My opinion of coercive persuasion is not based on what does or does not work for me, but rather based on psychological studies and personal standards of integrity – an attempt to change someone’s mind through manipulation or without full disclosure of the means and cognitive biases they propose to exploit is a game of dishonesty and con men, and seeks to rob people of their right to choose for themselves. Yes, lots of industries do it to a degree, but to subject a captive audience to such a distilled concentration is tantamount to abuse (which is exactly how I would categorize a good number of the experiences I’ve read). The limited peronal empowerment value Impact does purport to impart is not worth the experience.

I find it interesting that much of the focus on here has been on how people have disagreed with the tactics (i.e. manipulation, emotional response, peer pressure, etc.) with less focus being places on the actual merits (or lack thereof) of the program. While the delivery method of a program is part of the program and can lend credibility to or discredit a program, it does not define it. I’ve not been to Impact but know some good people who swear by its value in helping them be better people. They are not so blind to not see some of the not-so-good tactics mentioned throughout this blog. But they have been able to sift through those to find the good things, apply them and be better people. They are better communicators, they take accountability for their role in hard things in their and aspire to make positive changes that lead them to happier lives. I can’t discount these positive results even if LGAT also seems to use some radical approaches which, admittedly, are not great…but are not surprising to find in any business trying to thrive. Most of the same tactics to ‘convert’ people to their products or causes are used in most commercials, advertising, media of almost every organization or businesses throughout the world trying to influence people towards a cause they feel is good. Every day we filter through attempts to influence us as we make choices about our lives based on the merits of products, programs and services on not on the ads, selling tactics, etc. of the advertiser.

Even after reading these posts with a desire to understand what this program has to offer, I am still not convinced that it is all bad. It sounds like Impact has much to offer people who might want or need some motivation or guidance in improving their lives in some positive ways. No one likes to be pressured or manipulated but for those who can see these tactics for what they are and separate those from the good ideas shared, I can’t help but think Impact might be a good program. It is obviously not for everybody but in world of people bombarded with disappointments, hardships, abuse, struggles, pressures, etc. I welcome anything positive to counter those things.

The original post included a lot of research and mention of academics. Thank you for the thought and time spent on the research. The comprehensive commentary on the methods and philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of Impact were helpful. While the author’s criticisms of some of these approaches were clear, they were nonetheless personal opinions of what worked or did not work for him/her. The inclusion of personal opinion mixed in with all the good academic research about the methodologies (many of which are by the way sound and used successfully in many settings) undermined the credibility of the academics referenced that were intended to strengthen the criticism. I would actually probably agree with his/her opinions on the use of those methodologies but I cannot entirely discount the use of some of those methods in any program designed to effect change. I appreciated the commentary under Madness about the content. I am still left with questions. Many people are professing to make positive changes as a result of Impact. They are not all brainwashed legions of followers. They, too, are “level-headed rational participants of the world.” They are fathers, mothers, successful professionals, active members of their churches, etc. They are good people doing good things. Something good is coming from the sessions. Why?

I would likely feel manipulated like Tiredofmanipulation did. I abhor any tactic to coerce or manipulate and it is unfortunate that Impact has alienated many people as a result of this approach. I appreciated Tiredofmanipulation’s admission of some of the benefits of the program. It is too bad the whole program has to be discounted because of the use of some of the tactics.

Perhaps Rich Tomlinson said it best when said that “there are other ways to empower oneself and to find true joy in life that are far more effective and less alienating.” This statement does not discount the good that Impact has to offer but it does seem to suggest that improvements to the program or other programs altogether might increase one’s likelihood for success in making positive changes.

I’d like to hear more specifics on how Impact content has been “destructive” to families and relationships. I’ve heard that said in 2-3 posts on here. I’d be curious to know how it so negatively affected relationships. I suppose I’m still just trying to reconcile why so many people can be positively influenced by this program while others walk away with such a sour taste.

I can’t thank you enough for taking the months (ne’ years) to research this so methodically. I, too, was involved in this cult for several years. I saw it from the ‘inside-out.’ It is manipulative, coersive, and outright destructive. I have seen it destroy individuals and families. Yes, it may cause a positive shift in some persons’ lives, but this rarely lasts more than a few years once the impactee stops participating in the never-ending hierarchy of ascension (read: more and more training, more and more income to Hans and Sally).

I will leave anyone reading this with one small piece of wisdom; really wisdom that everyone should use for EVERYthing like this: DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH! Do not rely on me, on the author of this site, and especially not on someone who is already ‘in’ a cult. Do it for yourself. Be thorough, be educated. I only wish someone had given me this advice several years ago. The info IS out there, you just have to dig.

If I follow my regimen to the letter, I can cognitively function the majority of the time and am constantly just a little bit miserable (but not as prone to injury).

If I don’t follow it, cognition frequently suffers and I’m occasionally acutely miserable and it’s never worth it.

Finding ways to do the regimen correctly while also attending to work and pressures of life is the real challenge.

If it is anything like my experience, most of the cognitive impairment will be coming from metabolic acidosis rather than any aspect of the McArdle’s disease itself. The best way to combat that is with massive quantities of water and appropriate levels of rest – start with a general proton pump inhibitor like Prilosec OTC (or some other form of omeprazole), since that will stabilize the dietary acids that get thrown out of whack, and then work your way up to at least 1 gallon of water a day (it usually takes me 1.5-2gpd to keep on top of things). Supplement with 1tsp of baking soda dissolved in 16 oz. of room temperature water if you need something a little punchier – but don’t exceed more than 3 of them in a day (and only if you’re on that high quantity of water too), otherwise sodium or alkalinity will get out of whack in the opposite direction and do more harm than good. The bicarbonate will typically take 30-40 minutes to really kick in.

Rest when you need to – actually sleep for 20-90 minutes if your body says so.

Good luck!

So they say microbes are common, but fancy intelligent stuff is rare. I’m totally cool with that. Even with the multiplication of one statistical factor by another to come up with an increasingly infinitesimal opportunity for evolution of eucarya that posits we (as intelligent beings) may even be sole representatives of the Milky Way.

There are, however, so many galaxies in the potential sample set, that anything’s possible. What I’m taking umbrage to in my post is not these fellows – it’s the ones that swing wildly between two opposite views on the smallest bit of info, and somehow expect the assessment of the universe to conform to their preconceived notions. Bad science makes me grumpy.

I will also totally read the book. I do not apparently have a copy yet myself, so I will acquire and consume this.