Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet



FOB wrote:
>
> You don't have to switch to another way of eating to
> reduce the calories. Just east less.

You probably meant to write "Just eat less."

Couldn't agree more with what you meant:

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

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote
> on Tue, 18 May 2004
> 14:03:32 -0400:
> > Doug Lerner wrote:
>
> > No switching is required with the 2PD approach which can
> > be dovetailed with reduced carbs if you choose.
>
> I've discovered where the two pound diet comes from. The
> idea was first put forth in chapter 1 of that hilarious
> classic, "Three Men in a Boat" by Jerome K. Jerome,
> published in 1889:

I've never read that. However, thank you for your interest.

The inspiration for the 2PD approach can be found here:

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

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
Mirek Fidler wrote:
>
> "h1clock" <[email protected]> píse v diskusním príspevku
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > I no longer eat Bread, pasta, ANY sugar, etc. etc. and
> > have never felt better in years.
>
> I must say that even if it would cut year or two of my
> life, complete disappearing of so much of minor medical
> problems (heartburns, occasional shaking muscles, atopic
> eczema, unlike my wife and childer I have not got flu
> since on LC, etc, etc..) would be worth it.
>
> > I DO need to exercise more though.
>
> That is my problem too...
>
> Mirek

May God make time for you to exercise, in Christ's name.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
Alan Mackenzie<[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]> wrote
> on Tue, 18 May 2004
> 14:03:32 -0400:
> > Doug Lerner wrote:
>
> > No switching is required with the 2PD approach which can
> > be dovetailed with reduced carbs if you choose.
>
> I've discovered where the two pound diet comes from. The
> idea was first put forth in chapter 1 of that hilarious
> classic, "Three Men in a Boat" by Jerome K. Jerome,
> published in 1889:
>
> >>>> Another fellow I knew went for a week's voyage round
> >>>> the coast, and, before they started, the steward came
> >>>> to him to ask whether he would pay for each meal as
> >>>> he had it, or arrange beforehand for the whole
> >>>> series.
>
> >>>> The steward recommended the latter course, as it
> >>>> would come so much cheaper. He said they would do him
> >>>> for the whole week at two-pounds-five.
> [Note for youngsters and "foreigners": at the time, the
> British pound was subdivided into twenty shillings, and
> each shilling was divided into twelve pence.]
>
> The poor passenger, due to the vicissitudes of the
> weather ended up consuming rather less than anticipated.
> Finally ....
>
> >>>> 'There she goes,' he said, 'there she goes, with
> >>>> *two* *pounds'* worth of food on board that belongs
> >>>> to me, and that I haven't had.'
>
> This, I believe, later served as the inspiration for the
> "2 pound diet".
>
> > Andrew

Kinda reminiscent of the story of the Later Day Prophet who
found golden tablets on a mountain in his dreams and created
a religion around it. Makes as much sense too.

TC
 
On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:35:08 +0000, Alan
Mackenzie<[email protected]> wrote:

Alan why are you encouraging the mudungchung troll to
continue trolling these groups?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Alan <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 18 May 2004 12:16:50 -0400, Jackie Patti
><[email protected]> wrote:

>X-posts to: sci.med.nutrition,alt.support.diet.low-
>carb,alt.support.diabetes,misc.health.diabetes,sci.med.car-
>diology retained.

>>The second study showed significantly better glycemic
>>control on low-carb.

>>Which seems frankly so damned obvious to me that it seems
>>ridiculous to need a study.

>>People with impaired carbohydrate metabolism should limit
>>carbs! Surprise!

>Um, Jackie, I totally agree with you. However, from the web-
>site of the American Diabetes Association (the emphasis in
>capitals is mine):

I will top post here.

This is the "establishment" point of view. At this time
there has NOT been a single study showing that a low-fat
diet is any better for anyone, diabetic or not. The amount
of cholesterol in the diet has at most a small effect on
body cholesterol, and the effects of fat is very hazy; there
was a summary article in _Science_ on this, which pointed
out how everything is unclear. Those using high-fat low-carb
diets, in the studies so far, seem to have an IMPROVED lipid
profile. Dietary cholesterol and fat have a questionable
effect, although triglycerides are certainly elevated
shortly after a high fat meal, as the dietary triglycerides
are being processed.

It is true that fiber is associated with carbohydrates; it
is essentially indigestible carbohydrate. But celery has
lots of fiber and little starch, and potatoes have lots of
starch and little fiber. From the nutritional and diabetic
standpoint, potato starch is not far from straight glucose.

These foods have some vitamins, minerals, and fiber; saying
they are "packed" with them is false. Also, highly colored
ones have vitamin A and antioxidants.

>http://www.diabetes.org/nutrition-and-
>recipes/nutrition/starches.jsp

>"The message today: EAT MORE STARCHES! It is healthiest for
>everyone to eat more whole grains, beans, and starchy
>vegetables such as peas, corn, potatoes and winter squash.
>Starches are good for you because they have very little
>fat, saturated fat, or cholesterol. They are packed with
>vitamins, minerals, and fiber. Yes, foods with carbohydrate
>-- starches, vegetables, fruits, and dairy products -- will
>raise your blood glucose more quickly than meats and fats,
>but they are the healthiest foods for you. YOUR DOCTOR MAY
>NEED TO ADJUST YOUR MEDICATIONS WHEN YOU EAT MORE
>CARBOHYDRATES. You may need to increase your activity level
>or try spacing carbohydrates throughout the day."

>As you said:

>>Blond moments in science...

>That is why we need the studies, and lots more of them from
>reputable impartial research organisations.

>Because, although I'm not american, my mob seem to follow
>yours when it comes to dispensing this as the best advice
>for diabetics.

>Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia. Remove weight and carbs
>to email.
>--
>Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that
these views are those of the Statistics Department or of
Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics,
Purdue University [email protected] Phone: (765)494-
6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
 
In article <[email protected]>,
gman99 <[email protected]> wrote:
>Jackie Patti <[email protected]> wrote:
>> gman99 wrote:

>> > A year long study with 132 people does NOT a true trial
>> > make...six months is nothing....

>> Feel free to fund a larger long-term study.

>I'm not the QUACK who made millions selling this
>****...perhaps his heirs should fund a study...sheep

The medical people who proposed the low-fat diets have never
even had this large a study. The question has been asked
before, and nobody has come up with a study indicating that
lower amounts of fat and protein had any effect other than
fewer calories.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that
these views are those of the Statistics Department or of
Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics,
Purdue University [email protected] Phone: (765)494-
6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
 
On 5/20/04 4:43 AM, in article
[email protected], "Doug Freyburger"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Bob in CT wrote:
>> Doug Lerner wrote:
>>> Diarmid Logan wrote:
>>
>>>> By the end, both groups had lost about the same amount
>>>> of weight, between five and eight kilograms for the
>>>> Atkins group and three and eight kilos for the low fat
>>>> group. But the Atkins dieters lost almost all their
>>>> weight in the first six months, then remained at a
>>>> steady weight.
>>
>>> Which is precisely the PROBLEM I had with Atkins. After
>>> six months I entered a six month stall, and have only
>>> broken that stall by switching to a low-calorie diet.
>>
>> Did you increase your carbohydrate intake, as required by
>> Atkins, during this period? Did you find your critical
>> carbohydrate level for losing?
>
> He did not, and so he caused his own stall. He has since
> decided against doing all of the work involved in
> repairing the metabolic damage doing that caused and
> decided that caloric reduction is the be-all and end-all
> of weight loss. But since caloric reduction is working for
> him, good enough in his case. But the experience has given
> him quite a bias on the topic.
>
>> What most people do is keep eating at 20-30 grams of
>> carbs per day, which is not what Atkins advocates.
>
> Unfortunately while newbies need certainty Dr A is willing
> to discuss alternatives to his core plan. Most dive face
> first into those alternatives. And some get the sort of
> problems Doug got, falling out of ketosis from a CCLL that
> dropped towards zero.

I'm afraid that Doug Freyburger is speaking incorrectly
when he attempts to summarize what I did and did not do
on my diet.

