Fri, May-19-06, 18:31
|
 |
Senior Member
Posts: 2,581
|
|
Plan: No grains, no sugar.
Stats: 001/045/525
BF:
Progress: 8%
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HappyLC
Have you read the book? This is the least "diet booky" diet book I have ever read. He includes failures as well as successes in his case histories. I would suggest reading it before condemning it.
|
I'm not condemning it, and no, I won't read the book: I've found what works for me. If this works for someone else, that's great, I'm happy for them. I'm happy for someone who makes WW, or low fat, or anything else work for them, too. But I'm still skeptical about anything -- not just this diet, anything -- that I can't verify with science, that can't be falsified. This can't be falsified, at least not in any practical way. That doesn't mean it's bad, it just means it isn't for me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HappyLC
I must say I'm surprised by this attitude, coming from a lowcarber. I'm reminded of the old "weight loss on Atkins is all water weight" nonsense. I doubt a person could lose 25 or 50 pounds following a "gimmick" diet.
|
Every diet book has its success stories. They are a necessary part of the marketing plan.
Just because something works doesn't mean it isn't a gimmick; just because something is gimmicky doesn't mean it's without value. Gimmicks have value, and in fact, I believe all popular diets are gimmicky to some extent. Just naming a diet is part of the gimmick in many cases. What in the world does the SBD have to do with South Beach? What does the Hamptons Diet have to do with the Hamptons, and so on? |