Re: Frilegh Starts The TPD!!!!!



"Hoff" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<k9jXa.58130$Ho3.8343@sccrnsc03>...
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Hoff" <[email protected]> wrote in message

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

>
> > > > Sounds like you hate Mu.
> > > >
> > > > Why is that?
> > > >
> > >
> > > "Hate" is far too strong a word, Andrew.

> >
> > You seem to be spending far too much time and effort to write
> > disparagingly of Mu for it to be mere dislike.
> >
> > Why is that?

>
> I do?
>
> Granted, I spent time last year during his SUT/Roose/??? incarnation.
>
> Lately, though, I just poke a stick at it once in awhile.



You seem good at dodging questions.

> >
> > > It made the mistake of trying to run its BS thru MFW a while back.

> >
> > Do you own MFW whatever that is?

>
> Umm, no.


Then what is your agenda?

> >
> > > I assume
> > > that, for example, if someone were to come to this or other sci.med
> > > newsgroups fraudently claiming to be a Doctor, with made up experience

> and
> > > expertise, dispensing medical advice, that person would eventually be
> > > exposed, as well.

> >
> > Like Dr. Jai Maharaja for example?
> >

>
> Dunno. Never heard of Dr Jai Maharaja.


Try checking your kill file.

> > Yes, there are those who hate Jai and follow Jai around too.
> >
> >
> > > I think a far better question is why do you go along with it?
> > >
> > > Hoff

> >
> > I'm a veteran of USENET. My posts dispel misinformation without
> > libeling people.

>
> Which, of course, doesn't answer the question.


It does. Note I describe myself as a veteran of USENET rather than a
policeman of USENET. I witnessed someone running a redlight
yesterday. I did not chase that person down because I am not a
traffic cop.

> I notice you're quite good
> at that.
>
> Hoff


Yes, I am good at answering questions truthfully.

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

news:<k9jXa.58130$Ho3.8343@sccrnsc03>...
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Hoff" <[email protected]> wrote in message

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

message
> > > > news:[email protected]...

> >
> > > > > Sounds like you hate Mu.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why is that?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Hate" is far too strong a word, Andrew.
> > >
> > > You seem to be spending far too much time and effort to write
> > > disparagingly of Mu for it to be mere dislike.
> > >
> > > Why is that?

> >
> > I do?
> >
> > Granted, I spent time last year during his SUT/Roose/??? incarnation.
> >
> > Lately, though, I just poke a stick at it once in awhile.

>
>
> You seem good at dodging questions.


I didn't dodge. I don't spend much time or effort at "disparaging" it
anymore.

>
> > >
> > > > It made the mistake of trying to run its BS thru MFW a while back.
> > >
> > > Do you own MFW whatever that is?

> >
> > Umm, no.

>
> Then what is your agenda?


Seriously?

I benefited tremendously by the information available at mfw. In many ways,
it changed my life.

I felt I could possibly pay a little of that back, by exposing a liar and
fraud for what it was. Maybe make it a little easier for others to benefit
as well.

>
> > >
> > > > I assume
> > > > that, for example, if someone were to come to this or other sci.med
> > > > newsgroups fraudently claiming to be a Doctor, with made up

experience
> > and
> > > > expertise, dispensing medical advice, that person would eventually

be
> > > > exposed, as well.
> > >
> > > Like Dr. Jai Maharaja for example?
> > >

> >
> > Dunno. Never heard of Dr Jai Maharaja.

>
> Try checking your kill file.


Sorry, but I rarely use a kill file.

>
> > > Yes, there are those who hate Jai and follow Jai around too.
> > >
> > >
> > > > I think a far better question is why do you go along with it?
> > > >
> > > > Hoff
> > >
> > > I'm a veteran of USENET. My posts dispel misinformation without
> > > libeling people.

> >
> > Which, of course, doesn't answer the question.

>
> It does. Note I describe myself as a veteran of USENET rather than a
> policeman of USENET. I witnessed someone running a redlight
> yesterday. I did not chase that person down because I am not a
> traffic cop.
>


"Policing" and actively associating yourself with it are two separate
things, Doc.

Having a known liar and fraud as your most vocal spokesperson just seems
somewhat odd. Maybe you subscribe to "any publicity is good publicity".
Just seems strange.

Hoff
 
"Hoff" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<jdrXa.61553$Ho3.9262@sccrnsc03>...
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...


> > You seem good at dodging questions.

>
> I didn't dodge. I don't spend much time or effort at "disparaging" it
> anymore.


Are you trying to write that you *used* to hate Mu when you did spend
time "disparaging" Mu?


> > > > > It made the mistake of trying to run its BS thru MFW a while back.
> > > >
> > > > Do you own MFW whatever that is?
> > >
> > > Umm, no.

> >
> > Then what is your agenda?

>
> Seriously?
>
> I benefited tremendously by the information available at mfw. In many ways,
> it changed my life.
>
> I felt I could possibly pay a little of that back, by exposing a liar and
> fraud for what it was. Maybe make it a little easier for others to benefit
> as well.


