Re: Obesity May Shrink U.S. Lifespan



J

Jeff

Guest
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1111122355.77454b48fa5aa2d51ae514ac938da5a3@teranews...

(...)

> And so the need for the 2PD-OMER Approach is being underscored.

No, the need for diets that have been shown to work in peer-reviewed
articles and which have been properly tested in studies, combined with
excercise and supervision by physicians, is beeing underscored.

The 2PD-omer diet doesn't cut it.

If I am incorrect, please show me the citations to the peer-reveiew
articles.

Jeff

>
>
> At His service,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Board-Certified Cardiologist
>
> **
> Suggested Reading:
> (1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
> (2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2F325D1A
> (3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
> (4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
> (5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
> (6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
> (7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
 
Jeff wrote:
>
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1111122355.77454b48fa5aa2d51ae514ac938da5a3@teranews...
>
> (...)
>
> > And so the need for the 2PD-OMER Approach is being underscored.
>
> No, the need for diets that have been shown to work in peer-reviewed
> articles and which have been properly tested in studies, combined with
> excercise and supervision by physicians, is beeing underscored.
>
> The 2PD-omer diet doesn't cut it.
>
> If I am incorrect, please show me the citations to the peer-reveiew
> articles.

It is the dictionary that shows you to be incorrect.

The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet but a lifestyle change.


At His service,

Andrew

--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2F325D1A
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
 
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jeff wrote:
>>
>> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:1111122355.77454b48fa5aa2d51ae514ac938da5a3@teranews...
>>
>> (...)
>>
>> > And so the need for the 2PD-OMER Approach is being underscored.
>>
>> No, the need for diets that have been shown to work in peer-reviewed
>> articles and which have been properly tested in studies, combined with
>> excercise and supervision by physicians, is beeing underscored.
>>
>> The 2PD-omer diet doesn't cut it.
>>
>> If I am incorrect, please show me the citations to the peer-reveiew
>> articles.
>
> It is the dictionary that shows you to be incorrect.
>
> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet but a lifestyle change.

I don't question that it is a life-style change. But it is also a diet.

More importantly, it has not been published in the peer-reviewed literature,
which means that for all intensive purposes, it has not been studied
properly.

I know you state that you have a database to track all the people who
participated and not one of them gained weight. IF the diet is this good,
one would think that you would publish the work.

Of course, I recall how about 2 or 3 years ago, you tried to do a web study
until the review boards at Emory started asking questions. Which makes one
really wonder how good the studies are, if they exist.

Jeff

> At His service,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Board-Certified Cardiologist
>
> **
> Suggested Reading:
> (1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
> (2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2F325D1A
> (3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
> (4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
> (5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
> (6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
> (7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
 
Jeff wrote:
>
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Jeff wrote:
> >>
> >> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:1111122355.77454b48fa5aa2d51ae514ac938da5a3@teranews...
> >>
> >> (...)
> >>
> >> > And so the need for the 2PD-OMER Approach is being underscored.
> >>
> >> No, the need for diets that have been shown to work in peer-reviewed
> >> articles and which have been properly tested in studies, combined with
> >> excercise and supervision by physicians, is beeing underscored.
> >>
> >> The 2PD-omer diet doesn't cut it.
> >>
> >> If I am incorrect, please show me the citations to the peer-reveiew
> >> articles.
> >
> > It is the dictionary that shows you to be incorrect.
> >
> > The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet but a lifestyle change.
>
> I don't question that it is a life-style change. But it is also a diet.

Not according to the on-line Webster's at:

http://www.m-w.com

> More importantly, it has not been published in the peer-reviewed literature,
> which means that for all intensive purposes, it has not been studied
> properly.

That does not seem to be bothering the more than 625,550 folks who have
used this method for more than 5 years to realize their "ideal" body
weight so why does it bother you intensively?

For all intents and purposes, the 2PD-OMER Approach has been studied
properly and you know this because you voiced false concerns more than 5
years ago that the study would not be properly conducted and yet here we
are, study completed.

> I know you state that you have a database to track all the people who
> participated and not one of them gained weight. IF the diet is this good,
> one would think that you would publish the work.

The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet but a lifestyle change. As for
publishing the 5 year experiences of the more than 625,550 people who
have made this lifestyle change, you will just have to wait, Jeff.

> Of course, I recall how about 2 or 3 years ago, you tried to do a web study
> until the review boards at Emory started asking questions.

Actually, that was more than 5 years ago. Now you know your complaints
about the study were determined to be unfounded because the study was
properly crafted and more than adequately powered (actually vastly
overpowered) to prove the effectiveness of the proposed lifestyle
change.

> Which makes one
> really wonder how good the studies are, if they exist.

I believe you and everyone following this thread now know that the
2PD-OMER Approach has indeed been properly studied.

At His service,

Andrew

--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2F325D1A
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
 
You know I hate this ******** attitude of people that come into a discussion
group tooting all the so-called scientific methods that haven't been done
this way or that way. Even if you laid 1000 pages of peer reviewed double
blind studies there would always be some argument that the studies were
****.

Let's see the peer reviewed articles that show the 2PD doesn't work?

*** for tat, asshole?

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jeff wrote:
> >
> > "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Jeff wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >> news:1111122355.77454b48fa5aa2d51ae514ac938da5a3@teranews...
> > >>
> > >> (...)
> > >>
> > >> > And so the need for the 2PD-OMER Approach is being underscored.
> > >>
> > >> No, the need for diets that have been shown to work in peer-reviewed
> > >> articles and which have been properly tested in studies, combined
with
> > >> excercise and supervision by physicians, is beeing underscored.
> > >>
> > >> The 2PD-omer diet doesn't cut it.
> > >>
> > >> If I am incorrect, please show me the citations to the peer-reveiew
> > >> articles.
> > >
> > > It is the dictionary that shows you to be incorrect.
> > >
> > > The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet but a lifestyle change.
> >
> > I don't question that it is a life-style change. But it is also a diet.
>
> Not according to the on-line Webster's at:
>
> http://www.m-w.com
>
> > More importantly, it has not been published in the peer-reviewed
literature,
> > which means that for all intensive purposes, it has not been studied
> > properly.
>
> That does not seem to be bothering the more than 625,550 folks who have
> used this method for more than 5 years to realize their "ideal" body
> weight so why does it bother you intensively?
>
> For all intents and purposes, the 2PD-OMER Approach has been studied
> properly and you know this because you voiced false concerns more than 5
> years ago that the study would not be properly conducted and yet here we
> are, study completed.
>
> > I know you state that you have a database to track all the people who
> > participated and not one of them gained weight. IF the diet is this
good,
> > one would think that you would publish the work.
>
> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet but a lifestyle change. As for
> publishing the 5 year experiences of the more than 625,550 people who
> have made this lifestyle change, you will just have to wait, Jeff.
>
> > Of course, I recall how about 2 or 3 years ago, you tried to do a web
study
> > until the review boards at Emory started asking questions.
>
> Actually, that was more than 5 years ago. Now you know your complaints
> about the study were determined to be unfounded because the study was
> properly crafted and more than adequately powered (actually vastly
> overpowered) to prove the effectiveness of the proposed lifestyle
> change.
>
> > Which makes one
> > really wonder how good the studies are, if they exist.
>
> I believe you and everyone following this thread now know that the
> 2PD-OMER Approach has indeed been properly studied.
>
> At His service,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Board-Certified Cardiologist
>
> **
> Suggested Reading:
> (1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
> (2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2F325D1A
> (3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
> (4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
> (5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
> (6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
> (7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
 
"Pizza Girl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1111719893.04cdd9231d5ea3232cd0a3154957a78c@teranews...
> You know I hate this ******** attitude of people that come into a
> discussion
> group tooting all the so-called scientific methods that haven't been done
> this way or that way. Even if you laid 1000 pages of peer reviewed double
> blind studies there would always be some argument that the studies were
> ****.
>
> Let's see the peer reviewed articles that show the 2PD doesn't work?
>
> *** for tat, asshole?

Thanks for the name calling.

For this diet to work, you have to stick to it. I would like the to see the
data that shows that what percentages of people who start the diet stick to
it.

