Controversial Anthony Colpo Interview re: Low Carb Diet Docs

[Mark McManus]

Hi everyone this is my first post. Maybe I should have picked a more light-hearted post to begin with

Anyway I learned of this forum from Jimmy Moore's 'Top 10 Movers and Shakers of 2007.' I've also posted the following at his forum too.

I have just posted an extremely interesting and controversial interview with Anthony Colpo on my blog. He also gives away a free ebook in this article entitled, "They're all MAD!" - talking about supporters of the 'Metabolic Advantage' theory.

It's 5,500 words long and he goes into great detail about low carb nutrition. One major issue in the interview is the Metabolic Advantage put forward by Dr. Atkins and Drs. Eades of 'Protein Power' among others. To say he feels strongly about it is an understatement!

Colpo is a very intelligent man and puts his case across well. Jimmy Moore has interviewed him at Livin' La Vida Low Carb a couple of times. I think many of us have decided that the jury is still out on the Metabolic Advantage whereas others are convinced of its truth and effectiveness. Anthony, however, contends that it is pure fantasy although he is an avid low-carb advocate. I first came across his views after reading his 'Fat Loss Bible' book and so I had to quiz him on it. After some correspondence, we decided to do an interview to really get his view across.

Some people will hate this interview, some will love it. I love it although, as I've stated, the jury is still out in my opinion. There's evidence both for and against it.

Will Drs. Eades respond to this? I don't know but there could be a bit of a storm over it. Gary Taubes , a man I think we all love for his research and courage, is also held up for scrutiny. Make of it what you will.

I would love you to read it, get the free 'Metabolic Advantage' book and also give your opinion. Discuss it here and if you would like Anthony to see your comment, post at the blog.

Anyways, good to be here at Low Carb Friends.

Thanks guys,

Mark McManus

[jem51]

i actually enjoyed this article and of course laughed a little at the MAD part since we, on this board, have these disagreements on a regular basis. well, i don't know about MAD or whether it's an individual thing....but i eat more calories now. maybe it is the extreme nature of what i was eating before but all those years of eating a macrobiotic diet (90-100% carbs depending on whether you eat fish/tofu/etc), i struggled more and more w my weight. i would count calories and measure....i tried to stay at 1000 calories. it was crazy. i don't count now but it is definitely more than that due to the fat content if nothing else. this MAD arguement will undoubtedly go on forever but no matter what, it is a sure thing that lc works!

[ItsTheWooo]

My belief is and always was that there is no such thing as a metabolic ADVANTAGE... but rather a metabolic DISADVANTAGE for SOME people when eating a high carbohydrate or other unbalanced/inappropriate diets. The highly carb sensitive person will not use energy at the same rate as they would if insulin were not spiked by carb food. They will gain weight on less cals of high carb and lose weight on more of low carb. Food intake is undoubtedly a major part of the story, but it's not the only part.

Does this effect carry over to the weight-normal population? (moderate overweight is NOT the same thing as morbid obesity)
Probably not at as much, if at all, otherwise they wouldn't be weight normal eating carbohydrate right? Obesity is a disease, and to deny that there must be differences in how we metabolize food is to stay stuck int he "cals in cals out" theory that's so obviously wrong. Most people probably gain weight only if they OVER eat carbohydrate food (because this is the only time their insulin levels increase abnormally), and by this (overeating) I mean when they are force-fed (in studies) or during holidays (social customs to eat even if normally you wouldn't eat more). There is a big difference between someone who's hormones do wacky things only if they stuff themselves full of sugar unnaturally... and someone like myself who eats a bowl of branflakes, 20 carbs, and 2 hrs later is shaking and about to pass out from the insulin spike, resulting in this horrible cycle of crazy hunger and fat gain.

This is a BIG difference (between those who gain only if unnaturally/exceptionally overfed carb, and those like myself who get an insulin spike from less-than-normal carbohydrate intake). That habitual insulin spike from relatively low carb food (bran flakes, all ina ll, are pretty low carb) does things to my metabolism , which makes me burn energy inefficiently, and produces hunger that can only result in eating more.
I don't believe in the metabolic "advantage" of low carb for weight loss, but I sure as heck believe in the metabolic "disadvantage" of high carb diets for morbidly obese and other hyperinsulinemic/sugar labile individuals.
You won't find much in the way of research to support this (though I'm sure some study out there must exist) because so few researchers believe in obesity-as-a-disease therefore they habitually do weight-related research on those without obesity and extrapolate the findings to obese individuals (i.e. if there is no difference between the low carb and the high carb group of normal-weight people for inducing weight loss, this is evidence a calorie is a calorie, which is totally false for the reasons stated: most people DON"T get an insulin spike from freakin bran flakes the way I do!)



