I realize this is picky, but it makes me nuts that no one can spell lose weight correctly. I have seen this dozens of times - "I am trying to loose weight." It's not "loose", it's "lose". Loose means not tight, not confining, as in "these pants are loose on me". If you are trying to drop weight, it's always "lose".
Thank you, L.L. Nelson -- I thought I was the only person in the world driven crazy by people who can clearly read but can't learn! While reading these reviews I was stopped repeatedly by the use of 'loose' where 'lose' was intended. Let's hope these people don't lose their pants once they've 'loosed' their weight!
You are both picky, but I am totally with you. Surely, it can't be that difficult to get this one right--just sounding the words out should help. Isn't anyone hooked on phonics anymore?
Having said that--this book looks interesting but not particularly groundbreaking. As I am now 45 yrs old and having gained a considerable amount of weight in the last year I do need to focus on weight loss. My doctor said that calorie and portion control is the only thing that will ensure the gradual weight loss that seems to be the key to permanent weight loss, which is more beneficial to your health than 'yo-yo dieting'. Her recommendations are a 1400 calorie/day diet and Weight Watchers to help with the behavioral issues. She said that WW dieters have the most success over time.
Does anyone have any thoughts on that approach? And more importantly, is there anything in "Ultrametabolism" that is going to tell me anything more that what my doctor has recommended? I am not keen on the Weight Watchers idea as focusing on a "way of life" program that tells me exactly what to eat when will likely take more time than I have available. I am looking for a short self-education course that will help me focus on my goals--is this book worth the investment of time and money from that perspective?
I just read most of Dr. Hymen's new book and I must say I am quite impressed. I have read a lot of weight loss books and have been searching for an alternative to the Atkin's diet that I find to hard to stay on. Anyway it has been hard for me to get my head turned around another way and Dr. Hymen explains the way the body really works in a way that I have never heard explained before. I understood most of it, sometimes it is a little technical, but most of the time it was clearly explained. I had no idea that there were so many things that have an effect on us gaining weight. His views on calories are refreshing and welcoming. I have known many people that Weight Watchers didn't work for. They gave up because they were not losing anything. But I do know of a couple of people lately that lost weight there. I think it depends on the person. All I know is that it is not just about weight loss, it is about also being healthy. Any diet that says it is ok to eat white flour, white pasta, white rice and sugar is not a healthy diet. I don't know where Weight Watchers stands on those things. I guess the bottom line is that I thought this book was great and I plan on reading it again to take notes on the things I think will help me since it is so packed full of information it is hard to absorb it all at once.
Suze-- I have read dozens of diet books, and sometimes benefitted. Nearly everyone fails to lose weight long-term with your physician's brainless recommendation to follow the calorie-and-exercise notions that have failed 100 million Americans. I know an American soldier serving in Iraq who got very fat after joining the military--no way he does not get enough exercise. Likewise calorie-cutting leads to deranged metabolism where all you have done is hurt your metaolism and now you can--literally!--just look at food and gain weight (See the Carbodydrate Addict's diet for an explanation of the hormones involved in this phenomenon). Your doctor only cites this nonsense because she's heard it several thousand times and doesn't think a track record of actual experience with results should be demanded. Mantras are enough. I always thought "Calories" could not be the explanation because a pound of fat has just 3500 calories. Gaining a pound a year means your body is within 10 calories a day of what it needs--far closer than any diet calculator could ever guess your needs! These smart-alecks cannot even come to within the 100 calories a day balance of a body gaining ten pounds a year--and very few bodies are that far off. I have not yet read this book, so I cannot evaluate it individually, but you will learn a thousand times more than your doctor knows, from Enter the Zone or the Carbohydrate Addict's Diet, or (my favorite) The Rosedale Diet.
I have been on WW for 9 months and have lost 52 lbs. It is the only thing that has ever worked for me - no gimmicks and easy to follow - you can have anything...in moderation - that is the key. I highly recommend it.
You can't blame the lose / loose spelling error on lack of knowledge of phonics. In fact, the problem is that people are trying to spell "lose" phonetically rather than conventionally. By all rights the word "lose" should rhyme with "hose" or "nose". So people are probably writing it down correctly, looking at it, thinking "that can't be right", and adding the extra "o". With our screwy spelling system in English, you have to memorize the way words are spelled.
That said, poor spelling still drives me nuts. But I can understand it.
I can also understand that most weight problems (including my own extra 20 lbs) are due to the great abundance of tempting stuff that most of us are exposed to every day. In caveman times, it was almost impossible to eat too much. If food was available, you ate all you could, because lean times could be just ahead. Most of us know exactly what we should or shouldn't be eating. We just have a hard time sticking with it.
I do think we are completely out of touch with proper portion sizes, though. Weight Watchers seems to help with this more than anything.
I had to laugh when I saw the "lose v. loose" posts--this conflict (and many other word-related issues) has made me crazy on a regular basis. To "loose weight" sounds like an act that involves a whip, a chair and an unlocked cage. I wish those of us in need could "loose" weight by such means, but unfortunately, portion control and exercise still seem to be the best way to win at losing...
Ah, the magic word: moderation. How we hate that word, and how much time and energy we expend trying to find a way around it. Alas, you can spend years of your life digging through the mountains of diet books, and clinging to each and every recycled promise of a fabled "key" to weight loss, only to find that, in the end, there is only one thing that ever did work, ever could work, or ever will work, and it's that dreaded moderation.
Hey man, losen up! There's no reason to loose your cool over it. ;-) If you get upset about stuff like this, you're in a loosing game, know what I mean? ;-) I'm not a fan of smileys, either but look: :-) I use them so frequently, you might say I'm "lose" with the smileys. Did this post drive you nuts?
Haha.....I spit my salad all over the keyboard when I read this post! This has been something that has eaten at me for awhile as well. Where I see it most is in the online poker games...noone ever seems to get the 'lose' 'loose' factor right....("I knew I was going to loose that hand", or "you are such a looser"). Makes me cringe everytime, but this post was great, at least I know I am not alone in the picky finicky world of the double or single 'o'.
Weight Watchers sells tons of "healthy" products that are full of sugar and processed flour. Weight Watchers is all about portion control with a focus on quantity rather than quality of food. Sure, you can lose weight eating 1200 calories a day of saturated fat and sugar, but you can't get healthy doing that.
Confining oneself to a fairly precise 1200 calories per day is also extremely bad for one's metabolism. People need to vary their caloric intake or their metabolism simply adjusts to compensate - a big reason why many people lose weight only to gain it back (plus an extra 5-10 pounds).
If one learned grammar and spelling in grade school, then it would come as second nature to spell "lose", as in "losing weight", and "loose" as in "my pants are too loose." Yes, the English language is complex - but if you born and raised learning the English language, then you would know the difference between lose and loose. Could it be a cultural issue? I am not sure for reasons stated below.
The phenonema of "misspelling" of the word "lose" (spelled as loose) only started about 4 years ago (that I noticed). It got bigger and bigger - it was seen everywhere. We can all appreciate the fact that some people are not educated in the English language but I noticed the misspelling occurring more and more through the past 4 years mostly on the Internet. The word "lose" has literally been replaced with the word "loose." However, I have seen this in print magazines as well. Upscale print articles.
Used to irk me - but now, it seems to be acceptable.
Suze, I couldn't resist replying to your post. Doctors tell you that, but have no idea how many calories you are really burning. I have tested hundreds of peoples metabolism and it is never as high as the text book say it is. The best way to burn fat is to increase your metabolism and properly balance your protein, fat and carbs. This comes from tracking your food intake and seeing what ratio is best for you. Atkins is an extreme, South Beach is a better balance and the Zone is good for certain body types. I have not read Ultrametabolism, but will. I find if you learn one thing it is well worth it. Good luck to you.
Actually "loose" sounds differently to "lose" if you pronounce them correctly. "Lose" has a hard "z" sound because it only has one vowel. "Loose" has a soft unvoiced "s" sound and a much longer push on the double "o." Alas! If only the structure and grammar of English were taught in schools! ESl speakers usually spell better than native speakers because they have learned these rules.
Hallelujah! It is so frustrating to see these common, easily spelled words so abused. Lose and loose should not be that difficult. Somewhere in a post someone mentioned that there is memorization involved in learning English. A problem that I've seen in schools is that we no longer ask students to memorize much of anything. Maybe this is where the "lose" and "loose" problem begins?
Hey Nelson, you are sweating the small stuff. I am a teacher at a local high school where greater than 65% of our population reads three or more years below grade level. We have only 9% of minorities and 38% of whites able to read to "proficiency" in my state - and it's not too far on the lower half of the national average. I can live with a couple of spelling errors if I know they at least were in the ballpark. We all must begin looking at the big picture - it's really bad out there.
Therein lies the problem: a teacher who "can live with a couple of spelling errors". Before anyone gets too upset, I worked in public eduction for several years. I KNOW the problems faced by budget cuts and politics. In my professional life, I became an adult educator. I am aware that many people believe we should not grade students on "trivial things" like spelling and grammar errors. However, I am a total harda** when it comes to such things, and here is one reason why: I believe the degradation of spelling and grammar are a symptom of something greater: the acceptance of mediocrity. We are far too willing to say, "good enough" about far too many things. In some things, only perfection (i.e., correct spelling) is good enough!