Re: OT: Unhealthy Diet - Lose Weight on the "Super Size Me" Diet

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Mike Turco, Mar 2, 2005.

  1. Mike Turco

    Mike Turco Guest

    "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In truth, what you cite confirms that it is the excessive amount of food
    > that is unhealthy rather than the kinds of foods themselves.


    What if they only eat two pounds of McDonalds a day?
     
    Tags:


  2. Nick

    Nick Guest

    tell me more
     
  3. Nick

    Nick Guest

    tell me more
     
  4. Mike Turco

    Mike Turco Guest

    "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > tell me more
    >


    Assume that a person eats ten pounds of McDonalds french fries a day, no
    catsup, and drinks nothing but diet soda.

    If that person cuts down to two pounds of fries a day they are going to lose
    weight.

    That is not the diet I would recommend, of course. I would probably suggest
    fortune cookies because they are a "zero calorie" food. In other words, the
    effort expended in cracking open the cookie, retrieving the fortune and
    (here's the tricky part) bending over and picking up the crumbs is actually
    equal to the number of calories in the cookie itself.

    I call it the... eat as many fortune cookies as you like and still lose
    weight diet.
     
  5. In article <[email protected]>,
    "Mike Turco" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > tell me more
    > >

    >
    > Assume that a person eats ten pounds of McDonalds french fries a day, no
    > catsup, and drinks nothing but diet soda.
    >
    > If that person cuts down to two pounds of fries a day they are going to lose
    > weight.


    Not determinable from the information given. They may just go from
    gaining weight rapidly to gaining weight less rapidly. Fitday shows 2
    pounds of fries at ~1500 calories, above maintenance for some.

    Of course that diet will probably kill them in short order, and THEN
    they'll start losing weight...

    KeS
     
  6. Kevin Stevens wrote:
    >
    > In article <SpBVd.91392$bu.529[email protected]>,
    > "Mike Turco" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > > > tell me more
    > > >

    > >
    > > Assume that a person eats ten pounds of McDonalds french fries a day, no
    > > catsup, and drinks nothing but diet soda.
    > >
    > > If that person cuts down to two pounds of fries a day they are going to lose
    > > weight.

    >
    > Not determinable from the information given.


    In truth, it is determinable.

    > They may just go from
    > gaining weight rapidly to gaining weight less rapidly.


    You seem to have forgotten the assumption that the person has a weight
    that was maintained on ten pounds of fries a day.


    > Fitday shows 2
    > pounds of fries at ~1500 calories, above maintenance for some.


    If you use that figure then someone with a weight maintained on ~7500
    kcals a day will lose weight on ~1500 kcals a day.


    > Of course that diet will probably kill them in short order, and THEN
    > they'll start losing weight...


    In truth, it won't kill them in short order.


    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. Mike Turco wrote:
    >
    > "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > tell me more
    > >

    >
    > Assume that a person eats ten pounds of McDonalds french fries a day, no
    > catsup, and drinks nothing but diet soda.


    Such a person will likely become overweight if not overweight already
    but in time, the weight will level off.

    > If that person cuts down to two pounds of fries a day they are going to lose
    > weight.


    Yes, this person will indeed lose weight as a consequence of decreasing
    his/her intake.

    > That is not the diet I would recommend, of course.


    Decreasing intake is not a diet but it is a lifestyle choice.


    > I would probably suggest
    > fortune cookies because they are a "zero calorie" food. In other words, the
    > effort expended in cracking open the cookie, retrieving the fortune and
    > (here's the tricky part) bending over and picking up the crumbs is actually
    > equal to the number of calories in the cookie itself.


    In truth, it is not.

    >
    > I call it the... eat as many fortune cookies as you like and still lose
    > weight diet.


    Your idea would be a diet and will be as effective as other diets.

    Thankfully, instead of dieting people now have the option of choosing to
    eat less and lose weight permanently per the 2PD-OMER Approach:

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


    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. Mike Turco wrote:
    >
    > "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > In truth, what you cite confirms that it is the excessive amount of food
    > > that is unhealthy rather than the kinds of foods themselves.

    >
    > What if they only eat two pounds of McDonalds a day?


    Such an amount would not be excessive.


    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
     
  9. elgoog

    elgoog Guest

    hmmm... it seems all recognize the importance of a nutritionally
    balanced diet.

    It is possible to eat 2,000 calories a day and be malnourished. More
    than 2,000 mg of salt a day are considered harmful (>1,500 mg salt /
    day recommended for hypertensives). Fats and the types of fats you eat
    are just as important to maintaining your cholesterol. A person can
    exercise have a BMI of < 25, a WC of < 34 and still have too much salt
    and too much cholesterol putting them at risk for stroke and heart
    disease (you're also more likely to get gingivitis).

    There are Americans who eat 3,500 - 6,000 of worthless calories a day
    and are not getting the right nutrition.
     
  10. elgoog

    elgoog Guest

    Oops! < 1,500 mg salt / day is recommended for hypertensives! Sorry!
     
  11. elgoog wrote:
    >
    > hmmm... it seems all recognize the importance of a nutritionally
    > balanced diet.


    Two points to be made here:

    (1) If the goal is weight loss, the "balance" of macronutrients truly
    does not matter.

    (2) It remains controversial exactly what defines "nutritionally
    balanced diet."


    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. "Mike Turco" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> tell me more
    >>

    >
    > Assume that a person eats ten pounds of McDonalds french fries a day, no
    > catsup, and drinks nothing but diet soda.
    >
    > If that person cuts down to two pounds of fries a day they are going to
    > lose weight.
    >
    > That is not the diet I would recommend, of course. I would probably
    > suggest



    Only if he was maintaining on his 10lb of fries. If, as is more likely, he
    was gaining, that might not, necessarily be enough to make him lose!

    Rachael
    176/123/(119-124)
     
  13. Rachael Reynolds wrote:
    >
    > "Mike Turco" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > >> tell me more
    > >>

    > >
    > > Assume that a person eats ten pounds of McDonalds french fries a day, no
    > > catsup, and drinks nothing but diet soda.
    > >
    > > If that person cuts down to two pounds of fries a day they are going to
    > > lose weight.
    > >
    > > That is not the diet I would recommend, of course. I would probably
    > > suggest

    >
    > Only if he was maintaining on his 10lb of fries.


    Given enough time, he would have been maintaining.

    > If, as is more likely, he
    > was gaining,


    There are no likelihood estimates in hypothetical scenarios.


    > that might not, necessarily be enough to make him lose!


    .... or it might be.


    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
     
  14. Mike Turco wrote:

    > Assume that a person eats ten pounds of McDonalds french fries a day, no
    > catsup, and drinks nothing but diet soda.


    Comes in at more than 16,000 calories and more than 900 grams fat
    according to the USDA. According to McDonald's, it's 13,866 and 667
    grams fat. In either case, I daresay there's not a human on earth who
    would be maintaining weight at that level. That would be almost 27
    orders of large fries at 6 ounces each.

    > If that person cuts down to two pounds of fries a day they are going to lose
    > weight.


    Only if the caloric amount is below their daily usage. If not, there
    won't be any weight loss. They might just gain more slowly. Comes in
    between 2800 and 3300 calories depending on which source you consider.
    Not many people are going to lose weight at that level who aren't
    extremely active. I suspect that anyone who has been eating 10 pounds
    of McD's fries a day wouldn't be all that active beyond the repetitive
    lifting and chewing motions.

    > That is not the diet I would recommend, of course. I would probably suggest
    > fortune cookies because they are a "zero calorie" food. In other words, the
    > effort expended in cracking open the cookie, retrieving the fortune and
    > (here's the tricky part) bending over and picking up the crumbs is actually
    > equal to the number of calories in the cookie itself.
    >
    > I call it the... eat as many fortune cookies as you like and still lose
    > weight diet.


    Very sensible. May I have some unflavored gelatin with it? Lettuce...?
    For variety and to drastically improve the interest...?

    No, seriously...

