They’re All MAD! Forsaking Science For Dogma: A Revealing Exposé of the Metabolic Advantage Movement. Find out why listening to those who promote Metabolic Advantage Dogma (MAD) could destroy your fat loss efforts. 5th Edition, updated September 24, 2009 Anthony Colpo. Alll rights reservedGeneral Disclaimer The title of this book, They're All MAD, is purely a light-hearted play on the acronym for Metabolic Advantage Dogma. The title of this boak and the MAD acronym used within this book are nof to be construed in any way as an assessment or reference to the mental competency of any individual or group mentioned in this book. As the author does not have access to the psychiatric or medical records of any parties mentioned in this book, he refrains from making any concrete assessment of their psychiatric condition, The author is merely presenting his analysis of the scientific evidence pertaining to and his experiences with those wha pramate Metabolic Advantage Dagma. The author leaves it entirely up to the reader to consider the information presented and then decide for him/herself as to the competency of the parties mentioned in this book Medical Disclaimer The contents of this book are presented for information purpases only and are not intended as medical advice or to replace the advice of a physician or other health care professional. Anyone wishing to embark on any dietary, drug, exercise or lifestyle change for the purpose of preventing or treating a disease or health condition should first consult with, and seek clearance and guidance from, a competent health care professional. Any individual wishing to apply the infarmation in this book far the purposes of improving their own health should nat do so without first reviewing the scientific references cited and consulting with a qualified medical practitioner. All patients need to be treated in an individual manner by their personal medical advisors. The decision to utilize any information in this book is ultimately at the sole discretion of the reader, who assumes full responsibility for any and all consequences arising from such a decision. The author and publisher shall remain free of any fault, liability or responsibilty for any loss or harm, whether real or perceived, resulting from use of information in this book. Financial Disclesure The author wishes to make it perfectly clear that he does not, and never has, received any form of financial assistance fram industry groups that may stand to benefit from the information presented in this baok. This includes those fram the meat, egg, dairy, nutritional supplement, foad, beverage, drug, and agriculture industries. The author daes not hold, trade or speculate in the stock of companies whase financial status or share price could potentially be affected by the information presented in this book. The author is a certified fitness professional who has worked in the capacity of bath salaried fitness instructor and freelance personal fitness consultant. The author does nat sell foad products, nutritional supplements, medical apparatus or fitness equipment.Gable of Contents INtrOoductiOn...........0..0....00 cece eee eee 4 Chapter 1: Richard Feinman and Eugene Fine......... 8 Chapter 2: Dr. Michael Eades (author of Protein Chapter 3: Gary Taubes (author of Good Calories, Bad Calories)...................00ccccecceeeeeeeeees 82 Conclusion... About the Author...........0.......cceeee 92 References....“What is it that compels a person, past all reason, to believe the unbelievable. How can an otherwise sane individual become so enamored of a fantasy, an imposture, that even after it's exposed in the bright light of day he still clings to it - indeed, clings to it all the harder?" M. Lamar Keene InGbreductbion There exists a group of individuals, whose ranks spread across the globe, who earnestly believe in a theory known as the ‘metabolic advantage’. This term was popularized by the late Dr. Robert Atkins, who claimed it was possible to gain weight on a high-carbohydrate diet but lose weight on a low-carbohydrate diet even when the 2 diets contained the exact same number of calories[1]. Atkins’ theory has never been validated. In fact, repeated metabolic ward studies — the most tightly controlled type of dietary study — have repeatedly shown no difference in fat loss among low- and high- carbohydrate diets of identical caloric content. If you've read Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible, you'll know about each and every one of these studies. You'll know that, over the last four decades, the metabolic advantage dogma (MAD) has had ample opportunity to prove itself in tightly controlled research with real live humans — and that it has repeatedly failed to do so. Despite this failure, the metabolic advantage movement simply refuses to discard its cherished belief that isocaloric low-carb diets offer some sort of magical weight loss advantage. My own experiences with the metabolic advantage movement are especially enlightening. In 2003, | launched the first of a number of websites, most of which contained information favorable to low-carb diets. | began writing articles highlighting the potential health benefits of intelligently implemented low-carb diets, and posted article after article highlighting the scientifically untenable nature of the campaign against cholesterol and animal fats. Not surprisingly, | quickly became a darling of the low-carb movement. Evidently, | was telling these folks just what they wanted to hear. My articles were routinely citedand reprinted on low-carb forums, where the subsequent commentary was almost always of an overwhelmingly positive nature. The picture changed somewhat in late 2005, when | posted an impromptu ab shot on one of my web sites. In response to the subsequent flood of emails offering glowing praise and wanting to know how I got so lean, | wrote a brief article highlighting several key principles that | used to achieve single-digit body fat levels. One of these principles was to establish a calorie deficit. | pointed out two unassailable facts: 1) Without a calorie deficit, no weight loss would occur, and; 2) Altering the ratio of protein, fat and carbohydrates would have little to no effect on the rate of fat loss when calories were held constant. The fundamental requirement for fat loss was, and always would be, the establishment of a calorie deficit. When | wrote that, | had no idea of what was about to follow. As soon as | posted the article, web forums around the world lit up in heated disagreement. Hey, there’s nothing wrong with spirited debate, but my detractors went way beyond simply disagreeing with me — my character was assailed and | was accused of being dishonest. Now I'll be the first to admit that my own writings are unlikely to win any prizes for social nicety, but | always make sure | have my facts straight before calling someone out. And unlike the disgruntled MAD folks, | do not target someone simply because that person is saying things | do not want to hear. As a person of robust mental health, | simply do not feel the need to criticize people who do not make fallacious claims. When | challenged my detractors to provide me with the evidence that validated their accusations of dishonesty, they provided none. | even went so far as to publicly offer to roller blade naked down one of Melbourne's busiest entertainment precincts (the famous Chapel Street) if my critics could prove me wrong! Given the vitriol these folks displayed towards me, | figured they'd jump at the chance to see memake a fool of myself. | sat back and waited for the supportive evidence that | had allegedly missed to come flooding in. It never did. But, of course, that didn’t stop the vitriol. The whole experience was an extremely enlightening one. Over the years I've had dealings with dietary dogmatists of all stripes, and can earnestly say that, in my experience, the most fanatical and irrational of all are those who believe in and promote MAD. | have inspired vegans and vegetarians to begin eating meat again, | have caused medical doctors to begin questioning one of the most central tenets of modern medicine (the cholesterol theory of heart disease), and | have convinced strict low-carbing athletes to abandon their carb-phobia and start ingesting carbs after workouts. In contrast, | could count the number of metabolic advantage believers who have given my arguments a fair hearing on one hand — with most of the fingers cut off! Contradictory evidence is to these folks what garlic and crucifixes are to vampires. In my opinion, the metabolic advantage movement is not unlike a fanatical religious movement. Anyone who acts to improve the status and standing of the cult is adored and considered a hero, but anyone who questions the cult’s central teachings is quickly derided as a heinous villain. Those who speak out against MAD can expect to attract fanatical denunciation and venomous hostility. Indeed, it was not the vegan/vegetarian/low-fat/raw food movements but the metabolic advantage movement that, in 2007, awarded me with my first and (so far) only Internet stalker! To say that | have serious concerns about the mental stability of many metabolic advantage dogmatists would be somewhat of an understatement. This kind of behavior would at least be partially understandable if the metabolic advantage movement was right and detractors like me were wrong. But that simply is not the case. As you discovered in Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible, and as you will further learn in this book, the preponderance of scientific evidence shows that the metabolic advantage theory is pure fantasy.This matters little to the metabolic advantage dogmatists. By selectively filtering out non-supportive evidence and citing supportive evidence, they keep their theory alive. Evidence that supports MAD is warmly embraced, no matter how hopelessly flimsy and unscientific. Meanwhile, evidence that disputes the cult’s teachings is ignored, rationalized away, or vigorously attacked — even when it is of far higher quality than the evidence used in support of MAD! My experience with the metabolic advantage dogmatists has given me unique insight into the lengths people will go in order to justify untenable but deeply cherished beliefs. This book focuses on the leading promoters of the metabolic advantage theory. Not all of them specifically use the term “metabolic advantage”, but they all enthusiastically endorse its key precept: the belief that one can lose more fat on a low-carbohydrate diet than on an isocaloric high-carbohydrate diet. Some claim the key mechanism is insulin, others believe the prime factor is increased protein intake (a rather disingenuous argument, for there is nothing to stop one from eating more protein on a high-carbohydrate diet...), while others embrace both these and other explanations. But the end result is the same: the continued propagation of a fallacious theory that unfortunately distracts many people from doing the things they really need to do in order to lose fat. The metabolic advantage theory might attract wealth and status for its promoters, but it could very well sabotage your attempts to achieve a lean and healthy body. So don't believe the dogma — it’s pure MADness! Best of health, Anthony Colpo, Independent researcher and author of: The Fat Loss Bible http:/Awww.thefatlossbible.net/ The Great Cholesterol Con http:/Awww.thegreatcholesterolcon.com/Chapter 1 Richard Feinman and Eugene Fine A Not-So-Fine Example of Scientific ‘Research’ Richard Feinman and Eugene Fine are to the scientific community what Dr Robert Atkins and his ilk were to the general public: unabashed proponents of the metabolic advantage concept. Since 2003, the duo have authored a series of papers in mostly open access journals, along with a letter to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, that assume the metabolic advantage theory is a given[2-6]. In their most recent paper, they claim that: “The extent to which carbohydrate restriction is successful as a strategy for control of obesity or diabetes can be attributed to two effects. The strategy frequently leads to a behavioral effect, a spontaneous reduction in caloric intake as seen in ad lib comparisons. There is also a metabolic effect, an apparent reduction in energy efficiency seen in isocaloric comparisons, popularly referred to as metabolic advantage. [6] Feinman and Fine attempt to explain this advantage with appeals to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (“The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.*), elaborate discussions of dietary- induced thermogenesis, and fatty acid and insulin metabolism. There's just one wee problem with the theoretical musings of Feinman and Fine: They are based on an entirely false premise. Feinman and Fine appear to sincerely believe that the superior weight loss seen with low-carbohydrate diets in some free-living clinical trials is a demonstration of the so-called metabolic advantage. They evidently accept at face value the self-reported dietary intakes in these studies. They appear to be oblivious to the fact that dietary underreporting is the norm, not the exception, in such studies andthat this phenomenon is most pronounced in those attempting to restrict fat and/or total calories. Even if they believe the self-reported dietary intakes in free-living studies to be accurate, Feinman and Fine offer no explanation of why there as just as many free-living studies that have shown no greater weight or fat loss even when the subjects in the two groups reportedly ingested similar calorie intakes. More importantly, Feinman and Fine make no mention of most of the tightly controlled metabolic ward trials listed in Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible, excepting the studies by Rabast et al, Golay et al, and Piatti et al. They also readily cite the flawed trial by and Kekwick and Pawan. Rabast et al claimed to have found statistically significant differences in weight loss on isocaloric low-carb diets versus high- carb diets, but as Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible explains, the difference could not be attributable to anything other than greater muscle, water, and/or glycogen loss. Losing water, muscle and glycogen cannot be considered a metabolic ‘advantage’ of any sort; in fact, if you desire optimal body composition and performance, then loss of muscle and glycogen is definitely a disadvantage! Amazingly, Feinman and Fine discuss the non-supportive trials of Golay et al and Piatti et al as if they were supportive, brushing aside the statistically non-significant findings as if they were a mere inconvenience. In a 2004 paper, they present the results of a mere ten clinical trials of isocaloric diets comparing lower versus higher carbohydrate groups[3]. They write: “It can be seen that the lower carbohydrate arm in 9 of 10 studies demonstrates increased weight reduction in comparison with the higher carbohydrate arm. Three of the studies show statistical significance (p < 0.05 or better). Even without statistical significance of individual studies, however, the likelihood that the lower carbohydrate arm would have an advantage in 9 of 10 studies is equivalent to the likelihood of 9 coin toss experiments having excess heads in comparison to excess tails.” While the researchers admit these results don't prove their theory, the implication is clear: The statistical probability of the insignificant differences being truly due to chance is highly unlikely. The authors believe a metabolic advantage is a far more likely explanation.But again, Feinman and Fine’s approach is hugely flawed. Selecting such a small sample of supportive studies makes it easy to reinforce their argument. But one could just as easily pick a sample of studies that found statistically non-significant greater weight and/or fat losses in the high-carbohydrate groups. If one is going to place unwarranted emphasis on non-significant results, then one could claim the non- significant results of Yang et al (2.5 kilogram greater weight loss in the higher-carbohydrate group), Rumpler et al (500 gram greater fat loss in the higher-carbohydrate group), Johnston et al 2006 (900 gram and 2.1 kilogram greater weight and fat losses, respectively, in the higher-carbohydrate group), Johnston et al 2004 (1.9% greater fat loss in higher-carbohydrate group), Torbay et al (600 and 500 gram greater weight and fat losses, respectively, among normo-insulinemic men on higher-carbohydrate diet), Meckling et al (1.3 kilogram greater fat loss in higher-carbohydrate group), Petersen et al (600 and 500 gram greater weight and fat losses, respectively, among female participants on higher-carbohydrate diet) as supportive of higher-carbohydrate diets![7-13]. When assessing the validity of a hypothesis, good science dictates that you assess ai/ the available relevant evidence, not just that which supports your preconceived beliefs. Good science also precludes one from regarding non-significant results as significant in order to bolster a favored theory. Research findings are deemed statistically significant or non-significant for a reason: We need to be sure that research findings are real and not a result of chance before we use them to start making claims or recommendations. Wishing or rationalizing away those results that don't suit our hypothesis and embracing those which do, regardless of their probability level, is not good science. As for citing the Kekwick and Pawan study...well, common decency forbids me from stating what | truly think of any trained researcher who cites this madcap study as proof of anything. The only way for Feinman and Fine to present a convincing case for MAD is to ignore the numerous non-supportive metabolic ward and free-living studies that show no difference in weight or fat loss withisocaloric diets of varying macronutrient composition. All their elaborate theorizing quickly becomes moot when one realizes there is no greater weight or fat loss to be derived from lowering one’s carb intake on an isocaloric diet. In their defense, perhaps Feinman and Fine are simply unaware of these trials. However, for someone who boasted in an email to yours truly that he (Feinman) has been “teaching bioenergetics for thirty years'[14], such an inability to hunt down relevant research is most worrisome. I've not taught a single university lecture in my life, but | had little trouble getting my butt down to the library and pulling up the relevant studies. Some of them did not even require a trip to the library — the full text for many of the studies in Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible can be retrieved by Googling or visiting the PubMed web site. Someone who has been teaching at educational institutions almost as long as | have been alive should have no difficulty whatsoever accessing these same studies. Furthermore, | know for a fact that Feinman reads my newsletters (he has emailed me regarding their content on a number of occasions), so he would be well aware of my repeated assertions that metabolic ward studies completely fail to support the metabolic advantage theory. Feinman obviously has my email address, but he never bothered to write and ask for the citations of these studies. Oh well, maybe someone might buy him or Fine a copy of The Fat Loss Bible... | don’t know either Feinman or Fine personally, so | can’t comment on whether their misinterpretation of the literature is a product of accident or design. What | do find most interesting is that the metabolic advantage believers accuse yours truly, who has thoroughly searched for and cited all the relevant free-living and metabolic ward studies he could find, of bias and even impropriety. These same critics, however, are more than happy to cite Feinman and Fine’s hopelessly one-sided research in support of their stance. Evidently, in the eyes of the metabolic advantage believers, only those who present research that contradicts their cherished beliefs are capable of bias and shoddy research!Chapter 2 Dr. Michael Eades Master of Selective Cit Dr Michael Eades and his wife Mary Dan Eades co-authored the best-selling book Protein Power, along with a string of spin-off books. Their book sales have run into the millions, which means the Eades have exposed their weight loss theories to an extremely wide audience. In Protein Power, the Eades make no bones about what they believe to be the true cause of fat gain: “Although it's almost always attributed to excess calories, obesity is more related to the multifaceted actions of insulin and glucagon on the storage of fat.’