James Krieger: Welcome to the Internet, a few years late

Hot Grills, would you go home with this guy?

James Head Shot1
Wanna Fuck?

OK, total cheap shot—anyone could do the same with me—but he decides to continue. I already kinda regret the shot, and am fully prepared to lose sleep over it tonight, until weariness overrules my conscience, which I predict will happen between 1am and 3am. ...But it's how I roll.

The general debate between us is somewhat relevant in general, and now it's my task to make it—at least—entertining. I hope. And why? Because I have to make my cheap shot up to Jamie somehow, so I want you to go read what he has to say in the matter and as always: you're the judge.

...Jamie suffers from a time warp where, as in the olden days of Internet, quoting and debating was like this:

> Bla bla bla bla

Appeal to authority. Appeal to tradition. Ad Hominem.

> More bla bla bla

Argumentum ad puplulum.

Yea, I did that when I was a kid, too. I got on USENET in 1992/3. That was the way things were done. It was valuable. The smartest and cleverest people on Earth were doing that, and probably because in those days, you had to really know how to get to the anarchist USENET, as it was. I suppose it's just as anarchist now, in various ways, but they've since made it easy to get on everywhere, and so you have to contend with more morons than smart people. The childproof cap has not only been removed...what? I dunno.

...It's a different landscape, by far, now.

So, instead of going out-of-context for effect like that (on purpose), once I began blogging in 2003 regularly, almost a post per day all these years, I began to get away from the deconstruction deal—it makes for an awful blog post—into trying to encapsulate what someone was tying to say in total, dealing with that in total, letting chips fall.

When you get good at it, you can even integrate stories and experiences—anecdotes and whatever—all for the purpose of distracting folks from SCIENCE (TM), and TRUTH (TM). :)

I'll give you an example. I wrote a comment to Jamie and blogged it here, with little in the way of embellishment in the blog post. It took him almost a week to deconstruct the bits & pieces he wanted to highlight in a post, which he did here, as already linked twice, and now a third time.

As with others' posts about me, it's difficult for me to actually get through it, and it's about me! I dunno, Jamie, but have you ever stopped to wonder why your posts get 4-5 comments each, and mine regularly get hundreds?

Perhaps, you're just fucking boring? Check into it, man. Free tip. Or, run that argumentum ad puplulum as far as it goes and with any luck, you'll have no readers at all.

But of course, that gets back to the SCIENCE (TM), right? SCIENCE (TM) trumps. And, of course, all one need to do is fall at the altar of SCIENCE (TM) in order to claim the mantle of SCIENCE (TM), and to be safe in demolishing the Stone Tablets before the Heathen Orgy of Humanity: to proclaim all others un-SCIENCE (TM)-ific.

That's really the meta-point before I even begin to address his stupid bullshit deconstruction. He's all for science, and I agree in principle. But he hides behind it. He uses it as a shield to elevate himself above those crunching out or working some science day by day and who are helping people, in spite of errors. I'll have more to say on that point at the end.

It's too bad that Jamie glossed over my "Larry the Liquidator" bit at the very beginning of my comment. It prefigured what I had to say and what I had to say was about value investing vs. speculation and gambling. But he's a "basher," or he loves them. That is, he values bashing for the pure value of bashing. I'll tell you why, and it goes to the analogy he used in the first place about stock trading. He chose the analogy.

Value investing, to do right in the Warren Buffet sense, is intensely hard. You have to spend months, even years analyzing a single company for not only physical assets (not so important because Larry is always there) but balance sheet, P&L, management (huge biggie), market, market potential given the foregoing and so many hosts of other things.

But here's the deal, the most important deal: there's lot's of well-positioned, well-managed companies with good potential. Warren is looking for those few that have been "dumped" or "bashed" a little much. When he finds them—"undervalued" in investor speak—he makes a huge bet.

His record speaks for itself.

On the other hand, there are speculators and gamblers, and the distinction is difficult to make. I was one, so I know. For a day trader, speculator, gambler, none of that foregoing shit means a thing. You're looking at "technicals" (the chart pattern over various time periods), sentiment (what are other investors thinking of doing), news (how is CNBC, et al, going to influence trading), futures, foreign markets, or some combination of the foregoing (I tried to account for all as best I could in trading options).

See the difference?

Do you see the difference, and do you see why and how I turned Jamie's analogy on its head in terms of my dealing with Evelyn at CarbSane? In short, we have no need of bashers around here, just yet. And how many people are dumb enough to make a career of bashing a startup that hasn't even "gone public," yet, to force the analogy a bit further?

OK, I'm sure I haven't detailed this post enough as to not have people going WTF? Well, follow links, if you like. I'm not your mommy.