What is Mu is not the liar and fraud you portray Mu to be?

> > > > > I assume
> > > > > that, for example, if someone were to come to this or other sci.med
> > > > > newsgroups fraudently claiming to be a Doctor, with made up

> experience
> and
> > > > > expertise, dispensing medical advice, that person would eventually

> be
> > > > > exposed, as well.
> > > >
> > > > Like Dr. Jai Maharaja for example?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Dunno. Never heard of Dr Jai Maharaja.


> > Try checking your kill file.

>
> Sorry, but I rarely use a kill file.
>


Ok, then use Google.

> > > > Yes, there are those who hate Jai and follow Jai around too.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I think a far better question is why do you go along with it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hoff
> > > >
> > > > I'm a veteran of USENET. My posts dispel misinformation without
> > > > libeling people.
> > >
> > > Which, of course, doesn't answer the question.

> >
> > It does. Note I describe myself as a veteran of USENET rather than a
> > policeman of USENET. I witnessed someone running a redlight
> > yesterday. I did not chase that person down because I am not a
> > traffic cop.
> >

>
> "Policing" and actively associating yourself with it are two separate
> things, Doc.


If I don't go along with something, it would mean that I would behave
more like you. I call your behavior "policing."

As for active association, I suspect that you definition is that if
someone does not "police," they are actively associating.

> Having a known liar and fraud as your most vocal spokesperson just seems
> somewhat odd.


To write that Mu is a liar and fraud is actually libel. As for having
Mu as a spokesperson, Mu is not under my employment.

> Maybe you subscribe to "any publicity is good publicity".
> Just seems strange.


I subscribe to things happening according to God's will.

Do you care to be back on-topic discussing the 2PD or is this all
about Mu for you?

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


Out of curiosity (as an aside), are you Christian?


--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
[email protected] (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Cheri" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in message ...
> >
> > >> > >Where is this FAQ?

>
> > >> >

> > Unofficial SUT/Mike Roos(e)/Michael Roos(e)/??? FAQ--4/15/2002 Update:

> <rather dated information snipped>
>
> My quick read did not reveal anything about Mu.


Dear Andrew,

Please remove your feuds from ASD. My participation in 2PD threads
although positive has irritated other subscribers, turned them against
the diet and against me. The people on ASD are not concerned with the
ongoing arguments, libel threats etc. My name remains on a thread
which has nothing to do with me and has become an embarrassment. It
should all be conducted on email and results of any litigation could
be made public when appropriate.

I enjoy a little flaming as much as the next person but this has gone
on too long.

Bottom line, it has made people hate the mention of the 2pd.


Best regards,

Carol Frilegh
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > Having a known liar and fraud as your most vocal spokesperson just seems
> > somewhat odd.

>
> To write that Mu is a liar and fraud is actually libel.


Unless, of course, it's true. Others have already pointed out the FAQ that
has been written about him. Being the curious sort, no doubt you've read it.

> As for having Mu as a spokesperson,
> Mu is not under my employment.


Yet he acts as your spokesperson nevertheless. Perhaps you should distance
yourself from him and gain a bit of credibility (and maybe some respect).
 
"Hoff" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...


> > Do you care to be back on-topic discussing the 2PD or is this all
> > about Mu for you?

>
> What would you like to discuss?


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

is the topic of this thread.

Note: I trimmed off ASD per Carol's email request to me.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
[email protected] (Diva4) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Dear Andrew,
>
> Please remove your feuds from ASD. My participation in 2PD threads
> although positive has irritated other subscribers, turned them against
> the diet and against me. The people on ASD are not concerned with the
> ongoing arguments, libel threats etc. My name remains on a thread
> which has nothing to do with me and has become an embarrassment. It
> should all be conducted on email and results of any litigation could
> be made public when appropriate.
>
> I enjoy a little flaming as much as the next person but this has gone
> on too long.
>
> Bottom line, it has made people hate the mention of the 2pd.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Carol Frilegh


Dear Carol,

As I have responded to you by email, even if I could rewrite or
redirect Usenet history, it is unlikely that folks who hate you for
writing favorably about the 2PD are going to hate you less.

As folks hating the 2PD, they had that bias before you tried the 2PD.

See:

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

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

God Bless,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
".." <louisDOTjezsikATarinsoDOTcom> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote
> >
> > > Having a known liar and fraud as your most vocal spokesperson just seems
> > > somewhat odd.

> >
> > To write that Mu is a liar and fraud is actually libel.

>
> Unless, of course, it's true.


Since it is I and not you who knows the true identity of Mu, who do
you believe is in a better position to comment on truth and libel?

> Others have already pointed out the FAQ that
> has been written about him. Being the curious sort, no doubt you've read it.


I have read a FAQ about Roose. I have yet to read one about Mu.

> > As for having Mu as a spokesperson,
> > Mu is not under my employment.

>
> Yet he acts as your spokesperson nevertheless.


How Mu acts and how I would have Mu act are mutually exclusive.

> Perhaps you should distance
> yourself from him and gain a bit of credibility (and maybe some respect).


My practice is here in Atlanta. I am not in a position to move.
Sorry.

