"Why this is even in question, by anyone literate that is, I don't know."
The whole Cyko-Cynic argument went both ways, so I won't get into that. It's just the constant knock-down phrases to those with other opinions. Seems people that disagree with you (PMDL) or Cykomiko and perhaps a few others are either "insane", "illterate", or some variation of "intarnets losers" (or whatever the hell it is you guys say), or "bros".
I just wonder if you all have these seem attitudes outside the realm of internet fitness.
I'm really not taking the bait, 'cept to say that I find it ironic you can berate me like this but when I do it it's an attack.
Have fun, though.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
What information here is missing that you would need in order for the case to convince you?
You've seen Warp Speed set paragraph by paragraph to UD2, and yet you feel that this in itself is not sufficient to call plagiarism.
So what does it take to convince?
Is what is on Lyle's blog the entirety of the texts in question for comparison?
If not, do uncanny similarities exist elsewhere? Or only what Lyle presented?
Did Lyle come up with UD2 completely on his own with no external research?
If no, does the research seem uncannily similar to both UD and WS?
I'm not saying it's not damning.
Just saying that I don't know if there's more to it.
Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.
It's still jenky as hell, even if there is more to it.
I'm not refuting what you're saying. I'm just asking if there's more to it.
Because I personally don't know. I don't have either text. I don't know what either one sourced or cited or listed as consulted.
Last edited by Aoife : 07-11-2008 at 10:25 AM.
Reason: To add who I was answering in a quote, Powerman, since so much shit was posted in the time I was writing mine.
I think you mistake Aoife's posts as defense for Alwyn and Mike, and I didn't read it that way at all. I think she is simply saying that this is akin to a lynch mob, and that rather than getting swept up in all the emotion, she will presume innocence until a proper legal process proves guilt.
Lyle's point in his blog is hard to deny, but until I have either taken the time to read both copies myself or read a legal decision that states it was plagiarism, I will also reserve judgment. So you're making it about being "right" and she's arguing something completely different. That doesn't make you wrong, which is what you apparently think she's arguing.
Is what is on Lyle's blog the entirety of the texts in question for comparison?
If not, do uncanny similarities exist elsewhere? Or only what Lyle presented?
What's presented on Lyle's blog is chapter 6 from UD2 (starting on page 34 of the .pdf), and the section titled "how to do cardio that burns fat" from pages 34-39 in WSFL.
Quote:
Did Lyle come up with UD2 completely on his own with no external research?
It's based on earlier work by Dan Duchaine, and Lyle spends the first 5 odd pages of the book explaining this.
Combined with updated research, mostly on leptin, nutrient partitioning, fat metabolism (the relevant bit here) and muscle growth, that comprises most of the "info" chapters of UD2.
Quote:
If no, does the research seem uncannily similar to both UD and WS?
Identically similar.
But again, it's not the research nor the scientific premises that are in question: it's the word for word copying, linked in Lyle's blog, that is the issue.
Quote:
I'm not saying it's not damning.
Just saying that I don't know if there's more to it.
Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.
It's still jenky as hell, even if there is more to it.
There's not. Again, I have the PDF files open in front of me right now.
Quote:
I'm not refuting what you're saying. I'm just asking if there's more to it.
Because I personally don't know. I don't have either text. I don't know what either one sourced or cited or listed as consulted.
The whole thing just seems jenky to me.
Indeed, it is. But short of posting the PDFs myself for people to pick through, which I'm not willing to do, I have no other way to validate what Lyle has written.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
I'm really not taking the bait, 'cept to say that I find it ironic you can berate me like this but when I do it it's an attack.
Have fun, though.
It's not ironic in the least. I'm outright attacking you (and Cyko) for being insulting. Moderator or not, I'd post the same thing, because it gets really old seeing you guys do it to just about everyone. I'm not attacking you guys for being stupid, illiterate, weak, etc. etc. because I don't think you are. It's just your attitudes. Plain and simple.
So is it an attack? Sure. But it's an attack in defense of a lot of people on here who don't deserve to be insulted.
So then what I'm asking is… Is Dan's material such that they both could have drawn from it separately and gotten the same shit out of it.
As in, does it seem like it could well be that instead of Alwyn/Mike copying Lyle, that everyone just copied poor Dan, with the non-crunchy bits.
(Since I don't know Dan's piece, I have no idea if it's presented as stale dry crap, or if there's more to it, the way both UD2 and WSFL seem to be from the examples presented.)
If there's nothing in Dan's work that allows for people to paraphrase it in similar ways, then your case is stronger.
If there is stuff in there (non-crunchy more-talky bits) then I could see a case for both Lyle and A/M copying the same thing, not one the other, and therefore it's just unfortunate that Alywn/Mike didn't think to make sure they didn't get too close to UD2. kwim?
Then it would be a matter of whether Alwyn/Mike did it on purpose, assuming they had read UD2 (which one can likely assume).
OR if they did it accidentally/unconsciously pulled from what they remember reading in it.
This still wouldn't free them of responsibility/fault, it would just make them a little less dicky.
They likely could have avoided all this shit if they just mentioned that they consulted Lyle's work, because then similarities would be more expected. Accidental or otherwise.
Quote:
But again, it's not the research nor the scientific premises that are in question: it's the word for word copying, linked in Lyle's blog, that is the issue.
This is partly where I have trouble. It's not word for word. It's paraphrasing. The words that are identical are words you can't say a different way (the sciency bits).
Yes, paraphrasing is still plagiarism, but not quite as cut and dried here, because of the possibility of a different source.
Hence why I wondered about the rest of the text, or other texts, which would help decide a case in better context.
*aolife posted before this got up*
Christ people...stop. Just stop.
If you want someone to contribute differently then lead by example. If the host of the site asks to change the tone of the post then the member does or the site host chooses an appropriate reaction.
I'm not sure it would be worth Lyle's trouble to sue. Even if he won, what would he win? How much time, money, and ass pain would it be to prove in court?
Personally I trust Matt when he says that he has the material and backs up Lyle's claims. I trust Lyle not to make this sort of accusation without it being pretty darn close to true. He might be on the excitable side, but he's done nothing to make me think he'd just boldface lie about this (and bring his evil henchman Matt along with him). It's too public and damning to one side or the other.
So then what I'm asking is… Is Dan's material such that they both could have drawn from it separately and gotten the same shit out of it.
As in, does it seem like it could well be that instead of Alwyn/Mike copying Lyle, that everyone just copied poor Dan, with the non-crunchy bits.
(Since I don't know Dan's piece, I have no idea if it's presented as stale dry crap, or if there's more to it, the way both UD2 and WSFL seem to be from the examples presented.)
If there's nothing in Dan's work that allows for people to paraphrase it in similar ways, then your case is stronger.
Emphatically no. The bits that came from Dan were the nuts-and-bolts of the diet and training from "Bodyopus" and the original "Ultimate Diet", not the scientific backing. That's always been Lyle's domain, as he puts it he was the "detail guy" for Dan.
This is all in UD2's intro, as well.
Quote:
If there is stuff in there (non-crunchy more-talky bits) then I could see a case for both Lyle and A/M copying the same thing, not one the other, and therefore it's just unfortunate that Alywn/Mike didn't think to make sure they didn't get too close to UD2. kwim?
No. The research is new stuff; much of it wasn't even done when Duchaine died (2000).
Quote:
Then it would be a matter of whether Alwyn/Mike did it on purpose, assuming they had read UD2 (which one can likely assume).
OR if they did it accidentally/unconsciously pulled from what they remember reading in it.
This still wouldn't free them of responsibility/fault, it would just make them a little less dicky.
Considering it's identical almost to the sentence, and some cases the sentences are literally identical, this would be highly unlikely.
Hence why I see it as grasping at straws.
Quote:
This is partly where I have trouble. It's not word for word. It's paraphrasing. The words that are identical are words you can't say a different way (the sciency bits).
Yes, paraphrasing is still plagiarism, but not quite as cut and dried here, because of the possibility of a different source.
Hence why I wondered about the rest of the text, or other texts, which would help decide a case in better context.
See, this is what I don't get. It's not like there's a third book out there that says all this stuff; it's compiled from the references Lyle amassed for this project and "The Ketogenic Diet" (which has several hundred references, and was written even earlier).
Then WSFL comes out, and makes an identical breakdown; yes, we can nitpick over the fact that it's not literally identical, but that's playing semantics games.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
I would like to hear from Alwyn on this because I feel like we're not getting the whole story here. I know Alwyn personally, and as his friend I probably cut him some slack, but in his books and lectures he always gives credit when he borrows information from others. For example, if you watch his lecture on my Summit 2007 DVD you will see that he credits Alan Aragon for a couple of things he got from him.
Let's take a deep breath for a moment and wait to see if there is more to this before we string Alwyn up from a tree and burn everything he has ever published. I'm not asking anyone to like him. I'm not asking anyone to turn off their BS filter.
