Quick Open Memo to Jimmy Moore and Nora Gedgaudas

Laddies and Gentlemen:

By now, you’ve seen this post and read it because you couldn’t resist: The War On Tastebuds.

Should you actually take a close look and study the references, then surely you’ll know that you lose and I win. I can keep doing this for years, with every new study, while you rely upon outdated observations of old studies that never change.

Otherwise, I get all of your smart-thinking people, over time, and leave you with only sycophants and digesters of your increasingly stale regurgitate. If that’s all you want, carry on. No prob.

If not: evolve!


PS: No personal attacks required

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. Bret on September 22, 2014 at 18:36

    Should you actually take a close look and study the references, then surely you’ll know that you lose and I win. I can keep doing this for years, with every new study, while you rely upon outdated observations of old studies that never change.

    Otherwise, I get all of your smart-thinking people, over time, and leave you with only sycophants and digesters of your increasingly stale regurgitate.

    Richard, some bush-league onlooker newb might assume you were doing all this out of spite and meanness. But I can tell that is not the case. Why would you go to the trouble of consistently calling these folks out if you didn’t care about them? If you didn’t care, you’d just leave them hanging and watch them flounder.

    The blinders-wearing VLC train will still convince a few loyal followers. But just as you said, if they do not turn things around, one day they will find themselves wondering where their audience went and why their latest book is not selling anything. In that case they will also be frustrated as hell that the VLC steam has died down yet again and will bemoan all the injustices of the world.

    I wish they would take a look around them. Tom Naughton ripped the band-aid off in one rapid motion, found out it didn’t hurt so bad, and then made a full disclosure. I respect him way more for doing that, not less. He has even been dropping gentle, polite hints to his buddies in the LC orbit, as in this recent post:

    I don’t believe everyone will feel his or her best in a constant state of ketosis. …

    Given what we’re learning about the gut microbiome, the one real concern I’d have about going on a ketogenic diet would be depleting the healthy gut bacteria – but the problem there is a lack of fiber, not ketosis per se. So as I’ve mentioned before, if I were aiming for ketosis, I’d be sure to include a lot of fibrous plants in my diet and supplement with some form of resistant starch…

    Tom is not as confrontational as Richard, but he sees the writing on the wall, and he is trying to attract the frightened squirrels over to him. Same goal as Richard, so far as I can tell, but a different approach. We’ll see which one works. I suspect different approaches will work for different people, and it’s good that both are being applied.

    I would disagree somewhat with Tom in one area. In that same Fat Head post linked above, Tom asserts that the idea that Jimmy advocates ketosis for everybody is a straw man. But here is a transcript of a clip from Nora’s Keto Clarity interview starting at 10:08, minus verbal pauses:

    Jimmy: [quoting Nora’s written input to his book] “I have seen mood stabilization, reduced or eliminated depression, [on and on extolling the utter awesomeness]…” Other than that, ketogenic diets–

    Nora: Oh, they’re not for everybody, right? They’re only for people who want to rely on a stable, abundant source of fuel–

    Jimmy: Yeah.

    Nora: –in an ongoing way. Who doesn’t want to be burning fat as a primary source of fuel?

    Jimmy: Right.

    Nora: Everybody should want that. It’s a lot more reliable, and you’re much more likely to have healthier weight, to have healthier blood chemistry numbers, and to live longer.

    Technically, Jimmy didn’t make those assertions, and he arguably did not affirm them, either. Many people say “right” and “yeah” just as conversational expletives — not necessarily indicating agreement. It’s rather unclear. Then again, if he did not agree, he certainly could have clarified that, since this is one of the experts he is featuring in his book and on whom he is relying to corroborate his thesis. Nora, on the other hand…her belief that this dietary strategy is for everyone seems pretty damned unequivocal. Whatever.

    One way or the other, the subtle hints are out there. The overt confrontations are out there as well. I hope these guys will bite off on at least one of them.

    Note: I hope this does not strike anyone as a personal attack. It is meant as anything but. I aim to be relentless and honest, not nasty.

    • Bret on September 22, 2014 at 18:42

      Forgot to add, for the benefit of anyone who is not actually listening to the podcast:

      Jimmy’s & Nora’s tones of voice during the “Other than that, ketogenic diets–” / “Oh, they’re not for everyone, right?” were clearly and undeniably sarcastic.