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

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

>
> > > Do you care to be back on-topic discussing the 2PD or is this all
> > > about Mu for you?

> >
> > What would you like to discuss?

>
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
>
> is the topic of this thread.


OK.

I think your diet is a gimmick, at best. Maybe no worse than others,
definitely worse than some.

Obviously, given the conditions you describe, someone would lose weight. If
is currently eating 6-8 pounds a day, they will lose weight eating 2 pounds
a day of the same food. Duh.

But, as you yourself state, it does nothing to address the composition of
what one should eat.

And, as even Carol has stated, she began to actually *gain* weight on the
diet. I don't believe she is eating 2 pounds of Criso, either. So not only
must you weigh your food, you also must address the caloric content of the
food. Like any other diet.

You seem to imply the diet should be used for ongoing maintenance, as well.
Yet do not address in any way individual requirements. To imply the same 2
pound diet will serve a 70 year-old 110 lbs woman, and a 6'2" 200 pound man
in his 20's, is patently absurd. Telling people to apply an ounce of common
sense is NOT guidance. Had they applied an ounce of common sense, they
wouldn't be obese in the first place.

Look. any number of diets will create weight loss. In many ways, losing
weight is the easy part. Look at the vast number of posts on the diet
boards from people who have lost weight, only to regain. The hard part is
following a way of eating that allows you to both lose weight, AND maintain
that loss. Your diet does not address maintenance directly, and the
implications you DO make for maintenance are absurd.

Hoff
 
Carol Frilegh <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<050820032203288501%[email protected]>...

> Hoff, isn't the Atkins Diet potentially a loose premise, then?
> I was on low carb at the doctor's request during one of those
> naturopathic Candida Cleanse things two years ago. I posted at asd-lc
> and read many posts from people who ate upwards of 2500 calories a lot
> of sat fat and did no spectacular workouts. Interpreted broadly I think
> low carb could also made out to be a hoax if not followed judiciously.
>
> My temporary gain on 2PD came not only from selecting calorie dense
> foods but from not weighing them.
>
> I believe it is called cheating.


The 2 pound limit is like the 55 mph speed limit for driving on
certain interstates. When you are mindful of the limit you rarely if
ever get speeding tickets and you certainly are unlikely to lose your
license from speeding too often. To be sure you will go over, but this
won't stop you from being mindful of the limit. The folks that lose
their license from speeding (overeating) are the folks that ignore (or
are oblivious to) the speed limit (2 pound limit).

> When I followed the diet according to my original stated plan, it was a
> honey. I digressed for about four days and now got back on track. I
> also didn't do my usual walking as we had a lot of rain. (In addition,
> also lift, stair climb and do Pilates)
>
> I have now reached the point where I can guess food weight almost
> perfectly before weighing and have values down pat for most foods.
>
> I agree that many diets will result in weight loss. The point and
> advantage of this one is the simplicity in tracking intake. I'd be an
> idiot to pretend calories don't matter. it would be like denying
> gravity exists. I would also be an idiot to say this is the one and
> only Holy Grail of bariatrics. It just happens to be the one I prefer
> at this time and I am addictive but not habitually fickle.


It is the simplicity and freedom that is going to help you stay with
it, Carol.

Hopefully encouragement from your doctor is also helping.

> I think if Andrew redefined his FAQs very slightly he'd allay a lot of
> the suspicion and mistrust while adhering to his basic principle.


Imo, the suspicion and mistrust have not been sincere.

> Following the 2PD is like getting to Carnegie Hall. You have to
> practice and you have to know your scales (basic nutrition).


Hopefully, it is much simpler than that if we want folks to follow it
lifelong.

> Andrew has stated that the 2PD figure is arbitrary and can be fine
> tuned by people of different build as needs but finding a suitable
> volume of food remains the mission.


The inspiration for it may be arbitrary however there has been
empiricism at work before the 2PD was published.

> I challenge the nay sayers to give it a week or two without attempting
> to abuse it and then make a judgement. I do not ask this to convert
> them, but to encourage them to make a fair hands on assessment before
> criticizing.


Will they have the courage to come forth openly and honestly about it
as you have done?

> I think, in fairness you have to separate your issues with Dr.Chung,
> his credentials and medical practice history from the diet.


Those "issues" are fabricated out of hatred for the 2PD. There are no
grounds for it. My credentials are irrefutable. My medical practice
history has been sterling. Those who claim otherwise do not have a
leg to stand on.

Word to the wise:

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

> After all,
> Suzanne Sommers and Susan Powter had success. Examine their resumes.
> (one an admitted hooker) and the other an actress who borrowed from
> Montignac on a visit to France . Montignac came up with his method with
> being a chef as his credentials. ( there are some good chefs!)
>
> All the name calling that's gone on here since God was a boy has proved
> less than my actually going on the 2PD. And I have been honest about
> its merits and the weaknesses (which are in the hands of the dieter not
> in the diet.)


That name calling has been one-sided.

God Bless,

Andrew

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

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

>
> > > > What would you like to discuss?
> > >
> > > http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
> > >
> > > is the topic of this thread.

> >
> > OK.
> >
> > I think your diet is a gimmick, at best.

>
> To what end?


It's a "catchy phrase". "Dr Chung's Famous 2 Pound Diet".

>
> > Maybe no worse than others,
> > definitely worse than some.

>
> Worse than what specifically?


Specifically?

Learning the caloric content of what you eat. It ain't rocket science.

Start at 10-12 cals/lbs.

Get adequate protein. Somewhere between .5 and 1 gram/per lbs of BW.

Get adequate fat. 20-30% of total calories.

Fill the rest with carbs.

>
>
> > Obviously, given the conditions you describe, someone would lose weight.

If
> > is currently eating 6-8 pounds a day, they will lose weight eating 2

pounds
> > a day of the same food. Duh.

>
> Ime, that is the amount that the average overweight American
> eats/drinks.
>
> > But, as you yourself state, it does nothing to address the composition

of
> > what one should eat.

>
> However, the presumption is that the composition stays the same as
> before the reduction in amount occurs.
>


So, good, bad, or awful, keep it the same?

> > And, as even Carol has stated, she began to actually *gain* weight on

the
> > diet.

>
> She really has not been on it long enough to be certain about anything
> here.
>


She can't tell if she gained weight?

> > I don't believe she is eating 2 pounds of Criso, either.

>
> Could still be something close.


Close to 2 lbs of pure fat?

>
> > So not only
> > must you weigh your food, you also must address the caloric content of

the
> > food. Like any other diet.

>
> No, you really don't.


Yes, you do.

>
> > You seem to imply the diet should be used for ongoing maintenance, as

well.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Yet do not address in any way individual requirements. To imply the

same 2
> > pound diet will serve a 70 year-old 110 lbs woman, and a 6'2" 200 pound

man
> > in his 20's, is patently absurd.

>
> The former is not overweight unless under five feet. The latter may
> indeed be overweight. Ime, for folks who are overweight, 2 pounds per
> day does seem to be the amount of food for reaching and maintaining
> near-ideal body weight regardless of lean body mass. The metabolism
> does compensate to some degree so that two people can be eating the
> similar 2 pound amount and yet be stably different in overall weight
> (though BMIs will be a lot closer in the 20-25 range).


We were speaking of maintenance, not being overweight.

You're stating that the same 2 pount amount will adequately maintain weight
for a 5'2", 110 70-year-old woman, and a 6'2", 200 lbs 25 year-old man?

>
> > Telling people to apply an ounce of common
> > sense is NOT guidance.

>
> For some... it is for others... then there are the answers to the
> other FAQs for further guidance.
>


My reading of your FAQ revealed nothing regarding composition.

> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaq.asp
>
> > Had they applied an ounce of common sense, they
> > wouldn't be obese in the first place.

>
> Is it your claim that overweight folks lack common sense?


In regard to food intake? No.

>
> > Look. any number of diets will create weight loss.

>
> How many likely will achieve permanent weight loss?


Most, given the condition you put on the same question in your FAQ, that
they stay on the diet.

>
> > In many ways, losing
> > weight is the easy part. Look at the vast number of posts on the diet
> > boards from people who have lost weight, only to regain.

>
> How many of these are following the 2PD?
>
> > The hard part is
> > following a way of eating that allows you to both lose weight, AND

maintain
> > that loss.

>
> Exactly. This is what the 2PD addresses.


No, it doesn't.

>
>
> > Your diet does not address maintenance directly,

>
> It does. See http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
>
> and
>
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp
>
> > and the
> > implications you DO make for maintenance are absurd.

>
> Why?
>
> It should be obvious to the most casual observer that the key to
> maintenance is staying on the "diet." The chances of this should be
> maximal when the diet is (1) super-simple and (2) does not alter a
> person's food-choice preferences. Aside from the 2PD, what diet out
> there achieves these two conditions?
>


See above. If your contention is the same 2 pount amount will adequately
maintain weight for a 5'2", 110 70-year-old woman, and a 6'2", 200 lbs 25
year-old man, then I'd REALLY like to see some references beyond "IME".

If it's not, then they must address the caloric content of their food. And
if they do that, there's no need to set a 2 lbs limit/per day in the first
place.

Hoff
 
"Carol Frilegh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:050820032203288501%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Hoff
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Hoff" <[email protected]> wrote in message

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

message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > > > Do you care to be back on-topic discussing the 2PD or is this all
> > > > > about Mu for you?
> > > >
> > > > What would you like to discuss?
> > >
> > > http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
> > >
> > > is the topic of this thread.

> >
> > OK.
> >
> > I think your diet is a gimmick, at best. Maybe no worse than others,
> > definitely worse than some.
> >
> > Obviously, given the conditions you describe, someone would lose weight.

