Fasten your seat belts, you’re in for a bumpy ride. I first heard of Anthony Colpo after finding his ‘Low Carb Muscle‘ forum through a google search. As a fellow low-carb bodybuilder we agreed on many things but also disagreed on some points; I was intrigued. I read more of his work including the meticulous, highly-referenced ‘Fat Loss Bible‘ which clearly lays out a low-carb road map to achieving single-digit body fat percentages.
I felt the need to ask more questions of the man and he agreed to be the first interviewee on MuscleHack. Thank you Anthony!
In his own personal style, Anthony here takes no prisoners. I know already that you’ll either love this 5,500 word interview or you’ll hate it. One thing is for sure, he’s an honest guy trying to dispel what he believes to be myths in the diet industry. People mentioned in this article include Dr. Robert Atkins, Drs. Eades and Gary Taubes. Hold on tight, here we go!
(Mark) Anthony, tell us a little about yourself, when and why you started bodybuilding and what got you so interested in nutrition.
(Anthony) I hail from Melbourne, Australia and have been a certified fitness trainer since 1991. Over the last several years I’ve also turned my efforts towards researching and writing, and currently have 2 books on the market, The Fat Loss Bible and The Great Cholesterol Con. Despite having no formal medical qualifications, I’ve also had a paper published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. I have a habit of ticking people off because I report the straight facts as I see them, with no regard for who it might offend. A lot of people really like my no-holds-barred, tell-it-like-it-is approach, but there are others who resent the fact that I’m destroying their most sacred cows. It’s rather sad to observe that many people out there really have no interest in learning new facts, only in gathering information that reinforces what they already want to believe. Needless to say, if you want to expand your knowledge base, you must be prepared to occasionally reconsider some of your most cherished pet theories and beliefs.
I first began training with weights at the age of 16. I was a late bloomer and had always been on the small side, but that rapidly changed when I began weight training. Not only was I thrilled with the physical changes, but I also became deeply fascinated by the whole concept of actually being able to manipulate the size, shape and strength of your own body.
I realized that if you didn’t like the body nature had given you, then you could do something about it. I had a friend who began training shortly after I did, and like me, he became quite heavily involved in strength training. He started out overweight, but ended up quite lean and muscular. So here was this amazing modality that simultaneously helped skinny folks build muscle and overweight folks shed fat and reveal a hard body underneath. I was hooked right from the word go.
My interest in nutrition kicked off in earnest when I was 21. Unfortunately, I quickly became sidetracked by the low-fat mania that was rampant back then. It led me in the wrong direction, and it wasn’t until I started experiencing some rather undesirable symptoms that I changed course and eventually arrived at low-carbohydrate nutrition. Thanks to the so-called ‘healthy’ low-fat/high-carbohydrate diet, I developed reactive hypoglycemia, elevated blood pressure, and sub-optimal digestion. My energy levels would fluctuate, and I often felt tired and listless. I ate a Spartan diet, was a teetotaler, and had never smoked a cigarette in my life, yet I felt awful.
These symptoms disappeared when I settled into a low-carb diet. It quite literally gave me a new lease on life, but it seemed every time I opened a magazine or logged onto the Internet, someone was virulently denouncing low-carb nutrition as some sort of dietary Russian roulette. I knew from my own first hand experience that this was nonsense. I began to wonder exactly what was going on – why exactly did health authorities feel the need to dump all over low-carb diets? The common thread seemed to be that all these authorities recommended low-fat diets, and many of them actually had a commercial interest in such recommendations. So there was a definite conflict of interest there. You had organizations like the National Heart Foundation and the American Heart Association running highly lucrative programs where they received license fees from low-fat food manufacturers in exchange for official endorsements. Can those who profit from recommending a certain dietary paradigm really be expected to offer an impartial and reasoned assessment of alternative dietary paradigms?
The answer to me seemed to be no, so I figured that rather than rely on all the fanciful rubbish circulating in the mainstream media, I’d go straight to the source. I began hitting the local medical libraries and checking the research for myself. This was the beginning of a fascinating investigative journey, one that continues to this day.
(Mark) You recommend a low carb diet as the best way to strip fat and build muscle. How exactly do you define ‘low carb’ and what is it about low-carb nutrition that makes it superior?
(Anthony) There are differing perceptions of what constitutes low-carb. I generally define low-carb as a baseline daily carbohydrate intake of under 100 grams. This is not a hard-and-fast rule; what would be high-carb for a small female secretary might be very low-carb for a professional road cyclist.
Perhaps the major advantage of low-carb nutrition is that it helps bring blood sugar and insulin levels back under control. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t wish to get lumped in with all these low-carb dogmatists who think insulin and blood glucose are evil. They’re not – without them you’d be dead. The key is to not let them climb to excessive levels, and unfortunately, carbohydrate-rich diets are often very effective in spiking insulin and blood glucose to unhealthy levels.
Another big advantage of low-carb diets is that folks with less-than-optimal glycemic control will often notice dramatic improvements in their energy levels and sense of well being. Remember, I’m talking about intelligently implemented low-carb diets containing between 50-100 grams of carbs per day, not this ketogenic ‘induction’ nonsense where carbs are drastically – and needlessly – slashed to under 20 grams per day. Some people might get off on being temporarily constipated, dehydrated, lethargic, and having breath that smells like a toxic waste facility, but I don’t. Ketosis does not deliver any fat loss advantage, something that has been repeatedly borne out in tightly controlled clinical trials, but it often brings along a whole bunch of unwanted baggage. Unless you are epileptic or suffering some other neurological disorder where ketosis may be of potential benefit, then there’s really no need to go chasing ketosis.
Yet another benefit is that, in many people, low-carb diets can exert powerful satiating effects. That’s a big plus when you are trying to lose weight or prevent unwanted weight gain.
(Mark) The ‘Metabolic Advantage‘ of low-carb nutrition espoused by Dr. Atkins and Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades is rubbish in your view. This debate causes controversy every time it’s brought up. Can you briefly state why you have come to this conclusion.
(Anthony) Sure, but let me first explain to readers what exactly is meant by “Metabolic Advantage”. The term was first popularized by the late Dr. Atkins, who claimed in his best-selling book that a person could gain weight on a high-carb diet of 2,000 calories yet lose weight on a low-carb diet of 2,000 calories. Metabolic Advantage Dogma, which bears the highly appropriate synonym of MAD, basically insists that by following a low-carb diet, one can lose weight on calorie intakes that on a high-carb diet would not produce fat loss or would even cause fat gain.
This is nonsense.
You mentioned that MAD is controversial, but to those with no vested financial or emotional interest in the topic and who have bothered to examine the evidence in its entirety, there’s really no controversy at all. The theory is simply a dud.
Over the last four decades, researchers have repeatedly tested the Metabolic Advantage theory in the most tightly controlled manner possible – that is, in metabolic ward studies – and it has repeatedly shown itself to be a fantasy.
“When low- and high-carb diets of equal caloric content are compared under metabolic ward conditions for periods lasting longer than 3 weeks, there is no difference in fat loss.”
I say 3 weeks or longer because any less than that and the results are increasingly likely to be swayed by greater water losses in the low-carb group.
Metabolic ward studies are those where the participants are confined to a research facility for the duration of the study. The researchers supply the participants with carefully measured and prepared food to ensure that everyone is eating a truly isocaloric diet. This is in stark contrast to free-living studies, where the researchers have no control over what the participants keep in their fridges and pantries, and are basically powerless to stop them from eating non-allowed foods. Free-living subjects are just that – free to order home-delivered pizza, free to stop at the drive-thru when they start craving cheeseburgers and fries, free to grab some Häagen-Dazs while shopping at the local mall, free to go to business luncheons or out to dinner and eat foods of unknown caloric value, and free to sink a six-pack of coldies during the football replays.
While the metabolic ward studies I refer to are almost never mentioned by MAD proponents, they are more than happy to cite the results of free-living studies that showed greater weight losses in the low-carb group. But there is a mountain of research showing that the self-reported intakes in free-living dietary studies are notoriously unreliable. Underreporting is the norm, not the exception in most of these studies, and it is those who are attempting to restrict fat and total calories that are the worst offenders. As a result, many of these trials will give the false impression that the low-carbers lost more weight by eating the same or even higher calories, when in reality they were eating less.
In essence, metabolic ward studies examine the effect of diets, while free-living studies examine the effect of dietary advice.
(Mark) You recently wrote a most unflattering open letter to Dr. Michael Eades, after he wrote on his blog that he thought you were wrong on the metabolic advantage issue. What would you say to all the people who criticized you for doing this?
