Guest Post By Matt Stone Commenter Daniel on Paleo Myths (Eventually)

So it has been a slightly weird couple of days. On a total lark when feelin’ fine after potatoes, I took on a grin, sucked it up, and emailed Anthony Colpo. …Listen, I’ve had a bit of fun with a couple of posts in the past on the subject, and Mike Eades is a friend of mine, and all of that…but I’ve been peeking at some of the stuff Anthony has been writing lately, and if I were to deny what I consider to be the enormous sanity in so much of it, then who loses? Who’s being cheated? I have a rather large nose and I’ll keep it, thank you very much.

So here’s anthony’s post that in part, incorporates my email to him.

…He’s certainly not advocating carrying around a thermometer in your pocket protector to measure your body temperature at all times. Nor is he advising you to eat the very foods that made you fat, gave you elevated BP and a host of other problems necessitating pharmaceutical intervention in the first place in order to “heal.”

Which brings me to Matt Stone and his soon to be published book, 12 Paleo Myths: Eat Better Than a Caveman (bad publicity is better than no publicity, Matt; so, with my compliments…). And I guess, judging by the section of the book he excerpts, cavemen actually had a tough time getting it up. Who knows? Perhaps that’s the best argument for God yet devised. Divine intervention. …Perhaps that’s where the oh, God…God…yes, God….oh, YES….comes from.

You can dismiss all of the paleo anecdotes about “morning wood,” increased libido, and certainly all of Robb Wolf’s “paleo Babies”” (don’t take that the wrong way). Yep, Matt read a nutrition book once. He reads Ray Peat. He has a holster and trusty thermometer. He whips it out at conferences (the thermometer).

OK, so perhaps Matt needs another few bucks and since eating pizza, burgers, and ice cream has run its course, maybe it’s time to sign up for a currently running “paleo Summit,” where I’m sure all the guys presenting at Sean Croxton’s invitation were well aware and A-OK that a co-presenter was going to insinuate that they probably suffer from erectile dysfunction—not to mention deluded by 11 other myths.

You can’t even make this shit up. Croxton is either easily duped, doesn’t look into shit adequately, or lacks a modicum of deference to the the other presenters giving of their time. Who doesn’t know what Stone is about? Dr. Kurt Harris in my comments, just this afternoon:

If Matt Stone were a weatherman, you would find that he had correctly predicted 12 of the last 3 big storms.

Anyway, so in the comments of Stone’s post to peddle his book tearing down paleo for its lack of pizza, ice cream…and thermometers…in advance of his participation in a “paleo Summit,” we have this comment by someone really honestly searching. He heard Ston’e presentation at the “Paleo Summit” and does not quite seem to be fooled.

Matt, I am a more recent paleo eater and was turned on to your site just today from your Paleo Summit presentation. Though I admit I was pious and zealous when I first started the lifestyle, I am more interested in long-term health and well-being than in joining a systemic way of thinking just for community sake. That’s why I appreciate your alternative POV and, though it makes me flinch, your research.

However, I have to say this, just in the same way that you purport that the paleo “gurus” being blinded by their own desire to market their belief system, which makes me distrustful of them, believe me, I am equally distrustful of you because you tell me that my understanding of why eating the way I do is setting myself up for failure is just a purchase of your book away.

I have as little interest in buying your book as I do Robb Wolf’s. I have a couple of simple questions for you: Are you really telling me that eating “paleo” is a bad idea, or that the mentality of paleo causes people to become stunted in their thinking, thusly getting them into similar dysfunctional, non-forward moving ruts as pre-paleo eating? I like to think of myself as self-reflective; I started too low carb for my lean body type and have been adding in more and more starches and fruits ever since I realized that I was losing weight, which obviously wasn’t healthy for me. Are you really saying that eating something like pizza can and should be okay for me, even though I used to feel like crap when I ate it before, and have since felt like crap eating it post-paleo?

To me, paleo isn’t about eating like a caveman, it’s about not eating garbage. I’m sorry if a lot of your readers have a hard time changing their way of thinking; that not eating modern-day crap is somehow a huge detriment to everything about living, but, come on, how are we ever going to grow as a people if we just accept the paradigm as the way it is and not look at systemic changes away from crappy eating? In other words, I have a very hard time with the idea that eating comfortable foods like cake and ice cream and staying fat is fine as long as we get our metabolisms in order. When are we, as a people, going to stop being such whiny babies about eating comfortably and staying fat (while self-loathing) and admitting that bad food is bad food? In my opinion, we will with movements like paleo, that challenge that coddled mindset. In my opinion, not challenging ourselves to do better (i.e. eat better) is making us weaker mentally. Why work for your food (grow it, nurture it, prepare it, enjoy it) when you can have it instantly handed to you and it makes you temporarily feel good? To me, even though it’s becoming a religion, things like paleo challenge that very basic victim mentality and make us stronger. But then, of course, it’s up to us individually to seek out what’s best for us and continually challenge ourselves further to be self-reflective and growing. But no, why do that when we have “gurus” like you and Robb Wolf that can hold our hands through the brush?

Another question: If fat doesn’t make us fat, and carb-intake doesn’t spike insulin, thusly making us fat, what the hell makes us fat? Do I need to buy your book to find out? I admit I haven’t had the chance to dig through your site much yet – and I will – but I just have a hard time with sales pitches; I feel that you can’t trust anyone who stands to make money off of you.

I’m sure that your book was the logical stop in consolidating the information that you researched along with the stories on your site, but, like I said, how can you expect me to trust you any more than Robb or Mark Sisson? You all seem to have the “answers,” I just need to buy the book.

I have no desire to adhere to any one philosophy, I just want to be healthy in a sustainable way.

Don’t get me wrong, if I were as smart and savvy as you guys, I would want to sell a book about my brilliant ideas too. But you say right here on your blog that you have no intentions of marketing yourself like paleo does. Yet look at all the products you have.

Please don’t take this as attacking; I feel that, in the same vein of you, and other alternative thinkers like you, feeling that you need to keep movements like paleo in check, it’s people like me that aren’t out to subscribe to any one thing need to keep you in check as well.

Honestly, all I’m really looking for is some clarification of your summit presentation because you said a lot that obviously flies in the face of what I’ve been doing thus far, and since I’m only looking to stay healthy, I just want to know what the best way to do that is. I’ll take a look around the site, for starters.

Well, for what it’s worth, I disagree with those who are pessimistic over the future. This sort of thing as well as the comments in my latest post, are a good sign.

Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. The cost of two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance the travel to write, photo, and film from interesting places and share the experiences with you.


  1. Richard Nikoley on February 28, 2012 at 17:47

    Wrap your minds around this, a comment on that post of stone’s in reply to the comment in the post:

    “Ice cream, pizza, breakfast cereal, etc… would be for people with very bad digestion, starting with refined processed food will allow for the person to assimilate calories and help boost the metabolism. People coming off paleo that are not having issues with digestion should stick to whole foods, whole starches, unrefined sugars, animal proteins, saturated fats… focusing mostly on carbs and then more carbs. But even healthy people should enjoy ice cream or cereal… don’t tell me that you didn’t like this stuff as a kid, and it didn’t make you smile! Just don’t pound it for 3 meals a day! There is no voodoo here, or some secret answer in the books. Eat food to raise your body temperature (boost metabolism). If you feel well, lift heavy things, sprint, swim, play, sun tan, hobbies, etc…”

    So, if you’re “coming off” real foods, eat crap, then go back to real foods.

    • Kurt G Harris MD on February 28, 2012 at 18:55

      “Eat food to raise your body temperature (boost metabolism).”

      This is the part that is pure pseudoscience that Stone has never let go of. “Boosting metabolism” beyond getting out of the extreme VLC range pseudo-starvation range, is 100% woo bullshit.

      Broda Barnes thought all heart disease was caused by “low metabolism” and he was full of shit too.

      Other than in extreme cases, no endocrinologist uses body temperature alone to diagnose clinical hypothyroidism for a very good reason. It’s woo. That is the reason.

      And the reason real doctors don’t use body temp to diagnose “low metabolism” is the same as why they don’t diagnose “adrenal fatigue” or :”candida” – because these are like chakras and crystals and meridians -they are purely faddish internet diagnoses that are not real diseases. They are useful concept only to sell crap to gullible people.

      • Richard Nikoley on February 28, 2012 at 19:49

        Like^2 Dr Harris, except for magical crystals that give me wood.

      • David Csonka on February 28, 2012 at 20:19

        Came for the nutrition talk, stayed for the penis jokes.

      • Danny Roddy on February 28, 2012 at 20:34

        Hey Dr. Harris,

        Body temp being the be-all-end-all in health is a straw man (who’s saying this?). It’s a something to be considered, like pulse, or extensive lab work.

        Feeling frigid all the time is worst symptom I, and many of my readers, have ever encountered.

        Maybe it’s how Stone has portrayed body temperature’s connection to health, but “100% woo bullshit”? That’s ridiculous.

      • Kurt G Harris MD on February 28, 2012 at 20:43

        No, trying to jack up your body temp when it is already normal by overeating is ridiculous.

        I never said low body temperature was preferred or never happens, did I?

        I said those like stone who say high or low metabolism is defined by body temperature and the higher the better, that is nonsense.

        Those who say that you are hypothyroid based SOLELY on body temp with normal labs (barnes and stone have both said this) are wrong.

        If my observations don’t apply to you, then why be upset?

      • Danny Roddy on February 28, 2012 at 20:59

        @Dr. Harris,

        Nah, I’m not upset.

        Richard has poked fun at the concept a couple of times on this site. I interpreted your comment to be in support of the same mindset.

        Would your feelings be different if “metabolism” was replaced with “thyroid”?

      • Kurt G Harris MD on February 28, 2012 at 21:22

        Hi Danny

        Not really.

        I have no doubt that the body tries to protect itself by lowering metabolic processes when threatened by starvation – low calories or very low carb. This situation should be avoided by not starving yourself of either calories or carbs.

        But Stone’s idea that you “fix” your metabolism by overeating enough to raise your blood temperature – raising it beyond an already normal level- is nonsense.

        If your temp rises beyond normal, your body is just trying to dump calories, not “heal” your metabolism.

