Contrast: Squeaking Pips vs Value Producers and Promoters

Warning: This post is vulgarity free. Read at your own risk.

For sure, lots of folks are miffed at me in various ways (see comments). Understandable. See, I have this quirky thing about me where I tend to overlook errors, even lots of errors when, on balance—in my exclusive judgment—the balance sheet is in the black. We have this thing called a paleo, primal, evfit, caveman, ancestral movement where, dang it, and in spite of all of our mess ups, people seem to be getting better, improving in large numbers.

Who’s responsible for that, for adding value and promoting it in general? Art De Vany, Loren Cordain, Mark Sisson, Robb Wolf, Gary Taubes, jimmy moore, Tom Naughton…and a host of others. But you get the idea. These folks don’t all agree with each other on everything. In fact, it’s probably a safe bet that any one of them thinks all the others are wrong, even terribly wrong, on some things.

What do they do about that? They continue to produce values, continue to promote; they avoid being a squeaking pip that metastasizes into a cancer. The whole advancing deal, and the people being helped in large numbers are too important to risk turning away because when they heard that a certain guy or gal really had good info, and then when their search dropped them onto certain blogs, they found out how wrong and bad and a promoter of junk science the guy is—and in the context of that blogger being in or on the periphery of the general paleo community—they just went back to their Hot Pockets and liter of soda. Or, they were simply blinded by science.

Should errors be pointed out? Absolutely. But babies don’t need tossing out with bathwater. Science, in sociological terms, doesn’t come without its downsides and in general, science operates at both glacial pace and speed of light—to move things slowly, or change everything overnight. But mostly, people are concerned, this morning, with what’s going to work for them right now.

…So there’s a brief intro into promoting even more value producers who are helping people to get on the right track to fat loss and health every day, mixed results included. Fortunately, there’s so much value being published and promoted to help people right now, by so many and so frequently, I have neither time to read everything thoroughly, or to blog about them all individually (this is a good, non squeaking-pip thing). However, I have looked at each of these books, wandered here and there in them, and I can honestly recommend them as excellent resources for anyone, even children in one case.

Dr. John Briffa has been kind enough to email a few times about this post or that post I’ve done, and I’m always surprised and humbled to get noticed by him in that way.

I was even more surprised when a few months back, he emailed me with an advance PDF of his book and that this FTA blog got a mention in the resource section at the end. I loved what he wrote, too.

“Richard writes a good and irreverent blog…”

Later, in email he told me it was better to be irreverent than irrelevant, and I promised to do my best to hold up my end.

Escape the Diet Trap is a template for a the sort of meta-diet-book I’d like to see going forward. A lot of it is about unravelling what has proven not to work: low-fat, exercise, eat less, etc. Oh, and diet, diet, diet. And move more, more, more. Enough, already. Humans don’t work that way.

It’s sort of a low-carber’s intro to a more paleo or primal way of looking at things and includes even breaking through plateaus with fasting and exercise. This is near and dear for me. Lot’s of originality and synthesis in this book. has their already not been enough written? Isn’t it time to synthesize and show what may be wrong and what may be right?

Unfortunately, the book is still not available in the US via Amazon (a few used copies appear to be available). So, if you can get it via the UK Amazon site, go for it.

So what can I say more about the amazing Stacy and Matthew? I was so enamored with what these two accomplished with not only themselves, but their kids, I decided to do a 2-part interview series. You can see part 1 here, and part 2 here, including my silly commentary on the whole thing.

My delight was to me, palpable, as this was all going down. I don’t think I’ve ever been so enamored with demonstrated life change. The next time you hear it’s about the children, think of Matt & Stacy.

I didn’t really know at the time that Stacy and Matt had designs of their own to help people, parents and children alike. While I absolutely knew they weren’t Squeaking Pips by any means, I didn’t really know that they were keeping their awesome talents for being values to so many others a bit closely held.

But low and behold, I got a book in the mail one day and it’s simply insane as a way you might be able to outcompete the kids who come to school every day with bags of junk that your kids envy.

…I have it on very good authority from many sources that the way to do this thing is to send your kids to school with leftovers of the real food almost no kid has ever seen. Once your kids are envied for their varied, delectable lunches, you will have hit them at the right social spot, and they’ll be paleo zealots. Then, you’ll have another issue to deal with, but you’re starting from a better point.

Buy enough copies of Eat Like a Dinosaur to have your kids give it away a few to friends, creating even more resentment and envy.  That’s the Free the Animal way to go about things politely.

Dean Dwyer isn’t funny at all, which is his major problem. And, he seems to attract more women to his increasingly popular blog than men. What’s that all about?

To see just how much more funny I can be than Dean; he, in desperate hopes of getting you to conclude the contrary, did a 2-part video interview with me: part 1 and part 2. There was enough footage for 4 parts. I guess he gave up. Good move.

Another good move on his part was to get his butt busy writing a book from his unique perspective. One might call it a book on life & shift change epistemology, only he’s not funny, and women seem to love him. And Oprah’s off the air.

So where does he go? He continues to strive to be as funny and captivating as possible, only not so much as to ever eclipse me, which would be a tough nut to crack.

You can love Dean as I do, even though he’s way less funny. Toss him a bone anyway, and get a copy of Make Shift Happen. Do it for his harem. Buy another or two for your depressed women friends because Oprah’s off the air.

Solid, quick work, Dean.

As funny as Dean is not, way hot is Ashley (image Google Ashley Tudor). You ought to buy her book Sweet Potato Power on that premise alone, because way hot girls get certain privileges, ordained by evolution and base survival. And it so sucks for not-so-hot guys. That’s why some of us have to be funny, and why things can get so tough for Dean.

It was on the heals of one of my posts about starches that I got wind of Ashley’s book. “Someone just wrote a book about sweet potatoes?” “No way.” “Really?” “Sweet p-o-t-a-t-o-e-s?” “A whole book?”

Indeed. And I got two copies. One from the publisher and another directly from Ashley with TABS PASTED IN IT. Obviously, she thinks I’m more sciency than hot. …There was no phone number.

It’s easily one of the more smashing and original books in Paleoland. And, it’s not only about sweet potatoes. If you want something to really munch down on, try this out. I’ll be using it in an upcoming post on what I think is the most important thing about paleo, and it’s not anti-nutrients. It’s nutrients.

Dallas & Melissa Hartwig.

I have a confession to make. For various reasons having zero to do with anything they have ever done or contemplated, I was not a fan of them…Whole 9, Whole 30, or whatever. I didn’t promote them ever, never tried to reach out at AHS11.

My bad.

The truth is, I have no good excuse for why—and the best excuse is only a poor excuse anyway. I guess someone emailed me once, dissed then about how strict they were…I’m busy, and so I let a random email substitute for my own impression and judgment.

Then one day I decided to look into it and it’s fitting that they’re the last edition to this edition. They are superstars in their passion to create, build, learn, tweak, and, and, and, help people who so need it. Do they know the science? Yes. Does it matter. Sure, but in context. Must one know, understand and cross their chest with the science before they can be helped? I don’t think so, and I don’t think Dallas or Melissa think so either.

I’m a fan. The book is great, only having skimmed through parts of it. But here’s a very thorough review from someone I trust: Stefani Ruper, who will soon have a guest post up here, likely about women’s issues.

…Dean: you better put that one on your calendar.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. Stefani Ruper on May 30, 2012 at 15:28

    HEY. I read all the way through this before seeing the link at the bottom. Needless to say I agree on your points, Richard. One thing that really breaks my heart about this whole paleo blogosphere thing is that there’s a lot of hedging and competitive-like-shit behavior between bloggers, and all this hating–some of it productive! but some definitely not. But one thing I really value is, on the other hand, the help and the love and the value-creation. With Whole9’s book (which, funny, I had dismissed in the past, too), as with anything, I could downplay it as “no big deal.” But it is a big deal. I won’t. I will advocate quality, no matter where I find it. I care far, far too much about spreading health and joy to get caught up in pip squeaking. So do Dallas and Melissa, which is why I think the book comes across so well. No bullshit, nothing petty, just health.
    Value! Amen.

  2. Dean Dwyer on May 30, 2012 at 15:49

    Hey Richard,

    I must admit when I saw the pingback I was like, >Oh Crap think Richard may have ripped me a new one.” Whew! I was relieved to see that you simply noted what you and I both knew to be true already. You are funnier than me…but I will never accept that my friend…NEVER!

    But i do appreciate the review none-the-less. Although after I read Ashley’s review I must admit a part of me wished I was hotter! That is a matter for another day. Thanks (for not ripping me a new one…at least not today)! Oh and Youtube would not let me post part 3 or 4. They felt I was promoting scotch and that violates someone’s term of agreements 🙂


    • Richard Nikoley on May 30, 2012 at 16:03

      Laf (last sentence; the rest being pretty banal).


      Cheers, mate.

  3. VW on May 30, 2012 at 17:01

    Good post, Richard.

    Now can we all agree that Jack Kruse is a wingnut and move on? He is, you know.

    He really is. A fucking nut.

    I wonder how the big hacking investigation is going. And how about that big investigation by the FBI into the cruise thing?

    Fucking Jack Kruse.

    • Pam on May 30, 2012 at 17:15

      I think that has been agreed. That’s why he isn’t talked about any more. Except by those who haven’t gotten the memo.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 30, 2012 at 17:40


      I will always have to be honest in saying that Jack turned me onto some things I’m working out. Basically, he reinvigorated a love of regular cold water I’d lost since moving away from where it was always there, then absent for over a year. I can’t be dishonest and not give him credit for that.

      But, yea, I’ve been done since my post on it.

    • EatLessMoveMoore on May 30, 2012 at 22:01

      The call/’threat’, the FB ‘hacking’, the immanent apprehension of wrongdoers, etc., etc. – the silence across the Kruse Kingdom (including, of course, Livin’ La Vida Low Cred-land) on all this is deafening…

    • EatLessMoveMoore on May 30, 2012 at 22:32

      ‘Squeaking pips’ IS a pretty cool turn of phrase.

      ‘Value producers’ not so much. Scarily Randian (yes, I know, a redundancy…).

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 08:17

      While I’m by no means a Randian or even an Objectivist or objectivist, I do value a lot of her work and think she’s done far more good than harm.

      And I do love the Atlas Shrugged metaphor. It has roots, too: biting the hand that feeds.

    • Jscott on May 31, 2012 at 18:08

      Do you ever read or listen to wingnuts? I do.

      Artists, writers, “out there” people. They turn me on to possibilities. They take me down paths not only less traveled but never thought about. My best ideas, businesses, failures, writing, sex, and adrenalin soaked insulin spikes have been because of some wingnut.

      In short, you are doing it wrong. It is not to follow the wingnut as a person or their methodology, but to let the wingnut arouse your imagination. Turn on tune in drop out.

      The first FTA post about Kruse’s methods were not about Kruse. He was just a dose. Seven Grams to see God they say. Fuck how it happens. N=1 to break reality again and again and again until it clicks that your mind tricks you. And your mind can also show you the man behind the curtain. Most of us figured that out the first time we got drunk. Not everything is as it appears.

