Autoimmune Thyroid Disease

An Unfortunate and Lengthy Adventure in Misdiagnosis

Eades versus Colpo

with 4 comments

Michael Eades and Anthony Colpo have been involved in what can politely be described as a ‘debate’ recently. Less politely it might be described as Eades trying his best to remain calm and professional whilst Colpo lashes out with personal insults like a rabid attack-dog. I enjoy both of their outputs – as long as they both stay off the subject of politics – though I worry about Colpo sometimes, if the man is THAT angry ALL the time, there must be something very wrong.

Eades has put up a post citing science in favour of the metabolic advantage. He quotes from a recent study on mice who were put on a ketogenic diet and lost more weight than controls due to changes in gene expression that caused them to burn at a hotter rate. The results of the study didn’t break the laws of thermodynamics.

On the other hand we have Colpo saying “Calories in equal calories out, there is no metabolic advantage.” Because that’s one of the main premises of his weight loss book, I haven’t bought it, as I’ve a more complex understanding of metabolism.

I honestly don’t know what these two are fighting about. It’s apparent that a ketogenic diet (usually but not always) makes one burn more calories than a carbohydrate-based diet because it increases metabolism and heat expulsion, at the very least in the short term. This theory has been around since at least the 1950’s. This doesn’t break the calories in = calories out rule, it never has. I think there are genetic exceptions to this too. Some people fair better with more carbohydrates in their diet, or less protein or more protein. I tend to favour ‘cycling’ between low and moderate carbohydrate content and not eating too much protein in order to maintain weight loss over an extended period – and eating very low chemical and opioid free.

Anyway, I’m not posting this to get into a tired old debate about the metabolic advantage. I’m here to fill in this blank:

What if underlying levels of fatness or genetics or _____ (we’ll fill in the blank later) cause us to eat more and burn less? Eades

With something like this:

What if underlying levels of fatness or genetics or increased insulin output caused by salicylates, amines, glutamates, additives and other food chemicals cause us to eat more and burn less?

Because that’s the way it went for me. I spent several years struggling with frighteningly rapid weight gain caused by food chemicals until I found the failsafe diet. I was very successful at controlling this weight gain though. This is because I have a will of iron – I may not be Posh Spice in terms of discipline, but I’m not Kirstie Alley either! Every three months or so I had to resort to a ketogenic diet in order to lose the weight I’d gained on the Atkins maintenance diet. I really didn’t eat that much – and believe me, I calculated my calorie intake very truthfully in FitDay. In fact, eating lots of fat and calories had the perverse effect of making me lose several pounds. I was extremely sensitive to relatively small amounts of carbohydrate though.

These days I eat a lot more carbohydrate and I don’t gain any weight at all. I only gain weight when I’ve cheated on failsafe – most usually by visiting a restaurant and eating meat or fish that is too old and aminey/glutamatey. Vacuum packed meat at home does the same thing to me. Physically I may not even feel bad (in fact I often feel happy-high), but I certainly feel it on my backside after a couple of days!

Whether you are underweight or overweight, if you struggle to control your weight on a normal diet, consider lowering your food chemical intake.

More on this debate here. The comments section gets quite nasty!


Written by alienrobotgirl

28 September, 2007 at 7:39 pm

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Mr. Colpo’s thread on the 9/11 “conspiracy” is a real scream! (at I have his cholesterol con book on the way to me from Amazon, and I’m somewhat regretting it. (I have the other book by the same name written by Malcolm Kendrick, but have not gotten around to reading it yet.)


    3 October, 2007 at 1:06 am

  2. After 7 years of unsuccessful, strict type-2-diabetes-dieting, my wife stumbled upon Neal Barnard’s book and began to break all of the rules. “”

    Her A1c went from 8 to 6.5 after a few months of low fat, high carb dining.
    Food – chemical – sensitivities have been a prevalent theme during her life and I often marvel at her (often counterintuitive) dietary adaptations and inventions.

    Where does this lead ?
    Thanks for all of your efforts with this blog. I find it immensely interesting, and educational. Food chemicals, food chemistry – (have you seen this website: “” ?) – was somehow always out of reach until now.


    24 August, 2008 at 5:22 pm

  3. Frighteningly rapid weight gain could be caused by water retention. Also, the weight loss on high fat diets could be caused by lower efficiency of burning ketones, and other fat digestion anomalies (as well as the obligatory loss of glycogen).

    I find that nutritional sceince (i before e, except after c) bears a lot in common with astrology and creationism. After reading lots of studies on pubmed, I have concluded that “significant” means “insignificant”, and that the only way to true health, is to not eat anything. (I can’t wait for humans to become battery powered.)

    The most amusing diet I have encountered was one by a guy called Charles, who moderated a Candida listserver. He had had his stomach removed, and found he did best on 240ml of olive oil. This is the closest I have found to a person running on biodiesel.

    We would have lots to talk about, if only I gave you my email address.


    26 December, 2008 at 4:23 pm

  4. Hi Astrayan

    > Frighteningly rapid weight gain could be caused by water retention.

    Not in my case, it’s something I monitor quite closely in conjunction with body fat.

    > The most amusing diet I have encountered was one by a guy called Charles, who moderated a Candida listserver. He had had his stomach removed, and found he did best on 240ml of olive oil.

    Please don’t tell me he did that to rid himself of “candida”! Did he have parts of his brain removed at the same time?


    8 February, 2009 at 7:54 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: