Had Colpo confined himself to noting that total food consumption is not irrelevant, that you can overeat on a low-carb diet (maybe, it isn't easy), he would not have gotten any argument from me. But that's not all that he said.

And I never thought he was attacking low-carb.

I'd suggest that "eating too many calories" is not a good way to think of it. "Eating too much food" is much simpler!

Further, suppose someone *is* eating too much. I'd wonder *why*? Answering that question is not as simple as some people with hard bodies seem to think....

However, unless the person has some metabolic disorder (which is certainly possible), it would have to be that the body's natural "enough" signals are being ignored.

But the claim that "you just eat too much," is quite likely to be heard as "you should starve yourself." Which doesn't work. Certainly, a food addiction may be involved, and dealing with it will be the only way that the person is going to succeed in losing weight, but....

So many people have struggled with weight, fighting their appetites, fighting hunger, fighting guilt, and all that, only to find that when they tried low-carb (and were lucky enough to get it right, there are certainly wrong ways to do it), the problem basically vanished. These people did *not* need to count calories. They just needed to count net carbs, and to change the way that they eat to one which was not only healthier, but actually more pleasurable as well.

If he was never accused of being dishonest, then he is being dishonest in saying people are accusing him of being dishonest. My head... ouch... logic loop, "the next statement I say will be a lie: 'I am lying'"

I'm going to walk away from my computer and get a haircut from the barber who shaves all people who do not shave themselves.

Actually, he's right (someone brought it to my attention), he was called dishonest. It was said in another thread, not the one you're probably thinking about:

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=255826

We would normally remove such attacks, except for the fact that Anthony responded to it, calmly, in the same thread. Since it was not reported by him or any other member, we thought we'd let the thread continute, especially since the attacker never responded, and Anthony made his point.

Wa'il

I find that to be incorrect though. You can eat a lot of food and it won't be too much, as long as it isn't calorie dense. In fact, that's kind of the premise behind my current diet. Lots of lean protein and veggies. Quantities can be quite large, however the calories aren't. I can actually eat "less" and still gain weight, if the "less" is calorie dense. I hate these oversimplifications.

And just because the calories are not large doesn't mean you're starving or hungry either.

Why do people think that just because you're concerned with total calories that you're starving or hungry? I suppose it is because they associate calorie counting with high carb diets that do make you hungry but obviously there's a lot of magic in low carb so you don't have to suffer that hunger.

I'm starting to think Bill Clinton said it best. "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

Tamarian is correct, the word "dishonest" was used. But Colpo was quite clearly responding to the recent exchange, not the one above, which was almost over five months ago, and which was, quite clearly, from someone who was really complaining about lack of balance; the word "dishonest" in that context was badly chosen. Anyone interested can look it up.

That's not really relevant here. The *current* charge that Colpo was called dishonest arose in specific response to a message from me which did *not* call him dishonest. That was answered before with an objection and, just in case it wasn't clear, a clarification that what was said about him neither accused him of dishonesty, in the sense of knowingly saying what he knows is false, nor was there some opinion or impression behind it that he was dishonest. Both Colpo and those defending him have ignored this.

At some point, though, if one continues asserting something that is false when there is ample opportunity to discover the truth about it, one's honesty *does* come into question. But there is no specific point, and my personal opinion remains that Colpo and his "friends" are so busy defending his reputation against the charge of dishonesty that they don't notice that there was -- *here* -- no such charge.

So: to answer the question of another writer: if someone claims to have been accused of dishonesty when he was not, is he being dishonest?

There is no Barber of Seville paradox here. If he believes that he was so accused, he is not being dishonest to claim it. If he knows that he was not, yes, it would be an example of dishonesty. As they say, "It's the coverup, stupid!"

There is a point at which ignorance, which is the natural condition of man, but which is remediable, becomes culpable. It is when a person turns away from and rejects, without knowledge, what would inform and enlighten. This turning away is a major concern of religion, in Islam it is called "kufr," and it should be understood generally, not in some sectarian way, but I won't go further into that here. Wrong forum.

Dishonest or not, I would say he's duplician. Saying "a calorie is a calorie" is tantamount to saying "a human being is a bomb calorimeter." From what I understand of his recent Strike Back, he is acknowledging that metabolism works differently when it comes to fat then it does for carbohydrates. Saying "a calorie is a calorie" implies all calories work the same way within the human body.

A good analogy would be "a pound is a pound." Ultimately, it's true. The contradictory statement, "a pound is not a pound," makes no sense unless you're talking about the weight of British paper money. But, it implies that all weight loss is good. So, it doesn't matter if we're loosing a pound of water, a pound of fat, a pound of muscle, it's a pound and that's what counts.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of examples where A=A statements lead to wrong conclusions if taken beyond their original tautologies. A cat is a cat, but a Bengal house-cat and a Bengal tiger are quite different. A fish is a fish, but a great white shark is more likely to eat you (by accident, you don't taste as good as a seal) then a minnow is. A computer is a computer, but a Windows machine won't run Macintosh software. Essentially, non-definitions of this nature are meaningless. Like saying "a blorg is a blorg," it tells us absolutely nothing that we can use to figure out what the blorg a blorg actually is.

