Book: The science of fat loss
Replies
-
Much broscience too. Again, money tends to supercede morals for some individuals.FunkyTobias wrote: »
EL OH EL.
The toxins give you teh fatz. Pseudoscience at its worst.
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
0 -
Naming your book "The Science of Fat Loss" when you are in fact not a scientist should be MORE than enough evidence to cause you to steer clear of anything this person says.
I am not familiar with them, but a quick google search shows me that they have zero credentials to make scientific claims.0 -
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
Bertrand Russell
0 -
This post is so ironic, magnets are attracted to it.slowbutsure2 wrote: »"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
Bertrand Russell
0 -
While everyone has their own path, there are basics in science that don't change just because someone wrote a book on their philosophy of weight loss. One of the great things about MFP is that information is quite accurate and you do get opposing opinions so that people can see them and make up their own minds. I think it's disingenuous if all you hear is "unicorn and rainbow" responses because it's "nice".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.
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
0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »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
Yes I've seen it too, very sad. I think as human beings our sense of value can mistaking oy come from championing a cause and the sense of being right. I've done it too. Much better if the first priority is to support others, and to share and evaluate ideas without any vested interest. But to err is human
If I was being self righteously judgmental I would not have said that I do it too. It was an observation about human nature.0 -
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.
Good point. I stand corrected!
0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »Yojanejellyroll 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.)
There is so much wrong here, but I'm just going to point out that the Pope is not -- within the Catholic Church -- held to be omniscient.
What toxins is the author talking about though? If it is impossible to lose fat without detoxification, how does he explain how so many people have done so? And if it is dangerous to do that impossible task, what danger is he specifically talking about?0 -
peachyfuzzle wrote: »Naming your book "The Science of Fat Loss" when you are in fact not a scientist should be MORE than enough evidence to cause you to steer clear of anything this person says.
I am not familiar with them, but a quick google search shows me that they have zero credentials to make scientific claims.
That doesn't seem to stop all the non-scientists here being absolutely certain about their understanding of nutritional science - with no room for self doubt. lol0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »peachyfuzzle wrote: »Naming your book "The Science of Fat Loss" when you are in fact not a scientist should be MORE than enough evidence to cause you to steer clear of anything this person says.
I am not familiar with them, but a quick google search shows me that they have zero credentials to make scientific claims.
That doesn't seem to stop all the non-scientists here being absolutely certain about their understanding of nutritional science - with no room for self doubt. lol
OK - please list the toxins that cause you to gain weight while eating in a calorie deficit....0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »Yojanejellyroll 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.)
There is so much wrong here, but I'm just going to point out that the Pope is not -- within the Catholic Church -- held to be omniscient.
What toxins is the author talking about though? If it is impossible to lose fat without detoxification, how does he explain how so many people have done so? And if it is dangerous to do that impossible task, what danger is he specifically talking about?
Now these are intelligent, sensible, and reasonable questions. Much better than the iron clad certainty otherwise demonstrated here, without asking such questions. Bravo.0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »Yojanejellyroll 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.)
There is so much wrong here, but I'm just going to point out that the Pope is not -- within the Catholic Church -- held to be omniscient.
What toxins is the author talking about though? If it is impossible to lose fat without detoxification, how does he explain how so many people have done so? And if it is dangerous to do that impossible task, what danger is he specifically talking about?
Now these are intelligent, sensible, and reasonable questions. Much better than the iron clad certainty otherwise demonstrated here, without asking such questions. Bravo.
Yet you are not answering them.0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »peachyfuzzle wrote: »Naming your book "The Science of Fat Loss" when you are in fact not a scientist should be MORE than enough evidence to cause you to steer clear of anything this person says.
I am not familiar with them, but a quick google search shows me that they have zero credentials to make scientific claims.
That doesn't seem to stop all the non-scientists here being absolutely certain about their understanding of nutritional science - with no room for self doubt. lol
0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »Yojanejellyroll 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.)
There is so much wrong here, but I'm just going to point out that the Pope is not -- within the Catholic Church -- held to be omniscient.
What toxins is the author talking about though? If it is impossible to lose fat without detoxification, how does he explain how so many people have done so? And if it is dangerous to do that impossible task, what danger is he specifically talking about?
Now these are intelligent, sensible, and reasonable questions. Much better than the iron clad certainty otherwise demonstrated here, without asking such questions. Bravo.
Does that mean you will answer them?0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »Yojanejellyroll 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.)
There is so much wrong here, but I'm just going to point out that the Pope is not -- within the Catholic Church -- held to be omniscient.
What toxins is the author talking about though? If it is impossible to lose fat without detoxification, how does he explain how so many people have done so? And if it is dangerous to do that impossible task, what danger is he specifically talking about?
Now these are intelligent, sensible, and reasonable questions. Much better than the iron clad certainty otherwise demonstrated here, without asking such questions. Bravo.
So what are the answers to those questions?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »Yojanejellyroll 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.)
There is so much wrong here, but I'm just going to point out that the Pope is not -- within the Catholic Church -- held to be omniscient.
What toxins is the author talking about though? If it is impossible to lose fat without detoxification, how does he explain how so many people have done so? And if it is dangerous to do that impossible task, what danger is he specifically talking about?
Now these are intelligent, sensible, and reasonable questions. Much better than the iron clad certainty otherwise demonstrated here, without asking such questions. Bravo.
Yet you are not answering them.
Correct. The reason being that I never set out to prove such things. I've recommended the book, gave a personal example of how it has helped me. I baulk at ignorant certainty and so challenge it. I applaud openness and wanting to discover more, and having some level of self doubt. That's how progress, discovery, and science proceed rather than stagnate.0 -
Non scientist here and have great knowledge of nutritional science. Don't underestimate how the fitness industry tries to take advantage of people with lots of pseudoscience/broscience and using carefully cherry picked portions of studies to support their stance.slowbutsure2 wrote: »peachyfuzzle wrote: »Naming your book "The Science of Fat Loss" when you are in fact not a scientist should be MORE than enough evidence to cause you to steer clear of anything this person says.
I am not familiar with them, but a quick google search shows me that they have zero credentials to make scientific claims.
That doesn't seem to stop all the non-scientists here being absolutely certain about their understanding of nutritional science - with no room for self doubt. lol
Lean people have stress and depression too. Why is it different for them NOT gaining weight if they are supposedly subjected to the same cortisol issues? These are questions one should look at objectively.
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
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »Yojanejellyroll 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.)
There is so much wrong here, but I'm just going to point out that the Pope is not -- within the Catholic Church -- held to be omniscient.
What toxins is the author talking about though? If it is impossible to lose fat without detoxification, how does he explain how so many people have done so? And if it is dangerous to do that impossible task, what danger is he specifically talking about?
Now these are intelligent, sensible, and reasonable questions. Much better than the iron clad certainty otherwise demonstrated here, without asking such questions. Bravo.
So what are the answers to those questions?
I'm not sure I want to do the work to try and give those answers as the toxin issue is not something I raised or am overly interested in. Perhaps it's something you could research more?0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »Yojanejellyroll 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.)
There is so much wrong here, but I'm just going to point out that the Pope is not -- within the Catholic Church -- held to be omniscient.
What toxins is the author talking about though? If it is impossible to lose fat without detoxification, how does he explain how so many people have done so? And if it is dangerous to do that impossible task, what danger is he specifically talking about?
Now these are intelligent, sensible, and reasonable questions. Much better than the iron clad certainty otherwise demonstrated here, without asking such questions. Bravo.
Yet you are not answering them.
Correct. The reason being that I never set out to prove such things. I've recommended the book, gave a personal example of how it has helped me. I baulk at ignorant certainty and so challenge it. I applaud openness and wanting to discover more, and having some level of self doubt. That's how progress, discovery, and science proceed rather than stagnate.
Yet you seem to be 100% sure that this one book is correct when there's been many many people telling you otherwise.
Also if you want to be scientific, you don't just claim things and dare others to prove you wrong. That is the exact opposite of how this works.0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »Yojanejellyroll 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.)
There is so much wrong here, but I'm just going to point out that the Pope is not -- within the Catholic Church -- held to be omniscient.
What toxins is the author talking about though? If it is impossible to lose fat without detoxification, how does he explain how so many people have done so? And if it is dangerous to do that impossible task, what danger is he specifically talking about?
Now these are intelligent, sensible, and reasonable questions. Much better than the iron clad certainty otherwise demonstrated here, without asking such questions. Bravo.
Yet you are not answering them.
Correct. The reason being that I never set out to prove such things. I've recommended the book, gave a personal example of how it has helped me. I baulk at ignorant certainty and so challenge it. I applaud openness and wanting to discover more, and having some level of self doubt. That's how progress, discovery, and science proceed rather than stagnate.
You don't have to prove it. You can simply share what the author says on the subject.0 -
As someone who has suffered from chronic depression and generalized anxiety disorder for around 10 years and PTSD (untreated and undiagnosed till last year) for 8 years I can tell you it is possible to gain and lose weight the same way as everyone else. CICO is the law. The mental health conditions can make it harder to burn calories because even getting out of bed is hard but with proper treatment from a MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL and not some quack on the internet - this is possible. Also if you are on mental health medications please do not take random supplements without talking to a doctor. There can be terrible interactions.
This author guy sounds like a real keeper.0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »Yojanejellyroll 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.)
There is so much wrong here, but I'm just going to point out that the Pope is not -- within the Catholic Church -- held to be omniscient.
What toxins is the author talking about though? If it is impossible to lose fat without detoxification, how does he explain how so many people have done so? And if it is dangerous to do that impossible task, what danger is he specifically talking about?
Now these are intelligent, sensible, and reasonable questions. Much better than the iron clad certainty otherwise demonstrated here, without asking such questions. Bravo.
So what are the answers to those questions?
I'm not sure I want to do the work to try and give those answers as the toxin issue is not something I raised or am overly interested in. Perhaps it's something you could research more?
I have researched it. "Toxins," in the way the word is apparently used by the author, are a total myth. Using "toxins" in a weight loss book is actually a really good indicator that the author is either a quack or doesn't understand how the human body works.
I find it very odd that you recommend a book to others if you don't understand the key claims made in the book. What, exactly, did you find helpful in this book? What interested you about it?0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
Bertrand Russell
"Let us keep our minds open by all means, as long as that means keeping our sense of perspective and seeking an understanding of the forces which mold the world. But don’t keep your minds so open that your brains fall out!"
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »Yojanejellyroll 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.)
There is so much wrong here, but I'm just going to point out that the Pope is not -- within the Catholic Church -- held to be omniscient.
What toxins is the author talking about though? If it is impossible to lose fat without detoxification, how does he explain how so many people have done so? And if it is dangerous to do that impossible task, what danger is he specifically talking about?
I know the pope is not held as omniscient I was exaggerating - but only just! He can speak infallibly, so he can create his own absolute truth for his followers. I guess that's the next best thing to being omniscient.
-2 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »peachyfuzzle wrote: »Naming your book "The Science of Fat Loss" when you are in fact not a scientist should be MORE than enough evidence to cause you to steer clear of anything this person says.
I am not familiar with them, but a quick google search shows me that they have zero credentials to make scientific claims.
That doesn't seem to stop all the non-scientists here being absolutely certain about their understanding of nutritional science - with no room for self doubt. lol
:raises hand: There are, in fact, several scientists here on MFP. I, and the others, have already explained it to you. But you are convinced this book is correct, simply because it seems to confirm your bias.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
Bertrand Russell
"Let us keep our minds open by all means, as long as that means keeping our sense of perspective and seeking an understanding of the forces which mold the world. But don’t keep your minds so open that your brains fall out!"
Nice quote, who said it?0 -
slowbutsure2 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.
I do understand CICo, and I don't think you have said anything that I haven't said here. What i said in my original post is that it's not 'just' cico, and that's it. There are many threads here where people are blasted for not getting that it's just cico and they must be either eating more than they think or burning less than they think. As you say, this can be wrong it can be cico + xyz. I'm hoping that the people in that camp might be less dogmatic.
That's not what I said. Not what I said at all. The x+y+z is part of CICO - it's not separate from it.
0 -
I take it you're not answering the questions asked you for one of 2 reasons: 1) you haven't read that book you're talking about yourself or 2) the book keeps silent to those questions itself which is a huge red flag for if you can take it seriously or not.
I would go with #2 here, because from all the times I've seen the word used, no one who talks about "toxins" ever tells what those "toxins" are or how whatever cleanse they talk about "flushes them out".0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »Yojanejellyroll 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.)
There is so much wrong here, but I'm just going to point out that the Pope is not -- within the Catholic Church -- held to be omniscient.
What toxins is the author talking about though? If it is impossible to lose fat without detoxification, how does he explain how so many people have done so? And if it is dangerous to do that impossible task, what danger is he specifically talking about?
Now these are intelligent, sensible, and reasonable questions. Much better than the iron clad certainty otherwise demonstrated here, without asking such questions. Bravo.
So what are the answers to those questions?
I'm not sure I want to do the work to try and give those answers as the toxin issue is not something I raised or am overly interested in. Perhaps it's something you could research more?
I have researched it. "Toxins," in the way the word is apparently used by the author, are a total myth. Using "toxins" in a weight loss book is actually a really good indicator that the author is either a quack or doesn't understand how the human body works.
I find it very odd that you recommend a book to others if you don't understand the key claims made in the book. What, exactly, did you find helpful in this book? What interested you about it?
Please read my original post to see what I personally found helpful. In terms of the toxin thing, the only thing I recall reading (I haven't finished it) is that toxins are / can be held up in fat cells and when we lose weight too quickly we can overload our liver with dealing with the toxins that are released. My recall is not infallible though!0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »Yojanejellyroll 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.)
There is so much wrong here, but I'm just going to point out that the Pope is not -- within the Catholic Church -- held to be omniscient.
What toxins is the author talking about though? If it is impossible to lose fat without detoxification, how does he explain how so many people have done so? And if it is dangerous to do that impossible task, what danger is he specifically talking about?
I know the pope is not held as omniscient I was exaggerating - but only just! He can speak infallibly, so he can create his own absolute truth for his followers. I guess that's the next best thing to being omniscient.
The difference between the human construct of papal infallibility (when speaking to matters of doctrine) and omniscience is huge. It's as huge as the difference between a reasonable and scentifically supported plan to lose weight and a plan that tells you it is impossible to lose weight unless you detoxify your body first.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions