So... you just kind of contradicted yourself there. You asked if there's a maintenance plan and then called the diet a maintenance plan.
The 4-Hour Body
- Thread starter Toddless
- Start date
So... you just kind of contradicted yourself there. You asked if there's a maintenance plan and then called the diet a maintenance plan.
Jeanette401
New member
Er, I didn't call it a maintenance plan. I think it would be fine healthwise to do slow carb long term as a maintenance plan (even though it's not my maintenance plan), but that means nothing in terms of whether or not 4HB provides a plan for maintenance and not just 'rapid fat loss' or whatever.
Do they say you'll be doing this diet for life, or do they imply that once you lose the weight you go back to eating the way you always do?
I'm still not sure I understand entirely, but 4HB doesn't mention anything about health or eating for the future. It's about rapid weight loss and is billed as such.
Jeanette401
New member
Does the trick to keeping the weight off come in his next book then? 
It does seem like a weakness in terms of a weight loss book (I know his book covers a lot more than that) in that it's pretty well established that many dieters regain their weight after a year.
Given the title of the book, I just assumed that the slow carb philosophy was for life, and he'd have some sort of "Once you've lost the weight, this is how you keep it off" plan. Honestly, I'd think more of the book if at the end of the diet chapter it said that you eat this way for life, and if you get too skinny (haha) go look at one of his strength or size building sections.
It does seem like a weakness in terms of a weight loss book (I know his book covers a lot more than that) in that it's pretty well established that many dieters regain their weight after a year.
Given the title of the book, I just assumed that the slow carb philosophy was for life, and he'd have some sort of "Once you've lost the weight, this is how you keep it off" plan. Honestly, I'd think more of the book if at the end of the diet chapter it said that you eat this way for life, and if you get too skinny (haha) go look at one of his strength or size building sections.
Melancholy
New member
Does the trick to keeping the weight off come in his next book then?
It does seem like a weakness in terms of a weight loss book (I know his book covers a lot more than that) in that it's pretty well established that many dieters regain their weight after a year.
Given the title of the book, I just assumed that the slow carb philosophy was for life, and he'd have some sort of "Once you've lost the weight, this is how you keep it off" plan. Honestly, I'd think more of the book if at the end of the diet chapter it said that you eat this way for life, and if you get too skinny (haha) go look at one of his strength or size building sections.
I agree. The problem with all (and I mean literally all) of the "quick fix" diets, is that they don't address things for the long-term. So you get someone like my uncle on-board, he loses 40 pounds, then baloons in the next 6 months after he stops because he didn't learn anything, other than "white" carbs on bad for the duration of the diet.
perillomma
New member
Wow, quite a few posts since I was last on.
First, San, 860 calories was with his BRM added, so that means the pool would account for 8500 calories. Obviously I don't think that it does but when you factor in, like you said, that he also lifts weights and likely performs some other physical movement throughout the day, it still accounts for a decent amount. Phelps along with several other swimmer (not just Olympic athletes) have taken part in studies to determine the affects of training in water.
Jericho, you are absolutely right, using myself as an example really doesn't depict typical results for everyone trying to lose weight but I can only speak for my own results. My body is used to losing and gaining weight rapidly and regularly. And I would always suggest eating healthier and exercising more as a first means to weight loss. As I have said before, though, it isn't simply just calories in vs. calories out...taking a few less bites isn't what s important, it taking bites of the right foods. I'd also like to point out that, although it may seem like I'm just throwing out things from the book, I studied nutrition in school and am a certified personal trainer. I'm not saying every word in the book is true but I am saying that all the claims made in it are supported by multiple studies and legitimate data.