    Bob
     
  15. On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:06:49 -0500, "Bob (this one)"
    <[email protected]> choked out these words:

    >Comes in at more than 16,000 calories and more than 900 grams fat
    >according to the USDA. According to McDonald's, it's 13,866 and 667
    >grams fat. In either case, I daresay there's not a human on earth who
    >would be maintaining weight at that level. That would be almost 27
    >orders of large fries at 6 ounces each.


    this just makes me want to barf. especially after all the crap i
    ate today.

    the company for which i work was acquired by Regis Corp
    (www.regiscorp.com). yesterday and today there were trainers in
    our store to teach us how to use the new computer system. they
    bought lunch both days. yesterday i had a 7oz bacon-wrapped
    filet mignon with a baked potato (sour cream, chives, bacon bits,
    and butter), and a side caesar salad with dressing
    (http://www.texaslandandcattle.com/).

    today was worse - chicken picatta (no mushrooms, extra artichoke
    hearts), with fettucine and a big order of italian nachos from
    Johnny Carino's (http://www.carinos.com/)

    and then this afternoon, a grande soy latte with three splendas,
    and a caramel chocolate pecan tart thing from starbuck's.

    right now i feel like i never want to see food again.

    david
    ps: i've lost 13 lbs in the last four weeks. i'm at an even 200#
    now!
     
  16. "Bob (this one)" wrote:
    >
    > elgoog wrote:
    > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
    > >
    > >>elgoog wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>hmmm... it seems all recognize the importance of a nutritionally
    > >>>balanced diet.
    > >>
    > >>Two points to be made here:
    > >>
    > >>(1) If the goal is weight loss, the "balance" of macronutrients truly
    > >>does not matter.
    > >>
    > >>(2) It remains controversial exactly what defines "nutritionally
    > >>balanced diet."
    > >>

    > > <<snip>>
    > >
    > > Two points:
    > >
    > > (1) The goal of weight loss is better health and better appearance
    > > (because a healthy look is more attractive it is better health).

    >
    > Not as strong a correlation as would be best. In some cultures, better
    > appearance means to be fat. In others, it means to be very thin. Both
    > can be unhealthy conditions. Health and appearance can be related but
    > it isn't absolute.


    Correct.

    > > (2) Nutrition is not "controversial." Nutritionists, the Department of
    > > Health and Human Services and the USDA are pretty much in lock step on
    > > nutrition, the science of nutrition and recommended daily values.** If
    > > there is a controversy it is amongst the quack diet purveyors, not
    > > nutritional science.

    >
    > Sorry. Not quite correct. The *American* food pyramid has just been
    > redone because the "experts" are not in agreement. So many unanswered
    > questions about what is "healthy" eating and what isn't means that
    > there are infinitely more questions unanswered than have been
    > reasonably dealt with. The other issue is that all "answers" don't
    > apply to everybody. That information from the web site is statistical
    > and not everybody fits the patterns examined.
    >
    > There is no "nutritional science" that represents a single body of
    > information. The "recommended daily values" (not an expression in
    > common international currency) vary from country to country precisely
    > because of the lack of agreement.
    >
    > At the same time, even with the strong lack of agreement, there have
    > been some generalities about what macronutrients we should be paying
    > attention to (if not their daily intake) that have evoked agreement,
    > at least in principle and within ranges. Vitamins, minerals and the
    > like have been demonstrated to be important if only because their lack
    > can create problems or even death. They need to be considered so that
    > health can be maintained during weight loss.


    Agree.

    > > I suppose a great deal depends upon your point of view - as a
    > > scientist, or as a superstitious purveyor of pseudo-science, intuition
    > > and anecdote

    >
    > Scientists are questioners, not so much advocates. For every question
    > answered, there are infinitely more to be examined. It means that
    > there is never a final answer in researching - that we merely are at
    > the point we are, and it certainly isn't the end of the research
    > journey. Look at the evolution in the past century about what has been
    > considered good and and and don't just confine it to the U.S.


    Correct.

    > > BTW: All due respect to Dr. Chung, he is not a quack. AFAIK, his
    > > medical advice is sound. We just have different view points on
    > > relatively trivial matters of netiquette and the appropriateness of
    > > unsubstantiated (as in the public hasn't seen the proof) diet claims.

    >
    > Would that it were so.


    It is though you are unable to discern it.

    You remain in my prayers, dear Bob, whom I love, in Christ's holy name.

    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
     
Loading...