Anthony Colpo: a man obsessed

colpo.jpg

A few days ago I got an email through the Protein Power website from Anthony Colpo. I won’t reprint the email because I don’t reprint personal emails from others unless I have their permission, but let it be said that it wasn’t particularly kind. Or, I guess, let it be said that it was typical for Anthony Colpo. The email contained a link to Anthony’s $20,000 challenge to me.

Here is a pdf of the challenge: anthony-colpos-challenge-to-eades-and-his-mad-followers.pdf

The challenge had a low signal to noise ratio, probably about 3 percent. But without all the accompanying blather, the challenge boiled down to these three requirements for me to get Anthony’s 20 grand:

1. Show me 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. You must present conclusive proof that the metabolic ward studies I have cited in Table 1, Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible have been misreported, and in fact really show greater fat loss in the low-carbohydrate groups.

3. The evidence requested above must be presented on an internet web site readily viewable by the general public by Midnight, March 1, 2008, Australian EST.

This so-called ‘challenge’ is, of course, constructed in such a way that I can never collect the $20K. Here’s why.

The first requirement is no big deal. The problem, however, is that Anthony – who is the person who decides whether or not I satisfy the requirements – would find some bogus issue with any peer-reviewed study I come up with, although the challenge clearly states that the only requirement is that the study be peer-reviewed, conducted in a metabolic-ward setting and show a metabolic advantage.

The second requirement is the one set up to ensure Anthony doesn’t lose his money. I don’t disagree with the studies he cites in his ebook. I think the problem comes from Anthony’s misinterpretation of what those studies mean in the context of the metabolic advantage. But as for the studies themselves, they are what they are. The authors (I assume) reported their data truthfully. Since I can’t disprove the data from those specific studies, I can’t possible complete requirement #2. Which, I’m sure Anthony knows, and which made me believe that all this was simply a desperate ploy for publicity on his part.

Plus, I was beginning to think that maybe Anthony was obsessed with me. I couldn’t figure out if it was because I actually came back at him instead of ignoring him like everyone else does or if it’s simply a man crush kind of thing. But irrespective of the cause, he’s definitely obsessed. If you take a look at the actual challenge document you can see that he has really spent a huge amount of time and energy on this issue. As proof I offer this: buried somewhere in all the noise is a little section that starts like this:

The Eades’ emphasis on carbs and insulin instead of calories may explain the following less-than-flattering reviews of Protein Power:

[He then puts up links to a dozen or so negative reviews of Protein Power on Amazon.com]

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.

What I find amazing, and why I think he is obsessed is that there are 439 reviews of Protein Power on Amazon! I haven’t even read through them, yet Anthony found the time to go through them one by one (a tedious process to say the least – I tried going through about 30 just to see what it was like) and link to the few that were negative. Plus, he’s remembered and referred to every single less-than-flattering thing I’ve had to say about him in this blog and in the answers to all the comments on this blog. If that’s not obsessed, I don’t know what is.

So, I decided to email him back to see. And I wanted to see if the Anthony in private is the same Anthony one sees in his online persona. It’s hard to tell because he converted a private email into a public email. Since I don’t know Anthony other than through his online persona, I thought I would try to reach out and establish some sort of friendship. As I told him, I’m friends with a whole lot of people I don’t agree with about everything. I figured from some of the stuff I’ve read of his that he couldn’t find a publisher for The Great Cholesterol Con, and I offered to help. I even offered to help him get The Fat Loss Bible looked at by an agent. And I told him the real truth about the publishing industry. Why? Because Anthony’s books promote a low-calorie, low-carb way of life. And his books show the folly of the lipid hypothesis. Why wouldn’t I want these books in print with a legitimate publisher? Anything that furthers the message helps. As I told him, I would rather see the press full of reports about people arguing over which version of the low-carb diet is best and over whether or not low-carb diets have a metabolic advantage rather than as it is today where the press basically reports the low-carb diet (if it reports it at all) as a fad diet. My books don’t appeal to everyone as Anthony proved by digging out a dozen negative reviews from the 439 available. So if his book appeals and converts someone to the low-carb message that I can’t reach, I’m happy as a clam.

After I wrote it, I figured the email would put Anthony on the horns of a dilemma. After our very public feud, he would wonder, as would I were I in his shoes, why is this guy offering to help me? I also figured that he would suspect some kind of trap, one in which I make him a nice offer, he takes me up on it, then I publish our private email exchange to make him look bad. To put him at ease, I suggested that we keep our private emails between the two of us. I also figured that the lure of any publicity he thought he could get by posting my private email for all to read would be great, and that a request to keep our emails private would be a test to see whether I was right or not. Turns out I was on the money. He had the email posted as soon as he could crank out an answer to it.

I replied to his public email back to me, which he replied to and immediately posted. He went through my emails and commented specifically to them almost paragraph by paragraph, and I planned to do the same on this blog, but I decided that the emails kind of speak for themselves, so I’ve put them up below for all to read. You can come to your own conclusions.

I do want to make a couple of comments: one at the start and one at the end.

First, Anthony makes much of the fact that in a post a while back I took a couple of women to task for their idiotic statements. He seems to imply that I’m some kind of sexist or misogynous bully. I can assure you that I couldn’t have survived living for decades with one of the smartest people I’ve ever known if that were the case. Second, I treat women in a professional setting just like I would men, which, I think, is the way they want it. These women were trained professionals with advanced degrees who were making their statements in a public forum with the press in attendance. They were fair game. If I had treated them with kid gloves because they were women, I would be a sexist. I maybe went a little overboard in calling them ‘chicks’ but no more so than if they were males and I had called them ‘dudes.’ (Disclaimer: I did ask Richard Feinman about it, and he thought I went a little over the top with the ‘chick’ business, so I’ll avoid that in the future. But if professional women say stupid things, they need to be taken to task.)

The other comment I’ll make at the end of the emails when it will make a little more sense.

My email to Anthony:

Hey Anthony–

Thought I would drop you a note and give you an email address to write to me directly instead of through the Protein Power website. I often don’t get emails that come through the site for several days since I don’t take them down.

Your challenge intrigues me, but it is, of course, rigged in your favor. The second condition is one I can’t meet because I don’t think the studies listed in the FLB have been misreported by their authors. I think the data from those studies are what they are. What I believe is incorrect is your interpretation of that data, which has nothing to do with the #2 condition. So, I can’t possibly grab the twenty grand, because of the way you have the ‘challenge’ constructed.

Also, before I would ever engage in such an idiotic activity designed basically to generate publicity for you, you would have to put the $20,000 (which I doubt you have to give away should I triumph anyway) in an escrow account in advance so that it would really a) exist, and b) be available should I win. And we would have to agree on a panel of experts to make the determination as to whether I collect or not. Much though I like and trust you, I wouldn’t rely on your interpretation of my challenge to be the deciding factor as to whether or not you parted with said twenty grand.

Besides, I’m going to dissect the first chapter of the FLB for free. You won’t have to worry about paying the $20K. Your accusation that I’m resorting to the-dog-ate-my-homework excuse for not having posted it already is ludicrous, as you would know if you had any inkling of my schedule. Since we started this little spat I’ve been in a half dozen countries in two different continents and back and forth from coast to coast in the US a couple of times. Plus I’ve written a book proposal and gotten a book contract with a short deadline, which I’m working apace on. I’m involved in three different companies that require a lot of my time, and I post on my blog almost every day. I’ve had to quit answering comments on said blog because I’ve run out of time. So don’t think I haven’t dealt with our situation because I can’t. I simply haven’t had the time. I envy you the time you obviously have to write these long, repetitive pieces that you do. Which, by the way, have a high noise to signal ratio. You really need to work to sharpen your writing style.

Speaking of which, let me give you some advice. I don’t know you from Adam’s off ox, but I suspect that what you enjoy doing is researching (library researching; not bench researching) and writing. I do, too. I suspect you would like to be paid for the work you do, which, I suspect, is why you write it in books that you sell. I do, too. The difference between us is that I do make a good living from writing. The reason I do and you don’t is that I have credentials. That doesn’t mean that I’m smarter than you – it simply means that I have a bunch of merit badges that you don’t. These merit badges allow me to get published while your lack of merit badges hampers you. The sad truth about the publishing business (a truth that has taken me a long time to learn) is that to publishers the content of the book doesn’t matter a whit. Sad but true. What publishers look for is someone whom they can promote. And to publishers, the more merit badges one has the easier to promote.

If I were you (here comes the advice) I would put my Omnivore site back up start writing new material for it. This will give you a platform, which is the big word in publishing these days. When someone tells a publisher about a great book that someone has written, the publisher’s first question is: What’s his/her platform? Meaning does this person have a way to sell his/her book because, God knows, the publishers don’t have a clue as to how to sell it. Publishers seem to be in the book printing business, not the book selling business. And if they have an author who can sell his/her own book, the publishers are willing to pay an advance and buy the book. But no platform means no book contract.

You were well on your way to developing a pretty good platform with the Omnivore website. As you gain readers (who are often a pain in the rear and want all kinds of info free that you’ve worked hard to dig out – but that’s the price you have to pay) and the site grows in content, then you have a platform that publishers will pay attention to. And pay for. You will have a built-in readership that they figure they can sell books to.

And you’ve got to quit alienating everyone in the low-carb field. These are all people who can help you. I know Richard Feinman and Loren Cordain very well, and I consider both of them close friends. But I don’t agree with them on everything. In fact, I have the same disagreement with Loren over the saturated fat issue that you do, but he’s still a close friend. I didn’t know who you were until Feinman mentioned you to me. He told me you had written a pretty good book on the the cholesterol idiocy that all of academia was consumed with. He told me he would send me a copy. Before his copy had reached me, you sent me an online copy. At that time, Richard Feinman was an ally of yours; now he probably wouldn’t give you the time of day. You can (and should) disagree with people when you have a solid basis for disagreement, but you don’t have to do it so vituperatively so that it severs the relationship.

The disagreement you have with me is a case in point. I suspect we have much more in common than points on which we disagree. Arguing about the issue of the metabolic advantage is almost as ludicrous as arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We’re talking about a few hundred calories at most under specific circumstances. You’ve managed to convert what is at best a molehill into a giant mountain.

Don’t think for a minute that I’m trying to get you to back off because I’m not. I’m planning on destroying your argument and giving you no quarter. Your behavior demands nothing less. I’m simply encouraging you to think next time before you leap into such a chasm of idiocy over so minor an issue.

Having said that and despite your recent relentless public barrage of insulting and unfounded attacks on my integrity and upon me personally, I’m not one who holds a grudge (except where George Blackburn is concerned – he’s the exception), so while we go at each other publicly, I can maybe help you a little privately. In order to get a publishing contract you have got to have an agent. I can at least get an agent to look at your stuff. I don’t know how many copies of The Great Cholesterol Con you’ve sold, but the magic number seems to be around 10,000. In other words, if you sell 10,000 publishers will be interested. A friend of mine named Ray Audette self published a little book titled Neanderthin. I wrote the foreword for it. Ray is much like you – he has no credentials but he’s a smart guy and a good researcher and integrator of what he reads. He managed to sell about 10,000 copies on his own and ended up getting a nice advance from St. Martin’s Press for a hardcover version. There’s no reason you can’t do the same. You would have to be willing to change the title because of Kendrick’s book. Or you may be able to sell the FLB. I don’t know. But I can at least get a big time agent to look at the stuff.

Let me know.

Best–

Mike

P.S. I don’t have a problem with any of our published stuff (i.e., books, blogs, internet writings, idiotic challenges, etc.) to be fair game in our little spat, but let’s keep our email exchanges private. Thanks.

Anthony’s response:

Dear Michael,

thank you for your reply. I’ll be honest and admit that I’m not quite sure what to make of your email. I’m unsure whether this is your way of extending the olive branch, or simply a ploy to get me off your back, your assurances to the contrary notwithstanding. Given the recent animosity between us, I’m sure you’ll understand if I’m a little sceptical.

I must say that I am pleased that your email – for the most part – is absent of the slanderous ad hominem diatribe that has characterized every other attempt you have made to address my criticisms of your work. Unfortunately, your email is not completely free of derogatory innuendo.

Let me address your comments one by one:

“Your challenge intrigues me, but it is, of course, rigged in your favor. The second condition is one I can’t meet because I don’t think the studies listed in the FLB have been misreported by their authors. I think the data from those studies are what they are. What I believe is incorrect is your interpretation of that data, which has nothing to do with the #2 condition. So, I can’t possibly grab the twenty grand, because of the way you have the ‘challenge’ constructed.”

Your accusation that the study is “rigged” is untenable. I have made a number of clearly articulated requirements, and if you can meet those requirements I will donate US $20,000 to the registered, non-profit charity of your choice.

The requirements are not at all unreasonable. If the phenomenon of MAD exists in human beings, as you and other MAD proponents so enthusiastically insist, then you should have no problem presenting clinical trial evidence that supports this claim. If you cannot supply this evidence, then it merely confirms my insistence that you are making claims with no scientific basis.

MAD claims that human beings lose more fat-derived weight when consuming a low-carb diet than when consuming a higher-carb diet of identical calorie (isocaloric) content.

The only way to prove this contention is to take real live human beings – not rats or mice, but real live human beings – and conduct tightly controlled clinical trials to test the hypothesis. In these studies, volunteers would be fed isocaloric low-carb and high-carb diets, either in parallel group fashion or in crossover fashion.

The very nature of the hypothesis necessitates that these studies be conducted under ward conditions in order to ensure isocaloric intakes. Free-living studies, where food intake is totally uncontrolled and dietary misreporting is common could not even begin to be relied upon when isocaloric dietary intakes are a pivotal requirement for testing the hypothesis. You yourself have publicly acknowledged that “patients tend to underreport”.

So all I’m asking is that you provide the clinical research showing that MAD exists, which I don’t think is at all unreasonable. You make a claim, you provide the relevant evidence to back it up.

You admit you cannot meet requirement 2; actually, I think we both know you cannot meet requirement 1 either.

In Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible, I factually report the actual results of the metabolic ward studies shown in Table 1. When Joe Researcher compares isocaloric low-carb and high-carb diets and finds no statistically significant difference in weight or fat loss, and I write “Joe Researcher compared isocaloric low-carb and high-carb diets and found no statistically significant difference in weight or fat loss”, then I’m really not sure what part of my report constitutes “misreading” and “misinterpreting”. But hey, I’m all ears…

In the context of the challenge, requirement 2 is also not at all unreasonable. If you somehow manage to find a metabolic ward study supporting MAD, you must then explain why numerous other researchers have failed to replicate these findings. After all, a key requirement before clinical research findings can be accepted as valid is replication. If the findings repeatedly fail to be replicated under similar conditions by other groups of researchers, they can hardly be considered valid.

Over seven decades’ worth of metabolic ward trials have failed to demonstrate MAD. Did the researchers who conducted these studies misreport their results? You have just admitted that you cannot fault their data, which has completely failed to find evidence of greater fat-derived weight loss in individuals.

The bottom line is that I have simply asked for the human evidence that proves MAD, and you now acknowledge that you cannot furnish it.

“Also, before I would ever engage in such an idiotic activity designed basically to generate publicity for you, you would have to put the $20,000 (which I doubt you have to give away should I triumph anyway) in an escrow account in advance so that it would really a) exist, and b) be available should I win. And we would have to agree on a panel of experts to make the determination as to whether I collect or not. Much though I like and trust you, I wouldn’t rely on your interpretation of my challenge to be the deciding factor as to whether or not you parted with said twenty grand.”

Now, now, let’s not fall back on name-calling and innuendo.

You think the challenge is “idiotic”? I have defined 3 very clear, specific requirements. You meet those requirements, I will donate $20,000 to the charity of your choice, be it one that helps sick children, provides refuge for victims of domestic violence, nurtures abandoned babies, fights slavery, feeds starving refugees, or one of any other numerous worthy causes. What’s so “idiotic” about that?

As for the claim that it is a publicity stunt, as a successful marketer I think you know full well that there are much better ways to generate publicity for my book. The real reason that I am issuing this challenge is to show that, unlike you and the rest of the MAD propagators who have so vigorously attacked my honesty and character, I’m prepared to put my money where my mouth is. The challenge is simple and straightforward: MAD propagators insist that a weight loss metabolic advantage exists, and I’m asking them to prove it.

So please make your comments on the challenge factual and matter of fact. I’m not interested in your personal opinion of the challenge. Hey, I’m not expecting you to like it, as it is a challenge that you cannot meet and therefore casts you and your claims in a negative manner. All I want to know is whether you have the evidence required to win the challenge. You have just acknowledged that you don’t. That is what I really wanted to know; I could care less for name-calling.

You claim to like me and trust me (again, forgive me for being rather wary of this claim based on our past history), but in the same paragraph state that you doubt I have the money to hand over should you “triumph”. While I may not live the jet-setting lifestyle you boast of, after 40 years on this planet I have managed to accumulate a heck of a lot more than $20,000. I do indeed have the money required to meet the challenge, but as you have already acknowledged that you cannot meet the requirements of the challenge, I guess you won’t be seeing it anytime soon.

