You are on page 1of 100


"#$%&# ())
!"#$ !"#$ !"#$ !"#$

Forsaking Science For Dogma: A ReveaIing
Exposé of the MetaboIic Advantage

Find out why listening to those who promote Metabolic
Advantage Dogma (MAD) could destroy your fat loss

5th Edition, updated September 24, 2009.
© Anthony Colpo. All rights reserved.
&'(')*+ #,-.+*,/') #,-.+*,/') #,-.+*,/') #,-.+*,/')

The title of this book, They're All MAD, is purely a light-hearted play on the
acronym for Metabolic Advantage Dogma. The title of this book and the MAD
acronym used within this book are not to be construed in any way as an
assessment or reference to the mental competency of any individual or group
mentioned in this book. As the author does not have access to the psychiatric or
medical records of any parties mentioned in this book, he refrains from making
any concrete assessment of their psychiatric condition. The author is merely
presenting his analysis of the scientific evidence pertaining to and his
experiences with those who promote Metabolic Advantage Dogma. The author
leaves it entirely up to the reader to consider the information presented and then
decide for him/herself as to the competency of the parties mentioned in this book.

!'0,.*+ #,-.+*,/')

The contents of this book are presented for information purposes only and are
not intended as medical advice or to replace the advice of a physician or other
health care professional. Anyone wishing to embark on any dietary, drug,
exercise or lifestyle change for the purpose of preventing or treating a disease or
health condition should first consult with, and seek clearance and guidance from,
a competent health care professional. Any individual wishing to apply the
information in this book for the purposes of improving their own health should not
do so without first reviewing the scientific references cited and consulting with a
qualified medical practitioner. All patients need to be treated in an individual
manner by their personal medical advisors. The decision to utilize any
information in this book is ultimately at the sole discretion of the reader, who
assumes full responsibility for any and all consequences arising from such a
decision. The author and publisher shall remain free of any fault, liability or
responsibility for any loss or harm, whether real or perceived, resulting from use
of information in this book.

1,(*(.,*+ #,-.+2-3)'

The author wishes to make it perfectly clear that he does not, and never has,
received any form of financial assistance from industry groups that may stand to
benefit from the information presented in this book. This includes those from the
meat, egg, dairy, nutritional supplement, food, beverage, drug, and agriculture
industries. The author does not hold, trade or speculate in the stock of
companies whose financial status or share price could potentially be affected by
the information presented in this book. The author is a certified fitness
professional who has worked in the capacity of both salaried fitness instructor
and freelance personal fitness consultant. The author does not sell food
products, nutritional supplements, medical apparatus or fitness equipment.

4*5+' 26 72(8'(8- 4*5+' 26 72(8'(8- 4*5+' 26 72(8'(8- 4*5+' 26 72(8'(8-



Chapter 1:
Richard Feinman and Eugene Fine...


Chapter 2:
Dr. MichaeI Eades (author of Protein


Chapter 3:
Gary Taubes (author of Good Calories,
Bad Calories)"""""""""""""




About the Author...........




"What is it that compels a person, past all reason, to believe the unbelievable.
How can an otherwise sane individual become so enamored of a fantasy, an
imposture, that even after it's exposed in the bright light of day he still clings to it -
indeed, clings to it all the harder?"
M. Lamar Keene.

9(8)20 9(8)20 9(8)20 9(8)203.8,2( 3.8,2( 3.8,2( 3.8,2(

There exists a group of individuals, whose ranks spread across the
globe, who earnestly believe in a theory known as the 'metabolic
advantage'. This term was popularized by the late Dr. Robert Atkins,
who claimed it was possible to gain weight on a high-carbohydrate
diet but lose weight on a low-carbohydrate diet even when the 2 diets
contained the exact same number of calories[1].

Atkins' theory has never been validated. Ìn fact, repeated metabolic
ward studies ÷ the most tightly controlled type of dietary study ÷ have
repeatedly shown no difference in fat loss among low- and high-
carbohydrate diets of identical caloric content. Ìf you've read Chapter
1 of The Fat Loss Bible, you'll know about each and every one of
these studies. You'll know that, over the last four decades, the
metabolic advantage dogma (MAD) has had ample opportunity to
prove itself in tightly controlled research with real live humans ÷ and
that it has repeatedly failed to do so.

Despite this failure, the metabolic advantage movement simply
refuses to discard its cherished belief that isocaloric low-carb diets
offer some sort of magical weight loss advantage.

My own experiences with the metabolic advantage movement are
especially enlightening. Ìn 2003, Ì launched the first of a number of
websites, most of which contained information favorable to low-carb
diets. Ì began writing articles highlighting the potential health benefits
of intelligently implemented low-carb diets, and posted article after
article highlighting the scientifically untenable nature of the campaign
against cholesterol and animal fats. Not surprisingly, Ì quickly became
a darling of the low-carb movement. Evidently, Ì was telling these
folks just what they wanted to hear. My articles were routinely cited
and reprinted on low-carb forums, where the subsequent commentary
was almost always of an overwhelmingly positive nature.

The picture changed somewhat in late 2005, when Ì posted an
impromptu ab shot on one of my web sites. Ìn response to the
subsequent flood of emails offering glowing praise and wanting to
know how Ì got so lean, Ì wrote a brief article highlighting several key
principles that Ì used to achieve single-digit body fat levels.

One of these principles was to establish a calorie deficit. Ì pointed out
two unassailable facts:

1) Without a calorie deficit, no weight loss would occur, and;

2) Altering the ratio of protein, fat and carbohydrates would have
little to no effect on the rate of fat loss when calories were held
constant. The fundamental requirement for fat loss was, and
always would be, the establishment of a calorie deficit.

When Ì wrote that, Ì had no idea of what was about to follow.

As soon as Ì posted the article, web forums around the world lit up in
heated disagreement. Hey, there's nothing wrong with spirited
debate, but my detractors went way beyond simply disagreeing with
me ÷ my character was assailed and Ì was accused of being
dishonest. Now Ì'll be the first to admit that my own writings are
unlikely to win any prizes for social nicety, but Ì always make sure Ì
have my facts straight before calling someone out. And unlike the
disgruntled MAD folks, Ì do not target someone simply because that
person is saying things Ì do not want to hear. As a person of robust
mental health, Ì simply do not feel the need to criticize people who do
not make fallacious claims.

When Ì challenged my detractors to provide me with the evidence
that validated their accusations of dishonesty, they provided none. Ì
even went so far as to publicly offer to roller blade naked down one of
Melbourne's busiest entertainment precincts (the famous Chapel
Street) if my critics could prove me wrong! Given the vitriol these folks
displayed towards me, Ì figured they'd jump at the chance to see me
make a fool of myself. Ì sat back and waited for the supportive
evidence that Ì had allegedly missed to come flooding in. Ìt never did.

But, of course, that didn't stop the vitriol.

The whole experience was an extremely enlightening one. Over the
years Ì've had dealings with dietary dogmatists of all stripes, and can
earnestly say that, in my experience, the most fanatical and irrational
of all are those who believe in and promote MAD. Ì have inspired
vegans and vegetarians to begin eating meat again, Ì have caused
medical doctors to begin questioning one of the most central tenets of
modern medicine (the cholesterol theory of heart disease), and Ì have
convinced strict low-carbing athletes to abandon their carb-phobia
and start ingesting carbs after workouts.

Ìn contrast, Ì could count the number of metabolic advantage
believers who have given my arguments a fair hearing on one hand ÷
with most of the fingers cut off! Contradictory evidence is to these
folks what garlic and crucifixes are to vampires.

Ìn my opinion, the metabolic advantage movement is not unlike a
fanatical religious movement. Anyone who acts to improve the status
and standing of the cult is adored and considered a hero, but anyone
who questions the cult's central teachings is quickly derided as a
heinous villain. Those who speak out against MAD can expect to
attract fanatical denunciation and venomous hostility.

Ìndeed, it was not the vegan/vegetarian/low-fat/raw food movements
but the metabolic advantage movement that, in 2007, awarded me
with my first and (so far) only Ìnternet stalker! To say that Ì have
serious concerns about the mental stability of many metabolic
advantage dogmatists would be somewhat of an understatement.

This kind of behavior would at least be partially understandable if the
metabolic advantage movement was right and detractors like me
were wrong. But that simply is not the case. As you discovered in
Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible, and as you will further learn in this
book, the preponderance of scientific evidence shows that the
metabolic advantage theory is pure fantasy.

This matters little to the metabolic advantage dogmatists. By
selectively filtering out non-supportive evidence and citing supportive
evidence, they keep their theory alive. Evidence that supports MAD is
warmly embraced, no matter how hopelessly flimsy and unscientific.
Meanwhile, evidence that disputes the cult's teachings is ignored,
rationalized away, or vigorously attacked ÷ even when it is of far
higher quality than the evidence used in support of MAD!

My experience with the metabolic advantage dogmatists has given
me unique insight into the lengths people will go in order to justify
untenable but deeply cherished beliefs.

This book focuses on the leading promoters of the metabolic
advantage theory. Not all of them specifically use the term "metabolic
advantage¨, but they all enthusiastically endorse its key precept: the
belief that one can lose more fat on a low-carbohydrate diet than on
an isocaloric high-carbohydrate diet. Some claim the key mechanism
is insulin, others believe the prime factor is increased protein intake
(a rather disingenuous argument, for there is nothing to stop one from
eating more protein on a high-carbohydrate diet.), while others
embrace both these and other explanations.

But the end result is the same: the continued propagation of a
fallacious theory that unfortunately distracts many people from doing
the things they really need to do in order to lose fat. The metabolic
advantage theory might attract wealth and status for its promoters,
but it could very well sabotage your attempts to achieve a lean and
healthy body. So don't believe the dogma ÷ it's pure MADness!

Best of health,

Anthony Colpo,
Ìndependent researcher and author of:

The Fat Loss Bible

The Great Cholesterol Con
7:*;8') <

Richard Feinman and Eugene Fine

A Not-So-Fine ExampIe of Scientific 'Research'

Richard Feinman and Eugene Fine are to the scientific community
what Dr Robert Atkins and his ilk were to the general public:
unabashed proponents of the metabolic advantage concept. Since
2003, the duo have authored a series of papers in mostly open
access journals, along with a letter to the American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, that assume the metabolic advantage theory is a given[2-6].
Ìn their most recent paper, they claim that: "The extent to which
carbohydrate restriction is successful as a strategy for control of
obesity or diabetes can be attributed to two effects. The strategy
frequently leads to a behavioral effect, a spontaneous reduction in
caloric intake as seen in ad lib comparisons. There is also a
metabolic effect, an apparent reduction in energy efficiency seen in
isocaloric comparisons, popularly referred to as metabolic

Feinman and Fine attempt to explain this advantage with appeals to
the Second Law of Thermodynamics ("The entropy of an isolated
system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching
a maximum value at equilibrium."), elaborate discussions of dietary-
induced thermogenesis, and fatty acid and insulin metabolism.

There's just one wee problem with the theoretical musings of
Feinman and Fine: They are based on an entirely false premise.

Feinman and Fine appear to sincerely believe that the superior
weight loss seen with low-carbohydrate diets in some free-living
clinical trials is a demonstration of the so-called metabolic advantage.
They evidently accept at face value the self-reported dietary intakes
in these studies. They appear to be oblivious to the fact that dietary
underreporting is the norm, not the exception, in such studies and
that this phenomenon is most pronounced in those attempting to
restrict fat and/or total calories.

Even if they believe the self-reported dietary intakes in free-living
studies to be accurate, Feinman and Fine offer no explanation of why
there as just as many free-living studies that have shown no greater
weight or fat loss even when the subjects in the two groups reportedly
ingested similar calorie intakes.

More importantly, Feinman and Fine make no mention of most of the
tightly controlled metabolic ward trials listed in Chapter 1 of The Fat
Loss Bible, excepting the studies by Rabast et al, Golay et al, and
Piatti et al. They also readily cite the flawed trial by and Kekwick and
Pawan. Rabast et al claimed to have found statistically significant
differences in weight loss on isocaloric low-carb diets versus high-
carb diets, but as Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible explains, the
difference could not be attributable to anything other than greater
muscle, water, and/or glycogen loss. Losing water, muscle and
glycogen cannot be considered a metabolic 'advantage' of any sort;
in fact, if you desire optimal body composition and performance, then
loss of muscle and glycogen is definitely a disadvantage!

Amazingly, Feinman and Fine discuss the non-supportive trials of
Golay et al and Piatti et al as if they were supportive, brushing aside
the statistically non-significant findings as if they were a mere
inconvenience. Ìn a 2004 paper, they present the results of a mere
ten clinical trials of isocaloric diets comparing lower versus higher
carbohydrate groups[3]. They write: "It can be seen that the lower
carbohydrate arm in 9 of 10 studies demonstrates increased weight
reduction in comparison with the higher carbohydrate arm. Three of
the studies show statistical significance (p < 0.05 or better). Even
without statistical significance of individual studies, however, the
likelihood that the lower carbohydrate arm would have an advantage
in 9 of 10 studies is equivalent to the likelihood of 9 coin toss
experiments having excess heads in comparison to excess tails."

While the researchers admit these results don't prove their theory, the
implication is clear: The statistical probability of the insignificant
differences being truly due to chance is highly unlikely. The authors
believe a metabolic advantage is a far more likely explanation.

But again, Feinman and Fine's approach is hugely flawed. Selecting
such a small sample of supportive studies makes it easy to reinforce
their argument. But one could just as easily pick a sample of studies
that found statistically non-significant greater weight and/or fat losses
in the high-carbohydrate groups. Ìf one is going to place unwarranted
emphasis on non-significant results, then one could claim the non-
significant results of Yang et al (2.5 kilogram greater weight loss in
the higher-carbohydrate group), Rumpler et al (500 gram greater fat
loss in the higher-carbohydrate group), Johnston et al 2006 (900
gram and 2.1 kilogram greater weight and fat losses, respectively, in
the higher-carbohydrate group), Johnston et al 2004 (1.9% greater fat
loss in higher-carbohydrate group), Torbay et al (600 and 500 gram
greater weight and fat losses, respectively, among normo-insulinemic
men on higher-carbohydrate diet), Meckling et al (1.3 kilogram
greater fat loss in higher-carbohydrate group), Petersen et al (600
and 500 gram greater weight and fat losses, respectively, among
female participants on higher-carbohydrate diet) as supportive of
higher-carbohydrate diets![7-13].

When assessing the validity of a hypothesis, good science dictates
that you assess all the available relevant evidence, not just that which
supports your preconceived beliefs.

Good science also precludes one from regarding non-significant
results as significant in order to bolster a favored theory. Research
findings are deemed statistically significant or non-significant for a
reason: We need to be sure that research findings are real and not a
result of chance before we use them to start making claims or
recommendations. Wishing or rationalizing away those results that
don't suit our hypothesis and embracing those which do, regardless
of their probability level, is not good science.

As for citing the Kekwick and Pawan study.well, common decency
forbids me from stating what Ì truly think of any trained researcher
who cites this madcap study as proof of anything.

The only way for Feinman and Fine to present a convincing case for
MAD is to ignore the numerous non-supportive metabolic ward and
free-living studies that show no difference in weight or fat loss with
isocaloric diets of varying macronutrient composition. All their
elaborate theorizing quickly becomes moot when one realizes there is
no greater weight or fat loss to be derived from lowering one's carb
intake on an isocaloric diet.

Ìn their defense, perhaps Feinman and Fine are simply unaware of
these trials. However, for someone who boasted in an email to yours
truly that he (Feinman) has been "teaching bioenergetics for thirty
years"[14], such an inability to hunt down relevant research is most
worrisome. Ì've not taught a single university lecture in my life, but Ì
had little trouble getting my butt down to the library and pulling up the
relevant studies. Some of them did not even require a trip to the
library ÷ the full text for many of the studies in Chapter 1 of The Fat
Loss Bible can be retrieved by Googling or visiting the PubMed web
site. Someone who has been teaching at educational institutions
almost as long as Ì have been alive should have no difficulty
whatsoever accessing these same studies.

Furthermore, Ì know for a fact that Feinman reads my newsletters (he
has emailed me regarding their content on a number of occasions),
so he would be well aware of my repeated assertions that metabolic
ward studies completely fail to support the metabolic advantage
theory. Feinman obviously has my email address, but he never
bothered to write and ask for the citations of these studies. Oh well,
maybe someone might buy him or Fine a copy of The Fat Loss

Ì don't know either Feinman or Fine personally, so Ì can't comment on
whether their misinterpretation of the literature is a product of
accident or design. What Ì do find most interesting is that the
metabolic advantage believers accuse yours truly, who has
thoroughly searched for and cited all the relevant free-living and
metabolic ward studies he could find, of bias and even impropriety.
These same critics, however, are more than happy to cite Feinman
and Fine's hopelessly one-sided research in support of their stance.
Evidently, in the eyes of the metabolic advantage believers, only
those who present research that contradicts their cherished beliefs
are capable of bias and shoddy research!

7:*;8') = 7:*;8') = 7:*;8') = 7:*;8') =

Dr. MichaeI Eades

Master of SeIective Citation?

Dr Michael Eades and his wife Mary Dan Eades co-authored the
best-selling book Protein Power, along with a string of spin-off books.
Their book sales have run into the millions, which means the Eades
have exposed their weight loss theories to an extremely wide

Ìn Protein Power, the Eades make no bones about what they believe
to be the true cause of fat gain:

"Although it's almost always attributed to excess calories, obesity is
more related to the multifaceted actions of insulin and glucagon on
the storage of fat."[15]

The Eades are hardly alone in perceiving insulin as weight loss public
enemy number one. Ìf you're even remotely familiar with the low-carb
movement, you'll know that many of its members have a
preoccupation with insulin that often borders on obsessive. Ask them
about fat loss, and you could almost set your watch by the answer.
Ìnvariably, you'll be told that insulin is a hormone that blocks fat
breakdown and promotes fat storage, and that eating carbohydrates
increases insulin while cutting carbs lowers insulin. Therefore, by
deduction, carbohydrates make you store fat while low-carbohydrate
diets make you burn fat.

This type of simplistic logic is typical of the second-rate pseudo-
scientific thinking that pervades the health, nutrition and fitness
arenas. Ìt sounds great to the uninitiated, but it's wrong, and here's

The Great Ìnsulin Myth is predicated on the fact that eating
carbohydrates increases the amount of carbohydrate that your body
will burn for energy. Cutting carbohydrate and replacing it with an
isocaloric amount of fat, on the other hand, will lower insulin, which in
turn allows more fat to be oxidized for energy. There is little
controversy about this part of the equation ÷ the fact that low-
carb/high-fat diets can cause an increase in fat oxidation has been
demonstrated time and time again.

The problem is that, at this point, the insulin-makes-you-fat theorists
go on to make a massive and unsubstantiated leap of faith: they
claim that the increase in fat oxidation seen on low-
carbohydrate/high-fat diets is due to heightened oxidation of dietary
fat and body fat.

All the evidence suggests that any increase in fat oxidation on low-
carb/high-fat diets simply reflects the change in dietary substrate
availability. Ìn other words, your body has to work with what you feed
it. Ìf you cut the amount of carbohydrates in your diet, and instead eat
more fat, your body will not surprisingly oxidize a greater portion of
ingested calories for energy in the form of fat. Ìnsulin and glucagon
are the 'gatekeepers' that help regulate this shift in substrate
oxidation in response to changes in dietary macronutrient ratios.
There is no evidence to support the belief that eating more fat will
somehow set the oxidation of body fat into high gear.

The insulin-makes-you-fat crowd will no doubt strongly object, but
where is their supportive evidence? While they jump up and down in
protest, Ì urge the rest of you to take a look at the non-supportive
free-living and metabolic ward studies that compared high and low-
carb diets and measured insulin responses to these diets.
Specifically, take a close look at the studies in which the low-carb diet
caused greater reductions in insulin. Despite the marked differences
in insulin output, there was no difference in weight or fat loss! Among
the metabolic ward studies, the trials by Grey and Kipnis, Golay et al,
Miyashita et al, and Stimson et al all found greater reductions in
insulin on the isocaloric low-carb diets ÷ but no difference in fat
loss[16-19]. Among the free-living studies, Golay et al, Torbay et al,
Noakes et al, and Meckling et al all found greater reductions in insulin
on the low-carb diets ÷ but again, no difference in fat loss[20-23]. The
participants in these free-living studies were given dietary advice
intended to make the high- and low-carbs isocaloric.