        You will “heal” your way to diabetes eating with that philosophy. Energy excess is energy excess.

        As far as “thyroid”, when metabolism slows down as a defense mechanism, that is not hypothyroidism -that is normal physiology even if you are cold as a result. Hypothyroidism should be a term reserved for inability to provide enough T4 when your body “wants” it – not just an adaptively lower metabolic rate.

        Let me relate something. My body temperature – regardless of body comp, regardless of macro ratios, and over the past 25 years, is consistently in the mid- 70s and never varies.

        According to Stone, I am “hypometabolic” yet my thyroid labs are normal and I can walk outside in flip-flops in 30 degree weather no problem. I have almost supernatural cold tolerance in my hands and feet. My point is that the feeling of being cold – especially in the limbs -has more to do with peripheral circulation and environmental adaptation and emotional state than it has to do with fractions of a degree in variation in core temperature.

      • Danny Roddy on February 28, 2012 at 21:45

        @Dr. Harris,

        I’m definitely not here to espouse Stone’s ideas.

        Agreed. Simply using body temp can be deceptive because of how many hormones alter body temperature. Measuring rT3 and T3 would help clear up that issue.

        Providing ample T3 to mingle with vitamin A and cholesterol to produce pregnenolone seems like something to shoot for, especially since stress is a long-standing issue for many.

        I’ve heard that you think Dr. Peat is a loon, so I won’t belabor this.

      • Richard Nikoley on February 28, 2012 at 21:58

        Kurt, for thread clarity, I’m assuming you mean your body temp runs in the 97s. If that’s not correct, please correct.

      • Kurt G Harris MD on February 28, 2012 at 22:11

        correct – typing too fast….

      • Patrik on February 28, 2012 at 23:13

        I, for one, would love to read what Kurt thinks about Peat.

      • Mallory on February 29, 2012 at 07:12

        i for two!
        “As far as “thyroid”, when metabolism slows down as a defense mechanism, that is not hypothyroidism -that is normal physiology even if you are cold as a result. Hypothyroidism should be a term reserved for inability to provide enough T4 when your body “wants” it – not just an adaptively lower metabolic rate.”- kurt

        hahhahaha this is the best quote of 2012 i have read…hands down, coupled with everyone self diagnosing adrenal fatigue and hypothyroidism. maybe they have some stress problems like overthinking their frikin body functions and food choices but im almost positive 99% do not actually have malfunctioning adrenal glands nor malfunctioning thyroids…

      • Galina L. on February 29, 2012 at 09:44

        Usually people feel cold when their temperature is above normal even slightly when they have a cold. It seems logical to expect that a person with low than average body temperature shout be cold tolerant. Is it right, or I am wrong?
        Also, after changing my medication from Synthroid to Armour Thyroid I feel more worm and more cold tolerant but my body temperature didn’t changed.

      • Danny Roddy on February 29, 2012 at 10:23


        I sense that the major prerogative in the paleosphere is to balance blood sugar and minimize insulin. And if it’s more than weight you’re dealing with you must have something wrong with the gut-brain-axis.

        Serotonin, estrogen, and adrenaline are rarely discussed in regards to their ability to modulate blood sugar.

        Free fatty acids suppressing the ability of the cell to utilize glucose (randle cycle) is also something that doesn’t get any attention.

        I thought hypothyroidism was low output of thyroid hormones, and considering the conversion of active thyroid hormone to T3 is where all the benefits are, so I’m a little confused at Dr. Harris’s definition of being hypo, and really confused at him calling Barnes a quack due to the fact that he had something like ~4,000 patients and less than five of them died of a heart attack.

      • zogby on February 29, 2012 at 06:39

        You may be right about low metabolism and adrenal fatigue being fabrications, but people wouldn’t turn to them if they didn’t have significant health problems unsolved by either ‘real doctors’ or ‘real paleo authorities.’

        In such a case, you have two basic choices: Wait for these ‘real’ authorities to refine their recommendations until they actually work for you, or follow Seth Roberts’ idea and begin to self experiment, perhaps using some of Matt’s ideas. Given how painfully slow health science advances, I think it’s foolish to wait.

  2. The Lazy Caveman on February 28, 2012 at 23:23

    I just finished the Matt Stone episode on the Summit. What an incredible waste of time. He makes some great points about not adhering too closely to dogma then turns around completely throws that out the window when talking on his own protocols. Basically, don’t try to lose weight while getting healthier cause it will make you sicker and you’ll fail. Absolutely absurd.

    • The Lazy Caveman on February 28, 2012 at 23:26

      Also, his implication that carbs make you less insulin resistant was incredibly misleading. If you’ve been low-carb for a long time, yes, carbs will bring up your insulin sensitivity. But he makes no mention that in folks with hyperinsulinemia, more carbs is adding the wrong kind of fuel to the fire. Downright negligent.

  3. Chris Highcock on February 28, 2012 at 15:58

    For what it is worth I think Colpo is a good guy.

    • Kurt G Harris MD on February 28, 2012 at 18:58

      I always say good beats nice any day. So I agree. I have found little on his blog to disagree with other than his hyperventilating style, which is just a matter of taste.

      His cholesterol book is outstanding and I believe it antedates GCBC for publication date.

  4. Nandalal Rasiah on February 28, 2012 at 15:59

    The most charitable (i hope I haven’t lost you here) reading of Stone is that he caters to people who did not have chronic medical issues prior to low-carbing or some variety of paleo–such that once he told them to not be neurotic about the foods they want to eat, all their subjective measures of well-being improved. I only have about 15 lbs to lose (and it is quite stubborn) so I tried LC, no-grain, no-dairy, every combination of carb-phobic dietary approach out there but the utility for a vanity dieter, like myself, is just not there. No progress and after a month of restrictive dieting, no improvements in workouts. Also, what’s your beef with Croxton? I think Daniel shows that newbs are not necessarily sheeple. Stone is the only prankster in the whole line-up (unless you count Kruse.)

    • Richard Nikoley on February 28, 2012 at 16:24

      It’s hyperbole in Croxton’s case. I’m just pissed at him for not seeing something like this coming. Stone has been antagonistic to Paleo, so at least it should have been couched as such. That said, I’m assuming a bit because I don’t know what went on behind the scenes.

      • Craig on March 1, 2012 at 14:42

        Croxton wasn’t duped. It was planned that way. Maybe for entertainment? This was in the schedule long before the summit started:

        “Matt Stone Debunks The Paleo Diet
        Is the Paleo diet a short-term fix? Are there any long-term side effects stemming from this way of eating? Matt Stone thinks so. Find out why Matt believes that claims regarding carb-induced insulin resistance are no more than a “scientific fairy tale”. And learn how Matt has been able to help people recover their health on a diet high in starches — sometimes with grains and refined sugars!”

  5. Chris Pine on February 28, 2012 at 16:09

    That our paleolithic ancestors had a hard time getting it up is quite laughable. Just that pretty much calls Stone’s entire paradigm into question.

    I for one can also vouch for the fact that I started getting the “morning wood” every morning for basically the first time since my teenage years when I first switched to a paleo diet.

    • Richard Nikoley on February 28, 2012 at 16:26

      “I for one can also vouch for the fact that I started getting the “morning wood” every morning for basically the first time since my teenage years when I first switched to a paleo diet.”

      Me too, or, 2am wood. For a few years, now. I’m 51. My dad, 74, testifies to the same thing but I don’t want to hear anything about it. :)

  6. RickB on February 28, 2012 at 16:20

    Richard, I left the following comment on Stone’s site in response to a post about the benefits of Frosted Flakes:

    “This site is pure gold. ‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’ is jealous the combination of hoax and acolytes that Mr. Stone has produced. He roped everyone a ways back with his indictment of zero-carb, and has used that reputation as a thoughtful contrarian to become PT Barnum. In this present incarnation, he includes a sprinkling of legitimate posts among absurd ones like this so as to throw everyone off the scent.

    “But even in doing that, he posts videos and pictures of himself looking absolutely awful—which just heightens the ruse and forces his minions to double-down (“his body is just fixing itself with puffed rice after years of being ravaged by consuming grass-fed veal liver!”). I only hit this site every couple months, and every time I do, I leave with a smile. I look forward to Casey Affleck shooting the documentary.”

  7. RickB on February 28, 2012 at 16:32

    Richard, I just browsed Colpo’s recent post on “Inescapable Reality of Calories in Fat Loss.” Is that post indicative of his thinking and writing in other areas? He should read the December 28, 2011 NYTimes Mag article “The Fat Trap.” Although the science is sketchy, it’s the most profound piece I’ve read on the absolute insanity and human toll of approaching fat loss with an “eat less, exercise more” paradigm. For all the studies that Colpo cites, he should be aware of the 95% long-term failure rate of dieters who follow what he seems to believe (again, only from my browsing of that one post) is the only way to lose fat. Take a deep breath and step out of 1970 and into 2012, sir.

    • RickB on February 28, 2012 at 16:34

      [Richard, the last line was directed at Colpo, not you.]

    • Richard Nikoley on February 28, 2012 at 16:42


      Eat Less Exercise More is wrong headed. Right headed is palatability, in my view and I am really seeing this after three days because potatoes only go so far. But I’ll probably have some tonight.

      The reason a real food paleo diet works, provided you stick to simple preparations is that they can become a little mundane and boring, making it easier to have something better to do than eat.

      • Mallory on February 29, 2012 at 07:02

        this is also the same reason i cannot convince anyone to stay on it. it is too boring and repetitive and simple…it doesnt get the brain-gasm of SAD food. I cant even try and explain it to people that it is just food. watching people kill themselves is annoying when they just will not love themselves enough to change. i work with like 15-20 diabetics…severe diabetics, with heart problems. their morning BS is out of this world( i ask every morning..)

        what they wont do is anything about it. they need sweet. its mardis gras and they are all eating fucking king cake every single day. if anyone know s about king cake its the epitomy of braingasm of food. 4 of the 15 to 20 are now in the hospital. wtf i get so frustrated at this. i cant fix stupid, and i cant make people have respect for themselves and thei health if they just dont care. sorry, rant isnt even relevant… but your comment sparked because its just so easy, its free medically, its cheap…and no one does it. at least in the dirty fatty south

      • Daniel on March 1, 2012 at 05:58

        Mallory, halle-fuckin-lujah! Finally someone gets where I’m coming from. You and I are on the same page and it’s so comforting to know I’m not alone in this mentality. The only reason that Matt Stone struck such a cord with me is this whole idea that it’s harder to control your eating, so you might as well find a way to make eating anything work. That’s the dumbest logic I’ve ever heard, but it’s the norm. People are so weak and coddled by our culture and instant gratification of “food” that they don’t even see what they’re doing to themselves. And Matt’s capitalizing on that.

        And I hear you on the diabetic thing. Taking it further, I was even more miffed at Matt Stone for calling paleo eaters fools for assuming that carb intake affects insulin. I lived with a high carb, low fat-eating diabetic for 4 years and watched her inject two kinds of insulin 4 times daily (sometimes after each meal) just to keep her spiking insulin in check (which never went well, unfortunately). I get that it’s oversimplifying the matter to reduce obesity and diabetes to this one causal factor, but just from my personal experience (and yours too, sounds like), I just have no reason to believe that eating lots of carbs is ever good for anyone.

    • Razwell on February 28, 2012 at 19:02


      GREAT points. Colpo’s obesity information is outright very wrong, not at all congruent with Dr. Linda Bacon, Dr. Douglas Coleman, Dr. Arya Sharma – real experts who are FAR more knowledgeable on the literature. The scientific literature does INDEED say that dieting is a complete failure. Only 1% or less will succeed after a decade- and even less once you pass the decade mark.

      The scientific literature clearly indicates that voluntary factprs are of extremely limited potency to affect body weight long term. This si not at all comngruent with Colpo’s FALSE claims .

      (There is something different about obese poeple which results in obesity INDEPENDENTLY of caloric intake. Bariatric surgery results strongly imply this. Patients are clinically obese STILL with average BMI’s of about 32 to 30 on only 1,000 calories).

      LOVE your 2012 comment- LOVE IT! LOL ! Obesity research is nto the only thing that guy has misrepresented: *women and coronary artery disease, *alcohol and heart diseae, * iron hyypothesis and he refuses to acknowledge Dr Steven Nissen and Dr Daniel rader’s excellent research of ” HDL Apo1 A Milano” – the futire of heart disease. Phenomenal results in 2003 study. Coronary plaque reduced by 8% volume in only 5 weeks .

      i think it is extremely disingenuous of Colpo to link to Stephan , as if they share the same beliefs. Colpo does not at all acknowledge the biologic system which counts calories for us.

      Stephan knows better. He understands calories matter smatter, but the problem is that we do not have control over energy balance to anywhere near the degree salesmen like Colpo say.

      Stephan is well aware that NEURAL CIRCUITRY is in control of enery homeostasis long term. Colpo is 100 % an undereducated crank crackpot with an enlarged ego and PROFOUND lack of understanding of basic biology. I woud not pay 3 cents for any of his books- especially the fat loss book.

      Take it from me ( and Muata Kamdibe) Both of us have been BURNED by Colpo shadily.. I have dealt with him for years.

      Since it is Richard’s blog, that is all I will say.

      • Txomin on February 29, 2012 at 14:07

        It makes no sense to think in terms of time spans like decades.

  8. Skyler Tanner on February 28, 2012 at 16:36

    Calories count. Nobody left Dachau overfat from all the carb-filled gruel, stress hormone-skyrocketing labor and genocide. They’re all notorious for “making you fat” (save the genocide) but the people who got out were bone thin…because calories count. There are a lot of moving parts, no doubt, but if lean is your game keep an eye on your intake.

    • RickB on February 28, 2012 at 17:01

      I agree that calories count. There are two thought experiments involving food quality and calories.

      One, where identical twins eat 3,000 calories a day, one of grass-fed ruminant, wild salmon, tubers, and veggies, and the other of canola oil and HFCS. I think that would disprove Colpo’s post.

      The other is identical twins eating either 1,000 calories a day or 5,000 calories a day of the identical diet. I think that would disprove the idea that calories don’t count.

      But there’s an entire world in between, which is Skyler’s point, I think, and which I agree with. But if I had to roll with one or the other, I’d go with food quality over calories for fat loss [again, “The Fat Trap” is really powerful in bringing the human toll of calorie counting home]. And I think everyone would be much better off if they did too.

      • Richard Nikoley on February 28, 2012 at 17:38


        Yes, I do think there’s a Newtonian/Einstienian aspect to it in that in the normal practice of things it really is about energy balance (well, we’re always in balance, it’s just that sometimes it takes fat moving way into or way out of cells to keep it so – weight gain/loss) and there’s no real surpasses. But at the extremes things could get weird. I don’t know by how much but I’ll bet a 3k cal diet by one identical twin eating normally and the other exclusively by soy oil or something might have surprising results. I’m guessing it could be attributed to hormonal disregulation as a result of micro nutrient deficiency in the latter.

      • Skyler Tanner on February 28, 2012 at 18:33

        I generally agree with everything you’ve stated. I look at all of the arguments as people talking past each other, steeped in a point of view for whatever reason, some far worse than others. Context matters and the course of action depends on it.

      • Nigel Kinbrum on February 28, 2012 at 18:43

        “One, where identical twins eat 3,000 calories a day, one of grass-fed ruminant, wild salmon, tubers, and veggies, and the other of canola oil and HFCS. I think that would disprove Colpo’s post.”
        Oh, noes. Not that old chestnut again.

        Where weight is concerned, calories count. The two twins have the same weight.

        Where health is concerned, food quality counts. The second diet lacks protein, amongst other things. The second twin ends up dead.

        Can we all have a group hug, now?

      • Richard Nikoley on February 28, 2012 at 19:38

        In fairness to the example, Nigel, I. Think he’s talking in the short term, not long enough for micro or macro nutrient deficiencies to result in death.

      • Nigel Kinbrum on February 29, 2012 at 10:18

        I still believe that the two twins would weigh the same (give or take a bit of glycogen & water weight) in the short & medium-term if they have the same calories in and the same calories out.

        I’m pretty sure that Leibel et al did a metabolic ward trial where P was held at 15%, and C & F were varied hugely with no effect on weight.

      • RickB on February 29, 2012 at 11:48

        The point isn’t altering carbs and fat; it’s altering food quality. The entire essence of the paleo movement is a real food one: Rejecting modern, processed, artificial, Frankenfood garbage with real, living food–macronutrient ratios and calorie counting be damned.

        And it isn’t about weight; it’s about lean tissue (muscle and organ mass) vs. fat tissue. The focus on weight instead of fat has always been the great red herring of diet studies. If anything, the deleterious rebound effects of rapid weight loss (both fat and lean tissue) and the micronutrient deficiencies that accompany it should stop the emphasis on weight instead of body composition.

        Finally, in today’s Paleo Summit presentation, Mat Lalonde said: “First you have to look at food quality, then you have to look at calories.” That sums up my point much better than I have been doing.

      • Nigel Kinbrum on February 29, 2012 at 16:21

        If weight loss is slow, it’s all bodyfat loss (unless the diet is totally retarded like the zero protein one you mentioned above). To lose weight, there must be a caloric deficit.

        As Lyle McDonald says “Given adequate protein & EFAs, you can get cut on table sugar”. Once the essentials have been covered, it doesn’t matter where the rest of the calories come from*.

        * Except for people who have impaired blood glucose control. When normal blood glucose control is restored, it doesn’t matter.

      • Dave, RN on February 29, 2012 at 12:46

        I’ve just about seen that experiment in my twin nieces. One is a meat eater. The other is vegetarian/vegan since early high school.

        I’ll let ya’ll guess which one is shorter, weaker and pale as compared to the other one. I worry about her sometimes.

      • Richard Nikoley on February 29, 2012 at 17:41

        I’m sorry, Dave. That would keep me awake at nights for sure.

      • Leo desforges on March 1, 2012 at 19:45

        The meat eater?? Tell me!

  9. Ajr on February 28, 2012 at 17:20

    As far as I can tell from reading Colpo’s book ” The Fat Loss Bible”,a short summation of what he advocates the following:

    1. Eat healthy and natural foods. Keep grains, HFCS, and processed foods to a minimum
    2. Exercise instead of sitting on your ass all day
    3. Match your calories and carbs to your activity level
    4. Get enough quality protein to support your body
    5. Get the rest of your calories from healthy fats
    6. Get quality sleep every night
    7. Take a good multi-vitamin, especially vitamin D

    I can’t disagree with any of this because I’ve done similar things and it’s worked great for me. Some people dislike Colpo because he can be a bit caustic at times, but keep in mind that he gets flack for what he says on a regular basis from both the low carb and CW people since he takes a middle ground stance.

  10. johnmc on February 28, 2012 at 17:24

    Everybody has an agenda, you just have to make sure the source’s agenda matches yours. My agenda? Increased availability of high quality non CAFO meats and full fat real foods. I don’t give half a flying fuck whether you fill yourself up on cheap pizza or cake as long as I can still get the food I want.

  11. Jay Jay on February 28, 2012 at 17:55

    It’s obvious that the carbs you’re eating now, along with your lack of activity, are clouding your thought, and making you angry, irritable, and aggressive.

    You’ll probably have a heart attack soon!

    And I have NO doubt this would be reflected in your body temperature.

    Prove me wrong!

    (snark off)

    • Richard Nikoley on February 28, 2012 at 17:58


      “And I have NO doubt this would be reflected in your body temperature.”

      Indeed. Corpses have a body temperature very close to ambient or room temperature. The don’t eat pizza and ice cream.

      Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

      • Danny Roddy on February 28, 2012 at 21:25

        A low body temperature (low thyroid) is suggestive of hormonal disarray.

        Letting the disinterest for Stone’s ideas guide one’s interpretation of physiology is probably unproductive.

      • Richard Nikoley on February 28, 2012 at 23:09

        Low body temperature is not necessarily indicative of compromised thyroid function.

      • Danny Roddy on February 28, 2012 at 23:25


        I agree with you that nothing is wrong with the organ, but being cold all the time is suggests of low T3, or normal T3, but high reverse T3, which is barely ever measured.

        Estradiol and prolactin (stress hormones) can decrease temperature according to Peat. The ability of the liver to store glycogen (convertes a lot of T4>T3) and nutrient density of the diet (sugar, selenium, copper, zinc) are important factors as well.

      • Richard Nikoley on February 28, 2012 at 23:31

        You know what else causes cold hands, cold feet, sweaty hands or sweaty feet, Danny?


        Think about it. Here, try this. Go out to your local airport or hang gliding shop, get set up for a tandem skydive or flight.

        Contemplate asking a significant other to marry you.

        Hand your teenage daughter the keys to the car for the first time.

        Be an entrepreneur and receive a subpoena from a state AGs office.

        Shall I continue?

      • Ash Simmonds on February 28, 2012 at 23:33

        Also, holding your beer too long – drink that sucker!

      • Danny Roddy on February 28, 2012 at 23:49


        Life, or increased adrenaline.

        There is a physiological explanation for all of those feelings.

      • Nandalal Rasiah on February 28, 2012 at 23:49

        Look at Wim Hof, the Dutch Ice-Man:
        I grew up in a yoga-based cult, so I’m pretty intolerant of woo-flavored arguments, but the doctors in the video do say he was able to fight the immune response (which to me should include general inflammation) in his body (upon introduction of a dead bacteria) by somehow increasing cortisol production. Given that this guy runs arctic half-marathons and swims under ice, has 5 children and is very lean (although no info on diet), I’m thinking Stone should track him down and do the anal temp-probe thing–for the sake of science!

      • Mallory on February 29, 2012 at 07:22

        Danny: ” being cold all the time is suggests of low T3, or normal T3, but high reverse T3, which is barely ever measured.
        Estradiol and prolactin (stress hormones) can decrease temperature according to Peat. The ability of the liver to store glycogen (convertes a lot of T4>T3) and nutrient density of the diet (sugar, selenium, copper, zinc) are important factors as well.”

        this simply is not true. i am living proof. i have gotten my thyroid and hormone panel drawn twice now. according to peat i should be freezing ALL THE TIME and the only time i get cold is if i do some dumbass very high protein stress inducing eating(yes high protein screws me). i think stress causes me to get cold, not my thyroid- it has zero indication of this.

        then this estradiol and prolactin decreasing temperature thing…both mine are obnoxiously LOW so i should be freezing then according to peat? too bad i am not(unless high protein…). and according to peat, besides being freezing and hypothyroid with busted adrenals and whacked cortisol, i need gallons of oj for calcium and need to OCD on my phosphorus ratio… but all my labs are just fine without this. i do alllmost opposite what peat prescribes because eating his way makes me feel stressed, and stress, in my opinion is where ALL of these problems originate. so, ill keep at my oj-less dairy-less diet, gummybear-less diet and have the lab work that peat wants all his followers to have, which again, doesnt need
        ‘peatism’ to accomplish

      • Mallory on February 29, 2012 at 07:25

        btw- my main point danny is that you are WAY TO smart and way to influential to the ‘health blogger’ whatever world to be so entrenched in peat as a end all be all… i get peat and his crap works for you, but you need to put it in context and do some more hormone reading rather than peat-assuming. for one, there are like 3 easy ways to lower prolactin that have not a damn thing to do with peat. and just looking at Kessers site theres a million ways to optimize your thyroid

      • Christo on February 29, 2012 at 10:40

        Wim is mostly vegetarian and likes his pasta.

  12. Ash Simmonds on February 28, 2012 at 18:20

    I’m almost fully carnivorous so any of my carbs are incidental, so far don’t seem to have an issue with morning wood – nor mid-morning wood, nor before lunch wood, nor early afternoon wood, nor mid-arvo wood, nor afternoon wood, nor pre dinner wood, nor evening wood, nor night wood, nor midnight wood, nor early morning wood, nor… Well.

    How much wood would a woodchuck get if a woodchuck could get wood?

  13. Nigel Kinbrum on February 28, 2012 at 18:49

    Every time I see a young female walking down the street in her underwear (black leggings) and tan Uggs, I get wood. It’s adversely affecting my driving. I’ll be 57 in a few days’ time. Halp!

    • Richard Nikoley on February 28, 2012 at 19:46

      “Every time I see a young female walking down the street in her underwear (black leggings) and tan Uggs, I get wood. It’s adversely affecting my driving. I’ll be 57 in a few days’ time. Halp!”

      Clearly, you need to go on a low-carb paleo diet.

    • Neal Matheson on February 29, 2012 at 00:04

      I have the same thing, fantastic fashion!

      • Nigel Kinbrum on February 29, 2012 at 10:22

        Thankfully, it isn’t illegal to look.
        Once the light has bounced of their bodies, they don’t own it any more – m’lud!

      • Nigel Kinbrum on February 29, 2012 at 10:23


  14. Bill Strahan on February 28, 2012 at 19:29

    To the commenter Richard is quoting: I’ll just point out that implying you don’t trust Robb Wolf because he has a book to sell is choosing to ignore his free weekly podcast that’s been running more than 2 years now. If you are worried Robb’s answers are a book purchase away, I suggest you delve into the 120+ hours of free podcasts and consider what his free answers provide.

    As to Matt, well, I made a commitment to being nicer today, so I won’t say a thing.

    • Daniel on March 1, 2012 at 06:55

      Bill, not to worry, I started my journey with Robb’s podcast, still listen, read the blog. I only meant to call Matt Stone out on his hypocrisy; that he tries to diffrientiate himself from people like Wolfe by saying he’s not part of the dogmatic nutrition establishment, only to market himself the same way the rest do.

  15. Stef on February 28, 2012 at 20:09

    What angered me the most about his talk was his assumption that paleo eaters are zombies without the ability to think outside of what our “leaders” tell us. My husband and I had to turn it off because it was making us angry. Guess we must be doing something wrong considering I’m pregnant.

  16. Alex on February 28, 2012 at 21:08

    I’m no Matt Stone apologist, but I’m pretty certain a guy of Sean’s caliber looked into Stone’s background before inviting him, and perhaps that was the exact reason for inviting him; disagreement and constructive criticism are good things. And yes, the other presenters likely did know he would be presenting since Sean revealed the whole schedule in advance. Why insult someone else who you have way more in common with than not?

    • Richard Nikoley on February 28, 2012 at 21:17

      You may be right Alex and I may be wrong and I’ll admit it if anyone comes forth with the real scoop.

      Do you think that Croxton and the co presenters knew that Stone would use this to launch a book “debunking ” paleo, and that in the launch post he would use one excerpt, and it’s about ED?

      If, so, well, I’ll follow Bill Strahan’s affirmation for tonight.

      • Lee on February 28, 2012 at 23:06

        He was always billed as the voice of the ‘opposition’ in the summit line-up, he has been on Underground Wellness a couple of times already. Sean Croxton has a wide variety of guests on, he is seems happy to let his listeners decide for themselves. Something I would have thought you’d approve of!

        As for the book pimping, who knows. Matt Stone doesn’t seem to miss a trick as far as sensationalist promotion goes.

      • Richard Nikoley on February 28, 2012 at 23:23

        “Sean Croxton has a wide variety of guests on, he is seems happy to let his listeners decide for themselves. Something I would have thought you’d approve of!”

        I do, as an individual show, not part of a panel that’s billed a Paleo summit where other presenters get to find out that a co presenter is pimping his new anti paleo book to coincide with the event using imagined paleo ED as his schtick.

    • Charbear on March 6, 2012 at 13:07

      Whenever I see any panel that is loaded with 1 side of an idea and has 1 guest that counters that, I always think that the counter-arguer is probably the least well-equipped to debate his or her side of the argument. I always think of “poor” Colmes on Hannity and Colmes or those thoroughly wacky Republicans that Bill Maher puts on. My point is, Sean is pretty smart (sure, he can have some wackos himself, but for the most part…). What I’d LIKE to believe is that he put someone on — under the guise of “debunking paleo” — who could easily be debunked himself. Sean looks like he’s reasonable and all us paleo folks have an easy time tearing apart Stone’s argument.
      The fact is, the best critics of paleo are the paleo people themselves. Robb Wolf, Kurt Harris, you Richard, among others have all refined your arguments. We invite the likes of Mat LaLonde and Chris Masterjohn to keep us honest. Peeps who are, BTW, far smarter than Mr. Stone. This is why I love paleo — it’s not 1 method, but a framework to think about new and old ideas about diet and health and lifestyle.

  17. darius sohei on February 28, 2012 at 22:31

    Paleo, in all its many forms does not seem to be a cure all. Indeed it can’t even really be agreed upon so is it hard to believe that some people get worse on it?

    • Richard Nikoley on February 28, 2012 at 23:14

      “Paleo, in all its many forms does not seem to be a cure all.”

      No? Well I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell ya.

  18. james mooney on February 28, 2012 at 23:16

    This may be out of context, but I remember in the early days Richard was fairly chubby back in the day. I do remember the Art Devany posts when I first heard about him. Now Richard has one my favorite, if not one of the best blogs around, and can back it up… Matt Stone started out with a website of him with a pig (or something) around his neck and (maybe) a spear or some such shit……. Matt Stone, for all of his “knowledge” has looked progressively worse!! At least Richard, Devany, Mark, Kruse etc. have shown or maintained amazing results. That of course does not count all of the thousands of people who have changed their lives by simply eating a different way. I can’t take the man seriously to be honest. He has been espousing diet advice for the last few years and now looks worse than when he started, but hey, at least body temp is high right?

    • VW on February 29, 2012 at 06:00

      “At least Richard, Devany, Mark, Kruse etc. have shown or maintained amazing results.”

      How long has Kruse been around? It wouldn’t shock me if he’s gone away for good by 2015 and 300+ lbs by then.

      The guy’s unstable. Isn’t it painfully obvious to everyone? I feel like Will Ferrell’s character in “Zoolander,” when he’s screaming about no one can realizing that all of Zoolander’s poses are the same exact pose. “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!”

      And unstable trumps that so-called holy trinity of his.

