Re: Frilegh Starts The TPD!!!!!



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

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". I've also heard that you bought your credentials on the
internet. Shame on you.
 
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:19:34 -0400, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> Enough about your center of the universe...
>
> Do you care to go back OT? This thread is about the 2PD and not Mu.

.... and this Newsgroup is about a Low Carbohydrate Diet, not the 2PD. so why
don't you take your own advice?

God Bless

Steve
 
In article <ELaYa.81886$YN5.59997@sccrnsc01>, Hoff
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "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
>
Nothing romantic about being so semantic. Usenet is a lot like the
municipal zoo lately. I need a rest-so:
>
> Bye, bye, baby
> remember you're my baby
> when they give you the eye,
> and just to show that I care
> I will write and declare
> that I'm on the loose
> but I'm still on the square.

--
Diva
********
Carol Frilegh ON The TPD
 
"Hoff" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<uc9Ya.80320$uu5.9075@sccrnsc04>...
> "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.

You would still need to weigh it to determine how many servings you
are ingesting.

> 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.

Some folks do eat out most of the time. Others cook at home and would
face similar difficulties figuring out how many calories they are
eating.

Pray tell, how many calories did you eat yesterday?


> > > > > 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.

IOW, no comment.

> I try to avoid making generalized statements, like
> yours, without backup.

IOW, no experience.

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

Inumerable.

> <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?

It is by extension that her experience over several days addresses the
merits of the 2PD approach. Carol "cheated" but did not quit the 2PD
approach.

> >
> > > > > 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?

One example would be "pate" which is largely a chunk of 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.
> >
> > I didn't. Mu didn't. Chris didn't. And, Carol didn't.
>
> Yes, Carol did. Read her posts.

I have. She may have calculated calories for one day out of
curiosity.

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

Your restraint surprises me.

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

Your choice.

And what about Chris?

> > > > > 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.

Keeping folks at their healthy weights after the loss is 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.

Again, the 70 year old woman is at a healthy weight, so there is no
reason to change what she is already doing. However, chances are she
is already eating about 2 pounds a day and not 6 to 8 pounds so that 2
pounds a day will keep her at around 110 pounds. The 6'2" 200 lb man
will not starve on 2 pounds of food a day. His weight may decrease to
170 lbs which is healthier. It is unlikely to increase. At some
point, his weight will stabilize and there he will maintain.
The important points are:

(1) No one will starve on 2 pounds of food a day.
(2) No one can stay obese on 2 pounds of food a day.

> > > > > 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.

Dismissing something is one way of addressing something. Composition
truly is not important for losing weight.

> <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.

It should be easy for you to prove otherwise.

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

Inumerable.

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

Not to my knowledge.

> >
> > > > > 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.

Then you have no experience support your claim that the 2PD does not
address both weight loss and maintenance.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > 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.


Check again.

> >
> > > 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.

The point is that there is no reliable and convenient way of
accurately measuring caloric content. Therefore, any diet approach
that depends on calories is doomed from the outset. Now enter the 2PD
approach.

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

> >
> > > 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

Where I have answered it many times over and will continue to do so.

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

Was writing the above wise since everything is being archived?

It can haunt you years from now...

as it will Mr. Pastorio:

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

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
"JC Der Koenig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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". I've also heard that you bought your credentials on the
> internet. Shame on you.
>
>

I have looked very carefully at Dr. Chung's Medical advice given in this
newsgroup and found it always quite well informed - except perhaps on the
state of air conditioning in Great Britain. :) You have made some claims. What
is your evidence to support them?

Bill
 
[email protected] (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) writes:

>"Hoff" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<uc9Ya.80320$uu5.9075@sccrnsc04>...

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

>> > 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.

>You would still need to weigh it to determine how many servings you
>are ingesting.

Where does this faith in measuring calories with a bomb calorimeter
come from? What about what is not digestible? For example, a bomb
calorimeter will tell you how many calories there are in a pound of
grass, but a cow gets a lot more nourishment out of eating it than you
would. Then there's the question of digestive efficiency. Some folk
have digestive problems. Some folk have guts which are twice the
length of other folks' guts (it's genetic). These result in
differencies in the efficiency of digesting and absorbing nutrients
from food. Then there's the question of quality. I can weigh a
certain bit of fruit and then look it up in a calorie chart, but the
actual number of digestible calories will depend on ripeness, water
content, specific variety of fruit in question, etc..

Where diet is concerned what matters is the calories you digest out of
what you eat. What is measured is the calories present in an average
sample regardless of digestibility, digestive efficiency, sample
variation, etc..

What's are the typical errors between calories as printed in tables
and on food packages, and the actual net caloric gain in a specific
individual after digesting the food?

I'm not saying counting calories is rubbish, far from it. I just
suspect that some calorie counters overestimate the precision of what
they're doing when they count calories.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 650 3085 DoD #205
School of Informatics, Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill,
Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK. [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/ ]
 
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 3:53:26 -0400, Chris Malcolm wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) writes:
>
>> "Hoff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:<uc9Ya.80320$uu5.9075@sccrnsc04>...
>
>>> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>
>>>> 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.
>
>> You would still need to weigh it to determine how many servings you
>> are ingesting.
>
> Where does this faith in measuring calories with a bomb calorimeter
> come from? What about what is not digestible? For example, a bomb
> calorimeter will tell you how many calories there are in a pound of
> grass, but a cow gets a lot more nourishment out of eating it than you
> would. Then there's the question of digestive efficiency. Some folk
> have digestive problems. Some folk have guts which are twice the
> length of other folks' guts (it's genetic). These result in
> differencies in the efficiency of digesting and absorbing nutrients
> from food. Then there's the question of quality. I can weigh a
> certain bit of fruit and then look it up in a calorie chart, but the
> actual number of digestible calories will depend on ripeness, water
> content, specific variety of fruit in question, etc..

Another point, which I indelicately mentioned a while back, is that feces
burn which implies that at least some of the energy measured by the bomb
calorimeter passes through unabsorbed. It is my understanding, also, that it
is rare for anyone to even test things with a bulb calorimeter anymore...
they just add up the published results of the components of the food. So, if
one is looking for precision, one is not going to find it :)

Since I have been trained as a physicist and engineer, that troubled me for a
while. I want things to add up! I balance my checkbook to the penny. On the
other hand, I have been trained in error bars and the appreciation and
quantification of uncertainty. Even if the published values were accurate to
three decimal places, as a practical matter, unless you weigh everything, you
would still be in error.

My conclusion is that using the published caloric numbers is "close enough
for all practical purposes" (if you haven't heard that joke, remind me to
tell it to you). First, even though the absolute values may not be exact, the
relative values can probably be trusted and therefore are an excellent guide
in choosing one food over another for purposes of weight control. Secondly,
although my metabolism will probably be different than yours, we will
probably both extract twice as much energy from a food that has twice the
calories as another. And finally, in the aggregate, total consumed calories
are probably very predictive of absolute weight gain or loss when discounted
for other factors.

I would be remiss If I didn't point out that our friend Chung brought this up
as a red herring rather than as a critique to be taken seriously. It is
ironic and ludicrous (but perhaps typical and to be expected) that the father
of such an arbitrary, unscientific, and unsubstantiated diet idea as "The Two
Pound Diet" would fault counting calories as not precise :) You seem to be
an intelligent fellow... why you come to the defense of this charlatan is
beyond me.

Steve
 
Steve wrote:
>My conclusion is that using the published caloric numbers is "close enough
>for all practical purposes" (if you haven't heard that joke, remind me to
>tell it to you).

Close only counts in horse shoes, hand grenades, nuclear weapons, and
teenage sex ;0)

Yvonne
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "JC Der Koenig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "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".
>
> Was writing the above wise since everything is being archived?
>
> It can haunt you years from now...
>

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". I've also heard that you bought your credentials on the
internet. Shame on you.
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snip>
> > > 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.
>
> You would still need to weigh it to determine how many servings you
> are ingesting.

No, you don't. The number of servings in the package allows you to
determine how many servings you eat.

>
> > 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.
>
> Some folks do eat out most of the time. Others cook at home and would
> face similar difficulties figuring out how many calories they are
> eating.
>
> Pray tell, how many calories did you eat yesterday?
>

Between 1375 and 1425.

>
> > > > > > 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.
>
> IOW, no comment.
>
> > I try to avoid making generalized statements, like
> > yours, without backup.
>
> IOW, no experience.
>
> > Specifically, just how many "overweight Americans" have weighed their
food
> > and reported to you?
>
> Inumerable.

IOW, you have no idea, yet use it as a basis for statements about the
"average overweight American". Gotcha.

>
> > <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?
>
> It is by extension that her experience over several days addresses the
> merits of the 2PD approach. Carol "cheated" but did not quit the 2PD
> approach.
>

IOW, she's been on it long enough when you want to use her as an example to
support your diet, but not on it long enough when problems are found.
Gotcha.

> > >
> > > > > > 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?
>
> One example would be "pate" which is largely a chunk of fat.

So you think she ate 2 lbs of "pate"?

>
> > >
> > > > > > 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 have. She may have calculated calories for one day out of
> curiosity.

And addressed calorie content when she wasn't weighing.

Quotes from her:

----

"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. "

----

>
> > I can't comment on what you did or didn't do.
>
> Your restraint surprises me.
>
> > As for "Mu", I believe nothing that it posts.
>
> Your choice.
>
> And what about Chris?

Haven't read all of Chris' posts, but it was my impression he wasn't
actually following the diet, but found he was eating 2 to 2.5 lbs a day.
Which doesn't mean he hasn't addressed the caloric content of his diet.

>
> > > > > > 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.
>
> Keeping folks at their healthy weights after the loss is 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.
>
> Again, the 70 year old woman is at a healthy weight, so there is no
> reason to change what she is already doing. However, chances are she
> is already eating about 2 pounds a day and not 6 to 8 pounds so that 2
> pounds a day will keep her at around 110 pounds. The 6'2" 200 lb man
> will not starve on 2 pounds of food a day. His weight may decrease to
> 170 lbs which is healthier.

Losing 30 lbs is not maintenance.

> It is unlikely to increase. At some
> point, his weight will stabilize and there he will maintain.
> The important points are:
>
> (1) No one will starve on 2 pounds of food a day.
> (2) No one can stay obese on 2 pounds of food a day.
>

OK. So you admit that the 6'2" 200 lbs man would not be able to maintain
weight on the 2 pounds a day.

Let's go further. Do you think your now 170 lbs, 6'2" man would be able to
maintain weight on essentially the same 2 lbs as the 110 lbs woman?

> > > > > > 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.
>
> Dismissing something is one way of addressing something. Composition
> truly is not important for losing weight.
>

Yes, it is. You indirectly imply it when you dismiss things like eating 2
lbs of chocolate, or even above with your 2 lbs of pate.

> > <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.
>
> It should be easy for you to prove otherwise.

With a reported population size of 2? Chris doesn't actively follow your
diet, and "Mu" is, well, "Mu".

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

IOW, you don't know.

> > And are you claiming that no one has started the 2 lbs diet, and
> > subsequently quit?
>
> Not to my knowledge.

Convenient.

>
> > >
> > > > > > 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.
>
> Then you have no experience support your claim that the 2PD does not
> address both weight loss and maintenance.

Interesting logic. I haven't tried the inumerable other gimmick diets
around, either.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
>
>
> Check again.

See 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.
>
> The point is that there is no reliable and convenient way of
> accurately measuring caloric content. Therefore, any diet approach
> that depends on calories is doomed from the outset.

Yet, I do it every day. Strange. And I don't carry a scale around all day,
either.

> Now enter the 2PD
> approach.
>
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
>
> > >
> > > > 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
>
> Where I have answered it many times over and will continue to do so.

Exactly once is "many times over"?

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

> > It's called free speech.
> >
> >
>
> 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". I've also heard that you bought your credentials on the
> internet. Shame on you.


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

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
[email protected] (Yvonne) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Steve wrote:
> >My conclusion is that using the published caloric numbers is "close enough
> >for all practical purposes" (if you haven't heard that joke, remind me to
> >tell it to you).
>
> Close only counts in horse shoes, hand grenades, nuclear weapons, and
> teenage sex ;0)
>
> Yvonne

Agree :)

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 5:01:03 -0400, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I would be remiss If I didn't point out that our friend Chung brought this up
> as a red herring rather than as a critique to be taken seriously. It is
> ironic and ludicrous (but perhaps typical and to be expected) that the father
> of such an arbitrary, unscientific, and unsubstantiated diet idea as "The Two
> Pound Diet" would fault counting calories as not precise :) You seem to be
> an intelligent fellow... why you come to the defense of this charlatan is
> beyond me.

I think it's perfectly well scientifically substantiated, based on a
reasonable hypothesis about human nature. That is, specifically, that
the average extractable caloric density of food that people will
actually eat in the long run will be fairly constant. That is, say
over the month to year long timescales in question, not in any one
meal or two.

This implies that the likely source of obesity is the consumption of
excess mass. A diet that focuses on precise control of what is
precisely measurable seems like a good idea in the circumstances.

Lots of diet books focus endlessly on "what" to eat but I suspect the
overweight make consistent errors in the portion sizes.
 
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 19:46:06 +0000 (UTC), Dr Chaos
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 5:01:03 -0400, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I would be remiss If I didn't point out that our friend Chung brought
>> this up as a red herring rather than as a critique to be taken
>> seriously. It is ironic and ludicrous (but perhaps typical and to be
>> expected) that the father of such an arbitrary, unscientific, and
>> unsubstantiated diet idea as "The Two Pound Diet" would fault counting
>> calories as not precise :) You seem to be an intelligent fellow... why
>> you come to the defense of this charlatan is beyond me.
>
> I think it's perfectly well scientifically substantiated, based on a
> reasonable hypothesis about human nature. That is, specifically, that
> the average extractable caloric density of food that people will
> actually eat in the long run will be fairly constant. That is, say
> over the month to year long timescales in question, not in any one
> meal or two.

What the heck is "average extractable caloric density"? First of all,
you're talking about a density, which is mass/volume. What does that have
to do with the time of day in Egypt? Do you mean "amount"? A calorie, by
definition, is "extractable," if this word means "can be determined."

I eat varying amounts of food per day. Sometimes, when I feel like it, I
eat a lot. Sometimes I don't. What's this do for my "average extractable
caloric density"?

> This implies that the likely source of obesity is the consumption of
> excess mass. A diet that focuses on precise control of what is
> precisely measurable seems like a good idea in the circumstances.

Wouldn't someone be better off counting calories, regardless of what "mass"
he/she ate? A pound of spinach is quite a bit different than a pound of
lard.

> Lots of diet books focus endlessly on "what" to eat but I suspect the
> overweight make consistent errors in the portion sizes.
>
>

Ok, so I see that I have to add "Dr." to my filter.

--
Bob M in CT
Remove 'x.' to reply
 
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:46:06 -0400, Dr Chaos wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 5:01:03 -0400, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I would be remiss If I didn't point out that our friend Chung brought this
>> up
>> as a red herring rather than as a critique to be taken seriously. It is
>> ironic and ludicrous (but perhaps typical and to be expected) that the
>> father
>> of such an arbitrary, unscientific, and unsubstantiated diet idea as "The
>> Two
>> Pound Diet" would fault counting calories as not precise :) You seem to
>> be
>> an intelligent fellow... why you come to the defense of this charlatan is
>> beyond me.
>
> I think it's perfectly well scientifically substantiated, based on a
> reasonable hypothesis about human nature. That is, specifically, that
> the average extractable caloric density of food that people will
> actually eat in the long run will be fairly constant. That is, say
> over the month to year long timescales in question, not in any one
> meal or two.

Caloric Density = calories / mass

> This implies that the likely source of obesity is the consumption of
> excess mass.

delta(Caloric Density) = delta(calories) + delta(mass)
---------------------- --------------- -----------
Caloric Density calories mass

if Caloric Density is a constant, delta(Caloric Density) = 0

=> delta(calories) = - calories * delta(mass)
----------------------
mass

Which says if people reduce the mass they are eating, by your "Constant
Caloric Density" hypothesis, they will increase the calories they are eating
to compensate. Whoops.

Steve
 
On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 20:01:45 GMT, Bob M <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 19:46:06 +0000 (UTC), Dr Chaos
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 5:01:03 -0400, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would be remiss If I didn't point out that our friend Chung brought
>>> this up as a red herring rather than as a critique to be taken
>>> seriously. It is ironic and ludicrous (but perhaps typical and to be
>>> expected) that the father of such an arbitrary, unscientific, and
>>> unsubstantiated diet idea as "The Two Pound Diet" would fault counting
>>> calories as not precise :) You seem to be an intelligent fellow... why
>>> you come to the defense of this charlatan is beyond me.
>>
>> I think it's perfectly well scientifically substantiated, based on a
>> reasonable hypothesis about human nature. That is, specifically, that
>> the average extractable caloric density of food that people will
>> actually eat in the long run will be fairly constant. That is, say
>> over the month to year long timescales in question, not in any one
>> meal or two.
>
> What the heck is "average extractable caloric density"?

calories per mass of food which are absorbed and contribute to
energy balance in people.

> First of all,
> you're talking about a density, which is mass/volume.

In science, the term "density" is now used to characterize many
different sort of quantities. The primary criterion is that a 'density'
is intensive as opposed to extensive (in the thermodynamics sense) such
that integration over the appropriate domain of an 'intensive' quantity
gives an extensive one.

> What does that have
> to do with the time of day in Egypt? Do you mean "amount"? A calorie, by
> definition, is "extractable," if this word means "can be determined."

I didn't mean that, I meant a calorie which was physiologically
available to humans. Somebody previously gave the example of grasses
which a cow's physiology would consider to be 'extractable' but for
humans would not be.

> I eat varying amounts of food per day. Sometimes, when I feel like it, I
> eat a lot. Sometimes I don't. What's this do for my "average extractable
> caloric density"?

Nothing.

>> This implies that the likely source of obesity is the consumption of
>> excess mass. A diet that focuses on precise control of what is
>> precisely measurable seems like a good idea in the circumstances.
>
> Wouldn't someone be better off counting calories, regardless of what "mass"
> he/she ate? A pound of spinach is quite a bit different than a pound of
> lard.

Yes, one would be better off counting actual calories. When in
metabolic wards where such calories are counted precisely and
accurately by professionals and people are unable to eat more, the
obese lose at the rate predicted by science, regardless of their
previous excuses.

But this is very expensive and unpleasant.

The question is how easily can people approximate this strict
control in real life.

The issue is that most people find doing this precisely as professionals
to be almost impossible to maintain in practical situations.

Given that, what is the best practical approximation? At the
moment most people tend to look at kinds of food and say "good" and
"bad" and in their mind attempt to believe (or actually do) eat
relatively more of the "good" than before. I suspect this is
not very accurate or effective.

Hence, I believe that in the long run the most effective easy
estimation of caloric intake that people can make is by measuring mass
with quantitative instruments.

And in a single person, whose eating habits are likely to remain
somewhat constant in energy density per mass, the relative accuracy
will be even greater (more or less) than before. And even still
the trend will matter.




>> Lots of diet books focus endlessly on "what" to eat but I suspect the
>> overweight make consistent errors in the portion sizes.
>>
>>
>
> Ok, so I see that I have to add "Dr." to my filter.
 
