What's the Deal with Jimmy?
wabmester
Posts: 2,748 Member
Jimmy Moore, the guy at la vida low carb:
http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/beforeandafter
I don't follow him. I did read his keto clarity book, and I didn't love it.
He's popular, I take it. And he's been doing keto for a while. Has he been gaining weight recently? I just noticed some pics of him (compare 2005 to 2012, for example) and some other-blog talk about his appearance.
One of the aspects of his book that I didn't like was his emphasis on eating as much fat as you like, even if its the non-satiating type like sauces and such. Calories still matter. But I don't know if that's the cause of his apparent gain.
Anybody here follow him? What happened? Does he discuss it somewhere?
I'm not knocking him or the diet, but I'm always interested in long-term low-carb maintenance, and he's a fairly public representative.
http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/beforeandafter
I don't follow him. I did read his keto clarity book, and I didn't love it.
He's popular, I take it. And he's been doing keto for a while. Has he been gaining weight recently? I just noticed some pics of him (compare 2005 to 2012, for example) and some other-blog talk about his appearance.
One of the aspects of his book that I didn't like was his emphasis on eating as much fat as you like, even if its the non-satiating type like sauces and such. Calories still matter. But I don't know if that's the cause of his apparent gain.
Anybody here follow him? What happened? Does he discuss it somewhere?
I'm not knocking him or the diet, but I'm always interested in long-term low-carb maintenance, and he's a fairly public representative.
0
Replies
-
Yeah, he talked a little about it:
http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/tag/weight-gain
http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/jimmy-moores-fall-2014-cholesterol-thyroid-and-other-health-test-results/23857
http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/i-will-no-longer/24535
As far as I know, he's swung between 250 and 300 since his initial weight loss. Frankly, I think that's pretty great -- he's managed to sustain over 100lbs lost. How many people can say that they've managed to maintain at least part of their weight loss? Not many.
Yes, he may have gained some weight back. He's human, and from what I've seen, it's not because he can't sustain his way of eating, but rather due to some other issue that he's yet to pinpoint (though some signs suggest cortisol as at least a contributing factor, due to the stress of writing his books and whatnot).
Given what I've seen on a few of his posts, it could just as easily be that he's eaten too little for too long and his body's revolting. After all, he lost 100lb in as many days. If he was eating too few calories, then the long-term restriction could be an underlying contributing factor as well.
Without more information, though, it's impossible to tell for sure.One of the aspects of his book that I didn't like was his emphasis on eating as much fat as you like, even if its the non-satiating type like sauces and such.
I actually haven't read the book, so I can't speak to the "even if it's the non-satiating type" (what kind of fatty sauces are you using that aren't satiating when used as a sauce, anyway? I use mayo for things like tuna, burgers, and pork chops, and it's very satiating; without the mayo, I could easily polish off 2-3 times the amount of tuna), but in the posts I've seen, he's not advocating stuffing your face with fat just because (see also: http://www.carbsmart.com/my-5-low-carb-mistakes-and-how-nutritional-ketosis-rescued-me.html). He advocates eating to satiety, just like every other LCHF advocate does.
As scary as you might think it is, there generally isn't anything wrong with eating "as much as you want," because "as much as you want" on a LCHF diet usually equates to "the amount your body needs" (aka - satiety). Getting to this point may take some time and effort to undo all the indoctrination that basically tells us to quit listening to our bodies, but most people can do it eventually.0 -
Thanks, I'll listen to some of those podcasts. The one with Phinney should be good.Dragonwolf wrote: »As scary as you might think it is, there generally isn't anything wrong with eating "as much as you want," because "as much as you want" on a LCHF diet usually equates to "the amount your body needs" (aka - satiety). Getting to this point may take some time and effort to undo all the indoctrination that basically tells us to quit listening to our bodies, but most people can do it eventually.
Yes, I find that idea not only scary, but I find it conflicts with my personal experience and what some of the obesity researchers tell us. Hard cheese is satiating. Melted butter is not.