“Besides, I’m going to dissect the first chapter of the FLB for free. You won’t have to worry about paying the $20K.”

I was never worried about having to fork over the 20 grand. MAD is a sham that has been repeatedly contradicted by tightly controlled research. My goal is to alert others to this fact, and to do my bit get the weight loss arena back on track – i.e. to work on feasible and sustainable ways in which it can help overweight people achieve a calorie deficit. Feeding people a load of untenable hogwash about a non-existent weight loss metabolic advantage does not assist this aim.

“Your accusation that I’m resorting to the-dog-ate-my-homework excuse for not having posted it already is ludicrous, as you would know if you had any inkling of my schedule. Since we started this little spat I’ve been in a half dozen countries in two different continents and back and forth from coast to coast in the US a couple of times. Plus I’ve written a book proposal and gotten a book contract with a short deadline, which I’m working apace on. I’m involved in three different companies that require a lot of my time, and I post on my blog almost every day. I’ve had to quit answering comments on said blog because I’ve run out of time. So don’t think I haven’t dealt with our situation because I can’t. I simply haven’t had the time.”

As for the claim that you have not had time to finish your “exegesis”, this is what you wrote on November 19, 2007:

“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.”

Did you take all your international trips within the remainder of that week?

On December 9, almost 3 weeks later, you wrote:

“I’ve just had a lot going on lately and haven’t been able to give it the attention it needs.”

And then on January 12, 2008:

“The critique of The Fat Loss Bible proceeds apace. Problem is that it’s so easy to critique, but it takes a lot of space to do it. There is so much misinformation contained in the FLB it will take a blog post the size of Texas to refute it all. The book is so dreary, pompous and self-serving that any critique that takes it apart limb from limb will be kind of dreary as well. And every time I get ready to start putting all the stuff on paper (so to speak) something pops up that’s more immediate and requiring a shorter blog, so I opt for that and put Anthony off for another day. All my professional friends – who have stayed out of the fray – are encouraging me to forget it because it will look like piling on since at the core Anthony is really only an amateur. Why give some young, clueless prat the attention he craves? they all say. But I’m committed and I will eventually put up the critique.”

So over 6 weeks ago you claimed that you had already done the work and just needed to write it up, and that this would only take a few days. And now you’re claiming that it’s a whopping big job that requires a significant chunk of time to be set aside for completion.

As you have been so gracious to offer me free advice, let me return the favor. Here’s my first piece of advice:

Don’t make promises you can’t keep. If you don’t intend to write something, don’t promise it to your readers. If you do intend to write it, don’t promise to deliver it within a few days when it allegedly “will take a blog post the size of Texas to refute it all.” People can’t help but doubt your authenticity when, after several weeks, you fail to deliver something that you originally promised within a few days.

“I envy you the time you obviously have to write these long, repetitive pieces that you do.”

Actually, with a busy schedule that includes reading, researching, writing, training, consulting, and a host of other non-health-related commitments that I won’t divulge here because they are no-one else’s business, I don’t have a whole lot of spare time on my hands. So I likewise envy someone like you who has the time to go scouring through posts on both my own and other low-carb forums in search of quotes that can be used in a lengthy ad hominem diatribe against me, such as that which constituted your September 27 blog post. This post contributed no new scientific evidence to the debate whatsoever, it was simply an underhanded attempt to attack my persona.

On every occasion that I have answered your MAD claims throughout this “spat”, I have cited specific studies. You, on the other hand, initially made attempts to appeal to the scientific literature, but when I consistently demolished these attempts you appear to have become increasingly frustrated and angry. You eventually gave up citing the literature and relied solely on issuing personal insults at me. You claim a dire shortage of spare time, but you still have found plenty of time to keep up the mudslinging.

So here’s my second piece of advice to you:

If you cannot support your claims with valid scientific evidence, don’t abandon the scientific method and resort to slander and ad hominem attacks. It simply demonstrates that… you cannot support your claims with valid scientific and must therefore resort to slander and ad hominem attacks.

“Which, by the way, have a high noise to signal ratio. You really need to work to sharpen your writing style.”

OK, while we’re all in the mood for critiquing writing styles, let me offer my assessment of your writing style:

You have an exceedingly high slander to fact ratio.

As I stated above, I have consistently demolished each and every one of your MAD claims using specific references to the scientific literature. You, on the other hand, initially made attempts to cite supportive scientific literature, but when I consistently demolished these attempts you evidently became increasingly frustrated and angry and eventually gave up citing the literature and started relying solely on issuing personal insults.

While I was uncovering even more tightly controlled ward studies examining (and further disproving MAD) you were not citing any new evidence to bolster your case. Instead you and your readers were busy inferring that I was a mentally unstable steroid-abuser. Some of the choice terms you have used to describe me during our “spat” include “pipsqueak”, “snivelling dreck”, “a legend in his own mind”, “a pretty slippery fellow”, “pigheadedness”, “humorless”, and “young, clueless prat”. These are among the ones that I am aware of – no doubt there are plenty more, but unlike yourself I don’t have the time to go scouring through your blog archives for more examples.

After all this, you then have the temerity to accuse me of being vituperative! This, from the same guy who claims that: “There is far too little civility in today’s world, and I try to do my part to contribute. I’ve always believed in civility in my personal encounters and in my online encounters and try to stay true to my beliefs.”

And let’s not forget the repeated accusations of dishonesty/duplicity that you and your readers seem to be especially fond of issuing. BTW, would you or any of your followers like to prove this? Would any of you be prepared to place $20,000 in an “escrow account” and it hand it over if you cannot prove your claims that I have deliberately misled anyone on the MAD issue?

Don’t all jump at once now…

If we were to tally up the citation of actual scientific studies by yourself and I, and then the number of childish names and unfounded allegations, it would be no contest – your insult to fact ratio would be higher than mine by a massive margin.

I’ll be the first to admit that my initial open letter to you was hardly a textbook example of social nicety. But after 2 years of having my integrity repeatedly assailed by malicious Internet assholes simply because I have had the temerity to state the plain facts about MAD, and then reading your highly biased blog post of September 11, 2007 in which you claimed folks like me were fools, and then publicly stating that you thought I was wrong, well…you figure the rest out.

And you of all people are hardly in any position to be acting high and mighty about the issue of aggressively addressing the questionable claims of others. In fact, your conduct in this area clearly leaves much to be desired. Let’s consider the little matter of a March 30, 2007 blog post you write titled “Fisking Repovich and Peterson”:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/uncategorized/fisking-repovich-and-peterson/

Note the date – it was long before I posted my open letter to you.

Now let’s see, how does the “civil” Michael Eades choose to address a couple of female exercise physiologists who committed the heinous crime of presenting what they considered to be the “Top 10 Nutrition Myths” at an American College of Sports Medicine Summit?

Why, in a post that is clearly hostile and personal, he calls them “idiots”, condescendingly refers to them as “chicks”, and describes their work as “idiocy” and “breathtakingly stupid”!

Is this how you choose to promote “civility” in “your online encounters”? By acting like an uncouth bully towards a couple of relatively harmless female academics?

Did these ladies previously infer you were a “fool” and “wrong” for making valid claims, as you did to me? Did their demented followers repeatedly, publicly and wrongly insist that you were dishonest, as the MAD crowd have repeatedly claimed of me? Have they persisted in that claim even though you have provided evidence to prove them wrong? Did any of them come on your forum with the sole purpose of anatagonizing you, then have the temerity to ask you for training and diet advice? And when you justifiably told that person/s to stick their request where the sun doesn’t shine, did that person/s then proceed to turn into a deranged stalker, rejoining your forum under dozens of different usernames after repeatedly being banned, and making vile statements about your sexual habits…as has happened to me?

If not, then why did you feel the need to rip on these ladies in a post dripping with ridicule and hostility?

You have no qualms about associating with someone like Loren Cordain, who enthusiastically promotes the low-fat, anti-saturate, anti-cholesterol paradigm. He promotes this paradigm – which, by distracting people from the real cause of heart disease, has probably killed millions of people – in popular format books and numerous journal articles. That evidently doesn’t bother you, but you did feel the need to launch a most aggressive and rather chauvinistic attack on a couple of female exercise physiologists who presented a single and rather inconsequential presentation on low-fat sports nutrition at an ACSM meeting in Texas? Their contribution to furthering anti-saturated propaganda would completely pale in comparison that that of Cordain; mention the names Wendy Repovich and Janet Peterson and most people will draw a blank. You felt compelled to scorch them, but you are quite OK with the idea of taking beach holidays with Loren Cordain and his family?

You don’t see any contradiction or incongruence in that?

Here’s my third piece of advice:

People in glasshouses shouldn’t throw stones. Don’t treat others like crap and then complain when you are subsequently treated in the exact same manner.

And cut the ladies a little slack. I’m not sure what your true attitude towards women is, but if you do harbor any misogynistic tendencies I suggest you accept the fact that other women besides your own wife are involved in academic pursuits. And like your wife, I doubt these women would appreciate being called “stupid”, “idiots” and being condescendingly dismissed as “chicks” instead of their appropriate academic title.

“Speaking of which, let me give you some advice. I don’t know you from Adam’s off ox, but I suspect that what you enjoy doing is researching (library researching; not bench researching) and writing. I do, too. I suspect you would like to be paid for the work you do, which, I suspect, is why you write it in books that you sell. I do, too. The difference between us is that I do make a good living from writing. The reason I do and you don’t is that I have credentials. That doesn’t mean that I’m smarter than you – it simply means that I have a bunch of merit badges that you don’t. These merit badges allow me to get published while your lack of merit badges hampers you. The sad truth about the publishing business (a truth that has taken me a long time to learn) is that to publishers the content of the book doesn’t matter a whit. Sad but true. What publishers look for is someone whom they can promote. And to publishers, the more merit badges one has the easier to promote.”

Ah, it’s good to hear the plain truth straight from the horse’s mouth. I have commented publicly several times, big publishers couldn’t give a damn about the scientific credibility of what they publish, so long as it makes them money. As I have stated, fame and notoriety are far more important requirements for attracting the affections of publishers than honesty and meticulous research habits. When folks like Andrew Weil and Dr Phil McGraw, who clearly could use a little slimming advice themselves, score diet/health book publishing deals, but folks like Jamie Hale, Lyle McDonald and myself are forced to self-publish, well, I think that in itself speaks volumes.

Of course, as someone who was unsuccessful in attracting agency or publisher interest in my book The Great Cholesterol Con, many people may be tempted to erroneously dismiss my statements as the disgruntled whining of a spurned author. So it’s good to hear from a best-selling author who has no reason whatsoever to whine that publishers really don’t give a rat’s ass about the contents of the books they publish.

“If I were you (here comes the advice) I would put my Omnivore site back up start writing new material for it. This will give you a platform, which is the big word in publishing these days. When someone tells a publisher about a great book that someone has written, the publisher’s first question is: What’s his/her platform? Meaning does this person have a way to sell his/her book because, God knows, the publishers don’t have a clue as to how to sell it. Publishers seem to be in the book printing business, not the book selling business. And if they have an author who can sell his/her own book, the publishers are willing to pay an advance and buy the book. But no platform means no book contract.

You were well on your way to developing a pretty good platform with the Omnivore website. As you gain readers (who are often a pain in the rear and want all kinds of info free that you’ve worked hard to dig out – but that’s the price you have to pay) and the site grows in content, then you have a platform that publishers will pay attention to. And pay for. You will have a built-in readership that they figure they can sell books to.”

Make no mistake, TheOmnivore website is dead and buried. When I look back upon that website, the question I ask myself is not whether or not I should have shut it down, but what took me so long to do so. While that website did bring me in touch with some great folks (most notably Uffe Ravnskov, who I admire greatly) it also brought way too many screwballs into my world, and I like it much better now that most are gone (I say “most” as there still lurks the pungent odor of ketosis-breathed MAD fanatics).

Plus, to be quite honest, I’m a little over the whole cholesterol thing. Forgive my jaded attitude, but reading about the finer points of Apolipoprotein A or reading yet another so-called research paper that is actually nothing more than thinly disguised statin propaganda just doesn’t do it for me anymore. In fact, it downright bores me to tears. There are very capable folks like Uffe, Duane Graveline, and Malcolm Kendrick that still give a damn about that stuff, so I’ll leave the cholesterol fight to them.

Training, diet, performance, fitness, and matters of body composition are my main research interest, and are much more “fun” topics for me personally, so that is where my future writing efforts will be directed.

“And you’ve got to quit alienating everyone in the low-carb field. These are all people who can help you. I know Richard Feinman and Loren Cordain very well, and I consider both of them close friends. But I don’t agree with them on everything. In fact, I have the same disagreement with Loren over the saturated fat issue that you do, but he’s still a close friend. I didn’t know who you were until Feinman mentioned you to me. He told me you had written a pretty good book on the the cholesterol idiocy that all of academia was consumed with. He told me he would send me a copy. Before his copy had reached me, you sent me an online copy. At that time, Richard Feinman was an ally of yours; now he probably wouldn’t give you the time of day. You can (and should) disagree with people when you have a solid basis for disagreement, but you don’t have to do it so vituperatively so that it severs the relationship.”

Thanks for the advice, but let it be known that I am not into kissing up to people I have little regard for just because it might advance my writing career. I’m not joking when I say I have an extremely low regard for the “research” of Feinman and Fine. And if you can hang out with someone like Cordain, who enthusiastically promotes the scientifically untenable anti-cholesterol paradigm, more power to you. Personally, I couldn’t.

“The disagreement you have with me is a case in point. I suspect we have much more in common than points on which we disagree. Arguing about the issue of the metabolic advantage is almost as ludicrous as arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. We’re talking about a few hundred calories at most under specific circumstances. You’ve managed to convert what is at best a molehill into a giant mountain.”

Whoa, wait a minute! First your book Protein Power makes the astounding revelation that obesity is more closely related to carbs and insulin than calories. Then you unabashedly claim in a sensationalist post on your blog, complete with scary pictures, that following a low-carb diet instead of an isocaloric high-carb diet can mean the difference between losing weight and feeling great or becoming an emaciated, finger-chomping psychotic.

After I highlighted the folly of the aforementioned post, you then cited rodent studies, once again in a most exuberant manner, claiming they demonstrated a metabolic advantage”. When I destroyed that line of argument, you then began changing your tune: “Look, Colpo is making a mountain out of a molehill here, we’re only talking a few hundred calories a day difference.”

I don’t care how many calories per day difference you and folks like Feinman and Fine arrive at via your elaborate theorizing – the indisputable fact is that isocaloric low- and high-carb diets show no difference in weight loss that cannot be attributed to greater water/lean losses. Over seven decades’ worth of tightly controlled metabolic ward studies show this.

So my next piece of advice is:

Don’t make exuberant claims for a phenomenon that you can’t prove exists. When you later back pedal away from these exuberant claims and start issuing watered down qualifiers, don’t accuse others of making a mountain out of a molehill. If you really thought it were a molehill at the outset, you shouldn’t have come dressed as a mountaineer.

And let’s not forget the bigger issue: obesity. This is an alarmingly common problem with a wide array of potential adverse psychosocial and physical health effects. The problem has been steadily worsening over the last three decades, including the last decade in which low-carb diets rose and fell. Part of the reason for the bubble-like rise and fall in low-carb’s popularity was the unfulfilled promises made by many of its promoters. Namely, such claims as you can eat all you want and still lose weight because carbs and not calories are allegedly the true determinants of weight gain. The end result of such nonsense is that many people failed to lose weight because they did not create a calorie deficit, or they hit a plateau after that deficit was negated and could not understand why.

This is what happens when you feed people nonsense information. It distracts them from what they really need to do in order to achieve their goals. This is my beef with the cholesterol theory and with MAD. Neither heart disease nor obesity are “molehills” – they are both exceedingly common health problems that have a very real and harmful impact on the lives of millions of people around the world.

“Don’t think for a minute that I’m trying to get you to back off because I’m not. I’m planning on destroying your argument and giving you no quarter. Your behavior demands nothing less. I’m simply encouraging you to think next time before you leap into such a chasm of idiocy over so minor an issue.”

Knock yourself out. Just remember that I will destroy any attempted attack on my book by you just as decisively as I have destroyed all your previous failed attempts to rebut my contentions.

“Having said that and despite your recent relentless public barrage of insulting and unfounded attacks on my integrity and upon me personally, I’m not one who holds a grudge (except where [name edited] is concerned – he’s the exception), so while we go at each other publicly, I can maybe help you a little privately. In order to get a publishing contract you have got to have an agent. I can at least get an agent to look at your stuff. I don’t know how many copies of The Great Cholesterol Con you’ve sold, but the magic number seems to be around 10,000. In other words, if you sell 10,000 publishers will be interested. A friend of mine named Ray Audette self published a little book titled Neanderthin. I wrote the foreword for it. Ray is much like you – he has no credentials but he’s a smart guy and a good researcher and integrator of what he reads. He managed to sell about 10,000 copies on his own and ended up getting a nice advance from St. Martin’s Press for a hardcover version. There’s no reason you can’t do the same. You would have to be willing to change the title because of Kendrick’s book. Or you may be able to sell the FLB. I don’t know. But I can at least get a big time agent to look at the stuff.”

