Skip to content
The official website of Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades, low carb pioneers and authors of Protein Power.

New Theme: Need advice

 

I’ve gotten tired of the theme I’ve been using on this blog. Consequently, I’ve been roaming the net looking for something I like a lot better. And I think I’ve found it. I’ve been playing around with it on another WordPress installation just to see how I like it, so I want to pass a few screen shots along to the readers here to get some feedback.

Over the years I’ve been using the custom theme you are all familiar with, I’ve had multiple complaints that the font is too small and difficult to read. Just had another one a couple of weeks ago that finally inspired me to look for something different. If you know how, it’s easy to increase the font size of anything you’re reading, but a lot of people don’t know how. So I decided to look for a different look that was a little cleaner and easier to read.

It’s common knowledge among those who revel in fonts that the most readable fonts are sans-serif fonts for headlines and headers and serif fonts for the body of the text. So I looked around for something that was clean, easy to change and gave me the font choices I liked.

I’ve taken a couple of screenshots of two of my recent blogs converted into the new format.

Take a look and let me know if you like this format better than what I’m using now.

You can click on these to enlarge them to the actual size the blog will be.  Then click the X in the lower right corner to reduce the size.

Ignore the colors I’ve chosen because I’ve just been playing around with them, and this is what they were when I took the screen shots.  Also ignore all the boxes in the right sidebar.  Those will all be changed.  They are the default boxes on this theme, and I haven’t fooled with them yet.

Trans fat ban

 

Eat less move more

 

So, let me know yea or nay as to how you like this new theme.  You are the one who will have to look at it.  I do all my work behind the scene in the administration area, which looks the same no matter what the theme the readers see looks like.

Also, while you’re at it, let me know what topics you would like me to write about.  I have a slew of posts I’ve got in various stages of of completion.  Sometimes I write for myself because it helps clarify my own ideas on a topic.  There is nothing like having to write something down coherently to really make one think about it.

But besides writing for myself, I want to write what interests readers.  I post on a wide range of topics on Twitter, and post multiple times every day.  I can tell by how many hits the various links I post how interested people are (or at least the people who follow me on Twitter) in what I have to say by how many times the link is opened.  I’m constantly amazed because I’ll find something I think is tremendously interesting and important and not many people seem to give a flip.  Then I’ll find something in my daily troll of the literature and the web that I almost don’t post because I don’t think that many people would find if of value, and it goes nuts.  Thousands of people hit the link and the Tweet is retweeted out the gazoo.  Clearly, I’m not a good judge of what my readers want to read.

If you’ve got a topic you would like to see me address, put it in the comments.  I can’t guarantee I’ll post on it because it’s got to be something that interests me as well.  There is nothing more of a drag than to try to write 1200 words on something I can’t really get my teeth into.

Please let me know what you think of the new look (potential new look) and let me know if there is anything in particular you would like to read about here.

Thanks.

 

 

 

179 Comments

  1. Ann on November 23, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    The only problem I could see with the text on the existing blog is that it uses Arial, which is not designed for screen viewing. Verdana would have been much easier to read.

    Serif faces are not ideal for screen viewing, although Georgia isn’t too bad. Would prefer, once again, to see Verdana. It’s a lovely screen face, very easy to read, and everyone has it.

    • james Pott on November 24, 2013 at 10:01 am

      I agree with Ann. Don’t like the serifs at all on screen. Makes the text kind-a crowded, too busy

      • Neil Howlin on November 25, 2013 at 3:05 am

        +1

        The heading and side-boxes look nice and clean for the new theme but I much prefer the font, size and line spacing on the existing theme.

        Unfortunately, serif fonts don’t get more comfortable to read onscreen by being made larger.

        In all other respects, wouldn’t ask for a single change – I love both the style and content of your posts!

    • Kim on December 3, 2013 at 6:38 am

      Agreed. As a proffessional webdeveloper and -designer, it’s hard to beat Verdana when it comes to on-screen text. It exists in every major graphical OS out there, and according to wikipedia:

      “…Verdana was designed to be readable at small sizes on a computer screen.”

  2. Scott Miller on November 23, 2013 at 4:10 pm

    Thumbs up on new site design and readability.

    New post ideas:

    Practically no one in the paleosphere does the more in-depth nutrition study breakdowns anymore (which used to be so common on Whole Health Source and a few others), so my vote is for more of those.

    Also, I’ve linked to your articles on Are We Meat Eaters countless times, and love original articles like those that pull in several studies for support.

    Scott

    • mreades on November 23, 2013 at 4:34 pm

      Thanks for the thumbs up and thanks for the ideas. I, too, love those kinds of posts but I never know if anyone else enjoys them as much as I do or not.

      I’ve got several great papers on the advantages of ketones and the ketogenic diet on a host of health parameters, but I’ve been reluctant to post about them because they’re fairly technical. Didn’t know if anyone would sit still for my explanations of the basic science required to actually understand what the studies mean.

      • Christina on November 24, 2013 at 7:31 am

        I, for one, would happily sit still for for explanations of any basic science you would take the time to write! Further, I am deficient in ability to understand the details of conventional medicine’s studies, so I personally would love a series on how to read, evaluate and benefit from studies in general and particularly in the area of real nutrition.

        • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 10:23 am

          You asked for it. Here is a post I wrote on how to evaluate a scientific study using a particularly bad one as an example.

          • Rez on November 26, 2013 at 9:05 am

            [reads your “how to evaluate a study…”]

            So, they selected a certain type of *abnormal* baboons, then studied their reaction to being fed something significantly skewed from Purina Monkey Chow (that or something-like is probably the standard diet mentioned not-by-name; it’s basically the same thing as grain-based dry dog food, but lower protein and lower fat) …??!! What this tells me is that abnormal individuals may respond negatively to whatever triggers their abnormality. D’oh!



        • Annlee on November 24, 2013 at 4:15 pm

          Ditto – I am always looking for more good science (vs bro science) on ketogenic diets.

      • Susan on November 24, 2013 at 8:01 am

        I crave this kind of stuff, and I post links to your excellent lay explanations and citations all over the place.

        I kind of think your readership tend to be more technical and clinically astute, kind of self selected for it.

        I’m sure whatever new format you settle on will be fine.

      • Joanna on November 24, 2013 at 8:36 am

        With all the buzz about ketogenic diets, I think a lot of us would be interested to see the science broken down by a trusted source.

        And my question further to that would be long term vs short term ketogenic, and whether our bodies can handle the lack of fermentable fibers in the long term. Healthy or no?

        Love both of the new looks, but I’ve always just enlarged and tend to make the best of whatever is at hand in general, so I’m sure others will have stronger opinions.

        • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 10:52 am

          I plan to post more on ketogenesis and the ketogenic diet. A ton of research coming out all the time, and I’m more and more persuaded that a ketogenic diet is the way to go.

          • Ward on November 24, 2013 at 11:48 am

            It would be great to have your insight into nutritional ketosis. I’ve been in ketosis for about 5 weeks now and have never felt better. Please give us your insights into the science behind ketosis.

            Your posts have been great in the past – thanks for your contributions



          • Gary on November 27, 2013 at 9:53 am

            I would be interested in posts/info on the more practical side of ketogenic diets, which foods have a tendency to disrupt it and which foods promotew it for example.



      • Amy B on November 24, 2013 at 10:19 am

        Post them! Don’t know if you’re familiar with Dr. Peter Attia’s site (www.eating academy.com), but he posts extremely scientific things, often about ketosis, and he maintains a large, intelligent, passionate, and engaged following.

        People are hungry for this stuff…especially coming from someone with medical credentials like yours, plus your knack for translating things in ways laypeople can really grasp. They’re certainly not going to get it from their run-of-the-mill MDs, headlines, or TV news.

        • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 11:01 am

          I know Peter Attia well. He and I get together whenever we can. The conversations are always great. A very smart guy.

          Speaking of Peter Attia… What many people don’t know about Peter is that he is an absolute font freak. He knows everything about every font ever invented, and he would strongly disagree with everyone commenting who prefers sans serif fonts for the body of the text. He musters a ton of documentation as to how much better a serif font is.

          • Tom on November 24, 2013 at 10:00 pm

            He might be right about serif fonts when printed, but most people are not reading on high resolution (retina) displays. On conventional displays, sans serif fonts win hands-down.

            I agree with the person who posted earlier about Verdana – I don’t think you could choose a better font than Verdana for body copy. And however large you were thinking of going with it, go two sizes larger. 🙂



      • Zig on November 24, 2013 at 10:36 am

        Please please PLEASE post about this topic! I’m working my way through Seyfried’s Cancer as a Metabolic Disease, and just can’t get enough of this information.

        Also, I second the comment (earlier, above on my screen) about Verdana.

        • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 11:02 am

          Seyfried’s book is terrific. I’ve wondered if anyone would be interested. Another argument for the ketogenic diet.

      • Darag on November 24, 2013 at 11:06 am

        I’m good with that Michael. If you can get your teeth into it as you say above and it excites you. Go for it. I find understanding the science is like feeding my brain so I can better feed my body.

      • Ash Simmonds on November 25, 2013 at 7:02 am

        I happily wade through all the science I can on ketogenic stuff – truth be told I’m tired of hearing everyone going on about weight loss…

    • jake3_14 on November 24, 2013 at 8:32 am

      Ann, you should read Zoe Harcombe’s blog. She relishes picking apart the pathetic methods and bogus conclusions of every major nutrition study.

  3. Tom Passin on November 23, 2013 at 5:12 pm

    More important than typeface or font size is to make sure that the main text column resizes properly when the browser window is changed. So many sites use columns that are much too wide but that will cut off the right side if you try to make them more narrow. I find that columns that are much larger than 40 or 45 characters (’ems’ in CSS-speak) are annoying to read, so either use that for a width or allow them to reflow when the user decreases the browser window width.

    The leading looks good on the samples. That’s also important for good readability.

    I actually use Firebug (or similar html debugger) to decrease the page width on some of these misbehaving pages, but that’s a pain in the neck and some sites are tricky enough that it doesn’t work. Don’t be one of those! (I also sometimes increase the leading on some pages, so I’m glad you are using a good value for that).

    Along those lines, please use relative sizes in your template, e.g., em rather than px. The absolute sizes are a poor idea because your reader might be viewing the site on a tiny low resolution webbook or a large, high resolution desktop machine, or who knows what. A fixed pixel character width works poorly over such a range.

