Book: The science of fat loss
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions