Book: The science of fat loss

Options
124678

Replies

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,695 Member
    Options
    FunkyTobias wrote: »
    book_habits.jpg

    EL OH EL.

    The toxins give you teh fatz. Pseudoscience at its worst.
    Much broscience too. Again, money tends to supercede morals for some individuals.

    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

  • peachyfuzzle
    peachyfuzzle Posts: 1,122 Member
    Options
    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.
  • slowbutsure2
    slowbutsure2 Posts: 110
    Options

    "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


  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    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

    This post is so ironic, magnets are attracted to it.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,695 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.
    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".

    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

  • slowbutsure2
    slowbutsure2 Posts: 110
    Options
    RGv2 wrote: »
    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

    pot+meet+kettle.jpg

    If I was being self righteously judgmental I would not have said that I do it too. It was an observation about human nature.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    yarwell wrote: »
    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!
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    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.)

    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?
  • slowbutsure2
    slowbutsure2 Posts: 110
    Options
    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
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    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....
  • slowbutsure2
    slowbutsure2 Posts: 110
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    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.)

    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.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    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.)

    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.
  • peachyfuzzle
    peachyfuzzle Posts: 1,122 Member
    Options
    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


    tumblr_inline_nbre3huLtm1rzi1o9.jpg
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    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.)

    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?
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    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.)

    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?
  • slowbutsure2
    slowbutsure2 Posts: 110
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    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.)

    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.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,695 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    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
    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.
    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
    9285851.png

  • slowbutsure2
    slowbutsure2 Posts: 110
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    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.)

    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?
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    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.)

    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.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    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.)

    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.

Categories