One of my friends wrote:
Frost has just taken whatever wisdom is in vogue right now (paleo diet; new male relationship philosophies; passive income) and put them in one book. Ferriss did the same. So it was "heard it all before" for me. Are you still following the paleo diet, by the way? I've done it several times before but always ended up going back to bread, for that "full" feeling after eating. Plus paleo is expensive. I didn't think you ate much meat, so was quite surprised you had moved to a meat-based diet.I had actually missed this, but this is due to me simply not really following the media. I carefully select what I read, and I quickly dismiss anything I find suspicious. Had I known about diet fads beforehand, I would have warned you about the paleo diet. I'm doing this now, though. Well, maybe I should make an addendum to my original review. So let me just be blunt: Paleo is a fad and unsustainable. It lead to a change in my nutrition, though. Before, I hardly ate meat. This has now changed, and I follow a rather balanced diet. Paleo itself, though, is questionable.
I was under the impression that I had more "energy", but this was merely because I wasn't getting enough proteins before. Later on, I figured out that a carb-free diet is unsustainable, and not just because it is very expensive. Of course, Frost recommends just going home to a girl and ravage her fridge, but this was probably a joke I didn't get since girls don't tend to have stacked fridges, or meat at home. Besides, who pays for their meat? It's not as if they are all awash with cash.
Here's a video for starters (found on Alek Novy's website):
References for the video can be found here, in case and pseudo-critical "hater" wants to jump at me in the comment thread.
Merely attacking the paleo diet does miss the bigger picture, though. As "Red Pill" in his excellent blog writes, there is a "paleo-game cult" going on. I have already debunked "game", and the paleo-diet has been debunked by many others as just another fad diet. Another big part of this "cult" is what I am inclined to call freedom porn.
Freedom porn is a religion mostly built by Tim Ferriss. You may have read his book "Four Hour Workweek", which promises you to give you the tools to build an automated source of income. There is no need to slave away in a 9-to-5 job. Just find a way to exploit your fellow man and do whatever you want in your spare time. If this sounds too good to be true, then it's because it is. Ferriss later on even came out telling people that it "never was about just working four hours a week". What a joker!
So, the book is not about working just four hours a week, but instead about building your own business. The examples he gives are downright ludicrous, like importing shirts from France and selling them with a big margin. Yeah, right! What Ferriss doesn't take into account is that Google AdSense is rather expensive, and given abysmally low conversion rates, you'd probably end up spending several hundred dollars on online ads before selling one item that brings in only a fraction of the cost of selling it. This is hardly a sustainable business.
But the bigger problem is that he is giving people false hope. As a result, you have then guys like Frost moving to Thailand, confessing in a book that they have no real idea how to make money, but just writing a book, in the hope that this will then generate enough money to live off. It doesn't seem to work out for him, but even if it did: How many people would be able to move to a Third World country, write about the experience, and live off it, until the story got old and nobody would buy it anymore?
Tim Ferriss tries to make you believe he's a regular shmuck like you and me. In fact, he is all but, and there are strong reasons to believe that he only got the foot in the door due to his wealthy family. Let's just recount the facts: Ferriss grew up in East Hampton. If you look it up, you'll learn that "Demographics in East Hampton are skewed by the fact that more than half the houses are owned as second homes (often from some of the wealthiest people in the country)." This sounds a lot as if Ferriss belongs to the "1%". Then he went to a school with a student/teacher ratio of 5 to 1. That's hardly like inner city Detroit. In case you are interested, St Paul's School charges about $50,000 a year.
In corporate owned media, this would be the point for someone to chime in and say that I am "envious" or "jealous", and if you've been brainwashed by right-wing ideology, you'd now say that I am a "hater." However, I only want to illustrate the background of "self-made man" Tim Ferriss. That he later on went to Princeton to get a degree in "East Asian Studies". How fitting! I don't know how familiar you are with higher education, but the general rule is that the more bullshitty a subject is, the more it merely serves as an excuse for the children of the rich to get a place there. It's not as if you can really measure performance in those fields objectively, after all.
Now you may say, "Yeah, Sleazy, I get what you are aiming at, but why do you bother?" Let me tell you something: I have attended an elite institution myself, the London School of Economics, and I have encountered the kind of guy Tim Ferriss is far too many times: Those people have an absurd sense of entitlement, and if they don't get their way the normal way, they have no qualms of cheating. They think the rules just don't apply to them. (Just look at the "elites" in banking, business, and politics! It's exactly the same mentality.) I was thus not surprised that Ferriss admitted in his book that he was, after getting a bad grade on a university paper, pestering the lecturer for hours, with the intended consequence that this guy would think really hard before giving him a bad grade ever again. How do you call this kind of behavior? Yes, it's cheating, and not "finding a loop hole."
Further legendary tales of Ferriss include him detailing how he cheated on a national championship, I think it was Chinese kickboxing. He claimed to have simply dehydrated himself thoroughly, and then he went on to just push the guys out of the ring. Tim was proud of that "loop hole". If this isn't utterly dishonest, then I wouldn't know what is. This is only the beginning, though, because Tim's first company sold snake oil: pills that were supposed to boost your brain power. I read some stories about him selling questionable supplements to bodybuilders, too. But let's not bother with the products, because there are much worse things going on behind the scenes.
In fact, when I read his "success story," it just sounded fishy. I guess I have just met too many stupid, arrogant assholes in my life who would be complete failures if they didn't have a wealthy family to chip in a few $10k here and there. My hunch was that Ferriss' claim to have raked in a ton of money with his company "BrainQuicken" doesn't quite add up. Sure, he can now tell the world that he sold the company (for an undisclosed amount) and since then invests in other companies. But isn't it far more plausible that his family sits on a few hundred million dollars if not more, and he's simply investing that money?
Here is what an insider of the supplement industry had to say about Ferriss' business, pointing out that even if Ferriss "made $40k" a month, which he doubts, it's still an entirely different question how much of that revenue turned into profit. Those are just excerpts of a discussion, but you can easily follow the link and check the sources yourself:
Bodybuilding.com has over 8,500 products. 1.2 million members with a 10% conversion rate (a gift there, should be about 2-3%) makes 120,000 purchases.Ferriss didn't have to bother about a few $10k here and there because he surely got money from his family to help him out with. It doesn't stop here, though. Have you ever looked at the reviews of "Four Hour Work Week" on Amazon? Here, have a look! You may say, awesome, thousands of people recommend his work. This can't be bad? Well, if you dig a little bit deeper, you'll find that there is something fishy going on. I quote from a review on Amazon.co.uk:
120,000 purchases /8,500 products = 14 sales for BQ off that site.
