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. Phil Holman

    Phil Holman Guest

    "Thorsten Schier" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    > Phil Holman schrieb:
    > >
    > > "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.
    >
    > 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.

    It's a real stretch of the imagination for someone who is intending to lose or maintain weight.

    >
    > > >
    > > > > 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?
    >

    It isn't working so far and from what I witness it's not about what kind of food, it's too much food
    and especially at this time of year.

    > > >
    > > > > 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 none 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.

    So how much information and how many diet plans are out their making good money by advising
    healthier food choices. I can't speak for the rest of the world but here in the US it isn't working.

    Phil Holman
     


  2. Phil Holman

    Phil Holman Guest

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

    Isn't this the crux of maintaining bodyweight yet you appear to poopah it.

    >
    > 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.
    >

    Unfortunately, only in America where it is needed the most is such a notion absurd. Have you ever
    heard of Occam's Razor?

    > 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.
    >

    Meanwhile the average weight of all people in the US creeps up.

    Phil Holman
     
  3. mattb

    mattb Guest

    On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 22:12:55 GMT, "Phil Holman"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> 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.

    It has been said or implied multiple times. Easiest is to search for "gluttony" where he says any
    more than 2 lb is gluttony. If you are willing to wade through the hundreds of responses, you will
    find them. Large religious component to this, too. If you do wade through, tell us what you think.

    >I think he is accused of saying many things, including food content doesn't matter,

    When asked if food type matters his reply is always either "2LB" or "common sense" or "ask your
    doctor". He did not address this issue in any meaningful way. Excluding "I know the truth" of
    course. <g>

    >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.

    If you are referring to calories, few would disagree. I don't know if you would get much agreement
    in measuring only weight. Veggies are quite heavy for the calories they contain.

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

    This is really off topic, but the type has a great deal to do with the success of the diet. It is
    more than a casual discussion to cover the points adequately, and it is off topic here. If you wish
    to continue this, I'd suggest moving it to sci.med.nutrition, where it is on topic.

    OK, Chung, here's your cue to jump in and spam us yet again. <g> Matt
     
  4. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 0:10:52 -0500, Phil Holman wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

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

    Did I miss where you pointed this out?

    >> 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 :)
    >
    > Isn't this the crux of maintaining bodyweight yet you appear to poopah it.

    I'm trying hard to give you the benefit of the doubt here, Phil. How would you propose weighing the
    "output" to balance the equation? Or am I just missing a really great pun in "poopah" :)

    What exactly is the input/output equation of which you speak? The only one I am familiar with is
    "calories in = calories retained as fat + calories 'burned' + calories excreted". This has a
    practical application because by knowing the calories 'burned' and ignoring the calories excreted as
    a second order effect one can figure out the required calories in to end up with zero calories
    retained as fat or to loose a given amount of fat. That is useful information.

    What do I do with the knowledge that I have just eaten two pounds of food? Will I gain weight? Will
    I loose it? How much?

    Help me out here.

    >> 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.

    > Unfortunately, only in America where it is needed the most is such a notion absurd. Have you ever
    > heard of Occam's Razor?

    As a matter of fact I have. But I'm having difficulty finding any application of it here. Perhaps
    you could elaborate.

    >> 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.
    >>
    >
    > Meanwhile the average weight of all people in the US creeps up.

    Indeed. And the sun continues to rise and set and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and
    Chung gets Humbler. What's your point?

    --

    Steve
     
  5. Phil Holman

    Phil Holman Guest

    "Bob Pastorio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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.

    Hello Bob, all these people you mention are failing with their current methods don't you think? And
    yet they unanimously condemn the idea. Excuse me if I don't give them much credibility.

    >
    > > Third order to address personal health considerations/food allergies etc.
    >
    > Disease and allergic conditions are, de facto, first in my view.

    I get the distinct impression this is more about discrediting Dr Chung than anything else. It would
    be more constructive to fill in the holes of such a reduced intake diet and make sure it's
    nutritional and healthy and results in a desired weight loss. I was a proponent of less food a long
    time before I started posting to this NG or ever heard of the 2PD. Less food is not a very popular a
    notion, or as most of my colleagues complain, no fun. And there we have it. The pot-lucks we've had
    over the last week are a testimony to the problem of overeating. It's ironic that as I type, there
    is a commercial on TV for Cortislim, take a pill and all your weight problems will disappear. More
    BS served up from the so called medical/scientific/health professionals no doubt, where success is
    measured in double or triple digit margins at each quarterly business review. Merry Xmas.