Now this is where I become really perplexed. First let me state that, if your offer is genuine, then you have my sincere gratitude.

But you mention the possibility of getting a book deal not only for The Great Cholesterol Con but also The Fat Loss Bible. The latter, remember, is the book you have publicly described as “dreary, pompous and self-serving ” and containing “so much misinformation [that] it will take a blog post the size of Texas to refute it all.”

You claim it is written by someone who “at the core…is really only an amateur”, a “young, clueless prat”. The same guy, remember, that you claim has “misinterpreted” and “misread” the results of dozens of key studies in chapter 1 of the same book.

To paraphrase Denzel Washington’s character in Philadelphia: “OK Mike, explain it to me like I’m a four-year-old”. Why on Earth you would ever want to assist in bringing a book to market if you truly believe it to be misleading, dreary, pompous and self-serving? If I truly felt that way about a book, I’d be doing the exact opposite – I’d be doing all I could to ensure that it did not make it to the mainstream market! I guess I’m one of these strange, old-fashioned people who doesn’t promote things he strongly disagrees with.

“P.S. I don’t have a problem with any of our published stuff (i.e., books, blogs, internet writings, idiotic challenges, etc.) to be fair game in our little spat, but let’s keep our email exchanges private. Thanks.”

I can’t believe you’re really asking this. We are having a very public dispute that is being keenly followed by thousands of people. I think we owe it to these folks to be perfectly upfront and transparent about the nature of our relationship and communications. I’m not prepared to conduct one style of interaction for public consumption involving you and I in “books, blogs, internet writings, idiotic challenges, etc”, but then another covert one in private. I think that’s rather dubious and misleading.

How would your readers feel if they knew you had made such a request? I guess you’ll soon find out, because I am going to publish your email and my reply on my website. Please be aware that I will do the same for any and all future communications on the MAD issue. If this is unacceptable to you, then I suggest you cease and desist in sending such emails.

Obviously, certain things are not fit to be shared with third parties. However, we’re not discussing confidential business, financial, or family matters, nor private health issues, nor your affair with that woman who works at the local Kinkos (just kidding Mary Dan!!!).

We are discussing a very public disagreement you and I have been having on the MAD issue, and I think we both owe it to our readers to be perfectly upfront and honest about the nature of that dispute at all times. I don’t see how keeping “our email exchanges private” in any way aids that goal. So like I said, I will be letting people know we have made contact. And I will do so by sharing our conversation in full – failure to do so would no doubt result in more of the usual malicious accusations of dishonesty and duplicity from the more slanderous members of your following.

I’m sure you’ll understand. If you had read the email exchanges that I used to publish on TheOmnivore, then you’ll already know that I value transparency.

Rest assured that I will not publish your private email address. Who you give that to is your business. I have also edited out the name of the researcher you state you have a grudge against, as I’m not sure whether you wish the extent of your disdain for him to be made public. And at any rate, he has nothing to do with the MAD issue (at least not to my knowledge).

Regards,

Anthony.

My second email back to Anthony in response:

Hey Anthony–

I’m sorry that you’ve disregarded my request to keep our emails between the two of us. I don’t want to engage in the MAD debate via email anyway, which wasn’t my purpose in emailing you. I will continue the debate on my own website.

I can see that there are a couple of basic differences between you and me. One is that I’m able to separate people from their beliefs and opinions. Both Loren Cordain and Richard Feinman are warm, friendly, generous, helpful people that I like and respect very much. The fact that their opinions differ from mine on a few issues doesn’t mean that I can’t enjoy their company. Many of my best friends have political views that are diametrically opposite of mine, yet we continue mutually beneficial friendships. If the only friends one has are those who agree with him 100 percent on every issue, it would – in my opinion – make for a very dull life. Which was the main reason I emailed you. Since I don’t really have a problem being friends, even with those whom I disagree with on many issues, I was simply reaching out to perhaps establish some sort of personal relationship outside of our public internet quarrel. I wasn’t offering an olive branch, nor was I trying to get you off my back. I was also throwing out a fleece to confirm my analysis of your intentions. I suspected this whole affair was not so much an ideological debate, but an effort on your part to generate publicity for yourself. Had you agreed to abide by my request to keep our correspondence between the two of us, it would have gone a long way to disabusing me of my suspicions as to your intent with all the folderol. But you played into my hands and rushed my letter sent to you into print on your website despite my request to keep it private. Not a gentlemanly thing to do, but given your proclivities, it was expected. And, as I say, it confirmed my suspicions.

As to the offer to help you with your publishing efforts, that offer was genuine. Still is. I stand by my critique of the writing style of the FLB, but it would be made better by an editor, as would TGCC. And I don’t really care whether the book disagrees with me or not. I’m comfortable enough with my own opinions and ego that I don’t mind competing books on the shelves. Despite my critique of the FLB, I suspect it will appeal to and help a subset of people who fall into two categories: a) those who would, for whatever reason, not read my own books, b) those who buy and read every weight loss book around, and c) those into hardcore body building. I’ve even said that Ornish’s books helped people if they do nothing else but initiate a change from the Standard American Diet, almost any deviation from which is bound to promote better health. Besides, the more books out there that promote some form of low-carb dieting, the more low-carb will make it into the mainstream. The world would be a much healthier place if all the arguments and niggling were over which particular low-carb diet works best or whether or not a metabolic advantage exists with low-carb dieting rather than over whether or not low-carb diets are fad diets.

The other reason I made the offer is that I genuinely admire autodidacts. I’m one myself. I didn’t learn 99 percent of the stuff I now know about nutrition in medical school – I’ve learned it on my own. Fortunately, I did go to medical school and post-graduate training and was in practice for a long time so I got to see what worked and what didn’t first hand by taking care of literally thousands of patients. All of which got me the merit badges I referred to in the last email. And which made it easier for publishers to buy my first book proposal, coming to them from a complete unknown. Had I submitted the very same proposal without having an MD degree and without having a large practice, it would never have sold.

In the publishing biz the toughest step is getting an agent because agents know how the game is played. They make their money only if a book gets sold to a publisher, and if an agents don’t think a book will sell for whatever reason, they’re not inclined to waste their time taking it on. But if an agent takes it on, the publishers all figure that the agent has done the diligence on the book and are willing to at least take a look at it.

I can get you a reading with a big time New York agent who has a host of bestselling authors under her belt. I can’t guarantee that said agent will take it on, and I can’t guarantee that if even if the agent takes it the book will sell to a publisher. But if the agent takes it your chances are much, much greater.

But let me tell you a tale of how the publishing business works that will give you pause.

When MD and I were filming our TV cooking show, we made it a habit after the long days of shooting to head to an Irish pub near our hotel and grab a cider to unwind. One night I happened to be sitting at the bar next to a guy who was working feverishly on some kind of document. I’m pretty much of a private, keep-to-myself kind of guy in these situations, so I just sat and drank my cider. The guy on the other side of him, however, struck up a conversation, asking him what he was working on so hard. The guy told him he had written a book and was working on the marketing plan for it. Of course, my ears perked up at that.

I asked the guy the question all people in the book biz ask: who is your publisher? He told me that he was self-publishing. As we talked on I found out that his book was a business book, and as he described it, it sounded like he had a pretty fresh take on a lot of business situations. I ended up liking the guy and, as I’ve done with you, offered to see if my agent would take a look at his book to see if maybe it would be salable to a mainstream publisher. I ran it by my agent who said, Sure, have him send it to me.

He sent it, the agent loved it, and proceeded to help him get it in shape to present to publishers. Typically the way the publishing process works is this: agents ‘do lunch’ with specific agents they think would be possible buyers. At lunch they briefly describe the book, and the editor always says Send me the proposal. The agent then sends out a dozen or so proposals to these wined and dined editors. And the agent puts a closing date on the ‘auction.’ Usually nothing much happens until the week or so before the closing date (typically, the closing date is a month or so after the proposals are sent out). A week before the agent starts getting bombarded with questions. And sometimes potential publishers even want to have a phone conference with the author. A couple of days before the closing date, editors who are not interested begin sending their letters saying they won’t be in the auction. On the closing date, the interested publishers send in their offers. The agent then takes the best one. Or, even better, if there are a couple that are the same, a bidding war can ensue.

In the case of the author of the business book, my agent started getting questions within a few days after sending off the proposals. Publishers loved the book – they thought the content was spectacular. Then they asked the dreaded question: What is the author’s platform? Meaning is he a big-time professor at a business school? Does he do seminars? Does he have Fortune 500 clients? In other words, can he help us sell this book? When told that he wasn’t any of the above, but that he was a small business turn-around consultant in a mid-sized midwestern city who happened to be a real smart guy who had figured out a bunch of good stuff, all interest evaporated.

This is the horror story of publishing right now. It hasn’t always been that way and it probably won’t always be that way. But that’s the way it is now. So if you have no platform, you get no book contract regardless of quality of the content. (These rules, of course, apply only to non-fiction. Fiction publishers are always on the lookout for fresh, new voices.) With non-fiction it is the author and the author’s platform that count, not the content. Which is why I recommend that you do something to get yourself a platform, which I thought you were well on your way to with the Omnivore site. If you’ve can confirm that you’ve sold at least 10,000 copies of either book, that will also give you a platform. Without some platform (a word I’ve really come to hate), though, other than just an angry guy who does a few interviews and trashes anyone who disagrees with him, I doubt that you have much of a chance with mainstream publishing. But that doesn’t mean you can’t give it a shot.

And, BTW, you totally misunderstood my criticism of #2 in your challenge. I didn’t write that I thought the studies were rigged, but that the #2 component of the challenge was rigged. But I’ll take that up on my own site.

Best–

Mike

P.S. How did you find out about the woman at Kinkos? :-)

And Anthony’s answer and, at his request, the end of the communication:

Dear Michael,

I’m sorry that you’ve disregarded my request to keep our emails between the two of us. I don’t want to engage in the MAD debate via email anyway, which wasn’t my purpose in emailing you. I will continue the debate on my own website.

Do as you please, but don’t pretend it’s a “debate” when you are not prepared to engage me directly. Personally, I think it reflects very poorly on you that you have never been prepared to debate the matter with me directly. Instead you rely on insults and absurd excursions in pseudo-science. All of which appears perfectly acceptable to many of your readers, who never get to see my answers.

I invited you to my forum to conduct a debate with the guarantee that no-one else would be allowed to participate, as I didn’t want any debate to degenerate into a slanging match between your followers and mine (and I demonstrated the authenticity of this promise when I promptly removed a post from a member of the forum who disregarded the request).

Now you have the opportunity to engage me directly via email, and you are refusing to do so. This is an opportunity for a 2-way debate on the matter that can be reprinted on both your website and mine, but you clearly are not up to it.

That’s fine, but I would have a lot more respect for you if you just admitted that you cannot defend your MAD nonsense, instead of hiding behind a cloak of feigned indignity and righteousness.

I can see that there are a couple of basic differences between you and me. One is that I’m able to separate people from their beliefs and opinions. Both Loren Cordain and Richard Feinman are warm, friendly, generous, helpful people that I like and respect very much. The fact that their opinions differ from mine on a few issues doesn’t mean that I can’t enjoy their company. Many of my best friends have political views that are diametrically opposite of mine, yet we continue mutually beneficial friendships. If the only friends one has are those who agree with him 100 percent on every issue, it would – in my opinion – make for a very dull life. Which was the main reason I emailed you. Since I don’t really have a problem being friends, even with those whom I disagree with on many issues, I was simply reaching out to perhaps establish some sort of personal relationship outside of our public internet quarrel. I wasn’t offering an olive branch, nor was I trying to get you off my back. I was also throwing out a fleece to confirm my analysis of your intentions. I suspected this whole affair was not so much an ideological debate, but an effort on your part to generate publicity for yourself. Had you agreed to abide by my request to keep our correspondence between the two of us, it would have gone a long way to disabusing me of my suspicions as to your intent with all the folderol. But you played into my hands and rushed my letter sent to you into print on your website despite my request to keep it private. Not a gentlemanly thing to do, but given your proclivities, it was expected. And, as I say, it confirmed my suspicions.

And your email once again confirmed my suspicions: that you are an individual who behaves in a most dubious manner. Don’t ever write to me again asking me to participate in actions that are patently misleading to my (and your) readers, using the prospect of a publishing deal as some sort of bait.

As for my “proclivities”, do you mean my proclivity for being perfectly upfront and honest in my dealings with others? The same proclivity that automatically led me to refuse your request to conduct a public charade, hiding the fact that we had established email contact? Am I supposed to be ashamed of that proclivity?

I’m not.

Do me a favor and spare me the piety. It is you that made the rather dubious request to hide our “private” conversations. I explained to you quite clearly that I can not in good conscience do this. But I guess you would need a conscience to understand that.

I didn’t fall into any “trap”. It is you that has been caught red-handed attempting to cajole me into joining you in duplicitous behavior. In my case, I just did what I’ve always done, and what I will always continue to do. If you had spent even a modicum of time reading the old TheOmnivore website (which your own comments would indicate is the case), you would know full well that I regularly reprinted the full email exchanges of critics and myself.

And if you truly have nothing to hide, then you have absolutely no reason to fear or object to my insistence on transparency.

As for the claim that I “rushed” to get your letter “into print”, I’m really not sure how taking two days to respond to and post your email constitutes a “rush”…

As for the world being a rather dull place if everyone agreed 100% on the same thing, I totally agree. I’ll happily tolerate disagreement with my mates about whether Hugi or Chris King make the best road bike hubs or whether Randy Couture could ever beat Fedor, but I wouldn’t even consider being “best friends” with someone who was a devoted adherent of, for example, communism or xenophobia. Nor would I ever consider being good friends with someone who enthusiastically promoted dietary or health paradigms that were unfounded, counterproductive, and even downright harmful. If you can maintain friendships with such people, good luck to you. Again, I cannot, and I’m not about to apologize to you or anyone else for that.

Believe it or not, some people tend to gravitate towards friends with similar interests and ideologies. Imagine that!

And you still have not explained why, if you believe it so important to be extraordinarily accommodating to those with conflicting viewpoints, you chose to act like an acidic chauvinist boor towards Wendy Repovich and Janet Peterson. Were you separating them from their beliefs and opinions when you called them “idiots” and belittled their academic status by referring to them as “chicks”?

I think you really need to take a moment to sit down and get it into your head that you are in no position to be getting high and mighty here. Like I said, people in glasshouses shouldn’t throw stones – the fact is that you yourself are guilty of the exact same things you accuse me of. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m no angel, but I’m not about to be lectured by someone who acts like an uncouth yobbo towards a couple of women whose only crime was to give a rather tepid and inconsequential presentation at an ACSM summit. Not a gentlemanly thing to do!

You are indeed correct when you state that there are a number of differences between you and I. One glaring example is that I am always ready to admit I’m no angel, while you flatly refuse to acknowledge and accept responsibility for your own behavior, which to date has been far from exemplary. You repeatedly avoid the issue of why you think it’s perfectly acceptable for you to refer to others with such endearing terms as “idiots”, “pipsqueak”, “snivelling dreck”, “a legend in his own mind”, “slippery”, “pigheadedness”, and “clueless prat”, but a major violation when someone unmercifully calls BS on your own untenable nonsense?

You can’t have it both ways mate. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and you are one extremely vituperative gander.

So again, spare me the piety – it’s nauseously hypocritical.

As to the offer to help you with your publishing efforts, that offer was genuine. Still is. I stand by my critique of the writing style of the FLB, but it would be made better by an editor, as would TGCC. And I don’t really care whether the book disagrees with me or not. I’m comfortable enough with my own opinions and ego that I don’t mind competing books on the shelves. Despite my critique of the FLB, I suspect it will appeal to and help a subset of people who fall into two categories: a) those who would, for whatever reason, not read my own books, b) those who buy and read every weight loss book around, and c) those into hardcore body building. I’ve even said that Ornish’s books helped people if they do nothing else but initiate a change from the Standard American Diet, almost any deviation from which is bound to promote better health. Besides, the more books out there that promote some form of low-carb dieting, the more low-carb will make it into the mainstream. The world would be a much healthier place if all the arguments and niggling were over which particular low-carb diet works best or whether or not a metabolic advantage exists with low-carb dieting rather than over whether or not low-carb diets are fad diets.

Do you, or do you not stand by your claim that The Fat Loss Bible is “dreary, pompous and self-serving ” and containing “so much misinformation [that] it will take a blog post the size of Texas to refute it all”?

Do you, or do you not stand by your claim that it is written by someone who “at the core…is really only an amateur”, a “young, clueless prat”. The same guy, remember, that you claim has “misinterpreted” and “misread” the results of dozens of key studies in chapter 1 of the same book.

Dreariness and pompousness can indeed easily be alleviated by editing; patently misleading information from an allegedly “amateur” and “clueless” author cannot. One of the underlying premises of the book is that calories, not carbohydrates, are the key determinant of weight loss. Chapter 1, which you claim is based on “misread” and “misinterpreted” studies, is pivotal in establishing the scientific basis for this stance – a stance that you vehemently oppose.