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:26:40 -0400, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:46:06 -0400, Dr Chaos wrote
> (in message <[email protected]>):
>
>> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 5:01:03 -0400, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would be remiss If I didn't point out that our friend Chung brought this
>>> up
>>> as a red herring rather than as a critique to be taken seriously. It is
>>> ironic and ludicrous (but perhaps typical and to be expected) that the
>>> father
>>> of such an arbitrary, unscientific, and unsubstantiated diet idea as "The
>>> Two
>>> Pound Diet" would fault counting calories as not precise :) You seem to
>>> be
>>> an intelligent fellow... why you come to the defense of this charlatan is
>>> beyond me.
>>
>> I think it's perfectly well scientifically substantiated, based on a
>> reasonable hypothesis about human nature. That is, specifically, that
>> the average extractable caloric density of food that people will
>> actually eat in the long run will be fairly constant. That is, say
>> over the month to year long timescales in question, not in any one
>> meal or two.
>
> Caloric Density = calories / mass
>
>> This implies that the likely source of obesity is the consumption of
>> excess mass.
>
> delta(Caloric Density) = delta(calories) + delta(mass)
> ---------------------- --------------- -----------
> Caloric Density calories mass

D = C/M

the total derivative of D is

dD = 1/M dC + -C/M^2 dM

>
> if Caloric Density is a constant, delta(Caloric Density) = 0
>
> => delta(calories) = - calories * delta(mass)
> ----------------------
> mass

setting dD = 0,
dC/M = C/M^2 dM and with M not equal to zero

dC = (C/M) dM
= D dM
>
> Which says if people reduce the mass they are eating, by your "Constant
> Caloric Density" hypothesis, they will increase the calories they are eating
> to compensate. Whoops.

your math is not correct.

calories consumed = caloric density * mass

C = D M

with D constant,

dC = D dM

as before.
 
Steve <[email protected]> writes:

>On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 3:53:26 -0400, Chris Malcolm wrote
>(in message <[email protected]>):

>> [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) writes:

>>> "Hoff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:<uc9Ya.80320$uu5.9075@sccrnsc04>...

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

>>>>> 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.

>>> You would still need to weigh it to determine how many servings you
>>> are ingesting.

>> Where does this faith in measuring calories with a bomb calorimeter
>> come from? What about what is not digestible? For example, a bomb
>> calorimeter will tell you how many calories there are in a pound of
>> grass, but a cow gets a lot more nourishment out of eating it than you
>> would. Then there's the question of digestive efficiency. Some folk
>> have digestive problems. Some folk have guts which are twice the
>> length of other folks' guts (it's genetic).

>Another point, which I indelicately mentioned a while back, is that feces
>burn which implies that at least some of the energy measured by the bomb
>calorimeter passes through unabsorbed.

>My conclusion is that using the published caloric numbers is "close enough
>for all practical purposes" (if you haven't heard that joke, remind me to
>tell it to you).

>I would be remiss If I didn't point out that our friend Chung brought this up
>as a red herring rather than as a critique to be taken seriously. It is
>ironic and ludicrous (but perhaps typical and to be expected) that the father
>of such an arbitrary, unscientific, and unsubstantiated diet idea as "The Two
>Pound Diet" would fault counting calories as not precise :) You seem to be
>an intelligent fellow... why you come to the defense of this charlatan is
>beyond me.

Many people seem to prefer to assess the worth of an idea by the
personal qualities of the proposer. I prefer to assess ideas on their
own worth. The 2lb diet idea seems a good one to me, for reasons I
have mentioned. I support the idea regardless of the personal
qualities of its proposer or other supporters. It wouldn't matter to
my support of the 2lb diet idea whether or not Chung was a charlatan.

In fact, I don't think he is, and I suspect that some of those who are
accusing him of various things, such as being Mu, or not really being
a qualified cardiologist, know perfectly well their accusations are
untrue, but enjoy rousing the unintelligent and insincere passions of
a usenet lynching mob. It's a pretty disgusting spectacle, and while I
think Chung might be unwise in feeding the flames by responding to
them, that doesn't constitute charlatanry.
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 650 3085 DoD #205
School of Informatics, Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill,
Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK. [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/ ]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back