Book: The science of fat loss

Options
1234568»

Replies

  • slowbutsure2
    slowbutsure2 Posts: 110
    Options
    MrM27 wrote: »
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »
    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?

    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?

    Why do you want to try and catch me out instead of assuming the best first? Really sad. The book is encyclopaedic. I have dipped into and scanned all sections very lightly, but I'm reading in detail from the beginning. I can't comment intelligibly on things I've quickly scanned to get a rough idea of what's in each section. Sigh.

    I could have assumed the best first if you put out the line of thinking that would have allowed me to give you that benefit of doubt, but you didn't, so I can't.

    Dipping lightly into a book that is like an encyclopedia sounds like you were just looking for the words you wanted to see. That's if you actually skimmed all the topics which I doubt you did.

    This entire thread has been one big back peddle. Maybe back peddle far enough to land you on your original account before you created this one.

    So because you don't agree with someone you assume they are being dishonest? Nice.

    The rest of your post is more of the same. And as I've said, I don't Believe I've back peddled at all from my original post. You may have done your usual and assumed the worst and built a straw man from it, but that's on you.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    I'm going to repeat myself, but for someone who barely skimmed the book you're very convinced of it's validity, even though just looking at the bullet points from it's "10 habits" advertisement thing it looks to be mostly rubbish.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    MrM27 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    I'm going to repeat myself, but for someone who barely skimmed the book you're very convinced of it's validity, even though just looking at the bullet points from it's "10 habits" advertisement thing it looks to be mostly rubbish.

    Yup. He's defending it so hard but doesn't even know what's really in the book.

    To paraphrase an old scholar, "I have to defend the book before I find out what is in it".
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,695 Member
    Options
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    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.
    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.

    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


    You have read it?
    When the bullet points are the gist of the book, I don't waste my time reading it. Doing this for 30 years now (and as a trainer for 17 years) I wouldn't expect anything more than pseudoscience or broscience. May be new to you, but it ain't new to me. You'd be much better off relying on actual PEER REVIEWED CLINICAL STUDIES than a book by an author who doesn't hold any science degrees or background.

    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


  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,404 MFP Moderator
    Options
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »
    You may be right, but I'm not aware that I have backtracked. My experience of the simply cico crowd in threads on myfitnesspal has been to just blast people who are not losing weight as kidding themselves about how many calories they are eating or how much exercise they are actually doing. I think that's too simplistic, which is what I have said many times here, and meant in my original post when I used the word 'simply'

    Or maybe, just maybe, the CICO crowd is addressing specific protocol based on years experience before jumping to the extremes. I have been helping this community for over 4 years and there are certain things that tend to be common issues: accuracy and consistency of tracking calories being the most common, followed by over exaggerating calories out, or not following the standard deviation for the equations (because the online calculators only are effective for 70 to 80% of the people). Once you address these issues, then you can reassess.

    In some cases, people have underlying unknown medical conditions or intolerances to certain nutrients (gluten, lactose, carbs, etc..). Or in other cases, there are known medical issues which alter our recommendations from the get go; ex - PCOS or IR will automatically receive the response of going LCHF. But overall, they still have to consume less energy than they expend.

    My wife has first hand experience with this. She has Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS) which can have issues with carbs/sugar and gluten. Since my wife has stayed away from those items, her energy was significantly higher (didn't need to take naps any more) but also was able to lose weight. But it took us quite some time to figure that out and one dang good Electrophisiologist.

    Additionally, I would highly recommend that you read the entire book prior to recommending it on the internet. Because if you don't know what it's really about, and there are questions, it's going to be obvious that you don't have the required background to answer any questions.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,404 MFP Moderator
    Options
    slowbutsure2 wrote: »

    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.

    By this same sediment, you would imply that Dr. Oz and Dr. Lustig are qualified in their fields and we should take advise from them?

  • BBeccaJean
    BBeccaJean Posts: 453 Member
    Options
    I've noticed that both quality and quantity of food consumed effects my weightloss. However, if I eat clean, my body isn't as stubborn in holding onto food. I definitely need to get a more structured weightlifting plan to burn more at rest also!
  • MKEgal
    MKEgal Posts: 3,250 Member
    Options
    slowbutsure2 wrote:
    The book addresses some reasons why you can't lose weight, stress and depression were one of them.
    Shouldn't that be "stress and depression were two of them"?

    And, gee, if stress & depression prevent losing weight, then I must be relaxed & cured, because I've done pretty well in the last year, despite being clinically depressed, chronically stressed, worried about losing my house, my healthcare, my food budget, paying bills when I have no money, etc.

    .
    51637601.png
  • MKEgal
    MKEgal Posts: 3,250 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    kamakazeekim wrote:
    Moderate to severe depression is best treated through a combination of a doctor prescribed medication and psychotherapy.
    Actually, exercise has been shown to be as effective as either of those.
    I assume you're familiar with PubMed? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
    .
    book wrote:
    without a comprehensive detoxification plan, losing weight becomes impossible & dangerous
    O-Rly-owls-13509350-282-282.jpg
    .
    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.
    Well, if we're accepting personal experience, then I'm contradictory proof.
    I don't think I've ever "detoxed", and I certainly don't "eat clean", yet I've lost a lot of weight.
    .
    book wrote:
    learn why snacking between meals makes you fat
    Um, let me guess: because it means you take in more calories than you burn?
    (In other words, the CI part of the equation is greater than the CO part.)
    .
    OP wrote:
    I have dipped into and scanned all sections very lightly
    tw1.jpg
    Scan means "look at all parts of (something) carefully in order to detect some feature"
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    BBeccaJean wrote: »
    I've noticed that both quality and quantity of food consumed effects my weightloss. However, if I eat clean, my body isn't as stubborn in holding onto food. I definitely need to get a more structured weightlifting plan to burn more at rest also!

    While I'm not disputing your perceived outcome, I will suggest that your reasoning for it may be at least a little flawed.



    (Rainbows and Unicorns People of MFP: Is that nice enough for you?)

Categories