The Perfect Crime

Sometimes, marketing enables a pickpocket to steal a wallet–and be thanked for it…

Last year, just one of the big fast food companies made more than $1,300,000,000 in profit (billion with a ‘b’). They’ve also paid their CEO nearly $200 million in salary in the last five years. Sometimes, a big profit is the sign that you’re doing something right, creating real value for people able to pay. Sometimes, though, it means you’re exploiting a weakness in the system.

Seth Godin’s blog: The perfect crime

More about the free updates that people get.

More

left
Small Steps or Radical Changes? 27
Paleo Wars at AHS! 80
Dropped Ten Dress Sizes with LCHF! 93
If Natural Foods Came with an Ingredient List 19
TIME: Eat Butter. Scientists Labeled Fat the Enemy. Why They Were Wrong. 82
Long-Term Study on the Paleo Diet: The Results 55
Is this the Healthy Mediterranean Diet? 21
The Margarine Giant Gives Up: Butter Wins 53
Fruit is candy 154
LCHF-Success Greetings from India 47
What Happens If You Eat 5,800 Calories Daily on an LCHF Diet? 178
Health Care System Failing Obese Children – Here’s a Solution 22
right

159 Comments

Top Comments

  1. No one is being exploited. People freely exchange their money for a company's product.

    Would it be ok if the drug cartels advertised massively on TV and anyone could "freely exchange their money" for drugs?

    How about alcohol? Tobacco?

    Replies: #13, #63
    Read more →
  2. sten
    Ondrej, Cited from your link:
    "... The bad news is that people of all ages consume a lot of junk they buy in grocery stores – which is a point I’ve made several times. The same people who like to heap blame on the fast-food industry are curiously silent about all the boxes of Cocoa Puffs and bags of potato chips sold in grocery stores...."
    Ondrej, what is your interest in a LCHF blog ? Why do you read FAT head but stop when it doesn't fit anymore?

    The reason I read and write here is that I was helped out of serious chronic disease with the LCHF food through these blogs. If I as a kind of thank you can give something back to those that helped me or help others the same way I was helped I think it is fair. What goes around comes around.
    What are your reasons to write here?

    Reply: #24
    Read more →
1 2 3

All Comments

  1. Ondrej
    So what? Experts at world gambling houses gave the Lakers 2nd best odds to win it all after Miami, the eventual champion. They switch to low carb and are knocked out in the 1st round of the playoffs, without winning a game. The only change was that they went low carb. Had they been on low carb for years, like you said they would not even have played for the championships they won.

    Globalization in 1936-37? Are you serious?

    Fat burned by high activity? Re-read my link on no. 75. What? You never read it?

    If this lifestyle is so great for you, help Dr. Eenfeldt and provide your success story.

    Reply: #104
  2. Ondrej
    "P.S. You read this site and you can not find a LCHF success story?? - what's wrong with you?."

    You must have a reading/retention problem. Read no. 72. What is wrong with you?????????

    Evidently, by your own admission, you have nothing to show.

  3. Ondrej
    I showed before that on a reduced calorie diet you can lose weight and improve your health markers, even if the diet is made up of junk food.

    Here it is, AGAIN:

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    Reply: #105
  4. Pierson
    And? Experts have also said that fat causes heart disease, and that diabetes is just a result of eating too much, so I don't much care for what they thought would happen. And again, how do you know the only thing that changed is the diet? Because they said so? Really, something tells me that you see food recall surveys as being very accurate and valid.

    "Globalization in 1936-37? Are you serious?'

    Oh right, I forgot that people didn't actually develop any means of trade, international communication, or widespread travel until the 1990s; my bad

    "Fat burned by high activity? Re-read my link on no. 75. What? You never read it?"

    No, improved insulin sensitivity as a result of high activity. Of course if you had read my posts, you'd know why that was so important for the loss of fat

    "If this lifestyle is so great for you, help Dr. Eenfeldt and provide your success story."

    Here, I'll provide it for you:

    Before low carb:

    -Resting blood sugars 108
    -HDL: 69
    -LDL: 148
    -Triglycerides: 73
    -Body fat: 28%
    -Acne and dry skin
    -Ancanthosis nigricans
    -Constant fatigue
    -Difficulties with mood, focus, motivation, and emotional regulation
    -Always hungry

    1 Month after making the change:

    -Resting blood sugar: 95
    -HDL: 87
    -LDL: 135
    -Triglycerides: 47
    -Body fat: 24-26% (lean mass improved a bit)
    -No Ancanthosis Nigricans
    -Improved skin, no longer dry or with acne
    -More steady energy
    -Improved psychological well-being
    -Rarely hungry

    Seeing as how this lifestyle clearly doesn't work, however, it's probably in my head. Then again, seeing as how I was actually worse off on a low-calorie HCLF diet, probably not

    Also, the 'twinkie diet' was actually a low-ish carb diet (with little in the way of junk food, actually), which probably had more to do with its success than its restricted calories. Check it out here: http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/11/16/the-twinkie-diet/

    Reply: #110
  5. Christopher
    What neuroprotective against neurodegerative diseases properties of ketone bodies (generated on LCHF diet, just in case) has got to do with "improved health markers" on calorie restricted diet?. CR seldom leads to increase in ketone bodies.
  6. FrankG
    Ondrej you apparently fail to grasp that many of us have already spent (wasted) many years or even decades on trying to manage excess fat mass using the CICO/ELMM paradigm. For me at least it doesn't work as a long term sustainable solution.

    Perhaps, as you so insultingly stated above, I am a "glutton" and supposedly always will be... strangely though when I changed the macronutrient quality of what I eat, rather than focusing on just the quantity, things changed significantly for the better. No longer hungry all the time... I guess I finally found the mythical "will power" needed to curb my appetite. 5 years now with no sign of "failure" or "temptation". I'm quite happy to eat LCHF and see no reason why I could not do so for the rest of a much longer and healthier life that I was heading towards when eating as the "experts" advised.

    I've asked you before for your own personal experience of significant excess fat mass over several years and your struggles to lose it. Your lack of response confirms my suspicion that you are a 20 something know-it-all you who "knows" really well how to be thin and stay thin. Mistakenly you think these are the same things.

    If you really are the medical student you previously claimed, then I shudder to think the state of the medical education system. But be warned that your god-complex approach to doctoring will not be tolerated anymore and you will find increasingly, patients like myself who will not accept it.

    I don't feel I owe you any further explanation or proof; as I see you as just a negative troll on here... but you must realise by now that rehashing the "conventional wisdom" ad nauseam is not enough to persuade me (and apparently many others) that we are misguided. You'd need to bring something new to the table and so far you got absolutely nuthin' !

    ---

    On a lighter note ('cos this is getting really ridiculous and very tedious)

    Mitchell & Webb -- The Perfect Crime...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KHxewWUNyo

    Reply: #109
  7. Christopher
    ... and many of us spend lifetime helping (after our own experimentations with diets) many others to get their health back on LCHF. And I join Your suggestion Frank, and say let's leave this pointless ping-pong-waste -of -time game at that. Who ever enjoys high carbohydrate meals and feels good, GOOD FOR YOU - ENJOY IT !!!
  8. Christopher
    Health tip: I am sure that most of You take it , but for those who don't, I suggest taking coconut oil. Start with one tea-spoon per day and build up to 2 table-spoons - mixing with Your food throughout the day. Your gut will love you for it. Medium chain fatty acids (+- 60% of coconut oil) are an excellent energy source for gut epithelial cells plus, as You know, they kill most (if not all) pathogenic bacteria.
  9. Ondrej
    FrankG you said "as you so insultingly stated above, I am a "glutton." Well i had to respond to the attacks of your fellow low carbers. Did you ever admonish them?

    However I'm glad you are man enough to admit that your health deteriorated due to a gluttonous, sedentary, hedonistic life style, that forced you to embrace LCHF. It's like a recovering alcoholic. I wish you good luck, but we'll see how long you'll stick.

    "I've asked you before..." And I've asked you to post your success in this website for all to see. You make extraordinary claims but have nothing to show.

    I don't have a God complex. I'm only trying to help you. Unfortunately - for you - you persist on believing these low carb myths.

    I have provided sufficient back up for everything I've posted. How about reading it for a change. if you see that as "conventional wisdom," you are hopeless.

    As far as I'm concerned, yo can go back to arguing with Pierson the merits of a low carb dictatorship.

  10. Ondrej
    glob·al·i·za·tion
    [gloh-buh-luh-zey-shuhn] Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    the act of globalizing, or extending to other or all parts of the world: the globalization of manufacturing.
    2.
    worldwide integration and development: Globablization has resulted in the loss of some individual cultural identities.

    1936-37?

    'twinkie diet' not low carb per Tom Naughton.

    "Body fat: 24-26%" overweight/obesity is a negative health marker. You need to bring it down. Don't you want to say about your partner "keep it away from me!" ?

    Reply: #115
  11. FrankG
    Ondrej you apparently fail to grasp that many of us have already spent (wasted) many years or even decades on trying to manage excess fat mass using the CICO/ELMM paradigm. For me at least it doesn't work as a long term sustainable solution.

    Perhaps, as you so insultingly stated above, I am a "glutton" and supposedly always will be... strangely though when I changed the macronutrient quality of what I eat, rather than focusing on just the quantity, things changed significantly for the better. No longer hungry all the time... I guess I finally found the mythical "will power" needed to curb my appetite. 5 years now with no sign of "failure" or "temptation". I'm quite happy to eat LCHF and see no reason why I could not do so for the rest of a much longer and healthier life that I was heading towards when eating as the "experts" advised.

    I've asked you before for your own personal experience of significant excess fat mass over several years and your struggles to lose it. Your lack of response confirms my suspicion that you are a 20 something know-it-all you who "knows" really well how to be thin and stay thin. Mistakenly you think these are the same things.

    If you really are the medical student you previously claimed, then I shudder to think the state of the medical education system. But be warned that your god-complex approach to doctoring will not be tolerated anymore and you will find increasingly, patients like myself who will not accept it.

    I don't feel I owe you any further explanation or proof; as I see you as just a negative troll on here... but you must realise by now that rehashing the "conventional wisdom" ad nauseam is not enough to persuade me (and apparently many others) that we are misguided. You'd need to bring something new to the table and so far you got absolutely nuthin' !

    ---

    On a lighter note ('cos this is getting really ridiculous and very tedious)

    Mitchell & Webb -- The Perfect Crime...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KHxewWUNyo

  12. Christopher
    We are both gluttons FrankG and lead an hedonistic lifestyle. And that's the fact. Maybe we are Roman Senators of Middle Republic or Russian oligarchs and even do not know about it. But we both need help. And that's the fact. Because this LCHF mirage leads us to crippled old age or premature death.
  13. FrankG
    Indeed Christopher. I must be so much under the influence of the almighty LCHF that I didn't even realise I needed help!

    Maybe Ondrej's fat-concentration camps can include a deprogramming unit for delusional cases such as myself?

    And it has only been 5 years for me but give it time and we'll see how quickly I fail in this attempt... it is so sad to realise that I am a hopeless cause no matter what I do :-P

    Reply: #117
  14. Ondrej
    FranG and Michael, I know both of you eat like a bird, like an Aepyornis.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aepyornis

  15. Pierson
    Yes, Ondrej, and since Humans had been bringing their wares to various parts of the world since the 1500s (at least), any mass trade which happened during the 30s counts as globalization. See how easy that was?

