 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / May 2009My Progress
I have lost 16.6 lbs in the last 7 weeks and only changed 1 meal a day. new products from a new company in Carlsbad CA www.EatCheat.com has all the info its free to sign up too > I have lost 16.6 lbs in the last 7 weeks and only changed 1 meal a > day. If you were eating 2.75 pounds of food and dropped one meal that weighed one pound, you would achieve the same results. Except that you would not have lost weight so drastically and placed yourself in an inevitable rebound, return to or past original weight, for which you are now most assuredly doomed.  Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 >> I have lost 16.6 lbs in the last 7 weeks and only changed 1 meal a >> day. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > rebound, return to or past original weight, for which you are now most > assuredly doomed. If you continue eating as on the diet, your weight will not rebound. This is generally true with any diet which results in a weight loss. The reason the vast majority do not maintain their weight loss is that they go back to their old eating habits. Wonder if two pounds of celery or two pounds of peanut butter would give the same weight loss in a short overweight female and a 6 feet 4 inch overweight man. Also in some who leads a sedentary life versus someone doing a lot of physical activity at work and home. Wonder if an athlete who participates in the Ironman (swimming, bicycling and running) in Hawaii can do that on a 2 pound diet ..... most of these athletes are thin and would expect they eat a lot more than Chung's "2 PD" All these simple questions without any answer. >>> I have lost 16.6 lbs in the last 7 weeks and only changed 1 meal a >>> day. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If you continue eating as on the diet, your weight will not rebound. This is > generally true with any diet which results in a weight loss. Correct. The problem is that so few, less than 3% over time remain on the diet. Rebound is practically inevitable by conclusion. > The reason the vast majority do not maintain their weight loss is that they > go back to their old eating habits. See above. > Wonder if two pounds of celery or two pounds of peanut butter would give the > same weight loss in a short overweight female and a 6 feet 4 inch overweight [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pound diet ..... most of these athletes are thin and would expect they eat a > lot more than Chung's "2 PD" All these simple questions without any answer. Answers are simple. No one gains weight, everyone reaches optimal weight by eating 2PD or less. Considering that I have extensive experience with training and athletes in traning, and common folk, I speak from those realities. Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 > Answers are simple. > > No one gains weight, everyone reaches optimal weight by eating 2PD or > less. Considering that I have extensive experience with training and > athletes in traning, and common folk, I speak from those realities. Hmmm ..... so will two identical twins one eating 2PD of peanut butter and the other eating 2PD of celery result in the same weight of the two even though there is a big difference of calories consumed ..... they both have the same activity level so the only variable is the what they eat .... would seem that the one eating two pounds of peanut butter which has more calories than the two pounds of celery would end up with a much higher weight. Perhaps you could inform us of just what is your "extensive experience" ? >> Answers are simple. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Perhaps you could inform us of just what is your "extensive experience" ? Asked and answered the first paragraph, Mr. Disingenuous. As to "extensive experience", Google is your multiple friend. >>> Answers are simple. >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > As to "extensive experience", Google is your multiple friend. Still waiting to hear if the calories of the two pounds of food eaten if one follows Chung's 2PD make any difference in a person's final weight. My above extreme example was a way to try and get that answered. Will see if the question is answered if calories make any difference in a person's final weight if eats two pounds of food a day. >>>> Answers are simple. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Still waiting to hear if the calories of the two pounds of food eaten if one > follows Chung's 2PD make any difference in a person's final weight. Asked and answered. > My above extreme example was a way to try and get that answered. You got your answer. > Will see if the question is answered if calories make any difference in a > person's final weight if eats two pounds of food a day. Answers are simple. Even to a simpleton, eh? Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 > Answers are simple. Even to a simpleton, eh? Paraphrasing Samuel Johnson's (no relation) famous quote: Using ad hominem attacks is the last refuge of a scoundrel. I guess it makes some feel stronger and superior to make ad hominem attacks. What they fail to realize is that those attacks reflect on the themselves because most realize it and do not need someone else pointing it out. A simple answer or ignoring it is best. I have no doubt the readers of this group can come to their own conclusions about your above comment. >>>>> Answers are simple. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Answers are simple. Even to a simpleton, eh? So you're saying twins can eat 2 lbs a day and still weigh the same thing even if one eats peanut butter and the other twin eats celery? That calories don't count as long as they both eat 2 lbs a day? >>>>>> Answers are simple. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > even if one eats peanut butter and the other twin eats celery? That > calories don't count as long as they both eat 2 lbs a day? No and no. Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 >> So you're saying twins can eat 2 lbs a day and still weigh the same thing >> even if one eats peanut butter and the other twin eats celery? That >> calories don't count as long as they both eat 2 lbs a day? > > No and no. So what do they eat then? 2 lbs of WHAT? Celery? Pork chops? Why do you reply with non-answers? What are you hiding? >> Answers are simple. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the other eating 2PD of celery result in the same weight of the two even > though there is a big difference of calories consumed This is a strawman argument against the two pound diet. Chung may be a loon, but the idea has merit. Of course the specific mass of the food doesn't matter; that is, there is nothing magic about two pounds. The point is that mass of food can be used as an estimate of intake and a control parameter, and that there may be advantages to doing it that way---advantages such as the diet is as simple as possible, while still being tied to closed-loop parameter control. Of course, if you drastically vary the average caloric density of the food, then you are violating the spirit of the idea, right? I.e. basically cheating. Can you name any reasonable self-administered diet system in which cheating is absolutely impossible? Think about this: many people don't even think twice about using their body mass as an estimate of how fat they are, and as a feedback parameter for tracking progress. If body mass can be used a feedback parameter, why can't food mass be used as the corresponding control parameter? If you're measuring body mass on the feedback side, rather than precise compartmentalized body composition, does it even make sense to compute precise calories on the control side? > the same activity level so the only variable is the what they eat .... would > seem that the one eating two pounds of peanut butter which has more calories > than the two pounds of celery would end up with a much higher weight. Still, fact is, two pounds does impose an upper bound. The most calorie-dense foods are fats, at 9 kcal/g. So the most energy you can get from 900 grams of food is 8100 kcal. So work with me for a second: if you use mass to estimate energy intake, you do in fact have a parameter which establishes an upper bound on energy intake. The energy intake cannot exceed around nine times multiplied by the mass in grams, right? I.e. this is actually a sanely behaved parameter. Plug it into a control loop and it should work. You may find that by eating 907 g of peanut butter per day, you are not losing weight, or even gaining. I.e. for the value of the control parameter being 907, you find that the feedback parameter is not moving in a favorable direction. So try a lower value, like 750 g, et cetera. Eventually, you will discover the values of the control parameter that change the direction of the feedback parameter. I don't see any reason to disbelieve that people can do well on two pounds of a variety of normal food with some sane average caloric density that is nowhere near 9. Suppose your food has an average density of 2.0 kcal/g. Thus 907 grams of it is 1814 kcal. That's a decent weight loss energy intake for an adult male. A caloric density of 2.0 kcal/g isn't particularly low, nor is it particularly high. It's quite representative of normal food. Chung isn't really saying anything other than: eat a reasonable amount of normal food. That's not enough to qualify him as sane, or even intelligent, of course. But remember the message from 1980's seatbelt education? ``You can learn a lot from a dummy''. > Of course the specific mass of the food doesn't matter; that is, > there is nothing magic about two pounds. Of course if you eat less food you will lose weight .... makes no difference whether you reduce the number of calories or the sizes of the portions. A successful and easy diet is simple to eat 3/4 or 2/3 or 1/2 of the usual portion sizes that you normally eat. The problem with long term success is that people go back to the calories or portion sizes they ate before and gain the weight back. mortonmullens@gmail.com wrote: >Of course if you eat less food you will lose weight .... makes no difference >whether you reduce the number of calories or the sizes of the portions. A >successful and easy diet is simple to eat 3/4 or 2/3 or 1/2 of the usual >portion sizes that you normally eat. The problem with long term success is >that people go back to the calories or portion sizes they ate before and gain >the weight back. This is utter nonsense! I am eating more calories on South Beach than when I was calorie counting, therefore, my portions are much larger. All calories are not equal and do not work the same way in all bodies. For obese people with hyperinsulinism, there is no doubt that too many refined carbs, whether eaten in small or large portions, will ultimately retain fat and perpetuate the hyperinsulin cycle in which the body tries to process a carb barrage at every meal. The size of adipose tissue and fat cells brings carb processing to a near standstill, which is why anyone with an abdominal protrusion and elevated fasting glucose levels can benefit from reducing or eliminating most refined carbs. Orlando > mortonmullens@gmail.com wrote: >> Of course if you eat less food you will lose weight .... makes no [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > not equal and do not work the same way in all bodies. For obese people with > hyperinsulinism, there is no doubt that too many refined carbs, whether eaten > in small or large portions, will ultimately retain fat and perpetuate the > hyperinsulin cycle in which the body tries to process a carb barrage at every > meal. The size of adipose tissue and fat cells brings carb processing to a > near [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Orlando Yes, the South Beach and Atkins diets are not based on calories or portion sizes. My comments were in regards to diets based on reducing the calories through smaller portions and lower calories. None of these diets have high long term success rates because people do not follow them long term and go back to their old eating habits. Each of these diets also have their long term success stories in those who can maintain them. The fact that there are so many different diets, often means one is not better than all the others in losing and maintaining weight loss. mortonmullens@gmail.com wrote: >Yes, the South Beach and Atkins diets are not based on calories or portion >sizes. I'm glad you read for content. >My comments were in regards to diets based on reducing the calories through >smaller portions and lower calories. You didn't specify that your comments only pertained to calorie focused diets. >None of these diets have high long term success rates because people do not >follow them long term and go back to their old eating habits. This happens because people really want to be eating as they always have. The most effective diet is therefore the closest to their old eating habits, either in terms of food type or portion size. Someone terrified of giving up most carbs might opt for a calory counting diet where they can still have carbs, but in smaller portions. Another might like meat so much that they especially prize a diet like Atkins or South Beach that encourages meat consumption without portion limitations. >Each of these diets also have their long term success stories in those who can maintain >them. >The fact that there are so many different diets, often means one is not >better than all the others in losing and maintaining weight loss. Ultimately, the best diet for each individual strikes a balance between what they like to eat and what their bodies need. It's just that simple. For big eaters, no flavor of a calory counting diet will work because they'll always feel hungry. For carb cravers, a calory counting diet similarly will not work because they can never eat enough carbs to satisfy their cravings. For people who love fatty foods, South Beach will please them much less than Atkins. The problem with the diet industry is that it tends to appeal to people's sense of healthy eating and moralizing sermons about obesity's social ills rather than focus on what people actually enjoy eating. Part of the reason that people gorge on low fat foods is that in order to reduce fat, flavor is sacrified. So, they keep chasing down a flavor experience that will never come. Orlando > Ultimately, the best diet for each individual strikes a balance between what > they like to eat and what their bodies need. It's just that simple. For big > eaters, no flavor of a calory counting diet will work because they'll always > feel hungry. For carb cravers, a calory counting diet similarly will not work > because they can never eat enough carbs to satisfy their cravings. For people > who love fatty foods, South Beach will please them much less than Atkins. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Orlando Well said. Also, if you can increase your activity to a level you can maintain, that can help. Also, it seems if you try to lose too much weight too fast the body responds by lowering the metabolic rate which makes it harder to lose weight. Everything in moderation, even moderation, because in some rare occasions the fate of the world may depend on having that piece of cake and that is the least anyone can do for their fellow mankind ;-) > The problem with the diet industry is that it tends to appeal to people's sense > of healthy eating and moralizing sermons about obesity's social ills rather > than focus on what people actually enjoy eating. Part of the reason that people > gorge on low fat foods is that in order to reduce fat, flavor is sacrified. So, > they keep chasing down a flavor experience that will never come. The industry follow on the heels of a massive campaign, one that has been going on for decades, that pushes the concepts of fullness, satiation and ridiculous portion sizes. This has been confused with "healthy", eat what is on your plate, don't waste, etc etc, anyone over the age of 40 knows the mantra explicitly. This is no defence of the industry, rather a condemnation. Where else can you get the catastrophic, pandemic rates of illness from overconsumption (failed diets born to failure as they are composed) and claim "success"? Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 <snip> >Ultimately, the best diet for each individual strikes a balance between what >they like to eat and what their bodies need. It's just that simple. It is even simpler. The best diet comprises of ones favorite foods so that there is more joy in eating and ever increasing hunger, which indicates ever increasing health. The healthiest people in the world are the hungriest people in the world. For healthier (hungrier) people, the food scale is to eating as the speedometer is to driving. The food scale helps to keep those of us with high-performance bodies (no VAT) from overeating (eating more than 32 ounces) just as the speedometer helps to keep those of us with high-performance cars from speeding: http://HeartMDPhD.com/BeSmart Be hungrier, which is truly healthier: http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthier Love in the truth, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Human Geneticist, Molecular Biologist, and Board-certified Cardiologist http://EmoryCardiology.com > <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > joy in eating and ever increasing hunger, which indicates ever > increasing health. A notion that is not recognized widely. > The healthiest people in the world are the hungriest people in the > world. Undeniably. > For healthier (hungrier) people, the food scale is to eating as the > speedometer is to driving. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > speedometer helps to keep those of us with high-performance cars from > speeding: Cruise control. > http://HeartMDPhD.com/BeSmart > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Andrew <>< Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >A notion that is not recognized widely. This is because the delusion that "hunger is starvation" has blinded widely. >> The healthiest people in the world are the hungriest people in the >> world. > >Undeniably. Absolutely true. >> For healthier (hungrier) people, the food scale is to eating as the >> speedometer is to driving. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> speedometer helps to keep those of us with high-performance cars from >> speeding: > Cruise control. The setting of the cruise control at the correct speed is not possible without a speedometer. What is required to receive a cure for the delusion that "hunger is starvation" is saying "wonderfully hungry" whenever greeted by others and working to convince others that this is indeed true: http://HeartMDPhD.com/BeSmart Be hungrier, which is truly healthier: http://TheWellnessFoundation.com Love in the truth, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-certified Cardiologist http://EmoryCardiology >>> For healthier (hungrier) people, the food scale is to eating as the >>> speedometer is to driving. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > starvation" is saying "wonderfully hungry" whenever greeted by others > and working to convince others that this is indeed true: Here is the testimony of the former head of the FDA, an obviously intelligent, well informed man who can avail himself of any and all science. He could not understand why he was unable to maintain a constant, healthy weight. http://tinyurl.com/cd5rty In a more recent interview, Bill Mahrer had Kressler on for 15 minutes and the gist of that discussion was the constant barrage by the food and diet industries (Kessler tells that all mainstream diets are doomed to fail) the food industry to produce overconsumption, the diet to feed off of it. Both industries accomplish the same thing...overconsumption. The problem is greater than our ability to solve. Which circles us back to the 2PD. It solves the overconsumption problem and why is that? Because the 2PD is borne from a place which has the power to solve complex, human problems. I, like Kessler, struggled for years with trying to understand why I continually gained small amounts of weight. I ate no breakfast, little lunch and had large dinners. I was very active, working 70-80 hours per week on my strength training gym floors, lifting, racking, tons of iron plates and chrome Olympic bars daily. Yet, I gained weight. After we met, I weighed for the first time my daily food intake. Goshogolly, it was 2.5+ pounds on the average. I dropped to just under 2 pounds per day, never once looking at what I ate, weight dropped off at the rate of 1/2 to 1 pound per week. Simple. Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > The problem is greater than our ability to solve. Only GOD is able to cure our delusion that "hunger is starvation." HE does require that we use the 2PD-OMER Approach before HE operates on our heart of hearts to cut out the world's ancient lie that "hunger is starvation." The world first started using this lie to mess people up back in the time of Jacob and Essau (Genesis 25:32). It is not by chance but by GOD that the verse number is 32 to remind us about the 32 ounces being the optimal amount of daily food intake. > Which circles us back to the 2PD. It solves the overconsumption problem > and why is that? Because the 2PD is borne from a place which has the > power to solve complex, human problems. The Holy Spirit is the Source of the 2PD-OMER Approach. > I, like Kessler, struggled for years with trying to understand why I > continually gained small amounts of weight. I ate no breakfast, little [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Simple. Hungrier is healthier :-) Being hungrier is wonderful. Why was the turkey on the dinner table not hungry? Because it was both dead and stuffed. Therefore, not being hungry is terrible. Truth is simple :-) Love in the truth, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-certified Cardiologist http://T3WiJ.com You two faggots outta get a room and spawn a retard monkey fish frog. > It is not by chance but by GOD that the verse number is 32 to remind > us about the 32 ounces being the optimal amount of daily food intake. Numerology. > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/b37422264a6caade? > > Numerology. Reality. Truth is simple :-) May GOD soften your heart, Morton, so that you would come to trust the truth, Who is Jesus: http://T3WiJ.com Amen. Love in the truth, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-certified Heart Doctor http://WDJW.net >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Reality. So God is a numerologist ? > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > So God is a numerologist ? No. GOD is the Author of all reality. Truth is simple :-) May GOD soften your heart, Morton, so that you would come to trust the truth, Who is Jesus: http://T3WiJ.com Amen. Love in the truth, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-certified Heart Doctor http://WDJW.net > It is not by chance but by GOD that the verse number is 32 to remind > us about the 32 ounces being the optimal amount of daily food intake. So you're saying that 2 lbs is what a woman 5'2" tall and a man 6'2" tall should eat? No adjustment for physical activity, height, sex or age? What do you suggest the 2 lbs consist of? Baked fish or boiled broccoli? French Fries? Lettuce and celery? >> It is not by chance but by GOD that the verse number is 32 to remind >> us about the 32 ounces being the optimal amount of daily food intake. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > do you suggest the 2 lbs consist of? Baked fish or boiled broccoli? French > Fries? Lettuce and celery? Yes, yes, anything, both, yes (not healthy but oh well) yes and yes. Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 >>> It is not by chance but by GOD that the verse number is 32 to remind >>> us about the 32 ounces being the optimal amount of daily food intake. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Yes, yes, anything, both, yes (not healthy but oh well) yes and yes. Why do you give use useless replies? So you're saying everyone of every age and size and activity level will lose weight eating 2 lbs of peanut butter or cheese or fatty pork ribs a day? Do you realize how many calories are in these foods? Where are the double blind studies to prove a short inactive woman can lose weight on 2 lbs of cheese or peanut butter a day? I can't find any research on a 2PD diet online. On Sat, 2 May 2009 02:59:14 -0500, MU wrote > Here is the testimony of the former head of the FDA, an obviously > intelligent, well informed man who can avail himself of any and all [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Simple. There are many testimonials from all sorts of people using their real names with all the diets and this is just one more of the same. There has been no scientific evidence presented here or to peer reviewed medical journals. > There are many testimonials from all sorts of people using their real > names > with all the diets and this is just one more of the same. > > There has been no scientific evidence presented here or to peer reviewed > medical journals. Where did this religious fanatic Andrew get this magic 2 lb diet of unnamed foods from anyway? How could a man of, say 5'8", or a woman of 5'5" lose weight if they ate 1 lb of cheese and 1 lbs of steak a day? Look at the calories involved. Having your stomach rumble and suffering a headache from hunger hardly sounds like a blessing to me. It's very distracting if one has to work for a living. It's also hard to fall asleep with a burning, churning, rumbling stomach. > Where did this religious fanatic Andrew get this magic 2 lb diet of unnamed > foods from anyway? How could a man of, say 5'8", or a woman of 5'5" lose > weight if they ate 1 lb of cheese and 1 lbs of steak a day? Look at the > calories involved. Or they could lose weight, or gain less, than when they were eating 4 lbs per day. > Having your stomach rumble and suffering a headache from hunger hardly > sounds like a blessing to me. I never had those issues. > It's very distracting if one has to work for a > living. It's also hard to fall asleep with a burning, churning, rumbling > stomach. Take a Tums. >> Where did this religious fanatic Andrew get this magic 2 lb diet of >> unnamed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Or they could lose weight, or gain less, than when they were eating 4 > lbs per day. Who the hell eats 4 lbs of food a day? You're as crazy as Andrew is. >> Having your stomach rumble and suffering a headache from hunger hardly >> sounds like a blessing to me. > > I never had those issues. Because you ate ENOUGH to prevent the HUNGER Andrew is obsessed with. You weren't HUNGRY! >> It's very distracting if one has to work for a >> living. It's also hard to fall asleep with a burning, churning, rumbling >> stomach. > > Take a Tums. Is that how you prevented HUNGER? You gobbled bottles of Tums instead of nutritious food? >>> Where did this religious fanatic Andrew get this magic 2 lb diet of >>> unnamed [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Who the hell eats 4 lbs of food a day? You're as crazy as Andrew is. Good Lord, you know less than M and Ms! >>> Having your stomach rumble and suffering a headache from hunger hardly >>> sounds like a blessing to me. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Because you ate ENOUGH to prevent the HUNGER Andrew is obsessed with. You > weren't HUNGRY! Wrong again. I'm hungry a lot of the time. >>> It's very distracting if one has to work for a >>> living. It's also hard to fall asleep with a burning, churning, rumbling [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Is that how you prevented HUNGER? You gobbled bottles of Tums instead of > nutritious food? No but it was a suggestion for your own stomach problems, I don't need anything, thanks tough. Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 >>>> Where did this religious fanatic Andrew get this magic 2 lb diet of >>>> unnamed [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>> the >>>> calories involved. >>> Or they could lose weight, or gain less, than when they were eating 4 >>> lbs per day. >> >> Who the hell eats 4 lbs of food a day? You're as crazy as Andrew is. > > Good Lord, you know less than M and Ms! No, you're selling something and you have an agenda. Anyone other than a manual laborer eating 4 lbs a day needs professional help. >>>> Having your stomach rumble and suffering a headache from hunger hardly >>>> sounds like a blessing to me. >>> >>> I never had those issues. >> Because you ate ENOUGH to prevent the HUNGER Andrew is obsessed with. You >> weren't HUNGRY! > > Wrong again. I'm hungry a lot of the time. Then don't lie and say you're stomach doesn't roil and grumble. That part of what hunger is. It's uncomfortable and distracting. >>>> It's very distracting if one has to work for a >>>> living. It's also hard to fall asleep with a burning, churning, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > No but it was a suggestion for your own stomach problems, I don't need > anything, thanks tough. Are you a Dr? If not, then don't diagnose people you've never even seen and suggest treatments for problems that don't exist. > I dropped to just under 2 pounds per day, never once looking at what I > ate, weight dropped off at the rate of 1/2 to 1 pound per week. > > Simple. What exactly did that 2 lbs consist of? Meat? Cereals? Lettuce or cheese? 2 lbs of cheese will have a lot more calories than 2 lbs of lean broiled meat or broccoli and string beans. >> I dropped to just under 2 pounds per day, never once looking at what I >> ate, weight dropped off at the rate of 1/2 to 1 pound per week. >> >> Simple. > > What exactly did that 2 lbs consist of? Meat? Cereals? Lettuce or cheese? All and more. > 2 lbs of cheese will have a lot more calories than 2 lbs of lean broiled > meat or broccoli and string beans. lol Seriously? >>> I dropped to just under 2 pounds per day, never once looking at what I >>> ate, weight dropped off at the rate of 1/2 to 1 pound per week. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > All and more. Yep... a tsp of Cherios, a tsp of cheese. >> 2 lbs of cheese will have a lot more calories than 2 lbs of lean broiled >> meat or broccoli and string beans. > > lol > > Seriously? You're as crazy as Andrew. >>>> I dropped to just under 2 pounds per day, never once looking at what I >>>> ate, weight dropped off at the rate of 1/2 to 1 pound per week. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Yep... a tsp of Cherios, a tsp of cheese. Nope, no ChEErios but a fair amount of cheese, yes. Swiss, Colby, motzarella, pastorio... Wait, that last one is not cheese, just cheesy. lol Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 > Nope, no ChEErios but a fair amount of cheese, yes. Swiss, Colby, > motzarella, pastorio... > > Wait, that last one is not cheese, just cheesy. lol So then you're claiming you lose weight whether you consume 1200 calories a day or 6000 a day. LOL!!!!! >> Nope, no ChEErios but a fair amount of cheese, yes. Swiss, Colby, >> motzarella, pastorio... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So then you're claiming you lose weight whether you consume 1200 calories a > day or 6000 a day. LOL!!!!! Yes, that is the blatant absurdity of it. I think you are suppose to use snake oil for cooking. >>> Nope, no ChEErios but a fair amount of cheese, yes. Swiss, Colby, >>> motzarella, pastorio... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yes, that is the blatant absurdity of it. I think you are suppose to use > snake oil for cooking. And they lie and claim everyone they knew lost weight on this diet. I hope no one reading these groups buys into their bullshit. What is required to receive a cure for the delusion that "hunger is starvation" is saying "wonderfully hungry" whenever greeted by others and working to convince others that this is indeed true sci.med.cardiology, alt.support.diet.low-carb, misc.health.alternative, sci..med, alt.christnet.christianlife > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > >> Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote: [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > - Show quoted text - RP Autrey wrote: > What is required to receive a cure for the delusion that "hunger is > starvation" is saying "wonderfully hungry" whenever greeted by others > and working to convince others that this is indeed true Correct :-) Hunger is wonderful: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/b37422264a6caade? Truth is simple :-) May GOD soften your heart, RP Autrey, so that you would come to trust the truth, Who is Jesus: http://T3WiJ.com Amen. Love in the truth, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-certified Cardiologist http://WDJW.net > Hunger is wonderful: Tell that to the starving Africans as they watch their children die from lack of adequate nutrients. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/518c33efe51560d7? <>< "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD." (Proverbs 16:33) Amen. A Spirit-guided exegesis of Proverbs 16:33 ... http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/085dcffcafb7e4e2? Nothing happens by chance because everything happens only as GOD allows it (Ecclesiastes 9:11): http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/21527d1832960109? Sign that GOD can easily unleash an H5N1 Pandemic (Pan-Flu) at any time: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/a4581567229974c0? What we are teaching to prepare folks for the eventuality of a catastrophic Pan-Flu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmkax1wbRU How to not be fearful: Trust the truth, Who is Jesus !!! http://T3WiJ.com May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful 2009th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as our Messiah, the Son of Man ... ... by being hungrier: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f891e617d10bd689? Hunger is wonderful ! ! ! It's how we know the answer to the question "What does Jesus want?" (WDJW): http://WDJW.net Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve paid for with their and our immortal lives: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/52a3db8576495806? Hunger is the physical "hearts burning within us" feeling that unlocks the 4 mysteries of the "Road to Emmaus" adventure described in Luke 24: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/386f56c2f6d0b154? Moreover, being hungrier is the key to being Jesus' disciples: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/bd20d7c4fe878897? Being physically hungrier is how we will physically recognize Jesus when He physically returns for us to meet Him physically in the air: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ffa6609710ea9587? "Blessed are you who hunger NOW... ... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21) Amen. Here is a Spirit-guided exegesis of Luke 6:21 given in hopes of promoting much greater understanding: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cc2aa8f8a4d41360? Jesus is LORD, forever !!! http://JiL4ever.net Be hungrier, which is truly healthier for mind, body, and soul: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/991d4e30704307e7? Marana tha Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ, Andrew <>< -- "... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor 12:3) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/035c93540862751c? What does Jesus want (WDJW) ? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/11194899724b810d? "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love18@thetruth.com> wrote in message ......... total babbling bullshit! This guy is a psycho case. Religion pushed him over the edge. Have you noticed that most of the individuals involved in world government shenanigans as propaganda are Irish? Here's a classic: "The United Nations has accordingly retracted claims over one of the biggest controversies in the Gaza war, admitting that an Israeli mortar attack on 6 January 2009 which killed 43 people did not hit a school run by the UN agency." When asked what I thought about the swine flu, I reminded my questioner that I have a perspective of having known the names of the first 6 HIV infections within the State of Victoria. That while nations must test their readiness and preparedness for health exigency, and I applaud them for whipping this latest up into a fever. When do you think they start apologizing for what wasn't done for HIV? - dolf > "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love18@thetruth.com> wrote in message > ......... total babbling bullshit! > > This guy is a psycho case. Religion pushed him over the edge. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/b32c5d6a93cd0ed2? <>< "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD." (Proverbs 16:33) Amen. A Spirit-guided exegesis of Proverbs 16:33 ... http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/085dcffcafb7e4e2? Nothing happens by chance because everything happens only as GOD allows it (Ecclesiastes 9:11): http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/21527d1832960109? Sign that GOD can easily unleash an H5N1 Pandemic (Pan-Flu) at any time: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/a4581567229974c0? What we are teaching to prepare folks for the eventuality of a catastrophic Pan-Flu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmkax1wbRU How to not be fearful: Trust the truth, Who is Jesus !!! http://T3WiJ.com May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful 2009th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as our Messiah, the Son of Man ... ... by being hungrier: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f891e617d10bd689? Hunger is wonderful ! ! ! It's how we know the answer to the question "What does Jesus want?" (WDJW): http://WDJW.net Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve paid for with their and our immortal lives: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/52a3db8576495806? Hunger is the physical "hearts burning within us" feeling that unlocks the 4 mysteries of the "Road to Emmaus" adventure described in Luke 24: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/386f56c2f6d0b154? Moreover, being hungrier is the key to being Jesus' disciples: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/bd20d7c4fe878897? Being physically hungrier is how we will physically recognize Jesus when He physically returns for us to meet Him physically in the air: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ffa6609710ea9587? "Blessed are you who hunger NOW... ... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21) Amen. Here is a Spirit-guided exegesis of Luke 6:21 given in hopes of promoting much greater understanding: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cc2aa8f8a4d41360? Jesus is LORD, forever !!! http://JiL4ever.net Be hungrier, which is truly healthier for mind, body, and soul: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/991d4e30704307e7? Marana tha Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ, Andrew <>< -- http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb? > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/b32c5d6a93cd0ed2? > > <>< > > "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the > LORD." (Proverbs 16:33) The lot? The LOT of what? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/518c33efe51560d7? <>< "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD." (Proverbs 16:33) Amen. A Spirit-guided exegesis of Proverbs 16:33 ... http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/085dcffcafb7e4e2? Nothing happens by chance because everything happens only as GOD allows it (Ecclesiastes 9:11): http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/21527d1832960109? Sign that GOD can easily unleash an H5N1 Pandemic at any time: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/a4581567229974c0? What we are teaching to prepare folks for the eventuality of a catastrophic Pan-Flu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmkax1wbRU How to not be fearful: Trust the truth, Who is Jesus !!! http://T3WiJ.com May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful 2009th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as our Messiah, the Son of Man ... ... by being hungrier: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f891e617d10bd689? Hunger is wonderful ! ! ! It's how we know the answer to the question "What does Jesus want?" (WDJW): http://WDJW.net Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve paid for with their and our immortal lives: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/52a3db8576495806? Hunger is the physical "hearts burning within us" feeling that unlocks the 4 mysteries of the "Road to Emmaus" adventure described in Luke 24: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/386f56c2f6d0b154? Moreover, being hungrier is the key to being Jesus' disciples: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/bd20d7c4fe878897? Being physically hungrier is how we will physically recognize Jesus when He physically returns for us to meet Him physically in the air: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ffa6609710ea9587? "Blessed are you who hunger NOW... ... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21) Amen. Here is a Spirit-guided exegesis of Luke 6:21 given in hopes of promoting much greater understanding: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cc2aa8f8a4d41360? Jesus is LORD, forever !!! http://JiL4ever.net Be hungrier, which is truly healthier for mind, body, and soul: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/991d4e30704307e7? Marana tha Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ, Andrew <>< -- http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb? > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/518c33efe51560d7? > > <>< > > "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the > LORD." (Proverbs 16:33) WHAT *LOT* is cast into your lap? Can you not comprehend the question? Godmania BS snipped for our sanity. Hunger is wonderful & Wang Chung is insane. > Hunger is wonderful & Wang Chung is insane. I can see he's insane. There's nothing wonderful about hunger. It appears religion pushed him over the edge. I knew a woman who suffered the same fate as years passed. She lost her job due to her growing fanaticism, her god mania. Her husband left her and her kids refused to visit her. Her friends all abandoned her because they couldn't take the constant "praise the lord" Jesus loves you god talk, just like Chung. She ended up on SSD and lived in a ramshackle rooming house. At the end she wandered the streets in filthy rags preaching to invisible people. And this woman was once a well respected Real Estate agent.... until she "found god." >> Hunger is wonderful & Wang Chung is insane. > > I can see he's insane. No you can't. You don't know Chung, I do. > There's nothing wonderful about hunger. Oh yes there its. > It appears > religion pushed him over the edge. He was "edgy" before the @PD, See above re: Mu knows Chung, you don't. >I knew a woman who suffered the same fate > as years passed. She lost her job due to her growing fanaticism, her god [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > rags preaching to invisible people. And this woman was once a well respected > Real Estate agent.... until she "found god." Let's see, would I want to be saved or a "well respected Realtor"? Hmmmmmmmmmm. Saved. Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 > You don't know Chung, I do. I'll bet you do. I'll bet you know him as well as you know yourself. I'll bet if you look in the mirror right now, you'll see him. You and your silly masquerades, Andy. >> You don't know Chung, I do. > > I'll bet you do. I'll bet you know him as well as you know yourself. > I'll bet if you look in the mirror right now, you'll see him. > > You and your silly masquerades, Andy. Certainly seems that way. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ba8379f6c69b4310? <>< Trust the truth, Who is Jesus !!! http://T3WiJ.com May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful 2009th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as our Messiah, the Son of Man ... ... by being hungrier: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f891e617d10bd689? Hunger is wonderful ! ! ! It's how we know the answer to the question "What does Jesus want?" (WDJW): http://WDJW.net Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve paid for with their and our immortal lives: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/52a3db8576495806? Hunger is the physical "hearts burning within us" feeling that unlocks the 4 mysteries of the "Road to Emmaus" adventure described in Luke 24: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/386f56c2f6d0b154? Moreover, being hungrier is the key to being Jesus' disciples: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/bd20d7c4fe878897? Being physically hungrier is how we will physically recognize Jesus when He physically returns for us to meet Him physically in the air: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ffa6609710ea9587? "Blessed are you who hunger NOW... ... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21) Amen. Here is a Spirit-guided exegesis of Luke 6:21 given in hopes of promoting much greater understanding: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cc2aa8f8a4d41360? Jesus is LORD, forever !!! http://JiL4ever.net Be hungrier, which is truly healthier for mind, body, and soul: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/991d4e30704307e7? Marana tha Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-certified Cardiologist Author of "Be Hungry" http://NetCabal.com Only GOD can cure the "hunger is starvation" delusion: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d01915cc6cd0e47e? Trust the truth but don't trust Wang Chung. On May 10, 1:59 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <disci...@T3WiJ.com> wrote: > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ba8379f6c69b4310? > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > Only GOD can cure the "hunger is starvation" delusion:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d01915cc6cd0e47e? >>> You don't know Chung, I do. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Certainly seems that way. MU appears to be another religious fanatic like Chung. He worships Chung. > He was "edgy" before the @PD, See above re: Mu knows Chung, you don't. Is @PD a new form of 2PD or did you make a mistake? >>> Hunger is wonderful & Wang Chung is insane. >> >> I can see he's insane. > > No you can't. You don't know Chung, I do. If he's not insane why does he post like an insane obsessed fanatic? He sounds just like that woman I knew years ago. She could be his twin. >> There's nothing wonderful about hunger. > > Oh yes there its. What? What's wonderful about a burning roiling stomach and headache? Are you a masochist? You get off by suffering? >> It appears >> religion pushed him over the edge. > > He was "edgy" before the @PD, See above re: Mu knows Chung, you don't. You don't know him either. If you did you could see how over the top he's gone. >>I knew a woman who suffered the same fate >> as years passed. She lost her job due to her growing fanaticism, her god [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Saved. Saved from what? From who? >> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/518c33efe51560d7? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > WHAT *LOT* is cast into your lap? Can you not comprehend the question? Penises, a lot. > The healthiest people in the world are the hungriest people in the > world. > Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Human Geneticist, Molecular Biologist, > and Board-certified Cardiologisthttp://EmoryCardiology.com > Yes, the South Beach and Atkins diets are not based on calories or portion > sizes. Yes and they also enjoy astronomical failure rates. They are scams when considering eating for a lifetime. Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 >>> Answers are simple. >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Of course the specific mass of the food doesn't matter; that is, > there is nothing magic about two pounds. Anything that works universally has a certainty of "majick" involved in it. > The point is that mass of food can be used as an estimate of intake and > a control parameter, and that there may be advantages to doing it that > way---advantages such as the diet is as simple as possible, while still > being tied to closed-loop parameter control. There you go. > Of course, if you drastically vary the average caloric density of the food, > then you are violating the spirit of the idea, right? I.e. basically cheating. A cheat which in both my experience and Chung's that simply does not work in any real life situation. However, a phool who is out to disprove the 2PD at the risk of his health could, theoretically, do so. Then again, this is not a real world situation either. > Can you name any reasonable self-administered diet system in which cheating is > absolutely impossible? No. > Think about this: many people don't even think twice about using their body > mass as an estimate of how fat they are, and as a feedback parameter for > tracking progress. If body mass can be used a feedback parameter, why can't > food mass be used as the corresponding control parameter? It can. > If you're measuring body mass on the feedback side, rather than precise > compartmentalized body composition, does it even make sense to compute precise > calories on the control side? None since it is, in a real life situation, nearly impossible to compute ingested (used) cals. > Still, fact is, two pounds does impose an upper bound. The most calorie-dense > foods are fats, at 9 kcal/g. So the most energy you can get from 900 grams > of food is 8100 kcal. Yes. > So work with me for a second: if you use mass to estimate energy intake, you do > in fact have a parameter which establishes an upper bound on energy intake. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > adult male. A caloric density of 2.0 kcal/g isn't particularly low, nor is it > particularly high. It's quite representative of normal food. I have experienced highly trained, endurance and anaerobic athletes who have performed to par, who have controlled their weight by the 2PD. I have also experienced athletes who have exceeded their weight, on purpose, (offensive tackles for one)by purposefully choosing to weigh out 3 or more pounds of food daily. > Chung isn't really saying anything other than: eat a reasonable amount of > normal food. That's not enough to qualify him as sane, or even intelligent, of > course. The charges of insanity, etc come from those who wish to disparage the 2PD for whatever self-enabling agendas. In truth, as you have pointed out, the diet will work and the detractors come off as drooling morons with childlike tantrums. > But remember the message from 1980's seatbelt education? > > ``You can learn a lot from a dummy''. Dummy or not, the message is greater than the messenger (if you consider Chung and I "messengers"). Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 >> Still, fact is, two pounds does impose an upper bound. The most >> calorie-dense [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yes. So you're saying people, even short inactive women can lose weight at 8100 calories a day? ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.support.diet.low-carb.] >>> Still, fact is, two pounds does impose an upper bound. The most >>> calorie-dense [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So you're saying people, even short inactive women can lose weight at 8100 > calories a day? MU didn't write that, only the ``Yes''. I wrote the rest. My claim was that there is an upper bound on the energy content in 900 grams of food. This was in the context of an argument that food mass can serve as an adequate control parameter, not that 8100 kcal is a good intake for fat loss. Please read stuff in its proper context and reply to the proper person. I did some research to see if there exist any statistics about the average energy density of food. Here is one source. Check out the paper ``Dietary Energy Density in Relation to Subsequent Changes of Weight and Waist Circumference in European Men and Women''. Quotes: This population-based prospective cohort study included 89,432 participants from five European countries with mean age 53 years (range: 20.78 years) at baseline and were followed for an average of 6.5 years (range: 1.9.12.5 years). ... The overall mean ED was 1.7 kcal/g and higher in men (1.9 kcal/g) than in women (1.6 kcal/g). Look at that; women were found to be eating at a lower caloric density. 907 grams at 1.9 kcal/g is 1723 kcal. 907 grams at 1.6 kcal/g is 1451 kcal. Two pounds of the stuff that constitutes the average intake appears to be in the ballpark for safe, effective dieting, for both men and women. > Two pounds of the stuff that constitutes the average intake appears to be in > the ballpark for safe, effective dieting, for both men and women. Chung does not seem to put any qualifiers on his 2PD with regards to the food that makes up the 2 pounds. Cannot imagine a diet of 2 pounds of fudge a day (or even eating a diet of that) would result in a weight loss. Would seem that 2 pounds of average intake would result in weight loss as that would be a reduction in the amount eaten which should give a weight loss. I remember the ads for some diet drink where you had one for breakfast, one for lunch and then a "sensible" dinner. They did not say in the ad that you could have whatever you wanted for dinner. It is Chung's claim with no qualifiers that is the problem. >> Two pounds of the stuff that constitutes the average intake appears to be in >> the ballpark for safe, effective dieting, for both men and women. > > Chung does not seem to put any qualifiers on his 2PD with regards to the food > that makes up the 2 pounds. Cannot imagine a diet of 2 pounds of fudge a day > (or even eating a diet of that) would result in a weight loss. Cannot imagine anyone eating two pounds of anything everyday. duh. > Would seem that 2 pounds of average intake would result in weight loss as > that would be a reduction in the amount eaten which should give a weight > loss. uhhhhhhhhhhhhh > I remember the ads for some diet drink where you had one for breakfast, one > for lunch and then a "sensible" dinner. They did not say in the ad that you > could have whatever you wanted for dinner. > > It is Chung's claim with no qualifiers that is the problem. Nope. it's the fact that you have no solid arguments against a 100% success rate on the 2PD. duh is simple, even for a simpleton. > Cannot imagine anyone eating two pounds of anything everyday. Because you cannot imagine something, does not mean it does not exist or someone would not want to do it. If there are no qualifications with the 2PD, then can be two pounds of anything anyone wants even if you cannot imagine someone eating two pounds of fudge everyday. Of course, if there is a qualifying statement that it is a "reasonable" diet, then 2 pounds of fudge would not be part of it. > Nope. it's the fact that you have no solid arguments against a 100% > success rate on the 2PD. Another "gold miner" claim. So far they have all been fool's gold and would like to see the "assay" (proof) and the criteria for success and the numbers. Have to always read the "fine print." >> Cannot imagine anyone eating two pounds of anything everyday. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >like to see the "assay" (proof) and the criteria for success and the numbers. > Have to always read the "fine print." We remain grateful to GOD for His arranging for folks like Robert Weldon trying all sorts of different kinds of diets including the fudge-only diet in combination with the 2PD-OMER Approach in an attempt to thwart the latter. Their failures have allowed us to reject the null hypothesis that the 2PD-OMER Approach loses efficacy when the diet consists of ones favorite foods. "That's what I was kicking around. Find something that will cause weight gain that fits his two pound rule, gain about 20 pounds, then claim his $2,000,000 guarantee. Then sue him when he doesn't come through on his promise." -- Robert Weldon (1/10/08) Source: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/e2275eded908768d? Truth is simple :-) May GOD soften your heart, Atheno, so that you would come to trust the truth, Who is Jesus: http://T3WiJ.com Amen. Love in the truth, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Author of "Be Hungry" http://NetCabal.com "How GOD inspired the 2PD-OMER Approach." >>> Cannot imagine anyone eating two pounds of anything everyday. > We remain grateful to GOD for His arranging for folks like Robert > Weldon trying all sorts of different kinds of diets including the > fudge-only diet in combination with the 2PD-OMER Approach Oh, so now someone, Robert Weldon, has tried the fudge diet. Now was it presented before in this group or is this the first time so MU was not aware of it as MU wrote he could not imagine anyone eating two pounds of fudge a day. I was correct when I pointed out to MU that because he could not imagine it, did not mean it could not be. >>>> Cannot imagine anyone eating two pounds of anything everyday. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of it as MU wrote he could not imagine anyone eating two pounds of fudge a > day. Correct, he tried it, did not stay on it and proved that I am accurate. duh is simple. > I was correct when I pointed out to MU that because he could not imagine it, > did not mean it could not be. I was correct when I agreed. Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 >>>>> Cannot imagine anyone eating two pounds of anything everyday. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I was correct when I agreed. Wrong. You said you could not imagine someone eating two pounds of fudge a day and therefore did not exist and Chung gave an example where someone did. See below where you wrote it did not exist. So, can you admit you were wrong? > On Fri, 8 May 2009 14:02:34 -0500, MU wrote > (in article <4a0481d8$1@news.x-privat.org>): > >> Cannot imagine anyone eating two pounds of anything everyday. > > Because you cannot imagine something, does not mean it does not exist It does not exist. Period. >>>>>> Cannot imagine anyone eating two pounds of anything everyday. >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > See below where you wrote it did not exist. It doesn't as I have consistently said, and will say this one last time, "Cannot imagine anyone eating two pounds of anything _everyday+. Weldon, he tried it, did not stay on it and proved that I am accurate. duh is simple. > So, can you admit you were wrong? I would if I was, now can you? Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 > It doesn't as I have consistently said, and will say this one last time, > "Cannot imagine anyone eating two pounds of anything _everyday+. Weldon, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I would if I was, now can you? Tell us......... 2 lbs of *WHAT?* And how are the calories from liquids figured in/weighed? > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/e7d1477fc05c8a04? > > Oh, so now someone, Robert Weldon, has tried the fudge diet. Indeed most people using the 2PD-OMER Approach are doing this in combination with a diet comprising of their favorite foods. This combination makes folks ever healthier (hungrier) helping them lose all their VAT thereby curing their insulin resistance (IR/MetS) and in many instances even allows a cure of their type-2 diabetes: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb? Even the staunchiest opponents of the 2PD-OMER Approach have confessed from their hearts that they know it is 100% efficacious for helping obese folks achieving weight loss. "To be sure, if I ate two pounds of food a day, I would most assuredly lose weight." -- an obese Bob Pastorio (7/11/2003) Source: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9cd858f760e301e7 Truth is simple. May GOD soften your heart, Atheno, so that you would come to trust the truth, Who is Jesus: http://T3WiJ.com Amen. Love in the truth, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-certified Heart Doctor http://NetCabal.com "How GOD inspired the 2PD-OMER Approach." > Indeed most people using the 2PD-OMER Approach are doing this in > combination with a diet comprising of their favorite foods. > > This combination makes folks ever healthier (hungrier) helping them > lose all their VAT thereby curing their insulin resistance (IR/MetS) > and in many instances even allows a cure of their type-2 diabetes: So 2 lbs of day of carbs, starches and sugary foods would cure their insulin resistance and may even cure diabetes? Where are the studies (not anecdotes) on this? Google turned up nothing concerning 2lbs of starches/sugars/carbs a day curing anything! > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So 2 lbs of day of carbs, starches and sugary foods would cure their insulin > resistance and may even cure diabetes? Would suggest you repeatedly reread the following until able to rephrase your question: "Indeed most people using the 2PD-OMER Approach are doing this in combination with a diet comprising of their favorite foods." > Where are the studies (not anecdotes) on this? Already discussed earlier in a different thread: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/523d5844f24cd074? Would suggest you and other folks read "Be Hungry" for greater understanding: http://NetCabal.com Love in the truth, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-certified Cardiologist http://T3WIJ.com Truth: The two pound diet,aka 2pd etc. is quack science. It has flaws of both fact and logic. It was invented to fit a preexisting agenda and does not flow from evidence based on research. The diet inventor has many times been appraised of his flaws but clings to them for reasons other then science or valid medical practice All of this nonsense of measure by weight or volume comes from the agenda fitting, not well established research. But sadly even the agenda is based on misunderstood and misapplied information. Even when corrected the author of the agenda for nothing but pride and vain face saving can not deal with that truth. Bottom line, ignore any reference to the two pound diet,aka 2 pd etc. and stick with established information and sources of expert authorities which does not include the vanity of vanity distorting reality in this case. God bless. > The two pound diet,aka 2pd etc. is quack science. Twenty-Five Ways to Spot Quacks and Vitamin Pushers http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/spotquack.html Some of the 25 different things they recommend to watch for in quacks fit Chung and his 2PD. > Truth: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > God bless. Chung got this 2PD nonsense from the bible. Apparently be believes everyone from near infancy to old age is supposed to consume 2 lbs of food a day. Calories don't matter according to Chung. He bases this 2 PD diet on the biblical "manna from heaven" story. There is no basis in reality for this diet he's pushing. >> Truth: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > PD diet on the biblical "manna from heaven" story. There is no basis in > reality for this diet he's pushing. no, chung got the 2 lb idea from watching Mt Everest climbers at an I-Max theatre........ they took 2 lbs of food with them, and he said 'eureka' and started to tout 2 lbs it was pointed out to chung that the 2lbs of food was DRIED FOOD and they used the snow to rehydrate it, and to get their own water then andie found religion......... and he read about the omer and now, it's all God's vision (me rolls her eyes here) >>> Truth: >>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > (me rolls her eyes here) They're all nuts............... >>> Truth: >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I-Max theatre........ they took 2 lbs of food with them, and he said > 'eureka' and started to tout 2 lbs Poor Listerineman, you shot him in his head. lol > it was pointed out to chung that the 2lbs of food was DRIED FOOD and > they used the snow to rehydrate it, and to get their own water > > then andie found religion Nope, had it before. >......... and he read about the omer > > and now, it's all God's vision Most everything is. > (me rolls her eyes here) Careful, Lily, if God is real, you're screwed. Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 > >> someone who hates the 2PD-OMER Approach despairingly posted: > >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Nope, had it before. Correct. > >......... and he read about the omer > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Careful, Lily, if God is real, you're screwed. GOD is real... ... and only GOD can cure Kate's type-1 diabetes. Only those of us, who are Christians (either Jew or gentile), have been forgiven so that we have the courage to ask GOD for such favors: http://www.interviewwithgod.com/forgiven May GOD soften Kate's heart so that she would come to trust the truth, Who is Jesus: http://T3WiJ.com Amen. Love in the truth, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-certified Heart Doctor and Author of "Be Hungry" http://NetCabal.com "Don't be left behind as were Cleopus and Simon ... ... -----------------> be hungry ! ! !" Only GOD can cut the "hunger is starvation" delusion from our hearts: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/74281ab7d7ce78de? > GOD is real... As real as Jesus' and his older brother who has the birth right, Harvey http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/518c33efe51560d7? <>< "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD." (Proverbs 16:33) Amen. A Spirit-guided exegesis of Proverbs 16:33 ... http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/085dcffcafb7e4e2? Nothing happens by chance because everything happens only as GOD allows it (Ecclesiastes 9:11): http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/21527d1832960109? Sign that GOD can easily unleash an H5N1 Pandemic at any time: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/a4581567229974c0? What we are teaching to prepare folks for the eventuality of a catastrophic Pan-Flu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmkax1wbRU How to not be fearful: Trust the truth, Who is Jesus !!! http://T3WiJ.com May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful 2009th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as our Messiah, the Son of Man ... ... by being hungrier: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f891e617d10bd689? Hunger is wonderful ! ! ! It's how we know the answer to the question "What does Jesus want?" (WDJW): http://WDJW.net Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve paid for with their and our immortal lives: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/52a3db8576495806? Hunger is the physical "hearts burning within us" feeling that unlocks the 4 mysteries of the "Road to Emmaus" adventure described in Luke 24: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/386f56c2f6d0b154? Moreover, being hungrier is the key to being Jesus' disciples: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/bd20d7c4fe878897? Being physically hungrier is how we will physically recognize Jesus when He physically returns for us to meet Him physically in the air: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ffa6609710ea9587? "Blessed are you who hunger NOW... ... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21) Amen. Here is a Spirit-guided exegesis of Luke 6:21 given in hopes of promoting much greater understanding: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cc2aa8f8a4d41360? Jesus is LORD, forever !!! http://JiL4ever.net Be hungrier, which is truly healthier for mind, body, and soul: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/991d4e30704307e7? Marana tha Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ, Andrew <>< -- http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb? Only GOD can cut the "hunger is starvation" delusion from our hearts: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/74281ab7d7ce78de? > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/518c33efe51560d7? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > ............ Good. Keep this up and continue to follow my advide > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/518c33efe51560d7? > > Nothing happens by chance because everything happens only as GOD > allows it (Ecclesiastes 9:11): Your evil god: Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Funny, but your Bible has God taking credit for creating all things, including evil. In fact... Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? The Bible explicitly states that every evil act is in fact the will of the Lord! > Chung got this 2PD nonsense from the bible. Apparently be believes everyone > from near infancy to old age is supposed to consume 2 lbs of food a day. > Calories don't matter according to Chung. He bases this 2 PD diet on the > biblical "manna from heaven" story. There is no basis in reality for this > diet he's pushing. More lies and innacuaracies. Clue coming! Read about what you criticize, it will assist you in ot looking like the moron you are. Hide it better, anyway. Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 <snip spam> >> Chung got this 2PD nonsense from the bible. Apparently be believes >> everyone [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Clue coming! Read about what you criticize, it will assist you in ot > looking like the moron you are. Hide it better, anyway. You're the moron for buying into Chung's insane babbling and nonsense. If he told you to jump off a roof, you'd ask which one. are you awar that you are argueing with a mentally ill individual? This mental illness led to his being fired in Ocala Florida. Look it up, it is truely enlightening. SignatureMåck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/type1and2/ http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco" http://www.ratbags.com/dechunging/ "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt (o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------------- "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... . > are you awar that you are argueing with a mentally ill individual? > This mental illness led to his being fired in Ocala Florida. Look it > up, it is truely enlightening. lol That's "truely" enlightening, You Old Clunker alt.support.diabetes,sci.med.cardiology reinstated how disingenuous of you Mackie! Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 > lol As Chung wrote in response to a "lol": "Written laughter is silent despair." -- Holy Spirit " satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted: > "Written laughter is silent despair." -- Holy Spirit Amen. And, so that words of GOD have rebuked you. May we, who are Jesus' disciples (either Jew or gentile), continue to be mindful of WDJW by rebuking you at each GOD-given opportunity as GOD desires: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/518c33efe51560d7? <>< "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD." (Proverbs 16:33) Amen. A Spirit-guided exegesis of Proverbs 16:33 ... http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/085dcffcafb7e4e2? Nothing happens by chance because everything happens only as GOD allows it (Ecclesiastes 9:11): http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/21527d1832960109? Sign that GOD can easily unleash an H5N1 Pandemic at any time: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/a4581567229974c0? What we are teaching to prepare folks for the eventuality of a catastrophic Pan-Flu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmkax1wbRU How to not be fearful: Trust the truth, Who is Jesus !!! http://T3WiJ.com May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful 2009th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as our Messiah, the Son of Man ... ... by being hungrier: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f891e617d10bd689? Hunger is wonderful ! ! ! It's how we know the answer to the question "What does Jesus want?" (WDJW): http://WDJW.net Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve paid for with their and our immortal lives: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/52a3db8576495806? Hunger is the physical "hearts burning within us" feeling that unlocks the 4 mysteries of the "Road to Emmaus" adventure described in Luke 24: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/386f56c2f6d0b154? Moreover, being hungrier is the key to being Jesus' disciples: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/bd20d7c4fe878897? Being physically hungrier is how we will physically recognize Jesus when He physically returns for us to meet Him physically in the air: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ffa6609710ea9587? "Blessed are you who hunger NOW... ... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21) Amen. Here is a Spirit-guided exegesis of Luke 6:21 given in hopes of promoting much greater understanding: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cc2aa8f8a4d41360? Jesus is LORD, forever !!! http://JiL4ever.net Be hungrier, which is truly healthier for mind, body, and soul: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/991d4e30704307e7? Marana tha Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ, Andrew <>< -- "... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor 12:3) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/035c93540862751c? What does Jesus want (WDJW) ? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/11194899724b810d? Only the truth can cure the "hunger is starvation" delusion: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/74281ab7d7ce78de? >> "Written laughter is silent despair." -- Holy Spirit > > Amen. Glad you agree with my comments to MU about his "lol." Harvey is the LORD. >> lol > > As Chung wrote in response to a "lol": > > "Written laughter is silent despair." -- Holy Spirit " So now he believes himself to be the "Holy Spirit." It doesn't get crazier than that. Next he'll claim to be God himself. > are you awar that you are argueing with a mentally ill individual? > This mental illness led to his being fired in Ocala Florida. Look it > up, it is truely enlightening. It can see it's becoming pretty well known. Apparently he's too mentally ill to hold a job. > "Indeed most people using the 2PD-OMER Approach are doing this in > combination with a diet comprising of their favorite foods." Eating 2 lbs of food consisting of 8 or 9000 calories a day will not cause weight loss, especially in short inactive women. SNIP! > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > > > > "Indeed most people using the 2PD-OMER Approach are doing this in > > combination with a diet comprising of their favorite foods." > > Eating 2 lbs of food consisting of 8 or 9000 calories a day ... Bomb calorimeter measurements of 2 lbs (908 grams) of food comprising of a variety of a person's favorites typically yields about 1800 calories and not 8000-9000 calories as you falsely claim. This has been pointed out to you earlier by Kaz: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d4a9d7d5b48ad463? Truth is simple :-) May GOD soften your heart, LB, so that you would come to trust the truth, Who is Jesus: http://T3WiJ.com Amen. Love in the truth, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-certified Cardiologist and Author of "Be Hungry" http://NetCabal.com "Don't be left behind as were Cleopus and Simon ... ... -----------------> be hungry ! ! !" Only GOD can cut the "hunger is starvation" delusion from our hearts: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/74281ab7d7ce78de? >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > calories and not 8000-9000 calories as you falsely claim. This has > been pointed out to you earlier by Kaz: The favorite foods of many, if not most obese people are not low calorie foods. Fries, sweets, burgers etc are not going to contain 1800 in a 2 pound portion. Only lean meats and low carb veggies may make it. Those are not usually the favorite foods of those with weight issues. If eating 2 lbs a day caused weight loss as you claim, everyone would be carrying around scales and no one would be obese. > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The favorite foods of many, if not most obese people are not low calorie > foods. Favorites change when folks hold themselves to 32 ounces per day. > Fries, sweets, burgers etc are not going to contain 1800 in a 2 pound > portion. They don't contain 8000-9000 calories as you have falsely claimed. > Only lean meats and low carb veggies may make it. The average caloric density of what people are eating remains about 2 cal/gm as cited by Kaz. > Those are not > usually the favorite foods of those with weight issues. Folks with weight issues are **all** eating more than 32 ounces per day. Therefore, they will **all** lose weight by eating less, down to the right amount (32 ounces) per day. Truth is simple :-) May GOD soften your heart, L.B., so that you would come to trust the truth, Who is Jesus: http://T3WiJ.com Amen. Love in the truth, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-certified Heart Doctor and Author of "Be Hungry" http://NetCabal.com "Don't be left behind as were Cleopus and Simon ... ... -----------------> be hungry ! ! !" Only GOD can cut the "hunger is starvation" delusion from our hearts: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/74281ab7d7ce78de? >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Favorites change when folks hold themselves to 32 ounces per day. Where is your proof or evidence of this? What university did the research to back your claims? >> Fries, sweets, burgers etc are not going to contain 1800 in a 2 pound >> portion. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Folks with weight issues are **all** eating more than 32 ounces per > day. And you read this in your crystal ball? > Therefore, they will **all** lose weight by eating less, down to the > right amount (32 ounces) per day. Who? Tall men doing manual labor or short inactive women? >> Bomb calorimeter measurements of 2 lbs (908 grams) of food comprising >> of a variety of a person's favorites typically yields about 1800 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > foods. Fries, sweets, burgers etc are not going to contain 1800 in a 2 pound > portion You don't know that, no one does. Cal books are about "average" and averages can be widely varied. Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 >>> Bomb calorimeter measurements of 2 lbs (908 grams) of food comprising >>> of a variety of a person's favorites typically yields about 1800 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You don't know that, no one does. Cal books are about "average" and > averages can be widely varied. EXACTLY! And you and your hero Chung have no idea what the 2 lbs of food would contain, how many calories, that people would eat following his insane diet. >> Cannot imagine anyone eating two pounds of anything everyday. > > Because you cannot imagine something, does not mean it does not exist It does not exist. Period. > or > someone would not want to do it. Wanting is not doing. duh. > If there are no qualifications with the 2PD, then can be two pounds of > anything anyone wants even if you cannot imagine someone eating two pounds of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > like to see the "assay" (proof) and the criteria for success and the numbers. > Have to always read the "fine print." What are your credentials to review such citations? Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 >>> Cannot imagine anyone eating two pounds of anything everyday. >> >> Because you cannot imagine something, does not mean it does not exist > > It does not exist. Period. Wrong. From a recent post from Chung: "We remain grateful to GOD for His arranging for folks like Robert Weldon trying all sorts of different kinds of diets including the fudge-only diet in combination with the 2PD-OMER Approach in an attempt to thwart the latter. " So, things do exist outside what you can imagine. Unless, you claim Chung is not telling the truth. So were you wrong or is Chung a liar. >>>> Cannot imagine anyone eating two pounds of anything everyday. >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > So were you wrong or is Chung a liar. Neither. " I cannot imagine anyone eating two pounds of anything _everyday_. Weldon didn't, he quit. duh is simple even for a simpleton. > Neither. > > " I cannot imagine anyone eating two pounds of anything _everyday_. > Weldon didn't, he quit. But you also wrote that you could not imagine that and that it did not exist. If you cannot understand that, then will leave it as it is. >> Neither. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If you cannot understand that, then will leave it as it is. You can't reason with a religious nutter. MU is a religious nutter like Chung. >>>>> Cannot imagine anyone eating two pounds of anything everyday. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > " I cannot imagine anyone eating two pounds of anything _everyday_. Were you home schooled? Are you aware of the limited diet of the Eskimo and some African tribes? > Weldon didn't, he quit. > > duh is simple even for a simpleton. Why post like a schoolboy troll rather than an adult? > Why post like a schoolboy troll rather than an adult? Perhaps that is all he can do. >> Of course, if there is a qualifying statement that it is a "reasonable" diet, >> then 2 pounds of fudge would not be part of it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > What are your credentials to review such citations? Answer? Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 >>> Of course, if there is a qualifying statement that it is a "reasonable" >>> diet, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Answer? There is either proof or not. What are your credentials to say that the proof is correct or are you just believing Chung or saying that because you did it, it is true? Anyways, until the proof is presented, the credentials to review it is not needed. I got an idea. Present it and then you can see how I review it. >>> Of course, if there is a qualifying statement that it is a "reasonable" diet, >>> then 2 pounds of fudge would not be part of it. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Answer? Answer? Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 >>>> Of course, if there is a qualifying statement that it is a "reasonable" >>>> diet, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Answer? Already did. >>> Cannot imagine anyone eating two pounds of anything everyday. >> >> Because you cannot imagine something, does not mean it does not exist > > It does not exist. Period. So if *YOU* can't imagine something - that means it doesn't exist? >> or >> someone would not want to do it. > > Wanting is not doing. duh. Do you drool when you say the word "duh?" > What are your credentials to review such citations? What are your credentials to claim things you can't imagine don't exist? > What are your credentials to claim things you can't imagine don't exist? Evidently if Chung writes it, if is true according to MU >> What are your credentials to claim things you can't imagine don't exist? > > Evidently if Chung writes it, if is true according to MU Yeah, you're right. I noticed. He worships Chung. >> Cannot imagine anyone eating two pounds of anything everyday. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > numbers. > Have to always read the "fine print." He's so full of sh.t. Not one person I know even heard of the 2PD diet he's pushing yet he claims to know all these people who had success on it. He can't even tell us what the 2 lbs consisted of and how much was milk or juice or soda or. He's a Chung sycophant. Another religious nutter. > Nope. it's the fact that you have no solid arguments against a 100% > success rate on the 2PD. > > duh is simple, even for a simpleton. Why do you reply like a schoolboy troll rather than answer the questions asked? I'll ask again - 2 lbs of WHAT? You also refuse to answer how liquids such as milk and juice figure in, with all their calories. Now you tell us since Chung can't.... 2 lbs of *WHAT?* > Two pounds of the stuff that constitutes the average intake appears to be > in > the ballpark for safe, effective dieting, for both men and women. 2 lbs of *WHAT STUFF?* >> Two pounds of the stuff that constitutes the average intake appears to be >> in >> the ballpark for safe, effective dieting, for both men and women. > > 2 lbs of *WHAT STUFF?* Obviously, food that has an average caloric density of between 1.5 and 2 kcal/g. This is easy to achieve. If every component of every meal has a density in this range, then the overall density cannot be outside of that range. (Mean value theorem from calculus). Do not put anything on that scale that has more than 2 kcal/g. Anything which has calories must be weighed, including liquids. If you think you can put a 500g soda on the scale and still be able to eat well in the 407g you have left, go ahead. I would go with lean meats, vegetables, pastas, rice---that sort of thing. Only a smattering of dense fat and carbs like butter, cheese, chocolate, crackers or cookies, etc; I would tend to weigh that separately and keep it all under 50g, which would cap its caloric contribution at 450 kcal. I would put that tip-of-the-USDA-food-pyramid type of stuff on the scale first and stop at 50 g. For the remaining 857 g, I would add some healthy stuff that has a caloric density of under 1.7 kcal/g. >>> Two pounds of the stuff that constitutes the average intake appears to >>> be [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Do not put anything on that scale that has more than 2 kcal/g. And how would anyone know what contains 2 kcal/g? What about those of us not familiar with the metric system or are poor in math? > Anything which has calories must be weighed, including liquids. > If you think you can put a 500g soda on the scale and still be > able to eat well in the 407g you have left, go ahead. How many people carry around g scales? > I would go with lean meats, vegetables, pastas, rice---that sort of thing. > Only [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 50g, > which would cap its caloric contribution at 450 kcal. How would you know the 50g contains 450 kcals? > I would put that tip-of-the-USDA-food-pyramid type of stuff on the scale > first > and stop at 50 g. > > For the remaining 857 g, I would add some healthy stuff that has a caloric > density of under 1.7 kcal/g. And how would anyone how what foods those are? >>>> Two pounds of the stuff that constitutes the average intake appears to >>>> be [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > And how would anyone know what contains 2 kcal/g? According to www.calorieking.com: Randomly guessing some foods that are probably under 2 kcal/g: 100g of sirloin steak: 188 kcal. 1.88 kcal/g Cooked long-grain brown rice: 1.11 kcal/g Canned kidney beans: 0.82 kcal/g Apples: 0.52 kcal/g Potato, baked in skin: 0.90 kcal/g It's not hard to come up with foods that have more than 2 kcal/g: Brownie: 4.66 kcal/g Muffin (Kirkland blueberry): 3.70 kcal/g Cheddar cheese: 4.03 kcal/g Bacon, fried: 5.41 kcal/g You should have some intuition about what is loaded with calories, and you can check that intuition online. Many foods are labelled with nutritional facts too; you can easily check caloric density when you're shopping. > What about those of us not familiar with the metric system or are poor in math? I'm not sure where all your objections are headed. Let's see. 1. You want to go out to eat, because if you bring lunch will spoil. 2. You don't want to weigh anything. 3. You may be poor at math, so you don't want to calculate. So, with regard to those requirements, what is your plan for limiting the energy intake? One way is to eat similar portion sizes everyday, under an invariant meal structure, without snacking. Billions of people in the world are thin this way. They eat their staple diets, in staple quantities, according to a general plan dictated by their surrounding culture. Sure, this is absolutely the best way to go, and what works for me. I've never weighed anything nor counted calories for any significant period of time. Problem is, some fat folk don't have the accountability for this. They may be otherwise perfectly rational grownups who handle complex responsibilities in their jobs and personal lives. But when it comes to eating, they have amnesia. It goes in the mouth, and five minutes later, it is forgotten. >> Anything which has calories must be weighed, including liquids. >> If you think you can put a 500g soda on the scale and still be >> able to eat well in the 407g you have left, go ahead. > > How many people carry around g scales? I've addressed this already; you are repeating yourself. But let me add this: how many people carry around an extra 80 pounds of flab, or more? >> cookies, etc; I would tend to weigh that separately and keep it all under >> 50g, >> which would cap its caloric contribution at 450 kcal. > > How would you know the 50g contains 450 kcals? I wouldn't. Consequently, that isn't what I wrote. >>>>> Two pounds of the stuff that constitutes the average intake appears to >>>>> be [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > 100g of sirloin steak: 188 kcal. 1.88 kcal/g I'm in America where we use pounds and ounces, teaspoons and tablespoons, cups etc. How would the average American judge a gram of food? Is that a tsp full or a Tbs full? Do you look for gram scales to weigh everything and then look for a computer to see how many kcal/gs they contain? Let's say we have a lb plate of baked chicken, potatoes and string beans? How do we know how many calories the plate of food contains? 1.11 kcal/g means nothing to me. > Cooked long-grain brown rice: 1.11 kcal/g > Canned kidney beans: 0.82 kcal/g [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > can > check that intuition online. I don't have access to a PC when out during the day. > Many foods are labelled with nutritional facts too; you can easily check > caloric density when you're shopping. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 1. You want to go out to eat, because if you bring lunch will spoil. Right. There is no fridge where I work or where many people work. Leaving an sandwich out at room temperature can well spoil it after 5 hours. > 2. You don't want to weigh anything. Most people would rather not carry around a scale all day. > 3. You may be poor at math, so you don't want to calculate. Many people are indeed poor in math. All these things have to be considered. And if calories are going to be counted, why weight the food? Just add the calories and find what number is the magic number and you start losing weight. > So, with regard to those requirements, what is your plan for limiting the > energy intake? Counting calories would be the fastest and easiest for active working people with busy schedules. But since not everyone eats at home, that too can be problematic. > One way is to eat similar portion sizes everyday, under an invariant meal > structure, without snacking. Billions of people in the world are thin this [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I've never weighed anything nor counted calories for any significant > period of time. And how much weight have you lost on this regime? > Problem is, some fat folk don't have the accountability for this. They > may be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>> If you think you can put a 500g soda on the scale and still be >>> able to eat well in the 407g you have left, go ahead. Soda in grams? Here it's in ozs, pints, quarts and gallons. >> How many people carry around g scales? > > I've addressed this already; you are repeating yourself. But let me add > this: > how many people carry around an extra 80 pounds of flab, or more? So you suggest men carry around scales.... ? In what? Handbags like women carry? >>> cookies, etc; I would tend to weigh that separately and keep it all >>> under [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I wouldn't. Consequently, that isn't what I wrote. >>>>> Two pounds of the stuff that constitutes the average intake appears to >>>>> be [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > I wouldn't. Consequently, that isn't what I wrote. A hint. Listerineman and his hip buddy Atheno spend endless amounts of time spinning circular, nonsensical arguments. If you think you will ever get anywhere with these loons, you won't. If you are arguing for the sake of archives, good on ya'. Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 > A hint. Listerineman and his hip buddy Atheno spend endless amounts of > time spinning circular, nonsensical arguments. If you think you will > ever get anywhere with these loons, you won't. Hint Chung/MU just repeat the same unproven claims and will not get a straight answer because they (he) have no straight answer. >> A hint. Listerineman and his hip buddy Atheno spend endless amounts of >> time spinning circular, nonsensical arguments. If you think you will >> ever get anywhere with these loons, you won't. > > Hint Chung/MU just repeat the same unproven claims and will not get a > straight answer because they (he) have no straight answer. Because Chung claimed on his website some time back that it was based on the "manna" from heaven his God allegedly dropped from the sky for the wandering Hebrews. >>> Two pounds of the stuff that constitutes the average intake appears to be >>> in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Obviously, food that has an average caloric density of between 1.5 and 2 > kcal/g. 2 pounds. No cal counts. > This is easy to achieve. If every component of every meal has a density > in this range, then the overall density cannot be outside of that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Anything which has calories must be weighed, including liquids. Forget calories as a determinant of whether you weigh or not. > If you think you can put a 500g soda on the scale and still be > able to eat well in the 407g you have left, go ahead. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > For the remaining 857 g, I would add some healthy stuff that has a caloric > density of under 1.7 kcal/g. Read about the 2PD, you're making this much more difficult than it needs to be. A couple comments about cals. It is a useless waste of time, in terms of dieting, to count cals. How much did you actually digest and use for energy or stored energy? Was that piece of meat 4 oz or 4.5 oz? Was it more or less fatty for that cut? How big was that orange? Med? Med-large? I have seen cal count books that differed among themselves by as much as 30%. Which book are you going to trust? Even if you know *all* of those things, including specific metabolizable energy intake, and you never will, to get any foods accurately cal counted you would have to have a bomb calorimeter and/or laboratory setting. Then we have the energy consumption issue. Swings widley aboutbody temps. Are you a thinker? Up goes the mets. Are you an Athneo? Met activities drop to near zero :) It's a scientific nightmare, this whoe cal counting thing. It's a useless "normal" activity for dieters. But we have been brainwashed to believe in this ridiculous waste of time for decades now. Eat 2PD or under, add an Ounce of Common Sense, over time, you lose weight. Period. One caveat. If you take on any diet with a head full of problems, which is the _real_ reason you overconsume, you're doomed from the start. Either solve your mental and emotional issues first or fuggit about it. You have two choices. Professional human help or God. If you don't believe in God, then you better have one damn good psychologist. Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 > add an Ounce of Common Sense If you think a 6 foot 4 inch male and a 5 foot 2 inch female can both eat two pounds of any food with no evidence presented, then you have no common sense. It would be common sense for someone making that claim to present the statistics to back it up. I know MU will respond about qualifications to evaluate it, but evidently MU has none so how can he say it is correct. If someone does not have the expertise, can send it to someone who does. This response of Chung/MU is an excuse. That is common sense. It would be common sense for a doctor, like Chung with a PhD who has done research and published papers in the recognized journals, to do the same if it could get past the editors. If you have any common sense you would check with your doctor to see what s/he would recommend. > Eat 2PD or under, add an Ounce of Common Sense, over time, you lose > weight. You have nothing to base this claim on. > If you take on any diet with a head full of problems, which is the > _real_ reason you overconsume, you're doomed from the start. Either > solve your mental and emotional issues first or fuggit about it. To claim over 60% of the human race has emotional and mental problems is in itself the giveaway of someone suffering these conditions. > You have two choices. Professional human help or God. If you don't > believe in God, then you better have one damn good psychologist. What the hell do the gods have to do with weight loss? Like Chung, you're another religious fanatic. >>> Still, fact is, two pounds does impose an upper bound. The most >>> calorie-dense [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So you're saying people, even short inactive women can lose weight at 8100 > calories a day? Certainly possible. >>>> Still, fact is, two pounds does impose an upper bound. The most >>>> calorie-dense [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Certainly possible. How? Explain how this can be done. ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.support.diet.low-carb.] >> I have lost 16.6 lbs in the last 7 weeks and only changed 1 meal a >> day. > > If you were eating 2.75 pounds of food and dropped one meal that weighed > one pound, you would achieve the same results. Except that you would not ``Same results, except not.'' Bullshit equivocation, combined with blind guessing. > have lost weight so drastically and placed yourself in an inevitable > rebound, return to or past original weight, for which you are now most > assuredly doomed. Pitiful imbecile, how do you know 16.6 pounds is drastic? It depends on the total adiposity. For someone carrying 20 pounds of body fat, it would be drastic (pretty much regardless of how long it took, really). For someone carrying 70 pounds, it wouldn't be drastic to lose 16.6 pounds in 7 weeks. There is empirical evidence that maximum amount of body fat that can be shed by means of a dietary deficit, without loss of lean mass (which qualifies as a good definition of non-drastic loss) is a fraction of the total adiposity. This fraction is about 0.8% per day, give or take. (Source: this can be derived from the results stated in the paper ``A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia''). From this we can easily calculate the percentage over 49 days: 1 - (1 - .008)^49 = 0.325 (Note: ^ represents exponentiation). I.e. over 7 weeks, you can safely lose about 33% of your body fat. If you are carrying 48 pounds of it, then this is 16. The more fat you have in excess of 48 pounds, the easier and safer it is to lose 16 pounds over 7 weeks. > ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.support.diet.low-carb.] > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > carrying 48 pounds of it, then this is 16. The more fat you have in excess of > 48 pounds, the easier and safer it is to lose 16 pounds over 7 weeks. Checkout this website http://www.smash-marketing.com/diet.htm for some non-exercise, non-diet tips to losing weight >> If you were eating 2.75 pounds of food and dropped one meal that weighed >> one pound, you would achieve the same results. Except that you would not > > ``Same results, except not.'' Bullshit equivocation, combined with > blind guessing. Goodbye, little child. *plonk* Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 > Goodbye, little child. > > *plonk* The irony. You're publicly plonking someone, and calling them a little child? One thing I can say for you, you never change. LOL Cheri >> Goodbye, little child. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Cheri Everyone changes. What hasn't changed is my lack of time and patience for Usenet kiddies. And my support of the 2PD, Ms. Cheri, nice to hear from you. Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 >>> Goodbye, little child. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Everyone changes. What hasn't changed is my lack of time and patience > for Usenet kiddies. But, exactly as predicted, you followed up to me today. So your *plonk* was only a meaningless overture, and your claim that you lack time is laughable. As for patience, the need for that is obviated by your appetite. >>>> Goodbye, little child. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > only a meaningless overture, and your claim that you lack time is laughable. > As for patience, the need for that is obviated by your appetite. *plonks* are any more permanent than you are. >>>>> Goodbye, little child. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > *plonks* are any more permanent than you are. Finally a discussion about "plonks" which is MU's level. > And my support of the 2PD, Ms. Cheri, nice to hear from you. And you support this diet because........? Let me guess. You were eating vast amounts of food, many pounds a day before you ran into Chung. Now you carry a scale with you 24/7 and make sure you don't eat more than 2 lbs of burgers and fries and chips and dips each day. Right? Why do you refuse to answer the question of how 2 lbs would work for a 6'2" man as well as a 5'2" woman and for those doing manual labor as well as those bedridden. > Why do you refuse to answer the question of how 2 lbs would work for a 6'2" > man as well as a 5'2" woman and for those doing manual labor as well as > those bedridden. Because there is no way legitimate way to answer the question because the idea that is would work the same is absurd and better to be evasive and hurl personal insults. MU tends to parrot Chung when it comes to the 2PD > Because there is no way legitimate way lol Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 >> Because there is no way legitimate way > > lol Why don't you just answer the reasonable questions asked? Why give a troll reply? > Why don't you just answer the reasonable questions asked? Why give a troll > reply? Because that is what trolls do. Some trolls are much more clever than others. >> Why don't you just answer the reasonable questions asked? Why give a >> troll >> reply? > > Because that is what trolls do. Some trolls are much more clever than > others. I notice he and Chung never give a straight direct answer to anyone asking a legitimate question. Chung starts the preaching god mania bullshit and MU gives 2 word replies that say nothing helpful. I still can't get the information out of them as to what the 2 lbs is supposed to consist of since no one knows what this magical manna was that allegedly fell from heaven. >>> Why don't you just answer the reasonable questions asked? Why give a >>> troll [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > information out of them as to what the 2 lbs is supposed to consist of since > no one knows what this magical manna was that allegedly fell from heaven. Chung and Mu are like Tweedledee and Tweedledum > On Thu, 7 May 2009 03:23:25 -0500, L.B. Listmann wrote >> I notice he and Chung never give a straight direct answer to anyone [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Chung and Mu are like Tweedledee and Tweedledum They're both pathological liars. MU backs Chung because they're both religious fanatics. You can't get a straight answer from either of them. You can't reason with people like them either. >>> Because there is no way legitimate way >> >> lol > > Why don't you just answer the reasonable questions asked? Why give a troll > reply? Why ask a stupid question? M and Ms has claimed he no longer wishes to correspond so why should I? duh is simple even for simpletons. Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 >>>> Because there is no way legitimate way >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Why ask a stupid question? M and Ms has claimed he no longer wishes to > correspond so why should I? No question is a stupid question when asked in sincerity. If you had any real sense you would know that. > duh is simple even for simpletons. > No question is a stupid question when asked in sincerity. If you had any > real sense you would know that. Good point. But they tend to post stupid answers >>>>> Because there is no way legitimate way >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >> duh is simple even for simpletons. If the question is stupid, as yours was, sincerity has nothing to do with stupidity, as your is. >>>> Why don't you just answer the reasonable questions asked? Why give a >>>> troll [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If the question is stupid, as yours was, sincerity has nothing to do > with stupidity, as your is. Why is asking what the 2 lbs consists of a stupid question since no one knows what the magic manna consisted of that fell from heaven. You show yourself more than stupid by constantly avoiding answering the sincere questions people ask. When they press you, you resort to childish name calling. Why are you on adult groups if you're socially retarded or immature for your age? >> Why do you refuse to answer the question of how 2 lbs would work for a >> 6'2" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > MU tends to parrot Chung when it comes to the 2PD I can see the parroting and personal attacks instead of reasonable and sensible answers. This whole P2 diet is absurd. It's just another diet among so many others out there that fail because people can't or wont stick to them. > This whole P2 diet is absurd. It's just another diet > among so many others out there that fail because people can't or wont stick > to them. Yes, it is obvious that 2 pounds of any food in any any person of any height and any activity level will not give the same results. It is also obvious that no diet is 100% successful. That is likely the reason all Chung's claimed data (if it really exists) has never been present for peer review. >> This whole P2 diet is absurd. It's just another diet >> among so many others out there that fail because people can't or wont [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > claimed data (if it really exists) has never been present for peer > review. If his diet actually worked as he claimed, it would be well known by now and peer reviewed. He reminds me of those fanatics some time back pounding the grapefruit and cabbage soup diets. So far, from the online research I've done, the low-carb diet is the most successful diet out there. The problem is, like most diets, most people will not, or cannot stick to it long term. The 2PD diet is absurd since the caloric count varies so much from one food to another and there are too many variables in people's lives for it to be effective for all. >>> Why do you refuse to answer the question of how 2 lbs would work for a >>> 6'2" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > among so many others out there that fail because people can't or wont stick > to them. I know of no one who has failed on the 2PD. Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 >>>> Why do you refuse to answer the question of how 2 lbs would work for a >>>> 6'2" [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I know of no one who has failed on the 2PD. How many people do you know personally who tried this diet? What are their ages, heights, activity levels and sex? Where are their records to check for ourselves? What Hospital's diet research Lab were they connected to? Why is there nothing online, on TV or on the News about this diet and this group of people? What exactly did the 2 lbs consist of? Anecdotes don't count. Anyone can make any claims they want and they do. That proves nothing. Just look at some of the claims the alternative health nuts come up with. All their magical cures for cancer etc. I asked at work this past week, and many people work in my office. Not one even heard of Chung's 2PD diet so how is it you know all these people who tried it and succeeded? Not only that, but you can't tell us if they ate burgers and fries or celery and lettuce. None of my relatives, neighbors or friends heard of this diet either. >> And my support of the 2PD, Ms. Cheri, nice to hear from you. > > And you support this diet because........? It works. > Let me guess. You were eating vast amounts of food, many pounds a day before > you ran into Chung. Now you carry a scale with you 24/7 and make sure you > don't eat more than 2 lbs of burgers and fries and chips and dips each day. > Right? Wrong. > Why do you refuse to answer the question of how 2 lbs would work for a 6'2" > man as well as a 5'2" woman and for those doing manual labor as well as > those bedridden. I didn't refuse. Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 >>> And my support of the 2PD, Ms. Cheri, nice to hear from you. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Wrong. I'm wrong? Then who weighs the food for you? How many lbs of food were you eating a day before you started to weight everything you ate? >> Why do you refuse to answer the question of how 2 lbs would work for a >> 6'2" >> man as well as a 5'2" woman and for those doing manual labor as well as >> those bedridden. > > I didn't refuse. Then why don't you answer the questions? You can start with how many calories a day are in the 2 lbs a day diet. Then explain how what works for a 6'2" laborer also works for a 5'2" inactive woman. >>>> And my support of the 2PD, Ms. Cheri, nice to hear from you. >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I'm wrong? Then who weighs the food for you? I do/did. > How many lbs of food were you > eating a day before you started to weight everything you ate? Over 3 lbs on the average, rarely two pounds even with no breakfast. Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 >>>>> And my support of the 2PD, Ms. Cheri, nice to hear from you. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I do/did. So you do carry a scale with you everywhere. >> How many lbs of food were you >> eating a day before you started to weight everything you ate? > > Over 3 lbs on the average, rarely two pounds even with no breakfast. Consisting of WHAT and what does the 2 lbs a day you now eat consist of? And if you're not carrying a scale around to weigh everything you eat, how do you know you only eat 2 lbs a day? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/7f8ac37d4caebb30? <>< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb? > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/7f8ac37d4caebb30? > > <>< > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb? Please answer the question your friend failed to answer: Consisting of WHAT and what does the 2 lbs a day you now eat consist of? And if you're not carrying a scale around to weigh everything you eat, how do you know you only eat 2 lbs a day? >>> How many lbs of food were you >>> eating a day before you started to weight everything you ate? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And if you're not carrying a scale around to weigh everything you eat, how > do you know you only eat 2 lbs a day? Are you stupid? You can measure a quantity of food once a day, and only eat food from that pre-measured parcel. Doh? >>>> How many lbs of food were you >>>> eating a day before you started to weight everything you ate? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Doh? Also, it should not be hard to learn the weights of portions of different foods just as people learn the calories of portions of foods. > Also, it should not be hard to learn the weights of portions of different > foods just as people learn the calories of portions of foods. Just as people don't ever learn their speed without looking at their speedometer... .... people don't ever learn the weight of their meals without looking at their food scale. Truth is simple. May GOD soften your heart, Atheno, so that you would come to trust the truth, Who is Jesus: http://T3WiJ.com Amen. Love in the truth, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Author of "Be Hungry" http://NetCabal.com Only GOD can cure the "hunger is starvation" delusion: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d01915cc6cd0e47e? >> Also, it should not be hard to learn the weights of portions of different >> foods just as people learn the calories of portions of foods. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > .... people don't ever learn the weight of their meals without looking > at their food scale. The fact that you have to weigh your food to learn the weight is indisputable. >>> Also, it should not be hard to learn the weights of portions of >>> different [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The fact that you have to weigh your food to learn the weight is > indisputable. Yet you can't tell us what the 2 lbs consists of that people lose weight on........... >>>>> How many lbs of food were you >>>>> eating a day before you started to weight everything you ate? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Also, it should not be hard to learn the weights of portions of different > foods just as people learn the calories of portions of foods. One hamburger can weight a lot more than another and contain a lot more calories. One small bag of French fries can weight less than another bag. One chicken breast can be a lot thicker and heavier than another, yet look almost the same. Without a scale, there is no sure way to know. 2 lbs of Pizza will have a lot more calories than a dinner of 2 lbs of lean chicken and string beans. It's calories, not the weight of the food that matters. >>>> How many lbs of food were you >>>> eating a day before you started to weight everything you ate? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Are you stupid? No I'm not, but you are since you cannot answer the questions asked either. > You can measure a quantity of food once a day, and only eat food from > that pre-measured parcel. Oh give us a break! Measure and then carry food around all day? To work. To school. While shopping. Carry around a cooler of ice and hot bottles to preserve it and keep it from spoiling? Eat while standing at the bus stop or in someone's doorway? Are YOU stupid or just ignorant of the dangers of carting food around all day? > Doh? Your name is Doh? Somehow it fits you well. > "Kaz Kylheku" <kkylheku@gmail.com> wrote in message >> You can measure a quantity of food once a day, and only eat food from >> that pre-measured parcel. > > Oh give us a break! ``Us'' meaning what, fat f.cks? > Measure and then carry food around all day? To work. > school. Yes, this may surprise the hell out of you, but people do actually pack and carry lunch to work and school. What planet do you live on? Obviously, you don't have to carry your breakfast with you, nor your dinner; you leave those at home. Weigh everything, put away the dinner, eat the breakfast, pack the lunch. It's perfectly plausible. If you want a freshly cooked dinner, then weigh just the breakfast and packed lunch, then weigh the dinner again. Two numbers to add. > While shopping. Carry around a cooler of ice and hot bottles to > preserve it and keep it from spoiling? I have such a cooler, and sometimes use it. What exactly are you arguing against now? Since you don't bring food to work, where do you get it from? > Eat while standing at the bus stop > or in someone's doorway? Sounds like you're a tub who must eat all the time. While shopping, at the bus stop, in someone's doorway. No wonder you're recoiling at the thought of eating only two pounds. > Are YOU stupid or just ignorant of the dangers of > carting food around all day? Well aware of the dangers of obesity. > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/22ee71fa96107435? The irrational resistance (excuse-making) against using the simple 2PD-OMER Approach arises from the pervasive and deadly delusion that "hunger is starvation" which has been discussed in a different thread starting with the following OP: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d01915cc6cd0e47e? What is required to be cured of this delusion is explained in the book "Be Hungry" which the Holy Spirit guided me to write and publish on Independence Day in 2007: http://NetCabal.com Of course, folks suffering from the delusion that "hunger is starvation" absolutely hate "Be Hungry" even though most of these nay-sayers have not even read the book: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/4948632a5a8e6141? Be hungrier, which truly is healthier especially for the heart: http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthier Love in the truth, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-certified Heart Doctor http://EmoryCardiology On May 12, 4:17 pm, "Andrew B. Chung" <ach...@emory.edu> wrote: > Of course, folks suffering from the delusion that "hunger is > starvation" absolutely hate "Be Hungry" even though most of these > nay-sayers have not even read the book: I read your pamphlet. I thought it was pretty f.cking hilarious -- especially the part where you make up the story about GA Tech cops bashing your head in. 6041 Colt Ridge <bellyflute@yahoo.com> wrote in news:b93cfa8f-6d4f-4824- a04e-200593127174@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com: > On May 12, 4:17 pm, "Andrew B. Chung" <ach...@emory.edu> wrote: >> Of course, folks suffering from the delusion that "hunger is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > especially the part where you make up the story about GA Tech cops > bashing your head in. Here at +Christian Land the proffered method of 'end is on a filthy cross >> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/22ee71fa96107435? > > The irrational resistance (excuse-making) against using the simple > 2PD-OMER Approach arises from the pervasive and deadly delusion that > "hunger is starvation" which has been discussed in a different thread > starting with the following OP: Indeed, I have seen in these newsgroups, two pounds of food per day being called a ``starvation diet''. Only a pig could possibly think that. A study following 80,000 Europeans found that men ate at an average caloric density of 1.9 kcal/g. Over two pounds, this translates to over 1800 calories, which is plenty for the average male. Two pounds of food daily is in fact in the right ballpark for normal eating. > Of course, folks suffering from the delusion that "hunger is > starvation" absolutely hate "Be Hungry" even though most of these > nay-sayers have not even read the book: Hunger is a normal body signal that people who eat normally should feel several times a day. Moreover, it should persist during the consumption of a meal and for some time afterward. > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Indeed, I have seen in these newsgroups, two pounds of food per day >being called a ``starvation diet''. Those who call the 2PD-OMER Approach a "starvation diet" are the folks that will also publicly declare "I am so hungry... I am starving!!!" Essau essentially did this right before he profanely gave away the entire Persian Gulf area for just a single meal (Genesis 25:32). >Only a pig could possibly think that. Essau is described in Scripture as being covered all over with red hair. >A study following 80,000 Europeans found that men ate at an average caloric >density of 1.9 kcal/g. Over two pounds, this translates to over 1800 calories, >which is plenty for the average male. Correct. >Two pounds of food daily is in fact in the right ballpark for normal eating. Correct. >> Of course, folks suffering from the delusion that "hunger is >> starvation" absolutely hate "Be Hungry" even though most of these [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Hunger is a normal body signal that people who eat normally should feel several >times a day. In truth, hunger is a healthy body signal that simply lets us know that we are able to physically eat and digest food so that we **want** to eat while not giving any indication that we need to eat. The body signal that lets us know we need to eat is actually **decreasing** hunger ! ! ! The mechanism behind the latter body signal is increasing ketonemia of starvation ketosis. It is when we confuse our **wants** with our **needs** that we have fallen into temptation. > Moreover, it should persist during the consumption of a meal and > for some time afterward. It should be ever-increasing for those of us who are getting ever-healthier from doing the right things: (1) Eating the right amount of food (32 ounces per day). (2) Eating the right kinds of food (variety of favorites automatically happens when holding to 32 ounces per day). (3) Being with the right people (folks we love and love us in turn). (4) Doing the right things (things that are meaningful). Be hungrier, which truly is healthier especially for the heart: http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthier Love in the truth, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-certified Cardiologist http://EmoryCardiology.com > Indeed, I have seen in these newsgroups, two pounds of food per day > being called a ``starvation diet''. > > Only a pig could possibly think that. guess andie has changed his 'story' once again he used to include all fluid intake in his 2lb diet personally, i enjoy lots of 'free veggies' and foods that don't spike my bg levels >> Indeed, I have seen in these newsgroups, two pounds of food per day >> being called a ``starvation diet''. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > personally, i enjoy lots of 'free veggies' and foods that don't spike my > bg levels I collect old books, particularly those on cooking, food, diets, heallth, etc. I have one for pregnant women from the 1940's and in it, they restrict liquids. I guess in those days they thought the liquid you consume had an effect on weight. Sad. >>> Indeed, I have seen in these newsgroups, two pounds of food per day >>> being called a ``starvation diet''. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > liquids. I guess in those days they thought the liquid you consume had an > effect on weight. Sad. Uh, correct. It does. All except water. Do you think you piss out everything liquid? Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.support.diet.low-carb.] >>>> Indeed, I have seen in these newsgroups, two pounds of food per day >>>> being called a ``starvation diet''. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Uh, correct. It does. All except water. Do you think you piss out > everything liquid? Surely there is an exception for near-waters, like tea. I don't have to weigh my hatomugi cha, do I? Even black coffee need not be weighed, IMHO, but any milk going into it should be. Fluids that contain calories, like juices and milk, are the enemies of good eating. They are rapidly absorbed without triggering all of the satiety signals. Ideally, everything that contains calories should be a bulky solid that can push against your stomach walls. Fluid calories have precisely two uses: feeding infants and the sick. Weighing these fluids will discourage their inclusion. If you have only 907 grams to work with, you will think twice before putting a 300g sugary drink on the scale. Better drink 300g of tea or water, and save the 300g for real food. Also, fluids are awkward to weigh because they have to be contained, and you must subtract the mass of the containers. Thus, in two ways, this 2PD discourages the bat habit of quaffing your calories, which is a nice point in favor of this approach. > > Uh, correct. It does. All except water. Do you think you piss out > > everything liquid? > > Surely there is an exception for near-waters, like tea. I don't have > to weigh my hatomugi cha, do I? Even black coffee need not be weighed, IMHO, > but any milk going into it should be. Correct. Liquids with significant macro-nutritional content should be weighed and added to the running total of ounces being consumed for the day. On comment about drinking fluids is that there is wisdom in drinking only to thirst. If one is truly thirsty, there is nothing more desirable than clear cold water. > Fluids that contain calories, like juices and milk, are the enemies of good > eating. They are rapidly absorbed without triggering all of the satiety [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Thus, in two ways, this 2PD discourages the bat habit of quaffing your > calories, which is a nice point in favor of this approach. Personally been using the 2PD-OMER Approach for 12 years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8B_70Jp-kc The healthiest people are truly the hungriest people :-) Love in the truth, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-certified Cardiologist http://T3WiJ.com > The healthiest people are truly the hungriest people :-) Then why are they dying of disease and suffering nutritional deficiencies that weaken the immune system? > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > > > > The healthiest people are truly the hungriest people :-) > > Then why are they dying of disease and suffering nutritional deficiencies > that weaken the immune system? The healthiest people are winning gold medals at Olympic events (i.e. Michael Phelps) and also winning various twinkie/hotdog eating contests to the amazement of spectators expecting obese winners. Their ability to eat large amounts is an indication that these hungry (healthy) competitors are far from dying from anything. Have personally become about 12 million times hungrier (healthier) since using the 2PD-OMER Approach over the past 12 years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8B_70Jp-kc "A laborer's appetite works for him. His hunger drives him on." -- King Solomon Amen. Truth is simple :-) Love in the truth, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-certified Heart Doctor and Author of "Be Hungry" http://NetCabal.com Only GOD can cure the "hunger is starvation" delusion: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/74281ab7d7ce78de? >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Have personally become about 12 million times hungrier (healthier) > since using the 2PD-OMER Approach over the past 12 years: You didn't answer the question. You side-stepped it. Then why are the constantly "hungry" dying of disease and suffering nutritional deficiencies that weaken the immune system? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8B_70Jp-kc > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Only GOD can cure the "hunger is starvation" delusion: > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/74281ab7d7ce78de? > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> Then why are they dying of disease and suffering nutritional deficiencies > >> that weaken the immune system? Those of us who are among the hungriest (able to eat the most) are the healthiest not dying of anything and nutritionally the most replete. > > The healthiest people are winning gold medals at Olympic events (i.e. > > Michael Phelps) and also winning various twinkie/hotdog eating [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You didn't answer the question. See above. Truth is simple :-) May GOD soften your heart, L.B., so that you would come to trust the truth, Who is Jesus: http://T3WiJ.com Amen. Love in the truth, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-certified Heart Doctor and Author of "Be Hungry" http://NetCabal.com "Don't be left behind as were Cleopus and Simon ... ... -----------------> be hungry ! ! !" Only GOD can cut the "hunger is starvation" delusion from our hearts: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/74281ab7d7ce78de? On May 16, 11:08 am, "Andrew B. Chung" <lov...@thetruth.com> wrote: > Truth is simple :-) post time = 11:08am schedule = "11:00 to 11:30 am - Be prepared for the worst case scenario of the Flu pandemic." http://www.thehealthfair.com/ >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: >> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Those of us who are among the hungriest (able to eat the most) are the > healthiest not dying of anything and nutritionally the most replete. So those who eat the most food are the hungriest, thinnest and healthiest people alive? Does that mean those who are starving to death are the fattest and sickliest? >> > The healthiest people are winning gold medals at Olympic events (i.e. >> > Michael Phelps) and also winning various twinkie/hotdog eating [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > See above. I did. You're claiming those who eat the most are the thinnest and hungriest. That makes no sense. > Truth is simple :-) > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Only GOD can cut the "hunger is starvation" delusion from our hearts: > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/74281ab7d7ce78de? > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So those who eat the most food are the hungriest, thinnest and healthiest > people alive? No. Those who are eating the daily right amount of food become the healthiest (hungriest) people around: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8B_70Jp-kc Truth is simple :-) May GOD soften your heart, L.B., so that you would come to trust the truth, Who is Jesus: http://T3WiJ.com Amen. Love in the truth, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-certified Heart Doctor and Author of "Be Hungry" http://NetCabal.com "Don't be left behind as were Cleopus and Simon ... ... -----------------> be hungry ! ! !" Only GOD can cut the "hunger is starvation" delusion from our hearts: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/74281ab7d7ce78de? >> So those who eat the most food are the hungriest, thinnest and healthiest >> people alive? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Those who are eating the daily right amount of food become the > healthiest (hungriest) people around: Why are you so obsessed with hunger and that everyone should walk around hungry? > May GOD soften your heart, L.B., so that you would come to trust the > truth, Who is Jesus: This is Jesus: Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Funny, but your Bible has God taking credit for creating all things, including evil. In fact... Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? The Bible explicitly states that every evil act is in fact the will of the Lord! > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Why are you so obsessed with hunger and that everyone should walk around > hungry? Being passionate about health is not an obsession but rather a calling for those of us who are true physicians. Truth is simple :-) > > May GOD soften your heart, L.B., so that you would come to trust the > > truth, Who is Jesus: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Funny, but your Bible has God taking credit for creating all things, > including evil. GOD has created all things including things that are evil. Most assuredly without doubt, I know and understand GOD to be kind, just, and right (Jeremiah 9:24). > In fact... > > Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be > afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? See above. > The Bible explicitly states that every evil act is in fact the will of > the Lord! The LORD is sovereign and what He wants is automatically by definition good: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/4d3663cbb92334d4? May GOD soften your heart, LB, so that you would come to trust the truth, Who is Jesus: http://T3WiJ.com Amen. Love in the truth, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-certified Heart Doctor and Author of "Be Hungry" http://NetCabal.com "Don't be left behind as were Cleopus and Simon ... ... -----------------> be hungry ! ! !" "... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor 12:3) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/035c93540862751c? What is the name of Jesus' church where Peter serves as its rock? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/42a30476ef3925ec? Only the truth can cure the "hunger is starvation" delusion: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/74281ab7d7ce78de? > Thus, in two ways, this 2PD discourages the bat habit of quaffing your > calories, which is a nice point in favor of this approach. And you learned this from the bible's manna-from-heaven story, right? > I collect old books, particularly those on cooking, food, diets, heallth, > etc. I have one for pregnant women from the 1940's and in it, they restrict > liquids. I guess in those days they thought the liquid you consume had an > effect on weight. Sad. This confusion remains common today - On some occasions like high school wrestling tournaments folks do indeed diet to lose water weight. On a low fat plan that tends to increase water retention because it's high carb there are attempts to reduce sodium to reduce the water, and reducing liquids can be an incorrect reaction to that goal. But generally folks diet to lose fat. Water is not fat. Both water and fat register on the scale because they are both effected by gravity, but water isn't fat. Effort spent on losing water is effort that could have been spent on losing fat but wasn't - A waste of effort. Water is one of the reasons there are articles like "Why the Scale Lies". The scale measures lost fat indirectly and it's quite inaccurate at it. The scale just happens to be a very easy tool to use, so it gets widely overused. "Julie Bove" <julieb...@verizon.net> wrote: > I collect old books, particularly those on cooking, food, diets, heallth, > etc. I have one for pregnant women from the 1940's and in it, they > restrict > liquids. I guess in those days they thought the liquid you consume had an > effect on weight. Sad. This confusion remains common today - On some occasions like high school wrestling tournaments folks do indeed diet to lose water weight. On a low fat plan that tends to increase water retention because it's high carb there are attempts to reduce sodium to reduce the water, and reducing liquids can be an incorrect reaction to that goal. But generally folks diet to lose fat. Water is not fat. Both water and fat register on the scale because they are both effected by gravity, but water isn't fat. Effort spent on losing water is effort that could have been spent on losing fat but wasn't - A waste of effort. Water is one of the reasons there are articles like "Why the Scale Lies". The scale measures lost fat indirectly and it's quite inaccurate at it. The scale just happens to be a very easy tool to use, so it gets widely overused. ----------------- My reply...for some reason this didn't come out with the <'s on it. True, but it just doesn't seem healthy to restrict fluids for a pregnant woman! Then again in those days they didn't want the pregnant women to gain weight. I don't know if they used speed in those days but they did when I was born. My mom didn't take it with me, but she did with my brother. He is younger than I am and they felt she gained too much weight with me. I think she gained 10 or 12 pounds. The Dr. prescribed it. > "Julie Bove" <julieb...@verizon.net> wrote: [snip] > Water is one of the reasons there are articles like "Why the > Scale Lies". The scale measures lost fat indirectly and it's [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > think she gained 10 or 12 pounds. The Dr. prescribed it. > Julie . One possibility: I noticed that both Doug's message and your reply use the quoted-printable coding. The Windows Mail email/newsreader program I use is known to often have problems quoting posts in quoted-printable coding correctly; it tends to leave out the extra > characters. Since the Outlook Express you use is also from Microsoft, and is older, I wouldn't be susprised if it has that problem also. Robert Miles On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:04:13 -0700 read in alt.support.diabetes,Julie Bove <juliebove@verizon.net> posted: > "Julie Bove" <julieb...@verizon.net> wrote: >> >> I collect old books, particularly those on cooking, ... <snip> > ........easy tool to use, so it gets widely overused. > > ----------------- > > My reply...for some reason this didn't come out with the <'s on it. Ah, yeah, G'day Julie, No biggie. Long, live and prosper. You are posting on Usenet, thru' a newsreader Outlook Express 6 to respond to Doug who is using Google groups and no news reader. It is not your fault, it is not Doug's fault. Despite OE settings re quoted text, OE & Google don't play well together. More posters each day think Usenet is another name for Google Groups. As a newsreader Google makes a good archive. Lindsay in OZ M, 56, Non diabetic but familiarly involved. So I lurk, don't post often - usually in non medical threads. "It is in the shelter of each other that people live." Irish Proverb& >> I collect old books, particularly those on cooking, food, diets, heallth, >> etc. I have one for pregnant women from the 1940's and in it, they restrict [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > folks do indeed diet to lose water weight. On a low fat plan > that tends to increase water retention because it's high carb or high fat......... > there are attempts to reduce sodium to reduce the water, > and reducing liquids can be an incorrect reaction to that > goal. > > But generally folks diet to lose fat. Generally folks don't know the differences and diet to lose _weight_. > Water is not fat. Both > water and fat register on the scale because they are both [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > quite inaccurate at it. The scale just happens to be a very > easy tool to use, so it gets widely overused. If you have to use one; the mirror never lies. Neither does a simple pinch test. Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 >>> Indeed, I have seen in these newsgroups, two pounds of food per day >>> being called a ``starvation diet''. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > liquids. I guess in those days they thought the liquid you consume had an > effect on weight. Sad. the first pregnancy is typically hard on a woman's kidney's did they specifically say 'weight gain'? >>>> Indeed, I have seen in these newsgroups, two pounds of food per day >>>> being called a ``starvation diet''. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > did they specifically say 'weight gain'? The book didn't say, but my parents have told me that in those days, pregnant women were discouraged from gaining. >> Indeed, I have seen in these newsgroups, two pounds of food per day >> being called a ``starvation diet''. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > he used to include all fluid intake in his 2lb diet Still does only water is excluded. duh is simple even when you try to pervert the obvious, Lily. > personally, i enjoy lots of 'free veggies' and foods that don't spike my > bg levels Which is why you weigh.......? Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 >> Indeed, I have seen in these newsgroups, two pounds of food per day >> being called a ``starvation diet''. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > personally, i enjoy lots of 'free veggies' and foods that don't spike my > bg levels If you enjoy ``free'' anything, there may be hardly any calories in it, true enough, but you are reinforcing the bad habit of putting a snack in your mouth, which stimulates your digestive system into craving food; and you are expanding your stomach, which makes it more difficult to feel full. A human being is not a not a goat; your digestive system is adapted to eating a few meals per day which are relatively calorie-dense. If you want to be an animal, then emulate one /completely/. Eat only raw plants, and do nothing but that all your waking hours, 7 days a week. Foods that don't spike your bg level may still have lots of calories; this idea that you can eat anything that doesn't spike the blood glucose level is an incorrect theory in eating. Sure, styrofoam, sawdust and paper won't spike your BG level, but somehow, I don't suspect you are talking about those, right? [snip] > Indeed, I have seen in these newsgroups, two pounds of food per day > being called a ``starvation diet''. Depends on two pounds of what. Two pounds of lard a day is not a starvation diet, but two pounds of low-calorie foods a day easily could be. And two pounds of sugar or starch a day is definitely not good for a diabetic. > [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > starvation diet, but two pounds of low-calorie foods a day easily could > be. Incorrect. Explain how you could climb Mt. Everest on 2PD then? Signaturehttp://tinyurl.com/5gt7 > >> Indeed, I have seen in these newsgroups, two pounds of food per day > >> being called a ``starvation diet''. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Incorrect. Explain how you could climb Mt. Everest on 2PD then? Or explain the following YouTube video of someone who has been keeping at 32 ounces a day for 12 years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8B_70Jp-kc Love in the truth, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-certified Cardiologist and Author of "Be Hungry" http://NetCabal.com Only GOD can cut the "hunger is starvation" delusion from our hearts: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/74281ab7d7ce78de? On May 14, 2:43 am, "Andrew B. Chung" <lov...@thetruth.com> wrote: > Or explain the following YouTube video of someone who has been keeping > at 32 ounces a day for 12 years: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8B_70Jp-kc You doing pushups on your back porch is hardly the equivalent of a conditioned athlete climbing Mt. Everest. Would suggest you contact your psychiatrist regarding your cognitive dissonance. Truth: The two pound diet,aka 2pd etc. is quack science. It has flaws of both fact and logic. It was invented to fit a preexisting agenda and does not flow from evidence based on research. The diet inventor has many times been appraised of his flaws but clings to them for reasons other then science or valid medical practice All of this nonsense of measure by weight or volume comes from the agenda fitting, not well established research. But sadly even the agenda is based on misunderstood and misapplied information. Even when corrected the author of the agenda for nothing but pride and vain face saving can not deal with that truth. Bottom line, ignore any reference to the two pound diet,aka 2 pd etc. and stick with established information and sources of expert authorities which does not include the vanity of vanity distorting reality in this case. God bless. > Hunger is a normal body signal that people who eat normally should feel > several > times a day. Moreover, it should persist during the consumption of a meal > and > for some time afterward. What makes you qualified to make that statement? You've been brainwashed by Chung and his magic manna diet. >> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/22ee71fa96107435? > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Andrew <>< i'm sorry that your life is so sad >> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/22ee71fa96107435? > > The irrational resistance (excuse-making) against using the simple > 2PD-OMER Approach arises from the pervasive and deadly delusion that > "hunger is starvation" which has been discussed in a different thread > starting with the following OP: Why do you lie constantly? I have never seen anyone on these groups claim "hunger" is "starvation." Repeating a lie wont make it the truth. Your god will punish you severely for lying constantly. You will roast in hell like a pig on the spit. > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Why do you lie constantly? It remains my personal choice to continue to write truthfully. > I have never seen anyone on these groups claim > "hunger" is "starvation." You clearly have the delusion that "hunger is starvation" inside your heart as evident by the following Usenet post attributed to you: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/5db0f41c48ff2e7a? May GOD soften your heart, so that you would come to trust the truth, Who is Jesus: http://T3WiJ.com Amen. Love in the truth, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-certified Cardiologist and Author of "Be Hungry" http://NetCabal.com "Don't be left behind as were Cleopus and Simon ... ... -----------------> be hungry ! ! !" Only GOD can cut the "hunger is starvation" delusion from our hearts: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/74281ab7d7ce78de? >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It remains my personal choice to continue to write truthfully. You're not writing truthfully. Moderate exercise and calorie counting (portion control) cause weight loss, not eating some magic number of lbs of food per day. >> I have never seen anyone on these groups claim >> "hunger" is "starvation." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/5db0f41c48ff2e7a? Are you going to lie and claim the *hungriest people* are not those starving to death? That those starving to death are not at all "hungry?" Mild hunger alone is not starvation. Severe hunger, being the hungriest as you claim, is indeed starvation. L.B. Listmann View profile More options May 15, 8:37 pm Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology, alt.support.diet.low-carb, alt.support.diabetes, misc.health.alternative From: "L.B. Listmann" <LBListm...@invalid.net> Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 20:37:21 -0500 Local: Fri, May 15 2009 8:37 pm Subject: Re: The "hunger is starvation" delusion Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com> wrote in message news:a10b571f-f63d-4328-b2e4-eb81980b6aac@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > The healthiest people are truly the hungriest people :-) Then why are they dying of disease and suffering nutritional deficiencies that weaken the immune system? >> "Kaz Kylheku" <kkylheku@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> You can measure a quantity of food once a day, and only eat food from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ``Us'' meaning what, fat f.cks? Yes, far f.cks just like yourself. >> Measure and then carry food around all day? To work. >> school. > > Yes, this may surprise the hell out of you, but people do actually pack > and carry lunch to work and school. What planet do you live on? Which are you from to post like a socially retarded child? Why do you fanatics always post like school boys? You should have learned from you momma how quickly food spoils in the summer, especially in the south. > Obviously, you don't have to carry your breakfast with you, nor your > dinner; [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's perfectly plausible. And dangerous unless it's something dry like cereal or crackers. > If you want a freshly cooked dinner, then weigh just the breakfast > and packed lunch, then weigh the dinner again. Two numbers to add. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What exactly are you arguing against now? Since you don't bring food > to work, where do you get it from? I have to stop at a restaurant. They all sell salads and low-carb lunches. >> Eat while standing at the bus stop >> or in someone's doorway? > > Sounds like you're a tub who must eat all the time. While shopping, > at the bus stop, in someone's doorway. A tub? I have 20 lbs to lose. Does that make me a tub? What qualifies YOU to judge others? > No wonder you're recoiling at the thought of eating only two pounds. 2 lbs of *WHAT* is the problem. Manna from heaven isn't available anymore. Why not make it 1 lb a day? Or 1 1/2 lbs a day. Why 2 lbs a day? Because Chung says so? >> Are YOU stupid or just ignorant of the dangers of >> carting food around all day? > > Well aware of the dangers of obesity. How much weight have you lost on 2 lbs a day? How tall are you and how active are you? >>>>>> And my support of the 2PD, Ms. Cheri, nice to hear from you. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > So you do carry a scale with you everywhere. What do you think "did" meant? >>> How many lbs of food were you >>> eating a day before you started to weight everything you ate? >> >> Over 3 lbs on the average, rarely two pounds even with no breakfast. > > Consisting of WHAT and what does the 2 lbs a day you now eat consist of? Anything I want. > And if you're not carrying a scale around to weigh everything you eat, how > do you know you only eat 2 lbs a day? Learning is not an art form, try it sometime. duh is simple. >> So you do carry a scale with you everywhere. > > What do you think "did" meant? So you DID carry a scale with you everywhere. >>>> How many lbs of food were you >>>> eating a day before you started to weight everything you ate? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Anything I want. So you can eat any amount of calories a day and still lose weight. How come that doesn't work for everyone else? Why don't you go on CNN and Oprah and explain how any number of calories a day causes weight loss? Hint: If eating all the calories a day people choose to eat caused weight loss, obesity would not exist. >> And if you're not carrying a scale around to weigh everything you eat, >> how >> do you know you only eat 2 lbs a day? > > Learning is not an art form, try it sometime. Why can't you answer the question instead of giving a childish reply? I recently weighed several pieces of pizza and no 2 slices in the box weighed the same. I weighed 6 rolls from the store and no 2 weighed the same. I weighed the bananas my wife brought home from the store today. No two weighed the same... so YOU LIE! Unless you carry a scale with you all day, you have no idea what the food you consume weighs. > duh is simple. Your name is duh? It fits you well. >>> If you were eating 2.75 pounds of food and dropped one meal that weighed >>> one pound, you would achieve the same results. Except that you would not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > *plonk* A pointless overture by someone who has no real killfile, only at best a mental one. I see you have not addressed the technical content of this little child's posting. This is simply how you behave when you're intellectually cornered. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.