The 4-Hour Body

clever_plant said:
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.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really sound like you applaud anyone... you're just angry.

I was eating about 1,500 calories a day before the diet. I'm now eating about 1,500 calories a day. My workouts haven't changed. I've lost 2 pounds. JUST SAYIN!
 
'about' says everything. Calorie counting is almost always estimation. It is possible to underestimate, much like most of us does. A mild fluxuation can mean many things.



just saying
 
Toddless said:
It doesn't really sound like you applaud anyone... you're just angry.

I was eating about 1,500 calories a day before the diet. I'm now eating about 1,500 calories a day. My workouts haven't changed. I've lost 2 pounds. JUST SAYIN!
Click to expand...

I'm not angry :) If debating on a forum made me angry I wouldn't do it. You however seems to me to be ignoring all the arguments against your position and simply going "you're angry.. naanaa"

As jerico pointed out. "About", so is that about as in +- 100 or +-500?

And adding "just sayin'" however you use your shift key doesn't make your attempt at arguing with an anecdote while keeping an ironic distance any less hmm... silly.
 
A few weeks ago, I would have been on your side, honestly. This is just one of those books (or ideas from a book) that flips things on its head for me. If you want to justify my results by thinking that I'm simply eating less... I just think that it's more than that. (This is starting to sound almost like a religious debate...)

Something that stuck with me was when the author said something along the lines of, "the calorie was first defined in 1824 by incinerating objects... you'd get more energy from burning a log than you would from eating it." Of course, I can't remember the exact line, but it makes sense, doesn't it? In other words, not all foods will be "burned" by our body the same way.
My gf doesn't believe this stuff either, but I'm going to stick with advice given from the guy who maintains 12% bodyfat.
 
maintaining 12% body fat doesn't actually mean he does it by what he wrote. He wrote the book to make money. It was a followup to '4 hour Work Week'..buying his books makes his 4 hour work week possible,
 
Toddless said:
A few weeks ago, I would have been on your side, honestly. This is just one of those books (or ideas from a book) that flips things on its head for me. If you want to justify my results by thinking that I'm simply eating less... I just think that it's more than that. (This is starting to sound almost like a religious debate...)

Something that stuck with me was when the author said something along the lines of, "the calorie was first defined in 1824 by incinerating objects... you'd get more energy from burning a log than you would from eating it." Of course, I can't remember the exact line, but it makes sense, doesn't it? In other words, not all foods will be "burned" by our body the same way.
My gf doesn't believe this stuff either, but I'm going to stick with advice given from the guy who maintains 12% bodyfat.
Click to expand...

"I'm not homophobic, I have lots of gay friends, but...."

It isn't religious, and don't put up false equalities between rational arguments and logical fallacies.

I think the most saying thing is that you keep not-replying to any actual arguments brought against your position, you simply ignore them and bring another argument from anecdote or argument from authority, both of which are fallacies.

Also, It has already been pointed out to you that the energy from food listed on the food or in databases takes into account how much energy the human organism gets from the food, now how much energy is kept in the bonds between the atoms in the food.

If I can bring in 10 guys that maintain a 12% bodyfat from eating only twinkies, will that make you think that twinkies is the ultimate weight loss tool?
 
clever_plant said:
If I can bring in 10 guys that maintain a 12% bodyfat from eating only twinkies, will that make you think that twinkies is the ultimate weight loss tool?
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, correlation isn't causation, I get it.

I'm not sure how I'm not responding to your arguments... you said I'm eating less and I said no I'm not.

Look, the guy follows the rules and eats like shit 1 day a week. He looks good and his bodyfat is 12%. I've started to do the same and it looks like I'm on the same path. At this point I'm willing to say, "Explain it any way you want to, I'll be the guy with the 6-pack by next year."
 
Ok, then that idea works for you so good luck and well done. We debate the idea behind it and the facts but we always wish luck and success
 
Yeah totally! I might not have put it across clearly enough but dude, if that shit works for you, more power to you! As jerocho points out it is the idea behind it :)

Anyone loosing weight not sick, physically or otherwise, on this forum, has my respect and applaud.
 
I've used some of the principles that Ferriss talks about in this book for the past year-and-a-half (I read them on his Web site long before his book was published, so I got this info for free) and I've lost about 90 pounds or so. I've lost about 6 inches off of my waist, and my stomach is smaller (though it still sticks out a lot more than I'd like it to, but I'm an endomorph).

When he refers to not eating "white" foods, he means starches or anything with refined sugar or flour. Eating cauliflower is fine.

Regarding the "Cheat Day", sometimes, I'll just have a cheat meal instead, but when I do "go crazy," it really doesn't affect my weight loss efforts.

Keep in mind that I exercise about 3-5 times per week, but if I overtrain, I tend to plateau.

I snack on almonds and cheese sometimes, and while I may not plateau, it can slow my weight loss down, so I try to make sure I'm full with my meals. I eat about 4x/day every 3 hours.

I have few complaints about the diet. I've learned how to use different seasonings and explore new cuisines that are condusive to the diet. It's also pretty cheap if you use frozen vegetables and canned beans (so it won't take long to cook when you are in a hurry). Lucky for me, I also LOVE Mexican food, so that helps too (I'll request a salad with beans and meat and use salsa as my "salad dressing").

Here are pictures of my accomplishments:

Before:

View attachment 13928

View attachment 13929

"During"

View attachment 13930

View attachment 13931
 
Last edited:
I read the 4- hour work week by the same author, but have not yet read the book you refer to. However, I would be prepared to pay ten pounds or dollars to find something of value.
I do agree that ultimately it is about burning more calories than you take in - however, the issue is that just taking that logical approach does not work for most people because they do not know how to control the cravings (and therefore keep taking more in), nor do they know how to self-motivate themselves (and thereby burn more calories/energy).

Toddless, one of the points I make, that I suspect is in keeping with the author, is that 'diets' actually don't help because (amongst other things) people just end up becoming obsessive about food whilst only succeeding in slowing down their metabolism.
I suspect you will do well if you follow the book.
Best wishes.
 
I'm reading through the book, and something surprising came up - in an effort to try all things weight-loss related, the author has attempted to speed up the rate at which food passes through him. In other words, if you can move the food you eat through your body faster, it will have less time to absorb calories from said food. While I won't go into what that entails, he actually succeeded at passing the food more quickly through his body fairly simply.
I'm not trying to say that doing this is smart, or healthy, but it does mean that "calories in vs. calories out" is an incomplete formula. It certainly doesn't take into account the efficiency of your body to pass food through it. I pretty sure we don't all digest food at the same rate.
 
Calories in vs. Calories out still stands, because even though the speed at which you digest food makes a difference, it is too small to matter in the bigger picture. Unless of course you make the food pass right through you by taking laxatives, which I am sure you wouldn't want to advocate on this forum. You might as well suggest binging and purging.

Additionally, 'making your food pass through you faster' will stop you from getting all the nutrition out of it that you can. There is a reason why the body takes a certain amount to digest food.
 
ChefChiTown said:
[/COLOR]

You mean, besides the fact that it tastes disgusting? HAHAHAHA, other than that...nothing.
Click to expand...

Hmm tastes good to me!!

Wash cut in small pisces, put in a little Ziploc baggie, add salt to taste (very good healthy snack), and ready to take on the go. Cauliflower salad is very tasty and yummy too! Steam cauliflower just a little until you can stick a fork in it. Don't forget the butter and salt or nosalt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top