You are not obliged to read the book at all, unless you are going to criticize. How do you know there's no science behind it if you haven't read the book? This sounds kind of like criticism/condemnation to me -

"There are people who swear by the cabbage soup diet, but it's still a gimmick. I'm skeptical about this, particularly the sugar water thing. Roberts is making a lot of money from his book, like many, many people have in the past, and many, many people will in the future. And that's OK, but the fact that there's so much money in the new diet business leads me to assume something is fraudulent until proven otherwise. Most diets are gimmicky -- it's a fact. The 7 day diet. The dessert diet. The flavor theme diet. The same color food diet. And on and on.

What makes me suspicious about this is there's no real science behind it, just some psychological theorizing. There's science behind low carbing; it explains why people overeat and how they can stop, in a verifiable way. This is just some guy's psychological theory, and there's no science I can look at to check it out."




I think you misunderstood me. I said the book contained quite a few failures as well as successes. The book sounds more like a guy reporting on the findings of his research than a "diet guru" using the hard sell.

Look, I'm not here to argue with anybody, or to fight Seth Roberts' battles for him. I just get annoyed when anyone makes assumptions and/or criticizes something they really haven't investigated.