Book: The science of fat loss
Replies
-
For myself I noticed after I started being more active and eating healthy and monitoring my calorie intake my stress and depression was gone also oh and abut 60lbs, and yes I did see a doctor about my depression. I was was given anti-depressants but did not like the way they made me feel. Doctor said the endorphin's released during physical activity are great at reducing stress and depression.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?
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?
I choose to take that as a complement, so I guess you mean the type of person who thinks instead of hiding behind false certainty, lol0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »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.
The best idea I've read so far in this thread0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »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?
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?
I choose to take that as a complement, so I guess you mean the type of person who thinks instead of hiding behind false certainty, lol
You're quite certain that's what you're doing, are you?
0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »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.
The best idea I've read so far in this thread
google. Finds it in torrent. You thought wrong if I was giving money for a comedy book to laugh at.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
Thanks, yes I agree with that. Posters have wanted to polarise the discussion between cico and non-cico. I don't subscribe to that. I have said that it's not 'just' cico in the sense that if your not losing weight it's not always because you are eating more than you think, or burning less than you think (not working out as hard as you think you are).0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »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?
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?
I choose to take that as a complement, so I guess you mean the type of person who thinks instead of hiding behind false certainty, lol
So you think your position is based on one "who thinks" and those who disagree with your conclusion are "hiding behind false certainty"?
What if I were to suggest that you have this backwards? That those who disagree with you are basing their disagreement on an enormous body of research and you seem to be basing your certainty on a single book. People who have actually practiced their beliefs and found it to be effective...who have coached others in its application and still found it effective...who, when they have found instances where it might not seem to be effective initially, eventually conclude that it is still effective and that their application simply needed adjustment.
Who do you believe is more likely to have this right and who is more likely to have this wrong?0 -
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?
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.0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »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?
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?
I choose to take that as a complement, so I guess you mean the type of person who thinks instead of hiding behind false certainty, lol
But you aren't thinking. You haven't been able to answer any of the questions that have been asked in this thread. You just keep repeating "Read the book, read the book."
Accepting outlandish statements on faith isn't thinking.0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »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?
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?
I choose to take that as a complement, so I guess you mean the type of person who thinks instead of hiding behind false certainty, lol
Anyone got some Alanis Morissette handy to cue up?0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »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?
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?
I choose to take that as a complement, so I guess you mean the type of person who thinks instead of hiding behind false certainty, lol
So you think your position is based on one "who thinks" and those who disagree with your conclusion are "hiding behind false certainty"?
What if I were to suggest that you have this backwards? That those who disagree with you are basing their disagreement on an enormous body of research and you seem to be basing your certainty on a single book. People who have actually practiced their beliefs and found it to be effective...who have coached others in its application and still found it effective...who, when they have found instances where it might not seem to be effective initially, eventually conclude that it is still effective and that their application simply needed adjustment.
Who do you believe is more likely to have this right and who is more likely to have this wrong?
I was hoping the flippant nature of my comment was apparent, as I was responding as seriously as I took the posters comments. Responding in kind. I'm sure there are very intelligent, thoughtful people here.0 -
For myself I noticed after I started being more active and eating healthy and monitoring my calorie intake my stress and depression was gone also oh and abut 60lbs, and yes I did see a doctor about my depression. I was was given anti-depressants but did not like the way they made me feel. Doctor said the endorphin's released during physical activity are great at reducing stress and depression.
I guess the difference with us then is that I was just as active before with my personal trainer than I was after.0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »I have said that it's not 'just' cico in the sense that if your not losing weight it's not always because you are eating more than you think, or burning less than you think (not working out as hard as you think you are).
What someone "thinks" they're eating is not part of CICO - what someone is actually eating is.
Ditto for the burning side.
0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
Thanks, yes I agree with that. Posters have wanted to polarise the discussion between cico and non-cico. I don't subscribe to that. I have said that it's not 'just' cico in the sense that if your not losing weight it's not always because you are eating more than you think, or burning less than you think (not working out as hard as you think you are).
Well, no, actually, you said:"it's just calories in and out" camp won't like it as the whole book dispels that myth. (No offence intended)
And you've been backpedaling away from it ever since.
The larger point is that factoring medical conditions into CICO doesn't dispel it.
If you read most of the posts around here long enough, when they analyze why someone is not losing weight, if their logging is looking good, medical conditions are indeed brought up.
There really is nothing new in what you're saying, and given the way you've back-tracked, the whole thing was needlessly inflammatory.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
Thanks, yes I agree with that. Posters have wanted to polarise the discussion between cico and non-cico. I don't subscribe to that. I have said that it's not 'just' cico in the sense that if your not losing weight it's not always because you are eating more than you think, or burning less than you think (not working out as hard as you think you are).
Well, no, actually, you said:"it's just calories in and out" camp won't like it as the whole book dispels that myth. (No offence intended)
And you've been backpedaling away from it ever since.
The larger point is that factoring medical conditions into CICO doesn't dispel it.
If you read most of the posts around here long enough, when they analyze why someone is not losing weight, if their logging is looking good, medical conditions are indeed brought up.
There really is nothing new in what you're saying, and given the way you've back-tracked, the whole thing was needlessly inflammatory.
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'0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »I have said that it's not 'just' cico in the sense that if your not losing weight it's not always because you are eating more than you think, or burning less than you think (not working out as hard as you think you are).
What someone "thinks" they're eating is not part of CICO - what someone is actually eating is.
Ditto for the burning side.
That's not the way it is often expressed here on my fitness pal.0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
Thanks, yes I agree with that. Posters have wanted to polarise the discussion between cico and non-cico. I don't subscribe to that. I have said that it's not 'just' cico in the sense that if your not losing weight it's not always because you are eating more than you think, or burning less than you think (not working out as hard as you think you are).
Well, no, actually, you said:"it's just calories in and out" camp won't like it as the whole book dispels that myth. (No offence intended)
And you've been backpedaling away from it ever since.
The larger point is that factoring medical conditions into CICO doesn't dispel it.
If you read most of the posts around here long enough, when they analyze why someone is not losing weight, if their logging is looking good, medical conditions are indeed brought up.
There really is nothing new in what you're saying, and given the way you've back-tracked, the whole thing was needlessly inflammatory.
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'
Sounds like a potential case of reader bias...
...because this is not what I recall reading in the "help I've stalled/not losing weight" threads...
...and I have read (and participated in) a lot of them.
Have you?0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »I have said that it's not 'just' cico in the sense that if your not losing weight it's not always because you are eating more than you think, or burning less than you think (not working out as hard as you think you are).
What someone "thinks" they're eating is not part of CICO - what someone is actually eating is.
Ditto for the burning side.
That's not the way it is often expressed here on my fitness pal.
I don't know what threads you are talking about, but what I see stressed is the importance of understanding what is actually being consumed -- not what the person thinks is being consumed.0 -
slowbutsure2 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »slowbutsure2 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
Thanks, yes I agree with that. Posters have wanted to polarise the discussion between cico and non-cico. I don't subscribe to that. I have said that it's not 'just' cico in the sense that if your not losing weight it's not always because you are eating more than you think, or burning less than you think (not working out as hard as you think you are).
Well, no, actually, you said:"it's just calories in and out" camp won't like it as the whole book dispels that myth. (No offence intended)
And you've been backpedaling away from it ever since.
The larger point is that factoring medical conditions into CICO doesn't dispel it.
If you read most of the posts around here long enough, when they analyze why someone is not losing weight, if their logging is looking good, medical conditions are indeed brought up.
There really is nothing new in what you're saying, and given the way you've back-tracked, the whole thing was needlessly inflammatory.
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'
How many "help I'm not losing any weight" threads have you read?
The ones where the original poster is posting in earnest contain no blasting whatsoever. There's the odd thread where the OP is looking for validation for unhealthy behavior or a preconceived notion of what their problem is instead of help, and those threads might go differently, but for the most part, all of the analysis threads are very helpful if the OP is open to taking information on board.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
slowbutsure2 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?
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.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
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".0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.slowbutsure2 wrote: »
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?
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: »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.0 -
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?
0 -
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!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 432 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions