A Brilliant Cardiologist Once Wrote......
Mu'
lose weight:
Myth#1: Eating more fruits and vegetables will help you lose weight.
Reference:
Comment:
*Replacing* what you are currently eating with fruits and vegetables
probably would help in weight loss, but would go more toward reducing
cholesterol which is perhaps a major concern in your case.
See:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
for more information about losing weight safely and surely.
Myth#2:
Low-carbing (with ketosis) is a way to lose weight that is proven to
be
safe.
Reference:
Comment:
Hyperketonemia is probably a bad thing for anyone at risk for
developing
coronary disease. Oxidized lipids are the most atherogenic substances
around.
Bob Pastorio
>
> Here are a couple of myths that need to be debunked in your travels to
> lose weight:
>
> Myth#1: Eating more fruits and vegetables will help you lose weight.
> Reference:
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12821968&dopt=Abstract
> Comment:
> *Replacing* what you are currently eating with fruits and vegetables
> probably would help in weight loss, but would go more toward reducing
> cholesterol which is perhaps a major concern in your case.
Nice red herring, Fishbone. Nobody says that increasing your total
intake of food by increasing fruits and veggies will make you lose
weight. This is a myth like your usefulness to humanity would be. Only
you would consider it at all.
Here's what the study actually was about:
OBJECTIVE:: To assess whether intake of fruits and vegetables was
associated with change in body mass index (BMI) among a large sample of
children and adolescents in the United States.
Wasn't about dieting at all.
> See:
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
> for more information about losing weight safely and surely.
This is from Chung, King of Two-pounders. He says: "Recently, airlines
in the U.S. have widened the width of the seats on their planes to
accommodate this trend of increasing obesity." And, well, it isn't true.
I note that on his home page he neglects to mention his dismissal for
incompetent care from a hospital. But on that page, he talks about his
favorite movies, his pets and long walks on the beach or whatever. I got
warm, fuzzy tingles.
This comes from one of his "testimonials" -
From: Jerome R. Long (jrl...@vt.edu)
Subject: Dr. Chung and the 2 Pound Diet
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology
Date: 2002-05-29 13:03:03 PST
"Dr. Chung did make one strategic mistake in basing his two pounds on
the food weight rations of mountain climbers. The two pounds there is
concentrated and dehydrated. When properly hydrated before consumption
it ends up to be more like 5 or 6 pounds."
So his two-pound diet is "updated" to be more factual by the very people
who he says offer testimonials. So much for two pounds of food as a
rational benchmark.
> Myth#2:
>
> Low-carbing (with ketosis) is a way to lose weight that is proven to
> be safe.
> Reference:
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10388984&dopt=Abstract
> Comment:
> Hyperketonemia is probably a bad thing for anyone at risk for
> developing coronary disease. Oxidized lipids are the most
> atherogenic substances around.
"...probably a bad thing..."
You didn't even read it, did you? Says nothing about CHD. The name of
the study is:
"Effect of hyperketonemia on plasma lipid peroxidation levels in
diabetic patients."
The diabetic patients were type 1, people with juvenile onset diabetes.
Hyperketonemia is the result of severe insulin imbalance and
insufficiency. At least learn what you're ranting about if nothing else.
Ketosis doesn't equal hyperketonemia.
"OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to examine the effect of ketosis
on plasma lipid peroxidation levels in diabetic patients."
"CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated an association between
hyperketonemia and increased lipid peroxidation levels in diabetic
patients, which suggests that ketosis is a risk factor in the elevated
lipid peroxidation levels associated with diabetes. Further
investigation is needed to determine whether antioxidant supplementation
can be particularly beneficial in reducing lipid peroxidation and
complications in type 1 diabetic patients who frequently encounter
ketosis."
Let's define a few terms here"
Hyperketonemia - Condition characterized by an overproduction of ketones
by the body.
Ketones - Poisonous acidic chemicals produced by the body when fat
instead of glucose is burned for energy. Breakdown of fat occurs when
not enough insulin is present to channel glucose into body cells.
Insulin - A hormone secreted by the pancreas in response to high blood
sugar levels that induces hypoglycemia. Insulin regulates the body's use
of glucose and the levels of glucose in the blood by acting to open the
cells so that they can intake glucose.
Here, read:
<http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/diabetic_ketoacidosis.html>
to see how utterly irrelevant to LC this latest Mu/fishbone post is.
Three citations and three bombs. Good work, fishbone.
Tell us again what you do for a living? What you're good at? What you
know about?
Pastorio
jk
Thanks Bob.... you did a great job!!
Bob Pastorio
>
> Thanks Bob.... you did a great job!!
Thank you for the kind words.
Pastorio
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Mu' <MuNot...@japan.com> <eatwellbuteatm...@usa.com> posted:
> [...]
MU ADMITS TO BEING CHANG'S WIFE
Copy of archived post:
[
[ From: "Mu" <"mu"@japan.com>
[ Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,sci.med
[ Subject: Re: ListServ at HeartMDPhD.com
[ Message-ID: <m7g6fvgt3cpolmdeg...@4ax.com>
[ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:15:09 -0400
[
[
[ On 19 Jun 2003 18:13:52 -0700, and...@heartmdphd.com
[ (Dr. Andrew B. Chung) wrote:
[
[ > Mu, you seem intent on starting the largest flame war
[ > in USENET history.
[ >
[ > You should probably run for cover.
[
[ You treat me like a wife.
[
[ Wait, I am your wife!
[
End of copy of post archived by Google at:
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
..
> Three citations and three bombs. Good work, fishbone.
>
> Tell us again what you do for a living? What you're good at? What you
> know about?
>
> Pastorio
Excellent bit of research, Bob. Thanks for taking the time!
Phil Holman
> This is from Chung, King of Two-pounders. He says: "Recently, airlines
> in the U.S. have widened the width of the seats on their planes to
> accommodate this trend of increasing obesity." And, well, it isn't
true.
Lets qualify this. The width of the seat is controlled by the width of
the airplane. Now it is possible to swap an economy class triple with a
business class double but this is something that is determined by flight
operations usually for economic considerations due to seasonal
fluctuations. Airlines normally adjust the seat pitch for leg room but
this again is done for customer perceived satisfaction and attempts to
capture the section of the traveling public who will pay a little more
for added comfort. I have not heard of this being done with regards to
width considerations but it is feasible with the reduced global traffic
and planes flying half empty.
> I note that on his home page he neglects to mention his dismissal for
> incompetent care from a hospital. But on that page, he talks about his
> favorite movies, his pets and long walks on the beach or whatever. I
got
> warm, fuzzy tingles.
>
> This comes from one of his "testimonials" -
> From: Jerome R. Long (jrl...@vt.edu)
> Subject: Dr. Chung and the 2 Pound Diet
> Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology
> Date: 2002-05-29 13:03:03 PST
> "Dr. Chung did make one strategic mistake in basing his two pounds on
> the food weight rations of mountain climbers. The two pounds there is
> concentrated and dehydrated. When properly hydrated before consumption
> it ends up to be more like 5 or 6 pounds."
>
> So his two-pound diet is "updated" to be more factual by the very
people
> who he says offer testimonials. So much for two pounds of food as a
> rational benchmark.
Nothing wrong with limiting ones intake to two pounds of food (1/2 of
the world would be pleased with the increase) and it kind of fits in
with the U = Q-W (thermo 1st law) philosophy.
As a first order effect it is a good rule of thumb. Get that one down
first and then worry about nutrients and vitamins and fluctuations for
additional physical activity.
(snip) the remaining over complication.
It is of questionable worth to be commenting on flora and forna when one
is upto their neck in an outhouse basement.
The US has a long way to go just to get the quantity under control. IMO
quality should be a lower priority and come later.
Phil Holman
Mu'
<phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:
>Nothing wrong with limiting ones intake to two pounds of food (1/2 of
>the world would be pleased with the increase)
And much of that half of the world lives in good health.
>and it kind of fits in
>with the U = Q-W (thermo 1st law) philosophy.
>As a first order effect it is a good rule of thumb. Get that one down
>first and then worry about nutrients and vitamins and fluctuations for
>additional physical activity.
Chung and I are not wholly in agreement here. He claims that the
weight loss/food volume issue must be tackled first, then
modifications to diet (like the removal of sat and trans fats, etc)
can be added later. I found it necessary to do all at the same time.
Prolly a personal decision but the overconsumption must stop either
way.
>It is of questionable worth to be commenting on flora and forna when one
>is upto their neck in an outhouse basement.
Excuse BOb. When the Chef gets outside the kitchen, all he can do is
wave his arms like an Italian octopus and scream like a banshee.
It's the best he can do, really.
>The US has a long way to go just to get the quantity under control. IMO
>quality should be a lower priority and come later.
Works for me.
Bob Pastorio
>
> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 15:21:05 GMT, "Phil Holman"
> <phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:
post and gone directly to endorsing his spurious thesis. I note you
endorse the first law of thermodynamics as the basis for a dietary
approach. Said so in
<http://www.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.med.cardiology+author:phil+author:holman&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=g7GLa.70851%24Io.6630878%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net&rnum=5&filter=0>
Sorry, Phil. Humans aren't bomb calorimeters. And, oh, doesn't this
sorta blow the two pound diet away? I mean how many calories are in two
pounds of food? Right.
> >Nothing wrong with limiting ones intake to two pounds of food (1/2 of
> >the world would be pleased with the increase)
Sorry. It's merely silly to make a blanket statement like this. Nothing
wrong? This observation is based on what? One-size-fits-all? Any special
kinds of food? No matter the activity level?
You posted in
<http://www.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.med.cardiology+author:phil+author:holman&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=JSJLa.71093%24Io.6659984%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net&rnum=2>
> (Weight-loss) Diet plans are attempts (honest or false) to find ways
> that people WILL reduce calories in compared to those expended
> and then balance the equation over the long haul.
> Credible data as to what works are scarce.
So there's nothing wrong but there's no data to support it. It's your
opinion.
> And much of that half of the world lives in good health.
And which half is that, fishbone? Maybe throw in some names and places
where people eat two pounds of food a day and are healthy. Um, it would
be good if it weren't just your opinion since you have virtually nom
credibility. Probably naming some tribe from the Amazon wouldn't make
your assertion look too good. Perhaps show any advanced country where
this is the case.
> >and it kind of fits in
> >with the U = Q-W (thermo 1st law) philosophy.
"Kind of..." Except you offer no definition of what the two pounds can
include. The caloric content can vary by orders of magnitude and all you
say here is that it's a good idea. Sorry. Thin.
> >As a first order effect it is a good rule of thumb. Get that one down
> >first and then worry about nutrients and vitamins and fluctuations for
> >additional physical activity.
Hold it. Stop. "As a first order effect, it's a good rule of thumb"...?
You've accepted the notion of two pounds of food being right for
everybody and now you're dismissing the content of the food? Don't worry
about nutrients, just weigh out two pounds and that'll be T-H-E
A-N-S-W-E-R?
Please.
> Chung and I are not wholly in agreement here. He claims that the
> weight loss/food volume issue must be tackled first, then
> modifications to diet (like the removal of sat and trans fats, etc)
> can be added later. I found it necessary to do all at the same time.
> Prolly a personal decision but the overconsumption must stop either
> way.
And his undocumented and unsupported "experience" should be taken
seriously when he routinely mocks anecdotal offerings from others?
Chung's web site has fewer "testimonials" than I have fingers and
several are rather weak, pointing out flaws in the idea. So this tiny
universe "studied" is the basis for a plan everyone should follow? Can
you really support something so scantily documented?
> >It is of questionable worth to be commenting on flora and forna when one
> >is upto their neck in an outhouse basement.
Non sequiturs at this IQ level really do brighten the day. It's like
bringing a knife to a gunfight. Fun to watch it all unfold. BTW, it's
"fauna."
It is even more questionable to endorse the nonsense of a two pound diet
with no further conditions. And the gigantic flaw that Chung missed
through ignorance and a superficial observation makes it even more
questionable; even up at laughable. He based his two-pound diet on what
mountaineers carry not knowing it was dehydrated and required another 4
or 5 pounds of water to make into consumable food. That alone blows his
thesis out of the water. And it makes your endorsement a bit suspect,
frankly.
> Excuse BOb. When the Chef gets outside the kitchen, all he can do is
> wave his arms like an Italian octopus and scream like a banshee.
Mu is merely a persistent troll who likes to offer invective instead of
information, pain instead of intelligence. The post to which I replied
and to which you knelt here was a demolition of his fraudulent efforts
to create discomfort in a low-carb dieting group. He offered three
studies that he misrepresented and likely didn't understand to support
spurious assertions. I note you didn't find anything to dispute in what
I said and merely offered agreement to his marvelously silly dietary
notion.
He crossposts because he can. Much like animals that lick their
genitalia.
> It's the best he can do, really.
Condescension from you is merely funny. You're such a lightweight that
I'm prescribing lead shoes to hold you down.
> >The US has a long way to go just to get the quantity under control. IMO
> >quality should be a lower priority and come later.
>
> Works for me.
Get a room, you two.
Oh, wait. Mu has said he's Chung's wife. No hanky-panky.
Perhaps you know... did he ever tell you why he called himself fishbone?
And in French, no less. What an international kinda guy, huh?
Pastorio
Phil Holman
"Bob Pastorio" <past...@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3F073497...@rica.net...
> Mu' wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 15:21:05 GMT, "Phil Holman"
> > <phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:
>
> I notice you've neglected to deal with the phony facts of fishbone's
> post and gone directly to endorsing his spurious thesis. I note you
> endorse the first law of thermodynamics as the basis for a dietary
> approach. Said so in
>
<http://www.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.med.cardiology+author:phil+aut
hor:holman&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=g7GLa.70851%24Io.6630878%40newsread2.
prod.itd.earthlink.net&rnum=5&filter=0>
>
> Sorry, Phil. Humans aren't bomb calorimeters. And, oh, doesn't this
> sorta blow the two pound diet away? I mean how many calories are in
> two pounds of food? Right.
2lbs of canola oil = ~8000.
How stupid do you want me to get with this?
>
> > >Nothing wrong with limiting ones intake to two pounds of food (1/2
> > > of the world would be pleased with the increase)
>
> Sorry. It's merely silly to make a blanket statement like this.
> Nothing wrong? This observation is based on what? One-size-fits-all?
> Any special kinds of food? No matter the activity level?
>
> You posted in
>
<http://www.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.med.cardiology+author:phil+aut
hor:holman&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=JSJLa.71093%24Io.6659984%40newsread2.
prod.itd.earthlink.net&rnum=2>
> > (Weight-loss) Diet plans are attempts (honest or false) to find ways
> > that people WILL reduce calories in compared to those expended
> > and then balance the equation over the long haul.
> > Credible data as to what works are scarce.
>
> So there's nothing wrong but there's no data to support it. It's your
> opinion.
My opinion is based on a mountain of global empirical observation. Maybe
you could offer up a more inclusive example of where this is
invalidated.
>
> > And much of that half of the world lives in good health.
>
> And which half is that, fishbone? Maybe throw in some names and places
> where people eat two pounds of food a day and are healthy. Um, it
> would be good if it weren't just your opinion since you have virtually
nom
> credibility. Probably naming some tribe from the Amazon wouldn't make
> your assertion look too good. Perhaps show any advanced country where
> this is the case.
Europe. Is the concept of eating less food totally lost on you or is it
that you don't believe it's a good portion of the problem.
>
> > >and it kind of fits in
> > >with the U = Q-W (thermo 1st law) philosophy.
>
> "Kind of..." Except you offer no definition of what the two pounds can
> include. The caloric content can vary by orders of magnitude and all
>you say here is that it's a good idea. Sorry. Thin.
Eat exactly the same kind of food as today except less. One wonders
about the vested interest in something more complicated. Entrusting your
body weight to an over complicated diet plan is like boarding your dog
at a taxidermist. Sure, you'll get it back.
>
> > >As a first order effect it is a good rule of thumb. Get that one
> > > down first and then worry about nutrients and vitamins and
> > > fluctuations for additional physical activity.
>
> Hold it. Stop. "As a first order effect, it's a good rule of
> thumb"...? You've accepted the notion of two pounds of food being
right for
> everybody and now you're dismissing the content of the food? Don't
> worry about nutrients, just weigh out two pounds and that'll be T-H-E
> A-N-S-W-E-R?
>
> Please.
See previous response.
>
> > Chung and I are not wholly in agreement here. He claims that the
> > weight loss/food volume issue must be tackled first, then
> > modifications to diet (like the removal of sat and trans fats, etc)
> > can be added later. I found it necessary to do all at the same time.
> > Prolly a personal decision but the overconsumption must stop either
> > way.
>
> And his undocumented and unsupported "experience" should be taken
> seriously when he routinely mocks anecdotal offerings from others?
> Chung's web site has fewer "testimonials" than I have fingers and
> several are rather weak, pointing out flaws in the idea. So this tiny
> universe "studied" is the basis for a plan everyone should follow? Can
> you really support something so scantily documented?
Other than the US, is there a real global obesity problem or as much
infatuation with dieting.
>
> > > It is of questionable worth to be commenting on flora and forna
> > > when one is upto their neck in an outhouse basement.
>
> Non sequiturs at this IQ level really do brighten the day. It's like
> bringing a knife to a gunfight. Fun to watch it all unfold. BTW, it's
> "fauna."
You just miss the relevance.
>
> It is even more questionable to endorse the nonsense of a two pound
> diet with no further conditions. And the gigantic flaw that Chung
> missed through ignorance and a superficial observation makes it even
> more questionable; even up at laughable. He based his two-pound
> diet on what mountaineers carry not knowing it was dehydrated and
> required another 4 or 5 pounds of water to make into consumable
> food. That alone blows his thesis out of the water. And it makes your
> endorsement a bit suspect, frankly.
Good rhetoric, again you apply total stupidity to the scenario.
>
> > Excuse BOb. When the Chef gets outside the kitchen, all he can do is
> > wave his arms like an Italian octopus and scream like a banshee.
>
> Mu is merely a persistent troll who likes to offer invective instead
> of information, pain instead of intelligence. The post to which I
> replied and to which you knelt here was a demolition of his
> fraudulent efforts to create discomfort in a low-carb dieting group.
> He offered three studies that he misrepresented and likely didn't
> understand to support spurious assertions. I note you didn't find
> anything to dispute in what I said and merely offered agreement to
> his marvelously silly dietary notion.
Phil Holman
Bob Pastorio
>
> "Bob Pastorio" <past...@rica.net> wrote in message
> news:3F073497...@rica.net...
> > Mu' wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 15:21:05 GMT, "Phil Holman"
> > > <phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:
> >
> > I notice you've neglected to deal with the phony facts of fishbone's
> > post and gone directly to endorsing his spurious thesis. I note you
> > endorse the first law of thermodynamics as the basis for a dietary
> > approach. Said so in
> >
> <http://www.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.med.cardiology+author:phil+aut
> hor:holman&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=g7GLa.70851%24Io.6630878%40newsread2.
> prod.itd.earthlink.net&rnum=5&filter=0>
> >
> > Sorry, Phil. Humans aren't bomb calorimeters. And, oh, doesn't this
> > sorta blow the two pound diet away? I mean how many calories are in
> > two pounds of food? Right.
>
> 2lbs of canola oil = ~8000.
> How stupid do you want me to get with this?
This is quite stupid enough. The point, not all that subtle, is that two
pounds of food is a measure that doesn't measure anything coherent
beyond two pounds. The caloric content can run from none to 8000. So how
many should the "average" person consume? Any measuring or counting or
calculating necessary? So just weighing two pounds may not be enough
care in the diet?
> > > >Nothing wrong with limiting ones intake to two pounds of food (1/2
> > > > of the world would be pleased with the increase)
> >
> > Sorry. It's merely silly to make a blanket statement like this.
> > Nothing wrong? This observation is based on what? One-size-fits-all?
> > Any special kinds of food? No matter the activity level?
> >
> > You posted in
> >
> <http://www.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.med.cardiology+author:phil+aut
> hor:holman&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=JSJLa.71093%24Io.6659984%40newsread2.
> prod.itd.earthlink.net&rnum=2>
> > > (Weight-loss) Diet plans are attempts (honest or false) to find ways
> > > that people WILL reduce calories in compared to those expended
> > > and then balance the equation over the long haul.
> > > Credible data as to what works are scarce.
> >
> > So there's nothing wrong but there's no data to support it. It's your
> > opinion.
>
> My opinion is based on a mountain of global empirical observation.
Right. But I note you didn't actually include any "global empirical
observation." How big the "mountain" is would be good. And where it
comes from might be instructive. You say Europe later in this post, but
all that demonstrates is your unfamiliarity with Europe.
> Maybe
> you could offer up a more inclusive example of where this is
> invalidated.
Lessee how this works: You make a silly blanket statement, I say prove
it, and you say disprove it. That about it? *I'm* stupid?
> > > And much of that half of the world lives in good health.
> >
> > And which half is that, fishbone? Maybe throw in some names and places
>
> > where people eat two pounds of food a day and are healthy. Um, it
> > would be good if it weren't just your opinion since you have virtually
> nom
> > credibility. Probably naming some tribe from the Amazon wouldn't make
> > your assertion look too good. Perhaps show any advanced country where
> > this is the case.
>
> Europe. Is the concept of eating less food totally lost on you or is it
> that you don't believe it's a good portion of the problem.
Do you just not pay attention to what happens in the world? The
governments of England, Australia and Italy within the past month said
their citizens are too fat. At last count, England and Italy were in
Europe. Happens I've been in almost all the European countries. I missed
Andorra, Liechtenstein and a few of those other tiny principalities.
I've eaten in European homes and restaurants. The German burgher is the
archetype for the fat guy.
Places where people eat less than two pounds of food a day are not
places where health is fine. It's where the people don't have enough to
eat. Two pounds is 32 ounces. Assume three meals (not everywhere adheres
to that convention) and do the arithmetic. Less than eleven ounces of
food in each meal. Not including beverages. No other food permitted. And
if you like the odd snack, that has to come out of the eleven ounces for
some meal.
Not for an instant do I believe that you do this. Ride a bike
competitively and eat like this? Bullshit. A few years ago, I fed the
Tour DuPont riders when they came through Virginia. I was given
instructions that they needed 10,000 calories a day to endure the grind.
Not even two pounds of pure fat will give you that. Maybe gasoline.
Less food isn't the whole answer. What food is another part. There are
quite a few others.
> > > >and it kind of fits in
> > > >with the U = Q-W (thermo 1st law) philosophy.
> >
> > "Kind of..." Except you offer no definition of what the two pounds can
> > include. The caloric content can vary by orders of magnitude and all
> >you say here is that it's a good idea. Sorry. Thin.
>
> Eat exactly the same kind of food as today except less.
And it's just that simple? Amazing that the American Medical Association
hasn't propounded it, wouldn't you say. Or any scientific body. Or any
school of public health. Perhaps the reason they don't is because it's
an incomplete notion. No questions about nutritive content. No question
about the nature of the foods. No further thought necessary. Um, how
much less should we eat of what? How do we discover how much less and
where's the balance point? Do we have to be hungry all the time? Just
shut up and eat less?
> One wonders
> about the vested interest in something more complicated.
How about if the "vested interest" is in actually succeeding on dealing
with weight using something more definitive than *only* the weight of
that consumed. Just eat less, you say. Does that mean smaller portions
of everything I eat now? Should I try to cut down on my sat fat as
fishbone endlessly says? How do I know where it is? Should I try to get
a balance of nutrients? What is that balance? Who says so? How do they
arrive at those figures?
Did it just get complicated? Well, of course it did. It's a complex
subject.
> Entrusting your
> body weight to an over complicated diet plan is like boarding your dog
> at a taxidermist. Sure, you'll get it back.
Cute but as uninformative as the notion of eating two pounds of food -
and nothing else need be considered. Get this one at Non Sequiturs "R"
Us?
> > > >As a first order effect it is a good rule of thumb. Get that one
> > > > down first and then worry about nutrients and vitamins and
> > > > fluctuations for additional physical activity.
> >
> > Hold it. Stop. "As a first order effect, it's a good rule of
> > thumb"...? You've accepted the notion of two pounds of food being
> right for
> > everybody and now you're dismissing the content of the food? Don't
> > worry about nutrients, just weigh out two pounds and that'll be T-H-E
> > A-N-S-W-E-R?
> >
> > Please.
>
> See previous response.
The one that that says "Eat exactly the same kind of food as today
except less." Funny, I don't see any "worry about nutrients and vitamins
and fluctuations for additional physical activity." So it matters or it
doesn't? You seem inconsistent here, he said in a burst of irony.
> > > Chung and I are not wholly in agreement here. He claims that the
> > > weight loss/food volume issue must be tackled first, then
> > > modifications to diet (like the removal of sat and trans fats, etc)
> > > can be added later. I found it necessary to do all at the same time.
> > > Prolly a personal decision but the overconsumption must stop either
> > > way.
> >
> > And his undocumented and unsupported "experience" should be taken
> > seriously when he routinely mocks anecdotal offerings from others?
> > Chung's web site has fewer "testimonials" than I have fingers and
> > several are rather weak, pointing out flaws in the idea. So this tiny
> > universe "studied" is the basis for a plan everyone should follow? Can
> > you really support something so scantily documented?
>
> Other than the US, is there a real global obesity problem or as much
> infatuation with dieting.
Yes. There is a problem. It does happen in other parts of the globe, but
it isn't universal. But, yes, the problem is appearing in more places
daily. As I noted above.
> > > > It is of questionable worth to be commenting on flora and forna
> > > > when one is upto their neck in an outhouse basement.
> >
> > Non sequiturs at this IQ level really do brighten the day. It's like
> > bringing a knife to a gunfight. Fun to watch it all unfold. BTW, it's
> > "fauna."
>
> You just miss the relevance.
Right. you're still peddling that "it's very simple, just do this one
thing and it's THE ANSWER" and my adding other elements makes it
unnecessarily complicated. Very interesting that only you, the Chungster
and fishbone think so. Not a scientist in the bunch. Two amateurs and
one lousy observer. Grand. I'll trust my health to that group.
> > It is even more questionable to endorse the nonsense of a two pound
> > diet with no further conditions. And the gigantic flaw that Chung
> > missed through ignorance and a superficial observation makes it even
> > more questionable; even up at laughable. He based his two-pound
> > diet on what mountaineers carry not knowing it was dehydrated and
> > required another 4 or 5 pounds of water to make into consumable
> > food. That alone blows his thesis out of the water. And it makes your
> > endorsement a bit suspect, frankly.
>
> Good rhetoric, again you apply total stupidity to the scenario.
Nice try, Sparky. Chung was wrong, it was demonstrated, and you and he
remain proponents for a very silly idea. No rhetoric there. Facts.
And your endorsement remains suspect and grows moreso each time. Your
unquestioning acceptance of this nonsense about two pounds of food being
enough for everyone and anyone is as absurd as the original thesis.
Chung misunderstood what he saw. He hasn't seen fit to make any sort of
adjustment fro that original blunder to more realistic conditions. You
and he and the Mu fraud persist in promulgating a clearly preposterous
dietary approach in an effort to make human nutrition merely a matter of
poundage.
Pound this.
> > > Excuse BOb. When the Chef gets outside the kitchen, all he can do is
> > > wave his arms like an Italian octopus and scream like a banshee.
> >
> > Mu is merely a persistent troll who likes to offer invective instead
> > of information, pain instead of intelligence. The post to which I
> > replied and to which you knelt here was a demolition of his
> > fraudulent efforts to create discomfort in a low-carb dieting group.
> > He offered three studies that he misrepresented and likely didn't
> > understand to support spurious assertions. I note you didn't find
> > anything to dispute in what I said and merely offered agreement to
> > his marvelously silly dietary notion.
This paragraph stands. You did offer objection, but it was meritless.
And you and fishbone keep missing that one most salient point: I'm a
food professional and you two aren't. He even snidely compliments me on
my knowledge about food and cooking and the like. I know what people do
around the world because I study it. I have books from scores of nations
detailing their foods and their customs.
You?
Pastorio
Mu'
<phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:
>2lbs of canola oil = ~8000.
>How stupid do you want me to get with this, Pastorio?
Phil, remember, Pastorio is a chef out of a kitchen. He believes that
since he can boil water and make al dente that he is THE sage on diet
in the newsgroups he trolls.
You're gong to have to get down and dirty, eight grade level, for him
to comprehend.
I tried. I no longer care to educate the witless.
Your turn.
>Europe. Is the concept of eating less food totally lost on you Pastorio or is it
>that you don't believe it's a good portion of the problem.
The vast majority of the people who frequent these newsgroups are in
blanket denial when it comes to their overconsumption. They blame it
on "tricky carbs" or foods that, somehow, mysteriously and
persuasively, force then to pick up food and do endless elbow flexions
until they are "satiated".
Problem is, they fear and run from hunger as if it was a deadly and
unbearable force. Ask them if it is okay to be hungry and what you get
is a resounding "No".
The other problem is more deeply rooted. since they refuse to weigh
their food, most have no clue how much they are eating. Sure, a few
count calories or carb or some such index that is full of erroneous
computations.
KNow how much they really eat? Not a chance.
Simply, most of these folks want to figure out a way to remain
gluttonous, retain their overeating extravagance, and weigh 110.
So they turn to commercial diets that are known to fail them
miserably, like lemmings, they know that the road will run to failure
but onward they march, all the while screaming at the top of their
lemming lungs that all is well and go to hell.
>Eat exactly the same kind of food as today except less. One wonders
>about the vested interest in something more complicated.
Chung's "vested interest" is zip. He gives freely of his advice and
his time.
I asked Chung why he did not write a book about the 2PD and he said,
"There is not enough to write about and its already freely distributed
in the public domain."
> Entrusting your
>body weight to an over complicated diet plan is like boarding your dog
>at a taxidermist. Sure, you'll get it back.
Probably "fatter" too.
Phil Holman
"Mu'" <MuNot...@japan.com> wrote in message
news:ghhggvsr4ih3jtce7...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:02:26 GMT, "Phil Holman"
> <phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:
>
> >2lbs of canola oil = ~8000.
> >How stupid do you want me to get with this, Pastorio?
>
> Phil, remember, Pastorio is a chef out of a kitchen. He believes that
> since he can boil water and make al dente that he is THE sage on diet
> in the newsgroups he trolls.
>
> You're gong to have to get down and dirty, eight grade level, for him
> to comprehend.
>
> I tried. I no longer care to educate the witless.
>
> Your turn.
You can't educate pork.
>
> >Europe. Is the concept of eating less food totally lost on you
Pastorio or is it
> >that you don't believe it's a good portion of the problem.
>
> The vast majority of the people who frequent these newsgroups are in
> blanket denial when it comes to their overconsumption. They blame it
> on "tricky carbs" or foods that, somehow, mysteriously and
> persuasively, force then to pick up food and do endless elbow flexions
> until they are "satiated".
>
> Problem is, they fear and run from hunger as if it was a deadly and
> unbearable force. Ask them if it is okay to be hungry and what you get
> is a resounding "No".
>
> The other problem is more deeply rooted. since they refuse to weigh
> their food, most have no clue how much they are eating. Sure, a few
> count calories or carb or some such index that is full of erroneous
> computations.
>
> KNow how much they really eat? Not a chance.
>
> Simply, most of these folks want to figure out a way to remain
> gluttonous, retain their overeating extravagance, and weigh 110.
The laws of physics say you can't do that. No one has ever demonstrated
a non compliance to the law of conservation of energy. Sorry, no thinner
thighs in 30 days.
>
> So they turn to commercial diets that are known to fail them
> miserably, like lemmings, they know that the road will run to failure
> but onward they march, all the while screaming at the top of their
> lemming lungs that all is well and go to hell.
>
> >Eat exactly the same kind of food as today except less. One wonders
> >about the vested interest in something more complicated.
>
> Chung's "vested interest" is zip. He gives freely of his advice and
> his time.
There is no vested interest in a simple statement that says balance you
calorie checkbook every day. Common sense is free.
>
> I asked Chung why he did not write a book about the 2PD and he said,
> "There is not enough to write about and its already freely distributed
> in the public domain."
>
> > Entrusting your
> >body weight to an over complicated diet plan is like boarding your
dog
> >at a taxidermist. Sure, you'll get it back.
>
> Probably "fatter" too.
Yes it'll be stuffed, metaphorically and literally.
Thanks for the level set.
Phil Holman
Phil Holman
> > 2lbs of canola oil = ~8000.
> > How stupid do you want me to get with this?
>
> This is quite stupid enough. The point, not all that subtle, is that
> two pounds of food is a measure that doesn't measure anything
> coherent beyond two pounds. The caloric content can run from
> none to 8000. So how many should the "average" person
> consume? Any measuring or counting or calculating necessary?
> So just weighing two pounds may not be enough care in the diet?
This is a diet we are talking about right, for someone who needs to lose
weight. The basic message is to eat less than the energy expended. Yes
this is very simplistic but being obese embodies the very simplistic
state of being unhealthy.
There is a pattern here. You continually attribute an argument to an
opponent that does not represent the opponent's true position. I.e. the
one that suggests there is no concern for a healthy diet.
> > My opinion is based on a mountain of global empirical observation.
>
> Right. But I note you didn't actually include any "global empirical
> observation." How big the "mountain" is would be good. And where it
> comes from might be instructive. You say Europe later in this post,
> but all that demonstrates is your unfamiliarity with Europe.
http://www.wheatfoods.org/nut_info/stackup.html
> Do you just not pay attention to what happens in the world? The
> governments of England, Australia and Italy within the past month said
> their citizens are too fat.
Compared to what. US citizens, I think not. Do you understand the
concept of relativity.
> At last count, England and Italy were in
> Europe. Happens I've been in almost all the European countries. I
> missed Andorra, Liechtenstein and a few of those other tiny
principalities.
> I've eaten in European homes and restaurants. The German burgher is
> the archetype for the fat guy.
So how many 300lb people did you see compared to the US. I lived in
the UK for 30 years and didn't see as many compared to the US.
I've also visited France, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Ireland, Holland
and Japan............ditto.
> Places where people eat less than two pounds of food a day are not
> places where health is fine.
The places where they eat more than 2lbs are not fine and dandy either.
> It's where the people don't have enough
> to eat. Two pounds is 32 ounces. Assume three meals (not everywhere
> adheres to that convention) and do the arithmetic. Less than eleven
> ounces of food in each meal. Not including beverages. No other food
> permitted. And if you like the odd snack, that has to come out of the
> eleven ounces for some meal.
"And if you like the odd snack"........the emperor has no clothes. You
don't get it.
With your philosophy, I would be surprized if you didn't have a weight
problem
>
> Not for an instant do I believe that you do this. Ride a bike
> competitively and eat like this?
No but I'm not 300lbs either.
> Bullshit. A few years ago, I fed the
> Tour DuPont riders when they came through Virginia. I was given
> instructions that they needed 10,000 calories a day to endure the
grind.
> Not even two pounds of pure fat will give you that. Maybe gasoline.
You picked a group of people who know exactly how U=Q-W works. 2000 +
1000/hr is a rough guide for training and racing per day. A little less
for
reducing.
>
> Less food isn't the whole answer. What food is another part. There are
> quite a few others.
What I said was. "Get that one down first (less food) and then worry
about nutrients and vitamins and fluctuations for additional physical
activity". Does that sound like less food is the whole answer. The only
statistics I'm aware of for malnutrition in the US is for AN.
>
> > One wonders
> > about the vested interest in something more complicated.
>
> How about if the "vested interest" is in actually succeeding on
> dealing with weight using something more definitive than *only* the
> weight of that consumed. Just eat less, you say. Does that mean
> smaller portions of everything I eat now? Should I try to cut down
> on my sat fat as fishbone endlessly says? How do I know where it is?
> Should I try to get a balance of nutrients? What is that balance?
> Who says so? How do they arrive at those figures?
>
> Did it just get complicated? Well, of course it did. It's a complex
> subject.
>
> > Entrusting your
> > body weight to an over complicated diet plan is like boarding your
> > dog at a taxidermist. Sure, you'll get it back.
>
> Cute but as uninformative as the notion of eating two pounds of food -
> and nothing else need be considered. Get this one at Non Sequiturs "R"
> Us?
Merely entertainment value. How about this. The Titanic is sinking but
instead of going below to plug the hole, Bob is seen up on deck
polishing the hand rails ........and the band played on.
> >
> > Good rhetoric, again you apply total stupidity to the scenario.
>
> Nice try, Sparky. Chung was wrong, it was demonstrated, and you and he
> remain proponents for a very silly idea. No rhetoric there. Facts.
Stupid because I'm sure the intent of the 2lb diet was for consumable
food. Trivial nitpicking is pathetic.
>
> Pound this.
Answer this. Is it possible to provide a balanced nutritional diet
weighing 2 lbs for the majority of our sedentary population?
> And you and fishbone keep missing that one most salient point: I'm a
> food professional and you two aren't.
"food professional" you're part of the problem and I can see why.
> He even snidely compliments me on my knowledge about food and
> cooking and the like. I know what people
> do around the world because I study it. I have books from scores of
> nations detailing their foods and their customs.
> You?
My comparison is based on living 30 years in the UK and 22 years in the
US. The US diet has wider selection and if done wisely is healthier. The
down side is this requires greater self control. I was in London,
Manchester and Cardiff as recently as 2000 and observed that the
population was still relatively leaner.
Phil Holman
*Mu*
<phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:
>This is a diet we are talking about right, for someone who needs to lose
>weight. The basic message is to eat less than the energy expended, Pastorio.
> Yes
>this is very simplistic, the 2PDiet, but being obese embodies the very simplistic
>state of being unhealthy.
Simplistic is both the beauty and the need.
>There is a pattern here, Pastorio. You continually attribute an argument to an
>opponent that does not represent the opponent's true position. I.e. the
>one that suggests there is no concern for a healthy diet.
We hear this all the time. "You mean I can eat two pounds of chocolate
every day for the rest of my life"?
That's all that is left. Rather moronic arguments that have no basis
in reality.
The reality is that the 2PD works; the reality further is that it
requires discipline, not tricks with carbs or fats or any other such
nonsense.
>So how many 300lb people did you see compared to the US. I lived in
>the UK for 30 years and didn't see as many compared to the US.
>I've also visited France, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Ireland, Holland
>and Japan............ditto.
This is not even a close call. The USA is by far the most obese nation
on the planet.
>> Less food isn't the whole answer. What food is another part. There are
>> quite a few others.
>
>What I said was. "Get that one down first (less food) and then worry
>about nutrients and vitamins and fluctuations for additional physical
>activity". Does that sound like less food is the whole answer. The only
>statistics I'm aware of for malnutrition in the US is for AN.
No less food is not the whole answer and no on, including Chung, ever
said it was. But less food is the FIRST and most important answer;
education and food consumption alternatives can come while and after
the weight loss.
>Stupid because I'm sure the intent of the 2lb diet was for consumable
>food. Trivial nitpicking is pathetic.
What else is there for the likes of Pastorio et al but trivial
nitpicking? It's all they have. the 2PD works, it is simple and it
doesn't need a damn newsgroup to try to figure it out either.
>Answer this. Is it possible to provide a balanced nutritional diet
>weighing 2 lbs for the majority of our sedentary population?
Most certainly and I have many clients and patients that are doing ab
fab on the diet.
So does Chung.
>> And you and fishbone keep missing that one most salient point: I'm a
>> food professional and you two aren't.
>
>"food professional" you're part of the problem and I can see why.