The hits to Tims's old site are easily conformable. This is the internet here people. Do the math yourself, and anyone can quickly see that BrainQUICKEN does not generate anywhere near that income.
[...]
Bodybuilder.com is pretty straightforward. Go to the site and pull the numbers off the top page. Simple math tells you he isn't making much there. Check the page views per month on BQ. Those numbers just don't add up to anywhere near 40k.
Finally, to conclude what is quite possibly the longest review I have ever written, I would like to comment on the number of five star reviews this book has garnered over on Amazon's US website. If you have been so patient as to read all the way to the end of this review, you surely deserve to know that the author of this book has a hugely popular website and quite a devoted following, based in part on a previous bestseller he wrote: The 4-Hour Workweek. This may also explain the truly massive number of helpful votes the current "Most Helpful" review has achieved (at the time of posting, it has over 2,000 helpful votes).
In fact, having seen a number of other reviewers claim that this book gained a suspiciously high number of positive reviews rather too quickly, I decided to do a little detective work myself. By sorting the reviews from oldest first, I very easily verified that 110 reviews of this book were posted on the 14th of December 2010. Of these 110 reviews, all but 5 gave the book five stars. Of the 5 reviews that didn't give the book five stars, all but one gave it four stars. Obviously it's now equally easy for you in turn to verify all this for yourself; provided, that is, you don't mind counting to 110! Curiously, a disturbingly large number of reviews (again, almost all five star) also happened to appear on April 26 2011. I've no idea why April 26 2011 was the magic day, but if you do happen to know, then please leave a comment on this review letting me in on the secret. I'm quite curious myself! Again, all this applies to Amazon's US website, not the UK one.
In the end I can only say that I went into this with an open mind. I did actually buy the book, and I didn't throw away that money just so I could write a nasty review. I also took a very serious shot at the weight loss program contained in the book. And yes, just like anyone else on a weight loss program, of course I wanted it to work. However, I find that I cannot reconcile my own experiences with the countless rave reviews this book seems to attract.
Draw what conclusions you will.
Tim Ferriss promotes using "virtual assistants", so I wouldn't be surprised if he was ordering them to hype his books online.
This concludes my research on Tim Ferriss. If you want to know why this guy annoys me, I openly admit that it is due to an ingrained dislike of people like him: sons of the rich who believe the world has to bend to their rules, and if they hit a brick wall, aren't afraid to lie and deceive. Ferriss addresses your greed and laziness in his books, and he wants you to believe that his background and connections have nothing to do with his eventual financial success. "Four Hour Work Week" may indeed have been the first one. I hope this article sobered you up, or confirmed your suspicions.
I knew and I also hoped that one day you might have a word about Tim Ferriss and his too good to be true promises. Thanks for that.
ReplyDeleteBut I must strongly disagree with your view on the paleo-"cult". What many people, especially the "haters" seem to not understand yet, is that paleo does not necessarily mean low carb or even very-low/no carb which indeed aren't sustainable in the long run.
Paleo basically restricts certain food sources like sugar, grains, certain fats etc. which can cause problems (at least to us "cultists"). Macronutrient proportions play a secondary role if at all.
You cannot dissect Paleo with "low carb is bad for you" as one concept does not need the other to exist. One can eat high carb and still paleo or low carb and non paleo. If you don't want to believe me, check out Kurt Harris' Blog for some real info.
Have a good day, I love your blog!
Yours K
Bla bla bla bla bla
Delete"You can't criticize game by criticizing VK, it's not about wearing furry hats bla bla bla bla"
The point is Paleo has been descredited as pseudo-science. The fact that low-carbing is only secondary in Paleo doesn't matter, since it's not the only argument against it.
It's nothing but a cute story to trick people into eating less junk food. It's like, do you really need a caveman story to not stuff your face with junk? Just eat less of that shit, and enjoy life.
One can eat high carb and still paleo or low carb and non paleo. If you don't want to believe me, check out Kurt Harris' Blog for some real info.
DeleteBla bla bla...
One can practice Mystery Method without memorizing routines, check out mystery's student FuckDrop2000 who has a version where you don't memorize routines bla bla bla.
I just checked out that Harris dude's thing. Paleos say he's not real paleo. It's a modification on Paleo :D
DeleteSo yah, paleo is by definition always low-carb, unless someone invents a new diet which he calls a paleo hack. The original paleo always ends up being low-carb, even if they don't call it low-carb, it's impossible to follow it without being low carb.
So the religion tricks you into eating low carb and it tricks you into eating low calories, and then gives you a cool story about dinosaurs and shit.
The point is this dude, if Paleo ever works is because it makes people eat less junk, less calories, and that's it. You can do the -less-junk-and-less-food-overall bit without buying into a new religion.
No fancy pseudo-scientific stories about freaking cavemen which is anthropologically debunked among other shit.
"Game" and nutrition are hardly comparable as there is much confusion even among scientists in the latter. So please stop pulling the "You eat paleo aka you creep through the club with a furry hat" on me.
DeleteThe point is Paleo has been descredited as pseudo-science. The fact that low-carbing is only secondary in Paleo doesn't matter, since it's not the only argument against it.
I really like to believe you but it would be way easier for me if you would tell me exactly WHO discredited it as pseudo-science. And what exactly are the "other arguments" against it? And no, Youtube-Vids do not count as "evidence". As much as I respect Aaron and some other bloggers for their common-sense approach regarding women and other stuff, I don't see their point in their war-on-paleo.
Your less-junk-and-less-food-overall approach is questionable either. In his book "Why we get fat..." Gary Taubes for example claims that the type of consumed calories matters more than their amount. Might or might not be true. Check it out if you dare.
There certainly are many approaches to a healthy diet and they tend to contradict each other. I tried a lot of stuff regarding nutrition and avoiding certain foods as outlined by my almighty Paleo-Pharaons works best for me so far. After years of counting calories, "eating less and doing more cardio" while still being chubby I finally managed to get lean and feel healthy and strong without a single day of jogging since two years and without worrying about the exact amount of food that I eat. You can call me a cultist or whatnot, as long as something works for me, I won't question it until I find something that works better.
Yours K
Hey K...
Delete"Game" and nutrition
Please don't obfuscate.
The topic is GAME and FAD diets.
See what you did there? Clever little trick eh? You equated "fad diets" with nutrition.
