Re: Frilegh Starts The TPD!!!!!



On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 06:02:48 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:

>Most if not all of your contributions to this discussion have been to
>make points other folk had already made, or "witty" repartee such as
>the above. If you're happy with that public image, please continue, Crannell.


It sure beats being an associate choir leader in a God forsaken
mimi-school like Austin College in "beautiful" Sherman, Texass.

"Live To Eat? Nyet. Eat To Live!"
 
Chris Malcolm wrote:

> [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) writes:
>
> >Wayne Crannell <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

>
> >> > Why would you liken Chef Pastorio's arguments to crickets chirping?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Seems that someone with your advanced education might have a bit
> >> stronger reading comprehension.

>
> >You deleted Chef Pastorio's arguments with <crickets chirping>. What
> >else should that mean?

>
> Your mistake is in thinking that Wayne has an interest in the topic
> under discussion. He spotted that some newsgroup wits were ridiculing
> you, so he wants to join in.


Yes, my mistake.

God Bless,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
>
> Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Chris Malcolm wrote:

>
> > > Most if not all of your contributions to this discussion have been to
> > > make points other folk had already made, or "witty" repartee such as
> > > the above. If you're happy with that public image, please continue.

> >
> > Wayne, I think you're in trouble with Highland Chris, the sour
> > scientific scion of food science.

>
> You're one to speak, Chef Pastorio.
>
> See:
>
> http://groups.google.com/[email protected]


By all means, go see it. This is what Chung says shows that I asserted
that POWs ate more than 2 pounds of food a day in another post today.

See what the post actually says.

See that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD has deliberately, coldly, foolishly
lied. How stupid is it to lie when the archived proof is available to
everyone.

At least Chung didn't sig it with one of his phony religious closes. One
lie at a time...

Pastorio
 
"! MU !" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 06:02:48 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Chris
> Malcolm) wrote:
>
> >Most if not all of your contributions to this discussion have been to
> >make points other folk had already made, or "witty" repartee such as
> >the above. If you're happy with that public image, please continue, Crannell.

>
> It sure beats being an associate choir leader in a God forsaken
> mimi-school like Austin College in "beautiful" Sherman, Texass.


Right. A real Ph.D. who travels internationally in his field.

Unlike phony Mu who claims credentials he can't document.

Mu's mouth writes checks his ass can't cash.

Pastorio
 
Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:


> > You're one to speak, Chef Pastorio.
> >
> > See:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/[email protected]

>
> By all means, go see it. This is what Chung says shows that I asserted
> that POWs ate more than 2 pounds of food a day in another post today.
>
> See what the post actually says.


Sure, go ahead.

> See that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD has deliberately, coldly, foolishly
> lied.


Lied about what, Chef Pastorio?

> How stupid is it to lie when the archived proof is available to
> everyone.


Yes, it would be, Chef Pastorio. Almost as foolish (and unwise) as
libeling someone when everything is archived.

> At least Chung didn't sig it with one of his phony religious closes. One
> lie at a time...


Nothing phony about my praising God.

See:

http://www.heartmphd.com/healer.asp

Sorry that you find God offensive, Chef Pastorio.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
Wayne Crannell <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>
> > Wayne Crannell <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The 2PD approach is an easy and practical solution to the obesity
> > > > problems in this country. Simply ask the folks on USENET who are
> > > > trying it.
> > >
> > > <crickets chirping>

> >
> > Why would you liken Chef Pastorio's arguments to crickets chirping?
> >

>
> Seems that someone with your advanced education might have a bit
> stronger reading comprehension. You made the statement quoted above, and
> I was just waiting for what I have no doubt will be a deafening response
> from "the folks on USENET who are trying it."


You'll have to ask them.

> Funny, all I hear are crickets chirping.
>
> Still waiting.


You probably will have to use a different identity because you have
probably been killfiled after folks recognized you did not have
anything to contribute to this discussion.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Right. And those people who don't need textbooks to discover what they
> should eat will get it in direct transmissions from the mothership.
>
> No, seriously...


Pray tell what textbooks *you* have read that helped you discover what
*you* should eat.

Yes, seriously...

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
>
> Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > Right. And those people who don't need textbooks to discover what they
> > should eat will get it in direct transmissions from the mothership.
> >
> > No, seriously...

>
> Pray tell what textbooks *you* have read that helped you discover what
> *you* should eat.


