Catching up

 

First of all, I would like to — belatedly — wish everyone a happy new year. I hope everyone has a safe, prosperous, healthful 2015.

This post is going to be a grab bag of subjects because I’m going to be catching up on a lot of stuff. You can read through it all or skip down to whatever heading strikes your fancy and read that part. There is no overall all-encompassing theme. Simply a potpourri of diverse subjects. Let’s get started.

New Site

Over a year ago, I purchased a new theme chock full of all kinds of bells and whistles to replace the outdated, clunky, custom-designed (never again) theme you see now. I then contracted with a web design/development company to create an entirely new website for me using this theme laid over the powerful WordPress platform. I was assured that the new website would be up and running in a month, couple of months at the latest.

After a couple of months without a new website, I inquired as to what was taking so long. The guys doing it told me they had run into a problem, namely that my blog database was in Latin-1 and every other WordPress blog was in UTF-8. They had looked for all kinds of ways to convert the Latin 1 to UTF-8, but had come up empty handed. They said they could work around it and make the rest of the website in UTF-8, but my blog would have to stay in Latin-1. I told them to hold off until I did a little research. And I asked them why my blog was in Latin-1 and MD’s was in UTF-8. They said I must have missed a WordPress update when the conversion was made.

After my research, I realize why I had been having such a terrible time with my blog. Whenever I would try to write in it, and would save my work, about half the time I would get all these weird characters populating whatever I had written. I would have to go back through and delete all these characters, and then do it again and again until I finally published the post. It took me forever to get a post written, so, as you might imagine, it took away from the enjoyment considerably. Here is an example of what I’ve been confronted with:

Let me try a to see how it out.Ã It alwaysÂseems to addÂthese weirdÂcharacters to the text I type inâ₠As I’ve learnedÂit’s because my blog is in Latin-1 instead of UTF-8. I’ve got to get it convertedÂover, but that’s not the easiest thing to doâ₠I’ll keep trying, however“) I hate trying to write gibberish just to have something to show how the text screws up.

See what I mean? If this were a real post I was writing, I would have to go back through and individually delete all these characters. It takes a lot of time, especially when I have to do it over and over again.

Meanwhile, the old, clunky, custom-designed theme (never again) I’m using has become incompatible with a handful of plugins, so much of its functionality is compromised. Makes posting a real pain.

As I read about converting Latin-1 to UTF-8, I realized it was not something I wanted to tackle myself. In fact, I read experts in a number of articles who basically said, if you don’t know what you’re doing, do not try this at home.

I didn’t know where to turn, so I decided to crowd source. At the time, I had about 21,000 Twitter followers, so I figured surely one of them should know how to do this. Sure enough, within about half an hour Bert Hubert, a long-time reader of this blog responded. He said he could easily write the conversion script. I sent him what he asked for, and he wrote the conversion script. And I can’t thank him enough.

So, I went back to the design/development guys, gave them the script, and they were able to do the conversion. They proceeded, however, to not do several things they had promised, came up with what I thought was a crappy-looking site, and charged me much more than the initial estimate.

I switched to a new developer. I don’t know what the problem is, but it has taken forever and I still don’t have a site. And I don’t have very timely communications.

I have a couple of other options available to me, but I’m just waiting to pull the trigger. I hope before long I will have a new site and a new blog look with good functionality. Until then, expect posts to be intermittent.

Email Subscription

As most readers of this blog know, I’m a voracious reader. Consequently, many of my blog posts are book reviews. But I read many more books than I have time to write lengthy reviews of. I would like to begin sending out a monthly email to all those who would like my recommendations of from four to six or eight books out of the twenty or so I read each month.

Along with my pretty hefty book reading schedule, I also troll the medical/scientific literature daily, pulling and reading multiple papers each week. I just checked in my desktop file, and I’ve downloaded 143 papers since Jan 1, 2015. These papers range in time from 1913 to 2015, and cover an array of subjects, mostly related to nutrition in some form. I tweet a dozen or so of these studies per week, but I’m limited to 140 characters on Twitter, which doesn’t give me but a sentence or two to explain. As a result, I don’t tweet out a lot of the studies that require more explanation to make sense of them. I would like to email out a study per week with at least a paragraph of explanation.

And I would like to email any new blog posts or notices of any new blog posts out to those who would like them.

So, if you are at all interested in any of all of these future projects, simply sign up at the upper right of this post, under my photo, where it says SIGN UP HERE TO RECEIVE EMAIL ALERTS.

As soon as I get started, I will email you and give you the opportunity to sign up for one or all three or any combination of the projects above. That way if you don’t want the book recommendations or the blog notifications, but do want the papers with the explanations, you’ll have that choice. Once I have everyone segmented out as to what they want to get, I can send only to those who are interested.

When you do sign up above, I’ll send you an email back with a link on it that you’ll have to click to confirm your email is a valid one and that you really do want to hear from me. My email hosting service requires this, so I have no choice in the matter. So, click to confirm.

Also, you will be able to unsubscribe at any time. And I will never, ever share your email addresses to anyone. I hate spam as much as you do.

The Creepiness That Is Facebook

Speaking of Twitter above, my experiences there ended up driving me to Facebook. Which was a place I had avoided for years. Since I’ve started using Twitter to tweet out medical and scientific papers, I’ve posted (or tweeted, as it’s called) over 10,000 tweets. Not all of these have been scientific papers, but most of them probably have been.

I noticed a number of people on Twitter who, instead of trying to cram what they were trying to say into 140 characters, simply linked to a Facebook post in which they were able to write a paragraph or so explaining whatever it was they were trying to explain.

I told a friend about this, said I wished I could do it, but I didn’t want to get caught up in the whole Facebook time waste. He told me to start a fan page (now called a business page), which is kind of a one-way street. I could post whatever I wanted, people could read it and comment on it, and I could engage or not.

Sounded good to me, so I recruited my youngest kid, Scott, who is on Facebook a lot, to help me set it up. We learned that in order to get a business page, one has to have a personal account first. So, with some trepidation, I relented and he and I set up my personal page. I decided that I would keep the personal page just for family and close friends.

Scott suggested that I send a friend request to him and to MD, so that I could see how the process worked. So I fired one off to both of them.

Here’s where it gets weird.

Both of them accepted my friend requests quickly, but within 30 minutes, I had friend requests coming in from zillions of people. And it hasn’t quit. Some were friends I haven’t seen in ages, and I felt bad not accepting them as Facebook friends, so I did, but most were from people I didn’t know from Adam. So I left them in limbo. The requests from actual friends continued – some I haven’t seen since high school. But many continue to pour in from people I’ve never heard of. They are friends of someone I’m friends with.

The onslaught has been so fast and furious that I still haven’t set up the business page. Mainly because I don’t know what the unintended consequences might be. I never imagined I would have a Facebook account with a ton of friends, many of whom delight in posting cat videos and other time wasters. That was a real unintended consequence.

To top it all off, I’ve had to endure the humiliation of being rejected myself. At the very first, I thought it was kind of cool to be able to reconnect with people I hadn’t seen in years. I did a search through some of the high school friends I had and connected with a few. I found a couple of women, both of whom I had dated in high school, but never seriously. We were just friends. I hadn’t kept up with them at all after graduation other than catching up with them at a couple of reunions. I sent friend request to them, and, so far, have been stiff armed by both. So, here I am getting bombarded with a dozen friend requests per day, almost all of which I ignore (because I don’t really know the people), and I get snubbed by those I reach out to. Bizarre.

The whole thing is kind of creepy.

Protexid

Since I wrote a post on Protexid a few years ago, I’ve been inundated with requests for it. I finally had a batch manufactured, and it’s on its way. I’ll have it up on the site as soon as it gets to the warehouse.

But now it will be called Gastritonin instead of Protexid. Why? Because I wasn’t diligent in maintaining the trademark and let it lapse. Someone else jumped in a got it, and now a product calling itself Protexid is being sold online. This product does not contain the formula for the original Protexid, so buyer beware. Gastritonin, however, is the real thing. So, if you had success before with Protexid, you can be assured that Gastritonin is the same exact formula.

The First International Low-Carb, High-Fat Health Summit

I will be speaking a couple of times at this conference being held in February in Cape Town, South Africa. Professor Tim Noakes and Karen Thomas have done an outstanding job putting this affair together, and I’m really eager to go and catch up with all my friends from the world over.

Click here for the online brochure.

If you happen to be in the neighborhood, come join the fun. I would love to meet you in person.

The Inuit and Ketosis

As many of you may know, I got caught up in the Nikoley-Duck Dodgers tar baby over the issue of whether or not the Inuit, following their traditional diets, were actually in ketosis or not. I was variously accused of ignoring a hundred plus years of scientific evidence, wallowing in my own confirmation bias, and failing to understand the most basic aspects of dynamic flow systems.

Duck Dodgers even posted a comment that was a list of errors I allegedly made in a post I wrote about all this. I kept the comment in moderation for a while because I didn’t have the time to address each of his assertions. I figured that if I posted it then didn’t get around to responding for a few weeks, whenever I did respond, no one would know what I was talking about. And I also figured if I put it up without responding, it would imply that I had no response. So, I dawdled while I tried to find the time to deal with the thing.

Then Nikoley gives me an out. He throws down the gauntlet demanding that I post the comment or he will do it for me on his own blog. Which was great because the whole debate got moved to his blog so that all his readers, most of whom understand even less than he, could listen to him expound on it.

I decided I would let the comment lie for awhile, then post it. Then Nikoley wrote yet another post about my description of ketoadaptation. It was this last post on the subject that made me realize how much misunderstanding there is about the basic biochemistry and physiology of ketosis. I realized I had been a victim of Curse of Knowledge, which basically posits that someone knowing something or possessing some expertise has a difficult time understanding how little others know about something he sees as so simple.

This was the error I made.

So, I need to fix it because readers of Nikoley’s post in question could be led astray on the whole issue of ketosis. It really doesn’t make a difference in the lives of anyone today whether the Inuit on their traditional diets were in ketosis or not (they were), but the physiology of ketosis probably needs to be explained so that people don’t come away from all this thinking about it in the wrong way.

So, I’ll be writing a post on the basic physiology of ketosis (not in brain-numbing detail) and describing why the Inuit really were in ketosis despite a number of old medical papers reporting that they weren’t. Really pretty interesting stuff.

Taking a Journalist To Task

A couple of weeks ago, I came across an article attacking a book. The journalist used every trick at her disposal to savage the book and make the author look like an opportunistic jerk, out only to fleece people of their money. He may be, for all I know, as I don’t know the author. But the book review is a textbook case of how to seemingly bring scientific power to bear to destroy an idea. Realizing how this ‘journalist’ plies her trade, will make you ever more skeptical of our friends in the media.

I’m in the Lufthansa lounge at LAX right now waiting for a flight to Frankfurt, Germany where there is a big housewares trade show I’ve got to go to as part of my day job.  Will head to South Africa from there.

I’ll get to comments when I can.

Monthly Book Reviews

Reading recommendations

I have been writing a series of book reviews each month that I email to subscribers. If you're interested and want to get on the list, sign up here (or above where it says Get free email alerts in the upper right). I'll send you an email notice of all new blog posts plus all my monthly book reviews. Also, you will get a link to all the previous month's book reviews I've sent. Hope to see you aboard.

Powered by ConvertKit

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 *

512 thoughts on “Catching up

  1. I’ve signed up for the email.

    Can anyone tell me how to get or even just read entire studies? Often, they seem to be behind paywalls.

    • Sometimes you can put the exact title in Google with filetype:pdf after it and find it. Often the authors who write these studies post them on their academic websites, and doing the above will find them. Also, you can find the study on PubMed and email the corresponding author an email asking for a copy. Most will send you a pdf back by email pretty quickly.

  2. Nice to have you post again, looking forward to the article on ketosis. I’ve been in ketosis for 11 months now and it has been great.

    Would you post the article where the “journalist” reviews the book? Thanks

  3. Dr. Eades, wow you’ve been busy.

    I hate (strong word I know) Facebook. It IS creepy, and if friends cannot stay in touch via email and phone, they are not my true friends. Besides, who in the world has 500 friends in real life? I hate social media.

    Take your time with the new website and revised book. We are here Dr. Eades! Tell your lovely wife I enjoy her blog too!

    Regards.

  4. FaceBook can be a royal pain.
    I discovered a plug in (at least for FireFox) called Face Book Purity that removes (at least from view) all the annoying crap.

    I only main use of FB is for links to other plein air painters and related art.

    FB Purity keeps me free of the gazillion and 12 people who might want to be “Friends.”

  5. From Mike Eades Twitter account today: “Don’t know if this is true or not, but pretty cool if it is. And seems to make sense. http://buff.ly/1Md6BPy

    Mike, I post here because I can’t figure out how to use Twitter.

    Regarding the wolves video linked above (and I admit I sat spellbound watching all 4 minutes of it), turns out that there’s opposition saying, essentially, that there are better explanations available for the phenomena the video describes.

    NY Times on the subject: http://nyti.ms/OdxRnb

    Journal “Nature” on the subject: http://bit.ly/1oycqIQ

    • Yellowstone is a false wilderness, synthetically managed to give the sensation and appearance of what we think wilderness is. It’s been like this since the park was created. For thousands of years, nearly all of the trees in North America were burned regularly by the Indians to make a great plain. Pretty much all of Yellowstone’s trees are a modern introduction.

      http://backstoryradio.org/shows/untrammeled-2/

      • My question would be, are apex predators going to help or hinder an ecosystem? Are carnivores going to help or hinder an ecosystem? I don’t mean certain insane quantities of these predators/carnivores, just their presence in the ecosystem at all.

        I thought the point of the wolves video is to challenge the notion that an ecosystem can thrive without its proper “full circle of life” thing going on.

      • That’s not true. Early settlers here reported forest land east of the Mississippi, and there were trees in the far West as well. And there is no way there were enough Natives all across the Great Plains to absolutely get rid of all trees. That’s been prairie land for a long time.

        Mind you, it wasn’t untouched wilderness even in the forests. The natives figured out how to maximize forest food available by tweaking here and tweaking there. They obviously had some success with it because the sheer availability of forest food (including animals) was something else the early settlers wrote about, with wonder.

        Charles C. Mann wrote about this in his book 1491.

  6. Nice to see you blogging again. I think both Twitter and Facebook are time wasters and I was afraid you’d stopped blogging forever. I hope Twitter goes the way of the CB radio.

  7. Dr. Eades, good blog –just a quick point, (sent this on your FB page also). I only takes about 20 seconds to set up your “business page”. get your helpers to get it done. It will be far more useful than Twitter.

    Cheers

      • What happened is that when I filled in my info and clicked on the “Subscribe” button, your webpage gives no feedback that the subscriber has correctly pushed the button. There’s no visual acknowledgment from the software at all. So naturally the user is confounded and pushes the button one or two more times before giving up, or starts to wonder whether they’ve been successful after all but there’s simply no feedback to be had.

        This “no feedback” from a button push is such unusual user interface misbehavior, that it rises to the level of being an annoying and minor bug. You’ll have to decide whether you want to be bothered to have your techies track it down. It’s probably (and keep in mind I said “probably”) a simple fix.

        I, too, pushed the button a zillion times, and then thinking the fault was Firefox’s, tried it with the same result in MSIE.

  8. Looking forward to your post Dr. Eades. Btw, did you see that the Inuit have a gene (CPT1-a) that suppresses their ketone production?

      • I would love to hear your opinion about this CPT1-A thing. Denise Minger put something about it on her facebook and everyone started arguing with her and each other. Anyway I would love to hear what you have to say about it.

        It has been really cold lately and I have been wishing I could do whatever these Inuit Indians supposedly could do in order to generate larger amounts of body heat with the fatty acids.

        • @Bryan Harris

          “I would love to hear your opinion about this CPT1-A thing.

          It has been really cold lately and I have been wishing I could do whatever these Inuit Indians supposedly could do in order to generate larger amounts of body heat with the fatty acids.”

          That’s exactly the point here. This mutation prevalent in most Inuits enables them to burn PUFAs preferentially for heat. Therefore no ketones.

          Just read the studies Duck Dodgers posted.

          • @Bryan Harris

            “How does burning PU fatty acids for heat prevent ketones?”

            ??? It does not.

            Why don’t you read some of the papers about CPT1a mutation in Inuits?

          • You said Inuit burn fatty acids preferentially for heat, “therefore no ketones.” A leads to B. You did say it.

            Incidentally, did you know people will make ketones whether or not they burn them for energy? This is why ketostix work. Someone burning fatty acids can still make ketones, which you seem to believe now, versus your earlier comment. No mutation necessary. And we’re all *supposed* to burn fatty acids between meals. Fat tissue is supposed to be mostly a temporary storage tank. Taubes wrote about that.

  9. You are spot on about facebook, however, I wanted to keep up with pictures of my grandkids that seem to always show up on facebook. Therefore I have taken the draconian step of only being “friends” with my kids, some relatives, and a few select individuals who I also have contact with in the real world. I now have 46 friends and it works really well for seeing pictures and other interesting things. I have unfriended a few individuals who post excessive trivia.

    Facebook will work but you have to be brutal!

    • Facebook… bleccch! Or Spaceyface, as I prefer to call it.
      I have an account, but I keep it locked down to the point that I never get any activity on it. No emails for friend requests. No notifications. Nothing.
      I could delete the account, but I keep it for those times that I’ve exhausted every other avenue I can think of to locate someone.
      The only friend I have on the account is the cousin whom I joined to find in the first place. I just ignore the pleas from the site to friend all his many friends when I sign in.
      I rarely sign in, and then only to make sure they haven’t messed with my settings as they are wont to do. You might say I’m not taking advantage of all Facebook offers. But hey, it works for me to do it this way.

  10. Oh no, you’re posting again? Does this mean I need to post again too?

    I have sympathy for your web site issues. My host sent me an email informing me they had lost all of my data and all of my backups.. ALL GONE! No great lost to humanity, but huge pain in the butt for me. (I’m slowly copying the data from the “internet archives wayback machine”).

    Also, sorry for the cat videos (or, in my case, dog and surfing videos).

  11. Lovely to see a blog post from you Dr Mike. Every day I have been looking as you are one of my Safari bookmarks, and now you’ve posted. I am signing up as you suggest.

    I have never used Twitter or Facebook and boy am I glad as all I hear is bad about them.

    When is your new book coming out ? You wrote last year that there would be a new one soonish.

    I wish I could be in South Africa to meet you and Prof Noakes – oh please give us a report when you get back !

    all the best,
    Anne

          • Wish you would have mentioned it during the Hyperlipid thread. Just be careful, the tar baby is arguing from your own authority. Good references are your friend!

          • Nikoley is obviously smarter than I am, at least from a business perspective. He’s obviously gotten himself into a position where he has scads of leisure time to devote to not only posting on his own blog, but to engaging in non-stop debates on the comments sections of various other bloggers. I don’t have the time to even read them much less reply to every one. When the back and forth started on the Hyperlipid blog, I figured it would be a little back and forth. Didn’t realize it was going to turn into a marathon, so had to disengage. Now I’m being accused of complaining that I have no time, but the truth is that I don’t.

          • Well, to be fair, you were reading the Draper study incorrectly. 🙂 We’ll let it slide though. Looking forward to your post and good luck.

          • No, I wasn’t reading the Draper study incorrectly – I glanced at one of the charts and misread it. When that was pointed out to me, I immediately admitted my mistake. Then when I went back and looked at the chart more closely, even though I misread it, the outcome was pretty much the same.

          • Easy Doc. I’m on your side. But I did read the study. Duck pointed out your mistake a second time and as much as it pains me to say it, he was correct that Draper’s chart, although confusing, clearly did not dispute Draper’s own statements.

            But your right, the outcome is the same in that it makes no difference to the discussion.

            Anyhow, I wish you good luck on your upcoming posts!

    • From what I have read to Attia. He believes LDL-p is the most important risk factor when it comes to atherosclerosis. Not matter how you try to spin it, A lot of low carb dieters have high LDL and LDL-p. The situation most often even becomes worse when they reach dietary maintenance. No doubt Low carb can be an effective plan for the obese, as an intervention but it only seems to them into a highly possible life cut short due to CVD.

      • ” Not matter how you try to spin it, A lot of low carb dieters have high LDL and LDL-p”

        Like Peter a lot, but in looking at this at the surface for years in light of the new tech to deconstruct and reduce cholesterol, one thing kept really bugging me:

        Particle size trumps particle number.

        Well, perhaps it does, but I’d be surprised if it was the whole Bell Curve. In the fat, yea, perhaps size trumps number.

        But Jimmy, et al, so far as I know, has never been in the fat part of any Bell Curve.

        Big size is good, no doubt about it. I doubt super high particle numbers are good, and the idea that big particle numbers are Good or Ok, because of particle size strikes me as bullshit.

      • If hardening of the arteries actually causes CVD. I wonder sometimes, because EVERYONE’S arteries harden, no matter their heart disease rates. I think it’s that rare and seldom-seen phenomenon called “getting older.”

        FYI, just about every cultural group sees osteoarthritis in their elderly, too. Diet unimportant. There may perhaps be some difference by degree.

  12. The ketosis thing is really kind of funny at this point. In fact, it reminds me of the cholesterol/statin thing which began when it became possible to measure cholesterol. Before that, who cared.

    I bought a device to measure my blood ketone level a couple of years ago. I tried the Phinney/Volek approach to endurance sports nutrition. It all worked as advertised.

    I measured my fasting ketone level yesterday and it was 1.1MM. I don’t ever plan on measuring it again. Before wheat, sugar, and vegetable oil became the centerpieces of the US food supply, how many people had a blood ketone level similar to mine? It might have been the majority of the population.

    Basically, I am eating real food, which is probably only 20% of what is available in your local supermarket, and I am done with all of the nonsense. It just happens to involve less than 50g per day of carbohydrate if you bother to keep score, and I am done worrying about it. I am also done being converted into a dependable cash flow by big pharma, big food, the USDA, the diet industry, the diet food industry, the exercise industry, the sports food and drink industry (Read Noakes – it may kill you), the research industry which has squandered millions (NIH), the ADA, AHA, even the majority of the AMA which is still running on dogma which is ridiculous; they had a better handle on obesity in the 19th century.

    I am not including you in my assessment of the AMA, but then you have to hold up the garbage can lid every day to defend yourself from what your colleagues throw at you.

  13. Could you clarify if a reader who is already on your email list – I read this post first in my email – needs to sign up again?

    I am looking forward to your ketosis post – and good luck with the new platform.

    • Yep, because the regular reader doesn’t come from me. It comes through your RSS feed, which is different. It will get you the blog posts, but not the other stuff.

  14. I always enjoy your seldom if lengthy blog posts. I just want to say that I discovered that (some) Web site designers are like (some) general contractors. They glad hand you and say they can give you the moon and you hand over your check and then mediocre results or worse nada. I apologize to all of the honest web designers and contractors out there but you’re difficult to find. Obviously, I’ve had the same issue with my web site. I’m on the 4th or maybe 5th designer. :-0 Good luck!

  15. Another Facebook hater here. After I joined, a got a gazillion friend requests from people who, afterward, never said hi, never asked how I was, but just seemed to want an audience for their hundreds of amateurish photos of themselves and their toys, their sociopolitical rants, whining about a childhood that had been over for decades, and posts about the minutiae of their lives. I closed my account and never heard from any of them again.

    • Sorry about that. I promised myself I would get this post up before I had to fly to Germany, so there I was typing as fast as I can, going through all the clean up of the weird characters, and trying to get the thing posted with MD screaming at me that the plane was boarding and we were going to miss it. Which, thankfully, we did not. But my proofreading wasn’t at its finest.

  16. Looking forward to the new site, etc. Funny what you write about Facebook (which I’m not on). My uncle (pre-Facebook) after 50 years of marriage had an affair with a casual highschool girlfriend. Facebook is often cited as a basis for divorce, so perhaps you’ve been stiff-armed by women who are happily married and not looking for trouble (not that you were intending any, but one never knows and perhaps they did not want to explain you to a current spouse, etc.).

  17. Dr. Eades, you teach me and you make me chuckle, good combination, my thanks to you. Missed you, looking forward to your next post.

  18. Mike, regarding Facebook I’d recommend starting a business page asap.

    Once you have that up you can ask people who friend request you to please LIKE your page so they can get all your updates and let them know you are keeping your personal page for family and close friends. Most people will completely understand that.

    You can set it so your FB posts go automatically to Twitter.

    Best
    Drag

  19. Thanks so much for all the hard work you do for us low carbers! I too am looking forward to your new book and especially for more detailed info on Ketosis. I’ve tried to dig for more information but I have found so much conflicting material. Dr. Peter Attia explains it with quite a bit of detail but many times he leaves out the whys and what fores. I still don’t understand why the body makes two different kinds of ketones one of which can be detected only in the blood and will change back to fat if not used and another that is detected in the urine and cannot be changed back into fat (obviously). you have always had a great talent for explaining technical ideas so that us common folk can understand.

  20. Interesting about the character sets. That explains why I alway had funny characters on the emails from you, but I could read them with no trouble on your blog. The two coding schemes must use different models so a simple 1:1 translation does not work. Sort of like trying to convert old wordperfect files to Microsoft Word.
    Glad you are back – I need the ongoing motivation of your scientific articles.

    HAPPY DARWIN DAY!

  21. Facebook is something I know about a lot, and have changed it to suit ME in the last few years. It’s to keep up with my kids overseas, a few friends and follow blogs and posts of people I like, health and art mainly.Yes it wastes time and I have learned to step away from the computer at times, and also use facebook’s own facilities to screen people (you don’t have to defriend someone who posts faff, you just “unfollow” and you no longer see it.) So I have shaped FB to suit me, and it can be done. But it takes a little while to learn and each time FB changes their design you have to figure out again where the control for that thing you need has gone! However my 50 something brain has adapted and I’ve started groups and pages and added the kind of content I’d like to see on FB…I’d recommend it, and would love to see your page/group on there.

  22. Very timely for you to be posting again today when the UK press has just told its readers yesterday that ‘fat isn’t bad for you and we should never have said it was, sorry, there was NO EVIDENCE for that recommendation’
    WOW!
    Of course I have signed up, I read everything you recommend so this will keep me busy- thank you
    How about a post about cat videos on Facebook? WHY are there so many? And why do we watch them? I’m a cat lover so I have an excuse but even my dog-preferring friends love cat videos. What’s the psychology behind that?

      • When I was married, one of my husband’s friends made a point of taking a good dose of antihistamines before coming over to visit. We could have just gone to see him every time, but he loved our cat.

    • Even a computer took to cat videos when an experiment was done:

      “When computer scientists at Google’s mysterious X lab built a neural network of 16,000 computer processors with one billion connections and let it browse YouTube, it did what many web users might do — it began to look for cats.

      “The “brain” simulation was exposed to 10 million randomly selected YouTube video thumbnails over the course of three days and, after being presented with a list of 20,000 different items, it began to recognize pictures of cats using a “deep learning” algorithm. This was despite being fed no information on distinguishing features that might help identify one.”

      http://www.wired.com/2012/06/google-x-neural-network/

      I adore cats – maybe there’s something about them that brains, including computer ‘brains’ are hard wired to go for ? They’re particularly beautiful amongst all animals…imho.

  23. It’s great to have you back Dr. Eades, and I look forward to your future posts, recommendations, musings or anything you take the time to send our way!

    For whatever its worth, I had to put my two cents in regarding my love-hate relationship with FB. The hate part is seeing all the people you thought you knew in a new light. There were some pretty major surprises there! Then again, I see that overall as a good thing. I ended up liking people I thought I disliked and vise versa. The love part is that as a creative person who just started painting again, I have connected with many phenomenal artists – painters, photographers and writers, who were nice enough to accept my friend request, and who are very generous with sharing their work, advice and tutorials etc. It has proved to be very informative, inspirational and enjoyable. You can also follow news, healthcare, entertainment or whatever your interest is, just as at twitter. Also, I suppose it is nice to follow the goings on of family members you would otherwise never see. I found I did have to develop a tough skin though. There are the rejections you already were bruised by, and the absence of likes as well, which as much as you tell yourself don’t bother noticing because they are extremely silly… you do.

    I do see Twitter and FB as sort of merging. Twitter is becoming much more chatty; FB becoming much more informational. With FB, you obviously can say more, as you pointed out, and it is more post-like with the comment section, which I find more appealing. There does seem to be more control over what you want or don’t want to see, but not enough control of what you want others to see.

    • Yes, it is bizarre seeing people you’ve only seen in one situation, i.e., professionally, bare their souls politically or religiously. Makes you see them in an entirely different light. Taught me a lesson.

  24. Oh, what a shocker, Nikoley has a post up about this entry. I used to really enjoy FTA back in the day but that man is bats**t crazy now and I know not to engage the crazy. He’s worse than a 13-year-old girl with the Twitter and Facebook fights he picks with people, and his supposed anarchist rants are either laughably bad or scary, as in he advocates killing cops just because. Seriously.

    Hope you get all the website stuff sorted out and enjoy South Africa.

    • He’s sexist as hell too. That turned me off of him early–I still look in every several months or so because sometimes he posts something good, like his macadamia-coconut bread recipe, but that’s becoming a rarer and rarer occurrence. If I have to feel insulted or immediately on the defensive while reading a blog, I tend not to want to read the blog.

      (I know, “we choose how to feel,” blah blah, but I’m a human being with an emotional life, not a machine.)

  25. Hi Dr. Eades,

    Yes, it is a shitstorm over at FTA – it’s hard for the lay reader to really understand all that’s going on. But there is one issue I have with ketosis that they have addressed at FTA and no one else seems to give credence to, and that is the issue of increasing blood glucose levels and insulin resistance. It’s true that many of us that were in ketosis for longer periods of time eventually do see our fasting blood glucose numbers on the rise, and our insulin levels going up as well. I know this contrasts with ketosis theory, but many of us have had it happen. I began adding in safe starches and some white rice and potatoes, came out of ketosis and within a month my fasting glucose was coming down. I also recently had insulin levels tested, and they are lower.

    I like being in ketosis because I feel better, and feel that I have more control over my eating, whereas when I’m eating more carbs I don’t – I feel a real lack of control with my appetite. I also feel a real mental clarity when in ketosis that I’ve never felt with any other way of eating. I’m worried, however, that I am damaging my metabolism further by trying to stay in ketosis.

    What do you think is happening here? It’s hard to know what to do when my body is telling me one thing, and the numbers are telling me something else-

    Thanks for the post! I’ve gone back and read every one of your posts over the years. I especially loved the review you did on “The Vegetarian Myth” – I still get notifications that people are posting comments to that one!

    • I’ll try to address your concerns when I do the post. I’m in trade show hell right now in Frankfurt, Germany, trying to grab a minute or two when I can to post a few comments.

    • Much of the “physiological insulin resistance” and “elevated fasting blood glucose” stuff on ketogenic diets has been well covered on a niche little sub (I moderate) devoted to the science of all things keto:

      –> http://www.reddit.com/r/ketoscience

      It’s not the usual losing weight low carber support group, we mostly try to sanitise the science of all things nutrition and health – it’s much slower than most forums as most stuff has already been covered.

      And no, the FTA/whoever idea that you’re damaging metabolism by long-term ketosis is utterly retarded, feel free to ignore.

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

        • “That’s why the FTA is so bent on demonizing Stefansson and the idea that the Inuit were ketoadapted. Since that state didn’t harm the Inuit any, it gives the lie to the notion that ketosis is harmful in the long run”

          To be fair, Dr. Eades, it comes down to correcting the notion of offering health recommendations based on a logical fallacy. When “do no harm” is the goal, it’s best to avoid logical fallacies.

          For instance:

          Logical fallacy: False equivalence:

          Stefansson felt best in ketosis, when eating an Inuit diet
          Therefore, the inuit were in ketosis

          …and…

          The Inuit were healthy eating their native diet
          Therefore ketosis is healthy for Westerners

          …and…

          Logical fallacy: False attribution (or single/biased source, appeal to authority)*:

          Stefansson said the Inuit ate lots of fat
          Therefore, the Inuit must be in ketosis

          These are just some of the logical fallacies of using the Inuit as a proxy for ketosis. It oversimplifies the complex studies and points I cited below. Oversimplification itself is a logical fallacy (see: Fallacy of the single cause).

          So, claiming it’s all very “basic” just affirms the logical fallacies because it ignores the evidence (below) that the subjects—Inuit and Westerners—aren’t metabolic equivalents.

          * It would be an ad hominem argument for me to just claim Stefansson was unreliable source and dismiss him entirely. However, when historians document how Stefansson was well known to lie, and dozens of scientific papers call into question his writings, like it or not, the ad hominem argument may have some validity.

          PS: I don’t expect a response right now. I’m simply clarifying what the argument is actually about. Cheers.

          • You are a FALLACY BULLY. They are quite common on the Internet and ABUSE logical fallacies. In doing so, you yourself are committing fallacies. There is a great YouTube video exposing what you are doing. Everybody: Please Google “Beware The Fallacy Bully.”

            You yourself offer NO explanation, Duck. Science NEEDS deep explanations . Your links ( da interwebs loves de “refrencez”) to these studies which ONLY measure effects are meaningless- NO MATTER the sheer amount.

            MOST scientific ideas are WERONG, Duck. Did you not learn that ESSENTIAL part of science education taught by Dr. Filippenko????? Your own understanding of science is woefully lacking….

            Respectfully,
            Razwell

    • I’m not Dr. Eades, but your liver will make glucose when you’re hardly eating any, and that alone could account for the blood sugar. (Gut flora may play a role too–triggering gluconeogenesis maybe?) As for insulin resistance, maybe if your body’s not dealing with a lot of glucose on a regular basis, it eventually dials back its receptors due to not needing a ton of insulin. You wouldn’t feel it unless you suddenly ate a bigger than usual dose of digestible carb.

      I wonder how this plays out with muscle cells though, because they don’t just accept insulin to accept sugar–insulin moves amino acids into muscles too. Are there a lot of longtime VLC eaters suddenly wasting away?

  26. Dr. Eades:

    I’m sorry you have to go through this with Nikoley. I see it you used to be on good friendly terms, what I saw on his blog before.

    I really enjoy your blog because when you do post, I always know what to expect and Nikoley almost never, can be frustrating when I’m only wanting to “grok” things and do what works for me and my family.

    I really don’t know anything about ketosis. I thought it was always just no carbs. Is that all it is?

  27. Amanda may I pick on you, just a little bits?

    “Oh, what a shocker, Nikoley has a post up about this entry. I used to really enjoy FTA back in the day but that man is bats**t crazy now and I know not to engage the crazy. He’s worse than a 13-year-old girl with the Twitter and Facebook fights he picks with people, and his supposed anarchist rants are either laughably bad or scary, as in he advocates killing cops just because. Seriously.”

    I’m French and I found Richard because he writes about France a lot. It does make me proud that he seem to get so much from where I love. Maybe my perspective is different.

    I was a European anarchist its where the thinking starts. Richard showed me that its very different from American libertarian / anarchist and now I read Lew Rockwell blog, and I readed many books, like Murray Rothbard and other.

    Anyway, for we French, we try harder I think to know lots of people who think different. When we invite people for a dinner, we want good discussion. Not everybody agree. Some time its too much and it goes until 3 am. (smiles).

    Plus, I think killing cops is nuancé you missed. For me, Richard is being dramatic to ask why some position and uniform matter? If you are no harming somebody, what is different if someone who takes you by gunpoint for murder is wearing special cloths and has a title? And if you hear that a member of a gang get killed do you leak tears?

    For ketosis, I’m not really interested very much. Very much not French way, and we have still good numbers for obesity and other things like heart attack (it’s changing, thanks America). But I also read his many posts and many comments about Inuit and makes sense to me. I really don’t understand why, as Richard claims in last post, that it takes so long to explain how he is wrong, if it’s a very simple error like Mr. Eades says.

  28. Everyone seems to be talking about the Facepalmbook aspect – here’s my pro-tip: DELETE ALL “FRIENDS”.

    I did this a few years ago, yes even proper close friends and family AND overseas friends. Sure there was some butthurt, but guess what, within a few weeks I had those sort-of-friends texting me to catch up in person to, well, catch-up – because they no longer know “what I’m up to” remotely. Family and O/S friends would send me personal emails telling me about their life and asking about mine and not just ask if I saw their latest update.

    I’ve been backpacking for the last few months, and have now been adding local fellow travellers I hit it off with – I NOW HAVE A TOTAL OF FOUR FRIENDS ON FACEBOOK haha.

    But other than that I don’t have to endure the trivial stuff that “friends” and family post on a daily basis. I use it purely for the groups/forums that I participate in, which is where the real value of FB is.

    My FB profile photo looks exactly how I looked when I was scrolling through the angst and passive/agressive status updates of my “friends”: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151951620297043&set=a.426160937042.213042.638382042&type=1&theater

    TL;DR – don’t use FB to “keep up with friends”, if you have their number/email then that’s all you need.

  29. Hi Dr. Eades,

    Since you are an avid reader in a variety of areas, let me suggest a book about systems, software and otherwise, that I found helped me both as an engineer and now as a psychologist: John Gall “Systemantics”. A copy of the first edition, sitting front and center at home near my desk, was published in 1975. Its about how and why systems tend not to work. I just checked on amazon.com and he kept revising it until 2012 with the publication of SYSTEMANTICS. THE SYSTEMS BIBLE.

  30. Hi Dr. Eades,

    I have a hunch that the Inuit ironically are proving why Richard et al are betting on the wrong horse this time.

    The traditional Inuit didn’t seem to have a particularly long life span, childhood mortality excluded.

    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.nl/2008/07/mortality-and-lifespan-of-inuit.html

    Recently we learned that they probably evolved this strange quirk which seems to make it virtually impossible for them to go into ketosis.

    ‘Normal’ humans have a relatively huge capacity for ketogenesis (compared to many other mammals). Cunnane et al have proven that the developing infant brain is absolutely dependent on a steady supply of BHB. This is why it is almost impossible to knock a healthy toddler out of ketosis. The same researchers offer plausible reasons why human physiology expects/needs bouts of ketosis even in adult life.

    Charles Mobbs and his team have proven beyond doubt that too much glycolysis drives aging and virtually all degenerative diseases. Ketones signal the body – via neurons in the ventromedial hypothalamus – to switch from predominantly glycolysis tot predominantly beta-oxidation. This metabolic state prevents disease and promotes longevity. Mobbs even reversed diabetic kidney failure this way, albeit in mice.

    Glycolysis and beta-oxidation are totally substrate driven, at least in non Inuit humans. I suspect that the Inuit run their metabolism predominantly on glycolysis, because of this strange trait. We, on the other hand, have the possibility to avoid sources of dense, acellular carbohydrates and run mainly on beta-oxidation.

    Does this make some sense? Is wish you a lot of fun in Cape Town!

    • I think there are other issues at play in the lack of longevity of the Inuit. I will discuss when I do my post. I do agree that a ketogenic diet is probably the best diet to be on for longevity and good health despite all the info to the contrary on other sites.

    • Melchoir:

      Had Dr. Eades read the other posts as they developed, rather than dismiss them and not read them further because we disagree with the New York Times Re Stefansson, in their published obituary that Dr. Eades cited as authority because it contained no dirt while they have published dirt on others, then he might not now be setting up to argue a straw man.

      The entire point of the series is that the Inuit have never been in what would be considered ketosis by medical standards.

      1. Not measured in blod
      2. Not measured in urine
      3. Not measured even as by-product acetone in breath
      4. Super high protein intake (“chocolate cake”)
      5. The gene mutation

      I.e., Occam’s Razor.

      The essential point of the entire series is that Drs Eades, Westman, Volek, Phinney and a lot of others got a bit lazy and relied on the writings of a guy who was so clamorous for fame he even ditched his wife and 9-yr-old son in the arctic, tried to expunge his journal writing of them, and never mentioned them in his fame seeking works.

      A very interesting documentary, if you can consider the possibility of tatters on a fine set of new clothes for Emperors.

      http://www.isuma.tv/DID/community/CambridgeBay/arctic-dreamer

      Now, one might excuse that bit of lazy, had it been the only thing going, but there are 18 researchers—three of whole were a Nobel Prize winner, one of the first diabetes researchers, and Stafansson’s own doctor—who have published stuff that 80% of our 17 posts only cite. Dr. Eades’ argument, in essence, is against them, and so is his curse of knowledge.

      The very essential point of our entire series is explicitly not to argue against ketosis as either lifestyle (I’m skeptical of it as a sound lifestyle for everyone), or intervention (I’m soundly for it where it works), or as intermittent hormesis (I do it myself, dipping into ketosis every week or so for 12-24 hours—and spending time in the 45 deg unheated pool around here really kicks up the purple near the end of a 24 hour fast).

      It is to obliterate one single thing: The Inuit are by no means a touchstone for its use or efficacy in any manner that has ever been studied. Moreover, all the LC stuff over decades that references them (and none have ever referenced those 18 researchers I’m aware of) is very flawed, given this science that ought to have been accounted for from day one, but never ones, because everyone fell for the NYT celebrity of Stefansson from day one and never bothered to look elsewhere. Indeed, from the many exchanges with Dr. Eades over the 10 months, it;s clear he wasn’t even aware of the studies, or at least most of them—and that’s by his own explicit words and clear implications.

      • I would encourage all my readers to watch the documentary on Stefansson that Richard links above. Based on the considerable reading I’ve done both about and by Stef, I think the film pretty much hits the mark.

        I’m sure Stefansson, like all of us except perhaps Richard, made a few missteps in his life, but does that mean everything he’s ever done or written over a long and illustrious career is to be discounted?

        One of the interesting parts of the film (and Stef’s biography) is the Wrangel Island affair. It is the embodiment of the Curse of Knowledge. Stefansson sent four young men on an expedition to Wrangel Island in the far north to claim it first for Canada then for Britain (I think – I can’t remember those specific details). The four men were ill equipped experience-wise to survive the hostile winter and all perished. The Inuit woman they took with them as a cook and seamstress, however, survived. Stefansson took a lot of opprobrium for sending these guys to their deaths, but I’m sure he didn’t see it that way. At least not going in. Stefansson had spent so much time himself in the Arctic that dealing with the weather was second nature to him. I suspect he thought it would be a fairly simple thing to instruct the young men in how to do it. The weather was survivable to anyone who knew how – after all, the Inuit woman, who had spent her life in similar weather, survived it. The Curse of Knowledge for Stefansson was that his vast knowledge of Arctic survival made him think it was a lot easier than it really was.

        Another fiasco he was involved with was the voyage of the Karluk, an ill-fated ship. Watch and listen carefully to the documentary when the Karluk part comes around.

        • I’m gratified that you encouraged folks to watch.

          It’s a well done documentary featuring serious people. Like any good documentary, there’s plenty to satisfy any bias or, plenty to get insight into various biases. Bell curve.

          My aim from the beginning and the first few of 17 posts that focussed on Stefansson was to humanize him. The documentary does a good job of that. Of course he was a remarkable outlier. He also had the typical set of human frailties, that included lying and deception in pursuit of long term dreams. No, he probably didn’t steal from his mom’s purse. Some people are better at managing their character flaws than others.

          I don’t see how anyone could watch the documentary and not come away with the impression that he’s not completely fallible and and such, has no special standing, and since his “fat of the land” writings are extraordinary when compared with the actual documentation that includes very high protein intake and most of the oil going to heat and light enclosures during the long cold dark winters, it’s grain of salt time when not whole dismissal.

          @Ash

          “And no, the FTA/whoever idea that you’re damaging metabolism by long-term ketosis is utterly retarded, feel free to ignore.”

          We never wrote that. We merely observed that many people have elevated FBG on VLC. Whether it damages metabolism long term is something I don’t know, and I’m betting you don’t either. Blue Zone folks have normal FBG, so perhaps that should be a better starting standard.

          @On argument from authority.

          I’m unsatisfied with all explanations on this point in the thread. There is only facts and evidence, and origination is irrelevant. Karl Popper is really the go-to on this, because the only thing that matters is falsification. Unless you have one enormous ace up your sleeve, Mike, the notion that the Inuit were a high-fat ketogenic society (i.e., moderate protein at best, 80%ish fat), that’s falsified. End of story.

          To state it anther way, the only time you can be certain you’re right, is when you’re wrong.

          @early kicking around in the debate.

          It most certainly not about “long dead animals,” or that it was “keeping them out of ketosis.” It was the initial investigation that ended up being 17 posts and thousands of comments. And, it wasn’t just about glycogen, but also “animal fibers,” i.e., head-to-tail eating that feeds gut bugs without vegetable fiber which everyone ought just acknowledge is cool.

          We were talking about fresh kills, often frozen soon, and making distinctions such as livers with lots of glycogen. Also, diving marine mammals can have up to 30% carbs in blubber, etc. Yes, it is not a large amount of carbs on the average scale, but what it did was begin the process of falsifying so much assumption and plain folklore.

          Thanks for being so gentlemanly about putting comments through.

          • As I pointed out multiple times and provided the papers to document, long dead, in terms of glycogen content, could be 15 minutes.

            I, too, am a fan of Popper’s. There is no certainty, just an ever increasing nearness to the truth in an asymptotic sort of way. And I believe in falsifiability. But in this case, not in a Black Swan sort of way. If one makes the statement, All swans are white, then all it takes is the finding of one black swan to refute that notion. If one says, Most Inuit on their traditional diet are keto-adapted, that doesn’t mean that finding one who isn’t refutes that hypothesis. Nor does it mean that finding one who is confirms it.

            I think you and DD are overstating your case, and I’ll use some of the very papers you’ve mustered in support of your arguments (along with some basic biochemistry and physiology) to make my case. Then you can try to shoot it down.

          • “Could be 15 minutes.”

            Yes, could be 15 minutes at room temperature in land-based mammals. This was known by scientists since 1865. You’re oversimplifying it. Let’s refrain from making things that are complex seem “basic.” They are not. See my reply.

            “If one says, Most Inuit on their traditional diet are keto-adapted, that doesn’t mean that finding one who isn’t refutes that hypothesis. Nor does it mean that finding one who is confirms it.”

            Yes. And be sure to see the following logical fallacies…

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

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

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

            “I think you and DD are overstating your case”

            Well, then the language needs to change when referring to the Inuit, since there is no way to be sure one way or the other.

            If you make a good case, then say, “I think most Inuit might have been ketoadapted.”

            If we make a good case, we say, “It seems that the Inuit were not in perpetual ketosis.”

            At the end of the day, there is no certainty. And, if there is no certainty, then one can’t very well use the Inuit as a definitive proxy for a ketogenic diet without hyperbole.

            Therefore, we would say that using the Inuit as a proxy for a ketogenic diet is sloppy, misleading, and poorly supported.

            In other words, we’re just holding you the statement (“most Inuit were in perpetual ketosis”) to a higher standard. Before last year, it just came down to a loose observation based on the fact that they didn’t have many plants to eat. Not very scientific. People have claimed the moon was made of cheese with similar observations.

          • ” If one says, Most Inuit on their traditional diet are keto-adapted, that doesn’t mean that finding one who isn’t refutes that hypothesis. Nor does it mean that finding one who is confirms it.”

            Well I agree in your principal formulation as stated. And just as aside, there’s even more subtlety to Taleb’s “BS.” He was an options trader. So was I, though not to his degree. Options contracts, particularly on derivates (like the SPX index), can be arranged in such “clever” ways that you can have an enormous winning streak for an enormous amount of time, and then in one pull of the one-armed-bandit, loose all profit, capital and more that you ever made. I learned the hard way. 6 figures, but WAY into the 6 figures.

            But here, we have never been talking about a lone Inuit. We’re talking about 18 researchers with papers over 100 years that:

            1. never measured urine ketones
            2. never measured blood ketones
            3. never measured acetone in breath

            All study subjects, all papers. Moreover:

            1. All references to dietary intake point to high protein
            2. Bloodwork confirms by-products of high protein
            3. High protein is not ketogenic
            4. CPT1a gene mutation
            5. In spite of the gene mutation, pregnant Inuit with it produce ketones (there’s a kinda clever falsification right there).

            We have a do-the-math moment here.

            To reiterate, this has not been about crushing LC or ketogenic diets, but using Inuit as a convenient “Ketogenic Blue Zone” justification for it. In that, falsification is simply done. Understanding that ket-diets are therapeutic at individual levels, like a dietary or drug prescription is not the same as saying it’s what everyone should do. And @Ash, doesn’t matter how many papers one can collect to show no real damage to a ketogenic diet, there is no population of marked longevity that was ketogenic. None vegan either. However, there are plenty that eat relatively “balanced omnivorous diets” of non-processed foods. All eat legumes.

            @Tiger Nuts

            I see I forgot to mention that in my last. First, one hardly makes much money via Amazon from the stuff one peddles. One makes money by kind readers hitting your link when they buy a new 70″ flat screen, or outfits their 20 screen sports bar.

            Here’s three Tiger Nut links that are worth looking at, all recent research.

            http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084942

            http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=128106

            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140109003949.htm

            TL;DR: They are so plentiful, easy to harvest, easy to digest that a hominoid can get a full belly day in, day out in about 2 hours. They grow like weeds (think cattails, near a lake). Baboons harvest and eat them to this day.

            We delved into the nutrition:

            1. Macro profile same on average as mammalian milk (fat is roughly like olive oil).
            2. THE BIG SURPRISE: it edges out red muscle meat in micronutrients.

            I’m a huge fan of Kleiber’s law and the ETH, but this is new research that adds insight into how that may have happened, either instead of kill scavenging, as a side dish, or minimally, a fallback that ensured very high nutrition year round even in animal kill scavenging famine.

          • I’ve written a long response twice now to this post and have had it disappear twice. I don’t know if it’s the general instability of my site as it exists now or what, but in both cases I have accidentally done something that threw me to a different page, and my response has vanished. I took off the last day of the trade show in Frankfurt today to finish the slides for my two talks in Cape Town later this week, so I’m in the throes of slide-making hell. I’ll probably be fiddling with them right up until I walk on stage. So, I don’t have time to re-create my previous lengthy response.

            Basically it was that these three articles (which I read, but did not have time to read in great depth) showed stable isotope data indicating the subjects ate C4 grasses. The data can also be interpreted (as the authors point out) to mean the subjects ate herbivores that ate the C4 grasses. In other words, it’s not conclusive.

            Also, the papers discuss the implications of this for P boisei, a small-brained hominin that came to an evolutionary dead end as did his cousin Ausralopithecus robustus. Both had heavy jaws, large teeth, dental wear, microabrasions, etc. that imply a diet of coarse plant food. And the lines of both P boisei and A robustus died out. The fact that both ended up in what amounts to an evolutionary blind cul de sac would not be, in my view, a recommendation for their diet. Their meat-eating much more gracile relatives, A afarensis, however, ended up, after a very long time, developing larger brains and ultimately becoming us.

          • “Basically it was that these three articles (which I read, but did not have time to read in great depth) showed stable isotope data indicating the subjects ate C4 grasses. The data can also be interpreted (as the authors point out) to mean the subjects ate herbivores that ate the C4 grasses. In other words, it’s not conclusive.”

            The thing is, this science didn’t and isn’t standing still. As I’ll show below, paleoanthropologists have been well aware of c4 isotopes as a result of consuming herbivores for quite some time. Loren Cordain used the same rebuttal early on, apparently unaware at the time that the argument had already been considered and rejected as the fully explanation, primarily because of the high amount of isotopes and dental morphology at the time the C4 takes a big leap.

            First, here’s Cordain.

            http://thepaleodiet.com/rebuttal-to-the-proceedings-of-the-national-academy-of-sciences-june-2013-papers-early-edition/

            Here’s more references on the science:

            [1] A Grassy Trend in Human Ancestors’ Diets

            [2] Ancient human ancestor ‘Nutcracker Man’ lived on tiger nuts

            [3] Diet of Australopithecus afarensis from the Pliocene Hadar Formation, Ethiopia

            [4] Diet of Paranthropus boisei in the early Pleistocene of East Africa

            [5] Stable isotope-based diet reconstructions of Turkana Basin hominins

            [6] Diet of Theropithecus from 4 to 1 Ma in Kenya

            [7] Isotopic evidence for an early shift to C4 resources by Pliocene hominins in Chad

            [8] Hominins living on the sedge

            [9] Baboon Feeding Ecology Informs the Dietary Niche of Paranthropus boisei

            A stroll through the references ought be enough to suggest to anyone that we’re not simply talking about a single evolutionary dead end in a specific place. I’ll also point out that tiger nit flour is the first documented use of flour in ancient Egypt. Moreover, the Spanish grow and use them to this day (the original Horchata too). Moreover, just to reiterate, we’re talking about a tuber with a macronutrient profile equivalent to mammal milk and vitamins and minerals that on average edge out red muscle meat. It’s not just any plant. And, it’s easy to harvest wherein, even modern H-Gs fail to get meat more than half the time, even using modern bows & arrows.

            http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/evolution-of-diet/

            Here’s a quote from reference #8, above that specifically addresses the anthropologically dismissed argument that C4 isotopes are just from eating animals. Full text.

            http://www.pnas.org/content/109/50/20171.full

            “The evolution of C4 photosynthesis was a signal shift in the history of life on Earth, including at least 50 independent origins in 19 families of higher plants (1). Today, C4 plants account for a quarter of the primary productivity on the planet despite representing a small fraction (∼3%) of the estimated 250,000 land plant species (2). Most C4 plants are grasses (family Poaceae, 4,500 species), followed by sedges (family Cyperaceae, 1,500 species) and dicots (1,200 species). A few C4 plant species contribute significantly to the human diet, either directly as domesticated cereals (e.g., maize, sorghum, millet) and additives (e.g., cane sugar, corn syrup) or indirectly via animals raised on C4 crops and pastures. As a result, human tissues can have high δ13C values because C4 plants and their consumers are enriched in 13C (3). In recent years, this telltale signature of a C4-based diet has also been found in a wide range of hominin species (4), a finding that has both informed and fueled debate. Now, paleoanthropologists must contend with a unique and surprising finding.

            “In PNAS, Lee-Thorp et al. (5) report carbon isotope data from the tooth enamel of Australopithecus bahrelghazali, a hominin species that lived in the Chad Basin ca. 3.5 million years ago. Their findings, which indicate an early dependence on C4 biomass (∼55–80% of the diet by linear extrapolation), are fascinating because they raise challenging questions concerning the diet of this species. The magnitude of 13C enrichment, which, among australopithecines, is eclipsed only by Paranthropus boisei (6), suggests that the carbon in their diet was derived mainly from C4 plants rather than the tissues of C4 grazing animals (5). This inference led the authors to focus on sedges, a graminoid plant that is perhaps more promising than grass as a food source for hominins. Indeed, the thickly enameled, low-cusped (bunodont) teeth of A. bahrelghazali and P. boisei would appear to be functionally incompatible with a diet of grass blades (7). Could sedges, then, bring consilience to the C4 conundrum?

            C4 Conundrum

            “Grine et al. (8) put it well when they wrote, “Dietary signals derived from microwear and isotope chemistry are sometimes at odds with inferences from biomechanical approaches, a potentially disquieting conundrum that is particularly evident for several [hominin] species.” In an attempt to reconcile these discrepancies, termed the C4 conundrum (9), Lee-Thorp et al. (5) call attention to Cyperus papyrus, a familiar C4 sedge with “chewy and pleasant tasting” pith (10). A diet premised on pith is expected to require laborious loading of the jaws and teeth, a behavior that could have favored the evolution of massive chewing muscles, such as those of P. boisei (6). Pith is also soft and unabrasive, traits that correspond to the molar microwear of P. boisei (11). However, chimpanzees turn to papyrus pith only in extremis (12), probably because it is exceedingly fibrous and almost devoid of protein (13). In theory, few primates could survive on a diet of 55–80% papyrus pith. A puzzling exception is the Alaotran gentle lemur (Hapalemur griseus alaotrensis), a rare primate from Madagascar that specializes on hydrophilic species in the Poaceae and Cyperaceae families (>95% of the diet); in fact, the pith of the papyrus-like Cyperus madagascariensis alone accounts for about 65% of its diet (14).

            “Another type of 13C-enriched plant tissue lies underground (15), and Lee-Thorp et al. (5) call attention to the potential importance of corms in the genus Cyperus (Fig. 1A). Corms are starch storage organs that feature in the diets of many baboons (16⇓⇓⇓⇓–21) and some human populations (22) (Fig. 1B). In fact, the corms of Cyperus esculentus, a C4 species (23), were once widely cultivated as a food crop in ancient Egypt (Fig. 1E), perhaps because only 150–200 g of corm tissue per day can satisfy human lipid requirements (24). The high quality of Cyperus corms and their role in the diets of humans and savanna-dwelling baboons suggest that C4 corms could have been a significant contributor to the elevated δ13C values of A. bahrelghazali and P. boisei.”

            Once again, we have reached and exceeded Occam’s Razor proportions.

          • “Once again, you’ve proven you’ve got a lot more time on your hands than I do.”

            We ought to be able to agree with that, subject to the fact that it’s all voluntary. Right? Priorities, right? You’re selling a cool appliance I use, I sell stays in my vacation rentals in the gold country and Cabo, and the former is driving my crazy last few days with attempts at last minute bookings.

            My gig allows me to work from a Starbucks. 🙂

            It all what it all is, Mike, and whatever lack of time you have simply doesn’t speak to a jot or tittle of the argument.

            “I’ll have to catch up with all this later.”

            Well I hope you do. Keep in mind that when Cordain published his rebuttal, was informed it had been considered and dismissed, and that further, as the last paragraph of the quote above came to light, he just fell silent on the issue.

            So far as I know, he’s not published a single word on it since.

            Don’t you find it strange, on an issue where anthropologists claim they’ve likely solved a huge mystery?

            I’ll admit, I ignored and explained away discoveries of grain granules on various tools that came up some years ago, but grains don’t make sense from the perspective of cost/benefit, without agriculture and technology. But, a human today can plant tiger nuts, they grow like weeds, and he can harvest them right out of the ground with little effort and massively replete nutrition.

            When the very fundamental assumptions change, then everything must change.

            Be wary of the Fallacy of the Single Cause.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause

          • Well Jim, for starters, the 4,000 daily visitors to my blog daily.

            But anyway, what’s really important is your ability to cut through all the BS with an original and pithy saying. Somone ought to write that one down. I’m sure we’ll be seeing it used a lot for years to come.

            Now here’s one for you: “Just when you think you’ve seen it all…”

            Pretty good, huh?

          • “Agree. I’m skipping over all these “gotcha” posts.”

            Shorter Susan, if you could get any shorter:

            I only post when I agree, to say I agree. I skip over everything that challenges what I’ve been instructed to think.

          • 4000 visitors? That is so impressive! Just goes to show that one really can fool some of the people all of the time.

            With such riveting subject matter as whether or not the Intuit were in ketosis it is a wonder that you don’t have many more acolytes!

            Thanks so much for sharing your brilliance and repartee with the multitudes.

          • Oh Jim, you are such an endless supply of original slogans. Now, if you think on it real hard, you’ll realize you’ve come up with something so brilliant, there’s naturally occurring corollaries; like, you can fool some of the people some of the time, and you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

            You’re a real gift there, Jim.

          • Thanks Dick. What you think means so much to me and others!

            I wish I was as smart as you! Could you maybe impart some of your wisdom to me and other miserable wretches who do not wish to wallow in the mire of your blog?

            Maybe you can light my fire?

            You are the biggest joke in the blogosphere and that is saying something!

            Lol!

          • Jim,

            Why have you posted so many comments about the biggest joke in the blogosphere, assuming other people know what you mean?

            What does it say about your credibility to conduct so much research?

          • Jim:

            My mother named me Richard and she loathes the nickname Dick. I was Ricky as a boy, then Rick in teens, up until 30 where my French girlfriend in Toulon renamed me Richaaard. I loved how she prounounced my name, and that’s who I am 25 years later and since she’s deceased, I’ll be keeping it.

            Gotta love the Internet.

            Give yourself a big pat on the back, Jim.

            You deserve it.

          • Gosh, Richard. Thanks for putting me in my place. Such a gentelman!
            Still not interested in the Dick and Duck show.

          • “Gosh, Richard. Thanks for putting me in my place. Such a gentelman!”

            Oh honey, you have no idea. I have the awful audacity to not make meaningless distinctions over the implied gender of first names when arguing on the Internet.

            Indeed, telling a WOMAN that it’s a lapse in logic to “agree,” where you admit you’re “not interested” and “skipping over all these [] posts,” is most ungentlemanly. Here, let me boil it down so you don’t worry your little head, too much. You’re implying enough familiarity with something to agree or disagree, when you have no familiarity by your own admission.

            No there, that’s downright chauvinist pig asshole for you.

            “Still not interested in the Dick and Duck show.”

            You know, that’s downright brilliant. Whereas “Duck” is a chosen handle, I’ve never gone by the nickname “Dick.” Of course, in my 25 years online this is the first time I’ve encountered that clever ambiguity, where it’s not entirely clear whether you’re just using my name, or calling me a Dick. To make it even more clever, you’ve just accused me of being ungentlemanly, and since calling someone a Dick is most unladylike, it just fools the ambiguity.

            I’m going to have to remember such never-before-seen ambiguity cleverness.

            Now, have an ice day.

          • I was responding to another poster – he mentioned FTA and others amongst his fears of ketosis damaging his metabolism, only reason I wrote “FTA/whoever idea that you’re damaging metabolism by long-term ketosis is utterly retarded” as I don’t know his source of misinformation.

            Yes, it’s a thoroughly dumb idea.

            I know some folk have fun posting a few/several sources to back up their arguments, well here we go, here are hundreds that I’ve personally gone through, compiled, categorised, and summarised – and until ALL are read and refuted and not just hand-waved, I maintain I kinda know what I’m talking about.

            –> http://highsteaks.com/principia-ketogenica-references/

            As I recently wrote on Zoe Harcombe’s blog – I try to get across that I’m NOT a guru telling you what to do, and I am providing ZERO advice, and the book contains NO original research – it’s simply a collection of summaries of existing science that you’ll not find anywhere else. But some people… oh well.

            Also I’m trying to make it all available easily and free online – but it’s a super complex task with something like ~1,500-2,000 crosslinking references.

            This is the ONLY assertion I personally make in the entire book – spoiler alert, it’s the last page: https://twitter.com/HlthCoachPenny/status/522599870209990656

          • Thanks for posting. I purchased your book, Principia Ketogenica, several months ago and have found it invaluable. My plan was to review it at some point — and I still will — but time hasn’t allowed. It is highly recommended. I have spent a lot of time trolling the medical literature, and, consequently, know what a labor this book was for you.

    • @Melchior Meijer

      Too much glycolysis drives aging and virtually all degenerative diseases? News to me. What’s so toxic about glycolysis?

      Obviously, sick cells with sick mitochondria can’t use a lot of fat to make ATP and have to use glycolysis instead. Is this what you mean?

    • You’re talking about life expectancy. That’s an average (or maybe a mean), not an absolute number. People who suffer a lot of accidents and exposure to the elements are going to have less of a chance of living to old age.

      Of course, they may have an even lower life expectancy now than they did when they lived traditionally because generally speaking we treat native people like crap, relegating them to the lowest-quality lands and keeping their money from them that they were entitled to get (per treaty agreements, via the BIA) and giving them junky carb-laden government rations and all. It’s not their traditional diet doing it to them.

  31. Dr. Eades

    I do want to thank you for finally approving my previous comment. I’m sorry this has turned into such a tense discussion. That was never my intention, but hopefully we can cut through the flack and just discuss the science. That’s all I wanted to do from the beginning and hopefully you won’t be too busy to join us in an intelligent discussion about it.

    While I’m well aware that you’ve been incredibly busy and haven’t had a lot of time to devote to the topic, I should point out that there have been a few developments over the past few months that you will probably want to address if you’re planning on joining the discussion again. I’ve outlined the points below so that you can address them:

    1) Virtually all full-blooded Eskimos have the autosomal recessive CPT1a mutation that enables the Eskimos to have an extremely unique fat metabolism that cannot be replicated by Westerners. The mutation is known to cause hypoketotic hypoglycemia, a very low level of ketone production combined with hypoglycemia. By definition, a population that has difficulty producing ketones, and has difficulty fasting, cannot be in a perpetual state of ketosis.

    2) We initially believed that Heinbecker’s three studies showed that the Eskimos struggling to produce ketones during fasting was an adaptation to starvation ketosis (R.M. Lloyd 1969’s paper made that assertion as well). Given what we now know about CPT1a, that theory of an adaptation to starvation ketosis now makes little sense. Rather, the Eskimo’s difficulty producing ketones is apparently due to their CPT1a mutation, which tends to promotes hypoketotic hypoglycemia during fasting—especially in Eskimo children.

    3) I’m not aware of a single paper or study—referencing actual measurements on actual Eskimos—that did not conclude that the Eskimos were eating a high protein diet. The following researchers all concluded that the Eskimo diet was a high protein, high fat diet:

    Krogh & Krogh 1914 (Nobel Prize winner)
    Lusk 1914
    Joslin 1917 (first doctor to ever specialize in diabetes in the US)
    Schaffer 1921
    Heinbecker 1928, 1931, 1932
    Tolstoi 1929
    McClellan & DuBois 1930 (Stefansson’s own doctors)
    Rabinowitch 1936
    Rabinowitch & Corcoran 1936
    Rabinowitch & Smith 1936
    Kaare Rodahl 1952
    Sinclair 1953 (A detailed review of the literature)
    Ho 1972
    Hui 1975
    Bang, Dyerberg & Hjorne 1976
    Draper 1977 (anthropology)
    Bang, Dyerberg & Sinclair 1980
    VanItallie & Nufert 2003
    Leonard & Snodgrass 2005

    4) Peter Dobromylskyj, of Hyperlipid, recently penned an excellent post explaining how protein inhibits ketosis. While I’m sure you have issues with the post, I’m not sure it even matters given that the Inuit cannot easily produce ketones thanks to their CPT1a mutations.

    5) Eskimo studies over the last 100 years (and listed above) showed nitrogen in blood and/or urine was very high. Only a very high protein diet could explain this. Not only did these studies not detect ketosis in urine but they also did not show ketosis in their breath either. While I don’t possess the “curse of knowledge” that you are burdened with, my understanding is that breath actually measures the extent of ketones being burned for fuel in the body. So when Eskimos don’t show any acetone in their breath in studies, on their traditional diet, it proves that they were not using ketones as a major fuel. End of discussion, ketoadapted or not.

    While us mere mortals are not “cursed with knowledge” hopefully you can take the time to explain to us how a population shown to eat a high protein diet, with high levels of nitrogen in their blood and urine, no ketosis measured in their breath or urine, and with a genetic mutation that severely inhibits their ketone production, can still somehow be in a perpetual state of ketosis. It would seem to be an impossibility.

    I’m sure it’s all very “basic” but if you could explain it to us we’d all greatly appreciate it. And hopefully you won’t be too busy to answer any of our questions.

    Cheers.

    • I would have posted your earlier comment months ago had Nikoley not thrown down the gauntlet. I don’t respond well to threats.

      As I mentioned in my post, when I get the time, I’ll lay it all out. Right now I’m in Frankfurt, Germany for a trade show. I loathe trade shows, but there a necessary part of the business I’ve gotten myself into. I especially dislike European trade shows because a) they go on for days, and b) they last all day each day you’re there. There is no escape. Plus I’m working on two presentations for the conference in Cape Town next week. When I get back to the States in a couple of weeks, I’ll have the time to devote to the post.

      And though you wrote “While us [sic] mere mortals are not ‘cursed with knowledge’ hopefully you can..” implying that I had the notion that I was smarter than everyone else, which is not what the “Curse of Knowledge” is all about. It is basically a writer’s curse because writers often assume their readers know as much as they about a given subject when the reader may be clueless. It doesn’t have to be about biochemistry or physiology or anything medical or scientific. It could be about one’s own sister or pet hamster or anything else you know about in great detail that the reader may not.

      Here is a classic example from Steven Pinker’s book, the review of which I linked to in my post:

      “A newspaper is better than a magazine. A seashore is a better place than the street. At first it is better to run than to walk. You may have to try several times. It takes some skill but it’s easy to learn. Even young children can enjoy it. Once successful, complications are minimal. Birds seldom get too close. Rain, however, soaks in very fast. Too many people doing the same thing can also cause problems. One needs lots of room. If there are no complications, it can be very peaceful. A rock will serve as an anchor. If things break loose from it, however, you will not get a second chance. Make sense? How about with this clue: “The sentences are about making and flying a kite.””

      I took biochemistry, organic chemistry and physiology as an undergraduate student. I took biochemistry and physiology in courses of vastly more depth in medical school. I was quizzed on basic biochemistry and physiology by the faculty and residents above ne constantly through the last two years (the clinical years) of medical school and during post graduate training. I then spent the next 30+ years of my professional life taking care of patients, using what I had learned. I would assume someone with that kind of experience would come to ketosis (or any other medical subject) with a different degree of knowledge than someone who got a Google PhD by a few hours of web searching.

      To provide a more specific example, it’s my understanding that Richard Nikoley ran for a number of years a very successful business helping people clean up their credit reports, settle debts and obtain mortgages. I’m not sure that’s a totally accurate description, but it’s probably close. I’m sure I could Google a few terms and get sort of the gist of how such a business would operate, i.e., a view from 50,000 feet up. But I certainly would not think a quick run through of a few Googled articles would give me the depth of knowledge to actually help someone go through the process of dealing with creditors, re-establishing a good credit report, etc.

      When I get a chance to get my post up, we can let the debate begin. But I’m not going to be pushed into to it before.

      • “. . . which is not what the “Curse of Knowledge” is all about. It is basically a writer’s curse because writers often assume their readers know as much as they about a given subject when the reader may be clueless.”

        That’s what good editors are for. They’re supposed to read a book from the point of view of the target audience, which would depend on the book. But no one can afford to hire editors for blogposts.