So again, please explain to me why someone who doesn’t read your own books, why someone who is a prolific diet book purchaser, or someone who is a serious bodybuilder (that’s three categories by the way, not two…) deserves to be subjected to a book that you claim is so blatantly misleading?

Do you hold some sort of grudge against these groups, one that inspires you to ensure they remain misinformed? Or is it that you actually think my book is fine, but you made your comments in a fit of anger, in an attempt to discredit me and attempt to scare people away from it? Or is your moral make-up truly structured in a manner that allows you to have no qualms assisting the publication of a book you so strongly believe to be misleading?

Again, if I truly thought a book was misleading and written by a clueless amateur, I would not in any way be acting to assist its publication.

As for helping low-carb diets crack the mainstream, I think I have made it perfectly clear that I believe one of the best ways to facilitate this goal is to ensure any claims made for low-carb diets are based on sound, valid scientific evidence. I truly don’t know how you could even begin to claim that MAD meets that requirement when decades of tightly controlled ward trials show that the whole MAD-weight loss concept is nonsense.

You keep trying to dismiss the argument over MAD as “niggling” and making “a mountain out of a molehill”, but you, Atkins and others were quite happy to let the MAD concept grow into a mountain, so long as your wealth and popularity grew in step.

What MAD does is distract a lot of people from the true requirement of a calorie deficit. Even you admit as much:

“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.”

So there it is – there’s no avoiding reality, even when you’re the patient of a best-selling diet author. Calories, not carbohydrates are the ultimate arbiter of weight loss. No calorie deficit, no weight loss. Period.

The other reason I made the offer is that I genuinely admire autodidacts. I’m one myself. I didn’t learn 99 percent of the stuff I now know about nutrition in medical school – I’ve learned it on my own. Fortunately, I did go to medical school and post-graduate training and was in practice for a long time so I got to see what worked and what didn’t first hand by taking care of literally thousands of patients. All of which got me the merit badges I referred to in the last email. And which made it easier for publishers to buy my first book proposal, coming to them from a complete unknown. Had I submitted the very same proposal without having an MD degree and without having a large practice, it would never have sold.

In the publishing biz the toughest step is getting an agent because agents know how the game is played. They make their money only if a book gets sold to a publisher, and if an agents don’t think a book will sell for whatever reason, they’re not inclined to waste their time taking it on. But if an agent takes it on, the publishers all figure that the agent has done the diligence on the book and are willing to at least take a look at it.

I can get you a reading with a big time New York agent who has a host of bestselling authors under her belt. I can’t guarantee that said agent will take it on, and I can’t guarantee that if even if the agent takes it the book will sell to a publisher. But if the agent takes it your chances are much, much greater.

But let me tell you a tale of how the publishing business works that will give you pause.

When MD and I were filming our TV cooking show, we made it a habit after the long days of shooting to head to an Irish pub near our hotel and grab a cider to unwind. One night I happened to be sitting at the bar next to a guy who was working feverishly on some kind of document. I’m pretty much of a private, keep-to-myself kind of guy in these situations, so I just sat and drank my cider. The guy on the other side of him, however, struck up a conversation, asking him what he was working on so hard. The guy told him he had written a book and was working on the marketing plan for it. Of course, my ears perked up at that.

I asked the guy the question all people in the book biz ask: who is your publisher? He told me that he was self-publishing. As we talked on I found out that his book was a business book, and as he described it, it sounded like he had a pretty fresh take on a lot of business situations. I ended up liking the guy and, as I’ve done with you, offered to see if my agent would take a look at his book to see if maybe it would be salable to a mainstream publisher. I ran it by my agent who said, Sure, have him send it to me.

He sent it, the agent loved it, and proceeded to help him get it in shape to present to publishers. Typically the way the publishing process works is this: agents ‘do lunch’ with specific agents they think would be possible buyers. At lunch they briefly describe the book, and the editor always says Send me the proposal. The agent then sends out a dozen or so proposals to these wined and dined editors. And the agent puts a closing date on the ‘auction.’ Usually nothing much happens until the week or so before the closing date (typically, the closing date is a month or so after the proposals are sent out). A week before the agent starts getting bombarded with questions. And sometimes potential publishers even want to have a phone conference with the author. A couple of days before the closing date, editors who are not interested begin sending their letters saying they won’t be in the auction. On the closing date, the interested publishers send in their offers. The agent then takes the best one. Or, even better, if there are a couple that are the same, a bidding war can ensue.

In the case of the author of the business book, my agent started getting questions within a few days after sending off the proposals. Publishers loved the book – they thought the content was spectacular. Then they asked the dreaded question: What is the author’s platform? Meaning is he a big-time professor at a business school? Does he do seminars? Does he have Fortune 500 clients? In other words, can he help us sell this book? When told that he wasn’t any of the above, but that he was a small business turn-around consultant in a mid-sized midwestern city who happened to be a real smart guy who had figured out a bunch of good stuff, all interest evaporated.

This is the horror story of publishing right now. It hasn’t always been that way and it probably won’t always be that way. But that’s the way it is now. So if you have no platform, you get no book contract regardless of quality of the content. (These rules, of course, apply only to non-fiction. Fiction publishers are always on the lookout for fresh, new voices.) With non-fiction it is the author and the author’s platform that count, not the content. Which is why I recommend that you do something to get yourself a platform, which I thought you were well on your way to with the Omnivore site. If you’ve can confirm that you’ve sold at least 10,000 copies of either book, that will also give you a platform. Without some platform (a word I’ve really come to hate), though, other than just an angry guy who does a few interviews and trashes anyone who disagrees with him, I doubt that you have much of a chance with mainstream publishing. But that doesn’t mean you can’t give it a shot.

Thanks for the tale, but let’s not waste any more of each other’s time. As I stated, TheOmnivore is dead and buried, and it will stay that way. If a big publisher feels that I am not famous or notorious enough, so be it. I guess I’ll just have to keep following the lead of folks like Leo Costa, who wrote a terrific best-selling training program without any help whatsoever from mainstream publishers.

So having said that, and if you are not prepared to debate the MAD issue via email, I really don’t see the point in any future email contact. It’s a bit rich for my liking to receive lectures about my alleged misbehavior from someone of advanced age (I assume you are at least in your 60s) who himself behaves like a spoilt tantrum-throwing brat when his arguments don’t hold sway, but then accuses me of doing the same; who happily acts like a hostile jerk towards a couple of female exercise physiologists, but then rabidly protests when I similarly highlight his own absurd claims; who pompously boasts about his superior level of civility but then proceeds to call me a “pipsqueek”, “prat”,”sniveling dreck”, “pigheaded” etc, etc, etc…

And, BTW, you totally misunderstood my criticism of #2 in your challenge. I didn’t write that I thought the studies were rigged, but that the #2 component of the challenge was rigged. But I’ll take that up on my own site.

Keep calling it “rigged” if it makes you feel better, but the bottom line is that you cannot prove MAD. That’s because MAD is garbage.

P.S. How did you find out about the woman at Kinkos? :-)

I’ve been seeing her younger and more attractive sister

There you have it. The emails speak for themselves. As I said earlier, you can draw your own conclusions.

I do want to clarify one thing, however, so that no one else gets the wrong idea. Anthony has seized on what I wrote about the book publishing world to make his case that mainstream publishers aren’t interested in the truth, but only in the name and/or reputation of the author. I think he may have misunderstood my point and I don’t want readers of this blog to misunderstand it as well.

Editors in the mainstream publishing world, who are the people who make the decision whether to buy books or not, are typically lit majors. They do not have the scientific qualifications to evaluate book proposals from people making scientific claims on the merits of the specific claims. They aren’t scientists. What editors have to rely on is the name, reputation and experience of the author to make a determination as to the merit of the book’s content. If you are an editor working for a major publisher in New York and you get a book proposal from a total no one (by that I mean someone with no credentials, no university affiliation, no advanced degree, no medical practice, no published papers) on the idea that the lipid hypothesis is bogus, are you going to rush it into print? Especially when you are inundated with book proposals from practicing physicians and scientists on a whole range of subjects. I doubt it. But if it came from a complete no one who had managed to sell 10,000 or so copies of a self-published version, that’s a different story. That means that this person has a following and has something to say. And now you’re interested. That’s what I mean about a platform.

Anthony’s take is that there is a conspiracy afoot to thwart him and all his friends out there (who by his definition all think exactly the same way he does) from spreading the true and complete gospel as known to them. They can’t imagine that there could be another reason that they’re not published.

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

112 thoughts on “Anthony Colpo: a man obsessed

  1. I love your response regarding Kinkos…

    I took a peek at this earlier today after searching for what the hoopla was supposed to be about re: AC, and I really couldn’t stomache reading the whole thing. I think you took the high road in your reaching out, but unfortunately it was effort seemingly wasted.

    The metabolic advantage idea is intriguing, but in the context of having to deal with AC I’m not that interested. Your research into topics is thorough, and you have a gift for being able to explain/translate the ideas into something more understandable to the average person, but to include AC’s ramblings on any topic are like fingernails on a chalkboard.

    If you can/will cover the metabolic advantage without AC, it would be far more understandable, interesting, and enjoyable. Let him keep his $20K; maybe he can use it as a down payment for a personality transplant.

    That was the very charity I would have donated it to.

  2. Oy. I couldn’t stand to read the emails. FWIW, I’m current at 75 pounds based on PPLP, and consider it one of the most thoughtful and academically honest books I’ve ever read. It’s rare that the authors of health & nutrition books make clear which of their statements are supported by evidence, and which constitute opinion. I’ve read Colpo’s “Cholesterol Con”, and while it contains a lot of good information, he definitely fails to distinguish the science from the opinion.

    You’ve become Colpo’s hobby. If you want him to go away, try asking him a question he can’t answer, like the precise biochemical mechanisms (hormones, chemical reactions, cellular behavior, etc.) by which calories get stored as fat, regardless of the macronutrient content. Said details of how carbohydrates promote fat storage appear to be well-documented, but every time I ask this question of the “calorie-is-a-calorie” crowd, I only get deafening silence.

  3. Just want to say that Amazon let’s you look at reviews by sorting on the number of stars awarded. Colpo wouldn’t have to read all 400+ reviews to find the disgruntled, he would merely have to click on the one-star reviews.

    I didn’t know that.

  4. Yikes! Now I’m no sissy when it comes to reading (I’m on my second time through Good Calories, Bad Calories), but even I had to start skimming through the drivel. I have had the distinct displeasure to deal with a similar individual in my own life, and they can’t live without the thrill of the attention that this kind of grandstanding creates. I have found through personal experience that the only good response to this kind of individual is no response at all. You will never convince him by any reasonable or rational argument, so don’t waste your energy. Put that energy instead into more posts that help those of us that understand the truth educate more of the people we love.

  5. I’d say man crush and an unstable personality have combined into…SUPER STALKER!

    And now he doesn’t want to play anymore. No more email exchanges! He’ll just throw a fit in his corner of the sandbox.

  6. Whew! What a read.
    Sounds like he would get some benefit from reading Gary Taubes’ book “Good Calories Bad Calories”. But then again he would probably say that the research was bogus.
    Doesn’t sound like you will ever deflate his ego. Possibly the more you try the bigger he inflates.

  7. People who live in glass houses
    Should pull the blinds
    Before removing their trousers.

    —- the late, great Spike Milligan

    Jeeze, THAT was a marathon and a half!

    All the Best,

    Michael Richards

  8. I agree with whomever suggested that you not continue to dignify Colpo’s puerile blathering with any response. You can stay above it (and him) with no response at all.

  9. I’ve only been reading your blog for a couple of days, and I had never heard of AC before reading this post. So I’m not a follower of either of you.

    There’s hot-headedness and name-calling from both sides. However, if we cut out all the rambling from that .pdf there remains a fair point (in my view): Does the weight of evidence available support Metabolic Advantage or not?

    Would conceding this point invalidate your low-carb approach? I’ve only read Dr Cordain’s book, not yours, and he goes for the same theory (I think he calls it Thermic Effect) but it seems to me that defending this position is taking more time than it’s worth. I would say “let it go”.

    However, if you’re up for more bouts, then my assessment would be that there was no “knockout” in this one, and a few low blows were thrown by both fighters, but AC – obsessed or not – probably won on points (just).

    You’re right in that the metabolic advantage isn’t that big a deal – maybe a few hundred calories at most under the right circumstances. Colpo has taken the position that it is a much bigger deal than anyone else thinks it is. And he doesn’t understand the thermodynamics involved so it is difficult to have a sane conversation with him.

  10. Lordy don’t waste yr time on this stuff Sir.
    If he’s a nutter it’ll be fairly obvious to all if not sundry…if it isn’t already.

    Accordingly i suggest stilletos or handbags at dawn then ?

    I shall wear my best pink frock and knickers and referee.

    The caveat being one canny scratrch at the eyes, alright ?

    And finally big fooking woop about his axial thrust.
    If thats his only gripe in life he’s assuredly ‘blessed’ but rest assured anyone that tarred-up about such a small thing (as Hazel O Connor incidentally said about Midge Ure ..verbatim ‘the main drawback was that there wasn’t much to drawback’) is not in some biopsych nirvanic state(not that any such thing exists;believe me i’ve met so called enlightened monks and Brothers)

    Bless him in other words..he needs our compassion

    And remember these 3 nonsensical words when loong and complicated emails take hold of yr fevered brow ‘Rock Not Pop’

    Phew……

  11. I’ve never heard of this Colpo guy until this post. I admit I’m a little confused as to why you’re spending so much time on him, and trying to help him out, but nevermind. I think that his posting your personal correspondence was both amateurish and rude, although his justification that it’s “for the people” is almost delicious enough to warrant reading his pages of tedious justification. What a remarkable ethicist is this man. A regular Christ figure, really.

    In any case, I’m writing to add my voice to the others who’ve expressed confusion on this very issue: once and for all I’d like to know that if two people eat isocaloric diets, and one eats 20 grams of carbs, and one eats 200, what will happen? I know that in my own experience, if I eat low carb then the weight comes off, with no conscious attention paid to caloric restriction. What I don’t know is if eating low carb is [unconsciously] modulating my total caloric intake. Or if the results are different depending on where caloric intake falls wrt metabolic requirements. What happens if one eats a surplus of 1000 calories on low carb vs. “standard American diet?” What happens at homeostasis under both conditions? What happens in caloric deficit? To my understanding – which is, regrettably, uninformed in terms of actual chemistry – there’s no reason results under these various boundary conditions need be the same, but it would be nice to have conclusive references to support this intuition.

    Presumably answers to some of this will be forthcoming, since it seems at least a subset lies at the heart of your present dispute. Your final response will be doubly interesting, since both of you are claiming to be able to “demolish” the other one, a claim made more fascinating since the armament is peer-reviewed science. How can you both believe yourselves capable of proving either side of a concrete and quantifiable question? And I’m easy – animal results are fine with me; if one is arguing from the point of thermodynamic laws, as I gather Colpo is, then rats are just as bound as people.

    I do hope you eventually publish this critique you describe. And, in general, I should add that I very much enjoy your posts.

    Hi Shane–

    If you don’t know about the spat between Colpo and me, you must be new to this blog. If you type ‘colpo’ into the search function you can read all about it – if you care to. At least you’ll learn the genesis of the quarrel. Basically, I wrote a post, which I admitted was not comparing apples to apples, but was simply a demonstration of an effect. One of the commenters on said post wrote something along the lines of: Anthony Colpo beliefs are along other lines on this subject. I answered the commenter by saying: Anthony Colpo is a smart guy, but on this issue I think he’s wrong. That was it. That inspired an open letter, an online book bashing me (and others who believe the same way), and an idiotic online challenge.

    Despite your being ‘uninformed in terms of actual chemistry,’ you’ve shown yourself to be much more informed than Colpo and the Colprolites in terms of actual thermodynamics. If a metabolic advantage exists it should be able to be shown in lab animals that truly can be studied in metabolic ward conditions. I’m not a big believer in animal studies as surrogates for human studies in most cases, because animals aren’t just furry little humans. They lack certain enzymes that we have or they have certain enzymes that we don’t or they make the same enzymes in different quantities or they are more or less susceptible to cancer, etc. But, the laws of thermodynamics apply to them the same as they do to us, which is something Colpo really understand. In fact, based on his rantings, I’m sure he doesn’t have a clue.

    I posted on this issue a few months ago, discussing not only the metabolic advantage but the reason Colpo’s ideas can be so easily refuted.

    Cheers–

    MRE

  12. It’s probably easier for him to believe that no-one is buying his books and/or ideas because no-one will publish it, than it is to find out no-one wants to buy them because they think he’s an unpleasant person, his facts are wrong and he’s a poor writer to boot.

    If he’s not where he wants to be, it’s because he’s not prepared to do what it takes to get there …which in this case sounds like swallowing some humble pie. It’s sad really, when people undermine themselves. If his writing sucks, he needs to accept some criticism. “Don’t protect … correct”!

    Even if it *is* a good book that (by his claims) will save lives …no-one’s going to get to read it because it’s not out there. His ego is (if he’s right) literally killing people!

    Hey John–

    He’s never going to face the truth about his writing skills when he gets posts on his site like this one:

    Hey AC, first of all this is something I have always felt, should have told you before and I’m telling you know: You have, IMHO, a superb, second to none and rarely matched command of the english language. Reading your prose mesmerizes me. And your funny interjections are classical.

    I didn’t say this before because I did not want to sound sycophantic but in view of the doctor’s attacks I had to say it.

    Keep up the excellent work!

    And this about a guy who writes ‘between you and I’ and uses ‘infers’ when he means ‘implies’… Yeesh. And from a person who has as a footer on all his/her posts containing
    the following quote allegedly from John Wayne: “Life is tough, but it’s a lot tougher if you’re stupid.”

    Cheers–

    MRE

  13. He sounds pretty obsessed and not quite rational. Now may be the time to move on to other things. You can’t change a closed mind or even have a logical argument.

  14. Since we know he reads your comments, and since I am one of the many who’ve been banned from his Jerry-Springerish forum, I hope you don’t mind if I address him directly here?

    Hey Anthony, I’ll give you $20,000 right now if you can prove to me that 911 was an inside job (something you go on and on about on your forum). If you’re really all about objective science, and only drawing conclusions supported by solid, irrefutable science, then that shouldn’t be a problem, now should it? of course, you have to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, my doubt in particular.

    Also, Mr. Adhomnivore, I’ll give you another $20,000 if you can prove to me beyond a shadow of my doubt that HIT training is as worthless as you’ve claimed, and that high volume training is so superior. (You wouldn’t know it from the very few pictures out there of your own results) Of course, once again, this shouldn’t be hard for a guy who only takes positions supported by hard objective irrefutable science, now should it?

  15. Enough with Colpo, already. He’s tedious and irritating and has nothing to say that hasn’t been said better and more humanely by dozens of others. There’s nothing there but a barking lunatic.

  16. Dr Mike-why are you wasting your valuable time on this attentioin seeker? Just ignore him and he will go away, it is beneath your dignity and intelligence to bother with him. Please concentrate on your new book, I want my waistline back. Also, please discuss vitamin D3, I am concerned about my dosage. Thanks.

  17. I haven’t read the whole thing, it was too long.

    The truth is that I can eat 4000+ calories a day for many days without gaining any weight, as long as its basically no-carb. Eating so much increases my body temperature a lot; when I eat all of these calories in the evening, I sweat a lot during the night. There’s the metabolic advantage: faster metabolism, no fat storage in absence of a big insulin response.

    I doubt one could eat 4000 calories of carb-laden food in a few hours for a week or two and not gain many pounds out of it.

    By the way, I don’t have any special activity that would make my daily caloric expenditure very high.

    On the other hand, I can also eat very little and lose very little weight (because I don’t have much fat to lose). Easier on the wallet, but eating is fun sometimes when you’re bored.

    Hey Max–

    I hate to have to tell you this, but according to Anthony, you’re lying through your teeth when you say you can eat 4000+ kcal for days without gaining weight. In his opinion, if you can eat 4000+ kcal of no carb foods for days and not gain weight, then you could eat the same number of kcal as pure starch and not gain weight over the same time period. Care to give it a try?

    If you did try and found that you gained on the carbs but not on the fat-protein combo, he would say that you underreported the kcal on the fat-protein, because he has ‘proven’ that there is no metabolic advantage to eating a diet low in carbohydrates. Therefore, if you find different, your experiment was flawed (a favorite word of Colpo and the Colprolites to discount anything that doesn’t fit with their bias).

    Cheers–

    MRE

  18. Dr. Eades

    Anthony Colpo follows a diet lower in carbs because it is good for cardiovascular health. This is his main point. They have a powerful satiating quality and this results in less calories taken in. He acknowldges they work well usually because fo this quality. They do NOT work though when people consume far toooo many calories. (gorging on meat, eggs, or any other low carb food with significant CALORIES)

    This is Anthony Colpo’s whole point and he is absolutely correct.

    Animals, vegetarian, omnivore or carnivore- all will get fat if they consume toooo much energy. (calories)

    Razwell

    Thanks for the insight.

  19. AC cites ME:
    “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.”

    AC writes:
    So there it is – there’s no avoiding reality, even when you’re the patient of a best-selling diet author. Calories, not carbohydrates are the ultimate arbiter of weight loss. No calorie deficit, no weight loss. Period.

    —–

    If AC accepts that what the Eades’s patients are saying to them is true – ie they eat more calories than they need to maintain their weight on a strictly arithmetic calculation but they dont gain – then is he not accepting evidence of metabolic advantage?

    His next point – that to LOSE weight one must create a calorie deficit I do agree with, at least from my own personal experience. I lost weight and now I have plateaued, BUT I am not gaining more weight despite eating quite a lot of calories. I know that to lose more weight I will have to eat less (aw) but the fact that the body can be tricked into not storing excess calories as fat gives me hope that weight maintainance might be possible… this time…. :-)

    Regards to all,
    Hooch

    I agree with you and Anthony about a caloric deficit being required for weight loss. One has to create a caloric deficit to lose weight. The inviolable laws of thermodynamics imply as much. But that doesn’t mean a metabolic advantage doesn’t exist. It can require a reduction of fewer calories on a low-carb diet to get into a caloric deficit than on a higher-carb diet. In other words, one might have to cut to 1700 kcal on a high-carb diet to start losing weight whereas that same one might have to only cut to 2000 kcal to begin losing weight on a low-carb diet. This 300 kcal difference is the metabolic advantage conferred by the low-carb diet. It might be 300 kcal for some, 100 kcal for others.

    Cheers–

    MRE

  20. I’m still on AC’s mailing list and I got his email a couple of days ago. I was astonished he would be so rude as to publish a friendly private email on his website. What was really funny about the reply he made to you was that he was clearly not actually replying to you but to all of his so-called ‘detractors’ (you know, all those low carb folks who are personally out to get him cos they don’t have anything better to do with their lives). I kinda zoned out there in the middle a bit when he used his reply to you as an excuse to get on his soap box and rant about theomnivore.com.

    Speaking as a woman, I think AC is being a big macho chauvanist about the post you made about the female exercise physiologists. ‘Ladies’ as AC calls them, do not need to be ‘cut slack’ because they are female, they need judging with the same standard as men. I don’t think the language in that post stands out from any of your other debunkings, he’s just picked up on it because he can twist it to make you look bad, that’s why he has to mention it every time he talks about you.

    If, as Diane suggests, AC only read the one-star reviews of your book on Amazon, it would indicate a self-selecting bias in his reporting. Hardly a ‘controlled’ or ‘balanced’ approach to the evidence! So either he’s obsessed or he’s biased, it doesn’t look good either way!

    Regardless of my opinion on metabolic advantage, I used to be a fan of AC. I’m not anymore, his crazy, obsessive, internet-stalker behaviour in recent months has put me right off him. So has his diet guru behaviour on his forums where he seems to ban anyone who disagrees with him. There’s nothing I hate worse than a bad internet diet guru! He’s really becoming an embarrassment to the low-carb community because he’s coming across as nuts. I’m sure he’s got some kind of biochemical imbalance going on.

    This obsession of his with MAD: the lady doth protest too much, methinks! He’s really staked his whole reputation on it by making such a big deal out of it. I don’t think he will ever accept any contrary evidence because it’s now so central to maintaining his ego.

    Hi Emma–

    I agree with you. I’m going to provide the contrary evidence, which he will certainly disagree with. I’m sure that in his mind any carefully-controlled, metabolic-ward studies that do show a metabolic advantage will be deemed ‘flawed’ because they do show a metabolic advantage, and, after all, he’s proven one doesn’t exist, so any study showing one has to be flawed, right?

    Cheers–

    MRE

  21. You can’t win by stooping to his level. Arguing back and forth only makes you both look bad. Giving him the time of day only encourages him and gives him credibility. Plus, this post on your blog is likely to give his website traffic which is what he’s after. I say just write him off. Perhaps your “mad followers” will defend you in your absence.

    Probably sound advice.

  22. I agree with everyone here. Ignore the guy. It’s not worth your time.

    But, I have to ask. A couple comments up, you used the phrase “Colpo and the Colprolites.” It made me think of the word “corprolites.” Was that intentional?

    I must admit that I laughed out loud when I read this reference! “Corprolite” is a noun meaning a stony mass consisting of fossilized fecal matter of animals.

    Hey Kathy–

    The word is ‘coprolite’ and, yes, it was intentional. When the Colprolites eat up AC’s every word as gospel, they are indulging in colprophagia.

    Cheers–

    MRE

  23. A few observations that indicate the existence of a metabolic advantage and effects other than caloric intake on weight gain.

    First, after following a very low carb diet with IF for about a year and with little effort and little hunger I dropped to the same weight I was at in my early 20s. I have stayed within this weight range going up and down only a pound or so. However, during a recent period of high emotional stress I quickly gained about 7 pounds without significantly increasing my food intake or my eating pattern. This could be due to increased Cortisol levels.

    Second, it has been know for years that adding hormones and/or antibiotics to animal feeds will result in significant weight gain in livestock. In addition, it will also result in changes in the type of fat. It is also well established that feeding livestock corn instead of allowing them to graze freely on range grass will also result in a rapid weight gain.

    I presume that AC would explain the above effects by stating that the livestock simply ingested more calories. I do not know whether this is indeed the case. But numerous studies exist that clearly show the effects of adding hormones and antibiotics to livestock feeds which many times over offset their cost in terms of the resulting dollar increase due to weight gain.

    It appears that the cattle industry knows that AC is peddling a load of bull.

    For AC to believe it the cattle would have to be studied in a metabolic ward. And if they were and a metabolic advantage were proven, he would say: that’s just in cattle; it doesn’t prove anything about people. I know this because such studies have been done with lab animals and a significant metabolic advantage has been demonstrated. His denigration of this research because it wasn’t done on humans shows his woeful lack of understanding of the laws of thermodynamics.

    Cheers–

    MRE

  24. In Colpo’s defense, I’m glad to see he’s learning to control his urge to use the Caps Lock key. So maybe you are making a difference.

    Also glad to see your responses to comments creeping back into this and other posts.

    I guess it does prove that he is educable to a certain extent.

    I hate to see my responses creeping back in. I’ve got to quit.

  25. What an amazing soap-opera. So glad I get to watch from the sidelines. I don’t think you should engage Mr. Colpo again (I don’t believe he is an MD or DO); as he’s already decided that he is right, you are wrong, end of story. It’s similar to those physicians who still worship at the shrine of Ancel Keys–ignoring the data and studies that have been published since. (In peer reviewed journals, natch.)

    He has a massive chip on his shoulder against the establishment. Perhaps he didn’t get into medical school, perhaps it derives from some other thing. He wants to prove you, the doctor, wrong. He discounts Andrew Weill as well who established one of the first complementary medicine programs at an academic institution in this country. Once again, he has some weird need to “beat” the real doctors. He can’t accept that you agree more than you disagree.

    Disengage. Disengage.

    Peace.
    KK

    Probably excellent advice.

  26. I agree completely with Emma although I am still on his mailing list just to see what he’s up to.

    I must add that AC could be doing a lot of good for a lot of people if he would concentrate on discrediting those forces that are contributing to human suffering: big pharma, Neal Barnard, Dean Ornish, that Brody woman, that Michael Fumagate wierdo, etc. Instead, he is wasting his time on petty feuds with you and others in the low-carb camp. We all know that low-carb works for everyone and can alleviate a lot of human misery. Let it go already and concentrate on the real enemies.

    My point precisely in offering to help him get his book published.

    Cheers–

    MRE

  27. MRE writes in a comment: “I hate to have to tell you this, but according to Anthony, you’re lying through your teeth when you say you can eat 4000+ kcal for days without gaining weight. In his opinion, if you can eat 4000+ kcal of no carb foods for days and not gain weight, then you could eat the same number of kcal as pure starch and not gain weight over the same time period.”

    This is not a correct statement of AC’s views. He doesn’t contend that people will necessarily gain weight with a calorie surplus; he contends that they will not lose weight (absent a metabolic defect such as diabetes).

    MRE further writes in a comment: “I’m going to provide the contrary evidence, which he will certainly disagree with. I’m sure that in his mind any carefully-controlled, metabolic-ward studies that do show a metabolic advantage will be deemed ‘flawed’ because they do show a metabolic advantage, and, after all, he’s proven one doesn’t exist, so any study showing one has to be flawed, right?”

    Possibly. There’s only one way to find out. You’ve mentioned several times, including in this blog post, that identifying such a study would be no big deal. So why not do so?

    You can appropriately accuse AC of many things — rudeness, etc. — but I don’t think it’s fair to accuse him of being prone to disregard peer-reviewed studies he doesn’t like unless you can actually point to an example.

    You wrote:

    This is not a correct statement of AC’s views. He doesn’t contend that people will necessarily gain weight with a calorie surplus; he contends that they will not lose weight (absent a metabolic defect such as diabetes).

    Unless you’re Anthony Colpo in disguise I don’t think you are correct on this. He has attacked me numerous times (including in the email exchange) over saying MD and I found this phenomenon often in our own patients.

    Cheers–

    MRE

  28. While this stuff is morbidly fascinating to me, I would urge you to take some of the other advice here and drop it. It’s a waste of your time, and a waste of our time (since it’s kind of like a gruesome highway accident that you can’t take your eyes off of even though you know you shouldn’t be rubbernecking! lol). Seriously, if it’s possible why not drop the whole thing. Don’t read his website/forum either. It’s all ranting and raving from someone who has a very strong opinion and cannot think in any flexible way about anything. You will never win an argument with him, and even if you “prove” you are right and he isn’t, he will still deny it as will his adherents. Mike I highly admire your published works and much of your blog posts, but these long exchanges I don’t find worth much other than as sensationalism. I realize you may feel compelled to post something because he posted this exchange on his site and so you feel you have to inform your readers and make your own (at least minimal) commentary, but please let that be the end of it.

    Certainly I’m not saying if you have something valuable to say about the metabolic advantage or metabolic ward studies, by all means write about it, but let’s leave AC out of it. Not only does it distract from the discussion, but it provides him with more publicity. I happen to think that’s negative publicity that can only hurt low-carb in the long run, since he is still perceived as a low-carb adherent in many ways. Some may consider any publicity, even negative publicity, good, but I think it will be detrimental, and aside from this it takes away precious time from learning more about what matters – the science and what works and what doesn’t work and why in regards to health and weight loss. Spending so much mental energy on viewing these clash of personalities doesn’t do anything except, I guess, to entertain us in a morbid way, as I said.

    Those of us who prefer to listen to reason and cannot wade through all the noise that AC puts out will always look to you for your opinions. I don’t think you will win any of AC’s adherents from him by having any more “dialog.” And I also believe that the vast majority of people would rather listen to civil discourse than to attacks, and thus they will regard you much more seriously whatever your “merit badges” are. Still, while Anthony throws out insults a million times more than you do, I would endeavor to resist name-calling when the urge does occur. It’s enormously tempting to call someone an idiot, but it’s so much more constructive to say they are simply say they are “completely off base” or something that’s not quite as personally (or professionally) insulting…

    Excellent advice. But my fightin’ genes just get the best of me when I’m attacked by such a twit (sorry, I meant by such a well-meaning, but obviously off-based individual) as Colpo. I’ll try to suppress the urge in the future. But you’ll have to admit that I did reach out in an effort to establish some sort of a more friendly dialog.

    Cheers–

    MRE

  29. There are two things upsetting about all of this:

    One, I wouldn’t accept advice from someone that obviously uses illegal testosterone injection. (Look at AC’s neck.)

    Two, I feel bad that you had to be in the middle of “roid rage”. It’s not normal for anyone to have that type of uncontrollable anger.

    If I were you I would get a hold of his telephone number—I don’t think it’s legal to replay, or even record, phone conversations—and contact him that way instead of email. But on the other hand it looks like his “eicosanoids” are a little off balance and you may be better off to leave him be. It’s too bad that you even respond to his nonsense. Some people just can’t use their energy for anything good; maybe he has rich parents…

    I don’t have any information or evidence whatsoever that AC takes steroids. A number of people have postulated such on this site, and I haven’t disabused them of the notion because they may have information that I don’t. This kind of anger does seem out of the ordinary, but there are a lot of people who go around pissed off all the time who don’t use steroids. (I’ve worked for a few of them in the past.) So, until I get reliable information (which, BTW, I’m not seeking, because I really don’t care) that AC uses steroids, I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt.

    Cheers–

    MRE

  30. I’m fairly new to your blog, so I don’t know who this guy Colpo is. And after reading the first few paragraphs of this post, then barely skimming through the rest of the post, I already can’t bear to read anymore about him, whether written by you or him.

    I do enjoy your nutrition and health posts though.

    Keep coming back. The posts on Colpo are few. If you put ‘colpo’ in the search function, you’ll find a few, which you can then disregard, leaving you with about a thousand you can read through that don’t mention Colpo.