[15] The Eades are hardly alone in perceiving insulin as weight loss public enemy number one. If you're even remotely familiar with the low-carb movement, you'll know that many of its members have a preoccupation with insulin that often borders on obsessive. Ask them about fat loss, and you could almost set your watch by the answer.Invariably, you'll be told that insulin is a hormone that blocks fat breakdown and promotes fat storage, and that eating carbohydrates increases insulin while cutting carbs lowers insulin. Therefore, by deduction, carbohydrates make you store fat while low-carbohydrate diets make you burn fat. This type of simplistic logic is typical of the second-rate pseudo- scientific thinking that pervades the health, nutrition and fitness arenas. It sounds great to the uninitiated, but it’s wrong, and here's Why. The Great Insulin Myth is predicated on the fact that eating carbohydrates increases the amount of carbohydrate that your body will burn for energy. Cutting carbohydrate and replacing it with an isocaloric amount of fat, on the other hand, will lower insulin, which in turn allows more fat to be oxidized for energy. There is little controversy about this part of the equation — the fact that low- carb/high-fat diets can cause an increase in fat oxidation has been demonstrated time and time again. The problem is that, at this point, the insulin-makes-you-fat theorists go on to make a massive and unsubstantiated leap of faith: they claim that the increase in fat oxidation seen on low- carbohydrate/high-fat diets is due to heightened oxidation of dietary fat and body fat. All the evidence suggests that any increase in fat oxidation on low- carb/high-fat diets simply reflects the change in dietary substrate availability. In other words, your body has to work with what you feed it. If you cut the amount of carbohydrates in your diet, and instead eat more fat, your body will not surprisingly oxidize a greater portion of ingested calories for energy in the form of fat. Insulin and glucagon are the ‘gatekeepers’ that help regulate this shift in substrate oxidation in response to changes in dietary macronutrient ratios. There is no evidence to support the belief that eating more fat will somehow set the oxidation of body fat into high gear. The insulin-makes-you-fat crowd will no doubt strongly object, but where is their supportive evidence? While they jump up and down in protest, | urge the rest of you to take a look at the non-supportivefree-living and metabolic ward studies that compared high and low- carb diets and measured insulin responses to these diets. Specifically, take a close look at the studies in which the low-carb diet caused greater reductions in insulin. Despite the marked differences in insulin output, there was no difference in weight or fat loss! Among the metabolic ward studies, the trials by Grey and Kipnis, Golay et al, Miyashita et al, and Stimson et al all found greater reductions in insulin on the isocaloric low-carb diets — but no difference in fat loss[16-19]. Among the free-living studies, Golay et al, Torbay et al, Noakes et al, and Meckling et al all found greater reductions in insulin on the low-carb diets — but again, no difference in fat loss[20-23]. The participants in these free-living studies were given dietary advice intended to make the high- and low-carbs isocaloric. If insulin, and not calories, was the key factor in fat loss, then there should have been a clear and decisive advantage to the lower-carb group every single time. There wasn't. The reason for this is that the insulin-prevents-fat-loss theory is rubbish. It is calories, not insulin, that determine whether or not you will lose fat. Despite the fact that it is nonsense, the Eades still vigorously promote the insulin theory of weight loss — and a whole host of other absurdities. The Bizarro Fantasy World of Dr. Michael Eades Those who have grown attached to untenable theories will often go to remarkable lengths to protect them against epistemological threats. They will ignore or rationalize away conflicting evidence, no matter how meticulous, whilst vigorously embracing evidence that appears supportive, even when it is of an extremely flimsy nature. In the worldview of such folks, the ultimate determinant of good or bad research is not the scientific and ethical rigor with which that research was conducted, but simply whether or not it supports their pet beliefs. ‘Study results that support their cherished dogma are warmly welcomed, while those that do not are ignored, rationalized away as inconsequential, or vigorously attacked. Supportive evidence is good evidence, non-supportive evidence is bad evidence, quality be damned.In my opinion, Dr. Michael Eades is a classic textbook example of this phenomenon in action. On September 11, 2007 Eades posted on his blog one of the most absurd pieces of dietary commentary | have ever read — and I've read some absolute howéers in my time[24]. Eades began his post by discussing the results of the Minnesota Experiment, a study headed by the famous Ancel Keys[25]. The Minnesota Experiment was undertaken in 1944 and involved 36 conscientious objectors who refused participation in military service during World War II. These young men were given the option of participating in a study examining the effects of semi-starvation, and many clearly had no idea what they were in for. The study involved an initial 12-week run-in period, where the men were fed maintenance-level caloric intakes. It is important to note that at the beginning stages of the study the men were, on average, already fairly lean individuals. Body fat ranged between 6.5%-26%, with a group average of 13.9%. The subjects who were overweight were given a diet that incorporated a caloric deficit to lean them out, while subjects who were considered underweight were fed a calorie surplus. The average energy intake during this initial phase of the study was 3,492 calories per day. It's also important to remember that the subjects were physically active and spent their days, not watching TV or sitting at office desks, but performing manual labour. So to recap: the subjects in this study were relatively lean, physically active young men who required an average of almost 3,500 calories per day (the importance of these factors will be discussed in more detail shortly). After the initial 12-week weight maintenance/adjustment phase, the real ‘guts’ of the Minnesota Experiment got underway. This was a 24- week phase in which the men’s daily caloric intake was unmercifully slashed overnight down to only 1,570 calories. That is a massive drop of almost 2,000 calories per day. Not surprisingly, the men began losing weight at a rapid rate. It should also come as little surprise that the men began losing muscle at an alarmingly fast rate. If you've ever seen photos of the subjects in the Minnesota experiment, you were probably startled at the degree of emaciation these men suffered.After being subjected to semi-starvation diets, these men did indeed look like starvation victims — and they felt it too. The formerly healthy and psychologically robust young men became weak and lethargic, intensely pre-occupied with food, and disinterested in sex. They experienced mood swings and even depression, and two subjects developed psychiatric disturbances of "psychotic" proportions. During the final 12-week re-feeding phase of the study, one of the subjects remained so depressed by the experience he deliberately cut off 3 of his fingers! Eades discussed much of this on his blog, and included some eye- opening photos of one of the emaciated Minnesota subjects. Nothing wrong with that: it’s what Eades proceeded to do next that completely strained the boundaries of credulity. Eades then discussed the results of a British study published in 1970 by Anne Stock and John Yudkin[26]. Stock and Yudkin had taken 11 subjects and advised them to follow an ad /ibitum (unrestricted calories) low-carbohydrate diet. Unlike the Minnesota subjects, the participants in this study were free-living. The subjects were aged 21 to 51 years and 8 of them were female. Five of the subjects were nutrition students; no information was given regarding the occupation of the remainder. The subjects were asked to eat their normal diet for the first 2 weeks, then to follow a low-carbohydrate diet for the remaining 2 weeks. While the Minnesota men were given 275 grams of carbohydrate daily, Stock and Yudkin’s subjects were told to limit daily carbohydrate intake to only 50 grams, but no restriction was placed on their intake of protein and fat. Despite the allowance of ad /ibitum protein, fat and calories, food records indicated that during the 2- week low-carbohydrate phase the participants spontaneously reduced their calorie intake. So while the calorie restricted phase of the Minnesota Experiment extended for 6 months, the corresponding phase of the Stock/Yudkin study lasted only 2 weeks. During the initial 2-week phase, the researchers estimated from the subjects’ self-reported dietary records an average daily caloric intake of 2,330. During the 2-week low-carbohydrate phase, the average daily energy intake was estimated to be 1,560.Stock and Yudkin noted that “..none of our subjects complained of hunger or any other ill effects; on the other hand, several volunteered statements to the effect that they had an increased feeling of well- being and decreased lassitude.” Nothing revolutionary there; these observations are in line with other studies showing that low- carbohydrate diets can enhance satiety and improve feelings of wellbeing. But it is at this point that Eades made a comparison, and a conclusion, that boggles the mind of any remotely intelligent observer. Eades noted that the participants of the Stock and Yudkin study did not develop the extreme hunger and obsession with food that the Minnesota subjects did, and that there was no evidence of any psychiatric disturbances or emaciation in the former. He noted that the average daily caloric intake among the Minnesota subjects was 1,570 and that the corresponding intake among Stock and Yudkin’s subjects was 1,560. This, he concluded, was evidence that low-carbohydrate diets produce far superior psychological and body composition outcomes than isocaloric high-carb diets. The inference was Clear: follow a 1,570 calorie low-carb diet and you will feel better than ever, but follow a 1,560 calorie low-fat diet and you risk shrivelling away into a skeleton-like psychopath who chops off his own fingers. Eades concluded with the cocksure statement: “It's not simply a matter of calories, and anyone who says tt is is a fool.” | hope that most of you, after reading Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible, are sufficiently equipped to understand just why Eades should look inwards when he wishes to issue accusations of foolishness. In case not, let me explain it to you. Ignorance is Bliss If you want to compare the effects of isocaloric diets of differing macronutrient composition, good science dictates that you do it within the same study by randomly assigning a group of similar subjects to follow the 2 diets — or by assigning each subject to follow both diets in alternating fashion. You do not compare the results from 2 cherry-picked studies conducted decades apart on 2 different continents using dissimilar subjects living under totally different conditions, and conducted for vastly different lengths of time! The subjects in the Minnesota Experiment were relatively lean young men who were physically active. Their average daily maintenance caloric intake was 3,492 calories, and this was cut by a whopping 1,932 calories overnight. The research clearly shows that lean individuals lose far more lean mass in response to caloric restriction than do overweight subjects (see Chapter 8 of The Fat Loss Bible). And 1,932 calories is an extreme cut in energy intake! No trainer with even a modicum of experience (and intelligence) would ever advise his lean, highly active clients to engage in such gonzo calorie reduction for months on end; doing so is a sure-fire route to rampant muscle loss. In contrast, the participants of the Stock/Yudkin study were mostly female. Because of her significantly lower degree of lean mass, the average female exhibits a far lower calorie requirement than the average male. Females, on average, exhibit higher body fat levels than males. We know that 5 of the subjects in this study were studying nutrition, an endeavor that requires little physical activity. The age range in the Stock/Yudkin study extended to 51 years; it is widely known that due to loss of lean mass and reduced activity, older subjects often exhibit a lower daily calorie burn. The average reported daily caloric reduction in the Stock/Yudkin study was 770, only 40% of the average drop in the Minnesota experiment! In short, by comparing the Keys and Stock/Yudkin studies, Eades was truly comparing apples with oranges. Eades blissfully ignored the fact that numerous dietary studies have in fact directly compared the weight loss effects of low- and high- carbohydrate diets among similar subjects. None of them had ever reported results anything like those seen in the Minnesota experiment, in neither the low- or high-carb groups. As for the potential of muscle loss on low- versus high-carb diets, Chapter 9 of The Fat Loss Bible explains why it is ketogenic diets that actually appear to cause the greatest loss of lean tissue. In studies comparing ketogenic versus non-ketogenic diets, using both very low calorieintakes and eucaloric (maintenance) intakes, it is the ketogenic diet that has delivered the most unfavorable changes in markers of lean mass loss. In a May blog article, Eades claimed that if you are following a low- carb diet, “The protein you eat is converted to glucose instead of the protein in your muscles. If you keep the carbs low enough so that the liver still has to make some sugar, then you will be in fat-burning mode while maintaining your muscle mass, the best of all worlds."[27] Note the double standard here, one that is routinely employed by MAD proponents: Eat a low-carb diet and your body will begin burning more dietary fat and body fat. But even if it increases the need for gluconeogenesis (increased production of glucose from non- carb sources such as protein), that same low-carb diet will not increase the breakdown of bodily protein, no sirree. This claim stands in stark contrast to the available evidence. While Eades’ claims about carbs and insulin are contradicted by clinical evidence, there does exist research showing unfavourable changes in markers of lean mass status during ketogenic eating. Eades’ ludicrous Keys versus Stock/Yudkin comparison had already established itself as being among the most amateurish nonsense I'd ever read. But as it turns out, the famous diet author was only getting started. Leave Your Brains at the Door, Thanks! Perhaps the one thing even more pitiful than Eades’ utterly absurd dietary comparison was the response of his blog readers. In the comments’ section, reader after reader congratulated and praised Eades for his “great” article. Eades had just fed them a load of outrageously biased hogwash, and not only had they fallen for it hook, line and sinker, but they were profusely thanking him for it! As | scrolled through this online orgy of stupidity, | saw something that abruptly interrupted my alternating pattern of head shaking and eye-rolling: my name. Yours truly was mentioned by one of Eades’ readers, who asked the great one-sided one what he thought of mycontention that the metabolic advantage theory was rubbish. Eades replied: “I'm very familiar with Anthony Colpo and his work. | think he’s a very smart guy and | think he’s right on the money on a lot of issues, but | think he’s wrong on this one. If you give one group of people a 2000 kcal diet and another a 1500 kcal diet of the same composition, the ones on the 1500 kcal diet will unquestionably lose more weight. If you start changing the diet composition, though, your outcome may change.” ‘So there it was: a famous diet book author who has profited handsomely from books peddling the metabolic advantage myth, who had just presented an extremely biased comparison, now telling the world that people who emphasized the primacy of calories were fools, and that it was | who had it wrong on the calories issue. To say that | have a poor opinion of diet authors who make a fortune peddling fallacious garbage would be a massive understatement. And to say | have a low opinion of diet authors who peddle such garbage but then turn around and label those who actually know what they are talking about as “wrong” and a “foo!” would be an even greater understatement. One of the problems with people like Atkins and Eades is that, even though their weight loss ramblings would attract hearty laughter from any serious researcher, a lot of gullible people take them seriously, as evidenced by the comments on Eades’ blog. People who believe the metabolic advantage myth are being distracted from the real requirements of weight loss. Instead of being enlightened as to the critical importance of establishing a calorie deficit, these people are being encouraged to disregard calories and to instead focus on carbohydrates. Some people follow such advice and still inadvertently lose some weight due to the satiating effects of low-carb diets. Whether they realize it or not, during their switch to a low-carb diet these folks lower their caloric intake sufficiently to begin losing weight. However, many do not experience this spontaneous reduction in caloric intake. They keep eating just as many calories as before, andwhy wouldn't they? According to the diet ‘gurus’ that they look to for advice, it’s carbs and not calories that really matter. These folks, if they are ever to achieve their weight loss goals, must be made aware of the overriding requirement of weight loss: a calorie deficit. The metabolic advantage crowd have clearly demonstrated they have no intention of enlightening people to this critical information. They have instead signalled their full intention to keep peddling the “carbs-not-calories-make you-fat!” tripe. So after being the target of constant virulent antagonism from the metabolic advantage movement, and after suffering through Eades’ bizarre exercise in pseudo-science and reading his description of people like me as foolish and wrong, on September 17 | typed the Protein Power author a scathing open letter. In it, | asked Eades to explain why he had conducted such a blatantly one-sided and misleading comparison. | asked him why he continued to peddle the metabolic advantage myth when four decades’ worth of tightly controlled metabolic ward studies had completely disproved it. | also sent Eades details on how to access a free copy of The Fat Loss Bible, and explained that Chapter 1 alone would provide him with all the evidence he would ever need to learn just why the metabolic advantage theory is completely wrong. As of Thursday, November 2, 2007, Eades has still not registered and downloaded the ebook. It can’t be because he holds my writing and scientific abilities in poor regard; he himself has described me as “...a very smart guy [who is] right on the money on a lot of issues.” And Eades has publicly acknowledged that he liked my first book, The Great Cholesterol Con. So a disdain for my writing and analytical abilities cannot be the reason for his unwillingness to read my book, nor can a lack of resources; having sold millions of books, I'm sure Eades has the ability to get the book viewed or printed on a Windows-based computer. | strongly suspect the real reason why Eades won't read my book is simply because he is afraid of what he might learn. As Upton Sinclair once remarked: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." As a highly visible individual who has publicly promoted the belief that isocaloriclow-carb diets lead to greater weight loss, and profited handsomely from doing so, Eades has a huge incentive not to consider discomforting contradictory evidence. While this “see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil’ approach appears to be instinctively embraced by Eades and his followers, it should be abhorred by those whose highest priority is, not the defense of cherished dogma, but the truth. It’s interesting that, whilst happy to use the Yudkin paper in a manner that supported his own claims, Eades does not cite a rather pertinent comment by Yudkin himself in an earlier paper describing a study similar to that reported in his 1970 paper: “The alternative explanation is that the “high-fat” diet leads to weight- loss because, in spite of its unrestricted allowance of fat and protein, it is in fact a low-calorie diet. This was the explanation that one of us had already put forward (Yudkin 1958). Such a view is simple and orthodox, and therefore unspectacular. This is probably one of the reasons why many have preferred to accept the more exciting theories based on some postulated but unproven defect in metabolism. '[28] Yudkin’s words ring as true today as they did back in 1960. MAD still lacks anything even resembling tightly controlled scientific support, but evidently it still has enough ‘novelty factor’ and gimmicky appeal to capture the attention of ‘researchers’ and public alike. There's always good money to be made in telling people what they want to hear, and an author peddling a manuscript with the tantalizing “eat more, weigh less” message will always receive far more attention from a major publishing house than an author who tells the plain boring truth that calories are king. Thus, the metabolic advantage theory continues to be perpetuated long after it should have died the quick death it deserves. Wait, There’s More! Eades flatly refused to answer my open letter. Instead, he called me a “pipsqueak’” on his blog and vigorously attempted to portray me as a rude, ill-mannered upstart (despite the fact that Eades himself is ready to unmercifully rip on others at a moment's notice when they make a statement he finds disagreeable). Hey, I’ve never claimed tobe a paragon of diplomacy and social nicety; | write to make the plain facts available to those who are interested, not to win new friends. Whether or not my writing style offends the tender sensibilities of people like Eades is utterly irrelevant. The real issue is why Eades felt compelled to post such a blatantly misleading and biased dietary analysis. Eades’ answer to this question was, and remains: no answer. However, several days later, Eades did post a follow-up article on his blog[29]. While he didn’t mention my name, and while he didn't answer the specific questions | raised, it is clear the article was an attempted rebuttal to my open letter. By trying to salvage whatever credibility he still had left, Eades proceeded to dig himself into an even deeper hole. Eades’ began with a rant about “obnoxious” and “lazy” teenagers, one of highly questionable relevance. Somehow, this was supposed to demonstrate a reversal of the “AWeight = Calories in - Calories out” equation. Which of course, it didn’t. The indisputable truth is that many teenagers do get fat, and when they cut calories and/or increase their activity levels, they promptly begin shedding that fat[30- 32]. If they return to their old dietary habits and slack off on the exercise, they start regaining the weight they lost — just like adults do[33]. Except for suggesting that Eades has a problem relating to teenagers, his diatribe about adolescents revealed nothing of value. Next, Eades quoted the philosopher Karl Popper, and whined that the absence of positive proof of a hypothesis does not automatically mean the hypothesis is wrong. Sure, but that’s still no excuse to take a fallacious theory and assume it’s true, when all the available evidence indicates otherwise. And attempting to salvage a fallacious theory with more sloppy evidence is exactly what Eades proceeded to do. In a thinly disguised snipe at yours truly, Eades wrote: “Some misguided ‘experts’ have been known to say that there is no such thing as a metabolic advantage, despite it's having been demonstrated in many studies of free living people.”Note what Eades is saying here: that the metabolic advantage has been demonstrated — i.e. proven — in free-living studies! In making this claim, he completely ignores the inescapable fact that there are literally no controls on the dietary intake of people participating in free-living studies. He completely ignores the massive volume of literature showing dietary underreporting to be the norm in free-living studies. He does not consider the fact that the worst underreporters include those who attempt to limit fat and total caloric intake, which means low-fat dieters are more likely to underreport than low-carb dieters. Which means that free-living studies will often give the false impression that low-carb dieters lost more weight eating the same or greater amount of calories than the high-carb subjects. He refuses to read his complimentary copy of The Fat Loss Bible in which this is all carefully explained and fully referenced. He refuses to explain why, if free-living studies constitute acceptable proof despite their numerous documented flaws, there are just as many non- supportive as supportive free-living studies? That's right — there are just as many free-living studies in which low-carb diets did not induce greater weight loss as there are studies in which they did (see Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible). Of course, the MAD folks never seem to mention these studies — heck, what you don’t know won't hurt you, right? Eades consistently deals with all these uncomfortable contradictions using the following simple method: by pretending they don't exist. And he then has the arrogance and gall to suggest that those who do take these factors into account, and arrive at the only sensible conclusion possible — that these free-living studies are not proof of anything - are “misguided”! Just how desperate Eades was becoming in his quest to save face became apparent when he tried to discredit metabolic ward studies: “...metabolic ward studies on humans are fraught with inaccuracies. Why? Because people cheat - even in a hospital. The subjects on Keys starvation experiment were under lock and key and they cheated. Keys dropped some from the study because they cheated. And he threatened others. People on ‘metabolic ward’ are simply inpatients in a hospital. They have visitors. They sneak foods.Subjects participating in free-living studies under report their food consumption; those in metabolic ward studies don't report. As | say, we'll go into this in a later post, but just because something is a metabolic ward study doesn't mean tt’s infallible.” Read the full text of each of the metabolic ward studies cited in Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible, and you'll see that none of them report any incident of cheating. However, there is one metabolic ward study whose authors did report cheating among the participants, the famous Kekwick and Pawan study (discussed in Chapter 1). This study claimed to have found greater weight loss on low-carb diets, but given the madcap nature of the