" of Gerry's actions in bringing information to the masses.  You see, they are even credited with being magnanimous for doing so!  Oh ... and good scientists too, because when faced with new information counter to one's hypothesis, the good scientist retools the hypothesis.  

This would all be fine and dandy, if the information was really new.  And it is not.  This is why I often harp on the dates on the various journal articles we discuss here.  Many from years, even a decade or more BG.  Many discussed in general media critiques from the early AT era.  Bottom line, there is no excuse for books published in 2009,10,11,12 to contain the blatant falsities they do.   Compounded by the certitude with which these unsubstantiated ideas were put forth.  

Others can choose for themselves whether or not to let these folks off the hook.  I'm not here to tell anyone how to think, who to be grateful to for exposing them to something that improved their lives, etc.  But it doesn't change the reality.  The truth.  That most of the Gerald and Geraldine Gurus in this greater community  have profited off of promulgating MISINFORMATION.  Parroted, made up, misrepresented and/or misinterpreted MISINFORMATION.   


pbo said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
pbo said…
I am not going to let them off the hook, but I am not going to make that big a deal of it. People make mistakes, and get swept up. Being a guru, you have to take risks, otherwise the info you give out is conventional, and therefore you have no edge. To stand out, you need to be saying something different, possibly radically, that goes against what the mainstream.

What I learn from this is that once I find out a guru is wrong, that's fine, I just can't trust them again, their credibility is gone. You should only get one shot if your goal is to be a guru. You can't get a second pass when you have shown that you do the homework, that you don't cross your t's and dot your i's.

It's sad but someone like the beloved Sisson is painfully wrong. I can't take what he writes as serious anymore. I am not going to call for him to correct what he says, I just won't be reading his material or buying his books anymore.
Diana said…
Once I find out a guru is a used car salesman....
Dustbunny said…
So what guru has changed their stance lately, other than Wolf?
Dr Evil DDS said…
Could we define what the reversal is? Here are some possibilities:
1) Calories don't matter for fat gain.
2) Insulin is the be-all-end-all hormone for fat gain.
3) [combining 1 & 2] Eliminating carbs and moderating protein controls insulin and allows you to eat as much as you want while shedding fat.

Did anyone ever believe those things? That you could swill cream & coconut oil all day and drop fat? It's equally absurd as the premise that calories are the be-all-end-all of fat loss, so downing 1,000 calories of Twinkies (R.I.P.) a day is as good as 1,000 calories of wild fish and rice. Both ideas lead to bizarre conclusions that undermine them.

My reading of Wolf, Sisson, et al. has always been well-encapsulated by the following comment by Wolf, which was part of the same post where he backtracked on low carb:

"LC is fantastic for this in that one typically feels satisfied on high protein, moderate fat, loads of veggies. If one is insulin resistant, this approach can be nothing short of miraculous. HOWEVER! If one manages to cram enough cheese, olive oil and grass-fed butter down the pie-hole, this is in fact, a “mass gain” diet.

"LC is fantastic for the insulin resistant individual, as it addresses both glycemic load and satiety. But if one manages to bypass normal satiety mechanisms, or if one can find some combinations of highly palatable, but low-carb foods, it’s still a ticket to Fat Camp."

Exactly. A low-carb diet made up of unprocessed/non-industrial/non-highly palatable/non-sugar-and-fat-infused foods is a powerful strategy for many people. And Wolf---like every other person who has real clients with real lives who demand real results---has found that a low-carb, real-food, calorie-restricted diet plus resistance training is the best recipe for fat loss.

Let me try to close with what I think is an important point: The idea that hormones and brain chemistry control fat loss and gain---through compelling people to eat or not eat; through affecting whether energy that enters the body is stored as fat or muscle, or burned as energy; through affecting activity levels---is the key insight of Taubes, Guyenet, Kruse, etc. Taubes got hooked on insulin; Guyenet on the reward pathways; Kruse on leptin. Others have chosen gut health, or sleep, or stress, or inflammation as their hobby-horses.

But the underlying idea is to emphasize the uselessness of the "Eat less, move more" paradigm. In order to do those two things, your hormones and brain chemistry must be in order. Once they are fixed, then eating less and moving more is easy, and the fat pours off. Does that confirm the Calories-in, calories-out theory of fat loss? Yes, of course. But getting there is the battle.