      • Mallory on February 29, 2012 at 07:28

        kruse is so obnoxiously SCARED to becoming obese again or ever gaining weight again it is ridiculous and dangerous to people who read his blog. his writing CLEARLY portrays this… plus napping in deep freezers…. second up is his overly emphasized fear of death… it is scary to watch him as his blog progresses, it becomes more loony every post

  19. Neal Matheson on February 29, 2012 at 00:12

    so…bored! I just turned it off at 33 minutes. I don;t really care for the “but he’s fat” argument, but if it is your job you really have no excuses

  20. Austin on February 29, 2012 at 00:42

    I admit to visiting Matt Stone’s site regularly for the sheer entertainment value. It’s like reading satire except in this case he is being perfectly serious.

    And from a marketing point of view the man is a genius. His ‘followers’ are mostly made up of people who refuse to exercise, refuse to give up overeating junk food, and are still searching for the silver bullet that will cure their fatassery once and for all. in other words, the majority of the population.

    • rob on February 29, 2012 at 04:41

      I think people tend to get poorer results when getting thinner is the end rather than the means to the end.

      “I would like to be thinner”


      “I would like to be thinner so that I can ______ and ________”

      If you aren’t into the exercise thing there are other goals that can keep you on the right path.

      “I would like to be thinner so that I can rock some stylish clothes” is better than nothing.

      To me losing 50 pounds of unsightly fat isn’t the reward, the reward is being able to do stuff that I couldn’t do when I was carrying around an extra 50 pounds of fat.

      • Txomin on February 29, 2012 at 15:22

        Good point.

  21. Sean on February 29, 2012 at 02:34

    Well it certainly takes a lot of cheek to launch an anti-paleo book at a paleo conference but I think it’s a good idea to give time and space to dissenting opinions, something AHS doesn’t seem willing to do. Science is really all about allowing dissent, so good on Mr Croxton. Hell, invite our favorite paleo apostate, Don Matesz, also.

    Obviously there has to be some sort of mediating factor, but there’s a good case to be made that the modern peer-review process has become so entrenched and closed off that real science has really been stagnating for the last several decades. Even that hardest of hard sciences, physics, seems to be academically entrenched with string theory, something which a lot of real physicists would probably dispute. When one gets into the softer and more political sciences like nutritional biochemistry the stagnation and wrongheadedness are much more obvious.

    So let the dissenting voices ring out, I say, and let those who would accuse paleo of being some sort of cargo cult look to their own hollow beliefs and shallow consensus.

    • Richard Nikoley on February 29, 2012 at 07:38

      I’m not suggesting anyone pass a litmus test, demonstrate knowledge of a secret handshake, wink, nod, or anything like that.

      Let me put it this way. Would it be appropriate to have a creationist speaking at an astrophysics/cosmology conference?

      Or, then why not have seen if pizza hut and hagen daaz could have sponsored the paleo summit?

      That said, I have edited the paragraph where I went off on Croxton to tone it down a but.

      Also, I thought Matesz’ participation at AHS was in line with Ancestral. He was advocating real food.

      • Joe on February 29, 2012 at 07:53

        “Let me put it this way. Would it be appropriate to have a creationist speaking at an astrophysics/cosmology conference?”

        Would it be appropriate to have an astrophysicist/cosmologist speaking at a creationist conference?

      • Richard Nikoley on February 29, 2012 at 08:04

        Nope, not generally, not unless it was clearly outlined that’s what the audience and co-presenters were going to get.

      • Joe on February 29, 2012 at 08:38

        What you’re saying then, I think, is that opposing sides should (generally) never talk with each other. Of course it should be clearly outlined, as you mention, otherwise emotions would probably run too hot to produce anything meaningful. No one enjoys getting blind-sided.

        Personally, I’d enjoy such a conflict of ideas and beliefs. Under the right conditions (mutual respect, civility, etc.), it would be far more illuminating than just “preaching to the choir,” over and over again.

        I remember fondly the conflict of ideas and beliefs that would routinely break out at the dinner table each night when I was growing up (in a very large Italian family!). My father would generally keep emotions in check, of course, with threats of banishment (or worse) if the rules for civil discussion were broken.

        In fact, this is one reason why I enjoy your blog: frequent conflicts of ideas and beliefs, rather than having to listen to “the choir” sing “Communion for the New Covenant” every time I visit.

      • Richard Nikoley on February 29, 2012 at 09:31

        It depends, Joe. Context matters. Context always matters. But I’m not a relativist who thinks that all ideas have equal merit etc, etc, bla bla bla.

        Some shit is just plain nonsense and what you often find is that the nonsense side has much to gain by “open dialog” and the side more grounded in reality has not only nothing to gain but only to lose.

      • Joe on February 29, 2012 at 09:53

        I don’t think that all ideas have equal merit either. On the other hand, all ideas can benefit from being challenged in public, especially for those of us who don’t consider ourselves to be expert enough to challenge or even question such ideas by ourselves.

        For example (and a bit off topic), the CRAP that passes for “global warming” science today. With one side basically calling the other side names for doing what scientists are supposed to do – be skeptical. And who go to great pains to even deny them a chance to debate, mano a mano, the data. For these “scientists,” it’s all about the “consensus,” not the science. Not to mention keeping the funding coming.

        Most of us are smart enough (if not experts ourselves) to eventually triangulate the truth (at least as to how it may or may not pertain to each of us personally), provided we get to witness, firsthand, the conflicts between two or more opposing claims.

        Anyway, put me down for more conflict, not less. More speech, not less.

      • Sean on February 29, 2012 at 08:32

        Yeah, I see your point. I guess I see a difference in that health and nutrition is a lot less nailed down than astrophysics. Considering that the mainstream is still embracing the diet-heart, lipid and eating cholesterol causes high blood cholesterol hypotheses we are really in the age of Eratosthenes nutrition-wise, at least when it comes to accepted truths.

        I like to make fun of Don, but he seems like a nice enough guy. I can’t really forgive him for his ham-handed assault upon physics, but if you can make nice with Anthony Colpo I suppose anythings possible ;)

        And even physics has turned into a bit of an echo chamber in my amateur opinion with string theory. They don’t need lectures from creationists, of course, but perhaps a less stifling approach (how cool would it be if those neutrinos really turned out to be superluminal?). The peer review process? Entrenched academia? I don’t know, perhaps it’s all in my imagination, but the lipid hypothesis and the awful science behind the demonization of salt is definitely not in my imagination.

      • Richard Nikoley on February 29, 2012 at 08:44

        So if Stone was saying all he is, but within a real food paradigm, i.e., you need to eat more to “heal” your metabolism, etc. check your body temp 4 times per hour, etc., then as silly as I think that is, it’s within the range of not being absurd.

        But pizza, ice cream and refined sugar? That’s just simply 180 out from Paleo (pun intended) and there’s nothing to be gained by entertaining it.

        Open mindedness, yes. Brains spilling out all over the place, no.

      • Sean on February 29, 2012 at 10:06

        Richard, I would just be repeating myself, I mostly said it all below there below talking to Kim. Without the huge inertia of theories and facts by some of the smartest minds ever to walk the Earth I don’t think it’s fair to compare a paleo conference to an astrophysics conference. Paleo, or real food and it’s ramifications is really still in its infancy. It’s not really a time to close ranks and circle the wagons, okay, to act insecure in general. So Matt is full of shit, it seems to be obvious to most people who watch him and have a couple of neurons to rub together. Maybe he has some interesting ideas buried under there, I dunno, cause I’m not bothering to listen, but allowing dissenting opinions or even encouraging them by giving them a platform is a good thing even if those dissenting opinions are unscientific bullshit.

      • Richard Nikoley on February 29, 2012 at 10:08

        Alright buddy.

        Now shut the fuck up. I have a post to write. :)

      • Sean on February 29, 2012 at 11:05

        You’re not the boss of me!

    • Joe on February 29, 2012 at 07:50

      Yeah. What he said.

  22. Razwell on February 29, 2012 at 04:04

    I like Sean Croxton a lot too. Sean and I go back to November of 2006, when he was FoodDude on YouTube and made his “Calling Out Dr. Oz ” video.

    I am really impressed by Sean Croxton. He stresses the importance of eating real food , and is not dogmatic about low carb. He willa cknowledge that for some the more carb rich option could help.

    All round good dude and ethical he is.

  23. Ryan on February 29, 2012 at 05:19

    Love the quoted comment, this spoke to me especially-
    “I have no desire to adhere to any one philosophy, I just want to be healthy in a sustainable way.”

    It’s also the reason I typically don’t eat fruit, since in New England, our growing season for apples/berries isn’t all that long. It’s something we’ve touched upon, but not really stressed, eating seasonally and as locally as possible. Paleo/Primal gets attacked as being unsustainable(even though other models are as well), but it doesn’t help the argument if you’re buying imported food.

    • julie on February 29, 2012 at 05:46

      Is all your meat and other food local? I’m glad I live in CA, I can eat fruit all year.

      Anyway, I don’t quite know what to think about Matt Stone, sometimes I agree, sometimes I think he’s way out there. But the one talk I listened to so far at Paleo Summit, a doctor talking about gluten sensitivity, also had a spiel at the end where he was trying to sell pills.

      • Ryan on February 29, 2012 at 08:04

        All my meat is local, as are my eggs, and the organic produce at my grocery store comes from farms less than 50 miles away. If I drive ~30min, I can get produce from a co-op that gets produce from farms even more local to my area. Pretty lucky in that regard.

  24. Dylan on February 29, 2012 at 05:31

    I’m not even Stone’s biggest fan, but can I put to bed a myth that’s getting perpetuated at the moment?
    He’s not suggesting you eat pizza and ice cream indefinitely, 24-7. Merely that in certain circumstances they can actually be beneficial.

    We’ve all seen photo’s of vegans (particularly the raw variety) that go on long term fasting regimes – They look like they just made it out of a concentration camp ! When you’re that thin, and no doubt have digestive issues on top (from stress and the like) you really are in a deep and very miserable hole. In such circumstances, you just need to put on weight. It doesn’t matter nearly as much about food quality. In fact whole unrefined food can make your situation worse; because they need to be broken down and assimilated and you’ve completely messed up your digestion, eating that sort of thing will cause extreme cramps and abdominal bloating. You need easy to digest calories that are ‘designed’ to pack on the pounds – and that’s one scenario where junk food can come in useful.

