HAES is dying, and Carnivores are scared of sugar
Published 9.16.2025: I'm going to interrupt my recapping of the Plant Based Anti-Cancer summit to discuss two topics, which by the time this is published will be ancient history. And yet, I feel like I want to opine about it, and so I will.
I have announced the death of the Health at Every Size (HAES, pronounced hays) previously. And that piece said it all pretty much. So why revisit it? Because a skinny dietitian from Canada who was a big HAES supporter basically announced that she no longer believes it on her YouTube channel. I'm not going to link to it, but if you go YouTube and search for Abbey Sharp and rebrand, you will find it— along with a LOT of reactions to it.
I stopped watching Abbey Sharp's content years ago when she drank the HAES Kool-Aid. I never thought HAES was science based, and couldn't tolerate a medical professional who tried to insist that it was. Excess weight matters to health, period. Certainly everyone should be treated with respect, but denying reality helps no one.
Sharp is attempting to rebrand herself, because HAES nonsense is no longer getting the views. I think the new weight loss drugs (glucagon-like peptide 1 or GLP-1) are part of the what killed HAES. Because many people got prescribed them, first for diabetes and then for the "disease" of obesity, and discovered that their health improved when they lost weight. Even if they were still fat, and many were. For many people for whom the drugs work, they tend to quiet the "food noise"— which I will admit I have no experience with.
I think that HAES also suffered because the researcher who created HAES and gave it the backing of a professional, was unceremoniously dumped. The movement never recovered from that loss. And her reputation amongst fat people (in and out of HAES) took a hit. Bacon is no longer seen as an expert, but rather as a researcher with a dodgy past. I don't know if the woman who took Bacon down intended it (my guess is that she did) but down did she take Bacon.
I have announced the death of the Health at Every Size (HAES, pronounced hays) previously. And that piece said it all pretty much. So why revisit it? Because a skinny dietitian from Canada who was a big HAES supporter basically announced that she no longer believes it on her YouTube channel. I'm not going to link to it, but if you go YouTube and search for Abbey Sharp and rebrand, you will find it— along with a LOT of reactions to it.
I stopped watching Abbey Sharp's content years ago when she drank the HAES Kool-Aid. I never thought HAES was science based, and couldn't tolerate a medical professional who tried to insist that it was. Excess weight matters to health, period. Certainly everyone should be treated with respect, but denying reality helps no one.
Sharp is attempting to rebrand herself, because HAES nonsense is no longer getting the views. I think the new weight loss drugs (glucagon-like peptide 1 or GLP-1) are part of the what killed HAES. Because many people got prescribed them, first for diabetes and then for the "disease" of obesity, and discovered that their health improved when they lost weight. Even if they were still fat, and many were. For many people for whom the drugs work, they tend to quiet the "food noise"— which I will admit I have no experience with.
I think that HAES also suffered because the researcher who created HAES and gave it the backing of a professional, was unceremoniously dumped. The movement never recovered from that loss. And her reputation amongst fat people (in and out of HAES) took a hit. Bacon is no longer seen as an expert, but rather as a researcher with a dodgy past. I don't know if the woman who took Bacon down intended it (my guess is that she did) but down did she take Bacon.
The Sugar Diet
The second topic I want to discuss is the Sugar Diet, which is pretty much exactly that— people eating high carbohydrates and simple sugar. The surprise is who is following that diet and (presumably) having success. The people jumping on the Sugar Diet are former carnivore dieters. And the carnivore powers that be (the doctors, etc who have created the sciencey reasons for the success of that diet) are losing their shit. I don't follow that world very closely, as I think the carnivore diet (or lion diet or any of the other iterations) are stupid. Humans are not carnivores.
Anyway, apparently some people are eating a high carbohydrate, low fat diet and are in fact, leaning out — and having decent blood marker results, despite the carnivore doctor predictions. And the reactions and predictions have been flying in from "carnivores" all over the web. It's a bit amusing to see, actually.
None of which is to say that I think ingesting pure sugar (and some of these people do just that) is a wise idea, but frankly, eating a high carbohydrate, low fat diet is one way to see success. If you can adhere to it. It all comes down to adherence. Eating only sugar strikes me of not being a long term option— but then for me, eating a low carbohydrate diet was not a long term solution… and "carnivore" is right out.
I think I had more in mind to say on these two topics when I created this file, but that's all for now. If I think more, I'll revisit.
Anyway, apparently some people are eating a high carbohydrate, low fat diet and are in fact, leaning out — and having decent blood marker results, despite the carnivore doctor predictions. And the reactions and predictions have been flying in from "carnivores" all over the web. It's a bit amusing to see, actually.
None of which is to say that I think ingesting pure sugar (and some of these people do just that) is a wise idea, but frankly, eating a high carbohydrate, low fat diet is one way to see success. If you can adhere to it. It all comes down to adherence. Eating only sugar strikes me of not being a long term option— but then for me, eating a low carbohydrate diet was not a long term solution… and "carnivore" is right out.
I think I had more in mind to say on these two topics when I created this file, but that's all for now. If I think more, I'll revisit.
My thoughts on Dean Ornish, at last
Published 9.9.2025: I have listened to Dean Ornish, MD speak for years, and I don't think I've ever opined about him… or at least not recently. Ornish of course, was one of the earliest vegans to claim that the diet could reverse heart disease. Of course, his intervention was not limited to the diet, and so people dismissed his results. That hasn't stopped him from researching or spreading his message, but it has limited his effect in the grifter set.
One way Ornish is different from other doctors, is that he has worked to get his program approved by Medicare and insurance companies, which means his way of treatment would be paid for. It takes time to do this, and if your primary purpose is how much money you can make, you don't go this route.
On this day, his focus is on prostate cancer— which he's researched and found is helped by eating more plants. In addition, he doesn't only focus on changing the diet. Ornish is explaining why he changes so much at one time… even if you can’t say what caused it. So he, AGAIN, is saying you have to do it with your doctor… and he is saying that some cancer patients need treatment.
Ornish, like Fuhrman, thinks that heart disease, cancer and dementia all share the same root cause. So he likely WOULD recommend specific foods. Valter Longo is hamstrung by data… humans have lived longest by not eating a vegan diet, they’ve eaten an all-but vegan diet, but not vegan. Longo shared the story about the oldest women then alive ate raw eggs in her final months, because her doctor was worried that otherwise she wouldn’t get the nutrients she needed.
Read the rest.
One way Ornish is different from other doctors, is that he has worked to get his program approved by Medicare and insurance companies, which means his way of treatment would be paid for. It takes time to do this, and if your primary purpose is how much money you can make, you don't go this route.
On this day, his focus is on prostate cancer— which he's researched and found is helped by eating more plants. In addition, he doesn't only focus on changing the diet. Ornish is explaining why he changes so much at one time… even if you can’t say what caused it. So he, AGAIN, is saying you have to do it with your doctor… and he is saying that some cancer patients need treatment.
Ornish, like Fuhrman, thinks that heart disease, cancer and dementia all share the same root cause. So he likely WOULD recommend specific foods. Valter Longo is hamstrung by data… humans have lived longest by not eating a vegan diet, they’ve eaten an all-but vegan diet, but not vegan. Longo shared the story about the oldest women then alive ate raw eggs in her final months, because her doctor was worried that otherwise she wouldn’t get the nutrients she needed.
Read the rest.
Improving Cancer Treament with Fasting
Published 9.2.2025: In this piece, I'm going to discuss the presentations by Valter Longo, Ph.D. (he apparently does not have an MD, I thought he did) and Joseph Antoun, MD PhD MPP. Antoun also spoke at the Heart Disease Seminar, and at that his company (Long's company) had a commercial. I didn't cover Antoun's presentation— but I will cover it here.
Both men are discussing the Fast Mimicking Diet, which Longo created, it's also known — or based on — as the Longevity Diet. Longo (and presumably Antoun) are not vegan. They do not buy into the Fuhrman line that vegetables only are required to be ingested to create the healthiest diet. Longo, indeed, points to the Blue Zone diets (especially the one in Sardinia, because he's Italian). Even after being asked point blank at least twice by Fuhrman. Fuhrman doesn't like his answer, and the interview ends soon afterward. Fuhrman's schtick, for those who haven't read here before, is based on calorie restriction with nutrient sufficiency and is vegan.
Longo's research began with calorie restriction too— though inadvertently. He was a student of Roy Walford, he of Biosphere 2 fame. Biosphere 2 was a circa 1990's experiment, that was supposed to show how humans locked away (such as during a space voyage) could maintain and provide for themselves. What it became (the experiment was an abject failure) was an impromptu study in calorie restriction and the effects on human health. Further discussion on the Biosphere 2 is beyond the scope of this piece, but the participants in the experiment lost a ton of weight and were generally miserable. As Walford and the others emerged, Longo wondered if the health benefits (because there were health benefits) could be achieved without making participants miserable.
Read the rest.
Both men are discussing the Fast Mimicking Diet, which Longo created, it's also known — or based on — as the Longevity Diet. Longo (and presumably Antoun) are not vegan. They do not buy into the Fuhrman line that vegetables only are required to be ingested to create the healthiest diet. Longo, indeed, points to the Blue Zone diets (especially the one in Sardinia, because he's Italian). Even after being asked point blank at least twice by Fuhrman. Fuhrman doesn't like his answer, and the interview ends soon afterward. Fuhrman's schtick, for those who haven't read here before, is based on calorie restriction with nutrient sufficiency and is vegan.
Longo's research began with calorie restriction too— though inadvertently. He was a student of Roy Walford, he of Biosphere 2 fame. Biosphere 2 was a circa 1990's experiment, that was supposed to show how humans locked away (such as during a space voyage) could maintain and provide for themselves. What it became (the experiment was an abject failure) was an impromptu study in calorie restriction and the effects on human health. Further discussion on the Biosphere 2 is beyond the scope of this piece, but the participants in the experiment lost a ton of weight and were generally miserable. As Walford and the others emerged, Longo wondered if the health benefits (because there were health benefits) could be achieved without making participants miserable.
Read the rest.
Plant Based ANTI Cancer Seminar
Published 8.26.2025: After the heart health seminar debacle, I wasn't sure that I would ever listened to one again. However, then Dr Fuhrman decided to host a plant based anti-cancer one. Spoiler alert, the recommendation is to eat more plants… but not plant exclusive from all participants.
Fuhrman doesn't tend to do his own research, instead he reads the work of others. He was the sole host of this seminar, and he both presented first on 4 of the 5 days (basically he broke one presentation into 4 parts) and interviewed all the participants. I didn't listen to any of the non-medical doctor interviewees, nor did a listen to any of the commercials. All of which were clearly marked as commercials, and all of which touted some product or other of Dr Fuhrman's.
Still, all in all, a much better seminar where I learned a few things. It's possible that I just know less about cancer treatments and that's why I stayed interested, but it's also possible that Fuhrman came to the seminar with a bad taste in his mouth after the heart one (based on comments he made elsewhere) and was determined to make the cancer one better.
Read the rest.
Fuhrman doesn't tend to do his own research, instead he reads the work of others. He was the sole host of this seminar, and he both presented first on 4 of the 5 days (basically he broke one presentation into 4 parts) and interviewed all the participants. I didn't listen to any of the non-medical doctor interviewees, nor did a listen to any of the commercials. All of which were clearly marked as commercials, and all of which touted some product or other of Dr Fuhrman's.
Still, all in all, a much better seminar where I learned a few things. It's possible that I just know less about cancer treatments and that's why I stayed interested, but it's also possible that Fuhrman came to the seminar with a bad taste in his mouth after the heart one (based on comments he made elsewhere) and was determined to make the cancer one better.
Read the rest.
Reversing Heart Disease… or a Commerical?
Published 8.19.2025: I listened to a second vegan seminar after The Truth About Weight Loss. It was entitled Reversing Heart Disease. However, unlike the first seminar, it was basically a commercial for products and services offered by various presenters. I didn't realize that at first. The seminar didn't permit you to copy slides and mostly I had to take notes.
I began doing that… when I realized that several of the presentations were just glorified commercials. This was a new to me. I've never voluntarily chosen to sit (there is no charge) in a seminar that's a commercial. The end result is that I will cover the seminar in this single post. I will not report on the commercials, and I will probably give short shrift to the other presentations. Bottom line: to reverse heart disease, EAT MORE PLANTS. There I saved you untold minutes.
Dr Joel Kahn, who is a vegan cardiologist, was the host. Apparently Dr Kahn is looking to increase his patient load. He had a non-doctor cohost, well a non-MD cohost, whom I'm not going to introduce, nor am I going to recap her presentation. Kahn claims that heart disease is never cured, you can only mitigate it with lifestyle change. That actually fits with my observation about people with cardiologists… once you darken their door, you are never free of them.
Read the rest.
I began doing that… when I realized that several of the presentations were just glorified commercials. This was a new to me. I've never voluntarily chosen to sit (there is no charge) in a seminar that's a commercial. The end result is that I will cover the seminar in this single post. I will not report on the commercials, and I will probably give short shrift to the other presentations. Bottom line: to reverse heart disease, EAT MORE PLANTS. There I saved you untold minutes.
Dr Joel Kahn, who is a vegan cardiologist, was the host. Apparently Dr Kahn is looking to increase his patient load. He had a non-doctor cohost, well a non-MD cohost, whom I'm not going to introduce, nor am I going to recap her presentation. Kahn claims that heart disease is never cured, you can only mitigate it with lifestyle change. That actually fits with my observation about people with cardiologists… once you darken their door, you are never free of them.
Read the rest.
Vegans Getting Cancer
Published 8.12.2025: Several prominent vegans have recently announced their cancer diagnoses or other health problems. They have not given up their vegan diets (in the two most recent examples that I am thinking of they are whole food plant based and mostly salt, oil, and sugar free (SOS free)), but they are admitting that simply eating a vegan diet does not convey everlasting health. Which I find interesting, which is why it's a topic here.
I actually think it's a healthy development, because the reality is that everyone dies (no one gets out alive) however they eat. A vegan diet doesn't convey immortality. I think it's interesting because there are so many versions of the vegan diet out there, and they are not all equally protective of long term health.
I have a bias here… the vegan diet is, by design, an unbalanced diet. There are simply nutrients that you cannot get from plants, and these imbalances get worse with age. a young body will make what it needs (with the exception of B12) from food. Older, and by definition, less healthy bodies will not. As you age it matters what you put into your pie hole.
Dr Fuhrman is going to host a plant based seminar (may as well read that as vegan) about cancer. Chef AJ (who was diagnosed with lung cancer, which she did nothing about until it was stage 3) recently interviewed Dr Fuhrman about the seminar. One of the questions she asked him is, why do whole food plant based eaters still get cancer?
Read the rest.
I actually think it's a healthy development, because the reality is that everyone dies (no one gets out alive) however they eat. A vegan diet doesn't convey immortality. I think it's interesting because there are so many versions of the vegan diet out there, and they are not all equally protective of long term health.
I have a bias here… the vegan diet is, by design, an unbalanced diet. There are simply nutrients that you cannot get from plants, and these imbalances get worse with age. a young body will make what it needs (with the exception of B12) from food. Older, and by definition, less healthy bodies will not. As you age it matters what you put into your pie hole.
Dr Fuhrman is going to host a plant based seminar (may as well read that as vegan) about cancer. Chef AJ (who was diagnosed with lung cancer, which she did nothing about until it was stage 3) recently interviewed Dr Fuhrman about the seminar. One of the questions she asked him is, why do whole food plant based eaters still get cancer?
Read the rest.
Food Addiction, one last time
Published 8.5.2025: At long last, this is the final piece on the vegan seminar, "The Truth about Weight Loss." And fittingly, the topic for the final talk given by Dr Stephan Esser is food addiction. It's fitting because Chef AJ and most (all?) of the presenters believe in it. I have blown hot and cold on the topic throughout these write ups, but in the end, I have to say that I don't think food addiction is real. They have not convinced me.
I know that people think that food addiction is real, but I think the point that a binge is not an addiction is telling. Food is necessary for life; drugs are not, nor is alcohol. In any event, Esser plainly thinks that food addiction is real… and that hyper-palatable ultra processed food (HPUPF) are to blame.
And while I'll admit that the food industry has done everything in its power to create craveable foods… the one power it doesn't have is to force feed people the food they create. If you don't buy the foods, then you won't eat the foods. You will still be eating, you just won't be eating HPUPF. There isn't a chef in the world that doesn't try to make palatable foods— that's the job. A chef that doesn't create palatable meals isn't going to be a chef for long. All of which is to say that avoiding HPUPF does not guarantee that you will not be fat.
Esser spends a lot of time in this presentation making the case for why food addiction is real. He talks about the brain, and about how if you're bingeing (because in the end, that's what food addiction in) you shouldn't think that it's your fault or think that you are bad.
Read the rest.
I know that people think that food addiction is real, but I think the point that a binge is not an addiction is telling. Food is necessary for life; drugs are not, nor is alcohol. In any event, Esser plainly thinks that food addiction is real… and that hyper-palatable ultra processed food (HPUPF) are to blame.
And while I'll admit that the food industry has done everything in its power to create craveable foods… the one power it doesn't have is to force feed people the food they create. If you don't buy the foods, then you won't eat the foods. You will still be eating, you just won't be eating HPUPF. There isn't a chef in the world that doesn't try to make palatable foods— that's the job. A chef that doesn't create palatable meals isn't going to be a chef for long. All of which is to say that avoiding HPUPF does not guarantee that you will not be fat.
Esser spends a lot of time in this presentation making the case for why food addiction is real. He talks about the brain, and about how if you're bingeing (because in the end, that's what food addiction in) you shouldn't think that it's your fault or think that you are bad.
Read the rest.
Fruit and veg vs GLP-1s
Published 7.29.2025: At long last, I have reached the final day of the vegan seminar: The Truth about Weight Loss. On this day, Dr Neal Barnard was featured. I will be upfront about my bias here: I am not a Neal Barnard fan. I did (on the last day) finally figure out how to make the slides my full screen, which meant I was able to record them faster, which was a good thing, because Barnard speaks rapidly.
Aside: One of the "inspirational" talks was by Chuck Carroll, whose tagline is "The Weight Loss Champion." I did listen to all of that talk, though I took no notes. Carroll hosts a plant based podcast (The Exam Room) sponsored by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), which Barnard founded, I believe. Barnard is a frequent guest on the podcast. I started listening to that podcast after listening to his interview with AJ, and because of that, I think I know his story fairly clearly— because he brings it up regularly on the podcast.
Carroll is a big believer in food addiction, but the reality is that he was bingeing badly— but maybe that's the term people use to hide the fact that they're bingeing? (that thought is not unique to me, the YouTuber Graphically Alex makes that claim.) Alex does not believe in food addiction, but he did recover from binge eating disorder, and frankly Carroll's description of his fast food runs would be recognizable to him. So is it addiction, or binge eating disorder? Carroll had gastric bypass surgery, but put back on a lot of his weight afterward. He didn't go back to the drive through, but he was still (obviously) eating too much. Then he went whole food plant base, and the weight came off and stayed off. So is veganism (at least if you stay away from vegan processed foods) a way to keep bingeing but not gain weight?
Read the rest.
Aside: One of the "inspirational" talks was by Chuck Carroll, whose tagline is "The Weight Loss Champion." I did listen to all of that talk, though I took no notes. Carroll hosts a plant based podcast (The Exam Room) sponsored by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), which Barnard founded, I believe. Barnard is a frequent guest on the podcast. I started listening to that podcast after listening to his interview with AJ, and because of that, I think I know his story fairly clearly— because he brings it up regularly on the podcast.
Carroll is a big believer in food addiction, but the reality is that he was bingeing badly— but maybe that's the term people use to hide the fact that they're bingeing? (that thought is not unique to me, the YouTuber Graphically Alex makes that claim.) Alex does not believe in food addiction, but he did recover from binge eating disorder, and frankly Carroll's description of his fast food runs would be recognizable to him. So is it addiction, or binge eating disorder? Carroll had gastric bypass surgery, but put back on a lot of his weight afterward. He didn't go back to the drive through, but he was still (obviously) eating too much. Then he went whole food plant base, and the weight came off and stayed off. So is veganism (at least if you stay away from vegan processed foods) a way to keep bingeing but not gain weight?
Read the rest.
FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) is Survival Mode
Published 7.22.2025: Returning to the vegan seminar, "The Truth about Losing Weight," the next presentation is from the wife and husband team of Dr. Alona Pulde and Dr. Matthew Lederman. The title is "Chronic Stress and Food Addiction" but the title at the top comes from my notes.
In my notes, I have written that FOMO (defined in the title) is a "flight of fight" mode. It's not a relaxed state, it's a survival mode. I have never thought about it in those terms, so that was a new thought to me. I have very few notes on this talk (to be honest, I was wearing out at this point in the seminar, and the gentle reader will note that my write ups have gotten briefer and briefer…) I did save the slides to the presentation, and most of the comments that follow are from my late rereading of those slides.
They (although I think it was her making the presentation) begin by noting that most Americans don't sleep well, and don't wake up refreshed. I don't think that's a new observation (though I will go ahead and guess that the answer is to become vegan… or at least eat more plants). Which is not exactly an earth shattering prediction, as this is a vegan seminar.
Multitasking, they note, is bad (I've never been good at it) and causes the loss of sustained attention. Cell phones or portable phones have caused a rise in so-called multitasking— I say "so-called" because I really don't think that most people truly "multitask." What they do is focus sequentially on different tasks or topics, and don't do any of them well. At least in my experience.
Read the rest.
In my notes, I have written that FOMO (defined in the title) is a "flight of fight" mode. It's not a relaxed state, it's a survival mode. I have never thought about it in those terms, so that was a new thought to me. I have very few notes on this talk (to be honest, I was wearing out at this point in the seminar, and the gentle reader will note that my write ups have gotten briefer and briefer…) I did save the slides to the presentation, and most of the comments that follow are from my late rereading of those slides.
They (although I think it was her making the presentation) begin by noting that most Americans don't sleep well, and don't wake up refreshed. I don't think that's a new observation (though I will go ahead and guess that the answer is to become vegan… or at least eat more plants). Which is not exactly an earth shattering prediction, as this is a vegan seminar.
Multitasking, they note, is bad (I've never been good at it) and causes the loss of sustained attention. Cell phones or portable phones have caused a rise in so-called multitasking— I say "so-called" because I really don't think that most people truly "multitask." What they do is focus sequentially on different tasks or topics, and don't do any of them well. At least in my experience.
Read the rest.
Excercised - A review at last
Published 7.15.2025: Yes, I finally finished the book, Exercised by Daniel Lieberman. Actually I finished it in mid-May, but this is when the review made it into the pipeline. Bottom line: this book is worth reading.
Part of the reason I read this book was that I saw a talk and interview with him on the YouTube Channel Viva Longevity (formerly Plant Chompers), which has changed its focus from veganism to longevity, which tends to be supported by a whole foods plant based diet— though not necessarily veganism.
Anyway, Lieberman was the advisor of Herman Pontzer when he was at Harvard. In his book, Lieberman’s thesis is that humans did NOT evolve to exercise, and observing the Hazda proves this. The reason I started writing this though is that in part I of his book, Pontzer states that people with larger fat stores (westerners) use more energy to live BUT that the fat mass is not metabolically important. I am still stuck on this factoid, which seems to be universally accepted, but which I cannot square the circle about.
It doesn’t make any sense to me that fat plays no metabolic role. I do get why researchers normalize fat mass away, westerners don’t have less fat free mass than the Hazda, they just have a LOT more fat mass. I just don’t (can’t?) think the fat mass plays no role metabolically.
Fat mass DOES play a role, westerners expend a lot more energy to move than the much lighter Hazda, and I’m sure we have higher inflammation. Aren’t those metabolic? So, so confused…. Of course, it also makes sense that fat cells (full of stored energy) would not need the body to provide any further energy to them. Maybe that’s the reason?
Read the rest.
Part of the reason I read this book was that I saw a talk and interview with him on the YouTube Channel Viva Longevity (formerly Plant Chompers), which has changed its focus from veganism to longevity, which tends to be supported by a whole foods plant based diet— though not necessarily veganism.
Anyway, Lieberman was the advisor of Herman Pontzer when he was at Harvard. In his book, Lieberman’s thesis is that humans did NOT evolve to exercise, and observing the Hazda proves this. The reason I started writing this though is that in part I of his book, Pontzer states that people with larger fat stores (westerners) use more energy to live BUT that the fat mass is not metabolically important. I am still stuck on this factoid, which seems to be universally accepted, but which I cannot square the circle about.