Ìf insulin, and not calories, was the key factor in fat loss, then there
should have been a clear and decisive advantage to the lower-carb
group every single time. There wasn't. The reason for this is that the
insulin-prevents-fat-loss theory is rubbish. Ìt is calories, not insulin,
that determine whether or not you will lose fat.

Despite the fact that it is nonsense, the Eades still vigorously promote
the insulin theory of weight loss ÷ and a whole host of other

The Bizarro Fantasy WorId of Dr. MichaeI Eades

Those who have grown attached to untenable theories will often go to
remarkable lengths to protect them against epistemological threats.
They will ignore or rationalize away conflicting evidence, no matter
how meticulous, whilst vigorously embracing evidence that appears
supportive, even when it is of an extremely flimsy nature. Ìn the
worldview of such folks, the ultimate determinant of good or bad
research is not the scientific and ethical rigor with which that research
was conducted, but simply whether or not it supports their pet beliefs.
Study results that support their cherished dogma are warmly
welcomed, while those that do not are ignored, rationalized away as
inconsequential, or vigorously attacked. Supportive evidence is good
evidence, non-supportive evidence is bad evidence, quality be

Ìn my opinion, Dr. Michael Eades is a classic textbook example of this
phenomenon in action.

On September 11, 2007 Eades posted on his blog one of the most
absurd pieces of dietary commentary Ì have ever read ÷ and Ì've read
some absolute howlers in my time[24]. Eades began his post by
discussing the results of the Minnesota Experiment, a study headed
by the famous Ancel Keys[25]. The Minnesota Experiment was
undertaken in 1944 and involved 36 conscientious objectors who
refused participation in military service during World War ÌÌ. These
young men were given the option of participating in a study
examining the effects of semi-starvation, and many clearly had no
idea what they were in for.

The study involved an initial 12-week run-in period, where the men
were fed maintenance-level caloric intakes. Ìt is important to note that
at the beginning stages of the study the men were, on average,
already fairly lean individuals. Body fat ranged between 6.5%-26%,
with a group average of 13.9%. The subjects who were overweight
were given a diet that incorporated a caloric deficit to lean them out,
while subjects who were considered underweight were fed a calorie
surplus. The average energy intake during this initial phase of the
study was 3,492 calories per day. Ìt's also important to remember that
the subjects were physically active and spent their days, not watching
TV or sitting at office desks, but performing manual labour.

So to recap: the subjects in this study were relatively lean, physically
active young men who required an average of almost 3,500 calories
per day (the importance of these factors will be discussed in more
detail shortly).

After the initial 12-week weight maintenance/adjustment phase, the
real 'guts' of the Minnesota Experiment got underway. This was a 24-
week phase in which the men's daily caloric intake was unmercifully
slashed overnight down to only 1,570 calories. That is a massive drop
of almost 2,000 calories per day. Not surprisingly, the men began
losing weight at a rapid rate. Ìt should also come as little surprise that
the men began losing muscle at an alarmingly fast rate. Ìf you've ever
seen photos of the subjects in the Minnesota experiment, you were
probably startled at the degree of emaciation these men suffered.
After being subjected to semi-starvation diets, these men did indeed
look like starvation victims ÷ and they felt it too. The formerly healthy
and psychologically robust young men became weak and lethargic,
intensely pre-occupied with food, and disinterested in sex. They
experienced mood swings and even depression, and two subjects
developed psychiatric disturbances of "psychotic" proportions. During
the final 12-week re-feeding phase of the study, one of the subjects
remained so depressed by the experience he deliberately cut off 3 of
his fingers!

Eades discussed much of this on his blog, and included some eye-
opening photos of one of the emaciated Minnesota subjects. Nothing
wrong with that: it's what Eades proceeded to do next that completely
strained the boundaries of credulity.

Eades then discussed the results of a British study published in 1970
by Anne Stock and John Yudkin[26]. Stock and Yudkin had taken 11
subjects and advised them to follow an ad libitum (unrestricted
calories) low-carbohydrate diet. Unlike the Minnesota subjects, the
participants in this study were free-living. The subjects were aged 21
to 51 years and 8 of them were female. Five of the subjects were
nutrition students; no information was given regarding the occupation
of the remainder.

The subjects were asked to eat their normal diet for the first 2 weeks,
then to follow a low-carbohydrate diet for the remaining 2 weeks.
While the Minnesota men were given 275 grams of carbohydrate
daily, Stock and Yudkin's subjects were told to limit daily
carbohydrate intake to only 50 grams, but no restriction was placed
on their intake of protein and fat. Despite the allowance of ad libitum
protein, fat and calories, food records indicated that during the 2-
week low-carbohydrate phase the participants spontaneously
reduced their calorie intake. So while the calorie restricted phase of
the Minnesota Experiment extended for 6 months, the corresponding
phase of the Stock/Yudkin study lasted only 2 weeks.

During the initial 2-week phase, the researchers estimated from the
subjects' self-reported dietary records an average daily caloric intake
of 2,330. During the 2-week low-carbohydrate phase, the average
daily energy intake was estimated to be 1,560.

Stock and Yudkin noted that "...none of our subjects complained of
hunger or any other ill effects; on the other hand, several volunteered
statements to the effect that they had an increased feeling of well-
being and decreased lassitude." Nothing revolutionary there; these
observations are in line with other studies showing that low-
carbohydrate diets can enhance satiety and improve feelings of

But it is at this point that Eades made a comparison, and a
conclusion, that boggles the mind of any remotely intelligent
observer. Eades noted that the participants of the Stock and Yudkin
study did not develop the extreme hunger and obsession with food
that the Minnesota subjects did, and that there was no evidence of
any psychiatric disturbances or emaciation in the former. He noted
that the average daily caloric intake among the Minnesota subjects
was 1,570 and that the corresponding intake among Stock and
Yudkin's subjects was 1,560. This, he concluded, was evidence that
low-carbohydrate diets produce far superior psychological and body
composition outcomes than isocaloric high-carb diets. The inference
was clear: follow a 1,570 calorie low-carb diet and you will feel better
than ever, but follow a 1,560 calorie low-fat diet and you risk
shrivelling away into a skeleton-like psychopath who chops off his
own fingers.

Eades concluded with the cocksure statement: "It's not simply a
matter of calories, and anyone who says it is is a fool."

Ì hope that most of you, after reading Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss
Bible, are sufficiently equipped to understand just why Eades should
look inwards when he wishes to issue accusations of foolishness. Ìn
case not, let me explain it to you.

Ignorance is BIiss

Ìf you want to compare the effects of isocaloric diets of differing
macronutrient composition, good science dictates that you do it within
the same study by randomly assigning a group of similar subjects to
follow the 2 diets ÷ or by assigning each subject to follow both diets in
alternating fashion. You do not compare the results from 2 cherry-
picked studies conducted decades apart on 2 different continents
using dissimilar subjects living under totally different conditions, and
conducted for vastly different lengths of time!

The subjects in the Minnesota Experiment were relatively lean young
men who were physically active. Their average daily maintenance
caloric intake was 3,492 calories, and this was cut by a whopping
1,932 calories overnight. The research clearly shows that lean
individuals lose far more lean mass in response to caloric restriction
than do overweight subjects (see Chapter 8 of The Fat Loss Bible).
And 1,932 calories is an extreme cut in energy intake! No trainer with
even a modicum of experience (and intelligence) would ever advise
his lean, highly active clients to engage in such gonzo calorie
reduction for months on end; doing so is a sure-fire route to rampant
muscle loss.

Ìn contrast, the participants of the Stock/Yudkin study were mostly
female. Because of her significantly lower degree of lean mass, the
average female exhibits a far lower calorie requirement than the
average male. Females, on average, exhibit higher body fat levels
than males. We know that 5 of the subjects in this study were
studying nutrition, an endeavor that requires little physical activity.
The age range in the Stock/Yudkin study extended to 51 years; it is
widely known that due to loss of lean mass and reduced activity,
older subjects often exhibit a lower daily calorie burn. The average
reported daily caloric reduction in the Stock/Yudkin study was 770,
only 40% of the average drop in the Minnesota experiment!

Ìn short, by comparing the Keys and Stock/Yudkin studies, Eades
was truly comparing apples with oranges.

Eades blissfully ignored the fact that numerous dietary studies have
in fact directly compared the weight loss effects of low- and high-
carbohydrate diets among similar subjects. None of them had ever
reported results anything like those seen in the Minnesota
experiment, in neither the low- or high-carb groups. As for the
potential of muscle loss on low- versus high-carb diets, Chapter 9 of
The Fat Loss Bible explains why it is ketogenic diets that actually
appear to cause the greatest loss of lean tissue. Ìn studies comparing
ketogenic versus non-ketogenic diets, using both very low calorie
intakes and eucaloric (maintenance) intakes, it is the ketogenic diet
that has delivered the most unfavorable changes in markers of lean
mass loss.

Ìn a May blog article, Eades claimed that if you are following a low-
carb diet, "The protein you eat is converted to glucose instead of the
protein in your muscles. If you keep the carbs low enough so that the
liver still has to make some sugar, then you will be in fat-burning
mode while maintaining your muscle mass, the best of all worlds."[27]

Note the double standard here, one that is routinely employed by
MAD proponents: Eat a low-carb diet and your body will begin
burning more dietary fat and body fat. But even if it increases the
need for gluconeogenesis (increased production of glucose from non-
carb sources such as protein), that same low-carb diet will not
increase the breakdown of bodily protein, no sirree.

This claim stands in stark contrast to the available evidence. While
Eades' claims about carbs and insulin are contradicted by clinical
evidence, there does exist research showing unfavourable changes
in markers of lean mass status during ketogenic eating.

Eades' ludicrous Keys versus Stock/Yudkin comparison had already
established itself as being among the most amateurish nonsense Ì'd
ever read. But as it turns out, the famous diet author was only getting

Leave Your Brains at the Door, Thanks!

Perhaps the one thing even more pitiful than Eades' utterly absurd
dietary comparison was the response of his blog readers. Ìn the
comments' section, reader after reader congratulated and praised
Eades for his "great" article. Eades had just fed them a load of
outrageously biased hogwash, and not only had they fallen for it
hook, line and sinker, but they were profusely thanking him for it!

As Ì scrolled through this online orgy of stupidity, Ì saw something
that abruptly interrupted my alternating pattern of head shaking and
eye-rolling: my name. Yours truly was mentioned by one of Eades'
readers, who asked the great one-sided one what he thought of my
contention that the metabolic advantage theory was rubbish. Eades

"I'm very familiar with Anthony Colpo and his work. I think he's a very
smart guy and I think he's right on the money on a lot of issues, but I
think he's wrong on this one. If you give one group of people a 2000
kcal diet and another a 1500 kcal diet of the same composition, the
ones on the 1500 kcal diet will unquestionably lose more weight. If
you start changing the diet composition, though, your outcome may

So there it was: a famous diet book author who has profited
handsomely from books peddling the metabolic advantage myth, who
had just presented an extremely biased comparison, now telling the
world that people who emphasized the primacy of calories were fools,
and that it was Ì who had it wrong on the calories issue.

To say that Ì have a poor opinion of diet authors who make a fortune
peddling fallacious garbage would be a massive understatement. And
to say Ì have a low opinion of diet authors who peddle such garbage
but then turn around and label those who actually know what they are
talking about as "wrong" and a "fool" would be an even greater

One of the problems with people like Atkins and Eades is that, even
though their weight loss ramblings would attract hearty laughter from
any serious researcher, a lot of gullible people take them seriously,
as evidenced by the comments on Eades' blog. People who believe
the metabolic advantage myth are being distracted from the real
requirements of weight loss. Ìnstead of being enlightened as to the
critical importance of establishing a calorie deficit, these people are
being encouraged to disregard calories and to instead focus on
carbohydrates. Some people follow such advice and still inadvertently
lose some weight due to the satiating effects of low-carb diets.
Whether they realize it or not, during their switch to a low-carb diet
these folks lower their caloric intake sufficiently to begin losing

However, many do not experience this spontaneous reduction in
caloric intake. They keep eating just as many calories as before, and
why wouldn't they? According to the diet 'gurus' that they look to for
advice, it's carbs and not calories that really matter.

These folks, if they are ever to achieve their weight loss goals, must
be made aware of the overriding requirement of weight loss: a calorie
deficit. The metabolic advantage crowd have clearly demonstrated
they have no intention of enlightening people to this critical
information. They have instead signalled their full intention to keep
peddling the "carbs-not-calories-make you-fat!" tripe.

So after being the target of constant virulent antagonism from the
metabolic advantage movement, and after suffering through Eades'
bizarre exercise in pseudo-science and reading his description of
people like me as foolish and wrong, on September 17 Ì typed the
Protein Power author a scathing open letter. Ìn it, Ì asked Eades to
explain why he had conducted such a blatantly one-sided and
misleading comparison. Ì asked him why he continued to peddle the
metabolic advantage myth when four decades' worth of tightly
controlled metabolic ward studies had completely disproved it.

Ì also sent Eades details on how to access a free copy of The Fat
Loss Bible, and explained that Chapter 1 alone would provide him
with all the evidence he would ever need to learn just why the
metabolic advantage theory is completely wrong. As of Thursday,
November 2, 2007, Eades has still not registered and downloaded
the ebook. Ìt can't be because he holds my writing and scientific
abilities in poor regard; he himself has described me as ".a very
smart guy [who is] right on the money on a lot of issues." And Eades
has publicly acknowledged that he liked my first book, The Great
Cholesterol Con. So a disdain for my writing and analytical abilities
cannot be the reason for his unwillingness to read my book, nor can a
lack of resources; having sold millions of books, Ì'm sure Eades has
the ability to get the book viewed or printed on a Windows-based

Ì strongly suspect the real reason why Eades won't read my book is
simply because he is afraid of what he might learn. As Upton Sinclair
once remarked: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something
when his salary depends on his not understanding it." As a highly
visible individual who has publicly promoted the belief that isocaloric
low-carb diets lead to greater weight loss, and profited handsomely
from doing so, Eades has a huge incentive not to consider
discomforting contradictory evidence. While this "see no evil, speak
no evil, hear no evil" approach appears to be instinctively embraced
by Eades and his followers, it should be abhorred by those whose
highest priority is, not the defense of cherished dogma, but the truth.

Ìt's interesting that, whilst happy to use the Yudkin paper in a manner
that supported his own claims, Eades does not cite a rather pertinent
comment by Yudkin himself in an earlier paper describing a study
similar to that reported in his 1970 paper:

"The alternative explanation is that the "high-fat" diet leads to weight-
loss because, in spite of its unrestricted allowance of fat and protein,
it is in fact a low-calorie diet. This was the explanation that one of us
had already put forward (Yudkin 1958). Such a view is simple and
orthodox, and therefore unspectacular. This is probably one of the
reasons why many have preferred to accept the more exciting
theories based on some postulated but unproven defect in

Yudkin's words ring as true today as they did back in 1960. MAD still
lacks anything even resembling tightly controlled scientific support,
but evidently it still has enough 'novelty factor' and gimmicky appeal
to capture the attention of 'researchers' and public alike. There's
always good money to be made in telling people what they want to
hear, and an author peddling a manuscript with the tantalizing "eat
more, weigh less" message will always receive far more attention
from a major publishing house than an author who tells the plain
boring truth that calories are king. Thus, the metabolic advantage
theory continues to be perpetuated long after it should have died the
quick death it deserves.

Wait, There's More!

Eades flatly refused to answer my open letter. Ìnstead, he called me
a "pipsqueak" on his blog and vigorously attempted to portray me as
a rude, ill-mannered upstart (despite the fact that Eades himself is
ready to unmercifully rip on others at a moment's notice when they
make a statement he finds disagreeable). Hey, Ì've never claimed to
be a paragon of diplomacy and social nicety; Ì write to make the plain
facts available to those who are interested, not to win new friends.
Whether or not my writing style offends the tender sensibilities of
people like Eades is utterly irrelevant. The real issue is why Eades
felt compelled to post such a blatantly misleading and biased dietary

Eades' answer to this question was, and remains: no answer.

However, several days later, Eades did post a follow-up article on his
blog[29]. While he didn't mention my name, and while he didn't
answer the specific questions Ì raised, it is clear the article was an
attempted rebuttal to my open letter. By trying to salvage whatever
credibility he still had left, Eades proceeded to dig himself into an
even deeper hole.

Eades' began with a rant about "obnoxious" and "lazy" teenagers,
one of highly questionable relevance. Somehow, this was supposed
to demonstrate a reversal of the "AWeight = Calories in - Calories
out" equation. Which of course, it didn't. The indisputable truth is that
many teenagers do get fat, and when they cut calories and/or
increase their activity levels, they promptly begin shedding that fat[30-
32]. Ìf they return to their old dietary habits and slack off on the
exercise, they start regaining the weight they lost ÷ just like adults
do[33]. Except for suggesting that Eades has a problem relating to
teenagers, his diatribe about adolescents revealed nothing of value.

Next, Eades quoted the philosopher Karl Popper, and whined that the
absence of positive proof of a hypothesis does not automatically
mean the hypothesis is wrong. Sure, but that's still no excuse to take
a fallacious theory and assume it's true, when all the available
evidence indicates otherwise. And attempting to salvage a fallacious
theory with more sloppy evidence is exactly what Eades proceeded to

Ìn a thinly disguised snipe at yours truly, Eades wrote:

"Some misguided 'experts' have been known to say that there is no
such thing as a metabolic advantage, despite it's having been
demonstrated in many studies of free living people."

Note what Eades is saying here: that the metabolic advantage has
been demonstrated ÷ i.e. proven ÷ in free-living studies! Ìn making
this claim, he completely ignores the inescapable fact that there are
literally no controls on the dietary intake of people participating in
free-living studies. He completely ignores the massive volume of
literature showing dietary underreporting to be the norm in free-living
studies. He does not consider the fact that the worst underreporters
include those who attempt to limit fat and total caloric intake, which
means low-fat dieters are more likely to underreport than low-carb
dieters. Which means that free-living studies will often give the false
impression that low-carb dieters lost more weight eating the same or
greater amount of calories than the high-carb subjects.

He refuses to read his complimentary copy of The Fat Loss Bible in
which this is all carefully explained and fully referenced. He refuses to
explain why, if free-living studies constitute acceptable proof despite
their numerous documented flaws, there are just as many non-
supportive as supportive free-living studies? That's right ÷ there are
just as many free-living studies in which low-carb diets did not induce
greater weight loss as there are studies in which they did (see
Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible). Of course, the MAD folks never
seem to mention these studies ÷ heck, what you don't know won't
hurt you, right?

Eades consistently deals with all these uncomfortable contradictions
using the following simple method: by pretending they don't exist.
And he then has the arrogance and gall to suggest that those who do
take these factors into account, and arrive at the only sensible
conclusion possible ÷ that these free-living studies are not proof of
anything - are "misguided"!

Just how desperate Eades was becoming in his quest to save face
became apparent when he tried to discredit metabolic ward studies:
"...metabolic ward studies on humans are fraught with inaccuracies.
Why? Because people cheat - even in a hospital. The subjects on
Keys starvation experiment were under lock and key and they
cheated. Keys dropped some from the study because they cheated.
And he threatened others. People on 'metabolic ward' are simply
inpatients in a hospital. They have visitors. They sneak foods.
Subjects participating in free-living studies under report their food
consumption; those in metabolic ward studies don't report. As I say,
we'll go into this in a later post, but just because something is a
metabolic ward study doesn't mean it's infallible."

Read the full text of each of the metabolic ward studies cited in
Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible, and you'll see that none of them
report any incident of cheating. However, there is one metabolic ward
study whose authors did report cheating among the participants, the
famous Kekwick and Pawan study (discussed in Chapter 1). This
study claimed to have found greater weight loss on low-carb diets,
but given the madcap nature of the trial, the results simply cannot be
taken seriously. Yet the Kekwik and Pawan study is cited ad
nauseum by metabolic advantage proponents, including Richard
Feinman, with whom Eades has signalled his intention to co-author a
textbook on the metabolic advantage theory!