    • Just as an FYI, those who want to be take seriously don’t want their internet handle to be the title of a 1990s cartoon. Just saying.

      • Yes. The irony is intentional.

        In terms of my choice to remain anonymous, since I don’t make money or personally benefit from my writing, there is no incentive for me to reveal my identity or provoke a Courtier’s Reply (another logical fallacy), which would be nothing more than a distraction from the published research being presented.

        None of my arguments are dependent upon my identity or credentials, per se. I prefer to discuss the evidence. Queries about my identity or “handle” imply a desire to distract from the evidence I’ve presented in my writing. My writing isn’t about me. If you believe my anonymity creates a problem then I suggest you consider a different perspective. Rather than regard me with suspicion for discussing overlooked and disregarded evidence, you might ask yourself why people who profit from their books, affiliations, advocacy, and research should be trusted when I have pointed out how poorly researched, illogical, or misleading their claims can be. I would think everyone benefits when we investigate all the evidence.

        But, by all means, I’d love to hear you discuss more about the relevancy of Looney Tunes in this debate. 🙂

        • There is something to be said for the willingness of a person to put their personal reputation behind a position they take on a public forum like this. That you and Dr. Eades are taking differing positions on much of (if not exactly) the same evidence is an indication of the relevance of a particular individual and their biases, experiences, conflicts of interest, intelligence, etc. in a position that he/she chooses to take on a particular issue. You are subtlety suggesting here that Dr. Eades (or anyone else who disagrees with you) is taking his position due to his profits from books, personal affiliations, etc., while at the same time remaining anonymous so that no one can attempt discredit you personally for similar reasons.

          I don’t expect you to change your decision on this and suddenly reveal to the world who you are. But, who you are is not irrelevant.

          • “That you and Dr. Eades are taking differing positions on much of (if not exactly) the same evidence is an indication of the relevance of a particular individual and their biases, experiences, conflicts of interest, intelligence, etc. in a position that he/she chooses to take on a particular issue.”

            Well, my position is simply quoting what the literature says. To suggest that I need to reveal my identity to quote snippets of literature seems a bit unfair. But that’s your opinion.

            If you’ve read my blog posts and comments, all I’ve done is quote what the scientific literature says. I’ve made a point of making my posts 90% quotes. If you don’t believe those quotes, then that’s your prerogative. I won’t be offended.

            I’ve quoted Krogh & Krogh, Bertelsen, Corcoran & Rabinowitch, Rabinowitch & Smith, Draper, Heinbecker, Sinclair, McClellan & DuBois, Tolstoi, Rodahl, VanItallie & Nufert, Murdoch, Hall, Schwatka, Parry, Jenness, and even Stefansson to simply report what the scientific literature observed about actual Eskimos. (I discounted and ignored Stefansson’s personal metabolic experiences because Stefansson was white and didn’t possess an Eskimo metabolism. Plus he did have a reputation for lying and embellishment. So there’s that).

            And then Peter showed the CPT1a studies that match up with perfectly with a century of scientific observations on Eskimos. Peter and Dr. Eades now apparently disagree about how protein and CPT1a affect ketosis. And frankly, that’s for Dr. Eades and Peter to sort out.

            This is all Scientific and observational literature that was overlooked or ignored until we dug it up. Does Dr. Eades interpret all this literature differently? Yes. And I’m happy to hear what he has to say.

            Now, Dr. Eades believes that all these observations and conclusions—by dozens of researchers spanning over a century—are erroneous. He is reading all this literature critically. While I am not. And I fully admit this. I’m just a messenger on what the literature says. If all the literature is wrong, then I’m wrong. So be it.

            But, as it stands, Dr. Eades has a difficult challenge. He has to prove that all these researchers—spanning over a century—screwed up their observations and were oblivious and ignorant to basic biochemistry. I find that hard to believe, but I’ve got my popcorn ready. 🙂

            Cheers

          • I think my able opponent in this debate is beginning to run a little scared. And like a giant squid, when threatened, is trying to obfuscate his position with a cloud of electronic ink. I don’t have a position, says he. I’m simply quoting everyone else. If they’re wrong, then no taint on me. I don’t have an opinion, I’m just quoting others. A slight change in tune, I would say. And a black cloud of squid ink, if there ever was one.

          • Well, at least I’ve bothered to actually read all the literature. If you had taken the time to do this years ago, being the voracious reader that you are, I wouldn’t have to spend my time doing this for you.

          • …and by the way. I’ve been saying for months that these are not my theories. I’ve simply reported what the literature says. It’s not my fault they all disagree with you.

          • “In that case, I’ll assume your argument is that the Inuit eat a high-protein diet and so, therefore, are not in ketosis nor are they keto-adapted. Which has been ‘proven’ to be the case by over a 150 years of scientific literature.”

            Well, there’s also the CPT1a mutation to deal with and the established fact that Eskimo and especially infants require regular feeding precisely because they have abnormal ketone production.

            So, you call it a moving target. We call it refining an argument over time.

            There’s also another big bugaboo you need to address: high fat. Part of the argument is that they ate high protein but just as important is that they didn’t eat unlimited fat, because it was required for heat, light, and cooking in a cold dark igloo for months of the year.

            Perhaps Duck has other issues to explicate.

            “If that’s not your argument, better let me know, because there is nothing that could motivate me to wade through 17 posts and Christ only knows how many comments, half of which are you calling others fucktards and banning them from commenting. And trying to hit a moving target. Life it too short.”

            I am serious troll bait. It’s funny, you saying that and you have 100% comment moderation and I only have 1st comment. After a first comment is approved, everything goes through. Life is to short? Welcome to the club.

            Point is, I never ban or delete unless it’s either gratuitous spam or taking another crap on my living room floor after I cleaned it up the first time.

            Moreover, how can you characterize what’s in those comments if you haven’t read them? I actually deal with commenters differently, depending on what I post.

            …I’ll bet you secretly wish you could call people fucktards. Doesn’t play well with the sycophants, though. So, by my accounting, I get to make money renting vacations to people from bed, on my iPhone, call stupid people fucktards on my blog, and you get to fly around the world to do trade shows, have to moderate 100% of all comments, and can’t tell anyone to fuck off because of granny or something. To me, that’s Nikoley 2, Eades 0.

            “Instead of sending me lengthy quotes from ancient literature…”

            Like, for instance, when you mocked the glycogen stuff, unaware that glycogen degradation was how it was discovered in the first place (it’s in “ancient literature”). My goodness, Doc, do you have any idea, as a fellow libertarinaish guy, I could point out that it’s “living literature,” like a “living constitution?”

            “And remember Popper when you write your pithy sentence or two and make sure they’re falsifiable.”

            So you’re challenging me by begging the question?

            It’s you who are claiming that 100+ years of literature that fails to clearly document the Inuit in ketosis is wrong, that they are in ketosis and are so “keto adapted” that you can’t see cars in traffic, because there’s no traffic jam.

            You say:

            1. there are studies we don’t know about, because we use Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed.

            2. We have failed to properly “interpret” the studies we have posted.

            So, needless to say, we’re anxious. If you have any further questions in terms of clarifying the challenge, by all means. Ask away.

          • So I can use the first two sentences in this mishmash of a comment (one of which I wrote) as your pithy argument resolved to its essence? Is that what you’re telling me? If so, I love it when you use statements such as “and the established fact.”

            Much though I try, I am totally unable to educate you on the basics of how to interpret the scientific literature. The discovery of insulin was an ancient paper, but has been confirmed countless times since. Which makes the ancient papers mostly right. Same with the discovery that glycogen degrades in a flash. Those papers have been reproduced God only knows how many times, demonstrating their validity. It’s not that old papers are worthless just because they’re old – it’s only old papers that haven’t held up to modern scrutiny or are decidedly wrong based on subsequent research. I haven’t looked, but I daresay the archives of the Royal Society are crawling with papers demonstrating the lifesaving virtues of bleeding patients with infections and fevers. And I know there are countless papers circa 1919 purporting to show that Bacillus influenzae was the causative agent for the flu pandemic, which are all wrong because, as we now know, influenza is caused by a virus not a bacterium. So one has to view old papers through the prism of what is known today to tell whether or not they have value. It has nothing to do with their ancientness, only their coherence with modern science. And granted, today’s modern science will be tomorrow’s ancient papers to be rated based upon knowledge gained hence. But it’s all we’ve got right now.

          • “Just put it in a couple of short sentences that can be falsified.”

            This is getting ridiculous.

            Can you follow along, sir?

            Now you’re shifting burden of proof where all along, even you have maintained that the falsification in the literature (that Inuit don’t eat ketogenic, aren’t in perpetual ketosis, don’t eat super high fat, eat unbelievable protein, have a gene mutation that hampers ketone production, etc.) is bogus or misinterpreted.

            You’re like many steps behind and now that you’re finally ready—after more than a year—to finally grace us with the basics, we need to come up with a falsifiable hypothesis for you when it’s us who’ve been falsifying your assertions over and over and over and over for better than a year.

            And you just know where’re wrong, and your latest claim to that is that you have NOT read the 17 posts, nor the comments, nor do you intend to.

            Can you imagine how, when you do post, it’s going to be like lots of “asked and answered” objections? This is really going to be fun. You’ve been saying how basic it all is, how we don’t understand, and yet you just admitted you aren’t even aware of what we’ve said.

            I can’t wait.

          • I’m well aware of what you’ve said…sort of. Mostly you’ve been all over the place. All I’m asking for is a nice concise argument couched in a couple of sentences like I did mine. I don’t want to plow through a dreary laundry list of old papers dealing with each one. Feel free to use them to bolster your argument, but just give me a nice precise description of what you believe.

          • “All I’m asking for is a nice concise argument couched in a couple of sentences like I did mine”

            Arrgghh.. I’ve already done it. You just need to approve the comment in the thread below.

          • Ja! Duck is quoting “ancient” studies, like this one from the “ancient” era of 2003 A.D. !!!

            Ketones: Metabolism’s Ugly Duckling, by Theodore B. VanItallie, M.D., and Thomas H. Nufert, B.A (2003)
            A low-carbohydrate diet is not necessarily a ketogenic diet. This is particularly true of diets with unrestricted content of meat and other protein-rich foods. Heinbecker reported in 1928 that Baffin Island Eskimos subsisting on their usual diet of meat (virtually the only source of carbohydrate in their food was the glycogen in seal muscle) showed minimal ketonuria…It is unlikely that these very small amounts of glycogen could have accounted for the absence of appreciable ketonuria. A much more likely explanation is that the glucose derived from catabolism of ingested meat protein was sufficient to prevent ketosis. McClellan and DuBois fed two human volunteers “carbohydrate-free” diets high in meat content (an Eskimo-type diet) for many months in a metabolic ward setting. Their findings led them to conclude that, in persons subsisting on diets very low in carbohydrate, ketosis varies inversely with the quantity of protein eaten. This occurs because approximately 48 to 58% of the amino acids in most dietary proteins are glucogenic. For every 2 grams of protein consumed in a carbohydrate-free diet, somewhere between 1.0 and 1.2 grams are potentially convertible to glucose. Therefore, to obtain a degree of hyperketonemia (approximately 2-7 mM/L) believed to be therapeutically effective in certain important medical conditions such as epilepsy, patients must rigorously restrict protein as well as carbohydrate intake and, when possible, increase their level of physical activity.”

            Even in the olden days of “2003”, those ancient scientists like Theodore VanItallie, M.D. who wrote papers on ketogenesis, didn’t understand the basic biochemistry. How silly they were way back then! LOL

          • You should read the entire paper, not cherry pick a particular paragraph. This paper was written in probably 2002 because it was published in 2003 (I actually thought it was published in 2004, but I’m in a airport on a layover and don’t have the paper with me). That’s 11-12-13 years ago before much of the work on keto-adaptation was done, but it doesn’t matter. The old papers themselves, if the DD crowd but knew how to read them, hold the key.

            This was one of the first papers to come out (there were a couple in the late 1990s) that got any traction showing that ketones weren’t the poisons people previously thought them to be.

          • My mistake. Just checked the paper. The paper you quote is a little out of date, but still pretty good. I was getting it confused with a paper by Laffel that was from the late 90s and quite dated now. The part of the paper you quote is simply adding some historical perspective, not advocating what was written back then.

          • “before much of the work on keto-adaptation was done”

            Some believed, and I think The Duck has said this. that the old papers showed an adaptation to “starvation ketosis”:

            Ketonuria In The Antarctic: A Detailed Study, by R. M. Lloyd (1969)

            “Adaptation to starvation ketosis has been shown in Eskimos (Heinbecker, 1928, 1931, 1932).”

            That paper is about antarctica (wreng side of the globe). Still this shows to me that the concept of “adaptation” was known in the 1960s and based on that knowledge Lloyd belived the Inuit had an adaptation to “starvation ketosis” and not ketosis in a fed state.

            So, I wonder how someone who understands what ketoadaptation is didn’t make any connections to full ketosis.

          • Duck Dodgers,

            I would like to begin my reply to you by stating that the name my mother gave me is indeed Christopher. I have a degree in computer science and I am a software engineer/web developer by trade. I have been following bloggers, authors, documentary film makers, etc. in the low-carb arena for about 5 years now after I watched the movie Fat Head. I have read the book Protein Power by the Drs. Eades and I have been following this blog for the same 5 years that I have been following the low-carb community in general. I have also read Richard Nikoley’s book, Free the Animal and have following his blog (less religiously) for the last 3 years or so. The multiple logical fallacies that it is my contention that you have made in your reply above I researched using a Google search of the term “logical fallacies” at the time of this writing, which led me to this site. As it is my contention that your anonymity is relevant to the arguments that you are making in this thread, I personally feel that it is my responsibility to do the same. Now, without further ado…

            Well, my position is simply quoting what the literature says.

            This is an example of a special pleading attack. I have read many of your posts on both this site and FTA and it is quite clear that you are making an argument that the Inuit should not be used as evidence to support the health and longevity claims purported by advocates of ketogenic diets. You pull selected quotes from very large studies in support of this argument. To suggest otherwise as a rebuttal to my assertion that your anonymity is relevant to your position is a logical fallacy.

            To suggest that I need to reveal my identity to quote snippets of literature seems a bit unfair.

            If you’ve read my blog posts and comments, all I’ve done is quote what the scientific literature says. I’ve made a point of making my posts 90% quotes.

            This is an example of a strawman argument. As I stated above, my argument is that you are NOT “simply quoting snippets of literature.” If that was all that you were doing, you would paste the entire content of the studies that you reference (or links to them) with no further additions, explanations, citations, etc.. You would not pick and choose sections of them to support your argument with short sentences in between to explain to the reader how the citation you are using supports your argument.

            I’ve quoted Krogh & Krogh, Bertelsen, Corcoran & Rabinowitch, Rabinowitch & Smith, Draper, Heinbecker, Sinclair, McClellan & DuBois, Tolstoi, Rodahl, VanItallie & Nufert, Murdoch, Hall, Schwatka, Parry, Jenness, and even Stefansson to simply report what the scientific literature observed about actual Eskimos metabolism.

            This is not all that you are doing. You are using this as evidence to support your claim(s) that the Inuit were not in ketosis and/or that they should not used as evidence to support the long term healthfulness of ketogenic diets.

            Plus he did have a reputation for lying and embellishment. So there’s that

            This is an example of an ad hominem attack. Even if Stefansson was the biggest douche bag to ever grace the scientific community with his presence, it means nothing if you are attempting to discredit his research. It can give you useful clues to know that you need to watch out for the fact that you may be reading or interpreting his research incorrectly, but nothing more. Coincidentally, I personally use this type of information to know when to be more vigilant for the confirmation bias. Which is another reason I consider your identity to be relevant. Not because I intend to engage with you in an ad hominem attack but because it is another tool to utilize when examining the evidence someone presents to you critically. Since Dr. Eades has publicly stated that he believes you are a victim of the confirmation bias, if you turned out to be a potato farmer or an author of a book about resistant starch for example, this would be relevant information to help me understand your position. It would still, of course, be my responsibility to examine the evidence you present critically as even facts such as those would not be enough to discredit you.

            And then Peter showed the CPT1a studies that match up with perfectly with a century of scientific observations on Eskimos. Peter and Dr. Eades now apparently disagree about how protein and CPT1a affect ketosis. And frankly, that’s for Dr. Eades and Peter to sort out.

            Now, Dr. Eades believes that all these observations and conclusions—by dozens of researchers spanning over a century—are erroneous. He is reading all this literature critically. While I am not. And I fully admit this. I’m just a messenger on what the literature says. If all the literature is wrong, then I’m wrong. So be it.

            Both of these paragraphs are irrelevant to anything I said in my original post. They serve only to detract from my original argument and perhaps to throw down additional gauntlets to Dr. Eades without addressing him directly. For the record, I think that you raise a lot of interesting questions that seem to make sense to me on the surface. I am intrigued to hear Dr. Eades’ reply to all of them.

            But, as it stands, Dr. Eades has a difficult challenge. He has to prove that all these researchers—spanning over a century—screwed up their observations and were oblivious and ignorant to basic biochemistry. I find that hard to believe, but I’ve got my popcorn ready.

            This is an example of a burden of proof attack. Having read your posts and the amount of research that you have put in to them, I doubt that this will be an ongoing logical fallacy for you personally. But, it is still up to you to prove your argument, not Dr. Eades to disprove it. I will also have my popcorn ready, but for very different reasons.

          • “But, it is still up to you to prove your argument, not Dr. Eades to disprove it.”

            All of that to sum it up with a question beg fallacy?

            You seriously believe that Eades’ beliefs are a standard of certainty where challengers have “onus of proof?” And you’re a coder (I don’t use “comparator scientist euphemisms….sorry)? Hope you don’t write my code.

            It’s really quite laughable since anyone who’s actually followed along can’t possibly have missed that the entire approach has been iconoclastic. I mean, anyone who doesn’t get that it pretty moron and dismissible.

            I’d have to dare say that it would be hard for even Mike to disagree, because then he would have to explain why as such a busy man, he’s taking so much time to counter our “assertions” (quotes from 100 years of literature) rather than defending himself against our charge that this literature contradicts Stefansson and by extension, Eades.

          • In may cases your own literature citations disprove what you are trying so desperately to prove…if only you knew what to look for. That and, dare I say it again, a lack of understanding of basic biochemistry. I don’t care how many Nobel prizes researchers a hundred years ago garnered – they didn’t understand the biochemistry a first year undergrad does now. They had no clue what a mitochondrion was – the best and the brightest of the time had no idea. It wasn’t even a word then. If they didn’t know mitochondria existed, they certainly weren’t aware of the chemiosmotic mechanism for ATP synthesis. These people you’re so fond of quoting had antiquated equipment (by today’s standards), thought ketones were some kind of poison, and, in the cases you cite from before the early 1920s, didn’t even know insulin existed. Yet you rely on their observations to make your feeble case.

            When there is more recent work, why wouldn’t you bother to cite that. If you were to have your gall bladder removed, would you rather have it done a la the 1908 method practiced by the experts of that time, or would you prefer modern surgical technique be used on you? I mean, think about it.

            The reason it requires time to put up a rebuttal is that I have to lay the groundwork so that folks who are not first year undergrads taking a biochem course can understand what’s going on. It’s easy for a couple of clueless guys (assuming DD is a guy) to Google ‘eskimo’ and ‘ketone’ and run through a shit load of old papers and put up a couple of thousand words of someone else’s work and then condemn me because I haven’t had the time to carefully lay out my argument by presenting the basic biochemistry then showing how it applies to this situation. It takes some time. Try thinking for a change instead of copying and pasting and calling it original work.

          • “You seriously believe that Eades’ beliefs are a standard of certainty where challengers have ‘onus of proof?'”

            Of course I don’t think that. No one and nothing falls into that category. I am simply stating that that particular sentence is counter-productive to his argument.

            I guess my ability (or lack thereof in your opinion) to make a coherent logical argument suggests that I have no idea how to do my job and am deserving of personal insults to this end. I am sorry you feel this way and that you feel that I have attacked you in some personal way that warrants this response. That was certainly not my intention.

            I’d have to dare say that it would be hard for even Mike to disagree, because then he would have to explain why as such a busy man, he’s taking so much time to counter our “assertions” (quotes from 100 years of literature) rather than defending himself against our charge that this literature contradicts Stefansson and by extension, Eades.

            I am eager to get his response on this as well. I have to ask again what I said that made you think otherwise?

          • As I’ve Sisyphus’tically said in the past about such notions:

            “The problem with trying to reform it is that even with zero proof, anyone can repeat the conventional wisdom and it won’t be questioned – but to disprove a fallacy we need to communicate a tome – which even then will probably be hand-waved away by those with preconceptions.”

          • “The reason it requires time to put up a rebuttal is that I have to lay the groundwork so that folks who are not first year undergrads taking a biochem course can understand what’s going on. It’s easy for a couple of clueless guys (assuming DD is a guy) to Google ‘eskimo’ and ‘ketone’ and run through a shit load of old papers and put up a couple of thousand words of someone else’s work and then condemn me because I haven’t had the time to carefully lay out my argument by presenting the basic biochemistry then showing how it applies to this situation.”

            With all due respect Dr. Eades, I’m not the one who came along a few years ago and claimed that the Inuit were all in ketosis. Given that there isn’t a single paper observing Eskimos that shows this—and all of them say they were very high protein—then I don’t know how you can expect anyone to believe you without some kind of explanation.

            I don’t see why you have to crawl up my ass for pointing out that all these observations and conclusions don’t match up with what you are saying. If all of these scientists didn’t understand basic biochemistry, then all you need to do is say that and explain why. There’s no need to call me names or question my intelligence.

            I mean, give me a freakin’ break. What kind of person ridicules another person for pointing out flaws in an argument? I’m so sorry that this is complicated for you to explain to us mere mortals, but if you want people to believe your claims, I suspect you’ll need to take the time to explain it to everyone who isn’t cursed with knowledge.

          • You wrote:

            Given that there isn’t a single paper observing Eskimos that shows this—and all of them say they were very high protein—then I don’t know how you can expect anyone to believe you without some kind of explanation.

            Which is entirely false. What it means is that by Googling you haven’t been able to find one. They are out there, I can assure you. Even some of the papers you wave with great authority show the Inuit to have been in ketosis if only you knew how to read them.

            Are you starting to get a little hot under the collar, Ducky Boy?

          • “In may cases your own literature citations disprove what you are trying so desperately to prove”

            Again, and I must insist, Duck and i have sought not to prove one single thing. We have sought one single thing and that was to get people to stop looking at Inuit as some panacea for eating a diet nobody in their right mind would eat without Biblical-esque fairy tales backing them up that you, sir, have helped to prop up.

            That’s all.

            Make a case for the opposite Bell Curve of a vegan diet if you will and must, but you just don’t get to use the outlier Inuit anymore; and yes, even if DD does not, I will rub it in faces for years to come because BS makes me impatient and even if I ought be on meds, I hate pills. Won’t even take an ibuprofen.

            And by the way, when comes the time when you stop spending you valuable busy time telling us how stupid we are how little of 1st year biochem we understand and other well poisoning tactics, and just write the damn post already?

            I still have that quote waiting.

            BTW, I actually have been looking into the mitochondrial function of good eats. Recent research too. I hope you get it right when you talk about glucose vs. ketones, and cancer cells.

          • You wrote:

            We have sought one single thing and that was to get people to stop looking at Inuit as some panacea for eating a diet nobody in their right mind would eat without Biblical-esque fairy tales backing them up that you, sir, have helped to prop up.

            I just got back from speaking at a conference in South Africa in which true experts from all over the world presented research showing the superiority of the ketogenic diet for just about everything. People are setting all kinds of endurance records – breaking the previous records by large intervals – on LCHF diets (ketogenic diets). And that’s just for starters. I’ll put the intellectual firepower and the research experience of this group up against you and Duck and anyone else you want to drag into the fray. So, many, many people in their right minds are not only following this type of diet themselves, but are recommending it to others and have the research to back it up. You’ve decided to switch horses right at the wrong time.

          • “When there is more recent work, why wouldn’t you bother to cite that. If you were to have your gall bladder removed, would you rather have it done a la the 1908 method practiced by the experts of that time, or would you prefer modern surgical technique be used on you? I mean, think about it.”

            I’m honestly unclear as to what you are suggesting. I’ve looked in every decade and nobody ever presented any evidence, on actual Eskimos, that refutes any of the older papers. There are no new published revelations on the Eskimos given all the new basic knowledge you’ve been talking about.

            The recent CPT1a papers are all very recent and appear to be the nail in the coffin. Peter sure seemed to think so too…

            Peter Dobromylskyj wrote:

            “I have some level of discomfort with using the Inuit as poster people for a ketogenic diet. That’s fine. They may well have eaten what would be a ketogenic diet for many of us, but they certainly did not develop high levels of ketones when they carried the P479L gene…Confirming that the Inuit are not poster boys for ketosis is a “so what?” moment for me.”

            Peter tells us that ketosis inhibits protein. But, somehow you feel the need to kick me for pointing this conflict of knowledge out. Thanks.

            Do you disagree with Peter on all this? And if so, how is this possible if what you’re talking about is so “basic”??

          • “I am simply stating that that particular sentence is counter-productive to his argument.”

            Oh, OK. You lack context then. I’ll disregard the paragraphs you wrote setting yourself up as an authority on complete context then.

            Which position do you prefer?

          • “It’s easy for a couple of clueless guys (assuming DD is a guy) to Google ‘eskimo’ and ‘ketone’ and run through a shit load of old papers”

            This is bullshit, by the way… My collaborators included those with basic biochemistry background.

            I’m sure you remember Jennifer Jones, PhD? She wrote a nice long rebuttal in two parts and you never published it. She said she had a PhD in biomolecular engineering.

            No worries though, she sent the unpublished comments to Richard and me, and Richard was kind enough not to publish it.

            She’s still waiting for your reply, but the way.

            Surely you don’t need to lay down all the basic biochemistry groundwork for Dr. Jones. You could have ended this months ago if you had just explained it to her.

            Here’s a thought. Why not just publish a comment and let it hang there for others to look at and discuss? Makes zero sense to embargo it for months until you have time to answer it. And surely you and Dr. Jones could have hashed this out, given the vast level of intelligence between you two.

            Or did you not think she could understand your basic biochemistry?

          • Ah, so it’s not just the Duck and Dick show, as someone so cleverly put it. I suspected as much. And you surely must know by now that I don’t really give a flip what Richard publishes.

          • “People are setting all kinds of endurance records”

            Cool.

            Incidentally, this argument has never been principally about the efficacy of ketosis per se—only that the Inuit are no poster children for it, on a number of levels, the CPT-1 mutation being just the latest shoe to drop.

            So, if your point is that the fact that people are out researching ketosis on normal people contradicts anything we’ve presented, it’s non-sequitur.

            Unfortunately, we’re going to have to wait decades to see if all this loveliness comes close to what we already know about what’s most important: population level longevity. And given that we already have The Blue Zones, we know people can already do quite well without eating a weird-ass magic diet.

            Incidentally, I do ketosis quite often,sometimes twice per week (as do many of the folks in Blue Zones). It’s called FASTING and it’s what ketosis is for anyway.

          • Oh, OK. You lack context then. I’ll disregard the paragraphs you wrote setting yourself up as an authority on complete context then.

            I don’t know what you mean by “authority on complete context.” I suspect that this is another (albeit more intelligent) attack on me personally. But, I am unclear as to what you are even saying. Would you mind explaining what you mean by ‘complete context’ and how I have established myself as an authority on it? I would also request that you do so without further personal insults as I still fail to understand what I have said or done that warrants you speaking to me in this way.

          • “I suspected as much.”

            Wow, nothing gets past you, especially since that was stated explicitly months ago.

            But I’m sure everything you’ve ever posted is complete original work on your part. Nobody emails you stuff, there’s nobody you communicate with to bounce stuff off of.

          • Other than my wife, who proofreads most (not all) of my posts, I’ve never run a single one past anyone else before posting.

          • I know you are having trouble with your website, so here is Jennifer’s comment from nearly a year ago in case you lost it:

            Jennifer Jones, Ph.D., April 22, 2014:

            …On the other hand, when citing unpublished work or personal practice, experience can indeed come into play.

            For example : you reference your clinical practice as showing that one doesn’t need to eat a 70-80% ketogenic fat ratio to be in ketosis.

            That’s completely believable and could be used as a valid argument, because it comes from you.

            However, how does it relate to the ketogenicity of the Inuit diet? Don’t many, if not most, of your patients go on a weight-loss diet, burning fat?

            If you have evidence showing a lowering of the ketogenic dietary fat requirement for people who are not using one of the three known changes in fat sourcing and protein demand (weight-loss, athletic demand or MCT oils), I urge you to publish it!

            It would be great to have a citable reference for that. If you know of any and I’ve missed them, please share?

            I searched again just earlier and still haven’t found any evidence to change the ketogenic/anti-ketogenic macro-nutrients ratio (see also next comment on references).

            Also on the same biochemistry/physiology front : if the Inuit where keto-adapted and that is why they excreted less ketones (explaining no detection in urine) they needed even less protein than for someone not keto-adapted.

            That is indeed basic, since gluconeogenesis is lowered once keto-adaption ensues.

            I haven’t found any evidence, either, for lower protein consumption by the Inuit.

            It’s ironic isn’t it? In trying to to make a ‘basic biochemistry’ argument that you maintained allows us to discard more information/references about what the Inuit really ate, both you and I keep having to go back to the literature about what they ate.

            So in the end, it’s looking like it really does come down to those references. The basics of physics or biochemistry are not in doubt, but they also don’t answer the questions about ketogenicity.

            […]

            As far as I can see at the moment, it looks like there are a great many accounts spanning wide swaths of geography and going back to the mid-1800s, as well as measurements, both urine and blood, that have the Inuit eating large amounts of meat/protein and even specifically citing a non-ketogenic diet of 1:1.

            Now what sources one chooses to accept, that’s a whole other discussion. I don’t know about you, but I’m not interested in going down that path.

            It does reflect on the point of your post though. That is, I have to maintain that it’s not confirmation bias to find that research, share it and try to discuss it.

            She was more than ready to discuss it with you. You never published the comment, and all you wrote back was:

            Dr. Eades wrote:

            Glad you wrote again. I’m not ignoring your previous comment, I’ve spent most of the morning reading papers I hadn’t before seen on the Inuit diet. I’ve got to do some real work for a while now, but rest assured I will answer your questions ASAP.

            Thanks for your patience.

            ASAP, huh? It’s too bad you ignored her and then made everyone think that I was the only one who responded about your claims. I mean, come on. It’s been nearly a year and now you’re pretending I’m the only one who ever questioned you on this.

          • “So you say.”

            Well then let’s see. I’m aware that you spurn using Google, Google Scholar, or PubMed to source the literature, but it’s really all I’ve got up here in Arnold. My vast library that rivals Oxford is, alas, back home in San Jose. But you’re back in SB where, I’m sure you’ve got plenty of resources that don’t involve sullying yourself by using the Internet.

            Anyway, so let me get this straight. Is your claim that ketone production is primarily a function of lack of dietary carbohydrate, and not a lack of food, per se?

            It’s interesting if so, because if I Google around, just about everything I can find written on ketosis by tons of folks ignorant of basic biochemistry like me is that it’s a cool survival adaptation that essentially preserves lean tissue via gluconeogenesis when food is scarce or nonexistent. It’s so cool that mom can even take a break from having her teat sucked on for a while—unless she has an Eskimo baby that can’t produce ketones overnight, of course. Unfortunately, the infant could make good use of ketones, in spite of a diet that’s about 30-40% calories from carbohydrate.

            Moreover, there’s a lot of shades of grey. People produce ketones in the wee hours of the morning—even candy eaters. And, then there those very rare folks who don’t eat exactly 2,500 kcal every day. They’re weird and eat 1,300 kcal one day, 3,500 another. Combine the 1,300 with a 8-10 hour sleep with no food, and you’ve got a ketogenic situation even if the 1,300 calories came from sugar water.

            But go ahead and tell us how it’s all about carbohydrate restriction primarily.

          • What is your (and Duck’s and Jennifer’s) argument exactly? At least now. It’s been all over the place. I started out saying the Inuit were keto-adapted and burned basically ketones and/or fat for fuel. I haven’t changed my stance since.

            You guys have been all over the map. First it was the glycogen providing all kinds of carbohydrate. At least you saw reason on that one. Then it switched to the argument that the Inuit ate a high-protein, low-fat diet. Now it’s all about caloric restriction. I can’t hit a moving target, so tell me what your final argument is.

            You’ve googled ‘Eskimo’ and ‘glycogen,’ which went nowhere. Then, I guess, ‘Eskimo’ and ‘protein.’ Was that followed by ‘Eskimo’ and ‘caloric restriction.’

            What is it specifically that you’re arguing? Remember, I’ve been crystal clear right from the start. I’m maintaining the Inuit are keto-adapted and follow a high-fat diet.

            Can Duck conjure up some sort of fallacy I’m committing by stating my position clearly and asking you to do the same?

          • “I’ve never run a single one past anyone else before posting.”

            And so every idea you hold, every position you take, every hypothesis you chew on is arrived at totally independently and originally, you never collaborate with anyone ever, and never have.

            That’s awesome!

            And plus, you’re like the Supreme Court of dietary studies, where in spite of the fact they’re written in English, everyone needs you to “interpret” them properly.

            It’s very saintly, especially in view of the fact that you don’t even have a dietary regime you’re beholden too, or anything—quite unlike SCOTUS where the underlying politics require almost constant “interpretation.”

            Man, I wish I could get Beatrice to proofread my posts….

          • You wrote in another comment:

            But I’m sure everything you’ve ever posted is complete original work on your part. Nobody emails you stuff, there’s nobody you communicate with to bounce stuff off of.

            I simply said no one, save my wife, reads over my posts before I post them. So, yes, everything I post is an “original work on my part.” I obviously read papers, books, etc. and communicate with others about ideas, hypotheses, biochemistry, physiology, etc., but I don’t run my posts by anyone other than the aforementioned spouse. Which is what I thought you were asking. I didn’t realize you might be so clueless as to think I live in a vacuum without any other human interaction. Or maybe this is just one of those misunderstandings so common in today’s written digital world in which no body language (which represents about 90% of direct human interaction – unless, of course, that notion has been relegated to a particular fallacy) is involved.

          • “What is your (and Duck’s and Jennifer’s) argument exactly?”

            Sir, it has even been stated in this very comment thread. And also, have you forgotten already that Duck acknowledged a bit of exuberance over our first two posts about glycogen? It’s there, but the protein and lack of measured ketones or bad breath way overshadowed that. Still, it’s interesting to contemplate that fresh raw liver and blubber from diving mammals can have significant glycogen—and in the latter case, upwards of 30% carb, and it does not degrade rapidly at all.

            Hell, probably half of our 17 posts were motivated primarily by your snarky dismissals of literally everything, out of hand, in the face of knowing full well you weren’t paying attention (guess it was that curse you have).

            Don’t complain to me if you’re finding yourself caught through your own method of handling this:

            1. you’re all wrong
            2. it’s so simple
            3. i’ll make it all clear eventually

            Problem is, you were wrong in #1, because you simply didn’t thoroughly look at what our arguments really are. That’s not our fault, it’s yours. And, I’m not faulting you for not looking, but instead, for being so blithely dismissive, as though we could not possibly be right if we’re disagreeing with you.

            The 17 posts and comments are of record. I suggest that if you really are going to “answer,” that you at least make sure you know what the questions are.

          • In that case, I’ll assume your argument is that the Inuit eat a high-protein diet and so, therefore, are not in ketosis nor are they keto-adapted. Which has been ‘proven’ to be the case by over a 150 years of scientific literature.

            If that’s not your argument, better let me know, because there is nothing that could motivate me to wade through 17 posts and Christ only knows how many comments, half of which are you calling others fucktards and banning them from commenting. And trying to hit a moving target. Life it too short.

            Instead of sending me lengthy quotes from ancient literature, just put your argument into one or two pithy sentences as I did mine. This whole affair is a giant waste of time, so if I’m going to waste the time, I want to make sure I’m not accused of not addressing your argument, which is scattered through 17 posts.

            And remember Popper when you write your pithy sentence or two and make sure they’re falsifiable.

          • “What is your (and Duck’s and Jennifer’s) argument exactly? At least now. It’s been all over the place…”

            That’s odd. I thought you read everything so carefully? You must still be jet-lagged. 🙂

            I already clearly outlined it here. Please read it again, carefully. And please be sure to address Jennifer Jones’ points, above on why you need to show evidence of protein restriction to prove your point. I shouldn’t have to explain her comment to you.

            “Then it switched to the argument that the Inuit ate a high-protein, low-fat diet.”

            Um, no. Nobody ever said low fat. You really need to stop making things up like that! They conserved their fat for lamp fuel, but they still ate a good amount of fat along with their high quantities of protein—the literature clearly says that.

            And frankly, you need to adjust your perspective from claiming that I’m making these arguments as if I invented them. I’m not. I’m just telling you what all the papers say. My argument is that the papers as well as their observations and conclusions all refute what you are saying. You should have read them by now for chrissake… it’s been a year!

            The papers all said it was roughly an even split in calories between fat and protein. Draper said it was probably 66% fat and 32% protein. So, it’s a HPHF diet. Got it?

            “Now it’s all about caloric restriction. I can’t hit a moving target, so tell me what your final argument is…What is it specifically that you’re arguing?”

            You know full well what we are saying. See the points in Jennifer Jones’ comment and please address these clearly outlined points.

            Additionally, everyone would all like to know why you and Peter appear to disagree on protein and CPT1a. If you want people to believe that this is all so “basic,” you’ll have to address why there is such a disparity between your opinions on the matter.

            “Remember, I’ve been crystal clear right from the start. I’m maintaining the Inuit are keto-adapted and follow a high-fat diet…Can Duck conjure up some sort of fallacy I’m committing by stating my position clearly and asking you to do the same?”

            No problem. The logical fallacy you’ve maintained over the past year is that you’ve maintained your position by ignoring all of the evidence we’ve presented.

            See: Ignoratio elenchi

            For example:

            Dr. Eades: The Inuit restricted their protein and were in ketosis.
            Duck: But the scientific literature shows exactly the opposite!
            Dr. Eades: Well, it ought to say that they were.

            You’re welcome. 🙂

          • The links you posted don’t work. Just put it in a couple of short sentences that can be falsified. That shouldn’t pose much of a challenge.

          • “I didn’t realize you might be so clueless as to think I live in a vacuum without any other human interaction.”

            Well obviously, which is why I was surprised that you’d spurn the notion of Duck and I doing likewise, just for sycophant points.

          • “I’ll assume your argument is that the Inuit eat a high-protein diet and so, therefore, are not in ketosis nor are they keto-adapted. Which has been ‘proven’ to be the case by over a 150 years of scientific literature.”

            Not quite.

            We are informing you that 150 years of scientific literature and observations overwhelmingly demonstrates, and concludes, that the Inuit ate a high-protein/high fat diet, were not in ketosis, have difficulty producing ketones (thanks to CPT1a), and there is no evidence that they were keto-adapted.

            In order to fully cover this complex topic, you will need to address the following points:

            1) Virtually all full-blooded Eskimos have the autosomal recessive CPT1a mutation that enables the Eskimos to have an extremely unique fat metabolism that cannot be replicated by Westerners. The mutation is known to cause hypoketotic hypoglycemia, a very low level of ketone production combined with hypoglycemia. By definition, a population that has difficulty producing ketones, and has difficulty fasting, cannot be in a perpetual state of ketosis.

            2) We are not aware of a single paper or study—referencing actual measurements on actual Eskimos—that did not conclude that the Eskimos were eating a high protein diet. For example, the following researchers all concluded that the Eskimo diet was a high protein, high fat diet and were not in ketosis:

            Krogh & Krogh 1914 (Nobel Prize winner)
            Lusk 1914
            Joslin 1917 (first doctor to ever specialize in diabetes in the US)
            Schaffer 1921
            Heinbecker 1928, 1931, 1932
            Tolstoi 1929
            McClellan & DuBois 1930 (Stefansson’s own doctors)
            Rabinowitch 1936
            Rabinowitch & Corcoran 1936
            Rabinowitch & Smith 1936
            Kaare Rodahl 1952
            Sinclair 1953 (A detailed review of the literature)
            Ho 1972
            Hui 1975
            Bang, Dyerberg & Hjorne 1976
            Draper 1977 (anthropology)
            Bang, Dyerberg & Sinclair 1980
            VanItallie & Nufert 2003
            Leonard & Snodgrass 2005
            Bersamin et al. 2007 (see highest quintile of traditional food intake)

            The few papers that disagreed with these observations and conclusions only reference Phinney 2004 as their evidence. Phinney only referenced the Bellevue Experiment, on white explorers, and failed to reference any data on actual Eskimos (i.e. circular reasoning).

            3) Peter Dobromylskyj, of Hyperlipid, recently penned an excellent post explaining how protein inhibits ketosis. Peter also stated that the Inuit cannot easily produce ketones thanks to their CPT1a mutations saying, “…They certainly did not develop high levels of ketones when they carried the P479L gene.” Why you disagree with Peter’s opinions when your argument is so “basic”?

            4) Eskimo studies over the last 100 years (for instance, Krogh & Krogh, Heinbecker, Rabinowitch and Rodahl) showed nitrogen in blood and/or urine was very high. Only a very high protein diet could explain this.

            5) Not only did these studies not detect ketosis in urine but they also did not show ketosis in their breath either. Our understanding is that breath actually measures the extent of ketones being burned for fuel in the body. So when Eskimos don’t show any acetone in their breath in studies, on their traditional diet, it proves that they were not using ketones as a major fuel. End of discussion, ketoadapted or not. Claiming that their equipment was “antiquated” does not disprove the observations (that would be a logical fallacy).

            6) Jennifer Jones pointed out that you will need to show evidence of protein restriction in order to convince those with “basic biochemistry” backgrounds. I’ll quote her again, in case you can’t remember:

            Jennifer Jones, Ph.D., April 22, 2014:

            …You reference your clinical practice as showing that one doesn’t need to eat a 70-80% ketogenic fat ratio to be in ketosis.

            That’s completely believable and could be used as a valid argument, because it comes from you. However, how does it relate to the ketogenicity of the Inuit diet? Don’t many, if not most, of your patients go on a weight-loss diet, burning fat?

            If you have evidence showing a lowering of the ketogenic dietary fat requirement for people who are not using one of the three known changes in fat sourcing and protein demand (weight-loss, athletic demand or MCT oils), I urge you to publish it!

            It would be great to have a citable reference for that. If you know of any and I’ve missed them, please share?

            I searched again just earlier and still haven’t found any evidence to change the ketogenic/anti-ketogenic macro-nutrients ratio (see also next comment on references).

            Also on the same biochemistry/physiology front : if the Inuit where keto-adapted and that is why they excreted less ketones (explaining no detection in urine) they needed even less protein than for someone not keto-adapted.

            That is indeed basic, since gluconeogenesis is lowered once keto-adaption ensues.

            I haven’t found any evidence, either, for lower protein consumption by the Inuit.

            It’s ironic isn’t it? In trying to to make a ‘basic biochemistry’ argument that you maintained allows us to discard more information/references about what the Inuit really ate, both you and I keep having to go back to the literature about what they ate.

            So in the end, it’s looking like it really does come down to those references.

            Got all that?

          • So is this the pithy argument?

            We are informing you that 150 years of scientific literature and observations overwhelmingly demonstrates, and concludes, that the Inuit ate a high-protein/high fat diet, were not in ketosis, have difficulty producing ketones (thanks to CPT1a), and there is no evidence that they were keto-adapted.

            It’s your job to state your claim, which I assume you’ve done in the compound sentence above. It’s not your job to tell me what points I need to address to refute it. That can be done without having to refer to the laundry list of old papers.

          • “This whole affair is a giant waste of time.”

            If you feel this “is a giant waste of time” then don’t do it. We could really care less if you decided to drop the subject. We already thought you had when you were unable to refute all the literature.

            The 150 years of scientific literature will simply stand on its own should you walk away. It makes no difference to us.

            And by the way, if 150 years of literature is dead wrong, perhaps a blog post is not the best way to refute it. You and Phinney could publish a paper—refuting all the scientists who came before you—and open it up to critical review from your peers, rather than claiming that you can’t explain it to those who apparently don’t understand basic biochemistry.

          • “So is this the pithy argument?…”

            No. There is no “pithy” argument. This is a complex subject. Either deal with the points we’ve made or go home.

            “It’s your job to state your claim, which I assume you’ve done in the compound sentence above. It’s not your job to tell me what points I need to address to refute it. That can be done without having to refer to the laundry list of old papers.”

            No way I’m allowing that. I’ve seen how you work by now. You oversimplify complex arguments.

            I honestly don’t even know why we are the ones who have to defend 150 years of scientific and observational literature. The literature stands on its own. It would be like defending a library, or the dictionary. It’s not our job. The only reason we’ve brought up all these points is because you are too busy (or lazy?) to read these papers that you should have read years ago.

            Your mission, Dr. Eades—should you choose to accept it—is to refute the scientific literature as it stands. We’ve listed the bullet points that we’ve derived from the literature. If you don’t want to deal with those issues, then I hardly see the point in you wasting time on this endeavor.

          • You wrote:

            I honestly don’t even know why we are the ones who have to defend 150 years of scientific and observational literature. The literature stands on its own. It would be like defending a library, or the dictionary. It’s not our job. The only reason we’ve brought up all these points is because you are too busy (or lazy?) to read these papers that you should have read years ago.

            Should I refute them the same way you ‘refuted’ the Stefansson data? By ad hominem attacks on the authors? If I disagree with the findings of the authors you quote, should I go and find other scientists of the time who had bad things to say about them personally? Then posit that they can’t be believed because they are liars and poltroons? That would be a waste of time. It’s just like with the old papers that were wrong about the bacterial cause of influenza and bleeding being a palliative for infection, they don’t have to be refuted individually. It just has to be shown that based on modern science their observations were incorrect. If this is oversimplifying a complex problem, then so be it.

            Problem is, it ain’t a complex problem. Only you think so.

            What’s complex is laying the groundwork in enough detail so that the untrained person can see the flaws in your argument. Otherwise it’s a he said, she said kind of thing.

          • “Should I refute them the same way you ‘refuted’ the Stefansson data? By ad hominem attacks on the authors?”

            What refuted Stefansson’s statements was Stefansson’s own statements (as Per Wikholm showed in LCHF Magazinet) and the fact that Stef used his own white man’s metabolism as a false proxy for Eskimos, and nobody else could corroborate his statements. So, it was not an ad hominem attack that refuted Stefansson by any stretch of the imagination.

            “It just has to be shown that based on modern science their observations were incorrect. If this is oversimplifying a complex problem, then so be it.”

            You would need to provide some scientific evidence that they were incorrect. You can’t just claim that their findings are absurd based on your own opinion—which you have a habit of doing.

            And the CPT1a is a huge issue in its own right.

            “What’s complex is laying the groundwork in enough detail so that the untrained person can see the flaws in your argument. Otherwise it’s a he said, she said kind of thing.”

            I’ve simply pointed out that you have spent the past year ignoring 150 years of scientific and observational literature (including recent studies on CPT1a) with an ad lapidem argument. But I can tell you just want to shoot the messenger.

          • “What’s complex is laying the groundwork in enough detail so that the untrained person can see the flaws in your argument”

            Such bullshit. I honestly don’t see why you can’t just tell the “trained” people listening in what the big flaws are, in the comments.

            You could have avoided all this trouble by just responding to Jennifer Jones an entire year ago. She responded way before I did, so I think she deserves to be answered first. She was more than willing to hear you out, and would have understood everything. You just blew her off.

          • “the name my mother gave me is indeed Christopher”

            Congratulations.

            “You pull selected quotes from very large studies in support of this argument”

            No sir. You’re accusing me of cherry picking, but the fact of the matter is that I was unable to find even a shred of evidence supporting ketosis in any scientific papers that observed the Eskimos.

            None. Zip. Nada.

            That’s not my fault. It’s just what the literature says.

            …And frankly it’s flat out appaling that nobody noticed this until me.

            “As I stated above, my argument is that you are NOT “simply quoting snippets of literature.”’

            My argument is that the literature overwhelmingly shows no ketosis, period.

            “You are using this as evidence to support your claim(s) that the Inuit were not in ketosis and/or that they should not used as evidence to support the long term healthfulness of ketogenic diets”

            Again, they are not my claims. They are the claims of scientists who observed the Eskimos. The observations and their conclusions are very clear that they were not in ketosis. That is my argument. Obviously if the literature does not support ketosis, then it’s my opinion that they should not be used to as evidence to support ketosis. You don’t have to like my opinion.

            “it means nothing if you are attempting to discredit [Stefansson’s] research”

            Stefansson discredited his own travelogue, as Per Wikholm showed in LCHF Magazinet. Plus Stef’s observations on the Eskimo diet were almost entirely using himself as a proxy for the Eskimo diet. So, it’s difficult to say that it is evidence for anything pertaining to actual Eskimos. Phinney believed that Stef’s experience in the Bellevue Experiment proved that the Eskimo diet was restricted protein and high fat. I’ve shown that’s circular reasoning, and somehow I’m the bad guy here. Wonderful.

            “It is still up to you to prove your argument, not Dr. Eades to disprove it.”

            What a bunch of bull. I presented everything months ago. I didn’t hear anyone complaining that I hadn’t presented enough evidence. You certainly didn’t. At this point, I don’t even know what’s left to prove. I couldn’t find any evidence of ketosis, period. There is nothing left to say.

            Again. The arguments aren’t mine. They aren’t. They are the observations and conclusions of dozens of scientists. I’ve reported that every single one said the same thing. That’s all I have to say.

          • No sir. You’re accusing me of cherry picking, but the fact of the matter is that I was unable to find even a shred of evidence supporting ketosis in any scientific papers that observed the Eskimos.

            Cherry picking is pulling evidence that supports your claim while also ignoring evidence that contradicts it. You stated as a reply to my suggestion that your identity is not relevant to the arguments that you are making and that you are just quoting research. I refuted this claim by stating that you were not just quoting research, you were making an argument and pulling data to support that argument. I never accused you of ignoring evidence in the furtherance of your own. Which is a requirement for cherry picking. I simply stated that you were making argument, not simply quoting research (Which is perfectly acceptable. So, I really don’t understand why you are trying to convince me that you are not doing it). You are, again, mis-representing my assertions and attacking your mis-representation of my assertion as if I made them. This is yet another example of a strawman argument.

            None. Zip. Nada.

            That’s not my fault. It’s just what the literature says.

            …And frankly it’s flat out appaling that nobody noticed this until me.

            I still do not understand why you are stating things like this to me. I am not disputing your assertions in any way. My original argument was and is that your identity is relevant to those assertions. As your response to my original assertion is that you are not making arguments and just quoting research, I am further claiming that you are. Statements like this are irrelevant to my argument.

            My argument is that the literature overwhelmingly shows no ketosis, period.

            We are informing you that 150 years of scientific literature and observations overwhelmingly demonstrates, and concludes, that the Inuit ate a high-protein/high fat diet, were not in ketosis, have difficulty producing ketones (thanks to CPT1a), and there is no evidence that they were keto-adapted.

            You clearly stated in your previous reply to me that you were not making an argument but rather you were just quoting research. Those two statements both look like clear arguments to me. The second of which was a response to a request by Dr. Eades for exact purpose of stating your argument. So, are you just quoting research or making an argument as those two sentences indicate above?

            Obviously if the literature does not support ketosis, then it’s my opinion that they should not be used to as evidence to support ketosis.

            Here is your argument again. An argument is simply an opinion backed up by supporting evidence is it not? Is that not exactly what you are doing? Do you disagree with my definition?

            …restricted protein and high fat. I’ve shown that’s circular reasoning, and somehow I’m the bad guy here. Wonderful.

            I never called you a bad guy. In fact, I never even disputed this claim or any of the evidence that you used to support it. Furthermore, this is not even the same statement regarding Stefansson that I had a problem with in your previous post. You are adding additional information about Stefansson, claiming that I am disputing you on it and then playing the martyr for this manufactured conflict.

            What a bunch of bull. I presented everything months ago. I didn’t hear anyone complaining that I hadn’t presented enough evidence. You certainly didn’t. At this point, I don’t even know what’s left to prove. I couldn’t find any evidence of ketosis, period. There is nothing left to say.

            I was referencing that single statement in your original reply that “He has to prove that all these researchers—spanning over a century—screwed up their observations and were oblivious and ignorant to basic biochemistry.” I was not meaning to suggest that you are using burden of proof as you entire argument strategy. I realize upon reading my original statement that this indeed how it sounds. My apologies for my poor writing skills. 🙂

            Again. The arguments aren’t mine. They aren’t. They are the observations and conclusions of dozens of scientists. I’ve reported that every single one said the same thing. That’s all I have to say.

            I have now stated several times that you do have a argument and that you are using these observations and conclusions to support it. You have also provided Dr. Eades with your position in your own words.

            Since you are making an argument and not simply quoting research, I will now ask again why it is that you feel your identity is not relevant to this discussion?

          • Christopher, for the past year, Dr. Eades has opposed 150 years of scientific and observational literature with an Argumentum ad lapidem. I don’t need to reveal my identity to point this out. No one does.

            If I told you my name was “Sam” would that honestly make a difference?

            Furthermore, Richard has revealed his identity and he is the one who published and stands behind everything on his own blog.

            “My original argument was and is that your identity is relevant to those assertions.”

            And I disagree. The literature stands on its own. It’s not my job to defend it. It would be like saying I’m responsible for defending the Library of Congress, or the dictionary. If there is an error in the dictionary or the Library, Dr. Eades is a big boy and he can point it out.

            “Why it is that you feel your identity is not relevant to this discussion?”

            My identity is not relevant to the fact that 150 years of literature say the exact opposite of what Dr. Eades is saying. Anyone and everyone has the right to point this out. See Argumentum ad lapidem.

  32. I recently re-read parts when I had problems getting my drugstore and my endocrinologist to communicate. Systems by just existing create their own set of problems. I talked with various pharm techs and finally discovered that they dont necessarily drop outdated fax numbers from their database so my doc had 4 fax numbers on file with a one man office…

  33. “I would assume someone with that kind of experience would come to ketosis (or any other medical subject) with a different degree of knowledge than someone who got a Google PhD by a few hours of web searching.”

    That may indeed be true, but it would be a logical fallacy to dismiss all of the research cited above by simply appealing to your own authority, even if you do possess such knowledge (see: argument from authority). So, do be careful.

    And I’ll point out that we are reading and citing scientific literature and opinions written by individuals with a certain level of expertise in biochemistry. For instance, according to Discover magazine, Harold Draper—also cited above—is a “biochemist and expert in Eskimo nutrition.” Despite your medical training in biochemistry, one might assume that perhaps Harold Draper has more expertise in biochemistry than even you.

    “As I mentioned in my post, when I get the time, I’ll lay it all out. Right now I’m in Frankfurt, Germany for a trade show.”

    That’s perfectly fine, Dr. Eades. There is no rush. Have a safe trip and be well. Thanks for your time and enjoy the sightseeing if you can!

    • How many patients has Harold Draper treated who were in diabetic ketoacidosis? Since he is a PhD and not an MD, Zero, I would posit. I have treated God only knows how many. How many patients has Harold Draper managed on ketogenic diets? Again, I would posit zero. I have treated thousands.

      The whole argument from authority is a fallacy itself in many circumstances. When you get advice from your mechanic, is that an argument from authority? I would assume your mechanic knows more than you about car repair or you wouldn’t have your car in his facility. If someone tells you Linus Pauling said so and so about the chemical bond or James Watson said so and so about DNA, is that an appeal to authority. In my view, the whole appeal to authority fallacy is simply a mechanism for those who know very little to disallow the views of an expert in the subject to be brought into the discussion.

      You, yourself, are appealing to authority when you cite Draper (especially when you cite him via an article in Discovery magazine). In fact, all the citations you throw up are nothing more than appeals to authority. So, if we can’t appeal to authority in our discussion, that puts us in the situation in which we need to do all the investigative work ourselves instead of accepting that done by others.

      • “How many patients has Harold Draper treated who were in diabetic ketoacidosis? Since he is a PhD and not an MD, Zero, I would posit. I have treated God only knows how many. How many patients has Harold Draper managed on ketogenic diets? Again, I would posit zero. I have treated thousands.”

        Congratulations. And that would all be relevant if we knew the Eskimos were in perpetual ketosis. But we don’t.

        “You, yourself, are appealing to authority when you cite Draper (especially when you cite him via an article in Discovery magazine). In fact, all the citations you throw up are nothing more than appeals to authority. So, if we can’t appeal to authority in our discussion, that puts us in the situation in which we need to do all the investigative work ourselves instead of accepting that done by others.”

        There is no sin in appealing to multiple authorities—particularly when they have hard data to present. The fallacy is appealing to your own authority, and a single, biased source with no evidence. Hopefully you can see the difference.

        Cheers.

        • No, the appeal to authority fallacy is not appealing to your own fund of knowledge gained over a lifetime’s work; it’s appealing to the supposed knowledge of others to argue what you can’t legitimately argue yourself.

          • Not exactly.

            If you were to submit a scientific paper for review, and you wanted people to take you seriously and trust your opinions or findings, you would be expected to provide references and citations to support virtually each statement you made—no matter how “basic” you thought the statement was. That’s “basic” science:

            Wikipedia: Review Article:

            “Review articles are an attempt to summarize the current state of understanding on a topic. They analyze or discuss research previously published by others, rather than reporting new experimental results.

            An expert’s opinion is valuable, but an expert’s assessment of the literature can be more valuable. When reading individual articles, readers could miss features that are apparent to an expert clinician-researcher. Readers benefit from the expert’s explanation and assessment of the validity and applicability of individual studies.”

            Notice how this accounts for the curse of knowledge?

            If you want people to trust what you are saying, you’re going to need to do better than just telling us to trust you. I’m sorry to say this, and this is not meant as an insult—but we are skeptical (as we should be). We’re going to want to see evidence that supports what you are saying.

            And let’s be serious. If what you’re saying is so “basic” it really shouldn’t be difficult at all to provide evidence. Surely a doctor with your expertise can live up to it.

            Cheers.

          • I’ll provide plenty of reference material. You shan’t have to worry about that.

            In reference to Draper, it’s just that I trust my own judgement having taken care of many people in DKA and many, many more on ketogenic diets than I do his from a theoretical perspective.

          • “it’s just that I trust my own judgement having taken care of many people in DKA and many, many more on ketogenic diets than I do his from a theoretical perspective”

            Of course. And I get it. We respect your expert opinion on ketosis. That’s why we are here after all.

            In a way, it’s a shame that you inherited this mess. After all, there were plenty of other LCHF advocates who dug this hole before you picked up the shovel. Recently, prominent LCHF advocates like Andreas Eenfeldt/Diet Doctor, Annika Dahlquist, and now Peter Dobromylskyj, have all reluctantly acknowledged that the Inuit were likely not in perpetual ketosis, given the new evidence that has come to light. There is no shame in acknowledging the new evidence. Quite the contrary—I think they appreciated it and it shows how open-minded they are to new evidence. (In each case, they commented that they were somewhat uncomfortable with using the Inuit as a proxy for a ketogenic diet in the first place).

            But, obviously, if you’re going to continue to use the Eskimos as a proxy for a ketogenic diet, then you have no choice but to prove that they were in ketosis given all the new doubts. I don’t see how a population that has no detectible ketosis in their breath, broad CPT1a mutations, hypoketotic hypoglycemia, documented high protein intake, and documented high nitrogen in blood and urine can still be in perpetual ketosis. But we are genuinely eager to hear your opinion. But, I should warn that without proof and no hard data to offer, it would still just be a hypothesis.

            I want to make it clear that there is a handful of us who are purely interested in discussing the science. Yes, we often share our findings with Richard, but you should know that the reason you are dealing with me is because I’m just the most visible messenger for a group of us (all with various backgrounds). We feel that the scientific logic in using the Inuit as a proxy for a ketogenic diet has major flaws in it, and frankly we are glad that the issue is being discussed (and we thank you for that opportunity).

            If you’d like to discuss the issues via email, we would welcome the chance to share our arguments and hear your expertise, in private, and away from the echo chamber. We can even ask Richard to excuse himself if that makes you more comfortable. 🙂 That may alleviate some of the stress involved and might make it easier for us to get to the bottom of the science and counterarguments more quickly and more efficiently. It’s your call.

            I say that because even if you find a way to show how all the scientific data could be mistaken for ketoadaptation, you would still need to overcome the fact that all the old data and observations matches up perfectly with what we now know about CPT1a—right down to the constant snacking, missing ketones, claims of enlarged livers, and apparent reliance on GNG. Pregnant Inuit were the only ones who were found to produce ketones while fasting, but this is likely due to CPT1 being upregulated during pregnancy—which wouldn’t be surprising since virtually everything is upregulated during pregnancy. You may disagree, and we’d be happy to hear your expert opinion on that in a mutually respectful dialogue.

            I’m extending an olive branch here. Feel free to take it, if you like. It could be done on your busy schedule without the stress. If not, we wish you well and hope you have a safe trip!

            Respectfully,

            DD

          • Thanks for the well wishes. I don’t have the time right now to deal with all this via email any more than I do to deal with it on a back and forth basis on this blog. I’m in the throes of slide-making hell in that I’m putting the finishing touches on two completely new talks for the Cape Town conference plus dealing with this trade show — both of which combined are chewing up all my available time and mental energies.

            This is what I mean about this thing becoming a tar baby. Every time I take a small whack at it, I get caught up in it and can’t escape. You obviously have the time to deal with it now — I don’t. So, we can all pick it back up in a couple of weeks when I’m back.

  34. One thing no one ever seems to address is the fact that “Eskimos” or “Inuit” are not all the same. Inland groups didn’t eat the same things as coastal groups with access to fish.

    Someone reads a paper about Inuit and applies the findings to all Inuit across vast distances.

    It’s like someone going to a town populated by Swedes and concluding that Americans are blond.

    • And it was kicked around early in this debate while the other side was still trying to make the case that the glycogen from long dead animals was keeping the Inuit out of ketosis.

      • OK. I read your blog for your opinions, and I tend to skim long tedious rebuttals.

        I also don’t trust a lot of studies of various ethnic groups that might have told the researchers they ate what the researchers thought they ate, as Margaret Mead found when she dug deeper into how truthful her informants were. They thought they were being helpful or polite or something by telling her what she wanted to hear. If they find the researchers are disgusted by the idea that they ate stomach contents, they might claim they never ate them. If they want the researchers to think they follow strict Inuit tradition, they might not mention the Twinkies they eat regularly.

        And I don’t trust any studies that rely on food frequency questionnaires. Come to think of it, I don’t trust anything. Not sure the sun will come up tomorrow.

        • Or they might tell the researcher they eat stomach contents as a prank to gross out the white guy. I heard that happened too.

  35. I just found a book that my dad picked up in Alaska during WWII written by Stefansson’s wife: “Alaska”. I’m just reading it and if it has anything relevant will send it along.

  36. Hi Dr. Eades, 🙂

    Nikoley and Duck do not understand that , in science, we need deep explanations. There is enormous banter from them but almost zero substance or interesting ideas . We need to understand how the single cell works far better- and how nutrients affect cells. None of them have ever mentioned this massively important fact and limitation.

    You do not have to counter them, Dr. Eades, because they simply do not get science, what it does or how it works. It is a total waste of time.

    Science shows us what is wrong. That is what it does. Dr. Filippenko stresses this. Nature can be absurd as Feynman noted. It will often not appeal to our common sense notions.Science is more creative than it is procedural- another important point.

    Deep explanations were the key to all scientific progress. That was the missing ingredient. Authority had been challenged numerous times before and empiricism itself showed it had major problems. Scientific theories “explain the seen in terms of the unseen.” We do not “see” the evolution of species, rather, rocks with finches. We do not “see” the curvature of spacetime, rather, a dot here rather than here etc. We do not “see” the nuclear reactions inside very distant stars, yet we know about allll of these things. How? Certainty not be empiricism.

    Prediction , in itself, is not enough. As David Deutsch notes, the axial tilt theory of seasons is an example of a GOOD “hard to vary ” explanation- which is what real science needs. This is in contrast to the Greek Myths of Seasons. We need deeply explanatory and predictive theories which are testable.

    These studies ( that largely happen in medicine) which only measure effects are next to worthless and meaningless, no matter the sheer number of them . I talked to Paul Lutus about this. Medicine is often guilty of this. Even studies like DART etc. – they do not offer deep explanation.

    Carl Sagan would be very, very , very, very displeased with how the mainstream dogmatists had the statin program removed from their opponents’ website. Sagan himself stressed that suppression of ideas has absolutely NO PLACE whatsoever in the scientific endeavor. He really stressed that point emphatically. Sagan was one of the greatest science teachers ever- so was Feynman. Sagan ( as well as Feynman and Deutsch) STRESSED that the mainstream experts and authorities are so VERY OFTEN wrong. We must be critical and have great critical thinking skills.

    Suppression of ideas is not how knowledge is gained. It is totally unacceptable. In their famous duel, Sagan welcomed Velikovsky’s arguments but then he showed how Velikovsky was wrong using various examples and very convincingly- but not in a demeaning manner. Surprisingly to many audience members, his most harsh criticism was not for Velikovsky , but, rather, the scientists who suppressed his ideas. This is what happened on that statin documentary, except the Dr. Demasi et al people actually had good evidence supporting what they said, whereas Velikovsky did not .

    Take care,
    Razwell

    • A lot of words that don’t amount to much. You coin a phrase “deep explanations” but don’t define it, so it means nothing. Even if it were defined, it’s just another irrelevant qualification to throw at specific situations. “Oh that is not deep enough”.

      You state: “We do not “see” the nuclear reactions inside very distant stars, yet we know about allll of these things. How? Certainty not be empiricism.”

      Yes, by empiricism. From Wikipedia:

      “A central concept in science and the scientific method is that it must be empirically based on the evidence of the senses. Both natural and social sciences use working hypotheses that are testable by observation and experiment.”

      We can say all sorts of things about very distant stars, but astrophysics will only accept what is said, when there is observations that supports it.

      Francis Bacon gave us both the scientific method and empiricism and they go hand in hand.

      If the tree falls in the forest, but is never observed to do so, then it does not fall, both philosophically and scientifically.

      • Ken:

        You’re not aware of the Razwell Virus? Google it.

        Hell, I’ve been getting email and comments from him—when he goes off his meds for any significant period of time—since about 2008.

        The mode is act “reasonable,” then when you do, BLAM!

        It is still humorous to scan through my spam folder now & then, seeing the email previews, all in CAPS:

        “NIKOLEY, YOU ARE A SMALL DICK WHO LICKS ANTHONY COLPO’S ASS.”

        Numerous variations over years. It’s gotten to where if I didn’t see them, I might even miss them. Like I often say, “if he didn’t exist, you’d have to invent him.”

        • Thanks for the info Richard.

          This is a good example of the main problem with the Internet, which is what I call the “Crying Wolf Phenomenon”. This is that the correct answer to every problem is out there, along with so many wrong answers that it is impossible to find it.

          And, generally, the better written the statement, the more likely it is to be the wrong answer (with some exceptions). For example, the columnists for New York Times – and most other big web sites – regardless of their ideological point of view – write very well and have nothing coherent to say.

      • Sorry, Ken. You have it ALL wrong. I will address it:

        First, there is NO SUCH THING as “The Scientific Method.” The phrase is a disgrace to all professional scientists and it is only promoted by OUTDATED textbooks and Internet people….. NO such singular universal “method” exists…. Scentists use THOUSANDS of different methods. rather, there are principles and parameters. But the REAL thing is NOT ANYTHING like the total joke of a 6th grade calsroom poster! Again, professional scientisst KNOW this already…..

        Professional scientists REALIZE this, unlike Internet amateurs. Physicists, John Denker and world-class science educator, Dr. William McComas , have addressed these points many times. Science is MORE CREATIVE than it is procedural. I explained science very well in my above previous comments yesterday.

        Secondly: From the start ,there was somehting horribly wrong with empricism. It needs a LOWER CASE “e.” There are many limitations and thing wrong with it. The Internet commentors are FULL of misinformation. Outdated texctbooks and Blogopshere are the most egregious promoters of science MYTHS.I assure you, Ken, you do NOT understand science- neither did I back in 2006…. You are just as green as I was….

        Nobody has “seen” the curvature of spcetime yet it exists. Experiments bear this out. Nobody has EVER BEEN DIRECTLY INSIDE of a star to see the nuclear reactions , yet we know of nuclear reactions inside of them – from our own sun, as well as distant stars….. Nobody has SEEN Black Holes YET we know they exist from the effects they produce which have been measured. NONE of this was done through the senses alone. NONE fo the CLINCHING EVDIENCE was from empiricism. We have INSTRUMENTS that help us too. Science needs creativity. Einstein IMAGINATION gave us General Relativity. TESTED and confirmed by observation. ( a dot here rather than here)

        Science is NOT done like you think. Scientific theories are like all knowledge – guess work- conjecture. They are not “derived ” from anything. Tested by observation, NOT derived from it.

        Empiricism, by itself, is NOT how science works. DEUTSCH NOTES THIS. It is very limited and INCOMPLETE. It is still useful , but there are still huge problems with it. There may have been extremely important observables back 5 billion years ago that we did not see that were ESSENTIAL to see. This may forever LIMIT what we can even know or ask.

        In the future 1 trillion years or so, whatever beings are around then on some other planet in our galaxy- they will not have any evdience left of the Big Bang and have a picture of the universe that tioday we know is wrong ( our pre 1920 view) We may todau bein thsi same situation. or of there is a Multiverse we may know if it yet never experience it. We could be like the fish in the sea unware of OUR world.

        Empiricism IS limited , very much so, and I have TOP professors on my side , such as Dr. Fillipenko.