My assumption is that Colpo is either being deliberately provocative (which is what it sounds like in his article about how stupid and dogmatic the people he's arguing with are), or has specific language issues, (e.i. semantic-pragmatic disorder) and doesn't understand the implications of what he's saying.

I just don't understand why he is having the meltdown he is.

He's gained cult-like status among LCers. This sounds like betrayal. It is a fixture of the LC culture that calories don't count much (or at least not as much as carbs, or that carbs exclusively determine calories, or some other incarnation of the "its okay to eat unlimited bacon" mindset).

I agree it is stupid and he is right. If you have a weight problem that is of any significance, or have a specific fitness goal in mind, it means you HAVE to watch calories at least a little bit. However, I also think he shouldn't be surprised at the reaction he's getting. The fallacy that calories don't count that much is a big part of the whole Atkins/LC fad movement thing that is now dead and gone. Most of us came to LC via the "fad" - traditional LC telling us to wash our hands for touching a berry before your 2 weeks were up, but go ahead and eat fats galore.
Remember big bags of pork rinds and net carb candies that sent the message it was okay to eat high calorie "fun food" indiscriminantly like that and lose weight? Get real. Few people who eat food like that, as the packages suggest are going to lose weight. This is true for no other reason than calories.
The LC fad had us believe a tablespoon of salsa (2-1 carbs) with 5 calories is equal to a package of sugar free chocolate with 220 calories per serving. The LC fad had us believe eating 5 strawberries is a worse weight choice than eating a quarter cup heavy cream with sugar free jello, because the berries have a few more carbs. That's just downright ridiculous. But lots of people believe that, or want to believe it anyway (myself included; part of me still is "Atkins brainwashed" and doesn't "get" why I , with my history of obesity, can't just gorge and feel nice and full all the time and still be a size 2 ).

He is right, and he is trying to slash through the cobwebs of diet lies and myths to help people meet their fitness goals, and for that I respect him.

However, he is a "representative" of the low carb "religion", and this is one of our most sacred and defining beliefs. He is citing a tenant of "the enemy". It would be like if a preacher turned around to his congregation and said "ya know what? I don't think most of what the bible said is true - in all likelihood that never even happened!" The preacher has a valid point, sure. But can this preacher honestly act surprised when his followers exhibit a negative emotional reaction by gasping in horror and shock and maybe even turn on him? He is definitely over reacting and behaving very immature. Someone as outspoken and opinionated as Colpo needs to do a little growing up, if his head explodes like this when he faces a little bit of disapproval. News flash for Colpo: when you speak on a public forum, and ask for people to listen to you, it is par for the course that people are not always going to like what you say. Some may even forget you are a person and start attacking you personally. I don't think the president cries himself to sleep or punches monitors (as you claim to be doing) because someone said he is an idiot for his new policies.

He was vicious to our members from the outset, and frankly, if he was anyone BUT Anthony Colpo he would have been banned for his antics (or at the very LEAST the thread would have been dumped int he war zone and he would be given a warning).

I agree.
Many of us embrace LC because we have unconscious hangups about feeling hungry. LC attracted us because it made us not feel hungry OR we heard it would.

As an obese person, your hunger comes to represent a deep inner fear that there is something defective about you. It represents failure, it represents weakness, fear, uncertainty. We are told flippantly "god why are you so fat, just eat less" as if we were making a decision to desire food excessively, all the time, and be fat. Many have tried dieting without controlling carbohydrate sensitivity, felt the out of control weakness of failing those diets, the deep shame and self loathing of weight regain.

Obese people are made to feel worthless every day, by ourselves and others, and our hunger is the symbol of it all.
On the polar end of the spectrum, eating disordered people get off by controlling their hunger. Why? Hunger represents their pervasive feelings of self loathing and inadequacy. It represents fears and anxieties, too, (especially if carb sensitive as many are). By mastering their hunger, they are "owning" their baggage.

Then LC comes and liberates us, telling us we are good, there is nothing wrong with us, that food is okay and we are okay. We were told we had a metabolic disease and that's why we were weak and out of control with our food; our hunger is not a symbol of us as "the obese stereotype", it is not a symbol of our intrinsic immorality (gluttony).
Speaking personally this felt so much like a revelation, it was like a religious awakening, I was saved and then "reborn" carbohydrate conscious .

Or lets assume for a second you are a person without much stigma for being fat - you wanted to drop 30 or 20 or no pounds, you do LC for other health benefits like blood sugar control, energy, whatever. If you had blood sugar problems, then it's likely that you know the terror and panic "life or death" hunger state of a hypoglycemic attack. If you were like me, it means you lived your life "dreading" in fear, when you would "become hungry". I never knew what hunger was until I controlled my blood sugar; all I knew was irrational desire for food and a panic/urgent state characterized by a feeling of being anxious, out of control, shaking badly, and just falling apart.
I am reading a book called the "highly sensitive person", recommended to me, and it says that HSP experience the sensations of hunger much more deeply than usual. Now, if you have hypoglycemia on top of that (which I would describe as "a hunger to prevent what the body perceives as death"), imagine how that would make you feel. I notice many of us incline to introverted/sensitive/perceptive dispositions (even if not extremely so). For us, our experiences are felt very deeply, and we have learned to be afraid of the trauma of hypoglycemia.

For you, hunger may not represent imparted and engendered low self worth (like it does for the obese person), but it represents a terrifying loss of control and well being that is a hypoglycemic blood sugar crash. You associate hunger (a normal low energy state signal, a normal function of the body) with the feeling of poorly controlled blood sugar (a life-threatening, abnormal, low energy disease). When someone tells you to restrict calories, you think back to how you felt then, and you assume it is the same. I would liken it to how a sexual abuse victim feels about the prospect of consensual relationships. They just cant get passed the violence and trauma paired with sex, and they have a profound instinctual aversion to sex in any form.


We all have some kind of issues with food, all of us on this forum. I don't htink it's possible to be fat or have experienced uncontrolled carbohydrate sensitivity without developing some kind of hangups about food, hunger (and if obese, self/self worth).
There is a LOT of emotional baggage being poked and prodded here when someone tells a LC dieter they need to count calories to lose weight. That's the real issue: our unresolved issues.

He registered only to attack forum members. He had contributed nothing to our forum before that.
I don't read the omnivore, but I like emotionally charged arguments especially when they have a good solid base of logic. Of course, I am also logically and emotionally in favor of LC.
Odds are, I would greatly appreciate much of his writing and get a kick out of it.

But in so far as him in the context of our forum, I will not miss his presence. I also find him a bit immature and self centered (maybe a touch of a narcissistic personality ). It's like he wants to say what he wants, call this one an idiot and that one a moron while making his points. Then if you criticize him personally while making YOUR point, forget it, he throws a tantrum that is fit only for the self-centeredness and lack of introspection characteristic of a small child. I have no tolerance for people who have zero respect for the other side of a viewpoint, people who expect "special treatment" to their emotional indulgences but do not extend this courtesy to you.

You might want to consider why you have invested so much energy sifting and re-sifting this "debate," to the point where you started an entirely new thread, with an obvious desire to shit stir and gloat over some imagined victory. It says a lot about you, and it isn't flattering. Surely you have a better use for your time? Surely your ego isn't that fragile and in need of stroking?

it's interesting that you don't read the Omnivore site at all, yet you are passing complete judgement on someone who has, of his own accord, time and effort, contributed a great deal to finding real information that supports the low carb way of life.

i've seen on this forum members bagging out others who don't support the "evidence of low carb", talking about doctors or scientists who support low fat like they are idiots - members talking about how frustrating it is that the medical profession just isn't smart enough to get that low carb is the greatest thing since, dare i say it, sliced bread. so it's ok for people here to feel frustrated but not anyone else.

put yourself in anthony's shoes for a second: if you were receiving banal, abusive emails from people who aren't bothering to argue their point intelligently, just taking issue with your message of low carb, you'd get frustrated too. and you would certainly be disillusioned by all that has happened on this forum, considering he's on your side.

it's really pathetic that this thread was even started in the first place but i guess i shouldn't be surprised that it has spiralled downward into a name-calling b#*ch fest once again. such hypocritical, judgemental attitudes are worthy of the low fat camp.

i plan to write more later, but since i started this thread i need to address why i did so.

i, and others, were having a discussion on one of anthony's articles on a previous thread. anthony joined that discussion, and despite the regrettable sniping that took place, some interesting topics were brought up and debated.

however, and for whatever reason, anthony decided he had had enough and disappeared. after i spent quite a lot of time researching and responding to that thread, this was disappointing.

now, nearly a month later, anthony has chosen to pick up the discussion again. unfortunately, he didn't do it here. he blasted his detractors (as if we're all the same person) on his website where he can't be directly challenged and where he can freely spin the debate (and, of course, get in to the gratuitous name-calling that has become a conspicuous feature of his writings). i actually felt a little sorry for him, but nevertheless found his actions repugnant, and posting his writings here was my only recourse.

btw, there are more than two "sides" to most topics, and this one is no exception. i'm a low-carb advocate, as is anthony. this puts us on the same "side" in some respects. however, this does not mean that i shouldn't or won't make legitimate criticisms of his work or point out pertinent facts that he may have either forgotten, neglected to mention, or not known. he's is not above reproach simply because he has 20 years of experience in the field, has a website, and has sub 6% body fat. he is fallible just like all of us are.

Do you have any idea what you just said? Was that brilliant Dada-esque deconstructionism or were you actually unaware of the fact the above paragraph contains name calling and judgemental attitudes?

Exactly. All the name-calling from either side reminds me of an elementary school playground. Without that, the message is more than worth listening to and I am in agreement with most of his points. When you call someone stupid etc, all it serves is to evoke the same sort of emotional response from your opponents. If you argue in an adult, rational manner, you may actually sway someone's opinion. Calling someone an idiot because they disagree with you merely solidifies their position out of stubbornness if nothing else. This type of writing or speaking also comes across as very unprofessional and is hard to take seriously regardless of the validity of the message.

I do wish he could change the delivery because the message is a good one based on my experience.