Emphatically no. The bits that came from Dan were the nuts-and-bolts of the diet and training from "Bodyopus" and the original "Ultimate Diet", not the scientific backing. That's always been Lyle's domain, as he puts it he was the "detail guy" for Dan.
Ok. I'll buy that.
Quote:
This is all in UD2's intro, as well.
No. The research is new stuff; much of it wasn't even done when Duchaine died (2000).
ok.
Quote:
Considering it's identical almost to the sentence, and some cases the sentences are literally identical, this would be highly unlikely.
Hence why I see it as grasping at straws.
I understand this.
However, I have had to grade papers even in high school (teacher's aid, cuz I was such a suck up) and have actually seen assignments where given the same source texts and assignment to write, the students can produce eerily similar results without consulting each other (class assignments, teacher watching, no copying could have happened).
So, just because something is a very small possibility, doesn't mean it gets ruled out as a possibility until proven it can't be. You say, based on documents you have that I don't that such can't be the case (there's no non-crunchy bits in Dan's stuff) so I'll now close this as a possibility.
Quote:
See, this is what I don't get. It's not like there's a third book out there that says all this stuff; it's compiled from the references Lyle amassed for this project and "The Ketogenic Diet" (which has several hundred references, and was written even earlier).
Right.
But I was saying that I didn't know this, and was therefore asking IF there was. Not saying THAT there was.
If there isn't, if all source documentation that could be use for these works were devoid of personality or explanation beyond the most scientific level, then I see where you're coming from.
Quote:
Then WSFL comes out, and makes an identical breakdown; yes, we can nitpick over the fact that it's not literally identical, but that's playing semantics games.
Yes.
I bring up the semantic game because without knowing all the information, it can seem like overreacting. And that simply added to my doubt that everything that was presented was as it seemed.
So now it would just come down to what Alwyn/Mike have to say about it. Damning though it may be, there are arguments that would make me believe it's not the dicky thing it appears to be. Only a few, and well presented and sincere, but there would be some. Like, to turn a case from one of premeditated murder to self defense.
(it's just a metaphor, as in, murder you're at fault, self defense you had a reasonable reason for what you did.)
I concede that at the moment, it's a good case you have.
Requesting a refund at this point is being hasty. You paid for a product. You used it and it worked.
If there is fraud involved, let Lyle follow the formal legal process. You are not the victim here. Yes, you are entitled to be disappointed, so if you have strong feelings about it, vote with your wallet in future purchases.
I already own UD2.0. If i bought Alwyns book i would be royally pissed off and there is 100% no doubt in my mind that I would get my money back.
For all we know, this could just be the first time he was caught. People who plagiarize I doubt have much of a "one time only" policy.
I agree with this JP ... I have met Alwyn too and own most of his books. He just does not seem the type to do what he is accused of. He has too much to lose. I have heard him on various podcasts and in person credit Lyle with ideas/protocols. But frankly, I'm surprised that he hasn't yet responded publicly to the accusation.
Mike, on the other hand, who is purported to have done the lion's share of the writing of WSFL, I don't know. He's young. He's trying to get a leg up in this business. He's busy as a PhD candidate. I just don't know him well enough to form an opinion of whether or not he's capable.
The "evidence" sure does look like SOMEONE did some plagiarizing, but who is the big question.
__________________
Life's a Journey ... Enjoy the Ride!
I don't have a dog in the fight either way -- all I know is what I see on the page, and the names on the cover.
If they're not directly responsible, which I can concede is possible in some way or another, then it's still a very damning thing thing to have names plastered all over it.
The biggest reason it's being harped on is because, intentional or not, and regardless of who gets the finger pointed at them, this is case in point as to what's fucked up with the "let's market ourselves stupid and have a 4-hour work week from Ryan Lee and Jim Labadie's products" business model.
It's been a fucked up thing from the get-go, only nobody really seems to pay attention until something like this, or Jimmy Smith's screw up last month, or any of the other stuff that normally just gets written off as us being "haters" gets picked up on the radar.
It's shady all the way around, and this is one big reason why it's gotten out of hand.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Mike, on the other hand, who is purported to have done the lion's share of the writing of WSFL, I don't know. He's young. He's trying to get a leg up in this business. He's busy as a PhD candidate. I just don't know him well enough to form an opinion of whether or not he's capable.
I talked with him for an hour at last year's Summit. Very nice guy, super smart. The whole thing makes no sense.
__________________ 'I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day. ' ~Frank Sinatra
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,
smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Julie brings up an interesting point. I own Afterburn II and in that material, Alwyn is pretty generic about diet. He basically said follow a "green faces" diet.
To quote, "You can eat anything that had a face or will have a face and anything that grew green from the ground. Pretty simple." He provided a list of Important Tips, but nothing complex. He discussed more about Undulating Periodization, intervals, complexes and finishers than diet.
When I first saw the WSFL link, I immediately attributed the diet aspect to Mike's efforts. It just seems to me that Alwyn has always taken the sweet and simple approach to the diet side and focused on the training aspect. I duno.
I don't own NROL, so I don't know if he goes into greater detail on diet in that book.
There is a huge difference between Jimmy and Alwyn.
And like him or hate him, I owe a lot to Ryan for a lot of the stuff that I teach my clients. Through him I got turned on to people like Dave Schmitz and Mike Boyle.
I also used Labadie's stuff on public speaking and it has become a very successful business model for me.
A funny analogy is that I actually occasionally attend church, and always find that I enjoy the sermons and come away from them with something positive. Just so happens that I am an agnostic/atheist, so they say a lot that I disagree with, but I focus on the part of the message that can benefit me.
If you are looking for something to criticize you will always find it. If you have an open mind and look for the positive, you will find it.
I just received an email from Alwyn that was directed to Lyle, but I was copied on it along with several others. I emailed back and got permission to post this in here. Hopefully this will answer people's questions. It does shine a new light on the subject.
Quote:
Lyle,
I want to address your public accusation of plagiarism and set the record straight.
You may not recall but the chapter in question originally began life as a client handout - and then appeared in my what was tentatively titled Afterburn II and subsequently became two products - Afterburn II (workouts) and the "Real World Fat Loss" Manual.
This was after prior agreement with you via email (see attached emails below).
The chapter is found in the Real World Fat Loss (RWFL) Manual on pages 16-20. The chapter actually ends at the bottom of page 19. On page 20 of the manual the following text appears:
Quote:
(This chapter has been highly influenced by the work of Lyle McDonald and is essentially a very brief summary of his Fat Metabolism chapter in "The Ultimate Diet 2.0. I'd like to thank Lyle for his help both personally and professionally and his contributions to this field. I strongly urge you to check out Lyle's website – www.bodyrecomposition.net).
When we reprinted this chapter from the RWFL manual into the Warp Speed Fat Loss product, the above paragraph was inadvertently omitted.
This oversight was rectified immediately when this was brought to my attention.
I want to reiterate that this was always listed as a summary of your chapter - never passed off as my work.
The fact that the acknowledging paragraph was not included in WSFL was a huge oversight on my part, and I would have corrected it and rectified it with anyone who had purchased it immediately had you or anyone else simply brought this to my attention. I am deeply sorry about that omission. It was not my intention to not give proper credit, but it was my responsibility and I failed in that, and I want to make it publicly known that I fault no one but myself for that error.
I would be happy to speak with you about this further if you want to give me a call.
--
Alwyn Cosgrove
Above referenced email exchange:
From Alwyn Cosgrove
To Lyle McDonald
Date Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 8:45 PM
mailed-bygmail.com
I'm also working on Afterburn II.
I am going to put in a chapter on fat metabolism.
To be honest it will be a short summary - nothing in depth.
However your chapter in UD2.0 has influenced me the most, to the point where I'd feel uncomfortable not saying that directly in the text.
basically the chapter will be primarily a summary of your chapter plus a few others (your chapter is 2200 words, the summary is about 600- 750).
In other words I want to credit you directly in that chapter.
So how do you prefer it was referenced - direct to you and your site, or direct to the book?
AC
Reply:
From Lyle McDonald
To Alwyn Cosgrove
Date Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 8:53 PM
At 8:45 PM -0700 8/14/06, Alwyn Cosgrove wrote:
>I'm also working on Afterburn II.
>
>I am going to put in a chapter on fat metabolism.
>To be honest it will be a short summary - nothing in depth.
>
>However your chapter in UD2.0 has influenced me the most, to the point where I'd feel uncomfortable not saying that directly in the text.
>basically the chapter will be primarily a summary of your chapter plus a few others (your chapter is 2200 words, the summary is about 600- 750).
>
>In other words I want to credit you directly in that chapter.
>
>So how do you prefer it was referenced - direct to you and your site, or direct to the book?
Yes (all three)
--
Lyle
"Testosterone is the great equalizer, it turns all men into morons."
- Giles, Buffy the Vampire Slayer
My Reply:
From Alwyn Cosgrove
To Lyle McDonald
Date Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 8:58 PM
mailed-by gmail.com
On 8/14/06, Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>So how do you prefer it was referenced - direct to you and your
>>site, or direct to the book?
__________________ 'I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day. ' ~Frank Sinatra
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,
smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Interesting. I think I might buy that Lisa if the structure were different. but the stuff I see is more similar than not.
__________________ It all starts with the mind, but the thoughts, the intention aren't enough. Action needs to come next. Dream it, believe it, plan it, execute it, celebrate it. - Wendy
So two years ago he asked if he could reference Lyle's work on a different product. Lyle said "yes" if he was given credit and was properly referenced as the author\website\book. Fast forward two years. New project. Alwyn does a copy paste job, no reference, charges $100 for material that someone else wrote and he's already sold before and it's all cool?
I'm really not taking the bait, 'cept to say that I find it ironic you can berate me like this but when I do it it's an attack.
Have fun, though.
The reason the discussion between you and Aoife continued was because SHE didn't take your insults (i.e. your bait).
Can you own that you (and your friend cyco) said those insulting things to her? Whether or not you feel attacked doesn't change whether your not you did some attacking of your own. You are an adult and mature adults own their poor behavoir, so can you own that you attacked Aoife?
This is a behavior pattern that you have been called on before, at some point you won't be able to ignore any longer and you'll have to change. IMO, sooner would be better than later.
So two years ago he asked if he could reference Lyle's work on a different product. Lyle said "yes" if he was given credit and was properly referenced as the author\website\book. Fast forward two years. New project. Alwyn does a copy paste job, no reference, charges $100 for material that someone else wrote and he's already sold before and it's all cool?
As far as I can tell Lyle's case stands.
He used a chapter from a previous book. The information was the same for which he asked and received permission. His big error was the omission of the paragraph acknowledging Lyle, for which he seems to be humbly apologetic and willing to rectify.
I'm sure if Lyle has a case though that he'll pursue it. If not, I expect this issue to die on the vine.
So two years ago he asked if he could reference Lyle's work on a different product. Lyle said "yes" if he was given credit and was properly referenced as the author\website\book. Fast forward two years. New project. Alwyn does a copy paste job, no reference, charges $100 for material that someone else wrote and he's already sold before and it's all cool?
As far as I can tell Lyle's case stands.
That and it still does not change the fact that if was pretty much copied and pasted from Lyle's work.
If I pulled this crap on a highschool paper it would be labeled as plagiarism (and just plain laziness) and I would get an F.
I don't know any of the involved parties to say whether Alwyn's note is backpedaling or honesty. I will say that accidental omission of attribution was one of the thing I considered could have possibly happened. It certainly isn't unheard of. It IS the author's responsibility, in my view, to be certain nothing like that happens, but mistakes do happen. He does seem to admit to that responsibility and failure at it. *shrug*
Personally, I think that if this all is the truth, and Lyle couldn't be bothered to bring his concerns to Alwyn/Mike himself, and would rather just smear people in public… well that's just speaking somewhat to the kind of person Lyle seems to be. I mean sheesh, if he gets all riled up over something enough to bitch in public but can't man up and ask personally first? Whatever dude. Can't say I'm impressed with his behavior elsewhere either. oh well.
It's usually better to be sure of your accusations and that there's no other variables involved, lest you come off looking foolish after your rantings. Just sayin.
JP> I dunno about you, but if I gave someone permission to use my work in a project (and specifically required full credit for) I wouldn't assume that, that would extend to giving them permission to use it in every project that they ever produce. If Alwyn would have quoted the work vs paraphrased it and\or gotten permission to re-use Lyle's work in a new project...maybe perhaps told Lyle that he was going to essentially reprint it again and just wanted to check in to see if it was OK...you're absolutely right, no issues. But he didn't. The answer is "My bad."
Aoife> He's had issues with this particular group of people using his work without permission or reference before and has tried to go to them behind the scenes but didn't get any results.
Heavy emphasis on the quotes there, and the echo of my earlier comments that attacking a poor argument is not attacking the person, but I'll leave it at that for the sake of not causing a further 10-page spiral of arguing over semantics.
Well, as an example of how an argument attack is actually a personal attack...
Cyco said one of our members was "talking garbage again." He didn't say the line of thought was fallacious, he said the person was talking garbage.
Another doesn't come around much anymore because dickweed ridiculed hom out of here. That guy is a good person.
In this thread he called Aoife insane.
JP, there was no misunderstanding. I'll walk away if you wish.
Oh, and I never defended Alwyn, but I'm not going to jump on the bashing bandwagon either. There's a lot of self declared keepers of the faith who really meddle too much. Let Lyle and Alwyn do their dance toward remediation. No need for me to get involved.
Linear Mode