    One request as you revamp your site appearance. Please display charts and graphs in some format that is not jpeg, if at all possible. Jpeg isn’t good for that kind of image. Jpegs tend to form slightly blurry images when the subject matter is thin sharp lines (including text). Png or gif are fine.

    As for the content, I appreciate your approach and the thought you put into the posts, and your ideas are usually interesting to me. So just keep on as you are and I’ll be happy.

    • mreades on November 23, 2013 at 6:46 pm

      Thanks for taking the time to write. I appreciate your input.

  4. Chip Bennett on November 23, 2013 at 5:42 pm

    Hey Dr. Eades,

    If you need any help with your WordPress Theme, just let me know. That’s my wheelhouse, and I’d be happy to help in any way that you might need: finding one that best fits your needs, modifying the one you’ve chosen, whatever.

    • mreades on November 23, 2013 at 6:48 pm

      Thanks. I’ll contact you if I can’t wade through it all. I’m going to try, though, because that’s how I learn best.

  5. nonegiven on November 23, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    I’d just be happy if all the web pages I want to read would re-wrap when I increase the size so I don’t have to scroll right and left for each line.

  6. Jerry on November 23, 2013 at 5:50 pm

    The instant readability is an improvement. I have many way to increase font size or improve readability. If your blog appears instantly readable, I makes me ever so much happier.

  7. Joel Marcus on November 23, 2013 at 5:53 pm

    I vote that you stick with the sans serif for the text, although I don’t have a particular recommendation for a specific font. I found that serif typeface that you used in your examples to be much more difficult to read than your current blog.

    I have enjoyed your work very much, including the books and your website. I am very glad you seem to have gotten back into it in the past few weeks. My personal favorites are the in-depth examinations of health studies. Lay people (like me) get much of their information from mainstream media outlets (like the Times), which pretty much just repeat the conventional wisdom on nutritional stuff. As a non-medical person who is trying to eat a low carb diet, it is quite frankly nerve wracking to feel that I am gambling with my health every time a headline says “Red Meat Kills” or some such. I have found a lot of reassurance in your work that examines the studies from which those headlines are drawn.

    I know you put a lot of time and effort into this stuff, and aside from buying a book now and then, or possibly a sous vide machine, you don’t ask much from your readers but their time and attention. So thank you.

    • mreades on November 23, 2013 at 6:50 pm

      I don’t even ask them to buy sous vide machines. I just hope they do.

      Thanks for the comment.

  8. Gretchen on November 23, 2013 at 5:54 pm

    Re fonts, I can get used to almost anything, and I’m more interested in content than design. I don’t like sans, especially when “ill” begins a sentence and comes out Ill, but I’ve learned to live with almost anything, as I had to copy edit manuscripts when computers were new and authors submitted copy printed in fancy fonts on dot-matrix printers.

    I think the most important thing is consistency. Readers come to expect some design and it’s confusing if the authors keep changing things and moving buttons to different places. It’s OK once a decade though.

    Re content, I think the best blogposts are when the author writes about what interests the author. Sometimes the readers don’t know they’re interested in some topic because they’ve never heard of it.

    Probably what most readers want to know is how they can lose weight without changing their current lifestyle. So if a blogger panders to what most people want, the blog would degenerate into promotion of late night TV Miracle Machines (“LOSE WEIGHT WHILE SLEEPING!”) and the like.

    Many of us can read books and come up with theories, but you’ve had a lot of experience working with actual patients and know that theory doesn’t always translate into successful practice for everyone. So blogposts discussing the variation among different patients and how you dealt with that might be useful.

    I’m interested in understanding the finding of Lutz (“Life Without Bread”) that his younger patients (<40) who went on LC diets saw their cholesterol fall, but the older patients didn't. Why?

    I agree with Scott that the more technical posts are valuable. There are zillions of Internet sites that tell you that Diet A or Diet B will solve all your problems but relatively few that explain why a diet works.

    • mreades on November 23, 2013 at 6:54 pm

      I didn’t know the bit about Lutz’s patients and age vs cholesterol levels. But I did’t read Life Without Bread. I read his much more comprehensive textbook treatment Dismantling a Myth: The Role of Fat and Carbohydrates in Our Diet. I don’t remember reading it in there.

      Thanks for the input into subject matter.

      • Gretchen on November 23, 2013 at 7:29 pm

        I read the more comprehensive text too, in the hopes it would answer this question, and it didn’t. There are no references for the graphs in the popular book, which was written by someone else; I think they’re based on 263 of his patients. But Lutz has died, so we’ll probably never know the answer.

        Maybe the older patients, from a previous generation that didn’t push “healthy whole grains,” started off eating less carb than the younger ones, although potatoes have always been a mainstay of the German diet.

        • Susan on November 24, 2013 at 8:06 am

          Older folks need more cholesterol because it’s what adrenal steroids are made from, including sex hormones, I suspect. As levels tail off, I’m guessing the body makes more LDL for manufacture by the adrenals. I know that adrenals are relied upon for making estrogen post menopause, so the production of more LDL post meno would be critical for facilitating this.

          And in a similar vein, lowering cholesterol/LDL may explain why some men develop gynecomastia on statins.

          • Rez on November 26, 2013 at 9:22 am

            That’s very interesting, and I think is likely true across the board — that old folks need more and better quality nutrients, not fewer and lesser. In particular, compounds that are protective to the nervous system… one wonders how much mental degeneration (myelin failure) is due to fat deficiency, given that myelin is essentially a layer of fatty compounds.

            Case in point re nutrients, “mature” dog food tends to be very low in protein and fat, because the prevalent theory is that old dogs have trouble processing proteins and fats. Old dogs fed this stuff look and act like old dogs… one particular point being the loss of muscle on the forehead, so they get that sunken-headed look. Well, when it was finally studied properly instead of being an assumption based on urine output (waste protein shows up in the urine), turns out old dogs process protein *inefficiently*, so they need MORE of it just to stay even, and a major visible symptom of protein deficiency in old dogs is that sunken-forehead look. Switch the diet to high protein/high fat (eg. puppy food), and suddenly they no longer look or act like old dogs, and their heads fill out and look ‘young’ again. (And they live a lot longer, too.)

            [This comes as no surprise to me, but I’m a pro dog trainer with over 40 years experience.]



          • Kathy from Maine on November 27, 2013 at 9:42 am

            Rez, your comment on dog food led me to check out what I use, the Evo brand. Although they don’t have a puppy formula or an “old age” formula, their standard “red bites” formula is 42% protein, whereas their weight management formula is 52% protein (though only 15% fat, unfortunately). I recently switched over to the weight management formula for my slightly pudgy and arthritic 11-year-old dog. She also gets a little people food from time to time, but only protein and fat. She’s slimmed down a bit and it’s now easier for her to jump and run.



  9. Debbie M on November 23, 2013 at 6:38 pm

    Not crazy about the serif on the sample.
    My favorite posts are where you break down the latest study and show the real results. If I hear of a study in a news story I first look to see if you’ve written anything on the subject. I would also like to see more about trends…like MCT oil, coconut oil, etc.
    Thanks for keeping me up to date!

  10. Ward on November 23, 2013 at 6:50 pm

    I never had a problem with the old blog but I think this one will be good. I like it.

    As to content I would appreciate your views on nutritional ketosis.

    Thanks for all the good work you’ve done

  11. drtomcor on November 23, 2013 at 7:56 pm

    Mike, I’ve been reading you a long time. I’m about your age, a physician for what that’s worth, and I think your page layout has been great. I’m sure the new version will be too. I have a libertarian bent, as I think you do, so if anything, I’d enjoy more wandering across that editorial line; the flaming you get is awfully entertaining.

    • mreades on November 23, 2013 at 11:53 pm

      I’ll bear this in mind. I’m glad someone enjoys the flaming.

  12. John on November 23, 2013 at 9:13 pm

    Your choice of theme is a great improvement, at least to my eyes. I have read extensively about web design and legibility, and, while font face used to be a critical legibility factor, improvements in both fonts themselves and the resolution now typical of end users’ devices have made font choice far less important for ensuring legibility than for other design considerations. Of greater concern for legibility are column width and relative width of columns on the page. As a general guidline, the fewer charcters per line, the more legible the text. That is why newspaper columns are more readable and text across the whoe page not so much. Your new template is “better” in part because of the perception of a narrower column for the body text, when fewer characters per line is the more precise reason. Designers talk about optimizing columns to a width of anywhere from 10-15 characters for the fastest reading, but, within reason and based on overall page design, you can get away with more characters/ wider column widths and still have it be comfortably readable. A trick of the trade for a pleasing 2 column layout is to size the larger vs. smaller column acording to the divine or golden ratio (approx. 1.618:1 ), but your template may not allow adjustment. Or, maybe it already approximates those dimensions. At any rate, it is interesting that this ratio has a significant impact on one’s perception of beauty and proportion in the natural world, art, and even when applied to the elements on a web page.
    Regarding subjects to address in future posts, I begin by saying that I have enjoyed all of your past ones that I have had an opportunity to read, which is maybe 2/3 of them. I have a lot of curiosity about any information or research about the functions and dietary requirements or implication for various nutrients, including elements known or thought to be widely lacking in the typical Western diet, or of which large percentages of the population are deficient, such as magnesium, iodine, etc. addressing the importance of nutrition in health, disease management, and sometimes healing. Please continue contributing to the ongoing challenges to big pharma and whatever parts of the healthcare/medical establishment that continue to ignore or obfuscate science when it comes to nutrition in medicine and the healing arts.

    • mreades on November 23, 2013 at 11:55 pm

      Thanks very much for the thoughtful comment. I appreciate your effort.

  13. Nigel on November 24, 2013 at 3:10 am

    The new scheme looks cleaner to me and the font is much better. I’m a fan of Verdana.

  14. Scott Burgess on November 24, 2013 at 3:11 am

    Two words on theme “mobile friendly”.

    I initially came to this post from my twitter feed on my phone, and couldn’t read it.

    There are many WP themes these days specifically designed to automatically adjust for the small screens of smartphones.

    • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 10:08 am

      I plan on making it mobile friendly. Thanks.

  15. Andrea on November 24, 2013 at 4:27 am

    I read this blog because I want the technical stuff explained to me without being dumbed down. Do not underestimate the importance of this.

