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

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Myo Cardium, Dec 16, 2003.

  1. Matti Narkia

    Matti Narkia Guest

    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?
     


  2. Jim Chinnis

    Jim Chinnis Guest

    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 = .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
     
  3. Mack

    Mack Guest

    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.
     
  4. 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 = .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
     
  5. mattb

    mattb Guest

    On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:28:16 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >
    >> 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!
    >
    >Hardly.

    Oh. I forgot that only you know the truth.

    >
    >> <big grin>.
    >
    >Grin away.

    Grinning even more.

    >
    >> Seeing him drone on and on even when he is wrong makes him look even less trustworthy.
    >
    >Is that hissing that I am reading?

    No. It is the truth as revealed in the Bible. As someone who always knows the truth, I'm surprised
    you didn't know that. Try Google, as you always suggest to others, and you will find it.

    >
    >> He seems to think if he says it enough times, it becomes truth.
    >
    >Matti is the one looking for the truth.

    I understand. When he agrees with you, he will have found the truth, but not before that. I need to
    remember that only you know the truth.

    >
    >> Sad, isn't it?
    >
    >Why are you grinning, then?

    Sometimes I grin, sometimes I am sad, just like all of us. That is truth. <grin> And it is sad, too.
    As someone who always knows the truth, I'm sure you understand.

    >
    >> I can't wait for his "pity and love" canned reply to this.<grin> Matt
    >
    >Sorry to disappoint you.

    Sorry there is no room in your heart for pity and love. Matti is right, though, you will try to get
    in the last word. Matt
     
  6. Mack wrote:

    > On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:10:45 -0800, [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
    >
    > <libelous hissing snipped>

    You have my pity and love, neighbor.

    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:

    (12) Yell at Mack
    (13) 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 like of Mack.
    (14) Killfile this thread.
    (15) Killfile me.
    (16) 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:

    (17) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
    (18) 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):

    (6) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability).
    (7) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters.
    (8) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults.
    (9) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting.
    (10) 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.

    Sincerely,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com
     
  7. 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>

    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

    God's humble bond-servant,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com/
     
  8. 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:

    (12) Yell at Mack
    (13) 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.
    (14) Killfile this thread.
    (15) Killfile me.
    (16) 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:

    (17) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
    (18) 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):

    (6) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability).
    (7) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters.
    (8) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults.
    (9) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting.
    (10) 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
     
  9. "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 = .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:

    4. 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?

    5. 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)
     
  10. 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 = .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/
     
  11. Matti Narkia wrote:

    > 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?

    I take it the answer is "no."

    The untruthful are the least likely to know the truth... much less to answer truthfully.

    Humbly,

    Andrew

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

    > 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.
    >
    > <anti-christian hissing snipped>

    You still have my pity and love, neighbor.

    We can chat tomorrow if you aren't too scared.

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

    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:

    (1) Yell at Mack
    (2) Report Mack to his ISP ([email protected])
    (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:

    (6) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
    (7) 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):

    (6) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability).
    (7) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters.
    (8) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults.
    (9) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting.

    (10) 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.

    Sincerely,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com
     
  13. Jim Chinnis

    Jim Chinnis Guest

    [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote in part:

    >Truth is sure.

    Knock it off.
    --
    Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
     
  14. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:39:25 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > 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

    Absolutely right, Brother Chung! And that's why I always recommend the Two Foot Diet to all
    my friends!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    God's Other Humble Servant

    Steve
     
  15. Steve <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:35:18 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote (in message
    > <[email protected]>):
    >
    > > Mack wrote:
    > >
    > >> 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.
    > >>
    > >> <anti-christian hissing snipped>
    > >
    > > You still have my pity and love, neighbor.
    > >
    >
    > How about me Chung? Can I have some of that pity and love too?

    You have my thanks for the sincerest form of flattery.

    <imitation snipped>

    > Sincerely,
    >
    > God's Other Humble Servant
    >
    > Steve

    Neighbor, have you accepted Christ as your Lord and Savior, yet?

    When you do, we can worship Him together.

    FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the
    message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it.
    If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions:

    (1) Yell at Steve
    (2) Report Steve 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):

    (6) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability).
    (7) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters.
    (8) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults.
    (9) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting.
    (10) 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.

    God's humble bond-servant,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com
     
  16. "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 = .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)
     
  17. --------------E7B145FF1C32324EE4031EFE
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

    Thorsten Schier wrote:

    > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb: <snip>
    > > 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.
    >

    Not if you are following the 2PD approach.

    >
    > > > 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.
    >

    Sorry about that. It is fixed now.

    >
    > 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.
    >

    It is 10 pounds. The choices on what to eat is climber dependent. Some like carbs and others like
    proteins. They will bring what they like to eat because it is treacherous climbing Mt. Everest. Who
    knows which meal will be their last.

    >
    > 2. They might well have lost a part of their body weight, even if they were not overweight to
    > begin with.

    So what if they did?

    > People can usually live without any food at all for a limited period of time.

    Who said anything about fasting?

    > 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,

    Then why write it?

    > 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).

    The climbers were a source of inspiration for the 2PD approach rather than a proof of either safety
    or efficacy.

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

    Not in my experience as a physician who has been recommending the 2PD approach to his patients since
    1998. I have seen no cases of beriberi, scurvy, etc in any of my patients.

    >
    > "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.

    My guess is that you are not obese.

    > Unless perhaps if a considerable part of it are juices or sodas or the like.

    They do count.

    >
    > 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.
    >

    Does there need to be?

    >
    > 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

    If that were true, why the need for "support" then?

    >
    > 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?
    >

    If that female is obese, she should eat less and not care how much others are eating.

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

    The 2PD approach helps obese folks lose weight permanently.

    >
    > 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.

    My advice would be to have them ask their doctors about supervising them for the 2PD approach.

    > 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.

    If their doctors are concerned, they may opt to prescribe supplements. Ime, folks following the 2PD
    approach don't need supplements. Two pounds is plenty of food for a day.

    Thank you for your comments.

    Humbly,

    Andrew

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

    --------------E7B145FF1C32324EE4031EFE
    Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

    <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
    <html>
    Thorsten Schier wrote:
    <blockquote TYPE=CITE>"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
    <br><snip>
    <br>> On sense of hunger perhaps but not on quantity. Quantity and
    quality
    <br>> are *independent* variables.
    <p>I don't know how that works for you, but for me the quantity of food
    <br>that I eat is strongly influenced by my sense of hunger.
    <br> </blockquote>
    Not if you are following the 2PD approach.
    <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
    <br>> > Many people find it easier to control their food intake, when
    <br>> > they eat less carbohydrates, particularly those with a high glycemic
    <br>> > index.
    <br>>
    <br>> Many people find it easier to control their food intake when they
    can
    <br>> quantify the amount they are eating.
    <br>>
    <br>> Check out the unsolicited testimonials at:
    <br>>
    <br>> <a href="http://www/heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp">http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp</a>
    <p>Works better with a dot in place of the third slash.
    <br> </blockquote>
    Sorry about that. It is fixed now.
    <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
    <br>A few remarks to the text on this site:
    <p>"In 1998, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing Mt. Everest
    <br>and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the climbers consumed
    <br>only 10 lbs of food per week. That's less than 2 lbs. of food per day!
    <br>Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I think it is safe
    to
    <br>assume that 2 lbs. per day should be more than adequate for us
    <br>non-climbing folks."
    <p>1. The climbers will most likely have eaten calorie dense food like
    <br>chocolate as they would want to carry as little as possible.
    <br> </blockquote>
    It is 10 pounds. The choices on what to eat is climber dependent.
    Some like carbs and others like proteins. They will bring what they
    like to eat because it is treacherous climbing Mt. Everest. Who knows
    which meal will be their last.
    <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
    <br>2. They might well have lost a part of their body weight, even if they
    <br>were not overweight to begin with.</blockquote>
    So what if they did?
    <blockquote TYPE=CITE>People can usually live without any
    <br>food at all for a limited period of time.</blockquote>
    Who said anything about fasting?
    <blockquote TYPE=CITE>That is no proof that it is
    <br>healthy to eat next to nothing all of the time (of course I'm not
    <br>claiming that 2 lbs is next to nothing,</blockquote>
    Then why write it?
    <blockquote TYPE=CITE>my point is that the short term
    <br>survival of these climbers does not proof that an average person could
    <br>survive on the same amount or a somewhat larger one indefinitly).</blockquote>
    The climbers were a source of inspiration for the 2PD approach rather than
    a proof of either safety or efficacy.
    <br>
    <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
    <br>3. Even people who don't die from starvation might be malnourished.</blockquote>
    Not in my experience as a physician who has been recommending the 2PD approach
    to his patients since 1998. I have seen no cases of beriberi, scurvy,
    etc in any of my patients.
    <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
    <br>"What I learned was that my obese patients was consuming between 8
    to 12
    <br>lbs. of food per day! "
    <p>I have a hard time believing that the average obese person could eat
    <br>that much food.</blockquote>
    My guess is that you are not obese.
    <blockquote TYPE=CITE>Unless perhaps if a considerable part of it are juices
    <br>or sodas or the like.</blockquote>
    They do count.
    <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
    <br>Regarding to your testimonials:
    <p>There does not seem not be much in the way of people who have actually
    <br>tried the diet and lost weight with it. Most people seem to argue from
    a
    <br>theoretical point of view, not from personal experience.
    <br> </blockquote>
    Does there need to be?
    <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
    <br>On the other hand, for low-carb diets, there are plenty of people who
    <br>lost considerable amounts of weight with these diets. Just have a look
    <br>at alt.support.diet.low-carb</blockquote>
    If that were true, why the need for "support" then?
    <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
    <br>While I think that portion control is certainly important (although
    this
    <br>is hardly news) there are two things that disturb me about the
    <br>two-pound-diet:
    <p>1. The "one size fits all" approach.
    <p>Should a sedentary 5 ft female really consume the same amount of food
    as
    <br>a 6 ft active male?
    <br> </blockquote>
    If that female is obese, she should eat less and not care how much others
    are eating.
    <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
    <br>2. What we eat is just as important as the amount we eat. This seems
    to
    <br>be neglected in this aproach.</blockquote>
    The 2PD approach helps obese folks lose weight permanently.
    <blockquote TYPE=CITE>
    <br>Let's say a person eats 10 lbs of food (the average of food you claimed
    <br>your obese neighbours were eating). Let's further say that half of
    that
    <br>is soda, the rest french fries, potatoes, meat, sauces, bread, bacon,
    <br>eggs and occasionally an apple or some vegetables. Now your advice
    would
    <br>be to just reduce the amount they are eating and clean up the diet
    <br>later.</blockquote>
    My advice would be to have them ask their doctors about supervising them
    for the 2PD approach.
    <blockquote TYPE=CITE>Then the person would consume one pound of soda and
    one pound of
    <br>rest of the food, thereby further reducing what little they ate in
    the
    <br>way of vegetables and fruits. They will probably lose weight on this
    <br>diet, if they can stick to it, but I don't think there is anything
    <br>healthy about such a diet, if only for the reason that they wouldn't
    get
    <br>enough vitamins, minerals and fiber.</blockquote>
    If their doctors are concerned, they may opt to prescribe supplements.
    Ime, folks following the 2PD approach don't need supplements. Two
    pounds is plenty of food for a day.
    <p>Thank you for your comments.
    <p>Humbly,
    <p>Andrew
    <p>--
    <br>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    <br>Board-Certified Cardiologist
    <br><A HREF="http://www.heartmdphd.com/">http://www.heartmdphd.com/</A>
    <br> </html>

    --------------E7B145FF1C32324EE4031EFE--
     
  18. Bob Pastorio

    Bob Pastorio Guest

    Thorsten Schier wrote:

    >
    > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
    >
    >>Check out the unsolicited testimonials at:
    >>
    >>http://www/heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
    >
    >
    > Works better with a dot in place of the third slash.