According to the ketostix I recently bought, I was still in
ketosis even at the point I decided to switch to low-
calorie. I just wasn't losing weight any longer because I
was eating too many calories.

doug
 
aurora wrote:
:: Excellent post.
::
:: I've lost 145 lbs with low carb. Low carb works. I am
:: convinced it is healthier than low fat/high carbohydrate
:: most of the time. However, if you need to lose weight you
:: must watch the calories.
::
:: Yes, you may be able to eat more calories and lose weight
:: on atkins (for many scientifically valid reasons -
:: metabolic advantages, or reducing hyperinsulinemia which
:: promotes decrease in used energy and increase in stored
:: energy). However the amount is usually negligable. In the
:: begining if you are very over weight you may find that
:: you can stuff yourself and still lose weight. If you ever
:: want to reach thinness, there is no way around it: you
:: have to have to have to watch portions.
::
:: The dishonesty in the atkins plan is my only problem with
:: it. It is a wonderful plan to start with, but numerous
:: people run into stalls. Why? They are etaing too much 90%
:: of the time. Atkins didnt advocate portion control much
:: because he was trying to sell his plan...

I disagree. The problem comes down to people not knowing
when to quit eating and being so fearful of being the
slightest bit hungry.

:: unfortunately it was a lie. "Doug Lerner"
:: <[email protected]> wrote in message
:: news:BCD0D103.40661%[email protected]...
::: On 5/19/04 7:25 AM, in article
::: [email protected], "Doug
::: Freyburger" <[email protected]> wrote:
:::
:::: Doug Lerner wrote:
::::: Diarmid Logan wrote:
:::::
:::::: By the end, both groups had lost about the same
:::::: amount of weight, between five and eight kilograms
:::::: for the Atkins group and three and eight kilos for
:::::: the low fat group. But the Atkins dieters lost almost
:::::: all their weight in the first six months, then
:::::: remained at a steady weight.
:::::
::::: Which is precisely the PROBLEM I had with Atkins.
::::: After six months I entered a six month stall, and have
::::: only broken that stall by switching to a low-calorie
::::: diet.
::::
:::: Doug, the problem you had is not following the
:::: directions. Six months in you came on the newsgroup and
:::: asked if ketosis matters. It appears that staying too
:::: low too long lowered your CCLL from all of your
:::: subsequent reports. Your approach could be a few weeks
:::: of switching to low fat to reset your metabolism and
:::: then back to the directions, but since you've found
:::: that low calorie works for you go with what you already
:::: know works for you.
:::
::: The "directions" are inconsistent. Atkins *does* say you
::: can stay at very low levels of carbs for most of your
::: weight loss. It's only mixed advice here that says you
::: shouldn't.
:::
::: The problem, though, is calories. You admit that Atkins
::: admits that calories matter, right? And if the so-called
::: "metabolic advantage" is non-existent or barely
::: measurable then the important thing *must* still be
::: controlling calories.
:::
::: If you eat too many calories you will gain weight.
:::
::: So the goal of any diet plan is to reduce calories.
:::
::: Atkins by itself simply doesn't give enough guidance in
::: that regard. It tries to dance around the issue with
::: metabolic fog and mirrors. That's my objection to it.
:::
::: But Atkins is *great* in getting you *started* on a
::: diet, finding out which foods make you hungry and which
::: ones are filling, controlling blood sugar, curing
::: heartburn and acid reflux - lots of things.
:::
::: Low carb is extremely good in many ways. And I intend to
::: follow it forever. I think it saved my life during my
::: diabetes scare.
:::
::: But for continued weight loss you MUST consider how many
::: calories you are eating relative to how many calories
::: your body is using. Atkins is definitely skimpy on that
::: side of the equation.
:::
::: doug
 
aurora wrote:
>
> Excellent post.
>
> I've lost 145 lbs with low carb. Low carb works. I am
> convinced it is healthier than low fat/high carbohydrate
> most of the time. However, if you need to lose weight you
> must watch the calories.
>
> Yes, you may be able to eat more calories and lose weight
> on atkins (for many scientifically valid reasons -
> metabolic advantages, or reducing hyperinsulinemia which
> promotes decrease in used energy and increase in stored
> energy). However the amount is usually negligable. In the
> begining if you are very over weight you may find that you
> can stuff yourself and still lose weight. If you ever want
> to reach thinness, there is no way around it: you have to
> have to have to watch portions.
>
> The dishonesty in the atkins plan is my only problem with
> it. It is a wonderful plan to start with, but numerous
> people run into stalls. Why? They are etaing too much 90%
> of the time. Atkins didnt advocate portion control much
> because he was trying to sell his plan... unfortunately it
> was a lie.