Nice try, Chung. Snip the context as though it had no bearing.

I mock you for saying that people should use "common sense" but
pooh-pooh any further study or research. You say it isn't necessary for
weight loss. As though weight loss is all there is. And then you and Mu
and Chris talk about a maintenance approach, an ongoing approach and
still no concern for balance, and it's still "common sense" as though it
springs full-grown from the head of Zeus or in the funny beams from
alpha centauri. Education by osmosis.

Silliness from someone who presents himself as a scientist.

Pastorio
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
>
> Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
> > >
> > > Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > >
> > > > Right. And those people who don't need textbooks to discover what they
> > > > should eat will get it in direct transmissions from the mothership.
> > > >
> > > > No, seriously...
> > >
> > > Pray tell what textbooks *you* have read that helped you discover what
> > > *you* should eat.


The question is *your* "diet" plan and what you say people who do it
need to know about nutrition. You say that "common sense" is
sufficient. You and Mu have repeated that mantra. I say it isn't.
Biochemistry isn't "common sense."

I'll list 3 decades of books, papers, conferences, correspondence and
discussions for you, Chung. Right away. Please sit there and hold your
breath. Wait, let me list my chemistry, biology, comparative anatomy and
physics profs, too. Maybe the names of the lab instructors. Get real.

It's all about you, don't you know. And your misguided "diet."

Pastorio
 
Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
> >
> > Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > >
> > > > > Right. And those people who don't need textbooks to discover what they
> > > > > should eat will get it in direct transmissions from the mothership.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, seriously...
> > > >
> > > > Pray tell what textbooks *you* have read that helped you discover what
> > > > *you* should eat.

>
> The question is *your* "diet" plan and what you say people who do it
> need to know about nutrition. You say that "common sense" is
> sufficient. You and Mu have repeated that mantra. I say it isn't.
> Biochemistry isn't "common sense."


>
> I'll list 3 decades of books, papers, conferences, correspondence and
> discussions for you, Chung. Right away. Please sit there and hold your
> breath. Wait, let me list my chemistry, biology, comparative anatomy and
> physics profs, too. Maybe the names of the lab instructors. Get real.
>
> It's all about you, don't you know. And your misguided "diet."
>
> Pastorio



I have been following TPD a plan which limits the volume of food by
weight,
consumed daily and have mostly limited my intake to 32 oz. a day
without
exclusion of any particular foods except those prohiibited for Celiac
Disease as before for about three weeks. My exercise plan remained the
same.

Initially, when I set out to lose about three pounds, as usual, just
as
on Atkins Induction, I lost them. At first I selected very few calorie
dense foods and throughout I aimed to achieve nutritional balance in
my
daily menus although this is not stated specifically as
required for those only concerned with weight issues.

During the succeeding two weeks I included dried fruits, cheese and
nuts more often as snacks and also some salty foods like olives. On
several occasions,I did *not tally* them in my daily totals so deserve
what I got in partial weight regain. My weight returns to it's
original loss level
and has bounced up and down by a pound or two suggesting some of the
initial loss may have been water but it does return to the lower
weight.

Since I am already at my goal weight, the plan has other strong
personal
compensating benefits which have encouraged me to commit to continue
it indefinitely. CVhefs take note, i have also dined out.

a. It has been extremely beneficial in eliminating discomfort from
gastro instestinal symptoms because of less food consumed.

b. I am very satisfied with less food and guilt free but still too
tied to weighing myself daily, nit really necessary.

c. It is extremly easy to keep track of food consumption

d. Something about the diet's simplicity makes me very psychologically
happy about whatI am doing. It feels less obsessive than preceeding
plans.

e. I am at a reasonable weight and don't really need further loss and
the diet may work better with those with more to lose. For
maintenance,
it is just perfect!

f. I have stopped having the dreaded constipation that plagued me.


I posted menus during the trial period and and of course will continue
to weigh food for a while more and record these daily for myself.
Those on ASD have seen what I
typically eat ( not two pounds of chocolate or butter) and I don't see
any benefit in continuing to post the menus. By now it;s obvious they
are
appetizing an neither bizarre or extreme.

What I will do is return to my initial first week manner of following
it to see if
that produces weight loss as opposed to more frequent calorie dense
selections.
( that was the main issue of those who take exception to the premise
of
the diet which I think is basically very sound if interpreted
judiciously.)