    He doesn't even know his own address.

    It would also work better if they actually were testimonials. Chung has me there with one of those
    quotes like they do for movies when the reviewer blasts the stupidity of the film. I think that the
    2POundPOWDiet is profoundly unintelligent, spuriously superficial and essentially intended to get
    him customers. Click on the link.

    > 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."

    Here are some references that blow Chung's story out of the water. Note how many mentions of porters
    carrying food and equipment. Note how many mentions of camps set up with food and equipment. Note
    the word "rehydrating." http://www.mounteverest.net/expguide/food.htm
    http://everestnews.altrec.com/shop/dir/0/27/ http://www.adventure-video.com/everest/equipment.html
    http://www.everesthistory.com/sherpas/nawanggombu.htm http://www.windhorse-
    trek.com/everest_southcol.htm http://classic.mountainzone.com/everest/98/climb5-19e.html

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

    Saw a program on tv recently where Bob Hoffman, Everest climber, says that each climber on the teams
    will consume between 6,000 and 12,000 calories per day on the climb. He also says that the eat freeze-
    dried foods almost exclusively, filling them out with snowmelt. Based on normal rehydration ratios
    and averaging it across what they're likely to be using, they're adding 3 to 4 pounds of water to
    every pound of food. If these same foods were fresh, that 10 pounds per week would be somewhere
    between 30 and 40 pounds. The entire reason for camps spread up the line they'll follow is to put
    extra foods and provisions that they don't have to carry.

    I'd like to know the name of that film. Who said that they only ate what they ate in pounds. Only
    Americans talk about pounds. In the Himalayas, they'll be using different measures. And, if you
    look at it, 10 pounds of food in 7 days is 1.43 pounds per day. Or do the climbers go all the way
    up to 27,000 feet and back down in 5 days. Or is it 10 pounds of food once they're above the last
    base camp?

    Before climbing the mountain, climbers have to acclimatize themselves to the altitude. Doing it
    without that period of adjustment guarantees that they would die. In that process, they don't eat
    climbing provisions, they eat "normal" foods. Here's a reference that details acclimatization and
    what they eat. How much they eat can be estimated by the menus. Three apparently large meals per
    day. http://www.everestnews.com/everestnews3/hoffmandis2.htm

    I love this one: "...all-you-can-eat buffets..." A wonderfully sensationalized story at
    <http://www.forbes.com/fyi/2001/1112/054_print.html>

    > 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).

    Hoffman says that they counted on losing about a pound a day while climbing and returning.

    > 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.

    He says beverages don't count.

    > 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.

    Except for those of us who say it's a nonsensical and even potentially dangerous approach. And who
    question the source of his information about 10 pounds of food per week.

    > 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?

    Chung doesn't deal with that question. He usually lets his "friend" Mu answer it with his normal
    evasions. Things like, "Shouldn't need any more." No clear answers forthcoming for that.

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

    Not neglected at all. Dismissed. He says to just keep eating what you have been but use "common
    sense" without ever detailing what that is.

    Chung's entire assertion is that only quantity matters.

    > 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.

    Beverages don't count. So just plug in anything else you want and it's still ludicrous. In addition
    to any weight lost by this ill-advised technique, they'll likely also lose their their health
    because of the virtually guaranteed imbalances in nutrients.

    Pastorio
     
  19. Bob Pastorio

    Bob Pastorio Guest

    Jim Chinnis wrote:

    > [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote in part:
    >
    >>Truth is sure.
    >
    > Knock it off.

    Jim, you're getting the Chung display. This is the real guy coming through.

    Save your breath. He's exactly what he is and he demonstrates it more fully every day. Like this.
    Man of science and says he thinks that there's one and only one truth. Never studied physics or
    mathematics, I guess. Certainly never studied metaphysics.

    Pastorio
     
  20. Jim Chinnis wrote:

    > [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote in part:
    >
    > >Truth is sure.
    >
    > Knock it off.
    > --
    > Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

    Truth is not a knock off.

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