Imho, any "diet" that makes the claim that an otherwise
healthy overweight person can lose weight permanently
without ever feeling hungry is being less than truthful.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
On 5/19/04 6:14 PM, in article
[email protected], "aurora"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Yes, you may be able to eat more calories and lose weight
> on atkins (for many scientifically valid reasons -
> metabolic advantages, or reducing hyperinsulinemia which
> promotes decrease in used energy and increase in stored
> energy). However the amount is usually negligable. In the
> begining if you are very over weight you may find that you
> can stuff yourself and still lose weight. If you ever want
> to reach thinness, there is no way around it: you have to
> have to have to watch portions.
>
> The dishonesty in the atkins plan is my only problem with
> it. It is a wonderful plan to start with, but numerous
> people run into stalls. Why? They are etaing too much 90%
> of the time. Atkins didnt advocate portion control much
> because he was trying to sell his plan... unfortunately it
> was a lie.

Exactly.

doug
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> píse v diskusním
príspevku news:[email protected]...
> Mirek Fidler wrote:
> > > I DO need to exercise more though.
> >
> > That is my problem too...
> >
> > Mirek
>
> May God make time for you to exercise, in Christ's name.

I will rather relly on myself, but thank you :) (BTW, more
exercise now means more than one hour of cardio daily).

Mirek
 
On Wed, 19 May 2004 06:37:12 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>> I've discovered where the two pound diet comes from. The
>>> idea was first
>>
>>The inspiration for the 2PD approach can be found here:

Just as a vote of thanks to the originator, I'd like to say
that the 2 pound diet works. My husband lost a significant
amount of excess weight over a 9-month period.

I hadn't realized it had started here with Doctor Chung as I
had heard of it elsewhere on the internet and we decided to
try it. As long as you are consistent (well mostly anyway
<g>) it seems an easier approach to weight loss than these
fad "low this" "no that" or "all this" type diets. He ate
regular food, just a controlled amount of it.

Another thing we had heard was that fat/oil in the
intestines will speed up a feeling of fullness so he eats a
small lettuce salad with olive oil on it about 30 minutes
before sitting down to a meal. Then when he eats the meal he
is halfway to feeling "full". Maybe it's a mindset/placebo
thing but it works for us.

--

Kind regards,
Jenny and her tribe of survivors.
 
tcomeau wrote:

> Alan Mackenzie<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <[email protected]>
> > wrote on Tue, 18 May 2004
> > 14:03:32 -0400:
> > > Doug Lerner wrote:
> >
> > > No switching is required with the 2PD approach which
> > > can be dovetailed with reduced carbs if you choose.
> >
> > I've discovered where the two pound diet comes from. The
> > idea was first put forth in chapter 1 of that hilarious
> > classic, "Three Men in a Boat" by Jerome K. Jerome,
> > published in 1889:
> >
> > >>>> Another fellow I knew went for a week's voyage
> > >>>> round the coast, and, before they started, the
> > >>>> steward came to him to ask whether he would pay for
> > >>>> each meal as he had it, or arrange beforehand for
> > >>>> the whole series.
> >
> > >>>> The steward recommended the latter course, as it
> > >>>> would come so much cheaper. He said they would do
> > >>>> him for the whole week at two-pounds-five.
> > [Note for youngsters and "foreigners": at the time, the
> > British pound was subdivided into twenty shillings, and
> > each shilling was divided into twelve pence.]
> >
> > The poor passenger, due to the vicissitudes of the
> > weather ended up consuming rather less than anticipated.
> > Finally ....
> >
> > >>>> 'There she goes,' he said, 'there she goes, with
> > >>>> *two* *pounds'* worth of food on board that belongs
> > >>>> to me, and that I haven't had.'
> >
> > This, I believe, later served as the inspiration for the
> > "2 pound diet".
> >
> > > Andrew
>
> Kinda reminiscent of the story of the Later Day Prophet
> who found golden tablets on a mountain in his dreams and
> created a religion around it. Makes as much sense too.