I'll close by saying that I do not at all think James Krieger is in the same camp as Evelyn. From what I know, he has been critical, and has given the science as he sees it. He's not written dozens of posts contre Taubes, or anyone else. As far as I know, he adds more than he bashes, and I only suspect that because I know he's often mentioned along with Martin Berkhan, Lyle McDonald, and Alan Aragon—and I know for sure they don't work that way.

In the end, I kinda regret having to go this far with James and go pussy-assed cheap shot on him, but he just had to defend Evelyn, and Evelyn is an enemy.

She is an absolute enemy. Her only raison d'etre is to tear down anyone she can find around paleo, LC, Lustig and now, Cross-Fit—imperfectly helping real people. She is a cancer, and the sooner she's cut out and tossed to the dogs for digestion, the better


  1. EatLessMoveMoore says:

    She recently did a take down of the CEO of CrossFit (well, sort of). Gotta at least give her credit for having a broad range of targets.

    • Not really.

      It’s all she does, attempt to take down other people. Why should anyone really care if the founder of a franchise eats at the franchise, so to speak. Are the folks who buy from the franchise happy and does it sit them?

      Robb Wolf had his issues, but he was in deep. He did his piece, moved on, but still promotes the principles of CF. Watch for the cancer to say yea, but it’s obvious it’s helping a motivating so many people so, cool.

      Never, not in her metastasizing world.

      • evelyn takes down junk science not the people.did you even read james post?there is no way in hell you can counter anything he wrote.then what do you do?you rip him down,not his statements.

        he is 100% correct,THERE IS NO ROOM FOR JUNK SCIENCE.you are a promoter of junk science,so in the end you are a harm to people.

        you do seam to be easily swayed by the “cult of personality”.you definitly don,t look at the science but focus on the messanger(as long as what he says fits with your beliefs).

        your biggest problem is you have a belief system,(belief =faith).no facts just faith.

        i know how this will play out seeing as you are open minded.you,ll come to see how james and evelyn and anthony and alan aragon are all exposeing junk science and actually furthering the knowledge of people.you will realize how wrong you,ve being for giving anyone a pass on junk science.


      • That touches on another problem. There are many, many smart people claiming it’s not junk science at all. Richard Feynman comes to mind in terms of LC.

      • simpleton says:

        Would that be an example of ‘Appeal to Authority’?

      • No, not at all. Nobody can be an expert in everything and it is reasonable to at least defer to credentialed experts in various fields, not for absolute truth, but to get a bead on whether there’s something there, there.

        The LC thing and all that goes with it is far from settled, whereas, there’s no serious scientists who write papers on how the motion of Venus combined with the sun combined with the moon combined with whatever is going to affect you because if you stand up on a chair and then step down, you have washed away all the infinitesimal gravitational forces claimed to affect you.

        That’s the difference.

      • My larger point, cj, is that it’s you taking things on faith.

        You call it “junk science” just off the cuff, as though that’s true and everyone else is willy-nilly supporting it if they don’t agree with the people who told you it was “junk science.”

        If all science that isn’t 100% settled among smart scientists of good will is “junk,” then junk science as a description is meaningless. There’s a huge difference between the junk science of, say, astrology, and the science behind LC and such.

        I understand there are very likely errors in it, so it’s good to hash these things out.

        That’s not what’s happening.

      • that,s a good analogy,except you,ve got it wrong.astrology and the low carb”science” are equal.the insulin fat storage hypothosis has been disproven.that is not faith but fact.the metabolic ward studies prove it time and again.taubes hypothesis has been disproven but he hangs on.exposing him is a good thing.

        when evelyn rips on taubes(or anyone)i too find it annoying.she seems to rip on the person more than the message.but in reading her(and others) she does only address his wrong conclusions,she never says all his writings are incorrect .

        i think alan aragon and anthony colpo have it down pretty good.they will tell you what is wrong with a hypothosis and then provide the science to back it up.

        i,m personally pissed at junk science (low carb ,eat all you want ,it,s only carbs that matter).i witnessed family members spin there wheels for years on it.with out the eat less part low carb does not cause weight loss.

      • “there is no way in hell you can counter anything he wrote.”

        But I’ve already done that. I’ll do it again, too.

        Suck his cock all you like. As for me, no thanks.

        “he is 100% correct”

        Oh, really? I don’t really know anyone who’s 100% correct. But, perhaps you view a hard cock to such as 100% correct. I’ll have to defer to your judgment on the matter as I’m quite ignorant. Perhaps the women & gays can chime in. Is an erect cock, prime for being sucked, 100% correct? Let the discussion begin.

        “you definitly don,t look at the science but focus on the messanger(as long as what he says fits with your beliefs).”

        I’m a balance sheet guy. In any balance sheet, there are assets and liabilities. I go with those who come out on the whole in the black and I defend them against people who proclaim that there are no assets at all.

        “your biggest problem is you have a belief system,(belief =faith).no facts just faith.”

        The record of my posts, comments and my replies to comments tell a far different story. I have a sense you’re ignorant about the history of that.

