A Brilliant Cardiologist Once Wrote......



M

Mu'

Guest
Here are a couple of myths that need to be debunked in your travels to
lose weight:

Myth#1: Eating more fruits and vegetables will help you lose weight.

Reference:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12821968&dopt=Abstract

Comment:

*Replacing* what you are currently eating with fruits and vegetables
probably would help in weight loss, but would go more toward reducing
cholesterol which is perhaps a major concern in your case.

See:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

for more information about losing weight safely and surely.


Myth#2:

Low-carbing (with ketosis) is a way to lose weight that is proven to
be
safe.

Reference:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10388984&dopt=Abstract

Comment:

Hyperketonemia is probably a bad thing for anyone at risk for
developing
coronary disease. Oxidized lipids are the most atherogenic substances
around.
 
Mu' wrote:
>
> Here are a couple of myths that need to be debunked in your travels to
> lose weight:
>
> Myth#1: Eating more fruits and vegetables will help you lose weight.
> Reference:
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12821968&dopt=Abstract
> Comment:
> *Replacing* what you are currently eating with fruits and vegetables
> probably would help in weight loss, but would go more toward reducing
> cholesterol which is perhaps a major concern in your case.


Nice red herring, Fishbone. Nobody says that increasing your total
intake of food by increasing fruits and veggies will make you lose
weight. This is a myth like your usefulness to humanity would be. Only
you would consider it at all.

Here's what the study actually was about:
OBJECTIVE:: To assess whether intake of fruits and vegetables was
associated with change in body mass index (BMI) among a large sample of
children and adolescents in the United States.

Wasn't about dieting at all.

> See:
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
> for more information about losing weight safely and surely.


This is from Chung, King of Two-pounders. He says: "Recently, airlines
in the U.S. have widened the width of the seats on their planes to
accommodate this trend of increasing obesity." And, well, it isn't true.
I note that on his home page he neglects to mention his dismissal for
incompetent care from a hospital. But on that page, he talks about his
favorite movies, his pets and long walks on the beach or whatever. I got
warm, fuzzy tingles.

This comes from one of his "testimonials" -
From: Jerome R. Long ([email protected])
Subject: Dr. Chung and the 2 Pound Diet
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology
Date: 2002-05-29 13:03:03 PST
"Dr. Chung did make one strategic mistake in basing his two pounds on
the food weight rations of mountain climbers. The two pounds there is
concentrated and dehydrated. When properly hydrated before consumption
it ends up to be more like 5 or 6 pounds."

So his two-pound diet is "updated" to be more factual by the very people
who he says offer testimonials. So much for two pounds of food as a
rational benchmark.

> Myth#2:
>
> Low-carbing (with ketosis) is a way to lose weight that is proven to
> be safe.
> Reference:
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entr...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10388984&dopt=Abstract
> Comment:
> Hyperketonemia is probably a bad thing for anyone at risk for
> developing coronary disease. Oxidized lipids are the most
> atherogenic substances around.


"...probably a bad thing..."

You didn't even read it, did you? Says nothing about CHD. The name of
the study is:
"Effect of hyperketonemia on plasma lipid peroxidation levels in
diabetic patients."

The diabetic patients were type 1, people with juvenile onset diabetes.
Hyperketonemia is the result of severe insulin imbalance and
insufficiency. At least learn what you're ranting about if nothing else.
Ketosis doesn't equal hyperketonemia.

"OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to examine the effect of ketosis
on plasma lipid peroxidation levels in diabetic patients."

"CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated an association between
hyperketonemia and increased lipid peroxidation levels in diabetic
patients, which suggests that ketosis is a risk factor in the elevated
lipid peroxidation levels associated with diabetes. Further
investigation is needed to determine whether antioxidant supplementation
can be particularly beneficial in reducing lipid peroxidation and
complications in type 1 diabetic patients who frequently encounter
ketosis."

Let's define a few terms here"
Hyperketonemia - Condition characterized by an overproduction of ketones
by the body.
Ketones - Poisonous acidic chemicals produced by the body when fat
instead of glucose is burned for energy. Breakdown of fat occurs when
not enough insulin is present to channel glucose into body cells.
Insulin - A hormone secreted by the pancreas in response to high blood
sugar levels that induces hypoglycemia. Insulin regulates the body's use
of glucose and the levels of glucose in the blood by acting to open the
cells so that they can intake glucose.

Here, read:
<http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/diabetic_ketoacidosis.html>
to see how utterly irrelevant to LC this latest Mu/fishbone post is.

Three citations and three bombs. Good work, fishbone.

Tell us again what you do for a living? What you're good at? What you
know about?

Pastorio
 
jk wrote:
>
> Thanks Bob.... you did a great job!!


Thank you for the kind words.

Pastorio
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Mu' <[email protected]> <[email protected]> posted:
> [...]


MU ADMITS TO BEING CHANG'S WIFE

Copy of archived post:
[
[ From: "Mu" <"mu"@japan.com>
[ Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,sci.med
[ Subject: Re: ListServ at HeartMDPhD.com
[ Message-ID: <[email protected]>
[ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:15:09 -0400
[
[
[ On 19 Jun 2003 18:13:52 -0700, [email protected]
[ (Dr. Andrew B. Chung) wrote:
[
[ > Mu, you seem intent on starting the largest flame war
[ > in USENET history.
[ >
[ > You should probably run for cover.
[
[ You treat me like a wife.
[
[ Wait, I am your wife!
[
End of copy of post archived by Google at:

http://www.google.com/[email protected]&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
 
"Bob Pastorio" <[email protected]> wrote [...]
> Three citations and three bombs. Good work, fishbone.
>
> Tell us again what you do for a living? What you're good at? What you
> know about?
>
> Pastorio



Excellent bit of research, Bob. Thanks for taking the time!
 
