Learn why Anthony Colpo is MAD and get a free book
I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but much of the material in it isn’t mine - it’s Anthony Colpo’s. Why don’t I simply link to the material instead of reprinting it? Because Anthony changes or removes his material when it proves to be an embarrassment to him. So I want you to see it the way it is as of today when I wrote this post.
For those of you unaware of the tempest in a teapot drama that has been going on for the past month or so, here’s the story.
About two months ago I wrote a post describing the Ancel Keys starvation studies of the 1940s and compared the data from these studies with those published by John Yudkin about 25 years later. I selected the Yudkin study because the subjects switching to low-carb diets spontaneously dropped their caloric intake to 1560 kcal, which was almost exactly the same as the 1570 kcal the Keys subjects consumed. I wrote then that I wasn’t
…truly comparing apples to apples with these studies, but they do confirm Yudkin’s 15 years of experience before he wrote his paper and they confirm my 20 plus years of experience taking care of patients on low-carb diets. I’ve had many, many patients who have stayed on low-carb diets for much, much longer than the men in Keys’ experiment stayed on their diets of roughly the same number of calories. Most of the papers in the medical literature on low-carb diets show a spontaneous drop in caloric intake that’s about what Yudkin documented when people switch over to low-carb diets. It stands to reason that if someone had replicated Keys’ experiment using the same number of calories, but with much more fat and a lot less carbohydrate, that the outcome would have been much different.
When I wrote those words it was at the end of a long post and I was ready to be done with it. I could have probably said what I meant a little better. If anyone wants a more comprehensive explanation of why I chose this specific Yudkin study, let me know, and I’ll post on it later.
This Keys/Yudkin post got Anthony Colpo agitated to the max. Why? As near as I can figure, for a couple of reasons. First, I said I thought that calories aren’t always calories in the way most people think of them. Second, because I implied that such a thing as a metabolic advantage exists. And third because in response to one of the comments I had the temerity to opine that I thought Colpo might be wrong on the metabolic advantage issue.
That’s it. That’s what has inspired all the name calling, accusations of idiocy and other foaming at the mouth that has been going on since.
It started with an open letter to me that I received by email. Here is a pdf of the letter, email and follow up that I copied from Anthony’s site. an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-eades.pdf
As you can see when you read it, Anthony is fond of using fonts to make his points. One wonders where he is going to get all the fonts he may need as this interchange ensues?
For some reason Colpo seems to have a lot of his ego tied up in being correct on the metabolic advantage. After doing what he considers his due diligence, he has decided that there is no metabolic advantage, and that anyone who says there is qualifies as a moron. Richard Feinman and Eugene Fine both believe there exists a metabolic advantage, ergo they’re morons. Same holds for Gary Taubes. Last thing I read from Anthony was that he hadn’t read Gary’s book yet, but he (Colpo) had heard that Gary refutes the calorie is a calorie idea, ergo Taubes is a moron. Same goes for me for all the same reasons. Colpo has gotten so worked up over this issue that he has actually taken the time to write a 50 page book attacking Taubes, Feinman, Fine and me. You can download your very own copy below.
Now as you read all this sturm and drang remember that what we’re talking about as a metabolic advantage is at the max about 300 kcal per day. That’s the most I’ve ever seen demonstrated in a study, so that’s probably the outside range. Calorically that represents about two frankfurters per day or a medium bagel. What that means is that if you figured out how many calories you had to eat to maintain your weight on a low-fat diet, you could consume that many very-low-carb calories plus the two frankfurters and still maintain your weight. Of course, if instead you ate the bagel, which has about the same number of kcal as the two wieners, you would lose your metabolic advantage because almost all of its calories are carbs.
So we’re not talking about a whole lot of calories here. It’s not as if I’ve written that you could eat 10,000 kcal per day and still lose weight as long as you follow a low-carb diet. I’m talking about a few hundred calories per day at best. It’s just not that big a deal. Certainly not a big enough deal to make all this fuss over.
Before I give you my thoughts on the metabolic advantage issue, I want to speak for Feinman, Fine, and Taubes, even though they haven’t asked me to.
Feinman and Fine are experts on the laws of thermodynamics, a subject on which they have published a number of papers. Recall in an earlier post of mine that of all the laws of nature, the laws of thermodynamics are the least likely to ever be overturned. Even Anthony Colpo with his self-proclaimed towering intellect hasn’t been able to defy or refute the laws of thermodynamics.
The very nature of the second law of thermodynamics implies that there has to be a metabolic advantage. Feinman and Fine published a paper stating this and discussing a number of recent papers showing that there does indeed appear to be a measurable metabolic advantage that accrues to those following a low-carb diet. Here is another Feinman/Fine paper and another in pdf. thermodynamics-and-metabolic-advantage-of-weight-loss-diets.pdf
I seriously doubt that Anthony Colpo can understand the math, biochemistry and/or the reasoning in any of these papers. But he doesn’t have to because, you see, he just knows that there isn’t a metabolic advantage, so anyone who writes a paper saying that the second law of thermodynamics virtually demands that there be one is a fool. Thus his criticism of Fine and Feinman. No substantive discussion of their work; no intelligent criticism; simply a dismissal because their work contradicts what Anthony believes with all his heart to be true.
Same with Gary Taubes. I suspect that Anthony has yet to read Gary’s book, which lays out in great detail the basis for his ideas. Colpo heard that Gary wrote that one can consume more calories on a low-carb diet than on a low-fat diet and still lose weight, which is all Anthony had to hear. It saved him from having to read that great big book because he just knows Taubes has to be an idiot to write such twaddle. Never mind that Gary researched the subject in greater depth than anyone who has ever written on it - that doesn’t matter. What matters is that after spending five plus years of his life studying the subject Gary’s conclusions contrast with Anthony’s. Therefore Gary is just another diet book author preying on the simple minded to harvest his millions.
Since this entire brouhaha stems from a difference of opinion on the existence of a metabolic advantage, let me go on the record and state my opinion.
I didn’t just wake up one morning and decide that by God there is a metabolic advantage, and that’s all there is to it. My opinion has been formed by my comprehensive reading on the subject (contrary to what Colpo thinks, he is not the only person who reads the medical literature. I was humping it to the medical library and pulling papers when Anthony was still in diapers) and my 25 plus years of medical practice taking care of overweight people. I do think that calories count. That is an unquestionable fact. But they don’t count in the way most people think they do. Let me explain.
Insulin is the primary metabolic hormone responsible for both storing fat in the fat cells and keeping it there. If your insulin levels are up, fat is on a one way street into the fat cell. And it’s pretty much trapped there until insulin levels fall, allowing fat to escape. When you go on a low-carb diet, you reduce insulin levels markedly, and you do it quickly. You put yourself into a metabolic situation in which fat can easily flow from the fat cell to the tissues where it is burned. But just because you’ve put yourself in a situation where fat can easily come out of the fat cell doesn’t necessarily mean that it will. In order for the fat to come out, you must create a caloric deficit.
If you are eating enough fat (the main macronutrient on a low-carb diet) to meet all your body’s energy needs, your fat cells have no reason to give up their fat, and they don’t. Despite the door’s being open, the fat won’t come out unless it’s needed. Even on a low-carb diet you have to create the caloric deficit to get the fat out and get it burned and lose weight. So far, it all sounds pretty Anthony Colpo-ish, but that’s about to change.
As far as I’m concerned there are two parts to the metabolic advantage question. One that will send our good friend Anthony into a rage - another that will make him absolutely apoplectic.