    A prime reason PP clicked for me was that I felt I understood the science behind low-carb after I read your book. I looked for your blog because I wanted more of that.

    Your book reviews are also great. I would really like to see a periodic round-up of what you’ve been reading, fiction and non-fiction alike. Just a few sentences covering what was interesting or valuable about a book would be perfect for a round-up. Seeing what smart people are reading makes us all smarter.

    Glad to see you return to more frequent blogging and I love my SVS!

    • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 10:10 am

      Thanks for the feedback. I always wonder about the books. I read all the time, probably 60-80 books per year (I’ve got seven going right now), and I never know if others are interested or not. With this new theme, I’ll have the ability to easily put up short reviews of books I find interesting.

  16. Pat on November 24, 2013 at 4:45 am

    Verdana looks nicer than Arial. Arial is for spreadsheets. Also, it may just be my screen, but letters that are a bit taller would be in better proportion than “squatty” ones.

    I do prefer serif fonts, but I like the ones that are a bit more open that Times Roman, which seems to be the default serif font. I am using a large desktop monitor, so what looks good on it may not be good on a tablet. I agree about column width, it is definitely an issue when I use my laptop.

    For content, please do in-depth analyses and look at scientific papers. It’s nice to see a doctor who understands research protocols and can rip a bad paper to shreds. Most people think that if information makes it into a peer-review journal it is gospel. I used to have my students analyze research papers (biology/earth sciences) and see how many problems they could find in them. They were shocked – bad protocols, bad design, bad stats, bad discussions, so much fun.

  17. Professor K on November 24, 2013 at 5:34 am

    Mike,
    I could care less how you present your information (new look is a bit prettier-a lot of work for you but of no value to me)……(‘I follow you on twitter)……as long as you keep on doing what you’re doing: give clear, objective, explanation of what mainstream media’s 24/7 news cycle generators push out and why it’s medically wrong.

    I would like to see you address evaluation of various popular supplements and the industry in general.

    Exercise and other aspects of healthy eating would also prove quite interesting and useful presented in your usual way.

    Thanks for the effort and detail in the work you do.

  18. Philip Thackray on November 24, 2013 at 5:51 am

    Dr. Eades,
    I’m totally san-serif. Ariel, Helvetica …..
    Subjects: I started following you for nutritional/low carb reasons but now I just like to be in your head so write about what interests you.
    Best regards,
    Phil

  19. TJ tHuber on November 24, 2013 at 6:21 am

    I personally like the new format better, but what counts is the content. You are still the grandmaster of the nutrition/drugs blog.How about those “new/improved” guidelines on statins? I am a Type II diabetic, 67 years old retired orthopedist and I still refuse to take the damn things. Guess I’ll be dead soon.

    • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 10:12 am

      It’s probably your not taking statins that has kept you around till now. 🙂

  20. Jane Reed on November 24, 2013 at 7:21 am

    I prefer the theme you are using at present. It is unique. No one can mistake your home page for another.

    The font change I applaud.

  21. Christine Hill on November 24, 2013 at 7:38 am

    I like the look of both designs and do think they would be easier to read.

    I’d love to see a discussion on protein bars, which I find help with hunger much better than a protein drink. Also a review of the various milks now available (almond and coconut mostly).

    • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 10:24 am

      Thanks for the topic suggestions.

  22. Kathy from Maine on November 24, 2013 at 7:45 am

    I love the current theme, though it would be helpful if the type size were a little larger. No serif fonts, please. Not crazy about the look of the proposed new themes. I like the current one because it just looks more “medical” or something. 🙂

    As for topics, I’d like to see more on women’s health, especially in menopause and after (no bias from me there!). Maybe Mary Dan could help.

    Specifically, I’d like someone to discuss the topic of balancing your hormones. I read that over and over. You won’t lose weight until you balance your hormones; you won’t be healthy until you balance your hormones.

    But what does it mean, “balance your hormones?”

    I hit menopause at age 50 and gained almost 50 pounds in the next 18 months without change in food intake or activity. Everywhere I looked, it said I had to balance my hormones.

    Does that mean my test results for estrogen (all forms), progesterone, testosterone, DHEA (others?) must all be in the middle of the range? But which range? If I’m now 58 and still struggling to lose and keep off that weight, should they be in the middle of the range for an untreated menopausal woman, a woman of child-bearing age, what?

    The only time I was able to lose 35 pounds since menopause was when I did homeopathic hcg (so I disagree wholeheartedly with you on that one). I not only lost 35 pounds, I kept it off for a little over a year. My only thought is that the hcg, even the miniscule amount in the homeopathic version, satisfied a hormonal deficit in my body somehow.

    Now, despite the fact that I eat around 1400 calories per day, around 60% fat, 30% protein and 5 – 10% carbs, I can’t lose. In fact, I’ve been slowly gaining again. I’m trying to keep the fat % down only because I’ve read that when you’re trying to lose, if you have plenty of fat coming in to meet your body’s need for fuel, your stored fat won’t be tapped for energy; hence, you don’t lose weight.

    Also, what do you think of these new tests like the Optimal Nutritional Evaluation (ONE)? It seems like if I knew exactly where I was deficient, I could target those areas instead of spending money on supplements that are not helping.

    One more thing. Thank you so much for posting again. I read other health blogs, but consider yours to be the best. Maybe it’s because it was you and Mary Dan and your first Protein Power book that introduced me to this way of life. I’ll be forever grateful.

    • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 10:35 am

      Thanks for the response. And thanks for the kind words about the blog/books.

      I find the whole balance-your-hormones thing annoying as well. Saying something like that is sort of the last refuge of the ignorant. All problems can be waved away by simply saying, You need to balance your hormones.

      Unfortunately, managing female hormones is not particularly an interest of mine, so I don’t really keep up with that literature. A sort of rule of thumb used by some Ob-gyn friends of mine who have upscale Beverly Hills practices (read: very demanding patients) is to keep progesterone as high as possible without causing symptoms while keeping estrogen as low as possible without allowing symptoms develop.

      • Andrea on November 24, 2013 at 9:12 pm

        That may be the single most actionable thing I’ve seen about female hormones on the interwebs. Thanks!

    • Cyn on November 24, 2013 at 12:43 pm

      I know that no one asked for my opinion but I have to comment.

      1400 calories is a semi starvation diet & will shut down your metabolism. Your hormones can’t function properly when the metabolism is shut down. Your metabolism is run by your hormones (thyroid & adrenals).

      I would suggest your calorie intake is *much* too low & your weight loss is impeded by keeping the fat % down. For the metabolically resistant – dietary fat ratio is the key.

      Suggest you lower your protein from 105g to a maximum of 80g per day, keep carbs below 50g (currently 231g. This will be over 2600 calories but calories don’t matter, only the macronutrient ratios.

      Make sure your dietary fats are from saturated fats & not veg oils. Polyunsaturated fats are fine in whole food sources but oxidize when separated as an oil. Coconut oil, avocado, cream, butter, seeds & nuts provide excellent fat sources.

      I recommend not using commercially made mayo, dressings made with soybean oil. Sour cream is a convenient substitute (or make your own mayo with olive oil)

      Baking chocolate (100% cacao) melted with coconut oil (& maybe cream cheese or you can also add butter also if you want to up the dietary fats) maybe a few chopped almonds added sweetened with stevia provides an excellent fat delivery system. Cool & refrigerate or freeze

      Eggs are the perfect low protein food. Eggs are 12% protein compared to other animal foods at 20% protein.

      I recommend a diet high in seeds, nuts & green vegetables. Salads make an excellent fat delivery system.

      This is 1340 calories 19g of net carbs & 80% of total calories from fat in 9oz of food –

      3oz sunflower seeds
      3oz chia seeds
      1oz flax seeds
      1oz almonds
      1oz Brazil nuts

      Macronutrient energy intake should be calculated as a percentage of total diet; actual protein amount (i.e. grams) doesn’t matter as much if it is diluted by the amount of carbohydrates and fats.

      Dietary Protein and its Impact on Obesity

      Proportions may be the key….

      http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15493&catid=1&Itemid=17

      Take for example, low carb advocate Jimmy Moore. At 32, he lost 180# in one year going from 410# to 230# but over the years *even though he maintained a low carb life* he regained nearly 80#. He finally learned the importance for him to raise his dietary fat ratio to >80% of total calories & has lost more than 80# (& continuing to lose) in the past year.

      http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/jimmy-moores-n1-experiments-nutritional-ketosis-day-1-30/14409

      The Art And Science Of Low Carbohydrate Performance
      Dr. Jeff Volek and Dr. Steve Phinney

      • Cyn on November 24, 2013 at 12:52 pm

        repeating comment, some got lost in translation –

        Suggest you lower your protein from 105g to a maximum of 80g per day, keep carbs below 50g but raise dietary fat ratio to 80% of total calories (>231g of dietary fats). This will be over 2600 calories but calories don’t matter, only the macronutrient ratios.

        • Kathy from Maine on November 25, 2013 at 6:48 am

          Cyn, thanks for your opinion (it was more than welcome, even if not specifically asked for 🙂 ).

          Yes, many people have said to me that 1400 is too low. The thing is, time and time again I’ve tried going with higher calories (with upwards of 80% good fat), but it doesn’t help me lose weight. Also, I find I can’t eat that many calories on an ongoing basis because I’m simply not that hungry.

          I’m not trying to restrict my calories to 1400, it just ends up there; I eat mostly fat, moderate protein, and a few carbs, and I’m simply not hungry enough to eat 2000 or more calories for more than a couple days at a time. I average around 1400, meaning some days I’m at 1700 calories, and some days I’m at 1100 calories.

          I applaud Jimmy Moore for his current success, but he’s not a menopausal woman. What works for him doesn’t necessarily work for women, and particularly not women over a certain age.

          I don’t eat processed food or vegetable oils (other than some salad dressing on occasion). For fats, I do butter (Kerry Gold), bacon fat, lard, and coconut oil. I eat either almonds, mac nuts, or walnuts virtually every day. Eggs are my go-to breakfast.

          Not sure on lowering the protein. Phinney and Volek (Art & Science book) stress a minimum of 100 grams of protein regardless of gender or body size. Dr. Eades also wrote in one of his books (can’t find the reference at the moment) that women over 50 don’t metabolize protein as well as men do, and so need to eat more of it. He mentions 100 – 120 grams per day, if I remember correctly. Also, in the charts in PPLP, he shows 34 grams of protein per meal for my height and weight, so 112 grams per day, not counting snacks.

