John wrote:
> Bob's cross-post to asd noted and refused for my reply.
Oh, see how humanitarian "John" is? I posted it in ASDL-C for the convenience of the people over
there to see how deeply foolish the 2PD is, how deeply foolish Chung's justifications are and how
much more deeply foolish are the attempts that "John" makes to defend his hero.
For their "convenience," I wanted them to see what Chung thinks of obese people. Apparently the same
that "John" thinks of them. Condescending. Smugly superior.
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:59:38 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:16:11 +0100, Thorsten Schier <
[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>>Fwiw, you and I and others know that I freely admit to errors when I make them (especially when
>>>>>the error may lead to harm). However, God has allowed me to be right much more often than
>>>>>wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>It remains my opinion the greater harm would be to tell someone who is obese that 2 pounds of
>>>>>potatoes has only about 800 calories and that for their dieting to lose weight, they can eat
>>>>>more than 4 pounds of potatoes and be under a seemingly reasonable 1800-2000 calorie intake
>>>>>restriction.
>>>>
>>>>So your saying that the truth is dangerous?
>>>>
>>>>>So, yes, I will stick to my assertion that 2 lbs of potatoes is *about* 3600 calories.
>>>>
>>>>So you prefer untruth over truth.
>>>>
>>>>>This way, in the worse case scenario of an obese person eating baked potato chips (near zero
>>>>>water content), we won't be dealing with a massive 7200+ calorie intake (4+ pounds) that will
>>>>>take days of fasting to overcome.
>>>>
>>>>baked potatoe chips <> potatoes
>>>>
>>>>You must think us to be fools not to know the difference.
>>>>
>>>>>Far better still is to skip the calories and just stick with food weights:
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
>>>>>
>>>>>It's simpler and you know exactly how much you are eating. There is no guessing.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, right, I would know how much my food weighs, which is totally irrelevant if I don't take
>>>>into account the nutritional value.
>>>>
>>>>>With calories, it is more complicated,
>>>>
>>>>Not _that_ complicated. But of course it requires the ability to look up the calorie content of
>>>>a food.
>>>>
>>>>>and because of variable water content, you never really know how many calories you are eating.
>>>>
>>>>That's not necessary. A general idea about how much calories you eat is enough.
>>>
>>>>>There is simply too much "wiggle" room to sneak in excess calories. And, I am certain that most
>>>>>people reading this know how adept obese folks are at taking advantage of any "wiggle" room.
>>>>>This is why there are those who hate the 2PD approach... there is no "wiggle" room... and they
>>>>>know it.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, but that is just nonsense. Eat two pounds of chocolate and you have all the "wiggle" room
>>>>you want on your diet. Thorsten
>>
>>Lightweight "John" is about to show once again why that's so clearly the case. He's going to
>>extend Chung's assertions that obese people are stupid, sneaky and somehow deficient in character.
>
> Hardly. It's my understanding that most obese people do NOT have a bodily disease that determines
> there obese condition but rather, suffer from an excess of appetite and a deficiency of exercise.
> Hence, effective non-surgical solutions to obesity lie primarily in the domain of the will.
<LOL> That's exactly the implication of what was written above. Hear the WHOOOOOOOSSH, "John" as the
point passes over your head?
It's precisely what every person who loses weight by any regimen has to accept and do. There's no
magic formula and it certainly isn't anything to do with 2 pounds of anything.
> Maybe it's not PC to characterise it this way but as an engineer, I prefer to understand the REAL
> problem I'm facing rather than the PC version.
And yet as an engineer, you're willing to fall into the trap of equating two different measures that
are essentially irrelevant to each other. You talk about two pounds in one breath and caloric
density in another. If caloric density matters, as you say it does, then weight becomes utterly
irrelevant.
It's like talking about minutes and tons or hectares and volts.
>>>If facts, logic and truth were available to and used by everyone there would be no obese people.
>>>But yet we have obese people so maybe facts logic and truth aren't enough, even if we actually
>>>had all the facts we needed.