      We do move on, ya know. Move on in the same way a Justin Beiber fan moves to the next lalala song. The same way a job person moves on to a better boss until they aren’t a better boss. That an Atkins crusader slows their bacon roll to a book called Meat is for Pussies. Then there is Madonna seductively moving a teenage boy’s penis like a prayer until Kabbalah moves their mountain a few decades later.


      Unless we find the medicine man and take that first dose. Then, life is never the same. And we laugh. We laugh at all the “Oh so serious” people because life is just a ride.

      (With 200 more words and good links and editing that is a guest post.)

    • marie on June 1, 2012 at 07:53

      Rx : take in small doses 🙂 – I don’t think I can handle 200 more words in one shot!
      The cultural references density, image density, thoughts density is so high that this took a while.
      Choice quotable bits, for me at least :
      “It is not to follow the wingnut as a person or their methodology, but to let the wingnut arouse your imagination.”
      “We do move on….The same way a job person moves on to a better boss until they aren’t a better boss.”
      “….That an Atkins crusader slows their bacon roll to a book called Meat is for Pussies”.
      But you know, beware the medicine man’s head effect (warning, overdrive engaged) :

    • Jscott on June 1, 2012 at 19:19

      You are kind.

      WHOAH was not expecting a link to THAT! I thought my brain fired in odd ways. Lawdy.

    • marie on June 1, 2012 at 19:36

      And sensitive, don’t forget sensitive! I’m learning that from you of course…

    • Jscott on June 1, 2012 at 19:51

      Women on this blog can not help but continue to make spear jabs. Keep it up.

    • marie on June 1, 2012 at 21:38

      “Keep it up” . No no no, do get the roles right, that’s Your job!
      Men! never accepting their responsibilities… Shelley’s quite right, there’s another reason you need a good woman. 🙂

    • Jscott on June 2, 2012 at 11:48

      This is why men learn it better to work, play, and have sex (combination of the two) verses converse.

    • Kate Ground on June 2, 2012 at 12:35

      Can I hear an “Amen”?

  4. Shelley on May 30, 2012 at 17:19

    Great writing, Richard. I kind of really like the “cleanliness” of it all. 🙂

    ‘I have it on very good authority from many sources that the way to do this thing is to send your kids to school with leftovers of the real food almost no kid has ever seen. Once your kids are envied for their varied, delectable lunches, you will have hit them at the right social spot, and they’ll be paleo zealots. Then, you’ll have another issue to deal with, but you’re starting from a better point.’

    I really like this and find this to be very true. My boys are such picky eaters, but thankfully they do like eggs, meat, bone stock, and broccoli, so that’s what they get the majority of the time for almost every meal except school lunches. Recently, though, the school lunches have been making one of them sick, but he hesitated to bring his lunch in because it was…meat, bone stock and broccoli – very odd. I reminded him that his friend, who ate dinner with us one evening, thought that was about the best meal he had ever had in his life. Sure enough, his friends would trade their cheese sticks for some of that leftover meat any day! And good-eating begins….

    And, Dean, you are hot – just accept it! 🙂

    • Kate Ground on May 31, 2012 at 22:16

      Richard, thanks for the intro to that hot Dean guy.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 22:29

      Ok, just so long as you don’t go thinking he’s funny.

    • Kate Ground on June 1, 2012 at 07:14


    • Jscott on June 1, 2012 at 19:54

      Ah haha.

  5. Pam on May 30, 2012 at 17:27

    By the way, Richard, great post. Graceful, warm & elegant. Reminded me of how Chris Masterjohn reviewed Wheat Belly. While he pointed out where Davis had messed up some of the physiology, he spent more time on the contribution Davis had made by helping knock another hole in the “staff of life” lie.

    At the time, there were plenty who sought to destroy Davis over his missteps, to no useful end (except to balm their own feelings of insignificance.)

  6. Jscott on May 30, 2012 at 17:30

    I was going to start commenting on Dean’s blog. His current series about will power is good. Yet, I now feel as I would be doing so to gain favor with his following. Or, gasp, because he is as Shelly claims, “a hotty.”

    This post has ruined my drive to improve willpower. I now have someone to blame.

    Thank ya Richard. You did it again.

    (tl;dr Books not currently in my possession will be.)

    • marie on May 30, 2012 at 22:42

      Yeah Richard, and I can Blame you for my sleeplessness – between Sean’s Anathem (I’ll be up nights for weeks) and your book recommendations above, I’m done for – clearly you’re on a mission to destroy willpower.
      Meanwhile, it’s official, Men. Can’t. Spell . (heh, I guess I found a predominantly male personality trait after all) : the woman’s name is Shelley, for crying out loud…

    • Jsc0tt on May 31, 2012 at 06:16

      Look, I can not do everything to perfection. Isn’t my charm ENOUGH? Oh, and I prefer silent crying. For the women that is. Men only do so in the shower or when it is raining.

    • Sean on May 31, 2012 at 06:51

      …all those comments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

    • rob on May 31, 2012 at 09:41

      Yeah but at least we got to see the attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion

    • marie on May 31, 2012 at 09:49

      Rutger Hauer makes me cry, silently.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 10:05

      Have you ever tried to have him savage you, Marie? 🙂

      Don’t cry unless you tried. 🙂

    • marie on May 31, 2012 at 10:12

      Lol. Yeah, but then maybe he’ll Save me…heart.syncope.sigh. 🙂

    • Nigel Kinbrum on June 1, 2012 at 04:30

      Time to die(t).

    • Shelley on May 31, 2012 at 07:01

      JScott: your charm alone is perfectly fine with me, though it does look horribly unbalanced to see my name spelled incorrectly. It’s my experience that men tend not to dwell on the little things in life and when they do, they’re almost unbearable to be around. But I guess that’s why you need a good woman!

    • Jscott on May 31, 2012 at 16:41

      I think my feelings just got hurt.

    • Sean on May 31, 2012 at 07:00

      Marie, the first third of Anathem is pretty slow, actually, but it picks up and the ideas are quite interesting (even if I don’t agree with all of them). But it does lack the incredible density of ideas that the Baroque Cycle had.

    • Shelley on May 31, 2012 at 07:10

      Are you referring to Ayn Rand’s Anthem? It’s been a while since I’ve read that. I also find most of her books start out slow before you realize that you’ve been pulled in and can’t put it down.

    • Sean on May 31, 2012 at 07:22

      No, I’ve never read that and I never plan to. I was referring to this. My views on didactic dystopias haven’t changed much in the four years since I wrote this, other than the fact that 1984 seems to have become more of an operational manual rather than a dystopia.

    • Shelley on May 31, 2012 at 07:28

      I missed the A (just thinking all men misspell!) cool – I’ll read them. I love new stuff.

    • Jscott on May 31, 2012 at 21:29

      As far as your original biz goes…
      You happen to know this piece?

      I did some work in marketing with this book being part of the process. Back in the day (96 maybe?) it was not only a pretty nice piece of story telling but brilliant for early marketing.

      I think he gave away 3 chapters free. Then parts of the others. The whole thing to buy was 10 bucks I think. It had a way low keyed marketing negotiation/lawyer/bankruptcy back end with some IRS dealings on the side.

      Anywho, continue onward sir. People do pay attention.

    • Shelley on May 31, 2012 at 08:09

      Dang, I’m going to have to read with a dictionary close by!

      I like this: ‘because you never were able to master the concept of thinking for yourself.’

    • Jscott on May 31, 2012 at 16:43

      AND another dig!

    • Shelley on May 31, 2012 at 16:58

      No….No dig on you here. And, I didn’t “dig” you before. I find it hard to believe you are thin-skinned. 😉

    • Jscott on May 31, 2012 at 18:11

      I am a very sensitive guy. Timberlake wrote a song about me. People mistook it for Brittany Spears.

    • marie on May 31, 2012 at 18:58

      Jscott, “Brittany” -lol. You remain a most sensitive γλυκός άντρας 😉 .

    • Jscott on May 31, 2012 at 19:06


      I try to be consistent and you call me a fruit???

      I write a pretty fucking good blah blah on wingnuts (here since you refuse to pay attention and I get a “sent to the corner” type of comment?

      I post a Bill Hicks epic rant and I get a friggin emoticon!?!

      Maria, Maria, I think there was a song written about you.

      (I am outwitted again. DRATS!)

    • marie on May 31, 2012 at 19:54

      Awe, but a Manly, Sweet fruit! …. It’s o.k., you can blush now.
      LeonRover makes me do that regularly, good for the circulation I believe -hah, see? Link-back to health, this is a Health-Minded free-Minded blog after all!
      …Note to self: lots of Minds there…just like Richard likes it. 🙂

    • Jscott on May 31, 2012 at 20:17

      Leon rolls brilliant. As do, well, look above. I suppose you get in that list too, Maria.

      Fuck Richard. He is the corporation that pays the internet bill. I just need him to unlock the door in the morning and move out of my way.

      I mean, I would drink Richard’s non-baby in the tub- water any day.

      Speaking of, I still have not heard anymore about the consulting biz of his? And did Ferriss like his rental home project?

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 21:08

      Jeez. I should be careful what I say.

      I’m still ironing out (procrastinating) a lot of things. What I can say is that I have my same editor and journalist working on v2 of my book, to incorporate everything I’ve evolved in, including LC, calories matter, ct and maybe other stuff. Might also incorporate some comments and tweets. The book has been very successful and now we’re going to make it better.

      Same editor and journalist is also working on revising a book I did years ago about how to negotiate with cc companies primarily to settle your debts for about 30 cents on the dollar on average, if you’re in a bad sitution, like over 20k in cc debt. Our average client has 35k cc debt and I have a number with over 200k.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 21:15

      Oh, never heard back from Ferriss on the vacation rental. It’s very solid, great cash flow. However, it’s a traditional style bus (though way better than conventional rental which I had 10 of and will never do again) that takes significant capital to get in. That is, you have to get a great location, that means premium property, which means high cost and you have to put enough in to cash flow on the rental.

      But, for my place? I make at least 4 times what I could get on a standard rental. Right now, people from the UK are in it for 2 weeks, the first of 3 UK visitors this summer. We had an XC ski team from Sweeden in it over the winter. It’s booked almost all the time.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 21:48

      Nope, never heard of it. I used to be heavily involved I m the whole industry thing, but for various reasons pulled away.

    • marie on May 31, 2012 at 09:59

      Lookit, you’re killing me here. I had enjoyed Cryptonomicon (for a month!) so I took-on Quicksilver…which was mind-bending 😉 , for a another month…but I was on vacation then. Now you’re saying I should keep going with the whole cycle? There goes my summer.
      Yes, Anathem is proving slow, but the characters are making up for the slow scene-build-up, but the time-and-universe-hopping ideas not so much yet….

    • Shelley on May 31, 2012 at 12:06

      Marie, Sean:

      Being a gEEk kind of gal, I love this kind of stuff, but which book should I start with since I’ve read none?

    • Sean on May 31, 2012 at 18:39

      I would actually say start with Cryptonomican, then The Baroque Cycle. Anathem is definitely not his most accesible book.

    • Jscott on May 31, 2012 at 18:41


      OH the guy on the ten speed that delivered stuff! Yeah that was fuggin bending dude! Now I see your use of cycle dude! Puff puff pass dude!