I can't find any negatives in the plan and it remains my favorite to
date.

Please do not cross post responses to ASD. I have trimmed the headers
on the original post.
--
Diva
********
Carol Frilegh ON The TPD!!!
 
Cheffie, you understand the meaning of the term "Italian butt roast on
a plate" don't you? It's similar to a Boston butt however an Italian
who has their butt roasted may taste like **** but smells oh so sweet.

That's yours below. Smoked and slathered.

lol

====================================================


On 26 Jul 2003 08:37:54 -0700, [email protected] (Diva4) wrote:

>> It's all about you, don't you know. And your misguided "diet."
>>
>> Pastorio

>
>
>I have been following TPD a plan which limits the volume of food by
>weight,
>consumed daily and have mostly limited my intake to 32 oz. a day
>without
>exclusion of any particular foods except those prohiibited for Celiac
>Disease as before for about three weeks. My exercise plan remained the
>same.
>
>Initially, when I set out to lose about three pounds, as usual, just
>as
>on Atkins Induction, I lost them. At first I selected very few calorie
>dense foods and throughout I aimed to achieve nutritional balance in
>my
>daily menus although this is not stated specifically as
>required for those only concerned with weight issues.
>
>During the succeeding two weeks I included dried fruits, cheese and
>nuts more often as snacks and also some salty foods like olives. On
>several occasions,I did *not tally* them in my daily totals so deserve
>what I got in partial weight regain. My weight returns to it's
>original loss level
>and has bounced up and down by a pound or two suggesting some of the
>initial loss may have been water but it does return to the lower
>weight.
>
>Since I am already at my goal weight, the plan has other strong
>personal
>compensating benefits which have encouraged me to commit to continue
>it indefinitely. CVhefs take note, i have also dined out.
>
>a. It has been extremely beneficial in eliminating discomfort from
>gastro instestinal symptoms because of less food consumed.
>
>b. I am very satisfied with less food and guilt free but still too
>tied to weighing myself daily, nit really necessary.
>
>c. It is extremly easy to keep track of food consumption
>
>d. Something about the diet's simplicity makes me very psychologically
>happy about whatI am doing. It feels less obsessive than preceeding
>plans.
>
>e. I am at a reasonable weight and don't really need further loss and
>the diet may work better with those with more to lose. For
>maintenance,
>it is just perfect!
>
>f. I have stopped having the dreaded constipation that plagued me.
>
>
>I posted menus during the trial period and and of course will continue
>to weigh food for a while more and record these daily for myself.
>Those on ASD have seen what I
>typically eat ( not two pounds of chocolate or butter) and I don't see
>any benefit in continuing to post the menus. By now it;s obvious they
>are
>appetizing an neither bizarre or extreme.
>
>What I will do is return to my initial first week manner of following
>it to see if
>that produces weight loss as opposed to more frequent calorie dense
>selections.
>( that was the main issue of those who take exception to the premise
>of
>the diet which I think is basically very sound if interpreted
>judiciously.)
>
>I can't find any negatives in the plan and it remains my favorite to
>date.
>
>Please do not cross post responses to ASD. I have trimmed the headers
>on the original post.
>--
>Diva
>********
>Carol Frilegh ON The TPD!!!



"Live To Eat? Nyet. Eat To Live!"
http://www.protraineronline.com/
 
/MU wrote:
>
> Cheffie, you understand the meaning of the term "Italian butt roast on
> a plate" don't you? It's similar to a Boston butt however an Italian
> who has their butt roasted may taste like **** but smells oh so sweet.


LOL indeed. A Boston butt is actually a shoulder, you know, the other
end from Chung. You can't even pull off a good insult.

> That's yours below. Smoked and slathered.
>
> lol


Your stupidity is only matched by your belief that you're not utterly
transparent.

This post is from Carol Frilegh. She's Diva4. Do note the header. She's
*still* on the diet. She's saying what she already said, just under a
different name. Sound familiar? Graduate of the Roos/Roose/SUT/Arete/Mu
school of shapeshifting?

That makes one satisfied customer in a row. It's like a distinguished,
international panel of *judge*

Good work, fishbone. Stare into the mirror. Say this: "I'm not as stupid
as I act." Keep saying it. It, of course, will never be true, but at
least you won't be posting your usual tripe at the time.