        Lastly, I said “Good Hard To Vary Explanations. ” Deeply explanatory theiories. I GAVE examples. It is not a failing on my part that you do not understand this….

        Since you do not get this I will SPELL it out for you:

        ” A good explanation means to SEEK GOOD explanations, the ones which are very hard to vary , while still explaining the phenomena.”

        I cannot believe you do not understand this……

        Being proved wrong by osbervation and chaning their theory STILL would NOT have gotten Anceint Greeks ANY closer to understanding the seasons…. Their myth was a BAD explanation that had nothing to do with seasons except via the myth itself.The entire premise was wrong.

        The Axial Tilt Theory of Seasons is an EXAMPLE of THIS ( a GOOD hard to vary explanation ) . EVERY DETAIL plays a functional role…. I cannot dumb it down for you anymore than this….

        I have extremely VALID points, Ken. It’s too bad that you and have nothing but insults. VERY smart people in the world of science back what I say about the FUNDAMENTALS. Notice did NOT say “ad hominem” in reference to you. However , Nikoley’s comments are an example of it. He banned me years ago because he could not refute my basic points as to how science is done- from TOP scientists such as Saul Perlmutter……….

        Richard, Ken and Duck offer NO deeply explanatory theories- which were THE KEY to human progress. . They cite hundreds of meaningless studies which ONLY measure effects. THAT is NOT at all science! Paul Lutus is very clear that none of this constitutes REAL science.

        Take care,
        Razwell

  37. Aha ! You guys have invented “The Pedantic Diet”.

    You spend so much time arguing meaningless points that you forget to eat. Awesome !

      • To be more explicit, I would be far more interested to read your take on digestive bacteria, rather than argue how many Inuit can dance on the head of a pin.

    • But how does that explain guys like Nikoley, the ultimate diet/ketosis pendant, who is an obese individual?

      May I be the first to identify this as the Nikoley paradox?

      • Nikoley obese? I don’t think so. Not cut, not particularly slim, but obese? No way.

        When will people wake up and realize that one doesn’t have to be thin to be healthy?

        It’s all about the inflammation, and the way Richard eats it’s hard to believe this is much of a problem for him.

        He posted his bio-marker test results recently – did you miss that post???

        • Ann:

          While your setting the record straight is admirable, consider we’re dealing with potential greatness, here.

          After all, he’s single-mindedly come up with a handful of original slogans—like “legend in his own mind,” “fool some of the people all of the time” (with obvious corollary slogans)—that can literally be applied anywhere, in any situation, irrespective of context and the best part? You’ll always have an audience that think they just heard something apropos.

          It’s pure genius on Jim’s part.

          And now, we find he’s been holding out because he’s literally redefined obesity such that it’s a far bigger problem than anyone ever imagined.

          Here, see for yourself, snapped just a few minutes ago:

          https://flic.kr/p/qn7ma3

          We’re very fortunate to have the brilliant insight of Jim, where anything gets to be whatever you want it to be at any time and circumstance your whims take you.

          Sure makes my feel like “the biggest joke on the whole Internet.”

        • I stopped reading Dick’s blog many moons ago. I always had an unclean feeling after viewing Dick’s blog……kind of like visiting a porn site.

          Besides I can’t think of anything less interesting than Dick’s bio-markers. Dick probably posts fake numbers in any event. Dick is definitely not a healthy individual either physically or mentally.

          • Very nice, Jim. Let’s try to be more mature, shall we? I don’t think you or anyone can tell much about someone’s health with snide conjecture and loose observations. Not to mention that it’s more than a bit cruel to ridicule someone with an autoimmune disease. Why don’t you go make fun of other chronic diseases while you’re at it. I bet you’ll become popular here real fast with that approach.

            Ironically, Eskimos were well known to be obese but claiming they were “healthy obese” is yet another clue that they have very different metabolisms than us.

            Genetic polymorphisms in carnitine palmitoyltransferase 1A gene are associated with variation in body composition and fasting lipid traits in Yup’ik Eskimos. (2012)

            “Variants of carnitine palmitoyltransferase 1A (CPT1A), a key hepatic lipid oxidation enzyme, may influence how fatty acid oxidation contributes to obesity and metabolic outcomes. CPT1A is regulated by diet, suggesting interactions between gene variants and diet may influence outcomes. The objective of this study was to test the association of CPT1A variants with body composition and lipids, mediated by consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA). Obesity phenotypes and fasting lipids were measured in a cross-sectional sample of Yup’ik Eskimo individuals (n = 1141) from the Center of Alaska Native Health Research (CANHR) study. Twenty-eight tagging CPT1A SNPs were evaluated with outcomes of interest in regression models accounting for family structure. Several CPT1A polymorphisms were associated with HDL-cholesterol and obesity phenotypes. The P479L (rs80356779) variant was associated with all obesity-related traits and fasting HDL-cholesterol. Interestingly, the association of P479L with HDL-cholesterol was still significant after correcting for body mass index (BMI), percentage body fat (PBF), or waist circumference (WC). Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the L479 allele of the CPT1A P479L variant confers a selective advantage that is both cardioprotective (through increased HDL-cholesterol) and associated with reduced adiposity…Our data suggest that the P479L variant in CPT1A increases hepatic fatty acid oxidation and may contribute to “healthy obesity” observed in this Yup’ik Eskimo study population.

            It’s yet another example that Eskimo metabolisms are nothing like ours. Perhaps you’d like to ridicule them too?

          • I’ll correct my last comment. I shouldn’t have said “were well known to be obese.” Traditional Inuit were fairly lean and probably stored their excess fat in their abdominal cavity. It’s the modern Inuit that are more obese and appear to exhibit this “healthy obesity.” Before modern conveniences (snow mobiles, imported food, etc) the Inuit were measured to be leaner. However the evidence still suggests that their fat metabolism is nothing like ours:

            An Illustrated History of Health and Fitness, from Pre-History to our Post-Modern World (2014)

            Laboratory estimates of body fat content were made on the Igloolik Inuit, using the techniques of ingesting deuterated water (Shephard et al. 1973) and hydrostatic weighing (Rode and Shephard 1994). The interpretation of such data also has its limitations when applied to indigenous populations, because of possible abnormalities of tissue hydration and bone density. However, findings using this technology confirmed our view that the traditional Inuit carried a large part of their total body fat within the abdomen. When working hard in a very cold climate, it is probably an advantage to conserve body heat by a flexible amount of insulation (from highly effective clothing) rather than by a thick and fixed layer of superficial body dat. Other possible advantages of intra-abdominal fat storage in a cold climate include a reduction in the surface/body mass ratio, and possibly a greater potential for thermogenesis (Beall and Goldstein 1992).

  38. Hello Dr Mike,

    In one of your old responses to another thread you said this:

    “But the reality is that the authors who wrote this paper didn’t measure the glycogen levels as it’s difficult to do because glycogen degrades so quickly. They simply picked the 15-20% glycogen from old papers in which the authors hadn’t measured but had assumed.”

    If I could figure out how to link the exact comment I would, but here is the link to the comment below it (you will have to scroll up):

    http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ketones-and-ketosis/beware-confirmation-bias/#comment-597872

    Anyway, after reading your comments I immediately thought of this paper by Richard Feynman. This rings with why people shouldn’t just assume things, because perhaps they don’t know for sure if their assumptions are even correct in the first place. I thought you might like to read it, so here it is.

    http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html

    • Not that it matters, but for the record, the Eskimo macronutrient ratios that are referenced in most scientific papers come from August and Marie Krogh’s detailed measurements (August Krogh later won the Nobel Prize in 1920). You can read about their measurements and references here:

      A study of the diet and metabolism of Eskimos undertaken in 1908 on an expedition to Greenland, by August Krogh and Marie Krogh (1914)

      Once we found the original Krogh & Krogh paper, it became clear that only half of the “15%” carbohydrate figure was attributed to glycogen—the remainder was from their bread and sugar. So, the true estimation is only about ~7% of their carbohydrates were from glycogen. Not really a big deal. Not even worth discussing.

      The Kroghs also referenced Bertelsen 1911‘s glycogen measurements, who wrote: “The epidermis of Narwhale and Whitewhale [Monodon monoceros and Beluga leucas] is 12—15 mm. thick. In the stratum corneum of 2—3 mm. thickness and also in the deepest layer round the papillae there is comparatively little glycogen. But in the middle layers the cells are filled with glycogen granulations.”

      The Inuit’s consumption of minimal dietary glycogen has been supported in the scientific literature ever since, and not one scientific paper has ever disputed it. Did we initially focus on it too much? Yes.

      But the notion that 19th century and early 20th century scientists didn’t understand that glycogen in land-based mammalian muscle degraded rapidly, at room temperature, is erroneous and unsupported. The rapid degradation of glycogen is how Claude Bernard discovered glycogen, in 1865. It was known from day one.

      Secondly, its nonsensical to suggest that someone could discover, observe or measure glycogen without realizing its tendency to degrade rapidly in many conditions. It would be like someone observing soap bubbles without realizing soap bubbles pop easily.

      But, again, the discussion on glycogen is largely irrelevant. Krogh & Krogh were mainly interested in measuring fat, protein and nitrogen when they set out to Greenland, and their study clearly shows they were heavily focussed on it.

      Cheers.

      • Thanks for admitting you did focus on the glycogen too much early on, and thanks for the Krogh and Krogh link. I’ll read it.

        I’m in South Africa right now spending every day with people who have studied the Inuit first hand. Interesting stuff.

        • And thanks for recognizing that it sometimes takes a shakeup to get one to look closer (an assumption by implication).

          What irritated me is that all I ever, ever heard was Stefansson and wasnt’t even aware of all the studies, or which it turns out there was a lot.

          Right or wrong, all available information ought to be part of the general discussion.

      • OK, our argument about Inuit vs ketosis is based on the Inuit traditional diet, the pre-contact diet, the one they ate BEFORE White Dude came along and introduced them to bread and sugar and assorted other junk.

        You’re drawing from sources that measure them AFTER White Dude came along and introduced them to bread and sugar and assorted other junk.

        I wouldn’t expect someone eating frybread or bannock and drinking sweetened coffee to be in ketosis either.

        Why are people having this stupid argument again?

        Next you’ll tell me they figured out Inuit are never in ketosis by using ketostix. I sure hope not, but I have this dismal feeling that might be the case.

  39. @Melchior Meijer
    You said this on 14th February:

    “…Charles Mobbs and his team have proven beyond doubt that too much glycolysis drives aging and virtually all degenerative diseases. Ketones signal the body – via neurons in the ventromedial hypothalamus – to switch from predominantly glycolysis to predominantly beta-oxidation. This metabolic state prevents disease and promotes longevity. Mobbs even reversed diabetic kidney failure this way, albeit in mice.

    Glycolysis and beta-oxidation are totally substrate driven, at least in non Inuit humans. I suspect that the Inuit run their metabolism predominantly on glycolysis, because of this strange trait. We, on the other hand, have the possibility to avoid sources of dense, acellular carbohydrates and run mainly on beta-oxidation.

    Does this make some sense?”

    No.

    There is nothing toxic about glycolysis, or about ‘dense, acellular carbohydrates’, by which I expect you mean starch. There is certainly something toxic about starch eaten without the micronutrients which normally accompany it, and which are needed to activate enzymes of carbohydrate metabolism, both in the plant and in the animal or human that eats it.

    I have read some of Charles Mobbs’ work and cannot find his claim to have ‘proven beyond doubt that too much glycolysis drives aging and virtually all degenerative diseases’. Could you direct me to the relevant paper please?

    • I dunno about glycolysis, but I’d just like to point out that no one goes into instant glycolysis of all the sugar they have just eaten immediately upon eating it. Which means that sugar’s just sort of hanging around waiting to be processed, until it is processed. Which means it has ample time and ability to damage tissues until it IS processed.

      Many of the foods containing more digestible carb also contain antinutrients and lectins and phytates and so on that don’t exactly agree with our bodies either. Which isn’t related to glycolysis but if researchers are seeing connections between the Eating Of Many Carby Foods and chronic disease, that would be part of why.

      • Dana, I’m afraid your claims aren’t supported by very much science. Sugar itself does not damage tissues. Did you not know that our cells run on glucose?

        Anti-nutrients, lectins and phytates may be problematic in some wild species of plants, or in cultures with deficient diets. However, in domesticated food, anti-nutrients, lectins and phytates are very well tolerated by those with healthy gut biomes and studies show these compounds provide anti-cancer, anti-fungal, anti-viral, hypocholesterol and hyoglycemic benefits. Feel free to omit them from your diet.

  40. Dr. Eades, your chutzpah is amazing. I’m no fan of Nikoley, but your defense when you lose an argument is to cite the “Curse of Knowledge”?!? basically, anytime someone disagrees with you, it’s not because you are wrong, it’s because you are just so much smarter than them? WOW.

    **This from a guy who denies man-made climate change** LOL. Well, Dr. Eades, here’s a bit of news from surely one of your climate-denying heroes. Looks like he’s taking big oil money. SHOCKER! Unless, that is, he also suffers from the Curse of Knowledge and there’s just no one around who understands him.

    http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/22/8085303/climate-change-denier-paid-wei-hock-soon

    You are fast becoming a joke, i’m afraid. Shouldn’t retirement be on your short-list of things to do by now?

      • Because there is no way possible we could have economic growth without fossil fuels. Because we never had economic growth before they were developed. That idea might interest the ancient Romans.

        Oh and economic growth is the ultimate social good. Forgot to mention. We should never value anything else.

    • @Luke
      Mike Eades is a climate denier? Good for him. I think Nikoley is one too, like me. Exclusive club, you know.

      Did you know obesity researchers accept money from obese taxpayers? SHOCKER

      • To clarify, I think some of the research on warming is sound. Some is suspect, especially owing to ground-based measuring stations that were originally in rural areas but now in urban heat islands surrounded by pavement and A/c vents.

        So, warming? Probably. Bad thing or good thing? I don’t know and when I only see one side of the balance sheet being considered, I’m suspect of agendas in play. Man made, nature made, or both? Probably both, and far less on the man-made side than is being put forth in the fallacy of the single cause.

        Finally, the hockey-stick case for AGW rests on the premise of positive feedback from increasing CO2, and nature is way dominated by negative feedback systems.

        • Except we’re merrily destroying many of those negative feedback systems.

          Methane pits are opening up now in Siberia. Better apologize to your kids now, life’s gonna suck for them later.

  41. so let me get this straight… your defense to my calling you out on claiming the “Curse of Knowledge” when you’re clearly losing an argument is — to accuse me of NOT UNDERSTANDING The Curse of Knowledge?!?

    oh my, Dr. Eades… the irony in the air is thick enough to cut with a knife.

    please, do yourself a favor and just walk away… lol

  42. I’m new to all of this but the image that Duck Dodgers and Nikoley are like little puppies yapping and nipping at the heals of a great giant Dr. Eades… keeps drifting across my mind- very funny!

    No in all seriousness though- Dr. Eades clinical experience and his ability to dissect research critically are a really vital combination that can’t be beat. Being from a research background myself I cannot stress enough how easy it is to think you understand the research you are reading when you really do not.

    • @Elle

      You said: “I’m new to all of this” and “Dr. Eades … ability to dissect research critically.”

      Have I missed anything? I haven’t seen any Dr. Eades’ dissection of the research presented by Duck Dodgers. Absolutely nothing, so far.

      And yes, I have been following very closely 🙂

    • Well, I have a lot of respect for Dr. Eades and his clinical experience. I mean, c’mon, that’s why we are here.

      But, I also think it’s pretty clear that Dr. Eades has not had the time to actually read much of the research on the Eskimos. If you look at his writing, above, you’ll see that he has no time to investigate it at all:

      Dr. Eades wrote:

      As most readers of this blog know, I’m a voracious reader..I read many more books than I have time to write…the twenty or so I read each month…Along with my pretty hefty book reading schedule, I also troll the medical/scientific literature daily, pulling and reading multiple papers each week. I just checked in my desktop file, and I’ve downloaded 143 papers since Jan 1, 2015. These papers range in time from 1913 to 2015, and cover an array of subjects, mostly related to nutrition in some form…

      …I didn’t have the time to address each of his assertions…I dawdled while I tried to find the time to deal with the thing…I don’t have the time to even read them much less reply to every one…I’m being accused of complaining that I have no time, but the truth is that I don’t…Now I just have to find the time to read it…I don’t have the time right now to deal with all this…This is what I mean about this thing becoming a tar baby. Every time I take a small whack at it, I get caught up in it and can’t escape. You obviously have the time to deal with it now — I don’t. So, we can all pick it back up in a couple of weeks when I’m back.

      Dr. Eades is obviously an extremely bright individual who—despite his clinical experience and his ability to dissect research critically—reads so much that has no time to get into the fine details of the Eskimo’s unique metabolism. He freely admits this.

      It’s possible that Dr. Eades absorbs everything he reads flawlessly, but I’m sure that if most people read that hefty quantity books and that many papers each month, and flew all around the world running a business and a medical practice, they’d probably make a few mistakes or miss a few details here and there. He is human after all. And dare I say I think he is entitled to make a few mistakes given all that he does and all that he reads. There is no shame in that.

      So, while Dr. Eades is clearly a giant, and one that deserves respect, he clearly doesn’t have the time to devote to this topic. I get it. He’s a busy guy. He reads a ton. He does a ton. But, given the complexity of this topic, I don’t think the Eskimo metabolism is something that can easily be explained by something very basic. But, I could be wrong and we certainly don’t mind exploring the possibility.

      I will say that the conversation probably has bigger implications than just whether not an ancient culture—with unique genes that live at the ends of the Earth—was in ketosis or not. The bigger issue—at least for those who are interested in the science of ketosis and metabolism—may be sorting out where Dr. Eades and Peter Dobromylsky (of Hyperlipid) disagree between how the Eskimo’s CPT1a effects their fat metabolism and how high protein intake inhibits ketosis.

      Both of those men are giants, so it should be interesting to see how that shakes out. It’s possible that we may end up with more questions than answers when all is said and done.

      Cheers

  43. Hello Dr Eades,

    I have a question regarding your debate with Duck Dodgers (I have just read your post about cognitive dissonance again).

    Anyway, if you don’t have time to answer that’s okay, I am just confused about one of the premises.

    So I guess my question is, how could the Inuit Indians eat 5-8 lbs of meat per day? It just seems like a lot.

    • It is a lot. I’ll address in my response. On a short layover in Munich right now after having flown all night from Cape Town. Got to catch a hopper to Frankfurt, then the 12 hr flight to LAX. It will be 32 hours traveling before we get home.

    • Bryan,

      I am sure Dr. Eades has not had the time to look into this.

      The Eskimos documented ingestion of large quantities of meat has to do with the preparation—or shall I say lack of preparation. The answer was revealed by Captain John Dundas Cochrane, who toured Russia and Siberia during the early 1800s and became fond of eating raw fish. We covered all this on FTA, but I’ll summarize for you.

      From: A Pedestrian Journey Through Russia and Siberian Tartary, by Captain John Dundas Cochrane (1829)

      The scurvy rages during winter with the poorer and consequently with the greater, proportion of the inhabitants of the Kolyma, because they, the poorer sort, cannot afford to eat raw fish, it being an article of luxury. It is true, that a most prodigious quantity of fish is caught on the banks of the Kolyma, but it does not follow that such a quantity is eaten raw ; indeed it is only a very small proportion that can be so consumed, and that quantity is naturally bought up and retained by the more wealthy part of the community.

      Herrings are the principal productions of the Kolyma, and are retained for the dogs. Red salmon constitute the next quantity, and are universally used by all classes, by being boiled, or dried up into youkola. The nailma, and, I think the osioter, being white fish, are the only species that are eaten in a raw state ; while mocksou and mockson are expressly converted into youkola, one for man and the other for dogs. There is also another reason why the poorer classes cannot partake of raw fish ; it is not only dear and scarce, but it is a most extravagant mode of eating fish, for a person can consume three times the quantity in a raw state, that he can either boiled or in the way of youkola. I hope this statement will be understood by my readers.

      So, you can eat significantly more raw meat than cooked meat. Anyone who has ever eaten sashimi knows this is true.

      To confirm this, you can take the time to look at the Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum where you’ll find people sharing their stories of eating raw meat on a regular basis. Of course, none of them need to consume 4,000+ calories a day (like an Eskimo adult might), so virtually no Westerners would have a reason to eat those enormous quantities. And yet, you will find a number of these Western raw meat eaters consuming between 2 to 4 pounds of meat per day.

      And, if you read through their posts, you’ll notice a common theme. Many of them claim that cooked meat feels unnatural in their stomach and does not digest as well as raw meat does. And because of that they say they can’t tolerate very much cooked meat compared to the amount of raw meat they consume. They would eat considerably less cooked meat.

      One theory is that raw meat comes with all of its enzymes necessary for its digestion. Whereas cooked meat requires the body to produce its own enzymes.

      Incidentally, in order for the Eskimos to cook any meat, they had to save, store and burn their animal fat. They didn’t have gas or wood like we do. So, their fat was their heating and lighting fuel and needed to be conserved to survive the long dark winter—it was a commodity for them and was often sold or traded to tribes who were inland and didn’t have access to much excess fat.

      But, there you have it. People who don’t need even need to expend as much energy as an Eskimo are easily consuming 2 to 4 pounds of raw meat per day.

      And if you are living in the Arctic—producing your own body heat and internally thawing the frozen meat you eat—you’re going to have even greater energy expenditures.

      Finally, the Eskimos were well known to snack constantly, as observed by many explorers—including Klutschak’s, “Overland to Starvation Cove,” where Klutschak writes that the Eskimos had two main meals per day and took snacks at every hour day and night. Their penchant for constant snacking is believed to be due to their CPT1a mutation, since they cannot rely much on ketone production.

      From: Clues emerging about Arctic gene, diet and health (2014)

      Anecdotal evidence is that some adults have long coped with the effects of this gene, if unknowingly, Hirschfeld said. They may talk about how they make sure to carry along snacks if they are engaged in strenuous activity like hunting, he said. After a few hours of exertion and no eating, as these adults describe it, they get sluggish, sleepy and “real jittery,” classic signs of hypoglycemia, Hirschfeld said. “They’d have a candy bar, and they’d snap out of it.”

      Adults, with their larger bodies, can store more sugar in their blood and livers, and even those with the Arctic variant of the gene are able to fast for longer periods than children, unless they are exercising strenuously, Hirschfeld said.

      The most serious problems afflict the youngest children, who can’t get their own food when they need it, which is why it’s important to detect the condition at birth.

      Incidentally, the Eskimos were able to protect their young children from this problem by simply breastfeeding children until three or four years of age, and sometimes as late as six years of age.

      • Sorry for the delay in posting. I just got back late yesterday from 33 hours of travel, and have been catching up on emails, snail mails (and entire box) and recovering in general.

        I did take the time to read the links you provided, and I have to say that I disagree with your interpretation of most.

        • “I did take the time to read the links you provided, and I have to say that I disagree with your interpretation of most.”

          What can I say, Dr. Eades. Their enormous appetite has been observed and corroborated by explorers and scientists who had observed the Eskimos.

          For instance:

          From: American explorations in the ice zones, by Joseph Everett Nourse (1884)

          First Impressions

          The Innuits, as is well-known, eat voraciously. Hall says on one occasion he was compelled to say to himself: “What monstrous stomachs these Eskimos have.” They had been cutting up the krang (whale-meat) into huge slices and sending it to the village for deposit, but all day long as they worked they ate. “The quantity taken on one day seemed enough for many.” Before this whale had been brought alongside the “George Henry,” they had eaten twenty square feet of the raw skin.

          In 1908, Krogh and Krogh set out to Greenland with the express purpose of observing this extreme behavior:

          From: A study of the diet and metabolism of Eskimos undertaken in 1908 on an expedition to Greenland, by August Krogh and Marie Krogh (1913)

          The investigations described in the present paper were undertaken in 1908 primarily with a view to elucidate if possible a certain point connected with the catabolism of protein, namely the probable splitting up of the protein in a nitrogenous and a non nitrogenous part and the possibility of storing the latter for later use in the organism according to its needs…

          …We had every reason to think that it would be possible to make such experiments on Eskimos. We were told that the Eskimo was able to eat a tremendous amount of pure meat in a very short time (15 pounds in less than 14 hours) and the observations, which one of us had occasion to make during a stay in Greenland several years ago, seemed to corroborate such statements. If they were only approximately correct the complete metabolism of such a quantity in 24 hours appeared inconceivable and it would appear possible to ascertain the form in which the material was stored…

          The Kroghs figured out the logistics for building a respiration in Greenland to perform their detailed experiments.

          From: A study of the diet and metabolism of Eskimos undertaken in 1908 on an expedition to Greenland, by August Krogh and Marie Krogh (1913)

          The protein intake on the meat days fell considerably short of our expectations but still we believe it to be the highest on record for man…On the whole the analyses show that the excessive amounts of protein and fat taken on the meat days are remarkably well utilized in the intestines of Eskimos…

          …The normal diet of Eskimos contains an excessive amount of animal protein (280 gr.) and much fat (135 gr.) while the quantity of carbohydrate is extremely small (54 gr. of which more than 1/2 is derived as glycogen from the meat eaten). Their dietary habits are vey like those of the carnivorous animals…

          …They are capable of prolonged work and extremely enduring with regard to cold and hardships…In our feeding experiments made under absolute control within the respiratory chamber we observed a maximum intake on one day of 1804 gr. [4 pounds] boiled seal meat, containing 85 gr. nitrogen and 218 gr. fat, but this is far below the quantities recorded for Eskimos in the free state.

          You will note that the Kroghs boiled the seal meat in their experiments. Had it been raw, the references above suggest that they might have eaten three times the amount (~12 pounds of meat) over a 24 hour period. It should also be noted that meat tends to lose weight when it is cooked, so that may be a part of the difference.

          In 1953, Hugh Sinclair reviewed all of the available literature at the time (including Stefansson’s) and concurred with the Krogh’s analysis. Sinclair wrote:

          From: The Diet of Canadian Indians and Eskimos, by H. M. Sinclair (1953)

          The Eskimo is apparently able to digest and absorb very large amounts of protein and fat at a single meal. In times of plenty, 4 kg of meat daily is a common amount and much is taken at a single meal : they do not usually take food in the morning. Consumption of larger amounts such as 15 kg has been observed on occasion, and Ross (1835) considered that an Eskimo “perhaps eats twenty pounds of flesh and oil daily”, which I suppose is possibly 46,000 Cal. Parry (1824) thought he would test the capacity of an adolescent Eskimo ; the food was weighed and, apart from fluids, he ate in 20 h 8.5 lb. meat and 1 3/4 lb. bread (about 15,700 Cal.) and “did not consider the quantity extraordinary”. But this is trivial compared with the feats of the Siberian Yakuti who eat 25-30 lb. meat daily, and there is no record approaching the 35lb. of beef and 18lb. of butter (providing about 112,000 Cal. and occupying a volume of the order of 5 1/2 gal.) alleged to have been eaten in less than 3 h by each of two Yakuti (Simpson, 1847.)

          And of course, in 1977 Harold Draper concurred with these findings of high protein consumption, as well.

          At any rate, the high consumption of protein by the Eskimo was well known and had been observed by many. Other than papers that only choose to reference Stefansson’s Bellevue Experiment as their evidence, the Eskimo’s high protein consumption is not disputed in the scientific literature. And even Stefansson’s doctors admitted that Stefansson was unable to eat the quantities of meat that had been observed in Eskimos:

          Clinical Calorimetry: XLV. Prolonged Meat Diets With A Study Of Kidney Function And Ketosis, by W.S. McClellan and E.F. DuBois (1930)

          “During the first 2 days [Stefansson’s] diet approximated that of the Eskimos, as reported by Krogh and Krogh, except that he took only one-third as much carbohydrate. The protein accounted for 45 per cent of his food calories. The intestinal disturbance began on the 3rd day of this diet. During the next 2 days he took much less protein and more fat so that he received about 20 percent of his calories from protein and 80 percent from fat. In these two days his intestinal condition became normal without medication. Thereafter the protein calories did not exceed 25 per cent of the total for more than 1 day at a time.”

          • I take all of these anecdotal/observational studies (if they can be called that) with a giant grain of salt.

            In his seminal talk about how observational studies can be found to be evidential, Bradford Hill lists nine particulars that need to be taken to account before such studies can even be remotely considered as causal. One of those particulars is coherence. In other words, do the findings cohere with what we know reality to be? If not, no matter how seemingly persuasive the ‘evidence,’ it must be discarded.

            Of coherence, Hill writes:

            On the other hand the cause-and-effect interpretation of our data should not seriously conflict with the generally known facts of the natural history and biology of the disease…

            In none of the references you’ve listed is there a quantification of amounts of meat eaten other than adjectival — monstrous, tremendous, voracious, inconceivable, excessive, etc. — save for the Krogh and Krogh report, which states specifically (assuming you have quoted it correctly) that the Eskimos consumed 280 gm of animal protein. An ounce of meat contains about 7 gm of protein, so 280 gm would represent about 2.5 pounds of meat per day. Granted, this is a pretty good chunk, but not anything I would consider “monstrous, tremendous, inconceivable or excessive.” In other words, this statement would cohere with reality — the rest wouldn’t.

            The 1804 gm of boiled seal meat in a day represents (at least by Krogh) about 4 pounds, and that was the max any of his subjects could cram down. I seriously doubt they normally ate this much.

            Especially the nonsense written by Sinclair. If you think anyone could eat 35 lb. of meat along with 18 lb. of butter in “less than 3 h,” you are a very uncritical, naive reader of the literature. Such obscene quantities definitely do not cohere to anything remotely resembling reality.

            As for a personal observation, I love sashimi and eat it all the time when I go to sushi restaurants. I always order the sashimi platter, which (where I get it) presents three slices of five different fish. I’m a pretty big guy (6’2” 190 lb), and I’m always full when I finish. I doubt there is a pound of fish total on the platter. I can more easily eat a 16 ounce steak than a pound of raw, fatty fish. So, by my reality at any rate, the idea that raw fish goes down more easily, just doesn’t wash.

            Plus, I reread the article about Stefansson’s diet you posted, and I didn’t see anywhere that his doctor’s “admitted” that he (Stef) was unable to eat the amount of meat the Eskimos did. I rapidly read through the paper, so on this point, I may be in error. But in my rapid read through, I did not see it in the paper linked.

            Don’t you ever get tired of throwing all these same quotes up over and over and over? Why don’t you just wait until I get the chance to put up my post, then you can do it just once.

          • “I take all of these anecdotal/observational studies (if they can be called that) with a giant grain of salt.”

            And you really ought to do the same with Stefansson’s anecdotal observations.

            “In other words, do the findings cohere with what we know reality to be? If not, no matter how seemingly persuasive the evidence,it must be discarded…The 1804 gm of boiled seal meat in a day represents (at least by Krogh) about 4 pounds, and that was the max any of his subjects could cram down. I seriously doubt they normally ate this much.”

            First of all, Krogh & Krogh’s subjects were confined to a teeny tiny respiration chamber for 4 days. They couldn’t expend many calories so they weren’t very hungry.

            Second of all, is there some reality where active people who burn 4,000 calories per day—especially when trying to keep warm—cannot eat 8 to 10 pounds of food in 24 hours? That would be news to me. You’ve shifted the burden of proof onto me, despite my presenting more than a dozen research papers that supported the claims.

            But I accept! 🙂

            Joey Chestnut set a world record by eating 4.5 pounds of steak, plus sides, in 8 minutes, 52 seconds at Big Texan Steak Ranch on March 24, 2008. Chestnut’s record was broken on Monday May 26, 2014 by competitive eater Molly Schuyler, who polished off a 72 ounce steak with side dishes in just 4 minutes 58 seconds and returning for seconds (14 minutes 57 seconds for both meals).

            Woman eats pair of 72-ounce steak dinners — in less than 15 minutes

            In fact, just look at all of the people who ate the famed 4.5 Lb steak, plus sides, in under one hour. The list is very long (you can download all the names and times):

            Big Texan: The 72oz Hall of Fame

            So, there you go. If Molly Schuyler—who is only 5-foot-7 and weighs 125 pounds—can eat 9 pounds of steak, plus sides (Shrimp Cocktail, Baked Potato, Salad, with Roll, Butter) in 15 minutes, then there’s no reason why Eskimos, well known for their vocarious appetites, would have trouble eating just as much food over a 24 hours period. This amount is corroborated by the 11 papers I’ve mentioned in previous comments. Feel free to dismiss as usual. I’ve proven that it’s more than doable.

            “In none of the references you’ve listed is there a quantification of amounts of meat eaten.”

            Not so.

            Anthropologist Draper 1977 estimated that the Pre-modern Inuit ate 200g of protein per day. In 1952, when virtually all Eskimos were eating modern carbs, but Kaare Rodalh still observed 202g of protein per day in the less civilized Eskimos in Anaktuvuk Pass. Rodalh, also echoed the previous observations of high protein intake:

            Basal Metabolism of The Eskimo, by Kaare Rodahl (1952)

            “It is well known that considerably higher amounts of protein are regularly consumed by the Eskimos (DuBois, ’28), who generally speaking, prefer a diet where approximately 50% of the calories come from protein and the greater part of the remaining 50% are derived from fat. August and Marie Krogh (13) report that the normal diet of the West Greenland Eskimos contained an excessive amount of animal protein—280gm daily—and they noted that there seemed to be a considerable delay in the metabolism of protein and excretion of nitrogen, only 60% of the nitrogen being excreted during the first 24 hours after eating large meals rich in protein. In East Greenland the Eskimos consume an average of 300 gm of protein daily (Hoygaard, ’41). In Alaska a daily protein consumption of more than 300 gm has been observed among the most primitive Eskimos.

            Heinbecker, who observed and tested actual Eskimos, mentioned it too.

            Studies on the Metabolism of Eskimos, by Peter Heinbecker (1928)

            “The amount of meat eaten is very large. In times of plenty an average adult consumes 4 to 8 pounds in a day.”

            Rabinowitch said it too.

            Clinical and Other Observations On Canadian Eskimos In The Eastern Arctic, By I.M. Rabinowitch (1936)

            …When food is abundant a healthy adult will eat 5 to 10 or more pounds of meat a day, and, only when in need does he consume very large quantities of fat. Blubber is not regarded as a delicacy…I estimate that when food is abundant, the average daily diet of the adult Eskimo consists approximately of 30 to 40 grams of carbohydrate (which includes glycogen), 250 to 300 grams of protein, and about 150 grams of fat (FA/G=1.2). These amounts of meat are apparently not heroic, for it has been alleged that the Yakuts, on the Low Steppe, east of the Lena, eat as much as 25 and 30 pounds of meat a day.”

