Brad Pilon.com

Chris:

Wood,

Also a person with a higher body fat percentage is carrying around a lot of excess water. That may contribute to the apparent ease of higher % fat people losing ‘easier’.

Jess:

Amen, Douglas.

Brad, your hypothetical is assuming people are over-eating by more than 500kcal per day. That’s pretty much going to be a sign of a messed-up metabolism (i.e. leptin resistance, etc) or a psychological relationship to food beyond actual hunger. Fasting isn’t going to help this person if their hormone balance is tied up in food – they would be better off cutting out refined/starchy carbs and maintaining a steady blood glucose level so that they can rebuild their sense of true hunger and satiety. This person needs to learn about the physiological effects of food – they don’t need a ‘quick fix’ or ‘easy’ diet that will potentially shock the metabolism and freeze fat burning. And even if they do manage to make ESE work for them, they will still probably have those psychological ties to food and go back to self-medicating since they won’t have found hormonal balance through mere fasting.

But perhaps you have invented someone who just happens to overeat by more than 500 kcal per day, but has no emotional relationship to food, yet they wonder why they’re overweight… They arbitrarily choose to cut down their calorie count (assuming a mixed diet) by 500, they don’t see results… Are they going to give up, or are they going to reduce calories further? Of course, they’ll keep following Conventional Wisdom and cut back and back and back. Maybe they’ll figure out that an easy way to do this is to skip a meal, or maybe they’ll just shave some off each meal. And maybe that starts working. But perhaps they’re not losing fast enough, so they keep cutting back… Point is, that person hasn’t learned anything about nutrition either, and when they hit their goal weight, they might start upping the calories, or not measuring so carefully, and be surprised when their metabolism – having adjusted to the lower caloric intake – encourages fat accumulation. Hello yo-yo dieting.

Believing that the average slimness-seeking (as opposed to health-seeking, since we tend to do more thorough research than assume one guy with a book knows it all) individual will be any more or less successful through ESE vs. alternative calorie reduction methods is ignorant of physiology and psychology on a base level.

You ignored my point about the over-weight person who is eating the correct amount of maintenance calories. That person cuts out 500 kcal and doesn’t lose any fat. What about them? If that person saw your post, they would then think they’re not cutting back enough. We can see from their not-uncommon situation that there must be something else going on – insulin resistance, metabolic issues, etc. By encouraging further calorie cutting without nutritional context, you’re indirectly inflaming their situation.

If you truly believe that under-eating does not promote lean mass loss in the majority of cases, no matter what foods constitute those calories, then I don’t know what you’ve been reading. But you might try looking at Ancel Keys’ starvation study – if you don’t have time to read the study itself, I know that Matt Stone recently published a summary of its key points on his 180 Degrees Health site. Those healthy, young, male participants were limited to consumption of the same level of calorie count that’s recommended by diet experts, and the kind of numbers the average person would be reaching to achieve on a fasting day (overall, the same numbers that would be the daily average over the course of a week of ESE unless you pump up your meal size – a generalisation, but true from what I’ve seen here). These participants were also doing manual labour, so they certainly got their strength training in. And those participants wasted away. Post-starvation, they put on lots of fat through extreme over-eating (compelled by their hunger), but not much of their lean mass. Keys himself showed that while obese individuals seem to be able to maintain lean mass and metabolic rate through caloric restriction, those who have less excess fat (your target audience) are more prone to wasting lean mass and deleterious metabolic effects.

So anyone who posts a criticism of something you write is only doing so to pick a fight with you? Not seek further clarification? Not to assist readers who may be confused by the simplistic arguments you present in the guise of ‘they’re wrong and I’m right’ over-simplifications? To point out the flaws in your use of hypothetical?

I do read your blog, since you are a known voice when it comes to intermittent fasting. Usually, your points are not all that surprising, or are sadly steeped in flawed understanding – but that’s your business. But when your opinions could mislead and damage particular audiences, I’m moved to respond.

You could show your readers some respect by not trying to dismiss them with the label of troll.

But I guess you need to do something to help discourage informed individuals from coming along and pointing you out as the sham that you are, especially when each of your blog posts are over-simplified pseudo-scientific rambles designed to do nothing but promote your book.