I have never claimed that he was a liar. I'm not claiming he's being shady inasmuch as I am playing devil's advocate. I have no idea if he tried other methods. My first action if I suspected something like this is to pick up a phone.
Why would he do that?
My guess is that he was exploring the other options; what everyone else was just chastising him for not doing.
Quote:
Moving the goal posts. I have never argued for the quality if either author's products. I haven't read them. My argument is based solely on what I have read on this thread and Lyle's blog.
Indeed.
The point is cogent for one reason: if we weren't in this phase of e-Celebrity guru hysteria, where everyone and his daddy is being encouraged into putting out flash products as quickly as possible, with no regards for quality, then this kind of thing wouldn't happen.
You can't honestly tell me that this being something like Alwyn's 4th or 5th "fat loss" book, that he'd really have made this kind of error if quality were high on the list.
How many times to we reiterate the same information? And now, for just $70 (if you act NOW!) you can get that same information, rehashed.
Oh, and btw, I asked Lyle 2 years ago if I could summarize this for another product, then forgot to credit it! oopsie!
It's a spiraling snowball, and this is just the latest (and so far, biggest) symptom of a much larger problem.
Write me off as a bitter hater if you will, but as far as I'm concerned this is three steps past where this kind of garbage should have ever gone. I don't care what your name is or how cool you are to have a beer with -- this is still BS, and Alwyn's explanation is not a justification.
Quote:
Absolutely yes. For the principle if nothing else.
While I agree on principle, sometimes the practical reality of such things just isn't feasible. IP lawsuits aren't generally cheap and easy things.
Quote:
Bottom line, it is worth it if there is a legit case to be made. If there isn't, then the assertion that Alwyn plagiarized is just character assassination.
It's not necessarily that clear-cut, to me anyway, and I'd imagine to most people. I'm not going to turn this into a moral/ethical diatribe, but let it suffice to say that I don't simply equate a legal judgment with an ethical declaration of right or wrong. The two are not always synonymous.
__________________
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
It's not necessarily that clear-cut, to me anyway, and I'd imagine to most people. I'm not going to turn this into a moral/ethical diatribe, but let it suffice to say that I don't simply equate a legal judgment with an ethical declaration of right or wrong. The two are not always synonymous.
Fair enough. My last statement was probably a bit too strident.
First, way back when the initial email was exchanged (about the summary of Lyle's stuff), Lyle's response should have been "send me a copy of what you want to publish first, please, and we can go from there." Instead, he gave AC very brief directions of how to cite him--that's implied consent. Without giving more specific directions of when and how and where and how often those ideas could be used and reused, an argument for blanket approval for use of content could be made. As someone (Cynic?) said, the most prudent step would have been for one of them to get an intellectual property attorney to draw up papers for a very specific agreement, but that didn't happen. If someone had approached me to use something I had written, I would, at the very least, want to see what was going to be written before it was published, and I darn sure would be checking out the published product to make sure that what I had approved is what what published. In fact, I would have requested/required a galley or pre-release copy just to make sure of it.
It looks like AC/MR committed unintentional plagiarism in WSFL because of the missing credit paragraph. Clearly, whoever wrote the "summary" needs a new definition of summary, but as a writer, proofreader, and teacher, let me tell you that many many people see "summary" as something similar to what AC did. Incorrect, sure, but not evil.
All of this, in my mind, comes back to one of the problems in this fitness industry--the downloadable product. These books don't seem to be subject to the same level of scrutiny--proofreading, editing, facts checking--that would happen with a traditional publisher. You can bet that if I was putting my name on something, I would check, check, and double-check to make sure that all of the i's were dotted and t's crossed.
The point is cogent for one reason: if we weren't in this phase of e-Celebrity guru hysteria, where everyone and his daddy is being encouraged into putting out flash products as quickly as possible, with no regards for quality, then this kind of thing wouldn't happen.
