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



Thorsten Schier wrote:

> "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?

Because the physician is conscientious. Because if one patient asks, then there may be many of
his/her patients who are on it, who have not asked.

> Have you ever emailed Dr. Atkins or Drs. Eades and Eades about your concerns about their diets?
>

Those concerns have been voiced publically by other physicians already.

>
> > 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, you know I write truthfully.

> And we have only your word about what other physicians write to you.

And, you have evidence archived in Google that I write truthfully.

> 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.

The gift of truth discernment allows me to be patiently skeptical.

Humbly,

Andrew

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

Allow me to correct my oversight. "One places one's condescending ass on a bathroom scale".
How's that?

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

Irrelevant to weight loss?

The answer is "yes."

Irrelevant to other medical conditions?

The answer is "no."

To illustrate:

(1) Hypertensive patient: Dash-type recommendations dovetailed with 2PD approach (if the patient is
overweight).

(2) Diabetic patient: ADA diet recs dovetailed with the 2PD approach.

(3) Coronary patient with dyslipidemia: AHA diet recs dovetailed with the 2PD approach.

The beauty of the 2PD approach is that it is the most accomodating approaches I know in addition to
being the most effective for permanent weight loss in my experience.

> 2/ Is it's application intended for more than just sedentary lifestyles?

Yes.

> Phil Holman

Thank you for your interest, Phil.

Humbly,

Andrew

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

It a dyslexic form of smc.

>
> >> 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.

Phil Holman
 
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:54:32 -0500, Phil Holman wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> Steve <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> 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.
>
> Allow me to correct my oversight. "One places one's condescending ass on a bathroom scale".
> How's that?

Hey, Phil, no need to rephrase :) I'm a big boy and can give as good as I get :) Sticks and
stones, you know :) I was just responding to Chung's usual self serving, backhanded compliment.

I'll admit I was a mite condescending if you'll admit you were a mite obtuse :)

--
Steve
 
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 1:39:46 -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.

Well, then I am wondering why you said it. Since you were discussing diets, I assumed that the
phrase "is key" means that, at the very least, how a diet balanced the input/output equation would
be factor in your evaluation of it. Presumably a diet missing this "key" attribute would be suspect
to you. What am I missing?

>>>> 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.

I am familiar with Thermodynamics and can appreciate the pun :) Actually, I think you stumbled on a
better one with "maintaining bodyweight by poopah'ing it" :)

Seriously, all this talks about energy. Chung only talks about weight. There is no body of knowledge
to back up what he claims. None.

>> 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.

You are missing my condescending point :) If Chung's diet was "eat less and less until the scale
starts to show you are loosing weight", then it would at least make sense, albeit a trivial nostrum.
But that's not Chung's diet. Chung's diet is "Eat two pounds. Period".

Are you big? Are you small? Are you young? Are you old? Are you sedentary? Do you climb mountains?
No difference. Two Pounds. End of discussion.

Phil, does it make sense to you that, as far as weight loss is concerned, two pounds of pork fat =
two pounds of celery = two pounds of ice cream = two pounds of Crunch 'n Munch = two pounds of
broccoli = two pounds of lollipops = two pounds of any food?

Does it make sense to you that if two pounds is the right amount for a 5' teenage girl it is also
magically the right amount for a 6' 35 year old man?

>>>> 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.

Occam's Razor, as I learned it, is "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" which can be
translated roughly as "Plurality should not be posited without necessity." This is usually
interpreted to mean that of two competing theories, the simplest explanation of an entity is to be
preferred. I don't see how it applies here.

It does not mean that "the simplest solution is often the best". But even if it did, it would _not_
mean that the simplest solution is _always_ the best. Sometimes the simplest solution is just, well,
simple. Besides, if you are going to use _that_ as a metric, the simplest solution is to eat nothing
at all :)

[Snip]

> 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.

To say that disparging Chung's "diet" is "not showing up" is silly. There are lots of people
"showing up" and successfully loosing weight... spend a little time in the alt.support.diet groups
(where this discussion properly belongs). I have used the low-carb approach myself and found it
excellent, easy to follow, and efficacious. You can go over to alt.support.diet.low-carb, for
example, and find literally hundreds of people talking about their success. Where can you go to find
_anyone_ having success on the 2PD?