Food professionals should stay in their domain. The kitchen. Training,
cardiologists and nutrition specialists are needed, better yet
scientists and those are the folks that I seek out and listen to.
>My comparison is based on living 30 years in the UK and 22 years in the
>US. The US diet has wider selection and if done wisely is healthier. The
>down side is this requires greater self control.
Yes it does.
Or a different view on food altogether.
*Mu*
>>Places where people eat less than two pounds of food a day are not
>>places where health is fine. It's where the people don't have enough to
>>eat.
On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:20:53 +0000 (UTC), c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:
>Rubbish. Although most of the folk I know eat more than 2lbs of food a
>day, if I strike out the overweight ones, I end up with a list of folk
>most of whom eat around 2lbs a day, like me, and are healthy and fit
>on it.
I have so many converts, from the intensely exercising athletic world,
that I no longer need convincing. MOF, I go one better; I convinced
myself by actually trying it myself.
Has Pastorio tried the 2PDiet? No. So forget him.
>You're having reading comprehension problems again, Pastorio. The two pound diet
>is meant for car driving desk workers, not competitive athletes.
See above.
>>> Other than the US, is there a real global obesity problem or as much
>>I know what people do
>>around the world because I study it. I have books from scores of nations
>>detailing their foods and their customs.
>
>It's obvious you haven't travelled to these places, Patorio. The most common
>two observations of a European visiting the US for the first time is
>gagging at the size of food helpings in restaurants, cafes, etc., and
>being startled by the number of folk who are large enough that it's
>not clear whether you could put your arms round them and get your
>hands to meet on the other side.
No, he hasn't left the kitchen. Even his computer is just left of the
dried tomatoes.
Bob M
but you change your email address so much that I can't keep up with my
killfile.
--
Bob M in CT remove 'x.' to reply
*Mu*
>> Phil, remember, Pastorio is a chef out of a kitchen. He believes that
>> since he can boil water and make al dente that he is THE sage on diet
>> in the newsgroups he trolls.
>>
>> You're gong to have to get down and dirty, eight grade level, for him
>> to comprehend.
>>
>> I tried. I no longer care to educate the witless.
>>
>> Your turn.
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:33:01 GMT, "Phil Holman"
<phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:
>You can't educate pork.
lol
>> Simply, most of these folks want to figure out a way to remain
>> gluttonous, retain their overeating extravagance, and weigh 110.
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:33:01 GMT, "Phil Holman"
<phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:
>The laws of physics say you can't do that. No one has ever demonstrated
>a non compliance to the law of conservation of energy. Sorry, no thinner
>thighs in 30 days.
Nope, ain't gonna happen but the immense amount of effort, time and
money spent by members of these newsgroups trying to avoid the truth
is an amazing thing.
>> Chung's "vested interest" is zip. He gives freely of his advice and
>> his time.
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:33:01 GMT, "Phil Holman"
<phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:
>There is no vested interest in a simple statement that says balance you
>calorie checkbook every day. Common sense is free.
Common sense is in short supply when it comes to dieting, I'm afraid.
Too much denial, too much wanting things to stay the same and have
weight loss happen as if by magic.
Simply put, way too much ado about nothing. Way too much emotion and
territory defending.
and why is this? why is it that somewhat educated people can run so
swiftly and quickly from the truth of their overconsumption.
Avoidance is one way to deal with your gluttony.
>Thanks for the level set.
Good luck.
*Mu*
Malcolm) wrote:
>I've noticed that on that diet my weight stays pretty constant. If I
>shift up to 3 meals a day, prob 2.5 lbs a day, I start gaining
>weight. I lose weight either by shifting down to only one meal a day
>of about 1lb, plus snacks of less than 1lb, or increasing exercise.
I can't realistically exercise any more than I do. I have to get my
weight maintenance from curbing overconsumption.
At first glance, this may seem a monstrous task. One of the benefits
of the 2PDiet is that the slowing down, incrementally, of one's
overconsumption is a physiological, emotional and psychological
teaching tool. A little less each week, a little adjustment each
phase.
>I've never tried to use the the 2lb diet idea, it's just my
>observation that it happens to fit my own natural eating pattern, and
>that when I eat more than that I slowly but surely gain weight.
Call it whatever you wish. It's about developing a more disciplined
approach to eating, one that makes you accountable since it will work.
The Queen of Cans and Jars
> Please, Mu, stop changing your email address! I can't stand your drivel,
> but you change your email address so much that I can't keep up with my
> killfile.
get a better killfile. one that relies only on the sender's address is
pretty poor.
Bob Pastorio
> > The point, not all that subtle, is that
> > two pounds of food is a measure that doesn't measure anything
> > coherent beyond two pounds. The caloric content can run from
> > none to 8000. So how many should the "average" person
> > consume? Any measuring or counting or calculating necessary?
> > So just weighing two pounds may not be enough care in the diet?
>
> This is a diet we are talking about right, for someone who needs to lose
> weight. The basic message is to eat less than the energy expended. Yes
> this is very simplistic but being obese embodies the very simplistic
> state of being unhealthy.
Phil, my point, again, is that it's *too* simple to use a single
criterion with such vastly variable content. I can see the general
principle of limiting dietary intake to lose weight. But not as a
general principle, for everybody, all the time, which is what the
feckless Mu and careless Chung preach.
Besides, what you're really talking about is counting calories. That
makes sense because it's the final arbiter in the context of losing
weight.
Talking about weight as the criterion makes as much sense as talking
about volume. The "One Liter" diet. Only eat one liter of food a day.
> There is a pattern here. You continually attribute an argument to an
> opponent that does not represent the opponent's true position. I.e. the
> one that suggests there is no concern for a healthy diet.
Perhaps I've overstated it. You say that the first concern is for two
pounds and the other stuff can come along later. But suddenly, the
number of dimensions in this matrix becomes larger. So we need to
consider nutrients. And caloric content. We need to consider ingredients
to maintain health, as in sat fats, etc. Suddenly, the two pound limit
becomes, at best, a mushy guideline. If all the other numbers fall into
place, the weight of the food is irrelevant. Eat 5 pounds if it's still
below the caloric threshold and is nutritively sound. Or eat one pound
if it works for you. What's the difference? How does the weight matter?
> > > My opinion is based on a mountain of global empirical observation.
>
> http://www.wheatfoods.org/nut_info/stackup.html
I looked at the site and I'm a bit disappointed in it. Her agenda is to
promote grain consumption using some rather bad postulates. She accepts
the American food pyramid as good nutritional advice. She asserts that
it's the grain consumption as measured against fats that is the reason
for her notions of better health in different places. She admits no
other variables. She promotes a low-fat, high-carb diet and I have to
contrast that assertion with Dr. Walter Willet's view that there's no
demonstrated need in human nutrition for carbs. Both are extreme, but
he's chair of the public Health school at Harvard, and his notions
reflect a rather more modern view closer to the research being reported.
She's a bit too selective in her statistics, too.
She says things like this:
"How does this higher bread intake affect the health of Europeans?
Because bread and other grain foods are rich in complex carbohydrates,
one apparent outcome is that Europeans consume a higher-carbohydrate
diet than their American counterparts. This high-carbohydrate intake may
contribute to Europeans' lower obesity, coronary heart and other disease
rates."
She omits the large amount of sugars and other trash carbs in the
American diet. She only counts the grain carbs. There are carbs and
there are carbs. Like fats. Bad science. Bad reportage.
> > Places where people eat less than two pounds of food a day are not
> > places where health is fine.
>
> The places where they eat more than 2lbs are not fine and dandy either.
Agreed. Have we maybe transcended the origins of the discussion here?
And maybe gotten to the real subject of all of it. People with bounty
use it carelessly and people with little do what they can. This could
get into politics very simply from this point.
> > It's where the people don't have enough
> > to eat. Two pounds is 32 ounces. Assume three meals (not everywhere
> > adheres to that convention) and do the arithmetic. Less than eleven
> > ounces of food in each meal. Not including beverages. No other food
> > permitted. And if you like the odd snack, that has to come out of the
> > eleven ounces for some meal.
>
> "And if you like the odd snack"........the emperor has no clothes. You
> don't get it.
> With your philosophy, I would be surprized if you didn't have a weight
> problem
Phil, I was dealing with the rigidity of the two pound limit. And please
don't tell me you eat only at meals and never anything between. Don't
make "an odd snack" into a deluge of salty crunchies and sugary ice
cream because that's not what I meant. I was only saying that the sizes
of the meals are small for most adults and if they must, further,
subtract anything else consumed from them, they become small to the
point of not satiating.
> I'm sure the intent of the 2lb diet was for consumable
> food. Trivial nitpicking is pathetic.
Come on, Phil. The story about how he came to it has been told again and
again. Mountaineers carried about two pounds of food to go climb
mountains, by his calculations. Freeze dried food. I'm equally sure he
meant consumable food, but he didn't know what he was looking at. The
real-world weight of the food was triple what he suggests. And that's
for mountain climbers about to go up a mountain. Makes as much sense as
telling bike riders to only eat two pounds or four pounds or any other
weight of food rather than how many calories they need. Or trying to
apply the activities of participants in a very specific and demanding
activity to everyone. Chung doesn't limit it to people wishing to lose
weight, he says it's for everyone all the time.
> Answer this. Is it possible to provide a balanced nutritional diet
> weighing 2 lbs for the majority of our sedentary population?
I'd say it would be possible. With good analyses of the balance of
nutrients and caloric content. Yes. But I also say that if you're doing
all that calculating anyway, why even bother to include the weights of
the foods as a restricting characteristic? It's a complicating factor
with no direct bearing on efficacy. It won't be more effective if the
1500 calories are in food that weighs 1.5 pounds as opposed the same
number of calories in 2.5 pounds of food.
> My comparison is based on living 30 years in the UK and 22 years in the
> US. The US diet has wider selection and if done wisely is healthier. The
> down side is this requires greater self control.
Agreed. With the addition that it also requires good information. The
food pyramid has been disastrous in effects and results.
Another factor that's becoming more global: Lamentably, the evolution of
the US culture has fostered a bizarre fear of food while simultaneously
encouraging gorging on it. As though somehow, a trip to the Dairy Queen
for a super-slurper is outside consideration of the diet. As though we
can make parentheses in life and do things we know better than to do
without consequence. The next logical, even more bizarre, step is in the
direction of suing the people who give us what we want for our being
fat.
> I was in London,
> Manchester and Cardiff as recently as 2000 and observed that the
> population was still relatively leaner.
It's that relative thing, Phil. I agree that the rest of the world's
folks aren't as fat as Americans. But I can't see Chung's notion and
fishbone's verbal adaptation of it as a workable solution to any of the
problems. The American culture isn't one where meals are done mostly in
the home. Go out to eat and, what, don't finish your meal because it
weighs too much? Carry a scale and put your poached fish on it to see?
It's very much easier to count calories. Easier to do WeightWatchers.
Easier to reduce carbs. Easier to do more exercise.
Two pounds of food per day may well work for some people and more power
to them. But it doesn't work for most. Restaurant portions in the
Americas and other countries, European and Asian, will be too large for
this approach. These are measures that prevail around the world. A
standard potato weighs right up at eight ounces. An eating apple will
weigh upwards of 5 ounces. A small banana weighs 4 ounces or more. A cup
(US measure - about 250 ml) of cooked beans will weigh about 7 ounces. A
piece of beef the size of a deck of cards weighs about 3 ounces - rather
small for most tastes. A moderate-sized Bacon, lettuce and tomato
sandwich weighs about 6 ounces. Bagel? 3 to 5 ounces. A medium-sized
cucumber runs 10-12 ounces. A cup of pasta (a very scant portion if an
entree item) is about 6 ounces. A reasonable portion of lasagna begins
at about 8 ounces. A half bone-in chicken breast weighs about 4 ounces
and slightly less for a bone-in thigh of which, for both, about 3 ounces
is meat. A chicken quarter generally offers about 8 ounces meat. A piece
of cheese the size of a deck of cards will weigh roughly 4 ounces. A
bowl of oatmeal, about a cup, goes up from 8 ounces.
A smallish steak, a cup of broccoli and a medium potato will be about a
pound of food. Add a small roll and a small salad, and we're up at more
than 20 ounces. I don't think that most adults would see that as
anything extravagant. Make it a chicken breast and reduce the total
weight by an ounce or two. Still...
Two pounds of food can be worked from this list to be nutritively
balanced. Will it be interesting to do for a long haul? Will it be
satisfying? Will it be something that people can adhere to? I don't
think so. Others seem to.
YMMV.
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
>
> Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> writes:
>
> >The point, not all that subtle, is that two
> >pounds of food is a measure that doesn't measure anything coherent
> >beyond two pounds. The caloric content can run from none to 8000. So how
> >many should the "average" person consume? Any measuring or counting or
> >calculating necessary? So just weighing two pounds may not be enough
> >care in the diet?
>
> general average mix of foods in the average diet, and how sensitive
> this is the average amount of variation between food components of
> different caloric density.
Wonderful. <clap, clap> You've managed to pack the least idea into the
most words. Amazing.
> Chung has answered this question
> empirically, as have a number of newsgroup osters over the years. The
> objections have almost entirely come from folk like you, who have no
> empirical data at all, but spend time specualting on all the kinds of
> ways in which this idea wouldn't work. All of these ideas are quite
> correct, but what matters is the statistical distributions in diets
> and the sensitivity of the 2lb diet notion to these variations. That
> is an empirical question.
This is twaddle.
The question still remains. I haven't said it won't work. It may just
work fine if all the variables are dealt with - like nutritive content,
caloric content and the like. I've said it a silly index for diet
because weight has no correlation with efficacy. Two pounds of food has
no correlation with what's in it. It's the caloric content and the
balance of nutrients that matter. The volume, weight, color, shape and
temperature are incidentals to contemplate, not worry about or use as
deciding criteria. Might as well worry about the dishes the food is
served on.
> I know plenty of folk who have a light breakfast, e.g. a boiled egg
> and bit of toast,
Boiled egg=2 ounces
Bit of toast (two slices)=2.5 to 3 ounces
Large sandwich=6 to 10 ounces
> a lunch of something like a large sandwich, coming
> out at something like half a pound total,
Good luck getting that to come out to 8 ounces. Looks more like 10.5 to
15 ounces.
> then an evening meal of
> something like 1.5lbs, all of which comes out to about 2lbs a day.
All of which comes out to a minimum of 24+10.5 or 34.5 ounces - 2 pounds
and a couple ounces. Or up to 24+15 or 39 ounces or almost 2.5 pounds.
And this assumes they never have a chocolate or a banana or a piece of
their birthday cake.
> >Yes. There is a problem. It does happen in other parts of the globe, but
> >it isn't universal. But, yes, the problem is appearing in more places
> >daily. As I noted above.
>
> It is appearing in other places as they move towards modern American
> habits of life (very little physical exercise in the everyday life
> because of the car) and habits of eating (food that is fast to
> prepare, calorie dense, and fast to eat, so that it is as easy as
> possible to overeat).
Unfortunately, yes.
> >I know what people do
> >around the world because I study it. I have books from scores of nations
> >detailing their foods and their customs.
>
> It's obvious you haven't travelled to these places.
Right. I've lived on three continents and visited literally, scores of
countries.
> The most common
> two observations of a European visiting the US for the first time is
> gagging at the size of food helpings in restaurants, cafes, etc., and
> being startled by the number of folk who are large enough that it's
> not clear whether you could put your arms round them and get your
> hands to meet on the other side.
Yes. And you think that two pounds of food per day per person is a wise
way to live? Practical? Rational?
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
>
> since they refuse to weigh
> their food, most have no clue how much they are eating. Sure, a few
> count calories or carb or some such index that is full of erroneous
> computations.
So weight gives you an exact number. And when you've weighed your food,
you know how much it weighs. Nothing else. Not caloric content. Not
nutritive balance. Nothing else. But you know how much it weighs.
Erroneous computations... My, aren't you the little scientist.
Hey, fishbone, listen, my tomatoes aren't looking good. They need
fertilizer.
Mind if I dip out some of that shit in your head to spread around them?
Good lad.
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
> >where people eat two pounds of food a day and are healthy.
>
> eaten on average about 2lbs a day of food.
So when I visit Scotland, the astonishing breakfasts are just for the
tourists? The banoffee pies? The afternoon teas with pastries and fruit?
The pub life?
Can't extrapolate from the particular to the universal. Logic 101.
> My docs consider me
> unusually fit for my age (60). For example, my evening meal frequently
> consists of a nearly exactly 1lb weight dinner, pre-cooked in a
> supermarket pack, no extras, no extra water, no extra courses. The
> rest of my meals usually consist of one other meal about half a pound
> plus some snacking on fruit or sandwich about half a pound.
Might be interesting if, instead of estimating, you actually weighed
your daily intake. Everything eaten over 24 hours. Might be better to do
it over a few months.
I find that even foodservice professionals who deal with measured
portions every day don't estimate weight very well. I'm not saying you
aren't telling the truth, I'm saying I don't trust estimates, including
my own.
> I've noticed that on that diet my weight stays pretty constant. If I
> shift up to 3 meals a day, prob 2.5 lbs a day, I start gaining
> weight. I lose weight either by shifting down to only one meal a day
> of about 1lb, plus snacks of less than 1lb, or increasing exercise.
>
> I've never tried to use the the 2lb diet idea, it's just my
> observation that it happens to fit my own natural eating pattern, and
> that when I eat more than that I slowly but surely gain weight.
Your natural eating pattern works for you. Others have other patterns.
Forcing them makes for hard times.
Pastorio
Tom
> Tell us again what you do for a living? What you're good at? What you
> know about?
>
> Pastorio
Touche, Bob, Touche!
;>)
Tom
Bob Pastorio
>
> Pastorio blathered while his butt is falling out of his britches:
>
I just love it when you display your entire IQ in a simple but
grammatically absurd sentence. Have a 5th grader explain to you about
verb tenses, ignoramus.
It's a pure delight watching you pee in your own shoes. I love watching
you do your twists and turns to try to keep ascendant. Struggling so
hard to win a prize. To be the emperor.
The emperor of ice cream...
Sad, sad little man.
Cyber narcissist with no future; only a shabby now.
Fight on, fishbone. I'm sure somebody besides your sock puppets will
listen to you.
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
>
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:40:53 GMT, "Phil Holman"
> <phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:
> >Answer this. Is it possible to provide a balanced nutritional diet
> >weighing 2 lbs for the majority of our sedentary population?
>
> Most certainly and I have many clients and patients that are doing ab
> fab on the diet.
>
> So does Chung.
Funny thing about proof. Um, lack of proof. Any sort of science. Any
sort of endorsement from anybody but the Fraudulent Mu-ster and
Competency-challenged Chung. No system. No regimen. No details. No
results available. Yawwwwwwnnnnnn.
But what can we expect from a guy who claims to train the military, has
clients and patients (never heard any other professional anybody use
those distinctly), isn't a trainer but evaluates them every day and on
and on with braggadocio in living color...
I bet you discovered other planets, too, fishbone. Maybe Uranus, huh?
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
>
> Call it whatever you wish. It's about developing a more disciplined
> approach to eating, one that makes you accountable since it will work.
As though counting calories won't work. Silly, silly little man.
Weigh your food.
How much does a handful of raisins weigh, Fishbone? Anybody...?
>Waves hand frantically> Oh. Me, let me answer the question> Pick Me...
<whew> Thanks for picking me. The answer is: Who cares. It's only the
calories that matter, right? And don't forget the nutrients. How much do
the nutrients weigh?
I liked you better when you were Roose. Mostly because you went away for
a while.
Pastorio
Wesley Groleau
> The question still remains. I haven't said it won't work. It may just
> work fine if all the variables are dealt with - like nutritive content,
> caloric content and the like. I've said it a silly index for diet
> because weight has no correlation with efficacy. Two pounds of food has
> no correlation with what's in it. It's the caloric content and the
Chung's website seemed to suggest "eat the same things"
you have been eating, only less. A reasonable idea, IF
it can actually be done. What was not reasonable was
the advice to the dieter to compute changes in medications
on their own.