        “you,ll come to see how james and evelyn and anthony and alan aragon are all exposeing junk science and actually furthering the knowledge of people.”

        Just like I said. Ignorance. I’m on good terms with Anthony for a long time. I did Leangains with Martin for a long time. Alan has popped in from time to time and have excahnged emails.

        This has been going on for a long time.

        Typically, I’m impatient with ignoramuses like you who venture to believe they know something about me and what I’ve been up to, with some of the deepest post and comment archives out there.

        I’ll give you a pass. Whoops, should I do that, CJ?

      • what does your wife think of you being gay?

      • See, CJ, I told you you wouldn’t respect my property.

        Instead, in my virtual dinner party here, after being asked to leave, you bellow some non-sequitur which would probably make me laugh—not to mention the 13 or so gay male friends I hold dearly—but worst of all, embarrass Beatrice.

        You didn’t capitalize the “W.”

      • I’m actually surprised that there aren’t a lot more of these idiots showing up and trying to shit on everything, considering how big the blog is.

      • Sean:

        Trolls are opportunists and lazy. Just like any predator, they look for easy pickings. That I don’t obsess over comments and moderate them is a biggie. That signals to them that I’m not going to be very easy.

        Actually, the easiest, and funnest way is to edit their comments, just like I did with all of CJ’s he posted as “Dick Cheese.” Every cmment he posts stays there and I just edit it entirely to make him look more and more pathetic.

        Bring it on, trolls. I have the time and I need the laughs.

  2. EatLessMoveMoore says:

    Although I do wonder why she let Kruse off the hook so easily. For that matter, it blows me away how fast Krusegate just disappeared from public consciousness. Even Jimmy’s public silence on the matter has been deafening…

    • The reason Kruse disappeared is this blog. It’s not just me, but the many people who exposed the whole deal with his other similar conduct on other forums.

      I wish him well, though. But in a better character.

      • EatLessMoveMoore says:

        But all the cruise attendees? The ORGANIZER of the cruise? Something slimy – or at least dishonest – about that, if you ask me. I mean, Jack Kruse is on the LLVLC list of “Best Blogs” but Dr. Kurt Harris isn’t? I think Krieger has a point about that kind of stuff being the fallout of junk science.

      • Oh, ok. Frankly, I never pay attention to blogrolls, not even the ones that have me listed.

        I don’t even know if I’m on Jimmy’s list and frankly, haven’t done maintenance on my own in forever. Could even be dead links there.

        But I take your point. Could be that Kurt openly disses Jimmy, or that he doesn’t blog regularly but, I suspect I’d have to go with the former if I had to pick quickly.

        It could be bad or undiscipled science at the root. We’re all learning and I myself have changed course, though a bit in the middle becaue I’m convinced LC is a decent thing to do for a ton of people. Bit, yea, total allegiance to it is a problem.

        I prefer to give it time rather than try to trash it. It should be a tool. Hell, I have zero carb days just because it feels right for me, sometimes. But I’m not afraid of carbs from real foods.

        I advise patience and continued dialog. People read these comments.

  3. Nicholas Rich says:

    The USENET archives provide me with an endless source of amusement.

  4. Yeah, you’re right…. he’s just fucking boring.

  5. AmandaT says:

    I suspect that Evelyn has the ‘attention-seeking’ disease (Munchhausen’s) as she lives to over-dramatise. She wants to be worshipped as the ‘One True Scientist’. It is also interesting that her blogroll isn’t a list of blogs that she thinks are useful, but blogs that mention her. Which makes it obvious that her web efforts are just an ego trip. Ugly stuff.

  6. Fat woman calls Greg Glassssman fat, did I miss something? Is she defending sugar on that site? what the fuck for? I don’t care for Crossfit especially I did it for a few years but I am (or was) a young fit man. Robb Wolf’s criticisms seem to be the most fair. Frank Forencich seems to have a much better handle on exercise in an evolutionary congruent manner and it won’t drop you like a pole-axed steer if you haven’t been in a gym for a few years.

    • Defending potatoes is one thing (and fine if you ask me) but defending sugar is just a bit odd.

    • marie says:

      “…and it won’t drop you like a pole-axed steer if you haven’t been in a gym for a few years” -laf, nice imagery, that was my experience too. I came back to it later…much later.

  7. AndrewS says:

    Hey man, isn’t that pretty cruel to the dogs?

  8. Asfaq says:

    Please shut the fuck up and write about Paleo. Who are these nut jobs you keep dissing anyway! Am here to read about what your opinions on Paleo are, not for you to get all whiny about some other kids.

    Lately, the flame posts have just become too frequent. Focus man, focus!

    Your Friendly Neighborhood Troll.

  9. Cheers man!

    Good luck with those cold water baths (‘thermogenics’ is too fancy a word). I am doing them too, but this being India, the water temperature isn’t even remotely close to where it should be :)

    • Yea, I don’t want to mess with ice, so I’m looking forward to winter with much trepidation. Cold weather in 40-50 something water.

      On the lighter side, I do go to the pool club where I estimate the water is about 7o something, but I stay in for usually 40-50 minutes, lightly swimming or treading. I still get a profound well being feeing from it. Sometimes, I’ll come back and just do 10 min in my 60 deg tub to top things off.

      I am very sold on this as a regular thing.

  10. Kevin says:

    it’s difficult for me to actually get through it, and it’s about me!

    I laughed my ass off at this.

    The thing about you, Richard, is you rant funny. The people who take shots at you pretend that doesn’t matter. But it makes ALL the difference.

    Anyway, look for Evelyn and the usual suspects to really ramp up the attacks on Lustig now that NYC and even the Walt Disney Co. are taking real steps against sugar. The Disney Channel turning down ads for sugared cereals and breakfast pastries? Disney CEO Iger saying that taking a stand against sugar ads aimed at children is “just good business”? Fucking A, never thought I’d see that in my lifetime.

    Lustig certainly isn’t 100% responsible for that, but he is a big part of why it happened now.

    Evelyn will pretend her attacks are about his not getting the science perfect, but it’s really about the fact that, like Taubes, he made a difference. (Which is something that remedial chemistry teachers at shitty commuter colleges just don’t do.)

  11. “To me, it sounds like you are saying that essentially the popularity and influence is what really matters, not what is factual or truthful. This is nothing more than a form of the argumentum ad populum fallacy…if it’s popular, then it must be true. The characteristics you describe only demonstrate that people are easily swayed by things that are completely irrelevant to the truth. Hitler had personality, drive, sensation, conniving, and influence….and 6 million people died as a result.”


    I took it as good results/science (perhaps by accident) outweigh the errors of the bad science. Also, Reductio ad Hitlerum.

  12. What is the fallacy called where you unfairly dismiss something by referring to fallacies with Latin names though?

    • It’s not about unfairly dismissing something using Latin names, it’s the fact that these fallacies have been degraded as they’ve become popular amongst 12 year olds (or their mental equivalent). I’m aware of logical fallacies and have been for a long time, but I try not to invoke them very often because they are so poorly understood and used. They are just a shortcut or rule of thumb for lucid logic.

      Now I’m not saying that Krieger doesn’t have a firm grasp on logical fallacies. But I think the main point Richard makes is that this style of quote a couple sentences, give a dry esoteric argument, etc, is really boring and generally pointless.

      I too, spent time on Usenet back in the 90s doing this kind of stuff.

      I don’t know how well Krieger argues it because I couldn’t be bothered to read more than a few sentences. But when people use inflated language in a dry tortured way, as Krieger did in the few sentences I bothered to read, they are generally full of shit or trying to obfuscate things rather than arguing in an intellectually honest manner.

      The idea behind logical fallacies is to promote logical clarity, ironic that they are mostly used these days for just the opposite.

      • Yea, I can remember, back in the day having my link handy for all the logical fallacies. They are indeed useful to read and understand, but what I found over time is not to beat others over the head with, but to keep in mind as you construct your own lucid counter, arguments.

        So, for instance, instead of saying “argumentum ad populum,” how about something like, “you know, there was a time when everyone believed the entire universe revolved around the Earth.”

        YMMV, but I have found that to be a much more engaging way to argue.

      • I think you are right.

        But another problem is that the people using these arguments usually don’t understand them. They are logical shortcuts, not scientific proofs.

        Begging the question, strawman, etc, these things are so often misused as to have become almost meaningless in normal (ie stupid) discourse.

      • Don’t get me started on my pet peeve of people using “begging the question” when they mean “raise the question.”

        Actually, I think that fallacy is probably the very most common.

      • Richard Feynman talked about the difference between understanding a concept and merely parroting it. It’s far from always true, but a decent rule of thumb is that if someone can’t explain a concept clearly it’s because they don’t understand it very well themselves.

        This is why I was skeptical of Stephan’s explanation of food reward, he did a poor job of explaining it, and especially defending it, IMO.

      • I enjoy good story tellers. The best are also great at explaining difficult concepts to children.

        Feynman talks a bit about this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Bgaw9qe7DEE

        As of late I have been rather appreciative of Ray Cronise’s refusal to get into debate about..well, anything. The commenting on his blog is quite intriguing in the way he handles it.

        Seems to me, that the more curious the person the less they have time for debate. Though, I suppose you need both.

      • you conclude he,s full of shit but did not read what was written?that just proves you are with out a doubt full of shit.

        and i did read what you wrote.

      • CJ:

        “to taste the ocean requires but a drop.” -Solzhenitsyn.

      • ya well confucius says “panties are not the best thing in life,they are next to best thing in life.”

