WHEN YOU SEE A TOTAL ECLIPSE.......

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 11:36:33 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

Ron Ritzman said:

Quoted message said:

> A large active male could lose weight on 3300 calories.

That means that the 2Lb diet is good for loggers chopping down trees
all day. They really NEED a diet. Wasn't this dreamed up from climbing
Everest?

He got the idea while watching an IMAX film about Everest climbers but
the 2PD as presented is not the same diet.

Quoted message said:

They need a diet like this too. NOT

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You just described the 2PD approach.

Amen, Brother Chung! And how about the improved 2FD approach...

Because this discussion concerns the Two Pound Diet (2PD), I am
providing the following as a Public Service:

I have developed the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) as a replacement for
Dr. Chung's Amazing Logic Defying Two Pound Diet to avoid having to
carry a scale around.

Following Dr. Chung's scientific approach, as described on his website,
in 2003, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing the Bavarian
Alps and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the climbers
consumed only 10 packages of wieners per week. That's less than 2 feet
of wieners per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I
think it is safe to assume that 2 feet of food per day should be more
than adequate for us non-climbing folks.

So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese friends in my
neighborhood. I gave them ordinary 6 inch rulers with instructions to
measure the length of everything substantial that passed into their
mouths. The only things exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What
I learned was that my obese friends were consuming between 8 to 12 feet
of food per day! At the time, I was about 10 lbs. over my ideal body
weight so I decided to find out how much I was eating per day... 3
feet. I cut back to less than 2 feet and was at my proper weight in one
month.

My friends have responded similarly except they have taken longer
because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese
friends were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the
ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally loosing their 6
inch rulers and taking weeks to buy replacements.

So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's longest
dimension, and keep the total length to less than two feet per day.
That's all there is. No scales, no counting calories or carbohydrates.
Heck, if you loose your ruler, you can even use the first joint of your
thumb to measure.

I am making this diet available as a public service and without
compensation.

If you have any questions, just see Dr. Chung's helpful FAQ and
substitute "Two Feet" for "Two Pounds" everywhere... what could be
simpler?

Sincerely,

God's Other Humble Servant

Steve

MD/PhD said:

Sounds like you also "know" that the 2PD approach can easily be a lifelong
WOE.

Yes, and I also "know" that for most fat people, a lifelong approach
is the only way they can keep off the weight. Exceptions would be
those few fat people who had their food intake and appetite control
systems disrupted by disease and/or drugs. Appetite and weight usually
returns to normal if/when their conditions are treated or drugs
stopped.

However, I also believe that other approaches, besides the 2PD, can
work as well (yes I know you acknowledge that too but Mu doesn't)
including low carb. All of the low carb plans have non ketogenic
"maintenance" phases for when the weight is gone but one has to make a
"lifestyle" choice to give up all those delicious high carb foods for
the rest of ones life. If one is unable to do that then the best
approach is to "eat less" of the foods one does like.

--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address

Steve said:

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 11:36:33 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

Ron Ritzman said:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:56:11 -0800, [email hidden] wrote:

>> A large active male could lose weight on 3300 calories.
>
> That means that the 2Lb diet is good for loggers chopping down trees
> all day. They really NEED a diet. Wasn't this dreamed up from climbing
> Everest?

He got the idea while watching an IMAX film about Everest climbers but
the 2PD as presented is not the same diet.

> They need a diet like this too. NOT

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You just described the 2PD approach.

Amen, Brother Chung! <Flattering imitation snipped>

You aren't my brother, neighbor. Though you are welcome to become my brother.

You know what you'll need to do.

In the interim, I will pray for 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 Steve
(2) Report Steve 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://tinyurl.com/levc
(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. 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 participate here on Usenet above the din of
hissing from the peanut gallery.

God's humble bond-servant,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com

Ron Ritzman said:

MD/PhD said:

Sounds like you also "know" that the 2PD approach can easily be a lifelong
WOE.

Yes, and I also "know" that for most fat people, a lifelong approach
is the only way they can keep off the weight. Exceptions would be
those few fat people who had their food intake and appetite control
systems disrupted by disease and/or drugs. Appetite and weight usually
returns to normal if/when their conditions are treated or drugs
stopped.

However, I also believe that other approaches, besides the 2PD, can
work as well (yes I know you acknowledge that too but Mu doesn't)

We each have our opinions.

Quoted message said:

including low carb. All of the low carb plans have non ketogenic
"maintenance" phases for when the weight is gone but one has to make a
"lifestyle" choice to give up all those delicious high carb foods for
the rest of ones life. If one is unable to do that then the best
approach is to "eat less" of the foods one does like.

--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address

Thanks for your comments, Ron.

Don't forget to send me email as previously discussed as to when we might get
together for the Stone Mountain hike.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 13:58:57 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

Steve said:

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 11:36:33 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

Ron Ritzman wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:56:11 -0800, [email hidden] wrote:
>
>>> A large active male could lose weight on 3300 calories.
>>
>> That means that the 2Lb diet is good for loggers chopping down trees
>> all day. They really NEED a diet. Wasn't this dreamed up from climbing
>> Everest?
>
> He got the idea while watching an IMAX film about Everest climbers but
> the 2PD as presented is not the same diet.
>
>> They need a diet like this too. NOT
>

<snip>

Quoted message said:

>

You just described the 2PD approach.

Amen, Brother Chung! <Mocking imitation snipped>

You aren't my brother, neighbor.

Gee, I thought all men were all brothers in the Blood of the Lamb. How
un-Christian of 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 Chung
(2) Report Chung to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

This discussion(s) is related to the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) which
I developed as a replacement for Dr. Chung's Amazing Logic Defying Two
Pound Diet to avoid having to carry a scale around.

In 2003, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing the Bavarian
Alps and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the climbers
consumed only 10 packages of wieners per week. That's less than 2 feet
of wieners per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I
think it is safe to assume that 2 feet of food per day should be more
than adequate for us non-climbing folks.

So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese friends in my
neighborhood. I gave them ordinary 6 inch rulers with instructions to
measure the length of everything substantial that passed into their
mouths. The only things exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What
I learned was that my obese friends were consuming between 8 to 12 feet
of food per day! At the time, I was about 10 lbs. over my ideal body
weight so I decided to find out how much I was eating per day... 3
feet. I cut back to less than 2 feet and was at my proper weight in one
month.

My friends have responded similarly except they have taken longer
because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese
friends were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the
ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally loosing their 6
inch rulers and taking weeks to buy replacements.

So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's longest
dimension, and keep the total length to less than two feet per day.
That's all there is. No scales, no counting calories or carbohydrates.
Heck, if you loose your ruler, you can even use the first joint of your
thumb to measure.

I am making this diet available as a public service and without
compensation.

If you have any questions, just see Dr. Chung's helpful FAQ and
substitute "Two Feet" for "Two Pounds" everywhere... what could be
simpler?

Though Steve 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/hypocrite.asp

From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are
vehemently opposed to the 2 foot diet approach. They have debated
Steve on every perceived weakness of the 2 foot diet approach and have
lost the argument soundly at every point:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp ... just substitute "Foot" for
"Pound" everywhere.

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 foot
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) Steve has not been posting anonymously.

(2) The 2FD 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 2FD
to achieve near-ideal weight.

(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their
weight becomes near-ideal.

(c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/moreChungbullshit

(3) Steve did not start the discussion(s).

(4) The 2 foot diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).

Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have
tried to attack Steve's credentials knowing full well that they were
attempting to libel him. One notable example is Dr. Chung who is
jealous that Steve has improved on his diet.

When the full light was cast on Dr. Chung's libelous statements, the
hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity, most notably Mu,
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/sign_up_to_be_a_patient.asp

Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning
the anon posters who continue to hiss, most notably Mu:

(1) They are anonymous and thus 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 Steve by cross-
posting.

(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the
2FD or its author.

and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.
Unfortunately, they keep Mu_Tating so that it is impossible to killfile
them.

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.

Sincerely,

God's Other Humble Servant

Steve

Ron Ritzman said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A large active male could lose weight on 3300 calories.

That means that the 2Lb diet is good for loggers chopping down trees
all day. They really NEED a diet. Wasn't this dreamed up from climbing
Everest?

He got the idea while watching an IMAX film about Everest climbers but
the 2PD as presented is not the same diet.

Quoted message said:

They need a diet like this too. NOT

I still don't see how the 2PD is any better or worse healthwise then
any other "conventional" low calorie weight loss diet. The main
difference seems to be in the method used to control food intake.

That's the only purpose of a diet, and if a technical aid can
make it more successful, then it may be more successful at weight loss.

The Mark 1 Eyeball is less effective at honestly approximating
calories---*especially when you're hungry*---than a mass balance.

It a scientifically validated observation that people who have
a weight problem are often unable to reliably estimate their
own intake, and the degree of underreporting goes up with their
weight excess.

Since the long term caloric intake is what matters, then you do not
need accurate short term caloric measurements, just an assumption that
your average caloric density over many months will be roughly constant.

In any short term binge you can blow anything away, but if you avoid
being a moron, recording food mass should be a start at keeping you
honest.

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 13:58:57 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's longest
dimension, and keep the total length to less than two feet per day.

<snip>

From one Steve to another, I have a question. I get the two feet in length idea. But what
about height or width? Ok, hot dogs are reasonable similar in dimension - but what about
mashed potatoes or salad or steak? Is it cheating to stand a cob of corn on its ear <g> I mean
on its end, call it one-and-a-quarter inches even though it may be six or seven inches long?