--

Steve
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Thorsten Schier wrote:
>
>
> And, you have evidence archived in Google that I write truthfully.
>
Actually, Google is full of evidence that you do not "write truthfully". Viz., your denial about
Michael Roose, which follows, along with a reference that contradicts the denial.

Let me know if you would like me to post other evidence of untruthfulness.

****Begin post excerpt

a> I do know a Mu. Don't know a Roose, however.

Liar.

See below:

From: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD ([email protected]) Subject: Re: The Roose/Chung clone is the
ass WAS:Re: Chefurka Acts The Ass

View: Complete Thread (17 articles)

Original Format Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb, sci.med.nutrition, sci.med.cardiology Date:
2002-07-08 08:24:09 PST Bob Pastorio wrote:

> Michael Roose wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 20:51:14 GMT, Paul Chefurka <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > |Huh. I'd missed the tidbit about Dr. Chung being fired from the Central |Florida Heart Center:
> > "Terminated for Cause and Lack of Quality of Care" |after only 88 days' employment. Found it in
> > Google with one quick search. |Mikey Roose the Two Pound Moose does hitch his wagon to some
> > pretty shaky |stars, doesn't he?
> >
> > Roll on, Chefurka.
>
> It's really too easy, Mikey. Too easy. You set it up so well. Like painting a big target on your
> lab coat.
>

I do not believe Mike Roose has a lab coat.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Atlanta Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
>

*** end post excerpt
 
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:49:43 +0100, Thorsten Schier
<[email protected]> wrote:

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

My experience too. I know MANY people who eat in good, healthy ways and are not overweight. Several
eat more than 2 lb a day, too. <g> They are wise enough to eat food with low energy density, which
includes some of the most nutritious foods. Matt
 
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 6:58:47 -0500, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

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

Hey - you're getting pretty good at that bumper sticker wisdom. <g> Matt
 
On 22 Dec 2003 18:59:55 -0800, [email protected] (bjmpls) wrote:

>"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> Thorsten Schier wrote:
>>
>>
>> And, you have evidence archived in Google that I write truthfully.
>>
>Actually, Google is full of evidence that you do not "write truthfully".

Religious fanatics have a different view of truth. Ordinary logic and reason do not apply. Matt
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>
> "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > <[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?
>
> Irrelevant to weight loss?
>
> The answer is "yes."
>
> Irrelevant to other medical conditions?
>
> The answer is "no."
>
> To illustrate:
>
> (1) Hypertensive patient: Dash-type recommendations dovetailed with 2PD approach (if the patient
> is overweight).
>
> (2) Diabetic patient: ADA diet recs dovetailed with the 2PD approach.
>
> (3) Coronary patient with dyslipidemia: AHA diet recs dovetailed with the 2PD approach.
>
> The beauty of the 2PD approach is that it is the most accomodating approaches I know in addition
> to being the most effective for permanent weight loss in my experience.

You may see this as an advantage, but it may also be weakness because the quality of the diet
depends on the quality of the dieters physicians advice. That is, if he receives any on this
particular subject. Otherwise it depends on the dieters nutrition and his knowledge about nutrition.

Thorsten

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

(Theodosius Dobzhansky)
 
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:45:37 +0100, Thorsten Schier
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> It isn't working so far
>
>Low carb diets _are_ working ...

Yes they are. At a recent party I talked to two couples who are doing well and are very enthusiastic
about it. I don't favor some lo carb diets, though, depending on the TYPE of food chosen for the lo
carb diet. Food TYPE is very important for good health.

>And I even know people who have lost weight on diets like Weight Watchers.

I know someone like this VERY well. <g>

>> 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.

So are mine.