As for using cold therapy to lose weight, it isn't simply just burning a few calories because of a temporary change in core temperature. It's something that must be done on a regular basis to get real results and has been shown to affect BAT, something the book also covers. BAT is a type of fat that helps get rid of excess calories as heat that would otherwise be stored in WAT (the type of fat most commonly thought of when you say the word.) Cold stimulates BAT to burn fat and glucose as heat. In test done on rats cold has also been shown to make BAT appear in WAT, increasing the amount of "fat-burning" fat. Most of that paragraph is an altered quote from the book that I have found supporting evidence for by simply researching it on the web.
To more current conversation...I don't know if the slow carb diet is meant to be a lifelong thing. The book doesn't say either way, although the author does say that it is his regular diet that he maintains. In my opinion, dieting is for the most part a quick fix, if you plan on keeping the weight off you need to change your lifestyle...if you have the dedication to stick with a diet for the rest of your life you probably have the dedication to exercise regularly and not eat too unhealthy in the first place. As I think I said in my bio. I am doing the diet for quick fix purposes.
First, San, 860 calories was with his BRM added, so that means the pool would account for 8500 calories. Obviously I don't think that it does but when you factor in, like you said, that he also lifts weights and likely performs some other physical movement throughout the day, it still accounts for a decent amount. Phelps along with several other swimmer (not just Olympic athletes) have taken part in studies to determine the affects of training in water.
Jericho, you are absolutely right, using myself as an example really doesn't depict typical results for everyone trying to lose weight but I can only speak for my own results. My body is used to losing and gaining weight rapidly and regularly. And I would always suggest eating healthier and exercising more as a first means to weight loss. As I have said before, though, it isn't simply just calories in vs. calories out...taking a few less bites isn't what s important, it taking bites of the right foods. I'd also like to point out that, although it may seem like I'm just throwing out things from the book, I studied nutrition in school and am a certified personal trainer. I'm not saying every word in the book is true but I am saying that all the claims made in it are supported by multiple studies and legitimate data.
As for using cold therapy to lose weight, it isn't simply just burning a few calories because of a temporary change in core temperature. It's something that must be done on a regular basis to get real results and has been shown to affect BAT, something the book also covers. BAT is a type of fat that helps get rid of excess calories as heat that would otherwise be stored in WAT (the type of fat most commonly thought of when you say the word.) Cold stimulates BAT to burn fat and glucose as heat. In test done on rats cold has also been shown to make BAT appear in WAT, increasing the amount of "fat-burning" fat. Most of that paragraph is an altered quote from the book that I have found supporting evidence for by simply researching it on the web.
To more current conversation...I don't know if the slow carb diet is meant to be a lifelong thing. The book doesn't say either way, although the author does say that it is his regular diet that he maintains. In my opinion, dieting is for the most part a quick fix, if you plan on keeping the weight off you need to change your lifestyle...if you have the dedication to stick with a diet for the rest of your life you probably have the dedication to exercise regularly and not eat too unhealthy in the first place. As I think I said in my bio. I am doing the diet for quick fix purposes.
Jericho
New member
brown adipose tissue is bat fat.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20090407/can-brown-fat-make-you-thin
I don't think a 15 minute cold bath is going to activate that brown fat..
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20090407/can-brown-fat-make-you-thin
I don't think a 15 minute cold bath is going to activate that brown fat..
Last edited:
Beauty2
New member
In my opinion, all the diets are a temporary fix, not a permanent solution. Weight loss should signify complete commitment to a healthy lifestyle. Unfortunately, a lot of people are extremely desperate to lose weight quickly, and they will try anything to accelerate the weight loss process, no matter how potentially dangerous those methods are.
perillomma
New member
You think the one 2 hour stay in a cold room with a foot in ice water for a portion of the time will activate the BAT but regular 20 minute baths submerged in ice water, which is much colder than the room and is 24 times more thermally conductive than the air in the room isn't going to?
Not to mention the other benefits of ice baths...
Last edited:
Melancholy
New member
this is mostly true. Most of the "quick" diet's are intended to be temporary, because in order to lose a TON of weight (I have lost over 20% of my body mass), drastic changes needed to be made. now that I am close to my goal, I can undergo the lifestyle change that led me up to being overweight.
It does, in order to lose weight, there has to be dramatic changes, and that does "signify a commitment'
Nobody likes to be fat, so why is it suprising that people want it off as quick as possible? If you are in college, and taking a very hard class, at some point, SOME point (before the final, etc.) you are going to have to cram. No matter how kick-a$$ you are at planning. Same with being overweight...at some point, most people will have to 'cram' and really bite-down, really work-out hard, or eat much less for a period of time. I don't advocate dangerous methods, and low-carb is hardly that, but I do believe if people are serious, the commitment has to be full-speed
Jericho
New member
Enough to make a difference for people to do it? Nope. Just being honest here..if you like it, good but I think it is more in your mind than in science. But then, again, I'm glad you feel like it works for you.
Last edited:
Melancholy
New member
haha.. I have to laugh about this cold water thing.
My wife and I went to the spa last night to relax, and I looked over at the pool. In the winter, it's un-heated, it's about 57 degrees right now. I was thinking... I am going to go jump in that thing and sit for a few minutes... as I was walking over, all I kept thinking about was Jericho's comment "wouldn't it be easier to take a few less bites"... and then said... screw it! I decided, yes, it would be easier to eat a little less haha...
Cold, cold pool!
My wife and I went to the spa last night to relax, and I looked over at the pool. In the winter, it's un-heated, it's about 57 degrees right now. I was thinking... I am going to go jump in that thing and sit for a few minutes... as I was walking over, all I kept thinking about was Jericho's comment "wouldn't it be easier to take a few less bites"... and then said... screw it! I decided, yes, it would be easier to eat a little less haha...
Cold, cold pool!
Calories In vs. Calories Out
Yes, I'm a new member. No, I'm not a paid crony of the 4HB guy. I'm thinking of buying the book, and a search engine query for "4 Hour Body Results" pulls this thread up relatively early. So I waded through, my apologies for stating it, 15 pages of mostly bickering and uninformed/incomplete information (with some exceptions), and have learned very little about whether it's actually worked for real people in real life situations. (With some exceptions, and thanks for the useful posts. But by the way, thinking of a recent reply I read, are you allowed put cheese on your eggs? I thought he said no dairy.) I'm not sure why Jericho and some others are so intent on bashing this book. I was intrigued by the author when he appeared on Dr. Oz's show this past Monday, especially where Dr. Oz said that his medical team thoroughly researched the book, and that they confirmed many of the author's assertions and couldn't disprove any.
I read some of the Amazon reviews and also a good part of the free preview on my Kindle, and that got me rethinking my purchase. First, his claim that spending "an a-- kicking hour on the stairmaster burns 107 calories." Now that's just stupid. If he knows anything about fitness (or suspects his readers know anything), he should've made the claim somewhat believable, at least 400 calories. Also, his claim to have put on something like 34 lbs of muscle in a month? I'd like to see any other person in the world who can document putting on that much pure muscle without being a complete weightlifting neophyte using major steroids. (And it would be incredible even then.) Also, the doctor who supposedly verified his measurements? Apparently (according to Amazon review comments, where someone supposedly personally contacted her to verify his claim) he used her name without her permission and she verified only his increased measurements, not actual muscle gained. Add that to the claims of negative Amazon reviews being deleted and positive reviews being openly solicited by the author, and his book becomes highly suspect in my eyes.
But still . . . I do like Dr. Oz. And I did a lot of research on cold/ice baths/brown fat and its promising effects on weight loss through activation of brown fat. So what I wanted to know, and what brought me here, was , is there enough gold in them thar hills for me to bother sifting through it all?
Yes, ultimately, calories in - calories burned = weight lost (or gained). Calculating calories in is basic. Read labels. Use a kitchen scale. Eat only foods that you can fully account for (weight and calories). Use--well, I can't post a website, but a site closely named after a famous Tour de France competitor--that website to track every single morsel that goes into your mouth, and to determine calories in any homemade foods. I know all that.