      (I was convinced refused to read anything post-1800 as modern writing [except my own] is as Kurt Harris Says, “bags o’ sugar.” I now express my deep sorrow.)

      [editor’s note: Jscott’s use of brackets within parenthesis demonstrates advanced skillz son!]

    • Jscott on May 31, 2012 at 18:42

      edit: “convinced commenters in this nest refused…”

      That kharma is a BITCH!

    • marie on May 31, 2012 at 18:44

      Oh boy, you mean Neal Stephenson isn’t required reading in engineering school? O.k. novitiate, imho start with Cryptonomicon, it predates the others plus it’s got the modern cryptography/advanced code-breaking/computer’s history/code-breaking history/WWII history/techno-thriller novel plot (!) that’s an ‘easy’ intro to his style (yeah, Really, they actually get more arcane later…but fascinating).
      Make sure you have Free time available because these plots draw you in and well, the books are huge.
      Stephenson’s mind seems mesmerizing, he’d be my first pick for “who to get stranded with on a desert island”.

    • marie on May 31, 2012 at 18:47

      WT? Were we all typing simultaneously -surely this can only happen in Anathem? and Sean, aren’t you supposed to be sleeping over there? Tsk.

    • Jscott on May 31, 2012 at 18:50

      Marie, do you ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight? I think you did once and then your brain went on overdrive.

      That was a compliment.

      I also tell someone “that was funny” after I tell them something is funny. Redundancy is important dontcha know.

    • marie on May 31, 2012 at 19:02

      Oh don’t I know it. Famous last words :
      “TMI?!? Pish. Let’s Embrace the positively arcane.”
      annnnnd, watch the comment thread go haywire. Funny, no? 😉

    • Jscott on May 31, 2012 at 19:14

      It is my intent now with this blog. Reminds me of blogs of old(follow my melodrama) where the blogger was important but not always needed. The commenters found each other. It was hoped that the blogger would post a bit of a blurb or some such to invite the carnival to begin.

      In those days (really? THOSE days?) commenters connected. One saved my life. Another supported me during a divorce, still another talked on the phone several times a week with me when he thought I might need to slow down the drinking (I thought he enjoyed my brilliant rants).

      I suppose those days still exist. Perhaps.

    • marie on May 31, 2012 at 19:38

      “Those days” -yes grandpa, usenet? arpanet? 🙂 (I know how you love emoticons)
      “Perhaps”. yes, maybe, if the moon is at its apogee, the stars aligned, the sun eclipsed….then you get the sort of serendipity that produces free word/thought associations being bounced around by agile minds…but, imo, the rarity/novelty is part of the delight whereas a Frequent carnival would get tiring very fast.

      “The commenters found each other” -yes, that, still and always 🙂 (those little yellow things grow on you, you know they do!)

    • Jscott on May 31, 2012 at 19:49

      Problem solved. You are a marketer. I KNEW it!

      I am not sure if they ever tired. The net evolved to fast for it to tire. It became. The net is mindful practice.

      Awwww, jscott is all sensitive and nostalgic again!

      Hey, marketers go fuck yourselves.

      (Oh the irony in that line! I am one.)

      Yes, the yellow things grow.

    • marie on May 31, 2012 at 20:05

      From complimenting my mind and serenading with west-side song, to calling me a problem….all in a few minutes. This is your ‘consistent’ mode ? Geez.
      🙂 🙂 🙂 (they might keep growing….)

    • Jscott on May 31, 2012 at 20:30

      dot dot dot

    • marie on May 31, 2012 at 21:04

      No can do, I’m for dream-land, you last longer than me γλυκέ μου . . .

    • Jscott on May 31, 2012 at 21:12

      Clearly, you are low carb but dole out the syrup for others. It is raining now.

    • Kate Ground on May 31, 2012 at 21:45


    • Shelley on June 1, 2012 at 02:51

      Marie, Sean, Jscott – my three main characters in this telecommuting place I am – I have deemed you my new “working” buddies. 🙂

      Required reading in EE? Really? I don’t remember many words read or written!

      Cryptonomicon it is – I always wanted to be an agent…shoot to kill authority, who can break any code, running around Prague in the pale moonlight.

    • Shelley on June 1, 2012 at 03:01

      And I love yellow, too. 😉 🙂 Women…

    • marie on June 1, 2012 at 08:10

      “..running around Prague in the pale moonlight”. +1!
      …making up for the lack of words in EE rather nicely 🙂
      Careful though, it seems that with EE people, that original damming of Lexis causes a later flood. Just my scientific observation, you understand. Now waiting to see experimental Praxis.

    • marie on June 1, 2012 at 08:16

      sunshine 🙂 (well, it’s yellow, work with me here)

    • Shelley on June 1, 2012 at 08:37

      See, I’m learning. Just novice words/phrases for now – though I do tend to gravitate to the smartest in groups, and therefore look out, I may soon be on par. 🙂 I intuitively know good stuff when I’m around it!

    • Kate Ground on June 1, 2012 at 10:00

      Looks like I have some reading to catch up on. Jeesh

    • marie on June 1, 2012 at 10:09

      Kate, I know eh? One little trip and the world shifts on you. How’s it going btw? Will 2-yr old (I think? -but I haven’t taken my omega-3 lately…) leave you any time for reading?

    • Kate Ground on June 1, 2012 at 10:17

      I’m home now, not caught up on work yet, but I’d rather read. So, what Marie’s reading club reading this week? Besides hunky Dean’s book…Cryptonomicon?

    • marie on June 1, 2012 at 10:48

      Heh heh, apparently, but a week might be bit ambitious, unless staying on vacation;-) Stephenson can write…a lot.

    • Kate Ground on June 1, 2012 at 13:00

      Ha. I just renewed my library card so I can keep up with Marie’s Book Club and I got “the” current read. It’s as think as one IRS manual. But, started it already and he drew me in right away. OR it will sit in a pile next to my bed and gather dust. We shall see

    • Shelley on June 1, 2012 at 14:09

      Oh no – I’m jealous! Work just slammed me again, so I’m not going to be able to start it yet. (I can’t tell the thickness of it since it’s on my kindle) Bummer, because it’s finally raining here and I so love to curl up with a glass of wine and read something I like in the rain.

    • Kate Ground on June 1, 2012 at 14:24

      Yes, curling up with a good book, wine, rain…Oh, but here in Texas in June, it’s a good read, wine and AC. My Kindle has spoiled me. This book is enormous! Marie, you could have come up with n ebook or something. Whose idea was ths again?

    • marie on June 1, 2012 at 18:04

      Oh, I blame Sean of course! Always.

  7. Karl on May 30, 2012 at 22:20

    If someone holds onto the bathwater despite having no good answer to, or worse yet ignoring any scientific criticisms then how can anybody be sure they’re doing more harm than good- making a mistake and evolving doesn’t disqualify you, but ignoring evidence and holding onto something that’s indisputably false does. If Durianrider can’t get away with claiming all the experts are idiots and full of crap about his wonder diet, then why can Taubes? There’s a lot of selection bias in any diet movement. Basically if the diet plan of whatever person doesn’t work for you, then you aren’t going to be hanging around their site or posting testimonials. There’s no question that paleo has helped people, it certainly helped me, but I had the reasons it helped completely wrong so it helped despite going low carb and avoiding fruit. That matters.

    Put another way, why doesn’t what you wrote above apply to Campbell and the China study? Paleo blogs had a great time watching Minger rip him to shreds and then following his ridiculous responses so they could safely ignore him. But I guarantee you that there are a lot of people who were legitimately helped by following his advice in addition to the ones that were harmed. Probably even more since you couldn’t help but eat a more natural diet following his advice. He’s wrong about what he said and he’s ignoring real criticism, so it matters in evaluating his impact.

    Paleo or ancestral health doesn’t mean anything if it doesn’t have to scientifically rigorous. People can’t just give a pass on ignoring legitimate criticisms because somebody’s heart is in the right place- do you think Campbell is actually a cold blooded killer who’s playing the long game? And what does it say about somebody who ignores good information that contradicts what they’re saying? What does it say about their followers? It’s easy to point out that kind of silliness if you disagree with a movement, religion, philosophy etc, but when it comes to looking at ourselves…, well… of course there are good reasons… it’s more complicated…. um…

    • Sara on May 31, 2012 at 00:19

      I have no fucking idea what point you were trying to make with that.

      What’s more, I’m pretty sure you don’t either.

    • EatLessMoveMoore on May 31, 2012 at 00:57

      Pretty fucking clear to me. If Evelyn is a “tearer-downer” for going after Taubes, then what’s Minger for making a name for herself by going after Campbell? It’s the double-standard at work: If Evelyn were attacking raw vegans instead of slippery low carb marketers and promoters of paleo pseudo-science, she’d probably be going on her fifth Jimmy Moore podcast.

    • Karl on May 31, 2012 at 01:38

      Clearer and more concise than I managed to be. Though certainly nothing against Minger and her good work, just pointing out that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    • mark on May 31, 2012 at 05:27

      Campbell findings made us eat more wheat and less meat. Taubes makes us eat less wheat and more meat. Fuck Campbell and thank-you Minger.

    • Thom on May 31, 2012 at 05:30

      ELMM/Karl/v/Paul (all same person):

      If you think you can sell that Denise Minger = Evelyn Kocur, you are emotionally impaired. Seriously.

      You would have to have BPD or Aspergers to buy that idea, or to think you could sell it.

    • Thom on May 31, 2012 at 05:32

      I just saw that Jan said it way better than me.

    • v on May 31, 2012 at 02:26

      good points karl.

    • Jan's Sushi Bar on May 31, 2012 at 05:21

      If I may.

      The difference is that while Denise Minger’s interest is in discrediting the science, Evelyn Kocur is more interested in discrediting people. Ms. Minger does not sink to personal attacks in her work – there is no disparaging of weight, looks, or blog ads. If Gary Taubes, Jimmy Moore, Dana Carpender, Tom Naughton, et al, were to do an about-face tomorrow and announce that paleo/low carb/high fat was a mistake and all decided to become raw vegans, Mrs. Kocur would first attack their motives, speculate about their success (or more likely, their failure), and then, perhaps, find a rat study or two that she wwould insist proves them wrong.

      The difference is that Denise Minger has a fine mind. Evelyn Kocur has a small one.

    • M. on May 31, 2012 at 08:00

      I don’t know about Carpender, but Taubes, Moore, and Naughton disparage people too. Taubes criticizes scientists all the time, not just the science. Naughton calls scientists liars and makes fun of fat dieticians. Moore goes off on celebrities with eating disorders.

      It’s all just a team sport for many. Or a religon.

      It is also funny though that people don’t see the irony of coming to the “Cunt Master” to complain about other people’s “harsh language,” “vile epithets,” and disparaging person attacks.

    • Gene on May 31, 2012 at 09:57


      Wow, you’re really smart. I never noticed that Richard attacks people.