(Anthony) I would say that they’re blatant hypocrites who really need to do some serious soul-searching. Before I explain just why, I want everyone to click on this link and witness the manner in which Eades addresses a couple of female exercise physiologists that he disagreed with:
Take note of the manner in which Eades addresses them and their work during this “fisking”. His tone is clearly hostile and his criticism is unmistakably directed at them on a personal level. He condescendingly refers to these female academics as “chicks”, calls them “idiots”, and describes their work as “idiocy” and “breathtakingly stupid”. This is the very same bloke that took such deep offense when I called him out on his own untenable BS. Eades evidently feels quite comfortable venomously attacking female commentators, but becomes highly indignant when someone does it to him. Why is it OK for him to rip on others, but a big sin when someone does the exact same thing to him? Evidently, Eades can dish out the vitriol to others, but he can’t take it himself. Someone rips on him, and all of a sudden it becomes an unforgivable affront. Welcome to the real world, doc! I’ve been at the receiving end of continuous antagonism from your fellow MAD fanatics for the last 2 years, even though none of them have ever been able to present anything even resembling tightly controlled evidence to prove me wrong.
If any of you out there who criticized me for ripping into Eades now find yourself attempting to rationalize away Eades’ behavior in any way, shape or form, then congratulations – you have just proved you are indeed a hypocrite! Eades did exactly what I did – he ripped into someone he disagreed with. His language was every bit a harsh as mine, but with one key difference: his targets were female. Say what you want about me, but I do have at least enough decency not to act like an 800-pound gorilla towards females. I have to wonder how Eades would like it if someone addressed his wife in the exact same manner he addressed those physiologists? Heck, not even in my open letter to Bronwyn Pike did I come anywhere near Eades’ level of vitriol – and she’s a politician, for crying out loud!
The bottom line is that Eades’ followers adhere to a double standard. It’s quite OK to dump all over someone who promotes competing dietary theories, but when someone in their own camp is on the receiving end of such criticism – no matter how valid – it’s a big crime. That’s pathetic. If you are going to demand scientific rigor from your opponents, you must also demand it of your allies. Otherwise, you are just a shamelessly biased and nepotistic hypocrite who only pays mere lip service to the concept of sound science.
And that seems to be a defining characteristic of the Metabolic Advantage movement. Its members seem to possess a complete unwillingness to consider conflicting evidence. Instead they fanatically attack anyone who suggests that their theory is wrong, no matter how compelling and tightly controlled the evidence that person presents.
The ironic thing is that many of these same folks were busy on web forums casting aspersions on my mental and emotional state. You know, I’d bet good money that I lead a far happier and more fulfilling life then any of these malevolent gossipmongers. Attempting to cast doubt on someone’s mental health when you realize you can’t factually refute their arguments is perhaps the most blatant display of face-saving desperation there is. Rather than deal with the uncomfortable proposition that they may be wrong, I guess it’s always much easier for Metabolic Advantage Dogma devotees to try and discredit their opponents by portraying them as loopy.
The heinous crime committed by the two ladies that Eades dumped on was to present what they felt were the “Top Ten Nutrition Myths” at an ACSM Summit in Dallas, Texas. They were right on the money when they stated that carbohydrates are beneficial immediately after exercise, but much of their other myths were predicated on the same old pro-cereal grain/high-carbohydrate dogma that conventional dietitians seem so enamored with.
But before we all start throwing stones at these women, it might pay to do a little reflecting. How many of those reading this right now also used to believe in the low-fat/’healthy whole grain’ paradigm? Heck, I used to believe it myself. But my mind was open enough to seek out the facts for myself, and try an alternative approach when it became apparent the mainstream theory was flawed. I dare say many of your readers went through a similar process of enlightenment.
Eades in contrast, appears to have no interest whatsoever in opening his mind to the possibility that the metabolic advantage theory is wrong. Instead, he digs his heels in even deeper and tries to defend the theory with some of the most bizarre arguments imaginable.
First, he posts a completely meaningless comparison between 2 starkly different studies conducted decades apart on 2 different continents, involving totally dissimilar participants, and conducted for greatly different lengths of time.
When I call him out on this tomfoolery, he then posts a follow-up rant about teenagers, who are somehow supposed to represent a reversal of the relationship between weight status and calorie intake and output. Which, of course, is rubbish. Teenagers do get fat, and clinical trials show that when they reduce their caloric intake and start exercising, they begin losing that fat. And when they stop exercising and start eating more, they begin regaining that fat – just as adults do!
He then waffles on about Karl Popper, who to the best of my knowledge never presented a skerrick of evidence in support of MAD.