          Protein seems to be the “bad boy” macronutrient these days in many arenas. Many sites advocate as low as 60 grams protein per day. Since I “grew up” reading Dr. Eades and then Phinney & Volek, I tend to think we need more protein than that, particularly women over the age of 50.

          DR EADES: Could you maybe comment on recommended protein levels?

          That said, I’ll try upping the calories again (using good fats) and see what happens.

          Thanks for your concern and support! Sorry this comment got so long (again).

          • Kathy from Maine on November 25, 2013 at 6:51 am

            Oops! 34 x 3 = 102, not 112.

            Can you tell I wasn’t a math major?



          • mreades on November 25, 2013 at 7:30 am

            My sort of rule of thumb is a gram of protein per pound of lean body mass.



          • Elenor on November 25, 2013 at 6:04 pm

            Kathy, please go spend some time reading over at the Stop the Thyroid Madness site. Janie Bowthorpe has been a godsend for us older women — not LEAST of which is because her information is based on years of study and on the thousands of patient experiences, descriptions and discussions of what did and did not work in their cases on her forum. My own doctor (one of the few ‘clued-in’ ones) said that without the thyroid (and adrenals) being treated/healthy, you can be doing everything exactly right — and you won’t lose an ounce!

            And your doctor will test your TSH and tell you you’re fine (when you’re clearly not) and here, take an antidepressant. Or, if your *numbers* appear off (regardless of your symptoms), your doc will prescribe T-4 (the storage form of thyroid hormone)-only pills (we call it Synth-crap, not Synthroid!), which — if your body does not adequately convert to T-3 (the active form) — means you’re not treating your deficiency at all!)



          • Kathy from Maine on November 27, 2013 at 4:23 am

            Thanks, Elenor. I’ll do that. My current (new) NP, whom I saw for the first time in September and again just yesterday, believes my TSH out of whack. When last tested around 2010, it was almost up to 4 (and in the past has been as high as 4.25). She says she likes to see it between 1 and 2. In addition to the NutrEval testing from Genova, she has ordered the full panel of thyroid tests. I go in probably next week for the tests. She’s on board with desiccated thyroid for treatment, if necessary.

            If things still aren’t “right,” we’ll look at adrenals next.

            Thanks for the info! Sorry, Dr. Mike, for hijacking your comments section, but I’m sure I’m not the only person with these challenges.



      • Gretchen on November 25, 2013 at 6:43 am

        Cyn: “semistarvation” depends on your size. A woman who is 4′ 11″ and weighs 105 pounds has different caloric requirements from a man who is 6′ and weighs 200.

    • Susan on November 25, 2013 at 6:34 am

      If you cannot lose on low carb/reduced calorie (I cannot, either), you may need to take a good look with serial testing using serum, saliva and urine of your cortisol levels, and your cortisol binding globulin. Avoid taking any oral hormone, especially estrogen, and any progesterone excess, too. Also check thyroid. Both thyroid and estrogen help prevent excess cortisol, and in peri or meno, this may have a lot to do with weight gain or maintenance despite appropriate diet. That’s been the case for me, with episodic, chronically elevated cortisol levels.

      I maintain my weight on not much more than 1200-1400 low carb,per day, and I’ve been at this over 15 years, documenting my calories, activity and macronutrients. I am maintaining on 50% more calories low carb than the 800 per day I maintained on when eating low fat, high carb.

      There are gadzillion differences in hormones, permutations and combinations of their ratios, and receptor functions of all types from person to person, thus there is no single caloric nor macronutrient breakdown best for every person I found mine over years of experimentation;, it’s about 50% fat, 35% protein, or a bit higher on each, and the rest from non starchy and non sugar carbs.

      I’ve also been able to reverse the progress of diabetes this way for many years, after reversing my kidney damage and severe peripheral neuropathies using diet and a glucose meter, no meds.

      • Kathy from Maine on November 25, 2013 at 7:45 am

        Sorry for taking these comments off-topic.

        My new NP is looking into all kinds of things with me. She did a full hormonal panel in August and found I was low on estrogen (but still it was higher than progesterone), extremely low in testosterone and DHEA, and my estrogen metabolism and ratios were in the toilet.

        I had been on bio-identical estrogen and progesterone (drops and cream, respectively, from a compounding pharmacist) for about 5 years before starting with the new NP. She lowered my estrogen dose and upped my progesterone. The estrogen is the Mini-velle patch, and the progesterone is generic progesterone in pill form.

        I’m not doing any better with symptoms (not only not being able to lose weight, but sleeping 10 hours a night, waking up groggy and feeling sleepy all day), so the next things we’re looking into are thyroid, adrenals, and the Optimal Nutritional Evaluation (ONE). I’m hoping the results from all these tests will show something.

        Thanks for all the info!

        Thanks, Dr. Eades, for the recommendation of 1 gram protein per pound of lean body mass. My LBM is around 111 pounds, so 100 – 120 grams of protein per day seems right. I’ve always felt even 80 grams of protein was too little.

        • Susan on November 25, 2013 at 8:19 am

          My endo is a full time researcher w/out a traditional medical practice (M.D. in research medicine, Phd pharmacology) and he believes that bio identical is sub optimal compared to just estradiol. Specifically, says estrone is damaging. Rx’s estradiol gel. I use about 1/10th of full replacement, just enough to abate symptoms.

          You might want to research pregnenolone; it’s what LDL cholesterol is used for to manufacture adrenal steroids… all of which are derived from the neurosteroid pregnenolone. If it’s low, you can supplement until it’s replenished and your body will make the amount of DHEA, estrogen, test, etc… that it needs from it, no guessing on dosage. If all fails, consider a pituitary workup, though finding knowledgeable endos is near to impossible. See this chart to visualize why pregnenolone could help: http://drhardy.org/images/11-29-2008%2010-00-58%20PM.jpg

          • Kathy from Maine on November 25, 2013 at 11:20 am

            I asked about pregnenolone at my first appointment, but she said she didn’t like messing with that one. I don’t remember her reasoning, but she said she prefers working with the individual hormones. I’m on the Minivelle patch, which is estradiol.

            At least she’s eager to work with me on this. She even called me (yes, SHE called me, not her nurse!) 6 weeks after my first appointment to discuss how I was doing. We talked on the phone for about 45 minutes. When was the last time a health-care professional ever did that for you? For me, this was a first.

            I’ll know much more after my appointment tomorrow. Thanks for the info!



          • Susan on November 25, 2013 at 12:16 pm

            I wouldn’t stay on it long term, more like a week at most, but when I was low, it made unbelievable improvements that piecemeal treatment did not.
            Some of the most notable difference was in brain fog/cognition and memory.

            Good luck with your treatment no matter what you do. My current doc always does that for me; I pay a fair rate by the hour to a concierge internist. Always have direct access by cell phone, too. You’re right, it’s unusual.



  23. Anne on November 24, 2013 at 7:48 am

    I’ve never had a problem with your font or layout ! I’m only interested in the content and I’ve always enjoyed your blogs, always found something of interest in them. Would love to have more posts on healthy eating, low carb, Paleo, supplements, exercise, healthy living and common conditions. I would love you to post blogs more often like you used to do, but realise you have the sous-vide work to do too.

  24. Christina on November 24, 2013 at 7:49 am

    As to your website design: I liked the old one, the new one looks ok too. I agree with the text wrapping comments of the commentators before me, seems to me that’s probably the most important aspect for the average reader of current blog posts. I’d like to be able to easily page back through your blog posts when I am reading just for fun, and to be able to easily search for old blog posts that may be relevant to whatever I am researching at the moment.

    As to content: I agree with the person who said that some of the most interesting posts people write are about what interests them personally, so I’d love to see whatever you’re currently interested in. And, as I said earlier, I’d love to understand how to better evaluate studies for truth, bias, and usefulness so I’d love a series about that. Additionally, I would love to hear how you think paleo/low carb nutrition affects specific dis-eases. I know most of us understand the broad brush of the diabetes connection, so there I’d be interested in understanding some of the oddball nuances. But what I am thinking of is some of the more Gordian knots of our current cultural health challenges, like auto-immune diseases, or like Epstein-Barr, or like Chronic Fatigue, or like Lyme Disease, or various cancers, most importantly the hormonally associated cancers like breast, ovarian, or prostate… what is the role of diet in those cancers, and what is the role of diet in the epigenetics of genetically associated cancers…

    I appreciate your blog, it’s always interesting and educational. I can imagine how much time it takes for you to write and maintain it and am grateful that you choose to spend your time in ways that benefit so many people. Thanks!

    • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 10:37 am

      Thanks for the kind words and thanks for the list of topics. I appreciate it.

  25. Ann on November 24, 2013 at 7:50 am

    I truly appreciate your posts! and find them very readable in their current format. I will be on board any changes you make as well! Thank you so much for your taking the time! Ann

  26. Sunny on November 24, 2013 at 7:50 am

    I will defer to those more advanced in computers…. I am interested in Histamine and Mast cells. I have had Cdiff for 5 months and also have Microscopic Colitis.. I am completely GF and also soy and Casein free. I I’m interested in learning about trying to learn about managing the histamine response and mast cells. I have read many blogs about this and how it manifests not only with hay fever for example, but also in the gut. Ot seems to answer the question of why some folks don’t get relief from simply going GF. ButI’m not sure the varying “experts” who write on this subject are accurate.

    • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 10:38 am

      You wrote:

      But I’m not sure the varying “experts” who write on this subject are accurate.

      Always the big problem.

  27. Midgy on November 24, 2013 at 7:53 am

    I’ve always loved your posts and books! I just went to your website and I miss the option of looking at posts based on topic, now it’s just archival by month.

    I myself always enjoy your posts on metabolism and ketosis (I’m particularly interested in whether ketosis can prevent or cure cancer), and cholesterol. I also am interested in reading about autoimmune diseases and what role diet has on causing/curing them. about gluten – I’ve been gluten free 8 months now because I have Hashimoto’s thyroiditis. supposedly gluten damages the thyroid in people like us, but the only difference I’ve noticed so far is my hips don’t hurt as much as the use to. I’m 35 (female) and use to hobble like an elderly woman by the end of the night and now they don’t hurt, and my seasonal allergies were virtually nonexistent this year. cravings have pretty much went nonexistent from gluten free as well. my husband and I were quite addicted to Taco Bell for over 10 years. days without it felt like months. my husband still misses it, but he gets little hits of gluten here and there. whereas once I went 100% GF, I truely don’t miss it.