            At any rate, even if you dismiss those observations you still need to deal with the fact that many researchers—such as Krogh & Krogh, Rabinowitch and Rodalh—observed high levels of nitrogen in the blood and urine, which confirmed their high protein diets. For instance, and this is just one example:

            Metabolic Studies of Eskimos in The Canadian Eastern Arctic, by Rabinowitch and Smith (1936)

            “These urinary nitrogen data, therefore, support the view that the high concentrations of non-protein nitrogenous constituents of the bloods were not due to impairment of kidney function, but to the habitual use of high protein diets. In our food analyses, for example, it was found that the seal meat con tained 3.58% of nitrogen. One pound of such meat would, therefore, alone account for about 15 gm. of nitrogen in the urine and, as stated, when food is abundant, a healthy adult will eat much larger quantities. In these Eskimos, therefore, retention of nitrogen in the blood appears to be a physiological phenomenon.”

            And there we go. When you combine that with CPT1a and the lack of observed acetone in the breath, there’s zero evidence of ketosis.

            “If you think anyone could eat 35 lb. of meat along with 18 lb. of butter in ‘less than 3 h,’ you are a very uncritical, naive reader of the literature. Such obscene quantities definitely do not cohere to anything remotely resembling reality.”

            Relax. I agree it’s outlandish. So, I checked the reference to Simpson and that crazy figure appears to be a typo. Thank god. It would appear that Simpson actually observed, “9 lbs. of beef and 4.5 lbs. of butter,” which I’m sure Molly Schuyler would have no problem with given her 15 minute achievement (see above). Here’s a report from 1881 regarding Simpson’s account as well as that of Sir John Ross:

            Gaillard’s Medical Journal, Volume 31 (1881)

            “Sir John Ross states that an Eskimo eats perhaps 20 lbs. of flesh and oil daily. Parry’s test on an Eskimo’s appetite for one meal was 8.5 lbs. of flesh, 1.75 lbs. of bread and bread dust, water not counted, and the quantity was not considered extraordinary. In another instance he gave to a young Eskimo 10.25 lbs. of solids, 1 gallon and 1 pint of water, 1.25 pints of soup, 3.5 glasses of raw spirits and a tumblerful of strong grog, and in yet another instance the subject ate [7 lbs walrus flesh, 1 lbs seal and bread, plus 6 quarts of liquids].

            Simpson, in his narrative of a journey around the world (1847), states that a Yakut in an hour ate 9 lbs. of beef and 4.5 lbs. of butter. Hayes says: “I have frequently seen an Eskimo hunter, when preparing for the hunt, eat from six to twelve pounds of meat, about one-third of which was fat, and I should place the daily consumption of the men at from 12 to 15 lbs.” The food was mostly taken raw, or, us his men expressed it, ” cooked with frost.” Kane says: ” I should average the Eskimo ration, in a season of plenty, at 8 or 10 pounds a day, with soup and water to the extent of half a gallon.” Parry had previously arrived at very much the same estimate.”

            “I didn’t see anywhere that his doctor’s ‘admitted’ that he (Stef) was unable to eat the amount of meat the Eskimos did.”

            It’s right here. So, his doctors started off the Bellevue Experiment by serving him the “approximated” diet observed by Krogh & Krogh. It’s well known that he became sick from that experience:

            Clinical Calorimetry: XLV. Prolonged Meat Diets With A Study Of Kidney Function And Ketosis, by W.S. McClellan and E.F. DuBois (1930)

            “During the first 2 days [Stefansson’s] diet approximated that of the Eskimos, as reported by Krogh and Krogh, except that he took only one-third as much carbohydrate. The protein accounted for 45 per cent of his food calories. The intestinal disturbance began on the 3rd day of this diet. During the next 2 days he took much less protein and more fat so that he received about 20 percent of his calories from protein and 80 percent from fat. In these two days his intestinal condition became normal without medication. Thereafter the protein calories did not exceed 25 per cent of the total for more than 1 day at a time.”

            Stefansson later recalled the experience in Harper’s Monthly:

            Harper’s Monthly Magazine, December 1935, article by Vilhjalmur Stefansson

            “…The symptoms brought on at Bellevue by an incomplete meat diet (lean without fat) were exactly the same as in the Arctic, except that they came on faster—diarrhea and a feeling of general baffling discomfort.

            Up north the Eskimos and I had been cured immediately when we got some fat. Dr. DuBois now cured me the same way, by giving me fat sirloin steaks, brains fried in bacon fat, and things of that sort. In two or three days I was all right, but I had lost considerable weight.”

            He just couldn’t eat like the Eskimos observed in all of the studies listed above. He didn’t have their metabolisms and he certainly didn’t have their CPT1a mutations.

            “Don’t you ever get tired of throwing all these same quotes up over and over and over?”

            Yes. Absolutely. I’m actually quite sick of it. But, I think all these papers deserve a fair read, and in the past you’ve overlooked some of the things we’ve dug up. I don’t fault you—I know you’re busy. I just want to make sure none of the evidence is overlooked.

            Cheers.

          • “I take all of these anecdotal/observational studies (if they can be called that) with a giant grain of salt.”

            And you really ought to do the same with Stefansson’s anecdotal observations.

            “In other words, do the findings cohere with what we know reality to be? If not, no matter how seemingly persuasive the evidence,it must be discarded…The 1804 gm of boiled seal meat in a day represents (at least by Krogh) about 4 pounds, and that was the max any of his subjects could cram down. I seriously doubt they normally ate this much.”

            First of all, Krogh & Krogh’s subjects were confined to a teeny tiny respiration chamber for 4 days. They couldn’t expend many calories so they weren’t very hungry.

            Second of all, is there some reality where active people who burn 4,000 calories per day—especially when trying to keep warm—cannot eat 8 to 10 pounds of food in 24 hours? That would be news to me. You’ve shifted the burden of proof onto me, despite my presenting more than a dozen research papers that supported the claims.

            But I accept! 🙂

            Joey Chestnut set a world record by eating 4.5 pounds of steak, plus sides, in 8 minutes, 52 seconds at Big Texan Steak Ranch on March 24, 2008. Chestnut’s record was broken on Monday May 26, 2014 by competitive eater Molly Schuyler, who polished off a 72 ounce steak with side dishes in just 4 minutes 58 seconds and returning for seconds (14 minutes 57 seconds for both meals).

            Woman eats pair of 72-ounce steak dinners — in less than 15 minutes

            In fact, just look at all of the people who ate the famed 4.5 Lb steak, plus sides, in under one hour. The list is very long (you can download all the names and times):

            Big Texan: The 72oz Hall of Fame

            So, there you go. If Molly Schuyler—who is only 5-foot-7 and weighs 125 pounds—can eat 9 pounds of steak, plus sides (Shrimp Cocktail, Baked Potato, Salad, with Roll, Butter) in 15 minutes, then there’s no reason why Eskimos, well known for their vocarious appetites, would have trouble eating just as much food over a 24 hours period. This amount is corroborated by the 11 papers I’ve mentioned in previous comments. Feel free to dismiss as usual. I’ve proven that it’s more than doable.

            “In none of the references you’ve listed is there a quantification of amounts of meat eaten.”

            Not so.

            Anthropologist Draper 1977 estimated that the Pre-modern Inuit ate 200g of protein per day. In 1952, when virtually all Eskimos were eating modern carbs, but Kaare Rodalh still observed 202g of protein per day in the less civilized Eskimos in Anaktuvuk Pass. Rodalh, also echoed the previous observations of high protein intake:

            Basal Metabolism of The Eskimo, by Kaare Rodahl (1952)

            “It is well known that considerably higher amounts of protein are regularly consumed by the Eskimos (DuBois, ’28), who generally speaking, prefer a diet where approximately 50% of the calories come from protein and the greater part of the remaining 50% are derived from fat. August and Marie Krogh (13) report that the normal diet of the West Greenland Eskimos contained an excessive amount of animal protein—280gm daily—and they noted that there seemed to be a considerable delay in the metabolism of protein and excretion of nitrogen, only 60% of the nitrogen being excreted during the first 24 hours after eating large meals rich in protein. In East Greenland the Eskimos consume an average of 300 gm of protein daily (Hoygaard, ’41). In Alaska a daily protein consumption of more than 300 gm has been observed among the most primitive Eskimos.

            Heinbecker, who observed and tested actual Eskimos, mentioned it too.

            Studies on the Metabolism of Eskimos, by Peter Heinbecker (1928)

            “The amount of meat eaten is very large. In times of plenty an average adult consumes 4 to 8 pounds in a day.”

            Rabinowitch said it too.

            Clinical and Other Observations On Canadian Eskimos In The Eastern Arctic, By I.M. Rabinowitch (1936)

            …When food is abundant a healthy adult will eat 5 to 10 or more pounds of meat a day, and, only when in need does he consume very large quantities of fat. Blubber is not regarded as a delicacy…I estimate that when food is abundant, the average daily diet of the adult Eskimo consists approximately of 30 to 40 grams of carbohydrate (which includes glycogen), 250 to 300 grams of protein, and about 150 grams of fat (FA/G=1.2). These amounts of meat are apparently not heroic, for it has been alleged that the Yakuts, on the Low Steppe, east of the Lena, eat as much as 25 and 30 pounds of meat a day.”

            At any rate, even if you dismiss those observations you still need to deal with the fact that many researchers—such as Krogh & Krogh, Rabinowitch and Rodalh—observed high levels of nitrogen in the blood and urine, which confirmed their high protein diets. For instance, and this is just one example:

            Metabolic Studies of Eskimos in The Canadian Eastern Arctic, by Rabinowitch and Smith (1936)

            “These urinary nitrogen data, therefore, support the view that the high concentrations of non-protein nitrogenous constituents of the bloods were not due to impairment of kidney function, but to the habitual use of high protein diets. In our food analyses, for example, it was found that the seal meat con tained 3.58% of nitrogen. One pound of such meat would, therefore, alone account for about 15 gm. of nitrogen in the urine and, as stated, when food is abundant, a healthy adult will eat much larger quantities. In these Eskimos, therefore, retention of nitrogen in the blood appears to be a physiological phenomenon.”

            And there we go. When you combine that with CPT1a and the lack of observed acetone in the breath, there’s zero evidence of ketosis.

            “If you think anyone could eat 35 lb. of meat along with 18 lb. of butter in ‘less than 3 h,’ you are a very uncritical, naive reader of the literature. Such obscene quantities definitely do not cohere to anything remotely resembling reality.”

            Relax. I agree it’s outlandish. So, I checked the reference to Simpson and that crazy figure appears to be a typo. Thank god. It would appear that Simpson actually observed, “9 lbs. of beef and 4.5 lbs. of butter,” which I’m sure Molly Schuyler would have no problem with given her 15 minute achievement (see above). Here’s a report from 1881 regarding Simpson’s account as well as that of Sir John Ross:

            Gaillard’s Medical Journal, Volume 31 (1881)

            “Sir John Ross states that an Eskimo eats perhaps 20 lbs. of flesh and oil daily. Parry’s test on an Eskimo’s appetite for one meal was 8.5 lbs. of flesh, 1.75 lbs. of bread and bread dust, water not counted, and the quantity was not considered extraordinary. In another instance he gave to a young Eskimo 10.25 lbs. of solids, 1 gallon and 1 pint of water, 1.25 pints of soup, 3.5 glasses of raw spirits and a tumblerful of strong grog, and in yet another instance the subject ate [7 lbs walrus flesh, 1 lbs seal and bread, plus 6 quarts of liquids].

            Simpson, in his narrative of a journey around the world (1847), states that a Yakut in an hour ate 9 lbs. of beef and 4.5 lbs. of butter. Hayes says: “I have frequently seen an Eskimo hunter, when preparing for the hunt, eat from six to twelve pounds of meat, about one-third of which was fat, and I should place the daily consumption of the men at from 12 to 15 lbs.” The food was mostly taken raw, or, us his men expressed it, ” cooked with frost.” Kane says: ” I should average the Eskimo ration, in a season of plenty, at 8 or 10 pounds a day, with soup and water to the extent of half a gallon.” Parry had previously arrived at very much the same estimate.”

            “I didn’t see anywhere that his doctor’s ‘admitted’ that he (Stef) was unable to eat the amount of meat the Eskimos did.”

            It’s right here. So, his doctors started off the Bellevue Experiment by serving him the “approximated” diet observed by Krogh & Krogh. It’s well known that he became sick from that experience:

            Clinical Calorimetry: XLV. Prolonged Meat Diets With A Study Of Kidney Function And Ketosis, by W.S. McClellan and E.F. DuBois (1930)

            “During the first 2 days [Stefansson’s] diet approximated that of the Eskimos, as reported by Krogh and Krogh, except that he took only one-third as much carbohydrate. The protein accounted for 45 per cent of his food calories. The intestinal disturbance began on the 3rd day of this diet. During the next 2 days he took much less protein and more fat so that he received about 20 percent of his calories from protein and 80 percent from fat. In these two days his intestinal condition became normal without medication. Thereafter the protein calories did not exceed 25 per cent of the total for more than 1 day at a time.”

            Stefansson later recalled the experience in Harper’s Monthly:

            Harper’s Monthly Magazine, December 1935, article by Vilhjalmur Stefansson

            “…The symptoms brought on at Bellevue by an incomplete meat diet (lean without fat) were exactly the same as in the Arctic, except that they came on faster—diarrhea and a feeling of general baffling discomfort.

            Up north the Eskimos and I had been cured immediately when we got some fat. Dr. DuBois now cured me the same way, by giving me fat sirloin steaks, brains fried in bacon fat, and things of that sort. In two or three days I was all right, but I had lost considerable weight.”

            He just couldn’t eat like the Eskimos observed in all of the studies listed above. He didn’t have their metabolisms and he certainly didn’t have their CPT1a mutations.

            “Don’t you ever get tired of throwing all these same quotes up over and over and over?”

            Yes. Absolutely. I’m actually quite sick of it. But, I think all these papers deserve a fair read, and in the past you’ve overlooked some of the things we’ve dug up. I don’t fault you—I know you’re busy. I just want to make sure none of the evidence is overlooked.

            Cheers.

          • As per usual, you’ve completely missed the point. As the Big Texan (where I have eaten many times, BTW) experience proves, people CAN eat prodigious quantities of food. No one (at least not I) am arguing that. It just that countless people have tried the Big Texan challenge and failed. Many more so than have won it, which is why it continues to be offered to all takers. It costs a fair amount of money (I can’t remember how much because I haven’t been there since I moved away from Little Rock), and those who can’t eat the thing have to pay up. If everyone who came by chowed through it, the Big Texan folks would lose money, but they don’t. So although SOME people can eat huge amounts, most can’t. You can’t prove the diet of an entire group of people based on a few outliers. You should know that.

          • Dr. Eades. The average American, burning only ~2,700 calories per day, eats on average 5.5 pounds of food per day:

            The Average American Ate (Literally) A Ton This Year

            Someone burning 4,000 calories per day should have no problem eating 9 pounds of food in a 24 hours period—particularly if they are snacking constantly as the Eskimos were known to have done. The Big Texan only proves that it can be done in a single hour.

            The observations concur.

          • Well, you can dismiss it all you like, but by dismissing 150 years of evidence showing the opposite, you are committing yet another logical fallacy:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_lapidem

            You keep racking them up!

            Wikipedia: Logical Fallacy: Argumentum ad lapidem

            Argumentum ad lapidem (Latin: “to the stone”) is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity. The form of argument employed by such dismissals is the argumentum ad lapidem, or appeal to the stone. Ad lapidem statements are fallacious because they fail to address the merits of the claim in dispute. Ad hominem arguments, which dispute the merits of a claim’s advocate rather than the merits of the claim itself, are fallacious for the same reason.

            Hmm.. That sounds familiar. Not only have I shown that it’s plausible in a single hour, I’ve shown 150 years worth of observations and studies, from a wide range of sources and geographies showing it to be so.

            In order to counter 150 years of observations and studies, without ad lapidem statements like you’ve done, above, you’ll need to address the merits of the claim. That will require some form of proof or evidence, on actual Eskimos, mind you. And that’s going to be a problem as to date, nobody has found any evidence supporting protein restriction in the Eskimos. Even the recent studies in the past few years still show they don’t restrict their protein.

            You are backed into a corner. The evidence is clear, over and over and over again, that they ate significant quantities of protein, saving their fat for fuel and trading inland, and they didn’t have the metabolism to make enough ketones and nor could any ever be detected.

            I’ll be impressed if you can overcome each of those issue without committing logical fallacies, but I suppose anything is possible. But even those with biochemistry backgrounds, (Jennifer Jones, Peter Dobromylskyj, Anna Dahlquist, Andreas Eenfeldt) just aren’t able to see what you think is so obvious, so it will be very interesting to hear what you have to say.

            Just know that simply saying 5-10 pounds of meat in 24 hours is “absurd” is not a valid argument given all of the evidence that’s been presented.

          • Nice moving of the goal posts on DD’s part. We’ve gone from debating how much meat an outlier can eat to how much total food any American can eat. Completely different argument and we all know how easy it is to eat pounds of fatty starch versus pounds of fatty meat. And if we don’t know, maybe we shouldn’t be in this discussion.

  44. Dr Eades, you have read the links Duck provided, and you disagree with his interpretation of MOST of them? He is not giving his own interpretations but those of the authors. Their interpretations follow naturally from their observations. If you disagree, you must disagree with the observations.

    It seems to me that he is right about something else too. I don’t see any way you can read so much and have any time left over to think about what you have read.

    I have some experience in this department. I am an Oxbridge-trained biologist who has spent the last 30 years studying the scientific literature. For the first 20 years, I was reading the literature for half the day and fitting it all together in my head for the other half. The first part is virtually useless without the second part.

    • Perhaps I read much faster than you and with better comprehension. I can assure you that I spend plenty of time thinking about what I read. I could spend even more if I didn’t feel compelled to reply to the same comments over and over.

      • Well, you are human. You do make mistakes. Everyone does. For instance, you did keep misreading the Draper paper multiple times.[1][2]

        But I admit that I have no doubt that if I read as much as you do, and as quickly as you do, then I’d certainly make a lot of mistakes. So, you are forgiven.

        But, I guess I’m just surprised that you haven’t read the papers we’ve presented given the amount of reading you claim to do. It’s like you don’t think they are worth your time.

  45. Gontran de Poncins probably also made it all up.

    From Kabloona (1941)

    “For three days and nights we followed the caribou, shooting, wounding, killing, skinning, carving, and eating.

    Another caribou lay wounded, the blood running down his horns, He tried to rise, stumbled, fell, tried again to rise; and my stomach heaved at the sight of the beast as at the sight of a horse in a bull ring. Two shots finally killed him. When I, carrying this poor beast on my back – his weight was about seventy pounds – had rejoined my Eskimos, I found them butchering two animals. They skinned the caribou by inserting a hand between hide and flesh, and the hide came away with a sound as of tearing silk. Then they cut it up with and dispatch that my troubled stomach barely permitted me to take note of and after tearing at choice cuts of the raw meat with their teeth and gulping it down, they put the bulk of it into a sack improvised out of the hide; and this meat, with the useful bones and valuable sinew, we carried back to our base.
    For fifty feet round the tent the snow was filthy with blood, entrails, heads, and legs of caribou. Back at camp they ate again, hands, faces, and coats covered and spattered in blood, squatting like cave-men in the snow and ripping the tendons out of the legs with their powerful teeth while the caribou tongues – great delicacies – were set down to dry on the ground. All round lay the dogs, breathing heavily after their enormous feast, but like the men, prepared shortly to eat again. For dogs as for men, famine was always in the offing, and while both crammed themselves I could see both grow from hour to hour fatter and greasier, the faces of the men shining and their stomachs bloated, like cannibals. Because their dreams had been of the feast they woke in the night, shook themselves out of that Eskimo sleep than which nothing is more profound; and they began again in the night to gnaw and tear and gulp.

    That night I ate the biggest meal I have ever eaten. I was hungry, I was exhausted, the cold was as severe as ever, and I had taken almost no food since leaving the Arviligjuarmiut camp. Algunerk was already hacking away at a seal when we straightened up in the igloo. The seal had been dragged into the middle of the igloo by a rope run through its nose. The Algunerk’s axe had been thawed out, for otherwise it would not have cut. Now he was going at the seal like a woodman chopping down a tree. We were too hungry to wait until he had finished, and we grabbed at the chips as they flew through the air and swallowed them where we stood. We ate for twenty hours. What a farce the white man’s table is! Whole quarters of seal were swallowed, snow and all; and the snow grated between our teeth as we bit into the meat. This cold dish finished, we began on the next course. I had contributed half a sack of rice, which was boiled with ten or twelve pounds of caribou meat; and while we chewed seal blubber from one hand, we dipped the other into the steaming- vessel of caribou and rice.
    Next morning we had hardly awoken before the feast continued. Frozen fish was our first delicacy, even before the tea was brewed; and the fish was followed by seal. This time it was one of Ittknangnerk’s seals that went; and we were still in our sleeping-bags as we chewed it. The turn of the dogs would come later, and what we had eaten, they would eat. Ittimangnerk, who was well-bred, had begun by cutting away the choicest morsels of seal and passing them to his host, and Algunerk had put them aside without a word. Between meals, as it were, we ate (…) dried fish. It tasted as if smoked and made an excellent appetizer. Innumerable mugs of black tea were drunk, and then, our appetite returning, we stripped off long slices of lake fish and passed them round, each taking his bite, cutting the rest off with his knife close to the lips, and handing on what remained. A fish would go round so swiftly that I could scarcely swallow fast enough. I had to pass my turn twice, which made them laugh. There was a little boy of six years, and he was brought into the circle: it would teach him to be a man.”

    • Actually, yeah, we should take this with a huge grain of salt.

      I am part of the so-called “adoption triad” and one thing I’ve noticed in my time online and observing how people talk about the issue is that adopters talk more than anybody else, and they freely speak FOR the other two legs of the triad: “birthparents” and adoptees. (I consider “birthparent” an offensive term, on par with “walking womb,” “breeding sow,” and “biology doesn’t matter,” because clearly adoptees hatch from rocks.) Yet they expect all their readers to take their word as gospel. They know how it feels to surrender a child, they know what it’s like to grow up outside one’s biological family, and don’t you dare question them.

      We see the same phenomenon with civilized* people who go into indigenous communities and Experience Things. They do all the talking for the indigenous people and we had better take them at their word.

      You’ll excuse me if I’m cynical.

      [*My personal definition of “civilized” is “domesticated human being who practices totalitarian monocultural agriculture and builds cities.” It does not mean “properly socialized human.”]

  46. One thing one has to take into consideration relative to Inuit diet is the amount of exercise they got in the old days. If I spent all day running along side a dogsled through heavy snow, in below-zero weather, I could eat a heck of a lot more than I usually do, especially if it were spread out into small meals. But not 30 pounds.

  47. “I take all of these anecdotal/observational studies (if they can be called that) with a giant grain of salt.”

    Well, I’m not sure how building a respiration chamber in Greenland in love 1908 and studying the respiration of Eskimos inside it qualifies as observational/anecdotal—nor other studies that have measured various things in blood, urine, breath. Did they have dietary questionnaires in 1910?

    It’s an interesting approach you’ve taken, Doc. Especially since this whole thing began with your insistence that Stefansson’s observations and anecdotes were unassailable, and you even suggested that if the NYT had not published the dirt on Stefansson included in the documentary you recommended people watch, then it must not exist.

    So, I’m assuming then that in your forthcoming response, Stefansson’s observations and anecdotes are either out, or salty. And since all the actual studies, and other arctic explorer journaling is also out, or salty, I’m wondering what you’re going to write about.

    “As for a personal observation…”

    Can I get some salt with that?

    “Don’t you ever get tired of throwing all these same quotes up over and over and over? Why don’t you just wait until I get the chance to put up my post, then you can do it just once.”

    And then this in a comment up-scroll:

    “I think my able opponent in this debate is beginning to run a little scared. And like a giant squid, when threatened, is trying to obfuscate his position with a cloud of electronic ink. I don’t have a position, says he. I’m simply quoting everyone else. If they’re wrong, then no taint on me. I don’t have an opinion, I’m just quoting others. A slight change in tune, I would say. And a black cloud of squid ink, if there ever was one.”

    It’s been his deal since day one. The vast preponderance of everything posted on FTA in the 17 posts or so was quotes from the literature and Duck has reiterated this many times. Most of the dialog and narrative and 100% of the snark was me.

    Basically, you think that Stefansson’s observations and anecdotes are unassailable and Duck thinks that a lot of papers over 100 years contradict Stefansson’s observations and anecdotes, and you think all those papers are just observations and anecdotes and wish to once again poisson the well in advance of your final response—that shouldn’t matter since it’s all observation and anecdotes, and the guy goes by Duck Dodgers anyway.

    Well, I guess we see what happens, but I’ve got a favorite quote from Aesop’s Fables at the ready….

    • I though you had hoist the black flag and were no longer going to dabble in ketosis? At least that’s what you wrote. I would suggest this is a good time for you to exit stage left and leave the scientific discussion of ketosis to those who understand it.

      If you actually knew as much about it as you think you do, we would be having all this back and forth.

  48. “I though you had hoist the black flag…”

    Well, I’m humbled that you have the time to check up on the competition there, Mike. Thanks for reading.

    Solemn nod on that.

    But, at least let’s get the full context up and available, for the swabbies?

    “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” — H.L. Mencken

    If you took my tat ink to mean I was going to set my ignorance aside and let you off the hook when you just blogged about it, are commenting about it, and vow to post about it again, well, let me tell you about a bridge.

    You’ve been trolled, you will continue to be trolled. There, I just tossed you a bone so your sycophants can look elsewhere. Or, maybe they’ll pay closer attention.

    …The Black Fag means I blog with zero colorful allegiance, not to anyone, not ever.

    • You wrote somewhere in one of your recent posts since deciding you wanted to change the thrust of your blogging that you were no longer going to write about ketosis. You’ve apparently removed that reference. My bad for not taking a screenshot before I mentioned it.

      • Well Mike, you yourself told someone in comments way long ago when chastised for associating with me that I seemed OK in person (words to that effect). You were right. I’m only truly intolerable in my own house and here, that equals not peppering your comments with links to my blog.

        Honor in war, or some silly shit like that.

        Anyway, so, here’s the context.

        http://freetheanimal.com/2015/02/inking-the-deal.html

        I probably did the post badly because some even took it (or a previous post) that I wasn’t even going to blog.

        Nope, none of that.

        On the other hand, I get impatient with trying to explain myself, especially when it’s irrelevant. What, you’re seriously going to press me on not letting you off the hook like you thought I was going to do, because I wrote a post badly, or purposely ambiguously?

        • I think it was the post before the one you linked. When you had your epiphany about how easy it was to lay abed and make money with rental properties.

          It wasn’t about any letting off the hook. If I decided I didn’t want to continue on this course with this idiotic debate, do you think for a second it would cause any lasting damage to me? I was simply surprised to see you pop up in the comments because you wrote you were through with dealing with ketosis, along with a host of other issues.

          • “I think it was the post before the one you linked. When you had your epiphany about how easy it was to lay abed and make money with rental properties.”

            Indeed. And again, I’m humbled you’e keeping better track of me than I’m keeping of myself.

            It’s very true that I’m kinda a loose wheel and can’t be counted on, so perhaps inuit ate 90% fat and were in ketosis because of my inconsistencies.

            Otherwise, I’m really glad that I make money lying in bed selling vacations, instead of attending trade shows to sell appliances (that’s not a dig: I have had and SVS since day one and use it moderately frequently—its a great invention and everyone should buy one and experiment). Tis what ’tis.

            “It wasn’t about any letting off the hook. If I decided I didn’t want to continue on this course with this idiotic debate, do you think for a second it would cause any lasting damage to me? I was simply surprised to see you pop up in the comments because you wrote you were through with dealing with ketosis, along with a host of other issues.”

            I don’t believe you.

  49. “Perhaps I read much faster than you and with better comprehension. I can assure you that I spend plenty of time thinking about what I read.”

    Be careful, Dr Eades. A fast reader is an inaccurate reader. Please tell us again how many books you read in a month. How many papers. How many hours a day do you spend thinking? I don’t mean the kind of thinking you can do while driving to work, I mean REAL thinking. The kind you have not yet done on the literature Duck has given you.

    • Some people can run at a fast clip without breaking a sweat while others struggle to run half as fast. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that different people have differing abilities and varying activities.

  50. Does anyone else get the impression that, in this exchange with Dr Eades, Dick and Duck are like a couple of one legged men in a butt kicking contest?

    • It reads more to me like all three guys are in a self-measuring contest and really angry because somebody’s got to lose and no one is yet admitting which guy it is.

      People out there are sick and dying right now while all this nonsense is going on. And all I can think is in a Bobby Singer voice: IT AIN’T ABOUT YER DAMN EGOS, IDJITS.

  51. Richard and Duck

    WHEN are you guys going to address the fact that the cell is not understood anywhere near good enough yet by researchers- not by a LONG shot. Your arguments about the best die are rather silly. This fact COMPLETELY shut BOTH of you down and has massive implications in the field of medicine.

    Further, when are the BOTH of you going to address that being a FALLACY BULLY with that “come at me bro style” is NOT AT ALL an example of CRITICAL THINKING. Google the video on YouTube “Beware The Fallacy Bully.” Engaging in ouch behavior is NOT winning either of you anything, nor strengthening the veracity of your non- existent argument. It is only worsening it..

    The ABUSE and misuse of logical fallacies is only “cool” and accepted on the dopey Internet.

    Cordially,

    Razwell

  52. Dr. Eades,
    I’ve loved your posts in the past, and look forward to more *real*information, and especially loved your thoughtful and articulate book reviews, but for now will not be following this further. I certainly hope you come to a place of peace with this situation soon. I cannot be alone in my disgust for this kind of posturing. I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if there are many who, reading your blog for the previously superior content, will drop this blog because of this redundant bickering.
    I’m so sorry to see you getting all caught up in this. I’m having difficulty understanding why you are pandering to these people. Can you not see that no matter what evidence you post, and no matter how well-supported your arguments, these fools are never going to be satisfied? This is endless and pointless, and it seems like your time could be better spent posting real information instead of this immature and aimless claptrap.

    Richard is a most unhappy individual, and is at his finest when attempting to make others feel small and ignorant. He is simply taunting you. I had to stop following his blog some time ago, as I got very tired of his reprehensible and inexcusable treatment of his fellow human beings. There is simply no reason for his complete lack of respect for others. While he calls himself an anarchist, the irony is that he treats others with the same disregard and disrespect he perceives from those he rails against. While his blog is no doubt entertaining and informative at times, I found myself pitying him more often than not, not to even mention the sickening disrespect with which he treats his wife. That is one of the most long-suffering women I’ve ever had the misfortune to hear of. I don’t need to know the finer details of their relationship to feel desperate pity for her. He is a philanderer, if not in fact, clearly in intent. The fact that he’s been so willing to discuss these things publicly is a travesty to his marriage. The smartest thing that woman could do for herself, as soon as she looks in the mirror and decides to have some self-respect, is to run and never look back.
    I’m sure it goes without saying that anyone who chooses to associate their efforts with someone like Richard, (Duck, I’m talking to you) is no better. Tim Steele and Grace Liu dodged a hollow-tipped, speeding bullet when they cut their public ties with Richard.
    Honestly Dr. Eades, why waste your time on this crap? Move on and do something productive. I’ll be back when you do.

      • Dr. Eades,

        I do hope that you still plan to formulate a blog post about the Inuit and ketosis. I would personally enjoy reading it. Could we just call it a blog post in response to this ‘anonymous’ statement?:

        We are informing you that 150 years of scientific literature and observations overwhelmingly demonstrates, and concludes, that the Inuit ate a high-protein/high fat diet, were not in ketosis, have difficulty producing ketones (thanks to CPT1a), and there is no evidence that they were keto-adapted.

        Richard and Duck (if they are actually separate people) will still continue to troll the comments of said post for as long as they/he have electricity and internet, no matter what you say. But, trolls are an occupational hazard of blogging and I would still personally enjoy reading it.:)

        • Your succinct encapsulation of their argument is spot on. I do plan on writing the post – I just want to wait till I’ve got the new site up because it will be a fairly lengthy post, and I don’t want to go through the brain damage I have to go through now to post. You can go back through the comments just on this string and see all the character screw ups. Each post I write is full of those, and I have to go through and weed them out multiple times. Which takes forever because they are like the heads of the Hydra – I fix one and another jumps up.

          I think the post will be interesting to most of my readers because it will clarify what ketosis really is and why it’s important. And why I think it should be the way humans spend most of their metabolic time – in ketosis. It’s the natural way, not an aberration. The current diet so many people follow is, in my view, the aberration.

          If you haven’t watched it, I recommend you take a look at Arctic Dreamer, the terrific documentary on Stefansson.

          As you’ll see when you watch, Stefansson was a pretty amazing character. But he needs to be viewed as a man of his time, not a man to be judged by today’s standards. I hate it when people judge those of another era by standards of their own — I call that generational chauvinism. We, too, will be judged by future generations, and some things we do and ideas we now embrace and accept as perfectly normal will be revolting to people a hundred years from now. We certainly don’t want to be judged by their standards.

          A classic case of this is the song Alice’s Restaurant. At the time Arlo Guthrie wrote and performed the song, he was the vanguard of the Left. He was anti-war and anti-draft — a full blown hippie, commie, pinko swine, as the average working stiff would have referred to him back then. And he has this huge hit song created around his arrest for dumping half a ton of garbage off the side of the road. There is little more sacrosanct to the Left today than the environment, and I doubt Guthrie would get a lot of traction with a song about despoiling the countryside by dumping a VW Minibus full of garbage “off the side of a side road.”

          Also, in the same song, near the very end when he is telling his listeners how to avoid the draft, he sings, if two people go into the draft board and sing a chorus of Alice’s Restaurant, they’ll think both of them are faggots and won’t take either one. Just using that term now could get you accused of a hate crime. But at the time he wrote and performed the song to the mainly far Left crowd, that line got a big laugh. Times change, and we can’t judge Arlo Guthrie or anyone else from another era by today’s standards.

          • “I think the post will be interesting to most of my readers because it will clarify what ketosis really is and why it’s important.”

            This sounds like code for redefining what ketosis is. If you’re going to disprove 150 years of literature by redefining what ketosis is, you’ve just cheated.

            Would you agree that the Inuit normally had elevated FFAs instead of elevated ketones?

            Throughout this entire debate not a single LCHF advocate has ever chosen to answer this question, for the simple reason that they know that it proves that the Eskimos have a very different metabolism than us. And if the Eskimos have a very different metabolism than us, then it makes no sense to use them as an ancestral example of an Eskimo diet.

            Dear Christopher,

            That is my argument if Dr. Eades decides to redefine ketosis in his post. And I could care less if you think someone needs to reveal their identity to make such a statement.

          • “I think the post will be interesting to most of my readers because it will clarify what ketosis really is and why it’s important.”

            This sounds like code for redefining what ketosis is. If you’re going to disprove 150 years of literature by redefining what ketosis is, you’ve just cheated.

            Would you agree that the Inuit normally had elevated FFAs instead of elevated ketones?

            Throughout this entire debate not a single LCHF advocate has ever chosen to answer this question, for the simple reason that they know that it proves that the Eskimos have a very different metabolism than us. And if the Eskimos have a very different metabolism than us, then it makes no sense to use them as an ancestral example of an ketogenic diet.

            Dear Christopher,

            That is my argument if Dr. Eades decides to redefine ketosis in his post. And I could care less if you think someone needs to reveal their identity to make such a statement.

          • Apologies. I left a typo in the ‘follow-up argument’ should Dr. Eades take that approach… It should have read:

            And if the Eskimos have a very different metabolism than us, then it makes no sense to use them as an ancestral example of a “ketogenic” diet.

          • “I think the post will be interesting to most of my readers because it will clarify what ketosis really is and why it’s important.”

            This sounds like code for redefining what ketosis is. If you’re going to disprove 150 years of literature by redefining what ketosis is, you’ve just cheated.

            Would you agree that the Inuit normally had elevated FFAs instead of elevated ketones?

            Throughout this entire debate not a single LCHF advocate has ever chosen to answer this question, for the simple reason that they know that it proves that the Eskimos have a very different metabolism than us. And if the Eskimos have a very different metabolism than us, then it makes no sense to use them as an ancestral example of a ketogenic diet.

            Dear Christopher,

            That is my argument if Dr. Eades decides to redefine ketosis in his post. And I could care less if you think someone needs to reveal their identity to make such a statement.

          • No worries on time. I will be just as happy to read it in 2020 as I will be in 2015.

            I just finished watching Arctic Dreamer. Very good. But, I do tend to like stuff like this in general. I still fail to see how some of the deplorable things that he did discredit his research. And, I don’t really know anything more about the guy than this documentary just told me.

            You are right about judging people in history by today’s standards. I have been recently fascinated with Roman history and just finished an excellent book on the subject. I found myself thinking during the siege of Jerusalem: “Why not just surround the city and starve them into submission?”. This had been well established in previous engagements as being a perfectly acceptable strategy. After putting the book down and allowing myself a few minutes to re-acclimate to the 21st century, I had to laugh a little for thinking this. … Anyway, a slight diversion. But, still an excellent read if anyone has an interest.

            I too will have to plead ignorance due to a generational gap on Alice’s Restaurant. I had never heard of it or Alro Guthrie. It is hilarious though: “…But Alice’s Restaurant is not the name of the restaurant. That’s just the name of the song…”

    • Furthermore, Richard has revealed his identity and he is the one who published and stands behind everything on his own blog.

      Statements like this make me wonder if you and Richard are actually separate people. I guess we will never know.

      The rest of your responses are restating in a different way that you are not making an argument, just ‘reading us the dictionary’. I have wasted enough time pointing out that this is not all that you are doing. I guess Dr. Eades, Richard and the two or three remaining people left on this planet stupid or bored enough to still be reading this will have to decide for themselves.

      For now, and in the future I will also follow Sarah’s advise and stop feeding trolls.
      (Thanks for the reality check Sarah.)

      Regards,
      Christopher

    • @Sarah

      Imagine you are an Inuit mom, and you put your baby to bed in the evening. And in the morning you find it dead. The baby died of hypoglycemia, it had no energy to fuel the heart, nor the brain. There was not enough blood sugar, and no ketones.

      That’s what the CPT1a mutation is – ketogenesis disorder. No ketones. The Inuit babies are in very big danger because of this.

      CPT1a mutation is otherwise extremely rare, but as it seems it was selected forin the populations inhabiting cold Northern regions, not only Inuits.

      Genetic geeks can read about the Carnitine Palmitoyltransferase 1A Deficiency here at NCBI

        • “It’s actually not a ketogenesis disorder, it a disorder of long-chain fatty acid oxidation”

          Well it certainly presents itself as a ketogenesis disorder:

          From: Carnitine palmitoyl transferase 1A deficiency

          Differential diagnosis includes fatty acid and ketogenesis disorders such as medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MCAD deficiency; see this term), other long-chain fatty acid oxidation disorders such as carnitine palmitoyltransferase (CPT) 2 deficiency and Reye’s syndrome (see these terms).”

          At any rate, if indeed you are somehow successful in proving that the Eskimos relied on high levels of ketones for energy (how I don’t know, given that they pass out if fasting too long, with exertion) you will likely revolutionize and disprove every paper that’s ever been written on CPT1a. I hope you will call up the CPT1a researchers everywhere and tell them how they all didn’t know basic biochemistry. You’ll be a hero.

        • “But I’ll address all that in my post.”

          I certainly hope so.

          And I also hope your explanation will include ALL the available evidence and research, and NOT ONLY copy the hypothesis presented in this paper “The paradox of the carnitine palmitoyltransferase type Ia P479L variant in Canadian Aboriginal populations.” which is full of useful metabolic data, but alas, the only source about dietary habits of Inuits in this paper are references 40, 44 – Phinney, Stephansson.

          • You need to get used to it. Phinney did all the early work on the ketogenic diet and athletic performance. I know him well and have had many discussions with him about it. And heard him speak on his early experiments numerous times. When he did this work, he was trying to disprove the Atkins diet. Didn’t turn out that way.

            The reason there aren’t more studies is that these kinds of studies are extremely expensive to do. They kept people locked up for weeks on end, provided all their food, and monitored everything. Tough to get funding for that these days. Plus, it might be tough to get them through IRB approval.

            They first did typical, average people and found how effectively the ketogenic diet worked for them once they had time to adapt. They were so amazed by their unexpected findings that they recruited trained athletes for the next go round, assuming they would be different. They weren’t.

            These are the seminal studies on ketoadaptation and performance, so you’ll see them quoted everywhere.

            Stefansson published more than anyone else about the Inuit diet. He was the only researchers – at least as far as I know – to have not only studied the Inuit but lived with them (and as they did) for many years. Consequently, just about every paper discussing the Inuit diet will cite Stefansson.

          • “You need to get used to it.”

            lol

            I am not interested in the athletes at the moment, I am interested in Inuits.

            Stephansson’s fairy tales confused even these researchers who produced another fairy tale:

            “CPT-I is considered to be the major rate-limiting enzyme for hepatic ketogenesis. Inuit people have traditionally lived and thrived for millennia in an extremely harsh and unforgiving environment on a diet that consisted of 80–85% fat, 15–20% protein, and, apart from a little muscle glycogen, almost no carbohydrate [40]. Such a diet would dictate that for much, if not all, of their lives they would be in a state of perpetual ketosis [40]. Yet we have reported here a seemingly very high prevalence of a mutation that decreases b-oxidation and ketogenesis. This indeed seems to be a paradox.

            However for this variant to attain such high prevalence in this population it must confer a significant evolutionary advantage. This may be at least partially through its ability to confer some degree of malonyl-CoA insensitivity to the CPT-I enzyme as the mutation is close to the action site for this inhibitor. The Inuit traditionally select a high fat diet when conditions allow and feed the lean cuts of meat to their dogs [40,44]. Such a diet dictates that they were permanently ketogenic, a physiological state that once attained is an efficient means of maintaining energy levels and carrying out prolonged physical activity [40]. When ketogenesis is abruptly switched off, nausea, headaches and muscle weakness ensue, such as may occur in people who suddenly deviate from a high protein, low carbohydrate diet. This malaise can usually be overcome by consuming more carbohydrate, but this option would in the past not have been available to the Inuit who, in order to function effectively, would have had no option but to continue to rely substantially on ketogenesis for their energy needs in a land where dietary carbohydrate was almost nonexistent. It is reported that although high fat diets are customarily selected by these peoples, occasionally, particularly at the end of winter when traditional high fat foods are in short supply, they are forced to eat diets with high lean meat content, usually in the form of rabbit [40]. This could potentially lead to switching off ketogenesis and any ability to tolerate a diet consisting of a higher percentage of lean meat for short periods of time would be a distinct survival advantage. Indeed even with this proposed advantage it has been reported that given the conditions above some Inuit suffer from ‘‘rabbit malaise”, a condition well known to these traditional peoples, seemingly the result of consuming too much protein and abruptly switching off ketogenesis. Given enough protein it is still possible to switch off ketogenesis as the variant does not appear to completely abolish malonyl-CoA sensitivity [9]. It therefore seems likely that the P479L variant enzyme is an adaptation to a state of perpetual ketosis where a high sensitivity to malonyl-CoA would be undesirable. Equally it may be that the lower flux of the mutant enzyme is also an important part of the adaptation.” etc.

    • @Sarah

      There’s really nothing more satisfying in these sorts of comment discussions than a healthy dose of projection, solipsism, and begging the question all rolled into one.

      Let’s take a tally:

      “*real*information”

      “I certainly hope you come to a place of peace with this situation soon.”

      [Certainly, Mike Eades is not in a “place of peace.” Poor Mike.]

      “I cannot be alone in my disgust for this kind of posturing.”

      “I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if there are many who, reading your blog for the previously superior content, will drop this blog because of this redundant bickering.”

      “I’m having difficulty understanding why you are pandering to these people.”

      “Can you not see…[?]”

      “…no matter what evidence you post, and no matter how well-supported your arguments, these fools are never going to be satisfied?”

      [You should point Mike to all this “evidence” and “well-supported arguments” he’s posted, in order to save him time in drafting that post that’s the underlying subject of this entire debate.]

      “This is endless and pointless, and it seems like your time could be better spent posting real information instead of this immature and aimless claptrap.”

      [OK, now that she’s informed us of Eades’ state of mind, informed us what information is “*real*” and what’s not, and informed us that she’s most certainly not alone in these judgments, let’s see what she knows about me and BONUS: what she knows about my wife, Duck, Tim, and Grace.]

      “Richard is a most unhappy individual”

      “There is simply no reason for his complete lack of respect for others.”

      “I found myself pitying him”

      “That is one of the most long-suffering women I’ve ever had the misfortune to hear of.”

      “I don’t need to know the finer details of their relationship to feel desperate pity for her.”

      “…is a travesty to his marriage.”

      “The smartest thing that woman could do for herself, as soon as she looks in the mirror and decides to have some self-respect, is to run and never look back.”

      [I’ll let her know. As a CA teacher in one of the highest paid districts in the country, she’s financially independent with her 33 years of service and a pretty whopping 403B. She was just up here at the vacation home for the weekend to meet visiting friends we met in Mexico a couple of years ago. She’s planning a European vacation for the two of us this summer and is paying for it, since I paid for the last two. …But I’m sure you don’t need to actually know her, of have any facts, to know what’s best for her.]

      “…it goes without saying that anyone who chooses to associate their efforts with someone like Richard, (Duck, I’m talking to you) is no better.”

      [Poor Duck.]

      “Tim Steele and Grace Liu dodged a hollow-tipped, speeding bullet when they cut their public ties with Richard.”

      [I’m sure Tim and his wife will be surprised to know that they’ve cut their public ties with me, especially since they recently got back from Cabo for a week, where they rented my 1,250 sf suite on the beach. I’m sure Tim was out of his mind when he wrote 6 days ago:

      http://freetheanimal.com/2015/02/anyone-vacation-give.html#comment-701703

      “Just to let everyone know, my wife and I rented one of Richard’s Cabo pads at the Grand Solmar in January, and it was absolutely the best vacation we’ve ever had.”

      But I’m sure Sarah knows best about all of this.]

      Oh, one last little irony? Beatrice doesn’t care about any of this, or much about what I write on my blog. She gets the context. For instance, if I were to sit her down and convince her that I was 100% right and Eades, 100% wrong, she’d shrug and say ‘I really liked those people when they came to have coffee in that hotel, and then visiting at AHS11.’ She also appreciated talking with Dr. Mary Dan about all that post-50 yoa woman stuff.

      Darn that woman. She has a mind of her own and makes her own judgments about literally everything.

      • Dick!

        You started losing it on your blog when you weren’t invited to AHS 12. Self pity and narcissism are ugly things to display in public.

        How many conferences have you been invited to lately Dick?

        You would be an object of pity if you weren’t such a loud mouthed jack ass!

        You truly are one of the biggest jokes in the blogosphere!

        • “You started losing it on your blog when you weren’t invited to AHS 12”

          News to me, since my AHS12 presentation was attended by 200 or so, speaking opposite of Terry Wahls. It’s easy to find on Vimeo.

          I blogged that it was the last one I cared to do, even prior to the call for presentations for ’13 in Atlanta and have since written why the commercialized Paleo movement holds no interest for me, anymore. I also turned down an invite from Keith and Michelle Norris for Paleo f(x). You’re welcome to ask them if you like.

          You can’t even get basic facts and timelines straight, so you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t care what you think.

          • Yo Dick!

            If you don’t care what I think why do you spend your valuable time, time which could be better spent enlightening the masses, answering my posts?

            AHS 12 or 13 ……it does not matter. The fact is you were booted out of the AHS …… which speaks very well the quality control function at AHS. Your assertion that you dropped out on your own accord is a flat out lie.

            Have you been invited to any conferences lately?

            200 attendees at your presentation, a 1250 sq ft “suite” in Cabo, 4000 visitors to your blog daily……why the need for constant public bragging?

            Dick Nikoley……a legend in his own mind.

          • “The fact is you were booted out of the AHS …… which speaks very well the quality control function at AHS. ”

            Wrong again. You’re perfectly free to contact Aaron Blaisdell, Brent Pottenger, or even the AHS board and ask them yourself. In fact, Evelyn Kocur tried to get me disinvited, but failed, owing, ironically, to Seth Roberts and Melissa McEwan.

            You’re also free to ask them if I submitted a talk for 13 or 14, and they’ll tell you no. For a time, Tim Steele and I toyed with doing a presentation for ’14 on resistant starch, etc. I reached out to Aaron & Brent, just to make sure submitting a talk wouldn’t put anyone in an awkward position and was told to go right ahead. But later, Tim and I decided we weren’t interested and besides, Grace was submitting something.

            I don’t care what _you_ think, simply correcting woefully false public info you’ve posted—without a single care for its veracity, I might add. What a hero.

          • I am sure you believe all that Dick.

            What conferences have you been invited to lately Dick?

            I am so glad to be your hero!

          • Richard has a 2 new products coming out soon. One is called “PALEO SPANX”. the other is called ‘SELFIE YOGA’ (you hold in your breadth and gut while you take a selfie).

          • He has another new product,called “Dead Lifts For Idiots”.

            A few years back Dick was bragging about his 20 minute weight workouts consisting mainly of full-out dead lifts using the heaviest weight his flabby body could handle for 2 to 3 reps. Of course anyone who did not follow Dick’s lifting plan was a Fucktard.

            A couple of months later Dick reported that he had surgery for a ruptured vertebrae in his neck and was self medicating with alcohol and prescription meds.

            Did Dick ever admit that his absurd weight lifting protocol, which caused his injury, was a mistake? Of course not! One must be a Fucktard to suggest such a thing!

            Instead Dick moved on to his next obsession: gut bugs and bowel movements. This apparently attracted a mini-cult following to his blog mainly consisting of middle aged women with Irritable Bowel Syndrome.
            Thank God this was enough to bring me to my senses and stymy my perverse interest in Dick’s blog. I noticed an immediate mental health improvement after suspending viewing of the FTA site.

            Dick will do anything to draw attention to his blog and turn a buck. His trolling of this blog, with links to the FTA asylum, are a clear demonstration of this. Self aggrandizement is what Dick is all about.

            Don’t feed the troll.

          • “A few years back Dick was bragging about his 20 minute weight workouts consisting mainly of full-out dead lifts using the heaviest weight his flabby body could handle for 2 to 3 reps. Of course anyone who did not follow Dick’s lifting plan was a Fucktard.”

            Well, again, only to set records straight over what’s posted about me publicly. One must assume that since the guy has obviously read the record and his recounting of it is false, that it’s his intention. Fine. Don’t care.

            Anyway, I was doing the LeanGains program with Martin Berkhan (that’s where the 270g of protein daily was coming from). It does work, but it’s a disciplined program more suited to young guys with specific athletic-type goals. I made significant gains all over, but it’s kinda like taking on a job. Reason for a 3-5 rep range is to lift heavy. So, rather than 3 sets of 10 reps of DLs at 240, it’s 5 @325 and 3-4 at 305.

            Here’s the record, overall 27% gain over 20 weeks:

            http://freetheanimal.com/2010/11/leangains-martin-berkhans-workout-approach.html

            It’s kinda funny. This stuff is all ultimately of record on my blog, but the guy insists on outright lying about what’s been posted for years and is a click away.

            Next:

            “A couple of months later Dick reported that he had surgery for a ruptured vertebrae in his neck and was self medicating with alcohol and prescription meds.”

            So here’s that record:

            http://freetheanimal.com/2011/02/tension-myositis-syndrome-tms-can-your-mind-really-heal-your-back-neck-shoulder-butt-and-leg-pain.html

            In brief, I came up with really severe chronic neck, shoulder, right arm pain. No idea the cause, but both Kurt Harris and Doug McGuff advised me—independently—to read a book. It made the pain go away. Like, if I had pain, as I began to read, it melted away.

            Kurt Harris is an MD radiologist and checked out my MRI imaging. Confirmed the cervical herniation. But, he also told me that virtually everyone over 50 has herniations and most people have no symptoms. Anyway, only surgeries I’ve had in my life are circumcision (fuck that), tonsillectomy, and a septic ingrown toenail as a college freshman. You can ask my mom.

            As for the gut bug stuff, it’s real. You can change your entire mental attitude, even your dream state, by manipulating your 100 trillion gut bugs. It’s by no means only me who’s saying that.

            …So, looks like this guy is intent on posting lies he knows are lies. What’s next?

          • “One is called “PALEO SPANX”.

            No no VEE MARY. It’ll be called “PALEO TEEVEE GIRDLE.”

            Can’t wait for the trade shows. Maybe I’ll see Mike.

            (with apologies to Mike—she’s been trolling my blog since like 2008. You never get more than a snarky 1-sentence para. from her).

          • See what I mean folks? Dick will use any excuse to put out links to his failing blog.

            If you have IBS, like to talk about your bowel movements, and enjoy wallowing in the mire……by all means head over to Dick’s FaTAss blog. You will find many kindred souls there.

          • I actually do have some problems down there. I wouldn’t say I like talking about my bowel movements. But, I’m not opposed.

            Wanna talk about my poopies Richard? (You can call me a fucktard first)

  53. Dr Eades.

    Your claim is that the Inuit lived in an almost permanent state of ketosis.

    Your claim has been stated as being highly suspect by Duck, Richard, and others, and they have provided a considerable body of evidence to support their contrary position.

    The burden of proof is on you. You made the claim. You back it up with evidence. Also, backing up your claim includes being able to refute their evidence. So far you have not addressed all those studies presented to you.

    So,

    1-Stop talking about how good the keto diet is. That is not the issue!!!!

    2-Stop talking about how there is lots of evidence that supports your claim, but that people like Duck and Richard are simply not aware of it. If you have it, hit us with it or stand down!!!!

    3-Stop talking about how many renowned scientists and specialists agree with you about how good the keto diet is. That information has no relevance to this debate. This debate is about the Inuit and whether they lived in an almost permanent state of ketosis. It is not about the relative merits of a keto diet!!!

    All of 1,2,& 3 are simply ways of you attempting to distract readers from the actual debate.

    Please stop going off on tangents and trying to muddy the waters.

    Stick to the argument.

    Less talking, more doing.

    Dr Mike, it is time.

    1000’s of people are waiting for you to back up your claim.

      • nice deflect, are you not capable of answering his reasonable questions? I would love to hear your answers as there does seem to be a logical need here.

  54. There really is no doubt about whether the Inuit lived in an almost permanent state of ketosis. They did not.

    What I want to know is how Dr Eades thinks the ketogenic diet works. By eliminating refined carbs? By preventing oxidative stress?

    I went to a talk in the Oxford Phamacology
    Department recently about gene therapy for heart failure. The gene was for SERCA2a, the ER/SR calcium pump. It seems to work. The speaker did not say how, so I asked her. Does it work by preventing calcium overload in mitochondria? Good point, she said. Yes you are right.

    Why didn’t she mention it in the talk? Because calcium overload in mitochondria is due to oxidative stress, and you don’t need gene therapy to prevent oxidative stress.

    Likewise, you don’t need a ketogenic diet to prevent oxidative stress.

    • You wrote:

      There really is no doubt about whether the Inuit lived in an almost permanent state of ketosis. They did not.

      I’m glad that’s settled. Now I guess I don’t need to do my post.

    • There is no need to wait for the post. Dr. Eades will apparently argue that the high Free Fatty Acids, that were observed in a number of the studies we cited, are due to CPT not transporting Fatty Acids into mitochondria.

      And that’s all well and good, however the key point we’ve already made in previous discussions (on Hyperlipid) is that these FFAs are preferentially burned for heat and that fact alone proves that they had a unique metabolism, that is an adaptation to cold environments, and shows that they do not possess Western metabolisms.

      Therefore, my “pithy” argument in response to that would be that…

      The Eskimos cannot be used as an example of the safety of a long term ketogenic diet, given that there is evidence shows that they relied heavily on gluconeogenesis for energy—from documented high protein intakes—and that their CPT1a mutations provided them with a unique and rare metabolism that cannot easily be duplicated by Westerners.

      Period.

      • You wrote:

        …the key point we’ve already made in previous discussions (on Hyperlipid) is that these FFAs are preferentially burned for heat and that fact alone proves that they had a unique metabolism…

        Just a couple of little simple questions…

        Would you mind telling us all how these FFA are burned for heat? Are they burned in the mitochondria? If so, how did they get there?

        • Don’t answer just yet Duck. I like to make my popcorn the old fashioned way and with coconut oil. I just need 10-20 more minutes….

          • Don’t worry he’s reading up on that right now. Remember he doesn’t read that fast and it takes him longer to think about it. Then since he’ll have a couple of thousand word response – you should be fine, probably enough time for two bowls.

        • “Would you mind telling us all how these FFA are burned for heat? ”

          Didn’t Peter from Hyperlipid blog told us, that ketones are not important for burning fat – normal pathways do it better? His words:

          “Over the months Wooo and I seem to have come to some sort of conclusion that, while systemic ketones are a useful adjunct, a ketogenic diet is essentially a fatty acid based diet with minimal glucose excursions and maximal beta oxidation. Exactly how important the ketones themselves are is not quite so clear cut. From the Hyperlipid and Protons perspective I would be looking to maximise input to the electron transport chain as FADH2 at electron-transferring-flavoprotein dehydrogenase and minimise NADH input at complex I. Ketones do not do this. Ketones input at complex II, much as beta oxidation inputs at ETFdh, but ketones also generate large amounts of NADH in the process of turning the TCA from acetyl-CoA to get to complex II, which ETFdh does not. I’m not a great lover of increasing the ratio of NADH to NAD+. “

        • Well, I’m very busy right now, and I’m going to have to lay the groundwork to redefine certain pathways so that my answer won’t be misinterpreted. I promise I’ll get back to you ASAP after I spend the morning reading papers I’ve never seen before. I promise. Is near year ok? I just have to fly around the world for a summit where everyone confirms each other’s biases and raves about how great our research is 😉

          Kidding aside.

          Uncoupling seems to play a role. See Peter’s first post where various speculations on the mechanisms were discussed. Weren’t you participating? Nothing concrete was determined from it and I’m not about to start putting up speculations here. That’s for you and Peter to hash out.

          Your turn… Why do you and Peter disagree on protein and lack of ketones from CPT1a? It seems that’s far more important than what I think.

          Furthermore, the conversation at Hyperlipid just proved that their Eskimo metabolisms are nothing like ours. Not even close. Therefore, it’s misleading and makes no sense to hold them up as an example of Western ketosis.

          • What’s uncoupling? If you don’t know, you shouldn’t be throwing the term around.

            This isn’t a debate between Peter and me, it’s between you and me. You’ve made it personal, and now when you’ve been caught in a bunch of BS showing how clueless you are about the very fat burning (for heat, as I recall) you’ve been touting, you try to foist the whole thing off as a disagreement I have with Peter.

            Just so you’ll know, fats are burned in the mitochondria. They have to get in there somehow, which they do by riding in on carnitine. Attaching the fatty acid to the carnitine requires the enzyme CPT1 (and CPT2 to get through the inner mitochondrial membrane, but the CPT1 is the rate limiting enzyme). So if all Eskimos have CPT1 deficiencies, how do they get the fat in their mitochondria to burn for heat as you suggest? And if the CPT1 deficiency is widespread, how do Eskimos burn fat if they can’t get it into the mitochondria where fat is oxidized? Unlike glucose, fat can’t be burned other than in the mitochondria.

            Only once the fat is burned can there be uncoupling. Uncoupling is involved in the electron transport chain, which basically consumes energy (thrown off by fat oxidation) to creates an electrochemical gradient across the inner mitochondrial membrane. This gradient is what ends up powering the turbine-like crank to make ATP. So you’ve got the electron transport chain coupled with oxidative phosphorylation, which is the process of making ATP. Uncoupling occurs when the energy required to create the electrochemical gradient is somehow dissipated and ends up not being used to create ATP. In other words the process of creating the gradient is uncoupled from the process of producing ATP.

            Would you care to speculate as to how this uncoupling occurs? Or what the end result is?

            Or do you need another round of basic biochemistry instruction so you’ll know the answers to those questions?

          • Ha ha. I did need popcorn.

            I don’t know why the uncoupling occurs. But, I think I know what the end result is. Can I be so bold as to suggest (with my almost 15 minutes of Google searching) that maybe the CPT1 deficiencies quoted by Mr. Dodgers might be an adaptation that helps them survive in the cold climate?

          • I seriously doubt it. It’s far too rare (and seems to be isolated to mainly those in the upper NW coastal areas, not Inuit in general) and probably too recent to have anything to do with the entirety of the Inuit population, especially those from the old papers that have been quoted ad nauseam.

            Granted, I haven’t made a study of the CPT1a P479L variant, but there isn’t a whole lot of literature on the subject, which leads me to believe it’s not particularly widespread. Also, I’ve made contact with a doctor friend from Canada who has worked for years in the administration of their public health service. He tells me the problems are mainly confined to the northern coastal regions and to those people who primarily ate seafood. He says he has had discussions with geneticists who are working in that field, and, though the defect seems to have been conserved, may have had some survival benefit, but no one really knows how. Certainly no one is basing a theory of why the entire population of Inuit aren’t in ketosis on it. Which makes sense because, as I’ll demonstrate, the Eskimos on their traditional diet are in ketosis.

          • Interesting. That makes sense. I was speculating that the uncoupling was creating heat instead of ATP and since this process left unchecked can be fatal, that the lack of CPT1 was somehow rate-limiting the process.

            But, it is obviously more complicated than that. (no surprise)

            I still have my popcorn ready whenever you want to chime in Duck.

          • Uncoupling does provide us with our body heat and maintains our temp within a pretty narrow range around 37C. But it does more than that and is basically a way to dump excess energy without coupling it to ATP formation.

          • “Granted, I haven’t made a study of the CPT1a P479L variant”

            Lots and lots of reading to do, in that case…

          • “Granted, I haven’t made a study of the CPT1a P479L variant”

            I take it that’s “advanced biochemistry,” then.

            Cool. Glad we’re finally getting beyond the basics.

          • I probably have a different definition of making a study of something than you might. When I say study, I don’t mean I haven’t had time to spend a half hour on Google. I mean I haven’t had time to read critically and think about the actual papers. I’ve read most of them through, but I like to go through slowly, make notes and think about it before I comment in a public forum.

          • “I probably have a different definition of making a study of something than you might.”

            Study needs a definition or interpretation?

            Could a carpenter, plumber, auto-mechanic over years or decades be said to have studied the craft—even if illiterate?

            “When I say study, I don’t mean I haven’t had time to spend a half hour on Google. I mean I haven’t had time to read critically and think about the actual papers. I’ve read most of them through, but I like to go through slowly, make notes and think about it before I comment in a public forum.”

            I cut to the chase. I spend my half hour, half day, or sometimes several days on Google, PuBMed, or whatever, often tweet out asking for full texts and usually get them within minutes.

            But what I have no interest in doing is “interpreting” them so that the Constitution now conforms to the laws I want to pass….oops, sorry, drifted into another subject there.

            I prefer the “common law” approach (there I go again). I understand as best I can, spend hours drafting a post, and then learn a lot from commenters.

            Fortunately, I tend to have commenters—lots—that actually read studies or take me to task, and not just post “great post.”

            For me, certainty only comes from error, and error only comes from a desire to be shown where I’m wrong.

            …We probably have a different definition of the value of being wrong.

          • ” I understand as best I can, spend hours drafting a post, and then learn a lot from commenters.”

            Unless they disagree with you. In that case the are fucktards, who don’t know how to do even basic tasks like tie their shoes or go to the bathroom, clearly don’t possess any understanding of context and should be immediately dismissed. (but not before they are thoroughly insulted as if they were still in middle school)

          • “Unless they disagree with you. In that case the are fucktards, who don’t know how to do even basic tasks like tie their shoes or go to the bathroom, clearly don’t possess any understanding of context and should be immediately dismissed. (but not before they are thoroughly insulted as if they were still in middle school)”

            It’s true sometimes. Not always. It may be true for some people, not all people. It may be true for some disagreements, not all disagreements. It may be more pronounced in some post topics than others.

            It’s all about omnicentricity.

            http://youtu.be/RdKLIeRdJsI

            (I’ve known Yasuhiko Kimura for a long time)

          • “I seriously doubt it. It’s far too rare (and seems to be isolated to mainly those in the upper NW coastal areas, not Inuit in general)”

            You’re confusing the Aboriginal races. The paper you cited says.

            “The allele frequency and rate of homozygosity for the CPT1A P479L variant were high in Inuit and Inuvialuit who reside in northern coastal regions. The variant is present at a low frequency in First Nations populations, who reside in areas less coastal than the Inuit or Inuvialuit in the two western territories”

            So, it’s high in the Inuit and Inuvialuit, but low in the First Nations. What’s the difference??

            Here’s an explanation from the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), the national voice of 55,000 Inuit living in 53 communities across the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (Northwest Territories), Nunavut, Nunavik (Northern Quebec), and Nunatsiavut (Northern Labrador), land claims regions.

            For greater clarity:

            Aboriginal is an all-encompassing term that includes Inuit, First Nations (Indians), and Metis.

            “First Peoples” is also an all-encompassing term that includes Inuit, First Nations (Indians) and Metis.

            Aboriginal and First Nations are NOT interchangeable terms.

            “Aboriginal” and “First Peoples” ARE interchangeable terms.

            Inuit is the contemporary term for “Eskimo”.

            First Nation is the contemporary term for “Indian”.

            Inuit are “Aboriginal” or “First Peoples”, but are not “First Nations”, because “First Nations” are Indians. Inuit are not Indians.

            The term “Indigenous Peoples” is an all-encompassing term that includes the Aboriginal or First Peoples of Canada, and other countries. For example, the term “Indigenous Peoples” is inclusive of Inuit in Canada, Maori in New Zealand, Aborigines in Australia, and so on. The term “Indigenous Peoples” is generally used in an international context. The title of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a prime example of the global inclusiveness of the term “Indigenous Peoples”.

            The debate is about Eskimos. Your own paper is saying that the CPT1a mutation is unusually high in Eskimo populations but low in Indian populations.

          • @Christopher

            You said: ” Can I be so bold as to suggest (with my almost 15 minutes of Google searching) that maybe the CPT1 deficiencies quoted by Mr. Dodgers might be an adaptation that helps them survive in the cold climate?”

            It seems you have not followed the discussion since its very beginning – but it is OK.

            If you go back to the post at Hyperlipid that is often referenced here, there it is. Survival adaptation.

          • “Not really. The literature is pretty thin on the ground. Run a PubMed search and see what you find.”

            Try harder. I have done my homework – and the picture is pretty big (and doesn’t involve only CPT1a, of course).

            I suggest starting here:

            “A Selective Sweep on a Deleterious Mutation in CPT1A in Arctic Populations” (2014)

            “Arctic populations live in an environment characterized by extreme cold and the absence of plant foods for much of the year and are likely to have undergone genetic adaptations to these environmental conditions in the time they have been living there. Genome-wide selection scans based on genotype data from native Siberians have previously highlighted a 3 Mb chromosome 11 region containing 79 protein-coding genes as the strongest candidates for positive selection in Northeast Siberians. However, it was not possible to determine which of the genes might be driving the selection signal. Here, using whole-genome high-coverage sequence data, we identified the most likely causative variant as a nonsynonymous G>A transition (rs80356779; c.1436C>T [p.Pro479Leu] on the reverse strand) in CPT1A, a key regulator of mitochondrial long-chain fatty-acid oxidation.

            Remarkably, the derived allele is associated with hypoketotic hypoglycemia and high infant mortality yet occurs at high frequency in Canadian and Greenland Inuits and was also found at 68% frequency in our Northeast Siberian sample.

            We provide evidence of one of the strongest selective sweeps reported in humans; this sweep has driven this variant to high frequency in circum-Arctic populations within the last 6–23 ka despite associated deleterious consequences, possibly as a result of the selective advantage it originally provided to either a high-fat diet or a cold environment.”

          • That was the first paper I read. Do you just have the abstract? The entire paper is filled with weasel words, which tells me that authors are speculating about everything. Which they ultimately end up saying. One interesting thing about the paper, however, is that the authors say there is evidence (I haven’t had time to look up the articles they cite for this) that the “mutation decreases the inhibitory effect of malonyl-CoA on fatty-acid beta-oxidation in mitochondria,…” As I’m sure you know, malonyl-CoA is an enzyme that inhibits CPT1 when insulin is high and diverts fatty acids away from the mitochondria (where they would be burned for energy) and into storage instead. So if there really is a defect in CPT1, it’s compensated for by its inhibition of malonyl-CoA.

            But it really doesn’t matter because the studies Duck proffers show the Inuit really are in ketosis if he but knew how to interpret them. And when they fast, they are in measurable ketosis, so if they have a mutation in CPT1a, it doesn’t seem to make much difference.

          • Dick:

            The fools errand is your attempt to crash this blog.

            You are the laughingstock of the Paleo blogosphere.

          • “That was the first paper I read. Do you just have the abstract? The entire paper is filled with weasel words, which tells me that authors are speculating about everything.”

            Of course I have read the full text of this paper. And many others on that subject.

            This is getting ridiculous. I was hoping for a discussion but that is the last thing that’s happening here.

          • If my guess as to the end result is correct, it would also explain their enormous appetites….

          • “What’s uncoupling? If you don’t know, you shouldn’t be throwing the term around.”

            It is somewhat ironic that you should be questioning Duck Dodgers about uncoupling in Inuits. When Peter speculated how this process might be performed – in his “Coconut” post – you haven’t contributed much. In fact, not at all.

            What seems to matter here is the uniqueness of the CPT1a allele found in the Northern populations (not only Inuits): the gene variant P479L. It is not the same as “normal”, rare form of the CPT1a deficiency in other populations. It also matters that it is found in most, but not ALL Inuits. Therefore it seems that the unique cold adaptation of these nations must apply also to those with the “normal” allele. There are some other special factors as well, both inside the genome and outside, provided by environment, all favouring unique metabolic adaptations for increased uncoupling, when needed. As you are surely aware by now.

            Wait a minute. Did I say “unique”? Unique genes? Unique environment? Unique metabolic adaptation? How does an average “non unique” person translate all that, and copy the Inuit model, then?

