‘Livin’ La Vida Low-Carb Show’ Episode 238: Exercise Physiologist Lyle McDonald From ‘Body Recomposition’

One of the BEST interviews I’ve heard and I plan to check out McDonalds website. I didn’t agree with everything he said, and I need to listen to the podcast again, but a lot of his points hit the target with me and seemed very reasonable. Thanks for another informative interview Jimmy.

Marie

I’ll do it for you, Russell.

Here’s what Lyle McDonald thinks of Taubes, the carbohydrate hypothesis, and the Atkins Diet:

“I can summarize Taube’s book pretty briefly: it’s comlpete crap.

Taubes takes the studies he wants and ignores the ones that contradict him, alik all of the idiots who argue for a metabolic advantage to low carb diets

he bases his simplistic model of fat storage that only includes insulin, a model that hasn’t been right for about 15 years.

you can get shredded on a high-carb diet and you can get fat on a zero carb diet. The inuit don’t have any problem being fat and they eat very low carbs traditionally

Basically he’s looking at studies using self-reported food intake (always wrong) to justify the idea that you can magically lose weight on a lowcarb diet at the same or higher calories. except that NO controlled calorie study has ever supported that idea. And no study has ever shown a metabolic advantage when such things as BMR or TEF are acutally measured.

it’s just the same lowcarb [bs] that has refused to die since the days of Atkins”

(source: http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/showpost.php?p=2295&postcount=11 )

Did you catch that? Anyone who believes in the metabolic advantage of a ketogenic diet is an “idiot.”

He also tries to argue fundamental physiology with respect to the link between fat storage and insulin.

The most galling part of this statement is that McDonald castigates Taubes for using as support studies that used self-report of food consumption – while at the same time making an assertion of his own based on (wait for it…) a mostly worthless study that among other things relies on (here it comes…) SELF-REPORT of food consumption!

And Jimmy, how about what he thinks of Dr. Atkins’ beliefs? I wonder if McDonald thinks that your (and our) weight loss is “complete crap” (I’ll quote the non-expletive adjective), also?

(Just finished downloading today’s podcast. I’m looking forward to a bit of a respite when I listen tomorrow at work.)

Chip,

Perhaps you should lay off the taubes worship and learn how to critique research by yourself.

After you learn that, apply the skill to taubes joke of a book.

I certainly wouldn’t describe Gary Taubes’ book as a “joke.” The man did his due diligence in researching the studies and his book will stand the test of time.

–Jimmy

Lyle McDonald = Anthony Colpo

Both egotistical young man who name call anyone who does not worship them and what they say. They attract rabid blinded followers, usually other men (see other comments on this post), who defend him with the same vitriol.

I have read McDonald’s stuff in the past and realized he is just very good at making himself sound like he knows what he is talking about but actually doesn’t. (I had a boss like that once – it was amazing the money he could get granted to our organization from very bright people who should have known better. This boss was very good at giving a 30 minute speech without actually saying anything of substance. This is what McDonald does in his writings).

In the end, for McDonald, it always comes down to calories in, calories out and that fat people lie if they try to argue other wise.

Oh, yeah, and those metabolic ward studies that Colpo and McDonald love so much. They used young volunteers who had never been fat. That proves absolutely nothing about what food does in the body of anyone else other than a naturally thin young person.

“@Kevin: you do realize, don’t you, that the “calorie is a calorie” dogma, if true, would violate thermodynamics? Given the differences in metabolic pathways for protein, fat, and carbohydrate, to believe that isocaloric intake of the three produce equal energy expenditure is fairly ignorant.”

*** Chip,

Calories are a measure of energy. Energy that enters a closed system will either do work or through inefficiency be converted to heat.

It would violate thermodynamics for this *not* to happen.

The problem is that you’re confusing the action of a nutrient with it’s energy content. They’re not the same thing. Inefficiency still has to be accounted for – which is the common source of the “cal is not a cal” argument – but it’s still boiling down to the “calories out” side of the equation.

Energy (even as heat) doesnt’ just vanish.

“Besides, as Taubes points out, the problem is not the “energy in” side of the energy balance, but rather the “energy expended”. Fat, protein, and carbohydrates are NOT metabolized at perfect efficiency. Under extreme circumstances (see: extremely low calorie diets, “starvation mode”, high insulin, etc.), the food-to-energy conversion comes extremely close to perfect, but it usually that close.

It has been well documented that ketogenic diets induce a significant amount of energy loss (body heat, etc.). Guess what? That energy loss represents a further deficit on the “energy expended” side of the energy balance.”

*** The research into keto diets also doesn’t account for variation in protein intakes between diets, either.

High-protein is not necessarily the same as low-carb.

“Do keep throwing up the thermodynamics canard, though. I love softball practice.”

*** Sure, since it seems so many people have problems understanding it, it obviously bears repetition

Heat is a side-effect of thermal inefficiency, but the thermal energy involved as a process of that inefficiency most assuredly has to be accounted for.

“Bodybuilders? You’re kidding, right? Please say you’re not really trying to define a rule based on an exception.”

*** What’s exceptional about it? I can point you to people right now that have been obese and, with time and a lot of effort, gotten into contest shape using the very tools you say are impossible.

“You and McDonald seem to love to throw around the claim that the well-documented and understood physiological link between insulin and fat storage is somehow, magically “outdated”.”

*** Turns out that insulin can’t store fat in a calorie deficit. Rather, it will be stored immediately post-feeding ….the fat just won’t stay there long. The 24-hour fat balance is what matters, not the acute post-prandial response.

Or are you postulating that the body will somehow store fat while BMR needs aren’t being met?

Given the body’s optimization for survival that wouldn’t make a ton of sense – you don’t put money in the stock market when you can’t pay your rent.

“Prove it. Let’s see the studies.”

*** It’s been done, time and again. The studies are examined, methodologies pointed out, and the data has been fitted into the greater context of biology and physics.

Each time, the goalposts are moved, thermodynamics is misrepresented and misapplied, and we end up right back here with teh proposition that insulin creates energy/mass from nothing – and that energy isn’t energy.

A calorie is a calorie does not violate thermodynamics in any way, sense or form.

Calories for the most part are irrelevant when you control your carbohydrates. Dr. Atkins realized that when you cut carbs, the fat and protein you consume will naturally regulate calories because they make you fuller, more satisfied, and stay satisfied much better than carbohydrates do. It’s the metabolic advantage of livin’ la vida low-carb and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

–Jimmy

@Kevin:

———————————————————
“Calories are a measure of energy. Energy that enters a closed system will either do work or through inefficiency be converted to heat.

It would violate thermodynamics for this *not* to happen.”
———————————————————

Except that the human body is most assuredly NOT a closed system, by definition.Your closed-system assumption is not valid and any dependent argument is therefore specious.

———————————————————
“The problem is that you’re confusing the action of a nutrient with it’s energy content. They’re not the same thing. Inefficiency still has to be accounted for – which is the common source of the “cal is not a cal” argument – but it’s still boiling down to the “calories out” side of the equation.”
———————————————————

The problem with your argument is that you are attempting to separate the two. The body does not ingest “calories”, it ingests food. The food must be broken down through metabolic processes. Different food sources – i.e. macronutrients – undergo different metabolic pathways.

———————————————————-
Energy (even as heat) doesnt’ just vanish. ”
———————————————————-

True, but irrelevant. Heat loss can be significant (as any spouse of a low-carber can attest, when lying next to a low-carb “furnace”). Besides, energy can also be *lost* – i.e. passed through the body without undergoing full metabolism.

———————————————————-
“The research into keto diets also doesn’t account for variation in protein intakes between diets, either.

High-protein is not necessarily the same as low-carb.”
———————————————————-

Why is either of these statements relevant?

———————————————————–
“What’s exceptional about it? I can point you to people right now that have been obese and, with time and a lot of effort, gotten into contest shape using the very tools you say are impossible.”
———————————————————–

Again, anecdotal. I’m concerned with the 90% of the population who could never get into bodybuilder contest shape, no matter what.

———————————————————-
“Turns out that insulin can’t store fat in a calorie deficit. Rather, it will be stored immediately post-feeding ….the fat just won’t stay there long. The 24-hour fat balance is what matters, not the acute post-prandial response.”
———————————————————-

You’re missing the point, which is that fat doesn’t get stored without the presence of insulin. The fat-storage mechanism requires insulin.

I don’t think anyone is claiming that the existence of insulin *always* results in fat storage.

———————————————————-
“Or are you postulating that the body will somehow store fat while BMR needs aren’t being met?”

“Given the body’s optimization for survival that wouldn’t make a ton of sense – you don’t put money in the stock market when you can’t pay your rent. ”
———————————————————-

Oddly enough, the body *does*, in fact, do just exactly that. Low-calorie, low-fat diets are notorious for causing the body to shed not just fat, but also lean body mass.

In a hypocaloric, hyperinsulemic, protein-deficit environment, it seems the body will happily convert carbohydrate for fat storage while at the same time atrophying lean muscle mass in order to account for the dietary deficit.

———————————————————-
“It’s been done, time and again. The studies are examined, methodologies pointed out, and the data has been fitted into the greater context of biology and physics.
———————————————————-

If true, then you should have no problem whatsoever citing the myriad studies to which you appeal. As I said: prove it; cite the studies.

———————————————————–
Each time, the goalposts are moved, thermodynamics is misrepresented and misapplied, and we end up right back here with teh proposition that insulin creates energy/mass from nothing – and that energy isn’t energy.”
———————————————————–

What goalposts have moved?
How are thermodynamics misrepresented and/or misapplied?
Where is the proposition that insulin creates energy/mass from nothing?
Where is the proposition that energy isn’t energy?

@Frank:

———————————————————–
“Unfortunately, the fallacy is used because rational arguments with the fanatics are not worthwhile.”
———————————————————–

Unfortunately, any use of ad hominem is inappropriate. Use of ad hominem in defense of the use of ad hominem is even more inappropriate. (It would seem that you and McDonald share in common this penchant.)

———————————————————–
“A calorie is a calorie does not violate thermodynamics in any way, sense or form.”
———————————————————–

Repeating an assertion is not a proper defense. I’ve explained and supported the counter-argument; however, I’ve not seen a defense of the assertion.

————————————————————
“so any results you have achieved are solely because of insulin. Can you give some evidence in the way of physiological measurements?”
————————————————————

Are you intentionally mis-representing our position? Jimmy’s results are not “because of” insulin, but rather his results were made possible through the *reduction* of insulin.

————————————————————
“Science cannot prove, claiming it does would just highlight your misunderstanding of the subject and any claims about it.”
————————————————————

An irrelevant and selectively applied assertion. You seem to accept McDonald’s assertions of whatever he claims has been “proven” by science, yet afford Jimmy no similar consideration.

@cc:

Oh, another drive-by comment.

Yes, in fact, I am familiar with ASP. Your point?

@cc:

Sorry, this isn’t Lyle McDonald’s forum. Ad hominem is generally not acceptable here, and certainly isn’t considered a cogent argument.

Thanks for playing; please try again.

THANKS for sharing your comments, Frank. It’s obvious you do not believe in the insulin connection to obesity and disease, so this discussion is irrelevant to you. If you don’t believe this basic metabolic truth which has been borne out of study after published study, then there are plenty of other blogs and sites out there that will validate what you want to hear. In the meantime, I’ll keep sharing the facts with my readers.

—

Nice strawman, so typical of the low carb crowd. Strange how you complain when the low fat crowd does the same…

I certainly wouldn’t describe Gary Taubes’ book as a “joke.” The man did his due diligence in researching the studies and his book will stand the test of time.
—

I didnt realise that consitent truth stretching, manipulating academic comments and blatant bias was doing his ‘due dilligence’.
He may impress rubes with his talk, but unfortunately when put under greater scrutiny from actual scientific critique, its a different story

For an intelligent discussion of ASP read this post: http://sparkofreason.blogspot.com/2008/06/swift-kick-in-asp.html
—
How is a blog that barely touches on ASP, asides from mild dismissing and ignorance of the work behind the protein, actually involve intellegent discussion of ASP?

Acylation Stimulating Protein (ASP) is a small (mol wt 14,000), basic (pI 9.0) protein present in human plasma. When examined in vitro with normal human cultured skin fibroblasts and adipocytes, ASP appears to be the most potent stimulant of triglyceride synthesis yet described. In this study, a competitive ELISA assay for ASP has been developed using immunospecific polyclonal antibodies, and ASP levels have been measured in seven normal subjects. Following an oral fat load, a sustained significant increase in ASP occurs, whereas after an oral glucose load, ASP levels do not change significantly. These responses are entirely opposite to those of insulin, which rises sharply but transiently after an oral glucose load but is unchanged after an oral fat load. Both the fasting and peak ASP levels were significantly related to the postprandial lipemia. These data provide the first in vivo evidence that Acylation Stimulating Protein may play an important physiological role in the normal response to an oral fat load.

J Lipid Res. 1989 Nov;30(11):1727-33

Personally, I still have not seen any research on ASP by the ASP crowd. Lets have some links please.

—

http://www.pubmed.com

by searching for ASP on this, you would have done more than that link you provided

If you’re qualified enough to say the research is shoddy, then you’re qualified enough to analyze it on your own.

So what’s the problem?

Mike H:

Funny.

Believe it or not, most of us actually *do* have lives outside of the blogosphere. Mine includes work and, more importantly, a young family with whom I much prefer spending time.

I’ve been lurking for several days, but haven’t had time to continue the conversation in a manner worthy of the effort put in by those to whom I am responding.

Nevertheless, a response is coming.

It’s hard to know where to begin here. I see a lot of different things going on in this discussion so I’ll try and be as relevant and ephemeral as possible – given the depth and breadth of the topic. I do this knowing I am probably wasting my time, as people in the Taubes bandwagon have already made up their minds and are clearly not interested in any scientific opinion that says otherwise. I apologize in advance for peeing on your sacred cow.

Like I mentioned, I have nothing to gain by bashing Taubes or aggrandizing Lyle (or defending him – he doesn’t need me, trust me). I do find myself amused at the irony going on here.

For example, Chip calling Lyle’s ideas “myopic”. To me, implicating one hormone as the sole contributor to obesity is the very definition of myopic. Making a blanket statement that exercise doesn’t cause fat loss (no qualification of type, frequency, intensity, duration, situation) is myopic.

What I understand from the pro-Taubes responders… Lyle’s position is different from Taubes’ (and thus the collective opinions of this community) and hence Lyle is narrow minded. To be clear, Lyle isn’t in any way anti-low carb (nor am I), Lyle is anti-extreme and anti-single-mindedness. He gets flack from the extremes of dietary worlds. Lyle prescribes low carb eating when appropriate in addition to using a variety of cutting edge and scientifically-valid dietary approaches – some of which don’t fit the scope of what Taubes, Atkins and others hold so dear.

It is perplexing to me that people will just jump on Taubes’ theories and completely ignore a body of evidence that contradicts him. And because Chip likes to play the “fallacy card”, here’s 3 for you.

1. The already mentioned “appeal to authority” (Taubes said it, Taubes is an authority in the low carb world).
2. Proof by verbosity: (Taubes wrote a heavy book with lots of big words and references and not a lot of pictures so everything in there is true. And perhaps the most obvious fallacy; the alluded to…
3. Confirmation bias. It seems people have already made up their minds that insulin causes obesity, ergo carbs and only carbs cause obesity. GCBC simply acted as an authentication of what you already were convinced was true.

To be sure, Taubes plays on this. He is telling people what they want to hear (it’s not your fault you’re fat, exercise won’t help, etc.). It’s an effective tool to gain your trust. In his defence, he probably really believes this, so I’m not suggesting that he’s deceiving you on purpose.

The only fallacy Taubes-ists here have managed to point to is the ad hominem one. It is nice and convenient to be able to use this as smokecreen (another fallacy, this one the “red herring”) to divert the attention away from the counterpoints of Taubes’ theories. I guess Chip, Russell and Sherri are hoping that if they point out Lyle’s unsavoury language and bombast loud enough, we will somehow forget that Lyle’s rebuttal to Taubes’ theories actually has legs.