>>
>>Start here. "John" says humans aren't logical. "John" says humans don't use facts. Stipulated and
>>agreed to. Oh, except for those people who do. And for those who don't always, but do sometimes.
>>The rest don't count. Like "John" who is about to show everyone how not to use logic. Or facts.
>
> Humans ignore logic all the time. Reread Bob's post again to see what I mean.
<LOL> IKWYABWAI. Best "John" could come up with on short notice.
Isn't it interesting that "John" thinks that "maybe facts logic and truth aren't enough." So "John"
and Chung think it's best to deceive obese people for their own good.
>>>The "truth" about potatoes is that the caloric density varies from about 800 kcal/kg to something
>>>over 5000 kcal/kg depending on exactly what form of potato is used and how it is prepared and
>>>served.
>>
>>See the brand-new unit that hasn't appeared in this discourse before; the kg? I bet precise "John"
>>thinks it ok to just make up stuff, huh...? We'll get back to the numbers in a moment.
>
> Hmmm....the kilogram is brand new?
No, shitwit, the kg isn't a new unit. It's new to the discourse. Anything to cloud the issue,
huh, "John."
> I prefer to work in either the cgs or mks system of units. For some reason or another caloric
> values tend to be represented using 100 g as the unit of weight. This is neither cgs nor mks.
> Furthermore, 1 kilogram equals 2.20 pounds - within 10% of the daily total caloric consumption
> we're talking about in the 2PD diet.
Note the blunder from "John." He says "daily total caloric consumption" rather than "2 pounds of
food." Remember, the basic premise he and Chung are arguing is that caloric consumption is
irrelevant. Ooooops.
Of course caloric values are represented as # of calories per unit of volume. Both are significant
and dependent on each other. One without the other makes no sense. Like pounds without caloric
density. But, remember, "John" says that 2 pounds is all that matters.
Or if he doesn't say that, then the weight instantly becomes irrelevant.
> So for "convenience" I have expressed myself in this manner. Are you saying I'm trying to hide
> something by this?
<LOL> No, "John." I'm saying you have the attention span of a gnat.
> [major clip]
>
>>"Could Chung be more stupidly obtuse about his own quack dietary claims? Doesn't he claim that 2
>>pounds of food per day will be a weight-loss regimen? Can he just not do math?"
>>
>>>As for the 800 figure - that is for boiled potatoes with nothing added. I don't know anybody who
>>>eats potatoes that way.
>>
>>"John" doesn't know anyone who eats potatoes that way, ergo people don't eat potatoes that way.
>>See about the logic?
>
> Show me where the 2PD requires anyone to eat 2 pounds of only a single food type per day.
<LOL> This is called a "non sequitur" because it doesn't follow from what was written before. "John"
said he doesn't know anyone who eats potatoes plain. I pointed out the implications. "John" drags a
red herring across the trail. This is the "John" who says he's an engineer who likes to understand
the REAL problem. HE can't see it, it seems.
>>And, oh, by the way, does "John" know anybody who eats 2 pounds of potatoes at a time?
>
> I know some obese people. It wouldn't surprise me to see them eat 2 pounds a day of potato-
> based foods.
<LOL> "Some of my best friends are obese people." Poor "John." BUt here's the engineer *guessing*
about the activities of people he looks down on. Good engineering, "John." I bet engineers guess all
the time, huh...?
>>>The other end of the scale is for a certain kind potato chips. I wonder what the caloric density
>>>of an average serving of potatoes that obese people eat might be?
>>
>>Because obese people are qualitatively different than "John?" They eat differently. But wait. Down
>>below, "John" says he's doing the 2PD. Why is that? Is "John" obese? Does that mean he's sneaky,
>>stupid and deficient in character, too?
>
> I have never been obese. Been close though. When I started 2PD my BMI was 29. Now it is 28. And
> falling.
>
>>>It seems to me that the error in assuming a value of 3600 kcal/kg would likely be much less in
>>>error than assuming a value of 800.
>>
>>Right. And why would that be? Because people can't see the difference between a boiled or baked
>>potato and something that comes in a bag? requires too much attention span to determine the
>>difference between baked chips and mashed potatoes? And I bet that "John" has forgotten that we're
>>talking about 2 whole pounds of potatoes. Or two pounds of potato chips.
>
> No I'm not. I'm talking about caloric DENSITY.
Funny thing about that. I introduced the idea after Chung blurted out his Great Potato Blunder of
2004. I said that caloric density is not a function of weight. "John" proudly tells us he's doing
the 2PD and, as an engineer, he has found a miraculous way to create an equality between volume and
composition. Bwahahaha
>>>If you are eating at home you could read the label on the food package to see what you've been
>>>served. If you order potatoes at a restaurant where Bob Pastorio is the chef, what do you get?
>>>You don't really don't have any way to know, do you?
>>
>>The answer is yes, I could tell people what the caloric content of our potato dishes were when I
>>had restaurants. We served spuds baked, boiled, roasted, mashed and fried and we prepared them
>>according to standard recipes that had been analyzed for nutritional breakdown and served in
>>specific portion sizes.
>>
>>Anybody who carries a WeightWatcher's booklet can determine what they need to know. Virtually
>>anyone used to portioning their food by weight or volume - see that, "John" - by weight OR volume,
>>after a while can be competent *enough* in estimating appropriate amounts.
>
> With 2PD you don't need no steenkin' booklet.
Nope. You can eat all 5000 calories of baked chips as long as you weigh them. All 4500 calories of
chocolate. With 2PD you need a steenkeen scale and a good steenkeen memory for what else you ate
today. Or do you keep a journal of what you've consumed all day? If not, do you at least write it
down somewhere so you don't forget in the press of daily business? So at 8:30 pm, you remember
clearly how much your breakfast weighed? And that snack at 10:30 with the guys talking about stress
vectors? And lunch when you were talking with the folks from one of your client companies. You
remember the weight of that food? And dinner with family? They ate normal, reasonable portions and
you had to settle for three lettuce leaves because you used up your allotment for the day?
>>>Ok, suppose Bob actually knows the caloric density. Now the customer still has to weigh each
>>>individual food item on the plate, multiply each weight by the caloric density Bob has supplied
>>>and add it up. Does anybody actually do that? Nyaaa. If the food is good (benefit of the doubt to
>>>Bob here), they just clean their plates and figure they'll be Spartans tomorrow.
>>
>>Or, they could ask any server who waited on them. We printed out complete ingredient lists for
>>everything on the menu along with nutritive breakdown. Since our portion sizes were standardized,
>>the numbers were always very close. That information was available from the early 80's and on, as
>>soon as we computerized our operations.
>
> That's very nice, Bob. But these days, everything has been "supersized".
<LOL> Does "John" ever bother to read what he writes? Let me type slowly so he can get it. No matter
what the size of the portion is, if I knew the caloric density per unit volume, it's an arithmetic
issue, not a quantity issue. And that's what would have gone on the server fact sheet.
And what on earth does "supersizing have to do with anything if weight is the only criterion? Eat up
to 2 pounds and stop, goes the mantra. Does engineer "John" get all flustered when dimensions of
something he's working on change? Puhleeze...
>>But it's rather telling how "John" sees the normal behaviors of people. They guess and fudge and
>>lie to themselves. I wonder who his references are?
>
> When talking about the obese, that's right, they do lie to themselves. They're (they say) big-
> boned, have hyper-efficient digestive systems, are just really hungry today, or just can't resist
> the pecan pie/ice cream -- the whole pie.
Hey, "John." Try something here, mr. engineer. Substitute any other word that describes a group for
"obese" in that sentence. Try "engineer." Or maybe "Chinese people." Or maybe "gays." See where it
takes you. SOunds like Chung and Mu talking about Jews or gays as a group, lumping all together into
one package to be contemptuously dismissed.
If they want to lose weight and have the strength of will to do so, they will. If either ingredient
is missing, they won't. That's no more confined to obese people than it is to anyone else. People
who need to leave an abusive spouse. People who need to get a different job. People who need to
control their finances better. People who need to make a change either will or they won't. These
indices have nothing to do with the system employed, it's all about the people using them.