Regarding calories...
I also don't think calorie counting works both ways. To lose weight, calorie counting is MUCH more important than it is in weight maintenance, assuming a diet is sufficiently low enough in carbs. Weight loss is not the logical opposite of weight gain, metabolically or in endocrinology. The body prevents weight loss AND it prevents weight gain once at a favored spot of body fat; therefore, counting calories might be of more value to weight loss than it is to preventing weight gain.

Colpo probably doesn't recognize this, because he's so used to starving himself that he doesn't remember what happens in your body, if you eat like a normal person. In his world, the moment you stop counting cals, you start to put on weight... and he falsely assumes this must be true in general. Yes, if very much underweighted (and though at a normal or possibly high BMI due to muscle mass, Colpo IS underfatted significantly thus underweight from an endocrinological perspective), the moment you stop restricting, you start to replenish your fat stores. Duh. What else can the body be expected to do, besides maintain homeostasis?

For people with normal body fat levels, it works a little differently, and I've observed this first hand. It's very difficult for me to gain bodyfat now, whereas when I was significantly underfatted, tight calorie control (and metabolic slowdown) was necessary to prevent putting on flab. I still can gain, but then again, I still am pretty thin considering how fat my body prefers to be.

If I ever dared to eat as much as I eat low carb of high carb, I would be huge no questions.



I do tend to think for weight loss, at least at a certain point, calorie restriction is necessary.

But if at a healthy body fat level and eating very low carb... weight gain is a different story. The body prevents weight gain, as it does weight loss, assuming a healthy individual; just as we have to count cals to lose weight we shouldn't have to rigidly restrict everything we eat to prevent regaining weight. This implies something is not right with your weight or body. I couldn't maintain weight if I tried when I was 280 and initated into low carb. The way I feel now after eating a massive steak dinner is how I felt EVERY minute back then.
Same deal, when I was 104, maintaining that size was impossible because it was so extremely far away from anything resembling a normal healthy body fat/muscle mass for me that even weight loss intakes had me gain weight (and the hunger, was constant).


Like I said, I really think if colpo weren't starving himself as he is, he would observe the metabolic "advantage" (whatever you want to call it) in action, at least in regard to not developing obesity or unhealthy weight gain. It is unreasonable to expect your body to maintain a body fat level that is insufficient for normal functioning.

[Mark McManus]

Your right about that Jem51 - it works and that's what matters most.

but rather a metabolic DISADVANTAGE for SOME people when eating a high carbohydrate or other unbalanced/inappropriate diets. The highly carb sensitive person will not use energy at the same rate as they would if insulin were not spiked by carb food.

That's an excellent point ItsTheWoo. I think this is one of the points Gary Taubes is trying to get across.

Weight loss is not the logical opposite of weight gain, metabolically or in endocrinology. The body prevents weight loss AND it prevents weight gain once at a favored spot of body fat; therefore, counting calories might be of more value to weight loss than it is to preventing weight gain.

Again, a great point. From personal experience it would seem that it is indeed 2 different stories, especially when going from lean to very lean. In this case perhaps calories play a pivotal roll compared with the guy who simply wants to maintain his average weight and body fat %. More research is needed to settle it once and for all.

[rhlong]

Originally Posted by ItsTheWooo

This is a BIG difference (between those who gain only if unnaturally/exceptionally overfed carb, and those like myself who get an insulin spike from less-than-normal carbohydrate intake). That habitual insulin spike from relatively low carb food (bran flakes, all ina ll, are pretty low carb) does things to my metabolism , which makes me burn energy inefficiently, and produces hunger that can only result in eating more.
I don't believe in the metabolic "advantage" of low carb for weight loss, but I sure as heck believe in the metabolic "disadvantage" of high carb diets for morbidly obese and other hyperinsulinemic/sugar labile individuals.

I completely agree with those statements.

[nitenurse]

Thanks for bringing in these articles, and some new ideas to consider.
First of all, I think it's time we all, as a society regain some manners and quit demeaning each other, and name calling.
It's just as easy to say that you respectfully disagree.
Now, after trying to set societal interaction back 100 years, I will agree with the person who says that carbs make me hungry, therefore I am usually miserable, therefore I eat.
Bad solution on my part.
I respect people's education-the exercise ladies know a lot about muscles, the Eades MDs know a lot about physiology and how the body works (research changes this all the time). I also respect people's experience, above groups have the same.
I am a little bit educated (RN) and a whole lot experienced ( I am FAT); and I take in all this information happily, knowing full well in another 5-10 years all the theories may have to be modified.
So hooray for Atkins, Eades, Taubes, ....in my life, I am not ravenously hungry and I am slowly losing weight.
And hooray for you, for bringing this information in. Conclusion-everyone is a little bit right and possibly a little bit wrong.

[Mark McManus]

And hooray for you, for bringing this information in

If that was for me, thanks nitenurse. I'm happy that your experiencing success on your journey, long may it continue!