Bottom line, I don’t think the weight of evidence supports a singular cause for obesity (insulin), nor does it support that the right type of exercise is of no use. Here’s some science…

@Mike H:

“In all seriousness, this is the most intelligent interview Jimmy has ever conducted. Period. It’s funny to see the reaction of Taubes worshippers gasp in horror when Lyle says something not-so-nice about Taubes. I guess, though if people focus enough on his uncouth language, we may actually forget about the fact that Lyle has successfully contradicted Taubes’ blanket statement-ry.”

Please, explain. How did McDonald “successfully [contradict] Taubes’ blanket statement-ry.” (And, please say you have something more than the HCLF/LCHF IR/IS patient study McDonald references.)

@Kevin:

————————————————————————————————–
“I don’t think anyone is claiming that the existence of insulin *always* results in fat storage.”

*** Umm, Chip – fat can be and is stored independently of insulin. That’s why ASP is relevant.”

ASP *may* or *may not* be relevant. The research is nowhere near conclusive on how or even if ASP stores fat in vivo.

I’ll gladly revisit and revise my statements should future research necessitate such revision.

————————————————————————————————–
“Oddly enough, the body *does*, in fact, do just exactly that. Low-calorie, low-fat diets are notorious for causing the body to shed not just fat, but also lean body mass.”

*** What does that have to do with anything? The point is that you’re making the claim that insulin will store fat even in a deficit.

Which, btw, is where my earlier point of high-protein diets, vs. simply “low-carb” diets, takes on relevance.

If you’re losing fat in a deficit, even if it’s not optimal loss, then your entire point about insulin equaling fat storage is flawed. You admit this, so why the argument?”

I have never once argued that “insulin equals fat storage”.

————————————————————————————————–
Point of order: you can feed starving kids in Africa 500 calories of grains and they will still not be fat. Why is this? They’re certianly spiking insulin with those feedings, and yet, obesity is nowhere to be found.

Arguing over the *optimal* conditions, that’s an entirely different matter requiring a discussion of nutrient intakes – not energy intakes, per se.

“In a hypocaloric, hyperinsulemic, protein-deficit environment, it seems the body will happily convert carbohydrate for fat storage while at the same time atrophying lean muscle mass in order to account for the dietary deficit.”

*** Why are there no fat starving Africans? Why were there no fat Auschwitz survivors?”

Wow, talk about red herrings…

“Hypocaloric” does *not* necessarily equate to “starving”.

————————————————————————————————–
“Come on now. Insulin isn’t a get-out-of-thermodynamics free card.”

Again, the body – and in particular for this discussion, the metabolic system – is *not* a closed system. The First Law only applies to closed systems.

If I may quote from someone else earlier in the discussion: “since it seems so many people have problems understanding it, it obviously bears repetition.”

Thanks, Jimmy! I didn’t think you had deleted them… just figured they got held. How long would a post typically be held for?

Until the next time I log on to my computer. This week was kinda hectic for me because Christine had surgery and was in the hospital a couple of days. I was in and out.

–Jimmy

Chip says;
“Exercise” does not cause fat loss. Resistance training builds muscle mass, and both the recovery mechanisms that result from such training, as well as the increased metabolic needs of the resulting increased muscle mass, both cause fat loss. Resistance training (in the absence of a carb load) releases HGH, that causes fat loss. But, I stand by my assertion that “exercise” does not cause fat loss.
My response:
Chip – have you considered a career in politics? I marvel at your acumen for spin. So according to you, exercise DOES cause fat loss – thank you for agreeing with me. (the fact that resistance training would escape your definition of “exercise” is puzzling). I’ll assume than that either you;
a) Agree with me that Taubes’ stance on exercise is elusive and incomplete. or
b) You agree with Taubes as you share an equally muddled and obfuscated view of “exercise”.
So, Chippy – what IS your definition of *exercise* exactly? Cardio? Which kind? What intensity? These all matter when it comes to fat loss.
Chip says;
Understand: *our* definition of “low-carb” is that espoused by Dr. Atkins, Drs. Eades, Taubes, etc. – that is, a truly ketogenic diet that may vary from 30-50 (or so) g carb per day during weight loss, but likely will not exceed 100g carb per day in maintenance.
Thank you for the clarification. I don’t pretend to know every detail about what Lyle recommends under every circumstance; however he does mention that under certain conditions he will have clients eliminate just about all carbs. In fact, his first book is entitled “The Ketogenic Diet”. It seems you aren’t very familiar with Lyle’s exact stance on “low carb”. It sounds as though you’ve skimmed through his website, saw him make a derogatory remark about one of your heroes and you were immediately repulsed and made up your mind about the totality of his body of work.
It appears as though you are rankled by the fact that he doesn’t blindingly and baselessly recommend a very low carb diet for everyone under every circumstance. He certainly disagrees with those who do. That, Chipper, is called responsible programming.
Chip says;
Are you arguing that insulin does *not* cause obesity? Are you arguing against the claim that the fat-storage mechanism of insulin is not well-documented and well-known? What exactly is your argument here?
I’m arguing that insulin is not nearly as much of a factor as Taubes and his ilk present it to be when it comes to fat loss. My argument is that calories DO matter (not saying they are the only factor, but they are VERY important) – a fact that Eades actually finally admitted to. I haven’t seen any convincing data to lead me to believe in the metabolic advantage that Eades, Atkins and Taubes seem to have bought into, and to an extent, made a career out of. I posted studies that demonstrated insulin to be a little-to-non-factor in clinical trials. Alas, my post is stuck in moderation purgatory.
You, on the other hand, Chipndale, have not produced any studies, instead relying on your “authority” Taubes and his cherry-picked data.
In terms of “preponderance of evidence”, Taubes indeed does possess this…when it comes to the lipid hypothesis. The evidence on his insulin hypothesis is far from a slam dunk and his exercise-doesn’t-do-jack for fat loss is laughable. Of course we’ve established that you already agree with the latter.

Insofar as Taubes’ theory that exercise makes you hungry? He has chosen to ignore a large number of studies that have shown otherwise. To be clear, some people do get hungry after they exercise, but it depends on how you mange that hunger. If you go out and pound a burger, fries and a blizzard after a run, than no, exercise will not help you. But Taubes must have missed these studies on exercise and appetite;

Blundell JE, cross talk between physical activity and appetite control: does physical activity stimulate appetite? Proc Nutr Soc, 62, 651-661. 2003
Donahoo WT, Variability in energy expenditure and its components. Curr Op Clin Nutr Metab. 7: 599-605. 2004.
King NA, et al, Individual variability following 12 weeks of supervised exercise: Identification and characterization of compensation for exercise-induced weight loss. Int J Obes, 32, 177-184, 2008.
King NA, effects of exercise on appetite control: Implications for energy balance. Med Sci Sport Exer, 29(8): 1076-1089. 1997
King, NA, The relationship between physical activity and food intake. 57: 77-84. 1998.
Lluch A, Exercise enhances palatability of food, but does not increase food consumption, in lean restrained females. Int J Obes, 21: supp a129.Melzer K., effects of physical activity on food intake. Clin Nutr, 24: 885-895. 2005
Slentz CA. Effects of the amount of exercise on body weight, body composition, and measures of central obesity. Arch Intern Med. 164: 31-39. 2004
Titchenal A., Exercise and Food Intake: what is the relationship? Sports Med, 6: 135-145. 1988
Yoshioka M, Impact of high-intensity exercise on energy expenditure, lipid oxidation and body fatness. Int J Obes. 25, 332-339. 2001

So, Chip-sy; In terms of “calories don’t matter”, and this magical “metabolic advantage, please provide me with substantial evidence in tightly controlled studies that show an isocaloric, low carb diet is superior (where hydration flux and glycogen loss are controlled for). Here are some metabolic ward studies that show NO SUPERIORITY of low carb diets. If you can find studies that match the level of control of these diets, than I’m all ears (hint: It doesn’t get much better than metabolic ward studies when it comes to control).

