Thursday, December 06, 2012

So Much for Cake, Let Them Eat Steak

Jimmy Moore recently exclaimed "...did you know that if you ate too much protein, it's actually just like eating chocolate cake? I'm not kidding, it is!" (see 21:10 in video)

Take that in for a second. 

Mull it over.

Now then, when someone, even a friend, comes out with something so gobsmacking ridiculous, I can't remain silent anymore.

No Jimmy, eating too much protein is not just like eating chocolate cake; sorry, it just isn't.  My readers can quick run-down of the fate of excess protein here.

So then, Jimmy has, historically, had a roller coaster relationship with the scale.  His ability to gain and lose show he does not have a broken metabolism. In fact I'd say his metabolism is rather robust in its persistence over the years to remain doing what it's designed to do, store and release energy as needed.

His weight ranges since 2004 show a pattern of gain-loss that repeats, year after year, with each successive high higher than before.

2004 - 410
2005 - 230
2006 - 220-245
2007 - 212-250
2008 - 257-274
2009 - 239-260
2010 - 265-289
2011 - 248-300
2012 - 300-306

In May 2012, having reached 306 pounds, Jimmy again modified his diet to lose weight.  And at last check-in, he was down to 256 - honestly, I congratulate him on his efforts and his success to date.  But I cannot, for the life of me, understand his fascination with attributing it to just too much protein, when his calorie intake is the real problem and his current dietary change, while it's increased fat as a percentage, has actually reduced fat in absolute grams, along with calories.

When Jimmy started 2012 at 300 and gained to 306 by May, this helps us understand just how little his excess calorie consumption was - to gain 6 pounds in 135 days took only 156 extra calories a day, or about 1.5 tablespoons of butter or mayo; the absolute easiest things, in a low-carb diet, to add a bit too much of daily.

Simple math can figure out what Jimmy changed for calories without factoring in other changes he's made with hormone replacement, supplements and increased activity.

At 300 pounds, Jimmy required at least 3600 calories a day to maintain that weight based on his basal metabolic rate + the Harris Benedict Formula for his active metabolic rate.

At his reported 175g a day average at the time, that means from real food protein, he was averaging 1870 calories a day from meat, eggs, cheese, etc. since those foods have an average 60% fat and 40% protein mix. 

Add in another 130 calories from carbohydrate and we're up to 2000 calories. 

That leave us to figure out his fat intake. 

To 6 pounds required 156 extra calories a day, on top of his other 1600 calories remaining from fat, to meet his energy requirements, thus he was consuming an estimated 1756 calories from fat, or 195g a day in fat; add that to the 60% from his meats, and we get 3,756 calories, 175g protein, 32.5g carbohydrate, 320g fat - his baseline to calculate changes to his diet in his latest dietary modification.

In macronutrient ratio terms, that was 77% fat, 18% protein, and 3% carbohydrate.  In line with what Jimmy has reported in the past.

He writes that he's now consuming 85% fat, 12% protein and 3% carbohydrate; and has said he's averaging 80g of protein each day.

That looks like he increased his fat, and he keeps insisting he's increased his fat intake - but he hasn't - he's actually reduced not just his protein, but also his fat and his calories; allow me to explain.

If he's consuming 80g of protein, that's 320 calories and 320 calories from protein at 12% of his diet means he's consuming an average of 2,630 calories a day. With 80 calories from carbohydrate (3%), that leaves 2230 calories from fat, or 247g of fat.

Wait a minute!

That's not just reduced protein, it's also less fat, and a significant reduction in calories!

With an average estimate of 2,630 calories a day. With 80 calories, 20g from carbohydrate (3%), and 320 calories, 80g from protein, that leaves 2230 calories from fat, or 247g of fat.

247 is less than 320, is it not?

2630 is less than 3756, is it not?

And if that isn't enough to get you to think about it, consider this - to lose 50 pounds in six months, the boogeyman calorie theory holds that one would need a calorie deficit of about 1,000 calories a day.

Jimmy's calories are not precisely thae same each day, but if you subtract 2650 from 3756, you get 1106 calories a day less than he was eating at baseline.

 Now look up - Jimmy is in range of the calorie deficit that explains his weight loss, with less calories, less fat and less protein.

By golly, he's eating less, and even moving more.

And to be clear, this does not mean I think only calorie in, calories out matter; but Jimmy's experience over the last six years show how strong an influence calories, in a carbohydrate restricted context, do matter.


  1. paleozeta1:29 PM

    don't know if attacking jimmy for something he feels the effects of,it is in your right.
    if i ate cheese, i would start to crave like crazy other cheese or sweets.can i say that eating cheese for me has the same effect like eating cake?

  2. So then, Jimmy has, historically, had a roller coaster relationship with the scale. His ability to gain and lose show he does not have a broken metabolism. In fact I'd say his metabolism is rather robust in its persistence over the years to remain doing what it's designed to do, store and release energy as needed.

    I've been saying this for a while, though I wonder if he has suppressed his metabolism a bit. He still loses way too quickly and easily when he eats cleaner and less (but more than many of us can get away with and not gain!).

    BTW, you have 2011 weights wrong. His low was 248.

  3. Anonymous6:26 PM

    Okay, so calories matter. What allows a person to eat fewer calories without hunger? If Jimmy Moore is losing his weight via starvation, it's not sustainable and so likely to fail. If he's doing something that allows him to eat less without hunger, and if it ends up being sustainable, then that's extremely valuable.

    If his lowered calorie intake is only sustainable in the context of a ketogenic diet, then the ketogenic part is key. I'm not saying that's so. But I am saying that just because calories matter does not suggest that the ketogenic part isn't the important part.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. "OK, so calories matter."

      Thanks for the grudging admission of the central truth of all weight loss.

      "What allows a person to eat few calories without hunger?"

      Depends on the person. Some people do great on LC, some don't. I didn't. I needed carbs to live and thrive. I added carbs to my diet, admitted that portion size matters, and lost 20 pounds.

  4. ANON: calories always matter, it's foolhardy to think one can eat ad libitum in excess and not gain, low-carb or not. Jimmy has never abandon low-carb, so his gains have been within the context of a low-carb diet, thus his calories are an issue. For Jimmy it seems, it's not just carbohydrate he'll need to keep an eye on long-term, he'll need to look at calories too - it's just too easy to exceed energy requirements with added fats, and to some extent protein.

  5. Anonymous9:40 AM

    Jimmy Moore in 2005

    "I lost a good amount of weight on the Weigh Down Diet because I was allowed to eat WHATEVER I wanted to eat to satisfy my hunger. But my problem with these kind of hunger-based diets is they put the onus of control in the hands of the person trying to lose weight. That is a very risky strategy because these are the same people who allowed themselves to get overweight or obese in the first place. What makes you think they’re going to act responsibly regarding the food they put in their mouths now? Ultimately I convinced myself that I was hungry and ate when in fact I was desiring more and more food to eat.

    The only reason I lost any weight on the Weigh Down Diet, which was basically “intuitive eating,” is because I forced myself to limit my portions (eating until “satisfied”) which lowered the number of calories and fat I was ingesting as well. In other words, it was a low-fat/low-calorie/portion control diet plan. But I don’t like having to stop eating when I’m not ready to. My success on low-carb has been a result of not limiting my calories, fat grams, or portions. I ate as much as I wanted to and simply kept my carbs down to a level where I could still see weight loss."

    How's that workin for ya Jimmy?

  6. Anonymous10:02 AM

    Unless Jimmy gets that he has to watch his calories in the future, he's going to gain it back again. History repeats over and over with him. Even back in 2007 he moderated his protein intake and didn't learn a thing.

    I'll take bets now to when he'll be back up to 300 in 2013!

  7. Regina, I really cannot believe you're doing this to Jimmy. I mean really. Why are you attacking him when he's just trying to find what works for him? No one is perfect, and Jimmy is still learning what will work for him since he has a really messed up metabolism. You don't! You have no idea what he is going through and this is just unacceptable, so I am no longer going to read your blog.

    1. But the point is, it doesn't work for him. His weight boomerangs wildly. He won't admit the truth: portions count, calories count. And he DOESN'T have a messed up metabolism. He loses weight fine when he cuts calories. Your comment sounds like a caricature of a 3-year old.

  8. Anonymous10:15 AM

    Oh man, you said exactly what I've been thinking for years. I think Jimmy has an eating disorder. What else explains his ups and downs? He has been lowcarb for so long, it's not like he doesn't know how to do it, he just ignores how to do it to maintain his weight and blames his metabolism. Give me a break.

  9. Marissa10:49 AM

    Jimmy cannot bring himself to ever admit that he eats too many calories when he gains, it's always something else. Over the years it's been too many carbs, creatine, a broken metabolism, reactive hypoglycemia, too much exercise; you name, it's an excuse. He's all about excuses, with his aw shucks pity party me, I have a broken metabolism. He eats too damn much food. Now he's not, he's controlling it, and he's losing. We're supposed to buy this bullshit it's because he eats too much protein, but not too much food? God help us if he's the face of lowcarb because he is going to gain the weight back, then what's his excuse?

  10. Anonymous1:12 PM

    It's sad that Jimmy can't control himself unless he's public about it. I feel for him, I do, but this many gains over the years, it's almost like he does it for the attention. I don't keep up with his shenanigans anymore, he's pathetic.

  11. Anonymous1:14 PM

    Haters are gonna hate. That's all.

  12. The truth is Jimmy hasn't learned how to eat, even with years of staying with a low-carb diet. He hasn't learned portion control. He hasn't learned you cannot eat whatever you want as long as it is low in carbs. He hasn't learned that pigging out leads to weight gain. He hasn't learned that low-carb is not a free for all. He hasn't learned a thing, except how to make excuses.

  13. Anonymous2:03 PM

    Why do you care what Jimmy does? He's doing what works for him, so leave him alone!

  14. Anonymous6:33 PM

    Jimmy's an idiot. Only fools listen to him!

  15. Anonymous8:50 AM

    If nothing else, Jimmy shows that it is very possible to gain weight eating low carb. For years he insisted you can't, but you can and he does himself because he eats too much food. And good god, the amount he'd have to eat to get in 175g of protein is like two pounds of meat. He didn't expect to gain eating like that? So now he's eating less and moving more, exactly what he's whined about in the past being not necessary if you're just low carb.

  16. Anonymous9:33 AM

    Jimmy doesn't listen to Jimmy.

    So here was Jimmy New Years 2007 (2 years post 180 lb weight loss):

    ... Now it's three years since the day I began my low-carb lifestyle and I've been able to keep that weight off with relative ease now for two years. Unbelievable and amazing all at the same time!

    While I don't think I'm out of the woods yet until I can keep the weight off for a minimum of three years (which will be one year from now on January 1, 2008), I do think I've proven that livin' la vida low-carb is indeed a long-term solution to obesity. There's no denying it based on my own experience. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't walked a mile in my shoes.

    With all that said, I believe there are areas of my health that still need some additional work and I'm willing to resolve to work on them in 2007. That's right, I am making a list of New Year's resolutions for 2007 to improve my health even more.

    After a good deal of thought, here's what I want to do:

    1. Get below 200 pounds

    Currently I weigh 220 pounds and I've been unable to go below 215 pounds since my weight loss in 2004. While I am certainly NOT bemoaning my situation because at least the weight is staying off, I'd personally LOVE to get down to 199 just to say I'm back in the 100's again (or that coveted ONE-derland!). I haven't been at that weight since the 5th grade! Yeah, I was pretty chunky as a kid, but not anymore. Considering I've lost 20 pounds since August, I don't think losing 21 pounds in 2007 is unreasonable. That's less than two pounds a month. It's doable and I'M GONNA DO IT!

    2. Get my body fat percentage down to 6% ...

    3. No more diet sodas ...

    4. Consistency with cardio workouts

    Everyone who knows me will tell you I am a workout fiend. Since I began my low-carb program, I have committed myself fully to walking on the treadmill, getting on the elliptical machine, playing volleyball at my church and many other aerobic activities that get my heart rate up and makes me sweat. I LOVE cardio workouts tremendously! But I noticed in 2006 that I'd allow myself to slack off to only 30 minutes per day and sometimes skipping a day or two here and there. It's not a big deal, but enough for me to want to resolve to be more consistent with my cardio in 2007. I will be!