    Also I’ve dabbled with the potato diet (eating cooked, then cooled, plain potatoes (with just a little s&p, maybe a light amount of ketchup and mustard) for weight loss. I’ve never made it a full 2 weeks like I would like, maybe 4 days in a row, weight comes off almost to the point of a pound of day from doing that. it makes you full and supposedly it has enough nutrients and protein to not waste away doing it. and I don’t regain weight when we are being “bad”, eating ice cream, etc. as I use to. also seemed to have cured my sporadic diarrhea with urgency that never got better after going gluten free and even trying dairy free. Mark Sisson had a post about resistant starch recently and he mentioned some studies show “resistant starch may actually treat small intestinal bacterial overgrowth by “flushing” the pathogenic bacteria out in the feces”. I wouldn’t mind more information on this and how it makes weight loss so easy.

    I particularly enjoy how you’ll tell us about a study said something, but then you pick it apart and REALLY look at what happened in the study and tell us the facts. But, you have always done an awesome job on the topics you pick, so I’m sure you’ll do a fine job. I really did miss your blog emails for a while, seemed you weren’t writing them for a long time. sorry, I didn’t mean to write so much. Take care!

    • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 10:40 am

      Thanks for the long, thoughtful comment. I’m going to keep up with posting as much as time will allow.

  28. Rez on November 24, 2013 at 7:55 am

    San serif is easier to read on the computer screen; there’s a tendency for the serifs to blur at certain sizes, and they’re definitely harder for vision-impaired folks (I used to support a bunch of their computers, so I got familiar with the fonts they preferred).

    As others say, letting text reflow and rewrap freely is paramount. You really have NO way to predict what font your readers will prefer, let alone what device or software they’ll be using. I have it set at +150% here right now, old eyes and all that. Always check what it looks like with CSS turned off; that’s what folks on primitive devices (and there are a lot of ’em yet) and using screen readers will see. Don’t use javascript for navigation, for the same reasons.

    Highly recommended articles on website usability:
    http://www.nngroup.com/articles/
    The gist is, simpler is usually better. Visual noise always detracts.

    I like the current skulls header graphic, it makes me smile every time, and it doesn’t distract otherwise. I don’t mind the rest, I guess I don’t really care what it looks like so long as it works as essentially text (I turn colors off too, white burns my eyes).

    My background is biochemistry so I think we need more technical articles, not less 😀 Fact is, it’s better to have the reference in case people do feel the urge, than to withhold it and enforce ignorance. I do find the unconvinced are more likely to learn from technical-level stuff than from generalizations (too easily dismissed).

    • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 10:46 am

      Thanks for the link. I’ll give it a look.

  29. Michia on November 24, 2013 at 7:57 am

    Some advice on the underpinnings. Can’t tell what theme you are using, so you may already have considered this.

    It is well worth the modest investment in a framework-based premium theme from a reputable outfit (Woothemes, StudioPress, ithemes, etc.) that puts time and energy into hardening their code and keeping themes uptodate so that they take advantage of the latest WordPress features.

    The underlying framework lets you switch readily between socalled child themes without sacrificing security and stability.

    Another huge advantage of a premium themes is that the good outfits have excellent forum-based support.

    As for topics, I agree with previous posters who voted for analysis of studies, especially ‘big news’ ones. Reporting on these is lightweight at best and downright awful at worst.

  30. suzette on November 24, 2013 at 8:03 am

    I’ll leave the technical stuff to the guys above, but wanted to tell you that I like your new format idea, but most importantly, your content. I, for one, like it when you get into the technical side of things, so please don’t hold back. Your blog contains really helpful and relevant information and I like the fact, that I always learn something new each time I read your post. You are one person that I can always rely on to give me the facts, which fall more often than not, outside the mainstream of thought. Thank you and I look forward to your next post. Happy Thanksgiving!

    • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 10:48 am

      Happy Thanksgiving back to you. I’ll be spending mine with my aged parents.

  31. Bethanny Parker on November 24, 2013 at 8:07 am

    I love it! It has a very clean look. Check to make sure it’s mobile-friendly too. You want it to look good no matter what device people are using to view it.

  32. Laura on November 24, 2013 at 8:18 am

    To be honest I don’t care for the new look. It seems to me that a lot of the bloggers are going to a more streamlined, cleaner look and to me it seems to divest the blog of personality (in the appearance area).
    Not an appealing look to me – that said I would always follow you because of excellent content. I can always adjust font size, etc on my computer.
    Keep up the awesome work.

  33. Paul Decker on November 24, 2013 at 8:24 am

    from Gretchen: I’m interested in understanding the finding of Lutz (“Life Without Bread”) that his younger patients (<40) who went on LC diets saw their cholesterol fall, but the older patients didn't. Why?

    I, too, just experienced this. Today, on my 70th birthday, I've just completed my first low-carb year. I actually maintained the first 2-week regimen of your wife's 6-week diet for the whole year (switched to a solid breakfast for the next year). As a very fit mountain hiker I had previously maintained my weight and blood lipid numbers with a low-fat diet. In this past year I quickly dropped 3 inches from my waist, but lost no weight (I look a lot better).

    To the point: my total cholesterol is now 230 (was 205 last year). To my GP's credit, he's giving me a pass on this. All other numbers are great and are pretty much unchanged.

  34. Helga on November 24, 2013 at 8:31 am

    I have been following your blog for a long time. I love the posts about the research on cholesterol, statins, etc. I wish I knew how to get my doctor on board… Did you not used to have a weight loss product a few years ago? What happened to it. Is it still available?

    • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 10:50 am

      Yep. It’s called Metabosol.

  35. Norman E. Houtz on November 24, 2013 at 8:33 am

    Dr. Mike:

    I’d like to see a detailed analysis of the Ravnskov Hypothesis. It’s the only hypothesis that explains why arteries get plaque formations and veins don’t. (LDL particles travel radially inward. In arteries they work against a pressure gradient; in veins not so much.) I think the best way to fight the Lipid Hypothesis is with Ravnskov.

  36. Duane on November 24, 2013 at 8:34 am

    I do not really care what the format looks like…Everything I ever read by you was well researched and super interesting…I also like that you write on many varied topics…(all interesting….). The recent article about the Italian book on “Stupidity” was a good fun read…
    If everyone else here sez a different font is more readable…All the better….
    Thanks for the great work Michael….

  37. Fredrick Hahn on November 24, 2013 at 8:39 am

    If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

  38. Jean on November 24, 2013 at 8:40 am

    I like the new fomat. It is much easier for us “older” folks to read the words in black instead of the gray shades.

    For posts – I’m trying to research why blood sugar can be normal throughout the day but high fasting in the a.m. while on a very low carb diet.

    Thank you.

  39. jake3_14 on November 24, 2013 at 8:42 am

    I have configured my browser to use Arial 14 pt. for the main font, so it doesn’t matter to me what typeface or type size you use. What does matter to me are typographic controls, the ability to include hyperlinks and images in my posts, the ability to edit a post, and the ability to up- or downvote other responses. Check out Paleohacks for the best example of this.

    Regarding topics, I’d like to see a fact-check of the studies Dr. Perlmutter uses to support his assertions. A review of Wheat Belly (http://tinyurl.com/9brtatz) points out serious problems in Davis’ use of studies. While Chris Kresser points out some obvious thematic problems with Perlmutter’s thesis (http://tinyurl.com/kbh52wd), I have yet to see a detailed analysis of the source material on which Perlmutter relies.

    • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 10:53 am

      I have Dr. Perlmutter’s book but haven’t worked it into my reading queue yet, so I can’t comment. I will when I read it.

      • Darag on November 24, 2013 at 11:10 am

        I think you’ll love it:)

  40. Allegra on November 24, 2013 at 8:43 am

    Dear Dr. Eades,

    I love the new layout! As far as topics go (for future blogs) I would like some about Candida. I believe my GERD/allergies are caused by Candida (along with previously eating the wrong things ie. carbs). I am doing much better now that I am on a low carb diet! Thanks to you! I had a lot of antibiotics in my childhood/plus some trauma. (I have seen posts about people remembering trauma when treating candida successfully). This is fascinating. I also found some websites that claimed that candida can cause GERD. (Candida is a fermenting process, after all)! Thanks for your time! And thanks for being a “real” Doctor! One that looks for a cause vs. covering it up with drugs!

  41. Dita on November 24, 2013 at 9:03 am

    I personnaly like the 2nd box in your blog. But I didn’t have a problem with your regular one. I appreciate all your articles. Keep up the good work

  42. Jean B. on November 24, 2013 at 9:17 am

    Hi,

    I wasn’t aware of issues with the old format, but now that I compare them, I see that the new format IS more readable.

    As to topics, I await your comments on the new statin guidelines. I sure am not hopping onto that bandwagon!

    Thanks for all of your posts and information! I am really glad to see more posts from you.

  43. John Theobald on November 24, 2013 at 9:25 am

    With all the new research on the neurological and cancer benefits with ketogenic diets, I wonder if you could take another look at the protein levels. They all seem to work with a much lower protein level than previously associate with keto diets.

  44. L.Lee Coyne on November 24, 2013 at 9:31 am

    The current format never bothered me, but I am a former professor and an information hound. My 76 year old eyes will probably appreciate the new size.

    I always appreciate your ability to “critically” review the literature. A feature missing in many circles. I often comment “don’t send your kid to xyz university, they don’t seem to teach research methods”. I taught physiology and research methods.

    Subject that deserves some attention is saturated fat and its role in inflammation. Barry Sears seems hell bent on damning saturated fat. Your take would be good.

    • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 10:57 am

      Barry has been a good friend of mine for decades, but he and I disagree on a lot of issues, including saturated fat. I’m sure I’ll have some posts in the future on the subject. My view on saturated fats is that they are not only non-harmful, they are actually healthful, and most of us don’t get enough.

      • Elenor on November 25, 2013 at 6:17 pm

        I’ve actually taken to making a … could I call it a dessert-drink? I melt some (about a TBL) KerryGold pasture-butter with some coconut oil, mix in some MCT oil and a bit of cinnamon, some vanilla extract and sweetener (yes, I use some Splenda); froth it up with a coffee frother and sip it. It’s like dessert (because it’s small and sweet), and it gives me all those great fats without having to eat lots of food with them!

  45. Sue on November 24, 2013 at 9:32 am

    I like the new look. I like the top one better than the bottom one. I don’t really know why, it was just pleasing to my eye. I love your blog and look forward to whatever you are talking about. I am mostly interested in low carb topics, how low carb can change things for the better in your body, but I read all you send my way 🙂

    Wishing you and your family a wonderful holiday season

    • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 10:58 am

      Thanks. Wishing you and yours the same.

  46. Karen Page on November 24, 2013 at 9:52 am

    I actually prefer the font you currently have. I find it clean and easy to read. I am 59, and my vision is not as good for reading anymore. Additionally, I had lasik, which has made edge detection harder for me, and so clean, straight lines are much easier for me to read. The font in the samples has a bunch of curliness (curly tail on “g”, etc.) too much like times new roman, which i don’t like to read at all. As far as size goes, it’s easy enough to change. So do whatever you think those people who don’t know how to change it will like.

    You commented above that you didn’t think your readers would be interested in technical detail. I think otherwise. Many of the questions you get involve technical details of you topics. I for one would welcome a technical discussion of how keto-adaptation benefits (or not) athletic performance, endurance, quickness. Do fast-twitch or slow-twitch muscles benefit more? Even though I’m not an athlete anymore, I’m still a scientist! (Actually, athletic performance is important to me as I seek to maintain strength and mobility in the face of this aging problem.)

    Thanks for your always-interesting blog. I have been following it for years, and started low-carbing when I first read “Protein Power” in the late ’90s. Actually before that, I had low blood sugar while in grad school, and my doctor told me no breads, no potatoes, no starchy vegetables. No sugar and nothing that turns to sugar. That was in the early ’80s. You have always motivated me to stick with the program! Thanks again!

    • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 10:59 am

      Glad to learn you’ve done so well for so long. Keep it up!

  47. Deana on November 24, 2013 at 9:59 am

    I didn’t like either one, they are so small! I read your blog in the body of text emails and they’re easy to read.

    For your topics, my favorite was when you gave pictures and descriptions of your meals, although I’d prefer it to be home made and with recipes. My hardest challenge is that I eat the same things all the time, and that gets old and boring to the rebel child in me. Otherwise I read everything you post. I will start following you on twitter, too.

  48. james Pott on November 24, 2013 at 10:13 am

    For myself I have no problem with the font (am 72) or the page layout. But as mentioned before I do not like the serifs on the screen, and certainly not in bold, which is what it looks like.
    Subjects for posts, anything that will help us build a case on science. I am more than fed up with arguing on opinions, hearsay. In general, cascaded knowledge that is almost impossible to trace and can only be dealt with, adequately, by understanding the science. Of course this could mean an inordinate amount of work for you. So many RCT’s are either only done to support someone’s hypothesis or have so many confounders that the conclusions arrived at could very well be completely meaningless. Further compounding the problem is the fact that often we have no clue what the confounders are.

  49. Jeanne Shepard on November 24, 2013 at 10:45 am

    I enjoy your blog, whatever font you choose to use.
    I’m interested in ketogenic diet and its affect on health, as I’m on one, and hoping to persuade my MD that it is a good thing, overall.
    I’d like to read more about blood sugar control. Although my A1C is 5.4, my early morning blood sugars can be as high as 125, which worries me. On the other hand, my blood ketones stay in the .5-1.5 range. Odd.

    I wonder, since you know how many times people click your Twitter links, do you know what books they order, going through the website portal?
    Cheers and keep up the wonderful work.

    • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 11:07 am

      I only know the numbers on Twitter because I use a URL shortener (bit.ly), and it tells me how many people have clicked through.

      As to the books people purchase going through links I have on this site… I can see what has been ordered and when, but not who ordered it.

  50. Darag on November 24, 2013 at 11:20 am

    I’ve been thinking about this same challenge with my own blog so this has helped me clarity that it would be a good idea to take on what Ann and James say at the top.

    I’m with them in that I really don’t like the serif fonts in the two examples. Makes it look almost Gothic to me.

    If you are wanting to choose between one or the other to suit the majority of your readers I wonder if a poll would be a simple way to do that?

    Whatever you’re excited about writing on is good for me. Your’s is the only blog I ‘religiously’ read.

  51. Jean S. on November 24, 2013 at 11:25 am

    Dr. Mike,

    How thoroughly considerate of you to consider your readers in this manner. I do believe the new format is easier to read; however, I will devour, rather gladly your writings irregardless of font.Thank you so much for the pleasure of learning from you, a well trusted source of very interesting topics.

    Must admit being most curious about ketogenic diets; in particular, for over- sixty- years- of- age-post- menopausal -women; metabolically speaking, does this group benefit as well as men?

    Again, Thank you, you are appreciated.

    Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

    • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 11:39 am

      Happy Turkey Day back to you. I’ll certainly explore the ketogenic diet issues for the elderly. I do think the over-60, post menopausal do benefit.

  52. Lisa on November 24, 2013 at 11:35 am

    I must be missing something because I don’t see anything different about your post, font wise. I normally read your post in an e-mail I receive and the text in the e-mail looks the same as on your website. What am I missing?

    • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 11:40 am

      The mail reformats the posts to look more like the template I want to use.

  53. Karin Green on November 24, 2013 at 11:42 am

    I very much appreciate your writing in any format; this blog and your books. I am not concerned about appearance and fonts; I am looking for information and in what you have to say!

    Currently, I have a family member suffering from Alzheimer’s who has gone into sudden and sever decline. I would like your input on treatment with coconut oil, both to perhaps improve her condition or to prevent further decline.

    Some of my family members, not afflicted with Celiac Disease, have fallen for the gluten free fad. While it must cut their carbohydrate consumption, I am concerned about some unintended consequences of this phenomena – not to mention the additional cost of “gluten free” foods blossoming on grocery shelves.

  54. Janaia Donaldson on November 24, 2013 at 12:16 pm

    As a longtime graphic designer, just saying: I prefer the font SIZE of the top portion of your sample website. Consider the font Trebuchet. It has the strength of a sans serif but with small serifs that facilitate the eye moving across the letterforms.

    For content — more on the values of the ketogenic diet for everyone. We feel pretty lonely out here. Plenty of people trying low-inflammation or paleo diet, but keto is different. We sure feel the benefits and want to know more.

    How about something on what’s wrong with a vegan diet?

    Finally, we’d still love to video a Peak Moment conversation with you, when we’re in your part of the world. Contact me at janaia@peakmoment.tv

  55. Barbara J. on November 24, 2013 at 12:39 pm

    Dr. Eades: New format looks great and so does your pic at the top. Speaking of which, I’d love to know about your exercise routine. After heart surgery my surgeon advises that I keep moving and not sit too long; take frequent walks, etc. I recall in the past seeing your excellent blood panel numbers — what is your secret?

    • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 6:20 pm

      My secret – if there is such – is a low-carb, ketogenic diet, resistance exercise and walking 18 holes a couple of times a week.

  56. Bob Keim on November 24, 2013 at 1:53 pm

    I have been reading your blog for years and like your wide variety of topics and scientific depth. I hope you cover the new statin controversy.

    I like the new format. I agree with the column sizing comments. That is a real problem on the PC I use in the office. I read your columns on a large Mac screen at home and don’t have that problem here.

    I note that your emails suddenly have apostrophes. Not sure what happened, but thanks!

  57. John Wilson on November 24, 2013 at 1:54 pm

    The new format is great – go for it!!

    I agree with reader’s comments about the good scientific content of your posts and want you to continue, including the technical stuff. You and Peter Attia are my best sources of keto related science. Also, any comments on the work by Seyfried and Perlmutter are really appreciated.

    Two thoughts for specific articles:

    1) Is it even possible for a non-diabetic in nutritional ketosis (as defined by Volek & Phinney) to become diabetic? Related to this would be the question of whether it is possible that a type-2 diabetic who still has beta cells working and converts to nutritional ketosis could remain a type-2 diabetic (as long as he/she remains in ketosis). If it is possible, what are the conditions and what percent of the population would fall into that group?

    2) I don’t know if you have other readers with this concern, but I have been in nutritional ketosis (blood ketones >0.5 in A.M.; often ~ 1.0 or higher), my fasting blood sugar is normally less than 90, yet I have high triglycerides (300-500) and of course a lousy Trig/HDL ratio. I am a skinny (very low body fat) active 72 YO male with only trace (minor) calcification per a Cardiac MRI a year ago and excellent soft plaque Lp-PLA2 test of 106 (out of spec low, per Labcorp!!). I live on good fats, eat no bread, pasta, starch, etc., eat ‘adequate’ protein, yet triglycerides are very high. How can that be??? If any other readers have this problem, please chime in. I have been searching for an answer for many months with nothing to show for the effort.

  58. Kevin on November 24, 2013 at 2:00 pm

    Hi Dr. Eades,

    What is your take on l’arginine for reversing heart disease?

  59. Jennifer on November 24, 2013 at 3:30 pm

    Wow – thanks for asking about the format change…I like the second one – the one with the picture of the women exercising. For me it is easier to read.

    • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 10:19 pm

      The second and the first are the same format. Just two different blog posts.

  60. Lacie on November 24, 2013 at 3:49 pm

    Thank you for considering your readers – always refreshing in the blogosphere!

    I’m interested in the ketogenic diet for neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. My partner has had success with combining the diet with a high dose ketogenic adjunct (first MCT/coconut oil, then alphaketoglutarate) to reverse the movement disorders associated with Parkinson’s disease. Since this is primarily a diet and health blog, not a medical blog, maybe you could fit this into an overall series on ketosis in general. It seems to have amazing benefits for brain health.

    I’m also interested in the new “super-absorbable” forms of supplements that have hit the market. I’m seeing CoQ10 in ubiquinol form, Life Extensions’ Super Bio-Curcumin, and Jarrow’s Phosph-Omega omega-3, to name just a few. I’ve always wondered about how much of the supplements I take are actually absorbed, and since you’re not averse to supplementation, I’d like to hear your take on it.