If you are truly looking for sense, you will find it here:

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

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
On Wed, 19 May 2004 09:14:14 GMT, "aurora" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Excellent post.
>
>I've lost 145 lbs with low carb. Low carb works. I am
>convinced it is healthier than low fat/high carbohydrate
>most of the time. However, if you need to lose weight you
>must watch the calories.
>
>Yes, you may be able to eat more calories and lose weight
>on atkins (for many scientifically valid reasons -
>metabolic advantages, or reducing hyperinsulinemia which
>promotes decrease in used energy and increase in stored
>energy). However the amount is usually negligable. In the
>begining if you are very over weight you may find that you
>can stuff yourself and still lose weight. If you ever want
>to reach thinness, there is no way around it: you have to
>have to have to watch portions.

Sad, but true. And yes, metabolic advantages do exist for
people on low-carb. It is NOT a hoax. Millions of us low-
carbers love it because we eat more and lose weight. At
least, for the first several months.

PJx

>
>The dishonesty in the atkins plan is my only problem with
>it. It is a wonderful plan to start with, but numerous
>people run into stalls. Why? They are etaing too much 90%
>of the time. Atkins didnt advocate portion control much
>because he was trying to sell his plan... unfortunately it
>was a lie. "Doug Lerner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:BCD0D103.40661%[email protected]...
>> On 5/19/04 7:25 AM, in article
>> [email protected], "Doug
>> Freyburger" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Doug Lerner wrote:
>> >> Diarmid Logan wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> By the end, both groups had lost about the same
>> >>> amount of weight, between five and eight kilograms
>> >>> for the Atkins group and three and eight kilos for
>> >>> the low fat group. But the Atkins dieters lost almost
>> >>> all their weight in the first six months, then
>> >>> remained at a steady weight.
>> >>
>> >> Which is precisely the PROBLEM I had with Atkins.
>> >> After six months I
>entered
>> >> a six month stall, and have only broken that stall by
>> >> switching to a low-calorie diet.
>> >
>> > Doug, the problem you had is not following the
>> > directions. Six months in you came on the newsgroup and
>> > asked if ketosis matters. It appears that staying too
>> > low too long lowered your CCLL from all of your
>> > subsequent reports. Your approach could be a few weeks
>> > of switching to low fat to reset your metabolism and
>> > then back to the directions, but since you've found
>> > that low calorie works for you go with what you already
>> > know works for you.
>>
>> The "directions" are inconsistent. Atkins *does* say you
>> can stay at very low levels of carbs for most of your
>> weight loss. It's only mixed advice here that says you
>> shouldn't.
>>
>> The problem, though, is calories. You admit that Atkins
>> admits that
>calories
>> matter, right? And if the so-called "metabolic advantage"
>> is non-existent
>or
>> barely measurable then the important thing *must* still
>> be controlling calories.
>>
>> If you eat too many calories you will gain weight.
>>
>> So the goal of any diet plan is to reduce calories.
>>
>> Atkins by itself simply doesn't give enough guidance in
>> that regard. It tries to dance around the issue with
>> metabolic fog and mirrors. That's my objection to it.
>>
>> But Atkins is *great* in getting you *started* on a diet,
>> finding out
>which
>> foods make you hungry and which ones are filling,
>> controlling blood sugar, curing heartburn and acid reflux
>> - lots of things.
>>
>> Low carb is extremely good in many ways. And I intend to
>> follow it
>forever.
>> I think it saved my life during my diabetes scare.
>>
>> But for continued weight loss you MUST consider how many
>> calories you are eating relative to how many calories
>> your body is using. Atkins is definitely skimpy on that
>> side of the equation.
>>
>> doug
>
 
> The medical people who proposed the low-fat diets have
> never even had this large a study. The question has been
> asked before, and nobody has come up with a study
> indicating that lower amounts of fat and protein had any
> effect other than fewer calories.