      Of course, since you quoted me I suppose I should remind you of the context of what I wrote. You’ll note that I didn’t exonerate anyone from responsibility for personal attacks. No one. What I did, however, was compare the measurable contribution of various people to the well-being of others once you cancel out all the personal attacks and other jazz. Is Evelyn going to release a complete demolition of a commonly held hypothesis – however flawed some aspects of the critique might’ve been – the way Taubes has? Say what you will, but GCBC was a major breakthrough in the popular conception of this issue. Beyond a few web denizens whose numbers are inflated by alts and sock puppets, who is Evelyn reaching? Whose life is she changing? What contribution has she made to the actual science she adores? Are we to see her name on groundbreaking research (or even humdrum stuff) in the journals any day now? Will we see her come out of the shadows, adopt a surname and put her nutritional junk on the table to be measured? As far as I’m concerned, until she shows the courage to do so, she can rot in internet obscurity and deserves every bit of criticism she gets. Deeds, not words.

    • M. on May 31, 2012 at 11:13

      Gene –

      I still don’t think you see the irony.

      If one’s contributions to society is all that matters to you, then why even bring up “vile epithets.” You are criticizing her choice of language. Here at the home of the Cunt Master.

      As far as the rest of your comments, meh. Like has been mentioned, T. Colin Campbell wrote a very popular nutrition book that changed many people’s minds and lives. He has “helping your fellow man” credentials up the wazoo by your standards. Some unknown blogger criticized it. Campbell even criticized her use of language – not for being “vile” but for being too cutesy. Her detractors mocked her for not publishing her work in journals and mocked her for lacking credentials. It’s all the same thing.

      Carbsane’s arguments should stand on their own merits, not on how vile or cutesy her language is or her lack of “credentials” in helping her fellow man. If the argument is about science, I would rather see scientific credentials than “helping your fellow man” credentials. But the argument still has to stand on its own, either way.

      There is just a lot of team sports and religion going on.

    • Gene on May 31, 2012 at 11:44

      I think you underestimate my irony detection…

      Where I publish these comments – i.e. the owner of the forum and their rhetorical style – doesn’t mean a cunting thing.

      I brought up “vile epithets” because she claims to take the “scientific” high road. And James Kreiger believes they’re trundling along it together. “Just playing gadfly over here” they say. “Advancing science” they chortle. But, of course we know that isn’t all that she’s up to.

      I give Campbell more kudos than Evelyn every day of the fucking week – no matter how wrong he might be on some things – because at least he put his name on it, threw it out there and is taking his licks. He’s supporting his data, and arguing his version of what the data means. He’s giving helping people an actual go. And I reckon that beyond his problem with animal proteins (which I think is based in a perfectly laudable attempt to be more ethical, whether he’d admit it or not) he and I would agree on quite a bit regarding the importance of plants to our diets, the importance of cutting out a lot of processed shit (sugar and vegetable oils) and maybe even the value of Didactic Dystopian novels. He’s gone out and tried to accumulate data about an important subject. Carbsane runs a ridiculously irrelevant blog and won’t even put her own name on her science, such as it is. She’s not collecting data, she’s not treating people in a clinical or intervention kind of setting (like a gym or training center). She’s a talking head who happens to specialise in negativity, gossip, character assassination and sycophancy.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 12:38

      “He has “helping your fellow man” credentials up the wazoo by your standards.”

      Absoutely false. Campbell harms people by the thousands. He tells them to not eat any animal products, which is the equivalent of telling people to avoid the sunshine (which others who harm human animals do to).

      Campbell deserves no dispensation. He harms animals.

    • Shelley on May 31, 2012 at 12:50

      Campbell’s type “helps” by offering up Breaded Vegan Fish Filets:

      How does this rank for a bunch of ingredients high on the healthy list. I guess it is non-gmo.

      I think Campbell only helps by getting a bunch of really unhealthy people to quit what they were previously eating and start eating a healthier fare. It certainly works for these people in the short-term, but I agree, we need animal products.

    • Nigel Kinbrum on May 31, 2012 at 17:55

      “Campbell harms people by the thousands.”
      Taubes also harms people by the thousands as long as he continues to promulgate the total bollocks (that he knows to be false and has known for several years) that people can be as gluttonous as they like on protein & fat, as long as they don’t eat carbohydrate.

      Taubes deserves no dispensation either. That’s my cognitive bias, and I’m sticking to it! 🙂

    • Jscott on May 31, 2012 at 18:36

      (In the interest of nesting…)

      —We harm ourselves. The ability (if that is what it is) to choose tribes-tribal leaders?-comes with a cost. Largely, we ain’t so good at it yet.

      Humans are still better at thinking than doing.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 18:43

      I think you’re wrong, Nigel.

      We’re animals and animals don’t naturally suffer from obesity. There are, I think many reasons people become obese and the the chief unexplored area is micronutrients (not macro- but that’s so easy because there are only 3).

      In spite of whatever errors Taubes committed, he reinvigorated a regime that motivates people to eat closer to their evolutionary heritage and when they do that, they tend, in large numbers, to get closer to their evolutionary heritage.

      It’s not perfect. Yes, it’s still easier to buy a ribeye than kill one, but it is a huge step in the right direction. All LCers need to do is drop the notion that they can eat as much as they want.

      I really don’t think it’s that tough of a nut to crack, based upon what I’ve been seeing over the last couple of moths.

    • Nigel Kinbrum on May 31, 2012 at 19:11

      Wild animals aren’t influenced by marketing. I think that’s a biggie.

      Also, even “natural” foods ain’t what they used to be, thanks to modern farming methods. That doesn’t help.

      Will LCers ever drop the notion that they can eat as much as they want if Taubes doesn’t change his tune? If he changes his tune, he’ll stop being criticised.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 19:27

      I don’t think marketing is that much of a biggie. I don’t even think that enticing food is that much of a biggie, of course, that does not apply to everyone. There have been fat people in all of recorded history. I’m not concerned abut eveyone, just trends and normalcy.

      I have found that for myself and friends & family, eating predominately real foods tends to deal with that. By what mechanism, whether leptin or the complexity of lots of micronutrients, I don’t know.

      At this point, it really doesn’t even matter if I were to go have some big fast food meal, or how big it is. Chances are I won’t eat anything else for 12-15 hours. No desire. But, you have to be eating good real food most of the time.

    • Jscott on May 31, 2012 at 19:33

      So end the talk of the pseudo-science of “carbs protein fats” categorizing. Whatever would we do then? Be hard as fuck to pick a tribe then. But, I am sure we would figure it out. We do like to circle up and shun.

    • Nigel Kinbrum on May 31, 2012 at 19:56

      “There have been fat people in all of recorded history. I’m not concerned abut eveyone, just trends and normalcy.”
      I was fat in the days when there was very little marketing of CIAB on TV & on paper media. I was subjected to displays of chocolate bars within easy reach in newsagents, which is point-of-sale marketing. In sight, in mind.

      I believe that increases in the cunning & volume of marketing is definitely partly responsible for the increase in the percentage of over-fat people. Crap nutritional advice from the government is also partly responsible.

      That’s the problem with multi-factorial issues like obesity. Tackling one issue doesn’t fix the problem, but it doesn’t mean that that issue shouldn’t be tackled.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 20:14

      Oh’ I agree with that, Nigel.

      Paleo is already about telling government to go fuck themselves. That’s the easy part.

      The marketing on TV and just as you’re driving in the car or waking down the street is indeed a big issue. This is why I like 2 things: high nutrition when you eat, and the ethic of fasting when you don’t. In other words, you can be less susceptible to the enticements because you’re well fed or, you are exercising the equivalent of a religious rite to eat nothing.

    • Jscott on May 31, 2012 at 20:54

      *Rather, better at doing.

    • scott on June 1, 2012 at 07:47

      Bears don’t become “obese” (pack on fat) for hibernation?

    • Richard Nikoley on June 1, 2012 at 08:13

      Yes, but because they’re _supposed_ to. Just like hippos are supposed to be fat.

    • marie on May 31, 2012 at 20:16

      “If I may.” Yes Jan, Please, it’s perfect.
      The whole argument can end right here.
      I would just borrow that last line in any further dispute, if I may 🙂
      Whoever doesn’t get the difference in approach, or the balance-sheet aspect, either doesn’t want to or is irredeemably stupid.

    • Nigel Kinbrum on June 1, 2012 at 04:40

      Ms Sushi Bar, your biases are showing. Tuck them in!

      All I (and, I suspect Evelyn, James et al) want Taubes to do is admit that saying “You can be as gluttonous as you like on protein & fat, provided you don’t eat any carbohydrate” was a mistake and that total calories eaten do count where body weight is concerned.

      That’s all.

    • M. on June 1, 2012 at 05:57

      “That’s all.”

      Well, he could also stop his misguided “War on Insulin” as his buddy Attia calls it. A war on the Lipid Hypothesis might have served more people (or maybe not, since he doesn’t see a problem with omega-6s. He is too macro-focused.)

    • Nigel Kinbrum on June 1, 2012 at 11:33

      Indirectly, taking back the above statement also takes back the war on insulin, as it’s being gluttonous (subconsciously or otherwise) that causes excessive insulin secretion. If insulin could speak, it would cry “Don’t shoot me! I’m only the nutrient storer/non-burner!”

      That’s enough anthropomorphism from me.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 08:15

      Lots of very reasonable points, Karl. It would probably take a whole blog to address them well, but let me attempt a quick stream of consciousness on some distinctions I’d make.

      – As Jan wrote, you don’t have to try to discredit people to critique science (ref: Newtonian physics). I’d add further that Denise has bent over backwards to acknowledge Campbell’s contributions to basic research (some of which contradict his own conclusions in TCS).

      – For me it’s all about balance sheet. I think it’s indisputable that paleo/lc/and Lustig’s sugar admonishments serve to help a lot of people in the large. This is critically important. But if you take an evolutionary view of things, cutting out animal nutrition can not possibly help people in the large. Thus, Taube’s, et al, are helping people in the large to fat loss and health improvements and Campbell, et al, are harming people and if Denise is to be believed, on possibly fraudulent ground. Fraud gets you no dispensation in my book even if it is for a “good cause.”

      I’m not saying that anyone and everyone who puts something out there is a “value producer” and must be acknowledged for that. Some stuff is just crap, so go for it. At the same time, this value in itself—of dispatching crap—gets take too far. There are still plenty, plenty of respected researcher’s who think Taubes is entirely right of largely right, like Feyneman, for example. There was just an MD with a head for biochemistry that posted in that Lustig/Fructose post I linked to in my comment to Kreiger who thinks Lustig is right. So, continue to critique and discuss, absolutely, but there’s no need to be a squeaking pip, not really contributing anything. All some do is seem to attempt to elevate themselves above Taubes, et at, by tearing them down.

      Or, put another way, Denise is not trying to be a more important vegan than Campbell by elevating herself above him. She’s critiquing the premise of the whole thing.

  8. Paul on May 31, 2012 at 02:20

    So Evelyn makes fun of some people as did Richard. And that’s different because of what? With all the scientific posts over there she is a value producer for ME. I don’t give damn how many people she helped or how many book sales she got. Value Producer for Whom?

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 10:19

    • Paul on June 1, 2012 at 08:36

      I’m aware of this theory. I’ll read it again and think about how you connect it to Evelyn. Even big companies make fun of other Products and Ideas: “PC vs Mac” Spots.

