Very high triglyceride numbers (what does it mean, what can be done)?



On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:50:34 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mack wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:10:45 -0800, [email protected]ere wrote:
>>
>> >On 20 Nov 2003 19:18:25 -0800, [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B.
>> >Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>> >
>> >>> >> The issue here is your claim that "Low fat diets are actually better
>> >>> >> grounded in basic science research". Walter Willett says otherwise.
>> >>> >> Now guess whom the readers will believe, you or Dr. Willett?
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Who's *here*, me or Dr. Willett?
>> >>> >
>> >>> Does it make your claim right, if you are "here", as you put it?
>> >>
>> >>Does make me more believable *here*, now doesn't it?
>> >
>> >NO! Willett is much more believable.
>> >Matt
>>
>> <libelous hissing snipped>
>
>You have my pity and love, neighbor.

you pity those you love? you are strange one.

but don't worry I know you have no love in your heart for me as
evidenced by your anti christian lies and behavior posting a web site
that said I died.

>
>You are welcome to drop by the web chat that I am hosting this Sunday
>(11/23/03) at 1:00 pm EST.
>
>http://www.heartmdphd.com/chat.asp
>
>Don't be afraid. I won't let anyone cut off your ear.
>
>FYI Note: Because the author of the message is an ASD subscriber, I have added
>ASD for his convenience. If you are upset about reading this message, a few
>suggestions:

don't lie chung troll, I am an SMC subscriber, I don't read your posts
in ASD.

the truth is you are quack fraud who is advocating dangerous med
adjustments for diabetics on your quackery web site.

you got fired for lack of quality care from the florida heart center
you worked at and victimized their patients.

you have repeatedly lied about many usenet poster's deaths when none
of them have died.

You have no hospital privileges anywhere since your screw up in
Florida. no hospital would risk the malpractice l;aw suits you would
make them vulnerable too if they gave you hospital privileges.



>

spam of the quack web site snipped.

Mack
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org

In tribute to the United States of America and the State
of Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with strife and
terrorism.
 
Matti Narkia wrote:

> Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:13:57 GMT in article
> <[email protected]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Mack wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:05:24 +0200, Matti Narkia <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> why are you cross posting?
> >
> >Matti has an agenda.
>
> My agenda is to find the truth.

Really?

Have you found Jesus Christ, yet?

> Yours seems to be getting the last word in
> every debate no matter what the truth is.

My success has nothing to do with my agenda. It is God's will.

God's humble bond-servant,

Andrew

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

> 20 Nov 2003 19:18:25 -0800 in article
> <[email protected]> [email protected]
> (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>
> >Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> 20 Nov 2003 14:24:31 -0800 in article
> >> <[email protected]> [email protected]
> >> (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> >> 20 Nov 2003 09:43:21 -0800 in article
> >> >> <[email protected]> [email protected]
> >> >> >
> >> >> The issue here is your claim that "Low fat diets are actually better
> >> >> grounded in basic science research". Walter Willett says otherwise.
> >> >> Now guess whom the readers will believe, you or Dr. Willett?
> >> >
> >> >Who's *here*, me or Dr. Willett?
> >> >
> >> Does it make your claim right, if you are "here", as you put it?
> >
> >Does make me more believable *here*, now doesn't it?
> >
> Does it?

It does. Folks can simply do a Google search to determine for themselves.

> Is your believability location dependent in your opinion?
>

Most folks need direct interactions with someone before they are likely to "believe" this someone.

>
> Your claim is as wrong here as it is anywhere else.

Not a claim but an observation.

God's humble bond-servant,

Andrew

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

> <libelous hissing snipped>

Yes, I pity you. Yes, I love you too, neighbor, as pitiful as you are.

You're still welcome to visit with me when I host the web-chat this Sunday
(11/23/03) at 1:00 pm EST.

Simply click on:

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

FYI Note: Because the author of the message is an ASD subscriber (see Google), I
have added ASD for his convenience. If you are upset about reading this message, a
few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Mack
(2) Report Mack to his ISP ([email protected]) for violating their TOS with his weak
attempts at libel and defamation. Simply tell his ISP that there are a team of
lawyers salivating at the prospect of extracting million$ from those ISPs who
knowingly continue to participate as accessories to the likes of Mack.
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described
completely at:

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

Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet
discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has
been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been
entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus
freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched:

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

From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed
to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived
weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument
soundly at every point:

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

These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion
thread(s).

However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain
parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its
author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try
to discredit the messenger."

Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone
who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value
and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars.

These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following
observations were made:

(1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the
discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve
near-ideal weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight
becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc
(3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
(5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs
of the actual diplomas).

Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to
attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel
him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio:

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

When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful
folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their
fallen hero.

Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as
lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line
third-party resources at:

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

where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims
that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked.

Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon
posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack):

(1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or
accountability).
(2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters.
(3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided
insults.
(4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting.
(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its
author.

and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.

It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed.

It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above
the din of hissing from the peanut gallery.


God's humble bond-servant,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>
> Matti Narkia wrote:
>
> > Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:13:57 GMT in article
> > <[email protected]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> > MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
[...]
> > >Matti has an agenda.
> >
> > My agenda is to find the truth.
>
> Really?
>
> Have you found Jesus Christ, yet?

Please note that Jesus and the bible are not everyone's idea of truth.

Thorsten

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

(Theodosius Dobzhansky)
 
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:32:12 +0200, Matti Narkia <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:13:57 GMT in article
><[email protected]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mack wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:05:24 +0200, Matti Narkia <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> why are you cross posting?
>>
>>Matti has an agenda.
>
>My agenda is to find the truth. Yours seems to be getting the last word in
>every debate no matter what the truth is.

Now THAT is the truth!<big grin>. Seeing him drone on and on even when
he is wrong makes him look even less trustworthy. He seems to think if
he says it enough times, it becomes truth. Sad, isn't it? I can't wait
for his "pity and love" canned reply to this.<grin>
Matt
 
Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:14:01 -0500 in article
<[email protected]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:13:57 GMT in article
>> <[email protected]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>> MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Matti has an agenda.
>>
>> My agenda is to find the truth.
>
>Really?
>
>Have you found Jesus Christ, yet?
>
As usual, you are hopelessly out of line. Do you expect to be taken
seriously or have you resigned to play the part of a clown?
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>
> Matti Narkia wrote:
>
> > Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:28:16 GMT in article
> > <[email protected]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> > MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >[email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 20 Nov 2003 19:18:25 -0800, [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B.
> > >> Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >> >> The issue here is your claim that "Low fat diets are actually better
> > >> >> >> grounded in basic science research". Walter Willett says otherwise.
> > >> >> >> Now guess whom the readers will believe, you or Dr. Willett?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Who's *here*, me or Dr. Willett?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> Does it make your claim right, if you are "here", as you put it?
> > >> >
> > >> >Does make me more believable *here*, now doesn't it?
> > >>
> > >> NO! Willett is much more believable.
> > >> Matt
> > >
> > >Go ahead and *overeat* a high-fat diet then. Would be more than happy to take
> > >your money when you need my services :) Must remember to send a "thank you"
> > >note to Dr. Willett for giving me job security by distracting folks from
> > >controlling food quantity.
> > >
> > You're displaying the typical arrogance based on ignorance. See the
> > following excerpts from Harvard web pages
> >
> > <non-peer-reviewed material snipped>

Thought you would say something like that.

Then for something peer-reviewed:

Liu et al. (2000) A prospective study of dietary glycemic load,
carbohydrate intake, and risk of coronary heart disease in US women -
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 71, No. 6, 1455-1461

(http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/6/1455)

From the abstract:

"Results: During 10 y of follow-up (729472 person-years), 761 cases of
CHD (208 fatal and 553 nonfatal) were documented. Dietary glycemic load
was directly associated with risk of CHD after adjustment for age,
smoking status, total energy intake, and other coronary disease risk
factors. The relative risks from the lowest to highest quintiles of
glycemic load were 1.00, 1.01, 1.25, 1.51, and 1.98 (95% CI: 1.41, 2.77
for the highest quintile; P for trend < 0.0001). Carbohydrate classified
by glycemic index, as opposed to its traditional classification as
either simple or complex, was a better predictor of CHD risk. The
association between dietary glycemic load and CHD risk was most evident
among women with body weights above average [ie, body mass index (in
kg/m2) 23].

Conclusion: These epidemiologic data suggest that a high dietary
glycemic load from refined carbohydrates increases the risk of CHD,
independent of known coronary disease risk factors. "

Please note that the major part of the increase in glycemic load between
the quintiles was due to the increase in the amount of carbohydrates
consumed and not from the increase in glycemic index.

About fat:

Hu, Frank B. et al. (1997) Dietary Fat Intake and the Risk of Coronary
Heart Disease in Women -N Engl J Med 21, Volume 337:1491-1499

(http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/337/21/1491 - requires
registration)

From the abstract:

"Results

Each increase of 5 percent of energy intake from saturated fat, as
compared with equivalent energy intake from carbohydrates, was
associated with a 17 percent increase in the risk of coronary disease
(relative risk, 1.17; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.41; P =
0.10). As compared with equivalent energy from carbohydrates, the
relative risk for a 2 percent increment in energy intake from trans
unsaturated fat was 1.93 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.43 to 2.61;
P<0.001); that for a 5 percent increment in energy from monounsaturated
fat was 0.81 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.00; P = 0.05);
and that for a 5 percent increment in energy from polyunsaturated fat
was 0.62 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.85; P = 0.003). "

So while satured fats and particularly trans fats were associated with
an increase in the risk of coronary heart disease when compared to
carbohydrate, the reverse is true for unsatured fats, particularly
poly-unsatured fats.

> Already seen it and have noted that Dr. Willett is distracted by food quality.
>
> A discussion about food *quantity* can be found at:
>
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
>

Food quantity is certainly important but the quality does count, too, as
demonstrated for example by the Nurses Health Study and the Health
Professionals Follow Up Study, both organized from Harvard scientists.
But as a cardiologist you will no doubt be familiar with the results of
these studies.

And an important point is that the quality can have an impact on the the
quantity. Many people find it easier to control their food intake, when
they eat less carbohydrates, particularly those with a high glycemic
index.

Thorsten

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

(Theodosius Dobzhansky)
 
Thorsten Schier <[email protected]> wrote in part:

>"The
>association between dietary glycemic load and CHD risk was most evident
>among women with body weights above average [ie, body mass index (in
>kg/m2) 23]. "

This is a common thread in a lot of the research. It seems pretty clear that,
if you are thin, you are pretty safe from CHD and the balance of
macronutrients has little effect.

>"Each increase of 5 percent of energy intake from saturated fat, as
>compared with equivalent energy intake from carbohydrates, was
>associated with a 17 percent increase in the risk of coronary disease
>(relative risk, 1.17; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.41; P =
>0.10). As compared with equivalent energy from carbohydrates, the
>relative risk for a 2 percent increment in energy intake from trans
>unsaturated fat was 1.93 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.43 to 2.61;
>P<0.001); that for a 5 percent increment in energy from monounsaturated
>fat was 0.81 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.00; P = 0.05);
>and that for a 5 percent increment in energy from polyunsaturated fat
>was 0.62 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.85; P = 0.003). "

In the above study, strong relationships were found that indicate that
carbohydrates should be replaced with monounsaturated and cis-polyunsaturated
fat. Saturated fats appear to be relatively neutral as compared with
carbohydrate. This also is starting to seem very familiar.

Isn't it clear that losing weight is the central need in reducing CHD and that
reducing trans-fat and carbohydrate is important also, but especially for
those who are of above average weight?

Questions mostly remain about the most effective methods for losing weight.
IMO, the low carb or low glycemic load plus exercise approach is most
supported by the meager evidence, and that seems to be best while one is
overweight, anyway.

So why is the AHA still pushing low fat?
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
 
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:34:48 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mack wrote:
>
>> <libelous hissing snipped>
>
>Yes, I pity you. Yes, I love you too, neighbor, as pitiful as you are.


Coming from a fake christian like yourself, your so called love is
worthless.

seeing your behavior and lies in the newsgroups I am forced to wonder
if that "lack of quality care" reason for your termination had to do
with the way you treated the facility's patients after they rejected
your spin off of christianity. Meaning I suspect that you stopped
giving them what little real care you knew about after they rejected
your cult views. This would not surprise me as it is typical with
religious extremists and fruit cakes like yourself.

Read from SMC, replied to in SMC.
 
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:59:14 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Mack wrote:
>
>> On 18 Nov 2003 19:19:38 -0800, [email protected] (Dr. Andrew
>> B. Chunk, MD/PhD) wrote:
>
>Having trouble spelling, Mack?
>
>Humbly,
>
>Andrew


No, I just clicked okay when my spell checker tried to chang it from
chung to chunk like it always does.
 
On 20 Nov 2003 14:24:31 -0800, [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B.
Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:

>Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> 20 Nov 2003 09:43:21 -0800 in article
>> <[email protected]> [email protected]
>> (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>>
>> >Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> >> 19 Nov 2003 22:18:48 -0800 in article
>> >> <[email protected]> [email protected]
>> >> (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Low fat diets are actually better grounded in basic science research.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think so. Check out Walter Willett's article
>> >>
>> >> Concepts and Controversies on Diet: Stop Recommending Low-Fat Diets!
>> >> Walter C Willett, MD, DrPH
>> >> Kaiser Permanente Permanente Journal, September 2003
>> >> http://www.countcarbs.com/research/stoprecommendinglowfat.htm
>> >
>> >Go ahead and do a PubMed search on "atherogenic diet" and get back
>> >with us about the composition of such diets that have experimental
>> >data showing them to be "atherogenic."
>> >
>> The issue here is your claim that "Low fat diets are actually better
>> grounded in basic science research". Walter Willett says otherwise.
>> Now guess whom the readers will believe, you or Dr. Willett?
>
>Who's *here*, me or Dr. Willett?

well now we know why you think you're qualified.

>
>Moreover, most readers here at SMC are discerning enough to do PubMed
>searches on their own to find the truth. As for ASD, I wouldn't know
>being that I am not a subscriber, I only troll ASD by cross posting.
>
>God's arrogant and dishonest misleading cult member,
>
>Andrew
 
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:13:57 GMT, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
[email protected] wrote:

>Mack wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:05:24 +0200, Matti Narkia <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> why are you cross posting?
>
>Matti has an agenda.

as if you don't.
 
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:49:50 +0200, Matti Narkia <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:12:57 -0500 in article
><[email protected]> Mack <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:05:24 +0200, Matti Narkia <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>why are you cross posting?
>>
>I didn't start this thread. I didn't even know it was crossposted.


I went and checked, it was originally cross posted by the name myo
cardium. who has only ever made 2 posts to Sci.med.cardiology or ASD.
This may or may not be another chung sock puppet. It's unlikely as
the posts from myo are far more articulate than anything chung the mu
troll has posted.

Make no mistake, chung/mu is a well known troll. he was fired from a
florida heart center after only 88 days of employment for "lack of
quality care". That's what the facility in florida stated was the
reason for his termination. Before we found out about that chung/mu
made several posts claiming he was terminated because of some other
reason, and actually let it drop that it was racism. He also posted
that he would let only select individuals have access to his "proof"
if they requested a password and user name for his website. After the
florida facility was notified that chung/mu made that claim, he
clammed up on the subject and has even denied working there in a
couple of his posts.

we also know that he has no hospital privileges anywhere. no hospital
will risk the malpractice suits that would result.

if you disagree with him to much he will make claims as to your lack
of faith in God, his superiority in his cult views, and will resort to
a canned response that he spent hours writing out and then saved as a
file to paste in as a canned response when he cannot discuss with
facts any of his failing arguments. The piece although extremely long
only shows his lack of rational thought. It does his failing
reputation more harm than anything any poster has said about him.
 
Thorsten Schier <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> >
> > Matti Narkia wrote:
> >
> > > Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:28:16 GMT in article
> > > <[email protected]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> > > MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >[email protected] wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On 20 Nov 2003 19:18:25 -0800, [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B.
> > > >> Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >> >> The issue here is your claim that "Low fat diets are actually better
> > > >> >> >> grounded in basic science research". Walter Willett says otherwise.
> > > >> >> >> Now guess whom the readers will believe, you or Dr. Willett?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >Who's *here*, me or Dr. Willett?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> Does it make your claim right, if you are "here", as you put it?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Does make me more believable *here*, now doesn't it?
> > > >>
> > > >> NO! Willett is much more believable.
> > > >> Matt
> > > >
> > > >Go ahead and *overeat* a high-fat diet then. Would be more than happy to take
> > > >your money when you need my services :) Must remember to send a "thank you"
> > > >note to Dr. Willett for giving me job security by distracting folks from
> > > >controlling food quantity.
> > > >
> > > You're displaying the typical arrogance based on ignorance. See the
> > > following excerpts from Harvard web pages
> > >
> > > <non-peer-reviewed material snipped>
>
> Thought you would say something like that.
>
> Then for something peer-reviewed:
>
> Liu et al. (2000) A prospective study of dietary glycemic load,
> carbohydrate intake, and risk of coronary heart disease in US women -
> American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 71, No. 6, 1455-1461
>
> (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/6/1455)
>
> From the abstract:
>
> "Results: During 10 y of follow-up (729472 person-years), 761 cases of
> CHD (208 fatal and 553 nonfatal) were documented. Dietary glycemic load
> was directly associated with risk of CHD after adjustment for age,
> smoking status, total energy intake, and other coronary disease risk
> factors. The relative risks from the lowest to highest quintiles of
> glycemic load were 1.00, 1.01, 1.25, 1.51, and 1.98 (95% CI: 1.41, 2.77
> for the highest quintile; P for trend < 0.0001). Carbohydrate classified
> by glycemic index, as opposed to its traditional classification as
> either simple or complex, was a better predictor of CHD risk. The
> association between dietary glycemic load and CHD risk was most evident
> among women with body weights above average [ie, body mass index (in
> kg/m2) 23].
>
> Conclusion: These epidemiologic data suggest that a high dietary
> glycemic load from refined carbohydrates increases the risk of CHD,
> independent of known coronary disease risk factors. "
>
> Please note that the major part of the increase in glycemic load between
> the quintiles was due to the increase in the amount of carbohydrates
> consumed and not from the increase in glycemic index.

Thanks for pointing out that quantity was the more important variable
here.

> About fat:
>
> Hu, Frank B. et al. (1997) Dietary Fat Intake and the Risk of Coronary
> Heart Disease in Women -N Engl J Med 21, Volume 337:1491-1499
>
> (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/337/21/1491 - requires
> registration)
>
> From the abstract:
>
> "Results
>
> Each increase of 5 percent of energy intake from saturated fat, as
> compared with equivalent energy intake from carbohydrates, was
> associated with a 17 percent increase in the risk of coronary disease
> (relative risk, 1.17; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.41; P =
> 0.10). As compared with equivalent energy from carbohydrates, the
> relative risk for a 2 percent increment in energy intake from trans
> unsaturated fat was 1.93 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.43 to 2.61;
> P<0.001); that for a 5 percent increment in energy from monounsaturated
> fat was 0.81 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.00; P = 0.05);
> and that for a 5 percent increment in energy from polyunsaturated fat
> was 0.62 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.85; P = 0.003). "
>
> So while satured fats and particularly trans fats were associated with
> an increase in the risk of coronary heart disease when compared to
> carbohydrate, the reverse is true for unsatured fats, particularly
> poly-unsatured fats.
>
> > Already seen it and have noted that Dr. Willett is distracted by food quality.
> >
> > A discussion about food *quantity* can be found at:
> >
> > http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
> >
>
> Food quantity is certainly important but the quality does count, too, as
> demonstrated for example by the Nurses Health Study and the Health
> Professionals Follow Up Study, both organized from Harvard scientists.

Those studies did *not* demonstrate that food quality is more
important that food quanitity in achieving permanent weight loss.

> But as a cardiologist you will no doubt be familiar with the results of
> these studies.

I am.

> And an important point is that the quality can have an impact on the the
> quantity.

On sense of hunger perhaps but not on quantity. Quantity and quality
are *independent* variables.

> Many people find it easier to control their food intake, when
> they eat less carbohydrates, particularly those with a high glycemic
> index.

Many people find it easier to control their food intake when they can
quantify the amount they are eating.

Check out the unsolicited testimonials at:

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

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
Mack <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:13:57 GMT, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Mack wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:05:24 +0200, Matti Narkia <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> why are you cross posting?
> >
> >Matti has an agenda.
>
> as if you don't.

Not on this particular topic.

FYI Note: This is cross-posted to ASD for the convenience of an ASD
subscriber If you are upset about reading this message, a few
suggestions:

(1) Yell at Mack
(2) Report Mack to his ISP.
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which
is described completely at:

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

Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this
Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has
been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community
service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen
from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of
Himself to better the health of folks He touched:

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

From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are
vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated
Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and
have lost the argument soundly at every point:

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

These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and
other discussion threads.

However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the
argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2
pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be
"if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the
messenger."

Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll"
is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no
redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting
"flame" wars.

These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the
following observations were made:

(1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting
the discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the
2PD to achieve near-ideal weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when
their weight becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc
(3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
(5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line
(including jpegs of the actual diplomas).

Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have
tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they
were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio:

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

When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements,
the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed
louder in support of their fallen hero.

Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either
actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they
are, using the on-line third-party resources at:

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

where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and
libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily
debunked.

Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning
the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack):

(1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or
accountability).
(2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory
characters.
(3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to
deliver one-sided insults.
(4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by
cross-posting.
(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the
2PD or its author.

and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.

It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to
speed.

It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din
of hissing from the peanut gallery.


Sincerely,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
Mack <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:49:50 +0200, Matti Narkia <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:12:57 -0500 in article
> ><[email protected]> Mack <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:05:24 +0200, Matti Narkia <[email protected]>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>why are you cross posting?
> >>
> >I didn't start this thread. I didn't even know it was crossposted.
>
>
> I went and checked, it was originally cross posted by the name myo
> cardium. who has only ever made 2 posts to Sci.med.cardiology or ASD.
> This may or may not be another chung sock puppet. It's unlikely as
> the posts from myo are far more articulate than anything chung the mu
> troll has posted.
>
> Make no mistake, chung/mu is a well known troll. <desperate attemps at libel and defamation snipped>

Sounds like I hit a raw nerve.

We can chat about it tomorrow if you like:

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

FYI Note: This is being cross-posted for the convenience of a known
ASD subscriber. If you are upset about reading this message, a few
suggestions:

(1) Yell at Mack
(2) Report Mack to his ISP for violating their TOS with his feeble
attempts at libel and defamation.
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which
is described completely at:

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

Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this
Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has
been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community
service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen
from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of
Himself to better the health of folks He touched:

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

From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are
vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated
Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and
have lost the argument soundly at every point:

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

These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and
other discussion threads.

However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the
argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2
pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be
"if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the
messenger."

Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll"
is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no
redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting
"flame" wars.

These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the
following observations were made:

(1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting
the discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the
2PD to achieve near-ideal weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when
their weight becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc
(3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
(5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line
(including jpegs of the actual diplomas).

Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have
tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they
were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio:

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

When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements,
the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed
louder in support of their fallen hero.

Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either
actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they
are, using the on-line third-party resources at:

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

where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and
libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily
debunked.

Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning
the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack):

(1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or
accountability).
(2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory
characters.
(3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to
deliver one-sided insults.
(4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by
cross-posting.
(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the
2PD or its author.

and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.

It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to
speed.

It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din
of hissing from the peanut gallery.


Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>
> Thorsten Schier <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> > >
> > > Matti Narkia wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:28:16 GMT in article
> > > > <[email protected]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> > > > MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >[email protected] wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On 20 Nov 2003 19:18:25 -0800, [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B.
> > > > >> Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> >> The issue here is your claim that "Low fat diets are actually better
> > > > >> >> >> grounded in basic science research". Walter Willett says otherwise.
> > > > >> >> >> Now guess whom the readers will believe, you or Dr. Willett?
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >Who's *here*, me or Dr. Willett?
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> Does it make your claim right, if you are "here", as you put it?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >Does make me more believable *here*, now doesn't it?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> NO! Willett is much more believable.
> > > > >> Matt
> > > > >
> > > > >Go ahead and *overeat* a high-fat diet then. Would be more than happy to take
> > > > >your money when you need my services :) Must remember to send a "thank you"
> > > > >note to Dr. Willett for giving me job security by distracting folks from
> > > > >controlling food quantity.
> > > > >
> > > > You're displaying the typical arrogance based on ignorance. See the
> > > > following excerpts from Harvard web pages
> > > >
> > > > <non-peer-reviewed material snipped>
> >
> > Thought you would say something like that.
> >
> > Then for something peer-reviewed:
> >
> > Liu et al. (2000) A prospective study of dietary glycemic load,
> > carbohydrate intake, and risk of coronary heart disease in US women -
> > American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 71, No. 6, 1455-1461
> >
> > (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/6/1455)
> >
> > From the abstract:
> >
> > "Results: During 10 y of follow-up (729472 person-years), 761 cases of
> > CHD (208 fatal and 553 nonfatal) were documented. Dietary glycemic load
> > was directly associated with risk of CHD after adjustment for age,
> > smoking status, total energy intake, and other coronary disease risk
> > factors. The relative risks from the lowest to highest quintiles of
> > glycemic load were 1.00, 1.01, 1.25, 1.51, and 1.98 (95% CI: 1.41, 2.77
> > for the highest quintile; P for trend < 0.0001). Carbohydrate classified
> > by glycemic index, as opposed to its traditional classification as
> > either simple or complex, was a better predictor of CHD risk. The
> > association between dietary glycemic load and CHD risk was most evident
> > among women with body weights above average [ie, body mass index (in
> > kg/m2) 23].
> >
> > Conclusion: These epidemiologic data suggest that a high dietary
> > glycemic load from refined carbohydrates increases the risk of CHD,
> > independent of known coronary disease risk factors. "
> >
> > Please note that the major part of the increase in glycemic load between
> > the quintiles was due to the increase in the amount of carbohydrates
> > consumed and not from the increase in glycemic index.
>
> Thanks for pointing out that quantity was the more important variable
> here.

Er, no, that is not what the results show. Those who consumed less
carbohydrates ate more protein and fat instead. And of course the number
of CAD events was adjusted for total intake of calories (and several
other possibly confounding variables).

> > About fat:
> >
> > Hu, Frank B. et al. (1997) Dietary Fat Intake and the Risk of Coronary
> > Heart Disease in Women -N Engl J Med 21, Volume 337:1491-1499
> >
> > (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/337/21/1491 - requires
> > registration)
> >
> > From the abstract:
> >
> > "Results
> >
> > Each increase of 5 percent of energy intake from saturated fat, as
> > compared with equivalent energy intake from carbohydrates, was
> > associated with a 17 percent increase in the risk of coronary disease
> > (relative risk, 1.17; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.41; P =
> > 0.10). As compared with equivalent energy from carbohydrates, the
> > relative risk for a 2 percent increment in energy intake from trans
> > unsaturated fat was 1.93 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.43 to 2.61;
> > P<0.001); that for a 5 percent increment in energy from monounsaturated
> > fat was 0.81 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.00; P = 0.05);
> > and that for a 5 percent increment in energy from polyunsaturated fat
> > was 0.62 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.85; P = 0.003). "
> >
> > So while satured fats and particularly trans fats were associated with
> > an increase in the risk of coronary heart disease when compared to
> > carbohydrate, the reverse is true for unsatured fats, particularly
> > poly-unsatured fats.
> >
> > > Already seen it and have noted that Dr. Willett is distracted by food quality.
> > >
> > > A discussion about food *quantity* can be found at:
> > >
> > > http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
> > >
> >
> > Food quantity is certainly important but the quality does count, too, as
> > demonstrated for example by the Nurses Health Study and the Health
> > Professionals Follow Up Study, both organized from Harvard scientists.
>
> Those studies did *not* demonstrate that food quality is more
> important that food quanitity in achieving permanent weight loss.

As far as I know, they didn't investigate methods of weightloss in those
studies. If they did, I would be grateful for a reference.

What they they did demonstrate, however, was that some food choices are
probably better than other if you want to avoid conditions like CAD.

> > But as a cardiologist you will no doubt be familiar with the results of
> > these studies.
>
> I am.
>
> > And an important point is that the quality can have an impact on the the
> > quantity.
>
> On sense of hunger perhaps but not on quantity. Quantity and quality
> are *independent* variables.

I don't know how that works for you, but for me the quantity of food
that I eat is strongly influenced by my sense of hunger.

> > Many people find it easier to control their food intake, when
> > they eat less carbohydrates, particularly those with a high glycemic
> > index.
>
> Many people find it easier to control their food intake when they can
> quantify the amount they are eating.
>
> Check out the unsolicited testimonials at:
>
> http://www/heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

Works better with a dot in place of the third slash.

A few remarks to the text on this site:

"In 1998, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing Mt. Everest
and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, 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."

1. The climbers will most likely have eaten calorie dense food like
chocolate as they would want to carry as little as possible.

2. They might well have lost a part of their body weight, even if they
were not overweight to begin with. People can usually live without any
food at all for a limited period of time. That is no proof that it is
healthy to eat next to nothing all of the time (of course I'm not
claiming that 2 lbs is next to nothing, my point is that the short term
survival of these climbers does not proof that an average person could
survive on the same amount or a somewhat larger one indefinitly).

3. Even people who don't die from starvation might be malnourished.

"What I learned was that my obese patients was consuming between 8 to 12
lbs. of food per day! "

I have a hard time believing that the average obese person could eat
that much food. Unless perhaps if a considerable part of it are juices
or sodas or the like.

Regarding to your testimonials:

There does not seem not be much in the way of people who have actually
tried the diet and lost weight with it. Most people seem to argue from a
theoretical point of view, not from personal experience.

On the other hand, for low-carb diets, there are plenty of people who
lost considerable amounts of weight with these diets. Just have a look
at alt.support.diet.low-carb

While I think that portion control is certainly important (although this
is hardly news) there are two things that disturb me about the
two-pound-diet:

1. The "one size fits all" approach.

Should a sedentary 5 ft female really consume the same amount of food as
a 6 ft active male?

2. What we eat is just as important as the amount we eat. This seems to
be neglected in this aproach.

Let's say a person eats 10 lbs of food (the average of food you claimed
your obese neighbours were eating). Let's further say that half of that
is soda, the rest french fries, potatoes, meat, sauces, bread, bacon,
eggs and occasionally an apple or some vegetables. Now your advice would
be to just reduce the amount they are eating and clean up the diet
later. Then the person would consume one pound of soda and one pound of
rest of the food, thereby further reducing what little they ate in the
way of vegetables and fruits. They will probably lose weight on this
diet, if they can stick to it, but I don't think there is anything
healthy about such a diet, if only for the reason that they wouldn't get
enough vitamins, minerals and fiber.

Thorsten

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

(Theodosius Dobzhansky)
 
Jim Chinnis wrote:

> Thorsten Schier <[email protected]> wrote in part:
>
> >"The
> >association between dietary glycemic load and CHD risk was most evident
> >among women with body weights above average [ie, body mass index (in
> >kg/m2) 23]. "
>
> This is a common thread in a lot of the research. It seems pretty clear that,
> if you are thin, you are pretty safe from CHD and the balance of
> macronutrients has little effect.
>
> >"Each increase of 5 percent of energy intake from saturated fat, as
> >compared with equivalent energy intake from carbohydrates, was
> >associated with a 17 percent increase in the risk of coronary disease
> >(relative risk, 1.17; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.41; P =
> >0.10). As compared with equivalent energy from carbohydrates, the
> >relative risk for a 2 percent increment in energy intake from trans
> >unsaturated fat was 1.93 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.43 to 2.61;
> >P<0.001); that for a 5 percent increment in energy from monounsaturated
> >fat was 0.81 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.00; P = 0.05);
> >and that for a 5 percent increment in energy from polyunsaturated fat
> >was 0.62 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.85; P = 0.003). "
>
> In the above study, strong relationships were found that indicate that
> carbohydrates should be replaced with monounsaturated and cis-polyunsaturated
> fat. Saturated fats appear to be relatively neutral as compared with
> carbohydrate. This also is starting to seem very familiar.
>
> Isn't it clear that losing weight is the central need in reducing CHD and that
> reducing trans-fat and carbohydrate is important also, but especially for
> those who are of above average weight?
>
> Questions mostly remain about the most effective methods for losing weight.
>

Ime:

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

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back