If
> > is currently eating 6-8 pounds a day, they will lose weight eating 2

pounds
> > a day of the same food. Duh.
> >
> > But, as you yourself state, it does nothing to address the composition

of
> > what one should eat.
> >
> > And, as even Carol has stated, she began to actually *gain* weight on

the
> > diet. I don't believe she is eating 2 pounds of Criso, either. So not

only
> > must you weigh your food, you also must address the caloric content of

the
> > food. Like any other diet.
> >
> > You seem to imply the diet should be used for ongoing maintenance, as

well.
> > Yet do not address in any way individual requirements. To imply the

same 2
> > pound diet will serve a 70 year-old 110 lbs woman, and a 6'2" 200 pound

man
> > in his 20's, is patently absurd. Telling people to apply an ounce of

common
> > sense is NOT guidance. Had they applied an ounce of common sense, they
> > wouldn't be obese in the first place.
> >
> > Look. any number of diets will create weight loss. In many ways, losing
> > weight is the easy part. Look at the vast number of posts on the diet
> > boards from people who have lost weight, only to regain. The hard part

is
> > following a way of eating that allows you to both lose weight, AND

maintain
> > that loss. Your diet does not address maintenance directly, and the
> > implications you DO make for maintenance are absurd.
> >
> > Hoff
> >

> Hoff, isn't the Atkins Diet potentially a loose premise, then?
> I was on low carb at the doctor's request during one of those
> naturopathic Candida Cleanse things two years ago. I posted at asd-lc
> and read many posts from people who ate upwards of 2500 calories a lot
> of sat fat and did no spectacular workouts. Interpreted broadly I think
> low carb could also made out to be a hoax if not followed judiciously.


Hoax? No.

Gimmick? Yes, especially in the way it is portrayed, i.e. "eat what you
want".

>
> My temporary gain on 2PD came not only from selecting calorie dense
> foods but from not weighing them.
>
> I believe it is called cheating.
>
> When I followed the diet according to my original stated plan, it was a
> honey. I digressed for about four days and now got back on track. I
> also didn't do my usual walking as we had a lot of rain. (In addition,
> also lift, stair climb and do Pilates)
>
> I have now reached the point where I can guess food weight almost
> perfectly before weighing and have values down pat for most foods.
>


As I posted to the good Doctor, my main problem with it is maintenance.

Do you agree with him, that the same diet you are maintaining with, would
adequately maintain weight for a 6'2" 25 year old man?

> I agree that many diets will result in weight loss. The point and
> advantage of this one is the simplicity in tracking intake. I'd be an
> idiot to pretend calories don't matter. it would be like denying
> gravity exists. I would also be an idiot to say this is the one and
> only Holy Grail of bariatrics. It just happens to be the one I prefer
> at this time and I am addictive but not habitually fickle.
>
> I think if Andrew redefined his FAQs very slightly he'd allay a lot of
> the suspicion and mistrust while adhering to his basic principle.
>
> Following the 2PD is like getting to Carnegie Hall. You have to
> practice and you have to know your scales (basic nutrition).
>


And caloric intake.

> Andrew has stated that the 2PD figure is arbitrary and can be fine
> tuned by people of different build as needs but finding a suitable
> volume of food remains the mission.


Hmm. Exactly where does his FAQ or instructions state this?

Hoff
 
In article <ni5Ya.52509$cF.19447@rwcrnsc53>, Hoff
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Carol Frilegh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:050820032203288501%[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, Hoff
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
>> > >
> > > And, as even Carol has stated, she began to actually *gain* weight on

> the
> > > diet.


Only when I *cheated*

> > > I don't believe she is eating 2 pounds of Criso, either.


I was making toasted almonds with honey and melted butter and cheese
and not counting it or weighing it and also making a lot of plain hard
cheese disappear without weighing or counting it for a few days. Salty
too!

> > > So not

> only
> > > must you weigh your food, you also must address the caloric content of

> the
> > > food. Like any other diet.


I said I do that in the sense of giving thought to the composition as
well as the density of food. if you want a plan that can be followed
with no thought whatsoever, check into a hospital, get fed
intravenously and put to sleep.

Cauliflower is heavy and dried mangos are light. But what are the
consequences of gorging on dried fruit? Attending a sale of Delsey or
Cottonelle?

I'm 72 and have had to deal with obesity since the age of eight and
Celiac and Food Sensitivity for nearly four years. I wear out Google
researching things some days. Do you think I imagined I was always
going to divide my daily rations of food between Godiva truffles,
Polish sausage and Hot Fudge Sundaes?

You don't walk a tightrope without having a sense of balance. if you
want a diet for morons buy them a case of Weight Watchers entrees some
power bars and shakes. They can leave their brains at the checkout
counter and ingest crappy additives and fillers.

Tell me about your success on Low carb. Did you do it all this time
without having to use your judgement or any common sense. Do the low
carbers themselves agree totally on all aspects of the possible
variations? is it enough to "buy the book"?

> > >
> > > You seem to imply the diet should be used for ongoing maintenance, as

> well.


I was actually using the diet to:

a. Lose three pounds
b. Then use it for maintenenace.

I have lost 86 pounds and kept it off since 2000. I'm 5'5". Working out
has built some muscle and increased my floundering bone density so
I wanted to compensate and still do. I reported on my own experience.
It remains for someone who has more weight to lose to try it for
themselves. I can't make claims beyond my own experience. You are all
acting like the blind man trying to understand what an octopus looks
like according to a description by a sighted person. Your arguments are
presented as scientific but are theoretical and not based in a test
drive. So maybe batteries are not included with the 2PD. So what?

> > > Yet do not address in any way individual requirements. To imply the

> same 2
> > > pound diet will serve a 70 year-old 110 lbs woman, and a 6'2" 200 pound

> man
> > > in his 20's, is patently absurd. Telling people to apply an ounce of

> common
> > > sense is NOT guidance. Had they applied an ounce of common sense, they
> > > wouldn't be obese in the first place.


Old wives tales are loaded with common sense. So many people that need
to lose weight approach it like idiots. Read Usenet.

2PD for me is a both starting point and the continuing mode to reduce
the appetite, increase satiety and lessen food obsession. It is not
only easy, it is fun. How many diets can make that claim?


I cannot locate the part on the site about increasing the volume of
food in certain instances, but am sure Andrew can.

Since the heavy discussions on ASD are currently on breast size I may
not leave here after all, but will remain and continue to shoot holes
in unproven opposition.

I do request you to not cross post this discussion to ASD as they have
absolutely no interest in it. Since it's now mainly absent from the
board and are occupied with joining a gym or boot camp, enlarging or
reducing breast size and determining whether celebrities with weight
problems are just like us humans:).

--
Diva
*************
The Best Man for the Job is a Woman
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Those "issues" are fabricated out of hatred for the 2PD. There are no
> grounds for it. My credentials are irrefutable. My medical practice
> history has been sterling. Those who claim otherwise do not have a
> leg to stand on.
>
> Word to the wise:
>
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
>


You're an idiot and a quack. There's no way you should be giving any
type of medical advice. That's why you don't have access to a hospital, and
why you were fired in Florida. This is also why you troll usenet for
unsuspecting "patients".
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snippage>
> > >
> > > > Maybe no worse than others,
> > > > definitely worse than some.
> > >
> > > Worse than what specifically?

> >
> > Specifically?
> >
> > Learning the caloric content of what you eat. It ain't rocket science.
> >
> > Start at 10-12 cals/lbs.
> >
> > Get adequate protein. Somewhere between .5 and 1 gram/per lbs of BW.
> >
> > Get adequate fat. 20-30% of total calories.
> >
> > Fill the rest with carbs.

>
> I would argue that the only way to reliably know the caloric content
> of what you are eating is with a bomb calorimeter... especially if you
> are eating out or did not cook the food you are eating.


At least in the US, it's not that difficult. Pretty much everything is
labelled with caloric content.

Eating out is a little more challenging, but doable. Intelligent choices
help. And, unless you're eating out constantly, measurment variations
should have little or no impact on overall results.

>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Obviously, given the conditions you describe, someone would lose

weight.
> > If
> > > > is currently eating 6-8 pounds a day, they will lose weight eating 2

> > pounds
> > > > a day of the same food. Duh.
> > >
> > > Ime, that is the amount that the average overweight American
> > > eats/drinks.

>
> You did not dispute this. Glad you agree.


Don't agree or disagree. I try to avoid making generalized statements, like
yours, without backup.

Specifically, just how many "overweight Americans" have weighed their food
and reported to you?

>
>

<snip>
> > > She really has not been on it long enough to be certain about anything
> > > here.
> > >

> >
> > She can't tell if she gained weight?

>
> Not in just a few days. The "noise" from normal fluctuations
> (especially in women) in body water content and in the inherent errors
> of the typical bathroom scale would obscure any confidence in the
> measurement.


So, by extension, her experience to date says absolutely nothing about the
relative merits of the 2 lbs diet?

>
> > > > I don't believe she is eating 2 pounds of Criso, either.
> > >
> > > Could still be something close.

> >
> > Close to 2 lbs of pure fat?

>
> Yes.


This would be some diet. What would comprise it?

>
> > > > So not only
> > > > must you weigh your food, you also must address the caloric content

of
> > the
> > > > food. Like any other diet.
> > >
> > > No, you really don't.

> >
> > Yes, you do.

>
> I didn't. Mu didn't. Chris didn't. And, Carol didn't.


Yes, Carol did. Read her posts.

I can't comment on what you did or didn't do.

As for "Mu", I believe nothing that it posts.

>
> > >
> > > > You seem to imply the diet should be used for ongoing maintenance,

as
> > well.
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > > Yet do not address in any way individual requirements. To imply the

> > same 2
> > > > pound diet will serve a 70 year-old 110 lbs woman, and a 6'2" 200

pound
> > man
> > > > in his 20's, is patently absurd.
> > >
> > > The former is not overweight unless under five feet. The latter may
> > > indeed be overweight. Ime, for folks who are overweight, 2 pounds per
> > > day does seem to be the amount of food for reaching and maintaining
> > > near-ideal body weight regardless of lean body mass. The metabolism
> > > does compensate to some degree so that two people can be eating the
> > > similar 2 pound amount and yet be stably different in overall weight
> > > (though BMIs will be a lot closer in the 20-25 range).