    • Richard Nikoley on September 22, 2014 at 20:09

      Bret, you are [wild ass] thinking man. Or, as they used to say, a man’s man.

      High salute, sir.

    • Gina on September 22, 2014 at 23:25

      “Everybody should want that.”

      Ugh. That sticks in my craw.

      Some of us enjoy sleeping, eating a diet more varied than eggs and butter, doing aerobic activity and not checking our blood for ketones. Different strokes, Nora.

    • Bret on September 23, 2014 at 08:06


      Salute returned, good sir. This is an important discussion, and you are truly legit for forcing the issue, for the reasons we have discussed.

    • Gina on September 23, 2014 at 11:33

      Dear doG, I listened to the whole thing. I think these two can quit worrying about losing credibility. That ship has sailed.

      Nora says the Kitavans are the exception to the rule that carbs are unhealthy (I suppose someone should have her Google “blue zones”), because they are “doing ok,” but the rest of us are apparently nothing like Kitavans. They are practically another species. We are all exactly like the Inuit, you see. She also drags out that old canard about carbohydrates being unhealthy because we can survive without them. It’s an argument more appropriate coming from a college sophomore in a drunken dorm room debate.

      Jimmy mentioned veganism as a cause of gallbladder disease (??) and LCHF as a treatment… then goes on to mention that his wife had to have her gallbladder removed. He has successfully demonstrated that one can be morbidly obese and pre-diabetic with strict adherence to a VLC diet, but I think he is also a walking argument against the claims about mental health.

      Richard presenting evidence has no hope in hell of changing Jimmy Moore’s mind. I don’t think that even frank diabetes or a heart attack would make him doubt himself for a minute at this point.

  2. FrenchFry on September 23, 2014 at 00:48


    Nora: Who doesn’t want to be burning fat as a primary source of fuel?

    Jimmy: Right.

    Nora: Everybody should want that

    Well, this is absolute nonsense. Everybody is ALREADY BURNING FAT! We’d be dead otherwise. We use both glucose and fat. Fat is used all the time, glucose is used all the time. Rates depends on hormonal environment, which is itself influenced by the “prandial” (pre / post / inter) phase. Glucose, when above a certain blood concentration, must be disposed of. When this happens, fat is less used (not “not used at all”, less used). When blood glucose returns to normal, things resume as normal.

    It’s not a matter of “want”, this is our very basic metabolism, whether we want it or not. The “fat burning beast” myth is to tell people that they can lose their fat mass if they apply this or that diet / physical activities / whatever protocol that will favor net fat efflux overall for a while.

    But regardless of the net fat flux (influx or efflux), we are always burning fat, all of us, no matter what our macro partition is. I mean look at the Australian dude (the fruitarian guy self-called Durian Rider), does not look exactly fat … same for his girlfriend (BananaGirl or whatever childish nickname).

    • GTR on September 23, 2014 at 13:47

      Not eating carbs in the morning is going to lead to higher fat mobilization of tat from the fat stores than when eating carbs.

    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2014 at 13:56

      “Not eating carbs in the morning is going to lead to higher fat mobilization of tat from the fat stores than when eating carbs.”

      How does that compare with not eating carbs for lunch or dinner?

      How come eating beans and eggs for my first meal of the day has me leaning out better than anything else I’ve tried?

      How come I ought think I should not eat beans rather than, I really love beans with my eggs?

    • GTR on September 23, 2014 at 14:37

      “How does that compare with not eating carbs for lunch or dinner?”
      In the morning you naturally have high cortisol levels and cortisol (if alone without insulin) mobilizes fat from fat tissues – thus leading to very high fat mobilization. Eating carbs decreases this process via insulin. Light carb-based breakfast does it less than a big one. Later in the day cortisol levels are lower.

      “How come eating beans and eggs for my first meal of the day has me leaning out better than anything else I’ve tried?” – both are high-protein foods. Primates tend to regulate their appetite via protein intake. Fiber is also satiating, and it’s in the beans. And carbs from beans are “slow” carbs, their effects come later.

