The 4-Hour Body

Thanks Toddless, I find a lot of these things fascinating even though I can't always afford to buy all of the books or have the time to understand all of the biochemistry as well as I'd like ;) I think you'd quite enjoy 'Catching Fire' - it has a lot of interesting insights and is quite well written.

@Melancholy - the 'adjustment' to food was rather interesting to me as well! Here's a link to the full article if you're curious - the title is a little less exciting than the 'Imaginary Diet' ;)

As far as commenting on the book - I've read parts of it - although more like Dum Sum than the buffet style the author suggests, but even those I haven't I trust those like Toddless and others to accurately report on it, or to correct bad assumptions if it matters in the discussion. Still, even if I'd read every single page I don't think it would change my opinion on using self experimentation in place of a double blind trial ;) Also, if anyone wanted to talk about Ayn Rand's philosophy, I wouldn't insist on them having read Atlas Shrugged prior to the discussion!

... wow, a lot of stuff got posted since yesterday! lol.

I wasn't trying to say that the book says you literally have to eat the exact same thing every day, just pointing out that the diet encouraged you to eat 'the same things' as I believe he worded it, and that it fell directly in line with some scientific studies indicate that habituation to a food tends to cause you to eat less of it (except possibly cheese, in my case!) and that greater variety in food choices tends to lead to greater consumption. My post was already practically a book so I just tried to summarize ;)

Lessee... while I can't see myself being driven enough to TRY the ice pack method, I do find it interesting. Do you have any links to studies? I'd almost have thought that the cold would encourage the 'blubber' layer rather than burn fat ;) It sounds interesting although I'm not sure how many calories shivering actually burns...

I've heard of the Colorado experiment before, and honestly it sounds cool to gain so much, but most of these massive muscle gain stunts are done by people who used to have lots of muscle, let it go away for some reason - often running a marathon or something - and then built it back really quickly. For someone who's never had that much muscle, it's not so quick and easy.

As for the 15 minute orgasm... uh, how can not liking that section be picking on the author? Wouldn't it be picking on his opinions on sex rather than the author? This does not compute. I still have no clue if the 'wrestling a crocodile' description is at all accurate, but I don't really need the info in that section anyway.

I keep seeing the AGAIN on personal trainers and experts etc. We didn't really discuss his weight training stuff at all. I have a program I'm pretty happy with myself, and actually started with Ripptoe's "Starting Strength" and some day will finish reading "Beyond Brawn" - both of which also have high reviews from experts and which I recommend to anyone looking into the strength training aspects :D

Also, I'm envious on the sleep thing. Napping has never seemed to work to me. Maybe I'm just doing it wrong, but napping for 'only' one hour tends to leave me groggy and wanting more sleep. I wish it did work for me :(

Out of curiosity, on the 'more calories than before' are you counting your calories? Or basing more on volume? I certainly do believe that foods have different TEFs but I'm curious as to how much of this is TEF and how much is the 'volumetrics' idea. ... Damn you Subway cookies.

Also, as a former follower of the Atkins diet (5 years) I sincerely doubt that I increased my calorie intake when I started it. Of course, I wasn't tracking my calories because that's the whole point, but when I started eating "Atkins plus some carbs" and did track my calories as well... not only did I still lose weight, but it was a lot less than I would have needed to maintain my weight were I was. I'm pretty sure if I'd been eating 1800 calories a day pre-Atkins I wouldn't have made it to 220 lbs ;) However, I felt a lot less deprived than when I was on the SlimFast diet so I assumed I was eating more calories. There are people who go on 'low carb bulks' though, so it's definitely possible.

... Damn, it's another book!

Oh, and one more... on the undigested bit - that's actually something that is brought up in Catching Fire, some of it's plausible, i.e. that if you eat a bunch of raw plant matter, not all of it will have time to get digested, and you'll poop out extra calories. ... He referenced a study where people were measuring the calories in poo and comparing, but honestly I don't remember the details. I will say that some of my own experiences suggest this is somewhat plausible, but they're not dinner table conversation material :p
 
Toddless said:
Not scientifically impossible. You assume that because he hasn't changed anything but his eating that he must be affecting the "calories in" part of the equation. What we should all look at more closely is how his diet might be affecting the "calories out" part of the equation.

I've been posting recently that "calories out" is not solely about movement and it can be affected by your diet. This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you eat the right things, you can actually burn more calories throughout the day. In this case, it sounds like he's upped both his "calories in" AND "calories out". Is it really so unreasonable to think that?
Click to expand...

Scientifically impossible? No. His wording may not have been accurate, but his point most certainly is.

A human body, void of any disease or certain medical conditions and/or certain parasites, can not lose weight (burn fat) unless it burns more calories than it consumes.

You can't eat 5,000 calories a day and loaf around on the couch for your whole life and lose weight. THAT is impossible.

