Weight Gain and Onset Obesity is a Sure Sign of Pristine Health


I just posted something over on the Free The Animal Facebook Page consisting of a thread over on Tom Naughton’s Fat Head Page where Charlie Shaughnessy alerted them to a Chris Masterjohn podcast (The Biochemistry of Why Insulin Doesn’t Make You Fat); wherein, Chris attempts to take down the idea that insulin is the main driver of obesity rather than, as I put it, eating and treating too much, too often, and for too long. It’s quite a brutal podcast, in the sense that it’s not so easy to follow. Prepare to do a lot of Googling, which reminded me of when I was in my teens and 20s and always read books—even fiction—along with a dictionary.

Reading through the discussion (see the 21 image clips at that link), I was struck at how folks seem to regard obesity as some physiological dysregulation when in fact, weight gain and the onset of obesity is a sure sign of perfect health and a body doing exactly what it’s supposed to do.

In other words, onset obesity is not a disease or a medical condition, typically, but rather the very normal, expected response to one consuming excess energy when and where energy is abundant. For instance, bears get massively fat over the fall each year. Perfectly normal. Energy is in abundance, they take advantage of that, and obesity is the proper physiological response. Their health is perfect and the fact that they can get so fat so quickly is evidence that they are in perfect health. Imagine if, for instance—in eating that near Epileptic Diet (aka Nutritional ketosis Diet) of loads of fatty salmon skin, discarding the protein for the birds—they actually got leaner as their calories consumed were in the tens of thousands per day? Would that not be a sign that they are unhealthy or have some serious medical condition?

The difference is, they keep their health perfect by sleeping off the obesity for five months each year so that they can repeat the same cycle.

Join My New Facebook Group: “Richard Nikoley’s Ketotard Chronicles

So, if you’ve wrapped your mind around this critical distinction I’m making, consider what’s likely to happen if people disregard it. Think about it.

This is why people move into these dietary dogma niches where “calories don’t count,” “eating fat doesn’t make you fat,” and “to lose fat, eat more fat.” Then, they post parlor trick anecdotes (if it’s not in a metabolic chamber, it didn’t happen).

Consequently, they have no choice but to regard the ability to get fat quickly as some disease, malfunction, or dysfunction. It’s got to be some hormonal thing and the most likely culprit has to be macro-nutrient ratios or something…

The theories go on forever and they go on so long that it eventually gets ridiculous. For example:


It boggles the mind. Yea, Jessica, just dump that chicken protein, replace it with a fat of your choice, more than twice as energy dense, and I’m sure your scale will improve immediately.

What’s the end result?

Endless waffling. Also, stomping of feet. You’ll see nonsense like, “the last 100 years prove CICO doesn’t work.”

The alternative, rational way to look at it is that the last 100 years demonstrate that CICO is a useful tape measure for approximating the too-complex Energy Balance Equation and it’s the insistence that it’s not, for why we have this obesity problem in a world of abundance—people not realizing that nature isn’t there preventing them from getting obese, as it used to be.

You also get posturing. After Charlie screen clipped all that stuff from the thread (I’m blocked, so can’t look…except with my secret FB account), he has subsequently emailed the clip from The Secretary of the Department of Meaningless Distinctions and Mixed Metaphor, Tom Naughton, going around splitting red herrings.


How and why are pretty much interchangeable and yea, why an alcoholic is alcoholic is because he drinks too much, too often and how an alcoholic is an alcoholic is also because he drinks too much, too often.

Tired of paying for probiotics that do nothing, because they aren’t engineered to do anything? Then learn about a dose engineered to make it all the way through to your colon, and then deal directly with the engineer and manufacturer.

Tom Naughton and Chareva Naughton ought to start losing sleep over how long they care to keep being jimmy moore’s water boys and girls.

I wrote this the other night about Tom; unedited, as it was posted.

It saddens me. I know how Tom’s mind works, as a rather libertarian dude.

This is the wedge I drive, because libertarians hate to be a water boy for bullshit. Politics is just an outward manifestation of that.

When we showed up day 1 at the inaugural AHS 11 at UCLA, Tom bear-hugged Bea and told her that my blog had sold the most copies of his Fat Head DVD (I love the film) at that time (that’s what Bea told me, so it’s heresay, and I never “looked into it” to make sure).

That said, things went awry about a couple of years ago when I was on Chareva’s Fat Head FB group.

It’s a total disaster. Still is.

That’s the truth. I’d have just dismissed Tom long ago and trust me, I have zero interest in seeing Jimmy come to Jesus according to my standards. I actually firmly believe that Tom is going to find a better way forward.

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. thhq on July 26, 2017 at 04:44

    Metabolism is a result of being a human. What you do is more important than what you eat.

    Does ketosis make you do more squats? Or walk 5000 steps a day? If not it’s the wrong diet.

  2. May on July 25, 2017 at 18:35

    I think Stephan Guyenet has this whole business grasped by the you know whats better than most and even he has to go round the houses several times to paint the picture. He’s just been on the Rationally Speaking podcast, worth a listen.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 25, 2017 at 18:43


      The physiology is as expected for most.

      The rest is neurology in an environment that no longer models the evolutionary.

      Paleo was an attempt at that, but devolved into paleo treats everywhere. No market for the real thing, as there ought not to have been.

  3. Justin Watts on July 25, 2017 at 18:56

    I literally laughed out loud at those Facebook screenshots. Chicken and green tea. I feel for people that they can’t see what they are looking at. A lady at my old auto insurance place was 300+ pounds. I hadn’t seen her in ages and the next time I did, she was more around 200 lbs. I asked her how she did it and she said bariatric surgery. She went onto say she could only eat half a sandwich at a meal because of the surgery. I Commented back that if she had only eaten half a sandwich at each meal she wouldn’t have needed the surgery in the first place. You could see the light bulb in her head go off. I honestly don’t think she ever put the two together.

    Fat Head changed my life and I credit Tom with helping push me in a better direction on my eating at the time. I watched it twice in one sitting, and made my wife watch as soon as she got home from work. I can’t believe how ignorant his comments have become as of late. I like him as a person and will continue to give him some slack. I remember beating the paleo drum and judging everyone as stupid if they didn’t agree with my one and only correct way for the world to eat. I have come a long way, and I know there’s still a lot to learn. Hopefully Tom heads in a better direction.

    • Hap on July 26, 2017 at 09:02

      and so….how does the environment no longer model the “evolutionary”? the environment is the input for the evolutionary. the gene pool and the expression is under pressure as we speak.

      I take your statement to mean….that modernity and especially advanced technology has produced environments that appear to break long standing “natural ” norms, perhaps resulting in certain kinds of tangential outcomes, some of which we recognize as dysfunctional. the story on this is long from concluded.

      I don’t know what the answers are……except to keep trying.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 26, 2017 at 09:22


      I was looking for a reference, is this what you’re referring to?

      “The alternative, rational way to look at it is that the last 100 years demonstrate that CICO is a useful tape measure for approximating the too-complex Energy Balance Equation and it’s the insistence that it’s not, for why we have this obesity problem in a world of abundance—people not realizing that nature isn’t there preventing them from getting obese, as it used to be.”

      Anyway, yes, I agree with your assertion and clarification.

      In essence, we have leapfrogged natural selection and evolution. We can keep the weakest alive long enough to reproduce, and we can create our own environments, some of which are ill-suited to us in various ways physical, emotional, social, mental, health, metabolism, etc.

    • Hap on July 26, 2017 at 10:21

      I like your reply and the expansion of your commentary, which I grasp.

      Not sure that we have leapfrogged anything. the implicit idea of man contra nature discomforts me.

      However, as a natural partner in “creation” of abundance through technology we are certainly causing issues to be addressed. I actually think this is really a “moral” issue as in the way the ancients considered “moral” as in the wielding of power…..morality meaning what you actually do with whatever “power” you aggregate. So creating these environments, as you say, which so holistically affect us, is ultimately moral.

      If people are blinded to reality of abundance (a very simple and straightforward point)as a primary issue, what does this have to say for human consciousness? I thought we were supposed to have “evolved”…..! We are so sophisticated and reductionist, we have not evolved….and unlike all other “animals”…..can both create and lose…our way. That is our ultimate power and the consequences dire. I guess I am in the camp of human nature, despite all the blandishments of techne, remains relatively fixed.

      Excuse me, going to take a sauna today. It really feels great (and man do you Shvitz) and if my heat shock proteins are upregulated and my proteins less misfolded at the end…..well that’s a plus.

  4. thhq on July 26, 2017 at 10:32

    For me the holy grail of exercise and fat metabolism is Romijn’s work.

    In order to burn fat most effectively, aim for 25-50% VO2max exercise. Above that metabolism shifts preferentially to muscle glycogen and away from plasma ffa.

    Since most people don’t have VO2 measuring capability, heart rate gives a good indication. For most people 100-120 bpm would be a good guideline zone to burn fat. Certainly not hard training, but well above sedentary.

    Exercise in the fat burn zone takes time to generate calories-out. 200-300 calories per hour is typical.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 26, 2017 at 10:57

      Yep, and the Fitbit models that register heart rate, that’s pretty much exactly the zone they call “fat burning zone.”

      A great way to be there for a good long while is trail hiking with moderate ascents and descents, done at a 3-4 mph pace, on average.

    • thhq on July 26, 2017 at 11:54

      1000 calories-out a day of low intensity exercise is Paleo. Women carrying children 5 miles a day. Men out scrounging for something to eat, in ketosis if they didn’t find enough.

      Cordain should have stopped there and skipped the diet. We are like your bear analogy, except that we don’t hibernate. We’re omnivorous trash eaters in constant motion.

    • ramon on July 27, 2017 at 09:00

      @thhq Doing early morning fasted “conversational cardio” I burn 165 calories in 20 minutes (calculated by garmin connect on a bike with heart rate monitor, speed and cadence) barely reaching 120 bpm after the first 10 minutes and not exceeding 120 bpm. I do weigh 205 lbs and am 5’11”

    • thhq on July 27, 2017 at 17:45

      I deduct BMR from my exercise counts, which for me is about 70 cal per hour. If I don’t, I double count. I aim for Food calories – (BMR + Exercise calories) = -100 on a weekly average. Otherwise I start gaining weight.

    • ramon on July 28, 2017 at 05:28

      aha, so no accidental double dipping of BMR. never occured to me.

  5. Duncan on July 25, 2017 at 23:30

    Moore’s “Livin La Vida Low Carb” masthead has gotten a rather old and played out. I nominate a name change to “Further Adventures In Gluttony”. What ya think?

  6. Bret on July 26, 2017 at 05:23

    “How and why are pretty much interchangeable and yea, why an alcoholic is alcoholic is because he drinks too much, too often and how an alcoholic is an alcoholic is also because he drinks too much, too often.”

    A fucking Men. Naughton drives me up the wall with his tedious diatribes torturing the How vs Why question. If an alcoholic wants to stop being a worthless addict, then he needs to figure out how to stop drinking too much, too often. There’s no more Why there. I actually think diet and obesity deserve a bit more equivocation than CICO, but he discredits this entire premise with that shitty alcoholic analogy.

    “I actually firmly believe that Tom is going to find a better way forward.”

    When? After a member of his family gets fat or sick from this high fat low carb religion?

    You have been predicting Naughton’s return to sanity for a while now, and I agreed a couple of years ago based on subtle signals he was sending. But he’s back in the echo chamber now, and I can’t tell any difference between his positions today vs back in 2012.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 26, 2017 at 07:32

      Fair enough, Bret. Certainly not holding my breath.

