scratch-mark

I Have Never Slept With Tom Naughton

Just had to get that out of the way. It’s just a stupid post and that’s all there is to say about it.

UPDATE:

Tom’s problem is he’s just fucking wrong and rather than just admit he’s fucking wrong and has been wrong for a long time, he keeps pretending he’s been right all along and now, he’s trying to straddle the fence.

He’s just a mess.

  1. He’s a mess right here.
  2. And he’s still a mess right here.

I dealt with his dumb calories post the other day in a post at Ketotard Chronicles, reproduced below. As you read it, remember what I just said. Naughton is fucking wrong. He’s so fucking wrong and ignorant that he’s not aware of it. He’s a perfect example of Dunning-Kruger. Ok, read on.

Dunning Kruger Chart

…So, I’m reading comments patting Tom Naughton on the back for his most recent blog post which I previously linked. I think he’s misusing the quotes and advice from Michael Eades which I think make perfect sense and plus, it must send shivers up the spines of Ketotards that an MD clinician (well, actually 2 in 1 with the wife unit) with years of experience treating thousands of obese patients with low-carb is talking about getting his patients up to a relatively equivalent protein and carb level, like 100g and such. Oh. My. God!

Anyway, check this strawman from Tom, and this is why I think his post sucks (well, one reason).

My beef with the CICO crowd is that they’re constantly pushing a belief that simply isn’t true: namely, that our bodies work like simple bank accounts, with calories substituting for dollars. Cut 500 calories per day from you diet, and by gosh, you’ll automatically burn away one pound of fat per week. Cut 1,000 calories per day from you diet, and by gosh, you’ll double the fat loss to two pounds per week. Start eating an extra 500 calories per day, and by gosh, you’ll automatically gain a pound of fat per week, etc., etc. All based on simple, predictable, linear math.

Nice fucking strawman, Tom. This is not what informed CICO people think and in fact, it was Kevin “CICO” Hall who dispelled the myth that it’s a 3,500 kcal = I pound fat linearity. The linearity only holds for about the first two weeks of calorie restriction (as I recall). You need advanced calculus beyond that.

It’s all accounted for in the very complex energy balance equation.

So, how does Tom’s bullshit strawman, above, jive with this paper by Hall in 2012, 5 years ago?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3302369/

I could quote a million things (as there’s way lots of stuff that goes into the equation, which has proven to be damn accurate at any point on the CURVE…note, not LINE).

The origin of the “3500 kcal per pound” rule is based on the calculated energy content of body weight change and is often misapplied to predict the weight-change time course after a given intervention (19). This is a fundamental error because no time period is specified for that intervention. The impression is given that even a temporary intervention will therefore result in a permanent body weight change. Furthermore, the erroneous application of the rule to predict the impact of a permanent intervention gives the impression that a linear change in body weight is expected over protracted periods of time, which is known to be untrue. Rather, even when perfect adherence to an intervention with no active compensation is assumed, it is generally acknowledged that weight change will slow over time due to passive compensatory changes in energy expenditure that occur with the weight change. Therefore, the panel recommended that the 3500 kcal per pound rule should no longer be used.

With the use of a model that accounts for the passive compensatory effects on EO, a new rule of thumb representing a best-case scenario has been proposed for the average overweight person: every permanent 10-kcal change in energy intake/d will lead to an eventual weight change of 1 lb when the body weight reaches a new steady state ( ∼ 100 kJ/d per kg of weight change). It will take nearly 1 y to achieve 50% and ∼ 3 y to achieve 95% of this weight loss (20).

Whereas the above rule of thumb may be useful for approximate estimations and represents a significant theoretical improvement over the 3500 kcal per pound rule, a more accurate assessment of the amount and time course of predicted weight change for a given reduction in EI may be very valuable and informative for an individual patient. Newly developed dynamic energy balance models for weight loss require complex calculations that are simplified for users in web-based programs (http://bwsimulator.niddk.nih.gov; http://www.pbrc.edu/the-research/tools/weight-loss-predictor). Model predictions such as these provide a more realistic guide as to what patients can expect with changes in energy balance.

