Book: The science of fat loss

Options
135678

Replies

  • eric_sg61
    eric_sg61 Posts: 2,925 Member
    Options
    exstromn wrote: »
    I'm glad you found something that works for you, thanks for sharing. As for the nay sayers with snarky comments you can pretend you know everyting there is to know but the truth is we are all on our own path. Safe journey to you all.

    Right, because "it works for me" is accepted into the scientific literature as valid rationalism to support a theory.
  • Calliope610
    Calliope610 Posts: 3,775 Member
    Options
    Saying CICO doesn't work for weight loss is like saying "spend less money than you take in" doesn't work for saying money.

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options

    FunkyTobias wrote: »
    book_habits.jpg

    EL OH EL.

    The toxins give you teh fatz. Pseudoscience at its worst.

    habit one totally validates this book as pseudoscience....
  • slowbutsure2
    slowbutsure2 Posts: 110
    Options
    Calliope610 wrote: »
    Saying CICO doesn't work for weight loss is like saying "spend less money than you take in" doesn't work for saying money.

    I'm not sure who your trying to convince. I'm sure everyone agrees with you. But that's different to saying it's simply a matter of tracking the calories you eat and the ones you burn and making sure your in a deficit. That is contestable.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    Ah, CICO don't work because TOXINZ. Yup. Now we've all been schooled.
  • slowbutsure2
    slowbutsure2 Posts: 110
    Options
    Silly misrepresentation. Find out what he is saying and then give evidence to the contrary if you can.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »
    Silly misrepresentation. Find out what he is saying and then give evidence to the contrary if you can.

    How would I give evidence to contradict the statement that if you don't detoxify, losing fat will be impossible and dangerous? There isn't any proof to support that statement at all.

    And how can something be both impossible and dangerous? Wouldn't someone have to do it (thereby making it possible) in order for us to know that is is dangerous?
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    And how can something be both impossible and dangerous? Wouldn't someone have to do it (thereby making it possible) in order for us to know that is is dangerous?

    Being sucked through a small hole into a vacuum is impossible, were it possible it would be dangerous as we can't breathe in a vacuum and our organs would be destroyed passing through the small hole. You can know it's dangerous without doing it, or being able to do it.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »
    Silly misrepresentation. Find out what he is saying and then give evidence to the contrary if you can.

    How would I give evidence to contradict the statement that if you don't detoxify, losing fat will be impossible and dangerous? There isn't any proof to support that statement at all.

    And how can something be both impossible and dangerous? Wouldn't someone have to do it (thereby making it possible) in order for us to know that is is dangerous?

    Trying to fly by flapping your arms is impossible and dangerous :wink:
  • slowbutsure2
    slowbutsure2 Posts: 110
    Options
    Yo
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »
    Silly misrepresentation. Find out what he is saying and then give evidence to the contrary if you can.

    How would I give evidence to contradict the statement that if you don't detoxify, losing fat will be impossible and dangerous? There isn't any proof to support that statement at all.

    And how can something be both impossible and dangerous? Wouldn't someone have to do it (thereby making it possible) in order for us to know that is is dangerous?

    so you are so familiar with all the evidence that you can say off the cough there isn't any. Impressive. When the pope dies, you could be a candidate to take his place. (I would look at the evidence Phil Richards presents first though, just in case your not omniscient.)
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    TR0berts wrote: »
    You don't understand what CICO means, then. And that's OK - many people think they do, but really don't.

    As has been alluded to - hormones and medical conditions, among other things, affect the CO part of the equation. CICO isn't just eating what some online "calculator" tells you to eat. Those "calculators" are just estimates, based on averages.

    For many people, they seem to think that - if MFP tells them to eat x amount to lose 1 lb per week - they'll lose that 1 lb per week, no matter what. When that doesn't happen, they claim that CICO doesn't work. What they failed to do - in addition to those that don't log/measure/account for exercise and activity accurately - is take into account any medical issues they may have. Sometimes, they don't even know this at first, until things don't work like they think they should and they end up going to a doctor and finding out something is wrong. Some online estimators don't take body composition into account, either. That's another factor that plays into your own individual CO.

    In short, CICO works. For many (most?) people, 2+2=4, no real problem. For others, with various conditions, 2+2+x+y+z=q. Once you figure out what x, y, and z are, you can then determine q.

    ^This post should be stickied somewhere on MFP.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    aquamarina_182 wrote: »
    @slowbutsure2 everyone will always bash your opinions on here....i've seen it over and over again, everyone thinks their way is the right way. 0_o

    People sharing counter opinions = bashing opinions???

    So since OP was posting this in response (and disagreement) with opinions previously shared on MFP, I guess he was bashing too, huh?
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    science of fat loss = figure out the CI and CO side of CICO and eat to that number. Do we really need a book on it?

    That's the problem. This book wouldn't sell. It doesn't have a hook. It would also be pamphlet-thin.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    FunkyTobias wrote: »
    book_habits.jpg

    EL OH EL.

    The toxins give you teh fatz. Pseudoscience at its worst.

    I like habit 6. Habit 3 isn't terrible. The first part of habit 9 isn't bad.

    The rest? Oy vey.



    ETA: Maybe the book names the toxins that are eliminated from our bodies from a "cleanse" that wouldn't otherwise be eliminated while eating normal food. Hey, OP! If you have the book nearby, could you please flip through the chapter(s) on toxins and let us know if any are named? I might be able to end my quest.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »
    Yo
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »
    Silly misrepresentation. Find out what he is saying and then give evidence to the contrary if you can.

    How would I give evidence to contradict the statement that if you don't detoxify, losing fat will be impossible and dangerous? There isn't any proof to support that statement at all.

    And how can something be both impossible and dangerous? Wouldn't someone have to do it (thereby making it possible) in order for us to know that is is dangerous?

    so you are so familiar with all the evidence that you can say off the cough there isn't any. Impressive. When the pope dies, you could be a candidate to take his place. (I would look at the evidence Phil Richards presents first though, just in case your not omniscient.)

    The cliffnotes picture made to promote it is enough to know he's full of poop. There's no "Toxins that make you fat", so that's 20% of his claims shot down already just from that.
    Then in 7 and 9 it's about meal timing, which is also crap. 40% of his claims unsupported by reality.
    Number 5 is a huge exaggeration, so we're at 50% crap already.
    Number 4 sounds like he doesn't really understand hormones at all because storage and burning hormones can't do a whole lot if you're not in a surplus/deficit, so 60% refuted.

    So we're left with number 6 that talks about that stress stuff and 3 others that basically say "exercise and get good nutrition".
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »
    Calliope610 wrote: »
    Saying CICO doesn't work for weight loss is like saying "spend less money than you take in" doesn't work for saying money.

    I'm not sure who your trying to convince. I'm sure everyone agrees with you. But that's different to saying it's simply a matter of tracking the calories you eat and the ones you burn and making sure your in a deficit. That is contestable incontrovertible.

    FIFY
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,695 Member
    Options
    The reality when some say that it's not just CICO, is usually because that particular individual is suffering from some issue (health or hormonal) that the general public isn't. People and trainers promoting this crap aren't being honest with the public. If they are targeting people with actual health and hormonal issues fine, but to apply it to general public? Money talks for many even if it means deception.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    science of fat loss = figure out the CI and CO side of CICO and eat to that number. Do we really need a book on it?

    That's the problem. This book wouldn't sell. It doesn't have a hook. It would also be pamphlet-thin.

    it would be about two pages...
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »
    As an example, I have suffered with stress and depression and have found it impossible to lose weight.

    If I put you on desert island with no access to food, I guarantee you will find it "possible" to lose weight regardless of how stressed or depressed you felt.

    If stress prevented weight loss, there would be no skinny people in concentration camps. Do you really think you are under more stress than they were?

Categories