Mike Eades Be Fixin’ To Show You How If There’s No Traffic Jam, You Can’t See The Cars

The following is a guest post by my newest collaborator: Tar Baby.

Tar, as I’ll call him, is coming out of the muck and to the forefront…in response to a new post by Mike Eades that prefigures an upcoming post of his, where he’s going to show how little we all know about “basic biochemistry,” and how we don’t read the work of “serious anthropologists.” Mind you. The post is not up yet. After 10 months, he’s letting you know he’s been very very very busy, is still very very very busy, that goings on here aren’t really worth his very very very busy time, but in charity, he really owes it to readers to—eventually—answer open questions so that those who haven’t taken a breath for 10 months—owing to him being very very very busy—can finally breath easy.


Dr. Eades promised long ago to settle the matter regarding the questions raised here in about 17 posts, about Inuit being in ketosis or not (he claims they absolutely are, but are so “keto-adapted” that the absence of detectable ketones in urine or blood is evidence of an even more profound ketosis—and it’s very simple, but he’s been too busy to explain the simplicity). He got himself tarred via that substantial series here delving into many on-scene Inuit studies going back 100 years, and initially tried to extricate himself from the mire in an ironically titled post: Beware the confirmation bias.

He subsequently found time to engage in comments at the Hyperlipid blog: The P479L gene for CPT-1a and fatty acid oxidation. He didn’t really fare well. Mostly vacuum, no art. Notably, someone posted a comment he never even tried to answer, an artful comment it was.

Your definition of keto adapted is not ”eating a diet that is named ‘ketogenic diet’ even if it fails to generate ketones.” It has always been about GENERATING and USING ketones:

“What he fails to understand is that the Inuit are keto-adapted. Their lifelong diet of high-fat meat has gotten their ketone-producing-and-consuming systems working in precisely controlled fashion. Like, dare I say it, a well-oiled machine.

The Inuit burn ketones as they make them, so it stands to reason that they might not have measurable ketones under normal circumstances.”

This thinking is unreasonable in itself, it’s like saying “the traffic is high, but because there are no traffic jams, you can’t see cars on the road”. Don’t you understand that in order for ketones to go from the liver to the other places they have to be in the blood in the mean time?

Notice how those enjoying thread-bare illusions of authority for dwindling numbers of hopeless, regurgitate-eating sycophants use metaphor all the time.

Like, dare I say it, a well-oiled machine.

Or, they’re vaguely assertive in an authoritative way (“so it stands to reason”). It’s like when Richard was in comments on Hyperlipid’s most recent post this morning, having to bear someone telling him that “high protein doesn’t kill ketones,” then being unable to explain what he means by use of the metaphor.

Eades’ post that ironically exposed his own confirmation bias was published in April of last year and had a bit of a comment thread run, owing to the activity here. Duck Dodgers posted a comment in October—4 months ago—and Dr. Eades just got to it (he’s always very, very, very, very busy). It coincided with his post of yesterday. Since Duck’s comment hadn’t been published in what might be considered a reasonable time for a science-based contribution that 80% quotes studies in the literature, it got published by Richard here: The Comment Dr. Michael Eades Doesn’t Want You To See.

Here’s the thing. Unlike Duck and Richard’s other collaborators—who count as biochemists, PhDs, MDs, DDSs, Grad Students, and a handful of plain smart laymen they check their work against—I’m the collaborator where, when you mess with me, it bounces off me and sticks to you. I’m the Tar Baby! No science here, unless you consider the art or vacuum of discourse to be science. For the consumption of Eades’ sycophants, clamoring and exuberant for a post every 3-4 months, it’s vacuum in masquerade.

I’m going to go through Eades’ post to demonstrate the level of poisoning the well, always in advance of actually addressing any issue he gets taken to task on (he’s been poisoning the well on this subject for 10 months, his last post is the final few doses).

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.

[It’s also just as commonly used to falsely bolster the confidence in what the poisoner is about to say contra the poisoned.]

  1. As many of you may know, I got caught up.
  2. I was variously accused.
  3. I didn’t have the time.
  4. If I didn’t…no one would know.
  5. I also figured if…it would imply.
  6. I dawdled while I tried to find the time to deal with the thing.
  7. Then Nikoley gives me an out.
  8. He throws…demanding that…or he will.
  9. Which was great because the whole debate got moved to his blog so that all his readers, most of whom understand even less than he, could listen to him expound on it.
  10. I decided I would let the comment lie for awhile.
  11. Then Nikoley wrote yet another…this last post on the subject that made me realize how much misunderstanding there is about the basic biochemistry and physiology of ketosis.
  12. I realized I had been a victim of Curse of Knowledge…that someone knowing something or possessing some expertise has a difficult time understanding how little others know about something he sees as so simple.
  13. This was the error I made.
  14. So, I need to fix it.
  15. Readers…could be led astray.
  16. It really doesn’t make a difference.
  17. The physiology of ketosis probably needs to be explained so that people don’t come away from all this thinking about it in the wrong way.
  18. I’ll be writing a post on the basic physiology of ketosis.
  19. Not in brain-numbing detail.

Now, to that, Richard in his infinite abrasiveness might write something like, “what a poor busy busy busy victim combined with blowhard, condescending little prick.” That’s why he enlisted my help, Tar Baby.

I’ll simply point out that Eades being so unfortunately burdened and “Curse[d] of Knowledge” is exactly what someone suffering from the Dunning-Krueger effect would say all the time.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.

By unskilled, I of course mean in the logic of artful discourse, not medical science, per se. In that, Eades is simply like most others in the field who spend their lives “showing” how they’re right and were always right; and not, as Richard might put it in terms of his own approach: how he’s wrong, has always been wrong, but gets a little less wrong every day.

Some of you who’ve seen Eades in action going way back might recall his backs and forths with Anthony Colpo. For a long time, Richard defended Eades on this very blog and even ridiculed Anthony a time or two. But the way in which Eades operated, by going for long periods pleading time constraints—combined with his many well poisoning tactics—such that readers had such unrealistically high expectations by the time he finally got around to being a little less very very very busy—it would have caused readers embarrassment to admit he’s dancing around naked rather than sporting a fine set of new clothes.

Richard told me just this morning that when he realized what was going on, he actually went and read Colpo’s [easyazon_link asin=”B007COB8SU” locale=”US” new_window=”default” nofollow=”default” tag=”fretheani-20″ add_to_cart=”default” cloaking=”default” localization=”default” popups=”default”]The Fat Loss Bible[/easyazon_link] and realized that Eades simply never deals with stuff head on.

Rather, he tells you over and over and over that after he’s less very very very busy, he’ll help you to not be so hopelessly ignorant and fooled. He’s your knight in shining armor; and to really make it easy on you, he’s not going to numb or worry your poor little head with all the very very very simple facts and explanations exhaustively. But he could. Of course. And if he was less very very very busy, and you were way way way smarter, he would.


Well, so there it is, and if I wasn’t so busy, and you were smarter, I’d put in one hell of a wrap on that. Instead, I’ll point to Peter at Hyperlipid who wrote a post about Ketosis and Protein. Those who actually read our series on the Inuit understand that the stuff about meat glycogen was just a means to expose how busy Eades really is, and that it was really about too high of protein to be in perpetual ketosis.

Can’t wait for Eades to say that Peter and his readers don’t understand basic biochemistry. In the meantime…

Duck just rang in, so this be a double guest post. Here’s the thing: Eades picked a stupid fight. First, because he’s “so busy,” he didn’t even realize that the stuff about glycogen in fresh kills was entirely beside the point. It’s the high protein levels by any dietary standard, stupid. But, Eades can never, ever be wrong, see, so he has to poison the well for 10 months—at which point he’s going to dazzle everyone with bullshit, declare “put paid,” and then “wash his hands.”

He simply can’t be content with arguing that VLC or ketosis can be therapeutic for some or all on its own merits, Inuit irrelevant. But since he’s been invoking the Inuit for better than two decades at least, he simply can’t be wrong about it—even though the game is already over and they are by no means metabolically like the rest of us.


Check Mate

Here’s a list of researchers who believed that the Eskimo native diet was a high protein diet:

Krogh & Krogh 1914 (Nobel Prize winner)
Lusk 1914
Joslin 1917 (first doctor to ever specialize in diabetes in the US)
Schaffer 1921
Heinbecker 1928, 1931, 1932
Tolstoi 1929
McClellan & DuBois 1930 (Stefansson’s own doctors)
Rabinowitch 1936
Rabinowitch & Corcoran 1936
Rabinowitch and Smith 1936
Kaare Rodahl 1952
Sinclair 1953 (A detailed review of the literature)
Ho 1972
Hui 1975
Bang, Dyerberg & Hjorne 1976
Draper 1977 (anthropology)
VanItallie & Nufert 2003
Leonard & Snodgrass 2005

Serious anthropolgists,” like Harold Draper, who have expertise in Eskimo nutrition believe that pre-modern Eskimos ate a very high protein diet along with high fat and only minimal carbohydrates. And just the other day, Peter wrote a great post on how protein inhibits ketogenesis.

Meanwhile, I have yet to find a single paper that claims the Eskimos ate a high fat ketogenic diet that didn’t use a false basis to make those claims. In all cases, authors A) made no observations on the dietary habits of actual Eskimos and B) only cited Stephen Phinney, who only cites Vilhjalmur Stefansson’s experience from the Bellevue Experiment and Schwatka’s own high fat sledging diet—all of which are about white explorers who could only survive by eating fatty cuts of meat. It’s circular reasoning. In other words, there are zero scientific papers showing actual Eskimos ate a high fat and low protein diet. The only people in the Arctic who apparently ate a high fat and restricted protein diet were white explorers.

And that’s the problem right there because it turns out that the Eskimos have a unique metabolism that is not shared by the white explorers.

It is now known that as much as 68% of Eskimos have the Carnitine palmitoyltransferase I (CPT1A) gene that causes carnitine palmitoyltransferase I deficiency—a severe reduction of an enzyme found in the liver that is essential for fatty acid oxidation. CPT1A enables Eskimos to have an extremely rare metabolism, which results in a significantly reduced ability to produce ketones either from a high fat diet or from fasting. In fact, the differential diagnosis of CPT1 deficiency is a ketogenesis disorder.

CPT1a is known to cause extremely low levels of ketones as well as hypoglycemia—together known as hypoketotic hypoglycemia. The CPT1a mutation is only particularly dangerous for Inuit children, who cannot fast or rely on ketosis, due the fact that their livers are not fully developed.

It is believed that CPT1A is an adaptation to cold environments. [While the data in those two papers is sound, the authors claim the Eskimos traditionally ate a ketogenic diet only citing Phinney, using the same flawed circular reasoning discussed above]. The mutation still enables the Inuit to obtain energy either as glucose from carbs, or from protein, however their excess polyunsaturated fat intake was preferentially burnt for heat, and not stored as LDL or triglycerides and their ability to create ketones was severely diminished.

For this reason Inuit children are especially well known to have difficulty fasting and it is common practice for the Inuit to eat snacks every hour. It may also explain why Inuit children were traditionally breastfed regularly until the age of 3 or 4 and irregularly up to the 4 to 6 years of age. Due to the autosomal recessive inheritance pattern of this genetic mutation, as well as its high prevalence in current Eskimo populations, nearly all full-blooded Eskimos would have had this genetic mutation prior to modern interbreeding with white people.

Interestingly, the expression of the CTP1 enzyme can be upgregulated with a diet containing minimal carbohydrate intake, blueberries, or good gut flora.

Furthermore, CPT1-deficiency in the Eskimo population may protect from the effects of a high fat diet, by increasing oxidation of glucose and by storing of excess fats, in what has been called “healthy obesity” in Eskimo populations exhibiting low prevalence of insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and Type II Diabetes.

It should be clear that the Inuit have metabolisms that are nothing like ours. They might as well come from a different planet. You’d have to be absolutely and completely insane to use their population as a proxy for studying the effects of a long term ketogenic diet.


Here’s the list of Inuit/Ketosis posts with comment counts (as of 12-Nov-2014).

  1. Disrupting Paleo: Inuit and Masai Ate Carbs and Prebiotics, Part 1 (110 Comments)
  2. Disrupting Paleo: Inuit and Masai Ate Carbs and Prebiotics, Part 2 (193 Comments)
  3. To Reiterate, Just In Case You Missed It: No Elevated Ketone Levels in the Inuit (150 Comments)
  4. One Thousand Nails in the Coffin of Arctic Explorer Vilhjálmur Stefansson, and His Spawn (150 Comments)
  5. When Confirmation Bias is the Landscape, Dialectics is Your Path to Better Truth (109 Comments)
  6. What Did Indigenous People Inhabiting the Coldest Places on Earth Really Eat? (69 Comments)
  7. Sweden Update: Resistant Starch On The Rise, LCHF Stefansson Myths On The Ropes (14 Comments)
  8. More Uncovering of the Inuit Myth: Stefansson and Anderson Belleview Experiement; Compromised Glucose Tolerance (72 Comments)
  9. Logic 101: Why The Resistant Starch And Gut Biome Revolution Means Doom For VLC/Keto (179 Comments)
  10. Hunters Of Wild Game Can’t Remain In Ketosis (14 Comments)
  11. The New Nutritional Starvation Diet (32 Comments)
  12. The War On Tastebuds (78 Comments)
  13. 7 Bigger-Than-Ever Challenges Everyone Should Know About Low-Carb Ketogenic Diets (65 Comments)
  14. Physiological Insulin Resistance = Low Carbohydrate Diet Induced Insulin Resistance (25 Comments)
  15. The Swedes Look Beyond Vilhjalmur Stefansson’s NYT Obituary, to The Science He Ignored (9 Comments)
  16. Lies, Damned Lies, and The Inuit Diet (15 Comments)
  17. The Comment Dr. Michael Eades Doesn’t Want You To See (163 Comments)

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. GTR on February 12, 2015 at 15:05

    About that hyperlipid post, a citation from it:


    “Providing a source of oxaloacetate in the liver mitochondria will stop ketogenesis, whatever gluconeogenesis does, whatever insulin does.
    any amino acid which metabolises to oxaloacetate within the liver is simply going to remove that void in the citric acid cycle (oxaloacetate deficiency) which results in acetyl-CoA being diverted to ketogenesis.” (*)

    Notice the Asprey guy sells oxaloacetate as a anti-aging supplement… “living longer with oxaloacetate”

    The claimed benefits of oxaloacetate are:
    – increase in mitochondrial density,
    – improvement in brain functioning,
    – improved glucose uptake, so that it can be used by mitochondria, and not stay in blood,
    – decreased brain inflammation,
    – increase in the number of neurons in the hippocampus (part of the brain responsible for memory formation),
    – gives many of the benefits of calorie restriction, without restricting calories,
    – increases NAD/NADH ratio, which improves gene expression

    (even according to hyperlipid blog it is good
    “You can manipulate the NAD+/NADH ratio.

    It doesn’t seem to matter whether you manipulate the absolute NADH levels down or the absolute NAD+ levels upwards and it doesn’t seem to matter how you manipulate either level. Having excess NADH combined with relatively depleted NAD+ makes these cancers very much more aggressive in terms of metastasis.”

    – animals supplemented with oxaloacetate live 20-50% longer.
    – it exists in some traditional japanese herbs,
    – helps with diabetes, by reducing the fasting glucose levels,
    – helps fighting excitotoxic effects of glutamate,
    – no side effects founds, it’s a human metabolite, naturally existing in the body

    The thing was ignored by bigh pharma, because it couldn’t be patented as a drug.

    Notice that hyperlipid gives an advice, how to get oxaloacetade cheaper than by buying an expansive supplement: “any amino acid which metabolises to oxaloacetate within the liver is simply going to remove that void in the citric acid cycle (oxaloacetate deficiency) which results in acetyl-CoA being diverted to ketogenesis. ”

    (*) Notice that his example with aspartate as a source of oxaloacetate might not be a good one, as aspartate converts to both oxaloacetate (beneficial and shuts down ketosis), but also into glutamate, which in modern diets people have too much of, which can be unhealthy, as it is excitatory.


    Same with trying to increase oxaloacetate via malate supplementation – it produces more oxaloacetate but with the side effect of lowering NAD+/NADH ratio.


    • Richard Nikoley on February 12, 2015 at 15:30

      Thanks GTR:

      I had a note here to look into NAD+ as it recently came across my radar. From what I gather, looks like that might be the one to supplement, leave oxaloacetate out of it. What do you think?

    • David on February 12, 2015 at 18:58

      Is anyone familiar with rapamycin?

      “In the dirt, Sehgal had discovered Streptomyces hygroscopicus, a bacterium that secreted a potent antifungal compound. ”
      “With an eye toward changing the way millions grow older, Novartis, the $260 billion Swiss pharmaceutical giant, has begun taking the first steps to position a version of rapamycin as the first true anti-aging drug.”
      “Really what rapamycin is doing is tapping into the body’s systems for dealing with reduced nutrition,”

    • rob on February 13, 2015 at 10:01

      a glass of apple juice provides about a gram of l-malate.

  2. Tatertot on February 12, 2015 at 16:28

    Can’t wait to see how this all ends…maybe it’ll be like this!

    “Well, sir, you ain’t never seen nobody that had humble-come-tumbledness down as fine as what Brer Rabbit had it then. Poor little critter, he learned a powerful lesson. But he learned it too late. But it just goes to show what comes of mixin’ up with somethin’ you got no business with in the first place. And don’t you never forget it.”

    or will it be:

    “Yes sir, that’s the way with Br’er Rabbit, sure as I’m named Remus. About the time he get it stuck in his mind that there ain’t nobody can outdo him, up somebody’d jump an’ do him scan’lous. “What you laughin’ ’bout?” says Br’er Fox, says he. An’ Br’er Rabbit, he couldn’t say nothin’. “Well, then,” says Br’er Fox, says he, “I’ll settle your hash right now!” And with that, he grab Br’er Rabbit by the tail and made for to dash ‘im agin’ the ground. But just then, Br’er Rabbit’s tail snap off real short, an’ he tuck through the cotton patch like the dogs was after ‘im. An’ from that day to this, the only tail that Br’er Rabbit’s got to his name was a little ol’ ball o’ cotton. ”

    Either way, it will shorely be a zippity do-dah day when it all comes to fruition!

  3. Bret on February 12, 2015 at 16:48

    …and realized that Eades simply never deals with stuff head on.

    Rather, he tells you over and over and over that after he’s less very very very busy, he’ll help you to not be so hopelessly ignorant and fooled.

    Indeed, the stench of SMUG radiating from Eades has reached comical excess. Nearly every comment he makes presupposes his own superior brilliance and his readers as intellectually needy of his enlightenment.

    In that same post he talks about his intent to start an email news letter listing a few of the 20 books he reads per month.

    Well if he is not too busy to read 20 books per month, then he is not too busy to address Duck’s rebuttal.

    Eades is an arrogant cock. I have absolutely no respect for him at this point.

    • Richard Nikoley on February 12, 2015 at 17:09

      I resisted really going off on him for a LONG time in spite of the arrogant, flippant, dismissive condescension.

      I’ve had enough. Gloves off.

    • Bret on February 13, 2015 at 05:20

      For months I figured he couldn’t be as bad as he seemed and that a reasonable explanation would emerge. But it never did.

      It’s clear by now he’s deathly terrified, even if unconsciously, of people thinking he’s wrong. His ego is so wrapped up in this Inuit stuff and moreover in this online persona of a universally respected sage generously distributing absolute truth to the unwashed masses, he’ll never, ever, ever, ever admit he’s wrong. Totally unacquainted with humble pie, and hostile to the very idea.

      Tom will hate me for making this comparison — he clearly wants to stay out of this — but Eades is undeniably The Anointed.

  4. Beans Mcgrady on February 12, 2015 at 17:41

    Somebody gonna get called a cunt soon. I can feel it.

  5. Duck Dodgers on February 13, 2015 at 08:49

    I just can’t wait to see which logical fallacy Eades uses. Got my popcorn ready. And I’m already keeping score from his previous comments:

    Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) — assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.

    Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) — where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.

    (Shifting the) Burden of proof (see — onus probandi) — I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.

    Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is the tendency to favor information that confirms one’s beliefs or hypotheses and to ignore information that disagrees with one’s point of view.

    Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) — improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.

    Argument from authority (authoritative argument, appeal to authority, argumentum ab auctoritate), is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused… Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence.

    Courtier’s Reply is an alleged type of logical fallacy, in which a respondent to criticism claims that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to pose any sort of criticism whatsoever. It may be considered a form of argument from authority.

    Dogmatism: the claim that the issue at hand is beyond argument, that the solution is self-evident.

    Almost humorously, a dogmatist will often claim they “too busy” to debate because the truth is so apparent and “basic.” This stance is often intended to block communication of any sort.

    Eades accused me of “confirmation bias,” but the very definition of confirmation bias requires one to “ignore information that disagrees with one’s point of view.” Except I’m the only one who has actually taken the time to address everything! Given that Eades has only appealed to his own authority—without presenting any evidence to make his case—it’s difficult to accuse me of ignoring evidence.

    In reality, I’m just the messenger, reporting on what the literature says. They aren’t my arguments. 150 years of scientific literature says, “X”. It’s not my fault that’s what the literature says. And it’s not my fault he never bothered to read the scientific literature to begin with.

    I would love nothing more than to see Dr. Eades step up with real evidence and a sound argument to support his claims. If he can do that great. But, he’s already setting himself up on a mountain of logical fallacies by claiming his argument is so “basic.”

    Give me a break. Don’t just tell people it’s “basic biochemistry.” Show us the evidence.

    Watch as he magically dismisses 150 years of research by appealing to his own authority. Pass the popcorn!

    • Skyler Tanner on February 13, 2015 at 10:07

      “Give me a break. Don’t just tell people it’s “basic biochemistry.” Show us the evidence.”

      This is always where I laugh a little bit at people who LOVE Peat. Physiology is great, but it’s really, really hard to extrapolate cellular behavior up to the level of the organism. This is why we have “bench” science, and “applied” science, otherwise known as “Why Leptin didn’t cure obesity, and other overreaches by those looking to make a buck.”

    • John on February 13, 2015 at 10:27

      Duck I’m pretty sure you don’t properly understand just how important Steffanson is. Like, is a giant. I would say was if I thought he is anything but immortal.

    • Richard Nikoley on February 13, 2015 at 11:18

      John, I’m sure you don’t understand what a fucking fraud, opportunist, scum of the earth he was, who didn’t even acknowledge his own half-Eskimo son, who longed for him, but never saw him from the age of 9.


      This has been blogged before big time, you didn’t even acknowledge it, so you get to be on my list of dismissible fucktards I can’t wait to row row row their boats, gently away from me…merrily.

      Now go fuck off, and go to Eades’ place where Stefansson is immortal for your company of fucktard sycophants.


    • Richard Nikoley on February 13, 2015 at 11:24

      Oh, and John, if you were being pithy, then so was I.

    • John on February 13, 2015 at 12:41

      Rough. And I tried extra hard to make the sarcasm apparent with my last sentence!

      (IIRC much of Eades’ “rebuttal” to this point was “Yeah, well, Steffanson still… I win!”)

    • Richard Nikoley on February 13, 2015 at 12:44

      Look at the bright side. You trolled me good.

  6. John on February 12, 2015 at 19:04

    Sort of a Keyser Soze post?

    I’m surprised there are still people that don’t know about protein preventing ketosis. I thought its long been a sort of common knowledge that ketosis without calorie deficit requires carb and protein restriction.

    The Power of Protein.

  7. Palva on February 13, 2015 at 05:06

    Wow I can’t believe Eades is so stubborn. I really like(d) his work on Statins, but his vehement opposition to learning new things makes me somewhat doubt his work. If in light of all the new evidence someone still says 0 carb is healthy for everyone then they’re either deluded or delibirately deceiving people.


  8. Per+Wikholm on February 13, 2015 at 09:35

    I´m looking forward to see Eades response but meanwhile… besides the ketoadaption argument, some of thoose Inuit studies for the last 100 years also measured nitrogen in blood or urine… and it was really high. Only a very high protein diet could explain this.

    Back to ketoadaption and invisible cars. The experiements on Inuits did not detect ketosis in urine but they did also not show ketosis in breath.

    The argument for bying a Ketonix (TM) meter for your breath instead of measuring ketones in your blood is actually, boiled down, that blood only measures the traffic jam of ketones in blood while acetone in breath actually measures the extent of ketones being burned for fuel in your body.

    So when Inuits don´t show any acetone in the breath in studies on their natural diet, it proves that they were not using ketones as a major fuel. End of discussion, ketoadapted or not.

    • Richard Nikoley on February 13, 2015 at 09:46

      “So when Inuits don´t show any acetone in the breath in studies on their natural diet, it proves that they were not using ketones as a major fuel. End of discussion, ketoadapted or not.”

      I’m sure Eades has a simple explanation for that. 10 months in the making simple.

  9. Richard Nikoley on February 14, 2015 at 07:49

    Eades posted this comment yesterday on his post.

    Thanks for the link. And I’ve never given any credence to the idea that long-term ketosis damages metabolism. That’s why the FTA is so bent on demonizing Stefansson and the idea that the Inuit were ketoadapted. Since that state didn’t harm the Inuit any, it gives the lie to the notion that ketosis is harmful in the long run. Since Stef reported repeatedly that the Inuit ate a high-fat diet, then Stef has to be neutralized.

    So, it has to occur to those who actually read those series of 17 posts that Eades hasn’t, dismissing it all after the first couple focussing on Stefansson. Being so “cursed of knowledge,” he’s apparently able to erect straw men and by virtue of appeal to his own authority, not have them regarded as such.

    Inuit are not “ketoadapted” when there is no ketosis:

    a. No measure of ketogenic levels of ketones in urine or blood
    b. Too high of protein consumption as documented in every study conducted
    c. No acetone in the breath
    d. The gene mutation

    It really reduces to a “basic” Occam’s Razor deal. Is the explanation that there’s some very convoluted process that they are in ketosis but we simply can’t detect it, or that all the available evidence and reason adds up to them simply not being in ketosis.

    Two additional points:

    1. Taken together, that series is not about condemning ketosis, as Eades apparently believes it to be (by not reading that which he’s too cursed of knowledge to actually read and understand). It’s that the Inuit are simply no touchstone for it, as has been represented by the LC community forever.

    2. Steffanson doesn’t need to be “neutralized.” His adventuresome hyperbole has already been shown to be grandstanding hyperbole by any honest inquisitor who’s looked at 100 years of research that utterly contradicts Stefansson on virtually every point. Stefansson’s own Bellevue Experiment debunked Stefansson.

  10. GTR on February 17, 2015 at 12:46

    Does’t he, as a doctor, face some potential legal problems if he doesn’t tell his patients about the negative side effects of his diet, like methylglyoxal stuff?


    In a way medicine can get away with like anything, but it just needs to be listed somewhere in the fine print…

    • Jew Lee Us C Czar on February 17, 2015 at 17:29

      He potentially could, but not really. I’m a lawyer who does medical malpractice cases. The kicker with medicine and doctors is that there is no “fine print.”

      You put your care in the hands of the doctor, and hope it works out. There is minimal disclosure and patients rarely sign anything unless it is for surgery. That is where the money is.

      Day to day care is like the wild west. No patient would ever ask about methylglyoxal or anything similar, so that never factors into malpractice cases.

  11. LeonRover on February 18, 2015 at 12:55

    Traffic jams ? Chasing cars ?

    Never mind: how’s about



    Dalida was partly Egyptian.

    Enjoy – in this Saison Maigre!


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.