Hey, Phil, you need to meet people who are NOT in the fatty-of-the-week club. <g> There are lots of
us out there. Matt
 
bjmpls wrote:

> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > Thorsten Schier wrote:
> >
> >
> > And, you have evidence archived in Google that I write truthfully.
> >
> Actually, Google is full of evidence that you do not "write truthfully". Viz., your denial about
> Michael Roose, which follows, along with a reference that contradicts the denial.
>
> Let me know if you would like me to post other evidence of untruthfulness.
>
> ****Begin post excerpt
>
> a> I do know a Mu. Don't know a Roose, however.
>
> Liar.
>
> See below:
>
> From: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD ([email protected]) Subject: Re: The Roose/Chung clone is
> the ass WAS:Re: Chefurka Acts The Ass
>
> View: Complete Thread (17 articles)
>
> Original Format Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb, sci.med.nutrition, sci.med.cardiology
> Date: 2002-07-08 08:24:09 PST Bob Pastorio wrote:
>
> > Michael Roose wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 20:51:14 GMT, Paul Chefurka <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > |Huh. I'd missed the tidbit about Dr. Chung being fired from the Central |Florida Heart
> > > Center: "Terminated for Cause and Lack of Quality of Care" |after only 88 days' employment.
> > > Found it in Google with one quick search. |Mikey Roose the Two Pound Moose does hitch his
> > > wagon to some pretty shaky |stars, doesn't he?
> > >
> > > Roll on, Chefurka.
> >
> > It's really too easy, Mikey. Too easy. You set it up so well. Like painting a big target on your
> > lab coat.
> >
>
> I do not believe Mike Roose has a lab coat.
>
> --
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Atlanta Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com
> >
>
> *** end post excerpt

I don't believe you have a lab coat either. If someone were to ask if I knew someone named bjmpls,
the answer would be "no."

The truth is simple.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
Thorsten Schier wrote:

> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> >
> > "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > <[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?
> >
> > Irrelevant to weight loss?
> >
> > The answer is "yes."
> >
> > Irrelevant to other medical conditions?
> >
> > The answer is "no."
> >
> > To illustrate:
> >
> > (1) Hypertensive patient: Dash-type recommendations dovetailed with 2PD approach (if the patient
> > is overweight).
> >
> > (2) Diabetic patient: ADA diet recs dovetailed with the 2PD approach.
> >
> > (3) Coronary patient with dyslipidemia: AHA diet recs dovetailed with the 2PD approach.
> >
> > The beauty of the 2PD approach is that it is the most accomodating approaches I know in addition
> > to being the most effective for permanent weight loss in my experience.
>
> You may see this as an advantage, but it may also be weakness because the quality of the diet
> depends on the quality of the dieters physicians advice. That is, if he receives any on this
> particular subject. Otherwise it depends on the dieters nutrition and his knowledge about
> nutrition.

For someone who is morbidly obese, it is extremely unlikely that death will occur because of
malnutrition.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
"Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 1:39:46 -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.
>
> Well, then I am wondering why you said it. Since you were discussing diets, I assumed that the
> phrase "is key" means that, at the very least, how a diet balanced the input/output equation would
> be factor
in
> your evaluation of it. Presumably a diet missing this "key" attribute would be suspect to you.
> What am I missing?

You like to dance around the probability that if the folks in the US were to limit their food intake
to 2lbs, this would in fact be a reduction throwing in unlikely scenarios where this would not be
true. Theory proposes, reality disposes.

>
> >>>> 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.
>
> I am familiar with Thermodynamics and can appreciate the pun :) Actually, I think you stumbled on
> a better one with "maintaining bodyweight by poopah'ing it" :)
>
> Seriously, all this talks about energy. Chung only talks about
weight.
> There is no body of knowledge to back up what he claims. None.
>
For the 60% of Americans overweight (30% obese) they don't need to count calories they can start by
cutting what they eat in half.

>
> >> 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.
>
> You are missing my condescending point :) If Chung's diet was "eat less and less until the scale
> starts to show you are loosing weight", then it would at least make sense, albeit a trivial
> nostrum. But that's not Chung's diet. Chung's diet is "Eat two pounds. Period".
>
> Are you big? Are you small? Are you young? Are you old? Are you sedentary? Do you climb mountains?
> No difference. Two Pounds. End of discussion.
>
> Phil, does it make sense to you that, as far as weight loss is concerned, two pounds of pork fat =
> two pounds of celery = two pounds of ice cream = two pounds of Crunch 'n Munch = two pounds of
> broccoli
=
> two pounds of lollipops = two pounds of any food?
>
> Does it make sense to you that if two pounds is the right amount for a 5' teenage girl it is also
> magically the right amount for a 6' 35 year old man?