    This point was made in the Paleo Summit presentation of his – every food, given the right context can be beneficial. And as someone who went through the above, and used Matt Stones advice to get me out of that misery – I fully stand behind it.

    • Richard Nikoley on February 29, 2012 at 07:55

      “He’s not suggesting you eat pizza and ice cream indefinitely, 24-7. Merely that in certain circumstances they can actually be beneficial.”

      It’s a gimmick. A Parlor trick, just like the thermometer bullshit.

      Sure, it may work for some and stopped clocks are right twice per day. But there is nothing that can be gained eating pizza and ice cream that can’t be gained on real food and if it’s carbs you think are needed, there’s an app for that.

      I think this approach also risks to be very detrimental for many people, as the commenter I quoted stated eloquently:

      “To me, paleo isn’t about eating like a caveman, it’s about not eating shit. I’m sorry if a lot of your readers have a hard time changing their way of thinking; that not eating modern-day crap is somehow a huge detriment to everything about living, but, come on, how are we ever going to grow as a people if we just accept the paradigm as the way it is and not look at systemic changes away from shitty eating? In other words, I have a very hard time with the idea that eating comfortable foods like cake and ice cream and staying fat is fine as long as we get our metabolisms in order. When are we, as a people, going to stop being such whiny babies about eating comfortably and staying fat (while self-loathing) and admitting that bad food is bad food? In my opinion, we will with movements like Paleo, that challenge that coddled mindset. In my opinion, not challenging ourselves to do better (i.e. eat better) is making us weaker mentally. Why work for your food (grow it, nurture it, prepare it, enjoy it) when you can have it instantly handed to you and it makes you temporarily feel good?”

      Perhaps this junk food approach might be appropriate for a vegan, anorexic, or others with weird eating disorders, but that’s for the clear PURPOSE of making food highly palatable and rewarding so that they’re not freaked out by the thought of food in the first place. I can grudgingly accept that, but would recommend it be done upper the supervision of a phycologist or psychiatrist, not a thermometer wielding stuntman.

      For the rest of the people who got into a bad state by OVEREATING highly palatable and rewarding engineered “foods” in the first place, this approach is about the dumbest thing I can possibly imagine. Just like I posted way back when, almost 3 years ago when I first encountered Stone and what he was calling his High Everything Diet:

      HED: High Everything Diet (If eating garbage is your problem, just eat more of it)

      Oh yea, I know, he’s “refined” it (no pun intended).

      Basically, you’re conditioning people first of all to, as another commenter put it, PRETEND they’re “controlling” and “managing” their biochemistry and hormonal signals by means of parlor tricks and subjective assessments like feelings of cold in the core or extremities. And what are they supposed to do? Run to the nearest pizza hut, and the ice cream is only a freezer away. But yea, it’s just temporary. …That it, until the next “feeling” and the vicious cycle continues.

      Perhaps not for everyone, but I have no problem predicting that’ secactly how it will shape up for many, most.

      In fact, expect Stone to become an enabler of this sort of behavior and oner time, draw people to him that seek out such enabling, and he’ll make a good living at it.

      • Dylan on February 29, 2012 at 11:03

        Maybe you’re right and some of Stone’s theories aren’t water tight – but to tell you the truth I can’t really say this myself with 100% authority without fully delving into the likes of Ray Peat etc. (who are the main influences of his at the moment) and most importantly having an intricate knowledge of bio-chemistry. So that leaves me (and the majority of folks I imagine) having to rely on 2nd hand opinions from the people that can. Which leads us to a situation where effectively we have a stand off between these groups of intellectuals. Both have compelling cases and even more compelling ‘evidence’ against their opponents view.

        I’m just going to let them duke it out to be honest and in the meanwhile I’m prepared to ‘follow’ (and I mean that in the loosest sense) which ever one gets me results. It’s not about the theory to me any more; I’ve read Vegan baloney, Living foods propaganda and even Gary Taubes ‘war on all things carb’ door stop that is Good Calories, Bad Calories. They all convinced me at one point in time that they were correct and everyone else was living in a fairy tale. And yet, none of them lasted. The only thing I took away from them ultimately was that there is a heavy price to pay for fully buying into anything in the alternate health world hook, line and sinker.

        Getting back to my earlier post, I was in a right state thanks to my dietary manipulation ‘journey’. Vegan,to raw Vegan had made me severely malnurished, stick thin with complimentary digestive issues. Paleo down to the letter did nothing for me, and steadily I was getting stricter and stricter getting into the dark realms of low carb. It got to the point where I was contemplating raw paleo (which still makes me shudder to this day) Matt Stone’s ideas saved me. To which I am eternally grateful and more ready and willing than ever to experiment. Nowadays I have transitioned to somewhere in between a moderate Paleo paradigm incorporating some of Stone’s ideas in the mix also. This combination works incredibly well for me, but am I prepared to recommend it to anyone and everyone? An emphatic no. They have to find out what’s good for themselves.

      • Richard Nikoley on February 29, 2012 at 11:07

        To make it perfectly clear, Dylan, I am thrilled that it worked for you and wish you all the best. And for the record, I wish Stone no harm physically or anything like that. I do wish for his ideas to be taken very skeptically but hell, I wish that for myself, honestly.

      • Dylan on February 29, 2012 at 16:39

        And my apologies if my posts sound forceful, but I’m worried that some very useful (but highly contextual) advice will get lost in the landslide of animosity that surrounds Matt Stone from the Paleo Community.

        I think it’s not helped by the fact that most Paleo’s got into it in the first place because they suffered from the opposite side of the spectrum (being overweight and it’s related problems) Therefore it’s just plain logical that they are going to despise junk food and be incredibly wary of anyone that recommends it.

        But when you’re in the pinch that I was in, it’s pretty much the only option – I’m not to sure if it because of being so dangerously thin or the severe malnutrition (maybe even the combination) but you become incredibly stress intolerant. Even something as innocuous as travelling during the morning rush hour suddenly has the power to make you a nervous wreck. I would arrive at work each day soaked in sweat and physically skaking. And needless to say, I soon lost said job and began slowly racking up debts. Not to sound to melodramatic, but as you can probably tell it got pretty bleak around that time for me.

        It’s only after experimenting with a completely counter intuitive theory that I managed to get my life back on track, gain weight and start functioning semi-normally again. I liken it to steadying the ship, it’s only after that’s done that you can worry about giving it an extra coat of paint and fitting in some nice furnushings (healthy eating)

  25. Kim C. on February 29, 2012 at 06:13

    I’m glad to see others addressing the Matt Stone Paleo Summit presentation. What was disappointing about the presentation wasn’t necessarily that Matt takes an “anti-Paleo” stance. As a previous commenter mentioned, dissenting views can be helpful to clarify and question aspects of the diet, which is productive. What is not productive is this silliness that Matt Stone brought to the table (Paleo ED, really?). Sean Croxton explained his reasons for including Stone as not wanting the event to be a “Paleo Love Fest,” which is honorable, but what is not honorable is including the nonsensical dissenting arguments of a pseudo-scientist with no real credentials who is trying to sell his book. That said, I’ve got lots of respect for Sean and would give him the benefit of the doubt, in addition to giving him due credit for putting together this event and for making it free.

    As for the comments regarding Stone’s physical appearance, I agree that if his aesthetic appearance continues to degrade, then maybe he should take that as a clue regarding the long term health of his diet advise, instead of just charting his temperature. We humans are visually-focused, superficial beasts, and his declining physical appearance does negatively affect his credibility.

    On the other hand, as for Jimmy Moore, I think it’s premature to simply dismiss him based on his current weight/appearance, because (1) he wasn’t starting at the same appearance/weight/health that Matt was at the beginning of his health journey, (2) he has lost and successfully kept off over 100 pounds for a long time, (3) he has specific metabolic issues, unlike Stone to my knowledge, that he is overcoming (and he shares that personal information with his listeners/readers). Jimmy Moore is also not a diet “dictocrat,” and I like that about him. His open mind makes him more credible, IMO.

    Thanks to Richard and his commenters of another healthy debate.

    • Sean on February 29, 2012 at 08:05

      The problem Kim, is how to separate the pseudo-science from the real science and who gets to decide? If you just go by credentials then that leaves out people like Tom Naughton, Denise Minger or Mr Nikoley himself. I don’t know much about Matt other than he used to go around the paleo blogs a while back being obnoxious, but I know Don Matesz is very full of woo. He once tried to compare Relativity to shamanism or something ridiculous like that. Still, why not let him and other “dissenters” give a presentation. Surely it’s better to err on the side of tolerance and let people decide for themselves who is full of shit rather than to get stuck in an echo chamber.

      • Kim C. on February 29, 2012 at 08:33

        @Sean – Good point, and I suppose that’s why I listened to Matt’s presentation (so I could deem him full of shit for myself). ;)

        I agree that it’s not all about credentials, and I regularly read blogs of people without nutritional or medical degrees, including Tom, Denise and (as I alluded in my post) Jimmy Moore. As I said, I don’t really have a problem with “dissenters” offering legitimate points of view that oppose the Paleo lifestyle; I’d just prefer they be well-researched and well-thought out, especially when we are talking about presentations in a “Paleo Summit”, not just a blog post). I’m surprised Sean C. couldn’t find someone to offer such a presentation.

        Yes, erring on the side of tolerance is generally best practice, however, I guess I just would have rather spent my time listening to a legitimate argument against Paleo, rather than Stone’s nonsense.

      • Sean on February 29, 2012 at 09:40

        Yeah, Matt strikes me as an asshole who is fully full of shit. But why not give him plenty of rope? Unlike, say, astrophysics, paleo has a credibility problem, mostly because the mainstream, and of course the vegans, love to trash it as some sort of fad diet. But there’s also plenty of woo and re-enactors along with a lot of healthy debate and lots of very intelligent discourse. Until evolutionary nutrition has the strong base of solid evidence that something like physics had 150 years ago (and it was about to be turned upside-down) I think it’s best to avoid an echo chamber mentality.

        As far as Jimmy Moore goes, I was debating this with Kurt Harris (well as much as one can debate someone who retreats to his Fortress of Solitude). I see Jimmy as a journalist who interviews all sorts of people. Sure he has his own viewpoint and he leans towards LC and now more paleo, but he never sets himself up as an expert.