Bob Pastorio
To be sure. And a rather significant blunder like that coupled with his
apparent blunder about dehydrated versus whole foods makes the whole
fragile framework suspect.
Right. Eat less. How much less? Of what? Just eat less of everything
until the total weight equals two pounds? Really? So scale down
everything. Eat half a chicken leg. 1.4 slices of pizza? Most of an
apple?
Only his suckup acolytes prize the "simplicity" of the idea - just eat
less - over the realities of what the idea translates into in pragmatic
terms. Just eat less and later we'll look at the nutritive implications.
In principle, it is appealing. But why bother with the two pounds
business if you finally have to do the arithmetic anyway?
Pastorio
Tony Lew
What do you expect from a doctor fired from a hospital for
giving substandard care?
Phil Holman
People who make these kinds of claims either have irrefutable evidence
and are somewhat protected or do not and are wide open for libel
litigation. Which are you?
Phil Holman
*Mu*
<wesgr...@despammed.com> wrote:
>Chung's website seemed to suggest "eat the same things"
>you have been eating, only less. A reasonable idea, IF
>it can actually be done. What was not reasonable was
>the advice to the dieter to compute changes in medications
>on their own.
uhhhhh, and you get off calling down Chung with what credentials?
Ron Ritzman
wrote:
>>Chung's website seemed to suggest "eat the same things"
>>you have been eating, only less. A reasonable idea, IF
>>it can actually be done. What was not reasonable was
>>the advice to the dieter to compute changes in medications
>>on their own.
>
>uhhhhh, and you get off calling down Chung with what credentials?
Since when have "credentials" been necessary on Usenet?
--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address
Bob Pastorio
>
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:45:57 -0400, *Mu* <MuIsNo...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>Chung's website seemed to suggest "eat the same things"
> >>you have been eating, only less. A reasonable idea, IF
> >>it can actually be done. What was not reasonable was
> >>the advice to the dieter to compute changes in medications
> >>on their own.
> >
> >uhhhhh, and you get off calling down Chung with what credentials?
>
> Since when have "credentials" been necessary on Usenet?
C'mon. You have to be a clown school graduate like Mu of the clan
Fishbone to spot another clown, right? Why he and Chung are such bosom
buddies. Well, that and he says he's Chung's wife.
So if anybody ought to know, it's certainly him.
Another thought: What credentials are necessary to recognize
questionable competence? Right.
What I thought.
Pastorio
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:45:57 -0400, *Mu* <MuIsNo...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>Chung's website seemed to suggest "eat the same things"
> >>you have been eating, only less. A reasonable idea, IF
> >>it can actually be done. What was not reasonable was
> >>the advice to the dieter to compute changes in medications
> >>on their own.
> >
> >uhhhhh, and you get off calling down Chung with what credentials?
>
> Since when have "credentials" been necessary on Usenet?
They are helpful for credibility.
As for the comment:
"What was not reasonable was the advice to the dieter to compute
changes in medications on their own."
I would have to agree with it *if* it were true.
See the narrative at:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
and note that a doctor is involved (me if the person is my patient) to
"review a person's progress" with the 2 pound diet approach.
Adjustment in medications needed as weight is being lost and intake is
changing is fine under a doctor's supervision. As far as I know, the
2 pound diet approach is the only "published" diet that explicitly
involves doctors in supervising the adjustment of medications. Ime,
some folks "fail" at dieting because they start feeling ill as they
lose weight because their medications are not adjusted.
Regards,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Ron Ritzman
Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>> Since when have "credentials" been necessary on Usenet?
>
>They are helpful for credibility.
BINGO
*Mu*
<ritz...@paniximretarded.com> wrote:
>>uhhhhh, and you get off calling down Chung with what credentials?
>
>Since when have "credentials" been necessary on Usenet?
Only necessary when Groleau takes on a board certified cardiologist
claiming to know better then he about his field of discipline.
*Mu*
>>Yes. And you think that two pounds of food per day per person is a wise
>>way to live? Practical? Rational?
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:47:08 +0000 (UTC), c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:
>I'm 60, and have eaten like that for decades. If I ate more I'd feel
>stuffed and listless. I simply offered my experience as a
>validation that for at least some people it's neither a restrictive
>not an unhealthy diet.
That's right, it is only restrictive to those whose views on food
consumptions are skewed to begin with. This is one of my major
arguments. People who should know better, such as consistent and
so-called regular posters to Usenet, don't. They have not come to
grips with their food volumes for many reasons. Or they have and are
looking for ways to "trick diet" ...diets that meet _their_criteria.
>Apart from it's simplicity, it focusses attention on an important idea
>which many dieters try very hard to avoid: you need to eat *less*.
It is the single most fundamental component to any diet plan. I have
never seen anybody gaining weight who was eating within the 2 pound
limit. And I never will.
So there it is. You can run but not hide from the truth. Eat less.
Know how much you eat. Adjust to the truth that 2 pounds is not only
enough but more than enough.
>The
>calorie counter dieters I know seem to regard calorie counting as a
>way of being clever enough with your choices and calculations that you
>can eat the same amount and get thinner, by avoiding "fattening"
>foods.
"Trick" dieting with all the prerequisites of journaling, inaccurate
calorie counting, etc...simply nothing more than ways to get around
the one infallible axiom.
Eat less.
*Mu*
Malcolm) wrote:
>. A small level of exercise, such as walking up hills for a
>few hours a week, does for some reason make it easier to cut down on
>food intake, as well as getting rid of some food calories. My guess is
>that the human appetite, fatigue, and other biochemical systems, work
>best with a certain level of exercise, and become disordered with too
>low a level of exercise.
That's an interesting observation and although I do not believe it is
a blanket fact, I do believe for many that is exactly what is
happening.
Bob Pastorio
> >>
> >> Call it whatever you wish. It's about developing a more disciplined
> >> approach to eating, one that makes you accountable since it will work.
>
> >As though counting calories won't work. Silly, silly little man.
>
> example, suppose I cut myself a thick slice of heavy rye
> bread. Finding out how many calories that might be is difficult.
Oh, bullshit, Chris. All those wonderful scales in your house should
provide you a wonderful few minutes of mathematical nirvana. How much
does it weigh, what's the caloric density (right off the supermarket
label) and some grade school math and there you are. You have both the
good number of calories it contains and you can indulge your pedantic
side. Win-win, huh, and nobody else need participate.
> >How much does a handful of raisins weigh, Fishbone? Anybody...?
>
> I have three weighing scales in my kitchen. What's the problem about
> weighing things? It's very easy! Counting calories would be easy if I
> could just pop stuff onto a calorimeter and read off the calories.
You contradict yourself at a very basic level. You trust the packaging
that you get from supermarkets to be reasonably accurate, but not the
calorie charts from the various sources that have actually measured them
for you.
You don't need a calorimeter any more than you need three scales.
Particularly since the labels give you so much information and you seem
to like packaged foods.
> It's even easier when my dinner consists of a supermarket package you
> stick in the oven which is labelled as 410gms. Of course it's a little
> lighter after being cooked, but that keeps the calculations
> conservative.
And withal, you say you eat about two pounds of food a day as a matter
of normal course and you're still overweight? Wow. What a testimonial
for the Sure-Fire, No-Need-to-do-Arithmetic, One-Size-Fits-All,
Somehow-Magic, Brilliantly-Simple Two-Pound Diet.
And, as Mu says, it's the simplicity of it that makes it so desirable,
even though he asserts that it takes discipline. As though *ANY* diet
plan doesn't take discipline. He also says this howler, that it's a good
plan because it's "one that makes you accountable since it will work."
Makes you accountable since it will work? What an interesting use of
logic and precision.
I say this:
>The question still remains. I haven't said it won't work. It may just
>work fine if all the variables are dealt with
Then you explain the delightful simplicity like this:
Chris: What you don't understand is that variables of many functions
have
idioscyncratic sensitivities to changes in those variables. It's a
well known technique to first of all calculate the sensitivities, and
then to combine that with the typical distributions of values in the
variables. This is how mathematicians calculate acceptable
simplifications of complex formulae.
Pastorio: I note that there are no diet or nutrition books written by
mathematicians. It's a logical absurdity to equate this abstraction of
theoretical mathematics to real-world conditions where the each of the
scores of variables can wander across several orders of magnitude. It's
that old "one foot in the fire, one in the ice water" business where the
average temperature is nice and comfortable. Nonsense on the face of it.
Chris: If the calculations are
formidable, or the functions and distributions not well specified, it
can be done empirically.
Chung's 2lb diet is a suggestion of an empirical simplification of a
complex multivariable function. The question of how good a
simplification it is can be answered either empirically or
theoretically. Every criticism you've posted has been a criticism of
it being unacceptable as a deductive transformation, i.e., you point
out special circumstances in which it won't work, which is completely
missing the point.
End quote.
To which I say,
My criticism is apparently too uncomplicated for you. It is this:
Weighing food informs you of one dimension of it: the weight. Given that
we have to deal with an n-dimensional matrix in formulating a good diet,
the mere consideration of mass, a single dimension with no fixed or even
approximate relationship to any other, provides, at very best, the
insufficient skeleton of a dietary approach.
Knowing the weight alone, as your own experience demonstrates, isn't
sufficient to prevent your being overweight, nor is it sufficient to
help you lose weight.
And you say this:
Chris: I'm 60, and have eaten like that for decades. If I ate more I'd
feel
stuffed and listless. My doctors sometimes enquire about my diet, and
always consider it good. It's obviously adequate, since I'm slightly
overweight. My doctors don't agree, but I have higher standards than
their wall weight charts.
Pastorio: Your standards are *different* not higher. This isn't a
morality contest.
Chris: However, I wouldn't advocate it as a practical limit for most
folk,
since people have different efficiencies with which they digest and
metabolise food, different basal metabolisms, different habits of
exercise, different sizes, etc.. I simply offered my experience as a
validation that for at least some people it's neither a restrictive
not an unhealthy diet.
Pastorio: So you wouldn't advocate it, you say, yet here you are
advocating it. And you seem to have stopped extrapolating from the
particular (you) to the universal (everybody else).
Apart from it's simplicity, it focusses attention on an important idea
which many dieters try very hard to avoid: you need to eat *less*. The
calorie counter dieters I know seem to regard calorie counting as a
way of being clever enough with your choices and calculations that you
can eat the same amount and get thinner, by avoiding "fattening"
foods.
Pastorio: I can accept the notion that we should eat less. But the index
is caloric reduction, the reason is caloric reduction, the only
effective way is caloric reduction, not weight and not volume. It makes
as much sense to predicate a diet on weight as it does on color. I will
grant that less of the same thing will contain fewer calories. But those
"indices" are spurious. "Less" and "fewer" don't address sufficiency.
And your experience demonstrates that it doesn't work as a maintenance
program much less a weight-reduction one. For you.
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
>
> On 7 Jul 2003 22:32:13 -0700, and...@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew B.
> Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>
> >> Since when have "credentials" been necessary on Usenet?
> >
> >They are helpful for credibility.
>
> BINGO
So, Ron, where does this leave our poor Mu/fishbone sockpuppet who
hasn't demonstrated any?
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
>
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:47:08 +0000 (UTC), c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Chris
> Malcolm) wrote:
>
> >I'm 60, and have eaten like that for decades. If I ate more I'd feel
> >stuffed and listless. I simply offered my experience as a
> >validation that for at least some people it's neither a restrictive
> >not an unhealthy diet.
>
> That's right, it is only restrictive to those whose views on food
> consumptions are skewed to begin with. This is one of my major
> arguments. People who should know better, such as consistent and
> so-called regular posters to Usenet, don't. They have not come to
> grips with their food volumes for many reasons. Or they have and are
> looking for ways to "trick diet" ...diets that meet _their_criteria.
Nice try, fraud-boy. You snipped off the best part and it's this:
> It's obviously adequate, since I'm slightly
> overweight. My doctors don't agree, but I have higher standards
> than their wall weight charts.
See, *slightly overweight.* What a wonderful testimonial for the
Sure-Fire, No-Need-to-do-Arithmetic, One-Size-Fits-All, Somehow-Magic,
Brilliantly-Simple Two-Pound Diet. Except for the fact that it doesn't
work, it's a wonderful idea.
> >Apart from it's simplicity, it focusses attention on an important idea
> >which many dieters try very hard to avoid: you need to eat *less*.
>
> It is the single most fundamental component to any diet plan. I have
> never seen anybody gaining weight who was eating within the 2 pound
> limit. And I never will.
Well, yes you will. I mean, have.
I assume you read above that Chris where he said he's overweight in
spite of eating two pounds of food a day. And, he goes on to say
elsewhere, that it doesn't help him lose weight unless he cuts it back
further.
> So there it is. You can run but not hide from the truth. Eat less.
> Know how much you eat. Adjust to the truth that 2 pounds is not only
> enough but more than enough.
Apparently, in the case of Chris, much more than enough since he can't
keep his weight low even at that weight. A fine demonstration that the
idea is inherently unsound since he's "60, and have eaten like that for
decades" and he's still overweight. Might just show that the weight of
the food is essentially irrelevant.
But I love those new tapdancing shoes. They make such nice clicking
noises on the floor as you sing the same old discredited tune.
> >The
> >calorie counter dieters I know seem to regard calorie counting as a
> >way of being clever enough with your choices and calculations that you
> >can eat the same amount and get thinner, by avoiding "fattening"
> >foods.
>
> "Trick" dieting with all the prerequisites of journaling, inaccurate
> calorie counting, etc...simply nothing more than ways to get around
> the one infallible axiom.
>
> Eat less.
And yet, Chris also says this:
> However, I wouldn't advocate it as a practical limit for most
> folk, since people have different efficiencies with which they
> digest and metabolise food, different basal metabolisms, different
> habits of exercise, different sizes, etc..
So even your "testimonial" doesn't support your position any more than
the ones on Chung's web site do. It's hilarious that those luke-warm
notes are the best he's got. Nobody else wants to say anything positive
about him and his plan? Must be winning excited converts by the
hundreds, thousands, millions...
It's truly wonderful watching you try to screw in a nail. Making other
people's words agree with you by editing and messing with them. This is
how you demonstrate your credentials. This is how you prove you're worth
listening to. This is how you show who you are, whether you want to or
not.
You're a mere sock puppet with a streak of ignorant malice and not a
very good one at that.
Everybody get the sheet music to "Poor Johnny one-note" so fishbone can
dine and dance to an appropriate tune.
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
Wait. Let me write that down. Another trickle of wisdom from fishbone.
Weasel words and all.
Pastorio
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> writes:
> >This is twaddle.
>
> >The question still remains. I haven't said it won't work. It may just
> >work fine if all the variables are dealt with
>
> What you don't understand is that variables of many functions have
> idioscyncratic sensitivities to changes in those variables. It's a
> well known technique to first of all calculate the sensitivities, and
> then to combine that with the typical distributions of values in the
> variables. This is how mathematicians calculate acceptable
> simplifications of complex formulae. If the calculations are
> formidable, or the functions and distributions not well specified, it
> can be done empirically.
>
> Chung's 2lb diet is a suggestion of an empirical simplification of a
> complex multivariable function. The question of how good a
> simplification it is can be answered either empirically or
> theoretically. Every criticism you've posted has been a criticism of
> it being unacceptable as a deductive transformation, i.e., you point
> out special circumstances in which it won't work, which is completely
> missing the point.
>
Eloquently written, though I suspect the point will still be lost on Mr.
Pastorio.
>
> >> I know plenty of folk who have a light breakfast, e.g. a boiled egg
> >> and bit of toast,
>
> >Boiled egg=2 ounces
> >Bit of toast (two slices)=2.5 to 3 ounces
>
> A singular "bit" of toast to me is one small slice.
>
To me, a bit is a half or a quarter slice of or "regular" sandwich size bread.
Better to weigh it so we would agree on the exact quantity :-)
>
> >Large sandwich=6 to 10 ounces
>
> >> a lunch of something like a large sandwich, coming
> >> out at something like half a pound total,
>
> >Good luck getting that to come out to 8 ounces. Looks more like 10.5 to
> >15 ounces.
>
> I meant what *I* think of a large sandwich, not what an American
> thinks is a large sandwich.
>
10 ounces is a large sandwich to me and I am an American, btw.
>
> >> then an evening meal of
> >> something like 1.5lbs, all of which comes out to about 2lbs a day.
>
> >All of which comes out to a minimum of 24+10.5 or 34.5 ounces - 2 pounds
> >and a couple ounces. Or up to 24+15 or 39 ounces or almost 2.5 pounds.
>
> When inflated by your gluttonous assumptions.
>
It is too much. However, it does take time to become accustomed to eating less.
>
> >And this assumes they never have a chocolate or a banana or a piece of
> >their birthday cake.
>
> A chocolate? I suggest you weigh a chocolate. They're not as heavy as
> you think!
Some American chocolate bars are literally *huge*
> As for birthday cake, I may attend six or seven birthdays a
> year. Those six or seven slices of cake don't add much averaged out
> over a year. My evening meal of 1.5lbs included a piece of fruit, such
> as a banana.
>
> >> The most common
> >> two observations of a European visiting the US for the first time is
> >> gagging at the size of food helpings in restaurants, cafes, etc., and
> >> being startled by the number of folk who are large enough that it's
> >> not clear whether you could put your arms round them and get your
> >> hands to meet on the other side.
>
> >Yes. And you think that two pounds of food per day per person is a wise
> >way to live? Practical? Rational?
>
> I'm 60, and have eaten like that for decades. If I ate more I'd feel
> stuffed and listless.
Go to a few Anerican all-you-can-eat buffets to eat your money's worth and
you'll be "cured" of feeling stuffed on moderate amounts of food :-)
> My doctors sometimes enquire about my diet, and
> always consider it good. It's obviously adequate, since I'm slightly
> overweight. My doctors don't agree, but I have higher standards than
> their wall weight charts.
>
> However, I wouldn't advocate it as a practical limit for most folk,
> since people have different efficiencies with which they digest and
> metabolise food, different basal metabolisms, different habits of
> exercise, different sizes, etc.. I simply offered my experience as a
> validation that for at least some people it's neither a restrictive
> not an unhealthy diet.
>
> Apart from it's simplicity, it focusses attention on an important idea
> which many dieters try very hard to avoid: you need to eat *less*. The
> calorie counter dieters I know seem to regard calorie counting as a
> way of being clever enough with your choices and calculations that you
> can eat the same amount and get thinner, by avoiding "fattening"
> foods.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm c...@inf.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 650 3085 DoD #205
> School of Informatics, Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill,
> Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK. [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/ ]
Thank you for your comments, Chris.
Regards,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Atlanta Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Jim Horne
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bee22n$am3$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
: Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> writes:
:
: >Right. Eat less. How much less? Of what? Just eat less of everything
: >until the total weight equals two pounds? Really? So scale down
: >everything. Eat half a chicken leg. 1.4 slices of pizza? Most of an
: >apple?
: You seem to have trouble working things out for yourself. It can be
: done much more easily, e.g., skip a meal,
this is being crossposted to a diabetes NG..skipping meals for a diabetic is
dangerous...
Bob Pastorio
>
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
> > Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> writes:
> > >This is twaddle.
> >
> > >The question still remains. I haven't said it won't work. It may just
> > >work fine if all the variables are dealt with
> >
> > What you don't understand is that variables of many functions have
> > idioscyncratic sensitivities to changes in those variables. It's a
> > well known technique to first of all calculate the sensitivities, and
> > then to combine that with the typical distributions of values in the
> > variables. This is how mathematicians calculate acceptable
> > simplifications of complex formulae. If the calculations are
> > formidable, or the functions and distributions not well specified, it
> > can be done empirically.
> >
> > Chung's 2lb diet is a suggestion of an empirical simplification of a
> > complex multivariable function. The question of how good a
> > simplification it is can be answered either empirically or
> > theoretically. Every criticism you've posted has been a criticism of
> > it being unacceptable as a deductive transformation, i.e., you point
> > out special circumstances in which it won't work, which is completely
> > missing the point.
> >
>
> Eloquently written, though I suspect the point will still be lost on Mr.
> Pastorio.
You're not quite as good at this as fishbone. Actually, in several
posts, I've detailed why your notion is so flawed. I note you and your
sock puppet take glancing blows at what I say rather than to actually
confront it and offer countering information beyond mere opinion.
> > >> I know plenty of folk who have a light breakfast, e.g. a boiled egg
> > >> and bit of toast,
> >
> > >Boiled egg=2 ounces
> > >Bit of toast (two slices)=2.5 to 3 ounces
> >
> > A singular "bit" of toast to me is one small slice.
>
> To me, a bit is a half or a quarter slice of or "regular" sandwich size bread.
> Better to weigh it so we would agree on the exact quantity :-)
Right. Count the angels on the head of that pin. That's not enough food
for a child much less an adult.
> > >Large sandwich=6 to 10 ounces
> >
> > >> a lunch of something like a large sandwich, coming
> > >> out at something like half a pound total,
> >
> > >Good luck getting that to come out to 8 ounces. Looks more like 10.5 to
> > >15 ounces.
> >
> > I meant what *I* think of a large sandwich, not what an American
> > thinks is a large sandwich.
>
> 10 ounces is a large sandwich to me and I am an American, btw.
Right. I note that you only picked the upper end of the range I quoted
to cluck over.
You say that so easily yet when you look at what a reasonably meager
sandwich usually contains, the numbers become clear. Two slices of bread
will be at least 2.5 ounces. Less than 2 ounces of meat or cheese won't
even be a condiment, much less anything to consider as sufficient for a
normal person. That's two, very thin slices of ham of sufficient size to
just cover a slice of bread. Or two thin slices of cheese. Add some mayo
or other condiments, about an ounce. Lettuce? Tomato? That basic
sandwich is up at 5+ ounces with no lettuce or tomato additions. I've
eaten that basic sandwich in various incarnations in two dozen countries
and less than 6 ounces is virtually impossible to find.
> > >> then an evening meal of
> > >> something like 1.5lbs, all of which comes out to about 2lbs a day.
Actually, 1.5 pounds of food at a single sitting is rather heavy. Think
of a steak that weighs 1.5 pounds. Now imagine eating it. That's 24
ounces of food by weight. Most people would have difficulty finishing
it.
And most people couldn't comfortably get by the remaining part of the
day with a total of only 8 ounces of food. The balance is skewed badly.
> > >All of which comes out to a minimum of 24+10.5 or 34.5 ounces - 2 pounds
> > >and a couple ounces. Or up to 24+15 or 39 ounces or almost 2.5 pounds.
> >
> > When inflated by your gluttonous assumptions.
See, here we get into credentials. I've been around the world as a
foodservice person. Your understandings of how much food is served at
typical meals isn't even remotely informed. My assumptions are based on
actual measurements in literally hundreds of feeding establishments.
You're guessing about a good deal of it, even with all your scales.
> It is too much. However, it does take time to become accustomed to eating less.
Hey, Chris. He says you eat too much.
Piggy.
> > >And this assumes they never have a chocolate or a banana or a piece of
> > >their birthday cake.
> >
> > A chocolate? I suggest you weigh a chocolate. They're not as heavy as
> > you think!
>
> Some American chocolate bars are literally *huge*
And both of you missed the point, again. That with two pounds of food
distributed across three or more meals means that each will be so small
as to be mere snacks and that any hungers between those sparse meals
must either go unsatisfied or they must be subtracted from this silly
prescription.
> > As for birthday cake, I may attend six or seven birthdays a
> > year. Those six or seven slices of cake don't add much averaged out
> > over a year. My evening meal of 1.5lbs included a piece of fruit, such
> > as a banana.
Whoosh...
I offered examples about *anything* not planned into the two pounds. No
room for addition unless it's subtracted from the two pounds..
> > I'm 60, and have eaten like that for decades. If I ate more I'd feel
> > stuffed and listless.
>
> Go to a few Anerican all-you-can-eat buffets to eat your money's worth and
> you'll be "cured" of feeling stuffed on moderate amounts of food :-)
It takes discipline to restrain one self at those buffets. But then
again it takes discipline to restrict eating by whatever name you call
it. It takes discipline to restrict carbs. Or to eat low-fat. It all
takes discipline. But the ones where caloric intake is counted rather
than gross weight have actual science behind them rather than some
fanciful story about mountain climbers.
> > My doctors sometimes enquire about my diet, and
> > always consider it good. It's obviously adequate, since I'm slightly
> > overweight. My doctors don't agree, but I have higher standards than
> > their wall weight charts.
> >
> > However, I wouldn't advocate it as a practical limit for most folk,
Hey. Chris doesn't think it's good for everybody. Stop the presses.
Another glowing testimonial.
As if.
Pastorio
Colin Andrew Percival
> this is being crossposted to a diabetes NG..skipping meals for a diabetic is
> dangerous...
ITYM "skipping meals is dangerous for some diabetics". I can skip as many
meals as I like without suffering anything beyond hunger and weight loss.
Colin Percival
*Mu*
wrote:
>skipping meals for a diabetic is
>dangerous...
Not always and not universally.
*Mu*
Malcolm) wrote:
> What I meant to communicate was that when
>my diet clearly clearly exceeds 2lbs a day, I gain weight slowly,
>about 2lbs a month. When my diet is probably close to 2lbs/day, I
>lose weight slowly, about 2lbs a month.
Same here with modifications to times of heavy, consistent exercise.
> A well know side
>effect of that steroid drug is a large appetite and considerable
>weight gain. I gained two stones. It didn't bother me until I
>developed heart problems a couple of years ago. Then I decided I ought
>to lose some. I adopted the simple regime of eating a little less,
>which in practice means eating a little less about half the time.
Isn't it amazing that "simply eating less" get such unbelievable
resistance from dieters like Chef Pastorio?
Why is that?
Bet they don't want to eat less. Ya' think?
>As it happens, purely by co-incidence, it seems that when I exceed
>2lbs I gain weight, and when I'm within a few ounces of 2lbs a day, I
>slowly lose.
It may have been by coincidence that your food intake level is 2
pounds but I assure you that it is no coincidence that that number
works nearly universally for all peoples healthy.
>I'm not following the two pound diet. I'm following an even simpler
>diet of my own devising, which we might call the "2 meals a day
>diet". I don't get hungry or tired on it. All I have to do is curb my
>natural gluttony.....
...appropriate word, thank you....
>and avoid eating stuff just because it's enjoyable....
...removing pleasure from food choices is a major component...
>when I'm not hungry. For example, it means I stop eating before I'm
>full up.
Pure rocket science, isn't it?
*Mu*
>> Eloquently written, though I suspect the point will still be lost on Mr.
>> Pastorio.
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:45:04 -0400, Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net>
wrote:
>You're not quite as good at this as fishbone.
Oh goodee, I so want to take your money. How much do you want to bet?
$10,000 works for me.
I bet Chung is not Mu, $10,000, escrow contract is written and waiting
(damn that Gregory chicken bawk bawk).
Ready to go, Cheffie?
Put up or shut up.
*Mu*
Malcolm) wrote:
>I think the terms with which food is described have suffered serious
>inflation on corssing the Atlantic.
Serious inflation but for a reason. Americans have up the scale of
intake to the point that it takes a large portion to make up a small
percentage of food consumption.
>At my first visit to America, eating in restuarants and hotels, and
>feeling that I ought to clear my plate to get my money's worth,
Not a novel feeling at all. Very common. You had to dump this myth
too, didn't you?
You "get your money's worth" when you get what you need, not when you
get all of it eaten.
>I got
>to feeling really stuffed and bloated at the end of my third day. The
>hotel had an option on the menu called "light snacks". So I ordered a
>chicken and salad sandwich.
>
>What arrived was what in Britain would be considered a small loaf,
>split in half. Between the halves was half a chicken. The whole lot
>floated on top of a mixed salad, the lettuce part alone of which
>seemed to consist of the leaves of one entire lettuce.
Welcome to America! Land o' plenty......fat folks.
>I've never, at one sitting, ever eaten that much salad, *or* that much
>bread, *or* that much chicken. Yet this whole plate was called "a
>light snack" and a "chicken sandwich". I can still remember my horror
>and disbelief when faced with this "light snack".
Don't order the dinner portion then. It's a feast not a meal.
> Hardly surprising,
>I thought, that you can't stroll in a US street or mall without seeing
>some folk who are so fat they can hardly walk.
Yep, we waddle all over the place and then select diets that fail us.
Plain and simple, we, here in America, are made up of way too many
gluttonous fools.
Btw, when was the last time your preacher had a sermon named
"Gluttony: Our Largest Sin?
*Mu*
Malcolm) wrote:
>No, all I wished to indicate, in the face of assertions that the two
>pound diet was "obviously" disatrously nonsensical, was that in my
>case, give or take a few ounces, its claims seem to hold.
Sure does.
>No, I wasn't advocating it in the posting to which you refer. I was
>simply pointing out that the claims of the 2 lb diet are borne out in
>the case of my own diet. I made that comment simply because some other
>posters were claiming it was so silly that it couldn't possibly work.
Read 'em and weep, folks.
Bob M
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> writes:
>
>> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
>
>>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
>>> > >> then an evening meal of
>>> > >> something like 1.5lbs, all of which comes out to about 2lbs a day.
>
>> Actually, 1.5 pounds of food at a single sitting is rather heavy. Think
>> of a steak that weighs 1.5 pounds. Now imagine eating it. That's 24
>> ounces of food by weight. Most people would have difficulty finishing
>> it.
>
> As they would 1.5 pounds of cheese. But that's not what most people
> would eat for a meal. However, some soup with bread at 1/3 lb,
> followed by a plate of meat and mixed veg of 3/4 lb, followed by fruit
> and ice cream at 1/3 lb, is the kind of thing many folk would eat for
> a large meal.
>
>> And most people couldn't comfortably get by the remaining part of the
>> day with a total of only 8 ounces of food. The balance is skewed badly.
>
> Where does this idea of balance between meals come from? In many parts
> of the world healthy long-lived people eat only large meal a day, plus
> a few snacks. The human body doesn't have to be constantly drip-fed
> with food to keep going. In fact it's designed to cope with a highly
> variable amounts of food, where you stoke up when plenty food is
> available, which might well not be every day. Having to eat three
> "balanced" meals a day isn't necessary for either health or comfort,
> it's a habit which is probably bad for your health.
Why is it bad for your health? For me, it allows me to have a constant
blood sugar all day long as opposed to ultra high blood sugar then none.
Plus, how am I going to eat 2,500 calories or more at a sitting?
[cut]
>
> Three or *more* meals? I don't know *anyone* who eats more than three
> meals a day who isn't considerably overweight. And where does this
> idea of balance between meal sizes come from? I don't know anyone who
> eats three meals a day of roughly equal size who isn't considerably
> overweight. (I don't know any athletes or heavy manual workers, who
> may wellneed to eat that much, without getting fat.)
Please! I've always eaten many small meals per day. I can't stand not to
do this. The number of meals has nothing to do with whether you are fat or
not. By the way, I eat about 5-6 times per day, although the meal sizes
are not balanced. Why can't you take 2,500 calories per day and break it
into 5 small meals instead of three or one? I see no evidence that the
number of meals one person eats is or is not correlated with being fat.
>> as to be mere snacks and that any hungers between those sparse meals
>> must either go unsatisfied
>
> If you can't skip breakfast and wait for lunch then I don't think it's
> hunger, I think it's the Pavlovian reaction of frequently stuffed guts
> calling out for their regular stuffing.
>
>> It takes discipline to restrain one self at those buffets. But then
>> again it takes discipline to restrict eating by whatever name you call
>> it. It takes discipline to restrict carbs. Or to eat low-fat. It all
>> takes discipline. But the ones where caloric intake is counted rather
>> than gross weight have actual science behind them rather than some
>> fanciful story about mountain climbers.
>
> Nutritional science is well known to be one of the "sciences" least
> well deserving of the name. The total failure of nutritional science
> to do anything about the growing epidemic of obesity is a good
> indication of its status. In fact there is suggestive evidence that
> the failings of nutritional science's comprehension is partly to
> blame. Another good indication of its scientific status is the
> "scientific" basis on which it decided that it would be good for
> people's health to subsitute margarine for butter. The truth is that
> orthodox nutritional science as taught to professional dieticians and
> nutritionists and doctors is scandalously unscientific.
> --
> Chris Malcolm c...@inf.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 650 3085 DoD #205
> School of Informatics, Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh,
> EH1 2QL, UK. [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/ ]
Finally! We agree on something.
--
Bob M in CT
Remove 'x.' to reply
Pete
c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) wrote:
>"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> writes:
>>Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>> Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> writes:
>>> >And this assumes they never have a chocolate or a banana or a piece of
>>> >their birthday cake.
>>> A chocolate? I suggest you weigh a chocolate. They're not as heavy as
>>> you think!
>>Some American chocolate bars are literally *huge*
>This seems to be a cultural difference. In the UK "a bit of chocolate"
>doesn't mean a bar, it means a square, or possibly two, something you
>can easily put in your mouth all at once, i.e., possibly two small
>mouthfuls.
That depends upon the size of the mouth. :-))
>>> >Yes. And you think that two pounds of food per day per person is a wise
>>> >way to live? Practical? Rational?
>>> I'm 60, and have eaten like that for decades. If I ate more I'd feel
>>> stuffed and listless.
>>Go to a few Anerican all-you-can-eat buffets to eat your money's worth and
>>you'll be "cured" of feeling stuffed on moderate amounts of food :-)
>Cured at the expense of becoming a bloated glutton? That's a cure I
>can do without :-)
>I think the terms with which food is described have suffered serious
>inflation on corssing the Atlantic.
>At my first visit to America, eating in restuarants and hotels, and
>feeling that I ought to clear my plate to get my money's worth, I got
>to feeling really stuffed and bloated at the end of my third day. The
>hotel had an option on the menu called "light snacks". So I ordered a
>chicken and salad sandwich.
>What arrived was what in Britain would be considered a small loaf,
>split in half. Between the halves was half a chicken. The whole lot
>floated on top of a mixed salad, the lettuce part alone of which
>seemed to consist of the leaves of one entire lettuce.
>I've never, at one sitting, ever eaten that much salad, *or* that much
>bread, *or* that much chicken. Yet this whole plate was called "a
>light snack" and a "chicken sandwich". I can still remember my horror
>and disbelief when faced with this "light snack". Hardly surprising,
>I thought, that you can't stroll in a US street or mall without seeing
>some folk who are so fat they can hardly walk.
I have lived in the US and reading this post reminded me of
some of the things I thought about the matter whilst there.
The problem is all about the dollar. Take a small average
food outlet, it don't matter which or where - they have a
need to generate a certain volume of cash. It's no good just
parring prices down and cutting back on expenditure such as
portion size etc. The plain and simple fact is that by
comparrison to the UK, a lot of food stuff is cheap. So the
average consumer would not be willing to pay over the top
prices. To justify prices there is percieved need to offer
more for your money than your competitor. In some cities and
towns it is easier to do this using other devices to push
the outlet image up market. A fashionable eating place
commands more dollars per oz of food than the more ordinary.
It is a culture thing that has become accepted as the
American way. Like the coffee thing - buy one get refills
till you drown in the stuff.
This attitude to retailing food extends to Canada as well.
Once in Edmonton, I went to get a Pizza. No big deal but
when my order came there were two boxes. I questioned the
attendant because I only had enough cash for the one and
thought that there had been a mistake. Nope! It seems that
on a Monday or whatever day it was - there was a regular two
for one. [I threw it away]
I once sat in the entrance to a Mall having a coffee in the
franchise there and observed all the people coming in and
going out. I never actually counted or anyting like that but
it seemd to me that most just could not resist calling in
for something to eat either on the way in or on the way out.
Pete
Diagnosed 20/03/03 Type II D&E + Metformin + Gliclazide
Bob Pastorio
>
> Isn't it amazing that "simply eating less" get such unbelievable
> resistance from dieters like Chef Pastorio?
You're really good at this; unfortunately. The distortion of someone's
words to try so desperately to make it mean what you want.
Let's try again, fishbone:
You say it means "simply eating less" until the questions start. Like
about nutrition. And calories. Then it gets complicated. Then it goes
into what the two pounds should include. As a weak rule of thumb the
notion of a finite quantity makes a little - I said a little - sense.
It's when you try to fit EVERYBODY into it that that fragile house of
cards tumbles to earth.
I say that limiting intake is a god idea if weight loss is the goal. I
say that merely using weight of the food as the major criterion is
absurd in its irrelevancy. The whole point of reducing weight is to
reduce caloric intake. So why not just skip to the real issue -
calories? But no, you have to add the complications of weighing it. Then
later you have to still analyze the nutritive content anyway.
Even an idiot can see that there's one irrelevant step in there.
Guess which one <points to scale>
> Why is that?
>
> Bet they don't want to eat less. Ya' think?
Nah. Because weighing has no bearing on content. Oh, wait I already said
that and it didn't sink in then...
> ...removing pleasure from food choices is a major component...
May I never, ever, never, never become like you. The pleasure of the
table, shared with important others is ancient in human hardwiring. Read
something besides those exercise books and "1001 ways to hurt people
with snide posts."
Like this one about 2500 years old, "A man hath no better thing under
the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry."
Your humorless fixations on disruption and distress-making illustrate
better than any book why your way of being alive is so bankrupt. Your
mean-spiritedness shows you haven't the remotest iota of understanding
about the joys of the world.
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
Can it be...? No, it's impossible... No one could have that much shit
inside one cranium.
Let's see what the fishboner goes off on. So "Chung" writes a post. In
it he distorts the information of prior posts, just not as extremely or
as irrelevantly as you do. So I say he's not as good at this distortion
as you are.
For utterly incomprehensible reasons, you jump up and down, gleefully
prattling about taking money and betting.
It seems that you think I've just said you're the same person as Chung.
You are too absurd. You are too shallow. You are too incompetent at the
most basic of understandings to walk the streets unchaperoned.
Here's a bet I'd take. Mu the boner is more stupid than the fencepost
over there. I'd waste a couple bucks just to look in your empty eyes
while the contest raged on. I'm sure you'd win on most of the judges'
scorecards, but it'd be very close.
Pastorio
*Mu*
Malcolm) wrote:
>Where does this idea of balance between meals come from?
I have no clue but it is nearly impossible to define anyway.
>In many parts
>of the world healthy long-lived people eat only large meal a day, plus
>a few snacks. The human body doesn't have to be constantly drip-fed
>with food to keep going, Pastorio.
No it does not. Unless, of course, yo are looking for an excuse to
continue your gluttony.
> In fact it's designed to cope with a highly
>variable amounts of food, where you stoke up when plenty food is
>available, which might well not be every day. Having to eat three
>"balanced" meals a day isn't necessary for either health or comfort,
>it's a habit which is probably bad for your health.
Since it is hard to eat less than 2 pounds in 3 sittings, yep, sure
is.
>>My assumptions are based on
>>actual measurements in literally hundreds of feeding establishments.
>Ah, Pastorio, that explains where your inflated ideas of food consumption come
>from.
Hell, I thot it came along with his inflated Usenet self-worth.
lol
>There's a big difference between what people eat in restaurants
>and what they eat at home. Except of course in the case of overweight
>people, many of whom have got into the habit of eating three
>restaurant size meals a day.
Yes, there is.
>Three or *more* meals? I don't know *anyone* who eats more than three
>meals a day who isn't considerably overweight.
Neither do I.
> And where does this
>idea of balance between meal sizes come from?
Hell if I know.