    Yes, I would like to get my body fat lower (20% would be fine), and LCHF is helping me to do that. Really, did you miss the part where I mentioned I was 28%, before I made the switch? For what its worth, I'm only 'pudgy' now, whereas before I was close to obese. Calorie-restricted HCLF diets did little to help that (or any of my other metabolic issues, really), and just weren't worth the fatigue, hunger, and neurotic calorie-counting
    Lastly, Ondrej, though you probably only mean well, you can't claim to 'help' us if our lifestyle has already shown to be personally effective for us! Really, like FrankG and Christopher, many have tried everything, and found that it just hasn't worked. Indeed, there are just so many people who's metabolisms can't handle sugars, and need to keep them out of their diets. Really, this isn't to say that everyone should do ketogenic, or even eat fewer than 150g carbs a day (not necessary or helpful for everyone), yet it is to say that keeping insulin and blood sugar under control is a key to metabolic health, and is best managed through limiting sugar intake. Really, why is that so hard to understand?

  16. Pierson
    Oh, and Ondrej, I did mention that the Twinkie diet was low-ish in carbs, not low carb (per se). Really, though 175g of carbs is hardly ketogenic, its way better than the 250-300g which the 'experts' recommend, and is not any kind of binge. Even if it was, however, that doesn't change the fact that people who can't handle sugar wouldn't be successful on it, and would succeed on something lower carb
  17. Christopher
    I am on very low carbs sometimes no carbs for weeks for more than 20 years, my BMI is 19, my blood pressure is 71/110 (it was time that it was 110/180). My blood work is text-book, not to mention excellent energy , mood et cetera et cetera and as You may gather I was born in the mornin' but it wasn't yesterday mornin' - It is a rewarding lifestyle.

    If I may add though - for me obesity is a tertiary issue here. Obesity is one, not all that sinister (baring change in adipokines) symptoms of deregulated metabolism caused by dietary carbohydrates. As we know there are much more dangerous consequences of this deregulation, although they are all intertwined -mostly through insulin.

    What fascinates me, and how I look at macronutrients biochemistry is how they affect diseased states, that is when body is in a need of repair. And here I suggest to the critics of LCHF to compare say to vital organs in our body:
    1) brain - look at the studies how brain recovers (clinical or experimental) from say Parkinson's, Alzheimer's when supplied with glucose and Ketone bodies
    2) do similar comparison with heart.
    Or pick-up any organ of your desire and look at the comparison.
    There are numerous publications on the matter, You can PubMed them. Draw Your own conclusions. No wonder that for more than 20 years I have not been sick and people do not believe when I tell them my age.

    Reply: #118
  18. FrankG
    Now I see our problem Christopher... :-P we have been reading primary sources such as research articles, published in peer reviewed journals and even then looking at them with a critical eye rather than simply glossing over the text and accepting the author's conclusions without question.

    What we should have been doing is relying on others to tell us what to think -- it's sooo much easier that way! Others like pumped-up personal trainers and self-proclaimed "weightologists" I gather are the very best sources for information.. or so I am told.

    Reminds me of another M & W sketch...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDfoJ29CR4E

    Reply: #119
  19. Christopher
    SPOT ON!!
    (if I may be vain, I am a biochemist (good old school biochemistry, when Science were not clouded by drugs or sugar money) and work as a research scientist in the field of human energy metabolism)
  20. Christopher
    One of the latest publications, just to show to some that I did not make all this up

    Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2013 Apr 15;304(8):H1060-76. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00646.2012. Epub 2013 Feb 8.
    Ketone body metabolism and cardiovascular disease.
    Cotter DG, Schugar RC, Crawford PA.
    Source
    Department of Medicine, Center for Cardiovascular Research, Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri 63110, USA.
    Abstract
    Ketone bodies are metabolized through evolutionarily conserved pathways that support bioenergetic homeostasis, particularly in brain, heart, and skeletal muscle when carbohydrates are in short supply. The metabolism of ketone bodies interfaces with the tricarboxylic acid cycle, β-oxidation of fatty acids, de novo lipogenesis, sterol biosynthesis, glucose metabolism, the mitochondrial electron transport chain, hormonal signaling, intracellular signal transduction pathways, and the microbiome. Here we review the mechanisms through which ketone bodies are metabolized and how their signals are transmitted. We focus on the roles this metabolic pathway may play in cardiovascular disease states, the bioenergetic benefits of myocardial ketone body oxidation, and prospective interactions among ketone body metabolism, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and atherosclerosis. Ketone body metabolism is noninvasively quantifiable in humans and is responsive to nutritional interventions. Therefore, further investigation of this pathway in disease models and in humans may ultimately yield tailored diagnostic strategies and therapies for specific pathological states.

  21. Christopher
    Would I lie to you ?

    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 May 9;97(10):5440-4.
    D-beta-hydroxybutyrate protects neurons in models of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.
    Kashiwaya Y, Takeshima T, Mori N, Nakashima K, Clarke K, Veech RL.
    Source
    Division of Neurology, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago, 683-8503 Tottori, Japan.
    Abstract
    The heroin analogue 1-methyl-4-phenylpyridinium, MPP(+), both in vitro and in vivo, produces death of dopaminergic substantia nigral cells by inhibiting the mitochondrial NADH dehydrogenase multienzyme complex, producing a syndrome indistinguishable from Parkinson's disease. Similarly, a fragment of amyloid protein, Abeta(1-42), is lethal to hippocampal cells, producing recent memory deficits characteristic of Alzheimer's disease. Here we show that addition of 4 mM d-beta-hydroxybutyrate protected cultured mesencephalic neurons from MPP(+) toxicity and hippocampal neurons from Abeta(1-42) toxicity. Our previous work in heart showed that ketone bodies, normal metabolites, can correct defects in mitochondrial energy generation. The ability of ketone bodies to protect neurons in culture suggests that defects in mitochondrial energy generation contribute to the pathophysiology of both brain diseases. These findings further suggest that ketone bodies may play a therapeutic role in these most common forms of human neurodegeneration.