>
> This is from Chung, King of Two-pounders. He says: "Recently, airlines
> in the U.S. have widened the width of the seats on their planes to
> accommodate this trend of increasing obesity." And, well, it isn't

true.

Lets qualify this. The width of the seat is controlled by the width of
the airplane. Now it is possible to swap an economy class triple with a
business class double but this is something that is determined by flight
operations usually for economic considerations due to seasonal
fluctuations. Airlines normally adjust the seat pitch for leg room but
this again is done for customer perceived satisfaction and attempts to
capture the section of the traveling public who will pay a little more
for added comfort. I have not heard of this being done with regards to
width considerations but it is feasible with the reduced global traffic
and planes flying half empty.

> I note that on his home page he neglects to mention his dismissal for
> incompetent care from a hospital. But on that page, he talks about his
> favorite movies, his pets and long walks on the beach or whatever. I

got
> warm, fuzzy tingles.
>
> This comes from one of his "testimonials" -
> From: Jerome R. Long ([email protected])
> Subject: Dr. Chung and the 2 Pound Diet
> Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology
> Date: 2002-05-29 13:03:03 PST
> "Dr. Chung did make one strategic mistake in basing his two pounds on
> the food weight rations of mountain climbers. The two pounds there is
> concentrated and dehydrated. When properly hydrated before consumption
> it ends up to be more like 5 or 6 pounds."
>
> So his two-pound diet is "updated" to be more factual by the very

people
> who he says offer testimonials. So much for two pounds of food as a
> rational benchmark.


Nothing wrong with limiting ones intake to two pounds of food (1/2 of
the world would be pleased with the increase) and it kind of fits in
with the U = Q-W (thermo 1st law) philosophy.
As a first order effect it is a good rule of thumb. Get that one down
first and then worry about nutrients and vitamins and fluctuations for
additional physical activity.

(snip) the remaining over complication.

It is of questionable worth to be commenting on flora and forna when one
is upto their neck in an outhouse basement.
The US has a long way to go just to get the quantity under control. IMO
quality should be a lower priority and come later.

Phil Holman
 
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 15:21:05 GMT, "Phil Holman"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>Nothing wrong with limiting ones intake to two pounds of food (1/2 of
>the world would be pleased with the increase)


And much of that half of the world lives in good health.

>and it kind of fits in
>with the U = Q-W (thermo 1st law) philosophy.
>As a first order effect it is a good rule of thumb. Get that one down
>first and then worry about nutrients and vitamins and fluctuations for
>additional physical activity.


Chung and I are not wholly in agreement here. He claims that the
weight loss/food volume issue must be tackled first, then
modifications to diet (like the removal of sat and trans fats, etc)
can be added later. I found it necessary to do all at the same time.
Prolly a personal decision but the overconsumption must stop either
way.

>It is of questionable worth to be commenting on flora and forna when one
>is upto their neck in an outhouse basement.


Excuse BOb. When the Chef gets outside the kitchen, all he can do is
wave his arms like an Italian octopus and scream like a banshee.

It's the best he can do, really.

>The US has a long way to go just to get the quantity under control. IMO
>quality should be a lower priority and come later.


Works for me.
 
Mu' wrote:
>
> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 15:21:05 GMT, "Phil Holman"
> <[email protected]> wrote:


I notice you've neglected to deal with the phony facts of fishbone's
post and gone directly to endorsing his spurious thesis. I note you
endorse the first law of thermodynamics as the basis for a dietary
approach. Said so in
<http://www.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.med.cardiology+author:phil+author:holman&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=g7GLa.70851%24Io.6630878%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net&rnum=5&filter=0>

Sorry, Phil. Humans aren't bomb calorimeters. And, oh, doesn't this
sorta blow the two pound diet away? I mean how many calories are in two
pounds of food? Right.

> >Nothing wrong with limiting ones intake to two pounds of food (1/2 of
> >the world would be pleased with the increase)


Sorry. It's merely silly to make a blanket statement like this. Nothing
wrong? This observation is based on what? One-size-fits-all? Any special
kinds of food? No matter the activity level?

You posted in
<http://www.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.med.cardiology+author:phil+author:holman&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=JSJLa.71093%24Io.6659984%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net&rnum=2>
> (Weight-loss) Diet plans are attempts (honest or false) to find ways
> that people WILL reduce calories in compared to those expended
> and then balance the equation over the long haul.
> Credible data as to what works are scarce.


So there's nothing wrong but there's no data to support it. It's your
opinion.

> And much of that half of the world lives in good health.


And which half is that, fishbone? Maybe throw in some names and places
where people eat two pounds of food a day and are healthy. Um, it would
be good if it weren't just your opinion since you have virtually nom
credibility. Probably naming some tribe from the Amazon wouldn't make
your assertion look too good. Perhaps show any advanced country where
this is the case.

> >and it kind of fits in
> >with the U = Q-W (thermo 1st law) philosophy.


"Kind of..." Except you offer no definition of what the two pounds can
include. The caloric content can vary by orders of magnitude and all you
say here is that it's a good idea. Sorry. Thin.

> >As a first order effect it is a good rule of thumb. Get that one down
> >first and then worry about nutrients and vitamins and fluctuations for
> >additional physical activity.


Hold it. Stop. "As a first order effect, it's a good rule of thumb"...?
You've accepted the notion of two pounds of food being right for
everybody and now you're dismissing the content of the food? Don't worry
about nutrients, just weigh out two pounds and that'll be T-H-E
A-N-S-W-E-R?

Please.

> Chung and I are not wholly in agreement here. He claims that the
> weight loss/food volume issue must be tackled first, then
> modifications to diet (like the removal of sat and trans fats, etc)
> can be added later. I found it necessary to do all at the same time.
> Prolly a personal decision but the overconsumption must stop either
> way.


And his undocumented and unsupported "experience" should be taken
seriously when he routinely mocks anecdotal offerings from others?
Chung's web site has fewer "testimonials" than I have fingers and
several are rather weak, pointing out flaws in the idea. So this tiny
universe "studied" is the basis for a plan everyone should follow? Can
you really support something so scantily documented?

> >It is of questionable worth to be commenting on flora and forna when one
> >is upto their neck in an outhouse basement.


Non sequiturs at this IQ level really do brighten the day. It's like
bringing a knife to a gunfight. Fun to watch it all unfold. BTW, it's
"fauna."

It is even more questionable to endorse the nonsense of a two pound diet
with no further conditions. And the gigantic flaw that Chung missed
through ignorance and a superficial observation makes it even more
questionable; even up at laughable. He based his two-pound diet on what
mountaineers carry not knowing it was dehydrated and required another 4
or 5 pounds of water to make into consumable food. That alone blows his
thesis out of the water. And it makes your endorsement a bit suspect,
frankly.

> Excuse BOb. When the Chef gets outside the kitchen, all he can do is
> wave his arms like an Italian octopus and scream like a banshee.


Mu is merely a persistent troll who likes to offer invective instead of
information, pain instead of intelligence. The post to which I replied
and to which you knelt here was a demolition of his fraudulent efforts
to create discomfort in a low-carb dieting group. He offered three
studies that he misrepresented and likely didn't understand to support
spurious assertions. I note you didn't find anything to dispute in what
I said and merely offered agreement to his marvelously silly dietary
notion.

He crossposts because he can. Much like animals that lick their
genitalia.

> It's the best he can do, really.


Condescension from you is merely funny. You're such a lightweight that
I'm prescribing lead shoes to hold you down.

> >The US has a long way to go just to get the quantity under control. IMO
> >quality should be a lower priority and come later.

>
> Works for me.


Get a room, you two.

Oh, wait. Mu has said he's Chung's wife. No hanky-panky.

Perhaps you know... did he ever tell you why he called himself fishbone?
And in French, no less. What an international kinda guy, huh?

Pastorio
 
"Bob Pastorio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mu' wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 15:21:05 GMT, "Phil Holman"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> I notice you've neglected to deal with the phony facts of fishbone's
> post and gone directly to endorsing his spurious thesis. I note you
> endorse the first law of thermodynamics as the basis for a dietary
> approach. Said so in
>

<http://www.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.med.cardiology+author:phil+aut
hor:holman&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=g7GLa.70851%24Io.6630878%40newsread2.
prod.itd.earthlink.net&rnum=5&filter=0>
>
> Sorry, Phil. Humans aren't bomb calorimeters. And, oh, doesn't this
> sorta blow the two pound diet away? I mean how many calories are in
> two pounds of food? Right.


2lbs of canola oil = ~8000.
How stupid do you want me to get with this?

>
> > >Nothing wrong with limiting ones intake to two pounds of food (1/2
> > > of the world would be pleased with the increase)

>
> Sorry. It's merely silly to make a blanket statement like this.
> Nothing wrong? This observation is based on what? One-size-fits-all?
> Any special kinds of food? No matter the activity level?
>
> You posted in
>

<http://www.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.med.cardiology+author:phil+aut
hor:holman&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=JSJLa.71093%24Io.6659984%40newsread2.
prod.itd.earthlink.net&rnum=2>
> > (Weight-loss) Diet plans are attempts (honest or false) to find ways
> > that people WILL reduce calories in compared to those expended
> > and then balance the equation over the long haul.
> > Credible data as to what works are scarce.

>
> So there's nothing wrong but there's no data to support it. It's your
> opinion.


My opinion is based on a mountain of global empirical observation. Maybe
you could offer up a more inclusive example of where this is
invalidated.

>
> > And much of that half of the world lives in good health.

>
> And which half is that, fishbone? Maybe throw in some names and places


> where people eat two pounds of food a day and are healthy. Um, it
> would be good if it weren't just your opinion since you have virtually

nom
> credibility. Probably naming some tribe from the Amazon wouldn't make
> your assertion look too good. Perhaps show any advanced country where
> this is the case.


Europe. Is the concept of eating less food totally lost on you or is it
that you don't believe it's a good portion of the problem.

>
> > >and it kind of fits in
> > >with the U = Q-W (thermo 1st law) philosophy.

>
> "Kind of..." Except you offer no definition of what the two pounds can
> include. The caloric content can vary by orders of magnitude and all
>you say here is that it's a good idea. Sorry. Thin.


Eat exactly the same kind of food as today except less. One wonders
about the vested interest in something more complicated. Entrusting your
body weight to an over complicated diet plan is like boarding your dog
at a taxidermist. Sure, you'll get it back.

>
> > >As a first order effect it is a good rule of thumb. Get that one
> > > down first and then worry about nutrients and vitamins and
> > > fluctuations for additional physical activity.

>
> Hold it. Stop. "As a first order effect, it's a good rule of
> thumb"...? You've accepted the notion of two pounds of food being

right for
> everybody and now you're dismissing the content of the food? Don't
> worry about nutrients, just weigh out two pounds and that'll be T-H-E
> A-N-S-W-E-R?
>
> Please.


See previous response.

>
> > Chung and I are not wholly in agreement here. He claims that the
> > weight loss/food volume issue must be tackled first, then
> > modifications to diet (like the removal of sat and trans fats, etc)
> > can be added later. I found it necessary to do all at the same time.
> > Prolly a personal decision but the overconsumption must stop either
> > way.

>
> And his undocumented and unsupported "experience" should be taken
> seriously when he routinely mocks anecdotal offerings from others?
> Chung's web site has fewer "testimonials" than I have fingers and
> several are rather weak, pointing out flaws in the idea. So this tiny
> universe "studied" is the basis for a plan everyone should follow? Can
> you really support something so scantily documented?