      • Richard Nikoley on February 29, 2012 at 09:46

        I agree about Jimmy, basically. In the role of podcast host it’s his job to get as many views as possible, and you can listen or pass.

        It’s not like Jimmy is packaging interviews into a DVD set he’s selling for profit, you’re not getting anything and oh, bonus! the guy up on the DVD right after you is not only giving a 12-myths about what you said, but insinuating that you may have erectile disfunction.

        I just spoke with someone who’s one of the other presenters. He had not only no idea Stone was presenting, also had no idea it was a slam piece against paleo, that he was launching a book at the same time, or that one of the myths is ED.

        The events for the day are free, I guess, but then to see them you have to purchase the “upgrade,” so Sean will be making money of this at the other presenter’s uniformed expense.

      • Sean on February 29, 2012 at 10:28

        Yeah, I guess Stone sort of kept that to himself, I doubt he told Sean what he was planning to do. Still, a slam piece against paleo by an idiot is really a feather in the cap for paleo.

        Can’t you live with someone accusing us old guys of not being able to get wood? I got so much damn wood I could start my own National Park. I get the impression you are the same. So if a guy in his early thirties who is getting fat and trying to sell a book wants to say otherwise, well who the fuck cares? I’m 46 and I had sex this morning, I had sex yesterday morning, and I’m planning on having sex tomorrow morning.

        The guy is full of shit, but the truth will out.

      • Chris Highcock on February 29, 2012 at 13:20

        Jimmy “leans towards LC”. A classic understatement

      • Sean on February 29, 2012 at 14:05

        Hey, I can do much better: BBC employees tend to vote labour or lib-dem.

        Of course the BBC monoculture considers itself to be the most objective source of information in the known Universe and Jimmy Moore is irrelevant because he makes his beliefs known up front.

      • Sean on February 29, 2012 at 15:07

        Alright, I just saw Jimmie’s latest post defending (V)LC with a serious vengeance, and I am disappoint.

      • Richard Nikoley on February 29, 2012 at 17:56

        I’d comment, Sean, But I want to save for the podcast recording on Friday.

      • Richard Nikoley on February 29, 2012 at 17:44

        Alright, I’ll let loose the very one thing that has long annoyed me about Jimmy: “Healthy Low Carb Lifestyle.”

        He’s said it a million times on his podcast and I always flinch, because it’s “package dealing,” and so how can you criticize “Heart Health Whole Grains?”

  26. steve on February 29, 2012 at 07:56

    I think w’e’re in a nascent Ray Peat bull market.
    I also think paleo is going to ultimately land somewhere near Kitava.

  27. Robert on February 29, 2012 at 08:01

    Doesn’t all this belie your previous experience Richard, not to mention Anthony Colpo’s, that low-carb did indeed work? Do you think you could be where you are today if you had forgone low-carb and ate they way you do now? I’m a bit bewildered here.

    • Richard Nikoley on February 29, 2012 at 08:09


      Excellent question. Kurt and I were just discussing this last night. LC and Paleo/LC works because the nutrient density and/or (and perhaps more importantly) the reward and palatability factor goes down and consumption is decreased for most people to a lower level. But what happens for most, me included, is that that average consumption level is not necessarily at your target weight, but 10-20 pounds above it, so you stall and all of a sudden, LC doesn’t work anymore.

      What I’m noticing by adding the carbs while lowering the fat and protein is that:

      1. Palatability and reward have gone down again. Good as a potato is, it’s not a 16oz ribeye drowning in butter.
      2. I’m actually more satiated, longer.

      I’m eating fewer calories in average than before and that’s why I’m likely to have my fat loss kick in again.

      Does that address the bewilderment?

  28. Robert on February 29, 2012 at 08:57

    Yes, this helps. Are there foods besides potatoes that would do the same (longer satiety)? Maybe squash or cauliflower? I’m intrigued, but still fear the tater.

    I wonder if I would have ever gotten to where I am today (as well as many others) if I hadn’t thought of low-carb as a magic bullet. In fact it was only several months into my year long zero carb WOE that I experienced the reduced appetite that other low-carbers experienced. On the other hand, about 12 years ago before I even gave low- carb a thought, I moved into a new apartment with higher rent, so I couldn’t eat restaurant food nearly as much. I ate a lot of beans, rice, and potatoes and without any effort lost weight.

    • Richard Nikoley on February 29, 2012 at 09:35

      “Yes, this helps. Are there foods besides potatoes that would do the same (longer satiety)? Maybe squash or cauliflower? I’m intrigued, but still fear the tater.”

      Squash, potentially, though I’m not up on its carb content. There’s always fruit, but that’s pretty high on the palatability scale so that could be problematic. There’ s other roots & tubers like cassava, taro, yams, etc. you could check into. I think cauliflower is pretty low in carbs, but then again, not super palatable, so yea, perhaps, and the fiber could help with satiation.

    • rob on February 29, 2012 at 11:55

      Problem with cauliflower is there are only 113 calories in a pound of it

      So it is great if you want to fill up on something that doesn’t count as food … I do that with broccoli, cauliflower, carrots, no matter how much I eat it doesn’t count … but if you are looking for something that contributes to the amount of calories you need to eat each day to avoid running an enormous deficit, you would need to eat 2 1/2 pounds of it to get to 300 calories. If you are looking to consume 1800 calories a day, you just ate 2 1/2 pounds of cauliflower and you still have 1500 calories to go, it gets to be a chore.

      When I was in obese mode I ate nothing but meat, broccoli and cauliflower, but once you get out of obese mode it’s a tough row to hoe, eating that much cauliflower day after day is something I wouldn’t wish on a death row inmate.

      *No intent to involve myself in the do-calories-count thing, for me it’s just a convenient form of shorthand

  29. Daniel on February 29, 2012 at 09:44

    Thanks so much for posting this on your website!!! I really appreciate it. I’m very humbled that my thoughts struck such a cord. I would’ve written them more deliberately and proof-read them if I had known, but hey, it’s all part of the conversation. Thanks again. I’ve added you to my blog roll.

    • Richard Nikoley on February 29, 2012 at 09:50

      Honored myself, Daniel. I thought it very well written and thoughtful, but if you have any edits, email them my way via the address on the about page.

      Then I’ll replace it with the edits and indicate it’s edited from the original, with a link to the original.

      If you don’t wish to bother, that’s fine too because it’s already excellent.

  30. Tim Gwaltney on February 29, 2012 at 10:04

    Hey Richard, so let me get this straight. If I want to keep a fully functional wood I need a 180 degree health ED Emergency kit that consists of Grains, dairy, captain crunch berries and a thermometer. Is stone selling these off of his website? Better pick 1 up pronto

  31. ICG on February 29, 2012 at 11:32

    I’m pretty much neutral re: Matt Stone vs. so-called Stone Age eating. I think there are benefits and drawbacks to both. However, I have to concur about Matt’s appearance. He may say that healthiness doesn’t equal appearance, and a slightly chubby guy could be healthier than a mega-ripped Hollywood celeb. In some case, that may be right. But we are in a world that judges appearances, as Kim C. noted. If you’re claim to fame is a nutrition/health curu, than at least look somewhat slim and toned.

    Say what you want about Tim “4 Hour” Ferris, but the guy experiments on himself more than Matt and he’s never looked fat or weak. What bothers is me that is that Matt will say something like “this RBTI/fruititarian/raw milk/whatever approach had me leaner and stronger than I’ve been in years…despite whatever ill effects it had.” But when he posts a picture and someone says he looks soft, he’ll say something like “I quit the X diet about a month ago and have been lazy, just eating french toast and cheeseburgers all day.” C’mon. At least stick with these things for awhile and be systematic about it. At least Ferris does extensive testing on all kinds of health metrics. Matt just talks subjectively about energy levels, how strong his bones/teeth feel, headaches, sleeping, etc.

  32. ICG on February 29, 2012 at 11:34


    Oops, no self-check on spelling/grammar on my post. I was in a hurry I guess.

  33. el-bo on February 29, 2012 at 14:52

    so what’s the scoop on ray peat ??

    have been referred to his stuff and it looked interesting

  34. Srdjan Andrei Ostric on February 29, 2012 at 18:46

    Richard, first of all I wanted to say that I came across your blog recently, and I really like it. I am one those people who likes your writing style as well as the information you provide. I like the directness, and I wish I could write as clearly. I have for a long time wrestled with the problem of food reward vs low carb, because even though I tend to fall back on insulin and low carb a bit more, but I really think that food reward is intriguing and important because your brain can definitely be tricked. Let me put it this way: I personally feel that the body rules, and the adipose tissue is not only an important endocrine organ, but I think it really rules the roost. Think about it, if your fat cells are hungry, people will resort to unthinkable acts like murder and even cannibalism, and starving people will die with fat on their body. Their brains are not in control at all, especially in extreme states. And this makes sense evolutionarily as the frontal cortex is so new, and really doesn’t ‘control’ anything, even our conscious thoughts themselves, it seems! From what I have read about psychology, this is why meditation works–because it quiets down the frontal cortex. So, I do think the body rules, and to a lesser extent the old brain (limbic system). This is how I see it, at least.

    As a result, the brain seems to me, at least, to act primarily a tool to organize food gathering/eating behavior getting signals from the body, which as I said rules. The brain though can be tricked, and this is where food palatability comes in and it can not be discounted as an important theory for overeating, but as far as the body is concerned, food, specifically carbs, and destructive carbs, signal insulin to store fat. The more you store fat, the more you need to eat to keep up with your metabolic needs. So, in this paradigm, if you really think about it, you can not possibly overeat, you just keep eating until your body says uncle, although most of your body is sending the food your eat down the insulin turnpike to fat. Which brings me to my point: Can you really have a synthesis? Or are what we are looking at 2 very inter-related but different stories? Do we have to choose? Or maybe we are saying the same thing anyway? To me, it seems that way, especially if we take steps back, which I am by nature inclined to do.

    For instance, Wheat has amylopectin A, which shoots up blood sugar, well, like sugar, but whole potatoes have amylopectin B, which is not as destructive a carbohydrate. (points to Gary?). Interestingly, bananas also have amylopectin B, which is in a ripe banana, is very hard for many diabetics to tolerate. (Gary again?) Likewise, the gliadin and exomorphins and endocannibanoids of wheat make it doubly toxic (Score one and two for Stephan for sure). But then again, maybe it is a synthesis as a bag of sugar sounds disgusting to eat, but with a little cola flavor dissolved in liquid, you have both theories in a nutshell. The food companies, I think, know this well, even if they don’t know who Gary or Stephan are…

    • Richard Nikoley on February 29, 2012 at 23:33


      Thanks. The one thing that strikes me and forgive me if I paraphrase for lack of time, but you allude to the body essentially having a mind of its own. When GCBC first came out there was a lecture by Gary on the Internet, may have been Berkeley but can’t recall. Anyway, I came anyway from that thinking that fat tissue and in particular, visceral fat tissue acts as a sort of tumor, in the same way a selfish, cancerous tumore operates, ultimately sacrificing its host.

      I think the post was called “180 Degree Errors” (how ironic :) if you want to look it up via the search function.

      • Srdjan Ostic on March 1, 2012 at 06:26

        I read that post. Thanks. I agree with there appears to be a tipping point, or what I would call a vicious cycle, were things get negatively propagated. This happens at the edges, I think, where you lose regulatory function, it seems. As fat cells grow, their mitchondria shrink, and their membrane signalling gets messed up, and this then will negatively propagate the effects of insulin. The more I read, the more I think fat tissue really runs the show, and we trick ourselves to thinking we have rational control. Great thinkers have thought about this, too, sometimes in funny ways. Micheal Montaigne noted how he could not control an erection, which I am sure none of us has ever had a problem with… If you want to read something, then look up the emotional dog and its rational tail. I really think you might find it very interesting. There is a lot to learn from psychology and morality, as it relates to how we understand the world, and more importantly why we think we actually understand the world, when we don’t and can fool ourselves. By the way, I did write this on the wrong post…ugh! Computers!

  35. Lee on March 1, 2012 at 10:00

    Matt Stone: Independent health researcher spends all day with waffles in his gob, a thermometer up his arse and wanking for a new magic diet tincture that will never exist.

    You lot in the paleo world think that you can eat all the animals you want, blog about it all day long, then exercise for 5 minutes a week to achieve human perfection.

    It’s all a load of bollocks, I’d even wager a bet that most people would do best avoiding the fantasy world of the internet blog fantasia and follow standard government guidelines.

    Colpo is literally the only blogger I have come across who has a realm of acceptance into the reality of health and fitness. Move lots to improve fitness and strength, eat sensibly with plenty of carbs, fat and protein, for the calories your body needs… just simple common sense, hard work, no bullshit or promise of shortcuts.

  36. Gabe A. on March 1, 2012 at 10:13

    I never imagined people getting so worked up over eating and who’s crashing the precious ‘Paleo Summit’. Nobody “knows” anything or everything. Knowledge is very limited IMO. I do know this, Paleo inspires a religious-like fanaticism for some which makes me very skeptical. As far as Colpo’s research, I see nothing “wrong” with it. His ‘TGCC’ is right on point and his ‘TFLB’ is very well researched. Now, what I don’t read anywhere here are people who have tried these approaches for a fair time. Eating and living is about “doing”. There are probably many paths to the same destination. Ray Peat is a whole other story and doesn’t have a “prescription”. Those that “follow” his work are simply using it to provide tools and insights into their approaches, which are not always centered around weight loss. For that matter, what is “Paleo”? Define it. There has been a whole foods movement since time immemorial has there not?

  37. Iggy Popsicle on March 2, 2012 at 19:43

    Excellent comment. As usual, the healthiest path lies somewhere in between scarfing waffles all day long and becoming mortally afraid of glucose. In almost two years of fucking around with my health, I’ve found that the single most therapeutic maneuver is this: get off the damn Internet, get outside into the sunshine with people you love, do something worthwhile and rewarding with your time, and stop fretting constantly about what you put in your gob. The healthiest people on earth usually don’t give a damn what they eat, because diet is only a small part of complete health. Far more important IMO are relationships, outlook, fulfillment of dreams and intentions, facing fears and setbacks squarely, etc.

    I like Colpo too. Kurt Harris is another voice of sanity, and lo, he never blogs anymore. Too busy living. We can learn from Matt Stone too, but we need to retain some perspective while we explore his ideas. FWIW, I think his (and Peat’s, and Roddy’s) focus on stress and the hormonal milieu of the body is extremely valuable, but do we really need to start pounding OJ and waffles and ice cream to keep a lid on the catabolic stress hormones? I doubt it. Do we need enough carbs and other nutrients to create a sense of metabolic security and abundance? Yeah, I think we do.

    For example, in all of Danny Roddy’s writings I cannot find any coherent explanation for why we supposedly need to drink a crate full of OJ every week instead of just eating some fucking potatoes, except for the fact that Ray Peat recommends it. I doubt that Danny even understands why. I drink orange juice and eat ice cream now and then because they taste good, not because I believe they possess some magical quality that will make me immortal. Same goes for Matt Stone. Why must we pig out on junk food? Why are there so many people in good health with robust temperatures, healthy thyroid signaling, and low stress hormones that don’t eat 8 billion calories in one sitting at a buffet?

    I think a lot of health bloggers are basically wounded souls who are terrified of death and thus spend all of their time fantasizing about, and searching for, some magical substance or dietary system that will make them live forever with zero effort. Their search never ends because its purpose is not to find the answer and then get on with actually using their body to accomplish something in the world, its purpose is to distract them from facing life squarely and accepting the fact that life is short, nothing is perfect, and one day they will die.

    Get your shit together health-wise, stop trashing your body all the time, and then get on with it.

    • Richard Nikoley on March 2, 2012 at 20:18

      Fucking cooll comment in the large.

      • Iggy Popsicle on March 2, 2012 at 23:05

        Thanks, man. You’re a cool dude yourself. Even cooler is commenter Lee’s “blog”…just click on his name above to see what I mean. Couldn’t agree more, after wasting most of the last year of my life learning about health on the Internet. (For the record, I like what you do here. It’s people like Roddy and Stone that I think use diet to compensate for the fact that they’re basically scared shitless of life and death alike.)

      • Lee on March 5, 2012 at 05:49

        Cheers Iggy Pop for an excellent follow on to the nail I began hammering. Glad you liked the “blog”, it was written in anger towards myself and my blog reading habits. I am working on it, down to about once a week now, but fuck me the Internet is impossible to escape. I doubt anyone in the blog business will appreciate my “blog”.

        I agree with your comment about a couple health bloggers being shit scared of life. Stone does not seem to do anything with his life other than read or blog about “health”, all whilst not being healthy, fit or lean himself.

        The notion that you can become superman just with the one variable of food intake is absurd. It is disordered thinking and very unhealthy. Sure, going from eating doughnuts all day to eating real food is going to make a big difference. Beyond that, listening to all of the internet health blogging noise is only going to make people sicker, at least mentally. All of the minute details, the DO’S and DONT’S is all fucking sick mayhem. Nobody needs to know everything. Health blogs make you feel like you need to. Make sure you balance your omega3s and 6 for example… who the fuck knows what their bodies current status is, what or how much they need more of what or not and then to start trying to adjust the intake because the internet said so.

        To think the massively complex human body can not take of itself but the internet health blogging gurus can…

        …I would suggest that all health bloggers are to a degree shit scared of life. If not, why be so concerned about what you are eating then telling the world about it?…Justifying your own choices with others.

        Eat what is good and available at that moment, then hammer life into the ground. I know people that eat any old shit, then hammer life into the ground and have a much better time at it than all the internet health bloggers combined no doubt.

        People who gravitate to certain diets/ gurus/ blogs do so because it follows their own belief or lifestyle, you read what you want to believe. Again it is just about justifying your own choices with others. It is possible to not being a sissy, to make choices and decisions on your own without referring to and cross referencing the internet!


      • DS on March 5, 2012 at 11:03

        while you have some valid points, they are only valid with your personal set of beliefs and perceptions. it’s more than a bit obvious that you’ve never been chronically ill, and if you have, you managed to figure out how to get well, something which many people are searching for.
        it’s also a bit ridiculous how you can be so angry at people who are genuinely trying to help others, even if you disagree with the particular strategy they are using. try some empathy to balance out your dickheadedness.

      • Grace RAmaRAmax on March 5, 2012 at 15:43

        Iggy says it well. Excellent stuff.

      • Grace RAmaRAmax on March 5, 2012 at 15:44

        Iggy says it well. Excellent stuff! *big wink!!*

      • Roberto on March 9, 2012 at 08:59

        Bruce K., is it you?

        No, but seriously, great quote:
        “People who gravitate to certain diets/ gurus/ blogs do so because it follows their own belief or lifestyle, you read what you want to believe.”

        Sadly, though, many people are really sick or have really bad problems, and maybe aren’t all able to just say “fuck it”, don’t you think?

  38. Gabe A. on March 7, 2012 at 21:02

    The OJ is for sugar, magnesium, potassium, and vitamin c to name a few. There are many ways to get enough of those. OJ just happens to be an easy way.

  39. ICG on March 13, 2012 at 08:08

    Even if Stone is right on some things (drinking less water, metabolism and temperature, having yo-yo dieters eat lots of forbidden foods for a limited period), there’s a problem. What are you supposed to eat in the long-term to maximize your health? At one point it seemed like he pushed an almost paleo diet with resistant starches (i.e., avoid processed foods/refined sugars most of the time, eat a reasonable amount of saturated fat and protein along with the starches, etc.). He tried to synthesize the best ideas from different schools of nutrition and abandon the rest. Whether it was a good plan or not, at least it was a plan.

    At this point, I have no idea. Just find foods that raise your temperature (whether donuts, organic kale, pizza, dark beer or whatever) and be happy?

  40. In on March 20, 2012 at 15:41

    You have too much fun beating up on straw men. Indeed that is what many of the arguments I see espoused around here boil down to.

  41. ICG on March 27, 2012 at 09:39

    Straw man? Is he really misrepresenting Matt? So Richard doesn’t understand all the hard science and nuances behind earth-shattering, nutritional breakthroughs like this?

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.