  22. Ondrej
  23. FrankG
    Good grief.. really pushing out the boat in support of the conventional wisdom eh?!?

    "We asked Dr. Jules Hirsch, emeritus professor and emeritus physician in chief at Rockefeller University, who has been researching obesity for nearly 60 years, about the state of the research. Dr. Hirsch, who receives no money from pharmaceutical companies or the diet industry, wrote some of the classic papers describing why it is so hard to lose weight and why it usually comes back."

    Last time I checked emeritus really means "retired". But 60 years Wow! Such an appeal to authority, complete with a professional-looking photograph of the great man himself... white lab coat 'n all..!

    Clearly this is a man we should all sit up and listen to -- although I seriously wonder how much of this opinion piece he actually penned himself and how much was written for him?

    Sure he has no ties to industry but his whole career is invested in the conventional wisdom... any guesses what he supports?

    And *what* a career!?! Spanning the last 60 years of obesity research when we have just gone from strength to strength in combating this health scourge of western society. Heck his record speaks for itself.. I can't even recall the last time I saw anyone even mildly overweight!

    Oh wait...

    This serves as our oh so rational explanation of the "magic"

    "...when carbohydrate levels are low in a diet and fat content is high, people lose water. That can confuse attempts to measure energy output. The usual measurement is calories per unit of lean body mass — the part of the body that is not made up of fat. When water is lost, lean body mass goes down, and so calories per unit of lean body mass go up. It’s just arithmetic. There is no hocus-pocus, no advantage to the dieters. Only water, no fat, has been lost."

    What?

    I understand the part about losing water as the glycogen stores are reduced (each gram of glycogen is bound to about four grams of water); which can partly explain the first 4 lbs or so of "weight loss" on LCHF but the point about this study was NOT to show a significant "weight" advantage to their version of the low-carb diet: instead they demonstrated that AFTER short-term weight loss by restricting calories across the board, there is inevitably a slowing of metabolic rate (BMR) as the body perceives starvation and tries to conserve resources. This is a big disadvantage that those who still promote CICO/ELMM like to gloss over. BUT this study demonstrated that for those who switched to their version of a LCHF diet for maintenance after the initial "weight" loss, there was LESS of a drop in BMR, to the tune of around 300 calories per day.

    So unless Dr Hirsch (or whoever wrote this for him) is suggesting that the measurement of BMR is wrong, then I call BS on the above piece of confabulation.

    At the and of the day these people would still be in "energy balance" they must be... THAT Is a physical law... BUT they arrived there with a BMR 300 calories per day LESS depressed by calorie restriction, than those eating more carbohydrate.

    No one is claiming any "magical" metabolic advantage other than as stated above. Except perhaps you, for the purposes of constructing a scare-crow.

    --

    Ondrei, either *you* are very gullible and/or stupid or you think the folks who read here are... either way you are wrong and you are wasting your time. Your version of "help" I didn't ask for, don't want and certainly don't need.

    Reply: #124
  24. Christopher
    The article was probably written by a CICO/sugar party member on Coca-cola/Kellogs/Marsbar pay-roll as a response to the article about obesity in Mexico. And she/he used benign Emeritus Professor as a authority. People like authorities. Do you know that most researchers from Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston, (those who I know that is) are convinced, at least officially, that dietary carbohydrates have got nothing to do with diabetes ?! - it is scarry!.
    Reply: #125
  25. FrankG
    It's actually a year old NY Times PR piece by those with a vested interest in the status quo (read, food industry) "discussing" the Ebbeling, Ludwig et al article...

    Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance

    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154

    ---

    Oh and just to correct myself where I wrote "Sure he has no ties to industry..." I subsequently noted how careful they were to say Dr Hirsch "receives no money from pharmaceutical companies or the diet industry"...

    I wonder how closely one would need to examine Rockefeller University's Nutritional Science or Obesity Research departments to uncover significant funding from the food industry? As I recall, Harvard's is pretty much bought and paid for by General Mills (think breakfast cereals) and the like.

    ---

    But yes, as a Type 2 Diabetic myself I am well aware of the emphasis on how important it is that I eat plenty of carbs every day and that no matter how much medication it requires, we must, at all costs, enable those with diabetes to eat "normally".

  26. Christopher
    One of the buildings which houses Nutrition Department at Harvard was build by Kellogs money. Most of the editors of nutritional journals are on sugar money.
  27. Ondrej
    From the article:

    "Did you ever ask whether people respond differently to diets of different compositions?

    Dr. Rudolph Leibel, now an obesity researcher at Columbia University, and I took people who were of normal weight and had them live in the hospital, where we diddled with the number of calories we fed them so we could keep their weights absolutely constant, which is no easy thing. This was done with liquid diets of exactly known calorie content.

    We kept the number of calories constant, always giving them the amount that should keep them at precisely the same weight. But we wildly changed the proportions of fats and carbohydrates. Some had practically no carbohydrates, and some had practically no fat.

    What happened? Did people unexpectedly gain or lose weight when they had the same amount of calories but in a diet of a different composition?

    No. There was zero difference between high-fat and low-fat diets. "

    Leibel RL, et al. Energy intake required to maintain body weight is not affected by wide variation in diet composition. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Feb, 1992; 55 (2): 350-355.

    .

    Replies: #129, #135
  28. Ondrej
    According to Reinhard Engels:

    "Most diets today can be divided into two categories:

    1. Pseudoscientific forbidden foods diets that pretend that you can go on being a glutton as long as you confine your gluttony to a particular class of foods while completely excluding others (no agreement on what these particular kinds of foods are, of course).