    • Richard Nikoley on June 1, 2012 at 09:00

      That’s two producers competing. Apple isn’t claiming they’re so good because PCs are so bad.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 14:42

      I say: v is a glazier apprentice.

    • Paul on June 1, 2012 at 09:44

      Ha, I’m not flattered about agreements. Who’s v anyway? 😀
      I still give you Thumbs Up for being out here with a real name, Richard. There’s either a misunderstanding between us (because in general love your sense of life) or i disagree with some points you made recently. This happens.

    • Richard Nikoley on June 1, 2012 at 09:52


      No worries, mate. Disagreements are the veritable spice of life.

      Being the blogger in residence here, there’s the possible impression that I do this to impart knowledge to the unwashed masses when in reality, I just give it my best shot to put out there what I think and in the end, because I see literally everything, I probably learn more than any of you.

      Of course, then I go off and spin it, so it looks like I came up with it. 🙂

  9. Jscott on May 31, 2012 at 20:06

    Not to get practical or anything…

    Science helps me filter my N=1. Sometimes I get a whacky idea via a wingnut. Largely, I have a problem and want to suicide it. I look at the research. Look at other people who have done something about it ( and then attempt to put an experiment together so I can solve my issue.

    Oh, you want links? Sure.
    This dude double blinds his personal trials. Sleep, nootropics, memory, etc. I am waiting for his n=1 on love cause zeus knows I need it.
    They do work son. All types of gadgets and geeked out geeky geeks. If there is a device to measure they have it listed. Good conference too. The forum is slow but slow can be good. Gary wolf is a part of all that.

    He tries shit. Like Richard. Only he does not use the word fuck. Though he did talk about Tucker Max once and boy did I make the wrong comment on that post. But anywho. Seth gives a fuck. He will put his neck on the cutting board. Oh, and he likes butter. Alot. See his posts.

    This guy is testing procrastination. Apparently. Rumor has it he spends to much time on FTA to start-up blogging again. But fucking cool name, right?

    I will leave it at that for now.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 20:23

      Seth gave up half his time at AHS11 for Tucker.

      Tucker is nothing like his books. He reads this blog sometimes and in fact approached me when I didn’t know who he was. We exchange emails now and then. He’s not really anything like the shtick of his books.

      Seth is a sweet, sweet man. He engaged me many times at AHS11 and was first up to the microphone for the Q&A for my presentation. Seth humbles me in that he really takes experimentation to serious levels with data recording’ which I don’t really do. I just give it some time and assess whether shit is better.

      I’m really loving the cold water more and more. Tomorrow, I start getting up at 6 every morning to head to to pool for breast stroke laps, my favorite and in a past life did them a lot,

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 20:44

      I don’t see the last link before I replied.

      I used to do conferences in the financial industry sector I was in and had a presentation called The Virtue of Procrastination.

      Over years, I found that if I procrastinated business ideas that I either never did them at all, because chewing on them made me conclude it wasn’t worth the risk or they were unviable altogether or, when I finally did get around to execution, it was far more efficient and thought out than I’d have done at the outset.

  10. Ryan on May 31, 2012 at 07:06

    I posted this on the carb sanity blog in response to the post on the defense of Fructose, as far as I am concerned Lustig is right on the money when it comes to excess Fructose, here is my rational for why.

    So my comments aren’t immediately discredited, I am going to give my credentials. I am an MD and was the first student in 10 years at my medical school to test out of biochemistry. I love the subject. My main hobby is to weed though all of these “experts” blogs, lectures, etc.. and understand how biochemical processes have evolutionary implications. I am not on board with strict low carb, nor do I view carbs and sugar as safe substances in certain situations. “In a nut shell, calories should be thought of as effectors of hormonal signaling that lead to downstream changes in the gene expression patterns of the cells.” With this in mind, different classes of calories all lead to various downstream expression patterns at the basic cellular level due to the hormonal input received via the endocrine system on the cell. Based on this logic, we should search for the type of diet that leads to optimal gene expression patterns, the problem is, these diet’s will differ in various populations. Therefore, there is no one size fits all diet and this leads to controversy. Fructose in large quantities (cokes, cakes, doughnuts)is bad because of the hostile hormonal environment it creates, the individual molecule and its fate as an energy source are harmless. Dietary fat in large quantities does not lead to same hostile hormonal environment (as long as it is not consumed in conjunction with excess fructose or glucose). If you don’t believe me, check your fasting TAG’s, then drink one coke a day for two weeks and recheck them. They will go up, why, because fructose metabolism by passes the rate limiting step in glycolosis which then shunts the energy to de novo lipogensis in the liver, but it also leads to hormonal changes that favor energy storage on a cellular level “ie insulin resistance, leptin resistance, etc” because the only time large quantities of fructose were available (unless your genetic heritage is from a tropical environments) was in the spring in summer when calories where in excess. Your cells gene expression patterns change in response to the hormonal input received from large quantities of this effector molecule (fructose) and it paves the way for the ravenous hunger and eating paleolithic humans must have experienced in northern climates in the late spring and summer to pack on enough fat to survive the fall and winter. Don’t fool yourself into thinking large quantities of glucose and fructose vs large quantities of fat and protein don’t tell our cells things about our environmental conditions. Through an evolutionary lens the various types of calories and the macronutrient ratios consumed in meals have profound implications on our body composition, hunger, and nutrient partitioning. Various ratios are effectors that lead to specific types of hormonal milieu’s which tell all cells (including the biggies, brain and liver) at lot about our current environmental conditions which will lead to changes in nutrient partitioning and behavior patterns. Those that argue with this are arguing against evolution.

    • VW on May 31, 2012 at 08:39

      They don’t teach you to use paragraphs in med school?

    • Thom on May 31, 2012 at 09:16

      What a little shit you are. It’s an awesome comment; read it and shut the fuck up.

    • scott on May 31, 2012 at 08:40

      epic comment. Could be it’s own blog entry.

    • marie on May 31, 2012 at 09:24

      Fantastic comment. Revealing the underlying connections of many concepts we hear bandied about and so ‘information dense” (How do you work all that in there?) that it takes a couple of re-reads.
      Those who can’t read it because it’s monolithic also probably wouldn’t understand it if they did, so no biggie 🙂

    • Nigel Kinbrum on May 31, 2012 at 17:32

      Ryan said…
      “Dietary fat in large quantities does not lead to same hostile hormonal environment (as long as it is not consumed in conjunction with excess fructose or glucose). If you don’t believe me, check your fasting TAG’s…”
      Ryan has completely overlooked postprandial TAGs (in chylomicrons), which increase greatly after eating fat and reduce at a rate determined by activity level (as TAGs go into both fat mass and active muscle mass). In sedentary people, postprandial TAGs remain high for over 6 hours.

      William Davis M.D. blogged about it in Gretchen’s postprandial diet experiment. I can’t see Figs 1 & 2 on Firefox, but clicking on the space where they should be displays them.

    • Thom on May 31, 2012 at 23:08

      Nigel, all I know is that Peter Dobromylskyj thinks you’re a nonsense-spouting idiot, and that’s enough for me to skip everything you write on human physiology.

    • Nigel Kinbrum on June 1, 2012 at 02:18

      I provided a link to evidence to support what I wrote.
      Let’s see you do likewise RE Peter Dobromylskyj’s thoughts.
      If you skip everything I write on human physiology, you’re the idiot, not me.

    • marie on June 1, 2012 at 08:24

      Thom, all I know is that following Blindly defines an idiot.

    • Thom on June 1, 2012 at 13:03

      Anyone can look at Hyperlipid and see the progression:

      – Peter patiently explaining all the beginner’s errors you were making

      – Peter getting annoyed and gradually more curt/dismissive (rare for him) as he realized you weren’t interested in physiology, but rather pretending to be a physiologist, for reasons unknown

      – Peter finally completely ignoring you as a bizarre crank pretender

      I’m only calling you out so Richard can do some due diligence before he presents you as something other than the nutjob you are.

      Stick to Electrical Engineering, “nigepoo”, and run along back to carbsanity and recommence sucking up.

    • Nigel Kinbrum on June 1, 2012 at 18:07

      Peter explained to me about heat loss in rodents, as he’s a vet and I’m not.

      I pointed out the error in extrapolating from rodents to adult humans, due to the vast difference in surface area:volume ratios (high in rodents, low in adult humans) and therefore the vast difference in amounts of BAT (large in rodents, negligible in adult humans). Blocking storage in fat cells by FIRKO results in rodents dissipating excess energy intake as body heat by changing their behaviour (less huddling together) which prevents weight gain. Humans can’t do that, so excess energy intake results in weight gain. Ta-da!

      Naturally, Peter would be annoyed when I point out the error in his theory (that obesity is purely physiological). The fact that you believe Peter’s theory hook, line & sinker shows that you are incapable of understanding the above simple explanation due to cognitive bias or whatever. You calling me out is a joke. You can’t even spell my nickname correctly!

      You may now return to Peter’s rectum.

    • Richard Nikoley on June 1, 2012 at 18:16

      I can spell it: Kareeeeeeeeeoke.

    • Nigel Kinbrum on June 1, 2012 at 18:30

      Behave! 😀

    • J. Stanton on June 1, 2012 at 11:26


      And elevated postprandial TAGs are harmful how?

      The cartoon low-carber fallacy is that “Chronically elevated blood sugar is harmful…therefore transiently elevated blood sugar after a meal is also harmful.” — otherwise known as “You’re temporarily a diabetic every time you eat starch.”

      You appear to be committing the same fallacy, but with fat.


    • Nigel Kinbrum on June 1, 2012 at 11:38

      “And elevated postprandial TAGs are harmful how?”

      Read Fasting Compared With Nonfasting Triglycerides and Risk of Cardiovascular Events in Women.

      I think you’ll find that I’m not committing a fallacy.

    • J. Stanton on June 1, 2012 at 13:22

      I’m familiar with the research, Nigel.

      Yes, both fasting and postprandial TAG tend to be elevated in the metabolic syndrome, relative to healthy people — just as both fasting and post-prandial blood glucose tend to be elevated in the metabolic syndrome, relative to healthy people.

      Both TAG and blood glucose will become elevated after a meal…because that’s how nutrients are absorbed, circulated, and used. Therefore, it is nonsensical to say that elevated TAG after a meal is bad per se, just as it’s nonsensical to say that elevated blood glucose after a meal is bad per se.

      Let’s return to Ryan’s original claim: “Dietary fat in large quantities does not lead to same hostile hormonal environment (as long as it is not consumed in conjunction with excess fructose or glucose). If you don’t believe me, check your fasting TAG’s, then drink one coke a day for two weeks and recheck them. They will go up…”

      Nigel’s claim is that Ryan is ignoring the importance of post-prandial TAG. There are plenty of citations showing both tend to co-vary with MetS and its various manifestations (e.g. “both fasting and nonfasting triglyceride levels predicted cardiovascular events”)*. So, in order for Nigel to disprove Ryan’s claim, he would have to prove the following:

      1. Drinking one Coke a day increases your fasting TAGs — but it does not increase your post-prandial TAGs.
      2. Increased isocaloric exchange of fat for carbohydrate results in a chronic increase in post-prandial TAGs at the same fat intake. (Of course TAG is more elevated for longer after eating more fat, just as BG is more elevated for longer after eating more glucose. That should be a “duh”.)

      The William Davis post Nigel cites addresses neither of these questions: in fact, the rise in TAG several hours after the low-fat meal seems to support Ryan’s claim. And the study Nigel cites also addresses neither of these questions: we know that both fasting and post-prandial elevated TAGs are associated with MetS and its consequences…but that says nothing about why either fasting or post-prandial TAGs become elevated relative to healthy people at the same fat intake.

      My point stands.


      * (Yes, the paper Nigel cited claims that “further adjustment for levels of total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and measures of insulin resistance weakened this association”…but as it’s well-known that HDL tends to vary inversely with TG and insulin resistance, this is not surprising. It’s like saying that “adjustment for your thermostat setting weakened the inverse association between your gas bill and the outside temperature”.)

    • Nigel Kinbrum on June 1, 2012 at 18:28

      I linked to William Davis’ post to illustrate how postprandial TAGs can be very high for many hours after a high-fat meal.

      The study I linked to showed a significant positive association (which doesn’t prove causation) between postprandial TAGs & CVE, but not between fasting TAGs & CVE. Does that not answer your question “And elevated postprandial TAGs are harmful how?”

      Your asterisked section left out some information.
      “Among fasting participants, further adjustment for levels of total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and measures of insulin resistance weakened this association…
      In contrast, nonfasting triglyceride levels maintained a strong independent relationship with cardiovascular events in fully adjusted models…

    • J. Stanton on June 1, 2012 at 23:17

      Nigel has ignored the points stated, and simply restated his disproved (or unproved) ones by shouting in bold type. Since he’s obviously taken this as a challenge to his ego, rather than as a scientific disagreement which we can both use to further our understanding, I see no use in further discussion with him. What follows is for the benefit of the few remaining readers of this exchange.

      “The study I linked to showed a significant positive association (which doesn’t prove causation) between postprandial TAGs & CVE, but not between fasting TAGs & CVE. … In contrast, nonfasting triglyceride levels maintained a strong independent relationship with cardiovascular events in fully adjusted models…“”

      The association did not disappear, as he states. Quote: “Further adjustment…weakened this association”) More importantly, I already explained this in the footnote at the end of my comment above: fasting TAG and HDL strongly correlate inversely, so adjusting for HDL will remove most of the correlation.

      I could play a similar trick by saying “When I adjust for height, short basketball players score just as much as tall ones.” But that would be dishonest, because the fact that height helps you score points in basketball is directly related to one’s success as a basketball player. Adjusting away that correlation has no real-world relevance or significance…

      …and neither does “adjusting” away fasting TAG with a strong covariant.

      Moving on: As explained by the person (Gretchen) whose data was shown in the Davis post, “I was not planning on publicizing the results, so I didn’t weigh food or make sure the protein amounts were the same.” Did the carb-heavy meal have the same caloric value? Twice the caloric value? One-half? We have no idea. As I described above, the magnitude and length of post-prandial elevation of either TAG or blood glucose depends on how much was eaten, among a host of other factors — so we can’t compare the magnitude or duration of either graph. (Did we mention that Gretchen is diabetic, so we’d expect her responses to both challenges to be atypical?)

      Since Nigel hasn’t introduced any new information — he’s merely restated himself in bold type — Ryan’s point stands.

      For the record, I find Ryan’s assertion plausible, but I don’t know whether it’s correct or not. What I do know is that the references cited do not disprove it.


    • Nigel Kinbrum on June 2, 2012 at 01:19

      I use bolding to highlight the bleeding obvious for those with reading comprehension issues. The use of capitals is shouting. I thought that everybody knew that. You use a lot of words to obfuscate and you assign emotions where there are none. /discussion

      Adjustment for HDL weakened the association of fasting TAGs with CVE to insignificance. It didn’t weaken the association of postprandial TAGs with CVE to insignificance. My point still stands.

    • Nigel Kinbrum on June 2, 2012 at 04:47

      I nearly forgot. While you are correct in that fasting TAG and HDL strongly correlate inversely, there is not necessarily an inverse correlation between nonfasting TAG and HDL. As nonfasting TAG increases with fat intake and HDL also increases with fat intake, there is possibly a direct correlation between nonfasting TAG and HDL.

      Forget Gretchen. From the study:- “Much of the 24-hour day is spent in the nonfasting state, especially considering the fact that triglycerides may take up to 12 hours to return to fasting levels after a meal.”
      The less muscle activity there is (i.e. the more sedentariness there is), the more time it takes to clear TAG from circulation. Sedentariness also leads to insulin resistance/MetSyn, so people eating high-fat diets need to be active (just like people on high-carb diets!).

      Your argument is therefore completely invalid.

    • Thom on June 2, 2012 at 09:39

      You are a bizarre and pitiable person, Nigel.

    • J. Stanton on June 3, 2012 at 01:13

      In other words: “I have no response at all to the points you raised — so I’m going to restate my already-disproven point a third time, pretend I won something, take my toys, and leave.”


    • J. Stanton on June 3, 2012 at 01:28

      “But wait! I’m going to come back once more, restate one of JS’s points as if I thought of it myself, and claim it as an argument against him! I’m brilliant!”

      Nigel, the reason people don’t call you out on your errors more often isn’t that you’re correct: it’s that you apparently have endless time and energy to make specious arguments.


    • Nigel Kinbrum on June 3, 2012 at 07:58

      @Thom: And you’re a…a…dayum! What’s the word that means “somebody who crawls up other person’s anus”?

      @Stanton: Your argument is still invalid. Waffling on interminably and using irrelevant analogies hasn’t validated it. You’ve now resorted to name-calling rather than trying to show that what I wrote is wrong by providing supportive evidence, which shows that you don’t seem to have any supportive evidence to back you up. And who qualified you to say that I’m incorrect? I say that you’re incorrect and I’ve given an explanation as to why that is.

      Your turn!

      P.S. I do have endless time and energy to counter your specious arguments. 😀

    • J. Stanton on June 4, 2012 at 05:10

      I apologize to anyone still reading for allowing Nigel to pull me down to his level. So: in order to clear the air, I will explain in detail why post-prandial TAG (frequently also abbreviated as TG) doesn’t co-vary with HDL, why that’s not important, and why fasting TG is important even though it tends to co-vary inversely with HDL.

      Remember, the original assertion Ryan made is that disposal of excess glucose and fructose causes metabolic dysfunction, which is shown by an increase in fasting TG. Nigel’s contention is apparently that, even though both are elevated in the metabolic syndrome and T2D, elevation of post-prandial TG is somehow far more important — and the elevation of fasting TG is either unimportant or less important, because it tends to co-vary inversely with HDL.

      (Note that I’m not defending Ryan’s hypothesis: I’ve only shown that Nigel’s citation has not disproved it.)

      First, in order to make the implied case that fasting TG is relatively unimportant, Nigel has to ignore the extensive data showing the strong correlation between fasting TG and various forms of heart disease (CVD, CHD, etc.) Just two examples:
      (Note figures like “relative risk [RR] in the highest compared with the lowest quartile=6.8”.)

      Moving on: the reason that post-prandial TG tends not to covary with HDL, whereas fasting TG does, is that the two processes involve different homeostases.

      The case of post-prandial TG is simple: an enzyme called lipoprotein lipase (LPL) removes triglycerides from chylomicrons, a necessary step in their removal from the bloodstream. Insulin regulates LPL activity, and insulin resistance results in less LPL activity. Result: it takes longer to clear the elevated TG from the blood. (For a diagram and full explanation, see Goldberg 2001, particularly Figure 1.) Note that, unlike fasting TG, there’s no meaningful interaction with HDL.

      (Also note that this explains Gretchen’s marked hyperlipemia: she’s diabetic, which makes it truly bizarre to have brought her up as an example.)

      In contrast, the homeostasis of fasting TG is more complicated, and I’ll refer you again to Goldberg 2001 for the explanation. “Thus, the etiology of the hypertriglyceridemia and reduced HDL can be accounted for; CETP-mediated exchange of VLDL triglyceride for HDL cholesteryl esters is accelerated in the presence of hypertriglyceridemia. … Another contributor to HDL is the surface lipid from triglyceride-rich particles that are transferred to HDL during VLDL and chylomicron lipolysis. This increases HDL lipid content. Defective lipolysis leads to reduced HDL production.” (See the subheading “Reduced HDL” in the section “Specific Lipoprotein Abnormalities” for the full explanation.)

      And just to nail down the coffin lid, here’s a final quote from Goldberg 2001: “The primary and in many cases essential approach to triglyceride reduction is glycemic control.”

      Thus we prove that :
      1. Fasting TG is indeed important
      2. Inverse covariance of fasting TG with HDL is a simple and expected result of lipoprotein metabolism — and adjusting away the correlation is therefore meaningless, just like adjusting away the beneficial effect of height for basketball players
      3. Even the most mainstream of sources agree that the way to reduce both fasting and post-prandial TG is by improving glycemic control
      4. Therefore, repeated out-of-context citations of the same sentence from the same paper (and associated chest-beating, misdirection, misrepresentation, and outright denial) still fail to disprove the original contention.

      I hope this clears the air for anyone still reading!


    • gallier2 on June 4, 2012 at 07:06

      Just a little thank you for your perseverance.

    • Shelley on May 31, 2012 at 09:36

      Limiting fructose makes a lot of sense to me. I personally have noticed that everything I eat affects my hormones and thinking in a good or bad way and dropping the fructose has changed so many things for the positive that I’m sure it has to be changing things on the cellular level.

    • mark on May 31, 2012 at 10:35

      So what is excessive? Or is this the million dollar grass-fed question? I’m in the camp that “as little as possible to none is best”. Like Dr. Rosedale and Peter Attia… Your body is damaged if you can’t live “low-carb”

    • mark on May 31, 2012 at 10:49

      On a side note – is anyone else following Peter’s epic Cholesterol series??

    • rob on May 31, 2012 at 10:51

      The world’s greatest athletes consume carbs like there is no tomorrow, are their bodies “damaged”?

      A person who can run 26.2 miles in 3 hours or 100 meters in 10 seconds is damaged?

    • mark on May 31, 2012 at 12:03

      You mean those running skeleton looking freaks who could use a good steak and a couple pounds of mucles over their bones? Inflamation anyone?


    • Shelley on May 31, 2012 at 12:08

      Very true, mark.

    • mark on May 31, 2012 at 12:18

      Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. I think Mark Sission covered this nicely. (cronic cardio).

      I’ll even say if you “need” carbs to do anything – maybe it’s not worth doing…

    • rob on May 31, 2012 at 12:18

      You have it backwards. People who are damaged cannot eat carbs.

      People who are undamaged, and are in fact glorious examples of what humans are capable of doing, can eat carbs until the cows come home.

      So if you can’t eat carbs what you have to do is repair the damage you have done to yourself.

      Are you telling me that Usain Bolt is a damaged freak?

      Some people are content to merely exist, but that’s not enough for everyone, and to LIVE you need fuel.

    • mark on May 31, 2012 at 12:23

      “Are you telling me that Usain Bolt is a damaged freak?”

