This method of losing weight is working for me, and hopefully for you too...

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Francispoon, Dec 20, 2003.

  1. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:00:27 -0500, francispoon wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > Steve <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    >> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:16:41 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote (in message
    >> <[email protected]>):
    >>
    >>> [Snip]
    >>
    >>> Thanks for sharing, FP. Sorry you were "attacked."
    >>
    >> I agree.
    >>
    >> And sorry Chung saw this as yet another opportunity to foist off his loony 2PD at your expense.
    >> One could easily get the impression that that, marketing his website, and proselytizing are his
    >> only motives for participation in this group.
    >
    > I have not been following up his 2PD approach and thus would refrain from commenting. However, it
    > was Dr. Chung that brought to my attention the dangerous use of short-lived beta-blocker for my
    > bp, for which I have been 'saved' and to whom I am immensely grateful! None of the 7 doctors in
    > this part of the world at that time realized why my bp was going up and down like a yo-yo.
    >

    Glad he helped you out! He seems to be very knowledgeable and helpful when he stays on topic.

    --

    Steve
     


  2. Bjmpls

    Bjmpls Guest

    "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<
    >
    > Go ahead and ask your doctor about it, Steve. It likely will help you live longer.
    >
    > See:
    >
    > http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

    Let me save you the trouble. I asked my doctor about it. She said it was one of the weirdest fad
    diets she ever heard of, and also opined that it could be dangerous.
     
  3. Phil Holman schrieb:
    >
    > "Brad Sheppard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > No, in a previous post I "quacked" him as well. 2lb diet makes no sense - 2lbs of fat a day is
    > > unhealthy
    >
    > 2lbs of fat a day is healthier than 4lbs of fat a day.

    Now, who would consume 4 lbs fat a day?

    > 2lbs of regular food a day is probably healthier than 4lbs. Do you see how this works?

    I wouldn't be too sure about this. It depends on the person and on what you consider "regular food".

    If a person consumes a lot of food with a high water content like vegetables, fruit, soups or milk
    and is reasonably active, 4 lbs might be just fine.

    > There's no need to pretend being a moron to make it look like it doesn't work. Unless of course
    > you ...........oh never mind.

    There's also no need to imply that other people are either morons or dishonest if they disagree
    with you ...

    Thorsten

    --
    "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution"

    (Theodosius Dobzhansky)
     
  4. Steve <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:00:27 -0500, francispoon wrote (in message
    > <[email protected]>):
    >
    > > Steve <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:<[email protected]>...
    > >> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:16:41 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote (in message
    > >> <[email protected]>):
    > >>
    > >>> [Snip]
    >
    > >>> Thanks for sharing, FP. Sorry you were "attacked."
    > >>
    > >> I agree.
    > >>
    > >> And sorry Chung saw this as yet another opportunity to foist off his loony 2PD at your expense.
    > >> One could easily get the impression that that, marketing his website, and proselytizing are his
    > >> only motives for participation in this group.
    > >
    > > I have not been following up his 2PD approach and thus would refrain from commenting. However,
    > > it was Dr. Chung that brought to my attention the dangerous use of short-lived beta-blocker for
    > > my bp, for which I have been 'saved' and to whom I am immensely grateful! None of the 7 doctors
    > > in this part of the world at that time realized why my bp was going up and down like a yo-yo.
    > >
    >
    > Glad he helped you out! He seems to be very knowledgeable and helpful when he stays on topic.

    From Matthew 5:

    14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a
    lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in
    the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and
    praise your Father in heaven.

    Humble servant of Jesus Christ,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com
     
  5. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 0:22:08 -0500, bjmpls wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<
    >>
    >> Go ahead and ask your doctor about it, Steve. It likely will help you live longer.
    >>
    >> See:
    >>
    >> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
    >
    >
    > Let me save you the trouble. I asked my doctor about it. She said it was one of the weirdest fad
    > diets she ever heard of, and also opined that it could be dangerous.