    2.Diets that require you to be a full time calorie accountant.

    The forbidden foods diets are patent nonsense. They contradict one another, go in and out of fashion every ten years, and never seem to gather any serious scientific support. You won't stick with one of these because not being able to eat whole categories of food is a real drag. At the outset, it might seem worth it to trade pasta for unlimited steaks (or vice versa), but it gets old fast. And it might even make you sick.

    It's funny that these diets masquerade as scientific, because psychologically they rely on the most primitive magicism: magic potion foods that are good for you and can be gorged on with impunity, and cursed poison foods that corrupt with a mouthful (carbohydrates and fat are the two biggies, alternating roles).

    They pretend that you don't have to do the hard work of fundamentally altering your habits. "It's not your fault," they say, "it's the food's fault! Just eat this other magic food instead..." It's so temptingly flattering and easy. Alas, it isn't true and doesn't work, and in the final analysis it isn't even flattering.

    The calorie accounting diets are time consuming and joyless. You won't be able to stick with one of these because it will make you miserable. Besides the sheer tedium of compliance, if you come to think of food as fuel, a mere quantity, you'll come to loathe it -- and your number crunching-munching self.

    The situation is complicated a little by hybrids (i.e., counting taboo food units -- the worst of both worlds) and fluff. Horrified scientists occasionally publish sober descriptions of what the ideal human lab rat should eat, but these fail so miserably as prescriptions that they're not even worth considering.

    The truth is, pretty much any diet will lose you weight if you stick with it. The problem isn't how to lose the weight. The problem is how to stick with the diet. According to the FDA, 95% of dieters fail to do this for more than a few months at a time. You need a diet that acknowledges this grim statistic and targets the real culprit: not your belly, but your mind."

  29. Christopher
    Ondrej, it is laughably design experiment to prove preexisting concept (+- 90% of modern nutrition science, clinical and experimental is done this way). I will not go through the points to show its errors because
    1) it is a nice day outside
    2) you can do it yourself
  30. Christopher
    For those who do not know work of Prof. Cynthia Kenyon from UC San Francisco, you might want to google her up in your spare time. ( I say again obesity is a tertiary issue here)
  31. Ondrej
    Study: Being overweight, not just obese, raises death risk:

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/yourlife/fitness/2010-12-01-overweight...

    Seven Deadly Sins: pride, greed, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth.

  32. Ondrej
    According to diet/exercise guru John Barban (http://johnbarban.com/about/):

    "There is no such thing as ‘damaging’ your metabolism.

    “Metabolism” simply refers to the sum of all processes going on in your body at a given time. So this can never be damaged. It’s just a description of process.

    Even people in severely wasting disease states will be functioning normal after they recover.

    Unless you have a diagnosed metabolic disorder that actually changes the normal way your body processes fuel (this is very rare, and you’d know it if this was the case) then you’re body is processing food/fuel just like everybody else."

    Reply: #133
  33. Christopher
    Allow me to quote one of the bloggers (#123):
    "Ondrei, either *you* are very gullible and/or stupid or you think the folks who read here are...". Good by Ondrej. (I am taking off to watch MotoGP - that is the place where CICO applies)
    Reply: #134
  34. Ondrej
    Lacking a viable retort, Christopher - the mystery poster that claims he has a 19 BMI yet refuses to join Dr Endfeldt's success stories - uses another personal attack.

    Isn't this getting old?

  35. Pierson
    Ondrej, with regards to the tests by Dr. Rudolph Leibel and co., they used people who were already NATURALLY LEAN. Now I know that since you've ignored damn near everything everyone here has said about insulin, carb sensitivity, and individual differences, that can't possibly mean anything to you. As such, I'll put it like this; if those people were already naturally lean, then they have better insulin sensitivity than people who are overweight. Accordingly, 'calories in, calories out' is more true for them than carb-sensitive people, since they have bodies that just don't like to store fat (as opposed to people who can't tolerate carbs). Honestly, that's like taking kids who have inherited mutations which result in excessive muscle growth, greatly restricting their food intake, and then concluding that their still fantastic musculature proves that nutrition has nothing to do with muscle development in growing children.

    Oh, and with regards to the posting our success stories thing, did it ever occur to you that some of us just don't like to post our personal business online?

    And yes, trying to educate you is getting very old

    Reply: #136
  36. Ondrej
    "Ondrej, with regards to the tests by Dr. Rudolph Leibel and co., they used people who were already NATURALLY LEAN"

    Please provide link to confirm your statement..

    "Oh, and with regards to the posting our success stories thing, did it ever occur to you that some of us just don't like to post our personal business online?"

    I don't believe that. It's because you are not at healthy BMI.

    Before you re-rip BMI I'll give you your top ten reasons:

    1. They have a high BMI. This is the number one reason people argue against the BMI.

    2. They think it’s normal to put on a few pounds. The BMI counteracts peoples flawed thinking.

    3. They are in denial. Denial is possibly the strongest of all the defense mechanisms, or psychologically disordered strategies that people use to cope with reality and maintain self-image.

    4. They have a food addiction. Given the choice to believe that their high BMI is dangerous, people with an addiction will dismiss their BMI rather than face reality.

    5. They use the straw man argument, where you change the topic and argue against that. The BMI is not a beauty contest, yet they argue that people look good with a high BMI. Therefore, it’s a bad measurement.

    6. They call the BMI statistical origin nonsensical, yet ignore all the statistical data that supports and shows it works regardless if the measurement design, i.e. height-weight, makes no sense. The bottom line of a high BMI is increased morbidity and mortality in almost every large scale study, except possibly for a very small increased BMI in people over 70 years of age.

    7. They can’t get insurance with their high BMI. Of course they will cost the insurance company much more money than they will ever pay for insurance, either immediately or later, thus raising the rates for the rest of us.