I know exactly what I eat. I wouldn't try a sip of my daughter's smoothie the other day because I didn't want to track it. But this is what I don't know. Why I'm losing half a pound a week (or less) when "that website" says I should be losing 2.5 lbs a week. And this isn't the first time that's happened to me. I know it's hard to believe, but there are people like me out there. Talk to someone who has PCOS or thyroid issues or for some reason high insulin resistance or a very slow metabolism. You can't plug in your age and weight and activity level into a BMR calculator and have it tell you with any certainty what you, yourself, burn in a day. You can only get a close approximation of what the average person like you burns in a day. So that's where the difference comes in.
As I said, I know how many calories I eat. And I know how much I exercise. I burn 1200 calories in cardio, minimum, each week, and another 1000 or so in weightlifting. I call my life sedentary, even though that may be selling myself a bit short. I know, as most of us do, that Cal in - Cal burned = change in weight. I can't feasibly stay at a much lower calorie intake level than I have been (less than 1200 cal/day net). So I've got to look at the other factor in the equation, and hope to change that. And that is where goofy things like ice baths, supplements, etc. may have some benefit.
So no, I don't care about the 50 calories in an ice bath. Heck, I'll spend another 6 minutes on the elliptical for that. But tell me that stimulating the brown fat increases glycogen consumption by 15x and that it stimulates, and may even create more of that wonderful white fat-eating, brown fat, and you've got my attention. Researchers state that the difference between people with very little and more brown fat could mean burning a difference of as many as 500 calories a day. 500 calories a day, each and every day? Yeah, I could maybe handle an ice bath up to my waist for 20 minutes, twice a week for that. Considering I'm being so strict and not losing crap right now. I just plunked down a couple hundred dollars in carefully-researched supplements, protein powder and whole food vitamins trying to increase my metabolism. I'm surely open to other cheap and easy ideas, too.
And another of his ideas. If you know you're going to indulge in a big meal, drink a glass of grapefruit juice before and do 2 minutes of free squats afterwards. Okay, sure, I can do that. Anniversary dinner with the hubby. Glass of grapejuice before we leave, squats when we get home. If he's right and it does open up the sugar receptors so that more calories are used for energy and fewer are stored as fat, sure, I could handle that.
But not if everything he has to say is BS. That's what I'm trying to determine, and that's what brought me to these boards. There are a lot of quacks out there, but not every book is quackery. And in his defense, he does clearly state, these are *his* results, based on *his* research that he (apparently) willingly shares. I don't think he promises that everyone will have the same results.
So . . . if anyone has read his book and has implemented some/all of his suggestions, I'd be grateful if you would share your experiences, good bad or indifferent. And also note any deviance from his plan (such as cheese on your eggs <smile>). Thanks in advance for any personal experience.
Yes, I'm a new member. No, I'm not a paid crony of the 4HB guy. I'm thinking of buying the book, and a search engine query for "4 Hour Body Results" pulls this thread up relatively early. So I waded through, my apologies for stating it, 15 pages of mostly bickering and uninformed/incomplete information (with some exceptions), and have learned very little about whether it's actually worked for real people in real life situations. (With some exceptions, and thanks for the useful posts. But by the way, thinking of a recent reply I read, are you allowed put cheese on your eggs? I thought he said no dairy.) I'm not sure why Jericho and some others are so intent on bashing this book. I was intrigued by the author when he appeared on Dr. Oz's show this past Monday, especially where Dr. Oz said that his medical team thoroughly researched the book, and that they confirmed many of the author's assertions and couldn't disprove any.