      How’s his inflamation markers? What about LDL-P? Will he live to 100 years old and still be able to walk?

      “Some people are content to merely exist, but that’s not enough for everyone, and to LIVE you need fuel.”

      So I need to push my limits to the point of “needing” sugar to live? That’s Awesome – thanks for the tip.

    • Shelley on May 31, 2012 at 12:25

      Usain Bolt isn’t a marathon runner. Do you know what he eats? Here’s what I briefly found:

      The article claimed he ate six daily meals containing 30% carbohydrates, 60% protein, and 10% fats, with most of the protein coming from chicken fillet (and Chicken McNuggets!). This resembles a low carb, high protein, low fat diet, although the term “diet” is really misleading.

    • mark on May 31, 2012 at 12:27

      “You have it backwards. People who are damaged cannot eat carbs. ”

      Are you sure – Why did they get damaged in the first place – was it eating low-carb? LOL

    • rob on May 31, 2012 at 12:59

      Yeah he eats rice with each meal.

      Okay you find a sprinter objectionable, so let’s go with a 5000 or 10,000 meter guy instead…. or if you just don’t like running a swimmer or pole vaulter … you’re telling me he’s damaged? He’s sick because he eats carbs?

      You want to spend your life talking about your blood glucose level that’s fine, but most of the people in the world want to actually do stuff.

    • rob on May 31, 2012 at 13:01

      They got damaged because they were eating crap food while being sedentary for a period of years. That’s how I damaged myself. I fixed it by losing the weight and becoming physically active.

      The difference between you and me is that while I am not infallible, I don’t make the same mistake twice.

    • rob on May 31, 2012 at 13:07

      Guys who are afraid to eat a peach should have their testicles repossessed.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 13:56

      Just what do you mean by “peach,” rob? 🙂

    • Paul C on May 31, 2012 at 14:26

      If you have been part of the long distance running scene, you would see the glorified carb products surrounding it, which are about as far from real food as you can get.

      Maybe you can justify it for an athlete to eat a meal of jellybeans and sugar goo looking at it purely as fuel, but that ignores what others here are saying. The hormonal response, inflammation, oxidation, and overuse injuries can be ignored for a long time but with a future price to pay.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 14:41

      Paul C:

      The bigger issue for me is nutrition, and over time. Sure, a once a year 26 mile walk chugging down goo for fuel won’t hurt anyone (i’ve done those, the Big Sur to Carmel).

      Its the frequency, and the crowding out of nutrition that is a concern to me. And I think it far outweighs anti-nutrients, too.

    • Shelley on May 31, 2012 at 16:05

      Paul C: You’re right, after several marathons with gatorade, gu and sport beans fueling the way, I never, never, never will go there again. Talk about inflammation and damage and weight gain through the middle even with the training miles! Though the Guinness at the end of every training run was awesome!

    • Kate Ground on June 1, 2012 at 07:37

      It’s GU. I run. I like to run. It calms the senses. Put in my ear buds and take off. But I don’t pump up on white fluffy carbs. Some dried fruit is all I need. I had a friend who owned a Gym…a big health nut. Raquet ball, biking, running….but he pumped the white fluffy carbs. He’s dead now…heart attack out on a 20 mile bike trip. He was 59.

    • AndrewS on May 31, 2012 at 13:01

      Sprinters and Marathoners have quite different physiques. It’s the marathoners that tend to look like skeletons, and to drop dead during or after the run.

      You’ll see the cardio freaks at your local bagel and pastry joints in the mornings after their run. Are carbs required for marathoning, or is chronic carb ingestion required for a marathoner that chronically eats carbs? _Born to Run_ answers that.

    • Barbara on May 31, 2012 at 14:05

      Check out Dane Rauschenberg – he’s a 15+ per year marathoner and he does NOT carb-up the night before – he “steaks-up” and does pretty darned well.

    • AndrewS on June 1, 2012 at 08:24

      Yeah, sorry, I didn’t really mean all marathoners. The stereotype of the marathoner is the skeletal carb-freak. I think the Paleo bloggers that have hated on marathoning have ignored the standard diet of the standard marathoner — which is way more wheat-centric than the SAD.

  11. M. on May 31, 2012 at 07:21

    Once people claim or imply scientific expertise (“dude, I’m a neurosurgeon”), then I think a different standard applies. The science needs to be debated when one makes the science or the scientific expertise the issue. If people want to talk about different lifestyle and diet strategies that is great, but when science is the issue, then people should not get a free pass just because they “play for the same team.” Maybe this is uninteresting for some people and appears “cancerous”, but it is what separates science from religion.

    If all “Paleo” is about is cajoling people to eat a certain way, then I have little use for it. It is just religion. Using bad science to cajole someone is just more religion. I just find the debate much more interesting.

    Whether the science directly affects someone can vary, but tearing up bad science or pseudoscience serves a “greater good” as some would say just as much as cajoling someone to eat in a manner that you believe is healthier. Debating the science can serve both purposes when certain people have latched onto bad science, whether it is The China Study or Good Calories, Bad Calories.

    When Jimmy Moore adds Ranch dressing to the 25 chicken wings he eats in one sitting because they don’t have “enough healthy fat,” he is not making this decision on empirical evidence that adding extra Ranch dressing to your 25 chicken wings aides in weight loss. He is making this decision based on what he learned from reading GCBC that Ranch dressing is a healthy fat and from what he learned from Taubes saying during an interview that you can gluttonize all you want as long as you keep your carbs low.

    If Jimmy had been exposed to more scientific debate and more empirical evidence, maybe he would have made better decisions, especially when he is relying on just scientific expertise (Taubes’) to guide him.

    • Thom on May 31, 2012 at 07:52

      Who are you people that have all day to spend attacking people?

    • Shelley on May 31, 2012 at 07:57

      +1 🙂
      People who turn into bitter old people; grumpy old men; bitchy old women…

    • M. on May 31, 2012 at 08:23

      “Who are you people that have all day to spend attacking people?”

      What are you talking about? Jimmy blogged about his chicken wing/ranch experience and did state that the wings did not have enough healthy fat on their own so he added Ranch dressing. I believe Evelyn even commented there and told him that he must be figuring the fat content of the wings wrong.

      Why can’t we debate or discuss anything without it being an “attack” upon the glorious leaders of the divine movement?

    • Thom on May 31, 2012 at 09:24

      Pip, you are free to squeak as you wish.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 09:39

      “Freedon of squeak.”

    • Thom on May 31, 2012 at 09:47

      I’ll say!

      At a certain point, you just feel bad for them.

      If my life were about the dressing on Jimmy Moore’s wings, I would want to kill myself.

      I guess it’s a step up from saving your urine in jars…but only barely.

    • EatLessMoveMoore on May 31, 2012 at 13:28

      Yes, at a certain point you do just feel bad for them –

    • EatLessMoveMoore on May 31, 2012 at 13:10

      Yeah, I’m sure 25 chicken wings with ranch and 3 tablespoons of butter for one sweet potato have NOTHING to do with ‘mysterious’ weight gains. It’s a medical mystery! But don’t worry, the finest minds in low carb nutrition are on the case… (Rinse, repeat.) This sort of thing makes LC – and paleo by extension, since Jimmy has co-opted that as well – look pretty ridiculous. And Jack “Dude, I’m a neurosurgeon” Kruse didn’t help. I think this is the larger point people like Evelyn and Kurt are all about – even though they admittedly go about making it in indelicate ways at times. Paleo is overflowing with folks unafraid to call bullshit when necessary – unless it’s one of their own. That is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

    • Shelley on May 31, 2012 at 13:26

      That does it – it’s dinner at the Outback tonight for a rare prime rib, sweet potato loaded with at least 3T of butter and some bacon bits. Now that sound superbly good. 🙂

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 13:59

      Funny. I love beef most of the time but what I have a taste for tonight is a rotisserie chicken from Lunardi’s market and a green leaf salad.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 14:03


      Have patience. This is not advancing at a glacial pace. Think back just months or a coupla years. See how much the thinking has evolved. A few years back, virtually everyone was LC, there was no Q about it. Now, not so much.

      Jimmy has a lot of capital to spend. He’s done a lot and earned it. But I predict that sometime in the future he’ll have little choice but to experiment with caloric restriction in the context of his LC diet (which has become cleaner thanks to paleo).

      I don’t understand why people don’t see that Jimmy’s success at being an influence doesn’t ultimately work both ways.

    • jofjltncb6 on May 31, 2012 at 15:16

      I started consuming about 350g of sweet potato with 3T of kg butter daily for the past few weeks. (No, really.) Are you telling me this is a bad idea? (But for the record, I’m actually trying to put on some weight to my 6′ 160 pounds.)

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 15:18


      Yes, bad idea. Very bad idea. You must wait until all the science comes in. You have to fast until then.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 15:21

      Oops, my bad.

      The SCIENCE on fasting isn’t all in yet, either. Shit. I have no idea what you’re supposed to do.

      You could eat mea, fish, fowl, vegetables and fruits, including tubers, but the SCIENCE isn’t all in yet, and you know, some people have made assertions and others are all worried about it.

      But the science isn’t in. That’s what you really, really have to take to heart.

    • jofjltncb6 on May 31, 2012 at 15:29

      So what you’re saying is…that the science isn’t completely in yet on eating, so I have no choice but to sit idly by and wait for it to come in?

      Sounds legit.

      Alternatively, I could just keep doing what seems to make sense to me, recording it, and evaluating the results…while continuing to read some of the science as it comes in to see if I want to make any changes to what I’m doing. Yeah, that’s crazy talk…no way that could ever work.

      (And as a bonus, people can continue to read my MyFitnessPal food diary (username: jofjltncb6) and freak out about how I’m doing irreparable harm to my body, mind and soul by eating what I eat, including a daily sweet potato and a disturbing amount of kerrygold butter (at least until I move on to something else).)

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 16:08


      You’re comment was valuable to me. it inspired the blog entry I just put up.

    • jofjltncb6 on June 1, 2012 at 08:18

      Reminds me of an old Chicago song…

      I hadn’t yet read the latest blog entry, but will do so now…and with at least a little pride in knowing that I somehow inspired it. (Now I just hope that it doesn’t suck. Then I’d have to spin control and distance myself from it. I’d probably do that by throwing virtual rocks and e-sniping. I have a reputation to protect.)

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 12:35

      “but when science is the issue, then people should not get a free pass just because they “play for the same team.” ”

      You’re kinda setting up a false premise there, at least as concerns what I’m trying to get across:

      1. Science is not the primary issue. Individual results are, and science in the context of what we’re talking about—metabolism and fat loss—is so varied at the individual level as to be a crude tool at best. Eat meat, fish, fowl, vegetables and fruits” is only “scientific” in the script sense of plain butte observation: it’s what’s available naturally, so obviously it’s what humans ought to eat. And guess what, that very simple thing trumps ALL NUTRITION SCIENCE HANDS DOWN. In comparison, nutrition scientists are ignoramuses.

      2. I’m for promoting people on the team of “eat meat, fish, fowl, vegetables and fruit.”

    • M. on May 31, 2012 at 13:53

      Science is not the primary issue.”

