 |
 | 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 / General Topics / March 2004South Beach Diet - Update
From 1/29/04 - >Anyway, it seems to me that when you get right down to it - and this >is nothing particularly profound - the three keys to successful >dieting are (1) take in fewer calories than you expend, (2) don't >screw up your lipids, renal function, or hepatic function, and (3) >don't get hungry. Well, in that regard, Dr. Arthur Agatston spoke >last week at a medical grand rounds meeting at a local hospital where >I'm on staff. I was impressed with what he had to say - especially >about avoiding between-meal hypoglycemia so you don't get hungry. > >And ... long-story short -- my wife and I went on the South Beach Diet >this past Sunday. Now my wife only wants to lose three or four pounds >- but she figured that if she did the South Beach Diet with me, I'd >have a better chance of succeeding -- and I need to lose >ever-so-slightly more than three or four pounds. :-) > >Anyway, Thursday begins Day 5 for me. All I can say is that I'm >following the recommendations pretty much to the letter except that >when it requires Canadian bacon, I substitute lean Kosher balogna; >when it requires shrimp, I substitute hallibut; and when it requires >meat and dairy at the same meal, I split 'em up by a few hours. >Besides those compromises in the interest of Kashrut, it's been by the >book. So far I have (surprisingly) found the meals to be not >unappealing, I have not experienced any withdrawal from my beloved >dietary no-nos (like pizza ... and sharing a bottle of wine with my >wife at dinner), and I have not been hungry at all! Really! Weight >is down seven pounds in those four days. > >If I don't report back in a couple of weeks - it's likely because I'm >too embarrassed to. Hopefully such will not be the case. > >smn .......................... From 2/3/04 - >So here's the deal ... I started the South Beach Diet eight days ago >weighing 233 lbs. This morning I weighed 222 lbs. > >And I confess, one of the reasons I am posting here regarding my >progress is to have a little added incentive to stick to it. Thus >far, it has been a piece of cake (hmmm, better select a different >analogy), but I suspect it might get a little more difficult as time >goes by. .......................... From now ... Today marks two weeks for me on the South Beach Diet. I said in the fourth paragraph quoted above that I hoped to be able to give an update in two weeks. I started out at 233. This morning - same scale, same time of day, same state of dress (or rather undress), I weigh 218. That's 15 lbs. in two weeks. Best of all, except for the first day or so, I have not been hungry in the least. I mean I'm not even hungry for the foods that got me up to 233! My plan is to keep going on the same diet. Phase One lasts two weeks - so now it's on to Phase Two. I posted earlier that I'd be real happy to get down to 200. Well, now 190 doesn't seem like such a daunting goal. But it's still early in the game. Anyway, to this point I am quite pleased. I feel better, and my clothes fit better. Well, that's not quite true. My jeans are getting quite loose. Your mileage may vary. smn Sounds great. Congratulations! How are you exercising? i >Sounds great. Congratulations! ................ Thank you. ................. >How are you exercising? ................. I'm embarrassed to say this as a former marathon runner (then again I'm embarrassed to say that I weighed 233 just two weeks ago) ... but to this point I have not exercised at all! My own personal plan was to get through Phase One of the diet being the same sedentary type I'd become over the past year or two (or three or ...). Now that Phase One is over, my personal plan calls for 40 minutes of brisk walking with a little jogging/running mixed in three times a week. You know, everybody is different. I think that the above is reasonable for me, and I hope as time goes on to increase the running-to-walking ratio. I am unaware of what the cardiac literature says about this point, but it is my understanding that from a cardiac standpoint the key is the time invested rather than the type of excercise (as long as it is aerobic). And 40 minutes three times a week (my doctor's recommendation) is something I know I can do without taking too great a chunk of time out of my routine. Then, when it becomes *part* of my routine ... who knows? smn Do you pH test your urine frequently for ketone levels also? > >Sounds great. Congratulations! > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > smn >Do you pH test your urine frequently for ketone levels also? .................... No. smn Where would I find information on this diet you speak of? Is it a low carb diet or can you give a brief description of its basis? > >Do you pH test your urine frequently for ketone levels also? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > smn >Where would I find information on this diet you speak of? ................. www.southbeachdiet.com .................. >Is it a low carb diet or can you give a brief description of its basis? ..................... Well it is "low carb" only in the sense that it eliminates those carbs that tend to make you hungry when metabolized. I really suggest you look at the website above for more details. But I'll tell ya one thing for sure -- if you're gonna go on the South Beach Diet, you'll *have* to change that nick!! :-) smn This sounds like a clone of the Atkin's diet. Big problems with the Atkin's diet is that he encourages lots of animal fats and many people have a problem with that healthwise. The pizza is definitely a big downfall for me and many others like me, I am sure. Working on it. By the time I am 30 I will have it under control, I am sure. Well, maybe 50 ish? Thanks. > >Where would I find information on this diet you speak of? > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > smn >This sounds like a clone of the Atkin's diet. Big problems with the Atkin's >diet is that he encourages lots of animal fats and many people have a >problem with that healthwise. ............... I really think you should read the site. It is absolutely *not* a clone of the Atkins diet. "Unlike the Atkins diet, Agatston's plan steers dieters away from saturated fat found in butter and fatty meats like hamburger and bacon and encourages the consumption of monounsaturated fats like olive oil and omega-3 fatty acids found in fish. USA Today" ...................... >The pizza is definitely a big downfall for me and many others like me, I am >sure. Working on it. By the time I am 30 I will have it under control, I am >sure. Well, maybe 50 ish? ...................... I absolutely LOVE pizza. But ya know what? I don't miss it a bit. You quickly lose cravings like that! smn Actually, I think South Beach does more good fats vs. bad fats. > This sounds like a clone of the Atkin's diet. Big problems with the Atkin's > diet is that he encourages lots of animal fats and many people have a [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> >>smn  Signaturejmk in NC > Actually, I think South Beach does more good fats vs. bad fats. Nonetheless, I would still be concerned about the hyperketonemia leading to increased lipid peroxidation and associated hsCRP elevations. Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ -- Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557 >>Actually, I think South Beach does more good fats vs. bad fats. > > Nonetheless, I would still be concerned about the hyperketonemia leading to > increased lipid peroxidation and associated hsCRP elevations. Isn't it interesting how Chung is so concerned about the nutritive components and physiological results of every diet except the quack on he "invented?" Poor QUACK Chung. Bob > Isn't it interesting how Chung no, it really isn't. nothing about him is interesting. >>Isn't it interesting how Chung > > no, it really isn't. nothing about him is interesting. <LOL> Hard to argue with that. Bob > >>Isn't it interesting how Chung > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bob You poor guy. You remain in my prayers, neighbor. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Bob (2) Report Bob to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. Bob's pathological obsessions are related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion thread(s). However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47 (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Bob "raging and self-confident" Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ -- Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?W3C323D57 >>>>Isn't it interesting how Chung >>> >>>no, it really isn't. nothing about your obsession with him is interesting. See how cute the Master of Lies is? He changed QCJ's words. What a fine, honest man he shows himself to be. Did and should read, : "Nothing about him is interesting." And that's the truth. Chung seems incapable of dealing in it. >><LOL> Hard to argue with that. >> >>Bob > > You poor guy. I'm upset. Not one <hiss> from Chung on this one. Must be his hearing aid battery is wearing down. Probably turned it down, what with all that <hissing> and <snipping> going on, and everybody knows how noisy that is. Poor frantic Chung... Bob > You remain in my prayers, neighbor. > > Isn't it interesting how Chung > > no, it really isn't. nothing about him is interesting. Ouch. You may have at my other cheek. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Queen (2) Report Queen to her ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion thread(s). However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47 (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Bob "raging and self-confident" Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ -- Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?W3C323D57 >>> Isn't it interesting how Chung >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You may have at my other cheek. On which face? SignatureSteve Who is the humblest person in the universe? According to Chung, God :-) ROTFL! "I'm Humble! Worship Me!" Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003 > >>> Isn't it interesting how Chung > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > On which face? Only got one. I'm not like you. Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ -- Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?W3C323D57 >>>>>Isn't it interesting how Chung >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Only got one. I'm not like you. OUCH. The Famous Chung "I'm rubber, you're glue" riposte. Devastating... Poor obsessive Chung MUST... ANSWER... EVERY... POST... <LOL> At least he didn't change everybody's words like usual. Bob > >>>>>Isn't it interesting how Chung > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Bob You poor guy. Your family has not seen you in a while. You remain in my prayers, neighbor. Only Christ can save you. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Bob (2) Report Bob to his ISP. (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and other discussion threads. However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47 (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Bob "raging and self-confident" Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig, Steve, and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ -- Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?W3C323D57 >>>>>>>Isn't it interesting how Chung >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >>Bob I just love it when Chung leaves in the stuff that shows who and what he really is. <LOL> And how wit-challenged he is. And how not-clever he is. Poor slow-witted Chung. > You poor guy. > > Your family has not seen you in a while. <LOL> More Chung dissembling. He has no idea of my family relationships or my comings and goings. But he tries to poke around until he finds a soft spot. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. This from the same lying Chung who says he doesn't do ad hominem. Too funny and too obvious. Poor hate-filled Chung. Poor frustrated Chung who can't see how ridiculous all this posturing makes him look. Bob > >>>>>>>Isn't it interesting how Chung > >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Bob You poor guy. You remain in my prayers, neighbor. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Bob (2) Report Bob to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. Bob's pathological obsessions are related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion thread(s). However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47 (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Bob "raging and self-confident" Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ -- Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?N13D32F57 > >>Actually, I think South Beach does more good fats vs. bad fats. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Bob You poor guy. You remain in my prayers, neighbor. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Bob (2) Report Bob to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. Bob's pathological obsessions are related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion thread(s). However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47 (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Bob "raging and self-confident" Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Servant to the humblest person in the universe, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ -- Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?W3C323D57 >>>>Actually, I think South Beach does more good fats vs. bad fats. >>> >>>Nonetheless, I would still be concerned about the hyperketonemia leading to >>>increased lipid peroxidation and associated hsCRP elevations. Oh, yeah. I remember this one. It was where I noted that Chung is terribly concerned about the well-being of everybody on other diets, carefully considering nutrient balance and secondary effects. Funny how he isn't all that concerned about people doing his reckless s2PID "diet." Here comes the macro... <LOL> BOb SCM, ASDLC, ASD - As promised I am providing a further update. (Actually, I promised myself - sort of an added inducement to succeed.) I am 6'0" tall. I started the South Beach Diet on 1/25/04, weighing 233 lbs. Yesterday morning I weighed 198. That's a loss of 35 lbs. in 6½ weeks. My lipids are way down (see below), and my internist has just taken me off Lipitor. He plans to recheck my lipids in six weeks. He is also cutting back on my BP meds. I sleep better, I wake up more refreshed, I have more energy, and I have stopped snoring. I have not been hungry at all (save for the first day or two). It's just a series of one, but for me this approach makes sense - and it appears to be working. As they say, your mileage may vary. Previous updates are copied below. smn ..................... >From 1/29/04 - >... it seems to me that when you get right down to it - and this >is nothing particularly profound - the three keys to successful [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >smn .......................... >From 2/3/04 - >So here's the deal ... I started the South Beach Diet eight days ago >weighing 233 lbs. This morning I weighed 222 lbs. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >analogy), but I suspect it might get a little more difficult as time >goes by. .......................... >From 2/8/04 - > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Your mileage may vary. > SCM, ASDLC, ASD - > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > smn I think your progress is terrific. What is the real reason? Do you really believe it is a specific diet or do you find it easier to follow a plan with black and white rules? Frankly, as far as you are concerned, I don't care about the answer! Your success speaks for itself but there is such a diverse variety of successful strategies. Some folks claim that limiting their food choices works well. Others, myself included, think that nothing is truly off limits, but that everything needs to be done in moderation. Some hate carbs, some love them, etc., etc. So, I guess I am asking if you are able to follow other plans without much success and SBD is the one that finally worked or if SBD works because you have clear guidelines? j > ..................... > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > > >Your mileage may vary. >I think your progress is terrific. What is the real reason? Do you really >believe it is a specific diet or do you find it easier to follow a plan with [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >without much success and SBD is the one that finally worked or if SBD works >because you have clear guidelines? ............... Julianne, I'm not really sure what all the factors are that have contributed to my success at this point. I do think that the fact that the South Beach Diet has an appeal to me as a physician (purely in terms of the physiology involved) cannot be underestimated. I don't like being hungry - and since the diet is designed to minimize reactive hypoglycemia, you just don't get hungry on it. Plus, as an added bonus, lypolyisis (the breakdown of fat) occurs more readily when insulin levels are normal to slightly below normal. Minimizing intake of foods that have a high glycemic index keeps insulin levels in check. Those are the physiological elements that "speak to me." But I must confess that I do not see the diet as having strict guidelines. There's a lot of lateral movement there - just as long as you maintain the philosophy ... especially after the first two weeks. As far as "other plans" go, I have not met one that quite had the appeal (to me) of the South Beach Diet purely from an intellectual standpoint. That's the best I can do for an answer. And thanks for your nice comment about my progress. smn >SCM, ASDLC, ASD - > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >It's just a series of one, but for me this approach makes sense - and >it appears to be working. As they say, your mileage may vary. It does make sense. If you keep your blood sugar steady, you don't binge. Well, at least I'm finding that I don't. And easy to follow? Eating out is no problem (especially since the Atkins people blazed a trail for us - people don't even blink when you ask them to hold the pasta on your pasta primavera... <g>). No more weighing food, looking it up in charts and books, logging every bite... I'm about 5 weeks behind you, at the end of day 9, and weighed in with an 8.5-lb. loss this morning. Only another 100 or so to go. So far so good. Stan >>>>>> I am 6'0" tall. I started the South Beach Diet on 1/25/04, weighing > 233 lbs. Yesterday morning I weighed 198. That's a loss of 35 lbs. in > 6½ weeks. <<<<<<<< It's V-good. Well done :o) Have 35 stars! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Carol T Hi Stephen, Question for you - and perhaps I'll ask my doctor this as well. But I was under the assumption that once you start on any of the cholesterol lowering medications (like Lipitor) you were not supposed to stop? I don't remember what the exact reason was for this, but this is something that I had read... Would anyone else know? Thanks, Mohammed SignatureLose Weight 'n Feel Great http://www.lose-weight-n-feel-great.com I lost 100lbs in one year - without drugs, medication, OR surgery - SO CAN YOU! > SCM, ASDLC, ASD - > [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > > >Your mileage may vary. >Hi Stephen, > >Question for you - and perhaps I'll ask my doctor this as well. But I was >under the assumption that once you start on any of the cholesterol lowering >medications (like Lipitor) you were not supposed to stop? I don't remember >what the exact reason was for this, but this is something that I had read... .............. I can answer that. And the reason has little to do with pharmaceutical profits; rather it has do do with well-controlled studies by independent investigators. Basically the answer has to do with the reason your doctor might put you on Lipitor in the first place. Because in addition to their cholesterol-lowering capabilities, statins have been shown to decrease progression of coronary artery disease. So, if a person has already had a heart attack or has *symptoms* of coronary artery disease or has coronary artery disease that has been documented by scan/angiogram or some combination of the above, doctors - rightly so, in my opinion - are hesitant to discontinue Lipitor regardless of the cholesterol level. The same holds true - in the opinion or some - for diabetics, since diabetes is looked at by many no longer as a risk factor for coronary artery disease but actually in more of a causal role for coronary artery disease. However for folks like me on Lipitor who have no history of heart attack or angina and have no symptoms of coronary artery disease and have no studies documenrting coronary disease and have no medical reason to even have such studies done and have no risk factors (except elevated lipids now corrected by the Lipitor), then if by a diet/exercise program the lipid profile has been even further improved over that taken prior to the diet/exercise, there is no reason not to stop the Lipitor and recheck the lipids at an appropriate interval. smn Hi Stephen, Thanks for the quick reply! My mom was put on Lipitor for the same reasons as you. No diabetes or heart troubles. So if she does manage to reduce her weight and get her cholesterol under control then there is a chance that the doctor will take her off of the medication. She'll be happy to hear that! Regards, Mohammed SignatureLose Weight 'n Feel Great http://www.lose-weight-n-feel-great.com I lost 100lbs in one year - without drugs, medication, OR surgery - SO CAN YOU! > >Hi Stephen, > > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > smn Way to GO ! ! ! ! ! sounds like you have found a plan that works for you very effectively congratulations kate "Stephen Nagler" <> wrote in message .com... > SCM, ASDLC, ASD - > [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > > >Your mileage may vary. > > This sounds like a clone of the Atkin's diet. To a very great extent, SBD is DANDR lite. 3 phases vs 4, detailed process vs lists of foods and so on. Both cardiologists named Dr A ;^) > Actually, I think South Beach does more good fats vs. bad fats. True. When Dr Atkins wrote DANDR he had to break through the barrier that once you set your carb low, fat is good for you. He did mention that there are bad transfats to be avoided as well as good saturated, better monounsaturated and best polyunsaturated fats. But he went no further than labelling them bad, good, better and best. He didn't set guidelines because he was busy breaking down the barrier in the first place. When Dr Atgaston wrote SBD the fat barrier had already been broken down. So he had the luxury of putting more time and effort into what the types of fat are and what ones to use. He got to build on Dr Atkins' work so he could go farther. And since he could go farther, he did go farther. Excellent stuff. Some will say Dr Atkins blazed the trail. Others will say Dr Atgaston went farther down the trail. Both are correct. Stephen Nagler wrote > Now that Phase One is over, my personal plan calls for 40 minutes of > brisk walking with a little jogging/running mixed in three times a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > reasonable for me, and I hope as time goes on to increase the > running-to-walking ratio. Walking works, Stephen! I lost almost 100 pounds walking and eating right. SignatureWalking on . . . Laurie in Maine 207/110 60 inches of attitude! Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03 >>Sounds great. Congratulations! > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > reasonable for me, and I hope as time goes on to increase the > running-to-walking ratio. I think that it is not really enough... > I am unaware of what the cardiac literature says about this point, but > it is my understanding that from a cardiac standpoint the key is the > time invested rather than the type of excercise (as long as it is I agree. > aerobic). And 40 minutes three times a week (my doctor's > recommendation) is something I know I can do without taking too great > a chunk of time out of my routine. Then, when it becomes *part* of my > routine ... who knows? Well, you may find that spending more time will give you a great yield, in terms of accelerated weight loss without too much extra hunger. Plus feeling good. Are you a busy person? i >> You know, everybody is different. I think that the above is >> reasonable for me, and I hope as time goes on to increase the >> running-to-walking ratio. > >I think that it is not really enough... ............... I respect your opinion. But it's enough for me *at this point*. Rome wasn't built in a day ... and getting me into good shape makes builing Rome seem like child's play! :-) I know me. And my doctor knows me. I suspect I'll increase my exercise at some point - but for now 40 minutes three times a week is "do-able" - both from a physiological and psychological standpoint. Making a plan that's "do-able" at this point is more important for me than making a plan that is optimal. Optimal will come! .................. >Are you a busy person? .................... Yes. smn > From 1/29/04 - > > My plan is to keep going on the same diet. Phase One lasts two weeks > - so now it's on to Phase Two. I posted earlier that I'd be real > happy to get down to 200. Well, now 190 doesn't seem like such a > daunting goal. But it's still early in the game. So far it sounds really good and you're doing well. I have two friends at work doing the SBD and they had similar results with Phase One. In Phase Two, their losses slowed dramatically and over the course of time one of them eventually gave up. The other one is still going strong, losing slowly (a good thing) and says he likes the WOE and that he hasn't gained anything back. I think that's the big thing right there - if you can live with the WOE. If you go back to those things that made you gain weight, they'll do it again. I've heard and read lots of good things about SBD, and it's nice to know you can make changes to accomodate your personal needs and still be successful. Keep up the good work! Jenn > From 1/29/04 - > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > smn I'm only a week ahead of you and seeing much the same result. I can't believe how easy this process is. The first week I was a bit jittery and lacked some energy. I've found that my exercise recovery after a hard workout takes over 24 hours, but other than that, this has been a piece of low-carb cake. My wife and I decided to stay on phase 1 for an extra week, just because it didn't seem hard at all. At this stage, I'm looking forward to reintroducing some complex carbs into my diet, but carefully timed with my exercise regime. The wife is just as pleased as I am with this whole thing. I've been fighting weight gain for almost two years since I quit using tobacco. I'm amazed how quickly a put on the pounds once I kicked the nicotine addiction. I'm not sure if it was metabolism change or just stuffing more food in my mouth to replace the tobacco. My guess is a combination of the two. Being in the military, being overweight has implications beyond just self esteem. I've managed to stay in limits, but I can't take any time off from the gym, and I've really had to watch my diet. Using a variety of low-cal and low-fat strategies has kept me just under the acceptable limits, but the result has been constant feelings of deprivation and craving. Low carb eating has given me the fastest weight loss results with the least amount of effort that I've ever encountered. In the space of three weeks I'm down to a weight I haven't seen in over 10 years. I'm already halfway to my goal. I have no illusions that the second half will be as easy as the first, but I'm confident that I can adapt this diet to my lifestyle and continue to see results. Self-discipline has never been a problem, but this doesn't call for many outright acts of will. The more I educate myself on the the mechanics of low-carb, I'm convinced its the appetite suppression that is the key to success. At least for me, anyway. Hopefully my blood chemistry will benefit as well. I'll have to wait and see the results there. But with a genetic history of high cholesterol and borderline numbers for years, I'm optimistic that this diet will achieve some positive results there too. While this is one of the most troll-ridden NG's I've ever seen, its also been a great resource for information, inspiration, and expectation managment. Thanks. Tom "tcmedara" <tcmedara@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in part: >The more I educate myself on the the mechanics of low-carb, I'm convinced >its the appetite suppression that is the key to success. At least for me, >anyway. That has been my experience, too. >Hopefully my blood chemistry will benefit as well. Mine benefitted enormously. HDL almost doubled over a year's time. Good luck to all! -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA In sci.med.cardiology "tcmedara" <tcmedara@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote: >The more I educate myself on the the mechanics of low-carb, I'm convinced >its the appetite suppression that is the key to success. I agree. I have been on the Zone diet or a modified Zone for about four years. It has turned into a new way to eat and works very well. I can stay trim and rarely feel so hungry that I eat too much. Ron |
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.