So what Eades is basically saying is: Don't trust the results of tightly
controlled metabolic ward studies for which there is little evidence of
cheating, but go ahead and believe the results of a metabolic ward
study in which the authors explicitly acknowledge that cheating did
occur! (And despite his disdain for metabolic ward studies, Eades
also appears to have little to say about Feinman's questionable
citation of three metabolic ward studies yielding non-significant
results in support of MAD).

After Eades made his claim that metabolic ward studies are "fraught"
with inaccuracies, Ì began writing to the authors of the more recent
metabolic ward studies, where email addresses were available. The
only author to report back any incident of cheating was Dr. Roland
Stimson, who told me: "We knew of only one person who cheated
with one meal, but they promptly felt guilty and told us. During the low
carb diet, urine collections were performed very frequently and
checked for ketones (the volunteers wished to eat carbs
while on this diet so would have cheated with these foods), and these
always showed ketones which is a good indicator of compliance. Of
course, this would not allow us to detect cheating on the other diet.
Weight loss was measured daily and tracked to predictive charts
based on the amount they ate with us so any substantial cheating
would have showed deviation from our charts which did not occur.
Thus, I feel very confident they did not cheat on these diets."

Ìt's important to note that during the Stimson et al study, the subjects
ate all meals in the ward and stayed there overnight, but went to work
during the day equipped with snacks provided by the researchers.
So, in effect, this was a 'semi-metabolic ward' study. Even then, there
is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it was "fraught with
inaccuracies". Ìndeed, all the evidence indicates that cheating was a
rare occurrence during the study.

My online dictionary gives the following definition for the word
'fraught': "full of or accompanied by something specified". Ìn other
words, Eades is claiming that metabolic ward studies are full of
inaccuracies. He has given no evidence whatsoever to show that this
in fact the case. Ìnstead, he embraces the results of free-living
studies that an abundance of research shows are indeed fraught with
inaccurate reporting!

For Eades' edification, it is free-living studies where the participants
are routinely exposed to the temptation of non-allowed foods. Ìt is
free-living studies where researchers are basically powerless to stop
the subjects eating the sweet treats lurking in their pantries, dialling
for home-delivered pizza or Chinese food, to go to a business lunch
or dinner on Saturday night and eat non-prescribed foods of unknown
caloric value, or to go to Sunday family lunch at Mom's place where
they will be heartily urged to have another serving of food ("c'mon, a
little bit more won't kill ya!"). Metabolic ward residents simply do not
have the freedom to do these things. While not infallible, the
metabolic ward environment removes most instances of temptation
that are commonplace in every day life, and drastically curtails
access to non-allowed foods.

Yet Eades would have us believe that rare instances of non-
compliance in metabolic ward studies are proof that these trials are
"fraught with inaccuracies", and that free-living studies are more
reliable endeavours that "demonstrate" the existence of a metabolic

Yeah, sure.

That cheating occurred in the Minnesota study is no surprise: if
someone locked Eades up for a year simply for standing up for his
beliefs, and starved him to the point of emaciation for 6 of those
months, Ì bet he'd start looking for ways to sneak some extra calories
too! As for the participants in the Kekwik and Pawan study, the
researchers themselves wrote: "many of the patients had inadequate
personalities". Either the researchers were being unnecessarily
harsh, or many of their study participants leaned towards the
screwball end of the personality spectrum.

Ì'm not stating that cheating has never occurred amongst any of the
other metabolic ward studies cited in Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible.
To make such a claim, Ì would need to be omnipotent. However,
there is absolutely no evidence to support Eades' totally unfounded
claim that these studies were "fraught with inaccuracies". The
evidence would indicate that any instances of cheating were rare and
isolated. Ì cannot help but wonder as to the cognitive status of
someone attempting to claim that uncontrolled free-living studies
constitute more reliable proof than the tightly controlled metabolic
ward studies discussed in The Fat loss Bible.

Ìn free-living studies, there is simply no control over what the
participants do when they are away from a research facility. Metabolic
ward studies with humans are unquestionably the ultimate form of
trial when examining this issue. They are the only way one can
ensure the subjects actually ate isocaloric diets. Ìf Eades has actual
evidence, as opposed to unfounded speculation, that the subjects in
the trials Ì cite did in fact routinely cheat, then he should be calling for
further metabolic ward studies in which the possibility of cheating is
totally eliminated.

But Eades does not even begin to do that. Ìnstead, he resorts to what
may be the most irrelevant evidence of all: rodent studies.

I SmeII a Rat!

Maybe deep down inside, Eades does know that free-living studies
don't prove a thing. Which may be why he finally resorts to citing
rodent studies. Ìf you have a hard-time finding tightly-controlled
human evidence to support your dodgy theory, don't despair; look
long enough, and you'll eventually find animal studies to support your

Eades justifies his use of rodent experiments by stating: "Lab animals
can be kept with whatever amount of food the researchers want to
give them. They don't have visitors, they can't sneak off to the
vending machines and they can't smuggle in food. Most importantly
they are usually all genetically the same and should respond to any
intervention in the same way, which can't be said for human subjects
(other than identical twins) in almost any study. Lab animals are
excellent study material for evaluation of a hypothesis such as the
one we developed."

Eades then goes on to cite a study in which mice eating a ketogenic
diet lost more weight than those eating an isocaloric high-
carbohydrate diet. Eades notes "the laws of thermodynamics weren't
violated because the mice on the ketogenic diet ran at a hotter
temperature than did the other mice."

Eades sounds like he's wetting himself with delight when he
triumphantly proclaims: "It sounds like a metabolic advantage to me.
It sure does. It sure does.Karl Popper would be proud of us."

Actually, Ì suspect that if Karl Popper were alive he'd be shaking his
head in pity.

Why You ShouIdn't Give a Rat's Rectum About Fat Loss Studies
Conducted With Rats and Mice

Ìf you take away only one thing from this chapter, let it be this:
rodents are not a good proxy for humans when it comes to studying
weight/fat loss. Rodents stand out from other animals in having an
unusually high rate of glucose-to-fat conversion, and are able to
perform this conversion at a rate up to ten times greater than
humans![34,35] So it's hardly surprising they will lose more fat on a
ketogenic diet! The fact that rodents differ greatly from humans in
their glucose/fat metabolism isn't exactly breaking news. Ìt has been
known for decades, but that doesn't stop folks like Eades from using
rodent studies when they think it will support their case.

As for the marked increases in body temperature seen on the mice
following the ketogenic diet, this indicates that keto diets do indeed
have a significant metabolism-boosting effect - in mice. Low-carb
diets, ketogenic or otherwise, have never been shown to cause any
measurable increase in resting metabolism in humans. Remember
the research of Bonnie J. Brehm and her team cited in Chapter 1 of
The Fat Loss Bible? They actually bothered to find out whether the
alleged low-carb-induced increase in metabolism existed, and found it
did not. Using indirect calorimetry, they measured the actual resting
energy expenditure (REE) of the low- and high-carb participants at
baseline and again at 2 and 4 months. There were no differences
between the low-carb and low-fat groups at any time point. Post-meal
energy expenditure was then measured in a subset of subjects by
indirect calorimetry, and again there was no difference (dietary-
induced thermogenesis was actually higher after the high-
carbohydrate meal but the difference was miniscule)[36].

Ketogenic diets might kick a rodent's metabolism into turbo boost, but
if you think it will do the same for you, you're dreaming. Eades needs
to decide who is really writing for: rats, mice, or humans?

Keep Trying, Doc

Ìn an attempt to defend his cherished metabolic advantage, Eades
has pulled all manner of shaky arguments from his hat. Ìn every
instance, these arguments rapidly disintegrate when subjected to the
bright light of scientific scrutiny. Eades appears to have great difficulty
impartially considering evidence that runs counter to his preconceived
beliefs and he has a history of getting it wrong. Ìn Protein Power, the
Eades claim "Each pound of muscle mass you pack on becomes a
fat-burning dynamo, allowing you to increase your food intake without
fear of fat gain." Chapter 6 of The Fat Loss Bible explains why such
exuberant claims are very often misleading. Ìt explains why,
regardless of whether they put on several pounds of muscle or not,
many people who lose significant amounts of weight will have a
reduced calorie burn due to a reduction in resting metabolism and
from not having to cart around so much excess chub.

On March 30, 2007, Eades took aim on his blog at a couple of female
exercise physiologists who presented what they considered to be the
"Top 10 Nutrition Myths" at an American College of Sports Medicine
Summit in Dallas, Texas[37]. Eades - the same man who so deeply
resents me for unmercifully calling him out on his untenable claims ÷
had no qualms about referring to these 2 "chicks" as "idiots" who
displayed "breathtaking stupidity" (evidently, it's OK for Eades to be
hostile towards female commentators, but anyone who addresses
him in a similar manner is automatically considered a villain).

One of the heinous sins committed by these physiologists was to
recommend post-workout carbohydrate consumption. According to
Eades, this is a big no-no because "If you down a high-carb snack or
drink immediately after your workout, it is adios growth hormone." Ìf
you've read Chapter 13 of The Fat Loss Bible, you'll know this is
rubbish. The studies that have been conducted looking at this very
issue have shown that taking carbs along with protein immediately
post-workout either increases growth hormone release or leaves it
unchanged. Clearly, Eades is unaware of these studies. Any hard-
training athlete following his advice, based as it is on a deficient
knowledge of the relevant literature, can expect impaired glycogen
replenishment and reduced rates of muscle growth and strength.

Thanks, but no thanks.

>;0*8'$ #'.'/5') <?@ =AABC

More Garbage From Eades

The release of this ebook has clearly gotten Dr. Michael Eades in a
huge huff. On November 15, 2007, he posted a retaliatory piece at
his blog titled "Learn why Anthony Colpo is MAD and get a free
book." The post is essentially one long ad hominem revenge attack
on yours truly. Ìt contains no scientific evidence whatsoever to
support Eades' continuing stance in support of MAD[38].

Eades begins his diatribe with a blatant lie: ".Anthony changes or
removes his material when it proves to be an embarrassment to him."
He does not provide a single example to justify this slanderous claim;
not surprising, considering that it is utterly false.

Eades then writes: "For some reason Colpo seems to have a lot of
his ego tied up in being correct on the metabolic advantage." This is a
most ironic comment coming from someone who has gone to great
lengths to defend his precious MAD beliefs, despite decades of
contradictory evidence. Ìn his attempt to discredit me, Eades has
posted all manner of bizarre arguments, attacked me personally,
posted YouTube comedy sketch videos, ranted on about teenagers,
wieners, ketotic rodents and even the late philosopher Karl Popper -
in short, he has done everything but present tightly controlled
evidence conducted with real live human beings to support his
argument. He calls me names, accuses me of making mistakes when
it turns out he's the one who has his facts wrong, brags that he has
more readers than me, boasts about what a fine, civil, upstanding
citizen he is despite behaving like an uncouth boor towards female
researchers - but again, no tightly controlled scientific evidence to
support his case.

Ì thank Eades for his concern, but my self-image is perfectly robust
and based on far more substantial foundations than ludicrous
theories about metabolic weight loss advantages for low-carb dietary
regimens. Ì seriously doubt whether the same can be said for Eades;
having made millions of dollars from books peddling MAD, it appears
that he will go to desperate lengths to prop up this untenable theory.

Eades once again waffles on about insulin, but offers no explanation
of the clinical trials comparing low- and high-carb diets that observed
far lower insulin levels on the former, yet no difference in weight loss.
Eades cannot claim to be unaware of these studies - they are cited in
this very ebook.

Eades then goes on to repeat the already-disproved claim that low-
carb diets boost metabolism, allegedly "at the max about 300 kcal per
day". He provides no scientific citation whatsoever to verify this

Ìnstead, he again cites his "expert" friends, Feinman and Fine:

"Feinman and Fine are experts on the laws of thermodynamics, a
subject on which they have published a number of papers. Recall in
an earlier post of mine that of all the laws of nature, the laws of
thermodynamics are the least likely to ever be overturned. Even
Anthony Colpo with his self-proclaimed towering intellect hasn't been
able to defy or refute the laws of thermodynamics."

Actually, Ì've never attempted to refute the laws of thermodynamics. Ìt
is the promoters of MAD who appear to be wishing away the laws of
thermodynamics - and the laws of reality.

Despite over 70 years' worth of research showing no difference in
metabolic rate or in weight and fat loss among subjects following
isocaloric low-carb and high-carb diets, MAD promoters like Eades,
Fine and Feinman want us to go ahead and believe such advantages
exist anyway. Ì don't care whether these folks consider each other
"experts"; Ì simply have no reason to believe their extravagant
arguments when 7 decades' of tightly controlled research proves
them wrong.

Eades continues:

"The very nature of the second law of thermodynamics implies that
there has to be a metabolic advantage. Feinman and Fine published
a paper stating this and discussing a number of recent papers
showing that there does indeed appear to be a measurable metabolic
advantage that accrues to those following a low-carb diet...

I seriously doubt that Anthony Colpo can understand the math,
biochemistry and/or the reasoning in any of these papers. But he
doesn't have to because, you see, he just knows that there isn't a
metabolic advantage, so anyone who writes a paper saying that the
second law of thermodynamics virtually demands that there be one is
a fool. Thus his criticism of Fine and Feinman. No substantive
discussion of their work; no intelligent criticism; simply a dismissal
because their work contradicts what Anthony believes with all his
heart to be true."

Again, Eades completely ignores the clinical evidence and resorts to
attacking me personally. Whether or not Ì want to believe Fine and
Feinman is immaterial; what matters is whether or not their purported
metabolic advantage has actually been demonstrated in tightly
controlled clinical studies. Ìf the weather bureau predicted that today's
weather would be fine and sunny, but instead it's raining buckets,
then it doesn't matter how convincing and elaborate their forecast
was; the fact remains they got it wrong.

And so it is with Eades, Fine and Feinman. Ìt's all well and good to
create elaborate sounding arguments predicting greater weight loss
on low-carb diets, but when tightly controlled research comparing
isocaloric low- and high-carb diets have repeatedly failed to
demonstrate any weight loss advantage, then their fancy appeals to
the Second Law of Thermodynamics quickly disintegrate.

Of course, this isn't good enough for Eades. He wants us to ignore
reality and go on believing in MAD any old how. Sorry doc, but Ì'm not
willing to abdicate my rational faculties just to help you preserve your
lucrative 'protein-powered' empire.

Ì will reiterate: Before Feinman, Fine or Eades or anyone else offer
exquisitely elaborate and intricate theories to explain the mechanisms
of a certain phenomenon, they must meet one essential requirement:
they must prove that phenomenon exists. Ìf it does not exist, their
theory is immediately rendered invalid.

Ìf someone presents a wonderfully convincing argument involving the
intricacies of light refraction and concludes that the sky is red, all Ì
need to do is look outside and see that is blue to know that their
theory is 100% wrong.

Engineers can 'prove' that a bumblebee can't fly, and according to
Michael Dickinson, an assistant professor of integrative biology at UC
Berkeley, if you apply the theory of fixed wing aircraft to insects, you
calculate they can't fly also.

We all know that insects and bumblebees can fly. And anyone who
has impartially looked at the evidence for the existence of a metabolic
weight loss advantage knows full well that it does not exist, despite
the creative efforts of folks like Eades, Feinman and Fine.

Feinman and Fine can appeal to the laws of thermodynamics all they
want - it does not change the fact that no weight loss advantage has
ever been confirmed for isocaloric low-carb diets.

Eades can use clever (and unverified) calculations to arrive at an
extra daily calorie expenditure of 300 calories for low-carb diets, but
this does not change the fact that no such increase is evident when
subjects following low-carb and high-carb diets on a long-term basis
are compared.

Creating clever explanations does not suddenly make non-existent
phenomena real. Ìf something does not exist, it does not exist.

Ìf Eades, Feinman and Fine want to explain the existence of a
metabolic weight loss advantage, they must first establish that that
phenomenon exists. They have not even begun to do this.

The BoIIocks Continue

Eades then goes on to whine about how he suspects Ì have not read
Gary Taubes' book Good Calories, Bad Calories (see next chapter).
Actually, Ì have, and Ì think the section on weight loss is atrocious.
Despite the lavish claims repeatedly made for the thorough scientific
foundation of this "great big book", Taubes offers no discussion of the
fact that over 7 decades' worth of tightly controlled metabolic ward
studies have failed to demonstrate a metabolic weight loss
advantage. Given that metabolic ward studies are the only valid
method for testing isocaloric diets, this is a truly fatal flaw, at least to
those with any regard for solid science. Someone should tell Eades
that just because a book is big and thick is no guarantee that it is

More Shonky Tactics

Readers should take careful note of what Eades then proceeds to do
in his November 15 rant: He attempts to switch the metabolic
advantage argument from weight loss to weight gain. Those who
have read my book The Junk Science Self Defense Manual will know
exactly what Eades is doing here: he is employing the tactic of
irrelevant extrapolation.

As anyone who has even passingly observed the low-carb craze
would readily know, the extravagant metabolic advantage claims
made for low-carb diets have been centered entirely around weight
loss. The cover of the 2002 edition of the most famous low-carb book
of all time, Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution, boasts about "Dozens of
new recipes and tips for weight loss". Meanwhile, the cover of the
1999 edition of Eades' own best-selling book Protein Power that Ì
have sitting on my desk hypes the diet as "The High-Protein/Low-
Carbohydrate Way to Lose Weight, Feel Fit, and Boost Your Health
÷ in Just weeks!"[Bold emphasis added by yours truly]

Metabolic advantage shills like Eades and Atkins have made millions
telling people that carbs and insulin and not calories are the key
factor in weight loss, and that by following low-carb diets they will lose
more weight when eating the same or even greater calories than on
high-carb diets. They have sold millions of books promoting this
concept even though it is disproved by tightly controlled research.

Because Eades cannot fall back on meticulously controlled clinical
trials to support his metabolic advantage weight loss claims, he is
now attempting to prop them up with anecdotal claims about low-carb
diets and weight gain. His first exercise in irrelevant extrapolation is to
cite the case of Type 1 Diabetes (a.k.a. ÌDDM).

Ìt has been observed that Type 1 diabetics often have difficulty
gaining weight, and that intensive insulin therapy promotes weight
gain in these subjects. Ìn the Diabetes Control and Complications
Trial (DCCT), free-living ÌDDM subjects randomized to intensive
insulin treatment regimen gained significantly more weight (mean 5.1
kg) than those receiving standard treatment (mean 2.4 kg) during the
first year of therapy[39]. According to folks like Eades, such
observations 'prove' the existence of MAD.

There are a few facts that need to be pointed out before one
mindlessly extrapolates the plight of ÌDDM patients to the rest of the
general population. Firstly, Type 1 Diabetics can rightly claim to be
suffering a truly serious metabolic disturbance and are unique in that
they produce no insulin. The rest of us, even when eating zero carb
diets, still produce insulin[40], and we should be extremely grateful
that this is so; otherwise we would be faced with the choice of either
dropping dead or taking exogenous insulin on a lifelong basis as
Type 1 Diabetics must.

Secondly, Type 1 Diabetes is a relatively uncommon autoimmune
disease that affects 1 in 250 Americans. Ìn other words, it is a rare
disorder that afflicts only a very small portion of the population.
Eades, however, makes no attempt to qualify his citation of ÌDDM by
pointing out its irrelevance to the overwhelming majority of the
population. He also neglects to point out that a ward study of patients
with Type 2 Diabetes, a far more common ailment than Type 1,
showed no difference in total fat loss among those following low-carb
or high-carb diets (again, this study is discussed in Chapter 1 of The
Fat Loss Bible, so if Eades has read my book - as he is now claiming
- he cannot pretend to be unaware of it).

Eades then continues with the inappropriate extrapolation when he

"Both MD and I have had patients who complained to us that they
were following our program to the letter and weren't losing any
weight. When we asked them for their diet diaries we found that they
were consuming huge amounts of food but were rigorously keeping
their carbs below 30 grams per day. Sometimes we calculated that
these patients were eating 4000+ kcal per day, which could have
even been higher given that patients tend to under report what they
eat instead of over reporting. What was amazing to us was that they
weren't gaining. They were pretty much maintaining their weight on
an enormous number of low-carb calories.

We would explain to them about how they needed to create a caloric
deficit to lose. Most people will create the caloric deficit when they go
on a low-carb diet because the increased fat and protein in the
absence of carbs is extremely satiating."

Eades' is claiming that his patients can eat hypercaloric intakes on
low-carb diets and not gain weight. His claim is totally anecdotal and
unverifiable, but let's for a moment generously assume this were true,
even though there is a dearth of actual research examining rates of
weight gain on ketogenic diets.

Even if Eades' patients are experiencing some sort of enormous
boost in dietary induced thermogenesis when consuming 4,000
calories per day, my response is: "So what?"

How does this help people trying to lose weight, the market most
aggressively targeted by MAD promoters, including Eades himself?
Ìmagine the following conversation:

Slim Steve to Fat Fred: "Hi Fred, how's your new weight loss diet

Fat Fred: "It's going great Steve! On this Protein Power diet I can eat
4,000 calories per day and not gain any weight!"

Slim Steve: "But have you actually lost any weight?"

Fat Fred: ""

Slim Steve: "So in other words, you're still as fat as ever?"

Fat Fred: "Um...yeah."

Ì personally know full well that it is possible to gain weight on
extremely low carbohydrate ketogenic diets - Ì've done it myself, and
have heard from numerous others who done the same.

However, Ì do not accept anecdotal stories from the MAD shills and
do not expect them to accept mine. As Ì have stated before, there is a
sad lack of available scientific research comparing hypercaloric
ketogenic and non-ketogenic diets, and until such research becomes
available Ì will refrain from making any concrete assertions about
comparative rates of weight gain on these diets. Unlike the MAD
promoters, Ì am not in the business of making bold claims that
science is yet to confirm.

But again, let's generously assume Eades is telling the truth (Ì know
it's hard, but work with me here). Ìt does not even begin to change
the fact that:

1). A calorie deficit is absolutely imperative to establish weight loss
(excluding temporary water loss);

2) Hypocaloric high-carb and low-carb diets of equal caloric content
do not produce any difference in the rate of fat loss;

3) Carbohydrates do not and cannot explain recent increases in
obesity rates, for per capita carbohydrate intake in the US is similar
today to what it was in 1909 (see next chapter). People did not
suddenly switch from eating zero-carb diets to high carb diets - in
fact, the average American never ate a zero-carb or even low-carb
diet. What has changed since 1909 is an increase in per capita
caloric intake coupled with a decrease in activity levels. That is why
obesity rates have increased.

Eades ReveaIs More Than He Intended

Eades' comment about his 4,000 calorie per day-eating clients was
no doubt posted in an attempt to demonstrate a metabolic advantage
for low-carb diets. Ì will reiterate once more: whatever the
comparative weight gain effects of ketogenic and non-ketogenic diets,
7 decades' worth of tightly controlled metabolic ward studies show no
difference in weight loss between low- and high-carb diets. The
fundamental requirement for weight loss is a calorie deficit: when
energy needs are not being met by dietary calories, the body is
forced to obtain those calories from other sources: namely, it's own
tissues. The goal on any intelligently structured weight loss regimen,
of course, is to ensure that these required calories are derived as
much as possible from adipose tissue rather than lean tissue.

What these comments do demonstrate is just how backwards the
Eades have it when it comes to counseling patients about weight
loss. Ìt is only after their patients fail to lose weight that the Eades feel
compelled to mention the importance of a calorie deficit!

Given that no weight loss will occur without a calorie deficit, this is the
very first thing any competent fat loss adviser would relay to someone
wishing to lose weight. Those seeking weight loss need to know that
they can cut carbs/fat/alcohol/sugar as low as they want, but if this
fails to result in a calorie deficit, no weight loss will occur.

Ìf the Eades truly understood that a calorie deficit is absolutely
imperative for producing weight loss, the first thing they would do is
help their patients estimate their ideal targeted daily calorie intake,
one designed to create a calorie deficit of sufficient magnitude to
induce weight loss. They would then help their patients devise a meal
plan designed to achieve this daily targeted intake. There are a
number of formulas that can be used to achieve this (see Chapter 7
of The Fat Loss Bible).

But instead of utilizing this sensible precision strategy, the Eades opt
instead for a hit-and-miss approach. They tell their weight loss clients
to cut carbs to under 30 grams per day, and with a bit of luck,
hopefully the diet will prove sufficiently satiating and they will start
losing weight. But as Eades' own writings reveal, luck and hope are
not very reliable weight loss agents. As a result of the Eades'
haphazard advice, some patients begin losing weight, for others the
process is unnecessarily delayed because the Eades don't feel it
necessary to outline the extreme importance of a calorie deficit right
from the word go.

Ì'd immediately fire any trainer or nutrition consultant who wasted a
client's precious time and money in such an unnecessary fashion.

These are the same folks, mind you, that have written best-selling
diet books that have sold in the millions. Ìn an age where mediocrity
is the new excellence, it appears even the most haphazard of diet
'experts' can win fame and fortune (witness the recent Kimkins

And while the Eades' personal patients at least get a belated
reminder to cut their calories, what about the poor folks who buy their
Protein Power book? No such emphasis is placed on calories in their
best-selling tome - instead people are told that obesity is more closely
related to carbohydrate and insulin than calories.

The Eades' emphasis on carbs and insulin instead of calories may
explain the following less-than-flattering reviews of Protein Power:ÌKZT...cm_cr_rdp_permÌE...cm_cr_rdp_perm

The failure of these folks to lose weight on the Protein Power diet is
due to one thing - eating too many calories - an unfortunate result of
the Eades' claim that carbs and insulin, not calories, are the primary
determinants of weight status.

My main point throughout this whole metabolic advantage saga is
that MAD distracts people from the true requirements of weight/fat
loss. By doing so, many people will fail to establish a calorie deficit
and will not lose weight - a scenario that could be avoided if people
were told the plain truth that a calorie deficit is the fundamental
requirement for weight loss.

Eades claims that anyone who thinks weight loss is all about calories
is a "fool" and he has virulently denounced my stance on the calories
issue - but now inadvertently admits that his own dismissal of the
central role of calories delays the weight loss process for at least
some of his patients. He admits that it is their excess caloric intake
that is preventing weight loss. So basically we have a person who
after adamantly and angrily opposing what Ì am saying, now
unwittingly acknowledges that Ì am correct.

Eades, despite citing free-living studies as proof of the metabolic
advantage, now also finally admits "that patients tend to under report
what they eat instead of over reporting".

My guess is that - while they would never publicly admit it - the Eades
will now quietly start placing a little more emphasis on caloric
restriction right from the word go.

Eades Serves Up the SIeaze and Again Accuses Me of

Eades now claims that he has in fact read my book, which he says he
purchased under a pseudonym. He writes:

"The first chapter lays out the basis for AC's belief that there is no
metabolic advantage. It is a compendium of misread or
misinterpreted studies, the famous "NINETEEN metabolic ward
studies" AC mentions in his open letter to me. (There were only
SEVENTEEN in the version of the book I read, but who's counting?)"

Actually, there are now 26 such studies shown in Table 1 of Chapter
1, and Ì will continue to add relevant metabolic ward studies as they
come to hand. My goal is to keep The Fat Loss Bible as thorough and
up-to-date as possible.

Eades continues: "Here is what I propose to do. Since this chapter of
this book is the foundation for AC's bedrock belief in the non-
existence of a metabolic advantage, I will go through it and in
meticulous detail demonstrate just what a shaky foundation that is."

Despite the fact that Eades clearly resents me deeply for publicly
attacking his untenable claims, and despite his cocksuredness that
he has the evidence to discredit me, he first feels compelled to take a
vote from his readers as to whether or not he should post his
"meticulous" analysis:

"...I will do it only if you - the readers of this blog - want me to. It will
take a little time that could otherwise be spent in posting on the stuff I
usually post on. You can vote with your comments. I'm not going to
respond to any of these comments, but I will put them up and tally
them. If the yeas outnumber the nays, I'll do the critique."

Eades again resorts to what most of my other critics do when they
have no factual retort to my arguments: He slanders my integrity and
accuses me of impropriety. Eades shows he has no qualms
whatsoever about getting down and sleazy when he writes:

"My only worry is that AC is a pretty slippery fellow. One of the
readers on his site asked why AC didn't publish his book as a real,
bound book instead of an ebook. AC responded that with the ebook
he could change it at will and continue to add new material."

Eades, while eager to provide quotes and PDFs containing material
that he believes will discredit me, strangely provides no quote or
reproduction of the page where Ì allegedly made this comment.
That's because he has blatantly misrepresented what Ì wrote. Here's
the original (and unmodified) link:

And here is what Ì actually wrote:

"I really have no interest in publishing FLB as a hard copy. Besides
making life less complicated, ebook publishing offers several other
advantages. For example, I can update the book and people who
have already bought it can get the latest version at no extra cost
simply by re-downloading it. Also, if I want to give away free bonuses,
I can do that with an ebook but not with hard copy."

Basically Eades is attacking me for updating the material in The Fat
Loss Bible. Let's get this straight: Ìt's a bad thing to continually
improve a product, and make the new improvements freely available
to your customers? Ìt's a bad thing to continually add to a book as
new research becomes available?

Most of the additions to The Fat Loss Bible have been just that -
additions. Ì have not changed any of the key arguments in the book. Ìf
anything, Ì have strengthened them further. For example, there are
now 26 metabolic ward studies cited in Table 1 of Chapter 1, and Ì
will continue to add any other such studies that Ì unearth. After
feedback from readers, Ì have recently modified and simplified the
methods for determining one's daily target calorie intake in Chapter 7.
Ì have added to the chapter dealing with psychosocial aspect of
weight loss, but all the original information in that chapter still
remains. Ì have added to the FAQ, and will keep doing so as further
questions arise. Ì have not eliminated any of the original Q&As.

Ì make no apologies for endeavoring to keep The Fat Loss Bible as
relevant and scientifically up-to-date as possible. Ì will continue to do
so, and must seriously question the intelligence and ethics of anyone
who finds fault with that. Eades might think it is somehow unethical
and dishonest to continually update an ebook as new research
comes to hand, but Ì don't. Ìn fact, Ì think it is good practice to offer
my customers the best cutting edge information, and to let them have
any new content added to the book free of charge. Ìf you buy The Fat
Loss Bible then - unless you return the book for a refund - you will be
entitled to all future updates of the ebook version, absolutely free of
charge. And if anyone still suspects Ì am somehow engaging in
untoward behavior, remember that there is absolutely nothing to stop
those of you who have the original release of The Fat Loss Bible from
keeping it on your computer and comparing it with the latest update.

Eades takes my desire to offer my customers the most up-to-date
information, and attempts to portray it as some sort of deception. As a
weight loss commentator, Eades makes a great politician. Such
sleazy smear tactics would no doubt be applauded by political
tacticians, but those who value sound science should see Eades'
behavior for what it is: a pathetic attempt at diverting his readers'
attention away from the facts and to instead cast aspersions on my

More Research That Shows Eades is FuII of It

Ì am continually scouring through the literature looking for new
information that can help my readers and Ì to improve our physical
performance, body composition, and general health. Since Eades
posted his libelous comments on November 15, Ì discovered that Ì did
indeed miss some relevant metabolic ward studies during my initial
scans of the literature.

Ì tracked down 6 more metabolic ward studies comparing low- and
high-carb diets involving subjects that followed each diet for 3 weeks
or more, and they all support my stance that the metabolic advantage
theory of weight loss is a sham. These have all been included in the
updated version of Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible, but Ì will quickly
run through them here for those who don't yet have the book.

The earliest of these was a paper by Keeton and Bone, published in
the Archives of Internal Medicine way back in 1935. Nine obese
subjects who were confined to a hospital and placed, in crossover
fashion, on diets containing 90 and 13 grams per day of protein. The
daily rate of weight loss was measured on the diets, which were
followed for a minimum of 22 days each (with the exception of one
patient who spent 45 days on the high-protein diet but only 14 days
on the low-protein diet). The diets were designed to provide a deficit
by delivering 30% less calories than the basal metabolic requirement
in 8 patients; the remaining patient consumed 48% calories below

Daily weight loss was greater on the high-protein diet in 2 patients,
greater on the low-protein diet for 4 patients, equal in another 2, and
considered "inconclusive" for the remaining subject. Ìn other words,
the pattern was random and showed no relationship between dietary
composition and rate of weight loss.

Take another look at the date of the study: 1935. That means MAD
was disproved 72 years ago!

The next paper was authored by Werner in 1955, who found that a
16-year old who followed high- and low-carb diets for 21 days each
experienced no change in the rate of weight loss, except for a sharp
early drop in salt and water at the start of the high-carb diet. What
was that about teenagers disproving the primacy of calories?

The next study involved 8 obese subjects who consumed low- and
high-carb diets in crossover fashion. The patients "remained in
hospital under strict control throughout the observation period, but
they were not kept in bed." One of these subjects followed a high-
carb diet for 24 days and a low-carb diet for 21 days. Energy intake
during both diets was held at 1000 calories per day. After 21 days on
each diet the weight loss was exactly the same: 4.1 kg.

To avoid any accusation that Ì am misrepresenting the literature,
please feel free to read the full text of the studies yourself (and please
feel free to do so with the studies cited in Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss
Bible). Ì have no online source for the full text of the above papers,
but the Archives of Internal Medicine, New England Journal of
Medicine, and Lancet are all prominent journals that can readily be
found in any decent medical library.

Here are the citations:

Keeton RW, Bone DD. Diets low in calories containing varying
amounts of protein. Archives of Internal Medicine, 1935; 55: 262-270.

Werner SC. Comparison between weight reduction on a high-calorie,
highfat diet and on an isocaloric regimen high in carbohydrate. New
England Journal of Medicine, Apr 21, 1955; 252 (16): 661÷665.

Olesen ES, Quaade F. Fatty foods and obesity. Lancet, May 14,
1960; 1: 1048-1051.

The full texts for the next 3 papers are available online. The first of
these involved male prisoners and obese women, who ate isocaloric
diets of varying fat and protein content. Despite the hyperbolic claims
made for the thermogenic effect of protein, no differences were noted
in weight loss. Again, to confirm that Ì'm not blowing smoke up your
posterior, please feel free to check the full paper for yourself:ÌTS=.//

And while Eades claims that metabolic ward studies are "rife with
inaccuracies", take careful note of the level of control exerted by the
researchers in this study:

"Prior to admission, all the patients were carefully screened for their
interest and motivation for continued participation in the study and
they were fully informed concerning the demanding schedules of diet,
exercise, and the limitations of freedom imposed by a strict metabolic
ward schedule."

"No patient was permitted to leave the Clinical Research Center area
without an escort, and all were under the continued surveillance of
our staff. A schedule of occupational therapy was provided in the
form of "hobby activities." The patients tolerated this restrictive and
tightly controlled regimen with no more than a healthy amount of
grumbling, and patient cooperation on the whole was splendid."

The other 2 studies Ì have so far uncovered are by Bortz et al, which
again show no difference in weight loss among diets of varying macro
composition that cannot be attributed to salt and water variations.

Again, to ensure that Ì am not yanking your chain, please read the full
texts for yourself:

Dissect It Is! Or Is It?

On November 19, 2007, Eades' blog proudly proclaimed "The votes
are in: Dissect it is!". According to Eades, the majority of his readers
voted in favor of his threat to "dissect" Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss

Said Eades: "I think the entire exercise will be educational for all. It
certainly has been for me", further confirming my suspicion that he is
a newcomer to the real science of weight loss. Eades then stated: "It
will take me a couple of days because even though I've already done
the work, I have to write it up. I'll continue to post on other subjects in
the interim, but I should have the exegesis posted this week."

That was a month ago, and Eades has still not posted his "exegesis".
On December 9, a reader asked "if this [exegesis] was still happening
or if you changed your mind?", to which Eades replied "Nope, it's
happening. I've just had a lot going on lately and haven't been able to
give it the attention it needs. Cheers ÷ MRE".

As Ì write this update on December 16, Eades still has not delivered
the definitive debunking he promised his readers. Ìf and when Eades
ever does deliver, rest assured Ì will decisively dissect his dissection.

Stay tuned...

>;0*8'$ D';8'/5') <E@ =AAFC
After getting a tad tired of the empty insults and slander emanating
from Eades and his screwball internet MAD followers, on January 30,
2008, Ì demanded they either put up or shut up. Ì issued a $20,000
challenge to Eades and the rest of his deluded metabolic advantage
cohorts, the full details of which can be found here:
The challenge was simple. All Eades and his fellow MAD believers
had to do in order to collect a quick 20 grand was:
1. Provide published peer-reviewed metabolic ward research that
compared isocaloric low- and high-carbohydrate diets and found
statistically significant greater fat-derived weight losses among
subjects following the low-carb diet.
2. Present conclusive proof that the metabolic ward studies Ì have
cited in Table 1, Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible have been
misreported, as Eades claimed, and in fact really show greater fat
loss in the low-carbohydrate groups.
Judging by the extreme level of cocksureness among MAD
proponents, Ì should have been flooded with responses from people
prepared to meet my challenge. However, despite their virulent
antagonism towards me and anyone else who dared highlight the
falsity of MAD, and their repeated assertions that MAD is a very real
and scientifically demonstrable phenomenon, no one even
attempted to meet the chaIIenge.
The best response that Eades could muster was am email
complaining that the challenge was "rigged". Well, if asking Eades to
present tightly controlled evidence that backs his MAD assertions and
to simultaneously invalidate the seven decades of tightly controlled
research that shows MAD to be nonsense is "rigging¨, then Ì plead
guilty as charged.
After admitting he could not meet the challenge, Eades attempted to
buy my silence with a highly suspect offer of assistance in getting a
book deal. He also requested that Ì keep the fact that he had
contacted me and made such an offer secret from our readers, a
rather repugnant request that Ì immediately rejected:
Angry that his shady tactics did not have their desired effect, Eades
promptly reverted back to his usual strategy of personal insults and
character assassination.
The bottom line is that Eades and his MAD cohorts had an entire
month to prove the existence of MAD and earn their favorite charity a
quick $20,000. The reason they could not do this is because there is
no tightly controlled clinical evidence demonstrating the existence of
a weight loss metabolic advantage for low-carbohydrate diets.
Eades FinaIIy Admits I'm Right
Before Ì explain why Ì think Eades is the biggest joke in the diet
industry, let me reiterate just why Ì have publicly made such a strong
stance against the metabolic advantage theory.
My main point when addressing the MAD hyperbole has always been
that MAD distracts people from the true requirements of weight/fat
loss. Namely, a calorie deficit. By doing so, many people will fail to
establish a calorie deficit and will not lose weight - a scenario that
could be avoided if people were told the plain truth that a calorie
deficit is the fundamental requirement for weight loss.
Another sad consequence of MAD is that many individuals who do
experience initial weight loss will eventually plateau. This is because
their weight loss has resulted in a lower daily calorie burn, which
effectively negates the efficacy of any calorie restriction they initially
employed. To re-start their fat loss, they need to re-establish a calorie
deficit. This is an important point that, until the release of my book,
evaded many people including diet 'gurus' like Eades, who typically
made ineffectual recommendations about further restricting
carbohydrate intake in order to re-ignite fat loss.
Such recommendations are doomed to fail because the weight loss
plateau, just like weight loss itself, is a function of calorie intake
versus versus calorie expenditure. Carbohydrate restriction without
concomitant calorie restriction will not produce any fat-loss derived
weight loss. The only benefit of carbohydrate restriction is that, for
many people, it enhances satiety, a crucial factor in achieving and
maintaining a calorie deficit. That's why all these vocal low-carbers on
Ìnternet chat rooms may lose more weight on low-carb diets ÷
whether they realize it or not, they have lowered their caloric intake.
The fact that they have atrocious mathematical skills or that they did
not intentionally lower caloric intake does not change one iota the fact
that they nevertheless unintentionally lowered their intake, and that it
is this unintentional lowering that produced the weight loss.
However, if carbohydrate restriction does not lead to a calorie deficit
÷ and it often doesn't ÷ then you and your weight loss efforts will be
stuck up Turd Creek without a paddle.
Resistance is FutiIe
At every step of the way during our heated disagreement, Eades and
his followers have virulently resisted my assertions and have
attempted to discredit me for pointing out the inescapable fact that
calories, not carbs and/or insulin, are the ultimate arbiter of weight
loss. Ìt doesn't matter how low you drop your carbohydrate intake, if
you fail to establish a calorie deficit, you will not enjoy any fat-derived
weight loss. Period.
After using all manner of desperate and dubious tactics to discredit
me and dispute this contention, on May 27 Eades finally posted a
piece on his blog titled "Low Carb and Calories". You can read it here:

A sad consequence of the metabolic advantage BS ÷ one that Ì have
been trying to alert people to all along ÷ is alluded to in the very first
sentence of Eades' post:
"One of the most common questions MD and I get via email and snail
mail and now through the comment sections of our blogs is about
failing to lose weight while following low-carb diets."
Ì can tell you right now the reason why this predicament is so
common: Many people following low-carbohydrate diets have been
sucked in by MAD ÷ preached by people like Atkins and Eades - that
downplays or even totally ignores the critical role of calories and
instead tells people to focus on carbohydrate intake.
Giving such advice to someone who badly wants to lose a chunk of
excess weight is like telling someone to lift a bucket while they are
standing in it ÷ an undertaking bound to cause frustration and failure.
Eades proceeds to reprint a letter from a female reader who has
succumbed to MAD and experienced just such frustration and failure:
"I'm a 47 year old woman, and I've been overweight for the past 20
years or so. I was normal sized most of my life, but after I had my
third baby at age 27, I started gaining and haven't really been able to
lose much weight. At least not until I started a low-carb diet about 6
months ago. When I started your Protein Power diet I lost almost 16
pounds the first month. I continued to lose for the next 4 months, but
not at the rate I did in the first month. Over the last month, though, I
haven't lost any weight at all. I'm really dedicated to this WOL, and I
religiously keep my carbs below 30 grams a day. I'll admit that I
occasionally (maybe once every 10 days) have something I shouldn't
have, a small bowl of ice cream maybe, but the next day I buckle
down and cut my carbs to below 15 grams to make up for it. This
falling off the wagon doesn't seem to make me gain any weight
especially since I cut my carbs the next day, but I just can't seem to
lose any more. I'm still about 20 pounds from my goal. Any
Those who have read The Fat Loss Bible will know exactly why this
lady's weight loss had come to a complete halt. As you drop weight,
your maintenance calorie requirements drop also. Due to the reduced
lean and fat mass, your body burns less calories at rest. And when
you move around, you are now pushing around less weight, so your
calorie burn from your usual level of physical activity also drops. Ìf
this lady had read The Fat Loss Bible instead of the Eades' Protein
Power, (the latter of which tells people that obesity is primarily due to
carbs and insulin and not calories) she would know full well why she
had hit a weight loss plateau - and she would know exactly what to do
about it.
But let's see what Dr Mike - the man who has vigorously opposed just
about every assertion Ì've ever made on fat loss - has to say about
this reader's predicament.
"If you are meeting all your body's energy needs with the food you
eat, the body doesn't need the fat in the fat cells. On a low-carb diet
your body burns fat for energy. But it doesn't care where this fat
comes from; it can come from the diet or it can come from the fat
cells or it can come from both. If you are consuming enough fat to
meet all your body's requirements, your body won't go after the fat in
the fat cells no matter how severely you restrict your carbs. You will
burn dietary fat only and no body fat. And you won't lose weight. It's
that simple."
"It has been shown countless times that when people go on low-carb
diets they spontaneously reduce their caloric intake. Most foods
available on low-carbohydrate diets are satiating and those following
these diets get full quickly. They just don't eat that many calories. In
most studies of low-carb diets people drop their caloric intake down to
the 1500-1700 kcal range and are quite satisfied. At that level of
caloric intake, they need a fair amount of their own body fat to make
up the difference between their dietary intake and the 2400-2600 kcal
(or more) that they burn every day. As they consume this body fat,
they lose weight."
"Once people settle in to low-carb diets, a couple of things happen.
First, they lose some weight, which reduces their energy expenditure.
A smaller body doesn't burn as many calories as a larger body, so
the gap between what they consume and what they need gets
smaller. And as it does, their weight loss slows down a little. Second,
they start fiddling with the diet. At first, the luxury of eating steak,
bacon, whole eggs, real butter and all the rest of the high-fat foods
that go along with low-carbing is enough to keep most people
satisfied.for a while. They eat until they're full, then they quit. And
they don't consume all that many calories."
Hey, wait a minute! This is what Ì've been saying all along! And it's
exactly what Ì say in The Fat Loss Bible, right from the word go in
Chapter 1, which Eades has described as "a compendium of misread
or misinterpreted studies". Eades has described my book as
containing "so much misinformation [that] it will take a blog post the
size of Texas to refute it all."
And yet Eades is now publicly acknowledging that the main
contentions of my book are in fact 100% correct!
! CaIorie restriction - not carbohydrate restriction - is the
key requirement for weight Ioss;
! The aboIition of the initiaI caIorie deficit by subsequentIy
reduced caIorie burn is the reaI cause of weight Ioss
pIateaus, and;
! The reaI reason peopIe Iose weight on Iow-carbohydrate
diets is because greater satiety on these diets aIIows them
to eat Iess and estabIish a caIorie deficit.
Let the record show that Eades initially and strenuously resisted my
assertions, but is now writing them up on his blog like he always
believed and taught them. Let the record show that it was not until
well after Ì made these assertions public, and that the noise
between Eades and Ì faded somewhat, that he embraced them.
Eades has clearly learnt something from our dispute and my book.
Obviously he will never publicly admit this, but only the dopiest of his
followers (admittedly, they're a pretty damn dopey bunch) will fail to
see what's going on here.
Of course, Eades still won't let go of his cherished MAD nonsense, at
least not publicly. Reader "Kevin" writes in the comments section of
Eades' blog:
"So it seems that Anthony Colpo is right; There is no metabolic
advantage except perhaps in cases of extreme obesity. For everyone
else, calories count. If one can't lose beyond a certain point, they
aren't being honest with themselves about calorie intake."
Eades replies:
"I knew that sooner or later I would get this comment. No, I don't think
Anthony Colpo is right on the metabolic advantage issue. In the post I
wrote that a caloric deficit is required for weight loss. A metabolic
advantage implies that a different caloric deficit may be created as a
function of the type of diet consumed. In other words, a low-carb diet
of 1800 kcal may provide a caloric deficit whereas a 1600 kcal low-fat
diet wouldn't. The difference is the metabolic advantage created by
the low-carb diet. In the case of the above example: 200 kcal.
The body does three things with calories: it uses them for energy, it
uses them (proteins and some fats) for rebuilding tissues, and it
wastes them. If the body wastes more calories on diet A than it does
on diet B, then diet A is said to provide a metabolic advantage.
Both Anthony Colpo (and I think I am speaking for him correctly on
this) and I believe that there has to be a caloric deficit for weight loss
to take place. I believe (and he doesn't) that different diets waste
different amounts of calories, meaning that diets that waste more -
low-carb diets - create more of a caloric deficit with a caloric intake
identical to diets that don't waste more calories - low-fat diets."
Ì'll simply reiterate once again that Eades' assertion that low-carb
diets cause greater calorie 'wastage' and hence greater weight loss is
disproved by seven decades' worth of tightly controlled clinical trials
and that not even a $20,000 sweetener could draw any evidence to
the contrary.
But hey, it's great to see that Eades finally appears to be embracing
the indisputable truth that caIories, not carbohydrates, are the
kings of weight Ioss!
Eades Can't HandIe the Truth - So He Embraces Ad Hominem BS
Throughout our disagreement, Ì have endeavored to keep the
argument focused on the science, to the extent that Ì actually
proceeded to uncover more evidence (evidence that further
discredited the fallacious metabolic advantage theory). Eades
however, became increasingly frustrated and angered by my ability to
consistently and effortlessly demolish all his arguments, and
eventually gave up any attempt at appealing to the science. Eades
instead adopted the time-honored sleazeball method of debate ÷ after
totally failing to refute my scientific arguments, he instead attempted
to discredit me by launching a series of personal attacks on me.

The most recent such attempt that Ì am aware of (contrary to what
some people believe, Ì do not frequent Eades' website unless
someone writes to me or posts on my forum to inform me of his latest
slander. As Ì recently remarked to a friend, visiting Eades' website is
a lot like using the toilets at Melbourne's Flinders Street station ÷
something Ì only do if Ì really have to) is a long-winded 14,000-word
piece that, ironically, claimed Ì was "obsessed" with him. Eades
arrived at this most unlikely conclusion after mistakenly assuming that
Ì tracked down the poor reviews of his book Protein Power by
spending countless hours scouring through each and every one of
the hundreds of reviews on The poor schmuck was
totally ignorant of the fact that readers can retrieve all the 1- and 2 ÷
star reviews of any book on Amazon with just a single mouse click.
When a reader later pointed this out to Eades, he sheepishly
admitted that he was unaware of such a function on Amazon. This is
hardly surprising ÷ Eades has repeatedly demonstrated he has no
qualms about making bold claims on matters he knows nothing
As someone who is fanatical about cars/music/training, Ì do indeed
have my obsessions ÷ but none of them involve ignorant, crusty,
flabby old blowhards masquerading as diet gurus. Sorry Mike, but
you'll need to find someone else to fulfill your homo-erotic fantasies ÷
my blood runs redder than the duco on Kimi Raikkonen's Ferrari.
Ì'm really not sure what poor Mike was trying to achieve by evading
the science and attacking me personally. The opinions of the people
that really matter in my life ÷ my friends and family ÷ are hardly going
to be influenced by the venomous rantings of some angry, disgruntled
and discredited old huckster in America. Ìf Eades was trying to hurt
me financially by slowing down sales of my highly praised book The
Fat Loss Bible, he also lucked out. The book hardly constitutes my
main source of income, and even if it did, Eades' desperate antics
have had no discernable impact on sales. Ìn fact, after some of my
rebuttals to Eades' ad hominem garbage, Ì noted a distinct upward
spike in book sales.
Of course, this has never been about the money for me, something
that Eades evidently cannot understand. That, Ì suspect, is why he
became so frustrated when his attempt to lure me into silence with his
rather dubious offer of assistance in getting a book deal failed, and
why he then resorted to penning an angry 14,000-word diatribe
attempting to portray me as a "man obsessed". Unlike Eades, Ì don't
rely on writing as my main source of income, so any attempt at luring
me with potential financial incentives was doomed right from the
Ì firmly believe that the truth should always take vigorous precedence
over hyperbolic nonsense, and have always admired people who are
prepared to stand up, often at great personal cost, and defend the
truth. Ì was under the naïve impression that people would appreciate
being told the truth. Ì have since come to fully understand that being
told what they want to hear is a far greater priority for most people
than being told the truth. Being told what we have already decided to
believe is comforting and non-disruptive; receiving new information
that contradicts what we have already decided to believe can be
highly unsettling and discomforting to many people. They simply don't
have the intellectual capacity and internal fortitude to carefully and
impartially re-examine their closely held beliefs. Ìnstead, they shut out
any information that doesn't gel with what they already believe, and
vigorously denounce any person or party that has the temerity to
present such conflicting information.
The Biggest Loser

There is a reason that Eades abandoned any attempt at scientific
discourse and instead resorted solely to ad hominem attacks ÷ he
had no scientific evidence to dispute what Ì was saying. The smartest
thing for Eades to do would been to have simply shut his mouth, but
sometimes a man (Ì use the term loosely) just can't stop his ego from
getting the better of him.
While Eades' ego has clearly taken a pounding throughout this whole
ordeal, the people who have suffered the most are the gullible
readers who have been taken in by his nonsensical MAD ramblings.
Ìt's hard to build the body of your dreams using information that is
utterly false. Ìf you think you are going to build a healthy, sculpted,
lean body and keep it that way by disregarding calories, then you're
sadly mistaken ÷ as increasing numbers of Eades' followers are
obviously now finding out.
My bet is that Eades will now incorporate the primary role of calories
into his next book, in a manner that would suggest he believed it all
along. Ì can just picture it now:
!"# %&'( )*+* ,- )&*..' /01-2+32456
!"#$%&' )$*'%+
73" 8"9'-0:2'4*&; !"# <2": /-*4 :3*: ,4*1-"+ ='0 :'
!"#$%"& !(&"%)*+ %'& >02?@ *4A ,%%'&:-"++ B"253: C'++6
While Eades frantically revises history, my advice to all those of you
who have followed his deluded MAD advice is to begin applying the
principles outlined in The Fat Loss Bible ÷ the very principles that Ì
and others use to get shredded with little fuss and no frustration. Ìt's
the book that famous diet 'gurus' such as Eades themselves read to
learn the real facts about fat loss!
MindIess DiscipIes

Ì also have one more piece of advice for Eades' mindless followers:

Get your heads out from between your buttocks!

After Ì posted a web article on June 1, 2008 lambasting Eades for his
hypocritical and about-face behaviour (see:, a couple of his
faithful disciples attempted to defend his honor at LowCarbMuscle, a
web forum run by yours truly.

Judging from their posts, the line that Eades apologists (and Eades
himself) are now using is that he has been emphasizing the
importance of calories all along, and that he and Ì are saying
essentially the same thing, save for a 'minor' disagreement over the
existence of a metabolic advantage.

Such revisionist tripe demonstrates the limitless human capacity for
self-deceit, and the routine tendency to 're-interpret' past events in
order to avoid having to deal with discomforting contradictions.

Ìf any Eades apologists can show me exactly where, prior to my
denunciation of his shambolic comparison of the Yudkin vs Keys
studies, he stated the following indisputable facts, then Ì'll happily eat
my favorite pair of snakeskin boots:

--CaIorie intake vs caIorie output, not the IeveI of carbohydrate
and fat intake is the overriding determinant of fat-derived weight

Eades has clearly and repeatedly stated that carbs and insulin are
the primary determinants of weight status. He has written this in his
own works, and has enthusiastically praised the works of others that
push this theory, including the massively convoluted exercise in
science fiction Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes.

--Carbohydrate restriction, just Iike fat
restriction/vegetarianism/eating for bIood type/eating Iike a
French Woman/bIah bIah bIah, wiII not do jack for weight Ioss in
the absence of a caIorie deficit, and that anyone wanting to Iose
weight shouId first ensure that their caIorie expenditure exceeds
their caIorie intake.

Eades' failure to make this point clear and instead focus on carb
restriction is why he has so many people writing to him to complain
they cannot lose weight on his diet. Ìn his best-selling book Protein
Power he clearly gives instructions on carbohydrate restriction for
weight loss. Carbohydrates and insulin are clearly blamed for obesity.
Nowhere does he state in no uncertain terms, as Ì repeatedly have,
that a calorie deficit is the ultimate and key requirement for fat-
derived weight loss.

--Carbohydrate restriction does not cause any extra weight Ioss
over and above that seen with isocaIoric higher carb diets that
cannot be attributed to greater water, muscIe and/or gIycogen

--The onIy reason some - but not aII - free Iiving studies have
shown greater fat Iosses among Iow-carbing subjects is
because of the potentiaI satiating effects of Iow-carb diets. When
this confounding factor has been removed in strictIy controIIed
metaboIic ward studies, there is no difference in fat Ioss.

Eades initially denied this. He brushed off concerns about
underreporting in free-living studies and claimed that hopelessly
unreliable free-living studies, where the subjects true caloric intake is
simply unknown, "demonstrate" the existence of a metabolic

And in response to a reader's comment, Eades initially dismissed the
possibility that the subjects in the Yudkin study could have
underreported their food intake:

"I don't know how many calories the low-carb group ate because I
wasn't there to count them. But John Yudkin is a well known, well
thought of researcher who used not FFQs but detailed food diaries so
I have no reason to doubt his data. The people on the study had no
reason to underreport, and, in fact, there reporting on their normal
diets was pretty spot on in terms of the average diet."

However, after Eades' comparison was exposed for the sham it was,
he then acknowledged that "patients tend to under report what they
eat instead of over reporting."

Ìf Eades has been emphasizing the primacy of calories all along, why
did he post such an absurd comparison of the Yudkins vs Keys
studies, where he was quite happy to portray the difference between
isocaloric + hypocaloric low- and high-carb diets as being the
difference between experiencing safe, joyful, trouble-free fat loss or
turning into an emaciated, finger-chomping manic depressive? Such
a comparison can only be described as utterly ridiculous (the guy
then had the temerity to claim Ì was the one making "a mountain out
of a molehill"!)

But like Ì said, if anyone can show me where Eades clearly stated the
above key points and made it perfectly clear that a calorie deficit was
the ultimate, primary determinant of fat-derived weight losses, and
that without a calorie deficit any carbohydrate-restricting attempt at
fat-derived weight loss was just a big wank, then Ì'll happily chow
down on my favorite pair of snakeskin kicks. Heck, Ì'll even devour a
pair of my prized Luccheses as dessert...

As the record stands, right before Ì destroyed his stupid Yudkin vs
Keys post, Eades clearly stated that anyone who thinks weight loss is
all about calories is a "fool". Weight loss is unquestionably and
ultimately all about calories - Ì challenge Eades or anyone else to
present me with a person that lost a chunk of fat-derived weight by
eating more calories than what they expended during the period this
fat was lost.

The truth is that Eades and his MAD cohorts have been diverting
weight loss hopefuls away from the true requirement of successful
weight loss - a caloric deficit - with their anti-carb rantings. Their
emphasis on carbs instead of calories has caused a lot of weight loss
failures - as Eades himself has inadvertently admitted. By
retrospectively claiming they did not really mean for this to happen
does not change the fact that it did. Nor does the fallacious claim that
he has long been emphasizing the primary role of calories when he
clearly hasn't.

Anyone who claims that Eades has been saying the same thing as Ì
on calories all along is, quite frankly, an idiot. This disagreement boils
down to much more than just a disagreement on MAD. Ìt revolves
around my desire for people to once and for all pull their heads out of
their nethermost regions and realize that a calorie deficit, not some
stupid gimmick that promises effortless weight loss, is the key
requirement to achieving fat-derived weight loss. No calorie deficit, no
weight loss. Ì know it's discomforting for a lot of people to be told that
they need to stop shovelling so much crap into their mouths and/or to
get up off their fat sedentary asses and do some regular exercise, but
that's the plain, indisputable truth. Ìt's not the kind of statement that is
ever going to get me on Oprah and make me a best-selling diet
'guru', but it's the truth. Ìt's what Ì myself live by, and why Ì maintain a
year-round level of leanness that the best-selling mainstream diet
hucksters can only dream about.

Ìt's also the reason why people like Muata Kamdibe get featured on
CNN after achieving single digit bodyfat % using the prinicples Ì
taught him (see, while
Eades is getting emails from people who are frustrated about not
losing weight despite following his Atkins-style recommendation to cut
carbs to less than 30 grams per day.

Eades' loyal apologists remind me of the folks that steadfastly stand
by a politician that campaigns for 'family values' then gets caught in a
motel room snorting coke and cavorting with hookers...

No matter how much this guy squirms, cites dodgy evidence,
contradicts himself, and changes his story in an attempt to save face,
they just can't see him for the sad joke he is. Ì'm sure Eades is deeply
touched by such misguided faith and devotion...

Perhaps the only thing sadder than Eades is the people who believe
his MAD nonsense. He at least is making money out of such folks...

Whatever Happened to Eades' Dissection?

Eades made a heck of a lot of noise about his threatened
"dissection", the allegedly all-conquering "exegesis" that would finally
shut me up, and prove once and for all his claim that the pivotal
Chapter 1 of my The Fat Loss Bible was wrong and misleading.

Well, Eades' much ballyhooed dissection never made it onto his
website, but he did eventually post a rather anaemic attempt to
discredit metabolic ward studies in general at:

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the best Eades could do to live up to
his loudly trumpeted claim he would deliver a knockout dissection; the
one he publicly stated would be ready within a week but never
materialized even months later because he claimed my book - the
main contentions of which he is now parroting himself - was so full of
misinformation that it would take a Texas-sized blog post to refute!

A brief piece that does not even refer to a single study cited in
Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible!

"Many people" may have cited the Boden et al paper to debunk the
MAD myth, but Ì'm definitely not one of them. The Boden study
doesn't even begin to meet the criteria needed to fairly compare
isocaloric diets of differing macronutrient composition:

! The "usual" (higher carb) diet and the low-carb diet were not
isocaloric. The latter contained 1,000 less calories per day!

! Neither of the diets were followed for a minimum of 21 days, a
period that minimizes influence of fluctuations in water and
electrolyte status and the possibility of greater initial water
losses seen during the first 1-2 weeks on low-carb diets.

Why does Eades continue to ignore the abundance of relevant and
strictly controlled ward studies that refute MAD and cite an irrelevant
study that proves nothing other than the fact that people vary in their
individual response to calorie/carbohydrate restriction?

For perhaps the first time in history, Ì will agree with Eades when he
says that it's important to examine individual data in study papers and
not just take group averages at face value.

But if Eades is going to go with the line that individual data support
the existence of MAD, he needs to explain the crossover studies
where each individual participant was placed on both a low-carb and
high-carb diet of equal caloric content and experienced no difference
in weight loss that could not be attributed to greater water losses or

And if he's claiming that the greater weight losses experienced by
some individuals in other such RCTs is indicative of a metabolic
advantage on a low-carb diet, the only way he can maintain this claim
is to ignore the greater weight losses seen in some individuals on a
higher carb diet!

As an example, let's look at the first ward study Ì have been able to
track down, Keeton and Bone 1935 (see They're All MAD for the
citation). Daily weight loss was greater on an isocaloric high-
protein/low-carb diet in 2 patients, greater on a low-protein/high-carb
diet for 4 patients, equal for 2, and "inconclusive" in 1.

So if Eades is going to stick by any claim that variation in weight loss
results among individuals on a particular diet in a weight loss study
are evidence that some people do indeed experience a metabolic
advantage, then for the sake of consistency he would have to
acknowledge that Keeton and Bone's findings indicate that a greater
number of individuals will experience greater "metabolic advantage"-
derived weight loss on a higher-carb, lower-protein diet!

Of course, anyone with a clue about weight loss will know that the
individual differences in weight loss were simply a random
phenomenon and not due to any so-called metabolic advantage. Of
course, Eades and his flabby followers have already demonstrated
that they are clueless when it comes to weight loss.

Hey, C'mon, It's Just a CoupIe of Hundred CaIories.

Since the dispute between Eades and yours truly began, the MAD
doctor hasn't fared too well in his attempts to defend MAD. After
failing to discredit my arguments in a scientific manner, he resorted to
ad hominem attacks, doing his darndest to portray me as some kind
of lunatic. That didn't work out too well for Eades ÷ if Ì truly am a
lunatic, then that simply constitutes an even more damning indictment
of Eades' deficient intellectual state. Crazy or not, Ì have destroyed
every possible argument Eades has made in favor of MAD. Ìf MAD
were scientifically valid but he couldn't defend it against an allegedly
loopy guy like myself, then he clearly isn't the sharpest tool in the

Having bombed out with both pseudo-science and character
assassination, Eades has now taken to downplaying the whole
dispute, claiming that a mountain is being made out of a molehill and
that the metabolic advantage is no huge deal, just a few hundred
calories at most.

Ì should be jaded by now, but Ì'm still amazed people fall for this crap.
Again, the guy gleefully hypes MAD, but then after Ì smash his
nonsense he starts downplaying the whole MAD thing as amounting
to a difference of only a couple of hundred calories per day. This
folks, is the alleged magical effect that people all over the internet
claim makes the difference between not losing weight on a high-carb
diet but experiencing substantial weight loss immediately after
commencing a low-carb diet, even when the low-carb diet contains
more calories than the high-carb diet. But now we have Eades
claiming it's not that big of a deal, hey, just a couple of hundred
calories, a few hundred calories at most.

Eades has never explained exactly where he derived this figure of
200-300 calories per day. Ì suspect he pulled it from the same part of
his anatomy that he sits on. Wherever he got it from, it certainly
wasn't the scientific literature, for no tightly controlled study has ever
shown greater calorie expenditure on an isocaloric low-carb diet.

At the end of the day, both Eades and all his goofball MAD
compatriots are wrong. Ì've asked to see the metabolic ward studies
showing greater caloric expenditure and great fat-derived weight
losses on isocaloric low-carb diets, and they haven't produced any.
MAD exists only in the dark and gloomy confines of their heads.

>;0*8'$ D';8'/5') <B@ =AAFC

Lo and behold, within 24 hours of writing the September 15 update
and posting notification at, Ì was informed that
on Septmber 8, 2008, Eades posted more libellous tripe about me at
his blog:

Poor Eades. He has become, dare Ì say it, a man obsessed! After all
this time, he still has absolutely nothing in the way of tightly controlled
research showing the existence of MAD in real live human beings.
But he just can't let the matter rest. His ego clearly devastated by my
temerity to highlight his unscientific ramblings, the man is still doing
his darndest to portray me as both crazy and dishonest. Ìn doing so,
however, he is inadvertently further demonstrating that he is of
questionable mental health and honesty himself.

Ìt appears that Eades' latest whine was triggered by his recent
discovery of Dr. Gregory Ellis's Ultimate Diet Secrets. Unlike Eades,
Ellis understands the true requirements of weight loss and has the
physique to show for it. Ellis is also highly critical of Eades and his
book Protein Power. Not surprisingly, this stamp of disapproval from
Ellis has gotten the MAD doctor's knickers in a real twist. Eades
begins his latest diatribe by criticizing Ellis, but it's not long before he
relapses and begins spewing out the anti-Colpo vitriol.

If You Can't Beat 'Em With the Facts, then Use Lies and SIander
Eades is back to his old tactic of trying to discredit my integrity by
claiming Ì have selectively cited studies and twisted the truth. The
only way he can do this, of course, is by selectively citing studies and
twisting the truth himself.

Eades waffles on about very low calorie diets, using the line that at
extremely low calorie levels his cherished metabolic advantage is
negated. He ignores the fact that in Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible,
which lists all the pubIished, peer reviewed metabolic ward
hypocaloric and eucaloric studies Ì could find, the calorie intakes
spanned the full range of the spectrum, from extremely low calorie, to
moderately low-calorie, to eucaloric (maintenance calories).
The slippery doc, who accuses me of selective citation, proceeds to
ignore all of the moderately hypocaloric and eucaloric studies Ì have
cited and discussed in Chapter 1, with the exception of the Rabast
The only reason Eades cites the Rabast studies is that, at first
glance, they appear supportive of MAD. Of 2 of their 3 published
studies, Rabast and his colleagues did indeed claim to have
observed statistically significantly greater weight losses in patients
on an isocaloric low-carb diet. However, Ì explain quite clearly in
Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible why the Rabast papers don't even
begin to support MAD. Of course, Eades knows full well that most of
his readers have never read my book and probably never will (Ì wrote
the book specifically for intelligent and open-minded people, a
demographic that many of Eades' readers clearly do not occupy), so
he is quite confident that he can brazenly pull the wool over their eyes
and get away with it.
Rabast and company did not measure body composition among their
subjects. So we don't know whether the lost weight came from water,
lean tissue, or fat. But some of their other data ÷ which Eades
deliberately omits from his discussion (he has obviously read The Fat
Loss Bible, so he knows full well about this data) ÷ indicates that the
extra losses came from lean tissue, glycogen and/or water.
Rabast et al proposed that increased metabolic expenditure was the
explanation for the extra weight loss. However, no-one has ever
demonstrated greater metabolic output on an isocaloric hypercaloric
+ eucaloric low-carb diet, whether it be from elevated RMR,
increased dietary thermogenesis, or spontaneous alignment of the
Protein is more thermogenic than carbs, but the diets in Rabast's
studies were equal in their protein content. As for fat and carbs,
studies routinely show that carbs are more thermogenic than fats.
So using "increased metabolism¨ as an argument doesn't wash. What
does make more sense is the data ÷ again, completely ignored by
Eades ÷ showing greater potassium losses in one of Rabast's
Eades eagerly reprints the following paragraph from my book:
"Regardless of whether Rabast et al's findings were the result of
water loss from glycogen depletion, pure chance, or some other
unidentified factor, they should be regarded for what they are: An
anomaly that has never been replicated by any other group of
researchers. For a research finding to be considered valid, it must be
consistently reproducible when tested by other researchers. As proof
of the alleged weight loss advantage of low-carbohydrate diets, the
findings by Rabast and colleagues fail dismally on this key
.but ÷ surprise, surprise - does not mention the paragraph
immediately preceding it:
In their 1981 study, Rabast et al observed significantly greater
potassium excretion on the low-carbohydrate diets during weeks one
and two. A considerable amount of the potassium inside our bodies is
bound up with glycogen, so the greater potassium losses in Rabast's
low-carbohydrate dieters may indeed be a reflection of greater
glycogen, and hence water losses[93]. Until recently, potassium
excretion was often used as a marker for lean tissue loss; in Rabast's
study, this would indicate that the low-carbohydrate diet subjects lost
more lean tissue. As lean tissue holds a considerable amount of
glycogen, this would again point to glycogen-related water loss as the
explanation for the allegedly "significant" differences in weight loss. If
the low-carbohydrate groups maintained greater lean tissue and/or
glycogen losses at the end of the study, then this would easily explain
their greater weight loss.
Again, the shameless duplicity exhibited by Eades is astounding. The
guy falsely accuses me of selectively citing my evidence, but then
does exactly that himself.
Eades, by the way, can hardly claim to be unaware of the frequent
occurrence of severe potassium losses on a low-carb diet. Without
the use of potassium supplements (a mineral normally found in
natural abundance on anything remotely resembling a wholesome,
balanced diet), his own eating plan can quickly lead to feelings of
illness, dizziness and pounding heartbeat, as one New York Times
writer found out the hard way:
The Diet Wheel Again Spins To Protein, NYT, March 13, 1996.

As for the accusation that Ì ignored Rabast's unpublished studies ÷
you bet Ì did, but not because they didn't support my contentions, as
Eades has maliciously claimed. Ì simply refuse to cite unpublished
and unsubstantiated "research¨ when there is plenty of published,
peer-reviewed evidence to cite. Ìf Rabast's other studies were of even
remotely decent quality, why weren't they peer-reviewed and
Gee, am Ì also supposed to include the dubious anecdotal reports by
fanatical MAD devotees on Ìnternet forums, or the totally
unsubstantiated claims about their patients made by low-carb diet
doctors (hucksters) in their infomercial-like books?

Forget it - Ì use the same standard employed by all serious and
ethical researchers; the evidence Ì cite must be published and peer
reviewed. Unsubstantiated claims of highly questionable quality
simply don't cut it. Eades and his MAD cohorts are happy to use such
evidence, because that's all they've got. Tightly controlled, peer
reviewed research repeatedly shows their claims to be utter garbage.

Eades is happy to cite unpublished work of dubious quality, but he
completely ignores the twenty-three other studies cited in Chapter 1
of The Fat Loss Bible.
Eades accuses me of selectively citing evidence, but lets see how he
deals with evidence from metabolic ward studies that show MAD to
be a complete crock:
Keeton, Bone 1935 -- no mention
Werner 1955 -- no mention
Olesen, Quaade 1960 -- no mention
Kinsell et al 1963 -- no mention
Krehl et al 1967 -- no mention
Bortz et al 1967 -- no mention
Bortz et al 1968 -- no mention
Grey, Kipnis 1971 -- no mention
Grey, Kipnis 1971 -- no mention
Rabast et al 1979 -- mentions, but doesn't tell the full story
Rabast et al 1979 -- mentions, but doesn't tell the full story
Rabast et al 1981 -- mentions, but doesn't tell the full story
Yang et al 1981 -- no mention
Bogardus et al 1981 -- no mention
Hoffer et al 1984 -- no mention
Baggio et al 1988 -- no mention
Brinton et al 1990 -- no mention
Leibel et al 1992 -- no mention
Vazquez, Adibi 1992 -- no mention
Vazquez, Kazi 1994 -- no mention
Vazquez et al 1995 -- no mention
Piatti et al 1994 -- no mention
Golay et al 1996 -- no mention
Miyashita et al 2004 -- no mention
Stimson et al 2007 -- no mention
Gately et al 2007 ÷ no mention
If You Can't Provide Supportive Evidence, Create Unwarranted
Doubt About the Non-Supportive Evidence

There's no doubt about it ÷ Eades would be right at home in the
murky world of politics. He possesses all the necessary traits:

! An ingrained habit of launching personal attacks when unable
to persuade with actual facts about the topic being discussed;

! A rabid determination to divert attention away from his own
untenable and self-contradictory claims by casting aspersions
on the opposing party;

! The ability to claim one thing, and then turn around and claim
the exact opposite, without batting an eyelid;

! The ability to maintain a pompous, pious, holier-than-thou
attitude and to incessantly boast about his superior civil and
moral traits ÷ all the while acting like a hostile, mud-slinging,
truth-twisting boor;

! The ability to appeal to the stupid and gullible.

Ìf demand for hyperbolic and BS-laden diet books ever dries up, Ì'd
strongly recommend Eades consider a career in Washington. Ìn the
meantime, let's take a closer look at Eades' claim that metabolic ward
studies cannot be trusted. Eades once again claims that metabolic
ward studies are rife with cheating, and claims that rampant cheating
occurred in one of the ward studies Ì cite. He does not provide
evidence to back his claim ÷ in fact, he doesn't even cite the study in

Eades and his followers, despite their fanatical rantings about the
existence of MAD, have absolutely no evidence from tightly controlled
trials of its existence. There does not exist a single study showing
greater weight losses on an isocaloric low-carb diet where
water/lean/glycogen losses can be excluded and where isocaloric
intakes were assured.

Not one.

Eades knows full well that he simply cannot win this dispute by citing
tightly controlled human evidence that shows the existence of MAD ÷
there is none. So his only hope is to attempt to discredit the
abundance of tightly controlled evidence showing MAD to be a
complete load of bollocks.

Hence the fallacious claim that metabolic ward studies cannot be
trusted because they are routinely marred by unbridled cheating.

Ì have no doubt that the quality of control in metabolic ward studies
varies from one group of researchers to another. And Ì have little
doubt that instances of cheating have occurred in some metabolic
ward studies, but to claim they were all rife with cheating is yet
another shameless distortion of the facts.

As an example, take a look at the level of control exhibited by Krehl et
al during their metabolic ward study:

"Prior to admission, all the patients were carefully screened for their
interest and motivation for continued participation in the study and
they were fully informed concerning the demanding schedules of diet,
exercise, and the limitations of freedom imposed by a strict metabolic
ward schedule."

"No patient was permitted to leave the Clinical Research Center area
without an escort, and all were under the continued surveillance of
our staff. A schedule of occupational therapy was provided in the
form of "hobby activities." The patients tolerated this restrictive and
tightly controlled regimen with no more than a healthy amount of
grumbling, and patient cooperation on the whole was splendid."

Krehl and his team found no difference in weight loss among diets of
differing macronutrient composition.

Consider also the tight controls maintained by Gately et al (personal
communication via email) during their comparison of lower- and
higher-protein diets: "There was very very minimal chance for
children to consume food other than that prescribed. We do not run a
prison so there is always a chance but with our high staff to pupil
ratio, all children being observed during meal time, no shops locally,
all vending machines emptied, and all packages opened in a
communal area the chances are minimal. Parental visits do occur but
again all parents are informed of the need to maintain the dietary
programme and their frequency is unlikely to have an impact."

Gately and his team found no difference in weight loss among diets of
differing macronutrient composition.

Eades does his darndest to discredit metabolic ward studies, but they
are unquestionably of far higher quality than the totally uncontrolled
free-living studies he claims "demonstrate" the existence of MAD.
Ì challenge Eades and his MAD compatriots to present me with one ÷
just one, not two-dozen, but just one single study as rigorously
controlled as the Krehl and Gately trials, that demonstrates the
existence of a weight loss metabolic advantage.
Don't all jump at once now.
C'mon guys.just one study.pleeeaaase.

Hmmm, looks like we'll be waiting a while.

Eades Has TruIy Lost It

Ì'm seriously starting to wonder whether Eades is schizophrenic. He
does all he can to discredit the reliability of metabolic ward studies,
but in the same breath he enthusiastically claims that the Rabast
metaboIic ward studies offer "robust" evidence of MAD!!

Eades also cites the theoretical musings of Feinman and Fine ad
naseum in support of MAD - but Feinman and Fine themselves cite
the infamous Kekwik and Pawan study in support of MAD. This was a
very short duration metaboIic ward study that was rife with cheating
(Kekwik and Pawan themselves reported rampant cheating)!!

So which is it Doc? Either ward studies are acceptable evidence, or
they're not!

Either Eades' political instincts are manifesting themselves again, or
maybe he needs to up his dosage of lithium and thorazine. Either
way, he has a massive consistency problem.

>;0*8'$ D';8'/5') =G@ =AAHC

Ìt's been over a year since the last update, and over 18 months since
Eades failed to meet my $20,000 challenge. Not a whole lot has
happened since then ÷ MAD remains a sham, for there still does not
exist a single tightly controlled study showing a fat-derived metabolic
advantage for low-carbohydrate diets in human beings. Ì must say Ì
am delighted to note that when the metabolic issue is being
discussed nowadays, more and more people are demanding
evidence from tightly controlled ward studies. As we know, such
evidence is non-existent, forcing the MAD believers to fall back on all
manner of illogical, irrelevant, and often patently false arguments to
support their claims. To the astute observer, such shenanigans
merely act as a red flag indicating a complete lack of valid scientific
evidence for MAD.

As for Eades, just when Ì start to forget the MAD doctor even exists,
someone tells me about the latest little anti-Colpo snipe he has made
over at his Protein Power blog. Ìt seems the not-so-good doctor is still
smarting after our confrontation and just can't refrain from taking the
occasional, albeit low-key, potshot.

Ìn all seriousness, Ì think it's high time Eades sought counseling. His
fragile sense of self was clearly rocked by my correspondence and
evidently still hasn't recovered. Ì could understand his anger if he was
a nice guy who never picked on anybody, but when he readily acts
like an uncouth boor towards others, then the he has little right to
complain when he himself is on the receiving end of vigorous

Ì won't harp on any more about Eades' untenable MAD beliefs, a
subject that has already been given an extensive airing. What Ì will do
is point out the very valuable lesson to be learned from Eades'
behavior; hubris is a most unbecoming phenomenon, and one should
make every effort to avoid falling under its spell. Eade's experience
provides a most instructive lesson on why you should not take
yourself too seriously and become high on your own self-importance.

So folks, in order to help you benefit and learn from Eade's mistakes,
here's a play-by-play replay of The Great EHE (Eades Hubris

The Great EHE RepIay

--Circa mid 1990s: Doctor and his wife presiding over small, non-
descript mid-Western medical practice try the Atkins Diet and like it.
They then experience promising results using the diet with some of
their patients. They shrewdly see an opportunity in the low-carb craze
and set about re-writing the best-selling Atkins New Diet Revolution.
They take the basic precept of the diet (do an extremely low-carb 2-
week induction phase to kickstart ketosis and a "metabolic
advantage", then incrementally increase carb intake so long as
weight loss continues bla blah blah) but add a whole lot of rabble
about the evils of insulin. They name their book Protein Power.

--10 years earlier or later, the book wouldn't have attracted a second
glance from publishers. But when a book like Atkins New Diet
Revolution comes along and becomes a best-selling 'sensation',
publishers scramble to capitalize on the new craze and get their own
versions out on the market ASAP before the mania dies out. All sorts
of rubbish that would not normally get published suddenly appears on
the shelves of your local Borders. As such, Protein Power is picked
up by a major publisher.

--Thanks to a gullible public's insatiable appetite for anything and
everything to do with the latest hot fad, Protein Power becomes a
best seller.

--Aging male co-author, who previously endured a rather non-eventful
and boring mid-Western life, is now known by people the world over.
People from all over the planet are sending him letters and emails
telling him how utterly wonderful he and his book are. Obese readers
the world over are absolutely ecstatic that Protein Power has allowed
them to shed 3kg of water and reduce their waist measurement from
43" to 42". The lavish praise for such Earth-shattering physical
transformations continues for quite some time.

--Aging male co-author of average looks and intelligence suddenly
starts to feel very special. People keep telling him what a genius he
is, and he actually starts to believe it. He mistakes the shrewdness
and luck involved in capitalizing on a hot craze for medical and
scientific virtuosity. Male co-author starts to believe in his own mind
that he is a truly groundbreaking innovator and scientific guru.

--Not everyone agrees, however. One day a researcher named
George Blackburn is quoted in a major US newspaper as saying that
diet authors like male co-author can make untenable claims; claims
that while legal under the First Amendment are of questionable
ethical standing. Blackburn may not have a clue when it comes to
dietary supplements, but after observing numerous of male co-
author's absurd and untenable claims, Ì can't help but agree that the
latter's ethics are indeed of a questionable nature. Male co-author,
however, is not amused and develops a deep grudge against
Blackburn, who he comes to regard as the most evil, vile creature on
the planet.

--Male co-author, who once acted in a relatively non-wanker fashion,
now starts developing something of an attitude. Hubris sets in and
male co-author displays a sneering, dismissive attitude to people who
disagree with him. How dare these people not recognize him for the
ever-flowing fountain of dietary knowledge and enlightenment that he
is? How dare these people not recognize his heroic efforts to save
the world from the heinous villain insulin? Bastards!

--Male author's arrogant and intolerant attitude has a rather
schizophrenic air about it. For example, while male co-author
eventually claims to disbelieve the cholesterol theory, he boasts of his
friendship with a 'Paleolithic' researcher who vigorously promotes
said theory.

But when a couple of female academics present a relatively
innocuous pro-high carbohydrate diet presentation at a Texas
nutrition conference, male co-author goes bonkers. Their
presentation is rather inconsequential and non-hostile, and receives
little attention from the mainstream media, but male co-author is
incensed and unleashes a barrel of online whoop-ass. According to
the omnipotent one, these exercise physiologists are "idiots" and their
material is "breathtakingly stupid". While some of their material is
indeed of highly questionable validity, some of it is perfectly correct
(eg, the need for carbohydrates immediately following strenuous
exercise). The presentation in no way warrants this online blitzkrieg,
but male co-author - who by this point has now become exceedingly
full of himself - just can't hold back. Ìn his online orgy of ridicule, he
further dismisses the academic status of these two researchers and
instead condescendingly refers to them as "chicks". How dare these
two horrid floozies support high-carb diets and not recognize the
universal superiority of low-carb diets, such as the one described in
his wonderful tome Protein Power?

Ah, so many idiots, so little time...

--Male co-author continues cruising blissfully through life, high on his
own publicity and the lavish praise from adoring, unquestioning
readers of his blog.

--Then one day, something happens that completely rocks male co-
author's world - and not in a good way. Male co-author, who has now
become so arrogant and conceited that he believes he can post any
old tripe and have it accepted by legions of adoring ninkumpoops,
posts a cherry-picked comparison of low- and high-carb diets. This
shamelessly biased comparison is used to support the claim for a
"metabolic advantage" of low-carb diets, a claim that has been
repeatedly disproved by tightly controlled, non-cherry picked studies
dating back as far as the 1930s.

Male co-author concludes this blatantly biased rant by pronouncing
that anyone who thinks weight loss is all about calories is a "fool".
Science shows conclusively that weight loss is indeed all about
calories, but male co-author has transcended such silly little
absurdities as non-complimentary scientific data. His own theories
are so awesomely outstanding that they rise above the pathetically
mortal need for scientific validation. Male co-author does not partake
in such feeble Earthly pursuits as objectively analyzing scientific
evidence in its entirety. He knows he's right, and doesn't need a
bunch of tossers in white coats to confirm his omnipotence.

The only evidence he needs is that which appears to support what he
believes; non-contradictory evidence is simply not worthy of
consideration. Ìf it doesn't confirm what male co-author wishes to
believe, then it simply must be wrong. Ìn male co-author's world, the
new gold standard of validity has become, not what tightly controlled
science concludes, but which data can be used to support the
conclusion he has already formed.

Male co-author loves to ridicule other authors for their lack of
scientific impartiality, but in reality he has become every bit as biased
and one-eyed. His method of assessing evidence for a metabolic
advantage can pretty much be summed up as follows:

Bad research: That which contradicts his chosen metabolic
advantage beliefs, no matter how tightly controlled.

Good research: That which supports his chosen metabolic
advantage beliefs, no matter how shabby and poorly controlled.

Male co-author's arrogance doesn't end with pronouncing those with
a realistic, science-backed view of the weight loss process as "fools".
When one of his blog readers asks male co-author about an
Australian researcher who strongly disputes the metabolic advantage
theory, male co-author states Australian researcher is "wrong".

Australian researcher reads all this, and is rather appalled. At any
other time, Australian researcher would simply shake his head,
mumble something like "So many wankers, so little time", turn off his
computer and go for a ride or hang with his buddies. But Australian
researcher has just endured a couple of years of continuous virulent
abuse from the motley assortment of oddballs that comprise the
online 'low-carb community'.

Aussie researcher's sin?

To state the simple fact that fat-derived weight loss is a function of
creating a calorie deficit, and that there is no such thing as a
metabolic advantage. Aussie researcher, unlike male co-author, has
retrieved decades' worth of tightly controlled studies to back his
claims, and has repeatedly challenged anyone who can prove
otherwise to step up and do so (in fact, in early 2007, Australian
researcher was so fed up with the abuse that he challenged male co-
author and any other willing parties to provide tightly controlled
evidence confirming a metabolic advantage for low-carb diets.
Despite a $20,000 bounty for their favorite charity, neither male co-
author nor anyone else even attempted to meet the challenge. The
reason? There does not exist a single tightly controlled study showing
a fat-derived weight loss advantage for low-carb diets. The metabolic
advantage is and always has been a sham).

Australian researcher, who has only ever posted the facts as he sees
them, has started to tire of all the abuse and accusations of
dishonesty. He has even attracted an online stalker for his efforts,
despite having done nothing wrong except to make scientifically-
backed statements that dispute what the insecure and overly
sensitive low-carb 'community' wishes to believe.

Australian researcher, fed up with all the bullshit, decides to give
male co-author a taste of his own medicine. Australian author posts
an open letter to male co-author, asking why he felt the need to post
such a ridiculously biased and misleading comparison. Australian
author challenges male co-author to present data from tightly
controlled ward studies, not cherry-picked nonsense, to back his
outlandish claims.

Australian researcher, not one known for his subtle and timid manner,
states his case and challenge in very forthright terms. His open letter
attracts much attention and angst in the low-carb 'community'. Some
of the less compliant members of this community actually begin
questioning male co-author's omnipotent status.

--Male co-author is shaken to his core. Despite his willingness to
vigorously attack others, he is completely unprepared to receive
similar treatment himself. Cracks start to appear in his facade. His
family are worried and publicly urge him to be careful. He starts
getting irritable with readers who ask him about the Australian
researcher's letter. Whereas he once enjoyed nothing but
unquestioning praise, some of his blog readers are now displaying
the temerity to question him.

Despite his growing anger at being publicly challenged, male co-
author at first attempts to ignore Australian researcher. But the heat
becomes too intense and male co-author launches his first attempt at
a defensive strike. Ìt is a course of action he soon comes to regret.
Looking back, male co-author realizes that if he had kept his ego and
his acid tongue in check, the whole thing would have quickly blown
over. Australian researcher would have dismissed male co-author as
all hype and no substance, and moved on. Male co-author could have
then continued preaching his metabolic advantage claims to his
blissfully ignorant blog readers, many of whom who were impervious
to contradictory evidence anyhow.

But male co-author's sense of reason is blinded by his anger. George
Blackburn is no longer the most evil, vile creature on the planet; that
award now goes to Australian researcher, and male co-author must
alert the world. Male co-author makes repeated attempts to discredit
Australian researcher, but to his dismay, Australian researcher easily
demolishes every such attempt. Male co-author becomes
increasingly frustrated and begins to contradict himself, a common
outcome when one does not tell the truth. Australian researcher,
however, does not need to contradict himself, change his story, or
cite irrelevant evidence. He has done his homework, is intimately
familiar with the research, and just keeps confidently emphasizing the
same point over and over: There is no tightly controlled evidence
confirming a fat-derived weight loss advantage (the so-called
"metabolic advantage") for low-carb diets, and plenty of evidence
disputing it. All the available evidence confirms that any greater fat
loss obtained from low-carb diets occurs purely through greater
caloric reductions via greater satiation.

Australian researcher keeps repeating this point over and over, and
challenges anyone with actual evidence to the contrary to step up,
culminating in his famous $20,000 challenge. Neither male co-author
nor his followers can meet the challenge, something that angers them
greatly, most of all male co-author.

Male co-author, realizing he can't nail Australian researcher with
scientific facts, decides instead on a slander campaign. He writes an
article claiming Australian researcher is insane, calls him an endless
string of derogatory names, and even posts a Youtube video
featuring a rather piss-poor comedy sketch about steroid-abusing
bodybuilders, the inference being that Australian researcher was a
'roid-raging lunatic. Australian researcher does not use steroids, and
is happy to undergo urine/blood testing at the accuser's expense plus
AU $500.00 for being forced to blow a morning proving what he can
tell everyone for free. Male co-author also repeatedly brags about his
"merit badges", and takes every opportunity to remind his readers
that his web site has more readers than Australian researcher's
website, as if this is somehow a marker for scientific validity.

When all this fails, male co-author sinks to a desperate new low, and
privately emails Australian researcher. Ìn his email, male co-author
attempts to convince Australian researcher that "I like you and trust
you", in spite of the barrage of abusive terms male co-author had
used to denigrate Australian researcher. Australian researcher is no
dummy, however; he has been around long enough to know when
someone is trying to diddle him. And sure enough, male co-author
then reveals his true purpose for writing. He is attempting to placate
Australian researcher by claiming he will offer assistance in getting a
book deal for his books The Great Cholesterol Con and even The Fat
Loss Bible, the latter of which male co-author had vigorously
criticized. Australian researcher is evidently expected to believe that
male co-author, who has publicly and virulently ridiculed him and his
book, in fact likes him and trusts him and wants to help his book -
which contains some rather unflattering assertions about male co-
author and his tome Protein Power - become published and reach an
ever wider audience.

Yeah, no worries Doc...

The real cracker comes when male co-author urges Australian
researcher to hide the fact that male co-author has emailed him. Male
co-author suggests, in all seriousness, that they continue to email in
private but refrain from informing their readers. Male co-author may
not value his readers enough to be honest and transparent with them,
but Australian researcher will not even contemplate deceiving his own
readers in such a manner. He promptly publishes the full email
exchange between male co-author and himself, much to the dismay
of male co-author.

Male co-author then confirms his true colours by posting a long-
winded rant in which he desperately attempts to portray Australian
researcher as "a man obsessed". Male co-author's hubris and
arrogance have reached such a ridiculous extent that he labels this
deluded essay as the "disciplinary post" for Australian researcher's
alleged wrongdoings.

Male co-author's lavish self-congratulation is to be short-lived,
however. Australian researcher authors a lengthy and most
unflattering rebuttal to male co-author's claims, one that is well-
received by readers around the world: tml?111

Male co-author just didn't get it; when bullshit comes up against the
truth, the latter will win out every time - at least in the eyes and minds
of intelligent people. Fortunately for male co-author, a large portion of
the human race are not especially intelligent, and the majority of his
blog readers clearly fall into this category. Given his extremely fragile
ego and constant need for emulation, male co-author would be best
avoiding confrontations with honest, ethical researchers and focusing
on telling his gullible faithful readers just what they want to hear.

Male co-author appears to have recognized this, at least on a
subconscious level. His campaign, a desperate attempt to damage
Australian researcher's reputation and drive, didn't work. After all,
Australian researcher isn't some precious little diet guru from the US
who needs a constant diet of adulation and praise in order to prop up
his fragile ego. And most people, with the notable exception of male
co-author's small army of blind followers, could see through his
behavior. Male co-author, so typical of the deluded, greatly
overestimated his popularity and power. Ìn fact, not long after
Australian researcher's reply to male co-author's laughable "man
obsessed" rant, Australian researcher was awarded his very first
publishing contract.

Male co-author's fruitless attacks on Australian researcher have now
diminished to the occasional snipe on his blog. Male co-author really
needs to get over it and forget Australian researcher ever existed, but
he has begun getting a sinking feeling, an unpleasant realization that
his severely bruised ego may never recover, and he just can't help
himself from taking the occasional, albeit low-key, jab at Australian

After years of having to deal with socially and mentally stunted
oddballs who spend far too much time on the Ìnternet, Australian
researcher has started developing a thick skin and isn't too bothered
by male co-author's feeble remarks. Ìnstead, he expresses concern
for male co-author's mental health and recommends male co-author
seek competent psychological/psychiatric counsel as soon as

What You Can Learn from The Great EHE

--Hold the facts, rather than dogma, as your ultimate standard. Don't
become blindly wedded to any one dogma, because you will find
yourself performing all manner of mental gymnastics and self-deceit
in order to keep it propped up in your mind. At the end of the day,
your primary concern when it comes to health and nutrition is what
keeps you healthiest, fittest and works best in optimizing your body
composition and achieving your athletic goals if you have any. Low-
carb diets, for example, are fine for sedentary and moderately active
people; they are useless for athletes in glycogen-depleting sports. A
dogmatist refuses to accept this and quotes all manner of nonsense
about fat adaptation to make his diets seem suitable for athletes. He
ignores the mountain of scientific evidence showing that low-carb
diets cause deterioration of athletic performance, and he ignores the
fact that high-level athletes avoid these diets like the plague for just
that reason.

Ìf you place results above religious-like adherence to dogma,
then...don't be a dogmatist.

--Don't take yourself too seriously, and don't become high on your
own self-importance. And just because a bunch of people on the
Ìnternet think you are God, doesn't mean you really are. Many
people, and Ì'm not just talking about star-struck teenagers, seem to
have an inbuilt need for someone to look up to and admire; if they
choose you to fulfill this need, don't mistake it as actual confirmation
of superhuman status. This year it's you, next year it'll probably be
some football player or pop singer. Ìf you do take such shenanigans
seriously, you might end up a grumpy old man/woman who sadly
reminisces about the old glory days, the days when everyone used to
worship you and kiss your butt, the days before your wall of self-
delusion was unceremoniously shattered by some young upstart who
was sick and tired of copping abuse from your screwball followers.
Reality has a way of biting you in the ass just when you've convinced
yourself your poop doesn't pong.

--Don't be a hypocrite. Anyone who behaves like an arrogant,
sneering, misogynistic twat, then turns around and - in all seriousness
- publicly proclaims that he is a wonderful upstanding citizen who
always tries to be civil, polite and courteous in his dealings with
others is a world-class tosser. Get over yourself and stop it, before
you go blind.

7:*;8') I 7:*;8') I 7:*;8') I 7:*;8') I

Gary Taubes

Good Science, Bad Science, and Utter Nonsense

As Ì write this in November 2007, the current darling of talk shows
and newspaper "health¨ sections is Gary Taubes, who recently
released a best-selling book titled Good Calories, Bad Calories. The
vast attention given to Taubes and his book further highlights the
extremely low standard of dietary advice accepted by the media and
general public.

Gary Taubes is a science journalist who specializes in articles that
supposedly expose shoddy scientific practices. Taubes is probably
best known for his controversial article What if it's all been a big FAT
lie? which appeared in the New York Times Magazine in July
2002[43]. Soon after the article was published, Taubes scored a book
deal that reportedly included a $700,000 advance. The end result,
released in September 2007, was Good Calories, Bad Calories.

Like Eades (who, not surprisingly, enthusiastically endorses Good
Calories, Bad Calories), Taubes jumps on the insulin bandwagon and
claims that this hormone, via a high-carbohydrate diet, is the true
cause of weight gain. Forget calories; according to Taubes, the true
cause of the obesity epidemic is carbohydrates.

Here we go again.

For the record, USDA food intake data shows that the average per
capita intake of carbohydrates in 1909 was 501 grams; in 2000, it
was 493 grams[44]. To the best of my knowledge, there was no
obesity 'epidemic' in 1909. Carbohydrate consumption cannot explain
the increase in overweight that has occurred over the last century.

Let's take a look at what does explain this increase.

Ìn 1909, the average daily caloric intake was 3,500. Ìn, 2000, it was

Ìn 1910, over half the U.S. population lived in rural areas and farmers
comprised 31% - almost a third - of the workforce[45].

Ìn 2000, 33.6% of the workforce (16 and older) worked in
management, professional and related occupations, followed by
26.7% in sales and office occupations, 14.9 % in service occupations,
14.6% in production, transportation and material moving occupations,
9.4% in construction, extraction and maintenance occupations, and
only 0.7% in farming, fishing and forestry occupations[46].

Ìn other words, the average worker in 1909 was physically active; the
average worker today spends most of his/her day seated or engaged
in very light activity, with occasional breaks to shuffle his/her fat
sedentary butt over to the food vending machine. Ìndustry (and
domestic life) has become increasingly mechanized, automated, and
sedentarized over the last century. Even children and adolescents,
who once spent most of their leisure time outdoors, are now spending
increasing amounts of time sitting indoors mesmerized by televisions,
computers, and Playstations.

The average person is eating more calories, and expending less of
them through physical activity ÷ a classic textbook scenario for
facilitating weight gain. But according to Taubes, this has nothing to
do with ever-growing obesity rates. Ìn an interview with journalist
Howard Cohen titled "Author says cutting out carbs is all one need do
to lose weight", Taubes claimed that ".overeating and sedentary
behavior are not the causes of obesity."[47]

Ìt's the insulin you see.

It Gets Worse

Along with attempting to revive the disproved insulin myth, Taubes
drops a new bombshell. According to Taubes, all of us who regularly
exercise in an effort to stay lean are wasting our time. Yep, you heard
right! According to Taubes, "exercise does not lead to weight

Ìn the Cohen interview, and in a September 2007 New York
Magazine article[48], Taubes is adamant about the alleged inability of
exercise to induce weight loss. According to the author, exercise
merely increases one's appetite, which negates any possibility of fat

What if Taubes is suffering a big FAT deIusion?

Ì suspect Taubes has become so addicted to the role of 'myth buster',
so enamored with the role of debunker, so addicted to chasing the
high that comes from being a famous dissenter, that he has blinded
himself to scientific reality.

To flatly state that exercise does not lead to weight loss is downright
absurd. Ìf Taubes had instead said "exercise will not lead to weight
loss if you fail to establish a calorie deficit", then he would have been
absolutely correct. The reason studies examining the effect of
exercise on weight loss have returned mixed results is because many
of these studies made absolutely no attempt to ensure a calorie
deficit. Ìf you give someone a routine that causes them to burn an
extra 1,000 calories per week, but they are still eating 2,000 calories
above their maintenance level, then they are not going to lose weight.
This is hardly rocket science.

Studies repeatedly show that when exercise is employed in a manner
that creates or exacerbates a calorie deficit, it does indeed
cause/accelerate weight loss. Of course, Taubes appears to be stuck
in some kind of Atkins/Eadesian Dark Age, where people believe that
carbohydrates are the real cause of obesity regardless of calorie

When exercise is tested under tightly controlled metabolic ward
conditions where a calorie deficit can be verified, the results clearly
show it enhances weight loss. Take for example, a study by USDA
researchers involving overweight women utilizing diet plus exercise or
diet only. At the beginning of the study, the women were subjected to
a 2-week weight stabilization period where they were fed just enough
calories to maintain their weight. The researchers then divided the
women into 2 groups. One group kept eating their 'maintenance' diet
for 12 weeks and performed treadmill exercise 6-days a week. The
second group performed the same exercise routine, but also had their
calorie intake slashed in half for the duration of the 12-week period.

At the conclusion of the study, the group that added exercise to their
maintenance-calorie diet lost an average 0.5 kilograms per week. The
women who utilized exercise and calorie-restriction lost an average
1.1 kilograms per week[49].

This study and several others discussed in Chapter 13 of The Fat
Loss Bible highlight the sheer fallacy of Taubes' claims. His assertion
that exercise does not cause weight loss is patently false.

Working Up An Appetite For Nonsense

On Larry King Live, Taubes told America: "If you asked somebody 50
years ago what the result was of going for a long hike or a run or
playing 18 holes of golf or a couple of sets of tennis, they would have
said you work up an appetite."[50]

Ìnstead of appealing to the ghosts of yesteryear for insight into the
effect of exercise on appetite, Taubes would have been better served
examining a broad review of the evidence by C. Alan Titchenal, from
the University of California, Davis. Titchenal found that:

"Energy intake in humans is generally increased or unchanged in
response to exercise. When energy intake increases in response to
exercise it is usually below energy expenditure, resulting in negative
energy balance and loss of bodyweight and fat. Thus, if energy intake
is expressed relative to energy expenditure, appetite is usually
reduced by exercise.

Highly trained athletes and lean individuals usually increase energy
intake in response to increased levels of exercise, whereas untrained
or obese individuals often do not change energy intake in response to
increased physical activity..

When regular participation in exercise is stopped, energy intake may
be reduced in humans. This reduction, however, is not enough to
prevent positive energy balance and regain of bodyweight and fat
previously lost during exercise training".[51]

So even if people do increase their caloric intake in response to
exercise, it will often be to a level that is below their overall caloric

Of course there are exceptions. Many of us can think of at least one
person we've met who was physically active, yet still carried excess
chub around their waist. The reason for this is no big mystery.
Despite their active lifestyle, these people were still taking in more
calories than they were burning off.

What this means is that - instead of pronouncing exercise useless for
losing weight - you must factor the calorie burn from exercise into
your overall daily calorie burn. That is, you need to make sure that
your exercise regimen is causing or contributing to a calorie deficit of
sufficient magnitude to induce weight loss. Section 2 of The Fat Loss
Bible explains exactly how to do this. Ìt's an approach that employs
common sense - a quality that is regrettably rare among high-profile
diet 'experts'.

One of the other guests that appeared alongside Taubes on Larry
King Live was Jillian Michaels, the famous trainer from The Biggest
Loser. After listening to Taubes' bizarre theories on exercise and
appetite, Michaels said "Gary, if you can show me -- Gary, if you can
show me one person you have taken 100 pounds off, then maybe we
can apply your theory."

Taubes was unable to cite one single such case, which was hardly
surprising. Taubes' beliefs can only be held by someone who has
absolutely no meaningful hands-on experience in training people.
Unlike Michaels - who has demonstrated the effectiveness of diet and
exercise for the world to see - Ì suspect Taubes has never trained a
single person in his life.

And that's one of the major problems with the MAD promoters. They
seem to have little-to-no practical experience in physically training
people and a sadly deficient knowledge of the relevant science.
Ìnstead, they are pre-occupied with novel but scientifically untenable
theories about diet, training and weight loss. As a result, we have
best-selling authors who, with straight faces, tell the world that
carbohydrates and not calories cause weight gain and that exercise is
useless for fat loss, who give weight loss advice relevant only to
rodents and advise athletes not to take carbs after training, a piece of
'wisdom' almost guaranteed to impair the training progress of any
serious exerciser.

What a big FAT load of bollocks.

72(.+3-,2( 72(.+3-,2( 72(.+3-,2( 72(.+3-,2(

Currently, the leading promoters of MAD include:

! A research duo (Richard Feinman and Eugene Fine) that
largely ignores metabolic ward studies and selectively cites a
small portion of studies, most yielding non-significant
differences, in support of the metabolic advantage theory. Ìn the
process, they ignore the numerous studies returning small but
non-significant results in favor of high-carb diets!

! A best-selling diet book author (Michael Eades) who earnestly
believes that free-living studies are more reliable than metabolic
ward studies, who thinks it's perfectly OK to mix and match
results from totally dissimilar studies in order to support his
preconceived conclusions, and who gives weight loss advice to
humans that is valid only for rodents.

! A journalist-come-diet 'expert' (Gary Taubes) who ÷ contrary to
the scientific evidence - claims that carbohydrates, not calories,
cause weight gain and that exercise does not assist weight

This, ladies and gentleman, is the current abysmally low standard of
scientific commentary that characterizes the upper echelons of the
metabolic advantage movement. One could almost be forgiven for
thinking these 'gurus' were engaged in a frenzied race to the bottom,
each competing with the other to see who can invent the most
ludicrous justifications for MAD. Alas, these individuals aren't joking;
the disturbing reality is that these folks seem to actually believe their
own musings.

They Get By With a LittIe HeIp From Their Friends

Before closing this discussion, Ì would be remiss not to give a special
mention to the legions of fanatical followers of MAD. These folks play
just as important a role as folks like Feinman and Fine, Eades, and
Taubes. After all, if they opened their minds a little and demanded a
much higher standard of evidence for MAD than they currently do, the
aforementioned 'experts' would find themselves with a rapidly
shrinking audience. MAD survives because people insist on being
gullible enough to believe it.

Even after thoroughly destroying every possible defense of MAD, Ì
still occasionally hear from someone who adamantly insists they can
eat more calories on a low-carb diet and lose more weight than when
following a lower-calorie high-carbohydrate diet. The scientific
literature may not support the existence of a metabolic advantage,
but these individuals nevertheless "know" that low-carb diets cause
greater weight loss at isocaloric and even higher (!) calorie intakes.

When Ì ask these individuals to send me the data from their local
metabolic ward confirming this astounding discovery, they reveal that
they never were confined to such a ward. Nope, they themselves
worked out their daily caloric intake, usually using the Fitday website.
Ìt should go without saying, but online nutrient calculators are a great
tool for estimating your daily calorie intake, but they are in no way to
be used as concrete statements of the amount of calories one is
eating. The potential for user error is wide. That's why Ì stress in The
Fat Loss Bible that online calorie calculations are estimates and may
require a little fine-tuning.

There is simply no way Ì'm going to take the totally unverifiable claims
of some (usually anonymous) web devotee of Atkins/Eades/et al and
give them credence over tightly controlled metabolic ward data. One
of the major reasons we have controlled clinical trials is to verify
anecdotal claims. When a bunch of folks adamantly insist they lose
more weight on an isocaloric low-carb diet, there is no way for the
rest of us to know whether or not they are mistaken, lying, or just
plain crazy.

That's why researchers put such claims to the test with tightly
controlled clinical studies. By randomizing subjects to different diets,
and ensuring as much as physically possible that they eat their
assigned isocaloric diets, we can see whether the claim is true. After
several decades of such trials, the answer is clear: there is no
metabolic advantage.

The MAD believers respond to this evidence by simply pushing their
heads deeper into the sand and attempting to fall back on the totally
unverifiable claims that controlled research has already destroyed!

As Robert Todd Carroll notes:

"For many people, the will to believe at times overrides the ability to
think critically about the evidence for and against a belief....Since by
definition those suffering from true-believer syndrome are irrationally
committed to their beliefs, there is no point in arguing with them.
Evidence and logical argument mean nothing to them. Such people
are incapable of being persuaded by evidence and argument that
their notions are in error."[52]

"One possible explanation for true-believer syndrome is that the belief
satisfies an emotional need that is stronger than the need for the
truth. Why some people have such a strong emotional need to
believe in something that rational people recognize as false is
perhaps unanswerable, but it is the way some people deal with
cognitive dissonance."[53]

This abdication of reason is exactly the kind that allows charismatic
'gurus' to cajole their followers into all manner of bizarre behavior
(cyanide-laced Kool Aid anyone?). All around the world, people
routinely pee on Ketostix, cut carbs to the point where they feel dizzy
and their breath stinks, eat exorbitantly-priced low-carb foods whose
labels sport misleading 'net carb' claims, and give themselves
'paralysis analysis' by needlessly fretting over grams of digestible
fiber and 'net' carbs (but not calories). Of course, none of this
tomfoolery even begins to address the real requirements of safe,
successful and lasting weight loss.

Whether hyped by popular diet book authors who make millions
convincing people they can evade the laws of nature, 'experienced'
researchers who publish extravagant presentations based on
selectively-cited research, or ignorant MAD believers who refuse to
consider that their cherished dogma may be wrong, the end result is
the same: Calories are king!

MAD is simply an exercise in wishful thinking. Ìf you want to get lean,
you are going to have to move beyond the fantasy-based musings of
ignorant dogmatists and employ the time-proven modalities that
science has already demonstrated to cause safe fat loss: namely,
sensible calorie restriction and intelligently organized exercise.
"5238 8:' "38:2) "5238 8:' "38:2) "5238 8:' "38:2) "5238 8:' "38:2)

Anthony Colpo is an independent researcher, physical conditioning
specialist, and author of the groundbreaking books The Fat Loss
Bible and The Great Cholesterol Con. Since 1991, he has been
helping people from all walks of life get in the best shape of their

Anthony has earned a reputation as an exacting, no-holds-barred
commentator with a talent for explaining research findings in a
manner readily understandable to the layperson.

Anthony is also the guy that unscrupulous diet 'gurus' and shoddy
scientists love to hate. He has a knack for dissecting untenable diet
and health claims and exposing, with unrepentant and unassailable
logic, the absurdity of such claims.

For more information on Anthony's acclaimed books, visit the
following web sites:

The Fat Loss Bible

The Great Cholesterol Con

J'6')'(.'- J'6')'(.'- J'6')'(.'- J'6')'(.'-

1. Atkins RC. Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution, Avon Books, 2002,
New York, NY: Page 18.

2. Feinman RD, Eugene J. Fine. Thermodynamics and Metabolic
Advantage of Weight Loss Diets. Metabolic Syndrome and
Related Disorders, 2003; 1 (3): 209-219.

3. Fine EJ, Feinman RD. Thermodynamics of weight loss diets.
Nutrition & Metabolism, Dec 8, 2004; 1 (1): 15.

4. Feinman RD, Fine EJ. Whatever happened to the second law
of thermodynamics? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
Nov, 2004; 80 (5): 1445-1446.

5. Feinman RD, Fine EJ. "A calorie is a calorie" violates the
second law of thermodynamics. Nutrition Journal, Jul 28, 2004;
3: 9.

6. Feinman RD, Fine EJ. Nonequilibrium thermodynamics and
energy efficiency in weight loss diets. Theoretical Biology &
Medical Modelling, Jul, 2007; 30; 4: 27.

7. Yang MU, et al. Metabolic effects of substituting carbohydrate
for protein in a low-calorie diet: a prolonged study in obese
patients. International Journal of Obesity, 1981; 5 (3): 231-236.

8. Rumpler WV, et al. Energy-intake restriction and diet-
composition effects on energy expenditure in men. American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Feb, 1991; 53 (2): 430-436.

9. Johnston CS, et al. Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no
metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate
diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, May, 2006; 83 (5):

10. Johnston CS, et al. High-protein, low-fat diets are
effective for weight loss and favorably alter biomarkers in
healthy adults. Journal of Nutrition, Mar, 2004; 134 (3): 586-

11. Torbay N, et al. High protein vs high carbohydrate
hypoenergetic diet in treatment of obese normoinsulinemic and
hyperinsulinemic subjects. Nutrition Research, May 2002; 22
(5): 587-598.

12. Meckling KA, et al. Comparison of a low-fat diet to a low-
carbohydrate diet on weight loss, body composition, and risk
factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease in free-living,
overweight men and women. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology
& Metabolism, Jun, 2004; 89 (6): 2717-2723.

13. Petersen M, et al. Randomized, multi-center trial of two
hypo-energetic diets in obese subjects: high- versus low-fat
content. International Journal of Obesity, Mar, 2006; 30 (3):

14. Email from Richard D. Feinman to author, Nov 26, 2005.

15. Eades MR, Eades MD. Protein Power: The High-
Protein/Low Carbohydrate Way to Lose Weight, Feel Fit, and
Boost Your Health-in Just Weeks! Bantam Books, New York,
NY, June 1999: 302.

16. Grey N, Kipnis DM. Effect of diet composition on the
hyperinsulinemia of obesity. New England Journal of Medicine,
Oct 7, 1971; 285 (15): 827-831.

17. Golay A, et al. Similar weight loss with low- or high-
carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Feb,
1996; 63 (2): 174-178.

18. Miyashita Y, et al. Beneficial effect of low carbohydrate in
low calorie diets on visceral fat reduction in type 2 diabetic
patients with obesity. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice,
Sep, 2004; 65 (3): 235-241.

19. Stimson RH, et al. Dietary Macronutrient Content Alters
Cortisol Metabolism Ìndependently of Body Weight Changes in
Obese Men. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism,
Rapid Electronic Publication first published on Sep 4, 2007 as
doi:doi:10.1210/jc.2007-0692. Available online:

20. Golay A, et al. Weight-Loss With Low or High
Carbohydrate Diet? International Journal of Obesity, 1996; 20
(12): 1067-1072.

21. Torbay N, et al. High protein vs high carbohydrate
hypoenergetic diet in treatment of obese normoinsulinemic and
hyperinsulinemic subjects. Nutrition Research, May 2002; 22
(5): 587-598. NOTE: This study featured hyperinsuliunemic and
normoinsulinemic groups. Normoinsulenimic subjects
experienced almost double the decrease in insulin when
following low-carb/high-protein diet - but no difference in weight
loss (there was a 600 gram statistically non-signifcant greater
weight loss on high-carb diet).

22. Noakes M, et al. Comparison of isocaloric very low
carbohydrate/high saturated fat and high carbohydrate/low
saturated fat diets on body composition and cardiovascular risk.
Nutrition & Metabolism, Jan 11, 2006; 3: 7.

23. Meckling KA, et al. Comparison of a low-fat diet to a low-
carbohydrate diet on weight loss, body composition, and risk
factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease in free-living,
overweight men and women. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology
& Metabolism, Jun, 2004; 89 (6): 2717-2723.

24. Eades' comparison of the Yudkin and Keys studies, and
his refusal to answer me personally, along with a host of
malevolent and fallacious comments about yours truly from
Eades and his followers (yawn...), can be found at: Eades M. Ìs
a calorie always a calorie? blog, Sep 11,
calorie-always-a-calorie/ (accessed Oct 31, 2007). Take careful
note that while there is plenty of speculation about my mental
and emotional states (both are perfectly robust, but thanks for
asking), no-one even begins to answer the actual questions Ì
have asked of Eades, least of all Eades himself (the one reader
who attempts to get Eades to address my criticisms meets with
little success).

25. Keys AJ, et al. Biology of Human Starvation. University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1950.

26. Stock AL, Yudkin J. Nutrient intake of subjects on low
carbohydrate diet used in treatment of obesity. American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Jul, 1970; 23 (7): 948-952.

27. Eades M. Metabolism and ketosis.
blog, May 22, 2007.
and-ketosis/ (accessed Nov 3, 2007).

28. Yudkin J, Carey M. The treatment of obesity by the "high
fat" diet: the inevitability of calories. Lancet, Oct 29, 1960; 2;

29. Eades M. Karl Popper, metabolic advantage and the
C57BL/6 mouse. blog, Sep 27, 2007.
Available online:
metabolic-advantage-and-the-c57bl6-mouse/ (accessed Oct 31,

30. Tounian P, et al. Weight loss and changes in energy
metabolism in massively obese adolescents. International
Journal of Obesity, Aug, 1999; 23 (8): 830-837.

31. Sothern, et al. Weight loss and growth velocity in obese
children after very low calorie diet, exercise, and behavior
modification. Acta Paediatrica, Sep, 2000; 89 (9): 1036-1043.

32. Williams CL, et al. Weight control among obese
adolescents: a pilot study. International Journal of Food
Sciences and Nutrition, May, 2007; 58 (3): 217-230.

33. Rolland-Cachera MF, et al. Massive obesity in
adolescents: dietary interventions and behaviours associated
with weight regain at 2 y follow-up. International Journal of
Obesity, Apr, 2004; 28 (4): 514-519.

34. Di Girolamo M, Rudman D. Species differences in
glucose metabolism and insulin responsiveness of adipose
tissue. American Journal of Physiology, Apr, 1966; 210: 721-

35. Hirsch J, Goldrick RB. Serial Studies on the Metabolism
of Human Adipose Tissue. Ì. Lipogenesis and Free Fatty Acid
Uptake and Release in Small Aspirated Samples of
Subcutaneous Fat. Journal of Clinical Investigation, Sep, 1964;
43 (9): 1776÷1792.

36. Brehm, et al. A randomized trial comparing a very low
carbohydrate diet and a calorie-restricted low fat diet on body
weight and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women.
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2003; 88 (4):

37. Eades M. Fisking Repovich and Peterson. blog, Mar 30, 2007.
repovich-and-peterson/ (accessed November 3, 2007).

38. Eades M. Learn why Anthony Colpo is MAD and get a
free book. blog, Nov 15, 2007.
anthony-colpo-is-mad-and-get-a-free-book/ (accessed
December 16, 2007).

39. The DCCT Research Group. Weight gain associated with
intensive therapy in the diabetes control and complications trial.
Diabetes Care, 1988; 11 (7): 567-573.

40. Phinney SD, et al. The human metabolic response to
chronic ketosis without caloric restriction: preservation of
submaximal exercise capability with reduced carbohydrate
oxidation. Metabolism, Aug, 1983; 32 (8): 769-776.

41. Colpo A. The Kimkins Diet Scam. The Fat Loss Bible
Blog, Nov 19, 2007.

42. Eades M. The votes are in: Dissect it is! blog, Nov 19, 2007.
are-in-dissect-it-is/ (accessed December 16, 2007).

43. See: Taubes G. What if it's all been a big FAT lie? New
York Times Magazine, July 7, 2002. A year before his NYT
article appeared, Taubes penned an article titled "The Soft
Science of Dietary Fat¨ (Taubes G. The Soft Science of Dietary
Fat. Science, Mar 30, 2001; 291: 2536-2545.). Taubes had
reportedly written the article after interviewing scores of
researchers and civil servants, poring through piles of
government reports and congressional transcripts, and studying
the scientific literature. The result was a damning exposé on the
behind-the-scenes political maneuvering that was instrumental
in winning widespread acceptance for the untenable cholesterol
theory of heart disease. Ì cited "The Soft Science of Dietary Fat¨
in my book The Great Cholesterol Con. Ì felt comfortable doing
so as the claims made in Taubes' article coincided with other
authors' accounts of the same events. Furthermore, to the best
of my knowledge no-one interviewed in the Science article has
ever come forward and complained that they had been
misquoted. The same cannot be said of Taubes' subsequent
"big FAT lie¨ article; several of the interviewees maintained that
Taubes placed their comments out of context:

44. United States Department of Agriculture. Nutrient Content
of the U.S. Food Supply, 1909-2000. Nov, 2004.

45. United States Department of Agriculture. A History of
American Agriculture: 1910.

46. U.S. Census Bureau. Occupations 2000. Aug 2003.

47. Cohen H. Author says cutting out carbs is all one need do
to lose weight. McClatchy Newspapers, Oct 22, 2007. (accessed
November 3, 2007).

48. Taubes G. The Scientist and the Stairmaster. New York
Magazine, September 2007. (accessed November 3,

49. Keim NL, et al. Energy expenditure and physical
performance in overweight women: response to training with
and without caloric restriction. Metabolism, Jun, 1990; 39 (6):

50. CNN Larry King Live. Are Fatty Foods Good For You?
Aired October 19, 2007. Transcript available at:ÌPTS/0710/19/lkl.01.html
(accessed November 3, 2007).

51. Titchenal CA. Exercise and food intake. What is the
relationship? Sports Medicine, Sep, 1988; 6 (3): 135-145.

52. Carroll RT. true-believer syndrome.

53. Carroll RT. Cognitive dissonance.