    Cheers–

    MRE

  31. Ignoring Colpo, I think I can explain the problem with “chicks.” It’s dismissive of women on the basis of being women, instead of on the basis of being idiots. It’s like an ad-hominen attack in a single word. “Dudes” isn’t dismissive in the same way; it’s casual, but it’s not sex-specific. I remember the post vaguely because of the “chicks” commentary, and thinking it was offensive and sexist, and wasn’t that unusual for Dr. Mike?

    This does not mean I think that you are offensive and sexist. Just that you said something dumb because people were irritating you.

    Anyhow, I hope that was a helpful explanation and not a humorless feminist rant.

    Your criticism is accepted graciously. I erred and I apologize. And I didn’t take your explanation as a humorless feminist rant – it was on the mark.

    I offer no excuses other than that I myself didn’t feel the term derogatory to women. And MD read it and didn’t complain, so I didn’t think twice about it.

    I’m actually glad AC called me on it, because I won’t make the mistake again. I don’t like to gratuitously offend people.

    Best–

    MRE

  32. My favorite bloggers for health and fitness are Mike Eades, Art DeVany, and Mark Sisson. Colpo isn’t in the same league. I’d echo others in urging you to waste no more time with him.

  33. LOL… Good lord he is obsessed and his behavior is incredibly weird! Particularly that creepy picture he added to “challenge”. Feels like a tacky tv show.

    He seems to be consumed by the need to be right, and even more by the need for you to admit that he is right (Childhood issues? Desperate need for approval?). Just sad. Actually sad and creepy yet somehow entertaining.

    Isn’t he the guy who admitted he did not bother to read Gary Taubes’s book and then proceeded to bash it in a “review”. I don’t know how anyone can trust the opinion of a person who reviews a book he did not read.

  34. MRE writes, in addressing my previous comment: “Unless you’re Anthony Colpo in disguise I don’t think you are correct on this. He has attacked me numerous times (including in the email exchange) over saying MD and I found this phenomenon often in our own patients.”

    I was going by his statement in the $20K challenge you linked to. He writes: “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. I 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.”

    Yes, but if a person would normally gain weight on a 4000 kcal high carb diet and NOT gain weight on 4000 kcal low-carb diet, then that proves a metabolic advantage. Let’s assume a person gains 1/4 lb per day on a 4000 kcal high-carb diet and gains no weight on a 4000 kcal low-carb diet (a situation I’ve seen many times – at least the part about the no-gain 4000 kcal low-carb diet), which would mean that the low-carb diet provided a metabolic advantage of 875 kcal (3500/4). If the low-carb diet does provide this metabolic advantage at 4000 kcal, would it necessarily stop there? Why wouldn’t it hold at 3500 kcal, 3000 kcal and right on down?

    I think you’re misinterpreting what AC is saying. Or, conversely, AC believes in the metabolic advantage under certain circumstances.

    Cheers–

    MRE

  35. I don’t think our adhomnivore pal is on the ‘roids, simply because he isn’t very big. Based on the small handful of his pics on the net, he is very lean, but his actual musculature is only average.

  36. I’m very new in reading up on how I can improve my health, lose some weight and change my lifestyle. While searching on the internet for information I stumbled upon a lot of “dear Friend” websites, a one column website with a lot of teasing stories and referrals of “happy customers” It all ends up on the bottom with the same result; “Pay here to receive my e-book”.
    A similar website as AC has so it was gone in one click, I never want to be involved into those shady websites just put up for the money. And here I am sucked into a story I did not want.
    Please drop this whole bickering its like two spoiled kids who try to get their way and want to be right. This will never end, please focus on people who like to read information on how to do a lifestyle change, start a diet, use nutritional supplements and have a happy healthy life.
    Getting into a negative stream will harm your reputation and only give you stress. You know stress is bad for your health do you?

  37. Narcissistic personality psychosis. Borderline Personality psychosis. ‘Roid rage. He’s a guy who is driven mad by his own irrelevance, but doesn’t have the discipline (or drive to help others) that would get him the medical degree or the bona fides (in Taubes’ case) he would need to be taken seriously.

    I couldn’t do more than skim this column either. Here’s hoping it’s the last of the Colpo posts.

  38. Every time I hit your site and that AC photo comes up I want to draw Groucho Marx glasses and mustache over it. That’s all I have to say on that subject.

    A request: When you’re done with the Vit D thing could you please please please write something about CoQ10? :) I haven’t been able to talk my father off of statins completely (he did say he quit the Vytorin after reading your post about the Enhance study – and that is HUGE for him to make an independent medical decision) but I did talk him into taking CoQ10 in the hope that it might help with his tremors and muscle pain, but the stuff is expensive and I’d like to know more about it. The information I’ve been able to find on the net is pretty scanty.

    BTW I have been pestering the employees of the tanning salon I go to for more info about the spectrum of their bulbs. No results yet.

    Lark

  39. OMG Dr. Mike

    If I could edit video as fast as you can type in your blog material, the documentary would be finished!!!

    Best to you and MD… & best with the new book too.

    CJ

  40. I mentioned the use of hormones as growth promoters in livestock as suggesting the existence of a metabolic advantage. One thing I did not mention is that studies of the effects of various growth promoting hormones have shown significant variances in weight gain between different hormones. Since the objective of this research was to identify the greatest profit gain associated with the use of hormones it is safe to assume that livestock that showed greater weight gain on a hormone did not consume more calories than livestock on a different hormone that showed less weight gain. If this were the case any economic advantage would have been reduced or even nullified.

    One thing successful businesspeople are good at is math. And the math associated with hormones used as growth promoters in livestock strongly supports the concept of a metabolic advantage which translates into greater profits. This advantage would not be compelling if any increase in weight gain resulted purely from an increase in caloric intake due to hormones stimulating appetite. If this were the case hormones would never have achieved the widespread use they have.

    You know this is true and I know it’s true. But for AC it’s all underreporting, or it doesn’t count because it’s animals, or whatever.

    Cheers–

    MRE

  41. “simply a man crush kind of thing”

    I almost fell off the chair when I read this! LOL

    I don’t know it might be true….you are kinda cute!!

    Personally, I believe in a metabolic advantage, simply because it’s true for me. I’ve been following low carb and average 1600-1800 cals/day and have lost 75 # now (Thanks to you and Dr A). On low fat, however, I stuck to 1000 or less and either maintained or gained. Unless I underestimated by more than 50%, that shows an advantage. But, advantage or not LC is a great way to eat!.

    I’m with the others, just drop it and ignore the guy. Don’t know what the guy’s problem is, nor do I care. I just want to see you putting your effort in posting about articles and studies, and giving us easy to understand explanations about health and diet related subjects. I came on here today hoping you’d post on the news about the diabetes study being halted. While this is a good read (like someone said, such a soap opera!) it’s not what I’d like to be reading.

  42. Oops! Good catch on the typos. I’ve been a tech writer for about 30 years, and have never been able to rise above typos!

    On another note, the commenter Razell wrote:

    “They do NOT work though when people consume far toooo many calories. (gorging on meat, eggs, or any other low carb food with significant CALORIES). This is Anthony Colpo’s whole point and he is absolutely correct. Animals, vegetarian, omnivore or carnivore- all will get fat if they consume toooo much energy. (calories)”

    Not quite. I know of one person, anyway, who for 30 days ate upwards of 4,000 calories each and every day and didn’t gain a pound. Of course, he ate only meat and fat, no carbs at all (other than the “natural” carbs in cream, eggs, and cheese). Also, he did no exercise at all.

    Here’s the link to his record: http://magicbus.myfreeforum.org/about846.html

    To summarize, during the 30 days of the test, he overconsumed 48,659 calories. At 2,200 calories per day times 30 days, that’s 66,000 calories that his body would have required (based on standard metabolic charts). He actually consumed 114,659 calories. That’s a difference of 48,659 calories. 48,659 divided by 3,500 is 13.9. So, he should have gained 13.9 pounds, or thereabouts. He gained not one pound.

    Won’t work for AC. If the guy isn’t in a metabolic ward, he’s got to be underreporting. Even if he meticulously records every calorie that goes in his mouth, it’s all anecdotal as far as our friend AC is concerned.

    Cheers–

    MRE

  43. I personally have never looked at your books as “diet books” but rather as health books, and so for me the most relevant thing since I have been following the low carb-higher protein lifestyle is the increased health that has resulted. Oh, it’s nice that I’ve dropped a size, I’m not ignoring that, something that never happened during the three years on weight watchers or the year on south beach. But more importantly, my joints don’t hurt, I have more energy, I don’t fall asleep at work in the afternoon any more, and in general I feel better than I have in years. So, yes all the stuff about metabolic advantage is important, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that people who follow the plan outlined in your book will be healthier and will feel better. To me that is the most important thing of all, and, oh yeah, the weight loss is a nice side effect.

    All the best to you!

    Felicia

  44. Oh dear God…

    I do not understand someone who has to turn every minor quibble into a full-out debate. Existence of a differing opinion is not an open door to (yet another) another fight. Who stole this kid’s lunch money in school to turn him into such an antagonistic ass? Ego the size of Australia and yet so fragile it would amaze Dale Chihuly.

    Anne

  45. Mike, I would like to see you do that post on the metabolic advantage once and for all.
    BTW I don’t think chicks is rude or sexist!

    I don’t guess the Dixie Chicks do either. But if some do, why offend them needlessly?

    Cheers–

    MRE

  46. Owing such a great debt to “Protein Power” in 1999 after reading the book, I embarked on a LC Lifestyle that changed my life, improved my health, body and mind.

    I owe Dr Eades multiple gratitudes yet, and bear with me, I am perplexed why it has taken Dr Eades this long to answer Colpos challenge , which feels like at least 4 months ago. Can that be?

    I do believe in DR Eades, however not meeting the assertations of Colpo after promising to do so leaves me…………..perplexed.

    When you see the answer, you’ll understand.

  47. The advice you gave him in your initial letter, about maintaining his omnivore site was right on th money. I was a regular reader of his omnivore site, and had a very high opinion of him. I thought of him as a sort of selfless and unappreciated crusader, a sort of spiderman of the low-carb world. Although his “straight out of my mailbox” columns where he published correspondence between him and his detractors were starting to get a little disturbing. His responses were abrasive in the extreme and often out of proportion. Then he published his book and disappointed that we didn’t all immediately rush out to order it (I had planned to), he took his toys and went home. I found that reaction strange, to say the least. He was obviously shooting himself in the foot. Even though I know nothing of publishing, it was obvious to me that his website could only contribute to his sales. Closing it down it down in a fit of pique did not reflect well, to say the least. Turning it into a big sleazy advertising for his book was worse. I decided to hold off buying his book. Nothing happened after that to change my rapidly deteriorating opinion of him.

    Anyway, my point is that this behavior is nothing new, and you are far from his first target. This is just the continuation of a pattern that all his long-time readers have noticed. Except that, in the past, he would usually terminate the series of exchange with some comment to the effect “I don’t have any more time to waste on this buffoon”, after he was satisfied that he sufficiently crushed his “detractor”. Of course it’s easy to have the last word when you’re publishing the content of a conversation on your own website. In this case, you have your own very successful website, and it’s not so easy. Also, you have proven to be a tougher nut than what he’s accustomed to. So this thing has escalated, and escalated. However this will never be resolved amicably, because that would require some sort of rationality, and his behavior is completely irrational, and not for the first time. In my corner of the world there is an expression “Il ne faut jamais contredire un fou” which translated means “don’t contradict a madman”. And while I wouldn’t say that AC is a complete nutcase (yet), I think that most people would agree that he has “issues”.

    PS, here is another good expression for you. Don’t feed the troll.

    Hi Angelyne–

    You wrote:

    my point is that this behavior is nothing new, and you are far from his first target. This is just the continuation of a pattern that all his long-time readers have noticed. Except that, in the past, he would usually terminate the series of exchange with some comment to the effect “I don’t have any more time to waste on this buffoon”, after he was satisfied that he sufficiently crushed his “detractor”.

    This is precisely the reason I didn’t want to rise to the bait and debate him on his website. Plus, I’ve heard from others that AC edits their responses, leaves out the parts he (AC) can’t deal with or the parts in which AC’s arguments are crushed, then goes after the edited watered-down response, then bans them from the site with the “I don’t have any more time to waste on this buffoon” statement.

    I wasn’t about to play that game. Nor do I want to drive traffic to his website, which is clearly his rationale for all this. Those who do go there find that all the commentary is by the same half dozen or so Colporites who hang on AC’s every word. Those that don’t, don’t hang on his website very long.

    Cheers–

    MRE

  48. Folks i feel compelled to say this….the man Colpo seems like a knob-head (thats a techincal term that many of you might not be familiar with!) but as the old African aphorism succinctly says ‘Don’t let a fool make a fool of you’ and i can’t help but think that ‘WE’RE’ doing this.

    Nuff said..my five penneth

  49. I hope you still plan the dissection. I’ve been waiting breathlessly for it!

    By the way, if you need someone to take over some of that globe-trotting to give you a little more time for that post, drop me a line. :)

    You’ll be the first one I call.

  50. Doc-

    I’ll throw my hat in with the seeming consensus that you should be the obvious better man and just walk away. Hitting your head against a wall a few times doesn’t hurt much, but doing it again and again will cause some real damage. Colpo is an obvious neophyte in the realm of science, or should I say in the realm of applicable science. Heaven forbid he just looks at the cold hard facts: you have applied clinical experience that what you promulgate is successful, not just in a handful of people, but in a large population. He hasn’t been doing his “experiment” long enough to make any significant conclusions against your results. The first thing he needs to get into his head is that science doesn’t PROVE anything, it sets out to disprove a theory. Any third grade science textbook communicates that clearly. That being said, what you have done is change lives, so good on you, now throw your energy that you are wasting on Colpo back into spreading your message to others! By continuing to give him attention you are feeding the beast. I sit in the unfortunate seat where, if he continues to get air time on your blog, that I will be forced to look elsewhere (Robb Wolf’s blog gives a good shout out to you on occasion) for intellectual discussion of nutrition and science. Don’t fall in with the misinformed monkeys that drag down the smart one reaching for the bananas(for those of you who are interested, google that psychology experiment).

    And I’m spent….

    Thanks for the feedback.

  51. Kathy writes: “I know of one person, anyway, who for 30 days ate upwards of 4,000 calories each and every day and didn’t gain a pound. Of course, he ate only meat and fat, no carbs at all (other than the “natural” carbs in cream, eggs, and cheese). Also, he did no exercise at all.

    Here’s the link to his record: http://magicbus.myfreeforum.org/about846.html

    AC has discussed this precise experiment because Dean from magicbus linked to it on AC’s forum. AC’s response was basically, even if it’s true, what does the failure to gain weight on a ketogenic diet have to do with differential rates of weight loss on ketogenic versus non-ketogenic diets (of similar calorie deficits)?

    BTW, I think the experiment done by Dean et al. is fascinating.

  52. Your response to this guy speaks volumes about you. Up to now, I’ve been VERY impressed with you, with your web site, with your responsiveness to your readers’ concerns. But suddenly – and sadly – you seem bogus.

  53. I apologize for my previous comment. It was unwarranted. I AM disappointed that you would devote so much time to such a jerk. And I wonder why. But I’m still very grateful for your site and the effort you give to maintaining it.

    No problem.

  54. yep, enough with him. I agree. I just couldnt waste anymore time reading his garbage. I look forward to your daily or almost daily writings and wasting your time on a reply takes away from your more reasonable blogs. I really dont care if it is called metabolic advantage or thermic anything. All I know is that your book and blogs here helped me to lose 30 lbs since oct. I weigh less than I did in eleventh grade (1974) and have NEVER felt better. My wife is down 20lbs and nearing her goal.
    thank you Dr Mike.
    Bill Barrons

  55. Like the commercial said, I can’t believe I read the whole thing!

    I’ve been reading your blog and books for a few weeks and am not an expert on this method, but I like it and the way it feels.

    This is the most toxic experience I have seen on the internet so far; I know there’s worse.

    Mr.AC has serious psychopathology. I think he got yelled at a lot as a kid and he’s determined to get even, but will never be satisfied. He will probably self destruct someday.

    Let this go away, and keep up all your good work.

  56. Why are you wasting your time on this guy? There’s a quotation somewhere about getting into pointless arguments: “Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics… Even if you win, you’re still retarded.” Remember, living well is the best revenge. Move on. The guy was well known as a crackpot until you legitamized him by arguing with him. If you ignore the trolls they go away. I think you’re great and don’t hesitate to put out more literature.