      • mine,”i,m not an asshole,i,m the whole damn ass.”

      • CJ:

        Have at it, man. I think folks can judge for themselves which is the more profound “quote.”

      • i thought you were just posting useless quotes.now your trying to be “profound”.

        i must have missed it.

      • CJ:

        Get lost, man. Go take a remedial English and punctuation course.

        It is the height of irony that you present yourself as lower than dumbass, to call others a dumbass.

        I’ve already spent a multitude of time more than your pathetic, ignorant looking ass deserves.

      • dick cheese says:

        Please ban me.

      • AndrewS says:

        Richard was here! You know how I can tell? Capitalized letter!

      • There are a lot of filters I use on the internet, because there’s a hell of a lot of stupid among the nuggets of gold. If someone is an anonymous asshole who can’t use proper punctuation or even capitalization and grammar then they aren’t worth my time. If that same anonymous asshole can’t doesn’t understand how to read or make logically consistent arguments then they are also filtered out.

        So you won the jackpot, troll, I wasted some of my time engaging with your dumb ass. Cash in your chips underneath the sign that says dumbfuck.

      • how are you ever going to find your”nugget of gold”if you don,t read the post?

        i,m the troll?your the one commenting on peoples threads without first READING THEM.


      • “how are you ever going to find your”nugget of gold”if you don,t read the post?

        i,m the troll?your the one commenting on peoples threads without first READING THEM.”

        See? How can anyone take such a pathetic lazy wanker seriously.


        Now go fuck off, CJ. That’s an order. This is my living room and you’ve overstayed your welcome. But, then again, given your already displayed character, I don’t expect you to respect that.

        You are no longer welcome here. If you want to try with fully proper grammar and punctuation, then you get to come back in.

        Choice is yours.

      • dick cheese says:

        Please, please ban me. I asked you already. I’m Dick Cheese.

      • TandooriChicken says:

        It’s a trap!

  13. jofjltncb6 says:

    James who? Should I even know who this guy is?

    • jofjltncb6 says:

      Oh, sorry…I posted this comment before I made it all of the way through your post.

      At least now I understand his relevance, at least insofar as it relates to you.

  14. Matthew says:

    I’m 100% against Carbsane when it comes down it. There’s only one reason why, her own n=1 study for weight loss and health seems to be a huge failure. I don’t take anyone seriously who can’t produce results for themselves (Berkhan, Sisson, You, Tom Naughton, Harris, etc. etc.).

    That being said Richard, it’d be nice to see some progress pics from you every once in a while, just to see some of the results aka the “proof” of these n=1 experiments.

    • i don,t recall carbsane telling anyone how to eat.she points out how certain hypothosis are wrong.

      • “i don,t recall carbsane telling anyone how to eat.she points out how certain hypothosis are wrong.”

        Indeed. Or, what she thinks is wrong. That’s a big part of the complaint.

    • EatLessMoveMoore says:

      Like Jimmy? Give him a year – or less – and he’ll be back where he started. All the individuals you mentioned (“Berkhan, Sisson, You, Tom Naughton, Harris, etc. etc.”) have one thing in common: They acknowledge, even if they call it different things, the importance of calories and physical activity in weight loss. Tom Naughton may be drinking the Taubes Kool-Aid, but you don’t see him gorging himself on fat either.

      • are they acknowledging the importance of calories or is the real message calories are the most important?(when speaking of fat gain).

      • EatLessMoveMoore says:

        CICO = all it’s ultimately ever been about. Yes, protein and fat satiate more and “real food” is far better than boxes of Little Debbie cakes. But excessive consumption of even the best food in the world will not result in weight loss. Exhibit A: http://livinlavidalowcarb.com.

      • ELMM:

        “Give him a year – or less – and he’ll be back where he started.”

        You talking about me?

        Laf. I’m nearing the best I ever was, sometime in 2009/10.


        Now I get to think how stupid you are, and just when I was getting to like you, too. My “progress pic” will be revealed at AHS.

      • dick cheese says:

        Haven’t I asked you already to ban my crusty, stinky dick?

      • dick cheese says:

        Look, I’ll say it again. Can’t you see I post from a crusty, stinky dick perspective that now even a whore on her last dollar would suck, even is I could get a loan?

        Ban me, please.

      • EatLessMoveMoore says:

        You? Oh hell no. Talking about The Jimmer.

      • OK, ELMM. My bad.

        No worries, mate. Thanks for the clarifying clarification.

    • EatLessMoveMoore says:

      And who says CarbSane is fat? That seems to be a sort of urban legend based on little in the way of hard facts. She looks pretty decent in her pics – unless anorexic chic is your thing…

      • I have it on good authority that she is very fat. Way fat.

        But, it’s not my thing to worry about that. I’d be doing the same if she was thin.

      • EatLessMoveMoore says:

        Gonna be epic when she goes to AHS this year.