    Phil Holman
     
  6. "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "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.
    >
    > Phil Holman

    Your restraint from the ad hominem is commendable :)

    Humbly,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com
     
  7. [email protected] (bjmpls) wrote in message news:<[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.

    Truth be told, I get lots of emails from physician-colleagues about the 2PD approach. There is
    skepticism about "die-hard" obese patients having enough "willpower" but there has been *no*
    question about the safety of this approach especially with there is doctor supervision per the
    "instructions".

    If you are writing truthfully about your doctor's opinion, I would encourage you to have your doctor
    email me with her concerns. Until then, please excuse my doubting that you are truthful. My
    scepticism is founded on your past comments.

    Humbly,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com
     
  8. [email protected] (francispoon) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > [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.

    The glory is all God's. Thank you for praising Him.

    > Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
    >
    > FP

    May God bless you similarly :)

    Humbly,

    Andrew

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

    mattb Guest

    On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:44:09 GMT, "Phil Holman"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> 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.
    >
    >Hello Bob, all these people you mention are failing with their current methods don't you think?

    PMFJI, but no, they are not failing. See SMN for good diet and nutrition information as one of many
    examples. Doctors I know have also suggested diets that work well. I know quite a few people who
    have had success with Zone, Atkins, and other commercial diets. A number of approaches work well for
    people who follow them.

    >And yet they unanimously condemn the idea.

    Why not ask about this in SMN, and see what they say?

    >It would be more constructive to fill in the holes of such a reduced intake diet and make sure it's
    >nutritional and healthy and results in a desired weight loss.

    If you did so, you'd likely end up with something like one of the many diets out there already. This
    is the missing part from the 2PD, and the part that Chung refuses to discuss in any detail.

    >I was a proponent of less food a long time before I started posting to this NG or ever heard
    >of the 2PD.

    Usually it is addressed by calories, not weight. If you're talking calories, then no disagreement.
    Two pounds, too bad.

    >Less food is not a very popular a notion,

    No kidding. <grin>

    >or as most of my colleagues complain, no fun.

    Neither is a heart attack. <g>

    >The pot-lucks we've had over the last week are a testimony to the problem of overeating.

    Try organizing one where there is healthful food. Not that hard to do, and is fun as well as
    instructive to those who are just learning what's better for you. See who can come up with the most
    nutritious and healthful dish. Interesting discussions can result from this. <g>

    >More BS served up from the so called medical/scientific/health professionals no doubt, where
    >success is measured in double or triple digit margins at each quarterly business review.

    You forgot the food industry, who wants to make as much money as possible. Guess how they do that.
    And then there's the FDA. And...

    PLEASE continue this in SMN. It is off topic here, and in SMN would get other people involved. Much
    better place for this IMHO. Matt
     
  10. mattb

    mattb Guest

    On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:59:15 GMT, "Phil Holman"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> This is really off topic, but the type has a great deal to do with the success of the diet. It is
    >> more than a casual discussion to cover the points adequately, and it is off topic here. If you
    >> wish to continue this, I'd suggest moving it to sci.med.nutrition, where it is on topic.
    >
    >Discussion about a healthy diet off topic in s.c.m !!!!

    What's SCM?

    >> OK, Chung, here's your cue to jump in and spam us yet again.
    >
    >I would more than welcome a comment from Dr Chung on two counts.
    >1/ Is the actual food make-up of the 2lb diet irrelevant?
    >2/ Is it's application intended for more than just sedentary lifestyles?

    I'd suggest wording it VERY carefully. He's a master at twisting. <g> Matt
     
  11. Phil Holman

    Phil Holman Guest

    "Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 0:10:52 -0500, Phil Holman wrote (in message
    > <[email protected]>):
    >
    > >
    > > "Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > >> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 12:52:46 -0500, Phil Holman wrote (in message
    > >> <[email protected]>):
    > >>
    > >>> 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.
    >
    > Did I miss where you pointed this out?

    No you didn't because I didn't. You/I probably won't find it because that's something I said.

    >
    > >> 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 :)
    > >
    > > Isn't this the crux of maintaining bodyweight yet you appear to
    poopah
    > > it.
    >
    > I'm trying hard to give you the benefit of the doubt here, Phil. How would you propose weighing
    > the "output" to balance the equation? Or
    am
    > I just missing a really great pun in "poopah" :)
    >
    > What exactly is the input/output equation of which you speak?

    An adaptation of the first law of thermodynamics. U = Q - W. You (U) get bigger if (food) energy
    input (Q) is not matched by work done (W). This was intended as a cute ruse but it has caught on
    with several friends.

