A few of us quit blogging (fairly prominent sites) because we were tired of being associated in any circles with Jimmy Moore. You just could never win. If you didn’t affiliate with him, people thought you were a hater; if you did, you just didn’t sleep well at night knowing you were acknowledging a doughy dufus who made money marketing himself. At the end of the day, some of us chose to sleep at night, and put our sites to rest (we had a combined running total of well over two decades).
I asked recently why Jimmy Moore was so fat. I was met by the excuses of accolytes, from “his book writing made him gain weight” (funny, I wrote two and never gained weight), and “I choose to support Jimmy” (which isn’t even a response). People refuse to hold him to the standards we should hold marketers and salesmen to. Now that he’s jumped into paleo, it’s even more incomprehensible this new crowd is looking the other way. Why isn’t anyone calling this chubby guy out? Why are people funding a lie? Are we saying there are no better alternatives out there? And if not, why not? Where’s the common sense leadership?
And from "AnotherFormerBlogger."
There are many of us! Jimmy Moore is obese again, nothing new, I just won’t participate and haven’t in a few years. Not my monkeys, not my circus.
Along the way, there have been a number of mildly dissenting voices; that after years of supporting Jimmy Moore and standing up for him many, many times, I'd finally had it with him. And, I understand their dissent. The old "baby with the bathwater" thing.
Well, yea, but this has become Rosemary's Baby, now. It's high time for infanticide.
...I recall first getting wind of Jimmy in about early 2008, I think. It was also a time where he'd maintained his LC-diet weight loss for a decent while but was beginning to experience problems. As a guy on the decline from 245+ to an eventual 175 myself (then at perhaps 220), I overlooked it, largely because of the podcast. I never read his blog regularly—I have my own. But the podcast was quite something in those days. So much cool info that really helped me gain a wide perspective.
And, it was quite something to initially be a guest, then another appearance or two, and finally, guest hosting it about a year ago. Now, I see the podcast as an endless array of The Usual Suspects to prop up his sycodouche, peppered with the occasional dissenting voice to manipulatively lend a sense of integrity to people who are only looking for authority figures anyway. I choose to not feed into any sense of Guru seeking, going forward. Rather, I wish to declare open season on all Gurus, for whateverthehell reason you like.
It's difficult to regret any of it, however. I'm more of a life goes on kinda guy, and don't ever agonize over couldashouldawoulda. Humans are very bad at integrating the context of the time with actions at that time. Give yourself a pass, and just don't do that shit anymore once you come to your proper senses.
...Someone else pointed me to Jimmy's "I Will No Longer..." post, where he's going to let himself off the hook in terms of adhering to pretty much every standard that's logically, critically integrated into everything his Low-Carb Business is about.
I was talking to a trusted friend this week about what’s been happening in my life over the past year that has had a direct impact on my weight. I’ve been very open and honest about this and working diligently behind-the-scenes to create strategies that will help control the stress that is raising my cortisol and blood sugar levels making it next to impossible to lose weight right now despite faithfully eating low-carb, high-fat. With so many people writing to me sharing their own frustrations about the lack of weight loss despite everything being right in their diets, I wanted to offer up some encouragement to them and myself that all hope is not lost. Keep in mind there are so many non-diet reasons why your weight is stuck or going up, including stress-induced cortisol spikes (what I believe I’m dealing with), lack of sleep, hormonal imbalances, getting older, and more. I’m always amused by those who say the ketogenic diet must not work because people like me don’t have the “perfect” body and weight. Despite our cultural obsession with this, there are many other markers of health besides weight–triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, minimal small, dense LDL particles, A1c, fasting insulin, hsCRP (key inflammation marker), CT heart scan, and many other tests. The fact that these markers are still all excellent for me is what keeps me motivated while still working through the weight challenges.
Shorter Jimmy: I'm so stressed about not losing, but gaining weight instead, that I can't lose weight, only gain weight.
Do you even need to unpack that? It is too ridiculous; it is to laf. It is designed for his cadre of fucktard sycophants—who are now beyond excuse for their own selves. Read the bolded sections again. Essentially: it's got to be something else, and not that one thing we can't speak of, lest it tarnish the LC/Ketogenic magic appeal of gluttony.
Jimmy gained about 60 pounds AGAIN!, in a year or two—an incredible rate of gain in a SAD world where it typically creeps up on people 10 pounds per year—and it could be anything or everything except the one thing that actually caused it: he ate too fucking much, too fucking often.
The CICO guys are once again vindicated. You can't fool mother nature; you can't fool physics or thermodynamics. Now, WHY he ate too much too often IS a valid question, and it's my particular area of interest. In that, all of his excuses might play a role, and others, such as the gut microbiome. But, the role is contributory to making the conscious or unconscious decision to eat too much, too often: the absolute cause of his gobsmacking weight gain over a relatively sort period of time is simply eating too much over that period of time than he expended in energy over that same period of time—and even the Eadesian metabolic advantage of 300 kcal/d doesn't matter.
People get stupidly confused about this, because they weigh themselves every day and lose the forrest through the trees. The bod doesn't work like that. Every long-term weight gain is comprised of a wave function with days of weight gain and weight loss, in an overall upward trend. Every long-term weight loss is comprised of a wave function with days of weight gain and weigh loss, in an overall downward trend. The difference is that in the former, it's higher highs and higher lows. In the latter, lower highs and lower lows.
So, you can count all the fallacious ways Jimmy got fat yet again, if you like, but there's really only one reason, you silly cunts. Nonetheless, he's going to let himself off the hook—that people are rightfully holding him to account for—because it's inexplicable and, "despite everything being right in [his] diet." That's called an A priori falsehood. You don't even need to get up off the couch to know and understand that virtually nothing is right with his diet.
...This is nothing new, though, and guys like Dr. Michael Eades paved the ad hoc way. They taught acolytes well in Atkinianity. Here's Eades' modus operandi:
- You haven't read the studies.
- Oh, you have? Well, you might want to look at the full text, not just the abstract.
- Oh, you did that too? Well, you need to understand how to interpret them.
- ...Oh, BTW, it's either observational, it's old, or the researchers don't understand basic biochemistry, or they're not serious anthropologists, or whatever.
- Oh, still not satisfied? Well, OK, then it's basic biochemistry. I'll post about it in a year or more.
- What? A genetic mutation that makes some people different? Dismissible. "Stef," and Basic Biochemistry.
- Oh, BTW, there are experts in the field. An expert is someone I think I agree with.
I don't hate Jimmy, though I can't bring myself to well wishes, anymore. I'm a bit disgusted by Michael Eades. I think he's lying an manipulating—which is why I'm glad he went into the appliance business. I'm a sucker for redemption and even though you can do a decent sous vide on the cheap, his creation is cool and I paid for it, so he can't take it away.
Look here. It's but one tiny example of what The Duck Dodgers have been dealing with in terms of Eades' Intransigence for well over a year—though we started off in a very honest attempt to get him to come along with new discovery. Valhalla proved too enticing.
This is from Peter's blog, last November. The snark goes substantially up the thread, but here's where it gets funny. Eades:
No dishonesty on my part at all. You once again are getting confused by Draper's speculation versus what was actually measured.
It is true that Draper did write the above line in the paper in question. But here is where critical reading of the literature comes in. In Table II on page 314 (for those of you who want to follow along from home), in the far right column, it shows the glycogen content of the native foods (meat) to range anywhere from 0.1-0.9 grams. I averaged it to 0.5 grams. Remember, these are not speculative - they are measured. And measured in the native foods. Which is what, I have assumed, we've been talking about all along - the native Inuit diet of meat. [condescension emphasized]
LOL, so you are having trouble reading. You read it wrong!
Table II is not measured in grams. Table II is a measurement of percent of nutrients obtained from native foods.
In other words, each column is just the percentage of that nutrient that was obtained from native foods.
Try reading a little more closely next time, Dr. Eades!
Did that humble him in any way? Bitch, please: He's Doctor Eades! And here's a more recent Dr. Eades (his blog doesn't have comment hyperlinks, so hit that link and do a Find on a relevant string). He still must assume—and show his congregation of blind-believing, cock-sucking, groupie-whore fucktards—that any interlocutor isn't aware of studies; only read the abstract if he is aware; or doesn't know how to "interpret" them if both prerequisites have been satisfied (rather like a Supreme Court interpretation of the plain English U.S. Constitution). In other words, the very only way that you and Mike Eades could ever see eye to eye on any study ever done anywhere, by anyone, at any time, is if you agree with him on its findings.
Your comments make it patently obvious that you have little understanding of the stable isotope literature. [...] you need the 15N studies for that. All of which you carefully ignore.
You’re interested only in promoting a specific viewpoint that bears little resemblance to scientific reality. And, like Team DD, you’re fond of cutting and pasting large swaths of text without really knowing what they mean or how to interpret them. And, like Team DD, you’ve drifted into repetitive troll territory.
So (BTW, his interlocutor was just another in "Team DD"):
Right back at you. You are apparently unaware that the 15N values are misleading for determining meat consumption:
“Nitrogen isotope values in particular can be misleading. First, because of the complex nonlinear relationship between food source and consumer, it is not possible to accurately estimate the proportion of meat versus plants in the diet, since large changes in the percentage of meat are indicated only by small increases in 15N values (Ambrose et al., 2003; Hedges and Reynard, 2007). Second, unlike herbivores that acquire all of their protein from plant leaves, foraging humans usually eat plants for their carbohydrate content, and therefore focus on the starch- and sugar-rich storage organs of plants, such as USOs and seeds (Lee, 1979; Marlowe, 2010). These storage organs may have higher nitrogen values (Hedges and Reynard, 2007), and in any case provide a smaller amount of protein to the body and are therefore relatively swamped by the meat protein signal.” – http://pmid.us/24612646
Therefore, you won’t be able to conclude much about meat consumption from 15N values.
But there’s no need to be rude and terse with me. Do you always talk like that to anyone who disagrees with you?? It seems we are talking about different hominid species. I was referring to the dramatic shift from C3 foods to C4 grasses and sedges around ~3.5 million years ago, as explained by the National Academy of Sciences. Nowhere in any of the studies does anyone conclude that high-meat consumption was the most likely source of that shift for early hominids. You are inventing such conclusions if you think that’s what the studies said.
He published the comment, but it's crickets after that. I'm sure all his Usual Eades Groupie Fucktards took note of that. Not.
I'm not sure if you knew this, but rumor has it that Mike Eades has a Low-Carb, Fire-Breathing, Ketogenic Dragon in His Garage.
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage." [...]
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
In this context, the ad hoc, goal-post-moving is a concerted effort by Moore, Eades, et al, to prop up a sense of wonder in the ability to fool mother nature by being a quotidian glutton—only just keep the carbs low. It does work for some, perhaps many people. It worked marvelously for me at 25-30. Doesn't at 54. But, perhaps the real reason it worked for me at 25-30 is that it satiated me, and I focussed on various active things that took time away from sitting around, wondering what was in the cupboard or fridge.
Again, WHY you eat too much—too often for your level of activity—is the issue you ought best be dealing with. Or, think of it this way: it's not eat less, move more. Perhaps, it's move more first...eat less 'cause you're engaged. Think about the difference.
Well, all is apparently right with the world. Jimmy wrote Cholesterol Clarity to explain away very high cholesterol numbers that normal people don't have and might want to be concerned about—this is way apart from the Cholesterol Con. Then, he wrote Keto Clarity to explain away his and others' dietary failure on Atkins. And since it's now Atkinianity, it can't be wrong. Explanations, qualifications, and interpretations are always needed to keep the catechism sound for all the children.
Mike: call your office. Childrens needs interpretations.