*Permanent* weight loss
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
there existed a dreadful
health problem that predicted certain mortality and was resistant to my
very best efforts at
treatment. Cardiovascular problems, endocrine abnormalities, and even
cancers were more
responsive to treatment than this increasingly more common "ailment."
Yes, I am talking about obesity. Despite valiant counseling by clinic
nutritionists and
dietitians... despite calorie counting... despite food journals...
despite exercise... my obese
patients typically (more than 90%) gained rather than lost weight.
Americans are getting fatter! Recently, airlines in the U.S. have
widened the width of the
seats on their planes to accommodate this trend of increasing obesity.
Why is this happening?
As much as I am a big proponent of genetics being behind many human
ailments, this trend of increasing girth is occurring too fast to be a
phenomenon of newly inherited obesity genes. Instead, I suspect that
what has changed is the increasing success of the food industry toward
getting people to eat and drink more. There are the extra value meals,
the biggie fries, and the supersizing. There are the buffets and the
all-you-can eateries. There is the emphasis of three meals per day and
four food groups (Got milk?). There are the soda and snack machines at
every corner. There are the cholesterol free, low-fat or fat-free foods
that prey on the popular misconception that eating *more* of these foods
is healthier.
This has got to stop.
About two years ago, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing
Mt. Everest and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the
climbers consumed only 10 lbs of food per week. That's less than 2 lbs
of food per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I
think it is safe to assume that 2 lbs per day should be more than
adequate for us non-climbing folks.
So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese patients in my
care. I gave them ordinary food scales with instructions to weigh
everything substantial that passes into their mouths. The only things
exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What I learned was that my
obese patients was consuming between 8 to 12 lbs of food per day! At the
time, I was about 10 lbs over my ideal body weight so I decided to find
out how much I was eating per day... 3 lbs. I cut back to less than 2
lbs and was at my proper weight in one month.
My patients have responded similarly except they have taken longer
because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese
patients were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the
ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally knocking their food
scales off the table and taking weeks to buy replacements.
The specific instructions that I give my patients to help them lose the
weight permanently are available as free downloads from my website (see
links below my name).
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~achung
http://www.emory.edu/WHSC/MED/HTN/Andrew
http://members.xoom.com/DrChung777
Surfer!
<ach...@emory.edu> writes
<snip>
>
>About two years ago, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing
>Mt. Everest and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the
>climbers consumed only 10 lbs of food per week. That's less than 2 lbs
>of food per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I
>think it is safe to assume that 2 lbs per day should be more than
>adequate for us non-climbing folks.
Are you aware that Everest climbers (those that make it) have lost vast
amounts of weight and take quite a time to recover their fitness? The
only reason they consume so little food is because they have to carry
it, and can't simply pop round to the supermarket to get some more.
They also have to carry fuel so they can melt snow & ice for water to
drink & cook with.
Of course your obese patients eat to much, but taking Everest climbers
as a model is totally cocked.
>
>So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese patients in my
>care. I gave them ordinary food scales with instructions to weigh
>everything substantial that passes into their mouths. The only things
>exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What I learned was that my
>obese patients was consuming between 8 to 12 lbs of food per day! At the
>time, I was about 10 lbs over my ideal body weight so I decided to find
>out how much I was eating per day... 3 lbs. I cut back to less than 2
>lbs and was at my proper weight in one month.
Since when did the weight of food determine it's calorific content?
>
>My patients have responded similarly except they have taken longer
>because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese
>patients were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the
>ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally knocking their food
>scales off the table and taking weeks to buy replacements.
>
>The specific instructions that I give my patients to help them lose the
>weight permanently are available as free downloads from my website (see
>links below my name).
>
Weight loss is only permanent after death. Before then it is only
permanent if one can maintain lifestyle changes of eating less, eating
different things and taking more exercise.
--
Surfer!
CBI
1/6th the amount of food they were accustomed to and that you find it
amazing that they lost weight? DUH!
Bob
wrote:
>So what you are saying is that you convinced your obese patients to eat
>1/6th the amount of food they were accustomed to and that you find it
>amazing that they lost weight? DUH!
>
I think you missed his point -- which is how simple a way this is to
cut food intake. Convincing "your obese patients to eat 1/6" as much
is the point. He seems to have done that, at least over the time
scale tested so far. Kudoes!