Game = Fad Diets = Get Rich Schemes
Social Skills = Nutrition = Business Skills
Gary Taubes for example claims that the type of consumed calories matters more than their amount. Might or might not be true. Check it out if you dare.
ReplyDeleteGary Taubes also claims there is a conspiracy. I've seen him ripped to shreds. Read the criticisms on him from scientists.
Of course, Taubes' fans say the nutrition scientists are all part of the vast conspiracy... He is a writer, not a nutritionist, nor a physiologist. He's a freaking journalist.
Taubes = Roissy Of Nutrition
Btw, I said the caveman-narrative and story is anthropologically false... I didn't use the term pseudo-science in terms of the diet itself, just the story-line.
DeleteAnd again all debates about "calories don't matter" are about freaking fractional amounts that nobody knows...
It's like, they're freaking arguing over parts of a percent. It's not like you take 2000 cals of one diet and 2000 cals of another diet and one makes you a baloon and the other makes you shredded :D
Even when they pervert studies, what they don't tell you is that they're arguing about minimal real world differences.
It's like gamers arguing about what angle to approach from and pulling studies about how this angle causes this much anxiety in the chick ,and this approach angle causes this much anxiety. Same with 1000 cal of this vs 1000 cals of that It's literally using shit that makes no real world difference.
You have valid points regarding the caveman-narrative. I also highly doubt that all cavemen had the same environmental conditions and thus the exact same type of food on a daily basis.
DeleteWhat matters to me though is that I see real results. I couldn't care less about caveman stories surrounding that approach as long as it works.
There are dozens of books on how to fuck women and I think Sleazy covers all that really matters in his one tiny little book. On diets however there are hundreds of them and it is far less obvious which is the right approach. Seems like you never had any problems so far with the standard eat less scheme, good for you.
Here is another question for Aaron (and everybody else): Do you know about Martin Berkhan and his Intermittent Fasting approach? It totally contradicts the "eat 6 to 8 meals a day" mantra but some guys seriously believe in it. What's your take on it?
Yours K
I'm have been skinny all my life, so cant say did fasting help me loose weight or not, but my mind is sharper for sure in fasting state. Did my muscles become bigger, or better toned? Cant say, I have been training like crazy during that time.
DeleteAll in all I still fast most days, just for such benefits as better digestion and sharper mind, it really helps with things that require creativity, but it could just be, that when my body feels tired because of lack of calories and it starts to trip and thats how I get ideas for my art. :D
What matters to me though is that I see real results. I couldn't care less about caveman stories surrounding that approach as long as it works.
DeletePeople also see real results applying mystery method, roosh's method etc etc...
Do you get it? Fad diets = Game Methods
They only work coz they trick you into doing what works.
Game Methods = Trick You Into => Escalating & approaching more chicks
Fad Diets = Trick You Into => Eating less junk food and eating less calories
If you count the calories you eat on paleo, and eat the same calories of any other diet, you'll see the same results.
Just like a 100 mystery method escalations give the same result as 100 direct escalations. The mystery method just hides the process of how it works, just like fad diets.
Here is another question for Aaron (and everybody else): Do you know about Martin Berkhan and his Intermittent Fasting approach? It totally contradicts the "eat 6 to 8 meals a day" mantra but some guys seriously believe in it. What's your take on it?
DeleteMy eating style is very similar to lean gains actually... I like Martin...
Intermittent Fasting (lean gains) works for some people, because for some people it causes them to eat less calories on a weekly level.
It works for me, cause if I do his fasting window, I can eat normal for the second half of the day, and caloric average drops.
For my best friend lean gains doesn't work, coz if he does it, he just ends up uncontrollably binging after the fasting window. My friend uses EatStopEat (a different pattern of intermitten fasting where you have 2 days a week that are full day fast)
A third friend of mine can't do absolutely any fasting of any kind. He has to eat 6 meals a day to control his appetite. Of course, there's nothing magical about 6 meals. It's just that if he eats 6 small meals, he doesn't end up binging. For him, fasting just causes him to pig out after the fast is done.
That's the trick my friend. Unless you count calories for a while, you can't know which method will cause a better caloric deficit in you. There's nothing magical in the method. It's just that for some people some styles of eating cause them to eat less on a weekly level, for others, it's other methods.
Martin Doesn't claim otherwise... Check out eat-stop-eat too, he's a friend of lean-gains, and they support each other. Also check out AGD (common friend of both). It's a non-fasting method of cutting calories.
I went low carb after reading Gary Taubes' exhaustively researched "Good Calories, Bad Calories." Before becoming a journalist, he earned degrees in physics from Harvard and engineering from Stanford. Part of the point of his book is to debunk the junk science that gets widely accepted and disseminated. His approach was convincing to me, but really, I have to say I haven't done major research into nutrition. I was once a strict vegetarian, and despite being structured about it, I simply wasn't healthy and was prone to a lot of colds and illnesses.
DeleteI've been counting carbs for a year. I lost 20 pounds initially without changing my exercise routine. I have a free day once a week, when I eat what I want. That works to prevent that feeling of self-pity and deprivation that can sabotage you.
I've found it a sustainable way of maintaining a healthy weight. That said, I think there is a wide variability in what works nutritionally for people. Low carb is not a fad, however, it was originally introduced as a diet strategy in the 1850s and low starch/high protein diets have worked for many people ever since. In any case, it's not wise to make a fetish out of a diet, whether it's veganism or Paleo, however defined.
And, if people aren't too annoying about it, anything that gets people up and out the door to workout is probably a decent thing.
Minimal Game is a great book, useful, lean, no bullshit, and well-founded. I admire the skepticism Aaron Sleazy brings to fads and the flabby sloganeering that masquerades as thought.
As far as Ferriss, goes, I take the same approach to what I read by him as I do by anyone else. You have to bring a certain amount of doubt. Some of it makes sense, other sections are ludicrous and built around a shiny new century hucksterism.
The central problem in all of this -- Game, Paleo, Ferriss, Mystery -- is the pathetic need so many guys have to find a guru, and a variety of religion that promises that all their hopes will be realized, and never once stop to think about what they're reading. It shows how poorly educated many Americans really are and how desperate we can be to find an answer.
I agree wes. If you use a nutritional approach knowing that it works for you because of practical benefits, that is great.
DeleteAs long as you don't declare mystical and magical powers to the diet, and you know that most of the result comes from the caloric intake - you're good.
I do good with intermittent fasting, but it's not a label I use. I am not an "intermitten faster", nor do I believe it has magical, mystical powers (like some IF-ers do), I just know its a practical way of controlling caloric intake.
p.s.
The succesful milestone for maintaining weight is 3-4 years I believe, so you haven't passed with 1 year. That's 3-4 years after losing the weight, and then keeping it off.
Long-term low-carb success stories are e-x-t-r-e-m-e-l-y rare... One year is nothing (you started one year ago, but when did you finish losing, 6 months ago)?
Now write back in 3 years. 99% of low-carbers never do lol
Paleo isn't "carb-free." Neither was/is Atkins for that matter. You're setting up a strawman to knock it down and make yourself look good. The Kitavans consume around 90% from root vegetables and is therefore high-carb Paleo. If you're practicing an ancestral diet and it's low-carb it's Faileo, no Paleo. Fruits/vegetables/animal protein is basically what the diet consists of.
ReplyDeleteYou sound like a PUA defending a PUA method by arguing semantics about one of the issues pointed out with it.
DeleteMost people who call themselves Paleos end up eating low-carb. A few end up eating medium-carb. It's neither the main criticism, nor the point.
That you have to get stuck on it, in order to not see the rest of the criticism, is very telling. The point is, the low-carb criticism applies to 99% of people who call themselves Paleos. Now, you people in the Paleo cult might have in-fights on who is a real Paleo. You call those people Faleo's - who gives a fuck.
Secondly, things like no long-term sustainability and such apply to all Paleos, yep even the ones who eat 90% root veggies.
BTW, that Paleo is expensive is just laughable. I spend the same amount now that I did pre-Paleo. Actually a bit less since I eat out less. Fruits and vegetables are cheap where I live (NY). And you can always find sales on animal protein (particularly the fattier cuts of meat).
ReplyDeleteI eat a lot of fruit and vegetables, but replacing carbs with organic meat (apart from being impossible to do in the long run since your body needs carbs) would more than quadruple my food bill. Thus, I see no reason why I couldn't reasonably call it expensive.
DeleteI never actually paid this much attention to Tim Ferriss but the combination of Hamptons, St. Paul's and East Asian Studies at Princeton should be enough to be very skeptic (completely discredit?) about someone.
ReplyDeleteRegarding diets, IF, working out etc. I feel the key points (call it the Pareto bit if you will) are total caloric intake, ensuring caloric intake from non-junk sources and a diet+exercise methodology which is sustainable and suitable to your lifestyle.
IF works for me when trying to lose weight because I find it convenient to sleep longer and skip breakfast. I also don't tend to binge on food or eat a lot of junk.
Similarly, I feel Paleo or a close derivative of it will probably work for people who are trying to lose weight because it promotes non-junk organic food and foods rich in nutrients. These foods also fill you up very fast and thus you tend to eat less.
Try gaining a lot of weight or bulking up on Paleo - you will find it EXTREMELY HARD. This for me was one of the first tell-tales that Paleo is not all it is made out to be. Mark Sisson sweeps this topic under the rug by saying Paleo will automatically get you to your "optimal weight". There are very few (I think just one) articles on his website about bulking up. This is a very surprising aspect given how important gaining muscular weight is for so many people.
The other points about insulin response etc. might be valid but its probably like 1% of the picture. If one sticks to non junk and reasonable total calories, all of this should be fine.
I should add one more point to my previous comment about the key aspects of diet. Restricting sugar.
ReplyDeleteIf people skipped processed foods, and only ate very little sweets (or none at all), obesity would be fairly easy to manage. After all, if you stick to healthy food, you'll find it rather difficult to overeat. On the other hand, you can quickly eat four cupcakes (amounting to 2,000 calories or more in total).
DeleteIf people skipped processed foods, and only ate very little sweets (or none at all), obesity would be fairly easy to manage. After all, if you stick to healthy food, you'll find it rather difficult to overeat. On the other hand, you can quickly eat four cupcakes (amounting to 2,000 calories or more in total).
DeleteThat theory is also false.
I spent a few years where I ate zero processed foods, zero sugar, nothing but water in drinks, and I was quite fat, and kept getting fatter despite eating "100% clean".
The theory that it's "hard to over-eat when you don't eat processed foods" is just a bullshit theory similar to many pua theories... It's a technique sold as a paradigm.
Compared to my "fat orthorexic" days, today I eat mostly processed foods, am ripped, and I love me sweets.
p.s.
DeleteI know you probably already know this Aaron, but clarifying just in case. My reply wasn't a criticism of you, just the theory.
As someone who has never been fat, you probably only have second-hand theoretical experience with these theories, so it's understandable.
Now there are a whole bunch of studies coming out saying that the "good foods/bad foods" paradigm doesn't work. People might lose fat in the short-term, but over-time classifying foods as "good" and "bad" just leads people to over-eating.
I wish I didn't have to learn this the hard way. I spent many years in that paradigm, I wish I could have those years back, just like the damn "community" years lol :D
I know you weren't criticizing me.
DeleteThanks for pointing out some of the finer points of nutrition. I was indeed unaware of a lot of it. At least, I now know that this field is similar to the PUA fad, and full of frauds. Have you read Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science"? I'm sure you'd get a kick out of that book (or maybe you just know about all that stuff already and will just nod your head as you read along). Check out this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/feb/12/advertising.food
Quote:
Delete"But nutritionists don't stop there, because they can't: they have to manufacture complication, to justify the existence of their profession. And what an extraordinary new profession it is. They've appeared out of nowhere, with a strong new-age bent, but dressing themselves up in the cloak of scientific authority. Because there is, of course, a genuine body of research about nutrition and health, to which these new "nutritionists" are spectacularly unreliable witnesses. You don't get sober professors from the Medical Research Council's Human Nutrition Research Unit on telly talking about the evidence on food and health; you get the media nutritionists. It's like the difference between astrology and astronomy."
Another quote:
Delete"These new nutritionists have a major commercial problem with evidence. There's nothing very professional or proprietary about "eat your greens", so they have had to push things further: but unfortunately for the nutritionists, the technical, confusing, overcomplicated, tinkering interventions that they promote are very frequently not supported by convincing evidence."
It wouldn't take much time to rewrite this paragraph to apply to PUAs.
One more:
Delete"But don't get distracted. Basic, sensible dietary advice, that we all know - be honest - still stands. It's the unjustified, self-serving and unnecessary overcomplication of this basic sensible dietary advice that is, to my mind, one of the greatest crimes of the nutritionist movement. I don't think it's excessive to talk about consumers paralysed with confusion in supermarkets."
Again, the parallels to PUA are obvious.
Alek, there is science to suggest that eating processed foods/junk food and sweets is linked to obesity. How could there not be? There is also evidence to suggest eating real foods increases satiety and is less likely to lead to obesity.
DeleteEven if there wasn't, your anecdotal experience does not mean anything and does not make Aaron's theory false. Normally you are spot on but when it comes to nutrition you may have let your own experiences lead to forget how science works.
There could have been many factors behind how you were gaining or losing weight at that period of your life.
Hey Aaron, I'm actually surprised that you made mention of and criticized the wealthy elitists and the "1%" here. I consider myself what Europeans would call a "social democrat" so it was refreshing to read.
ReplyDeleteI would love to hear your thoughts on the occupy movement that sprung up in North America. (while it might seem like its gone, the murmurs I've been hearing is that there hiberating for the winter and planning a resurgance in the spring)
Also, as an economist, I would really like to hear your thoughts on austerity measures. I personally don't see how they are useful during recessionary periods. Its like kicking those who belong to the working and middle class (the vast majority) while they are the most vulvernable. How is the economy to be stimulated when us as a people are forced to be more frugal?
I am familiar with the Occupy Movement. It is an ongoing movement, and there were some protests in 2012 already. The mainstream media normally don't report about them, though. I have attended a couple of #Occupy events myself, and thus know first-hand how ridiculously biased media stories are. This doesn't come as a surprise once you realize that the MSM are interested in maintaining the status quo. That they represent the "fourth estate" is nothing but a PR lie.
DeleteAusterity measures only serve to make the rich even richer. Just look at how many state assets were sold off at a fraction of their price! Economic planning is not about improving the lot of the people but to make sure that the "elites" keep living their cushy lives. Posters such as this one have never lost their relevance: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Anti-capitalism_color.jpg
Economic booms and busts are engineered (due to credit expansion and contraction), and busts are used to transfer wealth to the elites. Just look at how the "Great Recession" in the US played out, or any other bust in history.
"Ferriss addresses your greed and laziness in his books"
ReplyDeleteHuge eye-opener. Thank you!
Good take down of Ferriss.
ReplyDeleteHis diet is mostly bull. If you use it as a way to restrict your calorie intake all well and good, but realise that that is what you are doing. BTW, his spiel about GI is junk science.
As for low-carb diets, after 2 days on under 100g of carbs, I started to feel dizzy and sick, so I dropped it. Since then I have balanced my macros and the results have been good: to wit, I have maintained my body fat under 10% (except for a little blow out over Xmas), my post work-out recovery has sped up, and I generally feel alert and good.
When you were young and your heart was an open book
ReplyDeleteYou used to say live and let live.
But in this ever changing world in which we live in
Makes you give in and cry
Say live and let die.
(Paul McCartney)
This is more fun than I can handle.
ReplyDeleteOk, ok...
Now take on Kim schmitz.
Please ?
R
DeleteO
O
S
H
Kim Schmitz aka "Kimble Dotcom" would not quite fit the scope of this blog. There are many bullshitters and huckster, around, though. Yet, I rather limit myself to some figures in the self-help and seduction industry.
DeleteRoosh and Sean Stephenson are high on my list.
Aaron Sleazy, "I'm always right! Everyone else is always wrong! Don't believe that other PUAs are banging a ton of chicks! All of them are scam artists! Believe me, because I bang a ton of chicks! I wrote a book on how many chicks I bang and how awesome I am! I studied Economics in London! I'm smarter and better than everyone else!"
ReplyDeleteAaronSleazy has never claimed to have better succes than the gurus on an approach-for-approach basis.
DeleteAll that Aaron says is that if you hit on enough club sluts (equal to your looks) and physically escalate, a few won't say no and you can fuck them... He's also said its a ton of work and not worth the effort after a while...
So he isn't making any extraordinary claims... The gurus however are making extraordinary claims an have yet to prove a single one.
It is up to the person making extraordinary claims to prove they're not full of shit.
Anonymous,
Deletenice "ad hominem", but please get your facts straight. I hold an MSc from the London School of Economics. Further, due to the fact that I was given a scholarship you could deduce that I am probably rather smart. However, my arguments are not based on authority but on fact. I show you why X is nonsense instead of claiming that X is nonsense because I say so. This is not even a subtle difference.
Further, as UltraAnonymous pointed out, "shifting the burden of proof" is nothing but a troll technique. If someone claims he's oh-so great with girls (like Vince Kelvin), but then videos show that he sucks balls, then it's not a valid defense to demand from his critics that they should produce videos of themselves.
Thus, dear Anonymous, please let me ask you whether you are being deliberately obtuse or downright stupid.
I was "ultra anonymous" btw. I was just making fun of the anonymous hit&runners lol.
DeleteI thought so. :)
DeleteThe video is a joke. The ignorance is astounding. Basically repeated, as gospel truth, every myth of low carbohydrate diets ever invented. It is well established that insulin regulates fat accumulation. This is not controversial. What causes the highest insulin secretion - carbohydrates.
ReplyDeleteThe current western diet promotes cancer, heart disease, obesity and type 2 diabetes. You think these diseases are reaching epidemic levels as a result of what?
Science, not a personal belief systems, will prevail in the end over nonsense videos like the above.
1) where did you get your degree in human physiology?
Delete2) I talked to a PhD in physiology once and he rolled his eyes about how low-carbers talk about insulin, coz he explained to me that the whole thing with insulin this, insulin that doesn't matter since the body converts anyway. I can't Retell what he said, but basically he said low-carbers do word-twisting and manipulation that unqualified people fall for
3) The people in the west with their diseases are a result of the *quantities* of food that they eat, not the food source. Read up on the French. Skinny, healthy fucks, but they drown in carbs
4) Anyone can check the long-term success studies the video mentioned. They truly find no low-carbers among long-term successes... Despite the fact that low carb has been around for centuries
5) what's your weight and bmi?
I don't have a degree in physiology.
DeleteNot sure what the context was in your discussion with the PhD or what you mean here. Insulin is required for life. Type 1 diabetics inject insulin in order to live. Type 2 are insulin resistant. The body doesn't respond to insulin's message as efficiently as it should and the pancreas in a panic pumps out more insulin to get rid of toxic amounts of glucose in the blood until the body can no longer control glucose levels in the blood as insulin resistance increases. It's not pretty from here in.
Why would someone eat until they are obese? What is driving the person to eat so much? Conventional wisdom would say gluttony and laziness. Insulin's role or one of it's many roles, which you appear to dismiss as unimportant, takes nutrients and stores them. It also says don't release them when insulin is high. So chronically elevated insulin levels starve your cells. You then eat more, cycle continues. Carboydrates keep your insulin chronically elevated with every high carb meal.
I'm not sure about your long term success argument. So people have long term success on the low fat, high carbohydrate diet? This is the current recommendations but the obesity epidemic continues to grow...
I'm 168 at 5' 10". BMI is useless but it would be "normal".
>>>I don't have a degree in physiology.
DeleteSo you admit you have absolutely no qualifications to say the entire of western medicine is wrong just to defend your cult?
>>>Not sure what the context was in your discussion with the PhD or what you mean here. Insulin is required for life. Type 1 diabetics inject insulin in order to live. Type 2 are insulin resistant. The body doesn't respond to insulin's message as efficiently as it should and the pancreas in a panic pumps out more insulin to get rid of toxic amounts of glucose in the blood until the body can no longer control glucose levels in the blood as insulin resistance increases. It's not pretty from here in.
You already admitted you have no qualifications... so bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla
>>>>Why would someone eat until they are obese? What is driving the person to eat so much? Conventional wisdom would say gluttony and laziness. Insulin's role or one of it's many roles, which you appear to dismiss as unimportant, takes nutrients and stores them. It also says don't release them when insulin is high. So chronically elevated insulin levels starve your cells. You then eat more, cycle continues. Carboydrates keep your insulin chronically elevated with every high carb meal.
Bla bla bla bla bla look at me throwing around terms I have no formal knowledge on bla bla bla bla bla bla.
The reason people overeat is the SAME REASON people watch too much television, work shitty jobs even though they could do better etc... etc...
Trying to solve over-eating by blaming carbs, is like trying to solve porn-addiction by changing the genre of porn watched.
>>>I'm not sure about your long term success argument. So people have long term success on the low fat, high carbohydrate diet? This is the current recommendations but the obesity epidemic continues to grow...
The point is this. People are 100x more likely to succeed with the mainstream approaches than with your shity-ass cult's approach.
Do you understand this? This is a fact. Saying that most people don't succeed with the mainstream approach doesn't justify your cult's approach, since we already know it's 100x less successful long-term. Proven... fact.
Here is a great link explaining the science of insulin and how high carbohydrates have nothing to do with the obesity epidemic. It pretty demolishes every single low-carb myth, from the idea that we eat more carbs today than in the past, to the idea that carbs spike insulin more than meat, to the idea that regular insulin spikes can have anything to do with obesity. Its great stuff, and it goes deep into the science of it.
ReplyDeleteIts pretty easy for any rational, honest person to see that carbs have nothing to do with obesity (Asia, anyone? France, anyone? Both places are DROWNING in carbs!), but it was fun to see just how badly wrong Taubes and the low carbers got the science. There is a REASON that low-carb is not accepted by mainstream researchers into obesity - because the idea has been extensively considered, and found utterly without merit. Read on.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html
Thanks for posting that man. Yes, dismantling any low-carb-cult argument is easy. It's the same process one uses to dismantle pua-cult claims.
DeletePuaCult says: you must approach from a 47 degree angle or you won't get laid!
Rational person says: I have a friend who never approaches like that, ever, but has fucked 150 models
FadDiet Cult says: you must never eat more than 10% of this food coz it's the reason we be obese!!!!!
Rational person says: Mmm, the entire country of france is super skinny healthy people, and their nutrition is 70% of that food
The author of the site you reference has his own theory which Gary Taubes has addressed on his own site. He has his own opinion carbohydrate. The favorite links on the site you reference are low carb sites. Mark's Daily Apple?, Dr. Michael Eades? Free the animal? I'm confused now. Why don't you add WarOnInsulin.com, wheatbellyblog.com to add to your list of favorites.
DeleteHis nutrition hall of fame lists Loren Cordain!??
This is getting bizarre.
The cult has reached Sweden. The entire country is being swept up by the low carb hysteria. Good thing we have rational persons here.
Deletehttp://www.dietdoctor.com/
@SwedishAnynomous
DeleteFads are cyclical. People who study fad-diets find that they come and go every 20 years or so.
I'm sure sweden isn't being swept up for the first time.
>>but it was fun to see just how badly wrong Taubes and the low >>carbers got the science. There is a REASON that low-carb is not >>accepted by mainstream researchers into obesity - because the >>idea has been extensively considered, and found utterly without >>merit.Read on.
DeleteHere is Gary Taubes response for those interested. See Catching up on lost time series. Better yet read his books and decide for yourself:
http://garytaubes.com/blog/
Regarding that guy from Sweden: He has linked to this poster: http://blog.massivehealth.com/infographics/Carbs_are_killing_you/
Delete...which is just absurd. Yeah, carbs are bad. But what about all the sugar and preprocessed crap people eat?
My impression from Sweden is that people are very well educated and rational, so I'd be more than surprised if that fad got a foothold.
Why didn't you mention his first comments regarding the graphic:
DeleteDespite the slightly too wild headline this is a nice new infographic about carbs, insulin and obesity. It’s simplified of course – it focuses only on the peripheral effects of insulin: growing fat cells.
Anonymous,
DeleteI don't quite see how this comment would change anything.
I particularly liked this quote
ReplyDeleteIf calories and protein are kept the same, high-carbohydrate meals cause equal or greater satiety than high-fat meals, and equal or less subsequent food intake, despite a much larger insulin response (4, 5, 6, 7). Due to the insulin-stimulating effect of protein, low-carbohydrate high-protein meals can sometimes stimulate insulin to an equal or greater degree than high-carbohydrate meals, yet even in these cases higher insulin release is associated with increased satiety (8). Experiments in which investigators feed volunteers protein foods that stimulate insulin to different degrees show that the amount of satiety is positively correlated with the degree of insulin release (9), which is not consistent with the idea that insulin stimulates food intake.
Wow.
Here are some more gems
ReplyDeleteChronically increasing circulating insulin reduces food intake and body weight in non-diabetic animals, without causing illness, contrary to what this idea would predict (49, 50). If anything, insulin constrains food intake and body fatness, and research indicates that this action occurs via the brain. Insulin infused into the brains of baboons causes a suppression of appetite and fat loss, which is consistent with the fact that insulin and leptin have overlapping functions in the brain (10, 11). Knocking out insulin receptors in the brain leads to increased fat mass in rodents, suggesting that its normal function involves constraining fat mass
Hmmmm, yet insulin is quite the villain, huh.
