"MU" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
>
>
> >> Food isn't the problem, natural or not. Overconsumption is the
superficial
> >> problem.
>
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 21:07:50 GMT, Tom wrote:
>
> > The refinement and ease of obtaining food is related to it's
> > overconsumption. There is nothing magical about weighing food that will
stop
> > people from over eating.
>
> I agre with the first sentence, that there is a relation but proof is in
> the pudding in your incorrect statement about the magic of the 2PDiet.
> Using the term "magic" loosely, its high success rate and the fact that it
> reinvents food requirements (in volumes) to ppl, it is indeed, at least,
an
> eye opener if not a magical transformation of they way ppl look at food
> requirements for positive health. The 2PDiet unhooks the mentality of
> (excessive) food volumes and chalenges, sucessfully, the misinfoirmation
> that most ppl have about how much they need to eat.
Believing in magic is the reason why people end up feeling foolish.
>
> >>>Couple that with reduced activity and it becomes obvious why
> >>> maitaining weight can become difficult for a lot of people.
> >>
> >> Reduced activity plays a minor role in modern times.
>
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 21:07:50 GMT, Tom wrote:
>
> > Because food is so easily obtainable we don't have to work too hard.
> > This is more of a major problem than a minor one.
>
> Whether someone in 1920 or 2000 BC had a more vigourous, calorie burning
> lifestyle is debatable and highly individualistic. For instance, the
invent
> of electricity (light) extended the active day considerably.
Rather, it extended our relaxation hours in front of the tube.
It also led to
> the ability to study the aerobic benefits of exercise where in 2000 BC,
ppl
> didn't necesarily work in oxygen deficincy out tilling the farm, for
> instance.
Although farming may not increase the heart rate to high levels, it is
still darn hard work and way more activity than the average person today.
>
> Further, exercise, in the scheme of weight loss is not a major contributor
> to it. do the math. Jump on a treadmill for 30 minutes and you burn off
200
> plus cals, maybe. Sitting on a couch you would burn 50-100. In a 2,000 cal
> day that's a 5% added deficit. Eat one less piece of pie, you could drop
> 500 cals easily. In two minutes.
Increased muscle size burns more cal., even at rest. You know that.
Proper diet is superior to exercise but I think you are underestimating it's
value for maintaining weight.
>
>
>
> >> Weighing your food addresses the issue of overconsumption in volumes.
It
> >> makes you completely aware of how little food you really need even if
your
> >> lifestyle, as mine is, is extremely active.
>
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 21:07:50 GMT, Tom wrote:
>
> > Everyone that is overweight knows they are consuming to much food.
> > Weighing out 2 pounds of it does not stop that person from eating more.
> > Neither does counting calories.
>
> I can categorically tell you that is incorrect and can take my own example
> as point-fact. I was gaining 1-2 pounds per year, and ate what I thought
> was moderte volumes. I found Chung and the 2PDiet via Usenet. I weighed my
> daily intake and found I was nearer the 3-4 pound mark. Yet, as a trainer,
> I was eating what I thought would be needed to keep up a very active
> lifestyle. My first thought, as is nearly everyone's, is 2 pounds can't
> posibly be enough. Well, not only is it, many times it is more than I can
> eat. My weight plummeted, my schedule (unassocaited) skyrocketed, my
energy
> levels never took a hit. More physical work, less food.
You cut your food intake in half to lose weight. What is so unusual about
that? You are probably right about a person's misconception about the amount
of food they require. Some may truly believe they are eating modestly when
in fact it would be obvious to anyone else that the amounts are far more
than the average person's intake. This person may say something like, "You
mean to tell me average people don't eat a 14" pizza?"
>
> >> The sin of gluttony is about excess in volumes not in cals; Christ
didn't
> >> speak of ppls gluttony in terms of cals or carbs.
>
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 21:07:50 GMT, Tom wrote:
>
> > The scriptures were not written by God or Christ. Ordinary men wrote
> > these stories. Apparently during those times nobody really knew how much
a
> > pound was anyway.
>
> The Scriptures were inspired by Christ and by His Life. And they most
> certainly knew how to weigh things in units.
>
> > Differing locals had their own measurments. Each claiming
> > their measurement was the correct one. I would not expect them to know
what
> > a carb or a calorie was. It would just be obvious to them that the more
they
> > ate, the fatter they got.
>
> Many knew, many didn't, most didn't care as it was a sign of wealth to be
> able to be gluttonous.
And also rare for the average person. The middle class person today can
eat like a king every day.
>
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 21:07:50 GMT, Tom wrote:
>
> > If you are saying that Christ spoke of volumes of
> > food, then why isn't the diet based on 2 quarts rather than 2 pounds?
>
> Actually, if you read the website <hint-hint>, you will see it was based
on
> 2 kilos but Chung Americanized it to 2 pounds. Christ inspired the 2PDiet,
> certainly He has, through it and other means, inspired my participation
and
> the participation of others. Its very simplicity is a stroke of genius and
> Chung ain't no genius.
I don't think it is fair to blame Christ for a diet that was invented by
a guy watching a movie.
>
> Well, actually, he is but that's another story.
It probably wouldn't make sense to me anyway.
>
> The 2PDiet attacks the roots of obesity and one of these roots is a
> miseducation in the amounts of food needed to live healthily.
Telling people to eat 2 lbs of food without taking other factors into
account would be miseducation.
>
> >>> The reason that the claim of the diet you
> >>> endorse has no failure rate is because the people that did not
continue
> > with
> >>> the approach would best be described as fools rather than failures.
> >>
> >> Fools, failures, whatever, there are no known reports of anyone failing
on
> >> the 2PDiet.
> >
> > Fools would rather not report their silly endeavors.
>
> Success is never silly and fools are rarely successful. This comes down to
> this. You either believe Chung and I or you don't. If you don't then we
> are two of the biggest liars on Usenet.
If you truly believe your own claims, than you are not a liar. You
have simply been mislead. That is not your fault.
>
> And if you believe that, then why are you discussing anything with me?
Your the one that started it. You and Chung take over too many threads,
and then you include other newsgroups as well. If you want to endear people
to try your diet, you are going about it the wrong way. All this
crossposting and off topic discussions will not win over the people that
could care less about the content of these arguments. It's annoying to
everyone. And then you claim that I am trying to discuss something with you?
If you don't want my negative(to you) replies, than stop answering posts
that have nothing to do with your diet. I have no interest in starting the
2lb diet and I don't know anyone else in any of the newsgroups you include.
Most of us are trying to find answers to sensible questions. All you guys
are doing is twisting threads into another silly discussion about the 2lb
diet. You don't even realize that your sinking your own boat by continuing
in negative feedback discussions. Try googling for the 2lb diet and see how
many nice things people are saying about it.
We're usually the ones that are blamed by other newsgroups because we
answer back seemingly without consideration for other's wasted time and
bandwidth. Why don't you start your own newsgroup? I promise we'll come
around once in a while for a visit, because I'm sure that there will be few
participants to keep you company.