    Finally, maybe you could investigate mineral deficiencies and whether mineral balance (such as zinc/copper) is important. I’m considering a hair tissue mineral analysis and would like to know if it’s accurate. There are vested interests on both sides of the debate, of course.

    Hope all this isn’t too obscure for you! I really appreciate your efforts here and am delighted to see you blogging again. I’m an English teacher, so I feel qualified to tell you that you’re a terrific writer 🙂

    • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 10:21 pm

      Thanks very much. Always nice to know the time I spent in English composition classes paid off. 🙂

  61. Lacie on November 24, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    Oh yeah, one more thing – long ago you promised us a post on adaptive thermogenesis (metabolism slowing down in response to lowered calorie intake). No one else has written about this with much credibility or research to back it up, so I’d love to hear your take on it.

  62. maryann pearson on November 24, 2013 at 4:59 pm

    I looked at the new ones on my iphone thinking it might be easier to read on mobile device but it came up very similar. Both are OK. Don’t overthink it. What you have to say is a lot more important than the format. I like Arial, but Verdana is good too. The current theme is very straightforward and I like it much better than many of the medical news letters that are really long winded ads for product. I have unsubscribed to most of them. Thanks for the information you provide. Maryann

  63. maryann pearson on November 24, 2013 at 5:03 pm

    P.S. for new topics i would love to hear your thoughts on how one who has no formal medical training can best learn self health care without going to medical school. I believe people need to learn more about how to take care of themselves and to self diagnose more issues. Our system is such a mess – we all need to rely more on our own intelligence to remain healthy.

  64. Cyn on November 24, 2013 at 5:27 pm

    I’m not highly educated nor am I well read but I know you are & I was hoping you could explain how hydrogenated oils were exposed. I don’t think any of us expected trans fats to be healthy, they have long been in the public perception as being in the same category as the much misaligned “artery clogging saturated fats”

    I am real curious of *how* the evils of trans fats were so (relatively) quickly brought to light. I’ve been researching the health benefits of a ketogenic diet & the health benefits of fats in the diet for the past 10 years & I never heard the expected rumblings or discourse. It almost seems like one day we woke up & there was mandatory labeling laws (without a bit of education), then the GRAS status removal. Like a silent force came to save us from this evil (but I fear the truth is probably quite frightening.)

    I remember years ago one rumbling but all I’ve found is non sourced excerpts off forums (from 2004) –

    Apparently in Australia… Macular Degeneration (loss of vision starting in the centre of the field of view) was once rare but has increased ten-fold over the last couple of decades, and is now almost an epidemic.

    It has now been linked to the consumption of vegetable oils and margarines.

    The theory is that optic nerves (nervous tissue is mostly fat) is getting a build up of trans fats and other heat damaged veg oils instead of the natural animal fats they need. These unnatural oils are building up and causing nerve damage in the eyes.

    http://forum.lowcarber.org/archive/index.php/t-197823.html

    I expected when the FDA removed the GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status the food industry would fight tooth & nail to protect this substance since it is in almost every processed food. I thought the same type of spinning that we get for high fructose corn syrup that it’s no different that sugar (another toxic substance) would be employed.

    I haven’t read any research that showed any definitive links to negative health effects, just a lot of suppositions but the suppositions on the negative health effects of saturated fats are *much* weaker but I rarely read an article about trans fats that doesn’t make a few punches at saturated fats.

    I’ve read that it will cost 8 billion dollars for the changeover & I expect that the days of cheap processed foods will be over soon.

    Speaking of cheap processed foods, I think they should tax high fructose corn syrup (& sugar) in processed foods like they did cigarettes. If cigs weren’t so cheap when I was a kid, I would have never been able to afford to start smoking. We could get a whole carton for less than a pack of cigs today.

  65. Walter on November 24, 2013 at 7:51 pm

    I’ve lost interest in all of the other paleo/low carb blogs. You start posting again and I’m immediately right here. I like the way you explain the science and want more of those types of posts.

    Specifically having to do with keto diets and zero carb. Also I would like to see a discussion of why your body does not turn excess protein into sugar unless your body needs it. Which I believe was your position last time I asked. Many seem to think that excess protein could blow you out of ketosis because it would be converted to sugar.

    • mreades on November 24, 2013 at 10:24 pm

      You wrote:

      Many seem to think that excess protein could blow you out of ketosis because it would be converted to sugar.

      Not true. A couple of recent papers put a stake in the heart of that one.

      • Kathy from Maine on November 25, 2013 at 7:00 am

        Can you give us links to these papers? This is a huge bugaboo that I’ve never really believed. I read this a while back, and it was the first time I’d seen this topic addressed directly:

        http://www.ketotic.org/2012/08/if-you-eat-excess-protein-does-it-turn.html

        • mreades on November 25, 2013 at 7:33 am

          I’ll have to dig them up later because I’m running to catch a plane. I tweeted them a while back in case you followed me there.

  66. nancy on November 24, 2013 at 8:14 pm

    I appreciate the way you present the technical information, then explain it for the lay person so well.
    Personally, I like serif fonts, but I haven’t read the phone version yet.

  67. Ward on November 25, 2013 at 4:50 am

    Volek and Phinney repeatedly use the phrase “a well formulated” ketogenic diet in their (I think great) books. While I think the science behind ketosis is interesting and important to know – I think many of us would benefit from your take on what constitutes a “well formulated” keto diet.

  68. Milad on November 25, 2013 at 6:06 am

    Dr. Eades,

    I’ve been reading your posts for some time and thank you for the fantastic information you provide. I don’t browse through the website much however, since you’ve generously enabled RSS feeds.

    In terms of theming, I don’t know which CMS you use, but themeforst.com provides all different kinds of themese for WordPress, Joomla, or Drupal. Some are free, but msot are paid. A lot of their themes are also ‘responsive’. Meaning, that they change to proper resolution when viewed by 4,5′ devices (mobiles) or 7,8′ devices (tablets).

    I hope this helps!

    P.S. Installing “Google Fonts” if you’re on WordPress (I’m not sure about other CMSs) will allow you to have dynamic fonts: change based on post, heading, type of page, etc.

    • mreades on November 25, 2013 at 7:28 am

      Thanks for the info.

  69. Cynthia K on November 25, 2013 at 7:18 am

    I’m happy with whatever format you choose.

    My favorite topics are those which I can share with friends and family who are not yet on board with a high fat, whole food way of eating and who have multiple health problems.

    Thanks for all your good work.

  70. Craig on November 25, 2013 at 7:27 am

    I like the new format. Topics, vit d and cinnamon to control cholesterol.

  71. Ben Fury on November 25, 2013 at 7:53 am

    Thesis theme for WordPress is quite popular:
    http://diythemes.com/

    But the Genesis theme has been receiving rave reviews as of late:
    http://my.studiopress.com/themes/genesis/
    http://sugarrae.com/reviews/thesis-vs-genesis-and-why-i-made-the-switch/

    Check the feature comparison at the bottom of the review. Genesis might work well for you.

    • mreades on November 25, 2013 at 11:08 am

      Thanks for the links. I’ve looked at these in the past, but have other reasons I like the one I’m testing.

      • Ben Fury on November 25, 2013 at 2:30 pm

        Interesting. What theme are you testing?

        • mreades on November 25, 2013 at 2:42 pm

          A premium theme by Michael Hyatt called Get Noticed!

  72. Elinor McCullough on November 25, 2013 at 8:13 am

    First let me wish a Happy Thanksgiving to you and your entire family.

    Love your blog no matter what the format or print style, but missed your frequent postings of late but I know you’re a very busy man so understand the absence of posts.

    Could you discuss why / if / or why not it may be important to maintain the alkalinity of the blood/body to maintain healthy cells and oxgenate the body/blood (using alkaline water) to cause cancer cell death. Been reading about Dr. Otto Warburg in this respect. Lots of people in family with different cancers and doing lots of research as to why (GMO food? Aspartame?, etc.). Would be interested in your insight.

    I originally went gluten free after reading the book, Wheat Belly, and having Rheumatoid Arthritis (for 8 yrs or more). The RA disappeared within 7 days, so been gluten free since. Bought the book on your recommendation and have praised you ever since. So thanks for that book recommendation…it changed my life (for the better).

    • mreades on November 25, 2013 at 11:09 am

      Happy Thanksgiving to you, too. Thanks for the reccos.

  73. Jim Swayze on November 25, 2013 at 8:31 am

    Dr. Eades: A topic I’d love to see you address, please. On the right side of this revolutionary debate about proper human nutrition, there tend to be two camps with suprisingly very little crossover for some odd reason (you’ve been a very notable exception in your _Protein Power Lifeplan_ book). One camp, led by Atkins — and more recently, and very powerfully Gary Taubes –emphasize low carbohydate foods. Another camp comprised of most paleo authors empahasize what I’ve heard called “foreign proteins” that lead to autoimmune disease. Can you talk a little in your blog about a unifying theory that brings the two a little more closely together? Thanks!

    • mreades on November 25, 2013 at 11:11 am

      Thanks for the suggestion. It’s a post I’m planning on writing soon. Sort of an overview of dieting that will – I hope – explain a lot.

  74. Mrs. Hudson on November 25, 2013 at 8:48 am

    Dr. Eades, I don’t care what your website looks like, I’m just so grateful for authoritative, reliable information on diet and nutrition. It’s so confusing! I’ve been watching documentaries like “Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead” and went out and bought not one but two juicers, only to read that raw veggies like broccoli and cauliflower can cause thyroid problems and kale and spinach can build up something or other in your tissues. Gaah! Yet people are reporting near miraculous results from “rebooting” (juicing only for several days or even weeks), I’m seeing compelling evidence on the side of plant-based diets, and yet I’ve been on the low carb bandwagon for years (as opposed to the wagon, which I confess I have fallen off of periodically — darn Snickers bars!). The scientific evidence behind low carbing has always seemed very believable to me, but now with all this vegetarian/vegan stuff floating around, I don’t know which way to turn. Each side seems to have scientific as well as empirical evidence to back up their claims, but they’re diametrically opposed on so many points.

    BTW I’m very grateful for your recent email directing me to the documentary, “Fat Head.” I was lucky enough to catch it via streaming video during an Amazon Prime free trial month. Funny and informative, and great to see you and Dr. Mary Dan Eades featured.

    • mreades on November 25, 2013 at 11:11 am

      Glad you enjoyed Fat Head. We had fun with Tom making it.