If you keep your same exact life style, but only change two things - eat more and CONSUME MORE calories as well as exercise less and BURN LESS calories - it is impossible to lose weight. Impossible. Absolutely impossible (with the exception of certain conditions which I stated).
 
ChefChiTown said:
Scientifically impossible? No. His wording may not have been accurate, but his point most certainly is.

A human body, void of any disease or certain medical conditions and/or certain parasites, can not lose weight (burn fat) unless it burns more calories than it consumes.

You can't eat 5,000 calories a day and loaf around on the couch for your whole life and lose weight. THAT is impossible.

If you keep your same exact life style, but only change two things - eat more and CONSUME MORE calories as well as exercise less and BURN LESS calories - it is impossible to lose weight. Impossible. Absolutely impossible (with the exception of certain conditions which I stated).
Click to expand...

Well, both NEAT and some changes to calorie absorption and the cost of calorie absorption might also change on the 'calories in/calories out' equation. The extra protein could add an extra 100 calories a day, and as gross as it is, if you eat in such a way that you poop out extra calories that could also be a factor. Also, some people might burn off extra calories just from fidgeting or moving around more that's not officially exercise. (I wish I had the NEAT gene...)

On the other hand, the whole double or triple their caloric intake and lose weight on Atkins I have a hard time believing. 5000 calories and slender while sitting on the couch all day even if it is all Atkins friendly I also have trouble with (interestingly, I was reading an article on very high fat diets, and some increased health risks if you do not exercise, but it started throwing around acronyms like NEFA and... well, it was above my head but interesting).
 
Jeanette401 said:
Well, both NEAT and some changes to calorie absorption and the cost of calorie absorption might also change on the 'calories in/calories out' equation. The extra protein could add an extra 100 calories a day, and as gross as it is, if you eat in such a way that you poop out extra calories that could also be a factor. Also, some people might burn off extra calories just from fidgeting or moving around more that's not officially exercise. (I wish I had the NEAT gene...)

On the other hand, the whole double or triple their caloric intake and lose weight on Atkins I have a hard time believing. 5000 calories and slender while sitting on the couch all day even if it is all Atkins friendly I also have trouble with (interestingly, I was reading an article on very high fat diets, and some increased health risks if you do not exercise, but it started throwing around acronyms like NEFA and... well, it was above my head but interesting).
Click to expand...

Right. And even when you factor in how much protein you eat, how much you poop, how much you fidget (etc), it still all boils down to calories in vs. calories out.
 
To Melancholy, I have read the book in its entirety as well as every post on here so far. If you look at the post below yours it is basically what I would have written in response.

As to the rest of the conversation...It does come down to calories in and calories out, like Jericho is saying, and is impossible to loose fat while burning less calories than you absorb. But you can absolutely loose weight while consuming more calories and doing the same or less physical activity as prior to starting a diet because your body does not actually "take in" 100% or those calories nor does it burn the calories at the same rate. It is fact that I am doing significantly less physical activity since starting the diet and consuming more calories while losing body fat. Exercise really isn't as big a factor in burning calories as people make it out to be (I don't remember exactly what it said but there was a great example of this in the book...something about the calories burned difference between sitting on a couch and running.) I have recently started following the advice in the book pretty much to the letter and have noticed a change in results. Mostly since starting the ice baths, which although damn near torture for the first few minutes isn't nearly as bad as I thought it was going to be.

Of course I can really only speak for myself and like was already said whatever works for you, as long as it's not damaging to your overall health, is great and you should keep at it. Everyone's body and therefore weight loss is different. I only want to share what I have learned for those that are interested in possibly getting the same results.
 
I tried taking a cold shower the other day... it totally sucks. Apparently it can help burn up to 3x the fat (your body loses heat much faster in water so it has to burn more cals to keep up), but for the torture it induces, I just don't know. I can't imagine taking an ICE BATH, it was hard enough to stand in a cold shower for more than 1 minute.
 
Dude, toddless, I know EXACTLY what you are talking about... but I think the bath is easier... I tried it too this morning. I tried turning the shower down to cold, and with the air mixed in with the water, it was freakin' MISERABLE... now, I jumped in the pool here (not heated in the winter), and even though I only live 20 minutes from you, the pool was still about 62 or something... I was able to stay in for over 5 minutes, and I felt really good when I got out... but year, cold shower.... umm, no thank you.
 
Nooo kidding, freezing cold is not my favorite! I can't imagine doing it... ... maybe ice packs on my arm flab... but probably not :p

Plus even if you burn 3x the fat, is that over the whole day, or just for a brief time - the way you burn almost zero fat when there's alcohol in your system, but as soon as it's out, you burn extra fat to make up for it...
 
Jeanette401 said:
Plus even if you burn 3x the fat, is that over the whole day, or just for a brief time
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how long any sort of increased effects last, but I think the idea is that if you would have lost 1 pound of fat by the end of the week, you'll lose 3 instead.

If I recall correctly, 10-15 minutes 2x a week was the recommended "dosage". Doing much more didn't make a huge difference.

@Melancholy - Swimming is totally the way to go. I'm gonna switch my gym membership to LA Fitness because the 24 Hour near me doesn't have a pool. Btw, the cold water thing is justified for me through my gf who was on the swim team in high school - she said she ate anything and everything she could get her hands on and stayed under 100 pounds, much like Michael Phelps.
 
The cold shower was actually worse for me than the bath was, especially standing out of the water trying to wash. Ha. The bath sucks for the first few minutes but you kind of get used to it, as long as you don't move around much. I'm doing a 20 minute ice bath with cayenne beforehand Mon, Wed, and Fri. I was thinking about trying to swim in my pool but I'm in Norther Ca right now and I don't know if I could handle actually swimming around in that water.
 
Toddless said:
I'm not sure how long any sort of increased effects last, but I think the idea is that if you would have lost 1 pound of fat by the end of the week, you'll lose 3 instead.

If I recall correctly, 10-15 minutes 2x a week was the recommended "dosage". Doing much more didn't make a huge difference.

@Melancholy - Swimming is totally the way to go. I'm gonna switch my gym membership to LA Fitness because the 24 Hour near me doesn't have a pool. Btw, the cold water thing is justified for me through my gf who was on the swim team in high school - she said she ate anything and everything she could get her hands on and stayed under 100 pounds, much like Michael Phelps.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Jericho said:
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?
Click to expand...

Swimming is a great workout but it is fact that the water makes a big difference. Since the book is the base of the discussion, I'll use an example from it.

Michael Phelps eats 12,000 calories a day during Olympic training...he burn about 860 calories an hour at competitive swimming rates which means in order to burn the calories he does he would have to sustain more than 10 continuous hours of butterfly stroke every day. Phelps only spends between 3 and 4 hours in a pool a day during training...
Water is 24 time more thermally conductive than air. The effect is the same as pouring hot coffee into a metal cup instead of a ceramic mug; the former loses calories (heat) much faster.
 
So, all I have to do is lie in cold water all day to get rid off all that fat?

And here I was thinking that I had to watch what I eat and throw some exercise in for good measure.

I'm such a fool! :banghead:

Seriously though, you're telling me that Michael Phelps eats 12.000 calories, and burns about 3500 during his training. Add to that his BMR which might be...what? 5000? Cause he's an athlete. So that's 8500. Which means that the temperature of the water in the pool accounts for 3500 calories. A day???? Nah....I guess I will rather put that down to other activities...I mean, he's not just training in the pool, and he doesn't sit on the couch the rest of his day.

Plus....pools are heated. He's not swimming in ice water.

Yes, having a cold shower or bath might burn extra calories. It would make sense, after all, it takes the body some extra energy to warm up. I think it's about 25 extra calories or something, hardly worth mentioning. You can't seriously credit any weight loss to that. Oh, and the extra energy is only spent for as long as your body isn't used to the cold - about the first minute or so. Everything after that is a waste of time.
 
Last edited:
perillomma said:
Swimming is a great workout but it is fact that the water makes a big difference. Since the book is the base of the discussion, I'll use an example from it.

Michael Phelps eats 12,000 calories a day during Olympic training...he burn about 860 calories an hour at competitive swimming rates which means in order to burn the calories he does he would have to sustain more than 10 continuous hours of butterfly stroke every day. Phelps only spends between 3 and 4 hours in a pool a day during training...
Water is 24 time more thermally conductive than air. The effect is the same as pouring hot coffee into a metal cup instead of a ceramic mug; the former loses calories (heat) much faster.
Click to expand...

You might be right, he spends 3 to 4 hours in the pool training but you think all his training is in the pool. You think you win an olympic medal and become the best in the world with only 3 to 4 hours training a day? When he is training, it is much more than that. The man is also a trained athlete. There is a reason weight loss companies get former athletes to do a before and after. If they get injured, they don't workout so they gain some weight. They get a picture of the before then. When they get better, they are back on the training. Their body is use to this so it is pretty rapid that they lose the weight and get close to or at their previous fitness level. There is the after. So using Phelps (and in some way you) as an example of something causing fast weight loss is flawed. I've seen your pictures. I don't know how much you gained but you was in decent physical shape before. Your body has more muscle so already is better suited to lose weight.

Yes, you burn more calories if you have to raise your body temperature to avoid hypothermia. But using it as a weight loss tool? Wouldn't it be safer, more comfortable, and more effective to take a few less bites of food a day?
 
I started the 4 hour body diet this week. I am now on day four. I don't mind the same meals or even the restriction of "white" food. I have not been hungry nor have I had many cravings. My only problem is that I am already sick of eggs every morning for breakfast. I have to find an alternative or I may not be able to stick with this plan. Any suggestions?
 
Hey Lucy... sorry, there is nothing else haha... (jk).

Well, honestly, If you can doctor up your eggs, it's the best way to go. I have eaten eggs for the last several months, and I have about 6 different recipes that I cook for breakfast. It's all about the prep work. I prep diced onions, diced peppers, sliced mushrooms, smoked salmon, and have a TON of low-fat cheeses (cheddar, feta, goat, cream cheese) and I make a combination of the foods for breakfast.

For example:

Monday:
Scramble with sauteed onions and peppers, topped with Salsa and lowfat sour cream (a little bit)... this is about 270 calories. I use 3 Egg Whites, and 1 full egg. PAM, olive oil spray.

Tuesday:
Scramble with 3 Egg Whites, 1 Egg, Smoked Salmon, and reduced fat cream cheese.

Wednesday:
Scramble with Sauteed Mushrooms, and Bell Peppers...

etc. etc. etc.

If you add some salt/ pepper, some days you can add hot sauce. It really is endless, and you get a ton of great choices. I am not hungy until a good 4 hours after breakfast, which is awesome because I get hungry in the afternoon, and it allows me to add some snacks in so I am never waiting for the next meal.

Good luck!
 
I like steel cut oats with some protein power (even though it's not as unprocessed as my 'goal' is) as an option. I also have a protein waffle recipe using rolled oats, cottage cheese and eggwhites. Probably something else in there like baking soda as well. Not sure if rolled oats count as 'white' food under 4HB though.

I actually often skip breakfast, or have non-breakfast leftovers myself though. I like eggs, but only when done just so... I think I'd rather have cold and hard boiled than eggs that are too lacy or otherwise not quite right. Damn pickiness ;)
 
Toddless said:
I'm not sure how long any sort of increased effects last, but I think the idea is that if you would have lost 1 pound of fat by the end of the week, you'll lose 3 instead.
Click to expand...

Do you know of any studies on that? I found some stuff on ice water baths after a workout to promote recovery, but nothing on burning 3 times as much fat in a week!

How much ice does it take anyway? Are you like buying several bags of ice from the corner store? I don't think my freezer makes as much as I saw in one picture ;)
 
Jericho said:
You might be right, he spends 3 to 4 hours in the pool training but you think all his training is in the pool. You think you win an olympic medal and become the best in the world with only 3 to 4 hours training a day? When he is training, it is much more than that. The man is also a trained athlete. There is a reason weight loss companies get former athletes to do a before and after. If they get injured, they don't workout so they gain some weight. They get a picture of the before then. When they get better, they are back on the training. Their body is use to this so it is pretty rapid that they lose the weight and get close to or at their previous fitness level. There is the after. So using Phelps (and in some way you) as an example of something causing fast weight loss is flawed. I've seen your pictures. I don't know how much you gained but you was in decent physical shape before. Your body has more muscle so already is better suited to lose weight.

Yes, you burn more calories if you have to raise your body temperature to avoid hypothermia. But using it as a weight loss tool? Wouldn't it be safer, more comfortable, and more effective to take a few less bites of food a day?
Click to expand...

No, Jericho. It clearly makes sense to do things the ignorant way. I mean, this is the United States after all. We like to do things the expensive, unnecessary and difficult way. Instead of using common sense and doing things the proven and effective way, we like to invest a bunch of unnecessary time and money into an unproven and obviously overhyped method marketed in some 'quick fix' sort of product

That way, when we ultimately fail, we can blame other people for our lack of positive results because they were the ones who told us to do the thing that didn't work - 'I did what they said, but it didn't work, so it's their fault that I didn't lose weight...they're the failure!!!'

Yeah, they're the failure :rolls eyes: They succeeded in milking millions and millions of dollars out of gullible and lazy Americans - they're living fat, dumb and happy, but they're the failure. Ok!!!
 
ChefChiTown said:
No, Jericho. It clearly makes sense to do things the ignorant way. I mean, this is the United States after all. We like to do things the expensive, unnecessary and difficult way. Instead of using common sense and doing things the proven and effective way, we like to invest a bunch of unnecessary time and money into an unproven and obviously overhyped method marketed in some 'quick fix' sort of product

That way, when we ultimately fail, we can blame other people for our lack of positive results because they were the ones who told us to do the thing that didn't work - 'I did what they said, but it didn't work, so it's their fault that I didn't lose weight...they're the failure!!!'

Yeah, they're the failure :rolls eyes: They succeeded in milking millions and millions of dollars out of gullible and lazy Americans - they're living fat, dumb and happy, but they're the failure. Ok!!!
Click to expand...


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 must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top