Your answer is to give them flawed information. All the while congratulating yourself on your
superiority and better character. You're as much a fraud as your hero.
>>>With 2PD, you don't need to know caloric density, just the total weight of everything (that you
>>>eat) on the plate. I have found that after a couple of months of weighing my dinner plate at
>>>home, I can estimate it with 10% or so by eye and heft. Lots easier. Lots more consistent. No
>>>more just cleaning the plate. Success. Happiness.
So, according to "John," caloric density isn't important. Then why does he harp on it and mention
it at all?
"John" weighs his dinner plate he says. How about breakfast, lunch, the odd snack. Does he weigh
them? Add up those numbers for the day and stay exact like a good engineer should?
Hey, "John." Here's engineering: measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with a hatchet.
>>And here's where poor sappy "John" stumbles and falls. Those two pounds of food in his example, by
>>his own reckoning, could be from 800 to 5000 calories.
For some obvious reason, "John" chose to skip over this idea. That the weight is no indicator of
caloric density and caloric content. And that calories, not pounds eaten, determine body weight. Bad
engineering to think that way. It's like saying that 2 pounds of aluminum will replace two pounds of
steel or 2 pounds of nylon and that's all there is to it. Wrong measurement criteria.
"John" assumes that he's more sincere about weighing
>>and then estimating his food intake than someone using another reference like carb counting, fat
>>counting, points or any other dietary regimen. That the others will cheat and sneak extra in. Or
>>that they're too stupid to do their plan carefully. That "John" has a pure heart and an intact
>>mind, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
>
> Do I think you can't cheat on 2PD? Of course not. But I earnestly want to lose weight and I am and
> will continue to do so.
So YOU can earnestly want to lose weight and you are. And you won't cheat. Wonderful. What on earth
makes you believe you're some sort of elite wizard here? Same sort of wacko exclusivity that you
bring to you religious rants. You have *the* truth and no other vision has any merit. Like the way
you drift off to lala land below and preach nonsense instead of answering the questions.
>>But the biggest flaw is the amount of food with no regard for its composition. Does wacko "John"
>>believe that he'll lose weight eating 5000 calories a day? Or 3600 calories a day? Poor sappy
>>"John" shows what a fool he is. Again.
>
> What if the man who was blind from birth that Jesus healed had said: "No, thanks, I don't want to
> be healed. People are kind to the blind and so I want to stay that way." Would he have been healed
> anyway? I don't think so. You have to want to be healed.
"John" seems to drift off into some dreamland where these non-responsive replies somehow are ok.
It's so clear that engineer "John" likes to keep to logic and facts. NOT.
How about stick to topic, "John." Or at least stay in the neighborhood.
>>>Thank you Lord for giving this wonderful idea to Dr. Chung. And thank you for giving me the
>>>strength of will to follow it.
>>
>>Funny thing, "John." Perhaps it's a flawed memory on my part, but I don't recall your mentioning
>>that you've been doing this "diet." When did you start it? Why? Are you obese? If so, can you be
>>trusted to keep to the program? I mean, both you and Chung seem to think that the obese are stupid
>>and sneaky. With bad characters.
>
> Is your Google broken?
No. You're not important enough to use it. I have a hard time remembering the various unbelievable
things you say.
>
>>I'm not sure why Chung conjures you to do these posts. They surely don't help him any.
>
> I'm not trying to help him - I'm trying to help you, Bob.
<LOL> I can see that, "John." No, seriously. It's so clear that by the sheer brilliance of your
discourse that you're going to bring everyone over to your view of things.
Let's see if I can summarize those oh-so-deep ideas you've offered. You can eat two pounds of food a
day and you'll lose weight no matter what it is. Calories don't matter. But caloric density does.
Somehow. For some reason. In some way. But 2 pounds is all that matters. Except for caloric density.
But don't pay any attention to it. Or nutritive composition, either. Only 2 pounds matters.
That about it, "John?"
Bob