Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / January 2004
2PD question, seriously
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Luna - 28 Jan 2004 02:15 GMT Ok, this is not meant to start any flame wars, this is a serious question about the 2 pound diet. Am I correct in thinking that this diet limits one to two pounds of food per day, but you can drink as much water as you want? If this is so, do you take the water content into account when weighing your food? An entire watermelon, for example, weighs quite a lot, but without the water in it I bet it wouldn't weigh very much at all. The same is probably true for a lot of foods. If you have a food dehydrating machine, you could just dry everything out and be able to eat quite a bit more food, right?
 Signature Michelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.
Roger Zoul - 28 Jan 2004 02:34 GMT :: Ok, this is not meant to start any flame wars, this is a serious :: question about the 2 pound diet. Am I correct in thinking that this :: diet limits one to two pounds of food per day, but you can drink as :: much water as you want? Yes, that is my understanding anyway.
If this is so, do you take the water content
:: into account when weighing your food? It gets accounted for when you weigh the food. How else can you do it?
An entire watermelon, for
:: example, weighs quite a lot, but without the water in it I bet it :: wouldn't weigh very much at all. The same is probably true for a :: lot of foods. If you have a food dehydrating machine, you could :: just dry everything out and be able to eat quite a bit more food, :: right? Well, those mountain climbers ate dehydrated food -- 2 lbs of it as I recall. So if you rehydrate it, it might weigh 9 lbs.
:) Let the fun begin!
Luna - 28 Jan 2004 03:17 GMT > :: Ok, this is not meant to start any flame wars, this is a serious > :: question about the 2 pound diet. Am I correct in thinking that this [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It gets accounted for when you weigh the food. How else can you do it? I phrased that question wrong. I meant, do you have to count the water content towards the total weight of the food? I don't think you should have to, because water has no calories. So if I were on the 2PD and I wanted to eat nothing but pasta all day, I could just weigh it before cooking, since the difference in weight after cooking is all from water, right?
> An entire watermelon, for > :: example, weighs quite a lot, but without the water in it I bet it [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Let the fun begin!
 Signature Michelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.
Roger Zoul - 28 Jan 2004 04:49 GMT :: In article <101e7ujnjt5ns07@corp.supernews.com>, :: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] :: I phrased that question wrong. I meant, do you have to count the :: water content towards the total weight of the food? You weigh the food -- with water. There is no other way to do so that would be of any practical use. You won't see people dehydrating watermelon.
I don't think
:: you should have to, because water has no calories. So if I were on :: the 2PD and I wanted to eat nothing but pasta all day, I could just :: weigh it before cooking, since the difference in weight after :: cooking is all from water, right? You'll have to ask Mu or Chung, but I think the answer is no -- you weigh it after cooking. I'm no expert on the 2PD.
::: An entire watermelon, for ::::: example, weighs quite a lot, but without the water in it I bet it [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] :: I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 :: flaws. lbudney@pobox.com - 28 Jan 2004 15:14 GMT > You weigh the food -- with water. There is no other way to do so > that would be of any practical use. You won't see people > dehydrating watermelon. It's been done. Check the July/August 1998 issue of Backwoods Home magazine.
--Len.
Roger Zoul - 28 Jan 2004 15:40 GMT :: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> writes: ::: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: It's been done. Check the July/August 1998 issue of Backwoods Home :: magazine.
:). Now that you bring that up, one could certainly go to town on dried fruits on the 2PD, huh?
The Queen of Cans and Jars - 28 Jan 2004 05:56 GMT > I meant, do you have to count the water content towards the total weight > of the food? how do you propose weighing the water in your food separately?
Mu_n Over Eugenia - 28 Jan 2004 13:08 GMT >> I meant, do you have to count the water content towards the total weight >> of the food? > >how do you propose weighing the water in your food separately? If it is added, it's simple. If it is chemically bound, it's much harder.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap991014.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
Luna - 28 Jan 2004 16:19 GMT > > I meant, do you have to count the water content towards the total weight > > of the food? > > how do you propose weighing the water in your food separately? The internet is a big place. I'm sure there's a website out there that tells you how much water is in different foods.
 Signature Michelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.
Mu_n Over Eugenia - 28 Jan 2004 13:07 GMT >I phrased that question wrong. I meant, do you have to count the water >content towards the total weight of the food? I don't think you should have >to, because water has no calories. For now, forget about calories. Retrain yourself to lowered food intakes. One simple step at a time.
> So if I were on the 2PD and I wanted to >eat nothing but pasta all day, I could just weigh it before cooking, since >the difference in weight after cooking is all from water, right? Not until you are sure you have gotten your relationship with food under control. And your stomach, and your psyche, have fully bought into the fact that you flat don't need the amount of food that the average American sincerely believes is required.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap991014.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
Ignoramus14140 - 28 Jan 2004 02:37 GMT > Ok, this is not meant to start any flame wars, this is a serious question > about the 2 pound diet. Am I correct in thinking that this diet limits one [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > machine, you could just dry everything out and be able to eat quite a bit > more food, right? right.
plus, as far as I am concerned, I eat about 3 lbs of vegetables per day. would not want to give that up...
Mu_n Over Eugenia - 28 Jan 2004 13:04 GMT >Ok, this is not meant to start any flame wars, this is a serious question >about the 2 pound diet. Am I correct in thinking that this diet limits one >to two pounds of food per day, but you can drink as much water as you want? Correct. But the 2 pound limitation must be reached gradually. Weigh what you are presently eating, don't cheat, and move the volume of food/drink down slowly.
http://www.heartmdphd.com/lowtnd.asp
>If this is so, do you take the water content into account when weighing >your food? An entire watermelon, for example, weighs quite a lot, but >without the water in it I bet it wouldn't weigh very much at all. Here's where you get to apply, in time, an Ounce Of Common Sense.
The 2PDiet is based on several factors but one of the most significant ones is that your tummy is used to higher than necessary amounts of food. MOF, so is your (plural usage) psyche.
That is to say, there is a widespread misunderstanding of the amounts of food that are required to maintain health. We have been duped into oversized meals brought on by an abundance of cheap food, mainly by the targeted, conspiratorial marketing of food to excess by those who make $$$ selling food.
With that said, weighing the water amounts in your food (such as cooked spaghetti instead of weighing dehydrated spaghetti) is about retraining your stomach and your psyche to accepting, and both will, these lowered, in weight, food volumes.
Personally, after six or eight weeks, I was well adjusted to averaging around 2 pounds per day and made a Common Sense allowance for the water that I knew was either added or part of the food I was eating. Take note though I made this adjustment with full knowledge, and a vigilant eye on the scale, that if I found myself back in the overeating trap, I would have to go directly back to the basics as Chung has laid out.
> The same >is probably true for a lot of foods. If you have a food dehydrating >machine, you could just dry everything out and be able to eat quite a bit >more food, right? Yes, you could.
Luna, I tell you this simple diet will absolutely make you rethink all you ever took for granted about food. Food amounts, the importance of food (other than as necessary fuels and chemicals), your real relationship with food, how many plan their whole day around meals...the list is endless.
If you note how this highly successful approach to eating is so routinely disdained, what you see is people fighting against the realities of their obsessions and abnormal relationships with food in quantity. They flat don't want to give higher than required volumes of food and drink up.
And they will fight to the end trying to justify the unjustifiable. Of course, these are the same folks that also remain obese.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap991014.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
Steve - 28 Jan 2004 13:40 GMT <snip>
> Here's where you get to apply, in time, an Ounce Of Common Sense. Here's an "Ounce of Common Sense" for you:
Does it make "Common Sense" to you that two pounds of food is the right amount for everbody? Doesn¹t matter if you are a 16 year old girl or an 80 year old man; a 5¹ 2" woman or a 7¹ man; a weight lifter or a mattress tester. Two pounds. That¹s it. No more, less if you want. One size fits all.
Humble is my middle name,
 Signature Steve
Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003
Dawn Taylor - 28 Jan 2004 18:13 GMT ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >mattress tester. Two pounds. That¹s it. No more, less if you want. >One size fits all. And, additionally, thet there's no nutritive difference between 6 oz. of beef jerky, broccoli, raisins or chocolate pudding.
Idiotic.
Dawn
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 28 Jan 2004 22:31 GMT > ><snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >mattress tester. Two pounds. That¹s it. No more, less if you want. > >One size fits all. Go ahead and name a diet or WOE that is height-based.
> And, additionally, thet there's no nutritive difference between 6 oz. > of beef jerky, broccoli, raisins or chocolate pudding. Your claim, not mine.
See:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp
> Idiotic. > > Dawn Why are you "idiotic" Dawn?
Humbly,
Andrew
-- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/
Roger Zoul - 28 Jan 2004 14:05 GMT ::: The same ::: is probably true for a lot of foods. If you have a food dehydrating ::: machine, you could just dry everything out and be able to eat quite ::: a bit more food, right? :: :: Yes, you could. Are you saying that one take 2 pounds of dry pasta, hydrate it, and eat that on the 2pd?
Where does the volume measuring begin? 2 pounds of hydrated paste has has less volume than 2 pounds of dry pasta that then has been rehydrated.
Mu_n Over Eugenia - 28 Jan 2004 14:14 GMT >::: The same >::: is probably true for a lot of foods. If you have a food dehydrating >::: machine, you could just dry everything out and be able to eat quite >::: a bit more food, right? >:: >:: Yes, you could.
>Are you saying that one take 2 pounds of dry pasta, hydrate it, and eat that >on the 2pd? Only if you want to exceed the 2 pound limitation.
>Where does the volume measuring begin? The day you start the diet.
> 2 pounds of hydrated paste has has >less volume than 2 pounds of dry pasta that then has been rehydrated. Correct.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap991014.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
Roger Zoul - 28 Jan 2004 14:47 GMT ::: Mu_n Over Eugenia wrote: ::: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] :: :: Only if you want to exceed the 2 pound limitation. Okay.
::: Where does the volume measuring begin? :: :: The day you start the diet. Bad question.
::: 2 pounds of hydrated paste has has ::: less volume than 2 pounds of dry pasta that then has been [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap991014.html :: Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. Luna - 28 Jan 2004 16:34 GMT > Luna, I tell you this simple diet will absolutely make you rethink all > you ever took for granted about food. Food amounts, the importance of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > And they will fight to the end trying to justify the unjustifiable. Of > course, these are the same folks that also remain obese. Oh, I'm not going to do that diet. I have no idea how many pounds of food I eat right now, but whatever it is it's working for me. I'm still losing weight, I don't go "out of control" any more with my eating, my portions are much smaller than they were pre-LC and I don't get nearly as hungry as I used to. You talked a bit about psychology, and well, everyone's psychology is a bit different. I tend to obsess about food _more_ when I try to be more strict with myself. The way my life is set up now, I have plenty of tasty, healthy, easy to prepare, low-carb foods in my house, and I don't even think about what I'm going to eat until it's time to eat, then I fix something, eat it, and I'm done and back to whatever I was doing. So if it ain't broke, I ain't gonna try to fix it. I was just generally curious about the 2PD.
 Signature Michelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.
Thorsten Schier - 31 Jan 2004 14:58 GMT Mu_n Over Eugenia schrieb:
[...]
> Personally, after six or eight weeks, I was well adjusted to averaging > around 2 pounds per day and made a Common Sense allowance for the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > overeating trap, I would have to go directly back to the basics as > Chung has laid out. Interesting. So you are _not_ following the 2 lbs diet, after all. Because on that diet there is no "Common Sense allowance for the water" in the food because the water content of the food is already accounted for in the 2 lbs:
"[Q:]Even if approached with common sense, it's too simple a concept to allow for foods with a high water content.
[A:]The water content is already accounted for. If you consume 2 pounds of food per day that had absolutely *no* water content, your caloric intake would be around 4000-8000 calories. I am betting that most folks don't tolerate such *dry* foods for very long. "
From http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp (Text in brackets added by me)
Thorsten
f'up to smc
 Signature "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution"
(Theodosius Dobzhansky)
|
|
|