Other than the US, is there a real global obesity problem or as much
infatuation with dieting.

>
> > > It is of questionable worth to be commenting on flora and forna
> > > when one is upto their neck in an outhouse basement.

>
> Non sequiturs at this IQ level really do brighten the day. It's like
> bringing a knife to a gunfight. Fun to watch it all unfold. BTW, it's
> "fauna."


You just miss the relevance.

>
> It is even more questionable to endorse the nonsense of a two pound
> diet with no further conditions. And the gigantic flaw that Chung
> missed through ignorance and a superficial observation makes it even
> more questionable; even up at laughable. He based his two-pound
> diet on what mountaineers carry not knowing it was dehydrated and
> required another 4 or 5 pounds of water to make into consumable
> food. That alone blows his thesis out of the water. And it makes your
> endorsement a bit suspect, frankly.


Good rhetoric, again you apply total stupidity to the scenario.

>
> > Excuse BOb. When the Chef gets outside the kitchen, all he can do is
> > wave his arms like an Italian octopus and scream like a banshee.

>
> Mu is merely a persistent troll who likes to offer invective instead
> of information, pain instead of intelligence. The post to which I
> replied and to which you knelt here was a demolition of his
> fraudulent efforts to create discomfort in a low-carb dieting group.
> He offered three studies that he misrepresented and likely didn't
> understand to support spurious assertions. I note you didn't find
> anything to dispute in what I said and merely offered agreement to
> his marvelously silly dietary notion.



Phil Holman
 
Phil Holman wrote:
>
> "Bob Pastorio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Mu' wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 15:21:05 GMT, "Phil Holman"
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:

> >
> > I notice you've neglected to deal with the phony facts of fishbone's
> > post and gone directly to endorsing his spurious thesis. I note you
> > endorse the first law of thermodynamics as the basis for a dietary
> > approach. Said so in
> >

> <http://www.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.med.cardiology+author:phil+aut
> hor:holman&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=g7GLa.70851%24Io.6630878%40newsread2.
> prod.itd.earthlink.net&rnum=5&filter=0>
> >
> > Sorry, Phil. Humans aren't bomb calorimeters. And, oh, doesn't this
> > sorta blow the two pound diet away? I mean how many calories are in
> > two pounds of food? Right.

>
> 2lbs of canola oil = ~8000.
> How stupid do you want me to get with this?


This is quite stupid enough. The point, not all that subtle, is that two
pounds of food is a measure that doesn't measure anything coherent
beyond two pounds. The caloric content can run from none to 8000. So how
many should the "average" person consume? Any measuring or counting or
calculating necessary? So just weighing two pounds may not be enough
care in the diet?

> > > >Nothing wrong with limiting ones intake to two pounds of food (1/2
> > > > of the world would be pleased with the increase)

> >
> > Sorry. It's merely silly to make a blanket statement like this.
> > Nothing wrong? This observation is based on what? One-size-fits-all?
> > Any special kinds of food? No matter the activity level?
> >
> > You posted in
> >

> <http://www.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.med.cardiology+author:phil+aut
> hor:holman&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=JSJLa.71093%24Io.6659984%40newsread2.
> prod.itd.earthlink.net&rnum=2>
> > > (Weight-loss) Diet plans are attempts (honest or false) to find ways
> > > that people WILL reduce calories in compared to those expended
> > > and then balance the equation over the long haul.
> > > Credible data as to what works are scarce.

> >
> > So there's nothing wrong but there's no data to support it. It's your
> > opinion.

>
> My opinion is based on a mountain of global empirical observation.


Right. But I note you didn't actually include any "global empirical
observation." How big the "mountain" is would be good. And where it
comes from might be instructive. You say Europe later in this post, but
all that demonstrates is your unfamiliarity with Europe.

> Maybe
> you could offer up a more inclusive example of where this is
> invalidated.


Lessee how this works: You make a silly blanket statement, I say prove
it, and you say disprove it. That about it? *I'm* stupid?

> > > And much of that half of the world lives in good health.

> >
> > And which half is that, fishbone? Maybe throw in some names and places

>
> > where people eat two pounds of food a day and are healthy. Um, it
> > would be good if it weren't just your opinion since you have virtually

> nom
> > credibility. Probably naming some tribe from the Amazon wouldn't make
> > your assertion look too good. Perhaps show any advanced country where
> > this is the case.

>
> Europe. Is the concept of eating less food totally lost on you or is it
> that you don't believe it's a good portion of the problem.


Do you just not pay attention to what happens in the world? The
governments of England, Australia and Italy within the past month said
their citizens are too fat. At last count, England and Italy were in
Europe. Happens I've been in almost all the European countries. I missed
Andorra, Liechtenstein and a few of those other tiny principalities.
I've eaten in European homes and restaurants. The German burgher is the
archetype for the fat guy.

Places where people eat less than two pounds of food a day are not
places where health is fine. It's where the people don't have enough to
eat. Two pounds is 32 ounces. Assume three meals (not everywhere adheres
to that convention) and do the arithmetic. Less than eleven ounces of
food in each meal. Not including beverages. No other food permitted. And
if you like the odd snack, that has to come out of the eleven ounces for
some meal.

Not for an instant do I believe that you do this. Ride a bike
competitively and eat like this? ********. A few years ago, I fed the
Tour DuPont riders when they came through Virginia. I was given
instructions that they needed 10,000 calories a day to endure the grind.
Not even two pounds of pure fat will give you that. Maybe gasoline.

Less food isn't the whole answer. What food is another part. There are
quite a few others.

> > > >and it kind of fits in
> > > >with the U = Q-W (thermo 1st law) philosophy.