>If you can't skip breakfast and wait for lunch then I don't think it's
>hunger, I think it's the Pavlovian reaction of frequently stuffed guts
>calling out for their regular stuffing.
Yes, overeating spurs more overeating; eating less spurs the need for
less food. More rocket science, huh?
>Nutritional science is well known to be one of the "sciences" least
>well deserving of the name.
Don't forget psychiatry!
>The total failure of nutritional science
>to do anything about the growing epidemic of obesity is a good
>indication of its status. In fact there is suggestive evidence that
>the failings of nutritional science's comprehension is partly to
>blame.
Sure is.
>The truth is that
>orthodox nutritional science as taught to professional dieticians and
>nutritionists and doctors is scandalously unscientific.
Sure is.
*Mu*
wrote:
>The problem is all about the dollar. The plain and simple fact is that by
>comparrison to the UK, a lot of food stuff is cheap. So the
>average consumer would not be willing to pay over the top
>prices. To justify prices there is percieved need to offer
>more for your money than your competitor. In some cities and
>towns it is easier to do this using other devices to push
>the outlet image up market. A fashionable eating place
>commands more dollars per oz of food than the more ordinary.
>It is a culture thing that has become accepted as the
>American way.
Sad but true.
Bob Pastorio
> eating less spurs the need for
> less food.
I see. So if you eat less, it makes you want less.
Anybody want to talk to fishbone about this "theory" of his.
No wonder he wears those floppy shoes and big red putty nose. So no one
will confuse him with someone with intelligent opinions based on
anything approaching science.
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
>
> At my first visit to America, eating in restuarants and hotels, and
> feeling that I ought to clear my plate to get my money's worth, I got
> to feeling really stuffed and bloated at the end of my third day. The
> hotel had an option on the menu called "light snacks". So I ordered a
> chicken and salad sandwich.
I don't believe that what you describe below would appear on the menu as
you say it was. The name you attribute to the dish is simply not what
you say you were served, and it's so far off the mark that I find it
incredible.
> What arrived was what in Britain would be considered a small loaf,
> split in half. Between the halves was half a chicken.
I emphatically doubt this.
> The whole lot
> floated on top of a mixed salad, the lettuce part alone of which
> seemed to consist of the leaves of one entire lettuce.
>
> I've never, at one sitting, ever eaten that much salad, *or* that much
> bread, *or* that much chicken. Yet this whole plate was called "a
> light snack" and a "chicken sandwich". I can still remember my horror
> and disbelief when faced with this "light snack". Hardly surprising,
> I thought, that you can't stroll in a US street or mall without seeing
> some folk who are so fat they can hardly walk.
Chris, I think this is untrue. I can understand wanting to prevail in a
discourse like is happening here, but this is dishonest.
I simply don't believe this story as told. I think you're inventing it
to make points. I'm done talking with you.
In all my years of owning restaurants, consulting in many others,
designing menus and portioning guides for individual restaurants and
corporate operations, never once have in seen anything remotely
approaching what you describe.
It is most assuredly not am American culinary custom to serve sandwiches
on top of salads. In the thousands of restaurants I've been in (not just
in the US), not once have I ever seen that presentation. And most
definitely not in a hotel since their economics would simply forbid it.
I don't believe your description, I don't believe your representation of
what was on the menu and I don't believe the presentation.
What hotel was that and when did they serve you this absurd bucket of
food?
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
>
> I have lived in the US and reading this post reminded me of
> some of the things I thought about the matter whilst there.
>
> The problem is all about the dollar. Take a small average
> food outlet, it don't matter which or where - they have a
> need to generate a certain volume of cash. It's no good just
> portion size etc. The plain and simple fact is that by
You've actually bumped into a large, not often identified, part of the
problem. Food is cheaper in the US than it has ever been anywhere else
on earth, at any time in history. Forget the unit of currency and figure
it in time. How many hours does the average person have to work to buy a
pound of meat or a gallon of milk or any other commodity? Using that
index, food is startlingly cheap. I can buy a whole dressed beef for a
week's income.
Often when I entertain friends from other countries, they are
universally amazed at the wonders and the excess. And they note that it
has increased in recent years. Americans have the greatest breadth of
choice for *things* that has ever existed. I include Canadians in there,
too. Many of the same businesses are in both countries.
The way we've dealt with it hasn't reflected the best parts of human
nature. We've become a culture of sedentary consumers. We've carried the
very natural human desire for comfort to extremes. It's too much trouble
to get up and walk across the room to change a tv channel. It's too much
trouble to push a lawn mower, we have to ride on it. That view permeates
the entire culture. It extends to entertainment, fashion, housing,
furnishings and every other element of our culture. It extends to
restaurant offerings.
> So the
> average consumer would not be willing to pay over the top
> prices. To justify prices there is perceived need to offer
> more for your money than your competitor. In some cities and
> towns it is easier to do this using other devices to push
> the outlet image up market.
The American culture is based on a business model. We began as a colony
established for economic reasons (Forget the Pilgrims and the rest of
the religious protest types, they represented a tiny minority of the
original settlers.) and thrived because of our capacity to generate
wealth. WE are a mercantile culture that measures too many things by the
cash value or cash cost.
Therefore...
We base many of our decisions on the immediately apparent "value" of the
purchase. That's when we bump into this next notion of yours:
> A fashionable eating place
> commands more dollars per oz of food than the more ordinary.
> It is a culture thing that has become accepted as the
> American way. Like the coffee thing - buy one get refills
> till you drown in the stuff.
It's mercantile. It's marketing. It's merchandising. It's selling. It's
one of our great skills honed across centuries and developed
scientifically. We developed marketing research. We developed modern
advertising. We developed mass marketing and distribution.
Both bad news and good news.
> This attitude to retailing food extends to Canada as well.
> Once in Edmonton, I went to get a Pizza. No big deal but
> when my order came there were two boxes. I questioned the
> attendant because I only had enough cash for the one and
> thought that there had been a mistake. Nope! It seems that
> on a Monday or whatever day it was - there was a regular two
> for one. [I threw it away]
I think I would have offered it to someone else.
> I once sat in the entrance to a Mall having a coffee in the
> franchise there and observed all the people coming in and
> going out. I never actually counted or anyting like that but
> it seemd to me that most just could not resist calling in
> for something to eat either on the way in or on the way out.
Frequently the case. Food courts in malls and shopping centers generally
do a good business, largely in small meals and snacks. Americans are
snackers.
Long story made short: Americans consume too many calories and burn not
enough.
Worse story to come: As other nations and cultures become more wealthy,
they, too will become like this. It's a very human path and an
unfortunate one. The evolution of the cultures I'm most familiar with in
the six decades of my life has been astonishing. From the mechanical age
to the electronic age. From propeller-driven planes to mach-3 monsters.
From party-line phones to wireless. MTV. DVD.
As other cultures become poorer, there will be upheavals and cataclysms.
And when all is said and done, it's the same cycle that has been the
bane and blessing of human existence. Some societies prosper, some
decline, None lasts forever.
What's for supper?
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
>
> Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> writes:
>
> >Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
> >> Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> writes:
>
> >> >*Mu* wrote:
>
> >> >> Call it whatever you wish. It's about developing a more disciplined
> >> >> approach to eating, one that makes you accountable since it will work.
>
> >> >As though counting calories won't work. Silly, silly little man.
>
> >> Counting calories is much harder, and also much more dubious. For
> >> example, suppose I cut myself a thick slice of heavy rye
> >> bread. Finding out how many calories that might be is difficult.
>
> >Oh, bullshit, Chris. All those wonderful scales in your house should
> >provide you a wonderful few minutes of mathematical nirvana. How much
> >does it weigh, what's the caloric density (right off the supermarket
> >label) and some grade school math and there you are.
>
> diet. Some of the rest is sufficiently non-standard to make estimation
> hard, e.g., the bread I eat is rarely purely wheat, and very variable
> in density and composition.
Right. So the weight wouldn't tell you much about it's nutritive value.
I see.
> >> >How much does a handful of raisins weigh, Fishbone? Anybody...?
>
> >> I have three weighing scales in my kitchen. What's the problem about
> >> weighing things? It's very easy! Counting calories would be easy if I
> >> could just pop stuff onto a calorimeter and read off the calories.
>
> >You contradict yourself at a very basic level. You trust the packaging
> >that you get from supermarkets to be reasonably accurate,
>
> Because I can check that easily with weighing machines, and it's
> pretty accurate.
>
> >but not the
> >calorie charts from the various sources that have actually measured them
> >for you.
>
> Because people who have carried out independent tests of these calorie
> figures have found them to be averages which can be seriously out in
> individual cases, e.g., my specific slice of bread, my specific "cup"
> of my specific "oats", etc.. They are helpful indications, not
> accurate figures.
There are calorie charts done by weight. But that would mean thinking.
> >You don't need a calorimeter any more than you need three scales.
>
> I don't need three scales. My wife likes the simplicity of a wall
> mounted dial machine, and the antique attraction of balance pans and a
> tray of weights. I prefer the very wide range and accuracy of a
> weighing machine based on sliding weights on calibrated levers.
>
> >Particularly since the labels give you so much information and you seem
> >to like packaged foods.
>
> Not all my diet, and I often cook from recipes which specify weights.
So if you know weights, it's a very simple matter to calculate nutritive
info, particularly caloric content.
> >> It's even easier when my dinner consists of a supermarket package you
> >> stick in the oven which is labelled as 410gms. Of course it's a little
> >> lighter after being cooked, but that keeps the calculations
> >> conservative.
>
> >And withal, you say you eat about two pounds of food a day as a matter
> >of normal course and you're still overweight? Wow. What a testimonial
> >for the Sure-Fire, No-Need-to-do-Arithmetic, One-Size-Fits-All,
> >Somehow-Magic, Brilliantly-Simple Two-Pound Diet.
>
> Ok, I'll have to spell it out for you. When I eat two meals a day plus
> a snack my diet is around the two pound mark. I lose weight slowly,
> about a pound a fortnight. When I eat three meals a day, or two large
> meals plus snack, my diet exceeds two pounds a day. On that I gain
> weight, unless I happen to be taking a lot of exercise, such as
> cycling to work and climbing hills at weekends. I could easily be a
> few pounds out in these estimates.
So it's back to estimates. Where's that desperate precision that so
dazzles your doctors you tout?
> That's what I mean by taking into account the distribution of the
> variables and the siginificances of their variation. It's nonsense
> until you do that.
And when you do, you've made needless the whole silliness of the two
pounds. Because you have your numbers. Even though you've had to
consider *everything* you eat. What foolish prattle.
> >And you say this:
> >Chris: I'm 60, and have eaten like that for decades. If I ate more I'd
> >feel
> >stuffed and listless. My doctors sometimes enquire about my diet, and
> >always consider it good. It's obviously adequate, since I'm slightly
> >overweight. My doctors don't agree, but I have higher standards than
> >their wall weight charts.
>
> >Pastorio: Your standards are *different* not higher. This isn't a
> >morality contest.
>
> Who said anything about morality? I'm not making ethical judgments
> here. My standards are higher in the simple mathematical sense that in
> calculating what my ideal weight should be I have higher standards of
> accuracy and specificity than has my doctor. It is conventional to say
> that a micrometer works to a higher standard of accuracy than a wooden
> ruler. Morals don't come into it.
And yet, you claim to be more precise but "estimate" your food intake.
Sounds to me like that old engineer's lament. "Measure with a
micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with a hatchet."
> >Chris: However, I wouldn't advocate it as a practical limit for most
> >folk,
> >since people have different efficiencies with which they digest and
> >metabolise food, different basal metabolisms, different habits of
> >exercise, different sizes, etc.. I simply offered my experience as a
> >validation that for at least some people it's neither a restrictive
> >not an unhealthy diet.
Right. For dour Scotsmen and fraudulent fishboners.
We're done, Chris. You contradict yourself too often and make too many
incredible statements.
Enjoy your two pounds.
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
> >say that merely using weight of the food as the major criterion is
> >absurd in its irrelevancy. The whole point of reducing weight is to
> >reduce caloric intake. So why not just skip to the real issue -
> >calories? But no, you have to add the complications of weighing it.
>
> weighing. You subsitute the easier task of weighing for the harder one
> of establishing calorific content.
>
> >Then
> >later you have to still analyze the nutritive content anyway.
>
Interesting. Mu the fishbone says that things like sat fat are
important. He talks about nutrients. You can't possibly be disagreeing
with the Zen master of fraudulence, can you?
> >Even an idiot can see that there's one irrelevant step in there.
>
> Idiots have a habit of missing the point.
Mirror, mirror on the wall...
> >Nah. Because weighing has no bearing on content.
>
> No bearing?
Chris, read what I wrote, not what you wish I had written.
To know the RELATIVE caloric content of two dishes containing the same
foods in different quantities doesn't tell you anything about what each
contains. Merely that one has more than the other. Not a whisper of how
much. Not a whisper of when is it too much. Not a whisper of whether it
contains what the diner needs.
Weight can give you ONLY a relative SENSE, not anything precise. ANd not
anything to deal with the nutritive needs of the diner.
> Consider two equal sized potatoes. How much less calories
> do you suppose is in one of them compared to both? Consider an
> onion. By how do you suppose the calorific value is reduced if we
> remove half of it? Finally consider an 8oz piece of steak. How much
> more calorific value do you suppose that has than a 4oz steak?
So how many calories are in either one (depends on several factors)? Do
all steaks have the same nutrient profile (No.)? Is every 4-ounce steak
directly scaled to every ounce steak (most assuredly not)? So what have
we learned about these luscious steaks? I'll tell you... the weight!
> Ok, now get ready for the difficult bit. Consider two plates of
> food. One has a 4oz steak, one potato, and half an onion. The other
> has an 8oz steak, two potatoes, and a whole onion. The food on the
> small plate weighs half as much as the food on the big plate. Now, how
> much less calorific value do you suppose the food on the small plate
> has than the food on the large plate?
>
> The right answer is that the food on the big plate, which weighs twice
> as much, contains twice as many calories. So you see, under *some*
> circumstances, there can be a very close relationship between total
> weight and total calorific value.
Right. In this idiotic exercise, we see that one plate has fewer
calories than the other because they both contain the same foods and one
is double the other. Grand bit of simplification and most clearly
suitable to make your point. Unfortunately, your gloriously illustrated
(albeit obvious to the point of triviality) point isn't the point of the
objections from all those smart people laughing on the sidelines. Get
the point?
No? then let me explain.
There will be numbers here that pertain to some facts, as opposed to
what you wrote, so try to follow. Let plate X weigh Y and contain Z
calories. Let 1/2 plate X weigh 0.5 Y contain 0.5 calories.
As a general rule of thumb, it takes 3500 calories to gain a pound of
weight. It obviously takes the burning and or deficit of that many to
lose a pound. How many plates X does it take to lose a pound? Or gain a
pound? Or stay the same?
> "Nah. Because weighing has no bearing on content."
>
> Now you can see how the above statement is mistaken.
I truly do wish your reading and comprehension skills were better. For
your sake. It's that bell curve again.
> >Oh, wait I already said
> >that and it didn't sink in then...
>
> Let's hope that going through the logic step by step has finally
> allowed the point to sink in. Of course there's a bit more to the
> argument, but you've had so much difficulty trying to see the whole
> argument in one go that I don't think we should risk confusing you by
> going any further today.
Enjoy your niggardly two pounds today, Chris. And try to smile now and
again. If only for the tourists.
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
>
> >See, here we get into credentials. I've been around the world as a
> >foodservice person. Your understandings of how much food is served at
> >typical meals isn't even remotely informed. My assumptions are based on
> >actual measurements in literally hundreds of feeding establishments.
>
> from. There's a big difference between what people eat in restaurants
> and what they eat at home. Except of course in the case of overweight
> people, many of whom have got into the habit of eating three
> restaurant size meals a day.
It explains my "practical understanding" of how different countries and
cultures see their dining needs. Your assumptions are ignorant and
self-serving. In fact, the differences between commercial feeding and
domestic feeding has been well-studied and understood. Because you're
blissfully ignorant of it doesn't mean that everybody is.
> >And both of you missed the point, again. That with two pounds of food
> >distributed across three or more meals means that each will be so small
>
> Three or *more* meals? I don't know *anyone* who eats more than three
> meals a day who isn't considerably overweight.
Well, then, that settles that. No one who isn't a dirigible eats more
than 3 times a day. Next question. Idiot.
> And where does this
> idea of balance between meal sizes come from? I don't know anyone who
> eats three meals a day of roughly equal size who isn't considerably
> overweight. (I don't know any athletes or heavy manual workers, who
> may wellneed to eat that much, without getting fat.)
It's sneaking that "equal size" in there that lets you steam up and do
your strawman thing. Nicely done. Well, except for the small fact that
no one has posited that but you.
I was illustrating yet another point that sailed over your head that if
the meals were in fact evenly divided, they would be unsatisfying. Not
that it was a prescription.
> >as to be mere snacks and that any hungers between those sparse meals
> >must either go unsatisfied
>
> If you can't skip breakfast and wait for lunch then I don't think it's
> hunger, I think it's the Pavlovian reaction of frequently stuffed guts
> calling out for their regular stuffing.
Right. Now you're also a physiologist in addition to a nutritionist,
cultural anthropologist, sociologist and all-round social theoretician.
Good on ya, mate.
> >It takes discipline to restrain one self at those buffets. But then
> >again it takes discipline to restrict eating by whatever name you call
> >it. It takes discipline to restrict carbs. Or to eat low-fat. It all
> >takes discipline. But the ones where caloric intake is counted rather
> >than gross weight have actual science behind them rather than some
> >fanciful story about mountain climbers.
>
> Nutritional science is well known to be one of the "sciences" least
> well deserving of the name. The total failure of nutritional science
> to do anything about the growing epidemic of obesity is a good
> indication of its status.
The utter failure of the human race to colonize space is because those
damned astrophysicists haven't done their jobs. Freakin scientists.
Can't count on them for anything.
What unabated twaddle.
> In fact there is suggestive evidence that
> the failings of nutritional science's comprehension is partly to
> blame. Another good indication of its scientific status is the
> "scientific" basis on which it decided that it would be good for
> people's health to subsitute margarine for butter. The truth is that
> orthodox nutritional science as taught to professional dieticians and
> nutritionists and doctors is scandalously unscientific.
Nutritional science, like all science is an ongoing process, not a
firmament. And, yes, the state of it is in ferment and has been erratic
in the past. But the nature of science is that it's a process that
constantly unfolds. Today's science is the best information we have
today. Tomorrow's will be more precise. And the next day's will be more
exact yet. But that isn't to say
Orthodox nutritional teachings have not been good. Agreed. BTW, there
are no professional "nutritionists" and there are no criteria for
calling oneself that and no accrediting bodies that certify it.
Dietitians are certified, and their history haven't been good. Doctors
haven't been taught about nutrition very much because it's role in
health wasn't well-understood until recently. In toto, the science has
been weak and fragmented. No disagreement.
But not to put too fine a point on it, science is proceeding in quarters
around the world. There is good information and more is emerging daily.
That judgment is based on today's studies. Like all of science.
But, not one scientist has endorsed weighing food rather than analyzing
the contents. Not one professional food scientist has recommended
weighing food. Not one organization, medical, nutritional or otherwise
has suggested we weigh our food. Not even the scale manufacturers
suggest that.
I bet it's a conspiracy... <dark music up>
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
>
> >> eating less spurs the need for
> >> less food.
>
>
> >Anybody want to talk to fishbone about this "theory" of his.
>
> >No wonder he wears those floppy shoes and big red putty nose. So no one
> >will confuse him with someone with intelligent opinions based on
> >anything approaching science.
>
> persistently eat large meals, your stomach grows to acommodate your
> use of it. Conversely, if you start eating only small meals, over time
> your stomach will shrink so that you will eventualy no longer be able
> to eat as much in one sitting as you used to. Given the way animal
> bodies respond to habitual use it would be very surprising if this
> weren't the case.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah,
Blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah,
Blah, blah, blah, blah...
Read the goddam words before you blurt out your inanities. Your equally
braindead compatriot doesn't talk about stomach capacity, he's talking
about desire. He's talking about "eating less: SPURRING, TRIGGERING,
STARTING, ENCOURAGING "the need for less food."
Eat less, therefore WANT less. See how that works?
No. I didn't think so.
I've come to believe the shortest distance between two point happens
between your ears.
> You've been banging the science drum a lot in this discussion. I'm
> beginning to suspect your acquaintance with science relevant to eating
> came from a Reader's Digest article in a dentist's waiting room.
You'd have to believe that foolishness to continue to try to defend the
absurd and indefensible twaddle you peddle here. When you have an
original thought with even the remotest scintilla of empirical data from
anybody but yourself, ring in again. Next it'll be that green food is
more nutritious that oh, I dunno, maybe blue food.
I've seen no science from you, Tweedle Dee, just like from Tweedle Dum
the fishbone. Neither of you has any more acquaintanceship with it than
to spell it correctly.
Until that unlikely time when you have something to contribute, act like
your ideas and words thus far merit. Silently.
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
>
> Bob M <ctvi...@x.rcn.com> writes:
>
> >On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 14:18:25 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm
> ><c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> writes:
>
> >>> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
>
> >>>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
> >> of the world healthy long-lived people eat only large meal a day, plus
> >> a few snacks. The human body doesn't have to be constantly drip-fed
> >> variable amounts of food, where you stoke up when plenty food is
> >> available, which might well not be every day. Having to eat three
> >> "balanced" meals a day isn't necessary for either health or comfort,
> >> it's a habit which is probably bad for your health.
>
> >blood sugar all day long as opposed to ultra high blood sugar then none.
>
> remarks to apply to folk with normal properly functioning physiology.
>
> >Plus, how am I going to eat 2,500 calories or more at a sitting?
>
> hillwalkers who plan on losing several pounds weight during a
> backpacking trek, and who will end their walk with a meal of that size
> or larger.
>
> >> Three or *more* meals? I don't know *anyone* who eats more than three
> >> idea of balance between meal sizes come from? I don't know anyone who
> >> eats three meals a day of roughly equal size who isn't considerably
> >> overweight. (I don't know any athletes or heavy manual workers, who
> >> may wellneed to eat that much, without getting fat.)
>
> >do this. The number of meals has nothing to do with whether you are fat or
> >not.
>
> you were suggesting that most people needed to eat three large meals a
> day, as opposed to my suggestion of one or two small ones followed by
> a large one. I wsn't referring to folk who prefer to eat lost of mall
> meals. As it happens, I don't know any of those.
>
> >By the way, I eat about 5-6 times per day, although the meal sizes
> >are not balanced. Why can't you take 2,500 calories per day and break it
> >into 5 small meals instead of three or one? I see no evidence that the
> >number of meals one person eats is or is not correlated with being fat.
>
> you meant.
Assume stuff much?
Pastorio
Bob Cardone
person with OCD
PLOOINK!!!
Jim Horne
: >>> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
:
: >>>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
: >> Where does this idea of balance between meals come from? In many parts
: >> of the world healthy long-lived people eat only large meal a day, plus
: >> a few snacks. The human body doesn't have to be constantly drip-fed
: >> with food to keep going. In fact it's designed to cope with a highly
: >> variable amounts of food, where you stoke up when plenty food is
: >> available, which might well not be every day. Having to eat three
: >> "balanced" meals a day isn't necessary for either health or comfort,
: >> it's a habit which is probably bad for your health.
:
: >Why is it bad for your health? For me, it allows me to have a constant
: >blood sugar all day long as opposed to ultra high blood sugar then none.
:
: Ok, you have problems with blood sugar regulation. I only meant my
: remarks to apply to folk with normal properly functioning physiology.
here in lies the rub...this thread continues to be crossposted to a diabetes
NG...and what is meant by "normal properly functioning physiology?"
*Mu*
Malcolm) wrote:
> Of course there's a bit more to the
>argument, but you've had so much difficulty trying to see the whole
>argument in one go that I don't think we should risk confusing you by
>going any further today, Pastorio.
lol
*Mu*
Malcolm) wrote:
>Pastorio, it's been well established, scientifically, that if you
>persistently eat large meals, your stomach grows to acommodate your
>use of it. Conversely, if you start eating only small meals, over time
>your stomach will shrink so that you will eventualy no longer be able
>to eat as much in one sitting as you used to. Given the way animal
>bodies respond to habitual use it would be very surprising if this
>weren't the case.
Interestingly, Chung said the same thing recently but in my
conversations with him last summer, I remember agreeing with him that
there have been no volumetric studies of stomach size to determine if
this is the case. Of course, all that means is that neither of us had
found one or maybe one has been done recently.
Or maybe I heard wrong, I dunno.
>You've been banging the science drum a lot in this discussion, Pastorio. I'm
>beginning to suspect your acquaintance with science relevant to eating
>came from a Reader's Digest article in a dentist's waiting room.
lol
That's no drum you hear. That's Cheffie's wooden spoon banging against
his wooden head.
lol
*Mu*
Malcolm) wrote:
>Chung's 2lb diet is based on
>approximations, and accepts a lower standard of accuracy with respect
>to calorific value of food than many dieticians. I've explained why I
>think that lower standard of accuracy could be appropriate and
>practical.
And requires an Ounce of Common Sense as well. No one, over time, is
going to eat 8,000 cals daily of chocolate or an all fat diet. No one
has, in modern times, and no one will.
So, yes, it is based on averages and an Ounce of Common Sense. If you
lack common sense, no diet in the world will solve your inadequacies.
Bob Pastorio
>
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:08:13 +0000 (UTC), c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Chris
> Malcolm) wrote:
>
> >Pastorio, it's been well established, scientifically, that if you
> >persistently eat large meals, your stomach grows to acommodate your
> >use of it. Conversely, if you start eating only small meals, over time
> >your stomach will shrink so that you will eventualy no longer be able
> >to eat as much in one sitting as you used to. Given the way animal
> >bodies respond to habitual use it would be very surprising if this
> >weren't the case.
>
> Interestingly, Chung said the same thing recently but in my
> conversations with him last summer, I remember agreeing with him that
> there have been no volumetric studies of stomach size to determine if
> this is the case. Of course, all that means is that neither of us had
> found one or maybe one has been done recently.
So maybe Chris is dealing with things that aren't so "well established,
scientifically" as he says, huh? Could that be? I mean, given the vast
amount of, uh, like, real science and, er, you know, like math and all
with the complicated explanations? Could it be that his "science" might
not be so scientific?
Gotta give you a tiny bit of credit, Mu for an admission that seems like
a truthful contribution to the discourse. Good thing.
> Or maybe I heard wrong, I dunno.
Yeah. That's the ticket. Um, heard wrong. Right. Scientifically
established. Beyond any doubt.
Could that really be, um, like, beyond a volumetric donut? Yes. I bet
that's it.
Sounds like maybe you're - sorta - endorsing how Chris nearly salvaged
your nonsensical "eating less spurs the need for less food" because the
utter absurdity of the statement has finally penetrated the surreal
density of your brain.
You spout nonsense, he turns it into a semi-coherent, if utterly
different, idea so now it's *What You Said* even though it isn't.
Still waiting for anything besides the personal, and increasingly
dubious, experience of one Scotsman and two dubious nutritional wizards
with no evidence they're willing to show. If, indeed, there exists any.
In the information and evidentiary vacuum, the conclusion needs to be
that there's enough hot air from these Two-Pounders to keep a huge
balloon aloft for days.
> >You've been banging the science drum a lot in this discussion, Pastorio. I'm
> >beginning to suspect your acquaintance with science relevant to eating
> >came from a Reader's Digest article in a dentist's waiting room.
>
> lol
>
> That's no drum you hear. That's Cheffie's wooden spoon banging against
> his wooden head.
>
> lol
LOL, so where's a shred, an iota, a tiny dash, a hint... of
scientifically derived evidence for the two pound diet?
Right. Same place where Dorothy keeps her glittery shoes.
Coulda saved everybody all this wasted time by saying that up front.
Hey you. Behind the curtain. That you, Chung? That little squeaky guy
hovering around your ankles Count Mu of Fishbone...?
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
And guesswork. And a perfect out if it fails, as it must. "You didn't do
it right."
And the nonsense of being one more sad example of *THE ANSWER*...
The rule is "If it seems to be too good to be true, it is."
Simple is good. Simplistic isn't.
Pastorio
Mack
Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>Ron Ritzman <ritz...@paniximretarded.com> wrote in message news:<l3bkgvc43c5fpqva8...@4ax.com>...
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:45:57 -0400, *Mu* <MuIsNo...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>Chung's website seemed to suggest "eat the same things"
>> >>you have been eating, only less. A reasonable idea, IF
>> >>it can actually be done. What was not reasonable was
>> >>the advice to the dieter to compute changes in medications
>> >>on their own.
>> >
>> >uhhhhh, and you get off calling down Chung with what credentials?
>>
>> Since when have "credentials" been necessary on Usenet?
>
>They are helpful for credibility.
then you have none after being fired from that hospital in florida.
>
>As for the comment:
>
>"What was not reasonable was the advice to the dieter to compute
>changes in medications on their own."
>
>I would have to agree with it *if* it were true.
>
>See the narrative at:
>
>http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
>
>and note that a doctor is involved (me if the person is my patient) to
>"review a person's progress" with the 2 pound diet approach.
>Adjustment in medications needed as weight is being lost and intake is
>changing is fine under a doctor's supervision. As far as I know, the
>2 pound diet approach is the only "published" diet that explicitly
>involves doctors in supervising the adjustment of medications. Ime,
>some folks "fail" at dieting because they start feeling ill as they
>lose weight because their medications are not adjusted.
>
>Regards,
>
>Andrew
Mack
wrote:
>"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
>>
>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> > Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> writes:
>> > >This is twaddle.
>> >
>> > >The question still remains. I haven't said it won't work. It may just
>> > >work fine if all the variables are dealt with
>> >
>> > What you don't understand is that variables of many functions have
>> > idioscyncratic sensitivities to changes in those variables. It's a
>> > well known technique to first of all calculate the sensitivities, and
>> > then to combine that with the typical distributions of values in the
>> > variables. This is how mathematicians calculate acceptable
>> > simplifications of complex formulae. If the calculations are
>> > formidable, or the functions and distributions not well specified, it
>> > can be done empirically.
>> >
>> > Chung's 2lb diet is a suggestion of an empirical simplification of a
>> > complex multivariable function. The question of how good a
>> > simplification it is can be answered either empirically or
>> > theoretically. Every criticism you've posted has been a criticism of
>> > it being unacceptable as a deductive transformation, i.e., you point
>> > out special circumstances in which it won't work, which is completely
>> > missing the point.
>> >
>>
>> Eloquently written, though I suspect the point will still be lost on Mr.
>> Pastorio.
>
>You're not quite as good at this as fishbone. Actually, in several
>posts, I've detailed why your notion is so flawed. I note you and your
>sock puppet take glancing blows at what I say rather than to actually
>confront it and offer countering information beyond mere opinion.
That's simply because he has no data, facts or any tested evidence to
back up his claims. his two pound fad diet is nothing but opinion.
his advice to people on how to reduce meds, such as oral diabetes
meds, insulin, blood pressure meds and cholesterol meds is also pure
guess work and quite dangerous and completely out of his field as is
cardiology since his termination from the hospital in florida.
>
>> > >> I know plenty of folk who have a light breakfast, e.g. a boiled egg
>> > >> and bit of toast,
>> >
>> > >Boiled egg=2 ounces
>> > >Bit of toast (two slices)=2.5 to 3 ounces
>> >
>> > A singular "bit" of toast to me is one small slice.
>>
>> To me, a bit is a half or a quarter slice of or "regular" sandwich size bread.
>> Better to weigh it so we would agree on the exact quantity :-)
>
>Right. Count the angels on the head of that pin. That's not enough food
>for a child much less an adult.
>
>> > >Large sandwich=6 to 10 ounces
>> >
>> > >> a lunch of something like a large sandwich, coming
>> > >> out at something like half a pound total,
>> >
>> > >Good luck getting that to come out to 8 ounces. Looks more like 10.5 to
>> > >15 ounces.
>> >
>> > I meant what *I* think of a large sandwich, not what an American
>> > thinks is a large sandwich.
>>
>> 10 ounces is a large sandwich to me and I am an American, btw.
>
>Right. I note that you only picked the upper end of the range I quoted
>to cluck over.
>
>You say that so easily yet when you look at what a reasonably meager
>sandwich usually contains, the numbers become clear. Two slices of bread
>will be at least 2.5 ounces. Less than 2 ounces of meat or cheese won't
>even be a condiment, much less anything to consider as sufficient for a
>normal person. That's two, very thin slices of ham of sufficient size to
>just cover a slice of bread. Or two thin slices of cheese. Add some mayo
>or other condiments, about an ounce. Lettuce? Tomato? That basic
>sandwich is up at 5+ ounces with no lettuce or tomato additions. I've
>eaten that basic sandwich in various incarnations in two dozen countries
>and less than 6 ounces is virtually impossible to find.
>
>> > >> then an evening meal of
>> > >> something like 1.5lbs, all of which comes out to about 2lbs a day.
>
>Actually, 1.5 pounds of food at a single sitting is rather heavy. Think
>of a steak that weighs 1.5 pounds. Now imagine eating it. That's 24
>ounces of food by weight. Most people would have difficulty finishing
>it.
>
>And most people couldn't comfortably get by the remaining part of the
>day with a total of only 8 ounces of food. The balance is skewed badly.
>
>> > >All of which comes out to a minimum of 24+10.5 or 34.5 ounces - 2 pounds
>> > >and a couple ounces. Or up to 24+15 or 39 ounces or almost 2.5 pounds.
>> >
>> > When inflated by your gluttonous assumptions.
>
>See, here we get into credentials. I've been around the world as a
>foodservice person. Your understandings of how much food is served at
>typical meals isn't even remotely informed. My assumptions are based on
>actual measurements in literally hundreds of feeding establishments.
>You're guessing about a good deal of it, even with all your scales.
>
>> It is too much. However, it does take time to become accustomed to eating less.
>
>Hey, Chris. He says you eat too much.
>
>Piggy.
>
>> > >And this assumes they never have a chocolate or a banana or a piece of
>> > >their birthday cake.
>> >
>> > A chocolate? I suggest you weigh a chocolate. They're not as heavy as
>> > you think!
>>
>> Some American chocolate bars are literally *huge*
>
>And both of you missed the point, again. That with two pounds of food
>distributed across three or more meals means that each will be so small
>as to be mere snacks and that any hungers between those sparse meals
>must either go unsatisfied or they must be subtracted from this silly
>prescription.
>
>> > As for birthday cake, I may attend six or seven birthdays a
>> > year. Those six or seven slices of cake don't add much averaged out
>> > over a year. My evening meal of 1.5lbs included a piece of fruit, such
>> > as a banana.
>
>Whoosh...
>
>I offered examples about *anything* not planned into the two pounds. No
>room for addition unless it's subtracted from the two pounds..
>
>> > I'm 60, and have eaten like that for decades. If I ate more I'd feel
>> > stuffed and listless.
>>
>> Go to a few Anerican all-you-can-eat buffets to eat your money's worth and
>> you'll be "cured" of feeling stuffed on moderate amounts of food :-)
>
>It takes discipline to restrain one self at those buffets. But then
>again it takes discipline to restrict eating by whatever name you call
>it. It takes discipline to restrict carbs. Or to eat low-fat. It all
>takes discipline. But the ones where caloric intake is counted rather
>than gross weight have actual science behind them rather than some
>fanciful story about mountain climbers.
>
>> > My doctors sometimes enquire about my diet, and
>> > always consider it good. It's obviously adequate, since I'm slightly
>> > overweight. My doctors don't agree, but I have higher standards than
>> > their wall weight charts.
>> >
>> > However, I wouldn't advocate it as a practical limit for most folk,
>
>Hey. Chris doesn't think it's good for everybody. Stop the presses.
>
>Another glowing testimonial.
>
>As if.
>
>Pastorio
>
>> > since people have different efficiencies with which they digest and
>> > metabolise food, different basal metabolisms, different habits of
>> > exercise, different sizes, etc.. I simply offered my experience as a
>> > validation that for at least some people it's neither a restrictive
>> > not an unhealthy diet.
>> >
>> > Apart from it's simplicity, it focusses attention on an important idea
>> > which many dieters try very hard to avoid: you need to eat *less*. The
>> > calorie counter dieters I know seem to regard calorie counting as a
>> > way of being clever enough with your choices and calculations that you
>> > can eat the same amount and get thinner, by avoiding "fattening"
>> > foods.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Chris Malcolm c...@inf.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 650 3085 DoD #205
>> > School of Informatics, Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill,
>> > Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK. [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/ ]
>>
>> Thank you for your comments, Chris.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Andrew
>> --
>> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>> Board-Certified Atlanta Cardiologist
>> http://www.heartmdphd.com
Bob Pastorio
>
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:45:04 -0400, Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
> >>
> >> Eloquently written, though I suspect the point will still be lost on Mr.
> >> Pastorio.
> >
> >posts, I've detailed why your notion is so flawed. I note you and your
> >sock puppet take glancing blows at what I say rather than to actually
> >confront it and offer countering information beyond mere opinion.
>
> That's simply because he has no data, facts or any tested evidence to
> back up his claims. his two pound fad diet is nothing but opinion.
> his advice to people on how to reduce meds, such as oral diabetes
> meds, insulin, blood pressure meds and cholesterol meds is also pure
> guess work and quite dangerous and completely out of his field as is
> cardiology since his termination from the hospital in florida.
One of the criticisms of Atkins, Ornish and the rest of the diet gurus
is that they had no data. That they didn't pay for the responsible
research to support their theses. The research being done with and
without them is showing some fairly clear trends in favor of low carb.
Chung is in that same position with his idea as they were a decade ago.
Only lots more huckstering, and a great deal less information. Acolytes
who beat the drum and offer lots of heat but little light. Propagandists
for "The Answer." Who answer all questions, "Mu." Nothing.
And right, they offer no reasoned information except that tired stuff
about mountain climbers and "people all over the world..." and
"everybody knows..." and other data-free vagaries. "Never mind the
nutrition, just weigh the food. We'll worry about nutrition later." But
they can't see why worrying about the nutrition at all means that
they'll have to take the analytical steps at some point in time. Why not
up front? They never deal with that. They try to dismiss it.
They say it takes discipline. All diet plans take discipline. No news
there. The absurd part is that whole concept of limiting quantity with
no other criteria until some "later" that's not specified.
If, in fact is turns out to be a reasonable approach (with whatever
modifications reality imposes), wacko blowhards like fishbone-Mu will
have effectively killed and buried it. Being associated with such an
unbalanced, demonstrable fraud taints it all. Snake oil salesman that he
is, his bragging style and empty "information" dooms him to dismissal by
any serious questioner and, along with him, all considerations of what
he's peddling. Neither one sees that they're their own worst enemies for
this notion. Sociopathic swaggering like nothing-mu does can only turn
away anyone who might have some curiosity.
How's that song go? "Another one bites the dust..."
Pastorio
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
<snip>
> But, not one scientist has endorsed weighing food rather than analyzing
> the contents.
Correct, not one but many...
Weighing food is the gold standard used by scientists to determine the
quantity of food ingested.
Some examples:
"Girls were served a standard meal and actual intake was assessed by
weighing food portions before and after the meal."
"The diet was assessed by food weighing plus consecutive individual 3
d food records."
"During the 12 mo before blood collection, food intakes were assessed
repeatedly by a combination of dietary recalls, food weighing, and
food diaries [mean (+/-SD) days of food intake data..."