trial, the results simply cannot be taken seriously. Yet the Kekwik and Pawan study is cited ad nauseum by metabolic advantage proponents, including Richard Feinman, with whom Eades has signalled his intention to co-author a textbook on the metabolic advantage theory! ‘So what Eades is basically saying is: Don't trust the results of tightly controlled metabolic ward studies for which there is little evidence of cheating, but go ahead and believe the results of a metabolic ward ‘study in which the authors explicitly acknowledge that cheating did occur! (And despite his disdain for metabolic ward studies, Eades also appears to have little to say about Feinman’s questionable citation of three metabolic ward studies yielding non-significant results in support of MAD). After Eades made his claim that metabolic ward studies are “fraught” with inaccuracies, | began writing to the authors of the more recent metabolic ward studies, where email addresses were available. The only author to report back any incident of cheating was Dr. Roland Stimson, who told me: “We knew of only one person who cheated with one meal, but they promptly felt guilty and told us. During the low carb diet, urine collections were performed very frequently and checked for ketones (the volunteers wished to eat carbs while on this diet so would have cheated with these foods), and these always showed ketones which is a good indicator of compliance. Of course, this would not allow us to detect cheating on the other diet. Weight loss was measured daily and tracked to predictive charts based on the amount they ate with us so any substantial cheatingwould have showed deviation from our charts which did not occur. Thus, | feel very confident they did not cheat on these diets.” It's important to note that during the Stimson et al study, the subjects ate all meals in the ward and stayed there overnight, but went to work during the day equipped with snacks provided by the researchers. So, in effect, this was a ‘sem+metabolic ward’ study. Even then, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it was “fraught with inaccuracies”. Indeed, all the evidence indicates that cheating was a rare occurrence during the study. My online dictionary gives the following definition for the word ‘fraught’: “full of or accompanied by something specified”. \n other words, Eades is claiming that metabolic ward studies are full of inaccuracies. He has given no evidence whatsoever to show that this in fact the case. Instead, he embraces the results of free-living studies that an abundance of research shows are indeed fraught with inaccurate reporting! For Eades' edification, it is free-living studies where the participants are routinely exposed to the temptation of non-allowed foods. It is free-living studies where researchers are basically powerless to stop the subjects eating the sweet treats lurking in their pantries, dialling for home-delivered pizza or Chinese food, to go to a business lunch or dinner on Saturday night and eat non-prescribed foods of unknown caloric value, or to go to Sunday family lunch at Mom's place where they will be heartily urged to have another serving of food ("c'mon, a little bit more won't kill ya!"). Metabolic ward residents simply do not have the freedom to do these things. While not infallible, the metabolic ward environment removes most instances of temptation that are commonplace in every day life, and drastically curtails access to non-allowed foods. Yet Eades would have us believe that rare instances of non- compliance in metabolic ward studies are proof that these trials are “fraught with inaccuracies”, and that free-living studies are more reliable endeavours that “demonstrate” the existence of a metabolic advantage. Yeah, sure.That cheating occurred in the Minnesota study is no surprise: if someone locked Eades up for a year simply for standing up for his beliefs, and starved him to the point of emaciation for 6 of those months, | bet he'd start looking for ways to sneak some extra calories too! As for the participants in the Kekwik and Pawan study, the researchers themselves wrote: “many of the patients had inadequate personalities”. Either the researchers were being unnecessarily harsh, or many of their study participants leaned towards the screwball end of the personality spectrum. I'm not stating that cheating has never occurred amongst any of the other metabolic ward studies cited in Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible. To make such a claim, | would need to be omnipotent. However, there is absolutely no evidence to support Eades’ totally unfounded claim that these studies were “fraught with inaccuracies”. The evidence would indicate that any instances of cheating were rare and isolated. | cannot help but wonder as to the cognitive status of someone attempting to claim that uncontrolled free-living studies constitute more reliable proof than the tightly controlled metabolic ward studies discussed in The Fat loss Bible. In free-living studies, there is simply no control over what the participants do when they are away from a research facility. Metabolic ward studies with humans are unquestionably the ultimate form of trial when examining this issue. They are the only way one can ensure the subjects actually ate isocaloric diets. If Eades has actual evidence, as opposed to unfounded speculation, that the subjects in the trials | cite did in fact routinely cheat, then he should be calling for further metabolic ward studies in which the possibility of cheating is totally eliminated. But Eades does not even begin to do that. Instead, he resorts to what may be the most irrelevant evidence of all: rodent studies. 1 Smell a Rat! Maybe deep down inside, Eades does know that free-living studies don't prove a thing. Which may be why he finally resorts to citing rodent studies. If you have a hard-time finding tightly-controlledhuman evidence to support your dodgy theory, don’t despair; look long enough, and you'll eventually find animal studies to support your case. Eades justifies his use of rodent experiments by stating: “Lab animals can be kept with whatever amount of food the researchers want to give them. They dont have visitors, they can't sneak off to the vending machines and they cant smuggle in food. Most importantly they are usually all genetically the same and should respond to any intervention in the same way, which can't be said for human subjects (other than identical twins) in almost any study. Lab animals are excellent study material for evaluation of a hypothesis such as the one we developed.” Eades then goes on to cite a study in which mice eating a ketogenic diet lost more weight than those eating an isocaloric high- carbohydrate diet. Eades notes “the laws of thermodynamics werent violated because the mice on the ketogenic diet ran at a hotter temperature than did the other mice.” Eades sounds like he’s wetting himself with delight when he triumphantly proclaims: “/t sounds like a metabolic advantage to me. It sure does. It sure does...Karl Popper would be proud of us.” Actually, | suspect that if Karl Popper were alive he’d be shaking his head in pity. Why You Shouldn’t Give a Rat’s Rectum About Fat Loss Studies Conducted With Rats and Mice If you take away only one thing from this chapter, let it be this: rodents are not a good proxy for humans when it comes to studying weight/fat loss. Rodents stand out from other animals in having an unusually high rate of glucose-to-fat conversion, and are able to perform this conversion at a rate up to ten times greater than humans '![34,35] So it’s hardly surprising they will lose more fat on a ketogenic diet! The fact that rodents differ greatly from humans in their glucose/fat metabolism isn't exactly breaking news. It has been known for decades, but that doesn't stop folks like Eades from using rodent studies when they think it will support their case.As for the marked increases in body temperature seen on the mice following the ketogenic diet, this indicates that keto diets do indeed have a significant metabolism-boosting effect - in mice. Low-carb diets, ketogenic or otherwise, have never been shown to cause any measurable increase in resting metabolism in humans. Remember the research of Bonnie J. Brehm and her team cited in Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible? They actually bothered to find out whether the alleged low-carb-induced increase in metabolism existed, and found it did not. Using indirect calorimetry, they measured the actual resting energy expenditure (REE) of the low- and high-carb participants at baseline and again at 2 and 4 months. There were no differences between the low-carb and low-fat groups at any time point. Post-meal energy expenditure was then measured in a subset of subjects by indirect calorimetry, and again there was no difference (dietary- induced thermogenesis was actually higher after the high- carbohydrate meal but the difference was miniscule)[36]. Ketogenic diets might kick a rodent’s metabolism into turbo boost, but if you think it will do the same for you, you're dreaming. Eades needs to decide who is really writing for: rats, mice, or humans? Keep Trying, Doc In an attempt to defend his cherished metabolic advantage, Eades has pulled all manner of shaky arguments from his hat. In every instance, these arguments rapidly disintegrate when subjected to the bright light of scientific scrutiny. Eades appears to have great difficulty impartially considering evidence that runs counter to his preconceived beliefs and he has a history of getting it wrong. In Protein Power, the Eades claim “Each pound of muscle mass you pack on becomes a fat-burning dynamo, allowing you to increase your food intake without fear of fat gain.” Chapter 6 of The Fat Loss Bible explains why such exuberant claims are very often misleading. It explains why, regardless of whether they put on several pounds of muscle or not, many people who lose significant amounts of weight will have a reduced calorie burn due to a reduction in resting metabolism and from not having to cart around so much excess chub.On March 30, 2007, Eades took aim on his blog at a couple of female exercise physiologists who presented what they considered to be the “Top 10 Nutrition Myths” at an American College of Sports Medicine Summit in Dallas, Texas[37]. Eades - the same man who so deeply resents me for unmercifully calling him out on his untenable claims — had no qualms about referring to these 2 “chicks” as “idiots” who displayed “breathtaking stupidity” (evidently, it's OK for Eades to be hostile towards female commentators, but anyone who addresses him in a similar manner is automatically considered a villain). One of the heinous sins committed by these physiologists was to recommend post-workout carbohydrate consumption. According to Eades, this is a big no-no because “if you down a high-carb snack or drink immediately after your workout, it is adios growth hormone.” If you've read Chapter 13 of The Fat Loss Bible, you'll know this is rubbish. The studies that have been conducted looking at this very issue have shown that taking carbs along with protein immediately post-workout either increases growth hormone release or leaves it unchanged. Clearly, Eades is unaware of these studies. Any hard- training athlete following his advice, based as it is on a deficient knowledge of the relevant literature, can expect impaired glycogen replenishment and reduced rates of muscle growth and strength. Thanks, but no thanks... Update! Decewber 16, 2007. More Garbage From Eades The release of this ebook has clearly gotten Dr. Michael Eades in a huge huff. On November 15, 2007, he posted a retaliatory piece at his blog titled "Lear why Anthony Colpo is MAD and get a free book." The post is essentially one long ad hominem revenge attack ‘on yours truly. It contains no scientific evidence whatsoever to support Eades' continuing stance in support of MAD[38]. Eades begins his diatribe with a blatant lie: “.. Anthony changes or removes his material when it proves to be an embarrassment to him.”He does not provide a single example to justify this slanderous claim; not surprising, considering that it is utterly false. Eades then writes: "For some reason Colpo seems to have a lot of his ego tied up in being correct on the metabolic advantage." This is a most ironic comment coming from someone who has gone to great lengths to defend his precious MAD beliefs, despite decades of contradictory evidence. In his attempt to discredit me, Eades has posted all manner of bizarre arguments, attacked me personally, posted YouTube comedy sketch videos, ranted on about teenagers, wieners, ketotic rodents and even the late philosopher Karl Popper - in short, he has done everything but present tightly controlled evidence conducted with real live human beings to support his argument. He calls me names, accuses me of making mistakes when it turns out he's the one who has his facts wrong, brags that he has more readers than me, boasts about what a fine, civil, upstanding citizen he is despite behaving like an uncouth boor towards female researchers - but again, no tightly controlled scientific evidence to support his case. | thank Eades for his concern, but my self-image is perfectly robust and based on far more substantial foundations than ludicrous theories about metabolic weight loss advantages for low-carb dietary regimens. | seriously doubt whether the same can be said for Eades; having made millions of dollars from books peddling MAD, it appears that he will go to desperate lengths to prop up this untenable theory. Eades once again waffles on about insulin, but offers no explanation of the clinical trials comparing low- and high-carb diets that observed far lower insulin levels on the former, yet no difference in weight loss. Eades cannot claim to be unaware of these studies - they are cited in this very ebook. Eades then goes on to repeat the already-disproved claim that low- carb diets boost metabolism, allegedly "at the max about 300 kcal per day". He provides no scientific citation whatsoever to verify this amount. Instead, he again cites his "expert" friends, Feinman and Fine:"Feinman and Fine are experts on the laws of thermodynamics, a subject on which they have published a number of papers. Recall in an earlier post of mine that of all the laws of nature, the laws of thermodynamics are the least likely to ever be overturned. Even Anthony Colpo with his self-proclaimed towering intellect hasn't been able to defy or refute the laws of thermodynamics." Actually, I've never attempted to refute the laws of thermodynamics. It is the promoters of MAD who appear to be wishing away the laws of thermodynamics - and the laws of reality. Despite over 70 years' worth of research showing no difference in metabolic rate or in weight and fat loss among subjects following isocaloric low-carb and high-carb diets, MAD promoters like Eades, Fine and Feinman want us to go ahead and believe such advantages exist anyway. | don't care whether these folks consider each other "experts", | simply have no reason to believe their extravagant arguments when 7 decades' of tightly controlled research proves them wrong. Eades continues: "The very nature of the second law of thermodynamics implies that there has to be a metabolic advantage. Feinman and Fine published a paper stating this and discussing a number of recent papers showing that there does indeed appear to be a measurable metabolic advantage that accrues to those following a low-carb diet... | seriously doubt that Anthony Colpo can understand the math, biochemistry and/or the reasoning in any of these papers. But he doesn't have to because, you see, he just knows that there isnt a metabolic advantage, so anyone who writes a paper saying that the second law of thermodynamics virtually demands that there be one is a fool. Thus his criticism of Fine and Feinman. No substantive discussion of their work; no intelligent criticism; simply a dismissal because their work contradicts what Anthony believes with all his heart to be true." Again, Eades completely ignores the clinical evidence and resorts to attacking me personally. Whether or not | want to believe Fine andFeinman is immaterial; what matters is whether or not their purported metabolic advantage has actually been demonstrated in tightly controlled clinical studies. If the weather bureau predicted that today's weather would be fine and sunny, but instead it's raining buckets, then it doesn't matter how convincing and elaborate their forecast was; the fact remains they got it wrong. And so it is with Eades, Fine and Feinman. It's all well and good to create elaborate sounding arguments predicting greater weight loss on low-carb diets, but when tightly controlled research comparing isocaloric low- and high-carb diets have repeatedly failed to demonstrate any weight loss advantage, then their fancy appeals to the Second Law of Thermodynamics quickly disintegrate. Of course, this isn't good enough for Eades. He wants us to ignore reality and go on believing in MAD any old how. Sorry doc, but I'm not willing to abdicate my rational faculties just to help you preserve your lucrative ‘protein-powered’ empire. | will reiterate: Before Feinman, Fine or Eades or anyone else offer exquisitely elaborate and intricate theories to explain the mechanisms of a certain phenomenon, they must meet one essential requirement: they must prove that phenomenon exists. If it does not exist, their theory is immediately rendered invalid. If someone presents a wonderfully convincing argument involving the intricacies of light refraction and concludes that the sky is red, all! need to do is look outside and see that is blue to know that their theory is 100% wrong. Engineers can ‘prove’ that a bumblebee can't fly, and according to Michael Dickinson, an assistant professor of integrative biology at UC Berkeley, if you apply the theory of fixed wing aircraft to insects, you calculate they can't fly also. We all know that insects and bumblebees can fly. And anyone who has impartially looked at the evidence for the existence of a metabolic weight loss advantage knows full well that it does not exist, despite the creative efforts of folks like Eades, Feinman and Fine.Feinman and Fine can appeal to the laws of thermodynamics all they want - it does not change the fact that no weight loss advantage has ever been confirmed for isocaloric low-carb diets. Eades can use clever (and unverified) calculations to arrive at an extra daily calorie expenditure of 300 calories for low-carb diets, but this does not change the fact that no such increase is evident when subjects following low-carb and high-carb diets on a long-term basis are compared. Creating clever explanations does not suddenly make non-existent phenomena real. If something does not exist, it does not exist. Period. If Eades, Feinman and Fine want to explain the existence of a metabolic weight loss advantage, they must first establish that that phenomenon exists. They have not even begun to do this. The Bollocks Continue Eades then goes on to whine about how he suspects | have not read Gary Taubes' book Good Calories, Bad Calories (see next chapter). Actually, | have, and | think the section on weight loss is atrocious. Despite the lavish claims repeatedly made for the thorough scientific foundation of this "great big book", Taubes offers no discussion of the fact that over 7 decades’ worth of tightly controlled metabolic ward studies have failed to demonstrate a metabolic weight loss advantage. Given that metabolic ward studies are the only valid method for testing isocaloric diets, this is a truly fatal flaw, at least to those with any regard for solid science. Someone should tell Eades that just because a book is big and thick is no guarantee that it is "great". More Shonky Tactics Readers should take careful note of what Eades then proceeds to do in his November 15 rant: He attempts to switch the metabolic advantage argument from weight loss to weight gain. Those who have read my book The Junk Science Self Defense Manual will knowexactly what Eades is doing here: he is employing the tactic of irrelevant extrapolation. As anyone who has even passingly observed the low-carb craze would readily know, the extravagant metabolic advantage claims made for low-carb diets have been centered entirely around weight loss. The cover of the 2002 edition of the most famous low-carb book of all time, Dr. Atkins’ New Diet Revolution, boasts about “Dozens of new recipes and tips for weight loss”. Meanwhile, the cover of the 1999 edition of Eades’ own best-selling book Protein Power that | have sitting on my desk hypes the diet as “The High-Protein/Low- Carbohydrate Way to Lose Weight, Feel Fit, and Boost Your Health — in Just weeks!"[Bold emphasis added by yours truly] Metabolic advantage shills like Eades and Atkins have made millions telling people that carbs and insulin and not calories are the key factor in weight loss, and that by following low-carb diets they will lose more weight when eating the same or even greater calories than on high-carb diets. They have sold millions of books promoting this concept even though it is disproved by tightly controlled research. Because Eades cannot fall back on meticulously controlled clinical trials to support his metabolic advantage weight loss claims, he is now attempting to prop them up with anecdotal claims about low-carb diets and weight gain. His first exercise in irrelevant extrapolation is to cite the case of Type 1 Diabetes (a.k.a. IDDM). It has been observed that Type 1 diabetics often have difficulty gaining weight, and that intensive insulin therapy promotes weight gain in these subjects. In the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT), free-living IDDM subjects randomized to intensive insulin treatment regimen gained significantly more weight (mean 5.1 kg) than those receiving standard treatment (mean 2.4 kg) during the first year of therapy[39]. According to folks like Eades, such observations 'prove' the existence of MAD. There are a few facts that need to be pointed out before one mindlessly extrapolates the plight of IDDM patients to the rest of the general population. Firstly, Type 1 Diabetics can rightly claim to be ‘suffering a truly serious metabolic disturbance and are unique in thatthey produce no insulin. The rest of us, even when eating zero carb diets, still produce insulin[40], and we should be extremely grateful that this is so; otherwise we would be faced with the choice of either dropping dead or taking exogenous insulin on a lifelong basis as Type 1 Diabetics must. Secondly, Type 1 Diabetes is a relatively uncommon autoimmune disease that affects 1 in 250 Americans. In other words, it is a rare disorder that afflicts only a very small portion of the population. Eades, however, makes no attempt to qualify his citation of IDDM by pointing out its irrelevance to the overwhelming majority of the population. He also neglects to point out that a ward study of patients with Type 2 Diabetes, a far more common ailment than Type 1, showed no difference in total fat loss among those following low-carb or high-carb diets (again, this study is discussed in Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible, so if Eades has read my book - as he is now claiming - he cannot pretend to be unaware of it). Eades then continues with the inappropriate extrapolation when he writes: "Both MD and | have had patients who complained to us that they were following our program to the letter and werent losing any weight. When we asked them for their diet diaries we found that they were consuming huge amounts of food but were rigorously keeping their carbs below 30 grams per day. Sometimes we calculated that these patients were eating 4000+ kcal per day, which could have even been higher given that patients tend to under report what they eat instead of over reporting. What was amazing to us was that they weren't gaining. They were pretty much maintaining their weight on an enormous number of low-carb calories. We would explain to them about how they needed to create a caloric deficit to lose. Most people will create the caloric deficit when they go on a low-carb diet because the increased fat and protein in the absence of carbs is extremely satiating." Eades' is claiming that his patients can eat hypercaloric intakes on low-carb diets and not gain weight. His claim is totally anecdotal and unverifiable, but let's for a moment generously assume this were true,even though there is a dearth of actual research examining rates of weight gain on ketogenic diets. Even if Eades’ patients are experiencing some sort of enormous boost in dietary induced thermogenesis when consuming 4,000 calories per day, my response is: "So what?" How does this help people trying to /ose weight, the market most aggressively targeted by MAD promoters, including Eades himself? Imagine the following conversation: Slim Steve to Fat Fred: "Hi Fred, how's your new weight loss diet going?" Fat Fred: "It's going great Steve! On this Protein Power diet | can eat 4,000 calories per day and not gain any weight!" Slim Steve: "But have you actually lost any weight?" Fat Fred: "Um...no." Slim Steve: "So in other words, you're still as fat as ever?" Fat Fred: "Um...yeah." | personally know full well that it is possible to gain weight on extremely low carbohydrate ketogenic diets - I've done it myself, and have heard from numerous others who done the same. However, | do not accept anecdotal stories from the MAD shills and do not expect them to accept mine. As | have stated before, there is a sad lack of available scientific research comparing hypercaloric ketogenic and non-ketogenic diets, and until such research becomes available | will refrain from making any concrete assertions about comparative rates of weight gain on these diets. Unlike the MAD promoters, | am not in the business of making bold claims that science is yet to confirm.But again, let's generously assume Eades is telling the truth (1 know it's hard, but work with me here). It does not even begin to change the fact that: 1). A calorie deficit is absolutely imperative to establish weight loss (excluding temporary water loss); 2) Hypocaloric high-carb and low-carb diets of equal caloric content do not produce any difference in the rate of fat loss; 3) Carbohydrates do not and cannot explain recent increases in obesity rates, for per capita carbohydrate intake in the US is similar today to what it was in 1909 (see next chapter). People did not suddenly switch from eating zero-carb diets to high carb diets - in fact, the average American never ate a zero-carb or even low-carb diet. What has changed since 1909 is an increase in per capita caloric intake coupled with a decrease in activity levels. That is why obesity rates have increased. Eades Reveals More Than He Intended Eades' comment about his 4,000 calorie per day-eating clients was no doubt posted in an attempt to demonstrate a metabolic advantage for low-carb diets. | will reiterate once more: whatever the comparative weight gain effects of ketogenic and non-ketogenic diets, 7 decades' worth of tightly controlled metabolic ward studies show no difference in weight joss between low- and high-carb diets. The fundamental requirement for weight loss is a calorie deficit: when energy needs are not being met by dietary calories, the body is forced to obtain those calories from other sources: namely, it's own tissues. The goal on any intelligently structured weight loss regimen, of course, is to ensure that these required calories are derived as much as possible from adipose tissue rather than lean tissue. What these comments do demonstrate is just how backwards the Eades have it when it comes to counseling patients about weight loss. It is only aftertheir patients fail to lose weight that the Eades feel compelled to mention the importance of a calorie deficit!Given that no weight loss will occur without a calorie deficit, this is the very first thing any competent fat loss adviser would relay to someone wishing to lose weight. Those seeking weight loss need to know that they can cut carbs/fat/alcohol/sugar as low as they want, but if this fails to result in a calorie deficit, no weight loss will occur. If the Eades truly understood that a calorie deficit is absolutely imperative for producing weight loss, the first thing they would do is help their patients estimate their ideal targeted daily calorie intake, one designed to create a calorie deficit of sufficient magnitude to induce weight loss. They would then help their patients devise a meal plan designed to achieve this daily targeted intake. There are a number of formulas that can be used to achieve this (see Chapter 7 of The Fat Loss Bible). But instead of utilizing this sensible precision strategy, the Eades opt instead for a hit-and-miss approach. They tell their weight loss clients to cut carbs to under 30 grams per day, and with a bit of luck, hopefully the diet will prove sufficiently satiating and they will start losing weight. But as Eades' own writings reveal, luck and hope are not very reliable weight loss agents. As a result of the Eades’ haphazard advice, some patients begin losing weight, for others the process is unnecessarily delayed because the Eades don't feel it necessary to outline the extreme importance of a calorie deficit right from the word go. I'd immediately fire any trainer or nutrition consultant who wasted a client's precious time and money in such an unnecessary fashion. These are the same folks, mind you, that have written best-selling diet books that have sold in the millions. In an age where mediocrity is the new excellence, it appears even the most haphazard of diet ‘experts' can win fame and fortune (witness the recent Kimkins scandall[41]). And while the Eades’ personal patients at least get a belated reminder to cut their calories, what about the poor folks who buy their Protein Power book? No such emphasis is placed on calories in their best-selling tome - instead people are told that obesity is more closely related to carbohydrate and insulin than calories.The Eades' emphasis on carbs and insulin instead of calories may explain the following less-than-flattering reviews of Protein Power. http:/Awww.amazon.com/review/R3FIKZT...cm_cr_rdp_perm http:/Awww.amazon.com/review/RTQH782...cm_cr_rdp_perm http:/Avww.amazon.com/review/R1J46CW...cm_cr_rdp_perm http:/Awww.amazon.com/review/RESZA60...cm_cr_rdp_perm http:/Awww.amazon.com/review/R32AL5Q...cm_cr_rdp_perm http:/Awww.amazon.com/review/R3GK71R...cm_cr_rdp_perm http:/Awww.amazon.com/review/R6CANIE...cm_cr_rdp_perm http:/Awww.amazon.com/review/R2K7N2Z...cm_cr_rdp perm http:/Awww.amazon.com/review/RQL4STA...cm_cr_rdp_perm http:/Awww.amazon.com/review/R2QXHOQT...cm_cr_rdp_perm http:/Awww.amazon.com/review/R3NCZG3...cm_cr_rdp_perm http:/Awww.amazon.com/reviewRIEC9TL...cm_cr_rdp perm http:/Awww.amazon.com/reviewR386CVG...cm_cr_rdp_perm http:/Awww.amazon.com/review/RX3JGTZ...cm_cr_rdp_perm The failure of these folks to lose weight on the Protein Power diet is due to one thing - eating too many calories - an unfortunate result of the Eades' claim that carbs and insulin, not calories, are the primary determinants of weight status. My main point throughout this whole metabolic advantage saga is that MAD distracts people from the true requirements of weight/fat loss. By doing so, many people will fail to establish a calorie deficitand will not lose weight - a scenario that could be avoided if people were told the plain truth that a calorie deficit is the fundamental requirement for weight loss. Eades claims that anyone who thinks weight loss is all about calories is a "fool" and he has virulently denounced my stance on the calories issue - but now inadvertently admits that his own dismissal of the central role of calories delays the weight loss process for at least some of his patients. He admits that it is their excess caloric intake that is preventing weight loss. So basically we have a person who after adamantly and angrily opposing what | am saying, now unwittingly acknowledges that | am correct. Eades, despite citing free-living studies as proof of the metabolic advantage, now also finally admits "that patients tend to under report what they eat instead of over reporting". My guess is that - while they would never publicly admit it - the Eades will now quietly start placing a little more emphasis on caloric restriction right from the word go. Eades Serves Up the Sleaze and Again Accuses Me of impropriety Eades now claims that he has in fact read my book, which he says he purchased under a pseudonym. He writes: "The first chapter lays out the basis for AC's belief that there is no metabolic advantage. It is a compendium of misread or misinterpreted studies, the famous “NINETEEN metabolic ward studies” AC mentions in his open letter to me. (There were only SEVENTEEN in the version of the book | read, but who's counting?)" Actually, there are now 26 such studies shown in Table 1 of Chapter 1, and | will continue to add relevant metabolic ward studies as they come to hand. My goal is to keep The Fat Loss Bible as thorough and up-to-date as possible. Eades continues: "Here is what | propose to do. Since this chapter of this book is the foundation for AC’s bedrock belief in the non-existence of a metabolic advantage, | will go through it and in meticulous detail demonstrate just what a shaky foundation that is." Despite the fact that Eades clearly resents me deeply for publicly attacking his untenable claims, and despite his cocksuredness that he has the evidence to discredit me, he first feels compelled to take a vote from his readers as to whether or not he should post his “meticulous” analysis: "...1 will do it only if you - the readers of this blog - want me to. It will take a little time that could otherwise be spent in posting on the stuff | usually post on. You can vote with your comments. I'm not going to respond to any of these comments, but | will put them up and tally them. If the yeas outnumber the nays, I'll do the critique." Eades again resorts to what most of my other critics do when they have no factual retort to my arguments: He slanders my integrity and accuses me of impropriety. Eades shows he has no qualms whatsoever about getting down and sleazy when he writes: "My only worry is that AC is a pretty slippery fellow. One of the readers on his site asked why AC didn'‘t publish his book as a real, bound book instead of an ebook. AC responded that with the ebook he could change it at will and continue to add new material." Eades, while eager to provide quotes and PDFs containing material that he believes will discredit me, strangely provides no quote or reproduction of the page where | allegedly made this comment. That's because he has blatantly misrepresented what | wrote. Here’s the original (and unmodified) link: http:/Avww.lowcarbmuscle.com/orums/showthread.php...// And here is what | actually wrote: "| really have no interest in publishing FLB as a hard copy. Besides making life less complicated, ebook publishing offers several other advantages. For example, | can update the book and people who have already bought it can get the latest version at no extra costsimply by re-downloading it. Also, if | want to give away free bonuses, ! can do that with an ebook but not with hard copy." Basically Eades is attacking me for updating the material in The Fat Loss Bible. Let's get this straight: It's a bad thing to continually improve a product, and make the new improvements freely available to your customers? It's a bad thing to continually add to a book as new research becomes available? Most of the additions to The Fat Loss Bible have been just that - additions. | have not changed any of the key arguments in the book. If anything, | have strengthened them further. For example, there are now 26 metabolic ward studies cited in Table 1 of Chapter 1, and! will continue to add any other such studies that | unearth. After feedback from readers, | have recently modified and simplified the methods for determining one's daily target calorie intake in Chapter 7. | have added to the chapter dealing with psychosocial aspect of weight loss, but all the original information in that chapter still remains. | have added to the FAQ, and will keep doing so as further questions arise. | have not eliminated any of the original Q&As. | make no apologies for endeavoring to keep The Fat Loss Bible as relevant and scientifically up-to-date as possible. | will continue to do so, and must seriously question the intelligence and ethics of anyone who finds fault with that. Eades might think it is somehow unethical and dishonest to continually update an ebook as new research comes to hand, but | don't. In fact, | think it is good practice to offer my customers the best cutting edge information, and to let them have any new content added to the book free of charge. If you buy The Fat Loss Bible then - unless you return the book for a refund - you will be entitled to all future updates of the ebook version, absolutely free of charge. And if anyone still suspects | am somehow engaging in untoward behavior, remember that there is absolutely nothing to stop those of you who have the original release of The Fat Loss Bible from keeping it on your computer and comparing it with the latest update. Eades takes my desire to offer my customers the most up-to-date information, and attempts to portray it as some sort of deception. As a weight loss commentator, Eades makes a great politician. Such sleazy smear tactics would no doubt be applauded by politicaltacticians, but those who value sound science should see Eades’ behavior for what it is: a pathetic attempt at diverting his readers’ attention away from the facts and to instead cast aspersions on my integrity. More Research That Shows Eades is Full of It | am continually scouring through the literature looking for new information that can help my readers and | to improve our physical performance, body composition, and general health. Since Eades posted his libelous comments on November 15, | discovered that | did indeed miss some relevant metabolic ward studies during my initial scans of the literature. | tracked down 6 more metabolic ward studies comparing low- and high-carb diets involving subjects that followed each diet for 3 weeks or more, and they all support my stance that the metabolic advantage theory of weight loss is a sham. These have all been included in the updated version of Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible, but | will quickly run through them here for those who don't yet have the book. The earliest of these was a paper by Keeton and Bone, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine way back in 1935. Nine obese subjects who were confined to a hospital and placed, in crossover fashion, on diets containing 90 and 13 grams per day of protein. The daily rate of weight loss was measured on the diets, which were followed for a minimum of 22 days each (with the exception of one patient who spent 45 days on the high-protein diet but only 14 days on the low-protein diet). The diets were designed to provide a deficit by delivering 30% less calories than the basal metabolic requirement in 8 patients; the remaining patient consumed 48% calories below BMR. Daily weight loss was greater on the high-protein diet in 2 patients, greater on the low-protein diet for 4 patients, equal in another 2, and considered “inconclusive” for the remaining subject. In other words, the pattern was random and showed no relationship between dietary composition and rate of weight loss.Take another look at the date of the study: 1935. That means MAD was disproved 72 years ago! The next paper was authored by Werner in 1955, who found that a 16-year old who followed high- and low-carb diets for 21 days each experienced no change in the rate of weight loss, except for a sharp early drop in salt and water at the start of the high-carb diet. What was that about teenagers disproving the primacy of calories? The next study involved 8 obese subjects who consumed low- and high-carb diets in crossover fashion. The patients “remained in hospital under strict control throughout the observation period, but they were not kept in bed.” One of these subjects followed a high- carb diet for 24 days and a low-carb diet for 21 days. Energy intake during both diets was held at 1000 calories per day. After 21 days on each diet the weight loss was exactly the same: 4.1 kg. To avoid any accusation that | am misrepresenting the literature, please feel free to read the full text of the studies yourself (and please feel free to do so with the studies cited in Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible). | have no online source for the full text of the above papers, but the Archives of Internal Medicine, New England Journal of Medicine, and Lancet are all prominent journals that can readily be found in any decent medical library. Here are the citations: Keeton RW, Bone DD. Diets low in calories containing varying amounts of protein. Archives of Internal Medicine, 1935; 55: 262-270. Werner SC. Comparison between weight reduction on a high-calorie, highfat diet and on an isocaloric regimen high in carbohydrate. New England Journal of Medicine, Apr 21, 1955; 252 (16): 661-665. Olesen ES, Quaade F. Fatty foods and obesity. Lancet, May 14, 1960; 1: 1048-1051. The full texts for the next 3 papers are available online. The first of these involved male prisoners and obese women, who ate isocaloric diets of varying fat and protein content. Despite the hyperbolic claimsmade for the thermogenic effect of protein, no differences were noted in weight loss. Again, to confirm that I'm not blowing smoke up your posterior, please feel free to check the full paper for yourself: http:/Awww.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/20/2/139?maxtoshow=8&HITS=...// And while Eades claims that metabolic ward studies are "rife with inaccuracies”, take careful note of the level of control exerted by the researchers in this study: "Prior to admission, all the patients were carefully screened for their interest and motivation for continued participation in the study and they were fully informed concerning the demanding schedules of diet, exercise, and the limitations of freedom imposed by a strict metabolic ward schedule." "No patient was permitted to leave the Clinical Research Center area without an escort, and all were under the continued surveillance of our staff. A schedule of occupational therapy was provided in the form of “hobby activities.” The patients tolerated this restrictive and tightly controlled regimen with no more than a healthy amount of grumbling, and patient cooperation on the whole was splendid." The other 2 studies | have so far uncovered are by Bortz et al, which again show no difference in weight loss among diets of varying macro composition that cannot be attributed to salt and water variations. Again, to ensure that | am not yanking your chain, please read the full texts for yourself: http:/Avww.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/20/10/1104?maxtoshow=&...// http:/Avww.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/21/1 1/1291 ?maxtoshow=&...// Dissect It Is! Or Is It? On November 19, 2007, Eades’ blog proudly proclaimed "The votes are in: Dissect it is!". According to Eades, the majority of his readers voted in favor of his threat to "dissect" Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible[42].Said Eades: "/ think the entire exercise will be educational for all. It certainly has been for me", further confirming my suspicion that he is a newcomer to the real science of weight loss. Eades then stated: "it will take me a couple of days because even though I've already done the work, | have to write it up. I'll continue to post on other subjects in the interim, but | should have the exegesis posted this week." That was a month ago, and Eades has still not posted his "exegesis". On December 9, a reader asked "ff this [exegesis] was still happening or if you changed your mind?", to which Eades replied "Nope, it’s happening. I’ve just had a lot going on lately and haven't been able to give it the attention it needs. Cheers - MRE". As | write this update on December 16, Eades still has not delivered the definitive debunking he promised his readers. If and when Eades ever does deliver, rest assured | will decisively dissect his dissection. ‘Stay tuned... Update! Septewber 15, 2008. After getting a tad tired of the empty insults and slander emanating from Eades and his screwball internet MAD followers, on January 30, 2008, | demanded they either put up or shut up. | issued a $20,000 challenge to Eades and the rest of his deluded metabolic advantage cohorts, the full details of which can be found here: http:/Avww.anthonycolpo.com/MAD_Eades_challenge.html The challenge was simple. All Eades and his fellow MAD believers had to do in order to collect a quick 20 grand was: 1. Provide published peer-reviewed metabolic ward research that compared isocaloric low- and high-carbohydrate diets and found statistically significant greater fat-derived weight losses among subjects following the low-carb diet. 2. Present conclusive proof that the metabolic ward studies | have cited in Table 1, Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible have beenmisreported, as Eades claimed, and in fact really show greater fat loss in the low-carbohydrate groups. Judging by the extreme level of cocksureness among MAD proponents, | should have been flooded with responses from people prepared to meet my challenge. However, despite their virulent antagonism towards me and anyone else who dared highlight the falsity of MAD, and their repeated assertions that MAD is a very real and scientifically demonstrable phenomenon, no one even attempted to meet the challenge. The best response that Eades could muster was am email complaining that the challenge was “rigged”. Well, if asking Eades to present tightly controlled evidence that backs his MAD assertions and to simultaneously invalidate the seven decades of tightly controlled research that shows MAD to be nonsense is “rigging”, then | plead guilty as charged. After admitting he could not meet the challenge, Eades attempted to buy my silence with a highly suspect offer of assistance in getting a book deal. He also requested that | keep the fact that he had contacted me and made such an offer secret from our readers, a rather repugnant request that | immediately rejected: http:/Awww.anthonycolpo.com/MAD Eades challenge reply.htm! Angry that his shady tactics did not have their desired effect, Eades promptly reverted back to his usual strategy of personal insults and character assassination. The bottom line is that Eades and his MAD cohorts had an entire month to prove the existence of MAD and earn their favorite charity a quick $20,000. The reason they could not do this is because there is no tightly controlled clinical evidence demonstrating the existence of a weight loss metabolic advantage for low-carbohydrate diets. Eades Finally Admits I’m Right Before | explain why | think Eades is the biggest joke in the diet industry, let me reiterate just why | have publicly made such a strong stance against the metabolic advantage theory.My main point when addressing the MAD hyperbole has always been that MAD distracts people from the true requirements of weight/fat loss. Namely, a calorie deficit. By doing so, many people will fail to establish a calorie deficit and will not lose weight - a scenario that could be avoided if people were told the plain truth that a calorie deficit is the fundamental requirement for weight loss. Another sad consequence of MAD is that many individuals who do experience initial weight loss will eventually plateau. This is because their weight loss has resulted in a lower daily calorie burn, which effectively negates the efficacy of any calorie restriction they initially employed. To re-start their fat loss, they need to re-establish a calorie deficit. This is an important point that, until the release of my book, evaded many people including diet ‘gurus’ like Eades, who typically made ineffectual recommendations about further restricting carbohydrate intake in order to re-ignite fat loss. Such recommendations are doomed to fail because the weight loss plateau, just like weight loss itself, is a function of calorie intake versus versus calorie expenditure. Carbohydrate restriction without concomitant calorie restriction will not produce any fat-loss derived weight loss. The only benefit of carbohydrate restriction is that, for many people, it enhances satiety, a crucial factor in achieving and maintaining a calorie deficit. That's why all these vocal low-carbers on Internet chat rooms may lose more weight on low-carb diets — whether they realize it or not, they have lowered their caloric intake. The fact that they have atrocious mathematical skills or that they did not intentionally lower caloric intake does not change one iota the fact that they nevertheless unintentionally lowered their intake, and that it is this unintentional lowering that produced the weight loss. However, if carbohydrate restriction does not lead to a calorie deficit — and it often doesn’t — then you and your weight loss efforts will be stuck up Turd Creek without a paddle. Resistance is Futile At every step of the way during our heated disagreement, Eades and his followers have virulently resisted my assertions and have attempted to discredit me for pointing out the inescapable fact thatcalories, not carbs and/or insulin, are the ultimate arbiter of weight loss. It doesn’t matter how low you drop your carbohydrate intake, if you fail to establish a calorie deficit, you will not enjoy any fat-derived weight loss. Period. After using all manner of desperate and dubious tactics to discredit me and dispute this contention, on May 27 Eades finally posted a piece on his blog titled “Low Carb and Calories”. You can read it here: http:/Avww.proteinpower.com/drmike/weight-loss/...