Jeff

> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Jeff wrote:
>> >
>> > "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> > > Jeff wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > >> news:1111122355.77454b48fa5aa2d51ae514ac938da5a3@teranews...
>> > >>
>> > >> (...)
>> > >>
>> > >> > And so the need for the 2PD-OMER Approach is being underscored.
>> > >>
>> > >> No, the need for diets that have been shown to work in peer-reviewed
>> > >> articles and which have been properly tested in studies, combined
> with
>> > >> excercise and supervision by physicians, is beeing underscored.
>> > >>
>> > >> The 2PD-omer diet doesn't cut it.
>> > >>
>> > >> If I am incorrect, please show me the citations to the peer-reveiew
>> > >> articles.
>> > >
>> > > It is the dictionary that shows you to be incorrect.
>> > >
>> > > The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet but a lifestyle change.
>> >
>> > I don't question that it is a life-style change. But it is also a diet.
>>
>> Not according to the on-line Webster's at:
>>
>> http://www.m-w.com
>>
>> > More importantly, it has not been published in the peer-reviewed
> literature,
>> > which means that for all intensive purposes, it has not been studied
>> > properly.
>>
>> That does not seem to be bothering the more than 625,550 folks who have
>> used this method for more than 5 years to realize their "ideal" body
>> weight so why does it bother you intensively?
>>
>> For all intents and purposes, the 2PD-OMER Approach has been studied
>> properly and you know this because you voiced false concerns more than 5
>> years ago that the study would not be properly conducted and yet here we
>> are, study completed.
>>
>> > I know you state that you have a database to track all the people who
>> > participated and not one of them gained weight. IF the diet is this
> good,
>> > one would think that you would publish the work.
>>
>> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet but a lifestyle change. As for
>> publishing the 5 year experiences of the more than 625,550 people who
>> have made this lifestyle change, you will just have to wait, Jeff.
>>
>> > Of course, I recall how about 2 or 3 years ago, you tried to do a web
> study
>> > until the review boards at Emory started asking questions.
>>
>> Actually, that was more than 5 years ago. Now you know your complaints
>> about the study were determined to be unfounded because the study was
>> properly crafted and more than adequately powered (actually vastly
>> overpowered) to prove the effectiveness of the proposed lifestyle
>> change.
>>
>> > Which makes one
>> > really wonder how good the studies are, if they exist.
>>
>> I believe you and everyone following this thread now know that the
>> 2PD-OMER Approach has indeed been properly studied.
>>
>> At His service,
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> --
>> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>> Board-Certified Cardiologist
>>
>> **
>> Suggested Reading:
>> (1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
>> (2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2F325D1A
>> (3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
>> (4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
>> (5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
>> (6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
>> (7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
>
>
 
You show data first.

You want to disagree then produce something instead of just "I don't like
what he is saying and I am going to cry"