    8. They think they are an athlete, and since a lot of real athletes have a high BMI, then theirs must be OK. Many athletes do not have a high BMI, especially in sports where significant endurance is important. Did you know that in the average football game, the “athletes” actual playing time is less than 15 minutes total?

    9. They saw a report that said according to the BMI charts, both Tom Cruise and LeBron James are obese, and they are fine. In reality, neither Tom Cruise ( BMI 25.1-26) nor LeBron James (BMI 27.5) are obese. They both fall in the overweight category. LeBron is a professional athlete, and Cruise is no longer Maverick from Top Gun.

    10. They have a blog on the Internet with a high proportion of the readership having a high BMI and do not want to be honest about the BMI or their BMI because they fear the loss of their followers as both an ego and economic decline

    Replies: #138, #143
  37. Ondrej
    In a paper aptly titled "Calories Do Count", Kinsell and co-workers admitted five obese subjects to a hospital metabolic ward and fed them liquid formula diets. The diets ranged in protein content from 14 to 36 per cent, fat from 12 to 83 percent, and carbohydrate from 3 to 64 percent. The calorie content of the various diets was held constant for each patient irrespective of diet composition. As they switched from one diet to another, each patient continued to lose weight at a similar pace. Concluded the researchers: "…it appears obvious that under conditions of precise consistency of caloric intake, and essentially constant physical activity, qualitative modification of the diet with respect to the amount or kind of fat, amount of carbohydrate, and amount of protein, makes little or no difference in the rate of weight loss."

    Kinsell LW, et al. Calories do count. Metabolism, Mar, 1964; 13: 195-204.

  38. Pierson
    Yes, Ondrej, because it is completely impossible for anyone to want to not want to post information about themselves online, beyond what is needed for simple social networking. Seriously, do you read what you write? Beyond completely ignoring that BMI is a really poor way to assess metabolic health (ratio of fat mass to lean mass is better), all your post really amounts to is 'they're lying, I just know it'. Get a grip man, and accept that even if they are overweight, they're probably a hell of a lot healthier (metabolically speaking) than they were pre-HFLC. Skinny doesn't always mean healthy, remember?

    Regarding the calorie counting thing, the summary of the experiment you posted stated that the participants were all of a normal weight, so unless any of them had ever had a weight problem, I'm taking that as naturally lean. Moreover, with regards to the obese people placed in the hospital, how long did their weight loss last? What about markers of metabolic health? How long were they on each diet? What was the ratio of fat loss, to the loss of lean mass?
    I'll agree, calorie-restricted diets can work at first, even if they're really high carb (provided you have a healthy liver, kidneys, and pancreas). Here's the kicker, though; for most people, they just aren't sustainable, and all benefits will stall out eventually. Really, a diet of pure startch is a fantastic way to 'kick-start' insulin sensitivity and weight loss if your liver, kidneys, and pancreas can properly handle and dispose of all that insulin, but not for too long. If anything, the elimination of processed ingredients probably had more to do with their weight loss than anything else! What I would really like to see is if they put those people on their respective diets for 5 years, how it would turn out.

    Reply: #139
  39. Ondrej
    "Yes, Ondrej, because it is completely impossible for anyone to want to not want to post information about themselves online, beyond what is needed for simple social networking"

    I've never seen anybody with a good figure wearing a 19th century swimsuit. On the contrary:they wear swimsuits that barely cover..

    "Seriously, do you read what you write? Beyond completely ignoring that BMI is a really poor way to assess metabolic health (ratio of fat mass to lean mass is better),"

    I guess you are an "athlete." Don't tell me sumo wrestling. With a high BMI, the odds are against you:

    http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/4/e002698.full

    "all your post really amounts to is 'they're lying, I just know it'. Get a grip man, and accept that even if they are overweight, they're probably a hell of a lot healthier (metabolically speaking) than they were pre-HFLC. "

    Why not show yourself.

    "Skinny doesn't always mean healthy, remember?Regarding the calorie counting thing, the summary of the experiment you posted stated that the participants were all of a normal weight, so unless any of them had ever had a weight problem, I'm taking that as naturally lean."

    normal weight = naturally lean? Piersaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal!

    "Moreover, with regards to the obese people placed in the hospital, how long did their weight loss last? What about markers of metabolic health? How long were they on each diet? What was the ratio of fat loss, to the loss of lean mass? I'll agree, calorie-restricted diets can work at first, even if they're really high carb (provided you have a healthy liver, kidneys, and pancreas). Here's the kicker, though; for most people, they just aren't sustainable, and all benefits will stall out eventually. Really, a diet of pure startch is a fantastic way to 'kick-start' insulin sensitivity and weight loss if your liver, kidneys, and pancreas can properly handle and dispose of all that insulin, but not for too long. If anything, the elimination of processed ingredients probably had more to do with their weight loss than anything else! What I would really like to see is if they put those people on their respective diets for 5 years, how it would turn out."

    The point of the study was that there is no metabolic advantage (MAD).

    However, even a junk food diet will have you lose weight and improve your health markers:

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    Reply: #142
  40. FrankG
    "The point of the study was that there is no metabolic advantage"
    ...In an hospital based study with five obese participants, fed an isocaloric liquid diet while losing "weight"... let's be precise about the parameters before making broad assertions eh?!? Or is that being too honest for your agenda?

    On the other hand we have the Ebbeling, Ludwig et al article... Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance

    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154

    Which, in different circumstances, including a four-fold larger group of participants, DID demonstrate a "metabolic advantage" to the tune of 300 calories per day while eating LCHF.

    "Conclusion Among overweight and obese young adults compared with pre–weight-loss energy expenditure, isocaloric feeding following 10% to 15% weight loss resulted in decreases in REE and TEE that were greatest with the low-fat diet, intermediate with the low–glycemic index diet, and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet."

    "COMMENT
    The results of our study challenge the notion that a calorie is a calorie from a metabolic perspective. During isocaloric feeding following weight loss, REE was 67 kcal/d higher with the very low-carbohydrate diet compared with the low-fat diet. TEE differed by approximately 300 kcal/d between these 2 diets, an effect corresponding with the amount of energy typically expended in 1 hour of moderate-intensity physical activity."

    You could read the rest for yourself... but let's face facts; you are clearly not interested in reasoned discussion, because you already have all the answers. That is my definition of being closed-minded by the way.

    Reply: #145
  41. FrankG
    Or perhaps you should continue this "discussion" with:

    Cara B. Ebbeling, PhD
    Janis F. Swain, MS, RD
    Henry A. Feldman, PhD
    William W. Wong, PhD
    David L. Hachey, PhD
    Erica Garcia-Lago, BA
    David S. Ludwig, MD, PhD

    Maybe you could point out to them where they got it so very wrong?

  42. Pierson
    "I've never seen anybody with a good figure wearing a 19th century swimsuit. On the contrary:they wear swimsuits that barely cover.."

    Seriously, that's the best you have? What about all of the fat and pudgy people who wear tank tops, short-shorts, and bikinis? Tell me, Ondrej. is it absolutely required that people that have nice figures must always show it? Really, God forbid some people don't like to reveal themselves to others!

    "normal weight = naturally lean? Piersaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal!"

    Unless you can show me that they've ever had issues with being overweight, yes

    "I guess you are an "athlete." Don't tell me sumo wrestling. With a high BMI, the odds are against you:

    http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/4/e002698.full"

    At one point I had a BMI of 26.3, even though I was only 18% bodyfat at the time. According to that test, I was 'overweight', even though I was actually quite scrawny. Really, my metabolic problems showed up only when I had a 'healthy' BMI of 24! Also, does the paper you provided take into account relevant confounds, such as intake of refined carbs, trans fats, or alcohol? Remember, correlation is not causation

    Also, do I really have to explain to you (again) that the 'junk food diet' was actually an otherwise healthy diet which had some junk food in it (i.e., every diet which has ever existed since the beginning of time)? Did you forget that the professor lost a few pounds of lean mass on it, or that it was somewhat low carb, which probably explained the results more than its calorie restriction?

    Regarding the whole 'metabolic advantage' thing, how long did that experiment last? Moreover, if they were shifting their diets around, how could that possibly allow for any benefits to set in? Really, repeated-measures tests are notorious for these kinds of methodological flaws

    Reply: #147
  43. Christopher
    Have you considered writing paper-back/air-port-book-shop style fiction Ondrej ?.

    Oooo by the way, you were right, I lied, my BMI is not 19, I checked, it is actually 18.8. So I have to eat more and exercise less to boost it up, or I need to switch from healthy whole-grains to unhealthy saturated animal fats. If this does not work I need to find a local gym and ask personal fitness coach for advise. Would you recommend someone for me from your extensive list in the New England area Ondrej?. Thanks.

    Replies: #146, #150
  44. FrankG
    Just 'cos I enjoy repeating it... "The results of our study challenge the notion that a calorie is a calorie from a metabolic perspective"

    Of course we could also take another look at the statement...

    "... isocaloric feeding following 10% to 15% weight loss resulted in decreases in [Resting Energy Expenditure] and [Total Energy Expenditure] that were greatest with the low-fat diet, intermediate with the low–glycemic index diet, and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet."

    ...which (at least for the group in this study) reads to me like a big fat metabolic DIS-advantage to any form of calorie-restriction -- it inevitably lowered energy expenditure!

  45. Ondrej
    "Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance"

    This was a free-living environment study, not a randomized controlled clinical trial.

    From the study:"Assessments during inpatient hospital admissions and under free-living conditions occurred during the weight monitoring period and at the end of each test diet period. Immediately before the 3-day inpatient hospital admission, the assessments under free-living conditions were conducted over 14 (total energy expenditure) or 7 (physical activity) days."

    The fact is that NO TIGHTLY CONTROLLED STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANKIND HAS EVER SHOWN GREATER FAT LOSS ON A TRULY ISOCALORIC LOW-CARB DIET.

    For a review of your study:

    http://anthonycolpo.com/finally-a-study-that-proves-a-low-carb-metabo...

    Reply: #148
  46. Ondrej
    You have no credibility until you show us your splendid physique.
  47. Ondrej
    "normal weight = naturally lean? Piersaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal!"

    "Unless you can show me that they've ever had issues with being overweight, yes"

    And the earth is flat because I see no curve in the horizon.

  48. FrankG
    "NO TIGHTLY CONTROLLED STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANKIND HAS EVER SHOWN GREATER FAT LOSS ON A TRULY ISOCALORIC LOW-CARB DIET."

    Shout and stomp your feet as much as you like -- you're just acting out like a spoiled six year-old brat anyway.

    But who said ANYTHING about FAT LOSS??? I was countering your point about no such thing as a metabolic advantage with a study demonstrating that there can be one.

    As for who lacks credibility around here.. are you serious? Don't bother answering, I already know who I'd choose.

    And for the record my personal definition of a low-carb diet does NOT include the words "isocaloric" in any way shape or form :-P

    Reply: #149
  49. Ondrej
    I showed you the study was flawed thus inconclusive but if you still want to believe in fairy tales........
    Reply: #151
  50. Ondrej
    You need to be a man like FrankG who admitted his uncontrollable gluttony made him gain weight.
  51. FrankG
    You have done nothing to convince me that the study was flawed but I have listed the researchers above who you should point out any mistakes to. Or all you all just talk?
    Reply: #153
  52. FrankG
    A quote of my own words from just a few comments above....