      On a low-carb breakfast your body should be mobilizing more fat than on the one including beans – idependantly of weight loss speed. For some peoplesuch breakfasts may even lead to weight gain – as a result of overcompensation in calories later. After all it’s a form of stress and cortisol is a stress hormone. Many people can withstand that without appetite increase, resulting in a fat loss.

    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2014 at 15:56

      “In the morning you naturally have high cortisol levels and cortisol (if alone without insulin) mobilizes fat from fat tissues – thus leading to very high fat mobilization. Eating carbs decreases this process via insulin. Light carb-based breakfast does it less than a big one. Later in the day cortisol levels are lower.”

      Oh Myyy. Shit. I only check my blood cortisol levels like 2 times per week upon waking.

      I’m going to have to get way better at that.

    • Bret on September 23, 2014 at 20:58

      “I only check my blood cortisol levels like 2 times per week upon waking.

      I’m going to have to get way better at that.”

      Just like your paleolithic ancestors did, Richard. While you’re at it, see if you can get better at eating 75% or more fat and checking your beta-OHB levels as well.

    • FrenchFry on September 23, 2014 at 21:51

      I thought all this had been already discussed (at least elsewhere, Stephan Guyenet for one had talked about that) and if I remember correctly, it does not matter! 😀

      It does not work by the hour, you mostly lose fat when you sleep, that’s really when the magic happens and if I remember correctly, there’s an assessment by the brain of how much energy, nutrients, etc, came in. There are also longer periods of time to take into account. You can diet say for weight loss butonly lose weight all of a sudden after a few days or weeks.

      So unless you guzzle down sugary drinks all day long, if you have square meals, be they breakfast and lunch, or BF and dinner, or only dinner, or lunch and dinner, it simply does not matter.

      The meal timing can be tweaked if you like. But usually, these tweaks are in relation with work-outs to maximize muscle building, recovery, etc.

      I think one should really not sweat it and eat meals at certain times for convenience. For me, it’s very early evening. I will have occasional light stuff around lunch time but I’d rather save m y money (and time) for coming back home earlier and have a nice big dinner. It’s really for convenience.

    • FrenchFry on September 23, 2014 at 22:08

      And actually, to fuel the discussion, timing does matter some (for non-insulin resistant people, following a proper circadian rhythm):

    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2014 at 22:50


      As soon as Amazon has testing strips I can put in my store and promote, I’m on it.

    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2014 at 22:53

      I’m never getting into the circadian rhythm and light spectrum and wear ridiculous glasses at night crap.

      I sleep fine, even next to a campfire to ward off spiders, snakes and enormous cats. With one eye open, even.

    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2014 at 22:57

      Perfect, French.

      Exactly what I think. Eat when hungry. Real Food. Let yourself be really fucking hungry for a day every now & then.

      Incidentally, I love going to bed hungry. Best sleep ever.

    • Ellen+Ussery on September 24, 2014 at 13:03

      Beans and eggs for breakfast!!! YES! My absolute fave now, thanks to you. It seems to be just the right mix for me and my blood sugar loves it too.

    • GTR on September 24, 2014 at 13:36

      @Richard “Oh Myyy. Shit. I only check my blood cortisol levels like 2 times per week upon waking.”

      You don’t have to. It’s a sturdy process works reliably and repeatably every morning, unlike a delicate ketosis that you must protect from the evil world.
      I’m not sure if this is great for weigtht loss, or maybe just for faster fat replacement – eg if you store some transfat in your adipose tissue, then perhals mobilizing it out in the morning, and then later replenishing with healthier fats would be a good idea?

  3. CharlesQ on September 23, 2014 at 10:30

    If it was as easy to test our Gut Microbiome as it is to test blood sugar with a glucometer would Very Low Card Diets even have been created?

  4. GTR on September 23, 2014 at 13:59

    Jimmy Moore can’t “evolve”, as he’s a creationist.

  5. Oak on September 23, 2014 at 16:42

    Well said and excellent article. I think it’s about time someone with a big voice speaks up about the absurdity that is being propagated in Jimmy’s camp. He was railing on resistant starch again, this time on Robb Wolf’s podcast. I am sure his goal is not to bring harm to anyone, but at the end of the day he is pimping out this keto approach for all it’s worth, for whatever financial gain possible. Yes, ketosis can be an excellent short term therapeutic tool, but I fear for the people who may come to this movement through his channel and equate paleo with ketosis.