I read some of the Amazon reviews and also a good part of the free preview on my Kindle, and that got me rethinking my purchase. First, his claim that spending "an a-- kicking hour on the stairmaster burns 107 calories." Now that's just stupid. If he knows anything about fitness (or suspects his readers know anything), he should've made the claim somewhat believable, at least 400 calories. Also, his claim to have put on something like 34 lbs of muscle in a month? I'd like to see any other person in the world who can document putting on that much pure muscle without being a complete weightlifting neophyte using major steroids. (And it would be incredible even then.) Also, the doctor who supposedly verified his measurements? Apparently (according to Amazon review comments, where someone supposedly personally contacted her to verify his claim) he used her name without her permission and she verified only his increased measurements, not actual muscle gained. Add that to the claims of negative Amazon reviews being deleted and positive reviews being openly solicited by the author, and his book becomes highly suspect in my eyes.
But still . . . I do like Dr. Oz. And I did a lot of research on cold/ice baths/brown fat and its promising effects on weight loss through activation of brown fat. So what I wanted to know, and what brought me here, was , is there enough gold in them thar hills for me to bother sifting through it all?
Yes, ultimately, calories in - calories burned = weight lost (or gained). Calculating calories in is basic. Read labels. Use a kitchen scale. Eat only foods that you can fully account for (weight and calories). Use--well, I can't post a website, but a site closely named after a famous Tour de France competitor--that website to track every single morsel that goes into your mouth, and to determine calories in any homemade foods. I know all that.
I know exactly what I eat. I wouldn't try a sip of my daughter's smoothie the other day because I didn't want to track it. But this is what I don't know. Why I'm losing half a pound a week (or less) when "that website" says I should be losing 2.5 lbs a week. And this isn't the first time that's happened to me. I know it's hard to believe, but there are people like me out there. Talk to someone who has PCOS or thyroid issues or for some reason high insulin resistance or a very slow metabolism. You can't plug in your age and weight and activity level into a BMR calculator and have it tell you with any certainty what you, yourself, burn in a day. You can only get a close approximation of what the average person like you burns in a day. So that's where the difference comes in.
As I said, I know how many calories I eat. And I know how much I exercise. I burn 1200 calories in cardio, minimum, each week, and another 1000 or so in weightlifting. I call my life sedentary, even though that may be selling myself a bit short. I know, as most of us do, that Cal in - Cal burned = change in weight. I can't feasibly stay at a much lower calorie intake level than I have been (less than 1200 cal/day net). So I've got to look at the other factor in the equation, and hope to change that. And that is where goofy things like ice baths, supplements, etc. may have some benefit.
So no, I don't care about the 50 calories in an ice bath. Heck, I'll spend another 6 minutes on the elliptical for that. But tell me that stimulating the brown fat increases glycogen consumption by 15x and that it stimulates, and may even create more of that wonderful white fat-eating, brown fat, and you've got my attention. Researchers state that the difference between people with very little and more brown fat could mean burning a difference of as many as 500 calories a day. 500 calories a day, each and every day? Yeah, I could maybe handle an ice bath up to my waist for 20 minutes, twice a week for that. Considering I'm being so strict and not losing crap right now. I just plunked down a couple hundred dollars in carefully-researched supplements, protein powder and whole food vitamins trying to increase my metabolism. I'm surely open to other cheap and easy ideas, too.
And another of his ideas. If you know you're going to indulge in a big meal, drink a glass of grapefruit juice before and do 2 minutes of free squats afterwards. Okay, sure, I can do that. Anniversary dinner with the hubby. Glass of grapejuice before we leave, squats when we get home. If he's right and it does open up the sugar receptors so that more calories are used for energy and fewer are stored as fat, sure, I could handle that.
But not if everything he has to say is BS. That's what I'm trying to determine, and that's what brought me to these boards. There are a lot of quacks out there, but not every book is quackery. And in his defense, he does clearly state, these are *his* results, based on *his* research that he (apparently) willingly shares. I don't think he promises that everyone will have the same results.
So . . . if anyone has read his book and has implemented some/all of his suggestions, I'd be grateful if you would share your experiences, good bad or indifferent. And also note any deviance from his plan (such as cheese on your eggs <smile>). Thanks in advance for any personal experience.
A calorie is a calorie?
Also, someone mentioned the book's discussion of different kinds of calories. Someone (Jericho, I believe) asked for it to be quoted here. In reading further into the preview, I believe this may be it. It's on my Kindle, so I can't quote page, sorry. Everything following is directly quoted from the book.
One such study, conducted by Kekwick and Pawan, compared three groups put on calorically equal (isocaloric) semistarvation diets of 90% fat, 90% protein, or 90% carbohydrate. Though ensuring compliance was a challenge, the outcomes were clearly not at all the same:
1,000 cals at 90% fat = weight loss of 0.9 lbs a day
1,000 cals at 90% protein = weight loss of 0.6 lbs a day
1,000 cals at 90% carbohydrate = weight gain of 0.24 lbs a day
Different sources of calories = different results.
Things that affect calorie allocation--and that can be modified for fat-loss and muscle gain--include digestion, the ration of protein-to-carbohydrates-to-fat, and timing.
Also, someone mentioned the book's discussion of different kinds of calories. Someone (Jericho, I believe) asked for it to be quoted here. In reading further into the preview, I believe this may be it. It's on my Kindle, so I can't quote page, sorry. Everything following is directly quoted from the book.
One such study, conducted by Kekwick and Pawan, compared three groups put on calorically equal (isocaloric) semistarvation diets of 90% fat, 90% protein, or 90% carbohydrate. Though ensuring compliance was a challenge, the outcomes were clearly not at all the same:
1,000 cals at 90% fat = weight loss of 0.9 lbs a day
1,000 cals at 90% protein = weight loss of 0.6 lbs a day
1,000 cals at 90% carbohydrate = weight gain of 0.24 lbs a day
Different sources of calories = different results.
Things that affect calorie allocation--and that can be modified for fat-loss and muscle gain--include digestion, the ration of protein-to-carbohydrates-to-fat, and timing.
BiancaV88
New member
Since everyone is talking about the calorie in and calorie out...I just want to pin-point something.
I lost 20lbs in like 3 months or so. I followed this plan...less calories and working out more. I ate 1600 calories a day. I didn't eat anything startchy. Had plenty of veggies and fruit and such. I did good because I lost those 20lbs and worked out 4 days out of the week. 4 days worth of cardio and 3 days worth of strength.
What happened after those 3 months? I hit a bad plateau. All I know is, I wasn't losing CRAP! So I worked out more, maybe my workouts weren't good. Nothing, same weight for 3 weeks. So I changed my calorie intake. I made sure I ate only 1400. Nothing for another 3 weeks. Finally, I ate MORE calories but I varied it. 2000 one day, 1400 another, 2100 one day and 1600 the other. I also incoporated HIIT. BAM, lost 8lbs in two weeks.
So this whole calorie in and calorie out thing didn't seem so simple to me. I was counting EVERYTHING, butter, mayo whatever I used. I measured everything. I was told to eat less calories and work out more and I didn't get the results I was told that was so "easy".
Therefore, it works for some and it doesn't work for others. Even though I think calories do work in some instances, i also believe there is something about certain foods that help weight loss or with the immune system.
I have been the same weight since october. December 23th before my vacation I weighed myself and was the same weight as of October. I was on winter break for a whole month. I didn't workout. I had so many cookies, so much chinese food. I basically didn't diet or ate the way I normally ate. I pratically BINGED. Seriously, I was making myself SICK. Vacation was over, went to the gym on Jan 26th and I was still the SAME WEIGHT I was on Dec 23. WTF. I know I ate about 4000 calories in a day so I have no idea why I didn't even gain a pound...
Now, I am starting this diet and try it out for a month and see what happens. Although, he states in the book its not a life long change. You dont need to do this forever but in ways it kind of teaches you what is good for you to eat. Yes he says no fruit but thats only for the 1 month you want to work on your metabolism. Do I plan on eating like this for the rest of my life? No. Eventually I will eat the same but add in fruit everyday. Maybe some wheat toast and some oatmeal. But right now, I feel okay and I am finding results.
I am not saying his idea is better and calorie idea isnt. I think they both work it just depends on the people.
Also, don't buy the book. you can just look at his blog and the same crap is on there. I really dont like this guy actually but to me the diet makes sense. my bf is all in love with him and thinks everything is right because he did the experiments. i want to slap tim ferriss for what he did to my bf. the 15 mins orgasm section of this book really frustrates me. I understand the manual stimulation but Tim is saying that he gave a woman who never had a clitoral orgasm her first orgasm? Please. I am sure she had a mental reason why she never had one (she couldn't relax or had distracting thoughts).
Now, not to be crude but my sex life with my bf is great. When he wanted to do the "improved" positions Tim talks about, I figured why not. They blew. They were boring. I didn't feel anything so I tossed the idea that Tim was a ladies man and knew how to have great sex. He doesn't because he is too busy doing weird experiments on himself.
So all in all... I think there are SOME good information in his book but really you can find all of that for free on his blog.
and then there are some pointless information. Try those "improved" positions and tell me if they worked for you and made you have incrediable sex.
So I went off topic but yeah....I have a love/hate relationship both with calories and Tim ^_^
I lost 20lbs in like 3 months or so. I followed this plan...less calories and working out more. I ate 1600 calories a day. I didn't eat anything startchy. Had plenty of veggies and fruit and such. I did good because I lost those 20lbs and worked out 4 days out of the week. 4 days worth of cardio and 3 days worth of strength.
What happened after those 3 months? I hit a bad plateau. All I know is, I wasn't losing CRAP! So I worked out more, maybe my workouts weren't good. Nothing, same weight for 3 weeks. So I changed my calorie intake. I made sure I ate only 1400. Nothing for another 3 weeks. Finally, I ate MORE calories but I varied it. 2000 one day, 1400 another, 2100 one day and 1600 the other. I also incoporated HIIT. BAM, lost 8lbs in two weeks.
So this whole calorie in and calorie out thing didn't seem so simple to me. I was counting EVERYTHING, butter, mayo whatever I used. I measured everything. I was told to eat less calories and work out more and I didn't get the results I was told that was so "easy".
Therefore, it works for some and it doesn't work for others. Even though I think calories do work in some instances, i also believe there is something about certain foods that help weight loss or with the immune system.
I have been the same weight since october. December 23th before my vacation I weighed myself and was the same weight as of October. I was on winter break for a whole month. I didn't workout. I had so many cookies, so much chinese food. I basically didn't diet or ate the way I normally ate. I pratically BINGED. Seriously, I was making myself SICK. Vacation was over, went to the gym on Jan 26th and I was still the SAME WEIGHT I was on Dec 23. WTF. I know I ate about 4000 calories in a day so I have no idea why I didn't even gain a pound...
Now, I am starting this diet and try it out for a month and see what happens. Although, he states in the book its not a life long change. You dont need to do this forever but in ways it kind of teaches you what is good for you to eat. Yes he says no fruit but thats only for the 1 month you want to work on your metabolism. Do I plan on eating like this for the rest of my life? No. Eventually I will eat the same but add in fruit everyday. Maybe some wheat toast and some oatmeal. But right now, I feel okay and I am finding results.
I am not saying his idea is better and calorie idea isnt. I think they both work it just depends on the people.
Also, don't buy the book. you can just look at his blog and the same crap is on there. I really dont like this guy actually but to me the diet makes sense. my bf is all in love with him and thinks everything is right because he did the experiments. i want to slap tim ferriss for what he did to my bf. the 15 mins orgasm section of this book really frustrates me. I understand the manual stimulation but Tim is saying that he gave a woman who never had a clitoral orgasm her first orgasm? Please. I am sure she had a mental reason why she never had one (she couldn't relax or had distracting thoughts).
Now, not to be crude but my sex life with my bf is great. When he wanted to do the "improved" positions Tim talks about, I figured why not. They blew. They were boring. I didn't feel anything so I tossed the idea that Tim was a ladies man and knew how to have great sex. He doesn't because he is too busy doing weird experiments on himself.
So all in all... I think there are SOME good information in his book but really you can find all of that for free on his blog.
and then there are some pointless information. Try those "improved" positions and tell me if they worked for you and made you have incrediable sex.
So I went off topic but yeah....I have a love/hate relationship both with calories and Tim ^_^
Last edited:
BiancaV88
New member
the slow carb diet is different than ditching out carbs all in general. the cheat day allows you to have starches and what not.
Plus, his idea of the slow carb diet isn't a life style change. its something you would do if you hit a plateau, thats how I take it and I recently just hit one so its helping me lose. =)
Melancholy
New member
I started doing this a couple of weeks ago now. I have to say, I really like the cheat day. I don't go hog-wild like the book suggests (he talks about eating multiple chocolate crossient or something crazy. I just use it to not pay attention to food groups, and eat my normal amount. I went to get mexican last night for the first time in a long time.
I also hit my lowest weight I have been in the last 7 years right before my cheat day. 169. I like the cheat day because it really allows the rest of the week to be easier. Knowing I have a 'fun' day coming up, it's easier to refuse that cookie or breakfast pastry at meetings. I like it as a supplement to my low-GI/GL diet that I already do...let's see how it pans out...
I also hit my lowest weight I have been in the last 7 years right before my cheat day. 169. I like the cheat day because it really allows the rest of the week to be easier. Knowing I have a 'fun' day coming up, it's easier to refuse that cookie or breakfast pastry at meetings. I like it as a supplement to my low-GI/GL diet that I already do...let's see how it pans out...
All of these posts are really entertaining. I stumbled across this via google so I started reading. I really enjoy Jericho....basically his way is the only way that works. Give you props Jericho. Even when you basically stated that the other poster was correct, you worded in such a way to make it sound like your idea was the right one LMAO.
Fact is, there is some documented information that shows the old saying that burning more calories than you take in will cause you to lose weight. However, this only works in a perfect world and there is nothing mentioned about what type of weight you will be losing. 2000 calories based on cracker jacks is not the same as 2000 calories based on a nutrient dense food. There is also truth to the thermogenic effect of certain foods even though the results can be less than dramatic.
Ferris's book does one thing very well...it gets people to read and understand. The basic principles are there if you read it and it is much easier than jumping around the internet trying to get the answers. Especially if you find this biased forum which a bunch of wannabe experts LMAO.
No, I don't know Ferris and don't care to ever meet him, but facts are facts. Many people I know to not be associated with Tim Ferris have been using his method (ok, maybe not his, but at least they are going by his method of explaining it) and have done very well.
His book is much better than the expert advice here of eat fewer calories than you burn!!
Fact is, there is some documented information that shows the old saying that burning more calories than you take in will cause you to lose weight. However, this only works in a perfect world and there is nothing mentioned about what type of weight you will be losing. 2000 calories based on cracker jacks is not the same as 2000 calories based on a nutrient dense food. There is also truth to the thermogenic effect of certain foods even though the results can be less than dramatic.
Ferris's book does one thing very well...it gets people to read and understand. The basic principles are there if you read it and it is much easier than jumping around the internet trying to get the answers. Especially if you find this biased forum which a bunch of wannabe experts LMAO.
No, I don't know Ferris and don't care to ever meet him, but facts are facts. Many people I know to not be associated with Tim Ferris have been using his method (ok, maybe not his, but at least they are going by his method of explaining it) and have done very well.
His book is much better than the expert advice here of eat fewer calories than you burn!!