Then he really gets creative and claims that metabolic ward studies are “fraught with inaccuracies”, a statement for which there is no substantiation whatsoever. And after dismissing metabolic ward studies, he embraces free-living studies as proof of the metabolic advantage, claiming that they have “demonstrated” its existence. In doing so he completely ignores the huge volume of literature showing the self-reported dietary intakes in free-living studies to be notoriously inaccurate. I sent him details on how to access a complimentary copy of ‘The Fat Loss Bible‘, in which this is all explained at length and he refuses to read it. Not because he has a poor opinion of my writings or my intelligence level – he himself has previously praised both. I suspect he’s simply afraid of what he might learn.
Eades then caps it all off by claiming that a study in which mice lost more weight on an isocaloric ketogenic diet is proof of a metabolic advantage. You bet it is – in mice! When it comes to studying fat loss, rodents are absolutely hopeless proxies for humans. They convert glucose to fat at up to ten times the rate at which humans do. And while the mice in the study cited by Eades experienced marked increases in their metabolic rate, examinations of real live humans have failed to show any increase in RMR during low-carbohydrate dieting.
It’s time to face facts – MAD is a bust.
I really don’t expect Eades to acknowledge this, because a person in his position would be intensely motivated to keep believing in MAD. He’s publicly promoted the theory, espoused it in his books, and profited handsomely from doing so. The folks I write for are those whose minds are still open enough to impartially consider the facts. One of the great things about having an open mind is that it allows you to learn new and useful things. Having a closed mind, on the other hand, drastically limits your ability to acquire new and helpful knowledge. It quite literally stunts your intellectual growth. Those who realize that MAD is nonsense and make the effort to discover what really does cause fat loss will be in a much better position to achieve the body of their dreams than those who keep evading reality and blindly worshipping at the alter of MAD.
Hey, I wish there was a metabolic advantage. Believe me, I’d love nothing more than to simply eat less carbs or more protein, all the while eating as much as I please, and watch the fat melt away! Heck, I wish there were also an ‘anabolic advantage’, where instead of busting my butt in the gym all I had to do was watch reruns of beauty pageants, and get buffed from the resultant surge in testosterone. And I wish there were a ‘financial advantage’, where I didn’t have to work but instead could lie on the beach all day “thinking and growing rich”!
Needless to say, it simply doesn’t work like that. You can adopt the pathetic “shoot the messenger” mentality and be angry at me for telling you the plain truth, or you can use scientific and empirical knowledge to your advantage and sculpt a truly impressive body. The choice is yours.
(Mark) Most bodybuilders can attain very low body fat percentages just before a contest or for the summer and then pile on the pounds the rest of the year. Obviously you keep yourself in fantastic physical condition. Do you manage to keep this condition year-round? Do you attribute this success to your low-carb nutritional lifestyle?
(Anthony) There are a number of factors involved, but the most important thing is consistency. I do what’s necessary to stay in shape, and I do it year-round. I’ve known a lot of folks who got all excited about the idea of getting in shape, and then went hell-for-leather for a grand total of two or three months. And then I never saw them at the gym again.
Regardless of what your favorite form of exercise is, no matter what you’re favorite routine, the fact remains that if you don’t do it regularly it’s not going to achieve much of anything for you. Ditto with nutrition. You can embrace the world’s most advanced routine and the most intelligently formulated diet, but if you halfheartedly follow them for only a few months out of the year, then your results will be minimal to non-existent.
Talking and planning and musing over the relative merits of different diets and workout routines is all well and good, but there comes a point where you actually have to get off your butt and start putting it all into practice. I think a lot of people would benefit greatly from spending a lot less time on chat forums and far more time raising a sweat in the gym or at the park.
I eat right, I train hard and regularly, and I keep good sleep habits. Sure, if one of my favorite bands is playing, I’ll go to the show, but that’s not a routine thing. I’m not up ‘til 2 am every morning surfing the net or watching infomercials. And there are inevitably times when I have to miss a workout, but overall I’m training, eating and sleeping right on a year round basis.
Unlike a lot of competitive bodybuilders, I don’t do bulking phases where I eat everything in sight, and then go through 3 months of hard dieting to lean out. I eat sensibly year round, and keep a low body fat level year round.
I tend to lean out a little bit more in summer due to the increased time I spend on my bike, but the bottom line is that I eat well and exercise on a year round basis, and keep in decent shape by doing so.
You’ve got to make the commitment to becoming lean and healthy, and in making that commitment you must be honest with yourself and acknowledge that it is a year-round, lifelong endeavor.
Every now and then, someone will watch me tuck into my food and then complain, “Gee, it’s not fair, you can eat anything!”. Firstly, I don’t eat “anything” – most of the food I eat is Paleo-style fare like meats, eggs, and fresh vegetables. I don’t consume cereals, biscuits, cakes, pastries, candy bars, or soft drinks. I don’t touch alcohol, not only do I consider it a source of empty calories, but I just don’t like what it does to people, turns normal folks into dribbling buffoons. I can’t even remember the last time I purchased anything from a food vending machine, it would literally have been decades ago. I do have high-carbohydrate ‘treats’, but only after an intense workout or ride.
Secondly, I can tell just by looking at the folks who say this kind of thing that vigorous exercise is not a regular part of their life. If these folks were training on a daily basis they way I do, they’d quickly start to lean out too.
People need to stop rationalizing away other people’s success as simply due to luck, genetics, a super-fast metabolism, or the grace of some alleged supernatural power.
Don’t envy someone who has conscientiously applied themselves to getting and staying in shape. If you want what they’ve got, you need to stop making excuses and make the same commitment.
The bottom line is that, if you want to be slim and fit, then you need to do the things necessary to become slim and fit, and you need to do them consistently. If you consume excessive calories and do little-to-no exercise, then don’t expect to look like Ken Shamrock or Brooke Burke in this lifetime.
Anyone who’s prepared to get off their butt and apply themselves can experience the benefits of regular training. Heck, there’s been controlled research where senior citizens in their nineties gained muscle and strength! If they can do it, anyone can.
(Mark) Well-defined abs seem to be just out of reach of most people. We all want them and yet so few of us achieve the goal. What piece of advice would you have for those struggling attain clearly-defined six-pack abs?
To get a decent set of abs, you need to do two things; exercise them properly, and strip off the fat that’s hiding them. If you have been diligently working your abs with the right exercises for any length of time, but can’t see them, then guess what? There’s a good chance you already have a six-pack, you just need to lean out so that it can show its face to the world. When prescribing an ab routine, I like to include exercises that involve flexion of the torso and legs, such as sit-ups and leg/knee raises, and exercises that involve rotation of the torso, such as woodchops. Balancing heavy weights overhead or on your shoulders during pressing and squatting exercises also helps strengthen the midsection.
(Mark) How many times do you eat per day? Can you give us an example of your daily menu including supplementation?
(Anthony) I eat 3 solid meals per day. I also ingest powdered aminos before and after a workout, and take in some liquid carbs after training as well.
During my twenties I got sucked in by the whole ‘eat six meals a day’ thing, and I have to say it was just a big waste of time. I also have to question the long-term health effects of continually eating throughout the day and eating even when you’re not hungry, simply because your watch indicates its time for another scheduled feeding. Eating became a chore and I always felt full.
Now, I eat to the point of satiation and don’t eat again until I’m hungry. That typically translates into three meals every day. I’ll eat a moderate-sized meal for breakfast and lunch, a larger dinner, kick back for a few hours, then hit the hay.
When I was brainwashed by the multiple meals dogma, I used to get anxious if I thought I would be missing a meal, and I’ve seen this in others as well. It’s like a neurosis, one based on totally unfounded fears. Since switching back to 3 meals a day, my energy levels have been just fine and I have not suffered from rampant muscle wasting!
As for supplementation, most of the supplements I use are for general health purposes. My daily supplement routine includes an antioxidant formula (I use an Aussie product known as Enajon), fish oil, calcium, magnesium, selenium, and CoQ10. During winter I also take a vitamin D supplement, I don’t bother with it during summer as I’m getting plenty of sun.
I’m not a big user of ergogenic supplements, I think most of them are largely a waste of money. Even the ones that work typically deliver less than startling results – you really have to decide whether the tiny effects are worth the not-so-tiny cost. I think a lot of folks place way too much emphasis on supplements, and not enough on optimizing their nutrition and workout regimens. I get guys coming to me all the time that are taking a list of supplements longer than the Melbourne-Adelaide highway, yet when I look at their training and diet, both are atrocious.
There is one supplement I do think is worth its weight in gold, and that’s a good pre- and post-workout formula. I religiously take powdered BCAAs and EAAs (essential amino acids) before and after every workout or ride, and I almost always take carbs afterwards as well.