    5. Get serious about resistance training

    ... So that's it! Those are Jimmy Moore's 5 New Year's Health Resolutions for 2007 and I fully intend to do them all. I'm all about incremental changes and believe in my heart that NOW is the right time to do these things for myself. Of course, you know I'll keep you informed about my progress on each one at my blog and will share with you my success as it happens.

    There's no doubt I'll hit the weight loss goal with the focus on reducing my body fat and lifting weights. I should be able to hit my body fat percentage goal as well and remaining consistent on the cardio. While it will be tough, giving up diet sodas shouldn't be that hard either. The most difficult one will be the weight lifting. I'm PUMPED to do this, so I think I'll be ready to show off my improved physique before the end of 2007. Again, I'm skeptical about it doing much for my loose skin, but here's hoping!

    So that was the Jimmy Moore of 2007.

  17. Joe Leonardi has the same problem as Jimmy. The difference is he's acknowledged it on his first weight gain from not paying attention to what he's eating. Jimmy needs to see this!

  18. Anonymous12:29 PM

    Back in April, Jimmy did his safe-starch schtick with sweet potatoes and a ton of people commented about his calorie intake, that he was adding way too much fat to a half a sweet potato (3 tablespoons) and that his calorie intake was too high, that's why he was gaining. Jimmy being Jimmy though, pooh-poohed it and said he was eating between 2300-2500 calories a day and gaining. What a liar and people believe him!

  19. Anonymous7:02 PM

    Jimmy's a fool.

  20. Anonymous8:54 PM

    Jimmy works really hard to provide free information for people and you're just jealous of him!

  21. Anonymous8:56 PM

    Haters are gonna hate.

  22. CarbSeine9:54 PM

    Statements like Jimmy's chocolate cake remark simply prove the guy has a tenuous (at best) grasp of the science behind low carb. And responses to Regina's and Richard's incredulity like the latest one on his blog - 'So what', basically - merely emphasize his WILLING ignorance of the science. Jimmy may as well be pushing Fundamentalist Christianity or young-Earth creationism. Same true-believer mindset, same unwillingness to even admit that 'evidence' - or any kind - even matters. Stubbornness isn't even the word for this king of behavior (especially when coming from the public face of low carb). And for those of you who keep falling back on the 'But gee, Jimmy's such a nice guy' retort, go and publicly (but respectfully) disagree with him. If your comment even sees the light of day, I can just about guarantee a second one never will.

  23. Nancee12:21 AM

    I have to admit I used to have a lot of faith in Jimmy's methods when I first started low carb a year ago. I am disappointed he has gone so radical with this whole NK thing. For me it is unecessary and has become an obsession for him. To each their own, but I believe in a low carb lifestyle for the long term. He was kind of a mentor but now it as though he is shunning that which he once preached when he was sooo passinate about all the benefis of low carb. Where will it all end? Who knows.
    I am very comfortable these days with the writings of Barry Groves-his ideas are neither new nor radical. Good luck Jimmy but I would ask yourself what you a really trying to find.

  24. Ah, Regina, you return.

    Hmmmmnnn... now see, you can muse and ponder and if it's critical it's not a big deal because you and Jimmy are friends for eons, but onlookers don't know this, and they only see it as you vs. him which is unfortunate. I'm assuming you've confirmed all the numbers in here with him first.

    I admire his public efforts (it can't be easy to live in a fishbowl). I have to say though, you're working the mainstream angle here which is unusual, and left me -- what's your word, "gobsmacked." A little.

    So yet-someone-else is suggesting that if someone overweight had difficulty losing fat, they were just overeating and if they say otherwise they're lying about their food by accident or design.

    Everyone wants to believe this, everyone ALREADY believes this, it's apparently culturally drilled into us by osmosis or something, that "calorie math" is so unassailable that any claims to the contrary are like a Scooby-Doo ending: "Why, it's not a real ghost at all! It's that farmer Mr. Granger!" "Yeah, and it would have worked if it weren't for you darn kids!" Like we're indoctrinated to believe any claim that calories aren't the law is a hoax.

