The 4-Hour Body

[ChefChiTown]

Look, I don't know why you waste you time with this thread... this thread is not titled "THE ONLY WAY TO TRULEY LOSE WEIGHT", nor is it titled "THE WEIGHT LOSS BIBLE"... it's titled the “4-Hour Body”, and its prefaced by it being a discussion about the book with the same namesake.

Given your disdain for things, and your pejorative attitude towards things that are different from what you believe, it surprises me that you come onto this thread based in the context outlined above. Your attitude is that you look down on the rest of us, that are doing things differently, and that is fine, but it vexes me that you come into a thread like this to show your superiority. In your eyes, someone using the "4-hour body" is already a total idiot, so what is the point of spending your precious energy here belittling people’s opinions? It's always entertaining to read your posts, but as of late, I have only seen you acting like an a-hole, as opposed to posting anything constructive.

Anyone that is sold on taking an ice bath, is clearly much below you intellectually in your own eyes... that being said, what is the point of calling a bunch of "idiots" names? With your superior brain-power, it's tantamount to me taking on a common pre-schooler in a chess match. Please use your vastly elevated brain capacity for something more worthy of your time, perhaps hosting a Mensa meeting or something...

You are obviously responding to my last post. First of all, that post wasn't directed at you. If you chose to take it personally (which you obviously have), then that's all on you - not me. I wasn't talking to you, nor was I referencing you or anyone in particular. Your assumptions are incorrect, but I hope you feel good about yourself. My last post was directed at Jericho, someone who shares the same sense of sarcasm and sense of realism as I do. He made a comment, I responded to him personally and used sarcasm - which is something I'm known for. Once again, I wasn't talking to you.

Secondly, nowhere have I called you or anyone else in this thread a name - especially an "idiot", as you claim. The only one who is name calling around these parts seems to be you. I believe you just went off on a pretty big tangent about how I have a superiority complex and feel as if I'm better than or above other people just because I'm not an "idiot" who bought the book in question. Read my posts in this thread again. Please. And, when you find where I have called anybody an idiot, I would like you to show me where. I'll wait here until you show me.

I'm going to be waiting a while though, because I never did such a thing. And, you know it. Once again, you are assuming things, taking things personally for some reason and now you're getting defensive.

All I have done is supported the fact that all diets, whether they are derived from common sense or a miracle diet book that someone purchases at Borders for $14,99, all boil down to calories in vs. calories out. That's what started the whole debate in this thread - not name calling and not insults. It was started by the simple comment that losing weight all boils down to calories in vs. calories out. People who read the book then argued against that and defended the book. I, among others, stated that the book doesn't contain miracle information, because weight loss all boils down to...one more time...calories in vs. calories out.

Nowhere have I called anybody an idiot. I have supported the fact that others have stated by saying that weight loss all comes down to calories in vs. calories out, but nowhere have I called you or anybody else in this thread an idiot.

If this diet works for you, great. Good for you. Personally, I'm not going to waste my money by buying a book that is full of common sense and unproven methods. Especially when the book is written not by a professional health expert, dietician or doctor - rather, a salesman.

Once again, if it works for you? Awesome. Keep up the good work. Me? I'm not going to entrust my health with a salesman and waste my money to gain access to common sense.

PS - Thanks for calling me an a**hole. That was obviously well deserved (there's my sarcasm again). I'm glad that you think people who don't feel the same way as you do about things are a*ssholes. Yet, I'm the one who is belittling? People in glass houses...

 

[Melancholy]

I'm sure you are familiar with circular reasoning... that is what we have here.

Look, Jericho was responding to another poster, in fact, he quoted said poster, and then responded specifically to them... you then took Jericho's response, and proceeded to use generalities to insult a large swath of people.

Now, you're no moron... you are a freelance writer according to your bio, and I'm sure have the gift of being able to manipulate things, but go back and read your response to Jericho, it's completely condescending for no reason. I know you are known for sarcasm, and I usually enjoy it. But you knew exactly what you were doing when you responded to Jericho with the little blurb that you did, and it's insulting to insinuate you were merely responding to a friend of yours.

It is what it is, I have read your posts for a long time, I am not going to change your mind, nor do I care to... I am just pointing out that there is a fine line between wit and being an a-hole, and falling into the latter only takes away from your sterling reputation... you can make a point without being derogatory, or you can't... like I said, it is what it is...

 

[Jericho]

cool down people

 

[San2]

Okay peeps, take a deep breath, make a step back, relax....

I enjoy a good discussion, and so far, that's what this thread was. Heated, yes, but also informative. People exchanging opinions.

I would like it to stay this way.

Wires got crossed, things don't translate as well over a computer screen as they would in person, and stuff comes across the wrong way. No need to get personal. That just makes everybody feel like cr*p.

So, a few more deep breaths please, agree to disagree if you must. I'm not asking for hugs and handshakes, but please don't let it get any further than this.

Thank you.

 

[Jeanette401]

Soooo, just wanted to throw this out -

I think that you can burn extra calories due to the heat siphoning effects of calories, but if Lance Armstrong is eating 10,000 calories a day, I don't know that we can attribute 5k extra calories burned by Phelps from 4 hours of swimming.

To me the idea that you could take 15 minute ice baths and end up burning 2 extra lbs of fat in a week seems... highly suspect. (Given the 3x as much fat, and starting at 1lb burned). And if that was the whole magic plan in 4HB it would be laughable.

Of course, as I pointed out in my earlier 4HB hits a lot of the major weight loss points in addition to the fluff. ... I find myself wondering if I have it in me to test the ice bath theory... without changing anything else. But I start shivering every time I think about it, lol.

That said, I do think that some of the marketing hype and crazy ideas about magic are just about required to end up with a top selling weight loss book. :/ I don't like this fact, but it just seems to be the way human beings are hard wired. They're looking for explanations that fit their world view, not ones that fit scientific fat. Just the way the idea of me having a 'broken' metabolism that worked with Atkins drew me in full scale. Atkins was the perfect lure for me, because it confirmed my belief that there was just something wrong with the 'low calorie' slim fast mechanism, and didn't really require self introspection or an understanding of biology that might explain the differences.

I think Chef's post came across as painting everyone who liked the book as buying into the magic if ice baths and maybe making it seem like the 4HB was just ridiculous woo woo. Even if really he just meant to make fun of the idea of torturing yourself to burn an extra 30 calories a day. *shiver*

I think also that calories in vs. calories out may be true for weight loss, but it gets pushed too hard and other factors - such as sustainability of a diet - are ignored. Certainly a diet of Subway cookies vs. Subway sandwiches has a different impact, even if it's all just calories. These days most diets are about how to keep your calories where they ought to be without feeling deprived and hungry all of the time, even if at the same time they all claim some magic that lets you eat 'more'. ... Yeah, just like getting a 6inch sub lets me eat way more than the cookies, even though it's the same calories.

I don't think it's necessary to be quite so dismissive of the how to achieve the calorie deficit, even if some of the ideas that come with it are a bit crackpot. After all, most cultures evolved with a set of meal plans/rules for eating that lead to relatively decent health even if they really didn't understand much about calories. (And even if most of them were doing physical labor, but this post could be way longer if I digress on this point!)

 

[Toddless]

You don't think that might have been from all the training with the swimming and not to 'eat anything she wants' combined with cold water does it?

Sure the training burned some cals. But I'm thinking that doing the same thing everyday for an hour... your body is going to be very effective at it eventually and you'll plateau... which means she can't have been burning a huge number of cals because it was a workout.

As for Mr. Phelps, I can definitely see where the disbelief lies, but it's been documented that he actually does eat around 12,000 cals a day. What would it take for you (generic "you") to believe that being in cold water for long periods of time would burn a lot of extra cals? As for the response that your body "gets used to it" and the "pool is heated", even if he swam in 80 degree water (apparently average for an olympic pool), that's 18 degrees below body temperature. The water temperature isn't going to rise when he gets in... which means!... He's got to burn a lot more cals to keep his core temperature as close to 98.6 as possible. His "getting used to it" doesn't mean he's dropped his temperature to 80 degrees, it means his body has compensated for the rapid heat loss that occurred when he first got into the pool.

I'm not one for anything that would go against logic or science, and this seems very straight forward to me. I can't say for taking a 10 minute cold shower 2x a week, but I'm pretty sure just sitting in a cold pool everyday for an hour would up your daily burn significantly.

 

[Jericho]

prolonged exposure to lowered temperatures would of course increase your BMI because the body has to maintain temperature.

Let's stop trying to use an olympic athlete and let's be real ok?

YOU are not going to be spending hours in ice water. You won't even spend an hour. Let's say 15 minutes because of health (you don't want hypothermia) a day. Just how many extra calories do you think will be burned a day? 100? Don't think it will be that high do you?

Let's look about cold weather (not cold water but it is a base)

According to Andrew J. Young, Ph.D., of the U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine in Natick, Mass., “There are two factors that could cause energy expenditure to increase with falling outdoor temperature. First, if shivering is elicited by cold, then energy expenditure increases. However, different people have differing shivering-response sensitivity, and intensity of shivering will be influenced by magnitude of decrease in body (deep core and skin) temperature, which in turn is influenced by body size and fat content that vary widely among people, as well as clothing worn. So some folks don't shiver at all (well-dressed, lots of body fat), and a man in the cold is not always a cold man. The other reason energy expenditure might increase in cold weather is if you perform heavy physical labor (walk in deep snow, carry or wear heavy clothing).” Additionally, there is a likelihood that you could have a slight increase in calorie burn (about 3 to 7 percent) from your body re-warming itself from cold air touching your skin and warming the cold air that goes into your lungs, adds Wayne Askew, Ph.D., a professor of nutrition at the University of Utah.

So, let's take the high end of 7 percent..with the cold water, let's up to 10. Let's then go with the base of 2000 calories BMI. Now work with me cause, of course this is really averages. Over 24 hours then you burn an average of 83 calories an hour (again, averages, just go with me here). So in 15 minutes you burn an average of 20.8 calories. 15 minutes in cold water with..hell let's say for 15 minutes it jumped 20%. 20% of 20.8 is basically 4 calories. But let's be more generous. Let's say 30 minutes because it takes you 15 minutes out of the water to warm up. So..8 calories (on average). You do this everyday so 56 calories extra burned a week.

See where I don't agree with the idea of using ice water as a weight loss measure?

 

[Jeanette401]

Just found this article rather interesting in the context of swimming for exercise.. the summary is that swimming in cold water may burn more calories, but also increases appetite... or at least that's the theory.

So whether or not this would be more beneficial would come down to self control, and how your stress levels are effected by hunger... yay for context and individuality in physical responses

 

[Toddless]

See where I don't agree with the idea of using ice water as a weight loss measure?

No. You determined why being in cold AIR wasn't a good weight loss measure. You guessed at the percentage increase from being in water.

Also, I think you meant BMR throughout your post instead of BMI.

 

[Jericho]

You know why I had to guess? I could not find one single item that gave a study with a percentage..What number would you like? As asked before, does anyone here actually have a number that is backed by science? I've seen nothing that says it is 50%, 100%, 2%. I went with what I actually could find.

I mean seriously, I throw something out there and what you gave back was I had to be wrong cause I'm talking air instead of water. Then GIVE me something cause I've found zip as far as actual numbers.


I meant BMR, not BMI: Basal Metabolic Rate.

 

[Melancholy]

I agree with Jeanette, things do need to be a little crazy to be good selling... and that is fine, if it works.

Now, Ice baths aside.

The rules of this book are very easy to follow... for example, I am sitting in Starbucks right now working, and looking at the pastry case... I am hungry...now, if I wasn't following a diet (South Beach)... I would think... hmm, pastries, bad... bagel, those are okay.... sandwich.. hmmm (you get the picture, it's confusing)... but knowing that I am doing South Beach (following a set of rules), I know I can eat roasted almonds... great. Easy choice, but if I didn't have these rules it might be tough to pick something out that is just "low cal"...

The other injustice that people do by diluting a diet to calories in vs. calories out is the impact on hunger, which is one of the things that torture most dieters. For example, using Jeanette's analogy of Subway sand. v. subway cookies: If I ate 400 calories in Subway cookies, I would be STARVING in about 2 hours, that's not my guess, that's my knowledge based on me. If I ate a 400 calorie sandwich I could easily go about 4 hours, double the time... again, that is not a guess, that's something I know (because I eat Subway often).

I found this out by trying to "eat healthy" but I would typically get discouraged and think... why am I too stupid to have self control?? But it wasn't just self control, there were biological and hormonal responses affecting the level of hunger I experienced, and these were impacted by what I ate. Now, adhering to a specific diet, allowed me to eat within context of the diet, and control these physiological responses that had caused me to fail in the past.

So, the point is, people need simple rules, something to fall back on when faced with a "pastry case" where there are too many choices to know what to eat. just my 2 cents.

 

[ChefChiTown]

I'm sure you are familiar with circular reasoning... that is what we have here.

Look, Jericho was responding to another poster, in fact, he quoted said poster, and then responded specifically to them... you then took Jericho's response, and proceeded to use generalities to insult a large swath of people.

Now, you're no moron... you are a freelance writer according to your bio, and I'm sure have the gift of being able to manipulate things, but go back and read your response to Jericho, it's completely condescending for no reason. I know you are known for sarcasm, and I usually enjoy it. But you knew exactly what you were doing when you responded to Jericho with the little blurb that you did, and it's insulting to insinuate you were merely responding to a friend of yours.

It is what it is, I have read your posts for a long time, I am not going to change your mind, nor do I care to... I am just pointing out that there is a fine line between wit and being an a-hole, and falling into the latter only takes away from your sterling reputation... you can make a point without being derogatory, or you can't... like I said, it is what it is...

Yeah, I did know what I was doing when I was responding to Jericho's post - I was talking to Jericho.

I have never been one to beat around the bush. If I think someone is an idiot, I'm going to call them an idiot. You say you've read my posts for a long time? Well, then you know that I'm straight forward. If I wanted to call you (or anybody else) an idiot, I would've said, "You're an idiot." I didn't in my post. You were looking entirely waaaaay too far into what I said.

But, I think this is a dead issue. No use in butting heads, especially over the contents of a book. No hard feelings.

Wires got crossed, things don't translate as well over a computer screen as they would in person, and stuff comes across the wrong way. No need to get personal. That just makes everybody feel like cr*p.

Exactly.

I think Chef's post came across as painting everyone who liked the book as buying into the magic if ice baths and maybe making it seem like the 4HB was just ridiculous woo woo. Even if really he just meant to make fun of the idea of torturing yourself to burn an extra 30 calories a day. *shiver*

Just for the record, I take cold showers. No, I don't soak in a cold tub for some sort of health reason, but I do take cold showers. It feels better. I HATE taking hot showers. I much, MUCH prefer cold water when I take showers. So, I would never consider someone who took cold showers or baths to be ridiculous. Crazy maybe (because that's what people call me), but not ridiculous.

 

[Jericho]

Now, Ice baths aside.

Wait, why aside? This is something pushed by this guy and being discussed. When it is being broken apart and discredited, you can't just go 'well that aside...'

This is part of the point I've been making. He has some actual real good basic info but I really dislike it being wrapped up with all this nonsense.

 

[Melancholy]

But, I think this is a dead issue. No use in butting heads, especially over the contents of a book. No hard feelings...

Agreed, I wasn't taking it as personally as it probably seemed, but I am sorry if I was an "a-hole" about my response.

Just for the record, I take cold showers..

I used to take cold showers in college.. but if was usually for other reasons.

Wait, why aside? This is something pushed by this guy and being discussed. When it is being broken apart and discredited, you can't just go 'well that aside...'

This is part of the point I've been making. He has some actual real good basic info but I really dislike it being wrapped up with all this nonsense.

I think you are confused haha... I am not the one advocating the cold-water baths... That being said, when writing an essay in college, we had to reference articles when quotting a specific line... we didn't need to use the whole article we were referencing, just the part of the article that supported our point. Just because the "slow carb diet" is part of this book, doesn't mean that the whole book is worthless if you find one asanine thing.

again, that being said... I can't find anything about cold-water therapy, cold water immersion etc. relating to metabolism... but there is plenty out that there would indrectly point to an effect on metabolism (endorphin release, etc.) so one could postulate a theory (if one so choses haha)...who cares, as long as it's working?

 

[Jericho]

How do you know IT is the reason you are losing weight and it's not actually in your head instead of the dietary and lifestyle changes to keep it off?


Another problem with this book is it really does come off as a quick fix solution instead of focusing on thing you do for the rest of your life.

 

[Melancholy]

How do you know IT is the reason you are losing weight and it's not actually in your head instead of the dietary and lifestyle changes to keep it off?


Another problem with this book is it really does come off as a quick fix solution instead of focusing on thing you do for the rest of your life.

Just to be clear, I lost 50 pounds on the South Beach diet, not on 4-Hour Body... but the "slow carb" diet is very similar to SB which is why I believe it has promise, and people don't need to learn Glycemic index to do slow carb...

If I didn't follow the rules (to the T) of the South Beach diet, I would never have learned to eat the way I do.. now, in order to maintain something for a long period of time that has restrictions, we as humans have to adapt... so I adapted to live within the contraints of the diet (by planning ahead, getting the 'right' foods, etc.).. I evolved to allow my diet to mirror the restrictions of the diet I was following, but learned (am learning) as I go, how to eat better.

Without following this diet to start, I would never be where I am, even though I knew ALLLLLLLL of the physiology behind weight-loss before dieting... the diet provided a contruct for me to follow...

 

[Jeanette401]

Just for the record, I take cold showers. No, I don't soak in a cold tub for some sort of health reason, but I do take cold showers. It feels better. I HATE taking hot showers. I much, MUCH prefer cold water when I take showers. So, I would never consider someone who took cold showers or baths to be ridiculous. Crazy maybe (because that's what people call me), but not ridiculous.

You're crazy

Wait, why aside? This is something pushed by this guy and being discussed. When it is being broken apart and discredited, you can't just go 'well that aside...'

This is part of the point I've been making. He has some actual real good basic info but I really dislike it being wrapped up with all this nonsense.

I dislike it too, but I think it is useful to separate the wheat from the chaff as it were - even though in some circles wheat is now evil and should be thrown out with the bathwater... oh wait.

I think that marketing-wise the guy must be brilliant, because he even likens choosing what you want to do or not do to a 'buffet' where you can do the diet, but ignore the ice baths and 15 minute orgasms and polyphasic sleep stuff. I think that his slow carb diet even has a catchy name, and isn't too ridiculous, aside from the lemon juice and red wine only arbitrary restrictions. But I pretty much expect that any best selling 'diet' book is going to have that, without it it'd sadly never become best selling.

Of course, I also agree with Melancholy that ridiculous or not, rules do help people make 'better' choices when otherwise they'd flounder. I may think the paleo 'no beans' is ridiculous, as well as 'no sweet potato' etc. but when you look at the effects on appetite from restricting choices... at the end of the day, it might help someone eat less without feeling starving and/or deprived.

Also, I recommend reading the whole swimming for calorie burning article I linked above in terms of whether you want to make swimming your exercise of choice It made me feel better about not swimming actually, since I have ear pain issues when I swim regularly, and since I do tend to feel absolutely ravenous after swimming. The study of exercising in different temperatures of water was interesting, although I find I get hungrier even in 'neutral' water temperatures. What was interesting to me was that actual calories expended was similar for both, but that the cold water swimmers had 44% more caloric intake when left to eat to satiation afterward. ... Do I sound like a giant nerd?

Question on the quick fix - does 4HB not expect you eat like this forever? Although obviously with a name like 4HB it implies it'll be really easy and you won't have to make any effort or hard choices. ... If only weight loss was that easy for most of us!!

 

[Jericho]

Just to be clear, I lost 50 pounds on the South Beach diet, not on 4-Hour Body... but the "slow carb" diet is very similar to SB which is why I believe it has promise, and people don't need to learn Glycemic index to do slow carb...

If I didn't follow the rules (to the T) of the South Beach diet, I would never have learned to eat the way I do.. now, in order to maintain something for a long period of time that has restrictions, we as humans have to adapt... so I adapted to live within the contraints of the diet (by planning ahead, getting the 'right' foods, etc.).. I evolved to allow my diet to mirror the restrictions of the diet I was following, but learned (am learning) as I go, how to eat better.

Without following this diet to start, I would never be where I am, even though I knew ALLLLLLLL of the physiology behind weight-loss before dieting... the diet provided a contruct for me to follow...

I'm sorry, I was referencing

again, that being said... I can't find anything about cold-water therapy, cold water immersion etc. relating to metabolism... but there is plenty out that there would indrectly point to an effect on metabolism (endorphin release, etc.) so one could postulate a theory (if one so choses haha)...who cares, as long as it's working?

 

[Toddless]

Another problem with this book is it really does come off as a quick fix solution instead of focusing on thing you do for the rest of your life.

It is called an "Uncommon Guide to Rapid Weight Loss..."

I wouldn't recommend anyone follow the slow-carb diet for any extended period of time, though I can't say that I think it'd be unhealthy. As for a quick fix to lose a few pounds though, it's done a pretty good job for me.

 

[Jeanette401]

Hrm. Does it have a maintenance plan? Because if not, that's a pretty big flaw. Even Atkins had a maintenance phase... since one of the biggest problems for people isn't losing the weight, it's keeping it gone once they go back to eating like they used to...

I don't see anything wrong with slow carb (in general) for maintenance since it's not like we really need all of the refined carbs in our diet.