It doesn’t make any sense to me that fat plays no metabolic role. I do get why researchers normalize fat mass away, westerners don’t have less fat free mass than the Hazda, they just have a LOT more fat mass. I just don’t (can’t?) think the fat mass plays no role metabolically.
Fat mass DOES play a role, westerners expend a lot more energy to move than the much lighter Hazda, and I’m sure we have higher inflammation. Aren’t those metabolic? So, so confused…. Of course, it also makes sense that fat cells (full of stored energy) would not need the body to provide any further energy to them. Maybe that’s the reason?
Read the rest.
As Always, the answer is, "Eat more plants."
Published 7.8.2025: Dr Michael Greger gave the next presentation from the vegan seminar, "The Truth about Weight Loss," and had no slides. He's written a new book about Glucagon-Like Peptide - 1 (GLP-1) drugs, so that's what he was there to talk up. Greger is king of the cherry pickers, so I am pre-skeptical of what he's about to present.
Supposedly, natural appetite suppressants and meal timing, supposedly as effective as drugs (MAN are these people terrified of GLP-1s) This is a short presentation, only 27 minutes long.
His other book about dieting, How Not to Diet, was written before the GLP-1 craze started (back when GLP-1s were only used to treat diabetes.)
Aside: I recently learned that a family member is being treated for type 2 diabetes with Monjauro (the Eli Lilly drug) in conjunction with Jardiance. I didn't even know that doctors combined therapies like that. The effect of the drug is that foods don't taste great, (it is, after all, an appetite suppressant) and my family member doesn't like that. So it's an open question as to how long he'll remain on the drug. His wife (my sister) thinks it's just a matter of time before he ignores the drug and eats through it. I didn't notice that he's lost any weight (though type 2 diabetics don't lose as much while on the drug). He does wear a continuous glucose monitor, which alarms when his blood glucose is above 250. Which seems stupid high to me, but treating diabetics is not easy, nor is lowering blood glucose levels to under 100. End aside.
Greger, to no one's surprise, is not a fan of the GLP-1 drugs. Apparently he's done a bunch of videos on them at he website nutritionfacts.org. Chances are this talk will just regurgitate the information in those videos (which I have not seen). He considers them a tool for people who don't want to address the real reason they are overeating.
Read the rest.
Supposedly, natural appetite suppressants and meal timing, supposedly as effective as drugs (MAN are these people terrified of GLP-1s) This is a short presentation, only 27 minutes long.
His other book about dieting, How Not to Diet, was written before the GLP-1 craze started (back when GLP-1s were only used to treat diabetes.)
Aside: I recently learned that a family member is being treated for type 2 diabetes with Monjauro (the Eli Lilly drug) in conjunction with Jardiance. I didn't even know that doctors combined therapies like that. The effect of the drug is that foods don't taste great, (it is, after all, an appetite suppressant) and my family member doesn't like that. So it's an open question as to how long he'll remain on the drug. His wife (my sister) thinks it's just a matter of time before he ignores the drug and eats through it. I didn't notice that he's lost any weight (though type 2 diabetics don't lose as much while on the drug). He does wear a continuous glucose monitor, which alarms when his blood glucose is above 250. Which seems stupid high to me, but treating diabetics is not easy, nor is lowering blood glucose levels to under 100. End aside.
Greger, to no one's surprise, is not a fan of the GLP-1 drugs. Apparently he's done a bunch of videos on them at he website nutritionfacts.org. Chances are this talk will just regurgitate the information in those videos (which I have not seen). He considers them a tool for people who don't want to address the real reason they are overeating.
Read the rest.
The issue is tryptophan?
Published 7.1.2025: The next presentation from the vegan seminar, "The Truth about Weight Loss," was given by Dr. Eric Walsh. I have very few notes from this talk, but they state that his topic was neurotransmitters, and it's all down to not enough tryptophan— hence the title.
I had very little time to watch this presentation, although I do have his slides. Not sure it makes much sense to synopsize something I don't really remember, and I have so few notes about. So I won't. But isn't tryptophan what you get from turkey? I thought that was the chemical that made people sleepy after eating a huge meal at Thanksgiving?
Per my notes, eating animals does not guarantee adequate tryptophan, and I don't think people eat turkey often (in the US anyways) besides Thanksgiving. And vegans wouldn't be eating turkey in any event. (Most vegans would consider Thanksgiving a day of mourning, given the number of animals killed for the day.)
Read the rest.
I had very little time to watch this presentation, although I do have his slides. Not sure it makes much sense to synopsize something I don't really remember, and I have so few notes about. So I won't. But isn't tryptophan what you get from turkey? I thought that was the chemical that made people sleepy after eating a huge meal at Thanksgiving?
Per my notes, eating animals does not guarantee adequate tryptophan, and I don't think people eat turkey often (in the US anyways) besides Thanksgiving. And vegans wouldn't be eating turkey in any event. (Most vegans would consider Thanksgiving a day of mourning, given the number of animals killed for the day.)
Read the rest.
Humans are not vegan
Published 6.24.2025: Dr Doug Lyle presented the next talk at the vegan seminar, "The Truth About Weight Loss." He did not use any slides, so this piece is based on the short set of notes that I took during his rather short talk. The title of his talk was, How Our Brains Are Wired and What We Can Learn from Ancestors.
He began by saying that human history began in the Kalahari. That's where we began, and modern humans should base their diet on the ancient peoples of the Kalahari, so far, so consistent with other vegan presentations.
But then… Dr Doug Lyle (VEGAN!!) admitted the truth: Humans are NOT vegan. Human history is not one of veganism— Indeed there has never been a human vegan society. That a VEGAN said this is HUGE (to me). I think my jaw hit the ground after he said that. No wonder his presentation was kept short…
Why did he say (admit) that? Because if people are to be persuaded to become vegans, vegans cannot lie about the human past. And the truth is that humans ate meat. Humans killed animals for food. For generations and from very early on. That is a FACT. I just never thought that I would hear an actual vegan admit that fact.
Another famous vegan, T Colin Campbell, for instance, published The China Study in which he found that populations eating less meat were healthier. He then extrapolated to 0% meat and asserted that a vegan diet was the healthiest. There are, there were no vegan populations or societies in China— a point Campbell was forced to admit in an interview with a British program (I'm sure that I wrote about it, but I cannot find it, hence there is no link to my writing, the link provided is Campbell's point of view).
Read the rest.
He began by saying that human history began in the Kalahari. That's where we began, and modern humans should base their diet on the ancient peoples of the Kalahari, so far, so consistent with other vegan presentations.
But then… Dr Doug Lyle (VEGAN!!) admitted the truth: Humans are NOT vegan. Human history is not one of veganism— Indeed there has never been a human vegan society. That a VEGAN said this is HUGE (to me). I think my jaw hit the ground after he said that. No wonder his presentation was kept short…
Why did he say (admit) that? Because if people are to be persuaded to become vegans, vegans cannot lie about the human past. And the truth is that humans ate meat. Humans killed animals for food. For generations and from very early on. That is a FACT. I just never thought that I would hear an actual vegan admit that fact.
Another famous vegan, T Colin Campbell, for instance, published The China Study in which he found that populations eating less meat were healthier. He then extrapolated to 0% meat and asserted that a vegan diet was the healthiest. There are, there were no vegan populations or societies in China— a point Campbell was forced to admit in an interview with a British program (I'm sure that I wrote about it, but I cannot find it, hence there is no link to my writing, the link provided is Campbell's point of view).
Read the rest.
Boosting Metabolism
Published 6.17.2025: This presentation, from the vegan seminar, "The Truth About Weight Loss," was given by Dr Hana Kahleovah. The only notes that I took is that she says it's better to eat in the morning and skip dinner rather than vice versa… Which is fine an all, but I also have her slides, so I'll give my impressions of those as well.
An aside: I will note for the record that during my latest 5:2 "fasting" diet phase, what I did was skip breakfast and lunch, then eat a normal dinner. I did lose weight, and my "fasting" days were Tuesdays and Thursdays, because those used to be days off in terms of my going to the gym. However, I have starting using those days for "cardio"— meaning that I walk/jog on those days. Fasting doesn't seem to be a good idea— but the reason I stopped following the 5:2 didn't have anything to do with that.
I have kept the weight I lost off, but I haven't lost any more since upping my fiber content over skipping meals twice a week. I think that (and I have hard evidence in the terms of data) that my body composition is changing, but at least so far the scale is not changing. The "cardio" days only started after the New Year, so we'll see in a few months where things stand. End of aside.
So this talk is going to be how many times a day should you eat and when should you eat. I already gave a way the spoiler, the evidence she's about to go through suggests that eating in the morning and fasting at night is the best option. It's the scientific versions of the old saw: Eat like a king in the morning; eat like a lord at lunch (or a prince, I might have the rank wrong); and eat like a pauper at dinner. That does not fit with my lifestyle, so it's really a nonstarter for me.
Read the rest.
An aside: I will note for the record that during my latest 5:2 "fasting" diet phase, what I did was skip breakfast and lunch, then eat a normal dinner. I did lose weight, and my "fasting" days were Tuesdays and Thursdays, because those used to be days off in terms of my going to the gym. However, I have starting using those days for "cardio"— meaning that I walk/jog on those days. Fasting doesn't seem to be a good idea— but the reason I stopped following the 5:2 didn't have anything to do with that.
I have kept the weight I lost off, but I haven't lost any more since upping my fiber content over skipping meals twice a week. I think that (and I have hard evidence in the terms of data) that my body composition is changing, but at least so far the scale is not changing. The "cardio" days only started after the New Year, so we'll see in a few months where things stand. End of aside.
So this talk is going to be how many times a day should you eat and when should you eat. I already gave a way the spoiler, the evidence she's about to go through suggests that eating in the morning and fasting at night is the best option. It's the scientific versions of the old saw: Eat like a king in the morning; eat like a lord at lunch (or a prince, I might have the rank wrong); and eat like a pauper at dinner. That does not fit with my lifestyle, so it's really a nonstarter for me.
Read the rest.
Western Diets are not better than any traditional diet
Published 6.10.2025: This article was sent to me by my husband… after having discussed how the Mediterranean Diet would again be the "number one" diet as chosen by dietitians in the annual US World Reports survey. Here they compared a "western diet" (read hyper-palatable ultra-processed foods or UPF diet) to a traditional African diet. And to no one surprise, the traditional African diet resulted in better blood markers.
All this means is that UPF diets that are hyper-palatable are terrible— is this news to anyone? The fact that hyper-palatable UPFs (HPUPF?) are displacing traditional diets is also not a surprise. HPUPFs are designed to be delicious and craveable, and super easy to cook. No traditional diet can match it on that level.
Add to that the very long shelf life of HPUPF, and you've get a diet for disaster on your hands. Marion Nestle blames the former head of General Electric for the change in food.
The African traditional diet is very different from the Mediterranean diet. but it still consists are whole foods cooked in traditional methods, such as boiling. There are a lot of stews and a lot of plants— just different plants than the traditional Mediterranean diet. Plantains, black beans, green vegetables, and brown rice are included in the diet. Interestingly, the researchers noted that the traditional diet is disappearing, but see above, that is not surprising.
Read the rest.
All this means is that UPF diets that are hyper-palatable are terrible— is this news to anyone? The fact that hyper-palatable UPFs (HPUPF?) are displacing traditional diets is also not a surprise. HPUPFs are designed to be delicious and craveable, and super easy to cook. No traditional diet can match it on that level.
Add to that the very long shelf life of HPUPF, and you've get a diet for disaster on your hands. Marion Nestle blames the former head of General Electric for the change in food.
The African traditional diet is very different from the Mediterranean diet. but it still consists are whole foods cooked in traditional methods, such as boiling. There are a lot of stews and a lot of plants— just different plants than the traditional Mediterranean diet. Plantains, black beans, green vegetables, and brown rice are included in the diet. Interestingly, the researchers noted that the traditional diet is disappearing, but see above, that is not surprising.
Read the rest.
Compassionate Weight Loss
Published 6.3.2025: The next presentation in the vegan seminar, "The Truth About Weight Loass," was from Dr. Frank Sabatino. His talk starts with obesity statistics that are likely familiar to most in this audience (these were US statistics, so international readers may not know them all. Basically, tons of US citizens are fat— very fat). Being very fat, he notes, increases disease risk— again, not a surprise.
Appetite control is complicated and based on a lot of internal and external signals. A lot of his talk mirrors what the guys at Mastering Diabetes say. "fat blocks sugar from entering the cell, so eating an oil free diet will help. I don't know.
To the Salt, Oil, and Sugar (SOS) he adds "crunch" — which is just an ultra-processed food (UPF) that is hyper-palatable. I have long been team "hyper-palatable" because my family members didn't get fat eating UPF, they got fat eating hyper-palatable foods cooked at home. No chef tries to make food unpalatable. You can't make UPF at your home— you CAN make hyper-palatable food.
As an aside: Kevin Hall is the researcher who found that people eating UPF vs non-UPF foods ate about 500 calories more of the UPF foods. However, when the menus (UPF and not) were matched for hyper-palatabilty — THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE.
Read the rest.
Appetite control is complicated and based on a lot of internal and external signals. A lot of his talk mirrors what the guys at Mastering Diabetes say. "fat blocks sugar from entering the cell, so eating an oil free diet will help. I don't know.
To the Salt, Oil, and Sugar (SOS) he adds "crunch" — which is just an ultra-processed food (UPF) that is hyper-palatable. I have long been team "hyper-palatable" because my family members didn't get fat eating UPF, they got fat eating hyper-palatable foods cooked at home. No chef tries to make food unpalatable. You can't make UPF at your home— you CAN make hyper-palatable food.
As an aside: Kevin Hall is the researcher who found that people eating UPF vs non-UPF foods ate about 500 calories more of the UPF foods. However, when the menus (UPF and not) were matched for hyper-palatabilty — THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE.
Read the rest.
Avoiding "Snaccidents" and building healthy habits
Published 5.27.2025: This talk from the vegan seminar, "The Truth About Weight Loss," was more interesting to me. It was presented by Dr. Laurie Marbas, who has a podcast. I listened to it, but it turned out that she was in the process of changing it, and it didn't interest me.
Dr Marbas is a believer in food addiction, though really we're talking about an "addiction" to ultra-processed, hyper-palatable foods. No one gets "addicted" to broccoli. So is it really food addiction? or is it an addiction to food stuffs or food-like substances? I am not a believer in food addiction, so that is my bias. I think I could be convinced if the concept were limited to hyper-palatable ultra-processed foods (UPF).
Marbas believes that giving into cravings creates the brain conditions seen in addiction, whether the cravings start with a negative, neutral or positive trigger. Habits, according to her, take 66 days to establish, which is 45 days longer than the habit forming myth that was part of someone's (I don't remember who) program. But the reality is that habits take much longer than 21 days to establish, and to be honest, going back to them is probably more common than doctors and researchers want to admit.
Read the rest.
Dr Marbas is a believer in food addiction, though really we're talking about an "addiction" to ultra-processed, hyper-palatable foods. No one gets "addicted" to broccoli. So is it really food addiction? or is it an addiction to food stuffs or food-like substances? I am not a believer in food addiction, so that is my bias. I think I could be convinced if the concept were limited to hyper-palatable ultra-processed foods (UPF).
Marbas believes that giving into cravings creates the brain conditions seen in addiction, whether the cravings start with a negative, neutral or positive trigger. Habits, according to her, take 66 days to establish, which is 45 days longer than the habit forming myth that was part of someone's (I don't remember who) program. But the reality is that habits take much longer than 21 days to establish, and to be honest, going back to them is probably more common than doctors and researchers want to admit.
Read the rest.
Vegan Junk Food and avoiding it
Published 5.20.2025: This topic from the vegan seminar, "The Truth About Weight Loss," really didn't interest me. The presentation is given by Dr Mickey Witte. I did copy the slides, so I'll go over what I can remember. Basically, the bottom line is eat whole foods (plants, of course) for the best health and avoid Ultra-processed foods. Easy to say, difficult to do.
She gives a list of examples of the various types of whole foods, grains, legumes, etc. Witte points out that cooking your own food is going to be important— ESPECIALLY if you're going to do the Sugar, Oil, Salt (SOS) version of the diet. Actually, I don't know if she said that at this point, I'm saying it here, because it's the truth. Most restaurants cook with fat and oil (and sugar for desserts) and I'm not sure that a vegan also demanding SOS preparations (after demanding the lack of animal products) is going to get very far.
In fact, I can tell you that they don't get very far… I've seen FaceBook posts as well as YouTubes commenting on the difficulty finding options to eat out at if you're vegan SOS. I think at that point, saying whole foods would be redundant. I guess I could be wrong.
Read the rest.
She gives a list of examples of the various types of whole foods, grains, legumes, etc. Witte points out that cooking your own food is going to be important— ESPECIALLY if you're going to do the Sugar, Oil, Salt (SOS) version of the diet. Actually, I don't know if she said that at this point, I'm saying it here, because it's the truth. Most restaurants cook with fat and oil (and sugar for desserts) and I'm not sure that a vegan also demanding SOS preparations (after demanding the lack of animal products) is going to get very far.
In fact, I can tell you that they don't get very far… I've seen FaceBook posts as well as YouTubes commenting on the difficulty finding options to eat out at if you're vegan SOS. I think at that point, saying whole foods would be redundant. I guess I could be wrong.
Read the rest.
Sarcobesity
Published 5.13.2025: Dr. Daphne Bascom gives this talk from the vegan seminar, "The Truth About Weight Loss," and begins with the usual talking points about obesity, but then moves on the defining the term sarcobesity. Basically, sarcobesity is when muscle volume decreases, and is replaced with fat. Muscle loss is common due to aging, but being obese (having fat in your muscles) means that your arms will look roughly the same size, even as you lose strength.
Not surprising, being sedentary exacerbates the condition— which has only been defined recently, though obviously people have experienced it before. Frankly, if you suffer from sarcobesity, you are suffering from multiple other dread things as well— including obesity. Can't be sarcobese if you aren't already obese.
Sarcobesity is the final illness, prior to having sarcobesity, you might have sarcopenia, so they are absolutely trying to use the terms from osteoporosis. The thing is, even if your obese, if you lift weights then sarcobesity will not happen.
Read the rest.
Not surprising, being sedentary exacerbates the condition— which has only been defined recently, though obviously people have experienced it before. Frankly, if you suffer from sarcobesity, you are suffering from multiple other dread things as well— including obesity. Can't be sarcobese if you aren't already obese.
Sarcobesity is the final illness, prior to having sarcobesity, you might have sarcopenia, so they are absolutely trying to use the terms from osteoporosis. The thing is, even if your obese, if you lift weights then sarcobesity will not happen.
Read the rest.
Veganism Cures It All
Published 5.6.2025: So with this presentation from the vegan seminar, "The Truth About Weight Loss," by Thomas Campbell (son of T Colin Campbell of the China Study) all I have are copies of his slides. It's been awhile since I've listened to the talk, so most of this is my (renewed) impressions from his slides.
Much of his presentation is related to metabolic disease or cancer and how a whole foods vegan diet (or plant based) works wonders. He compares the vegan diet to a DASH diet (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension). And the vegan diet does better… but not significantly better. Seriously, he put error bars on the columns (as he should) and they overlapped.
Yes, the average response to the vegan diet was better, but the overall results were not significant. And frankly suggests the question, is a totally vegan diet necessary for health? The evidence as presented by Campbell himself is NO. In this he is hit by the same fact that his father ignored… there are NO vegan communities in rural China. People eating less meat were healthier than people eating more, but there were no vegans. Campbell the elder extrapolated the results to zero meat intake and declared that to be best.
Read the rest.
Much of his presentation is related to metabolic disease or cancer and how a whole foods vegan diet (or plant based) works wonders. He compares the vegan diet to a DASH diet (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension). And the vegan diet does better… but not significantly better. Seriously, he put error bars on the columns (as he should) and they overlapped.
Yes, the average response to the vegan diet was better, but the overall results were not significant. And frankly suggests the question, is a totally vegan diet necessary for health? The evidence as presented by Campbell himself is NO. In this he is hit by the same fact that his father ignored… there are NO vegan communities in rural China. People eating less meat were healthier than people eating more, but there were no vegans. Campbell the elder extrapolated the results to zero meat intake and declared that to be best.
Read the rest.
Fasting to Lose
Published 4.29.2025: Day 2 is when I stopped even making a pretense of listening to all the talks from the vegan seminar, "The Truth About Weight Loss". Basically, the format was the have two medical doctors speak and then two speakers who'd lost a lot of weight. On this day, one of the two people who'd lost a lot of weight demonstrated how she carries a portable kitchen with her so that she can only eat what's approved of on her diet. HARD, HARD NO to all that. "I don't want to live that way" is a recurring comment that I make in this synopsis… but IN NO WAY do I want to travel and constantly cook my own food. Yuck to that. So, I listened to the doctors only and skipped the "inspiring" talks.
For whatever reason, I only took a few images of slides on this day, and none for the second medical presenter. For her, I took only notes. So I'm going to combine them. First up is Dr Alan Goldhamer. Goldhamer supervises water only fasts at his spa/retreat called True North. He's written a book called, The Pleasure Trap, which is (in part) what he's here to flog.
Long term fasting is a topic that I haven't researched particularly well, so what follows will be "facts" as presented by Goldhamer. He does have a slide that listed all the different types of fasts, including options that aren't really fasts, if the definition of fast is cessation of all food. The 5:2 "fast" is listed, though it's not a true fast because on the two "fasting" days you can still eat a small amount of food.
Valter Longo's Fast Mimicking Diet is also listed, that also allows you a bit of food. Longo has decreed that prolonged fasts are not safe, he thinks that a food cessation period of 12 hours is long enough. Goldhamer thinks differently, though his 40 day water fast is always supervised by medical professionals.
Goldhamer is one of those who thinks that diet failure is on par with failed heroin addiction, I've never been addicted to heroin, but I'm gonna go with, heroin addiction is very different from not being able to put the fork down (or avoid ultra-processed, hyper-palatable food).
Read the rest.
For whatever reason, I only took a few images of slides on this day, and none for the second medical presenter. For her, I took only notes. So I'm going to combine them. First up is Dr Alan Goldhamer. Goldhamer supervises water only fasts at his spa/retreat called True North. He's written a book called, The Pleasure Trap, which is (in part) what he's here to flog.
Long term fasting is a topic that I haven't researched particularly well, so what follows will be "facts" as presented by Goldhamer. He does have a slide that listed all the different types of fasts, including options that aren't really fasts, if the definition of fast is cessation of all food. The 5:2 "fast" is listed, though it's not a true fast because on the two "fasting" days you can still eat a small amount of food.
Valter Longo's Fast Mimicking Diet is also listed, that also allows you a bit of food. Longo has decreed that prolonged fasts are not safe, he thinks that a food cessation period of 12 hours is long enough. Goldhamer thinks differently, though his 40 day water fast is always supervised by medical professionals.
Goldhamer is one of those who thinks that diet failure is on par with failed heroin addiction, I've never been addicted to heroin, but I'm gonna go with, heroin addiction is very different from not being able to put the fork down (or avoid ultra-processed, hyper-palatable food).
Read the rest.
Keto is more foolish than I even believed…
Published 4.22.2025: This is not related to the vegan seminar, but since my coverage of that is very delayed, and this is relatively current, I'm going with this. Before I get started, I'm getting a distinct Gary Taubesian vibe from these guys… what is with low carbers not believing the research they themselves run?
The trial is known as the keto-CTA trial or cohort, it really wasn't a trial. The research was registered officially with the proposed outcomes. Part of why the study is being dissed is that the authors ignored or downplayed their own stated primary outcomes, because it didn't match their preconceived story.
Alex Leaf is the author of this first piece. For the record, the percentage change in non-calcified coronary plaque volume (NCPV) or soft plaque was the primary outcome to be measured.
Most of this piece is above my pay grade, and I think keto is dumb in any event, but the bottom line is… that being lean doesn't protect you from your diet increasing your risk of heart disease. And these "so-called" lean responders were the healthiest ones in the bunch. This trial took forever to find participants, because most lean mass hyper responders (LMHR) were not as healthy as they thought. The criteria for the trial was very stringent. And still plaque and LDL increased. There was/is no control group— maybe for funding reasons?
In this analysis, LMHR showed a similar decline in heart health (measured in soft plaque) as people with type 2 diabetes. This is not good. Soft plaque is the dangerous plaque, the kind that can break off and cause heart attack or stroke. Dr Nadolsky (who I listen to on his podcast the Docs Who Lift) was involved at first, but quit when the trial didn't adhere to best practices. He is now both a source of how things were done and one of the biggest detractors.
Basically, their own research showed that LMHR phenotype and a keto diet does not mitigate heart disease. And at the end, he does mention Gary Taubes's study that disproved is insulin drives fat gain theory. So I'm not alone in getting Taubesian vibes…
This piece is authored by Kevin Klatt. He starts with the history of the keto diet, which was originally designed to treat epilepsy. Keto is not the same as the low carb diet, though he equates them. Low carbers generally eat a bit of carb, and eat too much protein to be ketogenic. A true keto diet is very high fat.
Read the rest.
The trial is known as the keto-CTA trial or cohort, it really wasn't a trial. The research was registered officially with the proposed outcomes. Part of why the study is being dissed is that the authors ignored or downplayed their own stated primary outcomes, because it didn't match their preconceived story.
Alex Leaf is the author of this first piece. For the record, the percentage change in non-calcified coronary plaque volume (NCPV) or soft plaque was the primary outcome to be measured.
Most of this piece is above my pay grade, and I think keto is dumb in any event, but the bottom line is… that being lean doesn't protect you from your diet increasing your risk of heart disease. And these "so-called" lean responders were the healthiest ones in the bunch. This trial took forever to find participants, because most lean mass hyper responders (LMHR) were not as healthy as they thought. The criteria for the trial was very stringent. And still plaque and LDL increased. There was/is no control group— maybe for funding reasons?
In this analysis, LMHR showed a similar decline in heart health (measured in soft plaque) as people with type 2 diabetes. This is not good. Soft plaque is the dangerous plaque, the kind that can break off and cause heart attack or stroke. Dr Nadolsky (who I listen to on his podcast the Docs Who Lift) was involved at first, but quit when the trial didn't adhere to best practices. He is now both a source of how things were done and one of the biggest detractors.
Basically, their own research showed that LMHR phenotype and a keto diet does not mitigate heart disease. And at the end, he does mention Gary Taubes's study that disproved is insulin drives fat gain theory. So I'm not alone in getting Taubesian vibes…
This piece is authored by Kevin Klatt. He starts with the history of the keto diet, which was originally designed to treat epilepsy. Keto is not the same as the low carb diet, though he equates them. Low carbers generally eat a bit of carb, and eat too much protein to be ketogenic. A true keto diet is very high fat.
Read the rest.
Volumetrics… water over fiber?
Published 4.15.2025: This was the first talk where I copied the slides rather than taking notes. The presenter was Dr. Barbara Rolls, she wrote the book about volumetrics. Volumetrics is the idea that low calorie dense foods are the best to eat, because you get more volume for the calories. The stomach is fuller on less calories and it's bulging size indicates that the it is full. That is NOT how a professional would describe it, that is my understanding and layman's definition.
I am quite fond of volumetrics as a way to eat and lose weight, because I am a volume eater, meaning I like my stomach to feel full. It's the volume of food that registers with me, rather than the total calories. Part of the reason I don't like low carb diets is that on that diet my stomach was never full, despite meeting the calorie limits of the diet— and YES Virginia, low carb diets only work if that way of eating results in you eating FEWER calories. No one (or no diet) escapes the energy balance.
Anyway, before Rolls got started, AJ stated that it was her work that caused her to understand calories and lose the weight— but back in 2015, she credited Dr McDougall and his way of eating. Now, it's entirely possible that both diet methods influenced her, but I found it interesting for Dr Rolls to be credited with her weight loss.
Rolls is a very interesting and prolific researcher. She started by invoking the "big 3" that influence weight loss: Portion size, calorie density and variety. There are other factors with influence as well, but she's going to focus on these three.
The first topic is portion size, which has increased since the 1950s, and particularly since the 1980s. Her research has shown the increased portion sizes don't register with people— if it's on the plate it must be a portion and so let's eat it all. Offering "doggie" bags only slightly shifted the amount that people ate, it still increased as portion sizes increased.
Read the rest.
I am quite fond of volumetrics as a way to eat and lose weight, because I am a volume eater, meaning I like my stomach to feel full. It's the volume of food that registers with me, rather than the total calories. Part of the reason I don't like low carb diets is that on that diet my stomach was never full, despite meeting the calorie limits of the diet— and YES Virginia, low carb diets only work if that way of eating results in you eating FEWER calories. No one (or no diet) escapes the energy balance.
Anyway, before Rolls got started, AJ stated that it was her work that caused her to understand calories and lose the weight— but back in 2015, she credited Dr McDougall and his way of eating. Now, it's entirely possible that both diet methods influenced her, but I found it interesting for Dr Rolls to be credited with her weight loss.
Rolls is a very interesting and prolific researcher. She started by invoking the "big 3" that influence weight loss: Portion size, calorie density and variety. There are other factors with influence as well, but she's going to focus on these three.
The first topic is portion size, which has increased since the 1950s, and particularly since the 1980s. Her research has shown the increased portion sizes don't register with people— if it's on the plate it must be a portion and so let's eat it all. Offering "doggie" bags only slightly shifted the amount that people ate, it still increased as portion sizes increased.
Read the rest.
We Eat Too Much
Published 4.8.2025: Marion Nestle is the next presenter I watched, and she also didn't have slides. Interestingly, so far as I know, Nestle is not vegan. Her talk was entitled, The Perfect Storm. The first question that AJ asks is, "Why are we so fat?" And Nestle's prompt answer is, "Because we eat too much!" Actually, she may have said we eat too many calories, but the point is the same.
Nestle is a big "blame the food industry" advocate. She thinks that food companies are nefariously altering our foods to get us to eat more. (No wonder food companies are afraid of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) drugs— though as we will learn through the summit, they aren't the only ones.)
Nestle notes that larger portions have more calories, and portion sizes have been increasing over time. Portions in the 1960s and 1970s were much smaller than current portions. And food is sold everywhere… and people eat everywhere. Nestle relates a story about the library at New York University. When she started, food was not allowed in the library, now you can eat in the library.
Portion inflation started in the 1980s. She blames Jack Welch, former CEO of GE, who made a speech that the only goal of a company was to make money for their shareholders. Nothing has been the same since. To increase shareholder returns, food quality suffered. The only issue was the keep costs low and keep people eating.
Nestle thinks that larger portions don't get enough attention, and Barbara Rolls presented data on the effect of portion sizes (and how people do NOT adjust how they eat if the portion is larger). But more on that in the piece about her presentation.
Read the rest.
Nestle is a big "blame the food industry" advocate. She thinks that food companies are nefariously altering our foods to get us to eat more. (No wonder food companies are afraid of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) drugs— though as we will learn through the summit, they aren't the only ones.)
Nestle notes that larger portions have more calories, and portion sizes have been increasing over time. Portions in the 1960s and 1970s were much smaller than current portions. And food is sold everywhere… and people eat everywhere. Nestle relates a story about the library at New York University. When she started, food was not allowed in the library, now you can eat in the library.
Portion inflation started in the 1980s. She blames Jack Welch, former CEO of GE, who made a speech that the only goal of a company was to make money for their shareholders. Nothing has been the same since. To increase shareholder returns, food quality suffered. The only issue was the keep costs low and keep people eating.
Nestle thinks that larger portions don't get enough attention, and Barbara Rolls presented data on the effect of portion sizes (and how people do NOT adjust how they eat if the portion is larger). But more on that in the piece about her presentation.
Read the rest.
Joel Fuhrman don't need no slides…
Published 4.1.2025: It was this presentation that made me register for the summit, in part because I am currently reading his Eat for Life book. He does not use slides, so all of this is based on the notes I took about a half a month ago when I heard the talk. (Publishing dates are delayed because I have decided to try and publish here every Tuesday.)
I'll give Dr Fuhrman this, he is very consistent. I read and reviewed his Eat to Live book back in the day, and his message is pretty much the same as back then. He, himself, would tell you that the difference between Eat to Live and Eat for Life is that he was far more lenient (that's very hard to believe) in the first book. Basically in Eat to Live he said that 90% adherence to his plan was okay, and you could even have animal products in that last 10% if you wanted. Now he's like, nope— it's all or nothing.
He runs a retreat (a VERY expensive retreat) in San Diego where he teaches folks how to follow his plan. He'd like people to stay for THREE months, but he realizes that most can't afford that. I think at least a month is the shortest time you can go for.
Fuhrman is still a believer in the formula H=N/C or Health = Nutrients/Calorie. Nutrients per calorie is how he ranks food, and naturally plants score well and animal products score poorly. Oil and fats are right out, though he has come around to the idea that nuts and seeds in moderation is a good thing. He's also a believer in calorie restriction to increase longevity (that's his stated goal, the longest possible health-span).
Lifespan has increased (pretty much worldwide) due to modern medicine, but health-span (life without medical intervention) has not increased. He does not believe that any overweight person can be healthy. (He would define me with my BMI of 26 as overweight). He tries to soften the calorie restriction blow by emphasizing that it only works with nutrient sufficiency. And how does one attain nutrient sufficiency? Why, you follow the Nutritarian Diet of course!
Read the rest.
I'll give Dr Fuhrman this, he is very consistent. I read and reviewed his Eat to Live book back in the day, and his message is pretty much the same as back then. He, himself, would tell you that the difference between Eat to Live and Eat for Life is that he was far more lenient (that's very hard to believe) in the first book. Basically in Eat to Live he said that 90% adherence to his plan was okay, and you could even have animal products in that last 10% if you wanted. Now he's like, nope— it's all or nothing.
He runs a retreat (a VERY expensive retreat) in San Diego where he teaches folks how to follow his plan. He'd like people to stay for THREE months, but he realizes that most can't afford that. I think at least a month is the shortest time you can go for.
Fuhrman is still a believer in the formula H=N/C or Health = Nutrients/Calorie. Nutrients per calorie is how he ranks food, and naturally plants score well and animal products score poorly. Oil and fats are right out, though he has come around to the idea that nuts and seeds in moderation is a good thing. He's also a believer in calorie restriction to increase longevity (that's his stated goal, the longest possible health-span).
Lifespan has increased (pretty much worldwide) due to modern medicine, but health-span (life without medical intervention) has not increased. He does not believe that any overweight person can be healthy. (He would define me with my BMI of 26 as overweight). He tries to soften the calorie restriction blow by emphasizing that it only works with nutrient sufficiency. And how does one attain nutrient sufficiency? Why, you follow the Nutritarian Diet of course!
Read the rest.
The "truth" about weight loss…
Published on 3.25.2025: It's been awhile since I did this, but I decided to register for the plant based seminar, The Truth About Weight Loss from February 15 through February 23. Apparently this was an annual seminar hosted by Dr McDougall (RIP) and Chef AJ, and despite the good doctor's death, the show must go on.
The summit is free to attend, but you have to pay to get a copy of the talks once the next day’s talks starts. I never pay for the talks, and as I'm writing this before it starts, I don’t know how many I will actually get to listen to.
I’m NOT going to take copious notes, unlike past seminars. I really don’t expect to hear anything new. I think I can confidently say that the message is going to be: Eat more plants. I am interested if the topic of fiber will come up, since that’s a current interest of mine.
The first talk is about food addiction, something that I don’t actually agree with. Do food companies work to make their products palatable? Of course they do. That doesn’t make them addictive.
Anyway, Fuhrman is the second speaker and he is, in part, why I signed up (I am currently reading his book Eat for Life. YES, I am also reading the book, Exercised, too.).
Apparently, food addiction (something the host, Chef AJ, believes she has) is going to be the theme. So they are focusing on “success stories” which I don’t really care about, so I may not listen to those. This is the 7th year of the seminar, and people who've attended in the past wanted to see more inspiring stories.
Frankly if you've attended SEVEN of these (and the info doesn't really change, the answer is ALWAYS to eat more plants— I think that's an indication that this way of eating is not real answer to the problem. People don't like eating this way.
DISCLAIMER: I am NOT any sort of medical professional. This notes are based on my personal opinions and biases. Do NOT take medical advice from me!!
Read the rest.
The summit is free to attend, but you have to pay to get a copy of the talks once the next day’s talks starts. I never pay for the talks, and as I'm writing this before it starts, I don’t know how many I will actually get to listen to.
I’m NOT going to take copious notes, unlike past seminars. I really don’t expect to hear anything new. I think I can confidently say that the message is going to be: Eat more plants. I am interested if the topic of fiber will come up, since that’s a current interest of mine.
The first talk is about food addiction, something that I don’t actually agree with. Do food companies work to make their products palatable? Of course they do. That doesn’t make them addictive.
Anyway, Fuhrman is the second speaker and he is, in part, why I signed up (I am currently reading his book Eat for Life. YES, I am also reading the book, Exercised, too.).
Apparently, food addiction (something the host, Chef AJ, believes she has) is going to be the theme. So they are focusing on “success stories” which I don’t really care about, so I may not listen to those. This is the 7th year of the seminar, and people who've attended in the past wanted to see more inspiring stories.
Frankly if you've attended SEVEN of these (and the info doesn't really change, the answer is ALWAYS to eat more plants— I think that's an indication that this way of eating is not real answer to the problem. People don't like eating this way.
DISCLAIMER: I am NOT any sort of medical professional. This notes are based on my personal opinions and biases. Do NOT take medical advice from me!!
Read the rest.
Fat or Higher Weight?
Published 3.18.2025: Wait, it's not fat any more… it's "higher weight"? I must have missed something. Fat people (at least those pretending to have research props) no longer want to be called fat, now it's "higher weight"? The word obesity still has the 'e' represented by an * because somehow it's a slur and "made up word?" It's a medical word, not a slur, and all medical words were made up at some point… So much for wanting to pretend you have research props.
Obesity (and yes, I will write out the whole word, as I told my kids as they matured, there are no "bad" words, just words that are inappropriate to use in a given situation) is a medical term and it was first used in the 1600s, it's not a new concept and I refuse to be beholden to fat activism dictates. This newsletter is Regan Chastain trying to fill the Lindo Bacon void.
Obesity in the 1600s was a sign of wealth, because it took money to be fat, poor people couldn't be fat. Since then, the dangers of carrying too much excess weight has been realized. There's a reason gout was known has a wealthy man's disease, and if you believe doctors such as John McDougall (who is no longer with us) it was the fat wealthy that had heart and other metabolic diseases in antiquity. The poor in the fields, who were eating grains and other cheap starches, were "healthier." Healthier is in quotes because though they might not have suffered from metabolic diseases there were other afflictions that would kill them young. They just weren't eating themselves to death.
Read the rest.
Obesity (and yes, I will write out the whole word, as I told my kids as they matured, there are no "bad" words, just words that are inappropriate to use in a given situation) is a medical term and it was first used in the 1600s, it's not a new concept and I refuse to be beholden to fat activism dictates. This newsletter is Regan Chastain trying to fill the Lindo Bacon void.
Obesity in the 1600s was a sign of wealth, because it took money to be fat, poor people couldn't be fat. Since then, the dangers of carrying too much excess weight has been realized. There's a reason gout was known has a wealthy man's disease, and if you believe doctors such as John McDougall (who is no longer with us) it was the fat wealthy that had heart and other metabolic diseases in antiquity. The poor in the fields, who were eating grains and other cheap starches, were "healthier." Healthier is in quotes because though they might not have suffered from metabolic diseases there were other afflictions that would kill them young. They just weren't eating themselves to death.
Read the rest.
Fat Acceptance Shifts Strategy
Published on 3.11.2025: This current piece was inspired by this article, which I found at the Graphically Alex YouTube channel. Graphically Alex's video appeared on January 5th, and I have watched it, so I know what his thoughts are about it. Basically, the concept that Fat Activism is switching strategies comes directly from Alex. I don't want to summarize his video though, but I do think that people should go watch it. He speaks fairly slowly, and I tend to watch at 1.5 speed, just FYI.
The article is published at the The New Statesman, which is a United Kingdom site, and which only allows a certain number of articles to be read each month before they ask you to subscribe. The article itself is about how body positivity has changed due to its co-option by brands.
According to the article, and fat acceptance folk have noted their opinion here too, Body Positivity is now about thinness. I don't actually think that's true to be honest, I think Fat Acceptance has tried to grab the term back. Dove is the brand that I most remember trying to adopt a more "body positive" message, and they were skewered for it. Basically, larger bodies that still had an hour glass figure were featured, genuinely fat women (with their weight in their bellies) were not.
Read the rest.
The article is published at the The New Statesman, which is a United Kingdom site, and which only allows a certain number of articles to be read each month before they ask you to subscribe. The article itself is about how body positivity has changed due to its co-option by brands.
According to the article, and fat acceptance folk have noted their opinion here too, Body Positivity is now about thinness. I don't actually think that's true to be honest, I think Fat Acceptance has tried to grab the term back. Dove is the brand that I most remember trying to adopt a more "body positive" message, and they were skewered for it. Basically, larger bodies that still had an hour glass figure were featured, genuinely fat women (with their weight in their bellies) were not.
Read the rest.
Starch is the Answer?
Published 3.4.2025: The impetus to read this book came from the video linked in the last piece about Chef AJ. AJ was a big proponent of Dr John McDougall's Starch Solution diet, crediting it with making her and keeping her thin. McDougall died last year at the age of 77. Others have commented about the efficacy of his diet given that fact, but I am not going to comment on that.
TL;DR: Starch (and VERY low fat) is only the answer if you cherry pick results. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think Dr Joel Fuhrman's plan is better.
McDougall believed that starch was the most natural human food, not meat or fat, or fruit. So McDougall's said that to test his starch solution, you should add a ton of starch to your diet, while changing nothing else… and by a ton I mean 4 cups of potatoes, 4 cups of corn or 4 cups of rice, etc. He gives other examples in the book. Interestingly, only 3 cups of legumes are to be added in this experiment. And to be clear it's just ONE type of starch that gets added.
The thing is that if you do that, you will have to replace some of the food you are currently eating. No one (at least, not me) could eat that much. The result of replacing higher calorie dense foods (meat and dairy) with lower calorie dense foods (starches) is that you will lose weight. Energy balance for the win!
In my opinion, McDougall would have been better off focusing on fiber. Because that’s what eating starch leads to… increased fiber consumption. Potatoes have starch, but also fiber. Corn has starch, but also fiber. Even white rice has fiber as well as starch! He does mention fiber, but it’s called the starch solution for a reason.
Chef AJ avoids beans and seeds, but that's because she over eats them if she does. McDougall notes that nuts are high in fat in the chapter devoted to fat, while noting the fat you eat is the fat you wear.
Interestingly, McDougall’s eating was disordered before the Starch Solution. One could argue the eating only starches is a tad disordered… To his credit, he recognizes his immoderation. So what if moderation works for you? Or eating high fiber works for you…. I'm unconvinced that nuts and seeds aren't necessary. They are packed with nutrients.
And of course, because McDougall was a vegan, he spends pages waxing eloquent about how meat and dairy are actually poisonous to people. He laments that the bad effects of food are not acute, but rather take decades to become apparent. And most people don't think that milk and meat are poison.
Read the rest.
TL;DR: Starch (and VERY low fat) is only the answer if you cherry pick results. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think Dr Joel Fuhrman's plan is better.
McDougall believed that starch was the most natural human food, not meat or fat, or fruit. So McDougall's said that to test his starch solution, you should add a ton of starch to your diet, while changing nothing else… and by a ton I mean 4 cups of potatoes, 4 cups of corn or 4 cups of rice, etc. He gives other examples in the book. Interestingly, only 3 cups of legumes are to be added in this experiment. And to be clear it's just ONE type of starch that gets added.
The thing is that if you do that, you will have to replace some of the food you are currently eating. No one (at least, not me) could eat that much. The result of replacing higher calorie dense foods (meat and dairy) with lower calorie dense foods (starches) is that you will lose weight. Energy balance for the win!
In my opinion, McDougall would have been better off focusing on fiber. Because that’s what eating starch leads to… increased fiber consumption. Potatoes have starch, but also fiber. Corn has starch, but also fiber. Even white rice has fiber as well as starch! He does mention fiber, but it’s called the starch solution for a reason.
Chef AJ avoids beans and seeds, but that's because she over eats them if she does. McDougall notes that nuts are high in fat in the chapter devoted to fat, while noting the fat you eat is the fat you wear.
Interestingly, McDougall’s eating was disordered before the Starch Solution. One could argue the eating only starches is a tad disordered… To his credit, he recognizes his immoderation. So what if moderation works for you? Or eating high fiber works for you…. I'm unconvinced that nuts and seeds aren't necessary. They are packed with nutrients.
And of course, because McDougall was a vegan, he spends pages waxing eloquent about how meat and dairy are actually poisonous to people. He laments that the bad effects of food are not acute, but rather take decades to become apparent. And most people don't think that milk and meat are poison.
Read the rest.
Binge Eating Disorder by Another Name?
Published 2.25.2025: This piece began with the following article: Aubrey Gordon now claims to be an anorexic… albeit an "atypical" one. Atypical Anorexia (AA) is alleged to have the same traits as "actual" anorexia (ana) without the excessive weight loss. I'm not on YouTube, so I'm just going to state and spell out the conditions, although I will be using the common abbreviations. (YouTube demonetizes videos that mention ana.)
Frankly, I think AA is Binge Eating Disorder (BED) by another name. Sure, binge eaters often don't eat for extended lengths of time… but then that triggers a binge and thousands upon thousands of calories are ingested. Weight doesn't come from nothing. Aubrey Gordon is eating to maintain her 350 lb size, whether she admits that or not. If she actually had ana, she'd be dropping pounds. She doesn't have ana, she has BED. The two conditions do share symptoms, but BED is differently disordered eating (I believe Gordon when she says her eating is disordered).
Tess Holliday has also claimed that she has AA, all while filming herself binge eating on her TikTok channel (which I don't actually watch, but I have seen reactions on YouTube.) That's a hallmark of BED: not eating for awhile (perhaps even a long while), then overheating. Body dysmorphia also accompanies BED, just as it does with ana. I guess I'm confused as to why they will admit to AA but not BED?
So, having asked the question, I went looking for answers. Apparently, BED is (at least according to the National Association of Anorexia and Associated Disorders) NOT a diagnosable disorder, but AA is. And that probably explains the difference. These fat women do binge, but the bingeing can't be diagnosed. The limiting food prior to the binge, can be.
Read the rest.
Frankly, I think AA is Binge Eating Disorder (BED) by another name. Sure, binge eaters often don't eat for extended lengths of time… but then that triggers a binge and thousands upon thousands of calories are ingested. Weight doesn't come from nothing. Aubrey Gordon is eating to maintain her 350 lb size, whether she admits that or not. If she actually had ana, she'd be dropping pounds. She doesn't have ana, she has BED. The two conditions do share symptoms, but BED is differently disordered eating (I believe Gordon when she says her eating is disordered).
Tess Holliday has also claimed that she has AA, all while filming herself binge eating on her TikTok channel (which I don't actually watch, but I have seen reactions on YouTube.) That's a hallmark of BED: not eating for awhile (perhaps even a long while), then overheating. Body dysmorphia also accompanies BED, just as it does with ana. I guess I'm confused as to why they will admit to AA but not BED?
So, having asked the question, I went looking for answers. Apparently, BED is (at least according to the National Association of Anorexia and Associated Disorders) NOT a diagnosable disorder, but AA is. And that probably explains the difference. These fat women do binge, but the bingeing can't be diagnosed. The limiting food prior to the binge, can be.
Read the rest.
Food Documentaries to pass the time…
Published 2.18.2025: These are the notes taken while watching a series of food documentaries on YouTube… I assume they are all still available. Frankly, these notes read as though I was bored during the pandemic looking for something to watch. As an aside, I'm not sure why YouTube attracts me more than the variety of streaming services I actually pay for… but it does.
Follow Me
This is a documentary (Follow Me by Tony Vassallo) talking to 15 people who lost weight and how they did it. It doesn’t really discuss food much at all and doesn’t push a particular diet. Amazing how many people talked about a sugar addiction. And ALL of them used other people for support.