That, to me, is the essence of Guyenet's work: That he recognizes that calories matter, but also that the concept of willpower in eating is just drivel, so he's been searching for an explanation for people's compulsion to eat. And that's no different from anyone thinking hard about this, who all ask the question: "How can I get people to eat less and move more?" The answer to that question is not "Encourage them to eat less and move more;" it's "Repair whatever it is that is compelling them to overeat and under-exercise." And that's complicated. (Or not:
Diana said…
Add to the guru category one Neely Quinn, a 100 pound woman who embarked upon an insane Nutty K regimen - does the insanity never stop??

The fucking batshit insanity of this chick's experiment in Nutty K is breathtaking. I really loved the part where she said that she was doing it for "science" and then admitted it was for vanity.

It's ALL for vanity (twisted vanity, because at 100 pounds she didn't need to lose an ounce) and to make a buck. That's not the case with the sad little brainwashed dittoheads, many of whom DO have genuine health issues, and who are desperate for a quick fix to a tough problem. But it's certainly the case with the LC "gurus."
marksuave25 said…
I agree with you on taubes, guyenet and Kruse. I think that they all are pulling on the same elephant in the dark. taubes is right saying that hormones are important and food affects them. guyenet is right saying that the brain plays a role in fatness. Stephan actually used to agree with taubes in the past from what I heard during his podcast with Jimmy Moore. I wish that they make up and work together. Kruse is right with leptin. leptin is said to regulate longterm energy usage and storage. I think that the idea if counting calorie for thin people and fit people is absurd. But, for people like us, who have had weight issues, counting calories is essential. It is not fair, but life is not fair. everyone knows people who eat whatever they want and are thin. my brothers are two of them. eat candy, drink real pop, eat fast food everyday, thin as a rail. I'm going to get there one day!!!!!
CarbSane said…
I think the big deal is really that the guruism continues. I like Mark as a person, and of all folks out there he's the most upfront about what is business, etc. But while he'll say certain things in certain contexts, the fact remains his book pretty much makes it clear "It's all about the insulin" and some still hang on his "Is it primal" decrees.
CarbSane said…
Sisson has certainly changed from overt LC to more of the "fat burning beast" thing. Not a huge change, but you don't hear nearly as much about carbs and insulin anymore. There are others who changed a while ago, but failed to address some of the reasons for the change or revise older writings. Thing is, Mark & Robb are the names behind the movement and I think they have major problems moving forward. Meanwhile others are trying to redefine paleo. Must be awfully confusing for a newbie.
CarbSane said…
Welcome! Are you for real?? "Did anyone ever believe those things?" -- This blog wouldn't exist if a substantial proportion of low carbers circa 2009 didn't. I'd say the hay day of this was 2008 but a number of books and movements kept it going through around 2010.

#2 is THE cornerstone of Sisson's Primal Blueprint.

All of the LC gurus still push what I call TWICHOO. He's no guru, but on his most recent interview someone mentioned calories and Jimmy said that was an evil word or somesuch. C'mon!

I don't buy the hormones in order then weight loss miraculously happens stuff. Most of these people never address the reasons people overeat.
Unknown said…
You're right. It's not about people changing their mind on new information at all. It just seems like new information because once you emerge from the low-carb/paleo echo chamber you start to realize how much contrary information you blocked out because you considered it old useless "conventional wisdom". I won't be surprised if so many closely held paleo beliefs are completely debunked within the next few years.

It's kind of funny when a newbie who just read the Primal blueprint signs up to marksdailyapple forum and comes out with an "I know I shouldn't eat an apple because it will spike insulin" type of question or is completely flabbergasted at how people could be losing weight on a high carb insulin spiking potato diet. I don't think there's many believers left of the carbs>insulin>worn out pancrease theory of diabeates.
Unknown said…
I remember Wolf showing shock that a woman said she gained on keto. He said he could eat an absurd amount of calories on keto and not gain weight. I'm not sure how long ago he said it but it says a lot about the beliefs he once had on the 'magic' of low carbing.
Unknown said…
I think a lot of the people have mental health issues because I don't think it is possible for one person to have so many genuine health issues, you go to Paleo Hacks and read some of the stuff and it makes you wonder "How are you even alive?" Their list of ailments just goes on and on, there is virtually nothing that they can safely eat and their lives consist of unending misery. People claim to have not had a bowel movement in thirty years, how is that possible?
CarbSane said…
You are so right Unknown. I don't doubt that some have real and serious illnesses, but the human mind is highly suggestive and when we're told of some ill-effect of X, then eat it, we probably presume there's a problem with the X. Case in point, I had toast (gasp!) for breakfast the other morning with two eggs. Horrible gastric distress within the hour. Must be my gluten intolerance! But a day or so later I used those eggs again and the first one I cracked looked off ... I ditched the rest and presume the ones I ate were turning just not to the point of taste/smell detection.