          • “Unlike glucose, fat can’t be burned other than in the mitochondria.”

            There are organismsm that don’t have mitochondria, but burn fat well, like fungi or plants. They use other organelles, eg. peroxisomes for this. We also have peroxisomes. According to the Wikipedia: “Peroxisomal oxidation is induced by a high-fat diet”, “One significant difference is that oxidation in peroxisomes is not coupled to ATP synthesis.”.

            Yes I know that the beta oxidation that starts in peroxisomes in a typical human is finished in mitochondria, but are Inuits normal when it comes to metabolism?

        • Burned for *heat* –

          Kudlik

          Kudlik or qulliq (Inuktitut: ᖁᓪᓕᖅ, IPA: [qulːiq]) is a type of oil lamp used by the Inuit.

          Description

          The lamp consists of a crescent-shaped cup of carved soapstone, filled with whale or seal blubber.[1] Arctic cottongrass, common cottongrass, or moss[2] is used as a wick.
          Uses

          In former times, the lamp was a multi-purpose tool. The Inuit used the kudlik for illuminating and heating their tents and igloos, for melting snow, cooking, and drying their clothes. Today it is mainly used for ceremonial purposes.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudlik

          • I am serious… and don’t call me Shirley 😛

            I’m not going to wade into the ketosis debate, but in a dark, wet and cold environment and no other source of lighting and heating fuel and waterproofing compound it’s not a stretch to believe those were the priority uses for animal fat (not saying they weren’t consumed), but ALL the protein was consumed. The implications of that vis a vis ketosis, well I’m just enjoying the discourse.

  55. Highly esteemed Dr. Mike, (with apologies to Albert Einstein)

    Do not laugh at me for writing you without having anything sensible to say. But I am so enraged by the base manner in which FTA, Ducks, and Ms. Jane are presently daring to concern themselves with you that I absolutely must give vent to this feeling. However, I am convinced that you consistently tolerate this rabble, whether it obsequiously lavishes respect on you or or whether it attempts to satiate its lust for sensationalism. I am impelled to tell you how much I have come to admire your intellect, your drive , and your honesty, and that I consider myself lucky to have made your acquaintance many years ago by means of Protein Power. Anyone who does not number among these reptiles is certainly happy, now as before, that we have such personages among us as you, and Mary Dan too, real people with whom one feels privileged to be in contact.

    If the rabble continues to occupy itself with you, simply don’t read that hogwash, but leave it to the reptile for whom it has been fabricated.

    With most amicable regards to you and Mary Dan, yours very truly, Alfred

  56. Dr Eades said – “I would imagine it is more like 5s of people are waiting. Most of them Nikoley sycophants. Do you qualify?”.

    They have so much of the evidence backing them, and all you have is Stefanson…..That is not my fault, that is yours.

    And Duck argues straight up. You constantly try to avoid the debate by using various distractions- That is not my fault.

    Why has Duck’s identity got any relevance to this discussion?…Well, of course, the answer is it doesn’t. It is only people who can’t argue their position properly who resort to wanting to know the identity of theit antagonist.

    I will follow people who follow the scientific evidence.

    I repeat, so far, all you have is Stefanson.

  57. @Dr Eades
    Yes, fats are burned in mitochondria. If fatty acids need CPT1 to get into brown fat mitochondria, how do you think the Inuit kept themselves warm?

    The answer, available on Wikipedia, is that brown fat has CPT1b and not CPT1a. They only had problems getting fatty acids into their liver mitochondria, and since that’s where ketones are mostly made, it means they wouldn’t have been able to make a lot of ketones or live in ketosis. Since the evidence says they were not normally in ketosis, there is no problem.

  58. OK, new post up about all of this.

    The Duck Dodgers, rather than replying in comments, decided to collaborate on a more extensive reply.

    http://freetheanimal.com/2015/03/integrate-biochemistry-michael.html

    I won’t blame you if you withhold publishing this Mike, as there is plenty of snark and criticism, but hey, your comment was pretty terse too, so chalk it up to turnabout.

    Should anyone wish to argue any points, speculations, assertions, more than welcome. I offer 1st comment moderation. Prove by submitting a 1st comment that you’re not there to just take a crap in the middle of my living room floor and tell me it’s art, and then once I let it pass, all subsequent comments using the same identity info go through unmoderated.

    • Richard said:

      “I offer 1st comment moderation. Prove by submitting a 1st comment that you’re not there to just take a crap in the middle of my living room floor and tell me it’s art.”

      What a guy. This is pathetically hypocritical since you admitted to taking an alternate identity to troll this blog. Plus, we already know you’ve taken more than one alternate identity to troll wooo’s blog. Trolls basically come to comments sections to crap in the middle of someone else’s living room floor. You even went so far, when called on your alternate identity trolling, to act like it was “art”, since you *thought* you were so clever about it.

      Go ahead, spin this however you want to make it sound like you know exactly what you’re doing. It’s patently obvious that you haven’t a clue. But you said you love being wrong so please, enjoy.

  59. I hear various upper-middle-class professionals insisting that Paleo and low-carb is all they hear about. They refuse to believe that it is actually all but unknown and totally lacking in acceptance in the medical community, despite constant studies where LC diets do best in comparisons.

    So, to demonstrate this total lack of acceptance, check out this major media web site page – updated for 2015 – and note that 100% absence of Paleo or ANY low-carb diet:

    http://health.usnews.com/best-diet

    • Classic media is on the decline EXACTLY because of this kind of hiding information. They also didn’t include breakthrough diets like Wahls Protocol, Perfect Health Diet: which kind of set the standard for the second decade of 2014; bringing completness and comprehensivness to the area that was dominated by single-trick methods (like low calorie, low carb etc.). If someone ignores these, then it just means they are disqualified as a qualified source of information.

      • Maybe but note that today’s Google.com doodle honors the inventor of “Ramen” – a really cheap 100% Carb noodle, which is often 99% of the diet of college students.

        So, I would not count on the “new young generation” somehow breaking free of the “fat is unhealthy” brainwashing that was started by McGovern in 1977, and still seems to be the default for 90% of the populace and 99% of the medical community.

  60. Jim said –

    “Best thing would be to ban Dick and Duck from this blog.”

    Hey Jim,

    While you’re at it, maybe you could have a scientific book burning, starting with all the scientific evidence that makes you feel uncomfortable.

    • Sounds good Mike. You bring the matches and I will bring effigies of Dick and Duck.

      Lunatics have a right to rave. …….just not where and when they please. Dick has his FaTAss blog where he can, and does, rave to his hearts content. Why does he and his lackey Duck have to pollute this blog with their verbose passive aggressive posts?

  61. @Nate

    Characterize it however you want. The policy still stands, offer still open. My blog, my rules. Your blog, your rules. I understand it’s a difficult concept to grasp, awash in fucktarded egalitarianism as we all are.

    • Egalitarianism is the last thing on my mind and has absolutely nothing to do with my point. Keep on spinning…

    • Let’s see, in “civilization” (as opposed to tribal life), I see two possibilities, egalitarianism or rule-of-the-most-ruthless. Of course, egalitarianism can only occur amongst those who are aware of their instincts, and consciously decide to not just do what their instincts say (aka not just do “what I feel like”, since feelings and instincts are the same thing).

      Or we can just live in Putin World, your choice.

    • Yes, it’s actually showed up, but the site is so screwed up right now I’m reluctant to put it up on the products page out of fear of what might happen. It should be just a little bit longer before the new site goes live.

    • Yes, it’s actually showed up, but the site is so screwed up right now I’m reluctant to put it up on the products page out of fear of what might happen. It should be just a little bit longer before the new site goes live.

  62. Hey Doc

    Just took at wallow over at the FTA site. Don’t know if you’ve seen the latest post or not, but it turns out that Duck Dodgers isn’t a real person. It’s an entire team of people who are all collaborating to go against you. Should make you feel good that it takes a village to go up against just you.

        • @Bryan Harris

          “I don’t claim to understand any of the arguments going back and forth..”

          Why don’t you ask? Keep on asking, and you will receive. 🙂

      • “I’m not surprised. It often takes a full team to try to refute a simple truth because it’s tough to do.”

        I am probably repeating myself but I have not noticed you would answer a single point raised by Duck Dodgers concerning Eskimo metabolism or adaptation to the cold environment, respectively.

        Where is the simple truth, in that case?

        • Did you answer my point about the mutation decreasing the inhibitory effect of malonyl-CoA? That was a part of the paper you’re so fond of. The authors were speculating as to why the mutation doesn’t seem to matter as much as it should.

          • “Did you answer my point about the mutation decreasing the inhibitory effect of malonyl-CoA? That was a part of the paper you’re so fond of. The authors were speculating as to why the mutation doesn’t seem to matter as much as it should.”

            Have you asked me a question? I haven’t noticed.

            I have proposed you to start with that paper simply because it is the latest one on CPT1a deficiency, full of references, which are full of clues on what is happening in Inuit’s liver. Oh yes, the mutation matters a lot. And it is obviously not the only factor in the unique metabolism of the Northern populations.

            I am really looking forward to your post!

    • Yo Shep!

      I suggest you take a hot shower and few stiff drinks after your foray at Dick’s FaTAss blog. It might get some of the stench off and help clear your head. I know….I have been there and done that.

      Dick and Duck, whoever they are, are zeroes that get their kicks out of attacking real, accomplished people. A sad commentary on fringe human behavior but a real truth.

  63. Yo Jim!

    I can’t believe Doc put up the post linking to FTA, but I guess he’s got his reasons. Why give that ding dong the traffic?

    I have an academic background in the basic sciences, and I have a hunch where this thing is going. It should be a lot of fun. I wish Doc would go ahead and put up the post so I can see if I’m right and hear the squealing from the FTA crowd begin.

    • I posted it to move all the BS off my site and onto his. I don’t care if he gets the traffic as long as I don’t have to deal with it all here.

      If you’ve got good sense, and the understanding of the basics of biochemistry, it should be pretty easy to see where it’s going. Obviously Team DD doesn’t. Which let’s me know it’s tough to learn biochem via Google.

      • Does this site make you money or enough to justify the time? Or, woudl you would classify it as a labor of ? (sorry if you have already addressed this in a previous post that I have not read)

        • It doesn’t make enough to cover the expenses of the frigging thing. It occupies a huge amount of bandwidth and costs me $99 per month to host plus whatever for all the little tech things that have to be done at a hundred bucks an hour. Plus all the money I’m spending on getting the thing redesigned. Or not redesigned, but getting the new theme put up and customized and dealing with the database issues that cause all the bizarre character screw ups.

          So, at this point at least, it is a labor of love, if you could call it that. But since I’m not collecting money (but paying it out instead), I feel no obligation to put off other more lucrative tasks to make time to deal with the DD crowd, all of whom seem to have limitless time to deal with all this.

          • I get the tech side of things costing, when a site I manage has issues it can sometimes eat up an entire day/weekend to sort it out, and these are generally hours I can’t bill to anyone as it’s part of my agreement to keep things running as long it’s not something they stuffed up.

            But the hosting/bandwidth thing is a 2000’s problem, I haven’t seen many hosts recently capping that stuff. For reference I built a huge community/forum/blog/classifieds/gallery/etc thing about sports cars ( http://www.AussieExotics.com – since sold, and site is becoming decrepit) back around 2006-2010 and I would often have to just let it run out of bandwidth and go down for a week or more toward the end of the month as it was costing me $300-500 out of my own pocket with no real revenue. Eventually a local hosting company with a bent for exotic cars donated their servers to the cause which saved the site and allowed me to eventually make decent $ out of it.

            Nowadays though, bandwidth I don’t think is even a concern. Eg this month my sites have served 99GB so far (5-6 days in), but my plan is unlimited, and costs me like $120 a year.

          • That plan says unlimited data transfer, but for $1,200 bucks a year you’re limited to 100k visitors a month? That’s kinda backward and a bit ouch, if your site happens to be linked for one day on a popular press/news outlet or makes front page of Reddit or even gets tweeted by someone you’ll burn through that in no time and then be stuffed for the rest of the month… (unless I’m reading it wrong)

            Aussie Exotics was as niche as you get – Ferrari/Lamborghini/Porsche/etc owners/enthusiasts in Australia, primarily Adelaide – but that used to get 180k unique visitors a month 5 years ago through purely organic traffic and dedicated members – with the occasional massive spike when it was mentioned on the news.

          • I’m no expert but it seems with drupal and some little colo place you could save a little money. Here’s a colo that seems reasonable. 1TB per month for $65 bucks. I don’t know how much traffic you do.

            http://macminicolo.net/

        • “Who cares? I’m not going to waste five seconds of my life trying to figure out who is Richard and who isn’t.”

          That’s a good attitude to take since your primary interest is in the subject at hand. But it is strange and makes me wonder why someone would just make up personas and be sure to be consistent in a writing style (like using all lower case letters or lots of … etc. to try to fool people). why not just write a novel? why go through the trouble of actually lying about your identity> for fun?quelqu’un a une vis desserrée.

  64. Dr Eades:

    Your book Protein Power made a huge positive impact on my life back in the day. Your advice on saturated fat, vitamin D, magnesium, etc has been proven out in the years since. Most importantly for me,I passed your book on to my father and it helped optimize his final years.

    I think you should ignore Dick and Duck and continue to blog on subjects that interest you. I, and I am sure many others, love to hear your thoughts on current topics of the day.

    It would be a total waste of time to enter into further debate with the FaTAss crowd. As my football coach used to say…..if you roll round in it long enough you’ll come up smelling like it!

    • Problem is, this issue does interest me. And these jokers have created such an atmosphere of hostility that I have to make sure that I describe the issues in such a way that a grade schooler can understand them. Which takes a lot of time to do.

      I was once an expert witness in a malpractice trial in which a drug affecting the liver was involved. Every doctor called as an expert witness knew the drug involved couldn’t have caused the problem – it was a no brainer. A no brainer if you had the training and the experience to know what what had happened. But the plaintiff’s attorneys created such a smoke screen that all the technical explanations fell on deaf ears. It was almost the same thing as this ignorant debate I”m caught up in now. Everyone who understood the basic science and pharmacology knew exactly what went on with the patient involved. But the basic science was difficult to understand by those who were untrained. Whenever the defense attorney tried to walk the expert witnesses through the explanation, the juror’s eyes began to glaze over. Then the plaintiff’s attorney would jump in with a bunch of dramatic but incorrect BS that got the jury back into it. After watching all this happen, I realized now easy it is to obfuscate with pure BS as long as you make it dramatic. And the folks who have no training don’t know any better, so they vote for the side who puts on the better show.

  65. I’m as interested in results, phenotypes, as I am in theories. Now someone posted a picture of his biceps recently. It had a black flag on it. The picture screamed: sarcopenia/metabolic syndrome/pathological fat distribution. I don’t trust a lifestyle that cannot correct such a common pathological phenotype. Leave the paleo bashing to those who at least look healthy, I would say.

    Besides, if the Inuit were in ketosis or not is totally uninteresting. Excess glycolysis is a problem, if you insist on having grains and potatoes or not.

  66. Jim said – “Sounds good Mike. You bring the matches”…..

    Umm, Jim, it’s your burning, not mine…………. but, can you burn the scientific evidence that team Duck has presented from the minds of fair and reasonably-minded readers??????………not a chance.

    The cat’s out of the bag Jim.

    Jim said – “I think you should ignore Dick and Duck and continue to blog on subjects that interest you.”

    Jim, Dr Mike has two choices –

    1- post a rebuttal of the very significant body of work that suggests he is wrong

    or

    2- not post a rebuttal and be shown as being unable to defend his claim.

    If he goes with Option 2, any fair-minded and reasonable person will become very suspicious of his inability to back up his claim (and he so far hasn’t been able to back up his claim for about 1 year).

    At least with option 1, he has a chance of winning.

    • You wrote:

      …of the very significant body of work…

      Are you in a position to judge whether it’s a “very significant body of work” or not? Tell me, really. Are you able to judge the scientific value and veracity of the “body of work” the DD team has posted? Or are you just parroting the idea that it’s such based on what, the volume? Had they presented a dozen old papers showing B influenzae as being the cause of influenza, would you be just as convinced?

      • A few years ago, I happened on a thread discussing the truth of a particular science issue (something very topical). On either side of the issue were some very prominent experts in the subject.

        My level of college science education was sufficient to understand what they were saying, but my lack of expertise in the specific area was such that I could not say for sure which side was correct in the details under discussion, let alone the overall issue.

        At each point in the discussion, someone would post some arguments that seemed amazingly convincing.

        Then, someone on the other side would explain clearly all the flaws in the previous post. 🙂

        I kept going for about a hundred pages before I realized that the discussion could continue infinitely (and is undoubtedly still going on).

        The point is that the ideas and opinions of a human being – a primate ape – which are in general far less logical, methodical, and scientific than that discussion – are based PURELY on the level of persuasiveness of the author they are reading.

        When even professionals in a field can argue for years, then onlookers have absolutely no way of determining the truth of the issue.

        • What you say is very true. Just like with the jury trial I mentioned in a previous comments. The jurors came up with the wrong verdict because the defense lawyers couldn’t present the data in non-technical terms while the defense lawyers (who couldn’t either) put on a better show.

          It is highly likely that when I put up my post, everyone who is on the DD team (or fans) will go on believing as they do while all the people who understand the actual science involved will be persuaded.

          • “It is highly likely that when I put up my post, everyone who is on the DD team (or fans) will go on believing as they do while all the people who understand the actual science involved will be persuaded.”

            What a coincidence, Emperor.

          • “Might this not be a case of the pot calling the kettle black?”

            I prefer to think of it as dealing with the landscape as it is.

            Neither of us could possibly deny that amongst the thousands that read our stuff, there are a lot that simply trust us and take for granted anything we say. I think I do a better job than you of accounting for that and at least try to counter it (I know you do too, but more generally, like 4instance, you reco on “Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me—good read).

            I don’t want them around. Nothing you can really do about having them, them, but having an iconoclast approach even in what’s roughly your same camp keep people confused, and confusion motivates thinking.

            I’m always after the outliers. Misfits. And, nearly every misfit is a disillusioned conformist.

          • “It is highly likely that when I put up my post, everyone who is on the DD team (or fans) will go on believing as they do while all the people who understand the actual science involved will be persuaded.”

            we need someone like a ralph nader to be the final judge. everyone respects hyperlipid peter- so let him have the final word- or did he already?

          • “we need someone like a ralph nader to be the final judge. everyone respects hyperlipid peter- so let him have the final word- or did he already?”

            Peter said this:

            “People clearly have very differing ideas of what the Inuit did or did not eat as an ancestral diet. The P479L gene eliminates the need for source of dietary glucose to explain very limited levels of ketosis recorded in the Inuit. While it is perfectly possible to invoke a high protein diet to explain a lack of ketosis in the fed state this goes nowhere towards explaining the limited ketosis of fasting. P479L fits perfectly well as an explanation.

            I have some level of discomfort with using the Inuit as poster people for a ketogenic diet. That’s fine. They may well have eaten what would be a ketogenic diet for many of us, but they certainly did not develop high levels of ketones when they carried the P479L gene.”

          • Much though you don’t want to believe it, I think the P479L gene is a red herring in this whole issue. Using Occam’s razor, you want to find the simplest solution that explains the observed effect. And, as i will point out, it can all be explained much more simply without invoking the putative effects of the P479L gene.

          • Ohh! I bet you are going to show that these Eskimos are absorbing ketones so rapidly, that their rapid absorption gives them their hypoketotic hypoglycemia.

            OTOH even if you can explain that, there are CPT1/A researchers who would not so agree with that speculation I think. Too many have said that they have problems with hypoketotic hypoglycemia and there are many anacdotes to show it.

            Dr. Eades. Do we think that Eskimos today, who eats so many many carbs, would be ketoadapted like that? I think they would need to be used to a high fat diet to be able to absorb ketones so rapidly!!

          • “And, as i will point out, it can all be explained much more simply without invoking the putative effects of the P479L gene.”

            Now I must admit I am a bit confused.

            Does that what you said above mean that

            1) you agree with Peter’s opinion that it is not so OK to be “using the Inuit as poster people for a ketogenic diet.”

            BUT

            2) you do NOT agree with the fact Peter states: “they certainly did not develop high levels of ketones when they carried the P479L gene” AND you have other explanation for the missing ketones?

          • How about none of the above? Just be patient. Nothing tragic is going to happen in the world if I don’t get around to posting on this for a couple of weeks. What’s the big hurry?

          • “How about none of the above?”

            OK, to just sum it up for me, as of today: you disagree with Peter both on 1) and 2).
            And we are waiting for your explanation of the disagreement, which is still to come.

        • “When even professionals in a field can argue for years, then onlookers have absolutely no way of determining the truth of the issue.”

          this inuit issue is interesting in so far as we become better educated through the debate. but in the end, when it comes to what is important to me re diet, all i need to do is self-experimentation and testing to see where the truth is.

          saying we are genetically different from the inuit is a non-starter. we non-asians are also genetically different from those asians who eat rice/other carbs as the main part of their diet.

          since we can’t match up our genes and lifestyle with various populations we like to look at for clues to good health (i.e. the traditional inuit, the hazda, the chinese of 15 years ago, the taiwanese of 25 years ago, etc.), the only thing to do is self-experimentation.

          • “Saying we are genetically different from the inuit is a non-starter” – does including the information that Europeans are different EXACTLY in the department of lipid catabolism makes it a starter?

            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140402100056.htm

            “Europeans have three times more Neanderthal genes for lipid catabolism than Asians or Africans”

            Makes one wonder, why most promoters of high-fat diet are white…

          • hi GTR.

            europeans are also different from one another so my point still stands. i did 23andme and found i have one risk allele for the TCF7L2 gene. this allele is associated with a decrease in insulin production and is the allele for closely associated with type 2 diabetes. you can look it up on wikipedia or snpedia. my diet because on my genes needs to not require a high insulin output. i measure my success with a glucose meter and whether my abdominal fat is shrinking or growing. i self-experiment. it’s just common sense.

          • GTR, I also don’t understand what the implications for understanding diet are with the discovery of these Neanderthal genes. i am going to try to see if the entire paper is up for free because then i can just plug in the snps into my 23andme account and see how i compare. real world experimentation will get me better results, but it’s still interesting. and my husband who is from taiwan and has according to 23andme a genetic background originating in mongolia, korea, and south east asia has a higher percentage of neanderthal dna than i do. which explains a lot…!

  67. Yes, Dr Eades,

    I am basing some of this on trust. I only have basic scientific understanding at this stage, but I can see when one of the antagonists repeatedly tries to avoid the debate.

    I see one side attempting to present evidence,and I see the other constantly dismissing and deflecting.

    Your debating style just comes across as so suspicious.

      • I have to say that the Internet communication lifestyle is something which is very new, and very few people have integrated it well into their life.

        I have a lot of experience with this, because I was involved many years ago with the first Internet Forums.

        It is all quite linear. What I mean is that someone replies to my post and so I want to reply. Each reply is an individual event, and only takes a few minutes… but… how you are spending time is determined by the flow of what other people do (rather than your actual priorities).

        For example, I noticed a long, informative post in a health-related Forum by a site administrator that was labeled “Part One of Three” and ended with “Part Two very soon, I’m almost done with it”. That was many weeks ago, and meanwhile the site admin has responded to hundreds of posts. (I would bet that he never even remembers to do Part Two.)

    • I see one side attempting to present evidence,and I see the other constantly dismissing and deflecting.

      Your debating style just comes across as so suspicious.

      This is also a concern of mine. I have even began reading your archived posts on this site to see if I might feel like this is an established pattern of yours independent of any evidence to support this claim presented by The Duck Dodgers.

      So far, from what I can tell, you are just a busy guy with many interests, only one of which is this blog or this debate. Which would make this more of a Hanlon’s razor situation summed up more accurately (as I certainly do not imply stupidity on your part in any way) by this Jane West quote: “Let us not attribute to malice and cruelty what may be referred to less criminal motives…”.

      I do hope that you do not consider this a personal attack as I am an enormous fan of this blog and you personally. I am finding my time spent reading your archived posts to be both entertaining and fulfilling. Please consider this as nothing more than constructive criticism (if such a thing even exists).

      • I don’t consider it a personal attack. I hope you don’t think I’m being evasive when I tell you I don’t have the time right now to do this the right way. First, it would take me several hours just to get the thing posted on this blog and have it look halfway decent without a thousand character screw ups. And that doesn’t include the time it would take me to write the thing. Second, I’m at yet another trade show right now in Chicago. I’m at the huge International Housewares Show for four days and go from morning till late at night. This is my first time at the computer since early this morning (it’s now 10:50 PM). I should have a new site in a week or so. I’ll be back from this thing late Tuesday night. I’m hoping to have the time to do it. But if I don’t in the next week or two, the world won’t come to an end.

        • dr eades, if you want grade schoolers to understand it, you will need lots of visuals/videos etc. i am a teacher and have taught 100s of individuals. not everyone can soak up information via words. if you are really interested in a lot of people understanding what you want to write, you have to take info processing style into account.

          if it were me, i would write up the more difficult to understand explanation first, get feed back from people with the background to understand it (you don’t need to do this over your blog, you could just do it via private email), refine the core message based on their input, and finally put up the easier to understand version.

          it is time-consuming. but you seem to care that the ‘layman-jury’ understand.

  68. “Much though you don’t want to believe it, I think the P479L gene is a red herring in this whole issue. Using Occam’s razor, you want to find the simplest solution that explains the observed effect. And, as i will point out, it can all be explained much more simply without invoking the putative effects of the P479L gene.”

    Dr Eades, if the gene is the simplest solution, how can you have a much simpler one? If yours is so simple, surely you can tell us now, in a few sentences. Why does it need a whole blog post?

  69. some people say that even though there are populations of humans that have adapted to drinking milk beyond the age of 4, all humans would have better health not drinking milk/eating dairy as long as they could get nutrients found in dairy, like calcium, from other more ancestral sources. i am one of those people who has the genes for lactose tolerance, but i feel better (ie less stuffiness of nose, etc) if i don’t eat any dairy.

    maybe this inuit issue is going in the same direction. no matter what their difference genetically as compared to us, the shared foundational genetics of all humans may point to a diet that is low carb (how low carb?) because that is what the hominids who became us evolved eating. so this is what i think needs to be proven- that the genetic differences in the inuits don’t really matter because they still share our the basic metabolic pathways (?) of all humans.

    i am providing the above explanation as the grade schooler’s (mine) point of view.

    • “the shared foundational genetics of all humans may point to a diet that is low carb (how low carb?) because that is what the hominids who became us evolved eating”

      That’s a pretty obsolete speculation. These days anthropologists are far more likely to incorporate USOs (tubers, rhizomes, corms) and honey into early hominid diets.

      Ever hear of the Honeyguide bird? It’s a wild bird that evolved to help early humans find honey, in exchange for a reward of honeycomb. It’s been described by anthropologists as the most developed, co-evolved, mutually-helpful relationship between any mammal and any bird. That kind of mutualism between hominids and wild species of birds (proto-honeyguides) takes millions of years to cultivate. Richard wrote a post on it awhile back but here’s the study..

      http://www.tanzaniabirds.net/African_birds/Honeyguide_greater/Hadza-Honeyguide.pdf

      The low carb hominid is mostly a myth from the early anthropology textbooks.

        • “How about the low-carb hominins from all the stable isotope studies?”

          Yes. That was debunked by at least four studies through the National Academy of Sciences.

          http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=128106

          And last year researchers from Oxford later connected the isotopes to sedge tubers and it was well supported because the dental morphology of the hominids became less carnivorous during the time that the isotopes shifted. Sorry.

          • No, I’m sorry. You should better understand these studies before you misquote them. Did you actually read the summary you linked to in your comment? Based on what you wrote, it doesn’t appear so.

            Carbon isotopes can tell what kind of grasses (and other plants) animals and/or hominins ate, but can’t really differentiate between whether the animals/hominins actually ate the plants or other animals that ate the plants. Carbon isotopes (esp C13/C12) can tell whether the animal carbon came from terrestrial animals or marine animals, but that’s a different story.

            The way you can tell where hominins (or any other mammal) fits on the herbivore-carnivore scale is by looking at the delta 15N number. Herbivores concentrate the 15N in plants, then carnivores concentrate the 15N even more when they eat herbivores. You can compare the delat-15N to that in known herbivores and known carnivores to compare to the hominin specimens. Typically, early man (and Neanderthals) were carnivores.

          • “You should better understand these studies before you misquote them”

            Speak for yourself. If you took the time to read the studies, you would see that the carbon isotope researchers have discounted high meat because the hominids lack the appropriate dental morphology for a high meat diet when their estimated C4 intake increased. In fact, their teeth became *less* carnivorous when C4 increased.

            “Very high proportions of animal food, however, are not plausible for hominins given that even recent humans such as the Kalahari San rely most heavily on plant foods (∼80%) and less on game (29). Moreover, hominins lack the appropriate dental morphology. Therefore, we focus on C4 plants in the discussion below.”—http://www.pnas.org/content/109/50/20369.full

            So, whether we like it or not, the sedge tubers are now a leading theory for the widespread shift to C4 across many hominids and primates during that early period of human evolution.

            And humans weren’t all C4 either. As far as other carb sources go, there’s still the Honeyguide/human co-evolution that is hypothesized to have developed from 2.5-5 million years ago. And there’s Baobab too. For clues, the Hadza average out to 32% meat, 14% Baobab, 19% tuber, 20% berry and 15% honey. Not exactly an Eskimo diet.

          • I suspect I’ve spent vastly more time than you reading the actual stable isotope studies. But believe whatever rings your chimes.

          • You’d suspect wrong. And you obviously didn’t read them very carefully because none of the studies concluded carnivory. Rather, the studies all noted that plants were a main source of their high C4, when they looked at their teeth. You probably missed it, so I’ll show you the relevant quotes:

            “We cannot determine from the stable isotopes by themselves what the C4 resources were that caused this shift in diet.”
            http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222568110

            Which is what you said, above. We agree. The high-meat hypotesis was based on the fact that grass blades were a low quality food, which is true. More research was needed.

            In the other isotopic studies, they narrowed in on plants because animal sources were deemed implausible given the other clues, such as dental morphology, dental wear patterns and sophistication of hunting/scavenging habits. Here are six different papers explaining the other clues that led them to plant sources:

            “Morphological evidence for Pliocene hominin diets suggests that the australopith lineage was marked by increasing reliance on hard and brittle food items, such as nuts and seeds, or foods with abrasive particles, such as underground storage organs (3, 4, 19, 20, 52).”
            http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222559110

            “Theropithecus was a common and ecologically significant large-bodied primate in East Africa from 4 to 1 Ma. Stable isotope evidence shows that the early T. brumpti had a diet that was dominated by C4 plants, presumably grasses or sedges, which made up ca. 65% of its diet between 4 and 2.5 Ma.” http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222571110

            “Carbon isotope data show that P. boisei had a diet primarily of C4 resources, most likely grasses or sedges, over a wide range of time (> 0.5 Ma) and space (Turkana, Baringo, Natron, and Olduvai regions). These data are irreconcilable with the idea of P. boisei having eaten foods even broadly similar to those of African apes.” http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1104627108

            “Carbon isotope data alone cannot distinguish whether carbon of C4 origin was from plant or animal sources, but in this case, the high proportions suggest that the primary C4 dietary resources were plant staples. Consumption of animals (e.g., termites, rodents, grazing herbivores) reliant on the abundant C4 vegetation cannot be excluded and they may have formed components of the diet, as inferred for the South African australopithecines (5, 7, 28). Very high proportions of animal food, however, are not plausible for hominins given that even recent humans such as the Kalahari San rely most heavily on plant foods (∼80%) and less on game (29). Moreover, hominins lack the appropriate dental morphology. Therefore, we focus on C4 plants in the discussion below.” http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1204209109

            “The magnitude of 13C enrichment, which, among australopithecines, is eclipsed only by Paranthropus boisei (6), suggests that the carbon in their diet was derived mainly from C4 plants rather than the tissues of C4 grazing animals (5). This inference led the authors to focus on sedges, a graminoid plant that is perhaps more promising than grass as a food source for hominins. Indeed, the thickly enameled, low-cusped (bunodont) teeth of A. bahrelghazali and P. boisei would appear to be functionally incompatible with a diet of grass blades (7). Could sedges, then, bring consilience to the C4 conundrum?”
            http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1218081110

            This is why the National Academy of Sciences announced that the above isotopic studies, when taken together, suggest grassy plant C4 sources rather than animal tissues.

            The riddle on which part of the plants were eaten was solved in 2014 when Gabriele A. Macho, from the School of Archaeology at Oxford University, figured out that what most people didn’t realize is that the sedge tubers are extremely nutrient dense, and could allow a very high-C4 hominid like P. boisei to obtain 80% of its daily energy requirements with only 3 hours of foraging. They also apparently ate some grasshoppers, termites and dung beetles to round out their nutrition.
            http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0084942

            In Oxford’s press release, Macho was quoted: “I believe that the theory – that ‘Nutcracker Man’ lived on large amounts of tiger nuts – helps settle the debate about what our early human ancestor ate. On the basis of recent isotope results, these hominins appear to have survived on a diet of C4 foods, which suggests grasses and sedges. Yet these are not high quality foods. What this research tells us is that hominins were selective about the part of the grass that they ate, choosing the grass bulbs at the base of the grass blade as the mainstay of their diet.” http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-01-09-ancient-human-ancestor-nutcracker-man-lived-tiger-nuts

            In other words, Macho figured out what the highest-C4 hominid ate (P. boisei) and it provided clues as to why all these hominids shifted to high-C4 foods at exactly the same time. Furthermore, none of the isotopic studies concluded that early hominids were low carb, so I don’t know how you can tell people that.

            Richard wrote all about how the nutritional profile of tiger nuts (which is the commercial version of these wild sedge tubers) are more nutrient dense than red meat and almost rivaling organ meat, have the fat profile of olive oil, and the macronutrient ratios of human milk.

            But again, there’s the honey, the berries and the baobab, and the fact that if you look in the mirror you see an omnivorous set of teeth. Well, at least I do.

          • Your comments make it patently obvious that you have little understanding of the stable isotope literature. You are talking about Australopithecines and earlier, which holds little bearing on what happened to modern man. As you should know, if you’ve truly studied the subject, the Australopithecines, based largely on the dental morphology you’re so fond of alluding to, went in two directions. One, A. robustus developed more robust teeth and jaws, more suited to the mastication of coarse plant foods, while the other, the more gracile Australopithecine, which ultimately became us, developed smaller teeth more suited to consumption of meat. A. robustus hit an evolutionary dead end, and became extinct. As I mentioned before, the carbon isotope studies don’t tell us a lot about how much meat hominids/hominins ate – you need the 15N studies for that. All of which you carefully ignore.

            You’re interested only in promoting a specific viewpoint that bears little resemblance to scientific reality. And, like Team DD, you’re fond of cutting and pasting large swaths of text without really knowing what they mean or how to interpret them. And, like Team DD, you’ve drifted into repetitive troll territory. So, y