    The Perfect Health Diet is (in my opinion) the most scientifically sound starting place. Unfortunately Paul Jaminet is just too humble of a guy to cause as much noise as Jimmy. His rationale for including starches is well researched and evolutionarily logical.

    Thanks, Richard, for creating a stir and raising awareness. It is such a breath of fresh air reading your writing that is actually grounded in current thinking.

    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2014 at 22:18

      Thanks Oak.

      Fortunately, I care enough less about what people thnink of me that I have opportunities.

    • FrenchFry on September 24, 2014 at 03:48


      Again (it’s maybe the 3rd of 4th time I am saying it), the guy is a business man. He just published this book praising the virtues of nutritional ketosis. No wonder he is reverting back to criticizing anything with starch in its name. All he does is advertizing his book.

      I know Moore is some sort of a pal of Richard’s, and there’s no contradiction in disagreeing about things between pals, and being pals at the same time. But at the same time, there clearly needs to be more voices warning about chronic NK. Clearly, Moore is not benefiting from it …

      Guyenet and Jaminet have it quite right I think but they are soft-spoken guys. At the same time, they don’t appear as crazies like Rosedale et al. Maybe it matters in the end 🙂

  6. Andrew K on September 24, 2014 at 03:09

    Jesus, just listened to Jimmys pod with Ron Rosedale. Basically Ron said if your not ketogenic your not one of the healthy ones! And they do a bit of myth busting on the low carb screwing with your gut and thyroid. Also how resistant starch is evil and although your blood glucose levels may read low, thats actually because your secreting more insulin and you should test insulin. Jimmy challenged anyone on resistant starch to test insulin levels! #fucktards

    • FrenchFry on September 24, 2014 at 03:41

      Eventually, crazies “coalesce” together like magnets. Let them spit out their crazy stuff.

      One or 2 years ago, I saw a video with Jaminet, Rosedale and others discussing safe starches. Rosedale clearly came out like one giant egocentric idiot. It is hard to believe that one can be seduced by what he says unless one is as insane as this dude.

    • Duck Dodgers on September 24, 2014 at 09:11


      Jimmy’s censors keep the narrative running smoothly. He never published my comment, but you can read it at the bottom of this post here:

    • Bret on September 24, 2014 at 10:13

      “…although your blood glucose levels may read low, thats actually because your secreting more insulin…”

      Jimmy’s suggestion here is a rather transparent attempt at criticism of RS. This stuff isn’t good for you. Yes, your blood sugar is lower, but it’s due to the insulin, It’s the insulin, stupid!

      Quite a forehead smacking moment to hear that, so terribly did it miss the mark. While chronic ketogenic dieters are reliably developing insulin resistance, Jimmy’s own comment demonstrates that resistant starch at least appears to induce an insulin sensitivity. ISN’T THAT WHAT WE WANT??? Aren’t we always ranting and raving about the dangers of insulin resistance??? Isn’t insulin sensitivity the antithesis of insulin resistance???

      I can see where Jimmy’s brain is going with that thought process. If you have to guzzle RS to keep your blood sugar low, then all the insulin will bring untoward consequences. If that is an accurate representation of his logic, then he is still missing the point and debating a straw man. Guzzling RS (or any whole food starch) seems to me no smarter a strategy than guzzling butter and coconut oil. Sure, you might consume more than a normal amount for a limited period of time with a therapeutic goal in mind — just like you might do with a month-long experiment with nutritional ketosis — in order to reawaken certain metabolic systems, rebalance certain hormones, and rectify certain nutrient deficiencies.

      But over the long haul, the idea is that we keep our hormones and systems balanced by eating a wide variety of nutrient dense foods (both plants and animals), eating no more than necessary to satisfy us, and fasting intermittently, at least occasionally, to induce autophagy and (drum roll) ketosis.

      Sounds like the best of all worlds to me. But in order to agree to it, we have to give up the phony theories based on selective interpretation of the evidence.

    • Bret on September 24, 2014 at 10:26

      “Jimmy’s censors keep the narrative running smoothly. He never published my comment…”

      I have got so little respect for bloggers who do this, I can’t even articulate it.

      You don’t agree with what somebody is saying? Guess what, that’s what everybody goes through. You can respond to the comment, in some way, shape, or form. But censoring it so that others can’t even see it??

      That makes me think these folks have gotten carried away with their masturbatory mentality. They think they are little gods and end up being annoyed that their opponents seem to be able to debate with such intelligence.

      Luckily, they cannot stop that same commenter from calling them out on other blogs. You’re only discrediting yourself, Jimmy.

  7. GTR on September 25, 2014 at 14:11

    At least one nutrition coach would reccommend Jimmy (a very tall, but not a powerfull guy) a high-carb diet for his body build. Nora with her strong skeletal features should be on low carb, but with high protein according to him.

    • Tom+Naughton on September 25, 2014 at 15:03

      You don’t seriously think Jimmy is an ectomorph … ?

    • GTR on September 26, 2014 at 13:41

      Seriously? I don’t buy into such classifications. There’s too much diversity in humans to fit some three arbitrary standards with linear progressions.
      I am also not sure if Berardi’s recommendations are here, I was just reporting them here.

      If I were to classify Jimmy according to this type of classification (notice I don’t believe classification is that important) then it’s sure that he is as far away from endomorph as possible, and only for endomorph Berardi recommends lower-carb diet – but still with more carbs than ketogenic. He’s not round shaped or short and wide – his width at shoulders/height ratio is not large. A clealy elongated type (in the predicted state of being lean), with long limbs, and not very much musculature on the upper ones (lower ones are overtrained via constant weightlifting). Converting to other classifications – endomporph Europeans would fit Alpine body type. The second classification actually makes slightly more sense, as you find such body types in the Alps in Europe 🙂

      Now for other types of body builds than endomorph Berardi recommends high-carb diets:
      40% counted in calories for Mesomorphs
      55% counted in calories for Ectomorphs. With Jimmy having features of both, but with some anti-features of each. Elongated (suggests ectomorph), but with reasonably dense and large bones (suggests not ectomorph) but with visible lack of athleticism, also in movements (prevents pure mesomorph).
      A sure bet would be that he has (or had) a lot of growth hormone, which may support both height, as well as a big belly, as well as large bones (gigantism).

      So much talk about Jimmy classifications. People were classifying themselves for ages, and not much useful stuff came from this. So if some dietary advice can be extracted from relatively simple measure – that’s good, so be it.

    • GTR on September 26, 2014 at 13:49

      As an addition to useless classifications – a picture:

    • Tom+Naughton on September 26, 2014 at 19:14

      The picture you linked is of hypermuscular people in all three categories. Hardly fits the profile of real humans.

      But if I’m following your (ahem) logic, Jimmy can’t be an endomorph because all endomorphs are short. Yup, you clearly understand the categories perfectly. There are no tall, round people in the world. And of course if you’d seen Jimmy when he weighed 400 pounds, you would have said to yourself, “Boy, that is one fat ectomorph.”

      Moving away from cartoon images of very muscular people in all three categories, here are some verbal descriptions.

      Small joints
      Skinny appearance
      Fast metabolism
      Can eat whatever they want
      Small chest and buttocks
      Difficulty building muscle
      Difficulty gaining weight
      Low body fat
      Narrow frame (“pencil frame”)

      Damn, that sounds just like Jimmy. I’m always complimenting him on his small butt and low body-fat level. And of course, he’s famous for his fast metabolism.

      Large amount of fat accumulation
      Insatiable appetite
      Try various diet and exercise programs to failure
      Cannot seem to drop weight
      Low muscle definition due to adipose tissue
      Larger frame

      But that couldn’t be Jimmy because he’s TALL!. He used to be round, but he’s not anymore, so I guess his genetics changed with the weight loss. And according to you, he’s also not wide — which makes me wonder if you’re legally blind.

      Yes, I’m sure someone who’s hyperinsulemic like Jimmy would do awesomely well on a diet of 55% carbohydrates. If only he had your superior knowledge of what he should eat, he’d be so very thin — like the ectomorph he was meant to be.

    • GTR on September 27, 2014 at 02:36

      I’ll reiterate I don’t buy much into such classifications, as they don’t mutch basic biology – take ectomorph, marry with mesomorph and the children are going to be what? With no cultural, racial barriers to such marriages.

      But it’s pretty obvious that:
      – If Berardi is right
      – If classifications are right
      – If Jimmy fits “not endomorph” classification
      then he shouldn’t eat low-carb diet, as this would lead to failures – which totally matches the reality.
      So prediction from my attempt at classification (remember I’m not into it) combined with Berardis theory would be:
      Jimmy is “not endomorph” type, thus should eat high-carb diet (some number between 40-55 percent counted as energy from carbs), and would fail on low-carb diet. The prediction matches reality – Jimmys multiple, years-long failures to loose body fat on various low-carb diets THAT WORK (AT LOOSING BODY FAT) FOR OTHERS!

      Compare Jimmys struggles with weight loss on the description Stephen Guynet gives to high-starch practitioners of McDougall diet:
      “But I will note that Dr. McDougall, his family, and many of the other starch-based/plant-based diet advocates tended to be extremely lean with low fat and muscle mass. They also tended to have a healthy and energetic appearance and demeanor. As I would expect, decades of exceptionally high starch intake hasn’t made them obese or obviously ill.”
      Question: Why wouldn’t Jimmy try a Very High Carb diet to see how it works on him? Not a mixed diet, but VHS type, by classification – in the class that Denise Minger wasl talking about at AHS14?

      Going back to to your post – you either use deceptive tactics, or just have a reading comprehention problems. Consider this: “Endomorph: […] But that couldn’t be Jimmy because he’s TALL!” while what I actually used was a very different word and meaning: “A clealy ELONGATED type (in the predicted state of being lean), with LONG LIMBS”, and if you dont understand the word “elongated”, then I even explained it further, that it is about RATIOS (not absolute numbers you refer to), and SHAPES eg. “his width at shoulders/height RATIO is not large”, and “He’s not round SHAPED” or short and wide.
      Then you talk about “if you’d seen Jimmy when he weighed 400 pounds”, while responding to me talking about his proportions “in the predicted state of being lean”.
      What you did was a selective data presentation, choosing only the items that support your view, why omitting these that devastate it: Consider the MAIN categrization features like limb length:
      “Ectomorphs are MAINLY characterized by having long limbs and a short torso. […] Endomorphs are the opposite – short limbs and more normal length torsos”
      By the way:
      “Even ectomorphs can get fat (“skinny fat” is the current gym parlance) if they over-eat and under exercise. Lots of couch potatoes are built this way. Any tall superheavies likely have some ecto characteristics.”
      (while trying to do classifications I discovered that various definitions of “somehting-morph” words differ widely, making classifications even less usable)
      And what’s with your dislike for bodybuildes? “The picture you linked is of hypermuscular people in all three categories. Hardly fits the profile of real humans.” Does Jimmy “fit the profile of a real human”? Would he be better looking with the physiques like in the link provided? Isn’t muscle training actually one part of the overall solutions for fat loss?

    • Duck Dodgers on September 27, 2014 at 10:41

      “Question: Why wouldn’t Jimmy try a Very High Carb diet to see how it works on him?”

      Is it because he already bought and any conclusion that doesn’t automatically match up with that registered domain name is therefore invalid? 😉

    • Bret on September 27, 2014 at 11:16

      VHC/VHS for Jimmy sounds extreme to say the very least. Jimmy has reported that eating safe starches brought unfavorable results to his BG. Starting on a VHC/VHS protocol sounds like a great way to crank his BG sky high, and who knows how long it would take (if ever) for his body to adapt to the new diet, given the several decades of metabolic damage he accumulated prior to starting Atkins for the first time. Chronic BG toxicity could well outweigh the concerns we would have about chronic ketosis.

      If I were Jimmy, my goal would be to take slow, gradual, meticulous steps toward reaching a PHD-esque sort of protocol, in terms of a rough guide for macronutrient proportions. I don’t think someone in his shoes needs to be pumping himself chock full of carbs, whole or not.

      We all want Jimmy to look into these gut biome/starch issues some more and reconsider his position on nutritional ketosis in perpetuity, but let’s not get carried away here.

    • Tom+Naughton on September 27, 2014 at 13:26

      I hate it when I violate my own rule about not arguing with idiots.