    Yeah, but she probably has an obsessive hatred of all christians :)

    --
    "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no
    reward from your Father who is in heaven." (Mat 6:1)

    Steve
     
  6. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 2:58:56 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > Steve <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    >> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:00:27 -0500, francispoon wrote (in message
    >> <[email protected]>):
    >>
    >>> Steve <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> news:<[email protected]>...
    >>>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:16:41 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote (in message
    >>>> <[email protected]>):
    >>>>
    >>>>> [Snip]
    >>
    >>>>> Thanks for sharing, FP. Sorry you were "attacked."
    >>>>
    >>>> I agree.
    >>>>
    >>>> And sorry Chung saw this as yet another opportunity to foist off his loony 2PD at your expense.
    >>>> One could easily get the impression that that, marketing his website, and proselytizing are his
    >>>> only motives for participation in this group.
    >>>
    >>> I have not been following up his 2PD approach and thus would refrain from commenting. However,
    >>> it was Dr. Chung that brought to my attention the dangerous use of short-lived beta-blocker for
    >>> my bp, for which I have been 'saved' and to whom I am immensely grateful! None of the 7 doctors
    >>> in this part of the world at that time realized why my bp was going up and down like a yo-yo.
    >>>
    >>
    >> Glad he helped you out! He seems to be very knowledgeable and helpful when he stays on topic.

    Then, again...

    > From Matthew 5:
    >
    > 14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a
    > lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in
    > the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds
    > and praise your Father in heaven.
    >
    > Humble servant of Jesus Christ,

    Chung, is this why you feel you have to get in the last Word even when complimented?

    --
    "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no
    reward from your Father who is in heaven." (Mat 6:1)

    Steve
     
  7. Francispoon

    Francispoon Guest

    [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote in message snipped...
    > From Matthew 5:
    >
    > 14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a
    > lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in
    > the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds
    > and praise your Father in heaven.

    Dr. Chung, I saw your good deeds for the people here who desperately need your advice and I praise
    your Father in heaven.

    Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

    FP
    ================
    >
    > Humble servant of Jesus Christ,
    >
    > Andrew
     
  8. mattb

    mattb Guest

    On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 02:43:33 GMT, "Phil Holman"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"Brad Sheppard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> No, in a previous post I "quacked" him as well. 2lb diet makes no sense - 2lbs of fat a day is
    >> unhealthy
    >
    >2lbs of fat a day is healthier than 4lbs of fat a day. 2lbs of regular food a day is probably
    >healthier than 4lbs. Do you see how this works? There's no need to pretend being a moron to make it
    >look like it doesn't work. Unless of course you ...........oh never mind.

    Would you agree that 4 lbs a day of well-chosen healthful vegetables is better for you than 2 lb a
    day of high-calorie trans fat and simple carbs? Matt
     
  9. Re: 4 lbs of food - exactly - the healthiest foods, fruits and veggies, have low caloric density. A
    pound of mixed veggies I eat only has 300 calories. Chung's diet would cause one to avoid healthy
    fruits and veggies and instead eat high caloric density junk food - big macs, candy bars, fried
    chicken,etc.

    Thorsten Schier <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Phil Holman schrieb:
    > >
    > > "Brad Sheppard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > No, in a previous post I "quacked" him as well. 2lb diet makes no sense - 2lbs of fat a day is
    > > > unhealthy
    > >
    > > 2lbs of fat a day is healthier than 4lbs of fat a day.
    >
    > Now, who would consume 4 lbs fat a day?
    >
    > > 2lbs of regular food a day is probably healthier than 4lbs. Do you see how this works?
    >
    > I wouldn't be too sure about this. It depends on the person and on what you consider
    > "regular food".
    >
    > If a person consumes a lot of food with a high water content like vegetables, fruit, soups or milk
    > and is reasonably active, 4 lbs might be just fine.
    >
    > > There's no need to pretend being a moron to make it look like it doesn't work. Unless of course
    > > you ...........oh never mind.
    >
    > There's also no need to imply that other people are either morons or dishonest if they disagree
    > with you ...
    >
    > Thorsten
     
  10. Phil Holman

    Phil Holman Guest

    "Thorsten Schier" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    > Phil Holman schrieb:
    > >
    > > "Brad Sheppard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > No, in a previous post I "quacked" him as well. 2lb diet makes no sense - 2lbs of fat a day is
    > > > unhealthy
    > >
    > > 2lbs of fat a day is healthier than 4lbs of fat a day.
    >
    > Now, who would consume 4 lbs fat a day?