Pastorio

> ====================================================
>
> On 26 Jul 2003 08:37:54 -0700, [email protected] (Diva4) wrote:
>
> >> It's all about you, don't you know. And your misguided "diet."
> >>
> >> Pastorio

> >
> >
> >I have been following TPD a plan which limits the volume of food by
> >weight,
> >consumed daily and have mostly limited my intake to 32 oz. a day
> >without
> >exclusion of any particular foods except those prohiibited for Celiac
> >Disease as before for about three weeks. My exercise plan remained the
> >same.
> >
> >Initially, when I set out to lose about three pounds, as usual, just
> >as
> >on Atkins Induction, I lost them. At first I selected very few calorie
> >dense foods and throughout I aimed to achieve nutritional balance in
> >my
> >daily menus although this is not stated specifically as
> >required for those only concerned with weight issues.
> >
> >During the succeeding two weeks I included dried fruits, cheese and
> >nuts more often as snacks and also some salty foods like olives. On
> >several occasions,I did *not tally* them in my daily totals so deserve
> >what I got in partial weight regain. My weight returns to it's
> >original loss level
> >and has bounced up and down by a pound or two suggesting some of the
> >initial loss may have been water but it does return to the lower
> >weight.
> >
> >Since I am already at my goal weight, the plan has other strong
> >personal
> >compensating benefits which have encouraged me to commit to continue
> >it indefinitely. CVhefs take note, i have also dined out.
> >
> >a. It has been extremely beneficial in eliminating discomfort from
> >gastro instestinal symptoms because of less food consumed.
> >
> >b. I am very satisfied with less food and guilt free but still too
> >tied to weighing myself daily, nit really necessary.
> >
> >c. It is extremly easy to keep track of food consumption
> >
> >d. Something about the diet's simplicity makes me very psychologically
> >happy about whatI am doing. It feels less obsessive than preceeding
> >plans.
> >
> >e. I am at a reasonable weight and don't really need further loss and
> >the diet may work better with those with more to lose. For
> >maintenance,
> >it is just perfect!
> >
> >f. I have stopped having the dreaded constipation that plagued me.
> >
> >
> >I posted menus during the trial period and and of course will continue
> >to weigh food for a while more and record these daily for myself.
> >Those on ASD have seen what I
> >typically eat ( not two pounds of chocolate or butter) and I don't see
> >any benefit in continuing to post the menus. By now it;s obvious they
> >are
> >appetizing an neither bizarre or extreme.
> >
> >What I will do is return to my initial first week manner of following
> >it to see if
> >that produces weight loss as opposed to more frequent calorie dense
> >selections.
> >( that was the main issue of those who take exception to the premise
> >of
> >the diet which I think is basically very sound if interpreted
> >judiciously.)
> >
> >I can't find any negatives in the plan and it remains my favorite to
> >date.
> >
> >Please do not cross post responses to ASD. I have trimmed the headers
> >on the original post.
> >--
> >Diva
> >********
> >Carol Frilegh ON The TPD!!!

>
> "Live To Eat? Nyet. Eat To Live!"
> http://www.protraineronline.com/
 
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 22:59:39 -0400, <marengo> wrote:

>Seriously, Chung-- why don't you start an "alt.support.two-pound-diet
>newsgroup"instead of trolling ours?


Here's an idea.

Rather than continuing to bleat on and on and on and on and on and on
about starting another newsgroup. why don't you shut the hell up and
START it for us?

We'll be right there.

Call back when you're ready.

"Live To Eat? Nyet. Eat To Live!"
http://www.protraineronline.com/
 
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:26:17 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:

>Bob Pastorio, I do scientific research and I train scientific researchers. It's
>my job. I've explained to you before that you don't understand how
>this aspect of science works or what, wrt science, Chung might be up
>to. I've explained why your criticisms of the 2lb diet in terms of
>scientific method are ignorant and silly. You're confusing the stage
>of exploration with the stage of constructing a provable test. It's
>like the difference between the way one solves a mathematical problem
>and the way one proves that one has done so. It's clear from your
>response at the time, and your subsequent postings, that the most
>charitable interpretation is that you didn't understand.
>
>However, since you clearly consider that amateurs should defer to the
>opinions of professionals, I hope you'll take your own advice and stop
>pontificating in sci.newsgroups about how science should be conducted
>and ideas explored. You're wasting our time and your own reputation in
>this obsessive and mule-headed mockery of a straw man of your own
>devising.


lol

Yeah, he's an asshole alright.

lol

"Live To Eat? Nyet. Eat To Live!"
http://www.protraineronline.com/
 
"///MU" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:26:17 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Chris
> Malcolm) wrote:


<snip meaningless sophist ********>

, I hope you'll take your own advice and stop
> >pontificating in sci.newsgroups about how science should be conducted
> >and ideas explored.


And we hope that you'll also stop pontificating a a low-carb diet support
newsgroup about your ideas that clearly belong somewhere else, and that not
a single soul here is interested in. Are you really that stupid that you
don't understand that you don't belong here, that this is a support group,
that no one is interested in your inane ramblings? Why don't you go troll
alt.support.diet.low-fat for a while? Or try alt.imanannoyingasshole.troll

*PLONK* another MU nicknamename.
 
"James" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Remember folks, you heard it first here from a cook. Why do you not
> stick to frying hamburgers where you may have some knowledge and
> talent rather then pretend to understand science? You make it very
> clear u know no science pastrami.
>
> By the way, in 4th grade when u were lerning to spel I realized that I
> cud always hire soemone who cud spel for about minimum wage. So I
> never bothered to lern to spel. I spent my time instead lerning
> things like calculus and physics. And no I do not have lots of
> degrees like u do. I only have one. And it aint 8th grade or hi
> schul or an undergrad degree or a wash out masters. U know what is
> left looser?
>

It's extremely doubtful that someone such as yourself has any degree in a
science. Scientific disciplines involve big words that you do need to be
able to spell. And science involves being able to follow, understand and
practice very structured laws and concepts -- such as not top posting. You
apparently have a tiny brain without the capacity for understanding and
following even the most basic of rules.
 
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:28:54 -0400, <marengo> wrote:

> And science involves being able to follow, understand and
>practice very structured laws and concepts -- such as not top posting.


lol

Top posting is not scientific, eh?

lol

"Live To Eat? Nyet. Eat To Live!"
http://www.protraineronline.com/
 
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:20:04 -0400, <marengo> wrote:

>And we hope that you'll also stop pontificating a a low-carb diet support...


Stop stuttering. You're making me laugh.

>newsgroup about your ideas that clearly belong somewhere else, and that not
>a single soul here is interested in.


I see your disinterest.

lol

> Are you really that stupid that you
>don't understand that you don't belong here, that this is a support group,
>that no one is interested in your inane ramblings?


See above.

> Why don't you go troll
>alt.support.diet.low-fat for a while? Or try alt.imanannoyingasshole.troll


Or you could troll your mother for naming you "Peter".

lol

"Live To Eat? Nyet. Eat To Live!"
http://www.protraineronline.com/
 
James wrote:
>
> Remember folks, you heard it first here from a cook. Why do you not
> stick to frying hamburgers where you may have some knowledge and
> talent rather then pretend to understand science? You make it very
> clear u know no science pastrami.


James, why do you want to be humiliated again? What deviant neuron makes
you come back repeatedly for more punishment?

> By the way, in 4th grade when u were lerning to spel I realized that I
> cud always hire soemone who cud spel for about minimum wage. So I
> never bothered to lern to spel. I spent my time instead lerning
> things like calculus and physics.


A very advanced fourth grade experience. First the realization about the
economic implications of forsaking education and then advanced math and
physics. Very impressive. I especially like the clarity of the
expression and the sharp precision of the information. But you're still
a clown who can't spell or organize a coherent thought. The matching
purse and Day-Glo pink shoes really make the outfit.

Moron.

> And no I do not have lots of
> degrees like u do. I only have one. And it aint 8th grade or hi
> schul or an undergrad degree or a wash out masters. U know what is
> left looser?


See, James. This is what I mean. You're too much a clown to treat like
anything else. The degree you have is probably Fahrenheit.

Spelling isn't just a matter of getting *this* word right, it's also
about not spelling a *different* word than you mean. And you claim to
understand math and physics where precision is mandatory...

Moron.

I know what is left looser. Your grasp on reality.

Thank you for returning with yet more demonstration of your small, small
limits. I've asked everybody else to leave you along. Gang-banging a
clown is just not good form.

Run along, now. There's a good lad.

Didja hear the one about the two cannibals eating a clown? One turned to
the other and asked, "This taste funny to you?"

Pastorio