Food Serenity is mentioned a number of times. Overall, they did all the usual things.
They claim that only 1% of people keep their weight off. Michael Prager (who used to blog about maintenance and weight loss) appears. He does say that Prager has lost 130 lbs THREE times (and he no longer blogs about it).
This was made before the weight loss drugs (GLP-1s: glucacon-like peptide-1). According to people taking GLP-1s, "food serenity" or "quieting the food noise" is exactly what the drugs do. The drugs make it easier to eat less (because in the end, it's the energy balance that matters. Excess weight doesn't come from nothing.
THAT is actually one of the reasons that the YouTuber Graphically Alex is so interesting to me. He is not taking weight loss drugs, but a big part of the channel is related to avoiding bingeing (or as he would say b followed by the letter e followed by the letter d), Apparently YouTube demonetizes any video that actually mentions the word "eating disorder."
Others have noted that binge eating disorder is almost never mentioned, though anorexia and bulimia are. Both are types of a restrictive eating disorder, whereas most fat activists (per Alex) suffer from the opposite, a binge eating disorder. I suppose bulimia could be part of the a BED.
Read the rest.
Food Serenity is mentioned a number of times. Overall, they did all the usual things.
They claim that only 1% of people keep their weight off. Michael Prager (who used to blog about maintenance and weight loss) appears. He does say that Prager has lost 130 lbs THREE times (and he no longer blogs about it).
This was made before the weight loss drugs (GLP-1s: glucacon-like peptide-1). According to people taking GLP-1s, "food serenity" or "quieting the food noise" is exactly what the drugs do. The drugs make it easier to eat less (because in the end, it's the energy balance that matters. Excess weight doesn't come from nothing.
THAT is actually one of the reasons that the YouTuber Graphically Alex is so interesting to me. He is not taking weight loss drugs, but a big part of the channel is related to avoiding bingeing (or as he would say b followed by the letter e followed by the letter d), Apparently YouTube demonetizes any video that actually mentions the word "eating disorder."
Others have noted that binge eating disorder is almost never mentioned, though anorexia and bulimia are. Both are types of a restrictive eating disorder, whereas most fat activists (per Alex) suffer from the opposite, a binge eating disorder. I suppose bulimia could be part of the a BED.
Read the rest.
Game Changing? Perhaps Not
Published 2.11.2025: These are my (lightly edited) notes as I watched the film, Game Changers, years ago at this point. I am going through old content and publishing it… because it’s written, and I have no other outlet for it.
This is a vegan documentary appeared on Netflix (quite awhile ago at this point, but it’s still there). In this documentary, they are pushing how strong you can be in you eat a whole foods plant based diet (The world vegan apparently has too much baggage associated with it).
Interesting, according to the film, marshall arts are useless if you get attacked. Okay, this is UFC (ultimate fight something) which I never watch, and won’t do so for this too. So this guy (the main guy) was a UFC fighter who got injured, and researched how to recover quickly.
Which lead him to gladiators, who apparently ate a lot of plants. “Beans and barley” is what they ate. The film doesn’t say they were vegans, but they ate mostly plants. That’s not a small distinction— a point I have made many times here in various pieces. Eating mostly plants is different than eating only plants. Eating mostly plants does not require supplementation. Eating only plants does.
I should interject her (in 2025) that the above statement is true for younger healthy bodies. Things change as you get older, even if you remain healthy. However, it is still true that omnivores would survive the zombie apocalypse, whereas vegans would not.
Read the rest.
This is a vegan documentary appeared on Netflix (quite awhile ago at this point, but it’s still there). In this documentary, they are pushing how strong you can be in you eat a whole foods plant based diet (The world vegan apparently has too much baggage associated with it).
Interesting, according to the film, marshall arts are useless if you get attacked. Okay, this is UFC (ultimate fight something) which I never watch, and won’t do so for this too. So this guy (the main guy) was a UFC fighter who got injured, and researched how to recover quickly.
Which lead him to gladiators, who apparently ate a lot of plants. “Beans and barley” is what they ate. The film doesn’t say they were vegans, but they ate mostly plants. That’s not a small distinction— a point I have made many times here in various pieces. Eating mostly plants is different than eating only plants. Eating mostly plants does not require supplementation. Eating only plants does.
I should interject her (in 2025) that the above statement is true for younger healthy bodies. Things change as you get older, even if you remain healthy. However, it is still true that omnivores would survive the zombie apocalypse, whereas vegans would not.
Read the rest.
A Review: What We Don't Talk About When We Talk About Fat
Published 2.4.2025: What We Don't Talk About When We Talk About Fat by Aubrey Gordon is not a new book, but I finally decided to read it (before finishing Exercised… which I will finish… ) The book is VERY repetitive. It could have been ½ the size. I don’t disbelieve her arguments and examples, and yet, I do think she over-exaggerates a lot.
Part of the problem, for me, is that I used to read her articles she published under the pseudonym, Yrfatfriend at Medium. A lot of the book seems to be reworked posts that she’s written and published previously. But the fact is that she also says the same thing over and over, in slightly different ways. Gordon’s thesis is that fat doesn’t matter for health, period.
And even, she says if it does matter (because in actuality it does) it still shouldn’t matter. The fattest people (and she is one of them at roughly 350 pounds) should still get all of the same societal perks that smaller bodies do. Things she suggests include chairs that don’t collapse (Up to what weight? She suggests 500 lbs, but there are people larger than that), and no fat jokes of any kind, ever. There is other “rainbows and unicorns” suggestions, each as unlikely as re-purchasing chairs that are rated for 500 lbs. Never, ever, discussed by fat activists (certainly not by Gordon) is how much these changes would cost, and who pays.
She does mention that she lost a bit of weight— which I remember from the Medium posts. Later she says that the weight loss was unintentional, though that is not what I remember from the Medium posts. What I remember is that she became uncomfortable and lost a bit of weight to alleviate it. She was still fat, just not as fat. Apparently, even that is not allowed in her current framing. She never does fully flesh it out in the book, just mentions it twice.
Read the rest.
Part of the problem, for me, is that I used to read her articles she published under the pseudonym, Yrfatfriend at Medium. A lot of the book seems to be reworked posts that she’s written and published previously. But the fact is that she also says the same thing over and over, in slightly different ways. Gordon’s thesis is that fat doesn’t matter for health, period.
And even, she says if it does matter (because in actuality it does) it still shouldn’t matter. The fattest people (and she is one of them at roughly 350 pounds) should still get all of the same societal perks that smaller bodies do. Things she suggests include chairs that don’t collapse (Up to what weight? She suggests 500 lbs, but there are people larger than that), and no fat jokes of any kind, ever. There is other “rainbows and unicorns” suggestions, each as unlikely as re-purchasing chairs that are rated for 500 lbs. Never, ever, discussed by fat activists (certainly not by Gordon) is how much these changes would cost, and who pays.
She does mention that she lost a bit of weight— which I remember from the Medium posts. Later she says that the weight loss was unintentional, though that is not what I remember from the Medium posts. What I remember is that she became uncomfortable and lost a bit of weight to alleviate it. She was still fat, just not as fat. Apparently, even that is not allowed in her current framing. She never does fully flesh it out in the book, just mentions it twice.
Read the rest.
Around the Fatosphere
Published 1.28.2025: Been awhile since I checked in on the “fat-o-sphere.” So long, that I’m pretty sure that’s not the current term for it. Certainly it has changed over the years. Many blogs are now moribund, and links to them dead. Were I to go back through the archival pieces here I might remove all the dead links, but that’s not likely to happen soon.
Anyway, I’m highlighting this link because I noticed that the average size for women is now considered 18, rather than 12. A few years ago the number was 12. Pretty sure that vanity sizing still occurs, so I guess that’s an indication that Americans are still getting fatter every year? Or maybe it suggests that the 12 number was too small. In any event, it caught my attention.
Otherwise the blather about diet culture is exactly as it used to be. To whit: it’s evil, it’s pervasive, and it controls us all. Even if you think it doesn’t control you, it does. You just aren’t aware enough to notice. My own definition of diet culture is more narrow. Basically if you’re following a fad diet (low carb, keto, Whole 30, Nutritarian, WW (formerly Weight Watchers), etc.) then you are waist deep in diet culture.
The word diet can be used to define any type of eating. Elephants have a typical diet, as do pandas. Humans are different because humans can basically eat almost anything to survive, as opposed to say, cats. which have to have meat or they die. (Sorry vegans).
Read the rest.
Anyway, I’m highlighting this link because I noticed that the average size for women is now considered 18, rather than 12. A few years ago the number was 12. Pretty sure that vanity sizing still occurs, so I guess that’s an indication that Americans are still getting fatter every year? Or maybe it suggests that the 12 number was too small. In any event, it caught my attention.
Otherwise the blather about diet culture is exactly as it used to be. To whit: it’s evil, it’s pervasive, and it controls us all. Even if you think it doesn’t control you, it does. You just aren’t aware enough to notice. My own definition of diet culture is more narrow. Basically if you’re following a fad diet (low carb, keto, Whole 30, Nutritarian, WW (formerly Weight Watchers), etc.) then you are waist deep in diet culture.
The word diet can be used to define any type of eating. Elephants have a typical diet, as do pandas. Humans are different because humans can basically eat almost anything to survive, as opposed to say, cats. which have to have meat or they die. (Sorry vegans).
Read the rest.
Pandemic Conflation
Published 1.21.2025: (based on pandemic era notes, and nothing here is particularly new) Notice the sleight of hand here. Diets do work, as long as you follow them. The problem is that too many try following a diet that is not sustainable for them— it might be sustainable for others. So maybe… just maybe… people trying different diets are simply looking for the one that will suit them.
As the pandemic winds down in the US at least, people are getting up off their couches and realizing that the Covid “19” or more pounds gained is a real thing. And of course, many people will want to lose those pounds before presenting themselves to the world. I think these notes were taken before the GLP-1 shots became a common thing.
Exercise and diet ads are on the upswing, and good lord, it seems like every other person decided to become part of a multi-level-marketing scam— I mean scheme— as a side gig during the pandemic. So what? If you don’t want to diet then don’t. Not sure why the entire culture has to validate your personal choices.
In the end, this article said mostly nothing. It had a weird, abrupt ending too.
Read the rest.
As the pandemic winds down in the US at least, people are getting up off their couches and realizing that the Covid “19” or more pounds gained is a real thing. And of course, many people will want to lose those pounds before presenting themselves to the world. I think these notes were taken before the GLP-1 shots became a common thing.
Exercise and diet ads are on the upswing, and good lord, it seems like every other person decided to become part of a multi-level-marketing scam— I mean scheme— as a side gig during the pandemic. So what? If you don’t want to diet then don’t. Not sure why the entire culture has to validate your personal choices.
In the end, this article said mostly nothing. It had a weird, abrupt ending too.
Read the rest.
It's not really bodily positive.
Published on 1.14.2024: Gabriella Lascano is back. In 2023, she told the truth about being obese, and health issues. In 2024, she gave a TED talk about the whole issue. The Body Positivity folks turned on her massively. I didn’t know that she’d lost a friend to health issues related to obesity, and that’s what occasioned the rant (which I watched at Megan Anne’s YouTube channel.) Megan was completely on board with the messaging. Note that Megan has actively tried to change her weight with weight loss surgery and now weight loss drugs.
This New York Times article more or less misses the point, I can see why Lascano was disappointed with it. It says not much about anything, but only briefly mentions Lascano.
Obese to Beast includes a Gabriella Lascano not-TED talk, because for copyright reasons he couldn’t react to the TED talk. In the talk, Lascano is backing away from her original statement, because she was shunned in the Body Positivity movement, and it like affected her income level. It’s too bad that she feels she needs to back away from her statements, which again, I totally agree with. But I don’t make my money as a plus size influencer.
Note: the links in this piece are to YouTube/video channels, all of which were still live at the time of publication. Apparently, people don’t like to read anymore, so blogs/websites don’t get updated. yet another way I am out of sync with the culture, as I still prefer to read.
So much of what passes for commentary is on TikTok, which I refuse to use. I have it on my phone for when my daughter sends me things to view, but in general I avoid it.
Read the rest.
This New York Times article more or less misses the point, I can see why Lascano was disappointed with it. It says not much about anything, but only briefly mentions Lascano.