    My point exactly. It's probably the same mythical person who would consume 2lbs of fat on the 2PD.

    >
    > > 2lbs of regular food a day is probably healthier than 4lbs. Do you
    see
    > > how this works?
    >
    > I wouldn't be too sure about this. It depends on the person and on
    what
    > you consider "regular food".
    >
    > If a person consumes a lot of food with a high water content like vegetables, fruit, soups or milk
    > and is reasonably active, 4 lbs might be just fine.

    In that case they shouldn't have a weight problem and there would be no need to diet. Balancing the
    input/output equation is key.

    >
    > > There's no need to pretend being a moron to make it look like it doesn't work. Unless of course
    > > you ...........oh never mind.
    >
    > There's also no need to imply that other people are either morons or dishonest if they disagree
    > with you ...

    It's called rhetoric. The continual argument plied here in opposition of eating less usually centers
    around brain dead food choices (2 lbs of fat). Probably everything can be shown not to work with
    this line of reasoning. There is always a need for reasoned argument over topics like the 2PD and my
    tactic is tame in comparison to most others arguing against the diet.

    Phil Holman
     
  11. Phil Holman

    Phil Holman Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 02:43:33 GMT, "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"Brad Sheppard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]...
    > >> No, in a previous post I "quacked" him as well. 2lb diet makes no sense - 2lbs of fat a day is
    > >> unhealthy
    > >
    > >2lbs of fat a day is healthier than 4lbs of fat a day. 2lbs of
    regular
    > >food a day is probably healthier than 4lbs. Do you see how this
    works?
    > >There's no need to pretend being a moron to make it look like it
    doesn't
    > >work. Unless of course you ...........oh never mind.
    >
    > Would you agree that 4 lbs a day of well-chosen healthful vegetables is better for you than 2 lb a
    > day of high-calorie trans fat and simple carbs? Matt

    Both extremes would cause problems in my case. Fortunately those are not the only 2 options and
    given the fact that people can make intelligent choices within the weight parameters, I would
    suggest the 2lb limit would work better with those choices for a more sedentary lifestyle. In my
    case, I burn anything from 5000 to 10000 additional food calories a week during cycling workouts so
    I add to what I consider my basal metabolic requirement. I'm 6'2" and weigh 175lbs +/- 5lbs and I'm
    one of many empirical examples of the fact that balancing input/output by eyeballing quantity
    really works.

    Phil Holman
     
  12. mattb

    mattb Guest

    On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:02:05 GMT, "Phil Holman"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> Would you agree that 4 lbs a day of well-chosen healthful vegetables is better for you than 2 lb
    >> a day of high-calorie trans fat and simple carbs? Matt
    >
    >Both extremes would cause problems in my case.

    I was not proposing these as diets, merely a choice between extremes. It is rather obvious that they
    are not good as diets. You can still choose between the extremes. My point was that the type of food
    is quite important in getting good nutrition. Would you agree?

    >Fortunately those are not the only 2 options and given the fact that people can make intelligent
    >choices within the weight parameters,

    That is what I was addressing with my question.

    >I would suggest the 2lb limit would work better with those choices for a more sedentary lifestyle.

    You bring up yet another reason the 2PD is not appropriate for everyone. Do you eat more than that,
    given your activities? Matt
     
  13. mattb

    mattb Guest

    On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 6:04:30 -0500, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>> Glad he helped you out! He seems to be very knowledgeable and helpful when he stays on topic.
    >
    >Then, again...
    >
    >> From Matthew 5:
    >>
    >> 14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a
    >> lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in
    >> the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds
    >> and praise your Father in heaven.
    >>
    >> Humble servant of Jesus Christ,
    >
    >Chung, is this why you feel you have to get in the last Word even when complimented?