  57. Here’s a great short-story written by Taubes in his latest book. I think we can give up hope of ever convincing AC what’s really going on…

    From page 400:
    George Cahill, a former professor at the Harvard Medical School, is a pedagogical example. Cahill had done some of the earliest research on the regulation of fat-cell metabolism by insulin in the late 1950’s, and had coedited the 1965 Handbook of Physiology on adipose-tissue metabolism. In 1971, when Cahill gave the Banting Memorial Lecture at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association, he described insulin as “the overall fuel control in mammals.” “The concentration of circulating insulin,” he explained, “serves to coordinate fuel storage and fuel mobilization into and out of the various depots with the needs of the organism, and with the availability or lack of availability of fuel in the environment.” When I interviewed Cahill in 2005, he told me it was true that “carbohydrate is driving insulin is driving fat.” But Cahill did not consider this chain of cause and effect to be a sufficient reason to speculate that carbohydrates drive obesity. Nor did he consider it a possibility that avoiding carbohydrates would reverse the process. Rather, he believed unconditionally that positive caloric balance was the critical factor. When it came to weight regulation, Cahill repeatedly told me, “a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.” He acknowledged that the obese ate no more, on average, than the lean, and this is why he believed that the obese must be fundamentally lazy and this was the proximate cause of their obesity.* There was no reason to test competing hypothesis, Cahill said, because any competing hypothesis would contradict the laws of physics as he understood them.

    *He told me that I could confirm this observation by simply going to an airport an noticing, as he always did, that it was the overweight who took the escalators and the lean who walked up the stairs.

  58. And for all his blathering on how bad and wrong it is to bad mouth others, he prints this on the landing page of his website about me:

    “Who Is Fred Hahn?
    Answer: Fred Hahn is a book author with apparently very fragile self-esteem, a rather unimpressive physique, and a bitter grudge against Yours Truly that is driving him to snipe at me all over the internet.”

    Our Mr. Colpo speaks with a forked tounge.

  59. Dittos to wanting more info re: the NIH diabetes study that was halted.

    To those who have questions about metabolic advantage, reading Dr. Mikes posts on thermodynamics as well as listening to Gary Taubes’ Berkeley lecture and reading his NYT article really helped me to understand how the laws of thermodynamics actually work. I’m far from an expert or even far from fully understanding thermodynamics but the calories in–calories out just never worked for me partly because as I understand it, the first law is only true in closed systems and as far as I can see there are no closed systems in nature.

    Also Dr. Mike’s explanation about falsifiable hypotheses is very helpful. Science cannot prove what is true, it can only prove what is false. To confirm this, just try to prove something is true to someone who refuses to believe.

    Here are the links for those who don’t have the time to search.

    Karl Popper, metabolic advantage and the C57BL/6 mouse
    http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ketones-and-ketosis/karl-popper-metabolic-advantage-and-the-c57bl6-mouse/#more-957

    Thermodynamics and weight loss
    http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolism/thermodynamics-and-weight-loss/

    Gary Taubes’ Berkely Lecture
    http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21216

    Gary Taubes’ NYT article “What if It’s All Been a Big Fat Lie?”
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E2D61F3EF934A35754C0A9649C8B63&sec=health

    Thanks for taking the time from your busy schedule to respond to my previous comment Dr. Mike and thanks for keeping us all well informed about low carb and related health issues.

    Thank you for putting all these links in one place.

    Here are a couple more:

    Two papers by Richard Feinman and Eugene Fine on the thermodynamics of the metabolic advantage.

    http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/15

    http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089%2F154041903322716688

    Cheers–

    MRE

  60. Why do the traditionalists always style it, “Calories in, calories out”?

    Insulin release promotes energy storage. When the “calories in” cause insulin release (and carbohydrate ingestion does that), some of the “calories in” get stored as adipose.

    If insulin levels remain relatively high, or if that person’s adipose tissue is very insulin-responsive, the stored “calories in” do not get released again. They sit there in the adipose tissue, very nearly untouchable, waiting for more stored energy to join them. And it inevitably will at the next carbohydrate-rich meal. The only way to get at the calories stored in insulin-responsive fat is to lower insulin levels to a point where the adipose no longer gets the message, “Store, store, store, store.”

    Under storage conditions, if the body is limited to a defined number of “calories in”, the body has several choices. It can lower its temperature and/or it can decrease its activity level. In any case, the equation is not calories in = calories out.

    It is calories in = calories out + calories stored and kept in adipose.

  61. I’m no doctor, but it seems to me all you need to do is look at a type I diabetic who doesn’t take insulin. They can eat and eat and eat (all those calories, my, my…) and not gain weight. The only difference is the lack of, um…let’s see… maybe INSULIN?…the very thing that is reduced in a low-carb diet. If a calorie were a calorie, then these insulin deficient diabetics would gain weight just as easily as anyone else. Right?

    I think that maybe AC has never seen a type I diabetic. I’ve taken care of many. Usually the first symptom that brings them to the doctor – other then going into a diabetic coma – is a huge, unexplained weight loss despite eating constantly.

  62. Dr Eades.

    Your psychoanalysis of Anthony Colpo fails because physchiatry is a FRADULENT profession that has not had ONE “disease” validated. Pathologists want NOTHING to do with psychiatrists and their psuedo science.

    Also if you can dissect Colpo , which I KNOW you can’t because HE actually LOOKS at the data, just do it already. You never put up the refutation with sound scientific studies like you promised your readers. Speaks VOLUMES 😉

    Dr. Michael Eades founded the first and only Amazonian Taint Waxing Insititue that offers free anal bleaching and cholesterol screenings.

    HAHAHAHA !!!!!!!

    The One And Only,

    Razwell 😉

    If you had an ounce of gray matter between your ears, you wouldn’t a) be a fawning sycophant of AC’s, and b) you would understand enough about psychiatry in general and psychoanalysis in particular to realize that neither have a thing to do with the squabble between AC and me.

    Too bad I don’t have the time, because I would love to hear your learned discoure as to why psychiatry (or even physchiatry, as you spell it) is a FRADULENT profession that has not had ONE ‘disease’ validated. And I would love to know what a FRADULENT profession is…or did you mean fraudulent?

    Does Anthony know you’re out writing comments like this one? He’d better put a leash on you before his reputation falls even lower.

    Cheers–

    MRE

  63. If you recommend this guy to a publisher, you will be forever associated with him. He is a 911 conspiracy advocate in a BIG, BIG way. No publisher will touch him with a a ten foot pole once they find that out.

    I would not doubt that he is working on a book right now about it since he promotes it so much.

    The guy is a loon; an angry, despondent, down on his luck writer who can’t make a living “researching” topics of little concern and writing “books” about them. He is not a doctor, his bio lists no formal training in anything. Where exactly has he demonstrated that he is a “smart guy?” I think you give him way to much credit.

    He has decided that the best way to increase sales is to attack the big names like yourself and “challenge” them to prove him wrong as long as HE is the one to determine if he is wrong.

    Either way it is a publicity stunt, and you are buying into it whole cloth. Be smarter and just let him scurry back to his dungeon of secret societies running the world and the conspiracies on 911 and all the rest.

    Stay in the light, Please.

    Looks like it’s all moot anyway, so I’m not worried.

  64. Psychiatry IS a FRAUDULENT profession. Look into it. The Neurologist Fred Baughman says so. See it on youtube. Type in “psychiatry fraud” .

    Carnivores DO get fat when they exceed their energy needs. Look at any zoo lion fed too much. It can happen.

    Anthony Colpo is 100 % correct about the Metabolic Advantage being a fairytale.

    I‘m sure you have 100 percent absolute proof for all your contentions, Razwell. Maybe I’ll put up a YouTube of my metabolic advantage ideas. Then will you be convinced?

    As I wrote before, just keep on thinking because that’s obviously what you’re good at.

  65. Dr. Micheal Eades’ sold aged low carb goat cheese in the mountains of Guatemala to perpetuate the Metabolic Advantage Myth

    Razwell

    I‘m going to allow you this one idiotic comment, then I’m going to start deleting them if you don’t have anything at least semi-rational to add to the debate.

    And I’ll give you a free grammar lesson. The apostrophe after Eades is a possessive, meaning that Eades owns whatever it is you’re talking about, as in it’s Eades’ hat or Eades’ book or Eades’ weariness of fooling with morons. It makes no sense as you used it in your ignorant comment.

    Cheers and adios if you send one more like this.

  66. It´s true that insulin drives fat storage. But not only carbs rise it. Some protein sources (like cheese) rise insulin as much, and sometimes more, than some carbohydrate foods. Still, I think that low carb is much better for health than low-fat, ´cos most junk food is high-carb (and high PUFA).
    Also, I don´t care if calories are what really matter in the end; who counts calories in real life?? How can you possibly know the calories in a beef steak, when the content of fats, protein and water are always variable, depending on the cut, the age and race of the slaughtered animal and its feeding?? I guess that in those metabolic ward researches they feed people all those junk protein powders + soy oil for the low carb and junk protein + flower/sugar for low fat, both of which I don´t consider food.

  67. why not go ahead and ask your agent to look over his stuff? If an agent actually wanted to take on the book, it’d be interesting to see what Anthony “the adhomnivore” says then…

    No can do unless he gives permission. An agent wouldn’t touch it.

  68. This is how I see things.

    1. Eades and Anthony are both knowledgeable about nutrition, and are both good at wading through and refuting the BS often reported in the popular media.

    2. Anthony is wrong when he calls Eades one of the most amateurish researchers in the world (or whatever the exact claim was).

    3. Anthony can be needlessly off-putting with his rhetorical style. Eades is usually better about that, but not when it comes to writing about Anthony.

    4. On the metabolic advantage:

    a. It appears to me that Eades doesn’t completely understand Anthony’s position (or else I don’t), since he thinks Anthony’s position is refuted by animal studies, or by diabetics, or by 4,000kc/day low-carb diets that don’t cause weight gain.

    b. Specifically, it appears that Eades thinks Anthony’s position is “a calorie is a calorie is a calorie” — for all purposes, whether we’re talking about animals or humans, diabetics or non-diabetics, weight gain or weight loss, etc.

    c. Unless I’m wrong, Anthony’s actual position is that (1) a human without a metabolic defect will not lose body fat without establishing a caloric deficit; and (2) if a calorie deficit is so established, the rate of weight loss will not depend on macronutrient intake ratios.

    d. In support of Anthony’s position, Anthony has pointed to numerous studies done on humans in metabolic ward conditions.

    e. In opposition to Anthony’s position, Eades has explained why current theories of thermodynamics do not imply that “a calorie is a calorie is a calorie,” and he has also shown differential rates of fat-loss (varying with macronutrient intake ratios) in animals and in free-living humans, and has pointed to type-I diabetics losing weight on ultra-high-calorie diets because they cannot produce insulin. While all of those points are interesting and worthwhile, none of them can trump direct empirical evidence on the precise issue we’re trying to resolve. The studies done on humans under metabolic ward conditions are therefore more persuasive than thermodynamic theories or inferences from animal studies, etc. In addition, metabolic ward studies are more persuasive than free-living studies, because the data regarding food intake are more reliable.

    f. Eades also contends that Anthony has drawn incorrect conclusions from the metabolic ward studies he relies on, and has suggested that Eades will be able to identify metabolic ward studies on humans that refute Anthony’s position.

    g. While Eades promised several months ago that a solid refutation of Anthony’s position would be shortly forthcoming, he hasn’t yet provided it. One reason, but not the only possible reason, is that he’s unable to do so. It should be pointed out, however, that there’s no time limit when it comes to evidence. If Eades can point to solid evidence refuting Anthony’s position a week from now, a year from now, or a decade from now, it will not be stricken from the record for its untimeliness. Whenever he gets around to it, if he gets around to it, it will still count.

    h. So here we are waiting. In the meantime, Anthony has offered what looks to be persuasive evidence supporting his position, while Eades has not yet revealed his main counterargument. I’m withholding judgment on the matter until I see what Eades has to say — but if he doesn’t say it soon I’ll tentatively conclude, until I’m shown otherwise, that he’s got no good counterargument.

    5. I find the cheerleading on both sides to be somewhat distasteful. Eades is not a moron, as some of Anthony’s followers contend; and Anthony isn’t a deranged psychopath, as some of Eades’ followers contend. Each has earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their ability to reason their way through nutritional information and analysis. In this case, one guy is right and the other is wrong — but I am confident that they guy who is wrong isn’t wrong because he’s a moron or a psychopath. He’s wrong because he failed to consider some point or another and thus missed the big picture. It happens to everybody.

    A fairly rational exegesis of the situation and the two beliefs as the situation now stands.

    4. c. I agree with #1. It requires a caloric deficit to lose weight. But the crux of the disagreement is in #2. I believe a low-carb diet provides a metabolic advantage for some people under certain circumstances, as I will ultimately explain.

    Empirical evidence is often not the best evidence, although it would certainly seem to be. But for a couple of centuries physicists the world over swore by Newton’s laws because everything they tested abided by said laws. There were a few small variances, i.e., planets that didn’t orbit precisely as Newton’s laws predicted they would, but everyone pretty much thought that there were errors in measurement because everything else observed hewed to Newton’s laws on the button. Then came Einstein and his special theory of relativity, which superseded Newton’s laws. Now all the aberrations formerly attributed to mis measurement were solved by Einstein’s equations. We’re kind of in the same situation with the metabolic advantage. Some metabolic ward studies demonstrate it – others don’t. But the laws of thermodynamics almost demand that there be a metabolic advantage. Anthony believes that the ward studies that show no difference are the valid ones and that any ward study showing a metabolic advantage is somehow flawed, whereas I trust that those studies showing a metabolic advantage are actually showing one whereas the others just haven’t been able to measure it.

    There is no question that the metabolic advantage is shown in animal studies that can be much more carefully controlled than the best metabolic ward studies. I posted about one such study a few months ago. The laws of thermodynamics are as inviolable as the laws of gravity. If you threw a rat out the window and timed its fall, you would calculate it’s rate of descent and would assume those same gravitational forces would act on a human at the same rate. It’s the same with the laws of thermodynamics.

    MRE

  69. Please drop him like the hot potato he is, Dr. Mike. He’s a twit and an obnoxious one at that, but your own email was not exactly free of sarcasm and cleverly disguished put down’s either, and IMO you cleverly set him up react exactly like he did. Really, wouldn’t you have been shocked if he’d responded otherwise? There’s way too much testosterone in the air and I choose not to read any more columns about AC. You’re smarter and I hope a better person than to get any more enmeshed with this business. Please get back to helping your ” often pain in the rear” readers live healthier lives.

  70. Okay after reading your post: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ketones-and-ketosis/karl-popper-metabolic-advantage-and-the-c57bl6-mouse/
    I reverse my early decision and give you a win on points. Sorry, AC, give up the belt.

    You are right that the non-existence of MA can never be scientifically proved (might be looking in the wrong place, might be using the wrong tools, might be misinterpreting the results, etc.), but the hypothesis that there is no MA can be disproved with one confirmed example.

    My apologies for jumping the gun. I’ll read all your work before I burst into print again.

    Cheers.

    Ah, if only AC were as reasonable as you, all this wouldn’t be taking place. But he isn’t, and it is.

    Glad you enjoyed the post.

    Cheers–

    MRE

  71. “I think that maybe AC has never seen a type I diabetic. I’ve taken care of many. Usually the first symptom that brings them to the doctor – other then going into a diabetic coma – is a huge, unexplained weight loss despite eating constantly.”

    And one of the first signs of Type 2 was weight gain!! Now the weight gain is considered the cause.

    Pitiful, ain’t it?

  72. I think the metabolic ward studies Colpo was talking about prove at least that there is no metabolic advantage under such circumstances. Tightly controlled as they are, I believe they leave little room for speculation and uncertainty. If Dr. Eades could specify under which circumstances – though I’m sure he’s done it before – the metabolic advantage applies, I would be most grateful.

    I’m a ‘low-carber’ myself and deeply convinced of the method’s effectiveness in tackling weight-problems (having lost 37 pounds on such a diet myself) and its positive effect on human health. I do believe this talk of a ‘metabolic advantage’ hurts our “cause” because i have not seen convincing evidence of its existence, despite intensive search, and there’s a lot of sound science (metabolic ward studies) as proof against it. If indeed it can proven to exist under certain circumstances then I will readily admit that there is a metabolic advantage, and so will Colpo I’m sure, but I have never seen such evidence. Until then, I think it is futile, foolish, unscientific and counter-productive to keep pushing this contention any further.

    Greetings from Sweden,
    and thank you for a very, very good blog.
    Andreas K.
    Student

    Hi Andreas–

    I’m glad you’re enjoying the blog. I’ll address all your questions when I do the response to the Colpo book.

    Cheers–

    MRE

  73. I know this blog entry is almost a week old, but I wanted to throw my voice in with the others who are saying not to pay any more attention to this guy. He obviously has some serious psychological issues, which aren’t going to go away. At this point it seems best just to ignore him.

  74. Add me in to the voices saying to leave this guy alone. I genuinely don’t see why the metabolic advantage is such a huge dividing issue, it’s minutia at best. Someone who takes something so minor to the point of foaming at the mouth isn’t worth becoming inflamed about. I’m just trying to figure out why it would be such a point of contention in the first place. I’m a certified nut that is heavily involved with a website for certified nuts, and even we don’t see this kind of thing often.

    I would absolutely love to see more proponents of low carb eating come forward with publications after my experiences with it. It’s truly excellent as a treatment for PCOS symptoms, and I find that it mitigates some of my psychiatric issues, likely due to its effect on hormone levels. I’m not convinced that there’s a one-size-fits-all diet for everyone, and that any diet plan should be viewed as a starting point for coming up with the individual eating plan that works best for the person. I do think, however, that the low-carb plans, in general, offer a healthier starting point than other alternatives.