The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is the statistics for being overweight. We can fine
grid the details when we get enough people to reduce their intake.

>
> >>>> 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.
>
> Occam's Razor, as I learned it, is "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" which can be
> translated roughly as "Plurality should not be posited without necessity." This is usually
> interpreted to mean that of two competing theories, the simplest explanation of an entity is to be
> preferred. I don't see how it applies here.

Your googling skills are impeccable.

>
> It does not mean that "the simplest solution is often the best".

Please quote correctly.

>But even if it did, it would _not_ mean that the simplest solution is _always_ the best. Sometimes
>the simplest solution is just, well, simple. Besides, if you are going to use _that_ as a metric,
>the simplest solution is to eat nothing at all :)

Eat nothing. If we could get them to do that for a week, it's a start.

>
> [Snip]
>
> > 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.
>
> To say that disparaging Chung's "diet" is "not showing up" is silly. There are lots of people
> "showing up" and successfully loosing weight... spend a little time in the alt.support.diet groups
> (where this discussion properly belongs). I have used the low-carb approach myself and found it
> excellent, easy to follow, and efficacious. You can go over to alt.support.diet.low-carb, for
> example, and find literally hundreds of people talking about their success. Where can you go to
> find _anyone_ having success on the 2PD?

Very commendable for a few. 60% overweight 30% obese ....you call that success?

It's been nice debating with you Steve. Have a happy holiday.

Phil Holman
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 10:45:37 +0100, Thorsten Schier <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> It isn't working so far
> >
> >Low carb diets _are_ working ...
>
> Yes they are. At a recent party I talked to two couples who are doing well and are very
> enthusiastic about it. I don't favor some lo carb diets, though, depending on the TYPE of food
> chosen for the lo carb diet. Food TYPE is very important for good health.
>
> >And I even know people who have lost weight on diets like Weight Watchers.
>
> I know someone like this VERY well. <g>
>
> >> 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.
>
> So are mine.
>
> Hey, Phil, you need to meet people who are NOT in the fatty-of-the-week club. <g> There are lots
> of us out there. Matt

Sure, that's really commendable for you folks but it's these that are the real concern...
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health/nutrit/pubs/statobes.htm#preval

My definition of it's not working is the above link. I'll agree it's beginning to work when we (US)
fit into the spectrum of the link below. http://www.weight-loss-i.com/weight-loss-obesity.htm

Phil Holman
 
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:20:00 GMT, "Phil Holman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It's been nice debating with you Steve. Have a happy holiday.

One doesn't debate Steve The Troll, unless one wishes to engage in argument that begins with his
hatred of the 2PDiet. From there, STT, develops circular counter arguments that have little to do
with much of nothing.

Obsessives aren't interested in debate; they are interested in obsessing.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031203.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
 
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:20:00 -0500, Phil Holman wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> It's been nice debating with you Steve. Have a happy holiday.

Same to you, Phil :)

--

Steve
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>
> Thorsten Schier wrote:
>
> > "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?
>
> Because the physician is conscientious. Because if one patient asks, then there may be many of
> his/her patients who are on it, who have not asked.
>
> > Have you ever emailed Dr. Atkins or Drs. Eades and Eades about your concerns about their diets?
> >
>
> Those concerns have been voiced publically by other physicians already.

And concerns about your diet have been voiced publically on this newsgroup already.

> >
> > > 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, you know I write truthfully.

Sorry, I don't have the "gift of truth discernment", so I cannot know this for sure. However, I do
think that you believe what you write to be true, most of the time (with some exceptions, for
example when you claimed to have crossposted for Mr. Pastorios "convenience").

> > And we have only your word about what other physicians write to you.
>
> And, you have evidence archived in Google that I write truthfully.
>
> > 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.
>
> The gift of truth discernment allows me to be patiently skeptical.
>

Oh, well, I have to agree with Dr. Nagler that you don't excactly come across as being very humble.