More highlights - (sorry, cant resist!)
ReplyDeleteObese people are obese despite having higher fasting insulin, not because of it. The fact is, insulin spikes after meals temporarily decrease fat release from fat cells, but if you look at total 24 hour energy balance, insulin spikes, in conjunction with all the other hormones that are release in response to food ingestion, do not cause fat accumulation. This is exactly how you would expect the system to work if it were designed to constructively handle a wide variety of macronutrient ratios, which it is. Just as cholesterol did not evolve to give us heart attacks, insulin did not evolve to make us fat.
In obesity, fat tissue is insulin resistant. How do I know? Because the fat tissue of obese people doesn't suppress fatty acid release in response to experimentally elevated insulin or mixed meals as effectively as the fat tissue of a lean individual (18, 19). In fact, obese people release an equal or larger amount of fatty acids from their fat tissue than lean people under basal conditions as well (20, 21). If this is true, then why do they remain obese? It's simple: the long-term rate of fat entering the fat cells is equal to the rate exiting, or higher. There is no defect in the ability of fat cells to release fat in obesity, the problem is that the fat that is released is not being oxidized (burned) at a rate that exceeds what is coming in from the diet, therefore it all ends up back in the fat tissue.
Hmm, sounds SUSPICIOUSLY like calories in vs calories out is being used to explain obesity. But that just COULDNT be. Let us go on.
While we're on the subject, let's address the idea of "internal starvation". Taubes suggests that people overeat because they can't access their fat stores due to elevated insulin. However, obese people have normal or elevated circulating free fatty acids and glucose (22, 23), so how is that possible? It's not. The internal starvation model was interesting, if speculative, at the time it was proposed, however the evidence for it has simply failed to materialize. If anything, obesity is a condition of "internal excess"
Last ones, I swear!
ReplyDeleteAnother problem with the hypothesis is a thing called the insulinogenic index (II). The II is simply a measure of how much eating a food increases insulin, per unit calorie (28). It turns out, it doesn't correspond with the carbohydrate content of the food very well. In particular, protein-rich foods such as beef can increase insulin secretion as much as certain starch foods such as pasta, or more.
SHOCKING!!!!
The other problem is that refined and unrefined carbohydrates often have a similar II. Pasta made from white and whole-grain wheat have the same II, and the same goes for white and whole-grain bread (29). Doughnuts and cookies are on par with whole grain bread. So post-meal insulin is not a compelling explanation for the potentially different effects of protein, unrefined carbohydrate, refined carbohydrate and sugar on body fatness.
Finally, let's take a look at my country, the United States of America. Total energy intake has increased since the 1970s, and the excess energy came from carbohydrate (primarily refined). But what happens if we go back further, to the turn of the 20th century? Here's our per capita macronutrient consumption in grams per day from 1909 to 2006, according to USDA data:
(my comments: at this point the author shows graphs (easily seen if you follow the link) that show that carbs were equal to or slightly HIGHER in the early 20th century, took a SLIGHT dip in the mid century, and climbed to slightly BELOW their early 20th century levels, when everyone was thin)
If we take the long view, the only thing that has consistently increased is fat, not carbohydrate. The prevalence of obesity was very low at the turn of the century (36), yet our diet was 57% carbohydrate by calories, much of which came from white flour. These USDA figures account for food produced and consumed on farms and in home gardens, in addition to what passed through commercial sales (37).
Aaron,
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the roosh articles you're writing, this discussion seems relevant http://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/how-many-conspiracy-theories-come-from-feminists/#comment-5170
Thanks for this excellent link!
DeleteSee this Aaron:
ReplyDeleteThe relation between looks, status and attraction
Thanks for this link! I've skimmed it, and it looks very interesting. These days, I've got an awful lot on my plate, but I hope to cover some of the aspects in a blog article.
DeleteAaron, I am with you. I can't stand these human exploiters like Timothy Ferriss, Neil Strauss, Robb Wolf, Mark Sisson, PUA community, crapaleo/crossfit community, Fight Club quoting, pseudo-rebel, pseudo-intellectual idiots. A bunch of blind morons who desperately want to belong to some "modern man's man" cult. It's weak and pathetic and I'm tired of it.
ReplyDeleteIt's also ironic that being "cool" and "charismatic" usually means exactly the opposite of what most people are already doing when they are looking for answers on forums or reading too many self-help books. To be cool/charismatic (which are both kind of stupid concepts anyway when you understand the deeper meaning they point towards) means not really giving a fuck whether you are defined cool or charismatic. Not even giving a fuck whether you give a fuck or not. It also means not needing to be either a leader or a follower of any kind. It's a huge thing to grasp. And to let go of all the bullshit and go one's own path alone seems to be an impenetrable obstacle for most men.
It's probably always been this way. And always will be. Maybe not. Maybe we could have a society of geniuses one day given the right environment.
Nevertheless, it seems that most great artists, scientists, philosphers we're iconoclasts. At least in their given field. They were also beyond movements or dogmas. Most of them died unknown and mad. The legends and icons became only after death e.g. Einstein pins.
Another great comment from you!
DeleteI'll re-post it on the front page on my blog, since you make an excellent point on "being cool". Your statement that the greats of the past were all iconoclast is very true. I think a defining element of those people is that they very early realize that others are actually wrong. Instead of caving in, they follow their idealism, despite the disadvantages that brings. (Sometimes I flatter myself by saying to myself that I am part of that tradition.)
Aaron, I greatly respect all of your debunking of the seduction community, but you've labelled the paleo diet as a fad without doing what you say you always do:
ReplyDelete"However, my arguments are not based on authority but on fact. I show you why X is nonsense instead of claiming that X is nonsense because I say so. This is not even a subtle difference."
And you did this how? By saying low carb is bunk? That's correct but Paleo is not equivalent to low carb, since it contains food items which contain plenty of carbohydrate. And second reason, that meat is expensive, is not an argument against the validity of any diet.
There are many versions of Paleo floating around. The ones I am familiar with recommend to dramatically cut the carbs. Fashionable diets are almost by definitions fads.
DeleteThat meat is expensive is certainly not an argument against the validity of any diet, but it's an argument against its feasibility. Maybe you are in a position to by the best meat every day, but imagine someone came out with a Russian caviar diet... For a great many people, organic meat every day is simply not a realistic option.
I'd like to add a few things about Tim Ferriss:
ReplyDeleteHe just called it the 4-Hour-Workweek, because the title would sound more interesting to most people (he was testing that before with Google AdWords). So it was a marketing "trick" if you want to call it like that.
"What Ferriss doesn't take into account is that Google AdSense is rather expensive, and given abysmally low conversion rates, you'd probably end up spending several hundred dollars on online ads before selling one item that brings in only a fraction of the cost of selling it. This is hardly a sustainable business."
I think you meant "AdWords", not "AdSense". What I've heard is that there are a lot of people who make profits from using AdWords (especially once they figure out how to use it efficiently).
However, the book is definitely not only about building a business. As I see it, it's about getting the most out of your time and especially when making money it's obviously a big advantage if you have your own company. The reason is that you don't have a fixed schedule or have to "work" about 40 hours a week, no matter if there's something to do for you or not. You also cannot just outsource tasks when you have a job.
Another thing you criticize is his school background and his degree in "East Asian Studies". As far as I know, he started studying Neuroscience and changed to East Asian Studies later.
I don't know if his parents really are as rich as you assume. Anyway, I don't have a big idea of the school system in the USA. So I can't argue against that. If his degree and the schools that he visited indicate that he's coming from a rich family, why not. He even seems to know a few billionaires.
I'm still not fully convinced that his parents have so much money. If they were so rich and he's so lazy what would be the motivation for him to publish all those books and writing his blog? Maybe becoming famous?
However, I don't care that much about Tim Ferriss' parents, I bought the book for its content. For me, the content makes sense and the parts of it that I tried to put into practice, worked.
The only thing that I didn't get from your post is the calculation from the website that you cited:
120.000 purchases / 8500 products = 14 sales for BrainQuicken (?)
This means to me that a product from the site makes an average of 14 sales. But that doesn't automatically mean that BrainQuicken was making 14 sales. It might have also made 1000 sales or more. And what about the time? Is it 14 sales per month, per day or all time?
So we see the numbers can't be right (I still don't get it) and he's so successful now selling millions of his books only because his parents have money.
Then there's the thing with the mass of reviews on Amazon. Tim Ferriss said he was sending out a lot of copies to "friends" (could also mean people who follow his blog) before the book officially came out. Is this also cheating to you?
What I miss in your post is criticism on the content of his books. You only mentioned things like "frensh T-Shirts are a bad example", "his parents are rich, that's why he's so successful", "his book just sounds too good to be true". Anyway, why is it a bad idea to sell frensh T-Shirts?
Oh boy, where do I start with you?
Delete1) If I call a book "How to get in shape in five minutes a day", and then describe a regimen that takes several hours instead, would I be a liar or would you let me get off the hook if I said, "Geez, did you really think I was serious?"
2) Have fun making money off AdSense.
3) Do you actually run your own business or have ever earned your own money --- do you just talk out of your ass?
4) You don't start out studying neuroscience. If this was indeed the path he initially took, then he realized in one of his biology, chemistry, calculus, or computer science classes that, holy shit, this neuroscience stuff is hard work --- and switched to something that was more commensurate with his goals and ambitions.
5) I don't know how rich his parents are, but the facts I mention certainly lead to that conclusion. Maybe you should visit one of those enclaves of the rich, come back, and tell me how likely it is that a regular family is living there.
6) Don't know much about the US school system? No problem, look it up on the Internet.
7) I'm quite certain that Tim Ferriss has a narcissist streak which is reason enough for him to go on a scamming spree.
8) What exactly did you "put into practice" and how exactly did it work?
9) The arithmetic is obviously a back-of-the envelope calculation and they are based on month, which I clearly indicated in the text. Why don't you start by paying close attention to what I write before getting all worked up because I criticized your idol? The point is the income isn't sufficient to generate much income. Maybe read the original source again, and think about the numbers a little bit. Certainly it's the case that "we see" that Ferriss' numbers can't be right, and that you can't read. Here's another quote from that source:
====
At this point in our discussion, I asked if it were possible if Ferriss could have generated $40k per month in sales if that were mostly from retailers buying his product in bulk. This was Kamakiri's response:
The idea of buying in bulk from the site doesn't work because it never had that option. Besides, it is harder than hell to get retail space. An example of this is Mana Potions. Those guys do something near BQ by selling an energy drink for gamers. They have a serious team of salesmen, campaign girls, convention booths, and even a treadmill hooked up to WoW with timed runs from point to point across Azeroth (sp?). They have a tough time getting into stores, and the market for those products is tiny. Compare that to the supplement market (8,500 products on bodybuilding.com alone), and you can imagine the sales force that he would have to compete against. Retail profits are also nearly non-existent. You are looking at a few dollars in margin as opposed to the $60 or so he makes from the site.
====
10) He obviously has connections, which he used to get publicity for his book.
11) Sure, his "friends" all happened to leave reviews at the exact same time, and the same happened in irregular intervals. Are you interested in buying a bridge?
12) If you didn't see the criticism in my article, then I think you have to seriously work on your reading comprehension skills.
Great post, Aaron. It deserves to be widely read, considering how many people seem to have fallen for Tim Ferriss's scam. I saw there was a video of him on youtube with Neil Strauss. I didn't bother watching it, but I certainly think these two guys belong together: both are scam artists and dream mongers.
ReplyDeleteI do understand why many people would initially be interested in what they have to say: after all, they claim to teach radical self-improvement - including "game" and "accelerated learning", respectively. Wouldn't it be amazing if there were a fast track to excellence in every field that matters to you, whether it be seduction, bodybuilding, chess or martial arts? The problem is that many people also persist in not realising that these guys fail to deliver on what they promise. Ferriss has a talk on "how you can master any skill by deconstructing it" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSq9uGs_z0E). One "achievement" he mentions is how he managed to add more than 50 kgs to his maximum deadlift in just a few months, simply by using a different, very special technique. His secret? He wouldn't do full reps but would only use a very limited range of motion. Amazing! I'm quite confident myself that I can promptly add several dozen kgs to my maximum bench press by limiting my range of motion to half a millimetre, or that I can beat Kasparov at chess if I can get him sufficiently drunk before the match (while staying sober myself). This "achievement" fits really well with Ferriss's "winning" a kickboxing title by competing against much smaller guys than him and systematically pushing them out of the ring.
I'm shocked by how much cash guys like Strauss and Ferriss have apparently managed to make from human gullibility, using the seductive appeal of pipe dreams such as "no matter who you are, you can learn how to pull supermodels left and right/ how to excel at any skill within a short amount of time".