I think it was in the Paleo Summit video with Sean that I heard Mark Sisson talk about all of his ailments from his competitive days. I just couldn't help but wonder how HE was still alive! To be fair, now that Don Matesz has gone (back?) to the vegan side, we learn of myriad maladies from which he suffered during his 14 years of carnivorous paleo. Didn't prevent him from writing and selling a book (though now I think he's taken it out of circulation).
pbo said…
I hear ya. I guess not everyone is reading as much as some of us, and may still rely on Sisson to provide them with the facts. Do you see him putting up a post similar to what Wolf did? I mean he must know a lot of people read both blogs?
CarbSane said…
No way pbo. I am SHOCKED he gave link love to the potato diet though. He seems to believe strongly that fat burning is the preferred metabolism for health and longevity. So why even hint at encouraging the absolute antithesis of that?
Anonymous said…

It's not the being wrong part for me, it's the claims of being duped while at the same time acknowledging that every study suggested otherwise.

Reminds of that quote you posted of Taubes talking about dismissing evidence to the contrary. There was no duping.
How about Richard at FreeTheAnimal? I heard he's eating an all potato diet now, even though he started out high fat, low carb.
Diana said…
@Unknown....yep. Absolutely. I read Neely's list of ailments and I said to myself, "Another nutcase."

Look, I ate a fairly crappy diet for longer than I care to divulge here, and you know what my health consequences were?

Nada. Not one.

Oh wait, I did have cavities (due to bad oral health), and I would get fat or thin depending on caloric intake - and nasty mood swings -- but actual, demonstrable health problems. Not one damned thing. Amazing, huh?

I don't doubt that some people really DO have health issues, but some of this litany of non-specific, never validated by objective sources problems gets the old bullshit meter ticking.

When I adopted good oral hygiene, I stopped getting cavities. Who'd a thunk?
marksuave25 said…
The million dollar question is why do people overeat? I honestly think that no one knows why. But let's try to answer it. I think hormonal and emotional reasons are to blame for part of it.
Anonymous said…

"Why do people overeat?"

That question doesn't have an answer. You can answer why an individual might have a compulsion to overeat, but like any psychological problem, it's probably different for everyone.
Unknown said…
Art De Vany says "How long have I argued that our physiology is fractal?"

Can a science person please explain the fractal-ness of our physiology?

Wiki says:

"A fractal is a mathematical set that has a fractal dimension that usually exceeds its topological dimension[1] and may fall between the integers.[2] Fractals are typically self-similar patterns, where self-similar means they are "the same from near as from far".[3] Fractals may be exactly the same at every scale, or, as illustrated in Figure 1, they may be nearly the same at different scales.[2][4][5][6] The definition of fractal goes beyond self-similarity per se to exclude trivial self-similarity and include the idea of a detailed pattern repeating itself."