Golay A, et al. Similar weight loss with low- or highcarbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Feb, 1996; 63 (2): 174-178.
Stimson RH, et al. Dietary Macronutrient Content Alters
Cortisol Metabolism Independently of Body Weight Changes in Obese Men. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism,
Grey N, Kipnis DM. Effect of diet composition on the
hyperinsulinemia of obesity. New England Journal of Medicine, Oct 7, 1971; 285 (15): 827-831.

These are some of the more recent ones, but there have been several over the years, as far back as the mid-30’s that (with very scant exception) show no metabolic advantage of low carb diets. Here are some more from the past 30 years;

Bogardus et al 1981
Hoffer et al 1984
Baggio et al 1988
Brinton et al 1990
Leibel et al 1992
Vazquez, (1992,’94,’95)
Piatti et al 1994

Now, Chip – in case you are going to throw some free living studies and use them as evidence, might I remind you of something that Taubes again cleverly glosses over…. Fat people lie – at least when it comes to how much food they eat. I did post some studies on this with links (again, they are being held) but I’ll post them here without links and you can look them up if you so desire. Essentially, obese people underestimate how much food they eat – by as much as 47% in some cases.

Johnson, Goran. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1994
RR Briefel, CT Sempos, MA McDowell, S Chien and K Alaimo. AJCN, 1997
Price, Paul, Cole, Wadsworth. British Journal of Nutrition. 1997
L Johansson, K Solvoll, GE Bjorneboe and CA Drevon. AJCN, 1997

Again, Chip – if you can produce studies that counter these (of superior design quality) please post away.
Let it be known again that I am not against low carb.

I think a lower carb diet can be very effective for helping people eat less by staving off hunger. But based on the weight of evidence, it seems that setting protein levels optimally and getting enough essential fatty acids is of prime importance. Individual physiology and genetic propensity certainly factor in here, but when these factors are in place, macro composition doesn’t much matter – so long as you can keep in a deficit. If you have any studies that counter this theory, again – post away.

Hi Chip! I was just trying to take a more casual tone (re: the name) please don’t take offense.

Your definition of exercise is VERY relevant, as is Taubes’. Perhaps your definition isn’t AS relevant as you haven’t written a big book that makes blanket and misleading statements.

You point out correctly that resistance training IS effective in burning fat, but you continue to skirt the issue – which is that Taubes makes no such distinction. It just further emphasizes your bias in that you are unwilling to admit fallibility in Taubes’ theories.

Other forms of complementary training (HIIT) and other more intense bouts of cardiorespiratory based *exercise are also helpful in the pursuit of fat loss.

Fred Hahn has the occasional spark of good sense mixed in with an overwhelming swarm of misguided drivel. I have thoroughly debunked his nonsensical blanket statements that he has make regarding exercise. I provided studies and he refused to – demanding that I prove something that I didn’t disagree with in the first place.

No wonder Taubes doesn’t think exercise helps you lose fat!

He too, eventually agreed with me (although in a way that made it sound like he never disagreed in the first place).

Fred’s stances on exercise range from mildly curious to outright flummoxing. He’ll make a series of blanket statements and then dance around the issue or skirt it altogether when challenged for evidence.

I have engaged in discussion on his blog and provided contrary evidence and Fred couldn’t counter with anything.

A few examples of some of Fred’s sound bites from his blog: (I’m paraphrasing here)

Marathon running is like smoking 10,000 cigarettes.
You should “cool down” rather than “warm up” prior to exercise (he stragely relates increasing body temperature though warming up to a fever here).
You have only a certain amount of heart beats in your life, don’t waste them on cardio
Too much joint movement (regarless of how and under what circumstance) will cause joint wear (no mention of predisposing factors, type of training, etc)
Weight training alone is as good if not better than a combination of cardio and resistance training together (all things equal with diet) for fat loss.

These are just a few examples off the top of my head., but this type of blatant stupidity is fairly common on his blog.

He seems stuck on a narrow-minded fitness philosophy and that’s the “truth” to him, despite other philosophies that have a great deal of evidence.

Here is another review of ASP.

http://entropyproduction.blogspot.com/2009/03/acylation-stimulating-protein-asp.html

“Did we just take this journey through Cianflone’s research to prove that acylation-stimulating protein, the primary effector of the uptake of fatty acids into fat tissue, is regulated by insulin!?!”