    >The only one I am familiar with is "calories in = calories retained as fat + calories 'burned' +
    >calories excreted". This has a practical application because by knowing the calories 'burned' and
    >ignoring the calories excreted as a second order effect one can figure out the required calories in
    >to end up with zero calories retained as fat or
    to
    > loose a given amount of fat. That is useful information.
    >
    > What do I do with the knowledge that I have just eaten two pounds of food? Will I gain weight?
    > Will I loose it? How much?
    >
    > Help me out here.

    You stand your condescending ass on a bathroom scale. Day to day fluctuations are expected but the
    weekly or monthly indicators will provide enough data to see if you are losing or gaining. I must
    assume you have a weight problem implied by your manner and the inability to see the obvious use of
    simple feedback.

    >
    > >> 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.
    >
    >
    > > Unfortunately, only in America where it is needed the most is such a notion absurd. Have you
    > > ever heard of Occam's Razor?
    >
    > As a matter of fact I have. But I'm having difficulty finding any application of it here. Perhaps
    > you could elaborate.

    The part that says the simplest solution is often the correct solution. Eating less doesn't get
    any simpler.

    >
    > >> 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.
    > >>
    > >
    > > Meanwhile the average weight of all people in the US creeps up.
    >
    > Indeed. And the sun continues to rise and set and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and
    > Chung gets Humbler. What's your point?
    >
    And the fat get fatter and nothing changes, what a ray of sunshine you are. The people who can
    predict the future are those who show up every morning to create it. The possibilities of obtaining
    a healthy weight through a healthy diet are real and achievable. You gotta show up first.

    Phil Holman
     
  12. Phil Holman

    Phil Holman Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 22:12:55 GMT, "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >> 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.
    >
    > It has been said or implied multiple times. Easiest is to search for "gluttony" where he says any
    > more than 2 lb is gluttony. If you are willing to wade through the hundreds of responses, you will
    > find them. Large religious component to this, too. If you do wade through, tell us what you think.
    >
    > >I think he is accused of saying many things, including food content doesn't matter,
    >
    > When asked if food type matters his reply is always either "2LB" or "common sense" or "ask your
    > doctor". He did not address this issue in any meaningful way. Excluding "I know the truth" of
    > course. <g>
    >
    > >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.
    >
    > If you are referring to calories, few would disagree. I don't know if you would get much agreement
    > in measuring only weight. Veggies are quite heavy for the calories they contain.
    >
    > >Secondary effects would be to address a balance between food groups and
    vitamins/minerals.
    >
    > This is really off topic, but the type has a great deal to do with the success of the diet. It is
    > more than a casual discussion to cover the points adequately, and it is off topic here. If you
    > wish to continue this, I'd suggest moving it to sci.med.nutrition, where it is on topic.

    Discussion about a healthy diet off topic in s.c.m !!!!

    >
    > OK, Chung, here's your cue to jump in and spam us yet again.

    I would more than welcome a comment from Dr Chung on two counts.
    1/ Is the actual food make-up of the 2lb diet irrelevant?
    2/ Is it's application intended for more than just sedentary lifestyles?

    Phil Holman
     
  13. [email protected] (Brad Sheppard) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > No, in a previous post I "quacked" him as well.

    When did you do that, Brad? Must have missed it, somehow, in all the din.

    Aren't you the guy who recommended fish oil to someone who was at risk for a hemorrhagic stroke?

    Do *you* have a medical license?

    > 2lb diet makes no sense - 2lbs of fat a day is unhealthy

    Who wrote anything about recommending folks eat 2 lbs of fat?

    > - 10 lbs of salad daily is healthy.

    Not if the person is overweight. There are plenty of overweight vegetarians here in the U.S. Would
    have you visit one of those all-you-can-eat vegetarian buffets (ie Sweet Tomato).

    Humbly,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com
     
  14. Phil Holman schrieb:
    >
    > "Thorsten Schier" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > >
    > > Phil Holman schrieb:
    > > >
    > > > "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.
    > >
    > > 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.
    >
    > It's a real stretch of the imagination for someone who is intending to lose or maintain weight.

    Who said that this person wants to lose weight? However, if they wanted to do it, what would
    recommend? To restrict themselves to 2 lbs? This wouldn't accomplish much as the person isn't
    consuming more than 2 lbs in the first place.

    > >
    > > > >
    > > > > > 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?
    > >
    >
    > It isn't working so far

    Low carb diets _are_ working ... And I even know people who have lost weight on diets like
    Weight Watchers.

    > and from what I witness it's not about what kind of food, it's too much food and especially at
    > this time of year.

    My experiences are otherwise.

