> > Correlation does not equal causation. Idiot.

> A phrase does not make a correlation.

> Is insulting folks without causation wise?

> Case in point:

> > > Those "issues" are fabricated out of hatred for the 2PD.  There are no
> > > grounds for it.  My credentials are irrefutable.  My medical practice
> > > history has been sterling.  Those who claim otherwise do not have a
> > > leg to stand on.

> > > Word to the wise:

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

> > You're an idiot and a quack. There's no way you should be giving any
> > type of medical advice. That's why you don't have access to a hospital,
and
> > why you were fired in Florida. This is also why you troll usenet for
> > unsuspecting "patients".

> Was writing the above wise since everything is being archived?

> It can haunt you years from now...

> > At least in the US, it's not that difficult.  Pretty much everything is
> > labelled with caloric content.

> You would still need to weigh it to determine how many servings you
> are ingesting.

> > Eating out is a little more challenging, but doable.  Intelligent
choices
> > help.  And, unless you're eating out constantly, measurment variations
> > should have little or no impact on overall results.

> Some folks do eat out most of the time. Others cook at home and would
> face similar difficulties figuring out how many calories they are
> eating.

> Pray tell, how many calories did you eat yesterday?

> > > > > > Obviously, given the conditions you describe, someone would lose
> >  weight.
> >  If
> > > > > > is currently eating 6-8 pounds a day, they will lose weight
eating 2
> >  pounds
> > > > > > a day of the same food.  Duh.

> > > > > Ime, that is the amount that the average overweight American
> > > > > eats/drinks.

> > > You did not dispute this.  Glad you agree.

> > Don't agree or disagree.

> IOW, no comment.

> >  I try to avoid making generalized statements, like
> > yours, without backup.

> IOW, no experience.

> > Specifically, just how many "overweight Americans" have weighed their
food
> > and reported to you?

> Inumerable.

> >  <snip>
> > > > > She really has not been on it long enough to be certain about
anything
> > > > > here.

> > > > She can't tell if she gained weight?

> > > Not in just a few days.  The "noise" from normal fluctuations
> > > (especially in women) in body water content and in the inherent errors
> > > of the typical bathroom scale would obscure any confidence in the
> > > measurement.

> > So, by extension, her experience to date says absolutely nothing about
the
> > relative merits of the 2 lbs diet?

> It is by extension that her experience over several days addresses the
> merits of the 2PD approach.  Carol "cheated" but did not quit the 2PD
> approach.

> > > > > > I don't believe she is eating 2 pounds of Criso, either.

> > > > > Could still be something close.

> > > > Close to 2 lbs of pure fat?

> > > Yes.

> > This would be some diet.  What would comprise it?

> One example would be "pate" which is largely a chunk of fat.

> > > > > > So not only
> > > > > > must you weigh your food, you also must address the caloric
content
> >  of
> >  the
> > > > > > food.  Like any other diet.

> > > > > No, you really don't.

> > > > Yes, you do.

> > > I didn't.  Mu didn't.  Chris didn't.  And, Carol didn't.

> > Yes, Carol did.  Read her posts.

> I have.  She may have calculated calories for one day out of
> curiosity.

> > I can't comment on what you did or didn't do.

> Your restraint surprises me.

> > As for "Mu", I believe nothing that it posts.

> Your choice.

> And what about Chris?

> > > > > > You seem to imply the diet should be used for ongoing
maintenance,
> >  as
> >  well.

> > > > > Yes.

> > > > > > Yet do not address in any way individual requirements.  To imply
the
> >  same 2
> > > > > > pound diet will serve a 70 year-old 110 lbs woman, and a 6'2"
200
> >  pound
> >  man
> > > > > > in his 20's, is patently absurd.

> > > > > The former is not overweight unless under five feet.  The latter
may
> > > > > indeed be overweight.  Ime, for folks who are overweight, 2 pounds
per
> > > > > day does seem to be the amount of food for reaching and
maintaining
> > > > > near-ideal body weight regardless of lean body mass. The
metabolism
> > > > > does compensate to some degree so that two people can be eating
the
> > > > > similar 2 pound amount and yet be stably different in overall
weight
> > > > > (though BMIs will be a lot closer in the 20-25 range).

> > > > We were speaking of maintenance, not being overweight.

> > > We are talking about how to get people to healther weights and then
> > > keeping them there.

> > The paragraph you conveniently split was in regard to maintenance.

> Keeping folks at their healthy weights after the loss is maintenance.

> > > see:

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

> > > > You're stating that the same 2 pount amount will adequately maintain
> >  weight
> > > > for a 5'2", 110 70-year-old woman, and a 6'2", 200 lbs 25 year-old
man?

> > > See above.

> > You didn't answer the question above, either.

> Again, the 70 year old woman is at a healthy weight, so there is no
> reason to change what she is already doing.  However, chances are she
> is already eating about 2 pounds a day and not 6 to 8 pounds so that 2
> pounds a day will keep her at around 110 pounds.  The 6'2" 200 lb man
> will not starve on 2 pounds of food a day.  His weight may decrease to
> 170 lbs which is healthier.

> (1) No one will starve on 2 pounds of food a day.
> (2) No one can stay obese on 2 pounds of food a day.

> > > > > For some...  it is for others... then there are the answers to the
> > > > > other FAQs for further guidance.

> > > > My reading of your FAQ revealed nothing regarding composition.

> > > See my answer to

> > > "There is more to a diet than just the *quantity* of food you eat.
> > > There is also the *quality* of the food you eat, and that point
> > > doesn't
> > > seem to be very well addressed in the 2 lb diet. "

> > I did.  And it does not address composition, other than to say quantity
is
> > more important in controlling obesity.

> Dismissing something is one way of addressing something.  Composition
> truly is not important for losing weight.

> > > > > How many of these are following the 2PD?

> > > The answer is that *no one* has reported loss with the 2PD with
> > > subsequent regain.

> > So you state.

> It should be easy for you to prove otherwise.

> > Just raw estimates, but how many have tried the 2 lbs diet?

> Inumerable.

> Not to my knowledge.

> > > > > > The hard part is
> > > > > > following a way of eating that allows you to both lose weight,
AND
> >  maintain
> > > > > > that loss.

> > > > > Exactly.  This is what the 2PD addresses.

> > > > No, it doesn't.

> > > Have you tried the 2PD?

> > No need.  Quite happy with where I'm at, and my current diet.

> Then you have no experience support your claim that the 2PD does not
> address both weight loss and maintenance.

> > > > > >  Your diet does not address maintenance directly,

> > > > > It does.  See http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

> > > > > and

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

> > > Glad you agree tacitly.

> > > > > > and the
> > > > > > implications you DO make for maintenance are absurd.

> > > > > Why?

> > > > > It should be obvious to the most casual observer that the key to
> > > > > maintenance is staying on the "diet."  The chances of this should
be
> > > > > maximal when the diet is (1) super-simple and (2) does not alter a
> > > > > person's food-choice preferences. Aside from the 2PD, what diet
out
> > > > > there achieves these two conditions?

> > > > See above.  If your contention is the same 2 pount amount will
> >  adequately
> > > > maintain weight for a 5'2", 110 70-year-old woman, and a 6'2", 200
lbs
> >  25
> > > > year-old man, then I'd REALLY like to see some references

> You're an idiot and a quack. There's no way you should be giving any type of
> medical advice. That's why you don't have access to a hospital, and why you
> were fired in Florida. This is also why you troll usenet for unsuspecting
> "patients". I've also heard that you bought your credentials on the
> internet. Shame on you.

> Close only counts in horse shoes, hand grenades, nuclear weapons, and
> teenage sex  ;0)

> Yvonne

> I would be remiss If I didn't point out that our friend Chung brought this up
> as a red herring rather than as a critique to be taken seriously. It is
> ironic and ludicrous (but perhaps typical and to be expected) that the father
> of such an arbitrary, unscientific, and unsubstantiated diet idea as "The Two
> Pound Diet" would fault counting calories as not precise :-) You seem to be
> an intelligent fellow... why you come to the defense of this charlatan is
> beyond me.

>> I would be remiss If I didn't point out that our friend Chung brought
>> this up as a red herring rather than as a critique to be taken
>> seriously. It is ironic and ludicrous (but perhaps typical and to be
>> expected) that the father of such an arbitrary, unscientific, and
>> unsubstantiated diet idea as "The Two Pound Diet" would fault counting
>> calories as not precise :-) You seem to be an intelligent fellow... why
>> you come to the defense of this charlatan is beyond me.

> I think it's perfectly well scientifically substantiated, based on a
> reasonable hypothesis about human nature.  That is, specifically, that
> the average extractable caloric density of food that people will
> actually eat in the long run will be fairly constant.  That is, say
> over the month to year long timescales in question, not in any one
> meal or two.

>> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 5:01:03 -0400, Steve <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

>>> I would be remiss If I didn't point out that our friend Chung brought
>>> this up as a red herring rather than as a critique to be taken
>>> seriously. It is ironic and ludicrous (but perhaps typical and to be
>>> expected) that the father of such an arbitrary, unscientific, and
>>> unsubstantiated diet idea as "The Two Pound Diet" would fault counting
>>> calories as not precise :-) You seem to be an intelligent fellow... why
>>> you come to the defense of this charlatan is beyond me.

>> I think it's perfectly well scientifically substantiated, based on a
>> reasonable hypothesis about human nature.  That is, specifically, that
>> the average extractable caloric density of food that people will
>> actually eat in the long run will be fairly constant.  That is, say
>> over the month to year long timescales in question, not in any one
>> meal or two.

> What the heck is "average extractable caloric density"?

> Wouldn't someone be better off counting calories, regardless of what "mass"
> he/she ate?  A pound of spinach is quite a bit different than a pound of
> lard.

> Ok, so I see that I have to add "Dr." to my filter.