Thorsten

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

(Theodosius Dobzhansky)
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> bjmpls wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > Thorsten Schier wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > And, you have evidence archived in Google that I write truthfully.
> > >
> > Actually, Google is full of evidence that you do not "write truthfully". Viz., your denial about
> > Michael Roose, which follows, along with a reference that contradicts the denial.
> >
> > Let me know if you would like me to post other evidence of untruthfulness.
> >
> > ****Begin post excerpt
> >
> > a> I do know a Mu. Don't know a Roose, however.
> >
> > Liar.
> >
> > See below:
> >
> > From: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD ([email protected]) Subject: Re: The Roose/Chung clone is
> > the ass WAS:Re: Chefurka Acts The Ass
> >
> > View: Complete Thread (17 articles)
> >
> > Original Format Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb, sci.med.nutrition, sci.med.cardiology
> > Date: 2002-07-08 08:24:09 PST Bob Pastorio wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Roose wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 20:51:14 GMT, Paul Chefurka <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > |Huh. I'd missed the tidbit about Dr. Chung being fired from the Central |Florida Heart
> > > > Center: "Terminated for Cause and Lack of Quality of Care" |after only 88 days' employment.
> > > > Found it in Google with one quick search. |Mikey Roose the Two Pound Moose does hitch his
> > > > wagon to some pretty shaky |stars, doesn't he?
> > > >
> > > > Roll on, Chefurka.
> > >
> > > It's really too easy, Mikey. Too easy. You set it up so well. Like painting a big target on
> > > your lab coat.
> > >
> >
> > I do not believe Mike Roose has a lab coat.
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Atlanta Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com
> > >
> >
> > *** end post excerpt
>
> I don't believe you have a lab coat either. If someone were to ask if I knew someone named bjmpls,
> the answer would be "no."

Here is another string of posts indicating the relationship between "Roose" (whom Chung denies
knowing) and Chung:

****begin post excerpts

From: Pixie ([email protected]) Subject: Michael Roose and Dr. Chung

View: Complete Thread (8 articles)

Original Format Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology Date: 2002-06-03 16:11:16 PST

Sorry folks, but these are some of the things that Michael Roose and
Dr.Chung have posted on our newsgroups. We are as upset as you are and unfortunately some of our
members have also been very upset and have posted somethings that they maybe should not have.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Roose" <[email protected]> Newsgroups:
alt.support.diabetes Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 7:38 AM Subject: Re: Dr. Chung?

: On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 05:07:50 GMT, "John Smith" <[email protected]>
wrote:
:
: |Sorry, I've been gone for a while, but I've seen a lot of talk
about Dr.
: |Chung....who is that, and what's his relation to diabetes?
:
: I am Chung.
=======================================

"Michael Roose" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Especially in newsgroups.
>

> and, shall we say, less than appealing, rampant obesity. Dull clitoral responses and limp penis
> syndrome aren't exactly wonderful bedmates either. :)))))))
>
> What these problems cause is irrational Usenet behaviors and, with that as an explanation, I pour
> out my heart to you who are so afflicted.
>
> Try a popsickle stick and adhesive tape and apply L-Arginine vigorously and directly.
>

>

======================================
Picture your smoldering carcass catapulted back to the ASD mudpile.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Atlanta Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
:
Ted Rodrick wrote:

> LOL. Good point! :)
>
> Ted Rodrick

Yep, I keep my spear sharp.

Back for more abuse, I see. When did your fetish for S&M start?

Don't you just hate it when you find yourself on the wrong side of a
flame war?

Whoosh! ---------> Thump!

Your smoldering carcass has just been catapulted back to the ASD mud
pile
again. Be sure to come back if you want more.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Atlanta Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
===================================

These are things that Dr. Chung has posted on our newsgroups.

Michael Roose has finally admitted that he is Dr. Chung. He and Dr.
Chung
have disrupted alt.support.diabetes and misc.health. diabetes and
posted
profanities there as well as medical information which could be very
harmful
to diabetics. Both of them (as one person) have been reported to the
ADA,
AMA, Georgia Board of Cardiologists, Emory University, etc.
:

*** end post excerpts

Note that "Roose" is no more, having been superceded by "Mu" and then
(albeit briefly) by "Mel Hall". Note also the way Dr. Chung signed
his posts before cloaking himself in his (current) "humble Christian"
persona.

>
> The truth is simple.

I'll let readers of this exchange judge the truthfulness as well as
the integrity of Dr. Chung themselves.

>
> Humbly,
>
> Andrew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back