"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Pizza Girl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1111719893.04cdd9231d5ea3232cd0a3154957a78c@teranews...
> > You know I hate this ******** attitude of people that come into a
> > discussion
> > group tooting all the so-called scientific methods that haven't been
done
> > this way or that way. Even if you laid 1000 pages of peer reviewed
double
> > blind studies there would always be some argument that the studies were
> > ****.
> >
> > Let's see the peer reviewed articles that show the 2PD doesn't work?
> >
> > *** for tat, asshole?
>
> Thanks for the name calling.
>
> For this diet to work, you have to stick to it. I would like the to see
the
> data that shows that what percentages of people who start the diet stick
to
> it.
>
> Jeff
>
> > "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Jeff wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[email protected]...
> >> > > Jeff wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > >> news:1111122355.77454b48fa5aa2d51ae514ac938da5a3@teranews...
> >> > >>
> >> > >> (...)
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > And so the need for the 2PD-OMER Approach is being underscored.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> No, the need for diets that have been shown to work in
peer-reviewed
> >> > >> articles and which have been properly tested in studies, combined
> > with
> >> > >> excercise and supervision by physicians, is beeing underscored.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The 2PD-omer diet doesn't cut it.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> If I am incorrect, please show me the citations to the
peer-reveiew
> >> > >> articles.
> >> > >
> >> > > It is the dictionary that shows you to be incorrect.
> >> > >
> >> > > The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet but a lifestyle change.
> >> >
> >> > I don't question that it is a life-style change. But it is also a
diet.
> >>
> >> Not according to the on-line Webster's at:
> >>
> >> http://www.m-w.com
> >>
> >> > More importantly, it has not been published in the peer-reviewed
> > literature,
> >> > which means that for all intensive purposes, it has not been studied
> >> > properly.
> >>
> >> That does not seem to be bothering the more than 625,550 folks who have
> >> used this method for more than 5 years to realize their "ideal" body
> >> weight so why does it bother you intensively?
> >>
> >> For all intents and purposes, the 2PD-OMER Approach has been studied
> >> properly and you know this because you voiced false concerns more than
5
> >> years ago that the study would not be properly conducted and yet here
we
> >> are, study completed.
> >>
> >> > I know you state that you have a database to track all the people who
> >> > participated and not one of them gained weight. IF the diet is this
> > good,
> >> > one would think that you would publish the work.
> >>
> >> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet but a lifestyle change. As for
> >> publishing the 5 year experiences of the more than 625,550 people who
> >> have made this lifestyle change, you will just have to wait, Jeff.
> >>
> >> > Of course, I recall how about 2 or 3 years ago, you tried to do a web
> > study
> >> > until the review boards at Emory started asking questions.
> >>
> >> Actually, that was more than 5 years ago. Now you know your complaints
> >> about the study were determined to be unfounded because the study was
> >> properly crafted and more than adequately powered (actually vastly
> >> overpowered) to prove the effectiveness of the proposed lifestyle
> >> change.
> >>
> >> > Which makes one
> >> > really wonder how good the studies are, if they exist.
> >>
> >> I believe you and everyone following this thread now know that the
> >> 2PD-OMER Approach has indeed been properly studied.
> >>
> >> At His service,
> >>
> >> Andrew
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> >> Board-Certified Cardiologist
> >>
> >> **
> >> Suggested Reading:
> >> (1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
> >> (2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2F325D1A
> >> (3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
> >> (4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
> >> (5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
> >> (6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
> >> (7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
> >
> >
>
>
 
"Pizza Girl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1111790052.50efbef85fca678c383bb52568a5c999@teranews...
> You show data first.
>
> You want to disagree then produce something instead of just "I don't like
> what he is saying and I am going to cry"

You've got it backwards. Chung is making a claim. It is up to him support
his claim.


And if you read this thread carefully, I have asked him for the cites, and
*HE* says they don't exist.

Jeff
 
The proof is in the pudding. He gave you resources for the success. You
chose not to believe them. Nothing will convince you it works anyway, so
there is no point trying.

"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
>
> "Pizza Girl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1111790052.50efbef85fca678c383bb52568a5c999@teranews...
> > You show data first.
> >
> > You want to disagree then produce something instead of just "I don't
like
> > what he is saying and I am going to cry"
>
> You've got it backwards. Chung is making a claim. It is up to him support
> his claim.
>
>
> And if you read this thread carefully, I have asked him for the cites, and
> *HE* says they don't exist.
>
> Jeff
>
>
 
Pizza Girl wrote:

> The proof is in the pudding. He gave you resources for the success. You
> chose not to believe them. Nothing will convince you it works anyway, so
> there is no point trying.

This is funny. Several people have told you that carbs aren't necessary
and nothing they say will convince you. You even misuse definitions to
suit yourself. You're precisely guilty of the same thing you assail Jeff
for.

And Chung's numbers went from his saying that 90,000 people were doing
his diet a few months ago, to more than 600,000 today - that he says
have been doing his silly diet for more than 5 years.

And he makes reference to a study and says it's complete but nowhere are
the results available. He makes many assertions but shows no more
substance than your repetitions about fiber being an "essential
nutrient" without knowing what that means.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but for someone with such finely
honed prejudices and doomsaying about foods, your "Pizza Girl" handle is
kinda funny.