    Perhaps, as you so insultingly stated above, I am a "glutton" and supposedly always will be... strangely though when I changed the macronutrient quality of what I eat, rather than focusing on just the quantity, things changed significantly for the better. No longer hungry all the time... I guess I finally found the mythical "will power" needed to curb my appetite. 5 years now with no sign of "failure" or "temptation". I'm quite happy to eat LCHF and see no reason why I could not do so for the rest of a much longer and healthier life [than] I was heading towards when eating as the "experts" advised.

    The way that you so blatantly (and repeatedly) choose to misrepresent those statements as somehow being an "admission" of "uncontrollable gluttony", simply goes to highlight what an untrustworthy person you are. If you can lie about a comment that is there for all to read on this same page, then you must be barmy to think that anyone would believe ANYTHING you have to say?

  53. Ondrej
    I quoted on no. 145 from the study itself "...assessments under free-living conditions were conducted over 14 (total energy expenditure) or 7 (physical activity) days."

    Do you know what free-living means. It means subjects ARE ON THEIR OWN. Thus, this study - unlike a clinical random controlled trial (like a metabolic ward study) - lacks the necessary control on the subjects to draw valid conclusions.

    Maybe if you had read this

    http://anthonycolpo.com/finally-a-study-that-proves-a-low-carb-metabo...

    you would have seem the numerous flaws in the study.

    But if you do not want to read it, sorry I can't help you.

  54. FrankG
    Funnily I also am a free-living study of one. I don't live in a sealed metabolic unit.. perhaps you do Ondrej.. or is that maybe just what they tell you? Are the walls all white and padded perhaps?

    I've already told you what I think of your "help".

    Reply: #155
  55. Ondrej
    Who cares about subject control as long as the study yields what I want to hear, right!

    Could it be that your narrow mindedness has placed your brain in a cage?

  56. FrankG
    You do realise that you are building a very tiny box around which ALL studies that you offer as evidence will henceforth need to be judged? Some VERY high standards for what we can expect from you going forward.

    And yet oddly you think that a study by several accredited and respected researchers can be simply debunked and dismissed as flawed by a blogger. If I didn't know any better I'd accuse you of double-standards when it comes to your own interpretation of the "facts".

    But keep it up... I'll keep giving you rope and you keep making that noose for your own neck.

    Reply: #158
  57. FrankG
    I actually find this accusation of my being "narrow minded" highly amusing Ondrej... as I do with most of your comments -- you didn't really think you were being taken seriously did you, or that you were making any kind of an impact? I've heard it all before and already decided that it is not convincing? ROFL

    Like I've said, bring something new to the table and we might talk.. meantime you got nuthin'.

    No it is an amusing accusation because I actually trusted in the CICO/ELMM paradigm myself for over 3 decades (probably longer than you have even been on the planet). I also practiced it quite diligently during that time -- especially over the 25 year period where I was struggling with excess fat mass.

    Having read Good Calories, Bad Calories I realised that I had been led astray by blindly trusting "experts" and so I no longer do that.

    The upshot of all this is that I have ALREADY changed my thinking in a significant way... while you seem still stuck in the dogmatic morass of the so-called "conventional wisdom" which, so far as I am concerned was more of the problem than any kind of solution. You are blind to the increasingly contrary evidence and struggling ever harder to hold onto the trusted status quo.

    Well good luck with that. Maybe one day you'll realise you should have left that ship long before it sank and took you down with it.

    Reply: #159
  58. Ondrej
    "You do realise that you are building a very tiny box around which ALL studies that you offer as evidence will henceforth need to be judged? Some VERY high standards for what we can expect from you going forward."

    Unlike you, I only rely on randomized clinical trial studies where all variables are control. I look for the truth, not garbage to confirm a personal bias.

    "And yet oddly you think that a study by several accredited and respected researchers can be simply debunked and dismissed as flawed by a blogger. If I didn't know any better I'd accuse you of double-standards when it comes to your own interpretation of the "facts"

    Ah, the appeal to authority, a classical fallacy used by those that lack facts.

    Do you think the earth becomes flat because an authoritative figure says so?

    "I'll keep giving you rope and you keep making that noose for your own neck."

    Rope? you already hung yourself.

  59. Ondrej
    "I actually find this accusation of my being "narrow minded" highly amusing Ondrej... as I do with most of your comments -- you didn't really think you were being taken seriously did you, or that you were making any kind of an impact?"

    You accused me of being in a cell pad and you cry when I respond. The mark of a bully.

    Besides, if you don't take me seriously why do you even respond to my comments. Could be that I've clearly demolished your frail sandcastle and you are trying to save face?

    "I've heard it all before and already decided that it is not convincing? ROFLLike I've said, bring something new to the table and we might talk.. meantime you got nuthin'.No it is an amusing accusation because I actually trusted in the CICO/ELMM paradigm myself for over 3 decades (probably longer than you have even been on the planet). I also practiced it quite diligently during that time -- especially over the 25 year period where I was struggling with excess fat mass."

    It's impossible to gain fat mass unless you consume more than you burn. Don't blame the CICO/ELMM paradigm.

    "Having read Good Calories, Bad Calories I realised that I had been led astray by blindly trusting "experts" and so I no longer do that.The upshot of all this is that I have ALREADY changed my thinking in a significant way... while you seem still stuck in the dogmatic morass of the so-called "conventional wisdom" which, so far as I am concerned was more of the problem than any kind of solution. You are blind to the increasingly contrary evidence and struggling ever harder to hold onto the trusted status quo.Well good luck with that. Maybe one day you'll realise you should have left that ship long before it sank and took you down with it."

    Gary Taubes is your authority? Evelyn Carbsane has effectively debunked him.

1 2 3
up

Leave a Reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Pictures of participants through Gravatar