      I said *when* science is the issue. Diet strategy and tips don’t have to be based upon science, but once the name of science is invoked and it is implied that one’s science is superior, I don’t think whether someone is trying to help others or not or endorsing Paleo or not matters in discussing and debating the science itself.

      For some people science is a very important issue though. Taubes didn’t get his following from adopting a random diet program and losing 100lbs. He wrote a book about science. Jimmy’s understanding of the science led him to adopt a specific dietary strategy. Science can be a means to improve results, and the better the science is, the better tool it can sometimes be.

      Science is a crude tool, but a lot of people do want science to help guide them. If you do want science to help guide you, it is good to see it discussed and debated so you can figure out what makes the most sense. Smith says X and Jones says Y. Minger, Masterjohn, Peter, Guyenet, etc all tend to focus more on breaking down the science rather than advising people on how to eat.

      I’m for promoting people on the team of “eat meat, fish, fowl, vegetables and fruit.”

      Then someone says “why not potatoes?” and someone will have a “scientific” argument about insulin spikes or lectins or phytates or saponins or whatever.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 14:30

      “I said *when*”

      Which means it’s not primary, just as I said. So we agree, I presume.

      “Diet strategy and tips don’t have to be based upon science”

      Yes, they do. Evolution is science. Taking account of our animal natures is science. In the basest, science simply means observation.

      last two paras: I include starchy tubers as vegetables and partake regularly. The insuline spike stuff is scientism. For that, you have to go individual. There’s no other way. We will never get to a Unifying Theory of Diet.

    • M. on May 31, 2012 at 16:12

      “Diet strategy and tips don’t have to be based upon science”

      “Yes, they do. Evolution is science. Taking account of our animal natures is science. In the basest, science simply means observation.”

      Semantics. I meant you could take a results oriented approach and not worry about what science says. You could give low carb a try whether or not you knew if cavemen really ate low carb or not. If all your friends say doing X has helped them lose weight, then it might be worth a try no matter what the studies say. One style of Paleo may work better for you personally than another.

      On the other hand, when a neurosurgeon tells you that you can’t eat bananas in winter because of neuropeptide Y, then that is a supposedly science supported claim that can be debated/refuted.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 16:34

      “whether or not you knew if cavemen really ate low carb or not.”

      If we’re talking semantics, than can we agree that “cavemen” also refers to tropical peoples who can get their fill of fish and coconut any time they want?

      I hate to pull this out again, but “paleo” is equator to arctic and sea level to 16,000 feet and everything in-between. There is no such thing as any diet for all genotypes.

    • M. on May 31, 2012 at 18:31

      Yeah, I was using the caveman as an example. I am much more Archevore than Paleo anymore and don’t really concern myself much with cavemen.

  12. Chris Tamme on May 31, 2012 at 09:06

    I am in the middle of the school food conundrum. It is difficult to not obsess about it and try to find workable solutions. Fortunately my daughter at age 5 is better about choosing and eating healthy foods then most adults. My wife is signing up to bring drinks to every class event so that she can provide something with far less sugar then the goto sugar drinks that are passed off as healthy fruit juices. Thanks for sharing the “Eat Like a Dinosaur” book. It is topical for me so I will definitely check it out.

    Oh yeah and I hate everyone who is an expert in anything. I don’t know how most bashers have time to read all this stuff on the net and lead a normal life that includes contact with real people and not just other disillusioned internet warriors. Get out get some sun you fucking trolls.

    • marie on May 31, 2012 at 09:43

      “Oh yeah and I hate everyone who is an expert in anything” ?! – Weston A.Price was an expert.
      Qualify your statements ? – this one sounds damn stupid and you’re not.
      No, you can’t get away with lousy misleading shortcuts because you’re busy, most people here are, to an astounding degree in some cases (even some of the abject bashers, much as I hate them) – remember the classic : “if you want something done, give it to a busy person.”.

    • Chris Tamme on May 31, 2012 at 10:53

      To qualify that statement I will say that I am a huge smart ass and I was playing on the fact that experts usually halt the expansion of knowledge and learning. It goes way deeper then that but neither you nor I have the time to explore it within the confines of these comments. Whether WAP was an expert or not I cannot say but he came up with some interesting discoveries when it comes to nutrition.

      I am not sure how to take the rest of your reply. I was digging in that I have lost respect for some of the paleo leaders simply because they would rather take time to surf the web and go through everything someone has posted up in order to disparage them. It is a disturbing waste of time to me but hey to each their own. I try to keep up but I have a life to live and a family to enjoy.

    • marie on May 31, 2012 at 11:13

      Sure, some people do only that, and I don’t respect it either.
      However, the mere fact that anyone can find the time to engage in extensive argument isn’t a point against them. I was just getting at that mis-impression because a lot of people seem to think it’s some kind of ‘tell’ for trolls and/or obsessed bloggers and it’s just not.
      On the other hand, What they’re saying is it’s own ‘tell’ of obsessive behavior, when the personal bashing excludes or overtakes anything useful (negative balance sheet).

    • Chris Tamme on May 31, 2012 at 12:27

      I have no problem with the extensive argument part. You and I can agree on that. It is the personal attacks stemming from dredged up pics and obscure forum posts. And it looks like we can agree on that. That is like a switch for me.

      No matter how much I might be interested in a topic if someone decides to take cheap shots at another in an attempt to validate their own views then I am done. I aint got the time for it.

      P.S. thanks for checking out my blog too. I regret that I don’t have near the time I used to have to keep it up but I try.

    • marie on May 31, 2012 at 20:46

      Thank you for trying, it seems worthwhile!

  13. LadySadie on May 31, 2012 at 10:23

    Good post, Richard…

    As for the comments, I know some of the basic science. My kids and are are paleo (wish a little “ish” here and there) because I wanted to stop being a guinea pig for Big Ag. We had already stopped the HFCS, soy and commercial milk and I found Paleo doing research to see if it was healthy to stop eating grains. I don’t know the science and I think that it is pointless to argue about any of it beyond “it’s healthy” and “there are no chemicals”.

    What I have always liked about FTA is that (aside from some of the comments) it’s a friendly and flexible approach to food. I just don’t understand the nit-picking about specific science-y facts. Just do what works for you personally and stop pushing your pet research on others, please. I don’t really care what some folks in lab coats have to say or whether they have done any research that supports my unexpected positive benefits since I rejected the SAD. Why does science trump results?

    • mark on May 31, 2012 at 10:40

      “Why does science trump results?” Bacause they get paid.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 12:14

      “Why does science trump results?”

      I’d guess that in many cases, those pushing THE SCIENCE don’t have any particular results to obtain (or can’t get them, or have given up) for themselves. Essentially, at least for the fat loss people pushing THE SCIENCE, it’s often about monkey wrenching with the results many seem to be obtaining.

  14. Gene on May 31, 2012 at 11:20


    “Why does science trump results?” is a fair question. I suppose the idea is that — hopefully – science can confirm, validate and explain the results in some way. Then again, the results are a kind of crude science. I think it was the infamous Aleister Crowley who quipped that science was little more than formalised common sense.

    Of course, the other interesting point is that we made more-or-less successful dietary choices for much of our existence without the help of scientists. And no one in a labcoat told my cat to like meat and the bees to search out pollen. And yet humans, with our thumbs and frontal lobes, seem to have eaten ourselves into quite a mess in a very short span of time. It’s quite puzzling, in fact.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 12:48


      Take note that what most people are talking about here is “scientism.” Results are indeed the best science, they trump everything, and can be had on an individual basis.

      It’s really laughable, when you think about it. We’ve so surrendered our own authority and the individual results in the hundreds of thousands is not millions on a lowish carb and/or paleo regime gets poo poo’d because the “science” isn’t all in yet.

      Indeed. Science is merely common sense and discipline of thought applied to one’s own experiences.

      The more I see the whole thing, the more I suspect the the entire body or nutrition and dietary science is pretty much worthless and in the context of the ancient human animal, would have had absolutely zero value.

      Meat, fish, fowl, vegetables and fruit. Eat them. Figure it out for yourselves. Dismiss the scientists.

  15. Chris Tamme on May 31, 2012 at 12:31

    I think sicence doesn’t trump results it reinforces results. You have to be careful with correlation and causation. Sometimes when we think we are changing only one variable we are changing many and the results are not derived from the variable we thought. We are in the mess we are in now from a lot of correlation taken as causes.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 12:55

      “I think sicence doesn’t trump results it reinforces results.”

      One has to live. Confounding variables is a problem. There’s a way to overcome it, and that’s to take a long term approach. If something is terribly wrong, you’ll get to the bottom of it over time, if you pay attention.


    • Chris Tamme on May 31, 2012 at 14:21

      I think this is where science falls short at times too. Too often studies take too short a window of time to really see how a variable affects the human body.

      Like they say time heals all wounds.

  16. John Atkinson on May 31, 2012 at 13:56

    Richard, what I like most about you is that your irreverence isn’t universal. Trivial, petty bullshit is identified as such, and there is certainly much of it. But when something is cool or new or novel or, shit, just an example of someone doing something beneficial or creative (even if it is ultimately frivolous), you praise it. You don’t dismiss everything and recommend that people concern themselves with matters you deem to be of import; no one has to pay any penance for the things they like or find value in.

    Continue to call out the bullshit and continue to revel in the creations of great (or good, or so-so, or relatively bad) creators.

    Really enjoy your blog.

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 14:33

      Thank you, John. I really appreciate that and it resonates with me. Some days I’m fucking pissed and others, I pretty much love everybody. I just let that show in my blog how it rolls for me.

      I have a delectable thing to post tomorrow or Saturday and I just can’t hardly wait to show you all. It involves photos and it’s awesome.

    • LadySadie on May 31, 2012 at 15:40

      Tease! Looking forward to your post. Sounds like food porn is on the way!?!

    • Richard Nikoley on May 31, 2012 at 16:11


      I think you of ALL people know exactly what I’m planning.

      Hint. Archetype will be in the title.

      For the others, LadySadie is being modest. She provided the fodder for one of my weekend posts and I can’t wait to show it.

  17. […] Posts RSS ← Contrast: Squeaking Pips vs Value Producers and Promoters […]

  18. Jscott on May 31, 2012 at 20:36

    I commented on the wrong post with this. Muh bad.

    I was in support of Seth’s post on Tucker. I like the Tucker.

    Looking forward to hearing more about the cold. I am tracking mine. Minus the shrinkage.

  19. Richard F on June 6, 2012 at 20:24

    Heh, since you mentioned Sisson, and this is completely off topic, but I think he (or his blog army) read your site almost exclusively. Every time you post something big and/or interesting, it pops up on MDA about 5-12 days later. Case in point? Your whole series about CT and metabolic resets. Just this week, MDA posts the beginning of a ‘self-experimentation’ series about…you guessed it, CT and metabolic resets. Another case? Your post last week about Steve from NC fighting the dietary board, after a few days, same thing over at MDA.

    I know the paleo blogosphere isn’t _that_ big, but I don’t see other writers following this same pattern, at least not in such quick fashion. Maybe you’re the foul-mouthed trailblazer every movement needs to actually get somewhere.

Leave a Comment

Follow by Email8k