Forgive my unimaginativeness about this, but sometimes I suffer from "insufficient data".
Thanks.
--
Sincerely, (another) Steve
T2 since 9/29/03

You must remember, of course, if you don't measure it, then it has no length
and won't affect your diet.

--
Budd Cochran

In tribute to the United States of America and the State
of Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with
strife and terrorism.
------

"Pin-[censored] Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 13:58:57 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's longest
dimension, and keep the total length to less than two feet per day.

<snip>

From one Steve to another, I have a question. I get the two feet in

length idea. But what

Quoted message said:

about height or width? Ok, hot dogs are reasonable similar in dimension -

but what about

Quoted message said:

mashed potatoes or salad or steak? Is it cheating to stand a cob of corn

on its ear <g> I mean

Quoted message said:

on its end, call it one-and-a-quarter inches even though it may be six or

seven inches long?

Quoted message said:

Forgive my unimaginativeness about this, but sometimes I suffer from

"insufficient data".

Quoted message said:

Thanks.
--
Sincerely, (another) Steve
T2 since 9/29/03

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG and Norton
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 11/6/2003

"Budd Cochran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You must remember, of course, if you don't measure it, then it has no length
and won't affect your diet.

HAW, HAW, HAW! Now THAT was a good one. Kind of like my son (whan he was little) about me not
having any cash on hand and payday was a few days off: "If you don't have any money, why don't
you just write a check?" Kids, they just don't understand - but I love 'em. Sometimes they
say the darnedest things <G>

--
Sincerely, Steve
T2 since 9/29/03

Quoted message said:

--
Budd Cochran

In tribute to the United States of America and the State
of Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with
strife and terrorism.
------

"Pin-[censored] Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 13:58:57 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's longest
dimension, and keep the total length to less than two feet per day.

<snip>

From one Steve to another, I have a question. I get the two feet in

length idea. But what

Quoted message said:

about height or width? Ok, hot dogs are reasonable similar in dimension -

but what about

Quoted message said:

mashed potatoes or salad or steak? Is it cheating to stand a cob of corn

on its ear <g> I mean

Quoted message said:

on its end, call it one-and-a-quarter inches even though it may be six or

seven inches long?

Quoted message said:

Forgive my unimaginativeness about this, but sometimes I suffer from

"insufficient data".

Quoted message said:

Thanks.
--
Sincerely, (another) Steve
T2 since 9/29/03

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG and Norton
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.537 / Virus Database: 332 - Release Date: 11/6/2003

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 22:11:48 -0500, Pin-[censored] Steve wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 13:58:57 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's longest
dimension, and keep the total length to less than two feet per day.

<snip>

From one Steve to another, I have a question. I get the two feet in length
idea. But what
about height or width? Ok, hot dogs are reasonable similar in dimension -
but what about
mashed potatoes or salad or steak? Is it cheating to stand a cob of corn on
its ear <g> I mean
on its end, call it one-and-a-quarter inches even though it may be six or
seven inches long?

Forgive my unimaginativeness about this, but sometimes I suffer from
"insufficient data".
Thanks.

Dear [censored],

Ahh, see this is where we have to follow the advice of Grand Dietmaster
Chung and apply "An Inch of Common Sense". Also, please note that the
2FD specifies that you measure "the longest dimension", so it is
independent of how you orient the food in space... at least in three
dimensional space. Corrections must be applied in Hyperspace, but that
is not usually of practical concern.

As far as the mashed potatoes, measure the potato before mashing.

The 2FD works by enforcing Portion Control... just eat what you would
always eat, but keep the total length to under two feet. As Grand
Dietmaster Chung teaches:

"Truth is uncomprehensible to the uncomprehending"

The 2FD has helped thousands of people just like yourself and has been
awarded the coveted International Prison Camp Operators Seal of Good
Eating award.

I will say a prayer for you tonight.

--
God's Other Humble Servant

Steve

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 23:18:57 -0500, Budd Cochran wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

You must remember, of course, if you don't measure it, then it has no length
and won't affect your diet.

<Libelous snide remarks snipped>

You have my pity.

--
God's Other Humble Servant

Steve

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 0:03:01 -0500, Pin-[censored] Steve wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

"Budd Cochran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Kids, they just don't understand - but I love 'em.
Sometimes they say the darnedest things <G>

As do Board Certified Cardioligists :-)

Contusions 3, 12:17 teaches:

"12Unless you speak as children, you will not enter the kingdom of
heaven"

--
God's Other Humble Servant

Steve

MD/PhD said:

Thanks for your comments, Ron.

Don't forget to send me email as previously discussed as to when we might get
together for the Stone Mountain hike.

I just did. You're mail is bouncing.

--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address

Ron Ritzman said:

MD/PhD said:

Thanks for your comments, Ron.

Don't forget to send me email as previously discussed as to when we might get
together for the Stone Mountain hike.

I just did. You're mail is bouncing.

--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address

Even via my web site?

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/