    • Bret on July 29, 2017 at 14:54

      “But he’s back in the echo chamber now, and I can’t tell any difference between his positions today vs back in 2012.”

      Thought about this some more, and I think these words were an unfair assessment. Naughton’s stance is much friendlier to real food carbohydrates than before, and this has been evident for a while, even if he does not broadcast it proactively.

      There is only one glaring wart that I can see, and that is his enabling reinforcement of JM’s goalpost-shifting profiteering bullshit. He thinks he is defending a friend from gratuitous meanness, but he is actually lending credence to falsehood and thus “helping” certain people who respect him stay in the rut of this ultra-high-fat nonsense.

      He claims to want to stay out of the JM stuff, but when people force the issue, he parrots JM’s narrative. If he could learn to simply say, “I’m not getting into that; move on,” then I could find no fault. But the enabling puts him over the line. Words mean something, and you flush your credibility down the toilet when you defend the indefensible.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 29, 2017 at 15:37

      Unfortunately, unless you see what’s going on over on the Facebook, this is pretty much meaningless, Brent.

      Jimmy is quoting Bible verses and MLK in an effort to settle and he’s been told to fuck off. no quarter, no mercy. We’re going to perform a metaphorical killing.

      Happy for this place, but the action is on FB. Sorry, but that’s the fact.

    • Bret on July 29, 2017 at 16:05

      I think you and I might be on two different pages.

      I’m in full agreement that JM deserves a hardcore takedown, no holds barred.

      Above I was merely softening my Tom Naughton stance. It’s not his dietary opinions per se, but his enabling of JM. Or did I miss something?

    • Richard Nikoley on July 29, 2017 at 16:08

      Tom doubles down and increases his intransigence. Best I can offer is I was completely wrong about him.

      He’s a fraud too. For money, harming people, setting them back. One only need to see the forums.

    • Bret on July 29, 2017 at 22:15

      LOL, yeah it is clear I’ve missed some big Facebook drama. That’s a stark 180 from the somewhat conciliatory tone four days ago.

  7. Marc on July 26, 2017 at 06:49

    Richard, kudos.

    I believe what youre hitting on is the next phase if you will (evolution?)….
    There are a few really savy doctors that are going this direction currently …
    Ultimately a paradigm shift that there is inherently NOTHING wrong with us…NOTHING. nature took care of that for us….all of us.
    Majority of the medical community still tries to imply that we need sserious help to get to good health…..its NUTS really.

    Make no mistake …im extremely grateful for our advances and abilities and technologies. If disaster strikes and were in a car accident or are a burn victim etc, we have developed the most amazing technology and skillsets to re attach limbs do skin graphs even replace organs…
    But when it comes to all the other stuff, we sadly have lost our way and keep going down the wrong roads…ofcourse part of the roads are littered with gold so that factors in naturally also.

    Keep going with this…excellent sir… simply excellent. Thank you.

  8. Michelle on July 26, 2017 at 08:57

    I’ve lost 10 pounds since I received my fitbit and scale on the 5th of July. I weigh every scrap of food I eat and throw it into Cron-o-meter, and walk 6000 steps a day. I bounce between 1300 and 2000 calories a day. I shoot for at least 100 grams of protein a day, and try for under 100 grams of carbs. Some days I’ve eaten more carbs, mostly from fruit and veg. I don’t worry over much about fat but am trying to not eat it in globs of butter, etc. I get most of my fat from cuts of meat and from my coffee creamer in the AM.

    It is VERY obvious to me now I’ve been over eating my whole life, and that’s why I am overweight. (I lknow, duh.) I never measured my food intake precisely before, preferring to “eyeball” it. Boy was I wrong about a serving and how much was going down the ol’ pie hole!

    And for those broads gritching about being menopausal and not being able to lose weight: suck it up. I am 50 and in menopause.
    Just go weigh your food and track it, for heaven’s sake. You are eating too much.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 26, 2017 at 09:00

      Excellent, Michelle. So easy, so obvious. We have the technology, we have the tools. We can recompose ourselves.

    • Limey on July 26, 2017 at 09:29

      +1 Michelle. I have found the greatest advantage for me in calorie counting is that it helps maintain a mild caloric deficit instead of a chronic one. By maintaining just a mild deficit it is far easier to stick to the plan. Chronic caloric deficits tend to lead to too many relapses for me. I don’t bother with fasting either anymore unless it just happens naturally.

    • Hap on July 26, 2017 at 10:45

      Calorie counting for a deficit and for the purpose of losing weight has to be chronic….but that doesn’t mean it has to be the same fucking deficit each and every day….with no variation or volatility. In fact if the deficit is without volatility, you may be severely curtailing your ability not only to lose the weight but also the ability to maintain the loss. Your metabolic “machinery” thrives on the volatility.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 26, 2017 at 11:02

      I agree. While my LoseIt app has me at about 1,750 daily, I swing pretty widely from 1,300 – 2,100 and every now and then, I purposely blow it out of the water with a 3,000 kcal day, and sometimes, a 24-hr fast. It also gives you a running weekly total, like Monday to Monday. I’m almost always exactly on target, within 1,000 calories either way, on a weekly basis.

      We have the technology. No more excuses.

      Take a look at this image posted to the Ketogains FB Group (valid Keto…caldef combined with adequate to high protein, and weights) last night. What a transformation. Calories count.

    • Limey on July 26, 2017 at 17:24

      @Hap. I would suggest do whatever leads to the highest average caloric deficit for you. Volatile calorie variations lead my calorie intake to being higher on average. Lower volatility in calorie intake leads me to eat less on average.

      If there is some scientific evidence of metabolic advantage to highly variable calorie intake, I am yet to see it.

    • Limey on July 26, 2017 at 17:27

      @Hap, your definition of what’s chronic and what’s mild may be different to mine also.

    • Limey on July 26, 2017 at 20:02

      @Hap, I can easily eat over 12,000 calories in a single sitting if I was feeling hungry. This would require 5 day fast to bring my daily average down to 2000 calories. I find if I maintain a daily deficit of 500 calories, I never get hungry enough to eat an overly large meal. A 500 calorie deficit is one I consider mild and a 5 day fast is what I consider chronic.

    • ramon on July 27, 2017 at 09:21

      that ketogains lady is remarkable. Talk about totaly becoming a differrent person.

  9. Limey on July 26, 2017 at 09:35

    Richard, I cannot wait to see you shredded. I suspect you have nailed the food thing with perfection this time. Add a little bit of fitness and you’re done I think.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 26, 2017 at 09:37

      I’ve been back in the gym for about a month, 2-3 times per week.

      Doing the Strong Lifts 5×5. I really like the app and the progression it employs.

  10. Hap on July 26, 2017 at 10:03

    Energy restriction is a first order effect but for out purposes of taking a sledgehammer, takes priority. Things like substrate composition, timing (relative to innate clocks) , and meal frequency are second or third order effects. Dealing with any effect will start to get you back into the game. Energy restriction is extremely important but not the whole story. Of course we cannot forget the environmental and other issues that put pressures on our physiology.

  11. Jim on July 26, 2017 at 12:15

    I can see what Tom was getting at with the FB post you screencapped here. But it does strike me as trying to use the exception to prove the rule – okay, you found ONE lady with a tumor that was causing her to gain weight. It makes for an interesting story, but now you’re going to have every dizzy bitch on that forum thinking that the problem is they have a brain tumor and not that they eat too many brownies.

    • thhq on July 26, 2017 at 12:31

      They can add that to the thyroid they usually blame. Another excuse.

    • Robert on July 27, 2017 at 00:59

      Yes, when I read the dietdoctor forum, and someone posts that they are doing everything “right”, but still don’t lose weight or even gain – it’s always suggestions like check the thyroid, cut out dairy, or whatever. But never ever will someone say the obvious: eat less. When you see it, it becomes crazy. How can they all be oblivious to that?