// A sad consequence of the metabolic advantage BS — one that | have been trying to alert people to all along — is alluded to in the very first sentence of Eades’ post: "One of the most common questions MD and | get via email and snail mail and now through the comment sections of our blogs is about failing to lose weight while following low-carb diets." | can tell you right now the reason why this predicament is so common: Many people following low-carbohydrate diets have been sucked in by MAD — preached by people like Atkins and Eades - that downplays or even totally ignores the critical role of calories and instead tells people to focus on carbohydrate intake. Giving such advice to someone who badly wants to lose a chunk of excess weight is like telling someone to lift a bucket while they are standing in it — an undertaking bound to cause frustration and failure. Eades proceeds to reprint a letter from a female reader who has succumbed to MAD and experienced just such frustration and failure: "I'm a 47 year old woman, and I've been overweight for the past 20 years or so. | was normal sized most of my life, but after! had my third baby at age 27, | started gaining and havent really been able to lose much weight. At least not until | started a low-carb diet about 6 months ago. When | started your Protein Power diet | lost almost 16 pounds the first month. | continued to lose for the next 4 months, but not at the rate | did in the first month. Over the last month, though, | havent lost any weight at all. I'm really dedicated to this WOL, and | religiously keep my carbs below 30 grams a day. I'll admit that | occasionally (maybe once every 10 days) have something | shouldn'thave, a small bowl of ice cream maybe, but the next day | buckle down and cut my carbs to below 15 grams to make up for it. This falling off the wagon doesn't seem to make me gain any weight especially since | cut my carbs the next day, but | just can't seem to lose any more. I'm still about 20 pounds from my goal. Any suggestions?" Those who have read The Fat Loss Bible will know exactly why this lady's weight loss had come to a complete halt. As you drop weight, your maintenance calorie requirements drop also. Due to the reduced lean and fat mass, your body burns less calories at rest. And when you move around, you are now pushing around less weight, so your calorie burn from your usual level of physical activity also drops. If this lady had read The Fat Loss Bible instead of the Eades’ Protein Power, (the latter of which tells people that obesity is primarily due to carbs and insulin and not calories) she would know full well why she had hit a weight loss plateau - and she would know exactly what to do about it. But let's see what Dr Mike - the man who has vigorously opposed just about every assertion I've ever made on fat loss - has to say about this reader's predicament. "If you are meeting all your body's energy needs with the food you eat, the body doesn't need the fat in the fat cells. On a low-carb diet your body burns fat for energy. But it doesn't care where this fat comes from; it can come from the diet or it can come from the fat cells or it can come from both. If you are consuming enough fat to meet all your body's requirements, your body won't go after the fat in the fat cells no matter how severely you restrict your carbs. You will burn dietary fat only and no body fat. And you wont lose weight. It's that simple." "It has been shown countless times that when people go on low-carb diets they spontaneously reduce their caloric intake. Most foods available on low-carbohydrate diets are satiating and those following these diets get full quickly. They just don't eat that many calories. In most studies of low-carb diets people drop their caloric intake down to the 1500-1700 kcal range and are quite satisfied. At that level of caloric intake, they need a fair amount of their own body fat to makeup the difference between their dietary intake and the 2400-2600 kcal (or more) that they burn every day. As they consume this body fat, they lose weight." "Once people settle in to low-carb diets, a couple of things happen. First, they lose some weight, which reduces their energy expenditure. A smaller body doesn't burn as many calories as a larger body, so the gap between what they consume and what they need gets smaller. And as it does, their weight loss slows down a little. Second, they start fiddling with the diet. At first, the luxury of eating steak, bacon, whole eggs, real butter and all the rest of the high-fat foods that go along with low-carbing is enough to keep most people ‘Satisfied...for a while. They eat until they're full, then they quit. And they dont consume all that many calories." Hey, wait a minute! This is what I've been saying all along! And it's exactly what | say in The Fat Loss Bible, right from the word go in Chapter 1, which Eades has described as “a compendium of misread or misinterpreted studies”. Eades has described my book as containing “so much misinformation [that] it will take a blog post the size of Texas to refute it all.” And yet Eades is now publicly acknowledging that the main contentions of my book are in fact 100% correct! + Calorie restriction — not carbohydrate restriction — is the key requirement for weight loss; * The abolition of the calorie deficit by subsequently reduced calorie burn is the real cause of weight loss plateaus, and; * The real reason people lose weight on low-carbohydrate diets is because greater satiety on these diets allows them to eat less and establish a calorie deficit. Let the record show that Eades initially and strenuously resisted my assertions, but is now writing them up on his blog like he always believed and taught them. Let the record show that it was not until well after | made these assertions public, and that the noise between Eades and | faded somewhat, that he embraced them. Eades has clearly learnt something from our dispute and my book.Obviously he will never publicly admit this, but only the dopiest of his followers (admittedly, they're a pretty damn dopey bunch) will fail to see what's going on here. Of course, Eades still won't let go of his cherished MAD nonsense, at least not publicly. Reader “Kevin” writes in the comments section of Eades’ blog: "So it seems that Anthony Colpo is right; There is no metabolic advantage except perhaps in cases of extreme obesity. For everyone else, calories count. If one cant lose beyond a certain point, they aren't being honest with themselves about calorie intake." Eades replies: “| knew that sooner or later | would get this comment. No, | don't think Anthony Colpo is right on the metabolic advantage issue. In the post | wrote that a caloric deficit is required for weight loss. A metabolic advantage implies that a different caloric deficit may be created as a function of the type of diet consumed. In other words, a low-carb diet of 1800 kcal may provide a caloric deficit whereas a 1600 kcal low-fat diet wouldn't. The difference is the metabolic advantage created by the low-carb diet. In the case of the above example: 200 kcal. The body does three things with calories: it uses them for energy, it uses them (proteins and some fats) for rebuilding tissues, and it wastes them. If the body wastes more calories on diet A than it does on diet B, then diet A is said to provide a metabolic advantage. Both Anthony Colpo (and | think | am speaking for him correctly on this) and | believe that there has to be a caloric deficit for weight loss to take place. | believe (and he doesn't) that different diets waste different amounts of calories, meaning that diets that waste more - low-carb diets - create more of a caloric deficit with a caloric intake identical to diets that don’t waste more calories - low-fat diets." I'll simply reiterate once again that Eades’ assertion that low-carb diets cause greater calorie ‘wastage’ and hence greater weight loss is disproved by seven decades’ worth of tightly controlled clinical trials and that not even a $20,000 sweetener could draw any evidence to the contrary.But hey, it’s great to see that Eades finally appears to be embracing the indisputable truth that calories, not carbohydrates, are the kings of weight loss! Eades Can’t Handle the Truth - So He Embraces Ad Hominem BS Throughout our disagreement, | have endeavored to keep the argument focused on the science, to the extent that | actually proceeded to uncover more evidence (evidence that further discredited the fallacious metabolic advantage theory). Eades however, became increasingly frustrated and angered by my ability to consistently and effortlessly demolish all his arguments, and eventually gave up any attempt at appealing to the science. Eades instead adopted the time-honored sleazeball method of debate — after totally failing to refute my scientific arguments, he instead attempted to discredit me by launching a series of personal attacks on me. The most recent such attempt that | am aware of (contrary to what some people believe, | do not frequent Eades’ website unless someone writes to me or posts on my forum to inform me of his latest slander. As | recently remarked to a friend, visiting Eades’ website is a lot like using the toilets at Melbourne’s Flinders Street station — something | only do if | really have to) is a long-winded 14,000-word piece that, ironically, claimed | was “obsessed” with him. Eades arrived at this most unlikely conclusion after mistakenly assuming that | tracked down the poor reviews of his book Protein Power by spending countless hours scouring through each and every one of the hundreds of reviews on Amazon.com. The poor schmuck was totally ignorant of the fact that readers can retrieve all the 1- and 2 — star reviews of any book on Amazon with just a single mouse click. When a reader later pointed this out to Eades, he sheepishly admitted that he was unaware of such a function on Amazon. This is hardly surprising — Eades has repeatedly demonstrated he has no qualms about making bold claims on matters he knows nothing about. As someone who is fanatical about cars/music/training, | do indeed have my obsessions — but none of them involve ignorant, crusty, flabby old blowhards masquerading as diet gurus. Sorry Mike, butyou'll need to find someone else to fulfill your homo-erotic fantasies — my blood runs redder than the duco on Kimi Raikkonen’s Ferrari. I'm really not sure what poor Mike was trying to achieve by evading the science and attacking me personally. The opinions of the people that really matter in my life — my friends and family — are hardly going to be influenced by the venomous rantings of some angry, disgruntled and discredited old huckster in America. If Eades was trying to hurt me financially by slowing down sales of my highly praised book The Fat Loss Bible, he also lucked out. The book hardly constitutes my main source of income, and even if it did, Eades’ desperate antics have had no discernable impact on sales. In fact, after some of my rebuttals to Eades’ ad hominem garbage, | noted a distinct upward spike in book sales. Of course, this has never been about the money for me, something that Eades evidently cannot understand. That, | suspect, is why he became so frustrated when his attempt to lure me into silence with his rather dubious offer of assistance in getting a book deal failed, and why he then resorted to penning an angry 14,000-word diatribe attempting to portray me as a “man obsessed”. Unlike Eades, | don't rely on writing as my main source of income, so any attempt at luring me with potential financial incentives was doomed right from the outset. | firmly believe that the truth should always take vigorous precedence over hyperbolic nonsense, and have always admired people who are prepared to stand up, often at great personal cost, and defend the truth. | was under the naive impression that people would appreciate being told the truth. | have since come to fully understand that being told what they want to hear is a far greater priority for most people than being told the truth. Being told what we have already decided to believe is comforting and non-disruptive; receiving new information that contradicts what we have already decided to believe can be highly unsettling and discomforting to many people. They simply don't have the intellectual capacity and internal fortitude to carefully and impartially re-examine their closely held beliefs. Instead, they shut out any information that doesn’t gel with what they already believe, and vigorously denounce any person or party that has the temerity to present such conflicting information.The Biggest Loser There is a reason that Eades abandoned any attempt at scientific discourse and instead resorted solely to ad hominem attacks — he had no scientific evidence to dispute what | was saying. The smartest thing for Eades to do would been to have simply shut his mouth, but sometimes a man (| use the term loosely) just can’t stop his ego from getting the better of him. While Eades’ ego has clearly taken a pounding throughout this whole ordeal, the people who have suffered the most are the gullible readers who have been taken in by his nonsensical MAD ramblings. It's hard to build the body of your dreams using information that is utterly false. If you think you are going to build a healthy, sculpted, lean body and keep it that way by disregarding calories, then you're sadly mistaken — as increasing numbers of Eades’ followers are obviously now finding out. My bet is that Eades will now incorporate the primary role of calories into his next book, in a manner that would suggest he believed it all along. | can just picture it now: New from Casa El Crappo Publishing! Calorie Power! The Revolutionary New Diet Plan that Enables You to Control Calories for Quick and Effortless Weight Loss! While Eades frantically revises history, my advice to all those of you who have followed his deluded MAD advice is to begin applying the principles outlined in The Fat Loss Bible — the very principles that | and others use to get shredded with little fuss and no frustration. It's the book that famous diet ‘gurus’ such as Eades themselves read to learn the real facts about fat loss! Mindless Disciples | also have one more piece of advice for Eades’ mindless followers:Get your heads out from between your buttocks! After | posted a web article on June 1, 2008 lambasting Eades for his hypocritical and about-face behaviour (see: http:/Awww.anthonycolpo.com/Eades_Admits...//), a couple of his faithful disciples attempted to defend his honor at LowCarbMuscle, a web forum run by yours truly. Judging from their posts, the line that Eades apologists (and Eades himself) are now using is that he has been emphasizing the importance of calories all along, and that he and | are saying essentially the same thing, save for a ‘minor’ disagreement over the existence of a metabolic advantage. Such revisionist tripe demonstrates the limitless human capacity for self-deceit, and the routine tendency to ‘re-interpret’ past events in order to avoid having to deal with discomforting contradictions. If any Eades apologists can show me exactly where, prior to my denunciation of his shambolic comparison of the Yudkin vs Keys studies, he stated the following indisputable facts, then I'll happily eat my favorite pair of snakeskin boots: --Calorie intake vs calorie output, not the level of carbohydrate and fat intake is the overriding determinant of fat-derived weight losses. Eades has clearly and repeatedly stated that carbs and insulin are the primary determinants of weight status. He has written this in his own works, and has enthusiastically praised the works of others that push this theory, including the massively convoluted exercise in science fiction Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. --Carbohydrate restriction, just like fat restriction/vegetarianismeating for blood type/eating like a French Woman/blah blah blah, will not do jack for weight loss in the absence of a calorie deficit, and that anyone wanting to lose weight should first ensure that their calorie expenditure exceeds their calorie intake.Eades' failure to make this point clear and instead focus on carb restriction is why he has so many people writing to him to complain they cannot lose weight on his diet. In his best-selling book Protein Power he clearly gives instructions on carbohydrate restriction for weight loss. Carbohydrates and insulin are clearly blamed for obesity. Nowhere does he state in no uncertain terms, as | repeatedly have, that a calorie deficit is the ultimate and key requirement for fat- derived weight loss. --Carbohydrate restriction does not cause any extra weight loss over and above that seen with isocaloric higher carb diets that cannot be attributed to greater water, muscle and/or glycogen losses. ~The only reason some - but not all - free living studies have shown greater fat losses among low-carbing subjects is because of the potential satiating effects of low-carb diets. When this confounding factor has been removed in strictly controlled metabolic ward studies, there is no difference in fat loss. Eades initially denied this. He brushed off concerns about underreporting in free-living studies and claimed that hopelessly unreliable free-living studies, where the subjects true caloric intake is simply unknown, "demonstrate" the existence of a metabolic advantage. And in response to a reader's comment, Eades initially dismissed the possibility that the subjects in the Yudkin study could have underreported their food intake: "I dont know how many calories the low-carb group ate because | wasn‘ there to count them. But John Yudkin is a well known, well thought of researcher who used not FFQs but detailed food diaries so | have no reason to doubt his data. The people on the study had no reason to underreport, and, in fact, there reporting on their normal diets was pretty spot on in terms of the average diet."However, after Eades' comparison was exposed for the sham it was, he then acknowledged that "patients tend to under report what they eat instead of over reporting." If Eades has been emphasizing the primacy of calories all along, why did he post such an absurd comparison of the Yudkins vs Keys studies, where he was quite happy to portray the difference between isocaloric + hypocaloric low- and high-carb diets as being the difference between experiencing safe, joyful, trouble-free fat loss or turning into an emaciated, finger-chomping manic depressive? Such a comparison can only be described as utterly ridiculous (the guy then had the temerity to claim | was the one making "a mountain out of a molehilf’!) But like | said, if anyone can show me where Eades clearly stated the above key points and made it perfectly clear that a calorie deficit was the ultimate, primary determinant of fat-derived weight losses, and that without a calorie deficit any carbohydrate-restricting attempt at fat-derived weight loss was just a big wank, then I'll happily chow down on my favorite pair of snakeskin kicks. Heck, I'll even devour a pair of my prized Luccheses as dessert... As the record stands, right before | destroyed his stupid Yudkin vs Keys post, Eades clearly stated that anyone who thinks weight loss is all about calories is a "foo/". Weight loss is unquestionably and ultimately all about calories - | challenge Eades or anyone else to present me with a person that lost a chunk of fat-derived weight by eating more calories than what they expended during the period this fat was lost. The truth is that Eades and his MAD cohorts have been diverting weight loss hopefuls away from the true requirement of successful weight loss - a caloric deficit - with their anti-carb rantings. Their emphasis on carbs instead of calories has caused a lot of weight loss failures - as Eades himself has inadvertently admitted. By retrospectively claiming they did not really mean for this to happen does not change the fact that it did. Nor does the fallacious claim that he has long been emphasizing the primary role of calories when he clearly hasn't.Anyone who claims that Eades has been saying the same thing as | on calories all along is, quite frankly, an idiot. This disagreement boils down to much more than just a disagreement on MAD. It revolves around my desire for people to once and for all pull their heads out of their nethermost regions and realize that a calorie deficit, not some stupid gimmick that promises effortless weight loss, is the key requirement to achieving fat-derived weight loss. No calorie deficit, no weight loss. | know it's discomforting for a lot of people to be told that they need to stop shovelling so much crap into their mouths and/or to get up off their fat sedentary asses and do some regular exercise, but that's the plain, indisputable truth. It's not the kind of statement that is ever going to get me on Oprah and make me a best-selling diet ‘guru’, but it's the truth. It's what | myself live by, and why | maintain a year-round level of leanness that the best-selling mainstream diet hucksters can only dream about. It's also the reason why people like Muata Kamdibe get featured on CNN after achieving single digit bodyfat % using the prinicples | taught him (see http //edition.cnn.com/2008/HEAL TH/diet fitness/05/30/.../), while Eades is getting emails from people who are frustrated about not losing weight despite following his Atkins-style recommendation to cut carbs to less than 30 grams per day. Eades’ loyal apologists remind me of the folks that steadfastly stand by a politician that campaigns for ‘family values’ then gets caught in a motel room snorting coke and cavorting with hookers... No matter how much this guy squirms, cites dodgy evidence, contradicts himself, and changes his story in an attempt to save face, they just can't see him for the sad joke he is. I'm sure Eades is deeply touched by such misguided faith and devotion... Perhaps the only thing sadder than Eades is the people who believe his MAD nonsense. He at least is making money out of such folks... Whatever Happened to Eades’ Dissection? Eades made a heck of a lot of noise about his threatened “dissection”, the allegedly all-conquering “exegesis” that would finallyshut me up, and prove once and for all his claim that the pivotal Chapter 1 of my The Fat Loss Bible was wrong and misleading. Well, Eades’ much ballyhooed dissection never made it onto his website, but he did eventually post a rather anaemic attempt to discredit metabolic ward studies in general at: http:/Avww.proteinpower.com/drmike/weight-loss/...// This, ladies and gentlemen, is the best Eades could do to live up to his loudly trumpeted claim he would deliver a knockout dissection; the ‘one he publicly stated would be ready within a week but never materialized even months later because he claimed my book - the main contentions of which he is now parroting himself - was so full of misinformation that it would take a Texas-sized blog post to refute! A brief piece that does not even refer to a single study cited in Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible! "Many people" may have cited the Boden et al paper to debunk the MAD myth, but I'm definitely not one of them. The Boden study doesn't even begin to meet the criteria needed to fairly compare isocaloric diets of differing macronutrient composition: * The "usual" (higher carb) diet and the low-carb diet were not isocaloric. The latter contained 1,000 less calories per day! « Neither of the diets were followed for a minimum of 21 days, a period that minimizes influence of fluctuations in water and electrolyte status and the possibility of greater initial water losses seen during the first 1-2 weeks on low-carb diets. Why does Eades continue to ignore the abundance of relevant and strictly controlled ward studies that refute MAD and cite an irrelevant study that proves nothing other than the fact that people vary in their individual response to calorie/carbohydrate restriction? For perhaps the first time in history, | will agree with Eades when he ‘says that it's important to examine individual data in study papers and not just take group averages at face value.But if Eades is going to go with the line that individual data support the existence of MAD, he needs to explain the crossover studies where each individual participant was placed on both a low-carb and high-carb diet of equal caloric content and experienced no difference in weight loss that could not be attributed to greater water losses or diarrhea. And if he's claiming that the greater weight losses experienced by some individuals in other such RCTs is indicative of a metabolic advantage on a low-carb diet, the only way he can maintain this claim is to ignore the greater weight losses seen in some individuals on a higher carb diet! As an example, let's look at the first ward study | have been able to track down, Keeton and Bone 1935 (see They're All MAD for the citation). Daily weight loss was greater on an isocaloric high- protein/ow-carb diet in 2 patients, greater on a low-protein/high-carb diet for 4 patients, equal for 2, and "inconclusive" in 1. So if Eades is going to stick by any claim that variation in weight loss results among individuals on a particular diet in a weight loss study are evidence that some people do indeed experience a metabolic advantage, then for the sake of consistency he would have to acknowledge that Keeton and Bone's findings indicate that a greater number of individuals will experience greater "metabolic advantage"- derived weight loss on a higher-carb, lower-protein diet! Of course, anyone with a clue about weight loss will know that the individual differences in weight loss were simply a random phenomenon and not due to any so-called metabolic advantage. Of course, Eades and his flabby followers have already demonstrated that they are clueless when it comes to weight loss. Hey, C’mon, It’s Just a Couple of Hundred Calories... Since the dispute between Eades and yours truly began, the MAD doctor hasn't fared too well in his attempts to defend MAD. After failing to discredit my arguments in a scientific manner, he resorted to ad hominem attacks, doing his darndest to portray me as some kindof lunatic. That didn’t work out too well for Eades — if | truly am a lunatic, then that simply constitutes an even more damning indictment of Eades’ deficient intellectual state. Crazy or not, | have destroyed every possible argument Eades has made in favor of MAD. If MAD were scientifically valid but he couldn't defend it against an allegedly loopy guy like myself, then he clearly isn’t the sharpest tool in the box. Having bombed out with both pseudo-science and character assassination, Eades has now taken to downplaying the whole dispute, claiming that a mountain is being made out of a molehill and that the metabolic advantage is no huge deal, just a few hundred calories at most. | should be jaded by now, but I'm still amazed people fall for this crap. Again, the guy gleefully hypes MAD, but then after! smash his nonsense he starts downplaying the whole MAD thing as amounting to a difference of only a couple of hundred calories per day. This folks, is the alleged magical effect that people all over the internet claim makes the difference between not losing weight on a high-carb diet but experiencing substantial weight loss immediately after commencing a low-carb diet, even when the low-carb diet contains more calories than the high-carb diet. But now we have Eades claiming it's not that big of a deal, hey, just a couple of hundred calories, a few hundred calories at most. Eades has never explained exactly where he derived this figure of 200-300 calories per day. | suspect he pulled it from the same part of his anatomy that he sits on. Wherever he got it from, it certainly wasn't the scientific literature, for no tightly controlled study has ever shown greater calorie expenditure on an isocaloric low-carb diet. At the end of the day, both Eades and all his goofball MAD compatriots are wrong. I've asked to see the metabolic ward studies showing greater caloric expenditure and great fat-derived weight losses on isocaloric low-carb diets, and they haven't produced any. MAD exists only in the dark and gloomy confines of their heads.Upeete! Septewber 17, 2008. Lo and behold, within 24 hours of writing the September 15 update and posting notification at LowCarbMuscle.com, | was informed that on Septmber 8, 2008, Eades posted more libellous tripe about me at his blog: http: /www_prateinpower.com/drmike/metabolism/metabolic-efficiency/ Poor Eades. He has become, dare | say it, a man obsessed! After all this time, he still has absolutely nothing in the way of tightly controlled research showing the existence of MAD in real live human beings. But he just can’t let the matter rest. His ego clearly devastated by my temerity to highlight his unscientific ramblings, the man is still doing his darndest to portray me as both crazy and dishonest. In doing so, however, he is inadvertently further demonstrating that he is of questionable mental health and honesty himself. It appears that Eades’ latest whine was triggered by his recent discovery of Dr. Gregory Ellis's Ultimate Diet Secrets. Unlike Eades, Ellis understands the true requirements of weight loss and has the physique to show for it. Ellis is also highly critical of Eades and his book Protein Power. Not surprisingly, this stamp of disapproval from Ellis has gotten the MAD doctor's knickers in a real twist. Eades begins his latest diatribe by criticizing Ellis, but it's not long before he relapses and begins spewing out the anti-Colpo vitriol. If You Can't Beat ‘Em With the Facts, then Use Lies and Slander Eades is back to his old tactic of trying to discredit my integrity by claiming | have selectively cited studies and twisted the truth. The only way he can do this, of course, is by selectively citing studies and twisting the truth himself. Eades waffles on about very low calorie diets, using the line that at extremely low calorie levels his cherished metabolic advantage is negated. He ignores the fact that in Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible, which lists all the published, peer reviewed metabolic ward hypocaloric and eucaloric studies | could find, the calorie intakesspanned the full range of the spectrum, from extremely low calorie, to moderately low-calorie, to eucaloric (maintenance calories). The slippery doc, who accuses me of selective citation, proceeds to ignore all of the moderately hypocaloric and eucaloric studies | have cited and discussed in Chapter 1, with the exception of the Rabast studies. The only reason Eades cites the Rabast studies is that, at first glance, they appear supportive of MAD. Of 2 of their 3 published studies, Rabast and his colleagues did indeed claim to have observed statistically significantly greater weight losses in patients on an isocaloric low-carb diet. However, | explain quite clearly in Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible why the Rabast papers don't even begin to support MAD. Of course, Eades knows full well that most of his readers have never read my book and probably never will (I wrote the book specifically for intelligent and open-minded people, a demographic that many of Eades’ readers clearly do not occupy), so he is quite confident that he can brazenly pull the wool over their eyes and get away with it. Rabast and company did not measure body composition among their subjects. So we don’t know whether the lost weight came from water, lean tissue, or fat. But some of their other data — which Eades deliberately omits from his discussion (he has obviously read The Fat Loss Bible, so he knows full well about this data) — indicates that the extra losses came from lean tissue, glycogen and/or water. Rabast et al proposed that increased metabolic expenditure was the explanation for the extra weight loss. However, no-one has ever demonstrated greater metabolic output on an isocaloric hypercaloric + eucaloric low-carb diet, whether it be from elevated RMR, increased dietary thermogenesis, or spontaneous alignment of the planets. Protein is more thermogenic than carbs, but the diets in Rabast’s studies were equal in their protein content. As for fat and carbs, studies routinely show that carbs are more thermogenic than fats. So using “increased metabolism” as an argument doesn’t wash. What does make more sense is the data — again, completely ignored byEades — showing greater potassium losses in one of Rabast’s studies. Eades eagerly reprints the following paragraph from my book: “Regardless of whether Rabast et al's findings were the result of water loss from glycogen depletion, pure chance, or some other unidentified factor, they should be regarded for what they are: An anomaly that has never been replicated by any other group of researchers. For a research finding to be considered valid, it must be consistently reproducible when tested by other researchers. As proof of the alleged weight loss advantage of low-carbohydrate diets, the findings by Rabast and colleagues fail dismally on this key requirement.” but - surprise, surprise - does not mention the paragraph immediately preceding it: In their 1981 study, Rabast et al observed significantly greater potassium excretion on the low-carbohydrate diets during weeks one and two. A considerable amount of the potassium inside our bodies is bound up with glycogen, so the greater potassium losses in Rabast's low-carbohydrate dieters may indeed be a reflection of greater glycogen, and hence water losses[93]. Until recently, potassium excretion was often used as a marker for lean tissue loss; in Rabast's study, this would indicate that the low-carbohydrate diet subjects lost more lean tissue. As lean tissue holds a considerable amount of glycogen, this would again point to glycogen-related water loss as the explanation for the allegedly "significant" differences in weight loss. If the low-carbohydrate groups maintained greater lean tissue and/or glycogen losses at the end of the study, then this would easily explain their greater weight loss. Again, the shameless duplicity exhibited by Eades is astounding. The guy falsely accuses me of selectively citing my evidence, but then does exactly that himself. Eades, by the way, can hardly claim to be unaware of the frequent occurrence of severe potassium losses on a low-carb diet. Without the use of potassium supplements (a mineral normally found in natural abundance on anything remotely resembling a wholesome,balanced diet), his own eating plan can quickly lead to feelings of illness, dizziness and pounding heartbeat, as one New York Times writer found out the hard way: The Diet Wheel Again Spins To Protein, NYT, March 13, 1996. http: Hauery nytimes.com /gstulpage htn!2seccheatthéres-9F 00 €081639F 930A25750C 0AS60958260 As for the accusation that | ignored Rabast’s unpublished studies — you bet | did, but not because they didn’t support my contentions, as Eades has maliciously claimed. | simply refuse to cite unpublished and unsubstantiated “research” when there is plenty of published, peer-reviewed evidence to cite. If Rabast’s other studies were of even remotely decent quality, why weren't they peer-reviewed and published? Gee, am | also supposed to include the dubious anecdotal reports by fanatical MAD devotees on Internet forums, or the totally unsubstantiated claims about their patients made by low-carb diet doctors (hucksters) in their infomercial-like books? Forget it - | use the same standard employed by all serious and ethical researchers; the evidence | cite must be published and peer reviewed. Unsubstantiated claims of highly questionable quality simply don't cut it. Eades and his MAD cohorts are happy to use such evidence, because that's all they've got. Tightly controlled, peer reviewed research repeatedly shows their claims to be utter garbage. Eades is happy to cite unpublished work of dubious quality, but he completely ignores the twenty-three other studies cited in Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible. Eades accuses me of selectively citing evidence, but lets see how he deals with evidence from metabolic ward studies that show MAD to be a complete crock: Keeton, Bone 1935 -- no mention Werner 1955 -- no mention Olesen, Quaade 1960 -- no mention Kinsell et al 1963 -- no mention Krehl et al 1967 -- no mention Bortz et al 1967 -- no mentionBortz et al 1968 -- no mention Grey, Kipnis 1971 -- no mention Grey, Kipnis 1971 -- no mention Rabast et al 1979 -- mentions, but doesn't tell the full story Rabast et al 1979 -- mentions, but doesn't tell the full story Rabast et al 1981 -- mentions, but doesn't tell the full story Yang et al 1981 -- no mention Bogardus et al 1981 -- no mention Hoffer et al 1984 -- no mention Baggio et al 1988 -- no mention Brinton et al 1990 -- no mention Leibel et al 1992 -- no mention Vazquez, Adibi 1992 -- no mention Vazquez, Kazi 1994 -- no mention Vazquez et al 1995 -- no mention Piatti et al 1994 -- no mention Golay et al 1996 -- no mention Miyashita et al 2004 -- no mention Stimson et al 2007 -- no mention Gately et al 2007 — no mention If You Can’t Provide Supportive Evidence, Create Unwarranted Doubt About the Non-Supportive Evidence There's no doubt about it - Eades would be right at home in the murky world of politics. He possesses all the necessary traits: An ingrained habit of launching personal attacks when unable to persuade with actual facts about the topic being discussed; A rabid determination to divert attention away from his own untenable and self-contradictory claims by casting aspersions on the opposing party; The ability to claim one thing, and then turn around and claim the exact opposite, without batting an eyelid; The ability to maintain a pompous, pious, holier-than-thou attitude and to incessantly boast about his superior civil andmoral traits — all the while acting like a hostile, mud-slinging, truth-twisting boor; + The ability to appeal to the stupid and gullible. If demand for hyperbolic and BS-laden diet books ever dries up, I'd strongly recommend Eades consider a career in Washington. In the meantime, let’s take a closer look at Eades’ claim that metabolic ward studies cannot be trusted. Eades once again claims that metabolic ward studies are rife with cheating, and claims that rampant cheating occurred in one of the ward studies | cite. He does not provide evidence to back his claim — in fact, he doesn’t even cite the study in question. Eades and his followers, despite their fanatical rantings about the existence of MAD, have absolutely no evidence from tightly controlled trials of its existence. There does not exist a single study showing greater weight losses on an isocaloric low-carb diet where water/lean/glycogen losses can be excluded and where isocaloric intakes were assured. Not one. Eades knows full well that he simply cannot win this dispute by citing tightly controlled human evidence that shows the existence of MAD — there is none. So his only hope is to attempt to discredit the abundance of tightly controlled evidence showing MAD to be a complete load of bollocks. Hence the fallacious claim that metabolic ward studies cannot be trusted because they are routinely marred by unbridled cheating. | have no doubt that the quality of control in metabolic ward studies varies from one group of researchers to another. And | have little doubt that instances of cheating have occurred in some metabolic ward studies, but to claim they were all rife with cheating is yet another shameless distortion of the facts. As an example, take a look at the level of control exhibited by Krehl et al during their metabolic ward study:"Prior to admission, all the patients were carefully screened for their interest and motivation for continued participation in the study and they were fully informed concerning the demanding schedules of diet, exercise, and the limitations of freedom imposed by a strict metabolic ward schedule." "No patient was permitted to leave the Clinical Research Center area without an escort, and all were under the continued surveillance of our staff. A schedule of occupational therapy was provided in the form of “hobby activities.” The patients tolerated this restrictive and tightly controlled regimen with no more than a healthy amount of grumbling, and patient cooperation on the whole was splendid." Krehl and his team found no difference in weight loss among diets of differing macronutrient composition. Consider also the tight controls maintained by Gately et al (personal communication via email) during their comparison of lower- and higher-protein diets: “There was very very minimal chance for children to consume food other than that prescribed. We do not run a prison so there is always a chance but with our high staff to pupil ratio, all children being observed during meal time, no shops locally, all vending machines emptied, and all packages opened in a communal area the chances are minimal. Parental visits do occur but again all parents are informed of the need to maintain the dietary programme and their frequency is unlikely to have an impact.” Gately and his team found no difference in weight loss among diets of differing macronutrient composition. Eades does his darndest to discredit metabolic ward studies, but they are unquestionably of far higher quality than the totally uncontrolled free-living studies he claims “demonstrate” the existence of MAD. | challenge Eades and his MAD compatriots to present me with one — just one, not two-dozen, but just one single study as rigorously controlled as the Krehl and Gately trials, that demonstrates the existence of a weight loss metabolic advantage.Don't all jump at once now... C’mon guys...just one study...pleeeaaase... Hmmm, looks like we'll be waiting a while... Eades Has Truly Lost It I'm seriously starting to wonder whether Eades is schizophrenic. He does all he can to discredit the reliability of metabolic ward studies, but in the same breath he enthusiastically claims that the Rabast metabolic ward studies offer “robust” evidence of MAD!! Eades also cites the theoretical musings of Feinman and Fine ad naseum in support of MAD - but Feinman and Fine themselves cite the infamous Kekwik and Pawan study in support of MAD. This was a very short duration metabolic ward study that was rife with cheating (Kekwik and Pawan themselves reported rampant cheating)! So which is it Doc? Either ward studies are acceptable evidence, or they're not! Either Eades’ political instincts are manifesting themselves again, or maybe he needs to up his dosage of lithium and thorazine. Either way, he has a massive consistency problem. Update! Sepbewber 24. 2009. It's been over a year since the last update, and over 18 months since Eades failed to meet my $20,000 challenge. Not a whole lot has happened since then — MAD remains a sham, for there still does not exist a single tightly controlled study showing a fat-derived metabolic advantage for low-carbohydrate diets in human beings. | must say | am delighted to note that when the metabolic issue is being discussed nowadays, more and more people are demanding evidence from tightly controlled ward studies. As we know, such evidence is non-existent, forcing the MAD believers to fall back on all manner of illogical, irrelevant, and often patently false arguments tosupport their claims. To the astute observer, such shenanigans merely act as a red flag indicating a complete lack of valid scientific evidence for MAD. As for Eades, just when | start to forget the MAD doctor even exists, someone tells me about the latest little anti-Colpo snipe he has made over at his Protein Power blog. It seems the not-so-good doctor is still smarting after our confrontation and just can't refrain from taking the occasional, albeit low-key, potshot. In all seriousness, | think it's high time Eades sought counseling. His fragile sense of self was clearly rocked by my correspondence and evidently still hasn't recovered. | could understand his anger if he was a nice guy who never picked on anybody, but when he readily acts like an uncouth boor towards others, then the he has little right to complain when he himself is on the receiving end of vigorous criticism. | won't harp on any more about Eades’ untenable MAD beliefs, a subject that has already been given an extensive airing. What | will do is point out the very valuable lesson to be learned from Eades’ behavior; hubris is a most unbecoming phenomenon, and one should make every effort to avoid falling under its spell. Eade’s experience provides a most instructive lesson on why you should not take yourself too seriously and become high on your own self-importance. So folks, in order to help you benefit and learn from Eade’s mistakes, here’s a play-by-play replay of The Great EHE (Eades Hubris Episode). The Great EHE Replay --Circa mid 1990s: Doctor and his wife presiding over small, non- descript mid-Western medical practice try the Atkins Diet and like it. They then experience promising results using the diet with some of their patients. They shrewdly see an opportunity in the low-carb craze and set about re-writing the best-selling Atkins New Diet Revolution. They take the basic precept of the diet (do an extremely low-carb 2- week induction phase to kickstart ketosis and a "metabolic advantage", then incrementally increase carb intake so long asweight loss continues bla blah blah) but add a whole lot of rabble about the evils of insulin. They name their book Protein Power. --10 years earlier or later, the book wouldn't have attracted a second glance from publishers. But when a book like Atkins New Diet Revolution comes along and becomes a best-selling ‘sensation’, publishers scramble to capitalize on the new craze and get their own versions out on the market ASAP before the mania dies out. All sorts of rubbish that would not normally get published suddenly appears on the shelves of your local Borders. As such, Protein Poweris picked up by a major publisher. --Thanks to a gullible public's insatiable appetite for anything and everything to do with the latest hot fad, Protein Power becomes a best seller. --Aging male co-author, who previously endured a rather non-eventful and boring mid-Western life, is now known by people the world over. People from all over the planet are sending him letters and emails telling him how utterly wonderful he and his book are. Obese readers the world over are absolutely ecstatic that Protein Power has allowed them to shed 3kg of water and reduce their waist measurement from 43" to 42". The lavish praise for such Earth-shattering physical transformations continues for quite some time. --Aging male co-author of average looks and intelligence suddenly starts to feel very special. People keep telling him what a genius he is, and he actually starts to believe it. He mistakes the shrewdness and luck involved in capitalizing on a hot craze for medical and scientific virtuosity. Male co-author starts to believe in his own mind that he is a truly groundbreaking innovator and scientific guru. --Not everyone agrees, however. One day a researcher named George Blackburn is quoted in a major US newspaper as saying that diet authors like male co-author can make untenable claims; claims that while legal under the First Amendment are of questionable ethical standing. Blackburn may not have a clue when it comes to dietary supplements, but after observing numerous of male co- author's absurd and untenable claims, | can't help but agree that the latter’s ethics are indeed of a questionable nature. Male co-author,however, is not amused and develops a deep grudge against Blackburn, who he comes to regard as the most evil, vile creature on the planet. --Male co-author, who once acted in a relatively non-wanker fashion, now starts developing something of an attitude. Hubris sets in and male co-author displays a sneering, dismissive attitude to people who disagree with him. How dare these people not recognize him for the ever-flowing fountain of dietary knowledge and enlightenment that he is? How dare these people not recognize his heroic efforts to save the world from the heinous villain insulin? Bastards! --Male author's arrogant and intolerant attitude has a rather schizophrenic air about it. For example, while male co-author eventually claims to disbelieve the cholesterol theory, he boasts of his friendship with a 'Paleolithic' researcher who vigorously promotes said theory. But when a couple of female academics present a relatively innocuous pro-high carbohydrate diet presentation at a Texas nutrition conference, male co-author goes bonkers. Their presentation is rather inconsequential and non-hostile, and receives little attention from the mainstream media, but male co-author is incensed and unleashes a barrel of online whoop-ass. According to the omnipotent one, these exercise physiologists are "idiots" and their material is "breathtakingly stupid". While some of their material is indeed of highly questionable validity, some of it is perfectly correct (eg, the need for carbohydrates immediately following strenuous exercise). The presentation in no way warrants this online blitzkrieg, but male co-author - who by this point has now become exceedingly full of himself - just can't hold back. In his online orgy of ridicule, he further dismisses the academic status of these two researchers and instead condescendingly refers to them as "chicks". How dare these two horrid floozies support high-carb diets and not recognize the universal superiority of low-carb diets, such as the one described in his wonderful tome Protein Power? Ah, so many idiots, so little time... --Male co-author continues cruising blissfully through life, high on hisown publicity and the lavish praise from adoring, unquestioning readers of his blog. --Then one day, something happens that completely rocks male co- author's world - and not in a good way. Male co-author, who has now become so arrogant and conceited that he believes he can post any old tripe and have it accepted by legions of adoring ninkumpoops, posts a cherry-picked comparison of low- and high-carb diets. This shamelessly biased comparison is used to support the claim for a "metabolic advantage" of low-carb diets, a claim that has been repeatedly disproved by tightly controlled, non-cherry picked studies dating back as far as the 1930s. Male co-author concludes this blatantly biased rant by pronouncing that anyone who thinks weight loss is all about calories is a "fool". Science shows conclusively that weight loss is indeed all about calories, but male co-author has transcended such silly little absurdities as non-complimentary scientific data. His own theories are so awesomely outstanding that they rise above the pathetically mortal need for scientific validation. Male co-author does not partake in such feeble Earthly pursuits as objectively analyzing scientific evidence in its entirety. He knows he's right, and doesn't need a bunch of tossers in white coats to confirm his omnipotence. The only evidence he needs is that which appears to support what he believes; non-contradictory evidence is simply not worthy of consideration. If it doesn't confirm what male co-author wishes to believe, then it simply must be wrong. In male co-author's world, the new gold standard of validity has become, not what tightly controlled science concludes, but which data can be used to support the conclusion he has already formed. Male co-author loves to ridicule other authors for their lack of scientific impartiality, but in reality he has become every bit as biased and one-eyed. His method of assessing evidence for a metabolic advantage can pretty much be summed up as follows: Bad research: That which contradicts his chosen metabolic advantage beliefs, no matter how tightly controlled.Good research: That which supports his chosen metabolic advantage beliefs, no matter how shabby and poorly controlled. Male co-author's arrogance doesn't end with pronouncing those with a realistic, science-backed view of the weight loss process as "fools". When one of his blog readers asks male co-author about an Australian researcher who strongly disputes the metabolic advantage theory, male co-author states Australian researcher is "wrong". Australian researcher reads all this, and is rather appalled. At any other time, Australian researcher would simply shake his head, mumble something like "So many wankers, so little time", turn off his computer and go for a ride or hang with his buddies. But Australian researcher has just endured a couple of years of continuous virulent abuse from the motley assortment of oddballs that comprise the online ‘low-carb community. Aussie researcher's sin? To state the simple fact that fat-derived weight loss is a function of creating a calorie deficit, and that there is no such thing as a metabolic advantage. Aussie researcher, unlike male co-author, has retrieved decades’ worth of tightly controlled studies to back his claims, and has repeatedly challenged anyone who can prove otherwise to step up and do so (in fact, in early 2007, Australian researcher was so fed up with the abuse that he challenged male co- author and any other willing parties to provide tightly controlled evidence confirming a metabolic advantage for low-carb diets. Despite a $20,000 bounty for their favorite charity, neither male co- author nor anyone else even attempted to meet the challenge. The reason? There does not exist a single tightly controlled study showing a fat-derived weight loss advantage for low-carb diets. The metabolic advantage is and always has been a sham). Australian researcher, who has only ever posted the facts as he sees them, has started to tire of all the abuse and accusations of dishonesty. He has even attracted an online stalker for his efforts, despite having done nothing wrong except to make scientifically- backed statements that dispute what the insecure and overly sensitive low-carb ‘community’ wishes to believe.Australian researcher, fed up with all the bullshit, decides to give male co-author a taste of his own medicine. Australian author posts an open letter to male co-author, asking why he felt the need to post such a ridiculously biased and misleading comparison. Australian author challenges male co-author to present data from tightly controlled ward studies, not cherry-picked nonsense, to back his outlandish claims. Australian researcher, not one known for his subtle and timid manner, states his case and challenge in very forthright terms. His open letter attracts much attention and angst in the low-carb ‘community’. Some of the less compliant members of this community actually begin questioning male co-author's omnipotent status. --Male co-author is shaken to his core. Despite his willingness to vigorously attack others, he is completely unprepared to receive similar treatment himself. Cracks start to appear in his facade. His family are worried and publicly urge him to be careful. He starts getting irritable with readers who ask him about the Australian researcher's letter. Whereas he once enjoyed nothing but unquestioning praise, some of his blog readers are now displaying the temerity to question him. Despite his growing anger at being publicly challenged, male co- author at first attempts to ignore Australian researcher. But the heat becomes too intense and male co-author launches his first attempt at a defensive strike. It is a course of action he soon comes to regret. Looking back, male co-author realizes that if he had kept his ego and his acid tongue in check, the whole thing would have quickly blown over. Australian researcher would have dismissed male co-author as all hype and no substance, and moved on. Male co-author could have then continued preaching his metabolic advantage claims to his blissfully ignorant blog readers, many of whom who were impervious to contradictory evidence anyhow. But male co-author's sense of reason is blinded by his anger. George Blackburn is no longer the most evil, vile creature on the planet; that award now goes to Australian researcher, and male co-author must alert the world. Male co-author makes repeated attempts to discreditAustralian researcher, but to his dismay, Australian researcher easily demolishes every such attempt. Male co-author becomes increasingly frustrated and begins to contradict himself, a common outcome when one does not tell the truth. Australian researcher, however, does not need to contradict himself, change his story, or cite irrelevant evidence. He has done his homework, is intimately familiar with the research, and just keeps confidently emphasizing the same point over and over: There is no tightly controlled evidence confirming a fat-derived weight loss advantage (the so-called “metabolic advantage’) for low-carb diets, and plenty of evidence disputing it. All the available evidence confirms that any greater fat loss obtained from low-carb diets occurs purely through greater caloric reductions via greater satiation. Australian researcher keeps repeating this point over and over, and challenges anyone with actual evidence to the contrary to step up, culminating in his famous $20,000 challenge. Neither male co-author nor his followers can meet the challenge, something that angers them greatly, most of all male co-author. Male co-author, realizing he can't nail Australian researcher with scientific facts, decides instead on a slander campaign. He writes an article claiming Australian researcher is insane, calls him an endless string of derogatory names, and even posts a Youtube video featuring a rather piss-poor comedy sketch about steroid-abusing bodybuilders, the inference being that Australian researcher was a ‘roid-raging lunatic. Australian researcher does not use steroids, and is happy to undergo urine/blood testing at the accuser's expense plus AU $500.00 for being forced to blow a morning proving what he can tell everyone for free. Male co-author also repeatedly brags about his "merit badges", and takes every opportunity to remind his readers that his web site has more readers than Australian researcher's website, as if this is somehow a marker for scientific validity. When all this fails, male co-author sinks to a desperate new low, and privately emails Australian researcher. In his email, male co-author attempts to convince Australian researcher that "/ like you and trust you", in spite of the barrage of abusive terms male co-author had used to denigrate Australian researcher. Australian researcher is no dummy, however; he has been around long enough to know whensomeone is trying to diddle him. And sure enough, male co-author then reveals his true purpose for writing. He is attempting to placate Australian researcher by claiming he will offer assistance in getting a book deal for his books The Great Cholesterol Con and even The Fat Loss Bible, the latter of which male co-author had vigorously criticized. Australian researcher is evidently expected to believe that male co-author, who has publicly and virulently ridiculed him and his book, in fact likes him and trusts him and wants to help his book - which contains some rather unflattering assertions about male co- author and his tome Protein Power - become published and reach an ever wider audience. Yeah, no worries Doc... The real cracker comes when male co-author urges Australian researcher to hide the fact that male co-author has emailed him. Male co-author suggests, in all seriousness, that they continue to email in private but refrain from informing their readers. Male co-author may not value his readers enough to be honest and transparent with them, but Australian researcher will not even contemplate deceiving his own readers in such a manner. He promptly publishes the full email exchange between male co-author and himself, much to the dismay of male co-author. Male co-author then confirms his true colours by posting a long- winded rant in which he desperately attempts to portray Australian researcher as "a man obsessed". Male co-author's hubris and arrogance have reached such a ridiculous extent that he labels this deluded essay as the "disciplinary post" for Australian researcher's alleged wrongdoings. Male co-author's lavish self-congratulation is to be short-lived, however. Australian researcher authors a lengthy and most unflattering rebuttal to male co-author's claims, one that is well- received by readers around the world: http://anthonycolpo.com/Eades_Admi sh tmi?111 Male co-author just didn't get it; when bullshit comes up against the truth, the latter will win out every time - at least in the eyes and mindsof intelligent people. Fortunately for male co-author, a large portion of the human race are not especially intelligent, and the majority of his blog readers clearly fall into this category. Given his extremely fragile ego and constant need for emulation, male co-author would be best avoiding confrontations with honest, ethical researchers and focusing on telling his gullible faithful readers just what they want to hear. Male co-author appears to have recognized this, at least on a subconscious level. His campaign, a desperate attempt to damage Australian researcher's reputation and drive, didn't work. After all, Australian researcher isn't some precious little diet guru from the US who needs a constant diet of adulation and praise in order to prop up his fragile ego. And most people, with the notable exception of male co-author's small army of blind followers, could see through his behavior. Male co-author, so typical of the deluded, greatly overestimated his popularity and power. In fact, not long after Australian researcher's reply to male co-author's laughable "man obsessed" rant, Australian researcher was awarded his very first publishing contract. Male co-author's fruitless attacks on Australian researcher have now diminished to the occasional snipe on his blog. Male co-author really needs to get over it and forget Australian researcher ever existed, but he has begun getting a sinking feeling, an unpleasant realization that his severely bruised ego may never recover, and he just can't help himself from taking the occasional, albeit low-key, jab at Australian researcher. After years of having to deal with socially and mentally stunted oddballs who spend far too much time on the Internet, Australian researcher has started developing a thick skin and isn't too bothered by male co-author's feeble remarks. Instead, he expresses concern for male co-author's mental health and recommends male co-author seek competent psychological/psychiatric counsel as soon as possible. What You Can Learn from The Great EHE --Hold the facts, rather than dogma, as your ultimate standard. Don't become blindly wedded to any one dogma, because you will findyourself performing all manner of mental gymnastics and self-deceit in order to keep it propped up in your mind. At the end of the day, your primary concern when it comes to health and nutrition is what keeps you healthiest, fittest and works best in optimizing your body composition and achieving your athletic goals if you have any. Low- carb diets, for example, are fine for sedentary and moderately active people; they are useless for athletes in glycogen-depleting sports. A dogmatist refuses to accept this and quotes all manner of nonsense about fat adaptation to make his diets seem suitable for athletes. He ignores the mountain of scientific evidence showing that low-carb diets cause deterioration of athletic performance, and he ignores the fact that high-level athletes avoid these diets like the plague for just that reason. If you place results above religious-like adherence to dogma, then...don't be a dogmatist. --Don't take yourself too seriously, and don't become high on your own self-importance. And just because a bunch of people on the Internet think you are God, doesn't mean you really are. Many people, and I'm not just talking about star-struck teenagers, seem to have an inbuilt need for someone to look up to and admire; if they choose you to fulfill this need, don't mistake it as actual confirmation of superhuman status. This year it's you, next year it'll probably be some football player or pop singer. If you do take such shenanigans seriously, you might end up a grumpy old man/woman who sadly reminisces about the old glory days, the days when everyone used to worship you and kiss your butt, the days before your wall of self- delusion was unceremoniously shattered by some young upstart who was sick and tired of copping abuse from your screwball followers. Reality has a way of biting you in the ass just when you've convinced yourself your poop doesn't pong. --Don't be a hypocrite. Anyone who behaves like an arrogant, sneering, misogynistic twat, then turns around and - in all seriousness - publicly proclaims that he is a wonderful upstanding citizen who always tries to be civil, polite and courteous in his dealings with others is a world-class tosser. Get over yourself and stop it, before you go blind.Chapter 3 Gary Taubes Good Science, Bad Science, and Utter Nonsense As | write this in November 2007, the current darling of talk shows and newspaper “health” sections is Gary Taubes, who recently released a best-selling book titled Good Calories, Bad Calories. The vast attention given to Taubes and his book further highlights the extremely low standard of dietary advice accepted by the media and general public. Gary Taubes is a science journalist who specializes in articles that supposedly expose shoddy scientific practices. Taubes is probably best known for his controversial article What ff it's all been a big FAT lie? which appeared in the New York Times Magazine in July 2002[43]. Soon after the article was published, Taubes scored a book deal that reportedly included a $700,000 advance. The end result, released in September 2007, was Good Calories, Bad Calories. Like Eades (who, not surprisingly, enthusiastically endorses Good Calories, Bad Calories), Taubes jumps on the insulin bandwagon and claims that this hormone, via a high-carbohydrate diet, is the true cause of weight gain. Forget calories; according to Taubes, the true cause of the obesity epidemic is carbohydrates. Here we go again...For the record, USDA food intake data shows that the average per capita intake of carbohydrates in 1909 was 501 grams; in 2000, it was 493 grams[44]. To the best of my knowledge, there was no obesity ‘epidemic’ in 1909. Carbohydrate consumption cannot explain the increase in overweight that has occurred over the last century. Let's take a look at what does explain this increase. In 1909, the average daily caloric intake was 3,500. In, 2000, it was 3,900[44]. In 1910, over half the U.S. population lived in rural areas and farmers comprised 31% - almost a third - of the workforce[45]. In 2000, 33.6% of the workforce (16 and older) worked in management, professional and related occupations, followed by 26.7% in sales and office occupations, 14.9 % in service occupations, 14.6% in production, transportation and material moving occupations, 9.4% in construction, extraction and maintenance occupations, and only 0.7% in farming, fishing and forestry occupations[46]. In other words, the average worker in 1909 was physically active; the average worker today spends most of his/her day seated or engaged in very light activity, with occasional breaks to shuffle his/her fat sedentary butt over to the food vending machine. Industry (and domestic life) has become increasingly mechanized, automated, and sedentarized over the last century. Even children and adolescents, who once spent most of their leisure time outdoors, are now spending increasing amounts of time sitting indoors mesmerized by televisions, computers, and Playstations. The average person is eating more calories, and expending less of them through physical activity — a classic textbook scenario for facilitating weight gain. But according to Taubes, this has nothing to do with ever-growing obesity rates. In an interview with journalist Howard Cohen titled “Author says cutting out carbs is all one need do to lose weight”, Taubes claimed that “...overeating and sedentary behavior are not the causes of obesity.'