I know that I'm getting damn sick of the quadrillion emails I get from Craig Ballantyne trying to sell me more Turbulence Training stuff. I signed up as a TT affiliate two or three months ago before the inundation, but I'm gonna un-affiliate myself just because of this. Even though I'll still be using some of his workouts.
I've been following this discussion w/ interest since it started. Just to be upfront, yeah, I'm new to this board, came to it as a user of some of Lyle McDonald's products (though not UD2.0), have been roaming the fitness/fat loss boards including stuff by Tom Venuto, Craig Ballantyne, John Berardi for a couple of years now. I have nothing against Alwyn Cosgrove, in fact would be probably using some of his stuff except that I happened across other people's stuff first. All that by way of saying, just because I just joined this forum & this is my first post on it, or that I've also posted a version of this post on bodybuilders.com, or that I've been using Lyle's products does not automatically discount what I have to say or mean that I'm an "Alwyn hater."
Okay, disclaimer dispensed with. Here's the rest:
I'm wondering if Lyle ever saw a copy of Alwyn's previous book the Rapid Fat Loss Manual (RFLM) that his edited-to-shorten version of Lyle's UD2.0 chapter was in. Because I think characterizing the RFLM chapter as a "summary" was a false characterization. From Alwyn's original email to Lyle about the chapter:
There's nothing in that email to indicate that it wasn't really a summary (which is typically in the summary writer's own words) rather than just an edited down version of the original author's work. In fact, Alwyn wasn't even really asking for permission for anything: he was saying "I wrote a summary of your chapter for inclusion in my book, & I want to credit you for that info: what's the best way to do it?" And Lyle said, "Credit me this way."
I think if Lyle had actually seen the "summary" back then, he'd have said, "That's not a summary, that's an edited-down (i.e., plagiarized) version of my chapter." I haven't asked him, but seems unlikely to me that he would have said, "sure, crib away, that's cool!" It's not as if he's licensed his stuff under a Creative Commons copyright scheme. And the two versions are so close that even to call Alwyn's version a "paraphrase" rather than a "summary" is more than generous, but downright inaccurate.
Furthermore, supposedly that chapter was gonna be in Afterburn II, but actually Alwyn put it in two products back then: Afterburn II (workouts) plus the Rapid Fat Loss Manual (when he'd only mentioned the first of these two products in his original email to Lyle). Then two years later, it appeared in yet another new work.
I don't think Alwyn necessarily meant to do evil. But clearly he had a different understanding of the "agreement" he & Lyle made two years ago than Lyle did.
Alwyn thought "summary" meant "edited version of Lyle's chapter" whereas Lyle probably thought it meant "summary" -- i.e., a rundown, but in Alwyn's own words, of the info from Lyle's UD2.0 chapter.
Alwyn thought he had an "agreement" about use of the edited version of the chapter. Lyle thought Alwyn was seeking info on how to credit him, & provided it; there was no "agreement" per se, just info on how to credit.
Alwyn thought this supposed agreement meant he had blanket permission to continue to use the edited-down version of the chapter into the indefinite future for other products.
In other words, Lyle never agreed to having an edited-down version of his chapter appear in even one, much less a succession, of Alwyn's products (unless someone can produce other emails showing he did). He only responded to a request for information on how to credit him for a summary, which is akin to asking an academic colleague how to cite a professional paper or journal article. Which is where Lyle's thinking would be likely to be, seeing as he spends a lot of time delving into scientific journals & making sure he cites info properly himself. I'm not as familiar with Alwyn's stuff, having just started looking into it a month or two ago, but I don't get that he's quite so familiar with the anal-retentive ways of doing things with citation, copyright, fair use, & all that stuff.
Not evil, maybe, but certainly naive in this area.
And if he did feel he had an "agreement" about some sort of fair use of an edited-down version of Lyle's stuff, he should have asked him again.
I also found it interesting that in his email of explanation, Alwyn makes no mention of one of the other things Lyle mentioned in his blog about this, which was the uncredited verbatim use of Lyle's original Stubborn Fat Loss protocol (SFP 1.0) in New Rules of Lifting & again in the Warp Speed Fat Loss book, again completely uncredited.
-- Mel
'sup, Mel? Dang, woman, u can write! My hands got tired just from imagining typing this much
First, way back when the initial email was exchanged (about the summary of Lyle's stuff), Lyle's response should have been "send me a copy of what you want to publish first, please, and we can go from there."
Yes. At least to this point, I agree 100%. I'm not so sure that I agree that the way he handled it was "implied consent" per se for repeated publication of edited-down material, but he would have been much wiser to have gotten a clear idea of what Alwyn was going to publish, as Alwyn would have been much wiser to have provided it. And then a lot of problems could have been avoided.
Quote:
It looks like AC/MR committed unintentional plagiarism in WSFL because of the missing credit paragraph. Clearly, whoever wrote the "summary" needs a new definition of summary, but as a writer, proofreader, and teacher, let me tell you that many many people see "summary" as something similar to what AC did. Incorrect, sure, but not evil.
Yep, I'm with you here too.
Quote:
All of this, in my mind, comes back to one of the problems in this fitness industry--the downloadable product. These books don't seem to be subject to the same level of scrutiny--proofreading, editing, facts checking--that would happen with a traditional publisher.
This does seem to be part of the reason that Lyle no longer puts most of his products out as downloadables. (The exception being The Rapid Fat Loss Manual.) Most of his stuff is hardcopy now, even products that used to be available as ebooks.
'sup, Mel? Dang, woman, u can write! My hands got tired just from imagining typing this much
Oh well, y'know, I did so much rowing last week, but now that I've gotta cut back from that because of going back to PSMF, I gotta find some way to overexercise.
i just have a quick question. I'll quote a section of the e-mail:
Quote:
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.
isn't this basically contradicting what he said previously?
Also, while the e-mail sounds very professional, it is not Lyle's responsibility to check into sources and make sure they do what is "proper citations" in any scholarly journal, and wasn't his responsibility to bring it to his attention.
I have no personal vendetta against AW or MR, but i find it hard to justify using word for word similarities in the text. They teach us this stuff throughout grade school, high school and college. You take the information, and you put it into your own words.
I know in apa style, we put the author's name and date of publication in ( ) after the information that you're using.
Even if AW/MR forgot to properly cite Lyle at the start, or the end of the book, you would think that you could give credit in the text where credit is due.
__________________ True Protein 5% off discount code: ZHS099 www.trueprotein.com
I didn't fail to notice that the same people accusing him of blatant plagiarism shifted into a new gear once the past emails showed up, focusing then on the degree of similarity, slamming him for deliberately omitting the passage, or suggesting that the exact same material that he already got permission to publish wasn't "transferable."
Because it's no longer an argument IF he plagiarized or not. He admits that he did. Everyone can obviously see that he did. That conversation is over and shifted to "if he meant to". Which I don't see has to do with anything.
Manny, I didn't mean for it to sound like I thought this was hating ... I just meant that in the past there has been some hate for Alwyn.
This sounds/looks/smells like plagiarism ...
And honestly, does it really matter WHO did the actual writing? If you go to the long-form-letter marketing page, it reads like a letter FROM Alwyn. So if he didn't do the actual writing and the actual plagiarizing, he still allowed his name to be attached to it. And I find it hard to believe that he hadn't read UD2.0 and wouldn't recognize the copy/edit/paste job.
I don't hate Alwyn but I do think he's overrated as a "fitness guru". Which isn't to say I don't like his work and it's not to say he's bad at his job or doesn't know what he's talking about. Just that there are quite a few who are as good or better who don't get the fan following because they don't spend so much time marketing themselves. I've seen a lot of people with good ideas but there are some who reach a guru worship status that is undeserved. I'd definitely say Alwyn is among them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcoholiday
isn't this basically contradicting what he said previously?
Also, while the e-mail sounds very professional, it is not Lyle's responsibility to check into sources and make sure they do what is "proper citations" in any scholarly journal, and wasn't his responsibility to bring it to his attention.