      • Matthew says:

        The problem with the entire paleo dialogue is that there are two “camps” using one moniker aka paleo.

        There’s the whole weight loss clique, and then there are the people who are already in peak condition and now want to strive for peak performance.

        Personally, I follow people (like I listed) who have their shit together, and are disciplined. There are plenty of paleo tools available to help you lose weight. If you can’t do it then I just have to chalk it up to lack of discipline.

        That being said, being thin doesn’t always mean being healthy, and I think that’s where the actual paleo debates are still worth having. What micronutrients, workouts, CT, etc. et.c

      • Matthew:

        Yes, the ripped vs. reasonable person is a debate worth having and I think, especially for 50+ women. I am coming to think that for them especially, a BF of 20-25%, Marylin Monroe-esque and many, many in that era, if potentially the most healthy hormonally.

        I’m not sure, but I think it’s a discussion worth having.

      • gallier2 says:

        It is also to that BF level that “normal” low-carb tends to put women, which is often not the intented BF aspired too. Therefore the frustration against low-carb. IMHO the problem most people (women) have with their weightloss is due to unrealistic expectations, more than a problem in metabolism or else.

  15. This guy is such an ass. Apparently you have to be an expert to decipher anything and yet he attempts to have us believe that he has some kind of wisdom on sotck trading even though he carries no degrees or business experience in stock trading. Let’s get down off your high horse because I am tired of so called experts calling me a trained monkey because I don’t have a specialized education. I was trained to be a problem solver and that is what I do.

    I am a greedy bastard and steal wisdom from every single person I run into. I learned a long time ago that everyone carries a bit of the secrets of the universe, the hard part is recognizing it.

  16. marie says:

    “Hot Grills, would you go home with this guy?” _ Hmmm, dunno, how exactly does he use those hot grills? :-) Hot Grrls may want to know…

    • Grrls always claim it’s not the black body radiation but the peak amplitude that matters.

      • marie says:

        Ooooooh, yes! They are fans of Max Planck.

      • LeonRover says:

        Or even Maximum Plank.

      • OK, Yooze Guise. I wrote Grills instead of Grrils on purpose.

        Not sure why, but I did. Made me chuckle. Don’t know why it did, either.

      • If I only had a dollar for every time I heard that kelvins didn’t matter…

      • marie says:

        Oh no Sean, absolute temperature matters, always. The hotter, the better…

      • Well I was thinking of the kelvins related to the mass of the black body’s peak radiation spectrum.

        But keep telling yourself that size doesn’t matter.

      • marie says:

        “…mass of the black body’s peak radiation spectrum” -Lol Mhm, mass matters :-)

      • jofjltncb6 says:

        And like they say, once you go bla…

        Wait a second. What are we talking about again?

      • jofjltncb6, this made me laugh.

      • marie says:

        Quantum physics, actually, and relativity :
        [greater mass –> greater energy ~~ greater calories –>greater energy –>life and pleasure, if you use that energy, or fat, if you don’t] = Quantum loop .
        You asked… :-)

      • “I was thinking of the kelvins related to the mass of the black body’s peak radiation spectrum. ”


      • LeonRover says:

        Please do not end up at the centre of a Hawkings’ Black Hole – you will become infinitely extended.

      • marie says:

        Fighting it, but that gravitational pull is too damn strong….sigh.

      • marie says:

        Jof, Richard,
        Oh, I see, said the blind (wo)man…. shame on you, corrupting the pure scientists in your midst!

      • I am aghast. All this filth!

    • marie says:

      Richard, this is a Friendly pointer to your typo. Humor still has it’s place, yes?
      Because if you return to bad boy behavior, I’ll have to post the Castle Anthrax video again,
      just to illustrate the proper way to deal with naughty boys, you understand…. :-)

      • see my previous comment.

        ….now I’m headed to the backyard to contemplate the real distinction between grills & grrils, if their is a meaningful one.

        I mean, I think my usage holds, at least from the adjective standpoint: hot. I already know that guys love hot grills and hot grrls.

        What am I missing?

      • marie says:

        Ha! I knew it, your word monkey is finally breaking out of the closet : “hot” –> heat –> grills.
        But you have a ways to go, if you need to be be shown the distinction between grills and grlls! geez… the Grrls can get much hotter, for one thing… ask Bea to explain it to you :-)

  17. Mario Vachon says:

    Part of me thinks she just wants excuses for being chubby.

    As far as James is concerned, I am absolutely certain that I have heard Lustig on a few different podcasts or youtube clips emphasize that is he not anti-fruit. He is anti sodas and fruit juices – a very big difference. For James to suggest Lustig should be crucified because he is getting some people to not eat fruit (sure as hell is not his message) is a big load of dung.

    • Mario:

      Exactly right, and this is what got me incensed from the beginning, for its disingenuous nature. I have yet to go back and listen to Jimmy’s two podcasts with him, but i am certain that in one or both he emphatically stated that whole fruit is good, because of the fiber.