> >
> > We were speaking of maintenance, not being overweight.

>
> We are talking about how to get people to healther weights and then
> keeping them there.


The paragraph you conveniently split was in regard to maintenance.

>
> see:
>
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp
>
> > You're stating that the same 2 pount amount will adequately maintain

weight
> > for a 5'2", 110 70-year-old woman, and a 6'2", 200 lbs 25 year-old man?

>
> See above.


You didn't answer the question above, either.

>
> > >
> > > > Telling people to apply an ounce of common
> > > > sense is NOT guidance.
> > >
> > > For some... it is for others... then there are the answers to the
> > > other FAQs for further guidance.
> > >

> >
> > My reading of your FAQ revealed nothing regarding composition.

>
> See my answer to
>
> "There is more to a diet than just the *quantity* of food you eat.
> There is also the *quality* of the food you eat, and that point
> doesn't
> seem to be very well addressed in the 2 lb diet. "


I did. And it does not address composition, other than to say quantity is
more important in controlling obesity.

<snip>
> > > > In many ways, losing
> > > > weight is the easy part. Look at the vast number of posts on the

diet
> > > > boards from people who have lost weight, only to regain.
> > >
> > > How many of these are following the 2PD?

>
> The answer is that *no one* has reported loss with the 2PD with
> subsequent regain.


So you state.

Just raw estimates, but how many have tried the 2 lbs diet?

And are you claiming that no one has started the 2 lbs diet, and
subsequently quit?

>
> > > > The hard part is
> > > > following a way of eating that allows you to both lose weight, AND

> > maintain
> > > > that loss.
> > >
> > > Exactly. This is what the 2PD addresses.

> >
> > No, it doesn't.

>
> Have you tried the 2PD?


No need. Quite happy with where I'm at, and my current diet.

>
> > >
> > > > Your diet does not address maintenance directly,
> > >
> > > It does. See http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp

>
> Glad you agree tacitly.
>
> > > > and the
> > > > implications you DO make for maintenance are absurd.
> > >
> > > Why?
> > >
> > > It should be obvious to the most casual observer that the key to
> > > maintenance is staying on the "diet." The chances of this should be
> > > maximal when the diet is (1) super-simple and (2) does not alter a
> > > person's food-choice preferences. Aside from the 2PD, what diet out
> > > there achieves these two conditions?
> > >

> >
> > See above. If your contention is the same 2 pount amount will

adequately
> > maintain weight for a 5'2", 110 70-year-old woman, and a 6'2", 200 lbs

25
> > year-old man, then I'd REALLY like to see some references beyond "IME".

>
> See above for my contentions.


Again, you didn't answer the question, either her or above.

>
> > If it's not, then they must address the caloric content of their food.

>
> Anything that addresses caloric content of food has to come up with a
> reliable and convenient way of accurately measuring that caloric
> content.
>
> All the studies that have looked into this have shown that visual
> estimates of calories are not reliable.


If your definition of "convenient" is carrying a scale to weigh your food,
then yes, this would serve as the basis for reliably and conveniently
measuring caloric content.

>
> > And
> > if they do that, there's no need to set a 2 lbs limit/per day in the

first
> > place.
> >
> > Hoff

>
> See above.


Where you didn't answer the question, either.

Hoff
 
In article <uc9Ya.80320$uu5.9075@sccrnsc04>, Hoff
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> <snippage>
> > > >
> > > > > Maybe no worse than others,
> > > > > definitely worse than some.
> > > >
> > > > Worse than what specifically?
> > >
> > > Specifically?
> > >
> > > Learning the caloric content of what you eat. It ain't rocket science.
> > >
> > > Start at 10-12 cals/lbs.
> > >
> > > Get adequate protein. Somewhere between .5 and 1 gram/per lbs of BW.
> > >
> > > Get adequate fat. 20-30% of total calories.
> > >
> > > Fill the rest with carbs.

> >
> > I would argue that the only way to reliably know the caloric content
> > of what you are eating is with a bomb calorimeter... especially if you
> > are eating out or did not cook the food you are eating.

>
> At least in the US, it's not that difficult. Pretty much everything is
> labelled with caloric content.
>
> Eating out is a little more challenging, but doable. Intelligent choices
> help. And, unless you're eating out constantly, measurment variations
> should have little or no impact on overall results.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Obviously, given the conditions you describe, someone would lose

> weight.
> > > If
> > > > > is currently eating 6-8 pounds a day, they will lose weight eating 2
> > > pounds
> > > > > a day of the same food. Duh.
> > > >
> > > > Ime, that is the amount that the average overweight American
> > > > eats/drinks.

> >
> > You did not dispute this. Glad you agree.

>
> Don't agree or disagree. I try to avoid making generalized statements, like
> yours, without backup.
>
> Specifically, just how many "overweight Americans" have weighed their food
> and reported to you?
>
> >
> >

> <snip>
> > > > She really has not been on it long enough to be certain about anything
> > > > here.
> > > >
> > >
> > > She can't tell if she gained weight?

> >
> > Not in just a few days. The "noise" from normal fluctuations
> > (especially in women) in body water content and in the inherent errors
> > of the typical bathroom scale would obscure any confidence in the
> > measurement.


Since I haven't menstruated in 22 years it's not very noisy around
here. My consistent fluctuation pattern is pretty average, two pounds
less in the morning--exception with consumption of bacon or olives the
preceeding day. Conversely, two colonic irrigations and fasting prior
to a colonsocopy resulted in a two and a half pound water loss that
quickly returned.
>

snippage

> > > > So not only
> > > > > must you weigh your food, you also must address the caloric content

> of
> > > the
> > > > > food. Like any other diet.
> > > >
> > > > No, you really don't.
> > >
> > > Yes, you do.

> >
> > I didn't. Mu didn't. Chris didn't. And, Carol didn't.

>
> Yes, Carol did. Read her posts.


Carol counted calories and weighed her food for one day to assess the
discrepencies. The 32 ounces came to just over 1200 calories on that
day.
>


--
Diva
********
Carol Frilegh ON The TPD
 
"Carol Frilegh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:060820031221390039%[email protected]...
<snip>
> > > > > So not only
> > > > > > must you weigh your food, you also must address the caloric

content
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > food. Like any other diet.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, you really don't.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, you do.
> > >
> > > I didn't. Mu didn't. Chris didn't. And, Carol didn't.

> >
> > Yes, Carol did. Read her posts.

>
> Carol counted calories and weighed her food for one day to assess the
> discrepencies. The 32 ounces came to just over 1200 calories on that
> day.


Notice, I didn't say "count". I said "address".

Earlier in this thread, didn't you make the statements:

----

"I said I do that in the sense of giving thought to the composition as well
as the density of food."

"I'd be an idiot to pretend calories don't matter. it would be like denying
gravity exists. "

----

Is that not addressing the caloric content?

Look, Carol, my main problem with this diet is Dr Chung's refusal to admit
you must address the composition/caloric content of the food at some point.

I'm glad that you do, and like the diet.

Hoff
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > > To write that Mu is a liar and fraud is actually libel.

> >
> > Unless, of course, it's true.

>
> Since it is I and not you who knows the true identity of Mu, who do
> you believe is in a better position to comment on truth and libel?


So you are saying that if you don't know someone's true identity then they
can not comment on truth and libel? Roose is known to many, true identity or
not.

> I have read a FAQ about Roose. I have yet to read one about Mu.


One in the same ... but you already know that.

> > > As for having Mu as a spokesperson,
> > > Mu is not under my employment.

> >
> > Yet he acts as your spokesperson nevertheless.

>
> How Mu acts and how I would have Mu act are mutually exclusive.


True, but yet you encourage him. When people think of him, they think of
you. Interesting company you keep.

> > Perhaps you should distance yourself from him
> > and gain a bit of credibility (and maybe some respect).

>
> My practice is here in Atlanta. I am not in a position to move.
> Sorry.


Who said anything about moving? I said that you should distance yourself
from him. Surely you've been educated in an English school system and are
familiar with the language. Are you not? Are you stupid, or just playing
games again?
 
".." <louisDOTjezsikATarinsoDOTcom> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote
> >
> > > > To write that Mu is a liar and fraud is actually libel.
> > >
> > > Unless, of course, it's true.

> >
> > Since it is I and not you who knows the true identity of Mu, who do
> > you believe is in a better position to comment on truth and libel?

>
> So you are saying that if you don't know someone's true identity then they
> can not comment on truth and libel? Roose is known to many, true identity or
> not.


If you don't know who a person is, you really are not is a position to
comments about what is either true or false about him/her.

> > I have read a FAQ about Roose. I have yet to read one about Mu.

>
> One in the same ... but you already know that.


No, I don't. Given that I have witnessed firsthand the Usenet
confusion concerning the identity of Mu and indeed have been told that
I am Mu with 100% certainty, you certainly should understand my
skepticism.

> > > > As for having Mu as a spokesperson,
> > > > Mu is not under my employment.
> > >
> > > Yet he acts as your spokesperson nevertheless.

> >
> > How Mu acts and how I would have Mu act are mutually exclusive.

>
> True, but yet you encourage him.


Mu is encouraged by folks responding to Mu's posts. Though I respond
to Mu's posts on occasion, I don't do it enough compared to other
folks who shall remain nameless.

> When people think of him, they think of
> you. Interesting company you keep.


It's called free speech.

> > > Perhaps you should distance yourself from him
> > > and gain a bit of credibility (and maybe some respect).

> >
> > My practice is here in Atlanta. I am not in a position to move.
> > Sorry.

>
> Who said anything about moving?


You did by suggesting I "distance" myself from Mu.

> I said that you should distance yourself
> from him.


Correct.

> Surely you've been educated in an English school system and are
> familiar with the language.


I am.

> Are you not?


I am.

> Are you stupid, or just playing
> games again?


Neither.

Enough about your center of the universe...

Do you care to go back OT? This thread is about the 2PD and not Mu.

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