Book: The science of fat loss
Replies
-
slowbutsure2 wrote: »isulo_kura wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »lowendfuzz wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »Whatever works for you my friend. Perhaps for reasonably healthy people CICO is true but it ain't the whole truth. And to someone with real depression and stress, spending a bit on some supplements (not from Phil, he doesn't sell them) is nothing. Most people would actually and really give their right arm to live in the light again.
speaking from a personal experience, no I would not spend money on what some "trainer" told me. I got professional help, i'm not going to pay from some BS
Don't you think that's a bit naive? A professional is someone qualified in their field and earn their living from it. That would be Phil Johnson. And other professional athletes like Amhir Khan (boxer) pay Phil for his professional services. Calling something BS without having studied it is not really that clever. I do understand the cynicism as there is a lot of rubbish and nonsense out there. I posted this as I think it is not in that category.
You may not think it's in that category but when someone claims cico is a myth just to sell some supplements and books that says it all. Also just because he has trained some high profile people and does get some results does not prove what he's preaching is correct. There are so many so called 'Professional in their fields' that have there own agendas.
It's great that you have finally shift some weight as you wanted but the reason your losing weight still comes down to CICO despite what you believe the real science says this. Good luck
I never said cico is a myth and neither does Phil Johnson, you are putting words in our mouths. What I said was 'just' cico. There can be much more to weight loss than just cico. I would have actually thought it was a self evident truth.
From OP...
"those who
are in the "it's just calories in and out" camp won't like it as the whole book dispels that myth"
eta: And who's Phil Johnson?0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »isulo_kura wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »lowendfuzz wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »Whatever works for you my friend. Perhaps for reasonably healthy people CICO is true but it ain't the whole truth. And to someone with real depression and stress, spending a bit on some supplements (not from Phil, he doesn't sell them) is nothing. Most people would actually and really give their right arm to live in the light again.
speaking from a personal experience, no I would not spend money on what some "trainer" told me. I got professional help, i'm not going to pay from some BS
Don't you think that's a bit naive? A professional is someone qualified in their field and earn their living from it. That would be Phil Johnson. And other professional athletes like Amhir Khan (boxer) pay Phil for his professional services. Calling something BS without having studied it is not really that clever. I do understand the cynicism as there is a lot of rubbish and nonsense out there. I posted this as I think it is not in that category.
You may not think it's in that category but when someone claims cico is a myth just to sell some supplements and books that says it all. Also just because he has trained some high profile people and does get some results does not prove what he's preaching is correct. There are so many so called 'Professional in their fields' that have there own agendas.
It's great that you have finally shift some weight as you wanted but the reason your losing weight still comes down to CICO despite what you believe the real science says this. Good luck
I never said cico is a myth and neither does Phil Johnson, you are putting words in our mouths. What I said was 'just' cico. There can be much more to weight loss than just cico. I would have actually thought it was a self evident truth.
From OP...
"those who
are in the "it's just calories in and out" camp won't like it as the whole book dispels that myth"
eta: And who's Phil Johnson?
I love a good bit of back tracking0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »I baulk at ignorant certainty and so challenge it.
How did you challenge the book?
If you don't know enough to answer the very reasonable questions being asked of you, how can you know enough to make a judgement on the book?
I'm struggling to see the difference between what you're doing and the "ignorant certainty" you are claiming others are showing.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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?
that is code for "I do not have the answers"...
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
I understand where you are coming from. It's not my intention to be 100% certain about this book, I'm definitely not. I shared my personal experience and what I found helpful.
I am doubtful that weight loss is purely tracking calories consumed and burned, with a deficit. Of course it's the bedrock, but I'm not convinced that hormones, disease, liver problems, very high stress etc do not impact weight loss even when you are working at a deficit.
On the science front, certainty is also not appropriate most of the time. Scientific theories are always waiting for new evidence and discoveries that overturn old conclusions. It's how progress is made.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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?
that is code for "I do not have the answers"...
At this point it's pretty clear the OP hasn't even read the book, IMO.
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?
that is code for "I do not have the answers"...
At this point it's pretty clear the OP hasn't even read the book, IMO.
You could ask the OP lol! As I said in my original post I am reading it now, I haven't finished it. I repeated this in another recent post.0 -
-
slowbutsure2 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?
that is code for "I do not have the answers"...
At this point it's pretty clear the OP hasn't even read the book, IMO.
You could ask the OP lol! As I said in my original post I am reading it now, I haven't finished it. I repeated this in another recent post.
so you have not reached the section on toxins that make you gain weight in a caloric deficit yet?
maybe you could check the index and list them for us? I am curious what they are.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?
Wait so you don't know the toxins and would have to do research to know the answers? Didn't the author answer those questions? Didn't you read the book? If you did read it then why would you have to research to find the answers?
I'm in danger of oft repeating myself. I haven't finished the book, and haven't paid huge attention to the toxin issues that I have read as it wasn't a major point of interest for me. I shared about the information regarding depression. I didn't even bring up the toxin issue.0 -
Health/hormonal issues affect rates, but CICO still works even with those issues. Slower rate..........likely. One has to work harder at it than others...........probably. Since everything in the body is a chemical reaction, imbalance (like with hormonal/health issues) will impact the outcomes. But the book is more about dealing with the general population and trying to inform them with pseudoscience/broscience for weight loss.slowbutsure2 wrote:I am doubtful that weight loss is purely tracking calories consumed and burned, with a deficit. Of course it's the bedrock, but I'm not convinced that hormones, disease, liver problems, very high stress etc do not impact weight loss even when you are working at a deficit.
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: »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?
that is code for "I do not have the answers"...
At this point it's pretty clear the OP hasn't even read the book, IMO.
You could ask the OP lol! As I said in my original post I am reading it now, I haven't finished it. I repeated this in another recent post.
so you have not reached the section on toxins that make you gain weight in a caloric deficit yet?
maybe you could check the index and list them for us? I am curious what they are.
I'll give you a shortcut - a quick googling reveals that the esteemed author never names any of these alleged toxins. :rolls_eyes:
It's all woo-woo quackery.0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »I baulk at ignorant certainty and so challenge it.
How did you challenge the book?
If you don't know enough to answer the very reasonable questions being asked of you, how can you know enough to make a judgement on the book?
I'm struggling to see the difference between what you're doing and the "ignorant certainty" you are claiming others are showing.
I also can't answer many questions on astro physics, though I could have a good Stab at the meaning of life. However, Astrophysics and toxins were not issues that u raised.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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?
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.
Whether it is a human construct, and whether your pitting science against a straw man of toxicity, are valid depends on your epistemology and the nature of reality. I presume you can't prove that we are not right now living in the Matrix. And that being the case, your basing your opinions on unprovable assumptions. And doing so with great certainty.-1 -
Didn't even have to google it to know that would be the case.slowbutsure2 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?
that is code for "I do not have the answers"...
At this point it's pretty clear the OP hasn't even read the book, IMO.
You could ask the OP lol! As I said in my original post I am reading it now, I haven't finished it. I repeated this in another recent post.
so you have not reached the section on toxins that make you gain weight in a caloric deficit yet?
maybe you could check the index and list them for us? I am curious what they are.
I'll give you a shortcut - a quick googling reveals that the esteemed author never names any of these alleged toxins. :rolls_eyes:
It's all woo-woo quackery.
0 -
slowbutsure2 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?
Wait so you don't know the toxins and would have to do research to know the answers? Didn't the author answer those questions? Didn't you read the book? If you did read it then why would you have to research to find the answers?
I'm in danger of oft repeating myself. I haven't finished the book, and haven't paid huge attention to the toxin issues that I have read as it wasn't a major point of interest for me. I shared about the information regarding depression. I didn't even bring up the toxin issue.
If this book is so great why wouldn't you at least attempt to see what the toxins section was all about? It could have had great information no?
The book is massive and I'm a slow reader. Im not cherry picking, it will just take me a while to finish it. Thanks for the encouragement.0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »I baulk at ignorant certainty and so challenge it.
How did you challenge the book?
If you don't know enough to answer the very reasonable questions being asked of you, how can you know enough to make a judgement on the book?
I'm struggling to see the difference between what you're doing and the "ignorant certainty" you are claiming others are showing.
I also can't answer many questions on astro physics, though I could have a good Stab at the meaning of life. However, Astrophysics and toxins were not issues that u raised.
The book you're praising raised them though. The toxins that is, don't know about astrophysics, the cover kinda looks like it's in space though. And if that section is just filled with BS I'd say the rest of the book is too.0 -
Health/hormonal issues affect rates, but CICO still works even with those issues. Slower rate..........likely. One has to work harder at it than others...........probably. Since everything in the body is a chemical reaction, imbalance (like with hormonal/health issues) will impact the outcomes. But the book is more about dealing with the general population and trying to inform them with pseudoscience/broscience for weight loss.slowbutsure2 wrote:I am doubtful that weight loss is purely tracking calories consumed and burned, with a deficit. Of course it's the bedrock, but I'm not convinced that hormones, disease, liver problems, very high stress etc do not impact weight loss even when you are working at a deficit.
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
You have read it?0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »isulo_kura wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »lowendfuzz wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »Whatever works for you my friend. Perhaps for reasonably healthy people CICO is true but it ain't the whole truth. And to someone with real depression and stress, spending a bit on some supplements (not from Phil, he doesn't sell them) is nothing. Most people would actually and really give their right arm to live in the light again.
speaking from a personal experience, no I would not spend money on what some "trainer" told me. I got professional help, i'm not going to pay from some BS
Don't you think that's a bit naive? A professional is someone qualified in their field and earn their living from it. That would be Phil Johnson. And other professional athletes like Amhir Khan (boxer) pay Phil for his professional services. Calling something BS without having studied it is not really that clever. I do understand the cynicism as there is a lot of rubbish and nonsense out there. I posted this as I think it is not in that category.
You may not think it's in that category but when someone claims cico is a myth just to sell some supplements and books that says it all. Also just because he has trained some high profile people and does get some results does not prove what he's preaching is correct. There are so many so called 'Professional in their fields' that have there own agendas.
It's great that you have finally shift some weight as you wanted but the reason your losing weight still comes down to CICO despite what you believe the real science says this. Good luck
I never said cico is a myth and neither does Phil Johnson, you are putting words in our mouths. What I said was 'just' cico. There can be much more to weight loss than just cico. I would have actually thought it was a self evident truth.
From OP...
"those who
are in the "it's just calories in and out" camp won't like it as the whole book dispels that myth"
eta: And who's Phil Johnson?
I love a good bit of back tracking
I don't think I've back tracked at all. Can you point it out to me?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?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
slowbutsure2 wrote: »slowbutsure2 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?
Wait so you don't know the toxins and would have to do research to know the answers? Didn't the author answer those questions? Didn't you read the book? If you did read it then why would you have to research to find the answers?
I'm in danger of oft repeating myself. I haven't finished the book, and haven't paid huge attention to the toxin issues that I have read as it wasn't a major point of interest for me. I shared about the information regarding depression. I didn't even bring up the toxin issue.
If this book is so great why wouldn't you at least attempt to see what the toxins section was all about? It could have had great information no?
The book is massive and I'm a slow reader. Im not cherry picking, it will just take me a while to finish it. Thanks for the encouragement.
But you said before that you didn't pay attention to that section are you now saying that you haven't gotten to that section yet?
All he is saying is that depression impacts weight loss. I kind of thought it would of been common knowledge since major of people know what happens in the body with depression. I guess the book by whoever it is doesn't know that.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »slowbutsure2 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?
Wait so you don't know the toxins and would have to do research to know the answers? Didn't the author answer those questions? Didn't you read the book? If you did read it then why would you have to research to find the answers?
I'm in danger of oft repeating myself. I haven't finished the book, and haven't paid huge attention to the toxin issues that I have read as it wasn't a major point of interest for me. I shared about the information regarding depression. I didn't even bring up the toxin issue.
If this book is so great why wouldn't you at least attempt to see what the toxins section was all about? It could have had great information no?
The book is massive and I'm a slow reader. Im not cherry picking, it will just take me a while to finish it. Thanks for the encouragement.
But you said before that you didn't pay attention to that section are you now saying that you haven't gotten to that section yet?
All he is saying is that depression impacts weight loss. I kind of thought it would of been common knowledge since major of people know what happens in the body with depression. I guess the book by whoever it is doesn't know that.
It depends on how that statement is meant.
If the intent is to say depression affects impulse control and reduces motivation to get the body moving, then yes, depression affects weight loss because it can contribute to both over-eating and under-burning.
If the intent is to say that CICO doesn't apply to depressed people, then no, that is completely false.
0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
I am doubtful that weight loss is purely tracking calories consumed and burned, with a deficit. Of course it's the bedrock, but I'm not convinced that hormones, disease, liver problems, very high stress etc do not impact weight loss even when you are working at a deficit.
Since you like personal anecdotes, here's mine.
Let's start with this, though.
CICO is an equation.
The medical conditions don't negate the equation, they factor into it.
I have hypothyroidism, hence, for me, CI - CO becomes CI - ( Projected CO -hormonal adjustment).
Therefore, I go to the doctor, get my thyroid adjusted and make some tweaks in my diet (I moderate my carbs. CICO still applies.
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?
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.
Whether it is a human construct, and whether your pitting science against a straw man of toxicity, are valid depends on your epistemology and the nature of reality. I presume you can't prove that we are not right now living in the Matrix. And that being the case, your basing your opinions on unprovable assumptions. And doing so with great certainty.
Wow. Just wow. You are exactly the type of person diet books like these are written for, aren't you?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?
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.
Whether it is a human construct, and whether your pitting science against a straw man of toxicity, are valid depends on your epistemology and the nature of reality. I presume you can't prove that we are not right now living in the Matrix. And that being the case, your basing your opinions on unprovable assumptions. And doing so with great certainty.
I tell you what - you post a YouTube of yourself doing a Neo and dodging bullets fired from point blank range, and then we can talk "epistemology" its affects on weight loss.
Until then, it's CICO, all the way down.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »slowbutsure2 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?
Wait so you don't know the toxins and would have to do research to know the answers? Didn't the author answer those questions? Didn't you read the book? If you did read it then why would you have to research to find the answers?
I'm in danger of oft repeating myself. I haven't finished the book, and haven't paid huge attention to the toxin issues that I have read as it wasn't a major point of interest for me. I shared about the information regarding depression. I didn't even bring up the toxin issue.
If this book is so great why wouldn't you at least attempt to see what the toxins section was all about? It could have had great information no?
The book is massive and I'm a slow reader. Im not cherry picking, it will just take me a while to finish it. Thanks for the encouragement.
But you said before that you didn't pay attention to that section are you now saying that you haven't gotten to that section yet?
All he is saying is that depression impacts weight loss. I kind of thought it would of been common knowledge since major of people know what happens in the body with depression. I guess the book by whoever it is doesn't know that.
It depends on how that statement is meant.
If the intent is to say depression affects impulse control and reduces motivation to get the body moving, then yes, depression affects weight loss because it can contribute to both over-eating and under-burning.
If the intent is to say that CICO doesn't apply to depressed people, then no, that is completely false.
Maybe I should read the book to learn about the toxins.
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