I will add that all of the current logging and tracking apps incorporate some form of this. So, for instance, in LoseIt, say after setting it up with all of your parameters (age, height, weight, gender, activity level, body fat estimation, goal weight, pace of weight loss from 1-2 pounds per week, etc.) it says OK, you must limit calories to 1,850 per day.

As you update the data, primarily your current weight, provided you are progressing, your calorie limit goes down. In my own case, when I began, in April, my limit was 1,870. Now, 10-pounds shed, my limit is 1,756.

So suck on your simplisic, bullshit, lying straw men, Tom.

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

16 Comments

  1. Bret on August 14, 2017 at 23:26

    Stupid post by Naughton.

    You are uniquely obsessive, impulsive, and indifferent to manners and politeness. These traits make you fascinating, since they are so rare, especially in combination.

    But control freak is not correct, and certainly not in context. You are ripping JM a new ass because he is promulgating bullshit around like a summer Texas wildfire and leading weak, naïve, desperate people astray. And you are including TN because he is enabling and reinforcing the fuckassery. Not because you desire to control their personal lives.

    • Richard Nikoley on August 15, 2017 at 01:50

      LOL.

      I’d not argue with any of that, Bret.



  2. David S. on August 15, 2017 at 00:36

    The last comment (made by himself) shows self-awareness levels that threaten to destroy all matter in the universe…

  3. Bret on August 15, 2017 at 07:05

    And Richard, even though you have never slept with him, I think Tom may be in love with you. Why else would he resurrect his personal blog from a five-year hiatus just to bitch about you? 🙂

  4. Walter on August 15, 2017 at 07:11

    Richard (and Bret),

    What post? Calories?

    Thanks.

    • Richard Nikoley on August 15, 2017 at 07:34

      The post I linked to in this blog post



  5. May on August 15, 2017 at 14:44

    When the likes of Naughton and Moore rail against someone it’s always like a kettle just called a pot black arse.

  6. Robert on August 16, 2017 at 01:13

    But I don’t get the Alcoholic analogy. I think the reason an alcoholic got alcoholic is that he drank too much, too often. Sure, we’re all different, some get away with drinking too much, some don’t. But it doesn’t change the fact that an Alcoholic abused alcohol for a long time to get alcoholic.

    And my advise to an alcoholic, would still be to drink less or preferably stop drinking completely. Regardless of whatever is going on in an alcoholic’s brain, this is the standard go-to solution. If it doesn’t work, sure, get some therapy to heal your childhood traumas or whatever. But the main point, which you can never get around, is exercise self-control, fight the urge to drink, don’t drink!

    • Robert on August 16, 2017 at 01:14

      From Tom’s post:

      To me, arguments about calories are often as ridiculous as:

      “The cause of alcoholism is drinking too much.”

      “What?! That doesn’t explain anything. You’re confusing the symptom with the cause.”

      “No, no, no. We’ve studied this extensively, and every time an alcoholic becomes drunk, it’s because the amount of alcohol he consumed exceeded his body’s ability to process it. So the cause of alcoholism is obviously drinking too much, and the cure is to stop drinking too much.”

      “It doesn’t work that way in real life.”



  7. Robert on August 16, 2017 at 04:16

    I can’t get my third comment to get posted on fathead. Server down. I’ll post it here in the meantime. Any thoughts?

    Thirdly, let’s separate sick people from healthy, that is two separate discussions. If we are talking about obesity, let’s talk about that. Calories is king, supported by satiety, food reward, etc. If we’re discussing diabetes, let’s talk about that, insulin then becomes a big factor.

    Weight-loss studies will usually select healthy obese people, since them being diabetic would be a confounding factor. Diabetes studies selects diabetics to study.

    You often use examples of people with some weird condition not responding as expected to the calorie counting. It’s a good argument to prove that calories aren’t everything, but it says nothing about “normal” people.

    Let’s say a personal trainer recommends doing squats for increased strength. But someone with a rare genetic muscle disorder starts to break down muscles doing this exercise, and loses muscle mass. Should we then conclude that the advice of the personal trainer is complete crap?

    In the same way, Jason Fung will argue that when you start injecting people with insulin they get fat, therefore only insulin causes obesity. No, in fact it says nothing about a normal person, which gets insulin in the natural way from his pancreas.

    “I injected morphine to feel good, it caused all kinds of health issues, therefore any activity that causes the body to release endorphins must be avoided at all costs, including sex and exercise” – same flawed logic.

    If someone is insulin resistant, persistent high insulin levels makes it difficult to access fat mass for energy, and he will be hungry a lot. Low carb (which lowers insulin) can then indeed be useful, lowering that insulin a bit, making it easier to go lower calorie. But far from every obese person is insulin resistant. Also, there are several other strategies to deal with insulin resistance.

    • Richard Nikoley on August 16, 2017 at 07:15

      Sounds fine to me, Robert.

      One caveat. I am now making sure I mention in all these discussions that the process is:

      Eat too much too often –> fat gain –> eventual insulin resistance –> diabetes

      With the added sub-caveat that IR is highly dependent on the individual, which is why you find some skinny type 2 diabetics and some hugely obese people like Jimmy Moore with stellar insulin sensitivity. In essence, insulin sensitivity is what allows people to get fat so easily. It’s when that ability through years and decades of punishment breaks down that’s the onset of IR and then diabetes.



    • Robert on August 16, 2017 at 07:47

      Good point, making sure to stress that carbs per se didn’t cause the insulin resistance. In fact, not even the evil fructose can be blamed for all the problems in this world.



  8. Robert on August 16, 2017 at 07:43

    Adventures in low-carb land: I’ve been home due to illness for a week, so plenty of time on my hands. I’ve been engaging in discussions on dietdoctor forum (the Swedish one). It’s been interesting, and some times frustrating. There are many reasonable people, interested in new things, such as RS. But also plenty of keto madness.

    I’ve noticed that the appeal to authority is the most used argument – whenever I try to get people to think for themselves, it’s met by a quote from some guru (often Fung, Jimmy Moore isn’t well known in Sweden). It’s almost as the guru is God and his blog the Bible. But I don’t even think the guru himself intended his words to be seen as holy, he is just putting out ideas there, and one day his opinion might change.

    Anyway, when I then counter with other appeals to authority (like Ted Naiman, who’s also heavily featured at Dietdoctor), the words of those gurus are not accepted. If you’re committed to a guru, other gurus will not be listened to, unless of course what he says agrees with your guru. Yet, strangely enough, Ted Naiman and Jason Fung are good friends in real life.

    Science is not appreciated by the keto folks, like studies showing same weight-loss on high carb as on low carb (protein clamped). Met by silence or another guru quote that directly contradicts the scientific studies. Science showing benefits of protein is also met by silence, since protein raises insulin.

    And now I just realized I can view the Ketotard Chronicles on my computer (I couldn’t even see it on my tablet since I don’t have facebook, but a desktop browser can access it). Great way to have a laugh and blow off some steam!

  9. DDM on August 17, 2017 at 05:18

    Jimmy Moore may be nice guy, but he is a con artist/failure and the his tribe is not helping him, they are enablers. He did lose weight, but did not keep it off. Thus he has “cheated” in some way, he didn’t keep to a deficit or maintenance level. Hormones/genetics I am not saying they don’t play a role, but lets face it at the end of the day he eats to much. At a very high level to lose weight, there must be some kind of calorie deficit. Keto, may be a vehicle for that, and for some eating that way may make it easier, i.e. cravings etc. A vegan may be a vehicle, I don’t I can eat 2000 calories of salad and banana’s a day. But, the Ketoers who side with the poor the oil siting eat all the fat you want don’t help there cause. Also both may not be the healthiest, many opinions on both sides

    Dieting is like politics, very little moderate believers or followers, once a person sides with a believe its like a fog overtakes them and they are almost impossible to sway.

    In the 1960- 1980’s I felt pretty good, got plenty of exercise, ate 2-3 balanced meals a day, did not really know much about a carb, fat grams, or protein intake and did not own a single diet book.

    • Bret on August 17, 2017 at 10:27

      Well put, DDM. You nailed it.



  10. John on August 17, 2017 at 09:03

    After engaging a lot of “intelligent” people on various topics. I wonder if there’s a Dunning Kruger style trend line with IQ and competence.

    Seems to me that 100-115 is a “danger zone.” Smart enough to take in new ideas and spread them confidently. Not smart enough for critical thinking about those ideas.

Leave a Comment





YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780