The 4-Hour Body

T

Toddless

New member
I was wondering if anyone has seen the book The 4-Hour Body. It came out just the other day and I've seen a few excerpts from it. What do you think of this, the author's rules for following a "Slow-Carb" diet:

Rule 1: Avoid "white" carbohydrates (or anything that can be white).
Rule 2: Eat the same few meals over and over again.
Rule 3: Don't drink calories.
Rule 4: Don't eat fruit.
Rule 5: Take one day off per week and go nuts.​

He stresses rule 5 by saying, "...dramatically spiking caloric intake ... once per week increases fat-loss by ensuring that your metabolic rate (thyroid function and conversion of T4 to T3, etc.) doesn't downshift from extended caloric restriction."

It makes sense to me - I think we all know that the biggest reason diets fail in the long term is because your body adjusts to the restricted caloric intake. Most people solve this problem with exercise, but if we can "confuse" our bodies when we eat (much like what we try to do in the gym by constantly changing our workouts), we ought to see greater changes. Anyone have any thoughts, pro or con, on this?
 
Well, in my opinion, it just sounds like another method to do the same try and true method of calorie control. It's the same results in a different package. If it works for people, then great.
 
Toddless said:
It makes sense to me - I think we all know that the biggest reason diets fail in the long term is because your body adjusts to the restricted caloric intake.
Click to expand...

I don't know that this is a true statement. The doubly labeled water studies don't indicate that bodies adjust that much to the intake - certainly not enough to explain the widespread phenomena of people regaining their lost weight within a year or so.

To me it seems the biggest reason that diets fail is that they're either 1) to restrictive to maintain long term or 2) the dieter's view is too rigid, so once they 'break' the diet by eating a cookie or some such they go into despair and eat the rest of the bag, and some cake, and a slice of pizza because they're a failure and can't even stick to a simple diet rule like 'don't eat cookies'.

While I think that having a planned refeed once or twice a week to keep hormone levels normal is good... this diet not only sounds really restrictive, but actually quite opposed to Michael Pollan's rules of eating. Cauliflower aside... you can eat some sugar and flour and bread and potato while still maintaining the weight loss.

If you're looking for a diet with simple rules that will probably work, this one doesn't seem worse than any other diet out there - although there have been enough studies on the health benefits of fruit that it doesn't make sense to me to wipe it out entirely.
 
Toddless said:
It makes sense to me - I think we all know that the biggest reason diets fail in the long term is because your body adjusts to the restricted caloric intake. Most people solve this problem with exercise, but if we can "confuse" our bodies when we eat (much like what we try to do in the gym by constantly changing our workouts), we ought to see greater changes. Anyone have any thoughts, pro or con, on this?
Click to expand...

Eating the same meals over and over again is sort of counter productive to confusing your body... one would assume.

The downshift in BMR is overrated, overhyped and not gonna happen to... oh I'd say.. 99.999999% of the people worrying about it.

Eating the same meals is conductive to malnutrition tho.

White... ? White carbs? my only response is.. wtf? if what the author is talking about starch then I can see a point that I would disagree with, but the color coding of food is just.. weird.

Don't eat fruit does make sense. It is utterly inferior to vegetables in every way and is basically sugar with water and some vitamins. There is nothing wrong with them tho, if you accept that it is sugar enriched with vitamins and nice taste :)
 
douknowjello said:
I tried that when I was low carbing....it was disgusting. But maybe I did it wrong? Definitely not like potatoes though.
Click to expand...

The first time I made it I made it wrong too. But oh no it's definitely not like real potatoes. But I don't think it's disgusting. Maybe it's just because I like cauliflower. In fact, I'm about to have mashed potatoes right now. Real potatoes though ^_^
 
4 hr body...

So first of all you can have cauliflower... and another thing, read the entire diet before you start bashing it. That 5 sentence rules thing... not even close to the real thing. Yes those are rules but read the book before you knock it... there are many chapters on how this diet works. That is the issue with diets, people hit the web and see "Oh, just these 5 rules and you can lose a million pounds!" and don't bother to do the research.

I have read the book and think the "diet" is pretty awesome...
 
Last edited:
I have to say - labeling your plan "The Four Hour Body" tends to encourage the idea that you don't need to read it with much depth for it to work. 4 hours = easy! Especially if a large part of the book is explaining why it works - but why do I need the book to do that? Restricted options, plus lower insulin response food = reduce calories and target insulin resistance. As I said before, there's nothing particularly worse about this diet than any other, and if you're insulin resistant, then this is an easy way to work with this, but unless there's a nugget of awesomeness hidden outside the main rules... I just don't get what would make this diet nutritionally superior** to... well, keeping your calories below maintenance and going for a lower insulin response (i.e. cutting refined carbs) most of this time.

Disclaimer - there well may be some benefits in the simplicity of the diet, in that you don't have to track calories, know much about what foods trigger an insulin response in you, etc. So for some it might be superior on that front. But then again, try the Syndrome X diet or something...
 
Jeanette401 said:
I have to say - labeling your plan "The Four Hour Body" tends to encourage the idea that you don't need to read it with much depth for it to work. 4 hours = easy! Especially if a large part of the book is explaining why it works - but why do I need the book to do that? Restricted options, plus lower insulin response food = reduce calories and target insulin resistance. As I said before, there's nothing particularly worse about this diet than any other, and if you're insulin resistant, then this is an easy way to work with this, but unless there's a nugget of awesomeness hidden outside the main rules... I just don't get what would make this diet nutritionally superior** to... well, keeping your calories below maintenance and going for a lower insulin response (i.e. cutting refined carbs) most of this time.

Disclaimer - there well may be some benefits in the simplicity of the diet, in that you don't have to track calories, know much about what foods trigger an insulin response in you, etc. So for some it might be superior on that front. But then again, try the Syndrome X diet or something...
Click to expand...

THIS, so fucking much this.

Also, how many books do we need to tell us the following

Net weight change in kg = ((kcal intake) - (kcal expenditure)) / 3850

I mean... one line.. that is all. It might be worded as a paragraph to make it more human readable.

Substract the number of calories measure in kcal that you expend, from the number of calories measured in kcal you eat over any given period of time. That amount divided by 3850 is the net change in weight measured in kg. If it is a positive number you have gained weight, if it is a negative number you have lost weight.

END.OF.STORY.
 
There are a couple of things that I'd like to point out -

While I wasn't too impressed by the RULES of the diet, I was impressed by the idea that once per week you get a cheat day. Cheat days are all throughout popular diets, so it's nothing new, but what makes it interesting is WHY you NEED the cheat day. The author explains that it keeps your body from adapting to the calorie restriction and keeps your body in an intense fat-burning mode. Not only does he say to cheat, but he recommends "going nuts." His cheat-day example breakfast was 2 bear claws and 2 cinnamon rolls (or something, I can't quite recall). Dinner was a whole pizza. To eat that and maintain 12% bodyfat (as he claims) is pretty damned impressive.

Also, to think that all dieting can be summed up in calories in vs. calories out is just not right. It's definitely more complicated than that, else we'd all be fit from counting calories. For instance, why don't I subtract the calories that I poop out everyday? And if I work out intensely for an hour, how do I calculate the afterburn effect, and for how long?

And no, you don't get the book for free. I'm not any sort of spokesman for the book, but if you're interested in it, pick it up. I for one am always interested to hear about different ways to approach weight loss or muscle gain - I think it's the collaboration of all of that knowledge that helps me develop my own approach.

Finally, a note: I'm pretty skeptical about dieting. I've been eating healthy and working out for a while now (years). In that time I haven't weighed less than 166, and I've tried a few different methods (I'm not about to say, "I've tried EVERYTHING!"). I went on the diet last week and weighed myself yesterday... 164. Just sayin'.
 
maybe an 'agree to disagree' is needed here. Forum members can make their choice. As long as they are not hurting themselves with extreme measures..
 
Jericho said:
maybe an 'agree to disagree' is needed here. Forum members can make their choice. As long as they are not hurting themselves with extreme measures..
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you actually disagreed with anything... which part don't you agree with?
 
Toddless said:
There are a couple of things that I'd like to point out -

While I wasn't too impressed by the RULES of the diet, I was impressed by the idea that once per week you get a cheat day. Cheat days are all throughout popular diets, so it's nothing new, but what makes it interesting is WHY you NEED the cheat day. The author explains that it keeps your body from adapting to the calorie restriction and keeps your body in an intense fat-burning mode. Not only does he say to cheat, but he recommends "going nuts." His cheat-day example breakfast was 2 bear claws and 2 cinnamon rolls (or something, I can't quite recall). Dinner was a whole pizza. To eat that and maintain 12% bodyfat (as he claims) is pretty damned impressive.
Click to expand...

Just throwing it out there, that the effect on BMR is not going to change the world. I am sorry but it is an overhyped effect. Also "intense fat burning mode" is, I apologize, hyperbolic bullshit. You have a BMR based on the amount of energy your body needs to maintain all the chemical reactions that goes on in there. That BMR can be tweaked, not radically altered. Then you add all the movement of the day to that BMR, or multiply it in. Now the multiplier can be radically changed, but the BMR can't. It is simply false to think that you can "keep your body in INTENSE FAT BURNING MODE" or "DESTROY your ability to BURN fat" because none of those things will happen. You can burn tons of calories through activity but other than that there is no wonder treatment. Amphetamine, adrenalin and ephedra, and to an extent caffeine can tweak your BMR too, but again besides combining ephedra and caffeine which have a tendency to kill people, you can't change it in any meaningful way.

Also, to think that all dieting can be summed up in calories in vs. calories out is just not right. It's definitely more complicated than that, else we'd all be fit from counting calories. For instance, why don't I subtract the calories that I poop out everyday? And if I work out intensely for an hour, how do I calculate the afterburn effect, and for how long?
Click to expand...
I never claimed that you can count precisely, I simply explained that in the end, that equation is true and you cannot change that fact. You don't substract poop calories because the calories written in databases over calories from food is a number that includes the energy required to digest the food, and your poop. The afterburn effect is also over rated, but it is there, how does it change the equation. Does it say "also don't include afterburn in calories expended" somewhere in there? no.

And no, you don't get the book for free. I'm not any sort of spokesman for the book, but if you're interested in it, pick it up. I for one am always interested to hear about different ways to approach weight loss or muscle gain - I think it's the collaboration of all of that knowledge that helps me develop my own approach.
Click to expand...

All the knowledge needed is available freely. Now for some people reading that what they are doing is REALLY GOOD is a good motivator, for some people a book is something to hold on to and some arbitrary rules might help them. Thats fine, it doesn't change my opinion about false claims, or the fact that they are false. It also doesn't make hyperbole true.

Finally, a note: I'm pretty skeptical about dieting. I've been eating healthy and working out for a while now (years). In that time I haven't weighed less than 166, and I've tried a few different methods (I'm not about to say, "I've tried EVERYTHING!"). I went on the diet last week and weighed myself yesterday... 164. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

Obviously those other methods resulted in your caloric intake being too high compared to your usage, and this approach resulted in you not eating more calories that needed for loosing weight, and I applaud you. Using that as an anecdotal piece of non-evidence and qualifying it with "just sayin'" just seems smug and doesn't really prove anything.

ffs, if it works for you, more power to you. Noone will argue that point. It is the hyperbole and woo woo that people object too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top