> >
> > "Kind of..." Except you offer no definition of what the two pounds can
> > include. The caloric content can vary by orders of magnitude and all
> >you say here is that it's a good idea. Sorry. Thin.

>
> Eat exactly the same kind of food as today except less.


And it's just that simple? Amazing that the American Medical Association
hasn't propounded it, wouldn't you say. Or any scientific body. Or any
school of public health. Perhaps the reason they don't is because it's
an incomplete notion. No questions about nutritive content. No question
about the nature of the foods. No further thought necessary. Um, how
much less should we eat of what? How do we discover how much less and
where's the balance point? Do we have to be hungry all the time? Just
shut up and eat less?

> One wonders
> about the vested interest in something more complicated.


How about if the "vested interest" is in actually succeeding on dealing
with weight using something more definitive than *only* the weight of
that consumed. Just eat less, you say. Does that mean smaller portions
of everything I eat now? Should I try to cut down on my sat fat as
fishbone endlessly says? How do I know where it is? Should I try to get
a balance of nutrients? What is that balance? Who says so? How do they
arrive at those figures?

Did it just get complicated? Well, of course it did. It's a complex
subject.

> Entrusting your
> body weight to an over complicated diet plan is like boarding your dog
> at a taxidermist. Sure, you'll get it back.


Cute but as uninformative as the notion of eating two pounds of food -
and nothing else need be considered. Get this one at Non Sequiturs "R"
Us?

> > > >As a first order effect it is a good rule of thumb. Get that one
> > > > down first and then worry about nutrients and vitamins and
> > > > fluctuations for additional physical activity.

> >
> > Hold it. Stop. "As a first order effect, it's a good rule of
> > thumb"...? You've accepted the notion of two pounds of food being

> right for
> > everybody and now you're dismissing the content of the food? Don't
> > worry about nutrients, just weigh out two pounds and that'll be T-H-E
> > A-N-S-W-E-R?
> >
> > Please.

>
> See previous response.


The one that that says "Eat exactly the same kind of food as today
except less." Funny, I don't see any "worry about nutrients and vitamins
and fluctuations for additional physical activity." So it matters or it
doesn't? You seem inconsistent here, he said in a burst of irony.

> > > Chung and I are not wholly in agreement here. He claims that the
> > > weight loss/food volume issue must be tackled first, then
> > > modifications to diet (like the removal of sat and trans fats, etc)
> > > can be added later. I found it necessary to do all at the same time.
> > > Prolly a personal decision but the overconsumption must stop either
> > > way.

> >
> > And his undocumented and unsupported "experience" should be taken
> > seriously when he routinely mocks anecdotal offerings from others?
> > Chung's web site has fewer "testimonials" than I have fingers and
> > several are rather weak, pointing out flaws in the idea. So this tiny
> > universe "studied" is the basis for a plan everyone should follow? Can
> > you really support something so scantily documented?

>
> Other than the US, is there a real global obesity problem or as much
> infatuation with dieting.


Yes. There is a problem. It does happen in other parts of the globe, but
it isn't universal. But, yes, the problem is appearing in more places
daily. As I noted above.

> > > > It is of questionable worth to be commenting on flora and forna
> > > > when one is upto their neck in an outhouse basement.

> >
> > Non sequiturs at this IQ level really do brighten the day. It's like
> > bringing a knife to a gunfight. Fun to watch it all unfold. BTW, it's
> > "fauna."

>
> You just miss the relevance.


Right. you're still peddling that "it's very simple, just do this one
thing and it's THE ANSWER" and my adding other elements makes it
unnecessarily complicated. Very interesting that only you, the Chungster
and fishbone think so. Not a scientist in the bunch. Two amateurs and
one lousy observer. Grand. I'll trust my health to that group.

> > It is even more questionable to endorse the nonsense of a two pound
> > diet with no further conditions. And the gigantic flaw that Chung
> > missed through ignorance and a superficial observation makes it even
> > more questionable; even up at laughable. He based his two-pound
> > diet on what mountaineers carry not knowing it was dehydrated and
> > required another 4 or 5 pounds of water to make into consumable
> > food. That alone blows his thesis out of the water. And it makes your
> > endorsement a bit suspect, frankly.

>
> Good rhetoric, again you apply total stupidity to the scenario.


Nice try, Sparky. Chung was wrong, it was demonstrated, and you and he
remain proponents for a very silly idea. No rhetoric there. Facts.

And your endorsement remains suspect and grows moreso each time. Your
unquestioning acceptance of this nonsense about two pounds of food being
enough for everyone and anyone is as absurd as the original thesis.
Chung misunderstood what he saw. He hasn't seen fit to make any sort of
adjustment fro that original blunder to more realistic conditions. You
and he and the Mu fraud persist in promulgating a clearly preposterous
dietary approach in an effort to make human nutrition merely a matter of
poundage.

Pound this.

> > > Excuse BOb. When the Chef gets outside the kitchen, all he can do is
> > > wave his arms like an Italian octopus and scream like a banshee.

> >
> > Mu is merely a persistent troll who likes to offer invective instead
> > of information, pain instead of intelligence. The post to which I
> > replied and to which you knelt here was a demolition of his
> > fraudulent efforts to create discomfort in a low-carb dieting group.
> > He offered three studies that he misrepresented and likely didn't
> > understand to support spurious assertions. I note you didn't find
> > anything to dispute in what I said and merely offered agreement to
> > his marvelously silly dietary notion.


This paragraph stands. You did offer objection, but it was meritless.

And you and fishbone keep missing that one most salient point: I'm a
food professional and you two aren't. He even snidely compliments me on
my knowledge about food and cooking and the like. I know what people do
around the world because I study it. I have books from scores of nations
detailing their foods and their customs.