So how exactly is our physiology fractal and what does that mean to me on a personal level?
Diana said…
@marksuave, Why do American people overeat more than French people, and Japanese people? Why do different subpopulations of Americans overeat, and others do not? Is there something magical about Colorado, and the Upper East Side, that makes them "undereat"?
Anonymous said…
I'm stumped as well. Then again, maybe it's some kind of Escher-esque wordplay? Not sure I'm getting my head around how peak glucose does all the damage and glutathione completely prevents it when glutathione is created by the body, particularly fruits and veggies.
Craig said…
I've had an interest in exercise, nutrition, and health going back 35+ years. For most of that time, I mostly paid attention to the mainstream notions of what was supposed to constitute a healthy diet. It was only in the last five years or so that I found myself reading a lot about contrarian ideas like low carb and paleo. It was quite interesting to stumble into this area, and I think I've picked up a few things of value, ideas or strategies that may have helped me healthwise. But the more Gurus I read, the more cynical I have become about the value of Gurus, particularly those who are largely capitalizing on the results of their own N=1 experiment with a particular fad. And that has also been a valuable lesson.
Craig said…
I've had an interest in exercise, nutrition, and health going back 35+ years. For most of that time, I mostly paid attention to the mainstream notions of what was supposed to constitute a healthy diet. It was only in the last five years or so that I found myself reading a lot about contrarian ideas like low carb and paleo. It was quite interesting to stumble into this area, and I think I've picked up a few things of value, ideas or strategies that may have helped me healthwise. But the more Gurus I read, the more cynical I have become about the value of Gurus, particularly those who are largely capitalizing on the results of their own N=1 experiment with a particular fad. And that has also been a valuable lesson.
marksuave25 said…
No one knows. But in the hypothetical world, no one should have to count calories. But in the real world people with weight issues have to watch their calories. anotherdeadletter I think hit the nail on the head. It is probably different for each of us.
Diana said…
Haha. One of my proudest moments was being kicked off De Vany's forum. And this was when I was one of the believers. I made the mistake of disagreeing with him that it was "easy" to lose weight. Yeah, maybe if you are 6'2" and carry 160 pounds of lean body weight. Maybe it's easy then, because you have a lot of metabolically active tissue. But it's not easy for a lot of people. He summarily ejected me from his forum.

I despise him.
Anonymous said…
I don't know if that's true, either, though, Mark. Animals in captivity, fed by trainers, will overeat as well.

I tend to think people are naturally inclined to consume. It's just that in our world, consumption isn't necessarily tied to energy expenditure like it is in the wild. Whether a lion, a deer or a squirrel, if an animal wants to consume more, they have to work more to get it. Same with our ancestors.

There's also a social dynamic involved, perhaps. I mean, what is overeating exactly? Is it never feeling full to begin with or not stopping when full? So, so many variables out there.
Dr Evil DDS said…
@Evelyn To your first point, I'll take your word for it that the gurus were pushing such nonsense, and give you a well-deserved thank you for exposing it.

To your second---that hormones are key for fat loss---huh? Do you not think that the compulsion to eat (i.e., appetite) and whether energy is stored (as fat, muscle, glycogen, etc.) or burned are at least somewhat dictated by hormones? If you inject someone with testosterone, she will build a hell of a lot more muscle than without. If you screw up someone's leptin signaling, she'll eat a lot more than otherwise. The same with brain chemistry. If someone smokes some good indica, she'll want to crush everything in the fridge, even if minutes before she was full.

And that's all I'm saying about the pointlessness of any advice to eat less and move more. That's the same as telling a drowning person trapped at the bottom of a pool to just break the surface of the water and breathe.

@marksuave25 Yes. You nailed it. Why do people over-consume is the big question, and, as @anotherdeadletter says, we have to assume that the answer is mult-factorial and different for everyone. Which is why for all of Mark Sissons' flaws, his advice of addressing food, sleep, stress, exercise, sunlight, fun, contamination, gut health, and so on is so useful.
Anonymous said…
I'm guessing 'fractal' is metaphor.
blogblog said…
Contrary to popular opinion many wild and farm animals mammals will readily over-eat even on natural foods. A year or so ago an Australian zoologist mentioned that many feral camels were becoming grossly obese and suffered from heart disease, diabetes etc. due to an abundance of food after several years of heavy rainfall.
Unknown said…
Off topic: Plant positive just released a 16 part video slamming Taubes.
It starts here.
Just started watching
Thank you for that, been waiting for the new plant positive series. He praised Evelyn for doing a good skeptical takedown of Taubes describing her as "the excellent blogger Carbsane" in the first of his China study videos towards the end of the primitive nutrition playlist on youtube . The same one where he berates Harriet Hall of Science Based Medicine for letting Taubes off the hook.
CarbSane said…
It seems like DeVany is re-publishing stuff from years ago on a now free site. I have read a few things, not many though. But they often refer to -- speaking of the title of this post ;) -- new information/studies/etc. which is from a decade ago.

This use of "fractal" reminds me of Kruse's quantum bull puckies.