Also, you're right - let's keep debates nice and peaceful.

[Dharma]

I love this thread so thought I'd revive it.

Tuesday while in training, I got into a discussion with my trainer. She asked me what plan I was following. She already knows I'm a LC proponent. I told her I'm eating 80% fat, no more than 70 gr protein, no more than 40 carbs, which tends to work out to between 1700 and 1900 calories. I just started this, and am somewhat skeptical that I can lose on this many calories, but many plans do claim that a high fat diet like this works differently than a "balanced" diet of the same calories. I have read studies that show this too. So I'm trying it.

Anyway, my trainer insisted that I would lose weight eating under 2000 calories NO MATTER WHAT THE CALORIES CONSISTED OF. I just don't believe that. The fact that insulin prevents stored fat from being accessed (and this really isn't disputed, is it?) would seem to put this whole issue to rest, at least to me!! I'm sort of baffled that people still argue this.

We also argued about what causes Type II diabetes. I said it was excessive carb intake that causes insulin resistance, she said, NO, it was being overweight FROM WHATEVER SOURCE that causes diabetes. The thing is, if you are overweight, you are probably not that way from eating only protein and fat and low carb. Low carb is self-limiting. She really does not agree that dietary fat in the absence of carbs won't cause an insulin surge. She insists its STRICTLY calories. I happen to think we can eat A LOT of fat in the absence of carbs and NOT GAIN WEIGHT. You may not lose, but fat is such an excellent source of energy that you will burn it off. I've noticed on my 80% diet that I am restless, energetic, and fidget way more than normal. Which lines up with one of the things Taubes' says in GCBC.

The other issue is that the same rules do NOT apply to body builders as to the 'normal' person. Lowering bodyfat to these extremes has consequences and requires an ABNORMAL diet. I've never read ANY women bodybuilders 'stories' that didn't say, "Oh, and I found out my thyroid was almost non-functional, and when I got supplemented I was able to go even lower in bodyfat." Well, yes, the thyroid gave out BECAUSE of the reduced bodyfat issue. When I lost 20 lbs eating 900 calories a day my hormones practically quit functioning. And I was still eating around 50 grams of fat a day. I'm sure my thyroid would've been next. I rebounded and gained all the weight back, and my hormones finally went back to normal and I stopped showing signs of menopause (I'm 50).

To me, the metabolic advantage issue is about macronutrients and percentages. In that respect, I do believe macronutrient %s MATTER a great deal in how our bodies, gain, maintain, and lose. They may be different for different people, but on an individual basis, a person will have a completely different body composition based on their macronutrient % - independent of caloric intake differences.

I don't really understand why people are so adamant about this not being true really? Anybody have a clue? Because they think it's about dissing the laws of energy or something?

[WATCH-ME-SHRINK]

Very worthwhile reading, Dharma.

Glad I logged onto this board.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by WATCH-ME-SHRINK

Very worthwhile reading, Dharma.

Glad I logged onto this board.

Thanks.

Sometimes I think I ramble....but just saying things outloud that I think about!

[belleadonna]

Good article. I just wish that the Fat Loss Bible came in book form. It takes 3 days for me to download an ebook because I can't get anything but dial-up where I live!!!

[Dharma]

I've been reading a lot on the NO-carb forum (active no-carbers forum). I'm now giving the no carb, 80% fat path a try. I've stopped all alcohol until I reach goal. It is so hard to eat zero carb. I've already had about 6 today (from quiche for breakfast).

I'm reading all the 'Bear' postings and finding I totally agree with what he says. Whether I can actually do this is another thing. He's right about our upbringing (aculturation) really heavily influencing how we eat. I do like a lot of vegetables, but I don't want my intestines all scarred up, so I'm giving them up!! Most plant foods are actually toxic to our bodies. A lot of plant food shouldn't even be eaten unless it's cooked....and even then the nutrients just aren't really suited to us humans as carnivores. I've lost 2 lbs eating this way, but more importantly, I think I've found a way to eat that's EASY, delicious, and will allow me to lose and keep this extra bodyfat off. I'm definitely NOT hungry any more with all the fat. I feel "right".

[belleadonna]

I definitely don't agree with the no veggies deal. We get alot of good vitamins and minerals from veggies not to speak of fiber!!
I couldn't live without veggies.
What do you eat?? Just animal products?

WHO'S BEAR??

[weasel!]

Belleadonna, if you're curious about the Bear, check this out, replacing the "dot" with a .

http://activenocarber dot myfreeforum.org/forum2.php

Also, you know those Grateful Dead dancing bear cartoons? That bear is a reference to him. He used to be their soundman, back in the day. Here's a Wikipedia article about him:

http://en.wikipedia dot org/wiki/Owsley_Stanley

[belleadonna]

Okay, thanks!!