    This theory of fat-people-are-liars (even if by honest mistake) may sometimes be true, but its mass-brush-stroke use is vomitous. (Is that a word?)

    [And the claims about this in research have now reached the degree of being so mathematically improbable I'm starting to just ignore them. There is clearly some confounding factor going on that bias is simply keeping anybody from looking for.]

    On the other hand, maybe you're right, and he really has reduced his calories by 30% and hence is losing weight and perhaps his entire concept of protein and nutritional ketosis are irrelevant... But even if he WAS eating more previously, why would non-carbohydrate increased calories reduce a person's level of ketosis?


    PS It's good to see you blogging again, although funny to think it took Jimmy comparing steak to chocolate cake to move you to it LOL.

  25. Anonymous7:16 AM

    Jimmy's response is telling, "who cares?" really says a lot. He doesn't want to know why he's losing again, he truly wants to believe that it is all about some magic hocus pocus from shoveling in fat instead of he's eating less now. I have followed Jimmy's blog for a long time, but it's turning into a narcissistic, hey look at me, all the time. Just like when he did his egg fest, his answers to questions are totally focused on him, what he's doing, it's now pile on the fat. He says do what works for you, but doesn't allow any disagreement on his blog, so I'm glad I can reply here, maybe he'll read and get a clue.

  26. Maggie7:25 AM

    Rickard Nikoley said it well: My point is that when you reduce protein and lose weight, it’s explained by eating less food, not some magical property of reducing protein. Jimmy and company seem locked into this idea that “calories don’t count,” so it’s always the carbohydrates, well, was. Then when they stall because when they went LC at 220 pounds and spontaneously reduced consumption to that of a 180 pounder, low & behold some months later they weigh 180. And when the go to 190 instead of to 170 where they want to be, it’s some sort of metabolic problem, not the fact they slowly began eating more over time. Then when they reduce food by severely cutting their protein, increasing fat perhaps a bit and lose weight, oh, hey, it’s the magic of “nutritional ketosis,” not that they’re eating less.

    Perhaps once they begin lowering fat too, some people will have a light go off and realize that LC, LP, LF, or any combination is usually going to be a LowCal diet in relative terms and that’s why weight & fat are lost.

  27. Anonymous8:30 AM

    Jimmy lost credibility a long time ago. It's not because he gained weight either, but because he keeps his head in the sand about the role that calories do play in gaining weight. He's looking for an explanation, other than calories, so that he doesn't have to be accountable for eating too much. When you eat too much, I don't care if it's lowcarb or not, you're going to gain weight. Lowcard doesn't protect us against gaining weight. It gives us a way to control our weight without being hungry all the time, but we still have to be mindful of the calories or we'll gain weight.

  28. Anonymous8:56 AM

    Can we not agree that there are different ways to go about finding our own best health? And not attack those who have found what works for them? With the realization that "what works" may need to change over time?

  29. Anonymous9:25 AM

    Anonymous at 8:56, Jimmy has eaten lowcarb for years, he keeps repeating the same thing again and again with the same results, lose-gain-lose-gain-lose-gain. He'll be back up again in no time because he has never actually lerned how to eat lowcarb and relies on gimmicks and hacks. If he truly wants to keep his weight off, he needs to eat how he eats when he's losing and not go back to the buffet again and again because it's lowcarb. That doesn't work for him. Right now he's measuring everything if he knows his percentages as he claims, and he knows he's eating less but can't bring himself to admit he overeats when he doesn't measure everything.

  30. Anonymous9:50 AM

    I'm really surprised you've turned on Jimmy like this, you guys are supposed to be friends! Why does it matter to you if Jimmy loses weight with nutritional ketosis? Why do you care what he's doing? Really, get a life!

  31. Deep in Ketosis9:57 AM

    The CICO crew completely neglect to address how it is that you also, clearly, have gained muscle in addition to your fat loss. If we are going to go by her "Conventional wisdom" of a 1000/day, 7000/wk deficit for the explanation of your fat loss, then someone needs to explain to me how you managed to put on all that muscle. Doesn't "Conventional Wisdom" suggest that you would have to be in a calorie surplus to build muscle? If 3500 extra calories = 1 lb of fat, then how many extra calories = 1 lb of muscle? Is it the same? Can she PLEASE explain to me how you have both a surplus and a deficit at the same time? Until your hormone signals are straightened out, it does not matter what kind of deficit you create, your body can chose not to give up its fat. Anyone who has tried forced calorie restriction knows this. Once your hormones are straight, your body just partitions your food properly. Unfortunately for some, there is more to getting your insulin under control than just the food that we eat. If you are low carb, moderate protein, high fat, and are still trying/needing to count calories, you might check for underlying issues that can cause insulin problems, high iron levels, gut pathogens, dental disease, stress, etc. Once your body is HEALTHY, it can sort the calories out for itself. End Rant.

    1. Anonymous7:32 AM

      Excellent, excellent point!

    2. Data from Volek & Phinney show it's possible to be in a calorie deficit, lose fat mass and gain muscle mass, resulting in a net weight loss. Factoring into that are testosterone levels, exercise, and nutrients - Jimmy is on hormone replacements (medical reasons, not just to do it), he is exercising and he's still, I believe, taking supplements; he's also again controlling his carbohydrate and watching his protein intake. V&P, along with various other researchers, show one does not need a calorie surplus to build muscle and lose fat. Also, note, the calorie deficit you've noted is from baseline estimated intake - it is now, at his lower weight, a smaller deficit than when he started his experiment.

  32. Anonymous10:10 AM

    Jimmy's problem is that he eats too much. Even good food isn't good for you in excess.

    But I know he's trying to beat that; it's both a habit and a soother, so it's difficult. And his own brother died a year or so ago, having never gotten a grip on it, so I give Jimmy a lot of credit.

    Um, his brother has been dead for almost four years. Thankfully he doesn't seem to be using that for an excuse for being fat these days, at least not publicly.

    I agree that Jimmy eats too much, but he's also notoriously devoted to frankenfoods. I know he got off diet soda, but only after years and a lot of denial that the sodas had anything to do with him gaining weight.

  33. Anonymous11:10 AM

    I absolutely think Jimmy has again created a calorie deficit, and his wanting to ignore it defies logic. He should be singing the praise of how modifying his diet to include enough protein and lowcarb has finally led to the calorie intake he needs to lose weight. Instead he's burying his head in the sand, pretending calories still don't matter and says he doesn't care. As long as the legions of followers follow and not challenge him, he'll continue along, gain again and then what will be his excuse?

  34. Anonymous11:15 AM

    Your can spot the Jimmy sycophants a mile away! You're a hater, haters are going to hate, leave Jimmy alone, Jimmy is a nice guy, why are you so mean?

    Seriously, why people don't think for themselves is amazing to watch. You are right, Jimmy is in a calorie deficit and it's working, as it always has in the past. Jimmy needs to learn how to eat for the long term or he's going to gain back again. I feel very sorry for him and at the same time don't. He does it to himself with his magical thinking that as long as it's low-carb it's free to eat in any quantity, and that's just not true.

    Jimmy though is boxed in with his thinking because if he were to critically discuss his situation, he'd have to admit that low-carb alone isn't the panecea he's claimed for years. You can gain weight eating low-carb and he proves this!

  35. If you're right, and I think you are, doing some more math tells us that Jimmy will be able to continue losing (if he changes nothing) down to 190 pounds. Then, with no changes, he can maintain that, but won't lose more without fewer calories. He will run the risk of gains though if he starts to eat too many calories again too. Jimmy has yet to post what he is actually eating, but he has left clues. He's eating about 80g of protein. He's intermittent fasting too. He's added supplements like glycosolve. He's on prescription testosterone too. And he's added exercise again. I think all of that is helping with the calorie deficit.

  36. Anonymous1:16 PM

    I don't know why anyone listens to, let alone follows, Jimmy Moore. In all the years since he found low-carb, he's not been normal weight, or even close. He yo-yo's all the time while saying how spectacular his results are. If his results are spectacular, I don't want any part of it!

  37. Melissa5:56 PM

    The marketplace needs to speak loud and clear - and compel Mr. Moore to once again earn an honest living. Posts like this one are a damn good start.

  38. Well done Regina for posting this.

  39. Well done Regina for posting this.

  40. EV Lynne6:28 PM

    Just watch out, Regina - Jimmy holds grudges (as I'm sure you know). Don't be fooled by the syrupy Southern sweetness he trots out for public consumption (as I'm sure you're not).

    1. I am Primal10:55 AM

      That's sort of funny, really. I don't know either of them in person, but over the years, I do get a sense that they are friends, even offline. Me? I don't think Jimmy is the type to hold gruges, at least not against criticism of what he's doing. Regina was pretty notorious for calling him out in the past, so really, I think he's used to his ideas being challenged by her, and he might even want them to be!

  41. Anonymous11:41 AM

    This guy is a bible-thumping, church-attending believer of magic rocks and flying unicorns (the 1st red flag) and folks are stunned that he doesn't exhibit a rational, logical, and scientific thought process?

    He's the type of person who -- by definition -- cannot be depended on to apply critical thinking. These types of folks take things on faith and their beliefs are immutable. You can't reason with this type of person because you can't reason a person out of a belief that was not based on reason in the first place.

    If his lack of credibly wasn't obvious to folks before, it certainly should be now. Particularly after Regina's and Evelyn's devastating write-ups. I think we're done here now and can move on...

  42. Anonymous12:19 PM

    Jimmy has a business to run, and wild claims sell ideas.

  43. Anonymous1:20 PM

    It's been pretty clear to me since the "sweet free challenge" that when Jimmy eats less, he losses weight. Every time he really cuts back, he losses weight. Regina isn't being mean (and neither am I) by pointing this out. We both think Jimmy is a great guy.

    Jimmy may not "count calories" but his body definitely does. It's as simple as that.

    The sooner he accepts that, the easier his life will be.

  44. Anonymous9:40 PM

    It so good to see you writing again! You preach the truth, and it is much appreciated.

    OTOH, I am sorry to see carbsane now trying to act like you're following what she's said all along. That made me laugh out loud. Honestly. You were around long before her, and, unlike her, you've made a positive difference in the world. She should take a few lessons from your book instead of trying to act like she wrote it.

  45. Should we start the Jimmy Moore death watch for 2013? I really think his diet will kill him.

    Look at his blood lipids

    blood and urine tests on December 14, 2012

    TC - 419
    Calculated LDL - 332
    Trig - 60
    HDL - 75

    "Here are some of the areas of concern and what I’m doing to address them:

    Low magnesium levels – taking 300mg of magnesium glycinate twice daily
    Low protein and globulin (“leaky gut”) – increasing probiotic intake from food and supplements
    Elevated MCV, MCH and homocysteine levels – taking high-potency B-complex twice daily
    Elevated cholesterol and LDL – a known issue I’ve discussed previously
    Low T4, T3 and FT3 – no action needed since there are no negative effects from it
    Protein in the urine – existing problem prior to beginning my NK experiment
    It wasn’t all bad news, though. Here are the highlights from these tests:

    Fasting blood glucose was 90 – definitely out of pre-diabetic range
    Hemoglobin A1c was 5.1 – outstanding marker of blood glucose health
    Triglycerides were 60 – anything under 100 is excellent
    HDL cholesterol was 75 – above 50 is a superb heart health marker
    VLDL cholesterol is 12 – well below the “normal” level of 40
    C-Reactive protein was just .55 – key inflammation marker virtually non-existent
    Vitamin D is 51.6 – not too high, not too low (the “Goldilocks” level)

    1. His blood work points to the effects of a low-protein diet.

    2. Hi Regina,

      I'm curious about this statement. I haven't looked into such effects. Could you elaborate as to what parameters are signs of an LP diet? Thanks!

  46. "Low T4, T3 and FT3 – no action needed since there are no negative effects from it"

    You better hope you get those numbers back up if you want any hope to keep it off this time, those low numbers could also be causing your high cholesterol or making it worse!

  47. Anonymous2:36 AM

    thanks for share......

  48. Your blog provides us a good information. Its really very helpful to me..
    Industrial Fasteners
    Nuts and Bolts Suppliers
    Stainless Steel Fasteners