      Ectomorphs have thin bones. Jimmy’s bones are thick, especially his leg bones. I’ve seen the man up and close and personal many times. Ectomorphs and mesomorphs both have narrow hips. Jimmy has wide hips. “Elongated” bones (because he’s TALL) doesn’t change any of that. There are plenty of tall people in all three categories. And the man sure as hell doesn’t have one of those “eat anything and not get fat” metabolisms, which both ectomorphs and mesomorphs do.

      If course you don’t believe in classifications. Most people don’t believe in concepts they don’t understand.

    • Bret on September 27, 2014 at 19:12

      Tom, GTR is an exceptionally frustrating person to debate with. Richard and I have found this out the hard way when discussing capitalism, socialism, and other economic issues with him. The flow of information seems to be one way only in this one.

      No one (who has a brain) will judge you if you walk away without getting the last word in. We get it.

    • Richard Nikoley on September 27, 2014 at 19:23


      Is GTR one of the people, along with White Marry, who was up here some time ago about skull size?

      Don’t take too much from that. Thing is, I am able to think for myself and I have found nuggets from everyplace.

      That’s all.

    • Tom+Naughton on September 27, 2014 at 21:59

      Yeah, I realized I was breaking my own rule about not wasting time arguing with idiots. My bad. Time to walk away, indeed.

    • Bret on September 27, 2014 at 23:45

      Richard, I was never exposed to the skull size discussion. The debate I was referring to was a month or two ago, when GTR kept insisting that capitalism was the problem with our country. When I explained crony capitalism to him, he said I was making up words. You and I worked on him patiently for a couple of days, then threw up our hands and walked away.

      I’m sure there are some intelligent thoughts in GTR’s head. But they evidently do not pertain to body types.

    • GTR on September 28, 2014 at 07:18

      Tom – what you are implying is a little bit unscientific. You inherit 2 sets of genes: one from your daddy, other from your mom. It means that you can inherit your metabolism independently from your body build genes. Eg. former from mommy, latter from daddy. So can’t be a deterministic rule that links body type to metabolism. There may be some statistical legacy from the past.

      A good example is Western and Central Europe, where people of the Northern plains tend to be elongated with thinner muscles and bones (classified by some as “Nordics”), while people of the mountains tend to be shorter, but much more robust and muscular (classified by some as “Alpine”). Jimmy has a very English name, so you can convert this to Englishman vs. Scottish highlander. It’s not difficult to imagine how natural selection could shape this – long legs for long distance travel on the plains, vs. heavy musculature to climb mountains every day. And by the way – the plains are where the crops are farmed, while the mountains are no good for crops, people there raise sheep, or cattle. If people adapted to this, then Berardis classification might hold true. But now it’s kind of a thing of the past. You have these large cities, where people from the plains and people from the mountains meet and mate – thus hybrid people are born. So basically Berardis recommendation might be a reasonable bet, but shouldn’t be considered a deterministic rule. Try them – you are likely to succeed – if you don’t do well – abandon them, as you don’t fit Berardis model.

      Going back to Jimmy – his bones are not particularly strong, expecially upper body ones. Just look at the following videos – I see there small joints and thin arms. Small joints, thin arms, and “swan” style, elongated neck apply only to “ectomorph” category in the classification we are talking about. Mesomorphs have muscular necks, endomorphs models have not much neck.

      Jimmys leg muscles are not impressive either. Notice than we are basically dealing with a bodybuilder-style ecercise of constantly moving high body mass by those legs. Jimmy’s leg muscles would fit an ectomorph-classified amateur natural bodybuilder.

      He also has elongated neck, when not fat:

      To look at a model endomorph – consider for example Vladimin Rezun (writer, writes at the name Victor Suvorow), with many endomorph features like: roundness, short neck, short legs, wide hands. The guy was quite strong and fit when at Jimmys age – being in special forces and working as a spy (his books “Specnaz”, and “Aquarium” describe that notice: Richard – can you provide respective links to Amazon?).,+w%C5%82adimir+rezun&tbm=isch&sa=X

      Basically you have hordes of people like this around Russia and Ukraine (eg. Krushchev, Gorbatchov). They definitely don’t deserve to be in the same “Body type” category as Jimmy Moore, he is as far from them as day and night. So either he is not endomorph, or this whole classification model is broken, as a large number of people would have no classification at all.

      Disclaimer again: I’m not a fan of such classifications as described many times. But if classifying – Jimmy Moore has multiple features that add up to the enormous distance from a model ectomorph according to the classifications.

      This would mean that – according to John Berardi, a trainer with many successes, he should be on a relatively high-carb diet. I personally don’t believe it can be a deterministic rule – so my modification to this would be that Jimmy should self-experiment, give such diet a try for a month days or so. John McDougall offered him some help:

    • GTR on September 28, 2014 at 08:17

      @Tom, @Bret – there’s a joke here. One of my points is that these classifications might be not worth much; while Tom had already has proclaimed himself:

      “I’m a “brain mesomorph. ” so to speak. Brain mesomorphs can pick pretty much any method of studying and still do well”. Which means if classifications are a garbage, then his self-classification can be interpreted in a way different than he wished 🙂 Especially if these classifications are a garbage, and he believed them…

    • GTR on September 28, 2014 at 08:28

      @Bret – about Jimmy Moore potential “toxic blood glucose levels” – doesn’t this particular blog here promote a certain method to lower glucose levels (hint: resistant starch); and educate that high blood glucose levels may be a result of long-term very-low-carb diets?

      Other VLC advocates seem to be open about acknowledging the problems due to VLC:

      “I have an approach to life. I resist insulin. Running on the edge of ketosis, with a major preponderance of long chain saturated fatty acids as metabolic substrate, I expect to be insulin resistant. I am. It is pure physiology.”

    • GTR on September 28, 2014 at 09:18

      To add a little – since Tom stresses height so much – there are tall people with much rounder, less elongated features than Jimmy; Helmut Kohl is 193 cm and has elipsoidal face, not elongated neck (Boris Yeltsin was 187 cm).

      So Jimmy’s elongated figure, and long, non-muscular neck cannot be considered a necessary result of height.

      Source of heights:

    • GTR on September 28, 2014 at 12:31

      @Tom – “If course you don’t believe in classifications. Most people don’t believe in concepts they don’t understand.”

      Then method of asserting humans by the classifications on external features proved not to be very useful. Right now genetics is seen as the valid method. To see the problems with classifications go to the places like AnthroScape, and catch the thread – usually in Physical Antrhopology or protographics sections – like “Classify the picture of X”. Usually contains a few classes, all somehow fitting a picture.

      In a sense it’s easier to conclude “not class C”, what I just did.

      By the way – their classes for Europeans are much more complex, meaning 3 body types for the whole world is kind of too little…


  8. Jeff Johnson on September 26, 2014 at 00:20

    Jimmy Moore or Less but probably More

    Well – probably unknown to most – Jimmy reached a weight of 216 pounds – something like 2006 – at this point he lost his job – had a melt down of sorts and started blogging full time –

    Prior to this time – he was having two Atkin’s protein shakes a day – which included soy protein –

    At this same time period – Atkin’s removed the soy protein from their shakes and

    from that time forward Jimmy has had trouble controlling his weight –

    At least one notable person – Will Brink – thinks soy protein actually helps weight loss – I forget his exact reasoning –

    I myself think that legumes effect the brain somehow and this tends to promote weight control –

    This leads one to question Jimmy’s hatred of anything legume –

    • Tom+Naughton on September 26, 2014 at 06:18

      I see you’ve figured out that correlation = causation. Be sure to inform the science world.

      Atkins took the soy out of their shakes, Jimmy regained weight afterwards (because it’s so rare for someone who lost a massive amount of weight to regain), so it’s probably a lack of soy that caused the regain — even though soy predisposed Jimmy to hatred by affecting his brain.

      If I were you, I’d take that solid reasoning, write it up into an academic paper, and start submitting it to the journals ASAP.

    • GTR on September 28, 2014 at 10:53

      @Tom – “At least one notable person – Will Brink – thinks soy protein actually helps weight loss” – that’s the causatin part.

  9. GTR on January 28, 2015 at 15:38

    Going back to classifying Jimmy Moore’s body type – there’s one system of classification of overweight bodies that tries to be based on reason for it. For people with thin hands/legs, but large belly the classification may be “liver body type”, and that means the recommendation to eat low protein, low fat diet.

Leave a Comment

Follow by Email8k