      I have posed this question a couple of times in comments at other places, asking for refs where he has cautioned against whole fruit and I get zero response.

      • LeonRover says:

        As far as Lustig vids I’ve seen, he says:

        “In fruit, fructose comes with its antidote: fibre”

        A whole apple or two is fine – but not quarts of apple juice (or orange , etc).

        It seems that others have extended such comments to zero fructose.

      • Leon:

        Yes. In fact, even way back when I first began experimenting from time to time with LC (which was always effective short term, but long term because, Sean, I didn’t have “first principles” right).

        I used to say to people. Cold you eat a coupla applesor, a coupla oranges—maybe 3 or 4 now and then when particularly outstanding? Yea? Well, would you eat 24 every day?


      • If I ever get a return gig at FTA perhaps I ought to talk about my opinion of first principles, politics and philosophical constructs vs scientific constructs.

      • Go for it, Sean. Your timetable.

      • Funny story my mom recounts deadpan from time to time.

        Years ago, the mother and father-in-law of my bro got a juicer and with wide eyes told my mom how she could use it to “eat” 5 pounds of carrots.

        My mom: “Why would I want to eat 5 pounds of carrots?”

      • marie says:

        Yes, Lustig is very consistent about this, I don’t see how anyone can extend his added fructose commentary to natural fruit consumption, he makes a point of showing the difference to getting it from fruit every time he speaks (less quantity, mainly, because fruit is filling, fiber, etc…).
        For example, see older “Sugar: The Bitter truth” video, at ~11:47 where he points out that our natural consumption of fructose from fruits and vegetable is something our “liver can handle.”

      • Thank you marie, the more specific cites the better.

        ….to put it to these fucking liars who have completely framed the debate that Lustig is trying to scare people off fruit.

        Of course, I did drop that link in my comment to James, that “mastur-bater of fruit” the one about 4 oz of liver taking 5 pounds of fruit, and zero response on that point.

        I might have to addendumize the post.

      • marie says:

        Oh yeah, he’s completely consistent about fruit versus concentrated sources of fructose, whether in ‘popularized’ talks or heavily scientific ones.
        I’m at home now, so here’s one from my archive (I save ‘original sources’, a science habit, but why don’t those freakin’ lazy bloggers do that so they’re not talking out of their asses? it’s easy, they do know how to use a regular web-browser one presumes?).
        Warning : this is a terminology-dense biochemistry lecture from ‘ancestral health’ last year, but at around 13:00 he’s referring to added fructose in processed foods and you’ll hear him saying that in Those foods it is
        “completely unopposed by fiber, which is the one thing that could mitigate the rate of fructose absorption, for instance orange juice vs.oranges”.
        The Trouble with Fructose: a Darwinian perspective >.

      • marie says:

        I meant ‘excess’ fructose, not ‘added’, it’s getting late for me…

      • They seem to enjoy having this caricature of an enemy that has no grey area or redeeming features. Note how Krieger makes the claim that, “They will point out how Taubes has helped people, while failing to realize that for every person helped, there are dozens more who are hurt.” Now, being a man who represents “science”, I would think he could show some demonstration of that claim. I don’t think I am some anomaly that read the book, put the low carb principles into action, lost 30 lbs easily when I have been some sort of overweight all my life. It would also mean that I was an anomaly, as when I started doing heavy compound lifts and eating low carb failed to advance my lifts, I had the mental clarity to search out other sources of nutritional information which lead me to Leangains (thanks for those series of interviews). I’d like to flatter myself into thinking I was the one in dozens who was able to rebound from such “bad information” to thrive, but somehow I doubt it.

      • Rob:

        While I’m sure you’re very smart, I don’t think everyone is dumb. This is part of what i have up my butt on this—and yea, I know there’s a tedious aspect to it.

        They seem to come from a perspective that it’s less notewhorthy when people actually do figure it out. Everyone starts somewhere and LC is an excellent way to start. Paleo evolves continuously. As do the people making it happen.

        They give zero credit to that, don’t acknowledge it a lick. Not even a little bit.

        If it doesn’t come from an authority, it’s shit.

      • LeonRover says:

        “Paleo evolves continuously. As do the people making it happen.”

        No doubt, at Star-Kruiser epigenetic speed?

      • gallier2 says:

        LC via Taubes as a starting point has the merrit to enable the mindset that infuriates people like Krieger. It’s not the biochemistry that is the threat but the sapping of authority. Taubes brilliantly shows that there is a big problem in medical research. That ideology trumps scientific results and that politics are more important than truth. He destroys thoroughly the credibility of all the big institutions messages be they public or private and that is what an establishment shill like Krieger (look up his CV, it’s obvious from where he’s coming) can not tolerate.
        His blog is nothing more than the impotent barking of a gatekeeper seeing his world wanishing into irrelevance.

      • AndrewS says:

        I think this was Taubes biggest contribution — the suspicion of the medical establishment. And that’s at the heart of why people read Taubes and then move on to something else; Taubes empowers them to distrust nutrition authority.

      • Oh, I think keeping all our shit in the same solar system would be a good idea. :)

      • marie says:

        Nah, we’re drowning in it. Expel the major shit producers! Alpha-centauri may be far enough.
        Start with the nutrition/dietetitcs “science” posers. They are a practical trade and yet aren’t held to the same standard as our plumber or electrician who can actually fix our leaks and short-circuits.
        So they create consensus and ‘authority’ as bulwarks to questioning and investigation – what real science depends, centers itself, on authority? Something either is Q.E.D. or it isn’t. If it isn’t, it’s open for debate and, rather importantly, for experimentation.
        We need to expel bad trades people. They not only use up oxygen but produce crap.

      • Seems to be the nature of the internet to assume everyone else is an idiot, it is worst on sites/blogs involving training. I’ve been given advice over and over again by people who say “I’ve been doing this for 5/10/15 years” and I’m thinking “I’ve been doing this since the 1970’s you schmuck.”

      • Indeed. I find this quite interesting actually :)

  18. chubby paleo chick says:

    I like CarbSane and I like your blog, but I don’t understand what the point of Evelyn’s blog is anymore, now that she’s had all of her arguments with you, Taubes, and Jimmy Moore. In the case of Jimmy, he has a severe eating disorder and needs all kinds of intervention.

    But really, who cares? If low carb, paleo, primal, whatever is a lie then why doesn’t she just calorie count and lose the weight? Why doesn’t she just do it?

    • EatLessMoveMoore says:

      “In the case of Jimmy, he has a severe eating disorder and needs all kinds of intervention.” Finally someone other than CarbSane said it. LLVLC has ‘LLV*ED*’ written all over it. His issues have nothing to do with macronutrient ratios.

      Can’t speak for Evelyn, but regarding why she doesn’t just ‘do it’, she seems like someone who’s content with where they’re at. Happens… Just compare your average couple before and then several years after getting married.

      • JeremiahMavin says:

        You got it all a mess, child.

        It was them past ways that brought ‘ole Jim to these breaks. Can’t blame a man for not lettin’ Bessy feed off of that grass. Livin’ La Vida Paleo takes time. A whole lotta time and spendin’ money. You gots to be mindful of them nasty carbs the way our old folks was. Grokmaw done knew to slap half a pound of Kerrygold on her sweet potatoes to protect her little self from insulins. Calories ain’t nothin’ but hogwash. We needa do how they did back in the day. We needa fill our bellies with as much grass eatin’ muscle meat as possible.

      • Jeremiah:

        “We needa fill our bellies with as much grass eatin’ muscle meat as possible.”

        Actually, that’s likely EXACTLY what our ancestors were thinking. Optimum food source is optimum food source.

      • LCForevah says:

        If she is as fat as is being implied, there is no way that she is content. I am “only” fifty pounds overweight and it would take me a couple of hours to tell you the myriad ways it physically hurts, never mind the psychological stuff.

        No one who rails against the LC/Paleo world like she does with so little provocation, is a happy human being. Now that I know that she is fat, I see her rantings as a method of laying the blame elsewhere for her failure to deal with her own obesity.

        She is an object to be pitied. Taking her at all seriously and giving her blogtime on other blogs just fuels her personal problem, and doesn’t help the lc/paleo community.

  19. Carbsane and James should drop diet and nutrition. That is simple and should be left to the mere mortal. They should tackle the fact and fiction of brain science.


    I am sure they would both have time to trade socks and influence people.

  20. marie says:

    Oh yea, especially since they’ll find their very familiar argument phrasings : “Is the “serotonin hypothesis” of depression really dead?” and other such.

  21. marie says:

    You forget, pure scientist here, would never catch that, nope. Though since you did mention it…would it be like trading, oh, stocks for example, only kinkier?

  22. Edward J. Edmonds says:

    WannaFuck and CarbCunt kinda look alike. Both are fucktards. Writting style reveals personaity accurately. Everything about their writting is fuckheaded. When a prince or princess opens a post with “if you’ve been following me on twitter” or titles a post “the lengths people with go to” are signs you’re dealing with a mother fucker who has some serious self-esteem issues. Right away they open with an authoritative context. And they SHOULD have self-esteem issues because neither of them have strong enough chins for me to place my balls on.

  23. Edward J. Edmonds says:

    Notice in both their profile pictures they have their head cocked to the left or right.

  24. Edward J. Edmonds says:

    And notice how they are clipped out of larger photos… a sign they were hunting around their hard drives for “good” pictures. Rest assured these folks look and feel like shit most days.

Speak Your Mind