    I have the feeling that if everyone involved in this (especially that AC guy) took a chill pill things would turn out for the better. Almost anything is better than the SAD or the +7 macrobiotic diet. People that want to binge on food are going to use any excuse that they can find to binge on food. The idea of the metabolic advantage is not inherently dangerous, it’s the overweight individual’s unhealthy relationship with food that’s the problem. I say this as a person with an eating disorder. People can and will use whatever they can find to validate what they already believe or want to do, and even if they’re told to control portions and calories, will find a reason to binge on food. Saying that eating certain foods will provide a metabolic advantage may provide an excuse for some, but an excuse would be found anyway. I would posit that it’s much less dangerous than telling people that growth hormone from beef and that animal products in general are poison, that eating a certain way will cure them of cancer, etc.

    Sorry about the rant, but I’ve been doing a lot of reading about TRULY dangerous nutritional claims, and the metabolic advantage just does not make the cut, true or not. It is just not worth arguing about or denouncing someone for. It is silliness. Get ON with it!

    Feel free to rant here anytime.

  75. I read Colpo’s posting and wow, that was personal. I made a dumb comment about a “duel” trying to be funny, and then I read his posting. I think your response has been entirely appropriate.

    I honestly don’t understand how anyone can disbelieve a metabolic advantage for ketosis. We all know that ketones can be released via the breath and urine without being fully metabolized. (When I teach, l use the analogy of heat going up the chimney instead of being used to warm the room). Also, I’ve cited some papers that show a definite difference in reduction potential for hydroxybutarate at the electron transport chain. So how can someone not see that there’s a *difference* in how ketones are metabolized vs. complete fatty acid oxidation. I haven’t even thrown insulin into the equation…

    Wendy

    Hey Wendy–

    The whole thing is idiocy, of course, to anyone who understands even a smidgen of biochemistry. Unfortunately, most of the people who visit his website don’t.

    Thanks–

    MRE

  76. There is no Metabolic Advantage because Anthony Colpo has thoroughly looked into it. I think you know this Dr. Eades, but can’t admit it.

    You would have Bruce Lee abs if it were true.

    The metabolic advantage has nothing to do with Bruce Lee abs. Just keep on commenting, Razwell, it’s gives everyone an insight the type of followers your leader encourages.

  77. Dr. Eades,

    You’re killing yourself with this thing. Just quit wasting your time with this idiot. It’s natural to want to respond to a threat, but it’s only watering down your reputation, seriously.

    At this point, I’d rather just see you post articles and turn off the comments.

    Don’t tempt me.

  78. I hope you don’t turn off the comments, as useful info does get posted in them. I think you struck a very reasonable compromise in deciding to approve comments without necessarily appending a response to each one of them.

  79. Anthony Colpo interprets scientific research results better than most doctors do. I think he is a phenomenon. Too old to be called a prodigy as he is not a child, so I don’t know the term used for this. His abilities are at least 1 in 500, 000.

    He certainly interprets research better than “Dr.” Micheal Eades. Are you feeling the heat yet Dr. Eades to produce the research backing up your precious Metabolic Advantage? hhahahahahaha !

    Why don’t you ask him to marry you?

  80. Dr. Eades

    You better start rummaging through the articles fast- your due date is approaching. Surely for that sum you can come up with something . You will make more money from Anthony Colpo’s offer than though scamming people about a Metabolic Advantage Theory , right?

    Get a life Razwell. Or is this your life, being an AC sycophant. Have you popped the marriage proposal to him yet. You two would make a beautiful couple with your matching Bruce Lee abs. As I told AC directly, I have no intentions of participating in his rigged challenge. You can interpret that however you like. With the extra $20K, you two could have a wonderful honeymoon.

  81. Dr. Eades

    You’re feeling the heat.

    It’s understandable. You made a claim, Colpo called you out on it, and you can’t back it up by providing references to the PRIMARY literature.

    Your Favorite Person,

    Razwell 😉

  82. One of the most pathetic arguments by Colpo was criticizing your book because it got 30 bad reviews on Amazon – out of 439. Most of those people were just the typical brainwashed folks saying low-carb is a fad diet. No, modern eating is the fad diet – refined carbs, PUFA oils, and processed trans fats are the newest dietary fads. No diet works for everybody – so of course there will be some negative reviews. There was the usual misinformation, like someone saying the low-carb diet will cause osteoporosis and over-acidity no matter what. Clueless people. It shows how desperate Colpo is that he uses negative Amazon reviews, many of which he would disagree with, to question your credibility. Where are the reviews of AC’s fitness consultation service that show he has a lower failure rate than 6.83% (many of which are shills)?

  83. Dr. Eades,

    I know you’re probably busy with your new book, but I have to tell you, reading some of your responses to the ignorant comments makes me day. It’s absolutely hilarious. Thank you for the good laughs.

    As an athlete that is constantly adjusting their body fat percentage, overall weight, throughout the year, I can say with 100% certainty, that it’s the carbs that put on the fat.

    I must say—even though it was the funniest response to a post I’ve read on any blog—that your grammar lesson wasn’t completely accurate. When using an apostrophe as a possessive for a name you should include an ‘s’ after the apostrophe whatever the consonant – “Eades’s”. The exception would be for ancient proper nouns such as “Jesus”, but then again, using the name last, “… of Jesus”, is most common. It’s a frequent mistake people make, but for some reason people continue to do it.

    I’m no English doctor, but I thought I’d help to save the language if I could.

    BTW, Razwell = Colpo

    Cheers,

    Jeremy

    Hey Jeremy–

    In terms of the possessive I think both cases are correct, although the ‘s is probably a little more correct. All book houses have their own editorial rules, and it seems that the most important thing is consistency, i.e., don’t write Eades’s one time and Eades’ the next.

    I think that you’re right in that Razwell = Coplo in spirit, but I don’t think so in actuality, but who knows? And who cares?

    Cheers–

    MRE

  84. The fact is Anthony Colpo has more intelligence than MOST people with fancy letters after their name. Anthony is not shy about CHALLENGING B.S. when he sees it. People who have merit badges don’t like this. He doesn’t uncritically accept information that orthodoxy tells him.

    Not only does he have intelligence to refute detractors with sound evidence from clinical trials , he has the writing skills to completely destroy his detractors publicly.

    I would LOVE to see the people on here who are his detractors have a public debate. You would get destroyed and thoroughly dismantled. hahahahahahahaah !!!!!!!!

    Razwell 😉

    Razwell–

    Have you gone back to your old trolling ways?

    MRE

  85. Dr. Eades

    Have you experienced any negativity or shunning from cardiologists you know (face to face) due to your stance against the false Lipid Hypothesis?

    Razwell

    Hmm. Funny you should ask that question. I’m giving a presentation to a large group of cardiologists next month. My plan was to show them the science demonstrating the efficacy of low-carb diets in dealing with risk factors for heart disease. I sent them an outline and a few slides. They contacted me back and told me that I shouldn’t do a presentation on the science behind low-carb diets because they were already believers. What they want is for me to show them how to integrate low-carb into their practices.

    I haven’t really had any run ins or shunning by cardiologists at medical meetings at which I’ve spoken. They may have disagreed with me, but no one was antagonistic about it directly to me.

    Cheers–

    MRE

  86. Dr. Eades

    Let’s say a relatively healthy 32 year old male 6′ 1 ” and 200 pounds and was eating a diet previously of 2,500 calories.

    He now eats a diet where calories are kept at absolutely no greater than 2,000 at the very most . The 1,800 – 2,000 calorie range.

    Wouldn’t he lose weight (mostly from adipose tissue) even if his carb intake was more substantial? (but not so much that it ruined his blood sugar levels) (for cardiovascular health)

    I would think so. For a 200 lb male limiting energy intake to 2000 kcal per day should result in weight loss, especially if the carbs are kept at a reasonable level.

  87. Dr. Eades

    You could not have been more RIGHT about Anthony Colpo. Fred Hahn was right too.

    The guy is an arrogant user. You are far more polite, educated, honest, knowledgeable and nice than Anthony Colpo ever has the potential of being .

    He thinks PhD’s are worthless. He talks of the “ad hominem attack ” yet constantly relies on it

    He should be called the Ad Hominore.

    He is far too sure of himself and his Fat Loss Bible is just full of complete crap that has not helped me at all.

    I also don’t think he is knowledgeable of the fact that Olympic sprinters do not do anything that even remotely resembles HIIT. They wait very long time in between sprints. And most of their training is extensive tempo rums which is lower intensity.

    I am sorry to have been such a Colpo sycophant. Which is what that forum is full of. He is a completely self – serving prat.

    Take Care,

    Razwell

    Hey Razwell–

    Sorry you didn’t get the help you needed from AC. I agree with many of your complaints, which is why I sort of withdrew from the debate. Life is too short to spend a lot of it dealing with nasty people.

    You’re welcome here any time.

    Cheers–

    MRE

  88. Dr Eades

    Also I can confirm that Anthony Colpo bans people he disagrees with, and edits out info contradicting him, like Fred Hahn says.

    If you look at his forum you will see I have been banned under Razzi. No one has done more for this ungrateful prat than I have. I was stupid not to research his false claims No one on that sycophant filled forum has.

    My weight has gone nothing but up following his crap advice. So to any readers out there of this Anthony Colpo guy please realize Dr Eades and Fred Hahn are 100% CORRECT about him.

    This says A LOT too coming from his biggest former supporter. How stupid I was……..

    Anthony Colo is scientifically RECKLESS.

    Razwell

    Hi Razwell–

    Sorry you got banned from AC’s site. Probably not that great a loss, though.

    I can vouch that you have supported him at least through posts on this site. I’ve still never banned anyone from my site despite the temptation. But obviously AC and I have different ideas about how such sites should work. This would be a dull site, indeed, if everyone agreed with everything I wrote, and I banned all those who didn’t.

    Cheers–

    MRE

  89. Dr. Eades

    Anthony Colpo is up to his shady arrogant shenannigans again. He has banned yet ANOTHER member of his forum for having the audacity to gasp…….. disagree with the Almighty Colpo .

    I know I have said some of this before but just to inform more readers on the self serving uneducated self styled guru prat named Anthony Colpo:

    Colpo’s forum is beyond PATHETIC. It is a haven for his own larger than life ego. It’s really for his syncophants and worshippers so he can stroke his massive ego .

    You were correct all along about it being much more than just calories. There are hormonal factors etc. Art DeVany says so too and Art DeVany is far more experienced and knows far more than that agressive prat Colpo . It is filled with his syncophants and worshippers.

    Take note people, this is coming from Anthony Colpo’s biggest supporter ever (very stupid of me) . A google search will confirm this if you type in Razwell CHD saturated fat. You know it’s really bad when that happens. That should tell you about the man and how Dr Eades and Fred Hahn and many others are correct about him . It just (stupidly) took me a long time to figure out. I am glad I did though.

    That man is shady and unethical, edits out information that contradicts him and then bans people from his site. I have SEEN THIS FIRSTHAND and can vouch.

    And that picture of him showing off his abdominals sure looks PHOTO SHOPPED to me. Take a good look where the shirt meets the abs, something just does not look natural about it.

    Colpo is 100 % about selling you something and his Fat Loss Bible is the most ridiculous piece of crap I have ever read. It is a self serving pompous inaccurate load of COLPrOphagia, and those who buy his self serving inaccurate fat loss book are engaging in COLOPrOphagia just like his syncophant filled forum. They can expect to GAIN weight on it.

    Thanks for not wasting a second of your time lowering yourself to his uneducated level with that ego stroking $20,000 challenge of his . Anthony Colpo is not worth a second of anyone’s time.

    Anthony Colpo, The uneducated Ad Homnivore……

    I am more than happy to vouch for you about the shady, self serving, arrogant ways of this man, Dr. Eades , and show the people on your forum you are correct . I HOPE the Ad Homnivore , Anthony Colpo, sees this and doesn’t like it.

    Take Care,

    Razwell

    Hi Razwell–

    I’m sure he’ll see it. He reads my stuff religiously.

    Cheers–

    MRE

  90. Also Dr. Eades

    I wish Anthony Colpo could see how aggressive he is with people for no good reason at all. It was a completely unfair attack on you. All you said was that he was incorrect.

    Anthony Colpo absolutely does ban people who disagree with him. I didn’t believe it at first when I was a blinded syncophant of his, but I can confirm and vouch for this. If you look on his forum you’ll see “Spector ” was banned. He will cleverly edit out things , make himself look good , then ban you.

    I wish he could see how he behaves towards others. He owes Fred Hahn and you an apology as well as me too.

    Anthony, if you read this, you sure have changed A LOT. Dr Eades NEVER did anything to you personally. Please realize, Anthony, that yes even you can be completely incorrect.

    If someone has a cortisol, thyroid, low testosterone- all these things can affect how you lose weight. Your endocrine system MUST be doing fine to be successful.

    I guess Anthony has never heard of Mark Sisson, Art DeVany, and HORMONAL tone. he is too stuck on the old calorie model

    Mark Sisson is over 50 we will see how Anthony looks at 50. Mark Sisson is every bit as good, plus a little more muscled

    I just wish Colpo would be nice for once.

    Take Care, Dr Eades

    Razwell

    Hey Razwell–

    You are on the money in that all these hormonal issues need be in good shape for weight loss to occur smoothly.

    Sorry about your Anthony problem.

    Cheers–

    MRE

  91. Hi Dr Eades

    One more thing.

    Anthony Colpo obviously does read this because he has recently banned my IP address. Anthony Colpo can’t take the heat of an insider exposing him.

    I wish I saved his e-mail to me which exposed his charachter when I asked him why he wasn’t on his site anymore. He said and I qoute:

    “My site is a complete waste of my time with bugger all return” ” I am now trying to profit from my fellow humans stupidity in the stock market” That is a real quote from him, I was surprised.

    I really wished I saved it to prove this. He honestly said that. Those are two direct quotes from Anthony Colpo.

    So I think your readers and his readers can see the type of person they are dealing with.

    Can’t take the heat of your readers and Dr Eades readers finding out how you REALLY are, Anthony ? You fooled everyone , including me.

    I won’t waste yours or my time with Anthony Colpo anymore Dr Eades , I just had to let you know these facts about this guy and his integrity. Anthony Colpo and his scamming nonsense are over now he is exposed by a former synocophant.

    And to anyone thinking of buying Anthony’s book, it is pure COLPrOphagia. Trust me I have read it. This guy is not in it to help anyone but himself despite what he says . I saw it firsthand.

    Take Care,

    Razwell

    Hey Razwell–

    I don’t have any way to put this over as a comment to the other post about our friend. If you want to copy it and resubmit as a comment on the current post, I’ll put it up.

    Best–

    MRE

  92. Hi Dr. Eades

    I wonder if it ever occurred to most people that Anthony Colpo has absolutely zero credentials and no qualifications whatsoever to interpret scientific studies ? This is immensely important.

    His cholesterol book was just a rehash of a very and experienced qualified man- Dr. Uffe Ravnskov- mixed in with his own undereducated opinions. How sad. Riding on the coat tails of the pioneer Dr. Ravnskov.

    In the scientific community it is common to ask someone for their credentials, which Colpo has NONE. There is nothing wrong with it, and all Colpo can do is accuse persons of ad hominem attacks and deflect attention from his own lack of qualification. In reality he is just an arrogant personal trainer from Australia, not some guru at all. He is a self styled guru.

    I encourage anyone reading this never to uncritically listen to a word this man says or spend even a cent on his books , as he is full of tripe. I truly can’t believe I used to be an unthinking sycophant of this arrogant credential lacking prat. I truly see the light now. This is the double edged sword of the Internet I guess- info like “The Almighty Colpo” and his cohorts and fans . Anthony Colpo is the undisputed king of ad hominem attacks. This is all coming from me Razwell, Anthony Colpo’s former greatest sycophant of all.

    Fred Hahn, Dr. Eades, have all given Colpo a thorough spanking. Anthony Colpo is an icon in his OWN mind.

    I know the topic is old now, but I was moved to say this.

    Take Care, Dr Eades.

    Razwell

    Anthony who?

  93. Colpo is a light weight. He needed you to reply (you should have known better than to argue with swine- you just get dirty). I do not count calories and have lost weight succesfully for sometime now. I do low carb with High FAT, some on and off IF and alternating between high fat and increased carbs over-eating periods so my body doesn’t adjust to a pattern. Calories are so unimportant in rank, I never think about them. Caloring counting is for dumbass losers.

  94. I know nothing about nutrition, diets, or metabolic processes. I do, however, know people. Have you ever heard of narcissistic personality disorder? I think you are attempting to communicate with someone who has no desire to truly communicate.

    • I’m sure you’re right. But I’m not trying to communicate with him (although I did try in the past to no avail); I’m trying to communicate with those people who wonder about his arguments.

  95. Colpo is an ignorant and highly opinionated fool – just like the vast majority of personal trainers that haven’t got a university qualification.

    Colpo never allows any comments on his blog. He is obviously terrified of being ridiculed by far better informed people.