Pastorio

> "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%[email protected]...
>
>>"Pizza Girl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:1111790052.50efbef85fca678c383bb52568a5c999@teranews...
>>
>>>You show data first.
>>>
>>>You want to disagree then produce something instead of just "I don't
>
> like
>
>>>what he is saying and I am going to cry"
>>
>>You've got it backwards. Chung is making a claim. It is up to him support
>>his claim.
>>
>>
>>And if you read this thread carefully, I have asked him for the cites, and
>>*HE* says they don't exist.
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>>
>
>
>
 
"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> Pizza Girl wrote:
>
> > The proof is in the pudding. He gave you resources for the success. You
> > chose not to believe them. Nothing will convince you it works anyway, so
> > there is no point trying.
>
> This is funny. Several people have told you that carbs aren't necessary
> and nothing they say will convince you. You even misuse definitions to
> suit yourself. You're precisely guilty of the same thing you assail Jeff
> for.
>
> And Chung's numbers went from his saying that 90,000 people were doing
> his diet a few months ago, to more than 600,000 today - that he says
> have been doing his silly diet for more than 5 years.

In truth, I had written *more* than 90,000 people (and growing) a number
of months ago. Now I am writting more than 625,550 people (and still
growing).

Is there are particular reason why you believe this number should stop
growing ?

At His service,

Andrew

--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2F325D1A
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
 
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 02:20:25 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Pizza Girl wrote:
>
>> The proof is in the pudding. He gave you resources for the success. You
>> chose not to believe them. Nothing will convince you it works anyway, so
>> there is no point trying.
>
>This is funny. Several people have told you that carbs aren't necessary
>and nothing they say will convince you. You even misuse definitions to
>suit yourself. You're precisely guilty of the same thing you assail Jeff
>for.
>
You are an idiot. The only thing you have shown is your own stupidity
and your refusal to answer questions. You say that zero carb diet is
ok for a temporary diet but not for a long term diet. I am not sure
how carbs are not necessary by your own definition.

You actually think an active to very active person can convert enough
carbs from protein?

Even if one accepts your argument that carbs aren't necessary does
not mean they are not valuable and important part of ones diet. If
you want to consider it a luxury be my guest. You could use your lame
argument to stop eating vegetables as well since mere survival does
not require they're consumption. Based on your stupidity I think the
low carb diet is effecting your brain to the point of damage.
 
First of all, nothing "effects" your brain. The word is "affects" This a
very common mistake with the malnourished crowd.

Carb are necessary for life and I doubt any thinking, researching
professional will tell you different. Even the LC proponents like Atkins
will tell you that over and over. Try reading an Atkin's book once and you
could talk intelligently on this. Or is it that you did read an Atkin's diet
book and you can't force yourself to eat that many vegetables each day? Now
you need somebody to back your childish attitude.

"jt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 02:20:25 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Pizza Girl wrote:
> >
> >> The proof is in the pudding. He gave you resources for the success. You
> >> chose not to believe them. Nothing will convince you it works anyway,
so
> >> there is no point trying.
> >
> >This is funny. Several people have told you that carbs aren't necessary
> >and nothing they say will convince you. You even misuse definitions to
> >suit yourself. You're precisely guilty of the same thing you assail Jeff
> >for.
> >
> You are an idiot. The only thing you have shown is your own stupidity
> and your refusal to answer questions. You say that zero carb diet is
> ok for a temporary diet but not for a long term diet. I am not sure
> how carbs are not necessary by your own definition.
>
> You actually think an active to very active person can convert enough
> carbs from protein?
>
> Even if one accepts your argument that carbs aren't necessary does
> not mean they are not valuable and important part of ones diet. If
> you want to consider it a luxury be my guest. You could use your lame
> argument to stop eating vegetables as well since mere survival does
> not require they're consumption. Based on your stupidity I think the
> low carb diet is effecting your brain to the point of damage.
 
jt wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 02:20:25 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Pizza Girl wrote:
>>
>>>The proof is in the pudding. He gave you resources for the success. You
>>>chose not to believe them. Nothing will convince you it works anyway, so
>>>there is no point trying.
>>
>>This is funny. Several people have told you that carbs aren't necessary
>>and nothing they say will convince you. You even misuse definitions to
>>suit yourself. You're precisely guilty of the same thing you assail Jeff
>>for.
>>
> You are an idiot.

Such logic. So many facts. Such deep reasoning. And I'm dazzled how
wonderfully your answer connects with the words above. Been saving it
up, have you...?

> The only thing you have shown is your own stupidity
> and your refusal to answer questions.

I don't recall not answering questions; perhaps you can point to them
and I'll happily answer.

> You say that zero carb diet is
> ok for a temporary diet but not for a long term diet.

No. I didn't say that. I actually never suggested not eating carbs. I
happen to like some of them and consume them regularly. I *like* them.
But I don't *need* them. Just like you don't *need* them.

Unless you have some responsible citation that demonstrates that we do...

Maybe you could list some that are essential nutrients that we have to
eat to get. I'll wait. Again.

> I am not sure
> how carbs are not necessary by your own definition.

Read along with me here. It has not been demonstrated that dietary
carbohydrates are necessary for human survival. That is, they are not
"essential nutrients" as defined by the community of scientists who use
that expression. See how simple it is. And, BTW, it would be good not to
make up definitions and then attribute them to others.

> You actually think an active to very active person can convert enough
> carbs from protein?
>
> Even if one accepts your argument that carbs aren't necessary does
> not mean they are not valuable and important part of ones diet. If
> you want to consider it a luxury be my guest. You could use your lame
> argument to stop eating vegetables as well since mere survival does
> not require they're consumption. Based on your stupidity I think the
> low carb diet is effecting your brain to the point of damage.

Given the clumsiness of your writing, the stunted use of logic, the
construction of straw men, and the grammatical blunders, perhaps you
need to look to your diet to see if it's *affecting* your thinking. All
you've offered is insult and heated rejection with nothing to support
your silly, excited ranting.

Run along now.

There's a good kid...

Pastorio
 
Pizza Girl wrote:

> First of all, nothing "effects" your brain. The word is "affects" This a
> very common mistake with the malnourished crowd.
>
> Carb are necessary for life

I guess the disagreement between subject and verb in your few words
above could be attributed to the same condition, right?

But you still don't say which ones. Of course, fiber isn't a carb - or
any other macronutrient - since we don't digest them.

> and I doubt any thinking, researching
> professional will tell you different.

Try Dr. Walter Willett from Harvard med school. Just for kicks, look him
up and see what he says. Carbs aren't needed, but he likes them. As do I.

You still haven't grasped the notion of "essential nutrient" and are
arguing from convenience and preference rather than science.

> Even the LC proponents like Atkins
> will tell you that over and over. Try reading an Atkin's book once and you
> could talk intelligently on this. Or is it that you did read an Atkin's diet
> book and you can't force yourself to eat that many vegetables each day?

How silly a thing to say. Atkins had a good bit of it right, but it was
empirical, immediate and unstudied. Not good recommendations for
scientific rigor.

> Now
> you need somebody to back your childish attitude.

<LOL> As opposed to your diligent, mature, informed attitude...?

Bwah.

Pastorio

>
> "jt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 02:20:25 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Pizza Girl wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The proof is in the pudding. He gave you resources for the success. You
>>>>chose not to believe them. Nothing will convince you it works anyway,
>
> so
>
>>>>there is no point trying.
>>>
>>>This is funny. Several people have told you that carbs aren't necessary
>>>and nothing they say will convince you. You even misuse definitions to
>>>suit yourself. You're precisely guilty of the same thing you assail Jeff
>>>for.
>>>
>>
>>You are an idiot. The only thing you have shown is your own stupidity
>>and your refusal to answer questions. You say that zero carb diet is
>>ok for a temporary diet but not for a long term diet. I am not sure
>>how carbs are not necessary by your own definition.
>>
>>You actually think an active to very active person can convert enough
>>carbs from protein?
>>
>> Even if one accepts your argument that carbs aren't necessary does
>>not mean they are not valuable and important part of ones diet. If
>>you want to consider it a luxury be my guest. You could use your lame
>>argument to stop eating vegetables as well since mere survival does
>>not require they're consumption. Based on your stupidity I think the
>>low carb diet is effecting your brain to the point of damage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back