One of the reasons we consume too many calories is because they're hidden in stuff we eat. Sugary drinks are the best example -- lots of calories, non satiating.
I was put off by stuff like "Bring me more butter than you've ever brought one human being in your life!" (Apparently his standard order to waiters at a restaurant.)
0 -
I was put off by stuff like "Bring me more butter than you've ever brought one human being in your life!" (Apparently his standard order to waiters at a restaurant.)
Ya, I don't think his weight regain is due to any mystery cortisol/thyroid/whatever issue -- dude just likes to eat.
0 -
I read keto clarity as my first proper introduction to keto. I found it very helpful and easy to read. I am grateful for his help. It really doesn't matter what he's doing or if he put on weight or not. He shared information with us and helped lots of people. It's not his job to be a "good example" for the rest of his days. I would hate to think people judge me, so let's not judge. It's really none of our business and we could only speculate without enough information to make informed comment, so it is also futile.0
-
Thanks, I'll listen to some of those podcasts. The one with Phinney should be good.
If you ever want a good laugh, listen to the one with Dr. John McDougall. He just can't get it through his head that the low carb crowd argues with the basis of his argument. I was highly impressed that Jimmy kept his cool.Yes, I find that idea not only scary, but I find it conflicts with my personal experience and what some of the obesity researchers tell us. Hard cheese is satiating. Melted butter is not.
One of the reasons we consume too many calories is because they're hidden in stuff we eat. Sugary drinks are the best example -- lots of calories, non satiating.
I was put off by stuff like "Bring me more butter than you've ever brought one human being in your life!" (Apparently his standard order to waiters at a restaurant.)
Unless the waiter has had multiple LCHF clients, they generally bring you about 2 tbsp max of butter., even if you ask for extra.
I thought that most people eventually even out their calories if they learn to eat just until they're satiated, not until they're stuffed. I haven't seen much research on ketogenic diets and satiety, so I don't know the answer to that one.0 -
I was inspired to do LCHF and stick with it by his podcasts, which I listen to regularly, even though I find him a bit too hokey at times
. The information is varied and usually solid. He strives to keep things polite with the people he disagrees with, seems willing to learn where he is wrong. He was attacked last year online by the Julian LC bread company that had been making bread that actually spiked people's blood sugars--they posted "fat-shaming" pics of him, etc. When he doesn't agree with an idea, he will write blog posts refuting it. He went on the Paul Jaminet diet for a week, where they fed him resistant starch, and regained a bunch of pounds. Lately he is talking about eating LC for health, not just weight loss. He says he is extremely insulin resistant, and therefore he needs to eat nearly zero carbs. But also says that everyone is an n=1, you have to find the right amount of carbs to make you healthy. And since he offers all his info for free (other than the 2 books and the annoying ads in the middle of podcasts), more power to him! You can read his blog here: http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/n1
0 -
Listened to the podcast with Phinney. That was good. Jimmy didn't add much or talk about his own gains in that one. Phinney did remind us to take it easy on the fat -- it's easy to gain weight if you eat too much even in ketosis.0
-
I regularly download a podcast from Jimmy.I don't worship him or anything, but I've learned so much from listening to them. I don't have web access on my phone, only through wi-fi, so I download one and listen to it while I hike around my property. I've listened to stuff from gut flora to protein to ketones and the brain.
The ads are annoying. But he's real and a fella gots to make a living.. And the guests he features often actually tell you something informative other than many podcasts, which are basically a pointless ad to get you to buy their book.
Yeah, he's still fat. He needs to not eat so much. But he HAS lost 100lbs and kept it off. He's helping others by having all that stuff out there. And he keeps me having stuff to listen to while I tromp around. So double thumbs up to him.
I just don't see why people have to get ugly to him or about him. He's not the anti-Christ. He's just a guy, with a hunger monster trying to control him, seems like though he hasn't won the war, he's keeping it at bay. People just have to be meanie-faces.
I was inspired to do LCHF and stick with it by his podcasts, which I listen to regularly, even though I find him a bit too hokey at times . The information is varied and usually solid. He strives to keep things polite with the people he disagrees with, seems willing to learn where he is wrong. He was attacked last year online by the Julian LC bread company that had been making bread that actually spiked people's blood sugars--they posted "fat-shaming" pics of him, etc. When he doesn't agree with an idea, he will write blog posts refuting it. He went on the Paul Jaminet diet for a week, where they fed him resistant starch, and regained a bunch of pounds. Lately he is talking about eating LC for health, not just weight loss. He says he is extremely insulin resistant, and therefore he needs to eat nearly zero carbs. But also says that everyone is an n=1, you have to find the right amount of carbs to make you healthy. And since he offers all his info for free (other than the 2 books and the annoying ads in the middle of podcasts), more power to him! You can read his blog here: http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/n1
He is that. LOL. I overlook it, but sometimes he makes me cringe. That's ok. Just about everyone has something about them that is annoying as h*ll to some people.0 -
If you ever want a good laugh, listen to the one with Dr. John McDougall. He just can't get it through his head that the low carb crowd argues with the basis of his argument. I was highly impressed that Jimmy kept his cool.
For those wondering, that episode is number 686.
And OMG, that guy is a piece of work.
I'm less than 25 minutes into the conversation, and already, he's shut Jimmy down at least three times for attempting to mention that the "American diet" isn't just adding meat and dairy, but adding refined carbohydrates. And apparently the Inuit don't count as a "large, successful" civilization.
I can't wait for Terry Wahls to put out the study she's working on, just to watch his head explode.
Also, here's the transcript: http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/transcript-of-llvlc-show-686-dr-john-mcdougall-interview/18870
OMG, so much appeal to authority...0 -
First of all just so that I'm 100% clear, I'm not judging or attacking him for gaining weight which I think he's done. But having said that he's simply eating too many calories, low carb or not.
I don't know his daily intake but I'm guessing the sticks of butter are catching up to him.
0 -
McDougall was nasty, confrontational, evasive, and resorted to ad hominem attacks. That's because his views are essentially indefensible.
What both McDougall and Moore missed is the effect of chronic consumption of excess calories. That matters more than the macro content.0 -
First of all just so that I'm 100% clear, I'm not judging or attacking him for gaining weight which I think he's done. But having said that he's simply eating too many calories, low carb or not.
I don't know his daily intake but I'm guessing the sticks of butter are catching up to him.
At the very least, he had an idea about how much to eat while losing weight -- http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/check-out-this-calories-per-day-calculator/1241
Actually, he's been cognizant of his calorie intake, even when eating a stick of butter, even though he doesn't count calories on a regular basis -- http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/who-knew-eating-butter-would-be-so-controversial/22585 (interestingly, he ate a full 900 calories less on this day, where he ate a stick of butter, than he did on the example day in the previous link)
So, while yes, for the most obtuse and simplified definition of "eating too many calories," his weight gain is because he ate too many calories. The question is -- how much on which side of the equation contributed to that? The answer to which no one here has enough information to determine.
Why is the restaurant full to the point of a line coming out the front door? Because people are entering at a faster rate than they're leaving, of course.0 -
totaloblivia wrote: »I read keto clarity as my first proper introduction to keto. I found it very helpful and easy to read. I am grateful for his help. It really doesn't matter what he's doing or if he put on weight or not. He shared information with us and helped lots of people. It's not his job to be a "good example" for the rest of his days. I would hate to think people judge me, so let's not judge. It's really none of our business and we could only speculate without enough information to make informed comment, so it is also futile.
See that's what I struggle with from all of these people who are writing books and giving diet/nutrition advice (and I'm talking from across the spectrum here). I'm of the opinion that if you're putting your name out there and promoting a way of eating, then you DO need to back it up and be that example. Otherwise what you're promoting loses credibility. I have no idea who this guy even is, but reading through this thread I instantly thought of two other authors-Sally Fallon, of the whole Nourishing Traditions movement, and then William Davis, the author of Wheat Belly. Both push a certain way of eating for optimal health and healthy weight loss/maintenance, but both of them are overweight (and both look pretty unhealthy, especially some of Fallon's more recent pictures). It just seems 'off' to me. Either the woe they're promoting isn't all that great after all, or they're not adhering to it and then that raises the question of why (is the woe unsustainable long term etc etc).0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »I instantly thought of two other authors-Sally Fallon, of the whole Nourishing Traditions movement, and then William Davis, the author of Wheat Belly. Both push a certain way of eating for optimal health and healthy weight loss/maintenance, but both of them are overweight...
Uh oh. Now you've done it.
McDougall referred to a hit-piece video in his interview. You're gonna love this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zVxA6yipv4
It would be interesting to do a long-term study of all the diet doctors. 0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »I instantly thought of two other authors-Sally Fallon, of the whole Nourishing Traditions movement, and then William Davis, the author of Wheat Belly. Both push a certain way of eating for optimal health and healthy weight loss/maintenance, but both of them are overweight...
Uh oh. Now you've done it.
McDougall referred to a hit-piece video in his interview. You're gonna love this.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zVxA6yipv4
It would be interesting to do a long-term study of all the diet doctors.
gah, I have no sound on my computer right now-cat must have knocked the wires out (again grrrr). I'll have to watch this later-now I'm really curious lol.0 -
It's just a slide show. The only sound you'd miss is music.
Vegetarians do have a lower rate of obesity than most folk. It's hard, but not impossible, to get fat eating just veggies. Hard to get enough protein too -- a lot of them also lack muscles.0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »First of all just so that I'm 100% clear, I'm not judging or attacking him for gaining weight which I think he's done. But having said that he's simply eating too many calories, low carb or not.
I don't know his daily intake but I'm guessing the sticks of butter are catching up to him.
At the very least, he had an idea about how much to eat while losing weight -- http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/check-out-this-calories-per-day-calculator/1241
Actually, he's been cognizant of his calorie intake, even when eating a stick of butter, even though he doesn't count calories on a regular basis -- http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/who-knew-eating-butter-would-be-so-controversial/22585 (interestingly, he ate a full 900 calories less on this day, where he ate a stick of butter, than he did on the example day in the previous link)
So, while yes, for the most obtuse and simplified definition of "eating too many calories," his weight gain is because he ate too many calories. The question is -- how much on which side of the equation contributed to that? The answer to which no one here has enough information to determine.
Why is the restaurant full to the point of a line coming out the front door? Because people are entering at a faster rate than they're leaving, of course.
If he doesn't track intake on a regular basis then by default he really can't know how many calories he's eating or make accurate claims about it either.
Even people who track meticulously, suck at it, relatively speaking when you look at data examining tracking accuracy. So for someone who does not track consistently there's not much one could conclude, at least not with reasonable accuracy.
That's not me saying he has to track or anyone has to track, I'm just making a point that unless you're at least attempting to weigh and measure things and track meticulously on a daily basis, you're not really going to be able to make specific conclusions about intake.0 -
The photo's in the video are mostly useless. I suspect the the "lean" vegans and low-fat individuals were naturally "lean," while the paleo/low carbers were naturally fat people who resulted to low carb and paleo after unsuccessfully trying low-fat for decades. Their "fat" state may actually be much leaner than they would be on low-fat. Gary Taubes mentioned in his book that most people get to a certain weight and stay there when eating low carb. That certainly happens to me about just above 200 pounds. But being 205 is certainly better than 255 and is much lower than I ever got on low-fat diets. There is also the possibility that the authors don't live what they preach. It certainly wouldn't be the first time in history. So I am not sure what it proves beyond a few anecdotal cases.0
-
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »totaloblivia wrote: »I read keto clarity as my first proper introduction to keto. I found it very helpful and easy to read. I am grateful for his help. It really doesn't matter what he's doing or if he put on weight or not. He shared information with us and helped lots of people. It's not his job to be a "good example" for the rest of his days. I would hate to think people judge me, so let's not judge. It's really none of our business and we could only speculate without enough information to make informed comment, so it is also futile.
See that's what I struggle with from all of these people who are writing books and giving diet/nutrition advice (and I'm talking from across the spectrum here). I'm of the opinion that if you're putting your name out there and promoting a way of eating, then you DO need to back it up and be that example. Otherwise what you're promoting loses credibility. I have no idea who this guy even is, but reading through this thread I instantly thought of two other authors-Sally Fallon, of the whole Nourishing Traditions movement, and then William Davis, the author of Wheat Belly. Both push a certain way of eating for optimal health and healthy weight loss/maintenance, but both of them are overweight (and both look pretty unhealthy, especially some of Fallon's more recent pictures). It just seems 'off' to me. Either the woe they're promoting isn't all that great after all, or they're not adhering to it and then that raises the question of why (is the woe unsustainable long term etc etc).
So...losing and maintaining a 100lb loss isn't sufficient to be a role model?
Or that they're currently not your view of ideal, so they don't know about the topic they're talking about? Mark Rippetoe would beg to differ with you on that front.
Dr. Davis looks pretty healthy to me. Could he stand to lose a few pounds? Perhaps. But just like calories aren't all that matter, neither is wheat intake (or lack thereof). What seems absent in this picture, though, is the "wheat belly" he typically refers to and is the cause he champions.
You have no idea about the reasons behind why a person is currently at whatever weight they are at. For all you know, they were worse off before, and what you see now is an improvement. Do they look like Arnold in his prime? Perhaps not, but that can just as easily be due to the damage caused by the ailment that was corrected by the way of eating that they champion. Conversely, that super-skinny trainer at the gym may seem healthy on the surface, but for all you know lives off carrot juice and nothing else. And who's to say that the person didn't contract a medical issue that has nothing to do with diet? (It's going to be interesting to see if Jillian Michaels can maintain her figure as she ages, given her PCOS. If she can't, though, does that mean she somehow loses all the knowledge she's gained over the years about health and fitness?)
I'm sure you've run into people who thought that you're naturally skinny, right? What kind of reactions do they usually have? Probably things like "oh, you can eat whatever you want, because you're naturally skinny!" or "oh, come on, you're skinny, you don't need to be on a diet!" And what is your thought when faced with that? Probably something along the lines of, "no, I'm skinny, now, because I watched what I ate and monitored the types and quantities of food I consumed," or "I got skinny because I ate this way and not that way."
What's the flaw in their logic? The same one as in yours -- that your current state is due to an innate character aspect and not because of work you put into it.
This is called fundamental attribution error, by the way. Most commonly, it's the idea that someone else's state is due to a character flaw, while our own, exact same state, is due to circumstances. It's also the fallacy at the heart of most fat-shaming and the general inertia of getting meaningful help for people trying and failing at losing weight via any given method.0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »totaloblivia wrote: »I read keto clarity as my first proper introduction to keto. I found it very helpful and easy to read. I am grateful for his help. It really doesn't matter what he's doing or if he put on weight or not. He shared information with us and helped lots of people. It's not his job to be a "good example" for the rest of his days. I would hate to think people judge me, so let's not judge. It's really none of our business and we could only speculate without enough information to make informed comment, so it is also futile.
See that's what I struggle with from all of these people who are writing books and giving diet/nutrition advice (and I'm talking from across the spectrum here). I'm of the opinion that if you're putting your name out there and promoting a way of eating, then you DO need to back it up and be that example. Otherwise what you're promoting loses credibility. I have no idea who this guy even is, but reading through this thread I instantly thought of two other authors-Sally Fallon, of the whole Nourishing Traditions movement, and then William Davis, the author of Wheat Belly. Both push a certain way of eating for optimal health and healthy weight loss/maintenance, but both of them are overweight (and both look pretty unhealthy, especially some of Fallon's more recent pictures). It just seems 'off' to me. Either the woe they're promoting isn't all that great after all, or they're not adhering to it and then that raises the question of why (is the woe unsustainable long term etc etc).
So...losing and maintaining a 100lb loss isn't sufficient to be a role model?
Or that they're currently not your view of ideal, so they don't know about the topic they're talking about? Mark Rippetoe would beg to differ with you on that front.
Dr. Davis looks pretty healthy to me. Could he stand to lose a few pounds? Perhaps. But just like calories aren't all that matter, neither is wheat intake (or lack thereof). What seems absent in this picture, though, is the "wheat belly" he typically refers to and is the cause he champions.
You have no idea about the reasons behind why a person is currently at whatever weight they are at. For all you know, they were worse off before, and what you see now is an improvement. Do they look like Arnold in his prime? Perhaps not, but that can just as easily be due to the damage caused by the ailment that was corrected by the way of eating that they champion. Conversely, that super-skinny trainer at the gym may seem healthy on the surface, but for all you know lives off carrot juice and nothing else. And who's to say that the person didn't contract a medical issue that has nothing to do with diet? (It's going to be interesting to see if Jillian Michaels can maintain her figure as she ages, given her PCOS. If she can't, though, does that mean she somehow loses all the knowledge she's gained over the years about health and fitness?)
I'm sure you've run into people who thought that you're naturally skinny, right? What kind of reactions do they usually have? Probably things like "oh, you can eat whatever you want, because you're naturally skinny!" or "oh, come on, you're skinny, you don't need to be on a diet!" And what is your thought when faced with that? Probably something along the lines of, "no, I'm skinny, now, because I watched what I ate and monitored the types and quantities of food I consumed," or "I got skinny because I ate this way and not that way."
What's the flaw in their logic? The same one as in yours -- that your current state is due to an innate character aspect and not because of work you put into it.
This is called fundamental attribution error, by the way. Most commonly, it's the idea that someone else's state is due to a character flaw, while our own, exact same state, is due to circumstances. It's also the fallacy at the heart of most fat-shaming and the general inertia of getting meaningful help for people trying and failing at losing weight via any given method.
I don't want to get into a debate here that could get a bit ugly (the group is supposed to be a safe, happy place ), but I do have to say, I've seen Davis in live tv interviews (when his book first came out and he was promoting it) and how he looked like in 'real life' is much different than how he looks like in that picture. And with that I'll bow out of this thread. 0 -
The photo's in the video are mostly useless. I suspect the the "lean" vegans and low-fat individuals were naturally "lean," while the paleo/low carbers were naturally fat people who resulted to low carb and paleo after unsuccessfully trying low-fat for decades. Their "fat" state may actually be much leaner than they would be on low-fat. Gary Taubes mentioned in his book that most people get to a certain weight and stay there when eating low carb. That certainly happens to me about just above 200 pounds. But being 205 is certainly better than 255 and is much lower than I ever got on low-fat diets. There is also the possibility that the authors don't live what they preach. It certainly wouldn't be the first time in history. So I am not sure what it proves beyond a few anecdotal cases.
I think on average, the vegetarians I know are thinner. In terms of low-fat diet doctors, Dean Ornish doesn't look so great to me.
Edited to say: I think any group of people who try to exclude certain food from their diet will probably be thinner than average. It just comes naturally from being more mindful of what you eat. Some of the thinnest people I know are celiacs, for example.0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »First of all just so that I'm 100% clear, I'm not judging or attacking him for gaining weight which I think he's done. But having said that he's simply eating too many calories, low carb or not.
I don't know his daily intake but I'm guessing the sticks of butter are catching up to him.
