T Nation

HOT-ROX Extreme?

Here’s my Q:

[quote]Tim Patterson wrote:
HOT-ROX Extreme is the ultimate leverage for those who want to lose fat at the highest-possible rate – without losing muscle or slowing metabolism. I believe that a dieter using HOT-ROX Extreme could safely lose five pounds of pure blubber per week. And that’s a lot! [/quote]

Yes, it is. So (and in all seriousness, I’m very curious), you are saying that This new HOT-ROX Extreme is on par with high dose DNP? Because you’re saying that HOT-ROX Extreme gives an equivelant (sp) spike in BMR as ~600mg of DNP.

DNP increases metabolism by about 11%/100mg. To lose 5lbs of fat you’d have to burn 2500 calories a day. So if on a normal modest diet you’re cutting 500/day, that means HOT-ROX Extreme accounts for 2000 calories. In a 200lb male who’s maintenance is 3000 cal/day, this is a 66% increase.

Are we able to review the study mentioned in the article? Don’t get me wrong, if it does indeed do this than I’d love to use it, however, you’ll have to understand my skepticism.

Well I would guess that NO it doesnt boost BMR that much and I dont think thats what Tim was saying. Also I feel that it is possible that the product could allow 5 lbs a week of fat loss. If you take the whole picture and bonuses the product allows the dieter.

How?? Well you have to remember the muscle presevation factor of the Max Strength HOT-ROX and now even more so the HOT-ROX Extreme.

So while its usually recomended to those wanting to shed fat to cut intake and up activity enough top lose 1-2 lbs a week well say two which would be approx 3500-7000 k/cals a week deficite from combined diet and activity and NO HOT-ROX Extreme.

Add to that equation the HOT-ROX Extreme the boost in BMR that comes from it and the other fators from the ingredients at freeing apidose cells muscle presevation etc. Just the boost lets say that adds one more LB a week 3500 k/cals. Then due to the muscle presevation property we are able to Lower intake more than without and/or up activity safely. there were burning more fat.

Yet abother thing is he said FAT lost not weight lost. It could also be you are getting Body comp changes for the positive. adding muscle burning fat.

So Id say its possibe do to the multi facted bonuses from the product. Have to look at the big picture. The boost in BMR from the product itself. The ability to safley increase activity or lower intake and preserve or hopefully gain LBM, etc. etc…

I would also add if unlike DNP which make you weaker (see Anthony’s article) I know Max Strength HOT-ROX (havent tried the HOT-ROX Extreme version yet) I was able to gain strength, making w/o’s better have greater pay back etc.

That help. Just my take,

Phill

Also, to add to Phill’s post… You need to be in a position to need to lose 5 lbs a week in order for it to work, say if you’re 50-100lbs overweight, or more. Those of us with only 10-15lbs to lose will not see weight loss like that.

I am not Tim, and I am not an expert, but I would like to offer a thought.

He said five pounds of fat loss. It is possible to lose five pounds of fat while maintaining or even increasing current muscle mass, and your overall weight not decrease five pounds. I know it is a tired cliche, but muscle weighs more than fat. So if you had a slight increase of overall muscle mass and lost five pounds of fat, then I think it is safe to say it could not be proven by what the scale reports.

Christopher

[quote]Phill wrote:
Well I would guess that NO it doesnt boost BMR that much and I dont think thats what Tim was saying. Also I feel that it is possible that the product could allow 5 lbs a week of fat loss. If you take the whole picture and bonuses the product allows the dieter.

How?? Well you have to remember the muscle presevation factor of the Max Strength HOT-ROX and now even more so the HOT-ROX Extreme.

So while its usually recomended to those wanting to shed fat to cut intake and up activity enough top lose 1-2 lbs a week well say two which would be approx 3500-7000 k/cals a week deficite from combined diet and activity and NO HOT-ROX Extreme.

Add to that equation the HOT-ROX Extreme the boost in BMR that comes from it and the other fators from the ingredients at freeing apidose cells muscle presevation etc. Just the boost lets say that adds one more LB a week 3500 k/cals. Then due to the muscle presevation property we are able to Lower intake more than without and/or up activity safely. there were burning more fat.

Yet abother thing is he said FAT lost not weight lost. It could also be you are getting Body comp changes for the positive. adding muscle burning fat.

So Id say its possibe do to the multi facted bonuses from the product. Have to look at the big picture. The boost in BMR from the product itself. The ability to safley increase activity or lower intake and preserve or hopefully gain LBM, etc. etc…

I would also add if unlike DNP which make you weaker (see Anthony’s article) I know Max Strength HOT-ROX (havent tried the HOT-ROX Extreme version yet) I was able to gain strength, making w/o’s better have greater pay back etc.

That help. Just my take,

Phill [/quote]

Thank you for the reply. However, I think this is faulty reasoning. The product says “Burn 5 times as much fat than with diet and exercise alone”. Ok, so both you and Tim say .5-2 lbs a week on a normally suggested diet. That is the diet and exercise part. So taking from the middle of losing 1lb a week with diet and exercise, HOT-ROX will give you 5lbs of fat loss (I’ve never said weight loss) a week, as was mentioned by Tim.

Mentioning the Muscle preservation qualities of HOT-ROX is irrelevant for two reasons. One, muscle does not burn that much more than calories than fat, and two, we have no idea if it does so or not. Perhaps the study that they performed shows this.

[quote]monkey_space wrote:
I am not Tim, and I am not an expert, but I would like to offer a thought.

He said five pounds of fat loss. It is possible to lose five pounds of fat while maintaining or even increasing current muscle mass, and your overall weight not decrease five pounds. I know it is a tired cliche, but muscle weighs more than fat. So if you had a slight increase of overall muscle mass and lost five pounds of fat, then I think it is safe to say it could not be proven by what the scale reports.

Christopher[/quote]

Irrelevant as I am addressing the fact that it states “lose 5 times as much fat…” and tim says you could lose 5lbs of blubber in one week. I do not think I’ve mentioned once anything about scale weight, but I will review my posts to be sure.

Alright, the 5 times as much isn’t applicable in all cases. Is that a simple enough answer for you? If not, you can go take brand X’s supplement that helps burn 400% more fat and gives you the great before and after shots when the guy simply drops some water, flexes, and changes the lighting.

Seriously, if a fat person loses 1 lb (of fat) a week through exercise, taking this product, it would be feasible to burn 5 lbs a week of fat.

[quote]big69penisman wrote:
monkey_space wrote:
I am not Tim, and I am not an expert, but I would like to offer a thought.

He said five pounds of fat loss. It is possible to lose five pounds of fat while maintaining or even increasing current muscle mass, and your overall weight not decrease five pounds. I know it is a tired cliche, but muscle weighs more than fat. So if you had a slight increase of overall muscle mass and lost five pounds of fat, then I think it is safe to say it could not be proven by what the scale reports.

Christopher

Irrelevant as I am addressing the fact that it states “lose 5 times as much fat…” and tim says you could lose 5lbs of blubber in one week. I do not think I’ve mentioned once anything about scale weight, but I will review my posts to be sure.
[/quote]

I do not think my post was irrelevant as I was addressing the fact that it states “lose 5 times as much fat…”. You didn’t mention scale weight, I mentioned it in my post. I was in no way suggesting you did mention it.

I was just mentioning it, in addition to the rest of my post, in a feeble attempt to address your questions/concerns in the best way I could. That is the reason I started off my post with “I am not Tim, and I am not an expert, but I would like to offer a thought.” I thought that would make where I was coming from clear, but it must not have.

Christopher

I’m pretty sure that the proper interpretation of that passage is not that the new HOT-ROX CAUSES a 5 pound a week, but rather that it enables you to SAFELY lose more than that the normal 1-2 pound per week recommendation.

[quote]big69penisman wrote:

Thank you for the reply. However, I think this is faulty reasoning. The product says “Burn 5 times as much fat than with diet and exercise alone”. Ok, so both you and Tim say .5-2 lbs a week on a normally suggested diet. That is the diet and exercise part. So taking from the middle of losing 1lb a week with diet and exercise, HOT-ROX will give you 5lbs of fat loss (I’ve never said weight loss) a week, as was mentioned by Tim.
[…]
Perhaps the study that they performed shows this.
[/quote]
EXACTLY - you need to take into account the population from which the sample for the study was drawn - middle aged women. Taking this into account I have little difficulty accepting the claim.

[quote]
Mentioning the Muscle preservation qualities of HOT-ROX is irrelevant for two reasons. One, muscle does not burn that much more than calories than fat, and two, we have no idea if it does so or not.[/quote]
You seriously need to read more sir.

I think it’s important to look at both ends of the equation here.

  1. If you are a fatosaurus and do some diet and exercise and supplement with this, you’ll probably be getting great results.

  2. If you have already been dieting and are fairly lean, you’ll have noticed your progress has greatly slowed. You’ll probably noticed increased rate of fat loss with this.

So, in case 1 you have someone who may lose extra pounds. In case 2 you have someone who may lose extra ounces. Both have every reason to be very happy with such a result.

Heh, I’m still looking forward to trying it. I don’t respond to a lot, but I’ll notice pretty quickly if the yohimbe has an added effect on my stubborn fat areas like it is supposed to.

[quote]monkey_space wrote:
I know it is a tired cliche, but muscle weighs more than fat.
Christopher[/quote]

Since when does one pound of fat weigh LESS than one pound of muscle? 16oz.=16oz. In this case yes both are being weighed in the same system, so how the fuck does muscle weigh more? Or are you like most others and confusing mass with weight?

[quote]Madman2 wrote:
monkey_space wrote:
I know it is a tired cliche, but muscle weighs more than fat.
Christopher

Since when does one pound of fat weigh LESS than one pound of muscle? 16oz.=16oz. In this case yes both are being weighed in the same system, so how the fuck does muscle weigh more? Or are you like most others and confusing mass with weight?[/quote]

He never said one pound of muscle weighs more than one pound of fat. Muscle is more dense than fat, hence “muscle weighs more than fat.”

Hes right. One pound of fat would have a greater volume than a pound of muscle.

[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
He never said one pound of muscle weighs more than one pound of fat. Muscle is more dense than fat, hence “muscle weighs more than fat.”

Hes right. One pound of fat would have a greater volume than a pound of muscle.[/quote]

He called into question weight, not density or mass or volume or whatever. Therefore my statement would be correct.

[quote]Madman2 wrote:
monkey_space wrote:
I know it is a tired cliche, but muscle weighs more than fat.
Christopher

Since when does one pound of fat weigh LESS than one pound of muscle? 16oz.=16oz. In this case yes both are being weighed in the same system, so how the fuck does muscle weigh more? Or are you like most others and confusing mass with weight?[/quote]

Silly - he never said one pound of muscle weight more than one pound of fat.

How long can you take this product? Do you do cycles off it? Or can you stay on it for three months?

[quote]Madman2 wrote:
He called into question weight, not density or mass or volume or whatever. Therefore my statement would be correct.[/quote]

Are you trying to say you don’t understand what he meant?

gezz its nerd city on this thread why dont you just try it and find out!

[quote]vroom wrote:
Madman2 wrote:
He called into question weight, not density or mass or volume or whatever. Therefore my statement would be correct.

Are you trying to say you don’t understand what he meant?[/quote]

Explain it to me smart guy. How does muscle weigh more than fat?

[quote]Madman2 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Madman2 wrote:
He called into question weight, not density or mass or volume or whatever. Therefore my statement would be correct.

Are you trying to say you don’t understand what he meant?

Explain it to me smart guy. How does muscle weigh more than fat?[/quote]

well for any given volume it does. say fill a 5 gallon bucket to the rim with fat and another to the rim with muscle the muscle will weigh more due to it being denser.

Now take out the density and volume and just use weight well it doesnt a lb is an lb but there would be more amount of fat in volume to = the same weight in muscle.