I have no personal vendetta against AW or MR, but i find it hard to justify using word for word similarities in the text. They teach us this stuff throughout grade school, high school and college. You take the information, and you put it into your own words.
I know in apa style, we put the author's name and date of publication in ( ) after the information that you're using.
Even if AW/MR forgot to properly cite Lyle at the start, or the end of the book, you would think that you could give credit in the text where credit is due.
Agreed. It looks like it's contradictory. It's hard to believe that, given the amount of material he used from Lyle's book, he would've made sure to acknowledge Lyle in the text and/or the back of the book for it. At the very least, Alwyn was lazy with his writing. Imo, it goes beyond that though.
__________________
"Is there no standard anymore?" - Walk, Pantera
i just have a quick question. I'll quote a section of the e-mail:
isn't this basically contradicting what he said previously?
Also, while the e-mail sounds very professional, it is not Lyle's responsibility to check into sources and make sure they do what is "proper citations" in any scholarly journal, and wasn't his responsibility to bring it to his attention.
I have no personal vendetta against AW or MR, but i find it hard to justify using word for word similarities in the text. They teach us this stuff throughout grade school, high school and college. You take the information, and you put it into your own words.
I know in apa style, we put the author's name and date of publication in ( ) after the information that you're using.
Even if AW/MR forgot to properly cite Lyle at the start, or the end of the book, you would think that you could give credit in the text where credit is due.
My read of that was that when he found out about the oversight, he went into his e-book and changed it, but that he would have fixed it much earlier if Lyle had said something earlier.
Instead Lyle seems to have sat on this for some time. Since he has been so candid about this situation so far, maybe he will explain his logic on that one as well.
As a few others have pointed out, the way they should have handled it would have been to ask Alwyn to submit his chapter for final approval. Since Lyle didn't do that, he does share some responsibility for this.
They also both should have had a much more detailed discussion about the use of the text. Setting aside the omission issue (for which Alwyn has accepted responsibility), if you approve a body of text then - unless you specify otherwise - it seems that it would apply to future use, as long as it contained the segment of text that gave author credit.
Any time I use someone else's photo images for example (like for a power point that I might use in a public speaking gig), once I have approval to use it, it is implied that it applies to however I want to use it. In the case models I do have them sign a release, which allows me to use their image for any use, whether it be an ad, a brochure or on my web site.
Maybe both of them should have done this. Alwyn probably should have asked about using it in this project. Had he not omitted the author credit perhaps we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Hind site is 20/20.
Quote:
I don't hate Alwyn but I do think he's overrated as a "fitness guru".
I don't agree that Alwyn is overrated. If you have ever seen him speak he is incredibly smart, funny, and dynamic. It's not an accident that he became such a big name.
Also, I think he would soundly reject the title of "guru."
From what I understand in this thread, AC asked Lyle how he would like to be credited in Afterburn 2. He said he would summarize parts of Lyle's work. He then possibly used (since we have not seen text from the other example Lyle claims) in a few other works, and in the last one apparently copied and pasted from Lyle's work and did not credit him.
In the case of Afterburn 2, he asked for how to cite the work. (I have not seen a comparison of those texts). Regardless of what this comparison would show, Lyle gave his preference for citation info (according to the emails). There was not mention of any future works and even if there were, it was a request for a citation, not permission to copy the work in question.
It is my opinion that Lyle was "wronged" in this case even if the "crediting" paragraph had been included. Because if the quotations in Lyle's blog are accurate, then it is clear that AC did not summarize Lyle's work. He, "at best", edited it.
As I read this thread, I kept finding myself surprised by how many people feel that Lyle needs to justify or explain his behavior. Or that Lyle is at fault for not calling AC (perhaps he did, I don't know) but I fail to see why the onus is upon Lyle to justify his actions when is he that has been wronged (I apologized for the generic term "wronged" but I do not wish this to get sidetracked by semantic/legal variances on a more specific word that I might choose.)