    > > > >
    > > > > > 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 none 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.
    >
    > So how much information and how many diet plans are out their making good money by advising
    > healthier food choices. I can't speak for the rest of the world but here in the US it isn't
    > working.

    Once again, low carb diets _are_ working.

    Thorsten

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

    (Theodosius Dobzhansky)
     
  15. "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
    >
    > [email protected] (Brad Sheppard) wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    > > No, in a previous post I "quacked" him as well.
    >
    > When did you do that, Brad? Must have missed it, somehow, in all the din.
    >
    > Aren't you the guy who recommended fish oil to someone who was at risk for a hemorrhagic stroke?
    >
    > Do *you* have a medical license?
    >
    > > 2lb diet makes no sense - 2lbs of fat a day is unhealthy
    >
    > Who wrote anything about recommending folks eat 2 lbs of fat?
    >
    > > - 10 lbs of salad daily is healthy.
    >
    > Not if the person is overweight. There are plenty of overweight vegetarians here in the U.S. Would
    > have you visit one of those all-you-can-eat vegetarian buffets (ie Sweet Tomato).
    >

    I know a person who is a (ovo-lacto-) vegetarian and more than a bit overweight. However, she hardly
    eats 10 lbs of salad a day but rather things like pasta, french fries, pizza, sweets and ice cream.

    Don't know any person who eat mainly salad and is overweight. Most vegetarians I know are not
    overweight.

    Thorsten

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

    (Theodosius Dobzhansky)
     
  16. "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
    >
    > [email protected] (bjmpls) wrote in message
    > news:<[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.
    >
    > Truth be told, I get lots of emails from physician-colleagues about the 2PD approach. There is
    > skepticism about "die-hard" obese patients having enough "willpower" but there has been *no*
    > question about the safety of this approach especially with there is doctor supervision per the
    > "instructions".

    Why would any physician that regards your diet as a dangerous fad diet care to email you, as they
    probably won't consider it for their patients anyway? Have you ever emailed Dr. Atkins or Drs. Eades
    and Eades about your concerns about their diets?

    > If you are writing truthfully about your doctor's opinion, I would encourage you to have your
    > doctor email me with her concerns. Until then, please excuse my doubting that you are truthful. My
    > scepticism is founded on your past comments.

    We only have your word for the success of your diet among your patients and friends. And we
    have only your word about what other physicians write to you. If you want us to believe that
    you are truthful to us on this, you should not be so hasty with questioning the personal
    experiences of others.

    Thorsten

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

    (Theodosius Dobzhansky)
     
  17. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 4:01:17 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > [email protected] (Brad Sheppard) wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    >> No, in a previous post I "quacked" him as well.
    >
    > When did you do that, Brad? Must have missed it, somehow, in all the din.

    Uh Oh... Welcome to Chung's peanut gallery of obsessive christian haters, Brad :)

    --
    "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
     
  18. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 2:27:40 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    >> "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.
    >>
    >> Phil Holman
    >
    > Your restraint from the ad hominem is commendable :)

    Ah, but apparently not perfect :-(

    On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 1:39:46 -0500, Phil Holman wrote (in message
    <[email protected]>):

    > You stand your condescending ass on a bathroom scale.

    Well, I have been known to get a little testy myself :) "Let he who is without sin cast the first
    stone", I always say :)

    BTW, would you call accusing someone of "obsessive hatred of christians" without any grounds an ad
    hominem? Probably not :) You would call it an ad homonym :)

    Remembering the reason for the evasions,

    --
    "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 Mon, 22 Dec 2003 2:58:21 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > [email protected] (bjmpls) wrote in message
    > news:<[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.
    >
    > Truth be told, I get lots of emails from physician-colleagues about the 2PD approach.

    Heh! I'll bet _that's_ true :) Sample:

    "Dear Dr. Chung,

    Please stop your inappropriate Christian rantings, ad homonyms, and pushing that looney and
    medically unsound Two Pound Diet. Your behavior is an embarassment to our profession and gives
    all doctors and scientists a bad name.

    Your physician-colleague, (name witheld)"

    --
    "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. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 2:30:35 -0500, [email protected] wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:59:15 GMT, "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote:

    [Snip]
    >>
    >> I would more than welcome a comment from Dr Chung on two counts.
    >> 1/ Is the actual food make-up of the 2lb diet irrelevant?
    >> 2/ Is it's application intended for more than just sedentary lifestyles?
    >
    > I'd suggest wording it VERY carefully. He's a master at twisting. <g>

    Are you saying Chung is twisted? see http://www.heartmphd.com/libel.asp

    The twisted are often the first to accuse the straight men.

    --

    Steve
     
Loading...