I'm not sure this book review qualifies, but here it is. Food & Nutrition, purportedly, the "Magazine of the World's Largest Organization of Food and Nutrition Professionals." Evidently, they haven't gotten the memo that they're not only total fucking failures over 40 years or so, but have likely morphed into the Magazine of the World's Largest Organization of Pimps & Whores for Advertiser Dollars."
Claims: The author shares his tips for eating, fasting and exercising “as wild humans did for millennia,” including how to embrace your primal cravings for animal fats and fiber-rich plant sources, stop listening to the “experts” and start tuning into the body’s natural signals. This book claims to help readers lose fat, gain muscle and unleash the energy of the animal inside them. He touts Paleo power in preventing allergies, diabetes and cancer, and states that it may be possible to cure or at least slow your cancer by eating a low-carb, high-fat diet.
Synopsis of the Diet Plan: Nikoley recommends eating “real food” such as meat, organ meats, poultry, fish and shellfish, vegetables (limit potatoes), some fruits (berries and melons primarily), nuts, fats (lard, tallow, butter, ghee, coconut oil, red palm oil, olive oil), whole fat dairy and heavy cream (preferring “raw” milk if available). Foods to avoid include grain-based products, processed foods, certain fruits, potatoes and vegetable/grain/seed oils such as canola, sunflower, safflower and corn. Nikoley is a proponent of “intermittent fasting,” and recommends exercising for one hour per week, but avoiding cardio because it is “catabolic and makes you hungry.”
Nutritional Pros and Cons: Nikoley admits to having no health credentials or training and that his research consists of what he finds on the Internet. He criticizes mainstream science and health “experts,” stating that “not only is mainstream dietary advice wrong, it is maiming and killing those who follow it.”
Bottom Line: This diet would be very difficult for most people to follow, let alone naturally desire. Based more on science fiction than science fact, Nikoley’s recommendations are misguided and reckless, especially his advice to drink raw milk, which is strictly against FDA and CDC recommendations.
Besides the 22 out of 25, 5-star reviews for my Book on Amazon, a commenter on the Facebook Page of Ancestrialize Me pretty much summed it up—and I'll just respectfully, and with a solemn nod in his general direction, leave it to Paul Lussier, as my complete response; and thank you, Paul.
To whom it may concern,
On Page 30 of this month's Food & Nutrition magazine you reviewed Richard Nikoley's book, "Free the Animal". In your review, you claimed, "This diet would be very difficult for most people to follow, let alone naturally desire. Based more on science fiction than science fact, nikoley's recommendations are misguided and reckless..."
Richard's diet is based on eating real, natural, and unprocessed food. Items occurring in a natural, unprocessed state, such as eggs, meat, poultry, seafood, vegetables, fruits and nuts. These are items which our ancestors have eaten for millions of years, and, by the evidence that we exist today, they were fairly successful eating such foods.
Your statement above implies that you do not believe it is possible to thrive by eating real, natural, and unprocessed food, and therefore, by implication, we would be better to consume a diet consisting of unnatural, processed, and man-made food products. Given that we have approximately 2.5 million years of evidence backing up Richard's claims, what evidence does Food & Nutrition have to back up its implied claims to the alternative?
Given that a vegetarian diet, which is also a whole, natural, and unprocessed foods diet, are we to now believe that being a vegetarian or vegan is also unhealthy, misguieded, and reckless ? Why would Richard's diet be considered "misguided and reckless" or "difficult to follow, let alone naturally desire", yet a vegetarian or vegan diet would be considered healthy and simple to adopt? There's really only one difference, and that would be Richard's inclusion of animal-based protiens and fats, to which, biologically, the human body is very naturally and evolutionarily adapted.
Are you really saying that most people would find it difficult to eat bacon and eggs for breakfast, or consume a salad with some tuna, or last night's left-overs for lunch, or have steak, chicken, pot-roast, or roast ham for dinner with a side of carrots, sweet potato, or eggplant? And can you please explain how eating this way is either misguided or reckless? Because I'm at a loss to understand these statements in your review. Most people I know eat as I've described on a fairly regular basis, though, not necessarily at every meal.
Thank you for time, I look forward your response, either privately, or in print.
But I have a quibble with Melissa Joy Dobbins [lottsa letters, intended to get you to take her on her authority over yours], though. I prefer "dangerous" to "reckless." Reckless? Please.
Thick skin all around. And I love that, qua base ethic.
Enough of pussy people, whose great achievement in life is to shout from the rooftops...about how they've been "offended"—claiming victimhood as a badge of horror...uh, honor. Steve Hughes ridicules every single one of you types, so I'll just summon him, via the God of YouTube (pretty much better than any god I was ever indoctrinated with, under fear of eternal torture—and YouTube is tantamount to omniscience to boot).
