Comments on: Weight Loss Spam

By: Nove

Nove — Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:53:42 +0000

this f**king acai berry so annoying…..
they is everywhere……
on website, on add on, on spam, on facebook? WTF

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:42:45 +0000

Oh wait I have a step 11!

11. be sure to get tested for your blood type and then divide the numerical value of the letters in your name with the numerical value of your zodiac and then plug that number into this simple formula:

455*34/326+38877- your BMR – (the year of the car your drive* mileage/6)=

and you have how many calories you should eat to lose weight.

It’s so obvious why don’t you people understand?! I guess I’m a genius and everyone else is a fool.

(*note the sarcasm I tried to inflict*) LOL

By: Darren

Darren — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:47:29 +0000

Brad, I am posting about Eat Stop Eat on my blog today. I have been usin git and it had brought a lot of simplicity to my life. I am recommending it to my readers!!!

By: Anthony

Anthony — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:12:57 +0000

What’s the story on the university?

By: Brad Pilon

Brad Pilon — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:45:41 +0000

I didn’t disagree with any posts? Not sure what you are referring too?

By: dave krueger

dave krueger — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:23:48 +0000

Dude, did you seriously delete the links to the posts that disagree with you? That’s bad form. I thought you were different, more open. Guess I was wrong.

By: Jordan

Jordan — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:43:34 +0000

I’m certainly no expert in understanding these studies, but the conclusion of that last study Anthony linked to (ajcn.org) seems to not support the idea of the set point theory:

“Our findings do not provide evidence in support of adaptive metabolic changes as an explanation for the tendency of weight-reduced persons to regain weight.”

The ideas of “slowed metabolism” and “set point” are the two most devastating and demotivating ideas for anyone trying to lose weight. Does it support the former, but not the latter? I dunno. It seems like they’re saying that you’ll be fine if you go back to maintenance after you lose the weight. Of course, going back to maintenance after weight loss is exactly what one should do, regardless. It’s just logical. Get to the weight you want to be at, then maintain.

I think it was Barban who stated that most weight loss is quick, so taking a few months to lose the weight, or several months if one has a lot of weight to lose, and then returning to maintenance (energy balance) as quickly as possible is something that’s desirable for us. Not saying that the study is 100% correct, how the hell would I know? lol. But overall, the conclusion seemed relatively positive.

By: Brad Pilon

Brad Pilon — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:36:05 +0000

Mike

I think you are over thinking this issue and are trying to do hard math on soft estimates. I’m not sure what you are asking, so I’ll stick with the bottom question… Yes your 24 hour energy expenditure is higher when you are heavier…mostly due to the cost of living and moving with that extra weight.

By: Brad Pilon

Brad Pilon — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 02:35:45 +0000

Hi Woody,

This is a paper we discuss in the Eat Stop Eat U, it’s not really something can be covered in a quick blog post.

By: Brad Pilon

Brad Pilon — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 02:34:02 +0000

Anthony,

The short story is that none of these papers support that theory.

Bottom line is that if you are interested in a full explanation you’d probably really like the Eat Stop Eat University (We cover all this research in our Metabolism Teleseminar)