What have you been smoking...there are plenty of studies
conducted on low fat diets that show a lot more than a
lowering of calories, many much longer and more
comprehensive.

Oh...guess what...in terms of losing weight, lowering
CALORIC intake is very important....some might say MOST
important...
 
aurora wrote:
>
> I've lost 145 lbs with low carb.

And you are keeping it off. Fabulous.

> If you ever want to reach thinness, there is no way around
> it: you have to have to have to watch portions.

Just like it says in the directions.

> Atkins didnt advocate portion control much because he was
> trying to sell his plan... unfortunately it was a lie.

Unless you read the directions.

During Induction the diretions say to eat what it takes to
get past the initial carb cravings. That exception ends the
day the carb cravings go away. Over eating is forbidden from
then on. At-kids are to eat until full, not until stuffed. I
agree that his writing about portions sucked, but his
writing about a lot of topics sucked. Forbidding over eating
is advocating portion control.
 
Roger Zoul wrote:
>
> aurora wrote:
> :: Excellent post.
> ::
> :: I've lost 145 lbs with low carb. Low carb works. I am
> :: convinced it is healthier than low fat/high
> :: carbohydrate most of the time. However, if you need to
> :: lose weight you must watch the calories.
> ::
> :: Yes, you may be able to eat more calories and lose
> :: weight on atkins (for many scientifically valid reasons
> :: - metabolic advantages, or reducing hyperinsulinemia
> :: which promotes decrease in used energy and increase in
> :: stored energy). However the amount is usually
> :: negligable. In the begining if you are very over weight
> :: you may find that you can stuff yourself and still lose
> :: weight. If you ever want to reach thinness, there is no
> :: way around it: you have to have to have to watch
> :: portions.
> ::
> :: The dishonesty in the atkins plan is my only problem
> :: with it. It is a wonderful plan to start with, but
> :: numerous people run into stalls. Why? They are etaing
> :: too much 90% of the time. Atkins didnt advocate portion
> :: control much because he was trying to sell his plan...
>
> I disagree. The problem comes down to people not knowing
> when to quit eating and being so fearful of being the
> slightest bit hungry.

What is your view on why people are so fearful about
being the slightest bit hungry (so much so that it can
become an irrational obsession as evident in Bob Pastorio
who continues to mutter obsessively in the dark corner
over there)?

Would be glad to reciprocate by sharing my view.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
On Wed, 19 May 2004 07:18:16 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

if you heard of it elsewhere on the net, then
mudungchung stole it.

the mudungchung is a troll please stop giving it the
attention it so obsessively seeks.

and learn to trim your headers so cross posting doesn't
cause problems for multiple groups who already know the
mudungchung's behavior.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> On Wed, 19 May 2004 06:37:12 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> I've discovered where the two pound diet comes from.
> >>> The idea was first
> >>
> >>The inspiration for the 2PD approach can be found here:
>
> Just as a vote of thanks to the originator, I'd like to
> say that the 2 pound diet works. My husband lost a
> significant amount of excess weight over a 9-month period.
>

Excellent.

>
> I hadn't realized it had started here with Doctor Chung as
> I had heard of it elsewhere on the internet and we decided
> to try it.

And to think there are those here on Usenet who would claim
that the 2PD approach is not helping folks far and wide.

> As long as you are consistent (well mostly anyway <g>) it
> seems an easier approach to weight loss than these fad
> "low this" "no that" or "all this" type diets.

Truth is simple ;-)

> He ate regular food, just a controlled amount of it.
>

Food quantity is the key variable that needs to be addressed
for safe permanent weight loss.

>
> Another thing we had heard was that fat/oil in the
> intestines will speed up a feeling of fullness so he eats
> a small lettuce salad with olive oil on it about 30
> minutes before sitting down to a meal. Then when he eats
> the meal he is halfway to feeling "full". Maybe it's a
> mindset/placebo thing but it works for us.
>

It will be easier on him if he realizes that it is ok to not
feel full (ie feel hungry).

>
> --
>
> Kind regards, Jenny and her tribe of survivors.

Thank you for your truthful comments :)

May God bless you and yours today and everyday, in
Christ's name.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back