At the very least, he had an idea about how much to eat while losing weight -- http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/check-out-this-calories-per-day-calculator/1241
Actually, he's been cognizant of his calorie intake, even when eating a stick of butter, even though he doesn't count calories on a regular basis -- http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/who-knew-eating-butter-would-be-so-controversial/22585 (interestingly, he ate a full 900 calories less on this day, where he ate a stick of butter, than he did on the example day in the previous link)
So, while yes, for the most obtuse and simplified definition of "eating too many calories," his weight gain is because he ate too many calories. The question is -- how much on which side of the equation contributed to that? The answer to which no one here has enough information to determine.
Why is the restaurant full to the point of a line coming out the front door? Because people are entering at a faster rate than they're leaving, of course.
If he doesn't track intake on a regular basis then by default he really can't know how many calories he's eating or make accurate claims about it either.
Even people who track meticulously, suck at it, relatively speaking when you look at data examining tracking accuracy. So for someone who does not track consistently there's not much one could conclude, at least not with reasonable accuracy.
That's not me saying he has to track or anyone has to track, I'm just making a point that unless you're at least attempting to weigh and measure things and track meticulously on a daily basis, you're not really going to be able to make specific conclusions about intake.
I didn't make specific conclusions and neither did he. You said you don't know his daily intake, but think he may have been eating too much. I responded with samplings of his daily intake that suggest that there's still the possibility that that's not the whole story, except in the most vague and obtuse sense.
Do I think he could benefit from counting calories for a time, to make sure his hunger signals are still in line with his actual needs? Sure. I'm all for more data.
Do I think he has no idea how much he's eating? No. I do think he has a general idea.
His diet consists largely of meat, eggs, butter, and maybe cheese, plus some non-starchy vegetables. Eggs are graded by size/weight. Butter is sold by weight. Meat is sold by weight. There's really not much wiggle room in that, except in the cheese, especially in cases where he's eating the pre-determined amount (like a stick of butter). In those instances, you're getting a margin of error that isn't much different from that of the USDA data. At that point, the person meticulously weighing all the food is also going to have close to the same margin of error, due to the errors in the data itself. Could the difference lie in the cheese? Perhaps, and tracking would help uncover that. However, it's disingenuous to suggest that he has no idea how many calories he's consuming, just because he's not tracking his food the moment he puts it into his mouth. (Actually, the egg and butter day is easy to go back and calculate, which is exactly what he did in the link. That was a 2100 calorie day, by the way.)0 -
None of us know how much Jimmy eats. Maybe, maybe not he knows himself. It's not a very productive discussion.
Do pro dieters have to be slim? I think there's huge differences in how we perceive different professions. I know a lot of doctors who live very unhealthy... including a former head of radiology who still smokes 2 packs a day with lung cancer...
0 -
The photo's in the video are mostly useless. I suspect the the "lean" vegans and low-fat individuals were naturally "lean," while the paleo/low carbers were naturally fat people who resulted to low carb and paleo after unsuccessfully trying low-fat for decades. Their "fat" state may actually be much leaner than they would be on low-fat. Gary Taubes mentioned in his book that most people get to a certain weight and stay there when eating low carb. That certainly happens to me about just above 200 pounds. But being 205 is certainly better than 255 and is much lower than I ever got on low-fat diets. There is also the possibility that the authors don't live what they preach. It certainly wouldn't be the first time in history. So I am not sure what it proves beyond a few anecdotal cases.
I think on average, the vegetarians I know are thinner. In terms of low-fat diet doctors, Dean Ornish doesn't look so great to me.
Edited to say: I think any group of people who try to exclude certain food from their diet will probably be thinner than average. It just comes naturally from being more mindful of what you eat. Some of the thinnest people I know are celiacs, for example.
I think there are a few reasons for that.
One of the big ones being that vegetarian isn't met with nearly as much vitriol as LCHF or Paleo as long as the vegetarian doesn't use it to beat others over the head. When you're around someone who's veg*n you are generally made aware of it within about 10 minutes when food is involved (not necessarily in the rude sort of way, but rather in the "hey, I've got dietary restrictions" sort of way). Paleos and LCHF people tend to be less vocal about it as they gain experience, because it often causes more problems than it solves. You might notice if you happen to see them get a bunless burger, but if they order a steak with a side of broccoli, it's less evident.
The other big reason, I think, is because people going to LCHF tend to start out overweight. They come to this way of eating, often because calorie restriction alone isn't working for them (either because the metabolism is that far off from the calculations or because they're fighting with cravings or bingeing). This is a double-edged sword, because there are still quite a few people who treat it like a fad diet and so, don't stay on it long term (then *kitten* when they gain weight back, after they've moved away from the way of eating). Vegetarianism, on the other hand, is generally treated as a lifestyle and something you do regardless of weight, instead of as a weight loss fad. As a result, you get a lot more people who are long-term vegetarians (because it's an ethics and convictions thing), and the ones that go back to eating meat don't have the "that diet sucks" type of attitude (now, when you get more into the extremes of vegan, that's a different story, but again, the arguments there are usually health related independent of weight). That's not to say that people don't turn to vegetarianism for the same reasons they'd turn to LCHF, but people tend to not be so quick to blame being vegetarian for weight gain or lack of loss.0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »The other big reason, I think, is because people going to LCHF tend to start out overweight.
That's my guess, too. In any case, I think Jimmy is an interesting example. He's a public figure, and he publishes at lot of his personal data. We know his LDL is high, but his other numbers look pretty good. I don't know if he's published insulin levels, for example.
Fairly rare that we get the opportunity to watch a long-term experiment like this play out.
0 -
It's just a slide show. The only sound you'd miss is music.
Vegetarians do have a lower rate of obesity than most folk. It's hard, but not impossible, to get fat eating just veggies. Hard to get enough protein too -- a lot of them also lack muscles.
Remember, too, that just because someone is lean doesn't mean they are healthy, and just because someone is fat doesn't mean they are strictly unhealthy. So many factors! And not arguing...just saying.0 -
KnitOrMiss wrote: »Remember, too, that just because someone is lean doesn't mean they are healthy, and just because someone is fat doesn't mean they are strictly unhealthy. So many factors! And not arguing...just saying.
Yeah, mortality and disease rates are about the same for vegetarians and non-vegetarians. There's no magic bullet. Well, except for moderate exercise, intermittent fasting, and ketosis. Maybe.
0 -
". . . just because someone is fat doesn't mean they are strictly unhealthy." You make a good point. In some cases, moderate body fat is healthier than low body fat. I ran a half marathon (at about 10 min. per mile pace) last year, while being about 30 pounds overweight. My blood work looked great despite the added weight. I was definitely healthier than many sedentary skinny people eating much more junk food than I. Moderate body fat isn't too big of an indicator of health, though it has been associated with higher health risks in some areas.0
-
". . . just because someone is fat doesn't mean they are strictly unhealthy." You make a good point. In some cases, moderate body fat is healthier than low body fat. I ran a half marathon (at about 10 min. per mile pace) last year, while being about 30 pounds overweight. My blood work looked great despite the added weight. I was definitely healthier than many sedentary skinny people eating much more junk food than I. Moderate body fat isn't too big of an indicator of health, though it has been associated with higher health risks in some areas.
Fat in the butt and thighs is actually positively correlated with health. The bad health effects of fat are two-fold: 1) inflammation from fat cells that aren't getting enough blood supply to keep them from dying off (i.e., getting too fat too fast), and 2) from ectopic fat that disrupts organ functions.
Check out Peter Attia if you want to good story of a formerly-overweight athlete:
http://eatingacademy.com/why-i-decided-to-lose-weight0 -
Wabmester, it is interesting that you mention butt and thighs, but not the belly. From my recollection of various studies, it seemed that the belly was a high-risk area. I had never heard of but and thighs being a problem - which also doesn't seem to correlate to the orgran risk you mention, since most of our life-sustaining organs are in the mid-section. I love eating academy. Thanks for the link.0