Now, where might I have seen anything about that, lately? Aww, it's at the address Evie Dearest resides. She doesn't like me calling her Evie. But you have to read comments to get that, and see my response. Don't worry about it. She'll keep the decent traffic spike if she can, and I'm a sucker for redemption anyway. Read her stuff if you like it.
Apparently, she has some weird crawly thing up her important ass for how I didn't exactly come clean about Kruse in precisely the exact right way, and giving him a pass for inconsistencies along the way, over that month I supported him generally...it's a super important deal. Apparently, I should have been doing regular colonoscopies, reporting results to you—my trustworthy readers—who can't help but hang on my every word. Either that, or actually get through her entire post—which I simply can't. It's just fucking boring to me, and it's about me....Perhaps you can; perhaps it matters to you, and if so, that's fine.
I'll just sit around and lament the fact that when you come clean on something...that's when you open yourself up the worst. I get it. I have no illusions about "important" people like Evie Dearest.
...Interestingly, the comments don't really go in total to how I somehow botched my mea culpa. What's far more important is that Evie Dearest seems to have a good number of "important" women commenters; they like to hang out there and get their massages—about how it's all the fault of all these guys touting Paleo and LC, but they're wrong this way and that way, and by implication, their average important "importantness" is all those guys' fault.
But again, you'd have to scan through the current 55 comments to get at least a notion of the gist at which I'm getting. I could be wrong. As always, you get to judge for yourself, including me.
But in closing, I have to go all wooo on you. That's the commenter—and I have no idea her background but it's implied she's a medical professional—who tagged me as I report in the title to the post.
Like a true sniveling coward, Nikoley jumps on the Kruse-bashing wagon when his ego no longer sustains electrical jump start thrills by being associated with his (heavily disgraced) name. Kruse has reached such epic levels of public ridicule and unpopularity Nikoley is sustaining narcissistic injury just by being associated with him. This public lambasting of his supposed ex"friend" demonstrates the appalling lack of integrity of Nikoley. The more he attempts to redeem himself, the more he shows what a truly abhorrent individual he is. It's like watching someone struggle in quicksand. Now we know Nikoley is not only a coward, a misogynist, someone with a profound abusive streak, and a liar ("cunt is a term of endearment!") but we also know he has no personal integrity and freely snitches/rats on his buddies for personal gains, a turncoat.
Wow, all you readers better beware. Itsthewooo has the woo. And the shit. Don't you know how to psychoanalyze/deconstruct all in one breath? And she didn't even have to spend thousands on a private eye to get all dirt on me she could; because, I just give it to everyone openly on my blog.
Who's the real fool, here? The stupid sucker?
As an aside, not only was her blog recommended to me in a comment thread a while ago, but I remember her from way back in Stephan's comments at Whole Health Source (I see she's taken to dissing him too, but not for the same reasons, of course). More.
The respectable thing would be to, like Rob Wolf, and pretty much everyone else, would be to slowly distance yourself from this (crazy nut) person. Make it known you do not agree with their endorsements/statements/claims in a tactful way. No one expects one to be chained to a mentally ill pathological liar for life, but the professional/stable/mature thing would be to slowly, quietly, non-dramatically part ways with them.
Yea, that's what she would do, because she's a cunt-head wanker. I'm not. When I'm a fuckhead, I'm a fuckhead, and the only way to quit being a fuckhead is to stop being a fuckhead—NOW. My advice: when you see you're being a fuckhead, stop being a fuckhead, immediately.
In a follow-on comment—and I did offer to have her send me a bill for the free psychoanalysis.
NPD / antisocial traits seem disturbingly common amongst "paleos" as this silly religious cult emphasizes grandiosity, egocentricity, and has a marked emphasis on disregarding modern society. This is appealing to a narcissistic psychopath, as appealing as the atkins diet is to someone who likes hamburgers and bacon.
Nikoley himself shows classic signs of being a low level narcissist / sociopathic abuser, which may be the very thing that lead him to worship other successful narcissistic / sociopathic icons like Jack Kruse or the character in the Baldwin movie he shamelessly admitted to idolizing.
Oh, sorry, I shamefully idolized Baldwin in that clip... but only for those who took it the one way. For those who took it the other, that, that, was indeed shameless.
Alright, to now finally wrap this up, a closing video for narcissist abusers, or even self-abusers alike, everywhere. Lords of Acid, The Most Wonderful Girl, from the 1993 flick, Sliver, with ...OMG, the sexiest Sharon Stone at her bestest.
Eat your hearts out, Evie Dearest and Co. ...You femmes importantes. Turn it up.