  12. James mooney on July 26, 2017 at 16:12

    I think old school guru Dan Duchaine had it right 20+ years ago- drop the initial fat weight down by simple calorie counting THEN restrict carbs and watch the magic happen. It always seems to go full circle

    • ramon on July 27, 2017 at 09:05

      Body builders always try everything ahead of the conventional gurus.
      Body Opus (Dan Duchaine’s), Anabolic Diet, Carb Nite and Carb Backloading are all variations of restricted carbs and calories followed by “re-feed meals”. Dan was an interesting fellow. I purchased his Ultimate Orange 25 years was a dink with the ephedra/aspirin/caffiene stack that caused women to go crazy lol.

      I am currnelty calorie counting whil restricting carbs (non-ketotarded), then refeeding carbs (not junk). once per week.

  13. Limey on July 26, 2017 at 20:10

    Guess which high fat keto guru ate pizza last night? Funny thing is, 2 hours later he posts his blood glucose reading and I see no spike. Shouldn’t it have spiked with the carbs in the pizza base?

    • Limey on July 27, 2017 at 05:25

      Oh, I see now – “crustless pizza”.

  14. Walter on July 27, 2017 at 05:22


    I am going to take a guess at what Tom is talking about.

    Of course I was a drunk because I consumed too much alcohol. Stopped 30 years ago with a treatment center. However, I became a drunk because of genetics. 10 years ago, same thing happened with sugar. Just like Jack Daniels, I now have to abstain from sugar (no moderation for me).

    My relatives who overeat (too many calories) do so because of (1) losing a baby to SIDS (2) clinical depression and hoarding (3) food progressed like alcohol and sugar did with me (Heart gave out at the age of 58. Smartest guy I knew. Damn). Any underlying emotional and/or genetic contributions (Tom’s Why?) make the whole thing complicated.

    I am damn lucky that food in general is not like sugar or alcohol (at 6’3″ I would weigh ~450-475 compared to the much shorter 400lb young man I met recently). I do not pay attention to calories, likely because I have adapted to smaller meals (1/4 lb hamburger for dinner. No beans, potato salad, etc. Just the hamburger). Would probably drive most 170lb men crazy. 11am breakfast 1 jumbo egg with ~1/2 Tb butter or bacon grease. That’s it. OK, 90 + 50 for 140 calories. Is that important for me to know? Luckily for me, I do not think so. Maybe for comparing what others are consuming, but that’s all I can think of. I would have to be more mindful of calories if I was a foot shorter.

    Why the same as How? No? Yes? Maybe?

    And we have not even touched on the social aspect of eating relative to 50 years ago.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 27, 2017 at 06:59


      But this meaningless distinction stuff (in contecxt…I’m not dismissing the effort in science to gain deeper understanding) is always used for convenience.

      Let’s take roughly the same folks and enter the area of blood glucose problems.

      Well, THEN they’re all over the HOW and the WHY (like diabetes, so take insulin) isn’t as crucial. Hell, just cut carbs.


    • Hap on July 27, 2017 at 07:51

      I did listen to Masterjohn last night and it was not a discussion for neophytes to biochemistry. Even with subststantial familiarity given my training, I would have to add another 5-10 hours of review to put everything in perspective. While listening, I spent my effort on deriving, as I might, the central point and then looking toward the “to do” function…..which he finally arrives at in the end.

      1) The biochemistry and molecular biology is complex

      2) Many feedback loops, amplification and inhibitory as well as cross “platform”linkage through pathways.

      3) Non linearity and extreme initial condition sensitive

      4) Still incomplete understanding despite superficial appearance of knowledge.

      In short, hopelessly complicated as reductive approach for understanding at general level.

      So still left with what to do?….even Masterjohn had to stop short and mull it over.

      Yes…what to do… opposed to the How and Why (as Richard just wrote).

      When it comes to simplifying with heuristics, the conception is that modern life is just problematic. Perhaps most of all that is a significant distraction and some stuff real….like shift work, or food consumption too remote from food production, sedentary lifestyle, yperaccess to energy substrate, and a number of others. However, just saying this invites a “to do ” list which is straightforward and likely to be effective.

      I”m as much as a sap for science (attempt to understand) as anyone. but the idea is to get on with doing, and if necessary, the science (understanding)….catches up (or it doesn’t). The folks who read this blog are very aware of the options…..try one.

  15. thhq on July 27, 2017 at 07:49

    Somewhat unrelated but maybe a marker.

    NBC news last night reported on the dramatic drop in male fertility in Western cultures.

    They didn’t discuss the primary suspects. Obesity, vegan and soy. Easy to google up a ton of nih evidence.

    Too much veg, especially sugary starchy fatty junk food. Too little meat, especially protein.

    Evolution knows that veg is wrong for men.

    • Hap on July 27, 2017 at 07:52

      In the Homeric sense, radical plant eating is incompatible with a meaningful (if short) life. Hence, the complete losers in the Land of the Lotus Eaters.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 27, 2017 at 08:15

      Or, males are more interested in phones than entitled, feminist pussy.

    • Shameer M. on July 29, 2017 at 22:39

      Here’s an interesting article related to your post:

  16. Hap on July 27, 2017 at 13:20

    Well, Odysseus had p!@#y on his mind during the entire trip back from Troy. When strapped to the mast to hear the siren song….it was “give us a cup off coffee with MCT in it”.

    • thhq on July 27, 2017 at 17:29

      Penelope calling….

  17. David Moak on August 19, 2017 at 16:19

    I am a Type 2 diabetic (for 32 years). A low carb diet was the only thing that began making a difference for me (which makes sense if you have diabetes). The thing that has kicked my control into high gear is adding intermittent fasting. I do eat some carbs a la Paul Jaminet and I walk and do tai chi. I weigh the least I have weighed as an adult and my blood sugar is currently just slightly above normal. I do think that what you eat matters and how much you eat matters. Years ago, I bought into the “calories don’t matter” and “add more fat” fallacies and I wonder how anyone with a brain (myself included) could have thought that up or believed it. Glad to be approaching normality on the blood sugar front.

  18. Allison on August 20, 2017 at 08:14

    It’s not always that simple though. At one point I ate 500 cal a day and I GAINED weight. I was massively retaining water and had some serious hormonal issues going on. I believe that keto caused the hormonal shift (Richard actually posted about me in his post on potato starch). There is such thing as a deranged metabolism. I had tried straight up calorie counting for years to no effect. LCHF is the only thing that worked for me (55lb down). Since then I have shifted LCHP (PSMF for the last 3 months now) and it’s working well. Yes, of course there has to be a caloric deficit, but it’s not always as simple as counting calories. I believe WHAT KIND of calories you’re eating impacts how your body burns them.

    • Richard Nikoley on August 20, 2017 at 08:55


      In such a predicament I would fast until weight begins coming off in a predictable pattern since it’s a sure thing it will.

    • Richard Nikoley on August 20, 2017 at 09:39

      Ha, got your Messenger comuique but can’t reply because Facebook has me locked down.

      I’m guessing I get zero complaints over your pretty face. So let’s just leave it. 🙂

  19. Justin on October 8, 2017 at 05:55

    I’ve long figured that obesity is a protective mechanism. My wife’s family is all pretty lean—despite some poor diet choices. What’s going on? I don’t know exactly but they don’t get really fat. They do get type 2 diabetes and metabolic disorder. It took my mother-in-law via duodenal cancer almost 10 years ago.

    Meanwhile my father in law has always been overweight to varying degrees. He’s now 70 and outside some arthritis he’s doing great. Fat has protected him as far as I can tell.

    Weight loss is hard but trusitng in charlatans who have zero results and are floundering as far as their own plan … How does that make sense? While bodybuilder types get flak for broscience, most of them are at least on good shape. Makes you think, right?

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow by Email8k