This particular piece reads as an advertisement for the glutathione he sells. Most studies with glutathione use injections. I looked into that years ago for a friend. If there are any with Parkinsons in the audience, they might want to look into glutathione injections as these have been proven beneficial in stemming the progression. Patches, creams and oral, not so much. Suzanne Somers is likely wasting money on her glutathione cream she uses.

I haven't had time to read that study, but to me the release of cytokines at peak glucose doesn't tell me a thing. There's a difference between stimulus-prompted release and chronic and/or inappropriate release of something. Insulin comes to mind! There's nothing bad/wrong/harmful about the acute insulin response to a hyperglycemic spike.
CarbSane said…
@Evil, Of course I believe hormones can and do impact appetite, intake and partitioning. Here is where Robb Wolf gets leptin so very wrong however. Leptin is misrepresented by many. Most famously here by Rosedale who claims carbs cause leptin spikes. On p. 53, Wolf describes leptin as a postprandial satiety hormone. Leptin is still poorly understood in many ways, but tons of info pre-dating 2010 to show it is not a postprandial hormone.

I think the "pointlessness" of ELMM is premature. Too many are waiting for magic to happen where this occurs spontaneously like we're told it does. There are many here who finally saw results when they ditched this fairy tale and just followed that supposedly wrong conventional wisdom.
CarbSane said…
This is why I was so surprised by the 2011 release of "Smarter Science of Slim". It used to be I and others were shouted down routinely for daring to challenge the Great Taubesini. Then it morphed to "well he may not be right about X, but at least the basics of Y hold". Now folks are claiming nobody ever believed that whole TWICHOO anyway.

I imagine newbies must be quite confused when they read back and/or get the responses they do today by "newly enlightened" followers.
CarbSane said…
Yes, I hear you! No duping involved ... except for self inflicted.
LeonRover said…
I think DeVany thinks his physiology is "self-similar at all orders of magnitude" to that of "Fuelled by (fractal) Randomness" Nassim Nicholas Taleb - - or is it vice versa ???
Sanjeev said…
copy and paste (guarantee work safeness)

or click
Sanjeev said…
> anotherdeadletterDecember 28, 2012 2:00 PM
> Animals in captivity, fed by trainers, will overeat as well.

When you use the words trainers and captivity I'm assuming you mean there's an element of domestication or forcing by trainers - in fact neither's needed; wild animals overeat just fine on their own. I saw a documentary of tigers in a sancuary once - in there they don't have to work for food and it's not limited they ate and ate and ate to overweight.

> blogblogDecember 29, 2012 1:38 AM
> Contrary to popular opinion many wild and farm animals mammals will readily over-eat even on natural foods.

For once I agree with blogblog - Stanford primatologist/neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky gives the example of the apes he studies in Africa finding the garbage dumps of hotels patronized by western tourists (and rich Africans) - the apes gorge on the refuse. They get all the same problems as humans who over eat.

Access, low work-to-acquire, palatability
lead to
overeating and obesity.

seems to apply to multiple species.
Anonymous said…
No, I don't mean to imply that trainers forcefeed them. They eat what's there just like people do. I don't believe there's some innate on/off switch.

In most natural settings, there's a direct relationship between obtaining food and eating it. When that relationship is broken, the problems arise.
Unknown said…
It seems to be a good thorough scrutiny of GCBC. I'm only half way through and it's mainly been about cholesterol/fat so far. I wish this came out 3 years ago when Taubes mania was at it's peak.
Unknown said…
It's good though because even today, people who have rejected Taubes' views on carbohydrates still praise his research on the whole cholesterol/saturated fat in GCBC. Which is kind of weird because if he's been found guilty of cherry picking and distorting the whole carbohydrate/obesity research what on earth would make you think he's scrupulous and trust worthy with other information? I haven't made it up to it yet but he also covers Thomas dayspring in a few of his videos by the looks of things.
Anonymous said…
"what on earth would make you think he's scrupulous and trust worthy with other information? "

Because it's what they want to hear. I can eat all the meat and butter I want!? And lose weight? Right on!
blogblog said…
"Look, I ate a fairly crappy diet for longer than I care to divulge here, and you know what my health consequences were?

Nada. Not one."