    Of course. He does the same with me. He just doesn't "get it." VERY one-dimensional and predictable.
    Remember: religious fanatic. It explains a lot. Matt
     
  14. mattb

    mattb Guest

    On 21 Dec 2003 09:48:38 -0800, [email protected] (Brad
    Sheppard) wrote:

    >Re: 4 lbs of food - exactly - the healthiest foods, fruits and veggies, have low caloric density. A
    >pound of mixed veggies I eat only has 300 calories.

    Exactly. The veggie issue was discussed here before, and totally dismissed by Chung. His 2 lb is
    SACRED, remember?

    He said if you eat more than 2 lb, it is "gluttony." The whole thing is tied to his religious
    fanaticism. He can't admit there would be ANY possible condition where the 2PD would be less than
    optimum for everyone. Religion, not medicine.

    >Chung's diet would cause one to avoid healthy fruits and veggies and instead eat high caloric
    >density junk food - big macs, candy bars, fried chicken,etc.

    Less junk food, more junk food - it's still junk food, no matter what it weighs. Ignoring the type
    of food is BAD medical advice.

    OK, Chung, here's your golden opportunity to spam us yet again about your diet. <g> I'm ABSOLUTELY
    certain you can't resist. As we will see, this is the truth. <g> It is time to hop aboard and give
    us your usual vague stuff about the diet. As always, don't provide any medical publications to back
    up your diet. Just remind us about how you "know the truth" about everything. Matt
     
  15. Phil Holman

    Phil Holman Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:02:05 GMT, "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >> Would you agree that 4 lbs a day of well-chosen healthful
    vegetables
    > >> is better for you than 2 lb a day of high-calorie trans fat and
    simple
    > >> carbs? Matt
    > >
    > >Both extremes would cause problems in my case.
    >
    > I was not proposing these as diets, merely a choice between extremes. It is rather obvious that
    > they are not good as diets. You can still choose between the extremes. My point was that the type
    > of food is quite important in getting good nutrition. Would you agree?

    Yes I would agree.

    >
    > >Fortunately those are not the only 2 options and given the fact that people can make
    intelligent
    > >choices within the weight parameters,
    >
    > That is what I was addressing with my question.
    >
    > >I would suggest the 2lb limit would work better with those choices for a more sedentary
    > >lifestyle.
    >
    > You bring up yet another reason the 2PD is not appropriate for everyone. Do you eat more than
    > that, given your activities?

    I most certainly do but please find where the main proponent of this diet states that it's
    application is absolute. I think he is accused of saying many things, including food content doesn't
    matter, when in fact it's the opponents of this diet who take this as read. The basic premise is
    that we eat more than we burn so a diet that is basically saying eat less food is absolutely correct
    to the first order. Secondary effects would be to address a balance between food groups and
    vitamins/minerals. Third order to address personal health considerations/food allergies etc.

    Phil Holman
     
  16. Bob Pastorio

    Bob Pastorio Guest

    Phil Holman wrote:

    > <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:02:05 GMT, "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>Would you agree that 4 lbs a day of well-chosen healthful
    > > vegetables is better for you than 2 lb a day of high-calorie trans fat and simple carbs?
    >>>>Matt
    >>>
    >>>Both extremes would cause problems in my case.
    >>
    >>I was not proposing these as diets, merely a choice between extremes. It is rather obvious that
    >>they are not good as diets. You can still choose between the extremes. My point was that the type
    >>of food is quite important in getting good nutrition. Would you agree?
    >
    > Yes I would agree.
    >
    >>>Fortunately those are not the only 2 options and given the fact that people can make
    > > intelligent choices within the weight parameters,
    >>
    >>That is what I was addressing with my question.
    >>
    >>
    >>>I would suggest the 2lb limit would work better with those choices for a more sedentary
    >>>lifestyle.
    >>
    >>You bring up yet another reason the 2PD is not appropriate for everyone. Do you eat more than
    >>that, given your activities?
    >
    > I most certainly do but please find where the main proponent of this diet states that it's
    > application is absolute. I think he is accused of saying many things, including food content
    > doesn't matter, when in fact it's the opponents of this diet who take this as read.

    Phil, Chung has said that eating more than 2 pounds of food a day is gluttony. He has implied (never
    said directly, as is his wont) in response to direct questions that no one needs more than that. He
    once made the observation that the height difference between two people of (IIRC) of somewhere
    around a foot was just a small percentage difference, apparently not thinking of them as 3-
    dimensional with that cube measurement as the real difference.

    He has said that just cutting back on whatever people are eating now to 2 pounds would help them
    lose weight. Hard to argue with that, but he considers no other implications of his diet. And he
    considers nothing about long-term effects beyond saying that he has many patients that do well on it
    with no failures. No documentation, no supporting data.

    > The basic premise is that we eat more than we burn so a diet that is basically saying eat less
    > food is absolutely correct to the first order.

    Well, it is for those who do eat too much. Not all fall into that category, but Chung makes no
    distinctions between a weight loss regimen and an ongoing lifestyle approach.

    > Secondary effects would be to address a balance between food groups and vitamins/minerals.

    He steadfastly refuses to address this saying only that "common sense" should be the guiding
    principle. That's all well and good if you're knowledgeable about nutrition, but those folks who
    aren't are immediately in trouble. Now Chung is telling people to confer with their doctors about it
    and said that it was out there in "the public domain" and they should have heard about it by now.
    I've asked nutritionists, doctors, food and nutrition writers (I am one) and personal trainers about
    it. They unanimously condemn the idea as too superficial.

    > Third order to address personal health considerations/food allergies etc.

    Disease and allergic conditions are, de facto, first in my view.
     
  17. Phil Holman schrieb:
    >
    > "Thorsten Schier" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]firemail.de...
    > >
    > >
    > > Phil Holman schrieb:
    > > >
    > > > "Brad Sheppard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > No, in a previous post I "quacked" him as well. 2lb diet makes no sense - 2lbs of fat a day
    > > > > is unhealthy
    > > >
    > > > 2lbs of fat a day is healthier than 4lbs of fat a day.
    > >
    > > Now, who would consume 4 lbs fat a day?
    >
    > My point exactly. It's probably the same mythical person who would consume 2lbs of fat on the 2PD.

    And what about a person that eats 200 g of chocolate and 100 g of almonds per day, plus some other
    food like pasta, pizza, bread, sausages, meat and the like?

    Such a person would probably consume way more than 2000 calories per day (the chocolate and the
    almonds alone amount to 1700-1800) and yet not exceeding 2 lbs. Most people would find it hard to
    lose weight on such a diet. And this diet is hardly "mythical" or farfetched.

    > >
    > > > 2lbs of regular food a day is probably healthier than 4lbs. Do you
    > see
    > > > how this works?
    > >
    > > I wouldn't be too sure about this. It depends on the person and on
    > what
    > > you consider "regular food".
    > >
    > > If a person consumes a lot of food with a high water content like vegetables, fruit, soups or
    > > milk and is reasonably active, 4 lbs might be just fine.
    >
    > In that case they shouldn't have a weight problem and there would be no need to diet. Balancing
    > the input/output equation is key.

    So this person must be doing something right. Wouldn't it be a good idea to try to do the same
    instead of restricting oneself to an arbitrarly chosen amount of food like 2 lbs?

    > >
    > > > There's no need to pretend being a moron to make it look like it doesn't work. Unless of
    > > > course you ...........oh never mind.
    > >
    > > There's also no need to imply that other people are either morons or dishonest if they disagree
    > > with you ...
    >
    > It's called rhetoric. The continual argument plied here in opposition of eating less usually
    > centers around brain dead food choices (2 lbs of fat).

    I think noone here would argue against eating less for persons who simply eat too much. Most persons
    however just seem to eat all the wrong things. They might profit more from healthier food choices
    then from eating just less of the wrong things.

    Thorsten

    --
    "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution"

    (Theodosius Dobzhansky)
     
  18. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:12:55 -0500, Phil Holman wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    [Snip]

    >> You bring up yet another reason the 2PD is not appropriate for everyone. Do you eat more than
    >> that, given your activities?
    >
    > I most certainly do but please find where the main proponent of this diet states that it's
    > application is absolute.

    How about "the climbers consumed only 10 lbs of food per week. That's less than 2 lbs. of food per
    day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I think it is safe to assume that 2 lbs. per
    day should be more than adequate for us non-climbing folks." (direct quote from Chung's site).

    Are you a "non-climbing folk"? Then two pounds is "more than adequate" for you. And even if you are
    a "climbing folk", it is adequate. Who is left?

    The whole point of the Two Pound Diet is, well, Two Pounds... how could that be made any clearer?
    Otherwise it would be called the "Eat Less Diet". How much less? Well, um, you know, _less_... use
    your "common sense"... adjust it to whatever seems right.

    The only interpretation of the 2PD which can be considered as other than a trivial repetition of a
    common nostrum is if Two Pounds _means_ Two Pounds. Then, again, with Chung things never mean what
    they seem to
    :)

    If you accept the "logic" behind the Two Pound Diet, then you must accept the "logic" behind the Two
    Foot Diet (see below), which has the advantage of being much easier to follow :)

    I developed the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) as a replacement for Dr. Chung's Amazing Logic Defying
    Two Pound Diet to avoid having to carry a scale around.

    Inspired by Dr. Chung's scientific approach, as described on his website, in 2003, my wife and I
    attended an IMAX film about climbing the Bavarian Alps and learned that despite their exhausting
    regimen, the climbers consumed only 10 packages of wieners per week. That's less than 2 feet of
    wieners per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I think it is safe to assume that
    2 feet of food per day should be more than adequate for us non-climbing folks.

    So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese friends in my neighborhood. I gave them
    ordinary 6 inch rulers with instructions to measure the length of everything substantial that passed
    into their mouths. The only things exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What I learned was
    that my obese friends were consuming between 8 to 12 feet of food per day! At the time, I was about
    10 lbs. over my ideal body weight so I decided to find out how much I was eating per day... 3 feet.
    I cut back to less than 2 feet and was at my proper weight in one month.

    My friends have responded similarly except they have taken longer because of having to lose more
    weight. Admittedly, some of my obese friends were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be
    the ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally loosing their 6 inch rulers and taking
    weeks to buy replacements.

    So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's longest dimension, and keep the
    total length to less than two feet per day. That's all there is. No scales, no counting calories
    or carbohydrates. Heck, if you loose your ruler, you can even use the first joint of your thumb
    to measure.

    I am making this diet available as a public service and without compensation.

    If you have any questions, just see Dr. Chung's helpful FAQ and substitute "Two Feet" for "Two
    Pounds" everywhere... what could be simpler?

    "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of midgets"

    --
    "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no
    reward from your Father who is in heaven." (Mat 6:1)

    Steve
     
  19. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 12:52:46 -0500, Phil Holman wrote
    (in message <[email protected]sread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>):

    > Balancing the input/output equation is key.

    Exactly.

    Now please go to Chung's site (here's the link: http://heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp) and point out
    where he says anything about balancing the input/output equation.

    In fact, since the input is only measured in weight, it can only be balanced if the output is
    measured in weight. Two Pounds in must somehow translate into Two Pounds out. Good luck :)

    The problem with debating this is that it gives Chung's absurd, gratuitous Two Pound Assertion the
    status of something which an informed person would take seriously.

    Maybe that's the reason he spams it here... crafty devil :) However, if I were his marketing
    consultant, I would probably advise him to take it to the National Enquirer. There he would find a
    ready-made, gullable, audience, not prone to asking embarrassing questions, and it would fit right
    in with the Aliens and Elvis sightings.

    --
    "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no
    reward from your Father who is in heaven." (Mat 6:1)

    Steve
     
  20. mattb

    mattb Guest

    On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 01:31:29 +0100, Thorsten Schier
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Such a person would probably consume way more than 2000 calories per day (the chocolate and the
    >almonds alone amount to 1700-1800) and yet not exceeding 2 lbs. Most people would find it hard to
    >lose weight on such a diet. And this diet is hardly "mythical" or farfetched.

    I know some rather large people who are just as you describe. Junk food all the time.

    >They might profit more from healthier food choices then from eating just less of the wrong things.

    Bingo! You got it! Matt
     
Loading...