(Mark) I will be providing my readers with my current workout plan in a future article. Can you give us an idea of your current routine?
(Anthony) No worries. My basic routine is lifting weights six days a week and trying to hit the hills on my bike at least two times a week, although Melbourne winters can present a challenge to meeting the second requirement.
My weight routine varies, but my workouts are usually no more than 40-45 minutes long. I tend to favor short rest periods between sets, lower rep ranges, and the basic compound exercises. My training philosophies are heavily influenced by Eastern bloc weight lifting methods. I’m big on frequency and volume, and I generally avoid training to failure, except when maxing out to establish a new PR. I usually train each body part at least 3 times a week.
(Mark) Finally, why is there so much resistance in the media and health care profession to low carb nutrition? Can you see the day when low carb becomes widely popular again like in the early part of this decade?
(Anthony) Low-carb diets have definitely been given a bum rap, and there are two reasons that immediately come to mind. The first is that the low-carb paradigm directly contradicts the low-fat paradigm that has been embraced by mainstream health organizations. A vast amount of wealth and a lot of decorated careers have been built upon the low fat mantra, so it’s hardly surprising that there’s going to be vigorous resistance to anything that threatens to derail the gravy train. It’s not just the actions of vested interests – the general public has been so successfully inculcated with fat-phobia that there’s inevitably going to be a great degree of fear and mistrust towards high-fat, low-carb diets.
The other thing that I think has really damaged the credibility of low-carb diets is some of the ludicrous spruiking made for these diets during their hey-day. We had such hyperbolic claims as “eat all the steak and eggs you want and lose weight!”. We had Atkins and the rest of the MAD movement making the scientifically untenable claim that people can gain weight on high-carbohydrate diets but can lose weight on low-carb diets even when eating the exact same amount of calories.
While all this hyperbole was no doubt great for boosting book sales, it gave low-carb diets a distinct snake-oil persona in the eyes of many scientifically minded observers. For low-carb diets to ever gain mainstream acceptance, they will need to repeatedly and decisively demonstrate their value in the controlled clinical setting. Sorry, but the hyperbolic and highly questionable ramblings of authors who profit from low-carb books simply won’t cut it. Neither will stories of how the Eskimos used to do just great on raw fish and whale blubber, or how the Masai kick ass eating nothing but milk and meat.
For low-carb diets to become widely accepted by the conservative health and medical communities, they will need to acquire a vast volume of supportive evidence from controlled clinical trials.
That evidence has already started accumulating, but there needs to be much more to overcome the huge bias against these diets. Which means that we need to get as many scientists as possible studying these diets. But scientists are typically a conservative and skeptical bunch, and they are going to be reluctant to study anything that is accompanied by an air of faddism.
But now we have Gary Taubes coming along and peddling more of the same MAD nonsense. When I saw that I immediately thought “Great, just what we need…” His widely published interview with Howard Cohen begins:
“IMAGINE a world in which weight loss is as simple as dropping carbohydrates from your diet. Imagine avoiding cancer, diabetes and Alzheimer’s by ditching cookies, cakes, flour and starches. No need for exercise. Let the “Bionic Woman” do that on TV; you chill on the couch with cheese cubes (skip the wine and beer) and enjoy.”
Seriously, do people ever wake up? It’s 2007, and they’re still peddling this ‘have your cake and eat it’ nonsense? And people wonder why the low-carb paradigm isn’t taken seriously by those who matter?
I suspect we may have missed a huge opportunity. I hope not, but I can’t help but wonder. Low-carb diets were the biggest thing in town for a while, but the mania has died down considerably. A big reason is that, for many people, the exuberant weight loss claims made for these diets were never fulfilled. Hardly surprising, given that their recommendations were based on a bogus belief about carbs and not calories causing weight gain.
So people did what they always do when a diet fails them – abandon it and try something else. Ditto for the publishing industry – they will milk a theme for all its worth, then go searching for the next big thing.
(Mark) Thanks for taking the time to do this explosive interview Anthony!
(Anthony) Hey, no worries, my pleasure! Listen, before we wrap this up, I’d like to offer your readers a free copy of my latest ebook titled ‘They’re All MAD‘. It’s a rather eye-opening expose about the folks who believe in and promote the metabolic advantage theory. It was originally intended only as a bonus for purchasers of my book The Fat Loss Bible, but I feel so strongly about the behavior of the MAD movement I want it to be available to the widest possible audience. They’re All MAD can be accessed simply by clicking the following link: