Tim Ferris method

General discussion about learning languages
Atinkoriko
Orange Belt
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:31 pm
Location: England
Languages: English (N)
Ibibio (N)
West African Pidgin English/Guinea Coast Creole[N]
Actively learning
Int: German, French, Spanish

Beginner: Russian, Japanese

Next: Mandarin Chinese, Ancient Greek, Latin, Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs, Italian
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 6&start=20
x 398

Re: Tim Ferris method

Postby Atinkoriko » Sun May 28, 2017 10:26 am

Bumping this thread up because I'd like to take a more hardline stance on Tim Ferris. He is the patron saint of lazy people and his 'good ideas' praised in this thread are just generic pieces of advice that can be found on any decent language learning blog.

He is a showman, much flair and little substance.
2 x
: 50 / 2000 Remembering the Kanji :
: 33 / 75 SpanishFilms Half SC :
: 45 / 124 German Active wave :
: 3 / 100 Assimil Japanese :
: 33 / 100 Russian without Toil :
: 160 / 10000 Russian 10k srs :

User avatar
tarvos
Black Belt - 2nd Dan
Posts: 2889
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:13 am
Location: The Lowlands
Languages: Native: NL, EN
Professional: ES, RU
Speak well: DE, FR, RO, EO, SV
Speak reasonably: IT, ZH, PT, NO, EL, CZ
Need improvement: PO, IS, HE, JP, KO, HU, FI
Passive: AF, DK, LAT
Dabbled in: BRT, ZH (SH), BG, EUS, ZH (CAN), and a whole lot more.
Language Log: http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/fo ... PN=1&TPN=1
x 6093
Contact:

Re: Tim Ferris method

Postby tarvos » Sun May 28, 2017 2:07 pm

Lazy, or efficient. Who knows?
0 x
I hope your world is kind.

Is a girl.

User avatar
zenmonkey
Black Belt - 2nd Dan
Posts: 2528
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 7:21 pm
Location: California, Germany and France
Languages: Spanish, English, French trilingual - German (B2/C1) on/off study: Persian, Hebrew, Tibetan, Setswana.
Some knowledge of Italian, Portuguese, Ladino, Yiddish ...
Want to tackle Tzotzil, Nahuatl
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=859
x 7030
Contact:

Re: Tim Ferris method

Postby zenmonkey » Sun May 28, 2017 2:31 pm

tarvos wrote:Lazy, or efficient. Who knows?


Neither?

These so-called fast learn methods, as far as I can see - and I tried something like this for Polish, just to test - are not particularly efficient or effective in real life nor was I particularly lazy about using it. They require real focus for short periods and the result you get gives you the ability of having the most basic interactions for a short while ... and no retention.

One thing is clear - Whether it is 30 days German, 3 Months Fluent, 4 days work week, Michel Thomas or what have you -- all these methods sell 'ease of learning', 'fast results', 'low effort', etc. There is a lot of marketing of method.

Every time I have discussions about these in 'real life', usually when someone asks me about my thinking about method x - is that these 'fast' methods need to be aligned to expectations and goals.

Starting a new language and want to get producing fast? Going to country xx for a short trip? Failed before? Need motivation early on?
Yes, kick things off with one of these methods which gives a good, rapid success cycle. Because maybe you are only going to need a few dozen phrases for a trip. Or you need to survival success to drive further? But if you are looking to have a language become the flowing extension of thought, a thing as beautiful as coffee in bed on crisp white sheets, well, those few days of any method just aren't going to deliver. It takes time to learn a language well.

Align methods to expectations and needs. Or vice versa.
5 x
I am a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar

Atinkoriko
Orange Belt
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:31 pm
Location: England
Languages: English (N)
Ibibio (N)
West African Pidgin English/Guinea Coast Creole[N]
Actively learning
Int: German, French, Spanish

Beginner: Russian, Japanese

Next: Mandarin Chinese, Ancient Greek, Latin, Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs, Italian
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 6&start=20
x 398

Re: Tim Ferris method

Postby Atinkoriko » Sun May 28, 2017 2:57 pm

My very first run in with this man came when he intruded into an area I know very well indeed- bodybuilding.

He claimed to have gained 34lbs of muscle in 4 weeks, whilst simultaneously losing fat and going from 16% to 12% body fat with only 2x 30 min exercise sessions per week. Now, this claim was beyond ludicrous. It was downright insulting. Even Arnold in his prime, as genetically unique as he was, never could have gained 34lbs of muscle whilst simultaneously losing fat with only 4 hours in the gym. Even the monsters who dominate the sport, as steroided to the gills as they are, still go through the same processes in which fat and muscles is gained through an increase in caloric consumption i.e. The bulking phase, followed by a cutting phase i.e. In which one reduces caloric consumption in order to lose fat (and inevitably some muscle)
To gain muscle while losing fat, especially to that extent, is simply not within the realm of possibility. This is akin to the 'Get ripped in 6 weeks' nonsense, only that those adverts are even more realistic than what Tim is claiming.

Here is a study by the Maastricht University , showing that even with heavy steroid use, the most impressive gains made by the test subjects was 16lbs of muscle over 6 weeks. The others averaged 4-11lbs of muscle over 10 weeks. And this was with significantly more resistance training and time spent in the gym that Ferris is claiming with his measly 4 hours https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15248788/

He also claims to have done this naturally, which moves his claims out of incredibly outrageous into downright insulting to all bodybuilders, amateur and professional.


So, aside from his regurgitation of well known ideas on language learning , he's already suffering from an immense lack of credibility. Thus, my hardline stance.
6 x
: 50 / 2000 Remembering the Kanji :
: 33 / 75 SpanishFilms Half SC :
: 45 / 124 German Active wave :
: 3 / 100 Assimil Japanese :
: 33 / 100 Russian without Toil :
: 160 / 10000 Russian 10k srs :

User avatar
zenmonkey
Black Belt - 2nd Dan
Posts: 2528
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 7:21 pm
Location: California, Germany and France
Languages: Spanish, English, French trilingual - German (B2/C1) on/off study: Persian, Hebrew, Tibetan, Setswana.
Some knowledge of Italian, Portuguese, Ladino, Yiddish ...
Want to tackle Tzotzil, Nahuatl
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=859
x 7030
Contact:

Re: Tim Ferris method

Postby zenmonkey » Sun May 28, 2017 3:21 pm

Atinkoriko wrote:My very first run in with this man came when he intruded into an area I know very well indeed- bodybuilding.

He claimed to have gained 34lbs of muscle in 4 weeks, whilst simultaneously losing fat and going from 16% to 12% body fat with only 2x 30 min exercise sessions per week. Now, this claim was beyond ludicrous. It was downright insulting. Even Arnold in his prime, as genetically unique as he was, never could have gained 34lbs of muscle whilst simultaneously losing fat with only 4 hours in the gym. Even the monsters who dominate the sport, as steroided to the gills as they are, still go through the same processes in which fat and muscles is gained through an increase in caloric consumption i.e. The bulking phase, followed by a cutting phase i.e. In which one reduces caloric consumption in order to lose fat (and inevitably some muscle)
To gain muscle while losing fat, especially to that extent, is simply not within the realm of possibility. This is akin to the 'Get ripped in 6 weeks' nonsense, only that those adverts are even more realistic than what Tim is claiming.

Here is a study by the Maastricht University , showing that even with heavy steroid use, the most impressive gains made by the test subjects was 16lbs of muscle over 6 weeks. The others averaged 4-11lbs of muscle over 10 weeks. And this was with significantly more resistance training and time spent in the gym that Ferris is claiming with his measly 4 hours https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15248788/

He also claims to have done this naturally, which moves his claims out of incredibly outrageous into downright insulting to all bodybuilders, amateur and professional.


So, aside from his regurgitation of well known ideas on language learning , he's already suffering from an immense lack of credibility. Thus, my hardline stance.


Yep, I've actually done quite a bit of research in this field and these claims are beyond ludicrous. Gaining significant muscle mass (even newbie mass) at a calorie deficit -- well, that's miraculous. What he really might have done is increased water sheathing of fibres. Which tells you a little about what he knows about muscle physiology.

Extrapolating to language learning?

It's a weak tea that he's selling.
5 x
I am a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar

User avatar
Random Review
Green Belt
Posts: 449
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:41 pm
Location: UK/Spain/China
Languages: En (N), Es (int), De (pre-int), Pt (pre-int), Zh-CN (beg), El (beg), yid (beg)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 75#p123375
x 919

Re: Tim Ferris method

Postby Random Review » Sun May 28, 2017 3:39 pm

Atinkoriko wrote:My very first run in with this man came when he intruded into an area I know very well indeed- bodybuilding.

He claimed to have gained 34lbs of muscle in 4 weeks, whilst simultaneously losing fat and going from 16% to 12% body fat with only 2x 30 min exercise sessions per week. Now, this claim was beyond ludicrous. It was downright insulting. Even Arnold in his prime, as genetically unique as he was, never could have gained 34lbs of muscle whilst simultaneously losing fat with only 4 hours in the gym. Even the monsters who dominate the sport, as steroided to the gills as they are, still go through the same processes in which fat and muscles is gained through an increase in caloric consumption i.e. The bulking phase, followed by a cutting phase i.e. In which one reduces caloric consumption in order to lose fat (and inevitably some muscle)
To gain muscle while losing fat, especially to that extent, is simply not within the realm of possibility. This is akin to the 'Get ripped in 6 weeks' nonsense, only that those adverts are even more realistic than what Tim is claiming.

Here is a study by the Maastricht University , showing that even with heavy steroid use, the most impressive gains made by the test subjects was 16lbs of muscle over 6 weeks. The others averaged 4-11lbs of muscle over 10 weeks. And this was with significantly more resistance training and time spent in the gym that Ferris is claiming with his measly 4 hours https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15248788/

He also claims to have done this naturally, which moves his claims out of incredibly outrageous into downright insulting to all bodybuilders, amateur and professional.


So, aside from his regurgitation of well known ideas on language learning , he's already suffering from an immense lack of credibility. Thus, my hardline stance.


I'm no fan of Ferris and don't use his ideas as I don't find them useful; but this post is nothing more than expressing your own incredulity. The only facts you state are that he claims to have done X with regime Y, that one study of body builders (who presumably were not following his ideas/training regime) didn't show anything like the kind of gains he claims to have achieved and that you think that he is full of the proverbial, because in your experience, people using the methods and training regimes you have seen used don't achieve anything like these results.
Since he's not a complete moron, I assume he has proposed some mechanisms for how he (according to his claims) achieved this and you need to explain why his ideas are wrong and conventional wisdom in the field is right, or give examples of people who tried his particular recommendations (preferably to the letter) and got nothing like the same results, because both people who are full of **** and people who are blazing a new trail achieve results that the conventional wisdom in a given field (be that body building, language learning or whatever) say are impossible and provoke incredulity or even ridicule.

As it stands your post is basically circular reasoning IMO.
1 x
German input 100 hours by 30-06: 4 / 100
Spanish input 200 hours by 30-06: 0 / 200
German study 50 hours by 30-06: 3 / 100
Spanish study 200 hours by 30-06: 0 / 200
Spanish conversation 100 hours by 30-06: 0 / 100

Atinkoriko
Orange Belt
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:31 pm
Location: England
Languages: English (N)
Ibibio (N)
West African Pidgin English/Guinea Coast Creole[N]
Actively learning
Int: German, French, Spanish

Beginner: Russian, Japanese

Next: Mandarin Chinese, Ancient Greek, Latin, Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs, Italian
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 6&start=20
x 398

Re: Tim Ferris method

Postby Atinkoriko » Sun May 28, 2017 3:50 pm

Random Review wrote:
Atinkoriko wrote:My very first run in with this man came when he intruded into an area I know very well indeed- bodybuilding.

He claimed to have gained 34lbs of muscle in 4 weeks, whilst simultaneously losing fat and going from 16% to 12% body fat with only 2x 30 min exercise sessions per week. Now, this claim was beyond ludicrous. It was downright insulting. Even Arnold in his prime, as genetically unique as he was, never could have gained 34lbs of muscle whilst simultaneously losing fat with only 4 hours in the gym. Even the monsters who dominate the sport, as steroided to the gills as they are, still go through the same processes in which fat and muscles is gained through an increase in caloric consumption i.e. The bulking phase, followed by a cutting phase i.e. In which one reduces caloric consumption in order to lose fat (and inevitably some muscle)
To gain muscle while losing fat, especially to that extent, is simply not within the realm of possibility. This is akin to the 'Get ripped in 6 weeks' nonsense, only that those adverts are even more realistic than what Tim is claiming.

Here is a study by the Maastricht University , showing that even with heavy steroid use, the most impressive gains made by the test subjects was 16lbs of muscle over 6 weeks. The others averaged 4-11lbs of muscle over 10 weeks. And this was with significantly more resistance training and time spent in the gym that Ferris is claiming with his measly 4 hours https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15248788/

He also claims to have done this naturally, which moves his claims out of incredibly outrageous into downright insulting to all bodybuilders, amateur and professional.


So, aside from his regurgitation of well known ideas on language learning , he's already suffering from an immense lack of credibility. Thus, my hardline stance.


I'm no fan of Ferris and don't use his ideas as I don't find them useful; but this post is nothing more than expressing your own incredulity. The only facts you state are that he claims to have done X with regime Y, that one study of body builders (who presumably were not following his ideas/training regime) didn't show anything like the kind of gains he claims to have achieved and that you think that he is full of the proverbial, because in your experience, people using the methods and training regimes you have seen used don't achieve anything like these results.
Since he's not a complete moron, I assume he has proposed some mechanisms for how he (according to his claims) achieved this and you need to explain why his ideas are wrong and conventional wisdom in the field is right, or give examples of people who tried his particular recommendations (preferably to the letter) and got nothing like the same results, because both people who are full of **** and people who are blazing a new trail achieve results that the conventional wisdom in a given field (be that body building, language learning or whatever) say are impossible and provoke incredulity or even ridicule.

As it stands your post is basically circular reasoning IMO.



And your post is simple assumption. Assumption that I've not read his book, assumption that he sufficiently explained his methods and not simply regurgitated broscience, assumption that he's actually a trailblazer and not a snake oil salesman, assumption that this area of bodybuilding has not been subjected to intensive research for the past 60 years, assumption that you can speak about bodybuilding without being versed in its basics, an assumption that my providing a study which shows that even bodybuilders on enhancements as opposed to natural bodybuilding still achieve less than half the results he claimed to achieve etc is not an example of me making my argument.

I am not expressing mere incredulity. I know what I'm talking about and I can demonstrate it further
3 x
: 50 / 2000 Remembering the Kanji :
: 33 / 75 SpanishFilms Half SC :
: 45 / 124 German Active wave :
: 3 / 100 Assimil Japanese :
: 33 / 100 Russian without Toil :
: 160 / 10000 Russian 10k srs :

Atinkoriko
Orange Belt
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:31 pm
Location: England
Languages: English (N)
Ibibio (N)
West African Pidgin English/Guinea Coast Creole[N]
Actively learning
Int: German, French, Spanish

Beginner: Russian, Japanese

Next: Mandarin Chinese, Ancient Greek, Latin, Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs, Italian
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 6&start=20
x 398

Re: Tim Ferris method

Postby Atinkoriko » Sun May 28, 2017 4:03 pm

Also, he's not a complete moron. His number one goal is to sell his products. And he succeeded. A lot of people bought his books, and like me, found them to be utterly lacking in substance. But in the end he won, because we bought the books and made him richer.

It's quite a brilliant formula really- Make incredible claims that are sure to intrigue the ignorant in that area and incense the well versed in that area. Both groups rush to buy your books, the first group to discover 'hacking' secrets which don't exist and the other group to satisfy their initial suspicions that you're nothing but a charlatan. In the end, no matter what anyone thinks, you've made your money.
3 x
: 50 / 2000 Remembering the Kanji :
: 33 / 75 SpanishFilms Half SC :
: 45 / 124 German Active wave :
: 3 / 100 Assimil Japanese :
: 33 / 100 Russian without Toil :
: 160 / 10000 Russian 10k srs :

User avatar
Random Review
Green Belt
Posts: 449
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:41 pm
Location: UK/Spain/China
Languages: En (N), Es (int), De (pre-int), Pt (pre-int), Zh-CN (beg), El (beg), yid (beg)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 75#p123375
x 919

Re: Tim Ferris method

Postby Random Review » Sun May 28, 2017 4:10 pm

Atinkoriko wrote:
Random Review wrote:
Atinkoriko wrote:My very first run in with this man came when he intruded into an area I know very well indeed- bodybuilding.

He claimed to have gained 34lbs of muscle in 4 weeks, whilst simultaneously losing fat and going from 16% to 12% body fat with only 2x 30 min exercise sessions per week. Now, this claim was beyond ludicrous. It was downright insulting. Even Arnold in his prime, as genetically unique as he was, never could have gained 34lbs of muscle whilst simultaneously losing fat with only 4 hours in the gym. Even the monsters who dominate the sport, as steroided to the gills as they are, still go through the same processes in which fat and muscles is gained through an increase in caloric consumption i.e. The bulking phase, followed by a cutting phase i.e. In which one reduces caloric consumption in order to lose fat (and inevitably some muscle)
To gain muscle while losing fat, especially to that extent, is simply not within the realm of possibility. This is akin to the 'Get ripped in 6 weeks' nonsense, only that those adverts are even more realistic than what Tim is claiming.

Here is a study by the Maastricht University , showing that even with heavy steroid use, the most impressive gains made by the test subjects was 16lbs of muscle over 6 weeks. The others averaged 4-11lbs of muscle over 10 weeks. And this was with significantly more resistance training and time spent in the gym that Ferris is claiming with his measly 4 hours https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15248788/

He also claims to have done this naturally, which moves his claims out of incredibly outrageous into downright insulting to all bodybuilders, amateur and professional.


So, aside from his regurgitation of well known ideas on language learning , he's already suffering from an immense lack of credibility. Thus, my hardline stance.


I'm no fan of Ferris and don't use his ideas as I don't find them useful; but this post is nothing more than expressing your own incredulity. The only facts you state are that he claims to have done X with regime Y, that one study of body builders (who presumably were not following his ideas/training regime) didn't show anything like the kind of gains he claims to have achieved and that you think that he is full of the proverbial, because in your experience, people using the methods and training regimes you have seen used don't achieve anything like these results.
Since he's not a complete moron, I assume he has proposed some mechanisms for how he (according to his claims) achieved this and you need to explain why his ideas are wrong and conventional wisdom in the field is right, or give examples of people who tried his particular recommendations (preferably to the letter) and got nothing like the same results, because both people who are full of **** and people who are blazing a new trail achieve results that the conventional wisdom in a given field (be that body building, language learning or whatever) say are impossible and provoke incredulity or even ridicule.

As it stands your post is basically circular reasoning IMO.



And your post is simple assumption. Assumption that I've not read his book, assumption that he sufficiently explained his methods and not simply regurgitated broscience, assumption that he's actually a trailblazer and not a snake oil salesman, assumption that this area of bodybuilding has not been subjected to intensive research for the past 60 years, assumption that you can speak about bodybuilding without being versed in its basics, an assumption that my providing a study which shows that even bodybuilders on enhancements as opposed to natural bodybuilding still achieve less than half the results he claimed to achieve etc


Ah, too slow with my edit. Well, perhaps I deserve it, but what you say is both untrue and unfair: I've not assumed any of that at all. I never assumed you haven't read his material, I certainly don't think that bodybuilding isn't a respectable field with its own body of research and you will notice I have not tried to speak about bodybuilding (as opposed to the structure of a good argument) in my post. Also FWIW I don't personally think he's a trailblazer; I am only saying you haven't explained anything of substance in your post, but rather expressed your own incredulity.

Imagine someone invented a new language learning technique and claimed to have learned Icelandic in a week*. We'd all be skeptical, but want to know details so that we could assess them. Now imagine I make a post saying that even Chung in his prime needed 6 months to learn Icelandic (disclaimer: I have no idea if Chung has ever even tried to learn this language), that experience in the community of experienced language learners shows that this is impossible and cited a study of people using a completely different method that showed results that were far below the person's claims, etc.

I think people would all point out that I'd said nothing of substance in my post TBH. I'd probably be right (as you probably are), but my post would not be helpful.

I know that in areas that I know something about, the conventional wisdom is both useful and limiting. If you want your discussion of his ideas on bodybuilding to be helpful, you need to explain what his claimed mechanisms are and why he is wrong (preferably with studies or experiences actually showing him to be wrong about how these mechanisms work.

* Obviously I picked that deliberately, because we know it can actually be done, just that there is no method that I know of that allows us mere mortals to replicate the feat.
0 x
German input 100 hours by 30-06: 4 / 100
Spanish input 200 hours by 30-06: 0 / 200
German study 50 hours by 30-06: 3 / 100
Spanish study 200 hours by 30-06: 0 / 200
Spanish conversation 100 hours by 30-06: 0 / 100

User avatar
zenmonkey
Black Belt - 2nd Dan
Posts: 2528
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 7:21 pm
Location: California, Germany and France
Languages: Spanish, English, French trilingual - German (B2/C1) on/off study: Persian, Hebrew, Tibetan, Setswana.
Some knowledge of Italian, Portuguese, Ladino, Yiddish ...
Want to tackle Tzotzil, Nahuatl
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=859
x 7030
Contact:

Re: Tim Ferris method

Postby zenmonkey » Sun May 28, 2017 4:22 pm

Random Review wrote:
Atinkoriko wrote:My very first run in with this man came when he intruded into an area I know very well indeed- bodybuilding.

He claimed to have gained 34lbs of muscle in 4 weeks, whilst simultaneously losing fat and going from 16% to 12% body fat with only 2x 30 min exercise sessions per week. Now, this claim was beyond ludicrous. It was downright insulting. Even Arnold in his prime, as genetically unique as he was, never could have gained 34lbs of muscle whilst simultaneously losing fat with only 4 hours in the gym. Even the monsters who dominate the sport, as steroided to the gills as they are, still go through the same processes in which fat and muscles is gained through an increase in caloric consumption i.e. The bulking phase, followed by a cutting phase i.e. In which one reduces caloric consumption in order to lose fat (and inevitably some muscle)
To gain muscle while losing fat, especially to that extent, is simply not within the realm of possibility. This is akin to the 'Get ripped in 6 weeks' nonsense, only that those adverts are even more realistic than what Tim is claiming.

Here is a study by the Maastricht University , showing that even with heavy steroid use, the most impressive gains made by the test subjects was 16lbs of muscle over 6 weeks. The others averaged 4-11lbs of muscle over 10 weeks. And this was with significantly more resistance training and time spent in the gym that Ferris is claiming with his measly 4 hours https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15248788/

He also claims to have done this naturally, which moves his claims out of incredibly outrageous into downright insulting to all bodybuilders, amateur and professional.


So, aside from his regurgitation of well known ideas on language learning , he's already suffering from an immense lack of credibility. Thus, my hardline stance.


I'm no fan of Ferris and don't use his ideas as I don't find them useful; but this post is nothing more than expressing your own incredulity. The only facts you state are that he claims to have done X with regime Y, that one study of body builders (who presumably were not following his ideas/training regime) didn't show anything like the kind of gains he claims to have achieved and that you think that he is full of the proverbial, because in your experience, people using the methods and training regimes you have seen used don't achieve anything like these results.
Since he's not a complete moron, I assume he has proposed some mechanisms for how he (according to his claims) achieved this and you need to explain why his ideas are wrong and conventional wisdom in the field is right, or give examples of people who tried his particular recommendations (preferably to the letter) and got nothing like the same results, because both people who are full of **** and people who are blazing a new trail achieve results that the conventional wisdom in a given field (be that body building, language learning or whatever) say are impossible and provoke incredulity or even ridicule.

As it stands your post is basically circular reasoning IMO.


Not really, Tim has not demonstrated remarkable muscle or strength gains but has shown weight gains not related to free water or free fat gains and has therefore (incorrectly) claimed that these are muscle gains - when in fact they are likely related to bound hydration gains.

Since Tim is making the remarkable claims it is his responsibility to demonstrate proof and repeatability - both sorely lacking.
Your assumption is incorrect - he has not proposed a physiological mechanism that supports his claims.

As to the rate of muscular growths - since this is a field I've worked in, here are more than a few references that discuss calorie and protein needs for body composition changes and the relevant limits:

Effect of protein intake on strength, body composition and endocrine changes in strength/power athletes. Hoffman JR, Ratamess NA, Kang J, Falvo MJ, Faigenbaum AD. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2006 Dec 13;3:12-8.
Macronutrient content of a hypoenergy diet affects nitrogen retention and muscle function in weight lifters. Walberg JL, Leidy MK, Sturgill DJ, Hinkle DE, Ritchey SJ, Sebolt DR. Int J Sports Med. 1988 Aug;9(4):261-6.
Protein requirements and muscle mass/strength changes during intensive training in novice bodybuilders. Lemon PW, Tarnopolsky MA, MacDougall JD, Atkinson SA. J Appl Physiol. 1992 Aug;73(2):767-75.
Influence of protein intake and training status on nitrogen balance and lean body mass. Tarnopolsky MA, MacDougall JD, Atkinson SA. J Appl Physiol. 1988 Jan;64(1):187-93.
Dietary protein for athletes: From requirements to optimum adaptation. Phillips SM, Van Loon LJ. J Sports Sci. 2011;29 Suppl 1:S29-38.
Protein and amino acid metabolism during and after exercise and the effects of nutrition. Rennie MJ, Tipton KD. Annu Rev Nutr. 2000;20:457-83.
Hartman, J. W., Moore, D. R., & Phillips, S. M. (2006). Resistance training reduces whole-body protein turnover and improves net protein retention in untrained young males. Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism, 31, 557–564.

"""Elevated protein consumption, as high as 1.8-2.0 g · kg(-1) · day(-1) depending on the caloric deficit, may be advantageous in preventing lean mass losses during periods of energy restriction to promote fat loss""
- here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150425"
5 x
I am a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar


Return to “General Language Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Airegin, TimButterfield and 2 guests