Someone said Lyle was at fault for not saying, "hey send me that chapter and I will have a look at it". The onus is not on Lyle to check the work of someone who has asked him how he would like to be cited for a summary of his work. But yet, it is Lyle's fault for not doing so?
I think that AC is so well liked here and gave many people a lot of help may be coloring views of this situation. The writer is ultimately responsible for what is published in his name, and that the work is properly cited, and that is AC and his co-author. Since it was AC that exchanged emails with Lyle, I suppose it fall to him.
BTW, I do not "know" Lyle or have any vested interest in this situation: in fact Lyle's forum is a bit too "biting" for my tastes. I bought one of Alwyn's products simply because I wanted to but something from him because of all he put into this forum, so if anything I am more "pro" AC.
Cheers
Peter
__________________
Peter
After all, diamonds are a girl's best friend…
I went through my Afterburn II ebook and did not find a reference to Lyle. However, I also didn't find a chapter on fat mobilization. I don't think he included that information in Afterburn II. If anyone else still thinks he did, then please provide the pages in that ebook. I think we can take Afterburn II out of this discussion.
In my defense of Alwyn I think it may have come across like I was somehow blaming Lyle, and I want to be clear that I am not. I don't care if he is like or disliked by people for his social skills. He obviously knows his shit, and I'll probably be looking into some of his products in the future.
Most of the forums posting about this seem to just pile on Alwyn as if he's a pariah now, and if you defend him you're just a brain-washed minion. For asking for a presumption of innocence I don't think that I am an apologist. I freely admit what biases I do have, but I try not to let them interfere with my judgment.
It's stunning how quiet Lyle has been since dropping this bomb. wonder when he'll break radio silence, and what he'll say when he does.
I also found it interesting that in his email of explanation, Alwyn makes no mention of one of the other things Lyle mentioned in his blog about this, which was the uncredited verbatim use of Lyle's original Stubborn Fat Loss protocol (SFP 1.0) in New Rules of Lifting & again in the Warp Speed Fat Loss book, again completely uncredited.
This idea from Lyle's original post has been reiterated a few times in this thread.
I didn't recall reading that in NROL, so I've spent some time over the last few days skimming through the book to find it. So far, I haven't seen it.
Not to say I can't possibly miss it, though. Anyone want to provide a page reference? Can this claim be substantiated?
__________________ The trick is in what one emphasizes. We either make ourselves miserable, or we make ourselves happy. The amount of work is the same. -- Carlos Castaneda
And a little perspective - About 98% (guessing) of the book/DVD money goes to celebrity writers, who usually are not from the industry or from acadamia. The folk's in this 'cat fight' are looking at the scraps, and it does not help any of them.
Since when do I have to ask for permission of the author of a work I'm going to use and cite in my research paper to use his work?
you don't have to ask permission, but you do have to cite it in the paper. As far as APA journal articles, we cite them in the text, and in the citations as well.
It's also not up to the author of the work you're citing to check your paper to make sure you didn't copy his work word for word and without a citation, pass it off as your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobLL
And a little perspective - About 98% (guessing) of the book/DVD money goes to celebrity writers, who usually are not from the industry or from acadamia. The folk's in this 'cat fight' are looking at the scraps, and it does not help any of them.
actually, writers prior to the writers strike received 2.5-3% from DVD sales. After, they made 6%, i believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP
My read of that was that when he found out about the oversight, he went into his e-book and changed it, but that he would have fixed it much earlier if Lyle had said something earlier.
Instead Lyle seems to have sat on this for some time. Since he has been so candid about this situation so far, maybe he will explain his logic on that one as well.
As a few others have pointed out, the way they should have handled it would have been to ask Alwyn to submit his chapter for final approval. Since Lyle didn't do that, he does share some responsibility for this.
They also both should have had a much more detailed discussion about the use of the text. Setting aside the omission issue (for which Alwyn has accepted responsibility), if you approve a body of text then - unless you specify otherwise - it seems that it would apply to future use, as long as it contained the segment of text that gave author credit.
Maybe they should have had a more detailed discussion about this, but again, if something is plagiarized, it is not the victim's fault. In retrospect, they probably should have signed something, but like someone else said, a lot of this stuff is kind of like an unwritten law, and you shouldn't need to have documentation saying, "don't take my work, word for word, and then not give me any sort of citation or credit."
I don't really get why Lyle would be cited in 2 of the texts, and not in this one? Does anyone know?
__________________ True Protein 5% off discount code: ZHS099 www.trueprotein.com
Since when do I have to ask for permission of the author of a work I'm going to use and cite in my research paper to use his work?
You don't. I made the point many pages ago that what Alwyn claimed he was going to do in the email could have been done without Lyle's permission which is probably why Alwyn asked for no permission in the email and Lyle gave none.
What Alwyn actually did, which was reprinting a lightly edited version of someone's work, not "using and citing" someone's work, requires permission. In fact, the entire chapter should have been credited as Lyle's work, not even as "based on Lyle's work".
It is dishonest to the consumer to pass off someone else's work as your own, even if the original author is a willing participant.
I went through my Afterburn II ebook and did not find a reference to Lyle. However, I also didn't find a chapter on fat mobilization. I don't think he included that information in Afterburn II. If anyone else still thinks he did, then please provide the pages in that ebook. I think we can take Afterburn II out of this discussion.
Alwyn wrote in his "explanatory" letter to Lyle (full text here) the following (emphases added):
Quote:
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.
So the Afterburn II claim was introduced into the debate by Alywn himself. I don't have a copy of that book, so I can't look through it to verify or provide page #s.
Alwyn wrote in his "explanatory" letter to Lyle (full text here) the following (emphases added):
So the Afterburn II claim was introduced into the debate by Alywn himself. I don't have a copy of that book, so I can't look through it to verify or provide page #s.
-- Mel
Yes, Alwyn did indicate his intention to reference Lyle's work in the email with respect to Afterburn II. My only point was that it looks like he didn't ultimately put it into the ebook. I think that Alwyn was saying that the product started out as Afterburn II, and then got split into 2 products. The Afterburn II product turned into mainly a training manual. I'll bet that Lyle's material and reference appeared only in RWFL (because I didn't see it in Afterburn II). Lyle also mentioned in his blog, that he went unreferenced in the NROL book. A previous post also questioned (didn't deny, just questioned) this assertion as well. I think we might be just talking about WSFL and this is what Alwyn took responsibility for.
I don't think Lyle was referencing this particular piece in regards to NROL, but rather the appearance of the SFP 1.0 protocol. I, like Racer Bill, did not come across it in NROL. However, there is a paragraph on the protocol in NROL4W on page 27 and this is probably the New Rules work that was meant. It is section right after the paragraph that states:
"Now, if you actually enjoy endurance exercise, and would miss it if you couldn't do any, we don't want to discourage you from that. But Alwyn has come up with a unique way of making it more effective."
The protocol is then mentioned with no credit to Lyle or calling it by the name Stubborn Fat protocol.
I have heard him call this protocol in interviews as Lyle McDonald's stubborn Fat Protocol giving full acknowledgement, so I'm guessing this was probably a miscommunication and this got thrown in by someone who thought it was Alwyn's concept and it didn't get caught because it appears to be more of an afterthought of "If you must do steady state," rather than an integral part of the program.
I could see how Lyle would be upset about this as, not only was he given no credit, someone else received credit for his work.
I don't agree that Alwyn is overrated. If you have ever seen him speak he is incredibly smart, funny, and dynamic. It's not an accident that he became such a big name.
Also, I think he would soundly reject the title of "guru."
JP, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I don't mean to say this in an offensive way since I have a lot of respect for you, but let's be honest here. Funny means nothing as far as quality of information goes. Sure, it helps with marketing which obviously Alwyn is very good at. Still, if we were talking about a mathematician or an engineer would we really gauge the level of their brilliance in the subject based on their sense of humor? You know as well as I do that we wouldn't. I'm not sure what you mean by dynamic, but I definitely wouldn't say he's incredibly smart. That's not to say he's dumb or he's not a good trainer, but what has he done that warrants such a label? Did he come up with a new theory? Did he have some break through training method? You could say he's smart and I would agree with that. Still, this is the guy that got his butt handed to him when he was trying to make that point about intervals vs SS on his blog, just got busted "borrowing" from another author, and on several occassions has no better defense for his point of view than "if you don't pay your mortgage by training people you have no right to question me". Those aren't exactly telling of an incredible intellect. I certainly wouldn't put him up there with guys like Siff, Verkhoshansky, Zatsiorsky, etc. There are a lot of others working in the field that are as good at their job as Alwyn is.
__________________
"Is there no standard anymore?" - Walk, Pantera
I don't think Lyle was referencing this particular piece in regards to NROL, but rather the appearance of the SFP 1.0 protocol. I, like Racer Bill, did not come across it in NROL. However, there is a paragraph on the protocol in NROL4W on page 27 and this is probably the New Rules work that was meant. It is section right after the paragraph that states:
"Now, if you actually enjoy endurance exercise, and would miss it if you couldn't do any, we don't want to discourage you from that. But Alwyn has come up with a unique way of making it more effective."
The protocol is then mentioned with no credit to Lyle or calling it by the name Stubborn Fat protocol.
This was my mistake. When Alwyn first told me about the fat-loss protocol, I mistakently thought he had come up with it, and wrote it up to suggest just that. He later told me he had gotten the idea from Lyle.
I can't say for sure, but I believe that I'd already written a draft of Chapter 3 when I learned this, although the rest of the book was far from finished.
My memory is imperfect, but I know I had the intention of giving credit to Lyle. In fact, when all this became controversial recently, I was surprised to realize that I hadn't. Somehow I'd conflated the memory of intending to give credit with a memory of actually putting a citation into the manuscript. If you look at the notes in the back of the book, you can see I'm not exactly shy about giving credit where it's due.
Originally Posted by Dos' Blog: Hypocrisy From A Strength Coach
Here we go again folks....another shit storm started by an internet fitness guru and his posse. All you have to do is go back to some of my very first blog posts to be reminded of some of the ridiculous shit that happens in the internet on a daily basis. Of course I am referring to the Alwyn Cosgrove "plagiarism controversy" started on a famous guru's site. I'm not going to go into details since all you have to do is take a peek at just about EVERY single fitness forum on the www to get in the loop on this shit storm (plus I don't want to drive anymore traffic to this genius guru's site).
Bottom line, if you have a beef with someone who you think stole something from you you pick up the phone or email them....at least this is what most rationale people would do. You start an internet beef like this for one reason and one reason only, to drive your site traffic and make more $ for yourself. Bravo.... I guess starting a shit storm on the internet can be pretty profitable huh?
Wow way to look at your crystal mind-reading ball without knowing what happened, and in essence doing the same shit youre ranting about.
__________________
"The strongest steel goes through the hottest fires."-Anonymous
"When you begin to believe nothing is heavy, all weights become light." -Rossbow
"Just remember, somewhere there is a little Chinese girl warming up with your max."-Jim Convroy
"It's a round hole, dammit. Everyone fits."--Anonymous Mod at Strengthmill
If anyone cares, Alwyn told Lyle to essentially fuck off months ago, because Lyle was calling him out on bogus claims and shaky interpretation of research he was making in his blog. It's not like this was a case of two close buddies getting into a minor tiff as some of you seem to be implicating.
BTW Dos, you know better than that. But way to throw down some more e-gangsta, dawg. We be all up in da streetz in dis, ya heard?
__________________
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
Can we tone down the name calling, please? The subject of plagiarism is fine. Letting loose with a bunch of creative names for the people involved and deciding to make themselves involved, isn't.
Most of us here are bystanders, after all. None of us KNOWS what happened. We only see the evidence being laid out before us.
Linear Mode
