Re: Obesity May Shrink U.S. Lifespan

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Jeff, Mar 24, 2005.

  1. Jeff

    Jeff Guest

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

    (...)

    > 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
     
    Tags:


  2. Jeff wrote:
    >
    > "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    > (...)
    >
    > > 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
     
  3. Jeff

    Jeff Guest

    "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]
    >>
    >> (...)
    >>
    >> > 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
     
  4. 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:[email protected]
    > >>
    > >> (...)
    > >>
    > >> > 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
     
  5. Pizza Girl

    Pizza Girl Guest

    You know I hate this bullshit 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
    crap.

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

    tit 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:[email protected]
    > > >>
    > > >> (...)
    > > >>
    > > >> > 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
     
  6. Jeff

    Jeff Guest

    "Pizza Girl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > You know I hate this bullshit 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
    > crap.
    >
    > Let's see the peer reviewed articles that show the 2PD doesn't work?
    >
    > tit 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:[email protected]
    >> > >>
    >> > >> (...)
    >> > >>
    >> > >> > 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

    >
    >
     
  7. Pizza Girl

    Pizza Girl Guest

    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:[email protected]
    > > You know I hate this bullshit 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
    > > crap.
    > >
    > > Let's see the peer reviewed articles that show the 2PD doesn't work?
    > >
    > > tit 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]com...
    > >> > > Jeff wrote:
    > >> > >>
    > >> > >> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >> > >> news:[email protected]
    > >> > >>
    > >> > >> (...)
    > >> > >>
    > >> > >> > 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

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
  8. Jeff

    Jeff Guest

    "Pizza Girl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > 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
     
  9. Pizza Girl

    Pizza Girl Guest

    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:[email protected]
    > > 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
    >
    >
     
  10. 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:[email protected]
    >>
    >>>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
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >
     
  11. "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
     
  12. jt

    jt Guest

    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.
     
  13. Pizza Girl

    Pizza Girl Guest

    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.
     
  14. 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
     
  15. 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.
     
Loading...