You?

Pastorio
 
Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> writes:

>And which half is that, fishbone? Maybe throw in some names and places
>where people eat two pounds of food a day and are healthy.


I estimate that for most of my not untypical North European life I've
eaten on average about 2lbs a day of food. My docs consider me
unusually fit for my age (60). For example, my evening meal frequently
consists of a nearly exactly 1lb weight dinner, pre-cooked in a
supermarket pack, no extras, no extra water, no extra courses. The
rest of my meals usually consist of one other meal about half a pound
plus some snacking on fruit or sandwich about half a pound.

I've noticed that on that diet my weight stays pretty constant. If I
shift up to 3 meals a day, prob 2.5 lbs a day, I start gaining
weight. I lose weight either by shifting down to only one meal a day
of about 1lb, plus snacks of less than 1lb, or increasing exercise.

I've never tried to use the the 2lb diet idea, it's just my
observation that it happens to fit my own natural eating pattern, and
that when I eat more than that I slowly but surely gain weight.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 650 3085 DoD #205
School of Informatics, Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill,
Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK. [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/ ]
 
Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> writes:

>The point, not all that subtle, is that two
>pounds of food is a measure that doesn't measure anything coherent
>beyond two pounds. The caloric content can run from none to 8000. So how
>many should the "average" person consume? Any measuring or counting or
>calculating necessary? So just weighing two pounds may not be enough
>care in the diet?


This is an empirical question, the answer to which depends on the
general average mix of foods in the average diet, and how sensitive
this is the average amount of variation between food components of
different caloric density. Chung has answered this question
empirically, as have a number of newsgroup osters over the years. The
objections have almost entirely come from folk like you, who have no
empirical data at all, but spend time specualting on all the kinds of
ways in which this idea wouldn't work. All of these ideas are quite
correct, but what matters is the statistical distributions in diets
and the sensitivity of the 2lb diet notion to these variations. That
is an empirical question.

>Places where people eat less than two pounds of food a day are not
>places where health is fine. It's where the people don't have enough to
>eat.


Rubbish. Although most of the folk I know eat more than 2lbs of food a
day, if I strike out the overweight ones, I end up with a list of folk
most of whom eat around 2lbs a day, like me, and are healthy and fit
on it.

>Two pounds is 32 ounces. Assume three meals (not everywhere adheres
>to that convention) and do the arithmetic.


I know plenty of folk who have a light breakfast, e.g. a boiled egg
and bit of toast, a lunch of something like a large sandwich, coming
out at something like half a pound total, then an evening meal of
something like 1.5lbs, all of which comes out to about 2lbs a day.

>Not for an instant do I believe that you do this. Ride a bike
>competitively and eat like this? ********. A few years ago, I fed the
>Tour DuPont riders when they came through Virginia. I was given
>instructions that they needed 10,000 calories a day to endure the grind.
>Not even two pounds of pure fat will give you that. Maybe gasoline.


You're having reading comprehension problems again. The two pound diet
is meant for car driving desk workers, not competitive athletes.

>> Other than the US, is there a real global obesity problem or as much
>> infatuation with dieting.


>Yes. There is a problem. It does happen in other parts of the globe, but
>it isn't universal. But, yes, the problem is appearing in more places
>daily. As I noted above.


It is appearing in other places as they move towards modern American
habits of life (very little physical exercise in the everyday life
because of the car) and habits of eating (food that is fast to
prepare, calorie dense, and fast to eat, so that it is as easy as
possible to overeat).

>I know what people do
>around the world because I study it. I have books from scores of nations
>detailing their foods and their customs.


It's obvious you haven't travelled to these places. The most common
two observations of a European visiting the US for the first time is
gagging at the size of food helpings in restaurants, cafes, etc., and
being startled by the number of folk who are large enough that it's
not clear whether you could put your arms round them and get your
hands to meet on the other side.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 650 3085 DoD #205
School of Informatics, Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill,
Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK. [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/ ]
 
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:40:53 GMT, "Phil Holman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>This is a diet we are talking about right, for someone who needs to lose
>weight. The basic message is to eat less than the energy expended, Pastorio.
> Yes
>this is very simplistic, the 2PDiet, but being obese embodies the very simplistic
>state of being unhealthy.


Simplistic is both the beauty and the need.

>There is a pattern here, Pastorio. You continually attribute an argument to an
>opponent that does not represent the opponent's true position. I.e. the
>one that suggests there is no concern for a healthy diet.


We hear this all the time. "You mean I can eat two pounds of chocolate
every day for the rest of my life"?

That's all that is left. Rather moronic arguments that have no basis
in reality.

The reality is that the 2PD works; the reality further is that it
requires discipline, not tricks with carbs or fats or any other such
nonsense.


>So how many 300lb people did you see compared to the US. I lived in
>the UK for 30 years and didn't see as many compared to the US.
>I've also visited France, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Ireland, Holland
>and Japan............ditto.


This is not even a close call. The USA is by far the most obese nation
on the planet.


>> Less food isn't the whole answer. What food is another part. There are
>> quite a few others.

>
>What I said was. "Get that one down first (less food) and then worry
>about nutrients and vitamins and fluctuations for additional physical
>activity". Does that sound like less food is the whole answer. The only
>statistics I'm aware of for malnutrition in the US is for AN.


No less food is not the whole answer and no on, including Chung, ever
said it was. But less food is the FIRST and most important answer;
education and food consumption alternatives can come while and after
the weight loss.


>Stupid because I'm sure the intent of the 2lb diet was for consumable
>food. Trivial nitpicking is pathetic.


What else is there for the likes of Pastorio et al but trivial
nitpicking? It's all they have. the 2PD works, it is simple and it
doesn't need a damn newsgroup to try to figure it out either.

>Answer this. Is it possible to provide a balanced nutritional diet
>weighing 2 lbs for the majority of our sedentary population?


Most certainly and I have many clients and patients that are doing ab
fab on the diet.

So does Chung.

>> And you and fishbone keep missing that one most salient point: I'm a
>> food professional and you two aren't.

>
>"food professional" you're part of the problem and I can see why.


Food professionals should stay in their domain. The kitchen. Training,
cardiologists and nutrition specialists are needed, better yet
scientists and those are the folks that I seek out and listen to.

>My comparison is based on living 30 years in the UK and 22 years in the
>US. The US diet has wider selection and if done wisely is healthier. The
>down side is this requires greater self control.


Yes it does.

Or a different view on food altogether.
 
Please, Mu, stop changing your email address! I can't stand your drivel,
but you change your email address so much that I can't keep up with my
killfile.

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:57:02 -0400, *Mu* <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:40:53 GMT, "Phil Holman"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This is a diet we are talking about right, for someone who needs to lose
>> weight. The basic message is to eat less than the energy expended,
>> Pastorio.
>> Yes
>> this is very simplistic, the 2PDiet, but being obese embodies the very
>> simplistic
>> state of being unhealthy.

>
> Simplistic is both the beauty and the need.
>
>> There is a pattern here, Pastorio. You continually attribute an
>> argument to an
>> opponent that does not represent the opponent's true position. I.e. the
>> one that suggests there is no concern for a healthy diet.

>
> We hear this all the time. "You mean I can eat two pounds of chocolate
> every day for the rest of my life"?
>
> That's all that is left. Rather moronic arguments that have no basis
> in reality.
>
> The reality is that the 2PD works; the reality further is that it
> requires discipline, not tricks with carbs or fats or any other such
> nonsense.
>
>
>> So how many 300lb people did you see compared to the US. I lived in
>> the UK for 30 years and didn't see as many compared to the US.
>> I've also visited France, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Ireland, Holland
>> and Japan............ditto.

>
> This is not even a close call. The USA is by far the most obese nation
> on the planet.
>
>
>>> Less food isn't the whole answer. What food is another part. There are
>>> quite a few others.

>>
>> What I said was. "Get that one down first (less food) and then worry
>> about nutrients and vitamins and fluctuations for additional physical
>> activity". Does that sound like less food is the whole answer. The only
>> statistics I'm aware of for malnutrition in the US is for AN.

>
> No less food is not the whole answer and no on, including Chung, ever
> said it was. But less food is the FIRST and most important answer;
> education and food consumption alternatives can come while and after
> the weight loss.
>
>
>> Stupid because I'm sure the intent of the 2lb diet was for consumable
>> food. Trivial nitpicking is pathetic.

>
> What else is there for the likes of Pastorio et al but trivial
> nitpicking? It's all they have. the 2PD works, it is simple and it
> doesn't need a damn newsgroup to try to figure it out either.
>
>> Answer this. Is it possible to provide a balanced nutritional diet
>> weighing 2 lbs for the majority of our sedentary population?

>
> Most certainly and I have many clients and patients that are doing ab
> fab on the diet.
>
> So does Chung.
>
>>> And you and fishbone keep missing that one most salient point: I'm a
>>> food professional and you two aren't.

>>
>> "food professional" you're part of the problem and I can see why.

>
> Food professionals should stay in their domain. The kitchen. Training,
> cardiologists and nutrition specialists are needed, better yet
> scientists and those are the folks that I seek out and listen to.
>
>> My comparison is based on living 30 years in the UK and 22 years in the
>> US. The US diet has wider selection and if done wisely is healthier. The
>> down side is this requires greater self control.

>
> Yes it does.
>
> Or a different view on food altogether.
>




--
Bob M in CT remove 'x.' to reply
 
Pastorio blathered while his butt is falling out of his britches:

>>Places where people eat less than two pounds of food a day are not
>>places where health is fine. It's where the people don't have enough to
>>eat.


On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:20:53 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:


>Rubbish. Although most of the folk I know eat more than 2lbs of food a
>day, if I strike out the overweight ones, I end up with a list of folk
>most of whom eat around 2lbs a day, like me, and are healthy and fit
>on it.


I have so many converts, from the intensely exercising athletic world,
that I no longer need convincing. MOF, I go one better; I convinced
myself by actually trying it myself.

Has Pastorio tried the 2PDiet? No. So forget him.

>You're having reading comprehension problems again, Pastorio. The two pound diet
>is meant for car driving desk workers, not competitive athletes.


See above.

>>> Other than the US, is there a real global obesity problem or as much


>>I know what people do
>>around the world because I study it. I have books from scores of nations
>>detailing their foods and their customs.

>
>It's obvious you haven't travelled to these places, Patorio. The most common
>two observations of a European visiting the US for the first time is
>gagging at the size of food helpings in restaurants, cafes, etc., and
>being startled by the number of folk who are large enough that it's
>not clear whether you could put your arms round them and get your
>hands to meet on the other side.


No, he hasn't left the kitchen. Even his computer is just left of the
dried tomatoes.
 

>> Phil, remember, Pastorio is a chef out of a kitchen. He believes that
>> since he can boil water and make al dente that he is THE sage on diet
>> in the newsgroups he trolls.
>>
>> You're gong to have to get down and dirty, eight grade level, for him
>> to comprehend.
>>
>> I tried. I no longer care to educate the witless.
>>
>> Your turn.


On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:33:01 GMT, "Phil Holman"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>You can't educate pork.


lol


>> Simply, most of these folks want to figure out a way to remain
>> gluttonous, retain their overeating extravagance, and weigh 110.


On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:33:01 GMT, "Phil Holman"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>The laws of physics say you can't do that. No one has ever demonstrated
>a non compliance to the law of conservation of energy. Sorry, no thinner
>thighs in 30 days.


Nope, ain't gonna happen but the immense amount of effort, time and
money spent by members of these newsgroups trying to avoid the truth
is an amazing thing.

>> Chung's "vested interest" is zip. He gives freely of his advice and
>> his time.


On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:33:01 GMT, "Phil Holman"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>There is no vested interest in a simple statement that says balance you
>calorie checkbook every day. Common sense is free.


Common sense is in short supply when it comes to dieting, I'm afraid.
Too much denial, too much wanting things to stay the same and have
weight loss happen as if by magic.

Simply put, way too much ado about nothing. Way too much emotion and
territory defending.

and why is this? why is it that somewhat educated people can run so
swiftly and quickly from the truth of their overconsumption.

Avoidance is one way to deal with your gluttony.

>Thanks for the level set.


Good luck.
 
On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 16:51:39 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:

>I've noticed that on that diet my weight stays pretty constant. If I
>shift up to 3 meals a day, prob 2.5 lbs a day, I start gaining
>weight. I lose weight either by shifting down to only one meal a day
>of about 1lb, plus snacks of less than 1lb, or increasing exercise.


I can't realistically exercise any more than I do. I have to get my
weight maintenance from curbing overconsumption.

At first glance, this may seem a monstrous task. One of the benefits
of the 2PDiet is that the slowing down, incrementally, of one's
overconsumption is a physiological, emotional and psychological
teaching tool. A little less each week, a little adjustment each
phase.

>I've never tried to use the the 2lb diet idea, it's just my
>observation that it happens to fit my own natural eating pattern, and
>that when I eat more than that I slowly but surely gain weight.


Call it whatever you wish. It's about developing a more disciplined
approach to eating, one that makes you accountable since it will work.
 
Bob M <[email protected]> wrote:

> Please, Mu, stop changing your email address! I can't stand your drivel,
> but you change your email address so much that I can't keep up with my
> killfile.


get a better killfile. one that relies only on the sender's address is
pretty poor.

http://www.nfilter.org
 
Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
> Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >The point, not all that subtle, is that two
> >pounds of food is a measure that doesn't measure anything coherent
> >beyond two pounds. The caloric content can run from none to 8000. So how
> >many should the "average" person consume? Any measuring or counting or
> >calculating necessary? So just weighing two pounds may not be enough
> >care in the diet?

>
> This is an empirical question, the answer to which depends on the
> general average mix of foods in the average diet, and how sensitive
> this is the average amount of variation between food components of
> different caloric density.


Wonderful. <clap, clap> You've managed to pack the least idea into the
most words. Amazing.

> Chung has answered this question
> empirically, as have a number of newsgroup osters over the years. The
> objections have almost entirely come from folk like you, who have no
> empirical data at all, but spend time specualting on all the kinds of
> ways in which this idea wouldn't work. All of these ideas are quite
> correct, but what matters is the statistical distributions in diets
> and the sensitivity of the 2lb diet notion to these variations. That
> is an empirical question.


This is twaddle.

The question still remains. I haven't said it won't work. It may just
work fine if all the variables are dealt with - like nutritive content,
caloric content and the like. I've said it a silly index for diet
because weight has no correlation with efficacy. Two pounds of food has
no correlation with what's in it. It's the caloric content and the
balance of nutrients that matter. The volume, weight, color, shape and
temperature are incidentals to contemplate, not worry about or use as
deciding criteria. Might as well worry about the dishes the food is
served on.

> I know plenty of folk who have a light breakfast, e.g. a boiled egg
> and bit of toast,


Boiled egg=2 ounces
Bit of toast (two slices)=2.5 to 3 ounces
Large sandwich=6 to 10 ounces

> a lunch of something like a large sandwich, coming
> out at something like half a pound total,


Good luck getting that to come out to 8 ounces. Looks more like 10.5 to
15 ounces.

> then an evening meal of
> something like 1.5lbs, all of which comes out to about 2lbs a day.


All of which comes out to a minimum of 24+10.5 or 34.5 ounces - 2 pounds
and a couple ounces. Or up to 24+15 or 39 ounces or almost 2.5 pounds.
And this assumes they never have a chocolate or a banana or a piece of
their birthday cake.

> >Yes. There is a problem. It does happen in other parts of the globe, but
> >it isn't universal. But, yes, the problem is appearing in more places
> >daily. As I noted above.

>
> It is appearing in other places as they move towards modern American
> habits of life (very little physical exercise in the everyday life
> because of the car) and habits of eating (food that is fast to
> prepare, calorie dense, and fast to eat, so that it is as easy as
> possible to overeat).


Unfortunately, yes.

> >I know what people do
> >around the world because I study it. I have books from scores of nations
> >detailing their foods and their customs.

>
> It's obvious you haven't travelled to these places.


Right. I've lived on three continents and visited literally, scores of
countries.

> The most common
> two observations of a European visiting the US for the first time is
> gagging at the size of food helpings in restaurants, cafes, etc., and
> being startled by the number of folk who are large enough that it's
> not clear whether you could put your arms round them and get your
> hands to meet on the other side.


Yes. And you think that two pounds of food per day per person is a wise
way to live? Practical? Rational?

Pastorio
 
Mu' wrote:
>
> since they refuse to weigh
> their food, most have no clue how much they are eating. Sure, a few
> count calories or carb or some such index that is full of erroneous
> computations.


So weight gives you an exact number. And when you've weighed your food,
you know how much it weighs. Nothing else. Not caloric content. Not
nutritive balance. Nothing else. But you know how much it weighs.

Erroneous computations... My, aren't you the little scientist.

Hey, fishbone, listen, my tomatoes aren't looking good. They need
fertilizer.

Mind if I dip out some of that **** in your head to spread around them?

Good lad.

Pastorio