Complete and utter rubbish. You would have almost certainly suffered a plethora of medical conditions - colds and allergies, weight gain, headaches, indigestion, blood glucose fluctuations, insomnia etc that you considered completely normal.

The fact is that a human should be able live a physically active disease-free lifestyle for 80+ years without any form of medical intervention.

Most HGs don't practice any form of oral hygeine - they don't get cavities.

Robb Wolf said…
When can we expect a book from you that sets it all straight, gets it ALL right?

As as a point of clarification: What I've recommended to folks has changed little in 8+ years, my understanding of mechanism has changed dramatically.

I Bow before the All-Knowing who populate these environs.
CarbSane said…
There may someday be a book from me on the order of an "owner's manual" sort. I will get it right 100% in terms of the current knowledge and understanding. You can count on it. I won't be making shit up and passing it off as truth, you can be damned sure of that. But I don't need to write such a book, really. There are many. They are called college textbooks. Remember those?

Well. Since I have your attention. I must say that as much as I've wanted to like you as a "guru", and I DO respect very much what you've done in practice, I've been floored by some recent developments. Obviously more recent developments have sidetracked me from addressing those.

So, let me ask. Are you still planning to headline the LC Cruise in May? You would be a fool to. Just my opinion, of course.
CarbSane said…
Just in case some smarty pants comes to remind me that there are errors in college texts, let me pre-empt that. I know full well there are. Indeed having unearthed some of my own college texts from the 80's and early 90's there's lots to be found there that is wrong. However, had I cited those at that time, it would have been a good faith effort at accuracy. This is not what we're dealing with in guru-land. It is not acceptable to put forth "truths" as such in the manner you and others have. Sorry. It's just not.
Anonymous said…
From pboDecember 26, 2012 10:02 AM:

"What I learn from this is that once I find out a guru is wrong, that's fine, I just can't trust them again, their credibility is gone. You should only get one shot if your goal is to be a guru. You can't get a second pass when you have shown that you do the homework, that you don't cross your t's and dot your i's."

Why did I quote that? Well, I followed your link to Plant Positive, looked over all his/her videos and selected "41 PUFAs Oxidize!",, as the first one I wanted to watch.

I'm only 8 minutes into it, but it is so biased and so flagrantly misrepresents the information that I find it highly annoying. For instance, at 5:50, we are shown Table 3 from the Lyons Diet Heart Study, with the very annoyingly high-pitched (for a male) voice-over claiming that this demonstrates the superior health benefit of PUFA over SFA. But look at the numbers: there was significance for total cal, total lipid, SFA, PUFA (reduced, ie, in the opposite direction!!!), oleic, linoleic, linolenic, fiber and cholesterol. So actually, we do not know which of all the factors are ASSOCIATED WITH (not causal to) the benefit, and in particular, I like that the w-6 to w-3 ratio has been brought into the range recommended by the Lands' equation for the experimental group more than the false dichotomy presented.
Woodey said…
Sorry Robb, but as one person put it, "you thrive off of people who don't know much about nutrition. Your expertise depends on other people's ignorance..."

Unfortunately the internet gives people like you more attention than you deserve. If you had made a book pre-internet, you would be but a drop of water in a puddle. Nothing more than a fringe "nutritionist" (real nutritionists with actual college degrees please don't hate me) and nothing more than a whisper.
Woodey said…
"I Bow before the All-Knowing who populate these environs."

I know enough to avoid you and your poisonous advice on nutrition. I wouldn't be surprised if you made a follow-up book about the Paleo advantage to a dog dookie diet and people praised you for being the second coming....the King of the Feces, the Feces Whisperer. LOL I would love to watch you eat sh*t. For it is what you and everyone who pushes false information deserves. Messing with people's health and mind to make a buck....yuk!
Woodey said…
"Richard at FreeTheAnimal"

Still makes me have images of some gay porn fetish site....I'm not saying he is....but he does strongly hate women and loves to be out with the guys doing "man" things. Just sayin.
Woodey said…
I laugh every time people try to push the ELMM is bunk thing...ummm yeah ok...Thank God it is. Since joining Weight Watchers in October I have lost 40 lbs. Not bad considering in one year of LC/paleo I only lost 30...hmmm.
Blogger said…
Accelerate Your Business! Advertise on the most popular PTC & TE websites with a single purchase. TrafficHeap.