Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:Thorsten Schier said:"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
Quoted message said:Brad Sheppard wrote:
> You've just pointed out the huge flaw with the "2PD"
> approach. My dinner weighes 2.5 lbs
That's a huge dinner.
If you eat a soup,
Brad described "tons of veggies."
Quoted message said:you can easily eat 2.5 lbs.
2.5 lbs of soup is more than a liter of soup. That's a
large amount of soup.
The volume is large, yes. But the caloric and nutrient
density is small. Hence, the diner who regularly consumes a
liter of soup will likely lose weight. And pee a lot.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:yet has only 500 calories.
You would only know this if you had a bomb calorimeter,
which I doubt.
Nonsense. There are good, reliable sources of information
available that detail caloric content of foods sufficiently
accurately for the consuming public. The USDA has a huge
database of foods with energy (calories and joules) plus
constituents, macronutrients and micronutrients all listed.
For measured quantities by weight and, where appropriate,
also by volume. See below for examples from the USDA
database that show Chung to be the stubbornly, proudly
ignorant fraud he is.
But there's a larger question: If our lack of a bomb
calorimeter makes our numbers suspect, how can anyone
believe Chung's? Does he put these foods into his bomb
calorimeter at the office?
Oh, he doesn't have one? Then what's the source of his
numbers?
Or, conversely, he does have one? Then can anyone explain
the vast discrepancies between Chung's numbers and those of
the American and European scientific bodies who measure
such things?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:It doesn't really matter whether Brad ate 450 or 550
calories.
Those who have looked into the accuracy of calorie
counting have reported a general underestimation where
the actual can be easily 2 to 3 times the estimation.
Oh, puhleeze. With terms as vague as this, it becomes
meaningless to say anything like it. Who, exactly, was it
that "looked into the accuracy of calorie counting" and
"reported a general underestimation?" Name one. Cite. Who's
doing the estimation? Under what circumstances? With what
source or basis of information?
Did these same people look at the effectiveness of
estimating quantity? Funny thing about that, though. There
have been many studies detailing how people fail to
accurately estimate quantity of food consumed. Chung has
even posted a couple of them without recognizing that they
blew his 2PD out of the water. The studies he offered showed
that people consistently underestimated their *volume* of
food consumed.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:> Eating tons of veggies is healthy by all accounts,
Eating tons of anything is unhealthy.
> the "2PD" quack diet would prevent that.
Sounds like you are angry about something. What
angers you?
Chung can't seem to distinguish between scorn and anger.
Tells you all about his "truth discernment."
It comes down to the fact, the indisputable fact, that
people can cheat irrespective of the regimen chosen. Period.
With the 2PD, it's actually rather easy, if you think about
it. People eat over 12 or more hours a day. With the
constraint to only eat 2 pounds of food all day long,
adherents must measure and remember how much they ate each
time and figure it into the daily allotment. Without keeping
a journal, accuracy is extremely unlikely. Just normal
people behavior. It's one of the banes of organized dietary
regimes. People forget or simply don't count what they
consume very accurately.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:> It's simple, calories count, not weight of food.
Until people have a practical way of accurately
ascertaining the calories of the food they eat,
calories are useful only in research.
There are books galore with that information, many small
enough to slip into a pocket that will include most things
people are likely to encounter. The science behind the USDA
database is well-enough respected in the field to be
considered accurate because of the redundancy of testing.
Foods are constantly being lab-tested for label information
and the results are statistically close enough to the USDA
figures to be considered accurate to two places.
The 2PD has no such safeguards for healthy eating. Since
it's based purely on quantity without regard to composition,
it will almost certainly be unbalanced.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:To gain a general idea about the calories in your food
isn't that difficult.
Actually it is difficult without a bomb calorimeter if
you are not weighing your food (ie eyeballing it)
But Chung says that people *can* eyeball it and be accurate
*enough* after they've been doing it for a while.
Quoted message said:and if you are having things
Quoted message said:like pasta and baked potato (See Pastorio's past ranting
where he could not decide on exactly how many calories
are in two pounds of potatoes) where the water content
will vary depending on multiple factors.
<LOL> You'd think that Chung would get embarrassed after so
many times being caught out lying. The wacko doctor is the
guy who proclaimed that 2 pounds of potatoes contain
*about* [sic] 3600 calories. Not one single external source
with any scientific credibility agrees with that number.
And note that he didn't specify anything about water
content or anything else. Just that 2 pounds of potatoes
contain 3600 calories.
Here's the whole post wherein CHung made his colossal
blunder:
From: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD ([email hidden])
Subject: Re: 3600 calories a day Newsgroups:
sci.med.cardiology Date: 2004-01-23 14:27:25 PST
Bob <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:Bite this.
tinyurl.com23jwwOpen ↗
Bob
Fact: 2 pounds of potatoes is about 3600 calories.
Thank you for proving that calories don't matter...
that carbs don't matter...
that only the amount of food matters (especially for the
average American who is *not* going to give up those modern
labor-saving conveniences as the Amish have). <<<<<<<<<<<<
end quote >>>>>>>>>>
Notice that Chung has a hard and fast number for the caloric
content of potatoes. Silly boy. It would appear that he
thinks that potatoes are 100% carbs. A scientific wizard who
can't be bothered to check.
The distressing part of it is that he's giving advice to his
patients about dietary regimens and healthy eating. After
demonstrating his lack of knowledge in the subject and his
unwillingness to do any research about it.
Thorsten posted this in direct reply to Chung's blunder:
<<<<< begin excerpted quote >>>>>>>>>> Er, no, not
really ...
Perhaps that is true for _dried_ potatoes, but not for fresh
or coocked ones.
According to my sources (GU Kompass Naehrwerte, among
others) 100 g raw potatoes have 70 calories per 100 g.
This makes about 640 calories for two pounds, give or take
a few calories.
In fact 2 pounds of _pure sugar_ (or starch) would have
about 3600 calories. Considering that potatoes contain not
only carbohydrates (and some protein and very little fat)
but also a lot of water, it should have been a no-brainer
that 2 pounds of potatoes cannot possibly yield 3600
calories, unless they are dried and/or soaked with fat.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< end excerpt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I posted this, also in direct reply:
<<<<<<<<<< begin excerpt >>>>>>>>>>>>> USDA Nutrient
database for potatoes shows (among other things) caloric
content per 100 grams. 2 pounds is approximately 900 grams,
so I multiplied caloric counts below by 9 to get figures
for 2 pounds.
Potatoes, baked, flesh and skin, with salt - 93 cal (X 9=
837) Potatoes, boiled, cooked in skin, flesh, without salt -
87 cal (X 9 = 783) Potatoes, boiled, cooked without skin,
flesh, without salt - 86 cal (X 9= 774) Potatoes, frozen,
french fried, par fried, cottage-cut, unprepared - 153 cal
(X 9= 1337) Potatoes, mashed, dehydrated, flakes without
milk, dry form - 354 cal (X 9= 3186) Potato flour - 357 (X
9= 3213) Fast foods, potato, mashed - 83 cal (X 9= 747) Fast
foods, potato, french fried in vegetable oil - 342 (X 9=
3078) Snacks, potato chips, made from dried potatoes, plain
- 558 (X 9= 5022) [38 g of fat = 342 cal of 558 or just 216
from potato] Snacks, potato chips, plain, unsalted - 536 (X
9= ) [34 g of fat = 306 of 536 cal or just 230 from potato]
So when Chung says that 2 pounds of potatoes contain 3600
calories, it's simply nonsense. 2 pounds of pure
carbohydrate at 4 calories per gram would give 3600
calories, but even sugar falls short: Sugars, powdered - 389
cal (X 9= 3501)
Even dehydrating potatoes doesn't give 3600 calories per 2
pounds. The only way to get numbers that high is to include
fat as in French fries (38% by weight) or American-style
chips (34% by weight). In which case, it's not about
potatoes anymore. <<<<<<<<<<<< end quoted excerpt
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:>>>>>>>>>>>
Poor, sad, dishonest Chung.
But it's not just about potatoes, here's what he says
about bread on his website. Note the correction in a post
by by Thorsten:
"Climbing mountains isn't something you are going to do
while eating the USDA reccommended [sic] 2,000 calories a
day. Actually, 2 lbs of bread is about 4000 calories.
(heartmdphd.comwtlossfaqs.aspOpen ↗)"
According to my sources (GU Kompass Naehrwerte among others)
2 lbs of bread have between about 1760 and 2910 calories.
The higher value is for crispbread, the lower for whole
grain bread, white bread lying somewhere in between.
<<<<<<<<<<<< end excerpt >>>>>>>>>>
Chung's knowledge of the chemistry of food is woefully,
sadly lacking. His intransigence in refusing to
investigating the subject further while giving medical
advice here speaks badly for his professionalism.
Bob