First, the metabolic advantage in the context of diet is simply measured as the difference in caloric intake required to lose weight on either a low-fat or a low-carb diet. Let’s say that you closely monitor a group of subjects on a low-fat diet, and you find that as their caloric intake falls to, say, 1800 kcal per day, they begin to lose weight. Above 1800 kcal they hold steady or start to gain; below 1800 kcal they lose.
Now you start those same subjects on a low-carb diet. You find that now they start to lose weight as their intake drops below 2000 kcal and they maintain at 2000 kcal or above. This 200 kcal difference is the metabolic advantage created by the low-carb diet. In other words, on the low-carb diets these subjects can eat 200 more kcal than they can on a low-fat diet and still lose weight. The scientific literature is full of studies showing this phenomenon, so don’t let Anthony Colpo tell you it doesn’t exist. Plus the second law of thermodynamics predicts it. And looking at the biochemistry it’s easy to see why.
Basically what happens is that the body uses more energy to maintain blood sugar levels during a low-carb diet than it does during a low-fat diet. When you eat glucose or starch it hits the blood as glucose, so there isn’t really any energy expended in converting it. When you don’t eat enough carbs to provide all the glucose the body needs, the body has to make it from protein. It’s obviously more costly energy-wise to make glucose from protein than it is to use the glucose ready made. Colpo mistakenly believes this energy has already been accounted for as the thermic effect of the protein, which is higher than the thermic effect of carbohydrate or fat. The thermic effect of protein is simply the energy required to metabolize the protein normally, not that required to run it through the gluconeogenic machinery to convert it to glucose. This latter process consumes more energy.
But wait, there’s more. The increased dietary fat in a low-carb diet increases the mitochondrial density within the cells, and this fat also increases the synthesis of uncoupling proteins that dissipate energy within these mitochondria. Along those same lines data indicate that both the elevated fat and subsequent ketone formation increase the proton leak across the inner mitochondrial membrane, which dissipates even more excess energy. And this doesn’t even include the increase in futile-cycling that can go on within the mitochondria, getting rid of more.
Now the above is the part of the metabolic advantage idea that gives Anthony hives. What will really put him over the edge is what comes next.
Remember when I wrote a few paragraphs back that when insulin levels are low fat is no longer held in the fat cells? The doors to get out are wide open and fat can easily flow out - but only if there is a caloric deficit and that fat is needed to make it up. If there isn’t a deficit the fat stays where it is and there is no weight loss. There is another side to that equation. When insulin levels are low, it is extremely difficult to increase the amount of fat inside the fat cells.
Both MD and I have had patients who complained to us that they were following our program to the letter and weren’t losing any weight. When we asked them for their diet diaries we found that they were consuming huge amounts of food but were rigorously keeping their carbs below 30 grams per day. Sometimes we calculated that these patients were eating 4000+ kcal per day, which could have even been higher given that patients tend to under report what they eat instead of over reporting. What was amazing to us was that they weren’t gaining. They were pretty much maintaining their weight on an enormous number of low-carb calories.
We would explain to them about how they needed to create a caloric deficit to lose. Most people will create the caloric deficit when they go on a low-carb diet because the increased fat and protein in the absence of carbs is extremely satiating. But some folks don’t have the off switch that most others do and can eat large amounts of fat and protein along with very little carb without seeming full. You would think they would gain weight like crazy, but they don’t because with low insulin levels it’s tough to pack fat into the fat cells.
This isn’t so strange when you consider that typically the first symptom experienced by a type I diabetic is an unexplained weight loss. Many of these people go to their doctors saying that they’re eating like hogs, yet are losing weight like crazy. All it takes is a quick check of their blood sugar, which is always sky high to make the diagnosis.
These type I diabetics have no insulin so they can’t really stuff fat into their fat cells. And they are breaking protein down, converting it to glucose and urinating it away. They are voraciously hungry and eat, eat, eat but they can’t store any fat. If they go untreated they will ultimately develop severe life-threatening problems. Their fragile situation demonstrates that in the absence of insulin it’s virtually impossible to gain weight.
After following a low-carb diet for a while, our overweight patients lower their insulin levels, so, as with type I diabetics, it is difficult for them to store fat as well. They crank up all the futile cycling, elevate levels of uncoupling protein synthesis and increase proton leakage to dissipate the excess energy they’re consuming, but they don’t store it as fat. This situation creates an enormous metabolic advantage, but one that is used to maintain weight, not lose it. This is why it is pretty easy to maintain your weight loss on a low-carb maintenance diet. If you start throwing back the carbs, however, you will lose this advantage.
A number of studies have shown a metabolic advantage of the first type discussed, but the second type - the weight-maintenance type - arises from MD’s and my hands-on treatment of many patients. And from our thinking the biochemistry through. As far as I know there are no recent papers that have studied this phenomenon specifically, but a few skirt around the edges. Much of the work done by Pennington back in the 1940s and 1950s discusses the same phenomenon. And I have heard other doctors who take care of patients with low-carb diets remark on it as well.
That’s pretty much my take on the metabolic advantage. Until he reads this, Anthony won’t see the second part of my metabolic advantage beliefs, so the driving force behind all his outrage the past couple of months is over the measly couple of hundred calories that I believe exist as a metabolic advantage as a consequence of rigorously following a low-carb diet. The amount of huff he has put up over this seemed a little extreme to me, but then I started looking a little more closely at our friend Anthony, and a few things started to become clear.
Anthony is seeking the attention and publicity, which he considers his due for having written a book that few people bought.
What follows is The Anthony Colpo Reader, a few gems from Anthony’s pen to give insight into his character. (Some with my commentary) Plus the promised free book.
The following is the post that made me realize his quest for attention. I apologize for the foul language, but it’s his, not mine.
A reader of his wrote him asking why he couldn’t carry on a civil debate with me and others and why he had to resort to nastiness. This person also pointed out that he (AC) would be better received as a serious researcher were he to tone down his vitriol. Here is his answer, positively brimming with civility.
You know, I really am starting to find this all quite amusing. On one hand, folks like you claim that my style will cause me to be dismissed as some kind of nut job, but at the same time, you are all furiously typing about me on web forums.
If I am so irrelevant and such a non-entity, why do you all spend so much time talking about me?
It’s because I AM important to you. That’s not my opinion, but yours. You unwittingly reiterate this viewpoint every time you make a post about me. Obviously, what I say does indeed matter to you because otherwise you wouldn’t spend so much time writing about it. If I was the ostracized lone voice you so desperately wish to believe I am, then people wouldn’t waste their time on me. My impact would be non-existent. The truth is, my impact is very real - and that’s exactly what eats at you folks.
A lot of low-carbers thought it was great when I used to rip on the low-fat movement for all the rubbish that crowd used to spin. But when I started highlighting the equally unscientific nonsense spouted by many within the low-carb camp, then these same low-carbers started foaming at the mouth and launching repeated attacks on me.
By doing so, they have shown the world what utter hypocrites they are. Evidently, they are happy to jump all over the low-fat movement for the slightest transgression, but are happy to embrace the most absurd BS from within their own camp if it supports what they wish to believe.
Imagine if someone in the low-fat movement came out and said that we should ignore metabolic ward trials because people on low fat forums vigorously insist that they did indeed lose more weight by eating an isocaloric low-fat diet. You jokers would be dumping on their comments to no end. And yet, when people within the low-carb camp make an equally absurd claim, you have the gall to suggest they should be taken seriously!!
UNFKNBLVBL !!!
Sorry, but BS is BS, whether it comes from Ornish, Campbell, Atkins, or Eades…or from their goofball followers on low-fat and low-carb forums.
You folks are going to have to deal with the following facts:
I am right on the metabolic advantage issue.
A LOT of people from all over the world listen to me.
Like I said, what you folks really need to do is spend less time slagging off at me and a lot more time doing some serious soul searching. Why are you folks so pathetic that you will spend so much time and effort denigrating someone who tells you things you don’t want to hear - even when he has the evidence to back up his claims?I’m sorry, but the whole “Colpo is a rude, rude man” thing is starting to wear a bit thin, it’s so transparent. With all the injustice and deceit going on in the world right now, you get upset over THIS?
Like I said, you poor bastards really need to turn your attention inwards. It will be a disturbing and unsettling experience for many of you, but you need to start sometime. It’s either that, or keep going through life with your heads up your a*sholes.
If you need to be reminded of the dire consequences that can result from such an insistence on being such easily-distracted, gullible, banality-obsessed dolts, then I suggest you watch the following movie immediately: ZEITGEIST
Another answer to a similar question about why he is so rude to people with whom he disagrees. This answer, too, shows how much he relishes the attention.
What a pack of wankers on web forums, many of whom have already demonstrated themselves to be ignorant, gossip-mongering losers, are saying is of little consequence to me. I suspect that deep down inside these jokers really value people like me because I give these losers something to gossip about and occupy their otherwise empty and meaningless lives.
Again, since this whole hoo-hah, my web hits and book sales have remained elevated.
Which means MORE people are now listening to me, and being exposed to the facts.
That’s the reality, whether you wish to believe this uncomfortable fact or not.
So, I should really thank these jokers for the increased publicity. As Oscar Wilde once said: “The Only Thing Worse than Being Talked About is Not Being Talked About”.
And I suspect that what really gets under the skin of people like you is that I’m the one with the nads to stand up and highlight this kind of BS. What are you doing to further public health and knowledge, besides coming on to this forum and sounding like a nagging, serial whining spouse?
Here is AC’s response to a reader of his who had the temerity to ask a few reasonable questions. Admittedly there are more than a few typos here, but the questions are pretty clear. And very reasonable.
Question: I have two basic questions –can you give a response to the “metabolic ward study” that muscular develpoment [Muscular Development - a body building magazine] cites—?? and can you explain how one can gain fat if unsulin levels are low (lowering ones carbs means insulin levels will be low)—can you also adress the fact that people with type 1 diabeties lose weight rapidly because they produce little or no insulin??? There are no insults here just questions—an what is the big deal–if you are correct then you should welcome this debate…
Uh oh. AC is pulling out the fonts again. It must be bad.
I don’t know how many times I have to repeat myself, but here goes again:
YOU ARE, BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT, A DERANGED F*CKWIT. Your behavior on this forum has been appalling. You are NOT welcome here and I WILL NOT BE ANSWERING ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS. I DO NOT WASTE MY TIME ANSWERING QUESTIONS NOR GIVING FREE ADVICE TO A**HOLES WHO DEMONSTRATE MALEVOLENT INTENT TOWARDS ME, AS YOU HAVE.
I am nice to those who are nice to me, I have no time whatsoever for those who behave like a*sholes towards me. Quite simple really, although I have no doubt that such a straightforward concept is beyond the comprehension of a little peanut like yourself.
Everything I have to say about the fat loss/metabolic ward study issue is in my book, The Fat Loss Bible. If you were to get off your fat lazy ass and read it, all your stupid questions would be redundant. If you choose not to read the book, then do not expect me to give of my time discussing issues that are addressed in the book.
BTW, YOU LITTLE WEASEL…if you live in, or ever visit, Australia, be sure to forward me your full name and location so we can arrange a little one-on-one ‘meeting’ to see who really is the coward.
FFS, move out of your Mum’s home, get a job, throw away your gay porn collection, and get a goddamn life…you little bed-wetting pissant…
Charming.
Finally, here is the link to Anthony’s piteous whine about why he took down his TheOmnivore website and replaced it with an advertorial for his book. I will post this as a link because it is on another website, and I don’t think AC can take it down at will. If he does, fear not, I have a pdf copy that I’ll put up.
It seems that AC got miffed because he put a lot of time and effort into his website figuring that it would lead people to buy his book. But they didn’t. At least not in the quantities he expected. So he took the website down, picked up his toys and went home.
At the end of this sniveling dreck AC writes the following words.
I am also working on a fat loss book that will once and for all address the unrepentant stupidity of people who think that eating high/low-fat/carbs/protein at the same caloric intake awards some sort of magical weight loss advantage.
And, folks, Anthony is a good as his word. He has written an ebook titled The Fat Loss Bible doing that very thing - addressing the unrepentant stupidity of people like me. (More about this book in a moment)
But he didn’t stop there. AC is so convinced of his righteousness that he buckled down and wrote another book attacking not just unrepentantly stupid people like me, but actually attacking me personally along with Feinman, Fine and Taubes. My unrepentant stupidity has earned me an entire chapter of my own, replete with color picture. And best of all, AC is not selling this book, he is giving it away. He has made it available for me to give to all the readers of my blog absolutely free of charge. Download your free book in pdf right here compliments of Anthony Colpo. they_are_all_mad.pdf
Now, about The Fat Loss Bible…
You can get a harbinger of things to come by simply reading the Acknowledgments. I won’t bore you with the whole thing, but just a taste here and there.
AC decides to “part with tradition” and instead of thanking those who helped him he thanks those who attacked him. He wants to
acknowledge a group of people who attacked me in late 2005 after I wrote an Internet article explaining why caloric intake - not the proportion of protein, carbohydrate or fat - is the primary determinant of weight loss.
Low-carbohydrate devotees the world over were outraged at my temerity to state this indisputable fact. I was demonized on Internet forums, and accused of lying.
…[Yada yada yada yada. More of the same. If you've read much AC, you get the picture.]…
The staggering level of willful ignorance displayed by my detractors in 2005 impressed upon me the urgent need for a book explaining the true scientific facts about weight loss. Clearly, a lot of people had been brainwashed by gimmicky nonsense.
I suspect the book has come too late for my venomous critics of 2005. I have to seriously question whether those who unfairly slandered my integrity, who ignored the evidence I presented, and who chastised me for daring to present the facts that allegedly harmed their pet ’cause’ possess any real sense of logic or reason. But regardless of whether it will help them, by inspiring the creation of this book, their actions will indirectly benefit thousands of others…
One wonders how many of these ruthless attackers there were out there slandering, ignoring and chastising? A half dozen maybe? This guy is truly a legend in his own mind.
To give him credit, though, he does write one worthwhile paragraph in this two page whine when he discusses a common facet of human nature.
Namely, many people really don’t care for the truth. They are more concerned with reinforcing what they have already come to accept as true. It takes a certain strength of character to discard long-cherished beliefs. Sadly, many people simply cannot muster the requisite strength of character, even when the evidence is overwhelming.
Sadly, I suspect AC is one of those people.
I have read The Fat Loss Bible and I can summarize it in one sentence: Eat less, exercise more, and you’ll lose weight. Of course that message is buried in with all the typical AC folderol about how smart he is and how ignorant everyone else is. If you want to spend $40 to be told to eat less and exercise more while learning what a misunderstood and viciously slander genius AC is, then The Fat Loss Bible is the book for you.
The first chapter lays out the basis for AC’s belief that there is no metabolic advantage. It is a compendium of misread or misinterpreted studies, the famous “NINETEEN metabolic ward studies” AC mentions in his open letter to me. (There were only SEVENTEEN in the version of the book I read, but who’s counting?)
Here is what I propose to do. Since this chapter of this book is the foundation for AC’s bedrock belief in the non-existence of a metabolic advantage, I will go through it and in meticulous detail demonstrate just what a shaky foundation that is. But I will do it only if you - the readers of this blog - want me to. It will take a little time that could otherwise be spent in posting on the stuff I usually post on. You can vote with your comments. I’m not going to respond to any of these comments, but I will put them up and tally them. If the yeas outnumber the nays, I’ll do the critique.
My only worry is that AC is a pretty slippery fellow. One of the readers on his site asked why AC didn’t publish his book as a real, bound book instead of an ebook. AC responded that with the ebook he could change it at will and continue to add new material. Chapter One has gone from the 20 pages it was when I first looked at this book back in late August to 26 pages when I pulled it down a few days ago. So I may be trying to hit a moving target. But I do have a copy of the book as it exists right now and that’s what I will critique if the votes send me in that direction. If, for whatever bizarre reason, you happen to decide to drop forty bucks later on to purchase this book, you may find you bought a different book than the one I’ll dismember.
So, as they say in Chicago: vote early and vote often. Meanwhile I’ll be off dealing with all the comments that have been stacking up while this post was being written.
All I can say is Wow! I’m not unfamiliar with Colpo’s demeanor. He seems to scour the entire web for his name and if someone is actually disagreeing with him on anything, it’s a crusade to call that person and the forum/website stupid, character assasinators, and everything else you can imagine. Seeing some of his comments collected here together really make me concerned for the man. His responses, if these are accurate quotes, are out of all proportion to the questions and commends he’s responding to. His threats could actually be criminal. In general they give them impression that this guy is seriously deranged. If he can’t DISCUSS his theories with those who might disagree with him, but can only shout at them for being stupid simply because they hold a different opinion… I don’t know, but obviously he is not going to win other people to his argument if he can’t make it without shouting and calling people stupid, threatening to beat them up or worse… It’s sad because he’s obviously a smart guy but his fatal flaw is the lack of ability to doubt himself in any way, or the ability to listen to others when they might have a different take. Unfortunately, for people with this kind of attitude, you just can never get through to them. They simply are incapable of recognizing other people with different (but still valid) opinions exist. I think basically the best thing to do in such cases is to ignore them, for then they don’t have the fuel to flame the constant tirades that seem to be their raison d’etra. It’s funny how Colpo says to one detractor to “get a life” or “get a real job” or some such when it’s much more likely Colpo himself who spends half his day online looking for fights and writing scathing responses in order to protect his reputation - which at this point is firmly set in my mind as an immature, mean-spirited bully and not much else. Sad…
The quotes I posted are 100% accurate. I copied them directly from his website.
MRE
Dear Dr. Eades,
I’m not sure it’s bluff, but this guy does seem like he can get spiteful and resentful. I was thinking about buying his book because you mentioned that it was a good book and complemented the other one by the same title (which I have already purchased and read). I am currently reading Uffe’s book, from a library.
After reading his psychotic tirades, I’m not so sure I want to contribute to this man’s psychotic ego. I would personally stay away from him and let his followers believe whatever they want to. I did enjoy reading his paper on LDL-C, but I did not know he was such an unstable individual. I hope he doesn’t lose it one day and go look for you–from readin his posts, I’d worry.
It is good that you clear up your name, as he has definitely tried to make you look bad in his free book. Of course I am interested in reading about these studies that he claims back up his “no metabolic advantage exists” point of view. But please take precautions, who knows what the fate of someone so obsessive and psychotic could be.
Warm Regards,
Alex
I don’t follow AC but know his type. His outward rants are just a hidden PR stunt to get more notice, build up his credentials as an “authority” on fat loss and sell more ebooks. I’m sure he means well to help others but his methods are a complete turn off. The more he yells I am sure the less people will listen. I appreciate your smart and informative response. Plenty of us out here would just rather have honest answers and could care less about the rest of the internet stardom drama. Thank you for well thought out answers.
LowCarbMuscle is his forum? He sounds like he’s out of his mind with ” ‘roid rage.”
And that’s not all. I’m still on AC’s mailing list from the days gone by when I used to get his now defunct newsletter and this popped up yesterday:
MuscleHack.com Interview With Anthony Colpo
Dear Readers,
I recently had the pleasure of being interviewed by Mark McManus from MuscleHack.com. The interview covers such topics as:
The single most important ingredient for long-term fat loss and training success;
Why low-carbohydrate diets are not taken seriously by the health and medical establishment;
The fallacy of metabolic advantage dogma (MAD);
The blatant double-standard displayed by Michael Eades and his followers;
Anthony’s own training and supplementation.
The interview can be accessed simply by clicking the following link:
http://musclehack.com/
Cheers,
Anthony.
Disclaimer: If you are a politically correct pansy who takes deep offense when a grown man speaks his mind, or if you are a member of The Church of Latter Day Metabolic Advantage Believers, then you read the interview at your own risk. Neither the interviewer or interviewee are in any way responsible for any resulting nervous breakdowns or intra-cranial hemorrhages occurring in those who can’t handle information that clashes with their own deeply held beliefs
Criminey. There was a time when AC was a reasonable guy but those days are long past. His website that he used to have was quite good but he shut it down in a fit of pique when his readers didn’t pony up en masse to buy his book The Great Cholesterol Con when it was first published. He was really steamed about that.
Thanks Dr. Eades;
Solid post.
I did read Colpo’s first book, which was excellent, and I enjoyed his website before he took it down, however the final straw came when he started attacking you. Once that happened the bells went off for the last time and I don’t have any desire to see or hear anything that he writes in the future. Differences of opinion can be discussed without reverting to name-calling and swearing, although there may be a few people out there that have really earned their derogatory names. This is no longer an issue of whether there is or isn’t a metabolic advantage.
Dr. Mike:
Why even bother? Intelligent readers can tell the difference between emotion driven and thought driven writing.
I like your blog because, well basically, I’m lazy and it gives me a way into some biochemistry I’d otherwise have to study on my own and I really enjoy getting your take on studies that land in my inbox. If one lands there and I’m like “what the???” I pop over here and you’ve already taken it on.
I like that.
I also like it because it usually doesn’t get bogged down in this stuff.
Your argument on metabolic advantage speaks loudly. Without the insults and without the fonts.
This guy isn’t worth your time. I don’t really care to spend any further mental energy on him. If his book was so good, why did he have to resort to self-publishing?
People pay attention to village idiots and to ranters at Speaker’s Corner (in Hyde Park I think) as well. If he wants real attention maybe he should try pro-wrestling. People pay for that.
Dear Dr Mike,
Don’t pollute your blog by raking over the same ….. garbage. It’s just not worth it and you’ve got so much more of value to say. The personal attacks and prolixity Mr Colpo expends on mere quibbles is utterly boring. All he does is play the blame game. Funny thing: “colpo” in Italian means “blame” or “fault”. How often have you seen it in Italian opera? It’s in a lot!
Il colpo non e tuo.
All the Best,
Michael Richards
If you do dismember the book, AC will soon be hoisted by his own petard.
I vote yes.
Great post! It’s a ripper!
I for one would love to see you take on the metabolic ward studies, since it was my innocent query on that topic that led to this wild outburst from AC in the first place.
From reading his forum (where I was banned for not agreeing with him on training methods) it seems clear to me that this is a guy who reaches a conclusion first, and then goes about finding the data that supports his notions. (The same attitude that Taube’s book attacks as the recipe for sloppy science). Nobody much noticed that when he was attacking the lipid hypothesis, statins, etc., because we all agreed with him, and he was actually right. But when he gets into topics like strength training methods (he likes high volume), and particularly on the subject of 911 conspiracies (despite how incredible implausible they are, he absolutely believes in them), his positions are a lot weaker/stranger. On both of those topics, I could stretch credulity a bit and see how someone could take an inbetween, well maybe, sort of position, but to declare, absolutely, without a doubt, that HIT training is worthless, and that there is super secret uber shadow world government responsible for blowing up the world trade center from the inside, etc. etc., well, hmmm.. I dunno…
Dr. Eades,
Like a few others, I did purchase and read his “The Great Cholestrol Con”. It was very good, not quite as good as Dr. Malcolm Kendrick’s, but for a layperson Colpo did a fine job. Well researched and well written. His website as well was worth spending time at. Yet, when he took it down, it did come across much like the kid who brings the football to get a game going, but then goes home because no one passes to him!
That was then though and this is now. I cannot believe the vitriol spewing from him. It is almost shocking. I do not for a moment believe that it is some sort of act in order to drum up sales, but that he is in serious need of some psychiatric help. Unbelievable.
BTW Doc, thanks for the post. Worth the long read, trust me.
He’s a bright guy who is honestly trying to get the right answer to the question of whether a metabolic advantage exists; and his conclusions, based on his thorough examination of the relevant evidence, should be taken seriously (although not necessarily accepted).
I’ve just described, I think, both Dr. Eades and Anthony Colpo. It seems that Anthony has a hard time seeing his adversary in this light, but I hope Dr. Eades will not make the same mistake that Anthony does.
Great post, Doc.
As much as I enjoy seeing you take him down ( my favorite Irish saying: “Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in?”), I echo the other posters who think it might be the better part of wisdom to leave a crazy man pretty much alone. This post has already pretty much exposed the man for what he is.
Best,
John
Until there is a multitude of specific studies on the possibility of a “metabolic advantage”. Both sides of the argument are just conjecture (you’ve even stated this yourself). I wonder why some people find it harder to believe that there may be a possibility that mitochondria handle fat differently then carbs and or protein (when it comes to the point of a set weight point for humans). Is it possible in a low-carb high fat environment that mitochondria can burn more of the energy off towards heat or energy production (maybe) (calories are there- there just not going to add to fat as much)? I think colpo is messing up the fact that you are not saying that a calorie is not a calorie. Just that it is possibly that because of how the human body handles fats in a low-carb environment- it may be possible that a body maintains a lower body fat in the face of a higher caloric intake because of how fats would be processed in the body. The high carb-low fat camp could also claim a sort of pseudo- metabolic advantage also- what about the studies where people had an intake of somewhere in the area of 2700 calories in the china study- and were invariably thin. Humans as a species have always been on the fat end. It makes sense that we would be fatter because of the enormous energy drain our brain had. Could you imagine being super thin and trying to go weeks without eating? High fat diets seem to undeniably allow the body to maintain a lower set point even with a variance in calories- (I am not saying however that I always find this optimal for longevity) - lets do more studies on this!
I’d leave him alone as well.
Your Blog has loads of great topics and to add a dissection of a publication from someone who appears to be struggling in the deep end of the pool would be more effort than it is worth.
Thanks for all the interesting ideas you present. The recent Jack Lalanne post has lead my wife to order part of his old B&W series for Christmas.
Here’s a link on young girls who are Type I diabetics not taking insulin in order to lose or not put on weight. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21692426/ They are called ‘diabulimics’.
Thanks for the link. If people are cutting back on their insulin to lose weight, they are getting too much insulin to begin with.
This subject is worthy of a full blog.
Cheers–
MRE
Don’t deconstruct his book…you’re wrestling with a tar baby here.
I’ve never read Colpo before this post. People like that bore me to no end.
On the other hand, I would love to hear your take on the metabolic ward studies. I vote yes; but only if you avoid any further reference to Colpo’s tantrums.
Don’t bother with any further analysis. No time for rehashing this junk when there is other interesting stuff to learn. I had never heard of Colpo before this post and I don’t want to hear any more.
I’m glad you put this on your blog. It’s valuable to know. I have always enjoyed this website and the blogs because I learn so much from you and MD both. I have to say that it has also prompted me to buy extra copies of the books to give as gifts as well as being able to buy the books you review and recommend. This guy has shot himself in the foot by shutting down his blog and throwing a huge temper tantrum! After reading his words, why on earth would I want to support him and assist in his success?!
You conduct yourselves as responsible, caring physicians and I have been very thankful for your posts, your dedication to this blog and to the people that you help. I have no doubt you are asked the same questions repeatedly and yet you have sources on this website to answer any of the questions we may have.
He sounds pathetic by demanding that people buy his book and calling names for not wanting to buy his book.
Wow!!! What an eye opener.
Don’t bother Dr. Mike. He isn’t worth the effort.
You know what is so aggravating about this bickering between you two? You are both basically saying the same thing and arguing over semantics. You are both saying that to lose weight, one must create an energy deficit. You, Dr. Mike, are saying that there is a couple of hundred kcals leeway with low carb because of glucogenesis (an effect that lessens as one becomes more fat adapted, BTW, and also vastly increases the needed intake of protein while it’s going on) and Anthony talks about it as a thermic effect that is essentially insignificant. All of the fighting is over 200 calories, give or take.
The low carb forums are absolutely full of people screaming “calories don’t count - just cut carbs!”, especially since Taubes’ book came out. Unfortunately, that is only true for the lucky few that automatically cut their intake when doing low carb, as you mentioned. Others, like myself, have to carefully monitor our intakes to make any headway, a fact I am just coming to terms with after being mislead by the “just need to cut the carbs” crowd for the last four years and getting nowhere (at least I wasn’t gaining).
All of this fighting in the low carb community is such a disservice because it muddies the waters on what we really need to do. It has broken into “camps” that take pot shots at each other while the rest of the world collectively yawns.
To be honest, I like Anthony’s book, as well as those by Lyle McDonald and Dr. Greg Ellis (though all of their books are vastly overpriced). Sure, they basically say “eat less, move more” but they say how to determine how much to eat and how much to move and how to avoid or deal with the metabolic adaptation that happens in calorie deficit due to falling leptin levels. I like your books because they point at how to be healthy, which is obviously the most important thing. I just didn’t get anywhere weight loss wise until I learned to estimate the correct Total Daily Energy Expenditure and started weighing everything I ate and calculating a true caloric intake amount(which sucks, but is necessary to reach my goal).
By the way, I am not sure about the reasoning that some people automatically cut their intake on low carb because of satiation. Based on some your earlier blogs, I have a little theory that I am playing around with.
Overweight people are usually leptin resistant, meaning they don’t see all of the leptin that is circulating in their blood, leading the brain to think there is less fat on their bodies than there really is. One of things that make us leptin resistant is high serum triglycerides, which block the leptin from crossing the blood brain barrier. Fructose intake appears to maybe be another factor (maybe it raises triglycerides too; I am not sure).
Some people, especially the very overweight, experience a dramatic drop in triglycerides when switching to a low carb diet. This, in turn, increases their leptin sensitivity. The brain sees more leptin and naturally decreases appetite and ramps up the metabolism to compensate. Hence, they can “eat all they want and lose weight”, because what they want is less than what they need to sustain the high body weight.
To me, these kind of things are the true metabolic advantage of low carb.
Hi Mike,
I vote yes (although, as you know I think the first form of metabolic advantage is a bit of an overstated red herring for most low carbers) and a secondary yes for a possible explanation as to why the low insulin/no weight gain doesn’t uniformly apply - ie there are many who have found that even in a low carb scenario excess calories do lead to difficulties (ie weight gain) on maintenance. Would this be solely that low carbing doesn’t lower insulin enough to prevent this or perhaps they are more susceptible to other mechanisms of transferring dietary fat to the cells?
My votes have nothing to do with Anthony, just a simple desire to know as much as possible about these topics.
As for AC I did for some time count it as a privilege to be a friend of his - although we never met in person, we did have a friendly online and email relationship involving the exchange of ideas and papers on low carb issues (mostly from him, although I recall with some regret it was me who introduced him to the work of Anssi Manninen (for which he thanked me) … who sadly is now also removed from AC’s Xmas card list). I was delighted to received gratis copies of all his books, including a draft copy of TGCC (I subsequently bought a hard copy) - as I know we are both of the view that this is a solid contribution to the debate although perhaps not as laugh out loud funny as Malcolm Kendrick’s version of the same name (I’m sure you also agree people should buy/read both). The electronic versions of his last two (TFLB and one on supplements - I can’t seem to view now, perhaps my failure to thank him has resulted in denial of access (?) - if so , another possible ‘advantage’ of publishing in this way … and again if so, after you publish this, I suspect such access will not be reinstated.
In any event, we separated over his removal of his web site material which was a really great resource, to which I was constantly referring people, and even before that his inclusion of 9/11 conspiracy material on that site (whether you have sympathy for this view or not, in my view it detracted from the impact of anything low carb related he had to say for the many who don’t … in much the same way as another site which combines low carb exaltations with fundamentalist Christianity). My question to him then (one that he is still being asked) was what did he see as the purpose of publishing the results of his considerable research, if it was not to help as many people as possible and to prevent them from falling for the massive pitfalls inherent in mainstream medical advice? Sadly, after providing a guiding light to so many, he now seems to think that some people don’t deserve to be helped … and even if this were true, it is an attitude which speaks more about Anthony, than it does about his potential audience.
To be fair, I’d also ask Gary Taubes a similar question - who does he see as his target audience for GCBC? I found the book hugely disappointing, not because I disagree with some points (it would be a strange world if we agreed on every detail) but that the book is so badly structured that it seems highly unlikely to make the sort of impact that I had long hoped it would. No doubt some of my expectations were/are unreasonable but I really do believe that perhaps after 5 years he is simply too close to the sheer volume of his research (for which he deserves great credit) to present a much more coherent message - something that would be much more widely read than by the already converted. Perhaps I am biased as my work involves the much more rigorous editing of video/film footage in order to present the necessarily much more concise end product demanded of visual media … but an independent objective editor (no probably not one employed by his publisher!) should/would have asked him some more challenging questions in this regard, and IMHO the book would/could have been so much better as a result.
Cheers,
Malcolm
Hi Malcolm–
I actually bought a copy of Anthony’s book before all this started. I purchased it through a pseudonym however because in observing how he was sinking deeper into vitriol I figured it wouldn’t take long for him to come after me personally. When that happened I knew I would respond, and I didn’t want him to be able to undo my ability to download the book I purchased.
I think people misunderstand Gary’s book. I think many people were looking for a diet book, which it is not. He set out to explore the status of nutritional research, which he found to be a shambles. He never intended to prescribe a specific diet for people to follow.
Cheers–
MRE
I agree that I enjoy the insight that Dr. Eades provides on these topics, but I think that anyone that deranged is not worth the time/effort.
I vote yes on you dissecting Colpo’s fat loss book. I don’t think you should stoop to his level and attack him personally, but I really want to learn the technical information you’ll present. I think it is very important. Do the critique, but do it in a professional, scientific way.
One more sad thing about Anthony: He believes 9/11 was an inside job. Seriously.
I also am interested in the deconstruction if his “holy grail”, the metabolic ward studies. So, yes, please, go ahead, if you can afford the time. Someone has to do it!
Hum, I am kind of torn, on one hand I want you to debunk AC’s “metabolic ward” studies that are the basis for his MAD attacks. On the other hand, there so many other topics that you are planning to post on, and your time is so precious. So I’d say don’t do it.
You have done a great job refuting his ramblings in an intelligent, rational, & civil manner. I feel sorry for AC, his “The Great Cholestrol Con” was great work, but his behavior is throwing muck on his own reputation.
So, I would like to see your take on the metabolic ward studies, but regardless of how fairly and objectively you treat them, you’ll just be fueling the fire. Therefore, I vote no.
Let him rant. It may be hard to listen to, but just let him stamp his feet and yell in the corner. He’s not going to stop if you keep responding. You’re looking at a very long and, ultimately, frustrating and unfulfilling way to spend the next few months. That’s no way to spend the holdays.
Do the one thing that he never does; Trust your readers to be smart enough to figure this exchange out for themselves.
No, don’t give the man or his book any more time or effort. I’d much rather have other topics discussed.
I really like the way you present topics, explaining them in an understandable way without making it so simple that we feel as though you’re talking down to us. Most of us have no knowledge of biochemistry, medicine, or other such topics, but you give us enough information, explained quite well, so we can grasp the gist of what you are presenting. Thanks.
Is it just me, or is the man’s tagline just REALLY ironic?
["The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism."
Sir William Osler]
I used to have a lot of respect for Colpo’s thoroughness, though I was always a little shocked by the way he insulted people. It seems he has been going downhill for a while - becoming less and less thorough and more and more angry and egotistical. Knowing how certain foods affect my temperament, I am sure there has to be something wrong with him, perhaps biochemical.
My own personal experiences of the metabolic advantage mirror your clinical experience totally. I went through a phase of eating around 3,000 calories a day on a low carb diet as an experiment to help some health problems. I never gained a pound, I just sweated it all off (and felt much better in the process!). I knew I’d never be able to lose weight on this amount. The only kind of diet that lets me lose weight is a low carb diet, high carb just makes me cling on to my fat and feel cold. This is the part Colpo doesn’t or won’t get.
Though I’d personally love to read more on the studies, I think commenter Tom is right with his ‘tar baby’ analogy. Colpo is a terrier who won’t let go. He’ll drag you down and consume all your spare time for weeks on end because his ego is so bound up in being right all the time. LOL. I’ve met plenty of people like him on forums! I also think a lot of people who are on low carb diets already know there’s a metabolic advantage - because they’ve experienced it for themselves, they maybe don’t need anyone to prove it to them.
Wow. And they said Dr. Atkins was arrogant.
Dr. Eades, since you asked, I’d prefer if you didn’t dissect his stuff. It would be a shame to see you divert your energy from your usual informative stuff, and I don’t see what is served by even deigning to respond to him. The low-carb movement has enough opposition from the mainstream without us letting ourselves get embroiled in civil wars.
P.S. The Muscle Hack blog entry about Colpo linked to a post of mine that implied that low-carb meant you could eat all the steak and eggs you wanted. When I complained to the blog author that I never said any such thing, he removed the link.
Oh, but please! I have been dying to know about those “closed metabolic ward studies” for so long, but I don’t want to buy his book. It would be really educating to know ehy some studies show a metabolic advantage and some don’t. And you are at your best when you expose bad studies. Please?
Another no vote here. I’m sure there’s some educational value in addressing those particular studies, but for the most part it seems like the exercise will only serve to stoke the drama.
Excellent post doc.
I actually feel sorry for Anthony and I’m somewhat concerned about him. He’s a very smart guy and has all it takes to do excellent research, including the ability to think “outside the box”. However reading these rants and bursts of outrage, it appears to me that he should be taking equally good care of his sanity as he is taking of his abs. And I mean this neither as a joke nor an insult. It is not easy to maintain good mental stability in the situation he’s in , and with all those things he involves his mind in (and I happen to agree with many of those things, including 911 oddities, though his take on metabolic advantage is clearly not one of them). In his situation, it is easy to throw the mind off balance if not careful. If some such imbalance has occurred, I sincerely hope it will straighten out somehow over time.
I know a few people who actually simply believe much of what Anthony is saying on metabolic advantage (based on the trust established by his earlier book), so it might be a good thing to discuss in detail. So I vote yes.
Oh dear. I like Colpo and consider him a very conciencious person when he’s doing his research. It’s his debating style that needs revision. I come from a culture where this kind of “discussion” is commonplace, and it almost always leads to a complete breakdown of the conversation. Ad hominem attacks in the middle of an exchange of information never, never lead to anything good. The informational aspect is set aside and the insult aspect is the only thing people remember.
Being that he was educated in Australia, I’m mystified that he is not better versed in the laws of traditional debate. I expect this from Americans whose educations were rather neglected,or, as I’ve said, from those of my cultural background.
Dr Mike, please go ahead and review the metabolic ward clinical trials, not to refute Colpo or anyone else, but to see if they do or not point to a metabolic advantage.
Personally, it would be to my benefit to know what’s going on since I’ve become much stricter with my carb restriction and the weight is just melting off–no, I haven’t added any exercise yet!
There is no chance of a meaningful debate when you are giving Colpo’s book away for free on the net.
I thought I wanted to see the debate. But the more I thought about it, I don’t want to see a an ugly prizefight. I wanted to see a genteel display of boxing with the Marquis Of Queensbury rules. No chance, he will be bloody mad about the book.
Even though metabolic ward studies are endlessly fascinating and I would enjoy reading about them, I reluctantly vote no. Ancient internet wisdom says: Don’t feed the troll.
At least one Harvard researcher agrees with you:
“Harvard School of Public Health study may stand dieting wisdom on its head, after low-carbohydrate dieters lost more weight than low-fat dieters despite eating 25,000 extra calories over a 12-week study period…”
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/0310/20-lowcarb.html
Love your blog. Colpo is a nutter, an intelligent nutter, but a nutter nontheless.
Thanks so much for all you do.
Do not waste your time, Doc, on this fella. Post on other things.
I know I have a metabolic advantage. I can maintain on 1950 cals/day on 1200 cals/day on the ADA diet. I was always freezing during 35 years of low-fat high-carb diets, but am always toasty warm on LC. In fact, I’ve been able to turn down my thermostat to 20C (~68F) during the day and 17C (~63F) at night and save money on gas!
When I first followed PP in 2000, I added back carbs to ~50g ECC/day and would start gaining if I ate >1450 cals/day. This seemed like a great advantage over the high-carb diets I had been on, but 1450 cals just didn’t satisfy me enough to live like that forever, so I cut carbs back to 30ECC and added fat until I started gaining. Incidentally, ~1950 cals/day is what “normal” people my size are supposed to be able to eat, and with my yo-yo dieting history I never thought I would be able to eat that much. But I don’t have a “normal” reaction to carbs. I can only live like a “normal” person with no desire to binge if I eat a VLC diet (90% of my carbs come from vegetables & the rest from real foods).
It is possible that muscle-bound Colpo does not have get a metabolic advantage from eating low-carb. He may have as much data on himself showing that he loses and gains according to calorie-is-a-calorie theory as I have to prove that I do not lose and gain according to calorie-is-a-calorie theory.
I wouldn’t say a 300 calorie advantage is not a big deal - it can mean the difference between an effortlessly maintainable ideal weight, WOE & WOL and life as a carb-craving obese person.
I’m very interested in reading your further thoughts on metabolic advantage, but I don’t think that relating them to Colpo’s writings would be to your advantage or ours or his. JMHO though.
Yes. Dissect it.
If you’d like to do your Eades-eye view on metabolic ward studies, I’d be reading, as always.
No longer interested in anything about or by AC, however.
I say no critique. I have bought his books, and I am almost sorry I did now. Atkins got nuthin on him. I don’t see that his insults have any merit to them and I don’t think you have anything to prove or to gain from continuing to play your part in his psychodrama. Take the high road, Mike.
What works is what is important. For me, low carb works. It works for a lot of people. I am not climbing the walls with hunger like when I try to do low fat and I have lost and kept off 55lbs. You couldn’t pay me to go back to low fat.
Let him have his opinion and do what works for you.
Okay here are a few to try and win a book.
Because he’s Australian ?
What do you call a well balanced Australian.. a person with a chip on both shoulders.
Australians are living proof that Aboriginals mated with kangaroos.
Gadzooks lad please don’t let such an arse draw you in.
Bless him.
Any man who takes a photo of himself showing his abs (Darwinian sexual selection for sure) is assuredly a bit ’soft in the head’ and takes himself(and his abs) far far too seriously.Emotionally about 17-19;at his age he’s developmentally arrested.
Are you sure he’s not related Art De Vany..another fella who gives himself as a shining example of what he apparently does not preach (!)
Don’t waste yr time on such tripe sunbeam..you have far better things to do and we the milling throng want you to enlighten us with your usual breadth of info.
While I respect the efforts that Mr. Colpo has made in some areas, it is fairly apparent that the psychological side effects of his sudden increase in money, media, and attention, have pretty much unhinged the fellow. He has become raving, messianic and paranoic, and his ongoing publicity against your name in particular is nearing the stalker level at this point. (To use his own words against him a bit, it’s obvious you are very important to him or he wouldn’t keep obsessing about you. ;-)) The man needs counseling, even more than he needs a good whack upside the head for his appalling treatment of others on the internet. I don’t know how people who behave like this succeed in any endeavor that uses other human beings instead of lab rats.
This does not seem unusual with very-sudden money/fame; the tendency to irrationality and hugely inflative egotism is infamous, with the poor behavior young celebrities often demonstrate being a prime public example. He is acting a lot like someone who suddenly starts believing their own over-hyped publicity.
The tragedy here is that aside from this one minor detail–well, and a good deal of personal character, years of experience, education, and other things he might be more than a tad behind you on–he does not appear to disagree with you on very much nutritionally except that one point. (The minor ‘Metabolic Advantage’ ['dogma', aka "MAD" as Colpo calls it]. I guess that makes all this frothing “MCS” — MAD Colpo Syndrome, heh. A bit Mad in both meanings of the term, I think!)
This being an issue of science and not religion, it can certainly stand to have a little variance in opinion and a bit more research (just to nail it down utterly, even if it’s already clear) before we start engraving it into stone. Or taking out massive, consistent, highly publicized attacks on legitimate researchers and physicians such as yourself.
All of his has ceased to seem like it has much to do with one detail point in a big science picture. Instead, it appears to be an issue of watching one man’s psychological stability dissolve and topple, in direct proportion to his financial and media success. It is tragic, for him, and for the subject at large. Aside from his astoundingly rude behavior toward nearly everyone with a brain, I have considered him one of the ‘good guys’ of nutrition writing up until now. I am sure the enemies of good nutrition are absolutely delighted to see the public circus resulting from this poor fellow going around the bend.
My 2c: I know you’re very busy, but I wish you would skim his book and if there is some point(s) you feel may not be well understood by the public at large, cover those. If there are others that are, but are made a big deal of in the book, perhaps a simple reference to where laymen can look for more info on that particular issue. It is very helpful on the internet to have decent references for supporting or refuting “popular claims”. There are not many people with the background of education and experience that you have for putting such responses or references together. As a layman, I appreciate that a lot.
But not enough to want you to wade through it tediously. There are better uses of your time I am sure.
“It was Ayn Rand who once said that the most noble and productive goal for a person to engage in was the pursuit of their own happiness.”
-Anthony Colpo
Do we really want to listen to a guy who quotes Ayn Rand?
Not to mention mismatching subject and personal pronoun.
Any respect I had for Colpo is completely lost. Sad to see his hubris get in the way of his work and eliminate him self from the already short supply of credible nutrition researchers out there in the world. He definitely stranded himself on an island that is just waiting to sink into the sea.
AC gives BITTER a whole new meaning!
I read the Fat Loss Bible and I think your summary is pretty funny and for me it is true as well. I just can’t do the analysis of the references. Even the formulas for eating right although not arduous are a bit much for me. Please go through AC’s book as it benefits everyone. Thanks.
I used to enjoy AC before he fell down the conspiracy rabbit hole and joined the tin foil hat brigade. Frankly he is no longer interesting enough to bother with, ignore him and he will continue to fade away on his own.
I vote no. Enough time has been spent on this nitwit, and I fear the extra attention will only make his behavior worse.
I would love to see you analyze the ‘metabolic ward’ studies that Colpo keeps referring to. He keeps mentioning them as if they were brought down from Heaven on golden tablets.
I used to read Colpo’s website but always cringed inwardly from his lack of civility toward his readers who commented/asked questions. I could never bring myself to recommend his website to anyone wanting to learn more about low carb theories because of othis, either. I bought Colpo’s Great Cholesterol Con book (the paper version) for about $25, but I never could finish it because of the very light, miniscule font as well as the dense amount of text on each page.
But when he removed his website while whining about how no one bought his book and his behavior toward his readers became even more uncivil, that was enough for me.
So as far as I am concerned, you have responded quite well to his venomous tantrums and unless you feel compelled, he is worth no more of your time and efforts. He seems to thrive on negative attention, so why indulge him?
Cheers,
Anna
Another no vote here.
Food for thought… I hate to see another person unfairly pulled into the tangle, but perhaps Regina Wilshire could elucidate the ward studies for us in her “Weight of the Evidence” blog.
As much as I would like to learn about the “metabolic ward” studies, I would rather learn about a new topic. I am sure there are more interesting things out there.
Dave
Maybe Colpo’s diet is too low on fat, and that affects his cognitive process. Ok cheap shot, sorry.
Follow up to Simon Fellows’ comment, why are we comparing Art DeVany to Colpo? Surely that’s a very grave insult to DeVany. I’m not sure I’ve read anything bad about him.
Dr. Eades, I say put his foot in his mouth… although as other readers suggest, it may not end there–he may find something else to argue about. If he’s proven wrong i public, well… that would be fun… as long as he doesn’t get violent and hurts someone.
Really enjoy your blog and your books! I’ve passed two along (extra copies that I bought–one in Spanish that went to Vallarta).
Cheers,
Alex
I would very much like to read your in depth discussion of AC’s 19 metabolic ward studies. Count this as an enthusiastic YES.
Ugh, ok, I’m a lurker and never post, but I have to put my 2c in. I’d like to hear about the metabolic ward studies, but no more about AC. After trying to read his responses to those poor people, my eyes started to fuzz out, I couldn’t take anymore. Maybe you should wait on it though till after the holidays. Maybe he’ll find some other chew toy to go on about.
When someone reverts to personal attacks, as Mr Colpo does, it means they have lost the argument… and they know it but just can’t bring themselves to admit it.
The metabolic advantage for me is certainly more than the 300 or so kcal you reference. I’m seeing at least a 500 kcal a day advantage. When I mentioned this to Mr. Colpo, and provided typical calorie breakdowns for my eating plan, he told me my experience was irrelevant because it happened outside of a metabolic ward study.
Personally, I’ve seen enough of Anthony Colpo, I don’t think he’s worth any more of your time. I’m actually surprised that you bothered to address him this time, I would have bet my house that you wouldn’t.
That having been said, I definitely WOULD like to see your analysis of these metabolic ward studies themselves. Please do that!
Gadzooks,
as the Fellows varlet would say. Fancy claiming my forebears mated with ‘roos! Makes me hopping mad just to think about it!
G’day,
Michael (Oz) Richards.
P.S. The gentlewomen among you may now avert their modest faces:
Why do Australians come so quickly? So that they can go down the pub and tell all their mates! (There are many more such Oz-bashing jokes.)
It is disappointing that Colpo feels the need to attack the very community of people who have been his strongest supporters–low-carbers! I don’t get his angle on this except perhaps to stir up a little controversy to try to boost book sales. I’ll be blogging about his more than erratic behavior at my blog very soon. And that will surely bring out the wrath of AC on me! EEEEK!
Hey Jimmy–
If he turns on you that will really be biting the hand that feeds him. You’ve interviewed him and given him facetime on your blog haven’t you?
Best–
Mike
I vote no on the dissection of the chapter, but a yes on a discussion of these metabolic ward studies.
I also vote yes on a post about cortisol. Dr. Schwarzbein devoted an entire chapter to it in her second book, but I’d like to get another take on it.
To expand on my previous response, I find Colpo’s manner to often be offensive, but I am able to separate the argument from the individual advancing it and the rhetoric used. I find many of Colpo’s arguments reasonably convincing, as do others.
I recognize that I don’t know everything and that my views will continue to change over time and I would very much like to see an intelligent discussion of the merits of Colpo’s arguments.
While I am not uneducated, I have not read all of the metabolic ward studies that Colpo mentions, nor am I certain that I would grasp all the nuances of the studies. I would love to have a critical eye, particularly one with your years of research and patient experience, analyze the papers.
If you come up with a convincing interpretation that is different than Colpo’s in any significant particular that is when I would hunt down that paper and, your interpretation and Colpo’s in hand, read it myself and see what sense I can make of it.
Thanks much for addressing this confusing issue. I am very sorry that there need be so many personal attacks, but we have to take the life that we have and not the one that we wish for.
I’m interested in the ward studies but would prefer not to hear anything else about AC.
Dr. Mike,
I vote no, don’t give him any more attention. (I think he likes it)
I would much rather hear your comments on a CKD type of diet like the new “TNT Diet” rather than AC’s low-calorie more excercise type diet.
Thanks,
Dan
If you think an analysis of the metabolic ward studies is worthwhile in its own right, then by all means bring it on. But AC doesn’t deserve any more of your valuable time.
I thought the most telling quote, referenced in one of the comments:
“The blatant double-standard displayed by Michael Eades and his followers…” Am I now a “follower”? I don’t remember signing on.
It appears to me Mr. Colpo suffers from a messiah complex. No need to get involved in religious wars.
Don’t let it get to you. We had a bout with Anthony on our message forum and he’s like a rabid dog frothing at the mouth. The thing that pops into my mind is steroid induced rage.
Art DeVany rocks. I would think there would be more light (though less heat) in an analysis of DeVany’s ideas than of Colpo’s.
Of DeVany’s blog, no less than Nassim Taleb (author of Fooled by Randomness and The Black Swan) wrote,
“Of all the blogs I’ve read in the past couple of years, I can certify that yours has been the most consequential for me.”
“I am at my best. I don’t work out much anymore (I lift once a week on average) but cutting all carbs (outside of ancestral food) changed me. I am better conditi