Obese to Beast includes a Gabriella Lascano not-TED talk, because for copyright reasons he couldn’t react to the TED talk. In the talk, Lascano is backing away from her original statement, because she was shunned in the Body Positivity movement, and it like affected her income level. It’s too bad that she feels she needs to back away from her statements, which again, I totally agree with. But I don’t make my money as a plus size influencer.
Note: the links in this piece are to YouTube/video channels, all of which were still live at the time of publication. Apparently, people don’t like to read anymore, so blogs/websites don’t get updated. yet another way I am out of sync with the culture, as I still prefer to read.
So much of what passes for commentary is on TikTok, which I refuse to use. I have it on my phone for when my daughter sends me things to view, but in general I avoid it.
Read the rest.
Eat Play Diet (A movie review)
Published 1.7.2025: I watched this Eat Play Diet on YouTube a while ago. This movie presents a range of diets introduced and talked about by a variety of so-called experts with a variety of education levels and biases, which are not formally revealed until the end of the show. The biases in several cases are very apparent, particularly in the case of the keto diet. The movie introduces and at least in the case of veganism trashes the diet. No sources are cited or listed, it’s a bunch of people giving their opinions. This movie in the end tells nothing new and breaks no new ground. I don’t know how far it was distributed, but the fact that it’s on Youtube for free might say something.
The movie starts with the standard American diet (SAD) which no one likes. The SAD is easy to diss, and diss it they do. I’m not going to try and defend the version they presented, as I don’t eat that way myself.
2. Mediterranean Diet (most people have nothing bad to say about it, except the keto wench, because, ya know, whole grains are teh ebil carbz.
3. Then they do the keto diet and the keto shill gets her time in the spotlight. She does allow that keto was intended for pediatric epilepsy patients, but tries to claim that there’s been a lot of recent data in favor of the diet. Fortunately, the dietician who liked the Med diet is there to point out that there is NO LONG TERM DATA on keto, and some of the short term data is not positive (Kevin Hall, anyone?)
Keto shill wench claims that glucose and ketones are the two sources of fuel for the body, but ignores the fact that the body prefers (by a LOT) glucose. So much so that if you maintain a keto diet for long enough, the body will eat its own protein to create glucose. (That’s what Hall’s work showed)
Read the rest.
The movie starts with the standard American diet (SAD) which no one likes. The SAD is easy to diss, and diss it they do. I’m not going to try and defend the version they presented, as I don’t eat that way myself.
2. Mediterranean Diet (most people have nothing bad to say about it, except the keto wench, because, ya know, whole grains are teh ebil carbz.
3. Then they do the keto diet and the keto shill gets her time in the spotlight. She does allow that keto was intended for pediatric epilepsy patients, but tries to claim that there’s been a lot of recent data in favor of the diet. Fortunately, the dietician who liked the Med diet is there to point out that there is NO LONG TERM DATA on keto, and some of the short term data is not positive (Kevin Hall, anyone?)
Keto shill wench claims that glucose and ketones are the two sources of fuel for the body, but ignores the fact that the body prefers (by a LOT) glucose. So much so that if you maintain a keto diet for long enough, the body will eat its own protein to create glucose. (That’s what Hall’s work showed)
Read the rest.
Southpark and Ozempic
12.31.2024: I watched the episode (first South Park I’ve watched in years. Apparently it’s no longer on Comedy Central (which is a cable television network here in the US)? I watched it as part of my Amazon Prime membership. I watched it because it was discussed on a podcast I listen to, and I wanted to see it before listening.
Lizzo is mentioned as the alternative drug to Ozempic, where you learn not to give a fuck about your weight (swearing is used in the show. I don’t remember is Comedy Central allowed them to swear). However, NONE of the people who are using ANY of the drugs in this show are obese. In fact, the conceit is that Cartman (who is clinically obese) can’t get access to the drug because his insurance won’t pay for it and his mother can’t afford it.
They give a very accurate portrayal of dealing with the US insurance system.
The issue here is the conflation between being overweight and being morbidly obese. MOST fat activists are morbidly obese, ore at least clinically obese. (the so-called Death Fat and all that). People who are just overweight do not need to be on these drugs, and probably could not give a fuck as the Lizzo drug would have it.
Read the rest.
Lizzo is mentioned as the alternative drug to Ozempic, where you learn not to give a fuck about your weight (swearing is used in the show. I don’t remember is Comedy Central allowed them to swear). However, NONE of the people who are using ANY of the drugs in this show are obese. In fact, the conceit is that Cartman (who is clinically obese) can’t get access to the drug because his insurance won’t pay for it and his mother can’t afford it.
They give a very accurate portrayal of dealing with the US insurance system.
The issue here is the conflation between being overweight and being morbidly obese. MOST fat activists are morbidly obese, ore at least clinically obese. (the so-called Death Fat and all that). People who are just overweight do not need to be on these drugs, and probably could not give a fuck as the Lizzo drug would have it.
Read the rest.
A Review: A Magic Pill
Published 12.24.2024: Again, I didn't finish Exercised, but instead I read the book. Magic Pill by Johann Hari. The following is my “review”, more accurately my thoughts while reading it. I heard a podcast interview with him, which is why I chose to read the book. The podcast (which I watched on YouTube) is called, Diary of a CEO. Overall, it’s not the podcast for me, but this interview was interesting, and it was months old.
The book goes through the science of Glucagon Like Peptide 1 (GLP-1) drugs, but also weaves into the tale of his experiences of being fat and of having fat friends and family, some of whom died from the complications of being obese.
Shelley Bovey is a name I didn’t know, but she was a big Fat Pride person in the UK, and Hari talked to her. This is after she decided to lose a bit of weight (she’s still fat, just not as fat) and she ran into the HAES (Health At Every Size) people who believe that losing weight “eradicating” yourself is never justified, weight can only increase. Well, she slowly lost 7 stone, which is almost 100 lbs. She is 5’2” tall.
This is her website, on which she has collected a number of articles. The site doesn’t allow for deep linking. Basically, she came to realize that it’s not against the body to want to be healthy and active. She actually went to a slimming club “Slimming World” — which I think is the UK version of weight watchers. She goes through how she lost her weight (in a calorie deficit) all the while noting that “diets don’t work” and that you can’t follow them for the longterm. Which is just bunk. She IS following a diet, and still pays attention to what she eats so as not to regain the weight.
Read the rest.
The book goes through the science of Glucagon Like Peptide 1 (GLP-1) drugs, but also weaves into the tale of his experiences of being fat and of having fat friends and family, some of whom died from the complications of being obese.
Shelley Bovey is a name I didn’t know, but she was a big Fat Pride person in the UK, and Hari talked to her. This is after she decided to lose a bit of weight (she’s still fat, just not as fat) and she ran into the HAES (Health At Every Size) people who believe that losing weight “eradicating” yourself is never justified, weight can only increase. Well, she slowly lost 7 stone, which is almost 100 lbs. She is 5’2” tall.
This is her website, on which she has collected a number of articles. The site doesn’t allow for deep linking. Basically, she came to realize that it’s not against the body to want to be healthy and active. She actually went to a slimming club “Slimming World” — which I think is the UK version of weight watchers. She goes through how she lost her weight (in a calorie deficit) all the while noting that “diets don’t work” and that you can’t follow them for the longterm. Which is just bunk. She IS following a diet, and still pays attention to what she eats so as not to regain the weight.
Read the rest.
Fiber Fueled… The book reviewed
Published 11.19.2024: The next book I intended to read was Excercised by Daniel Lieberman. However, I finished the book, Fiber Fueled by Will Bulsiewicz MD first. And by finished, I mean the parts before his diet/recipes started.
The conceit of the book is that people need to eat more fiber to heal their gut. I was interested in reading his view, because I am thinking about altering my eating plan. As is evident from the writings here, I've been following the 5:2 Eating Plan as designed by Michael Moseley (RIP) since about July of this year. The 5:2 Eating Plan has been a success and I've lost a bit of weight (which was the point of adopting the plan in the first place).
However, I have also developed a bit gastrointestinal issues related to the eating plan, specifically related to the fasting I'd been doing 2 days a week. Basically I skipped breakfast and lunch and ate a regular dinner. It was not difficult to follow, and, to repeat myself, I lost weight doing it. But getting adequate fiber on fasting days proved difficult (due to my particular circumstances) and the lack of fiber began to have unpleasant consequences. Yes, I know that's vague, but I really don't think I want to put all of my medical issues online. Suffice it to say, changes must be made.
That said, I still need to lose a bit more weight. If the 5:2 isn't possible, then I need to figure out a different way to cut the amount of calories I eat, and I'd very much like to solve the gut issues. Mostly I think that I need to eat more fiber, hence the reading of Fiber Fueled. And with that, anyone with a passing knowledge of the human body will likely know what the gastrointestinal issue is… and why I need to change what I'm doing.
Read the rest.
The conceit of the book is that people need to eat more fiber to heal their gut. I was interested in reading his view, because I am thinking about altering my eating plan. As is evident from the writings here, I've been following the 5:2 Eating Plan as designed by Michael Moseley (RIP) since about July of this year. The 5:2 Eating Plan has been a success and I've lost a bit of weight (which was the point of adopting the plan in the first place).
However, I have also developed a bit gastrointestinal issues related to the eating plan, specifically related to the fasting I'd been doing 2 days a week. Basically I skipped breakfast and lunch and ate a regular dinner. It was not difficult to follow, and, to repeat myself, I lost weight doing it. But getting adequate fiber on fasting days proved difficult (due to my particular circumstances) and the lack of fiber began to have unpleasant consequences. Yes, I know that's vague, but I really don't think I want to put all of my medical issues online. Suffice it to say, changes must be made.
That said, I still need to lose a bit more weight. If the 5:2 isn't possible, then I need to figure out a different way to cut the amount of calories I eat, and I'd very much like to solve the gut issues. Mostly I think that I need to eat more fiber, hence the reading of Fiber Fueled. And with that, anyone with a passing knowledge of the human body will likely know what the gastrointestinal issue is… and why I need to change what I'm doing.
Read the rest.
Burning up CICO
Published 11.7.2024: I finally read Herman Pontzer’s book, Burn. And after doing so listened to a few podcasts where he discussed his work. This article I found pinned to his Twitter (or whatever it’s called when you read this).
This is the company he set up to do doubly labelled water (DLW) for the general population. In Burn, He goes over what DLW is and how they measure the calories that are burned. He goes all the way back to the inventor of DLW, who was working in mice, so the amounts were small. DLW is (still) pretty expensive, and humans need a lot more of it than mice. I think that’s (in part) the purpose behind the company, bring the costs down.
I still think his ideas are a little too clever by half… I think it IS possible to get the body to burn more calories, but I will agree that the average person does not. That was my attitude as I started the book, but I have to admit, I found his arguments hard to refute in total.
For the average person, the body seems to strive to stay at the same calorie burn. So if you exercise, the body will compensate by turning down the burn elsewhere. That’s the gist of the constrained energy model.
The model resulted from his studies of the Hazda, a tribe in Africa that (mostly) follows a hunter-gatherer lifestyle (interactions with other cultures has begun to change the tribe). They did normalize the smaller Hadza results by only considering lean body mass. Apparently fat mass is less metabolically significant. Hadza are much smaller and leaner than western humans.
Read the rest.
This is the company he set up to do doubly labelled water (DLW) for the general population. In Burn, He goes over what DLW is and how they measure the calories that are burned. He goes all the way back to the inventor of DLW, who was working in mice, so the amounts were small. DLW is (still) pretty expensive, and humans need a lot more of it than mice. I think that’s (in part) the purpose behind the company, bring the costs down.
I still think his ideas are a little too clever by half… I think it IS possible to get the body to burn more calories, but I will agree that the average person does not. That was my attitude as I started the book, but I have to admit, I found his arguments hard to refute in total.
For the average person, the body seems to strive to stay at the same calorie burn. So if you exercise, the body will compensate by turning down the burn elsewhere. That’s the gist of the constrained energy model.
The model resulted from his studies of the Hazda, a tribe in Africa that (mostly) follows a hunter-gatherer lifestyle (interactions with other cultures has begun to change the tribe). They did normalize the smaller Hadza results by only considering lean body mass. Apparently fat mass is less metabolically significant. Hadza are much smaller and leaner than western humans.
Read the rest.