      • Elenor on November 25, 2013 at 6:31 pm

        Tom Naughton’s “Fat Head” is also now available free on YouTube. If I remember correctly, Tom wrote (somewhere) that it’s the (slightly updated) “Director’s Cut,” so his new distributor was able to post it there… I find I usually end up recommending new folks start with Tom’s Low Carb Cruise talk called “Science for Smart People,” which is Tom’s typical very funny and deeply scientific ‘teaching’ — in a shorter form. (You know, like a pusher: give them a small taste to get ’em hooked, then insert the IV line that is “Fat Head”!) {wink}

    • David Bremers on November 25, 2013 at 2:07 pm

      ****I Second: “Not really caring what the blog looks like because the content is so good”.

  75. py on November 25, 2013 at 9:35 am

    Content trumps form. Go w/ whatever format you want, just keep writing!

    As for topics, please blog about using a seemingly high LDL-P number, when accompanied by ideal TG/HDL ratio, absence of metabolic disorders and large-fluffy LDL-P sizes as a sole indicator of risk to CVD, as promulgated by Dr. Dayspring.

    • mreades on November 25, 2013 at 11:12 am

      Good idea. I haven’t bought into the whole Dayspring deal yet.

  76. David Bremers on November 25, 2013 at 2:05 pm

    Hi Mike,

    Love the blog for the starters, great source of information. It seemed like there was a bit of a hiatus a while ago which was quite sad but you’ve picked up again which makes opening my inbox more pleasant. You’re posts are well thought out, with no fear of breaking the status quo.

    As for the new theme, I’m no expert on fonts and it looks like it’s already been well covered, but I can say I prefer the current header. The skulls, and that model of the cavemen with the mammoth I thought was quite interesting and summed up the content well. Coming from a perspective here in Australia, I would also keep your picture under the header rather than as a part of it. There might be a cultural difference over there, but here to my mind it looks a bit tacky. Too cult-ish.

    Thoughts for new posts… perhaps one on the Ray Peat ideology? He seems to be gaining some popularity and is opposite to your teachings in a number of ways. Perhaps also one on how we readers can do more to be part of this movement. Groups to join, help with convincing people who aren’t very scientific, petitions to sign…

    Thanks again for all you’ve done,

    Dave

  77. Nancy on November 25, 2013 at 5:29 pm

    I am interested in hearing what you know about mold, micotoxins, whatever. Your educated information is always informative and so often hits right to issues we need to know more about – from a qualified source. Many things you write about are issues I knew nothing about and I especially enjoy your critique-ing of current public statements, ‘party-line’ thinking, etc. medically speaking. Too many nut jobs out there who happen to have MD behind their names.

    Thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge with the rest of us.

  78. Wayne on November 25, 2013 at 5:50 pm

    The sans is much more clear. Either way, many thanks for your hard work on the blog. We appreciate the information.

    Wayne

  79. Elenor on November 25, 2013 at 6:45 pm

    The new format: bit spare, but I like it. I’d like the header text (name of the blog) to be substantially larger than the blog entry text — to differentiate them. I like the turquoise bar.

    But, as with everyone else… it’s your writing I come here for, not the decorations! {wink} Whenever you post an entry, you’re always the last one I read. Every morning, I go through my RSS reader (Newsblur) and open in new windows the entries that look interesting to me. Tom Naughton’s blog is usually “last” (reading dessert?) except when you write one — you always get pride-of-place!

    As for topics: it seems to me that a lot of the paleo/primal world was based in low carb (came out of it) but are now dropping low-carb — are developing patterns and systems and recipes that are pretty high carb. (I find primal/paleo cookbooks to be quite dismaying! “Add 2 TBL honey”!!) It kind-of makes me think that their demographic isn’t mine; that there are two pretty different camps. I see it like Crossfit for young healthy folks, and “Body by Science” for older, getting healthy folks; low carb for overweight/obese folks who need to lose weight (and disease); and paleo/primal for young not-yet-unhealthy folks. Comments?

    And PLEASE ask Mary Dan to do a low-carb Sous Vide cookbook — with sauces! The E.A.T. cookbooks I have are not exactly low-carb…

    SOOOOO glad you’ve finally got more time to come back to your blog. I’ve missed you VERY much!

    • mreades on November 25, 2013 at 11:43 pm

      Always good to be missed, I guess. I’ve got a post coming about the very phenomenon you describe, i.e., the young, not-yet-unhealthy crowd and their diets.

      I’ll pass along your suggestion to MD.

      • sydney amparo on November 26, 2013 at 5:12 am

        And, Yeah, I missed you, too, your blog is just swell (“Simply the Best”).
        Concerning the New Theme: I also prefer a serif to an arial font. Friendlier to computer-stressed eyes, although I used to change the size of the font of the old one. So please, use the new one (although I love your blog in ANY size). Great work, thank you for all.

    • sydney amparo on November 26, 2013 at 5:07 am

      Yeah, quite right: it seems to me that Paleo is drifting into the high-carb direction more and more, and primal cookbooks ARE a dismaying deception., only suited for underweight, but otherwise healthy children. Sad story, but an example how the “high-carb mood” still prevalent in society can undermine things that once upon a time had been started from a good conception.
      The idea of a Sous Vide low-carb cookbook, with SAUCES: Gee, I’d love that…

    • Karen on November 26, 2013 at 6:54 am

      Have you looked at the recipes on the SVS website? There is a section of recipes adapted from 6 Week Cure. I’ve found it pretty easy to adapt more recipes once I had an example to follow. http://blog.sousvidesupreme.com/category/all-recipes/6-week-cure/

      Also at the SVS site are the recipes submitted by Paleo bloggers for a contest last winter. I don’t find direct links to the submitted recipes but you can see the blog entry showing who submitted and search their sites. http://blog.sousvidesupreme.com/2012/12/and-the-sous-vide-paleo-recipe-showdown-contestants-are/

      Michelle at NomNomPaleo has lots of sous vide recipes. They are indexed on her recipes page so you don’t have to search for them.

  80. Rez on November 26, 2013 at 9:29 am

    Mentioned on today’s blogpost, http://www.thennt.com/

    This site is one that’s poorly legible in my browser (I use one of the Firefox family) .. its Google-sans font is blurry at ANY size; I have to turn off CSS to read it. Whatever he did to fonts, don’t do it!! 🙂

    • mreades on November 26, 2013 at 9:35 am

      I’ll bear that in mind.

  81. sydney amparo on November 27, 2013 at 4:21 am

    Dear Dr. Eades:

    Having taken a second look at the New Theme, I still keep saying: Go for it.

    I´d really appreciate some information and your opinion concerning Omega 7 (!) and Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol).

    Just aside, thanks for ANY and EVERY information you have given until now and (hopefully) will be giving in your blog, and SPECIAL thanks for all your low-carb, high-fat and protein advice – that´s what is saving me from diabetes-2 medication which only served to make me feel worse, sicker and fatter every day. With 40 – 50 g of carbs (that¨s many days including the “not-counting” fibre carbs) , 130 g of protein and the rest good !!! fats + daily weight-training I manage to keep my blood sugar level low and decent and have energy all day long..(.and that fitting in pants size 6 again…)

    I wish you an your loved ones a wonderful Thanksgiving and a perfect holiday season. Meanwhile I´ll be using Mary Dan´s really great recipes for the festive season to make it a REALLY good time.

    Best wishes to you all, ant just carry on…

    • mreades on November 27, 2013 at 8:29 am

      Glad you’ve enjoyed the info.

      Happy Thanksgiving back to you and yours.

  82. David on November 27, 2013 at 9:25 am

    Page layout: I think the large initial letter beginning the article’s first paragraph is distracting.

    Subjects: I enjoy reading about historical diets and their effects. They provide valuable insight.

    • mreades on November 28, 2013 at 9:36 am

      Wow! Different strokes for different folks. I like the large initial letter. That’s what attracted me to this theme in the first place. In my view, it gives the post a certain je ne sais quoi.

  83. Daryl Broussard on November 27, 2013 at 1:01 pm

    I like how the site is set up now.

    One topic I’d love to see you go over, is what I see as a growing trend to downplay whether or not LDL is “fluffy”, as opposed to the total number of particles, fluffy or not. Dr Spencer Nadolsky, who is quite pro-LC, has been writing quite a bit about it. One more thing to worry about!

  84. Jim h on November 28, 2013 at 7:35 am

    HappyThanksgiving to you and the Fam. Just now catching up — font is a little blurry on my mini. My advice is the universally accepted fail-proof nugget of wisdom that I remember hearing from a dear friend and golf partner while attempting a risky shot — go ahead, just don’t screw it up. (Paraphrased the keyword.)
    As for topics, I’m in agreement with the earlier comment about your “wandering” and the resulting entertainment that ensues. Keep going off topic, just don’t you-know-what.
    And books, always share the books, not just the nutrition books, need the books, depend on the books, the books have changed my life. (Usually for the better.)
    Lastly, please place the comments-close date before the Leave a Reply heading. Damn.

    • mreades on November 28, 2013 at 9:45 am

      Hmmm. You sound like a sociology major after a few too many mimosas. 🙂

      I thought maybe the words of wisdom were to never tell an unknown playing partner that he got cornholed on the bounce. I can’t even write those words without laughing hilariously.

      As for the books…

      Like I’ve said many times, I’m not responsible for your education. But, nonetheless, I’ll keep posting on the books.

  85. Warren Dew on December 2, 2013 at 7:25 pm

    I really like the theme, especially the serif font.

  86. Diane on December 4, 2013 at 8:42 am

    Control/Command + is my friend especially as I get older. I think the new theme is nice. As long as the letters are large or have large openings, serif is okay. Otherwise you can go smaller with Verdana. I think I have read that serif is more readable on paper but sans-serif with large x-heights is more readable on screens.

    I come here mainly to read articles about cholesterol and statins. I have been suspicious of it since I was 19 (I’m 48 now.) I have been threatened with them since 19. I’m female, never been obese and always refused because I simply do not trust the research and never have.

    • mreades on December 4, 2013 at 8:58 am

      You are obviously a very smart woman.

  87. L.Lee Coyne on December 4, 2013 at 10:19 am

    Wow, this is getting to be a long string.
    This is a little out of context but could make a good blog response, in view of your “critical ” skills. Would really like your response to this item

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=humans-are-becoming-more-carnivorous

Leave a Comment