[47] It’s the insulin you see...It Gets Worse Along with attempting to revive the disproved insulin myth, Taubes drops a new bombshell. According to Taubes, all of us who regularly exercise in an effort to stay lean are wasting our time. Yep, you heard right! According to Taubes, "exercise does not lead to weight loss”(47] In the Cohen interview, and in a September 2007 New York Magazine article[48], Taubes is adamant about the alleged inability of exercise to induce weight loss. According to the author, exercise merely increases one’s appetite, which negates any possibility of fat loss. What if Taubes is suffering a big FAT delusion? | suspect Taubes has become so addicted to the role of ‘myth buster’, so enamored with the role of debunker, so addicted to chasing the high that comes from being a famous dissenter, that he has blinded himself to scientific reality. To flatly state that exercise does not lead to weight loss is downright absurd. If Taubes had instead said "exercise will not lead to weight Joss if you fail to establish a calorie deficit", then he would have been absolutely correct. The reason studies examining the effect of exercise on weight loss have returned mixed results is because many of these studies made absolutely no attempt to ensure a calorie deficit. If you give someone a routine that causes them to burn an extra 1,000 calories per week, but they are still eating 2,000 calories above their maintenance level, then they are not going to lose weight. This is hardly rocket science. Studies repeatedly show that when exercise is employed in a manner that creates or exacerbates a calorie deficit, it does indeed cause/accelerate weight loss. Of course, Taubes appears to be stuck in some kind of Atkins/Eadesian Dark Age, where people believe that carbohydrates are the real cause of obesity regardless of calorie intake/expenditure.When exercise is tested under tightly controlled metabolic ward conditions where a calorie deficit can be verified, the results clearly show it enhances weight loss. Take for example, a study by USDA researchers involving overweight women utilizing diet plus exercise or diet only. At the beginning of the study, the women were subjected to a 2-week weight stabilization period where they were fed just enough calories to maintain their weight. The researchers then divided the women into 2 groups. One group kept eating their ‘maintenance’ diet for 12 weeks and performed treadmill exercise 6-days a week. The second group performed the same exercise routine, but also had their calorie intake slashed in half for the duration of the 12-week period. At the conclusion of the study, the group that added exercise to their maintenance-calorie diet lost an average 0.5 kilograms per week. The women who utilized exercise and calorie-restriction lost an average 1.1 kilograms per week[49]. This study and several others discussed in Chapter 13 of The Fat Loss Bible highlight the sheer fallacy of Taubes' claims. His assertion that exercise does not cause weight loss is patently false. Working Up An Appetite For Nonsense On Larry King Live, Taubes told America: "/f you asked somebody 50 years ago what the result was of going for a long hike or a run or playing 18 holes of golf or a couple of sets of tennis, they would have said you work up an appetite. "[50] Instead of appealing to the ghosts of yesteryear for insight into the effect of exercise on appetite, Taubes would have been better served examining a broad review of the evidence by C. Alan Titchenal, from the University of California, Davis. Titchenal found that: “Energy intake in humans is generally increased or unchanged in response to exercise. When energy intake increases in response to exercise it is usually below energy expenditure, resulting in negative energy balance and loss of bodyweight and fat. Thus, if energy intake is expressed relative to energy expenditure, appetite is usually reduced by exercise.Highly trained athletes and lean individuals usually increase energy intake in response to increased levels of exercise, whereas untrained or obese individuals often do not change energy intake in response to increased physical activity... When regular participation in exercise is stopped, energy intake may be reduced in humans. This reduction, however, is not enough to prevent positive energy balance and regain of bodyweight and fat previously lost during exercise training’.[51] ‘So even if people do increase their caloric intake in response to exercise, it will often be to a level that is below their overall caloric expenditure. Of course there are exceptions. Many of us can think of at least one person we've met who was physically active, yet still carried excess chub around their waist. The reason for this is no big mystery. Despite their active lifestyle, these people were still taking in more calories than they were burning off. What this means is that - instead of pronouncing exercise useless for losing weight - you must factor the calorie burn from exercise into your overall daily calorie burn. That is, you need to make sure that your exercise regimen is causing or contributing to a calorie deficit of sufficient magnitude to induce weight loss. Section 2 of The Fat Loss Bible explains exactly how to do this. It’s an approach that employs common sense - a quality that is regrettably rare among high-profile diet ‘experts’. One of the other guests that appeared alongside Taubes on Larry King Live was Jillian Michaels, the famous trainer from The Biggest Loser. After listening to Taubes’ bizarre theories on exercise and appetite, Michaels said “Gary, if you can show me -- Gary, if you can show me one person you have taken 100 pounds off, then maybe we can apply your theory.” Taubes was unable to cite one single such case, which was hardly surprising. Taubes’ beliefs can only be held by someone who has absolutely no meaningful hands-on experience in training people. Unlike Michaels - who has demonstrated the effectiveness of diet andexercise for the world to see - | suspect Taubes has never trained a single person in his life. And that’s one of the major problems with the MAD promoters. They seem to have little-to-no practical experience in physically training people and a sadly deficient knowledge of the relevant science. Instead, they are pre-occupied with novel but scientifically untenable theories about diet, training and weight loss. As a result, we have best-selling authors who, with straight faces, tell the world that carbohydrates and not calories cause weight gain and that exercise is useless for fat loss, who give weight loss advice relevant only to rodents and advise athletes not to take carbs after training, a piece of ‘wisdom’ almost guaranteed to impair the training progress of any serious exerciser. What a big FAT load of bollocks.Conclusion Currently, the leading promoters of MAD include: « A research duo (Richard Feinman and Eugene Fine) that largely ignores metabolic ward studies and selectively cites a ‘small portion of studies, most yielding non-significant differences, in support of the metabolic advantage theory. In the process, they ignore the numerous studies returning small but non-significant results in favor of high-carb diets! A best-selling diet book author (Michael Eades) who earnestly believes that free-living studies are more reliable than metabolic ward studies, who thinks it’s perfectly OK to mix and match results from totally dissimilar studies in order to support his preconceived conclusions, and who gives weight loss advice to humans that is valid only for rodents. A journalist-come-diet ‘expert’ (Gary Taubes) who — contrary to the scientific evidence - claims that carbohydrates, not calories, cause weight gain and that exercise does not assist weight loss! This, ladies and gentleman, is the current abysmally low standard of scientific commentary that characterizes the upper echelons of the metabolic advantage movement. One could almost be forgiven for thinking these ‘gurus’ were engaged in a frenzied race to the bottom, each competing with the other to see who can invent the most ludicrous justifications for MAD. Alas, these individuals aren't joking; the disturbing reality is that these folks seem to actually believe their own musings. They Get By With a Little Help From Their Friends Before closing this discussion, | would be remiss not to give a special mention to the legions of fanatical followers of MAD. These folks play just as important a role as folks like Feinman and Fine, Eades, and Taubes. After all, if they opened their minds a little and demanded a much higher standard of evidence for MAD than they currently do, theaforementioned ‘experts’ would find themselves with a rapidly shrinking audience. MAD survives because people insist on being gullible enough to believe it. Even after thoroughly destroying every possible defense of MAD, | still occasionally hear from someone who adamantly insists they can eat more calories on a low-carb diet and lose more weight than when following a lower-calorie high-carbohydrate diet. The scientific literature may not support the existence of a metabolic advantage, but these individuals nevertheless “know” that low-carb diets cause greater weight loss at isocaloric and even higher (!) calorie intakes. When | ask these individuals to send me the data from their local metabolic ward confirming this astounding discovery, they reveal that they never were confined to such a ward. Nope, they themselves worked out their daily caloric intake, usually using the Fitday website. It should go without saying, but online nutrient calculators are a great tool for estimating your daily calorie intake, but they are in no way to be used as concrete statements of the amount of calories one is eating. The potential for user error is wide. That's why | stress in The Fat Loss Bible that online calorie calculations are estimates and may require a little fine-tuning. There is simply no way I'm going to take the totally unverifiable claims of some (usually anonymous) web devotee of Atkins/Eades/et al and give them credence over tightly controlled metabolic ward data. One of the major reasons we have controlled clinical trials is to verify anecdotal claims. When a bunch of folks adamantly insist they lose more weight on an isocaloric low-carb diet, there is no way for the rest of us to know whether or not they are mistaken, lying, or just plain crazy. That's why researchers put such claims to the test with tightly controlled clinical studies. By randomizing subjects to different diets, and ensuring as much as physically possible that they eat their assigned isocaloric diets, we can see whether the claim is true. After several decades of such trials, the answer is clear: there is no metabolic advantage. The MAD believers respond to this evidence by simply pushing theirheads deeper into the sand and attempting to fall back on the totally unverifiable claims that controlled research has already destroyed! As Robert Todd Carroll notes: "For many people, the will to believe at times overrides the ability to think critically about the evidence for and against a belief....Since by definition those suffering from true-believer syndrome are irrationally committed to their beliefs, there is no point in arguing with them. Evidence and logical argument mean nothing to them. Such people are incapable of being persuaded by evidence and argument that their notions are in error."{52] "One possible explanation for true-believer syndrome is that the belief satisfies an emotional need that is stronger than the need for the truth. Why some people have such a strong emotional need to believe in something that rational people recognize as false is perhaps unanswerable, but it is the way some people deal with cognitive dissonance. "[53) This abdication of reason is exactly the kind that allows charismatic ‘gurus’ to cajole their followers into all manner of bizarre behavior (cyanide-laced Kool Aid anyone?). All around the world, people routinely pee on Ketostix, cut carbs to the point where they feel dizzy and their breath stinks, eat exorbitantly-priced low-carb foods whose labels sport misleading ‘net carb’ claims, and give themselves ‘paralysis analysis’ by needlessly fretting over grams of digestible fiber and ‘net’ carbs (but not calories). Of course, none of this tomfoolery even begins to address the real requirements of safe, successful and lasting weight loss. Whether hyped by popular diet book authors who make millions convincing people they can evade the laws of nature, ‘experienced’ researchers who publish extravagant presentations based on selectively-cited research, or ignorant MAD believers who refuse to consider that their cherished dogma may be wrong, the end result is the same: Calories are king! MAD is simply an exercise in wishful thinking. If you want to get lean, you are going to have to move beyond the fantasy-based musings ofignorant dogmatists and employ the time-proven modalities that science has already demonstrated to cause safe fat loss: namely, sensible calorie restriction and intelligently organized exercise.Abeuts Che AuGher Anthony Colpo is an independent researcher, physical conditioning specialist, and author of the groundbreaking books The Fat Loss Bible and The Great Cholesterol Con. Since 1991, he has been helping people from all walks of life get in the best shape of their lives. Anthony has earned a reputation as an exacting, no-holds-barred commentator with a talent for explaining research findings in a manner readily understandable to the layperson. Anthony is also the guy that unscrupulous diet ‘gurus’ and shoddy scientists love to hate. He has a knack for dissecting untenable diet and health claims and exposing, with unrepentant and unassailable logic, the absurdity of such claims. For more information on Anthony's acclaimed books, visit the following web sites: The Fat Loss Bible http:/Avww.thefatlossbible.net/ The Great Cholesterol Con http:/Avww.thegreatcholesterolcon.com/Nn e a 2 © fveferences . Atkins RC. Dr. Atkins’ New Diet Revolution, Avon Books, 2002, New York, NY: Page 18. . Feinman RD, Eugene J. Fine. Thermodynamics and Metabolic Advantage of Weight Loss Diets. Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders, 2003; 1 (3): 209-219. . Fine EJ, Feinman RD. Thermodynamics of weight loss diets. Nutrition & Metabolism, Dec 8, 2004; 1 (1): 15. . Feinman RD, Fine EJ. Whatever happened to the second law of thermodynamics? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Nov, 2004; 80 (5): 1445-1446. . Feinman RD, Fine EJ. "A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics. Nutrition Journal, Jul 28, 2004; 3:9. . Feinman RD, Fine EJ. Nonequilibrium thermodynamics and energy efficiency in weight loss diets. Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Jul, 2007; 30; 4: 27. . Yang MU, et al. Metabolic effects of substituting carbohydrate for protein in a low-calorie diet: a prolonged study in obese patients. /nternational Journal of Obesity, 1981; 5 (3): 231-236. . Rumpler WV, et al. Energy-intake restriction and diet- composition effects on energy expenditure in men. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Feb, 1991; 53 (2): 430-436. . Johnston CS, et al. Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, May, 2006; 83 (5): 1055-1061.10. Johnston CS, et al. High-protein, low-fat diets are effective for weight loss and favorably alter biomarkers in healthy adults. Journal of Nutrition, Mar, 2004; 134 (3): 586- 591. 11. Torbay N, et al. High protein vs high carbohydrate hypoenergetic diet in treatment of obese normoinsulinemic and hyperinsulinemic subjects. Nutrition Research, May 2002; 22 (8): 587-598. 12. Meckling KA, et al. Comparison of a low-fat diet to a low- carbohydrate diet on weight loss, body composition, and risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease in free-living, overweight men and women. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Jun, 2004; 89 (6): 2717-2723. 13. Petersen M, et al. Randomized, multi-center trial of two hypo-energetic diets in obese subjects: high- versus low-fat content. /nternational Journal of Obesity, Mar, 2006; 30 (3): 552-560. 14. Email from Richard D. Feinman to author, Nov 26, 2005. 15. Eades MR, Eades MD. Protein Power: The High- Protein/Low Carbohydrate Way to Lose Weight, Feel Fit, and Boost Your Health-in Just Weeks! Bantam Books, New York, NY, June 1999: 302. 16. Grey N, Kipnis DM. Effect of diet composition on the hyperinsulinemia of obesity. New England Journal of Medicine, Oct 7, 1971; 285 (15): 827-831. 17. Golay A, et al. Similar weight loss with low- or high- carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Feb, 1996; 63 (2): 174-178. 18. Miyashita Y, et al. Beneficial effect of low carbohydrate in low calorie diets on visceral fat reduction in type 2 diabetic patients with obesity. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, Sep, 2004; 65 (3): 235-241.19. Stimson RH, et al. Dietary Macronutrient Content Alters Cortisol Metabolism Independently of Body Weight Changes in Obese Men. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Rapid Electronic Publication first published on Sep 4, 2007 as doi:doi:10.1210/jc.2007-0692. Available online: http://icem.endojournals.org/cgi/rapidpdffjc.2007- 0692v1?maxtoshow=8HITS=10&hits=10&RESUL TFORMAT=1 &andorexact ind&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfullte xt=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&res ourcetype=HWCIT 20. Golay A, et al. Weight-Loss With Low or High Carbohydrate Diet? International Journal of Obesity, 1996; 20 (12): 1067-1072. 21. Torbay N, et al. High protein vs high carbohydrate hypoenergetic diet in treatment of obese normoinsulinemic and hyperinsulinemic subjects. Nutrition Research, May 2002; 22 (5): 587-598. NOTE: This study featured hyperinsuliunemic and normoinsulinemic groups. Normoinsulenimic subjects experienced almost double the decrease in insulin when following low-carb/high-protein diet - but no difference in weight loss (there was a 600 gram statistically non-signifcant greater weight loss on high-carb diet). 22. Noakes M, et al. Comparison of isocaloric very low carbohydrate/high saturated fat and high carbohydrate/low saturated fat diets on body composition and cardiovascular risk. Nutrition & Metabolism, Jan 11, 2006; 3: 7. 23. Meckling KA, et al. Comparison of a low-fat diet to a low- carbohydrate diet on weight loss, body composition, and risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease in free-living, overweight men and women. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Jun, 2004; 89 (6): 2717-2723. 24. Eades' comparison of the Yudkin and Keys studies, and his refusal to answer me personally, along with a host of malevolent and fallacious comments about yours truly fromEades and his followers (yawn...), can be found at: Eades M. Is a calorie always a calorie? ProteinPower.com blog, Sep 11, 2007. http:/Avww.proteinpower.com/drmike/2007/09/1 1/is-a- calorie-always-a-calorie/ (accessed Oct 31, 2007). Take careful note that while there is plenty of speculation about my mental and emotional states (both are perfectly robust, but thanks for asking), no-one even begins to answer the actual questions | have asked of Eades, least of all Eades himself (the one reader who attempts to get Eades to address my criticisms meets with little success). 25. Keys AJ, et al. Biology of Human Starvation. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1950. 26. Stock AL, Yudkin J. Nutrient intake of subjects on low carbohydrate diet used in treatment of obesity. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Jul, 1970; 23 (7): 948-952. 27. Eades M. Metabolism and ketosis. ProteinPower.com blog, May 22, 2007. http:/Avww.proteinpower.com/drmike/2007/05/22/metabolism- and-ketosis/ (accessed Nov 3, 2007). 28. Yudkin J, Carey M. The treatment of obesity by the "high fat" diet: the inevitability of calories. Lancet, Oct 29, 1960; 2; 939-941. 29. Eades M. Karl Popper, metabolic advantage and the C57BL/6 mouse. ProteinPower.com blog, Sep 27, 2007. Available online: http:/Avww.proteinpower.com/drmike/2007/09/27/karl-popper- metabolic-advantage-and-the-c57bl6-mouse/ (accessed Oct 31, 2007). 30. Tounian P, et al. Weight loss and changes in energy metabolism in massively obese adolescents. /nternational Journal of Obesity, Aug, 1999; 23 (8): 830-837.31. Sothern, et al. Weight loss and growth velocity in obese children after very low calorie diet, exercise, and behavior modification. Acta Paediatrica, Sep, 2000; 89 (9): 1036-1043. 32. Williams CL, et al. Weight control among obese adolescents: a pilot study. /nternational Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, May, 2007; 58 (3): 217-230. 33. Rolland-Cachera MF, et al. Massive obesity in adolescents: dietary interventions and behaviours associated with weight regain at 2 y follow-up. /nternational Journal of Obesity, Apr, 2004; 28 (4): 514-519. 34. Di Girolamo M, Rudman D. Species differences in glucose metabolism and insulin responsiveness of adipose tissue. American Journal of Physiology, Apr, 1966; 210: 721- 727. 35. Hirsch J, Goldrick RB. Serial Studies on the Metabolism of Human Adipose Tissue. |. Lipogenesis and Free Fatty Acid Uptake and Release in Small Aspirated Samples of Subcutaneous Fat. Journal of Clinical Investigation, Sep, 1964; 3 (9): 1776-1792. 36. Brehm, et al. A randomized trial comparing a very low carbohydrate diet and a calorie-restricted low fat diet on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2003; 88 (4): 1617-1623. 37. Eades M. Fisking Repovich and Peterson. ProteinPower.com blog, Mar 30, 2007. http:/Avww.proteinpower.com/drmike/2007/03/30/fisking- repovich-and-peterson/ (accessed November 3, 2007). 38. Eades M. Learn why Anthony Colpo is MAD and get a free book. ProteinPower.com blog, Nov 15, 2007. http:/Avww.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolism/earn-why- anthony-colpo-is-mad-and-get-a-free-book/ (accessed December 16, 2007).39. The DCCT Research Group. Weight gain associated with intensive therapy in the diabetes control and complications trial. Diabetes Care, 1988; 11 (7): 567-573. 40. Phinney SD, et al. The human metabolic response to chronic ketosis without caloric restriction: preservation of submaximal exercise capability with reduced carbohydrate oxidation. Metabolism, Aug, 1983; 32 (8): 769-776. 41. Colpo A. The Kimkins Diet Scam. The Fat Loss Bible Blog, Nov 19, 2007. http:/Avww.thefatlossbible.net/blog/?p=8 42. Eades M. The votes are in: Dissect it is! ProteinPower.com blog, Nov 19, 2007. http:/Avww.proteinpower.com/drmike/miscellaneousfhe-votes- are-in-dissect-it-is/ (accessed December 16, 2007). 43. See: Taubes G. What if it's all been a big FAT lie? New York Times Magazine, July 7, 2002. A year before his NYT article appeared, Taubes penned an article titled “The Soft Science of Dietary Fat” (Taubes G. The Soft Science of Dietary Fat. Science, Mar 30, 2001; 291: 2536-2545.). Taubes had reportedly written the article after interviewing scores of researchers and civil servants, poring through piles of government reports and congressional transcripts, and studying the scientific literature. The result was a damning exposé on the behind-the-scenes political maneuvering that was instrumental in winning widespread acceptance for the untenable cholesterol theory of heart disease. | cited “The Soft Science of Dietary Fat” in my book The Great Cholesterol! Con. | felt comfortable doing so as the claims made in Taubes’ article coincided with other authors’ accounts of the same events. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge no-one interviewed in the Science article has ever come forward and complained that they had been misquoted. The same cannot be said of Taubes’ subsequent “big FAT lie” article; several of the interviewees maintained that Taubes placed their comments out of context: http:/Awww.reason.com/news/show/287 14.html44. United States Department of Agriculture. Nutrient Content of the U.S. Food Supply, 1909-2000. Nov, 2004. hitto:www.cnpp usa, gov/publications/faodsupply/F oodSupply1909-2000.paf 45. United States Department of Agriculture. A History of American Agriculture: 1910. http:/Awww.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/1910.htm 46. U.S. Census Bureau. Occupations 2000. Aug 2003. http:/Avww.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-25.pdf 47. Cohen H. Author says cutting out carbs is all one need do to lose weight. McClatchy Newspapers, Oct 22, 2007. http:/Awww.insidebayarea.com/health/ci_7247601 (accessed November 3, 2007). 48. Taubes G. The Scientist and the Stairmaster. New York Magazine, September 2007. http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/ (accessed November 3, 2007). 49. Keim NL, et al. Energy expenditure and physical performance in overweight women: response to training with and without caloric restriction. Metabolism, Jun, 1990; 39 (6): 651-658. 50. CNN Larry King Live. Are Fatty Foods Good For You? Aired October 19, 2007. Transcript available at: http:/Aranscripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/19/kI.04 html (accessed November 3, 2007). 51. Titchenal CA. Exercise and food intake. What is the relationship? Sports Medicine, Sep, 1988; 6 (3): 135-145. 52. Carroll RT. true-believer syndrome. SkepDic.com. http://skepdic.com/ruebeliever.html 53. Carroll RT. Cognitive dissonance. SkepDic.com. http://skepdic.com/cognitivedissonance.html