"Because larger food portions could be contributing to the increasing
prevalence of overweight and obesity, this study was designed to weigh
samples of marketplace foods, identify historical changes in the sizes
of those foods, and compare current portions with federal standards."
There are many more examples if you want them. Let me know :-)
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
*and* Physician-Scientist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/ac.asp
Bob Pastorio
>
> Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> wrote in message news:<3F0CD85B...@rica.net>...
>
> <snip>
> > But, not one scientist has endorsed weighing food rather than analyzing
> > the contents.
>
> Correct, not one but many...
>
> Weighing food is the gold standard used by scientists to determine the
> quantity of food ingested.
It is *a* way of determining the *weight* of food ingested. The other
ways are elucidated in each of these studies below. They merely mention
weighing food as *one* of the indices in restricting or evaluating
diets. Not one of them only weighed food. Not one of them was *about*
weighing food.
My statement stands. Let me say it more fully: not one scientist has
endorsed using the single parameter of weighing food as a rational
dietary approach to weight loss. Sure they weigh foods during studies
along with many other ways to limit the number of variables and account
for differences. But none has relied on *only* weighing food to cause
and sustain weight loss.
> Some examples:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12197792&dopt=Abstract
>
> "Girls were served a standard meal and actual intake was assessed by
> weighing food portions before and after the meal."
Jeeezus, Chung. This was a test to see how accurately the girls
estimated their own intake. It didn't have anything to do with dieting
or weight control or anything like that. It was a memory quiz. Did you
even read it?
Here's a quote of the objective for the study:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of children's estimates of the food
portions they consume by means of 2 types of measurement aids: standard
2-dimensional food portion visuals and manipulative props
One dead.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12117432&dopt=Abstract
>
> "The diet was assessed by food weighing plus consecutive individual 3
> d food records."
Right. And this one was to see what the correlative factors were for
overweight and normal weight amongst a population in China. At first
glance, this might say something significant about weighing food. It
says this:
"The overweight group had significantly higher mean daily intakes of
energy and carbohydrate than the normal-weight group. Overweight men
also had significantly higher mean daily intakes of protein and fat than
normal-weight men." Big eaters were heavier, it says. Stop the presses.
But note that it doesn't offer anything like a formula for weight
control. This was a study checking many factors including age, smoking,
socio-economic status, marital status, occupational and commuting
activity and other dimensions. Weighing food was merely to determine
relative intake, not to correlate it directly with weight as a single
variable or as the most important one.
Two dead.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12081829&dopt=Abstract
>
> "During the 12 mo before blood collection, food intakes were assessed
> repeatedly by a combination of dietary recalls, food weighing, and
> food diaries [mean (+/-SD) days of food intake data..."
Combination of recalls, food weighing and food diaries. This wasn't
about restricting food, it was about seeing results when they ate and
drank whatever they wanted and merely recorded it. It wasn't about
weight of the subjects, it was about their iron status.
"OBJECTIVE: The objective was to identify nutrients, dietary
constituents, and foods that are associated with better iron status in a
rural Mexican population." Nothing about weight; not a dietary plan.
Three dead.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11818300&dopt=Abstract
>
> "Because larger food portions could be contributing to the increasing
> prevalence of overweight and obesity, this study was designed to weigh
> samples of marketplace foods, identify historical changes in the sizes
> of those foods, and compare current portions with federal standards."
This one says that we're eating more than we used to and that
contributes to our national problem with obesity. Not exactly
earth-shattering news.
Here's what they offer as a conclusion:
"CONCLUSIONS: Because energy content increases with portion size,
educational and other public health efforts to address obesity should
focus on the need for people to consume smaller portions."
Four out of four dead.
Look, Chung. This, like the ones above, *mentions* weight. Nowhere do I
see any prescriptions for a level of reduction of our intake of food to
some number. Nowhere do I see a suggestion that weighing food alone is a
good idea. Nowhere, in any of these studies did anyone offer anything
concrete about weight control.
The last one came the closest, but all it said was eat less to lose
weight. Anybody with an IQ larger than their shoe size already knows
that. The real information is not to consume a smaller physical volume,
but to consume a lower energy content. Fewer calories in. That's the
final deal. Not fewer ounces. Not fewer grams. Fewer calories. There's a
connection, but not one close enough to substitute one for the other.
Energy, not mass.
These studies you offer here in "evidence" of your "plan" show nothing
of the sort. They're about your notions like citations from a model
airplane group are about air travel.
> There are many more examples if you want them. Let me know :-)
I'd like *ONE* if you can find it.
Pastorio
*Mu*
>That's simply because he has no data, facts or any tested evidence to
>back up his claims. his two pound fad diet is nothing but opinion.
Dave
> My statement stands. Let me say it more fully: not one scientist has
> endorsed using the single parameter of weighing food as a rational
> dietary approach to weight loss.
>
And I would question the methods of any scientist or doctor who would.
I had to laugh the first time I saw the 2 lb diet. I used to do a lot
of backpacking and 2 lbs of DRY weight per person per day certainly was
a known rule of thumb. But you know what? I don't think we ever
actually weighed any of the food. We just a) learned through experience
what we needed, and b) understood there was no point wasting energy
carrying water in our food that we could also find along the way. Two
lbs per day was more useful as an estimate of how long we thought we
could live on the trail, based on how much weight we wanted to carry.
Two lbs per day, irrespective of physical activity, composition of the
food, or size/gender of the individual? C'mon. That's just plain silly.
And I assumed those few testimonials on his site were from people who
just happened to have the right activity level and metabolism to
survive on two lbs of food of whatever composition they happened to
prefer. Then I followed the links.
One of his "testimonial" (Dolores Santos) links points to a message
from a woman who says this:
"I cannot imagine eating the 2 pound diet--at least not for any length
of time. If I continued to eat my present well balanced diet and
reduced the amount of food to 2 pounds I would be eating 800 calories
a day. I would guess that anyone could lose weight on 800 calories a
day. For me to do this, I would need to be in a hospital with an
armed guard at the door."
Another linked "testimonial" (Noreen Cooper) contains only this
reference:
"I actually see some merit in the 2 Pound Diet approach."
But there's no indication the poster actually uses the approach, or has
lost weight on it.
Here's another (Sharon "Happycat"):
"In my life, when I restrict myself and diet
and beat myself up when I "cheat", it has always led me to a binge. In
one way or another. (Any kind of diet has done this for me, low fat,
low carb, low cal, fasting, etc. Hell, even though I haven't tried
the "Two-Pound Diet and have no plans to ever EVER do it, I know for a
fact that that diet would be the worst offender of them all."
And MJuric says:
"I do fully understand the concept of the 2PD I just disagree with it."
Keep in mind folks that these are *supporting* quotes. You want to take
advice from a so-called medical professional who can't even be troubled
to ensure that the links to supporters on his web site actually are to
supporters?
I think Dr. Chung is just in this game for the attention. And I suppose
I've given him a bit more by rising to the bait just this once. Maybe
it will save someone else the trouble of giving credence to his ideas.
And I sincerely hope that no one has been physically harmed by
following his advice.
Dave
Dave
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/rip.asp
>
Cool. Maybe the good doctor will add my post today regarding his
so-called testimonial links.
Dave
Carmen
On 11-Jul-2003, Dave <da...@extracovestuffcomm.com> wrote:
> Two lbs per day, irrespective of physical activity, composition of the
> food, or size/gender of the individual? C'mon. That's just plain
> silly. And I assumed those few testimonials on his site were from
> people who
> just happened to have the right activity level and metabolism to
> survive on two lbs of food of whatever composition they happened to
> prefer. Then I followed the links.
>
> One of his "testimonial" (Dolores Santos) links points to a message
> from a woman who says this:
>
> "I cannot imagine eating the 2 pound diet--at least not for any
> length of time. If I continued to eat my present well balanced diet
> and
> reduced the amount of food to 2 pounds I would be eating 800 calories
> a day. I would guess that anyone could lose weight on 800 calories a
> day. For me to do this, I would need to be in a hospital with an
> armed guard at the door."
<Snip of other examples>
> Keep in mind folks that these are *supporting* quotes. You want to
> take advice from a so-called medical professional who can't even be
> troubled to ensure that the links to supporters on his web site
> actually are to
> supporters?
Sigh. I emailed Andrew about this several days ago when I caught what
someone had obviously done - submitted links of "testamonials" hoping
they wouldn't be checked. Agree or disagree with 2PD it wasn't cool to
involve unknowing third parties in the whole thing. For whatever reason
it wasn't noticed earlier or attended to when I emailed him about it. I
tried, Andrew.
Take care,
Carmen
Bob Pastorio
Ooooohhh <shiver> Chung has a "hit list" of people who have smacked him
and his posturing on usenet. Funny the list is much longer than his
"testimonials" list on his web site.
Seems like more people think he's some sort of fool than think him good.
Mu's close and dear friend, confidant and "other" (which he doesn't
explain, but which I'm sure is perfectly wonderful, satisfying and
mutually-supportive).
Together, what a dynamic duo, crime... uh, fat-fighters (hard to keep
these superheroes straight). I bet there'll be a movie about them,
swinging from golden ropes, leaping those tall doctor's scales in a
single bound, and driving some sort of jet car thingy. Now if we could
just get them to quit wearing those baggy tights and big red rubber
noses...
Pastorio
Tiger_Lily
apparently responding to a post made by Chung on the newsgroups is
"cyberstalking"
bwha ha ha ha
here is MY offensive remark that set the dear Dr off into a pathological
psychosis
Tiger Lily" (Tige...@nospam.alt-support-diabetes.org)
i have challenged you to compare your diet to the harvard pyramid.........
still haven't heard and answer to that challenge....... just more bs posting
from you Chung
Date of listing: 06-03-2002
looks like serious "cyberstalking" eh???
you can find the post on google..... that's where Chung go it from
Dave
> Sigh. I emailed Andrew about this several days ago when I caught what
> someone had obviously done - submitted links of "testamonials" hoping
> they wouldn't be checked.
>
That was my point - here's a guy who clearly can't be bothered checking
facts.
Dave
Tony Lew
What a paranoid midget.
Carmen
On 11-Jul-2003, Dave <da...@extracovestuffcomm.com> wrote:
The links weren't checked, or they wouldn't have put there. True. The
"why" is debatable. It could have been that he didn't bother to, or it
could have been that he just trusted that the submitter wouldn't lie
about the submission (my guess) or any of a bunch of other possible
explanations.
From my POV the submitter's tactic was underhanded and sneaky - the
equivalent of a sucker punch. I object to that. That was my point.
Take care,
Carmen
..
>
> I think Dr. Chung is just in this game for the attention. ...
Hmm, interesting you should mention this. I couldn't help but notice that
he's been "salting the mine" by dumping hundreds of keyword terms at the
bottom of each page in order to attract the less intelligent search engine
spiders.
I wish him success, but he should consider getting a better shill. Ol' Mu is
giving him a bad reputation. While some might argue that even bad publicity
is good publicity, I don't think that's the case for those in the medical
profession.
Bob Pastorio
>
> Hi Dave,
> On 11-Jul-2003, Dave <da...@extracovestuffcomm.com> wrote:
>
> > > Sigh. I emailed Andrew about this several days ago when I caught
> > > what someone had obviously done - submitted links of "testamonials"
> > > hoping they wouldn't be checked.
> > >
> > That was my point - here's a guy who clearly can't be bothered
> > checking facts.
>
> The links weren't checked, or they wouldn't have put there. True.
See, Carmen, this is one of the objections I have to his "plan" and his
methods. Everything on his site is terribly superficial. He calls
himself a scientist yet shows no inclination to do what scientists do.
He has only offered weak, subjective announcements, like his sock puppet
does. They tout it endlessly and yet offer no substantive data to
support any of it.
> The
> "why" is debatable. It could have been that he didn't bother to,
It really does look like more of the same thing he did yesterday in
direct reply to me.
He posted 4 URLs that he said justified weighing food and that it was
the gold standard for determining how much food people ate. The URLs he
posted made no such points.
They only glancingly mentioned weighing food at all. One study was to
see how well certain people remembered how much they ate. Another was to
see what happened to non-pregnant Mexican women's iron status was
affected by their diets and weighing was one of three methods used to
track their intake. Another was looking at *all* the factors for obesity
in select Chinese people. Only one study mentioned food amounts relative
to obesity and all they said was that American portions were too big.
Duh...
Four out of four URLs he offered were simply irrelevant. They didn't do
what he said they did.
He posted these URLs as though they confirmed his 2PD. Either he simply
didn't bother to read them or he's so fuddled that he is incapable of
interpreting what they say.
In either case, *he* gave good reason to dismiss anything he might say
by his sloppiness and the utter irrelevance of his "rebuttal" to
objections to 2PD. Neither he nor his pet, Mu, have offered any good
rationales for doing it. And, given the inception of his idea, the
mountain climbers, the whole thing is a fragile house of cards with
nothing supporting it.
> or it
> could have been that he just trusted that the submitter wouldn't lie
> about the submission (my guess) or any of a bunch of other possible
> explanations.
They've been on his site for a good while now. Picked them off the web,
he did. Looks like he didn't read them any further than he did the
studies he offered yesterday. Sad, actually.
> From my POV the submitter's tactic was underhanded and sneaky - the
> equivalent of a sucker punch. I object to that. That was my point.
We don't know that anyone but Chung put those "testimonials" on his
site, do we? What we do know is that they don't endorse his 2PD. I don't
really care if he says he didn't do it, the only thing that matters is
that he doesn't take care of business very well. The site represents him
and he can't be bothered to look at it. Scary superficiality in a
medical doctor. Not much room for ooops. Florida showed that.
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
You probably became disillusioned when Mu shouted, "Step right up,
Laydeez and Gennelmen, see the Dancing Doctor and his Two-Pound Plan. He
jumps, he dances, he shimmies like a bowl full of jelly. And listen to
him talk real serious about medical stuff and health, um things. All
while dancing on tiptoe, waving his feather boa and making sure to stay
in the spotlight."
But the real question I have for you is, did you ask for your money back
after seeing the show?
Pastorio
Dave
> From my POV the submitter's tactic was underhanded and sneaky - the
> equivalent of a sucker punch. I object to that.
>
A sucker punch? C'mon. A practical joke, perhaps. Let's say your
favorite politician is at a rally, and someone hands this person a
banner that says "Look at me, I'm an idiot." What would it do to your
estimation of this person if s/he never looked at what it said, but
just waved it in the air. And then proceeded to do it repeatedly with
other, also derogatory, banners? You'd think this person was a clueless
bozo or illiterate, and you'd reconsider your vote, because politicians
need to be able to read the signs. And you'd probably thank the
prankster for pointing this out.
Dave
*Mu*
wrote:
I must have missed this. What are you talking about?
*Mu*
wrote:
>I think Dr. Chung is just in this game for the attention.
Which goes to prove that Usenet is full of morons who express personal
opinions about people they have never met and never will try to.
So much for your opinion.
Carmen
Look at the links under "Testamonials". When I was looking at the site
the other day I noticed a familiar name in the list (Sharon AKA
Happycat) . I knew she low carbed - or at least did the last I knew. I
looked to see what she experienced concerning 2PD and found it wasn't a
testamonial at all, but a slam. Then I looked at others in the list and
found more of the same thing. I saw that Andrew asked for submissions
for the Testamonial section and figured someone had submitted the slams
hoping they'd be posted without checking.
I object to lies and sneakiness, regardless of who it's directed towards
and the perceived reasons for it, so I emailed him. No reply. Maybe he
thought that as a lowcarber I was just messing with him or something.
Take care,
Carmen
Carmen
On 11-Jul-2003, Dave <da...@extracovestuffcomm.com> wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree on this I guess. The above situation is
also one I would take issue with. Apparently we don't see this sort of
thing the same way.
Take care,
Carmen
*Mu*
<nobod...@example.com> wrote:
>apparently responding to a post made by Chung on the newsgroups is
>"cyberstalking"
>bwha ha ha ha
No, it was when the idiots and morons who make up this ng spam him,
leave him threatening messages, emails with threats and other such BS
common to morons and idiots.
Like you.
Carmen
On 11-Jul-2003, Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> wrote:
> > The links weren't checked, or they wouldn't have put there. True.
>
> See, Carmen, this is one of the objections I have to his "plan" and
> his methods. Everything on his site is terribly superficial. He calls
> himself a scientist yet shows no inclination to do what scientists do.
> He has only offered weak, subjective announcements, like his sock
> puppet does. They tout it endlessly and yet offer no substantive data
> to
> support any of it.
<Snip>
In my estimation it comes down to a belief system as opposed to science.
A belief doesn't *require* proof. A thousand arguments based on fact
won't sway a belief, because it is inherently illogical. It's fruitless
to try. This seems to hold true regardless of the arena the belief
encompasses. Religion is rich with examples. Those who attempt to
argue based upon logic and facts aren't speaking the same language as
those arguing based upon faith/belief. Both parties are using a
different set of ground rules - it's as if one side is playing chess and
the other checkers. Both sides can lay claim to being "right" and do so
truthfully. The science and facts don't support the general premise.
The original facts (the mountain climbers' 2 pounds of food) were
misunderstood and the followons extrapolated based upon a flawed
understanding of the facts. All the conclusions that followed were
therefore similarly flawed. That being said, Mu's use of the result
(the 2PD) and his success using it were still valid, as is that of
anyone else who succeeds using it. At that point, the belief that the
2PD is valid is set. No amount of proof will sway it, because it worked
for him/them. See? Once a belief is established, it's next to
impossible to dislodge it. Even attempts to dissuade the believer from
the belief using facts may be seen as proof that the belief is valid.
It's my guess that that is what you're seeing - a belief being defended,
not a deliberate attempt at misleading people.
Humans are funny critters. :-)
Take care,
Carmen
*Mu*
>hey tout it endlessly and yet offer no substantive data
>> to
>> support any of it.
><Snip>
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:57:54 GMT, "Carmen " <Carm...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>In my estimation it comes down to a belief system as opposed to science.
> A belief doesn't *require* proof.
I have to laugh about all this so-called proof all these so-called
expert critics claim to have or claim to need. Here's a clue. There
are no "proofs" in scientific exploration, citation writing or, in
science itself.
Proof is in the pudding and Chung and I have all the walk-in, talk to
"proof" we need.
And we are customers of the 2PDiet as well.
Want proof? Wait to die, ask God.
>That being said, Mu's use of the result
>(the 2PD) and his success using it were still valid, as is that of
>anyone else who succeeds using it. At that point, the belief that the
>2PD is valid is set. No amount of proof will sway it, because it worked
>for him/them. See?
there is no proof except in seeing the results first hand. We do.
People may believe as they wish, they may scream and shout like Mad
Italian Maniacs all they want. It works. That's it.
>It's my guess that that is what you're seeing - a belief being defended,
>not a deliberate attempt at misleading people.
Its a diet plan that works. simple as that. Nothing more, nothing
less.
Bob Pastorio
Golly, Mu. I don't want to point out something touchy here, but I feel
constrained to. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I seem to recall
your giving a bunch of opinions about people that you've never met.
Including me. And it's shocking how negative you can sometimes be.
Shocking, I say.
Or, maybe you have secretly met them and they don't know it since you
take such pains to remain unknown. While giving opinions about people.
From behind a fake name.
The other thing I feel the need to point out is that your statement
doesn't logically follow from Dave's. He said Chung seems to be in the
usenet game for the attention because he puts lots of keywords at the
bottom of his notes so web crawlers will find them. That does seem like
a reasonable interpretation, otherwise, why put all those extra things
in there.
You say that pointing that out makes Dave a moron. Forgive me here, but
I think it's just you defending your friend, mentor, confidant and, I
believe you said, "other" from a perfectly valid and logical
observation. It would seem that your statement marks a moron who's
incapable of reasoned exposition.
I'm sure you see it differently.
So why did you call yourself "fishbone?" And then change it to
"nothing?"
Just asking, is all...
Pastorio