Now, the big question... what happens over the long term? That is
where most diets fail.
bob
Bob
<nevis...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <39CD02C7...@emory.edu>, Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
><ach...@emory.edu> writes
><snip>
>>
>>About two years ago, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing
>>Mt. Everest and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the
>>climbers consumed only 10 lbs of food per week. That's less than 2 lbs
>>of food per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I
>>think it is safe to assume that 2 lbs per day should be more than
>>adequate for us non-climbing folks.
>
>Are you aware that Everest climbers (those that make it) have lost vast
>amounts of weight and take quite a time to recover their fitness? The
>only reason they consume so little food is because they have to carry
>it, and can't simply pop round to the supermarket to get some more.
>They also have to carry fuel so they can melt snow & ice for water to
>drink & cook with.
>
>Of course your obese patients eat to much, but taking Everest climbers
>as a model is totally cocked.
No, not at all. It simply provided the starting point for the idea.
The basic idea stands, whether 2 lb turns out to the correct amount,
or not.
>
>>
>>So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese patients in my
>>care. I gave them ordinary food scales with instructions to weigh
>>everything substantial that passes into their mouths. The only things
>>exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What I learned was that my
>>obese patients was consuming between 8 to 12 lbs of food per day! At the
>>time, I was about 10 lbs over my ideal body weight so I decided to find
>>out how much I was eating per day... 3 lbs. I cut back to less than 2
>>lbs and was at my proper weight in one month.
>
>Since when did the weight of food determine it's calorific content?
Always.
1/6 as much food contains 1/6 as many calories -- if the foods are the
same. If not the same foods, then the relation between cal and wt will
be more complex. It is almost inconceivable that consuming 1/6 as much
food would not result in caloric decrease.
His point is to provide a _simple_ way to guide/monitor/motivate
reduction of food intake. Within the limits of the data so far, seems
useful, and it certainly is rather logical. If the patients follow it,
sounds good. Long term, who knows.
bob
jwwright
actually eat about 8 cups of fruit, veggies, milk, and don't count the
coffee, tea, water. Most of what i eat has a lot of water. I think the
mountain climbers use dried food, so rehydrated it would be maybe 4 #?
Anyway 4# gets me 1800 kcals which is enough for me to do 1 hr of treadmill
and weights.
Salt, MSG, artificial flavoring, "natural" flavoring, fats, hydrolyzed
vegetable protein, maltodextrin, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, are
some of the reasons people eat too much. Almost everything prepared, canned,
frozen, in the store has one of these and sometimes more. Salt and MSG seems
to give a sense of being hungry and causes me to eat more. Tell anyone i eat
1800 kcals and they think i'm crazy, but i've still got 20# of fat to
discard, and i'm never get any sever hunger pains.
Regards.
"Andrew Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
> About two years ago, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing
> Mt. Everest and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the
> climbers consumed only 10 lbs of food per week. That's less than 2 lbs
> of food per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I
> think it is safe to assume that 2 lbs per day should be more than
> adequate for us non-climbing folks.
>
> So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese patients in my
> care. I gave them ordinary food scales with instructions to weigh
> everything substantial that passes into their mouths. The only things
> exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What I learned was that my
> obese patients was consuming between 8 to 12 lbs of food per day! At the
> time, I was about 10 lbs over my ideal body weight so I decided to find
> out how much I was eating per day... 3 lbs. I cut back to less than 2
> lbs and was at my proper weight in one month.
>
> My patients have responded similarly except they have taken longer
> because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese
> patients were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the
> ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally knocking their food
> scales off the table and taking weeks to buy replacements.
>
> The specific instructions that I give my patients to help them lose the
> weight permanently are available as free downloads from my website (see
> links below my name).
>
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
"Surfer!" wrote:
> Are you aware that Everest climbers (those that make it) have lost vast
> amounts of weight and take quite a time to recover their fitness? The
> only reason they consume so little food is because they have to carry
> it, and can't simply pop round to the supermarket to get some more.
> They also have to carry fuel so they can melt snow & ice for water to
> drink & cook with.
>
> Of course your obese patients eat to much, but taking Everest climbers
> as a model is totally cocked.
The point here is that if Everest climbers can survive eating less than 2
lbs. of food per day then surely those who don't exert themselves nearly as
much can also.
>
>
> >
> >So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese patients in my
> >care. I gave them ordinary food scales with instructions to weigh
> >everything substantial that passes into their mouths. The only things
> >exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What I learned was that my
> >obese patients was consuming between 8 to 12 lbs of food per day! At the
> >time, I was about 10 lbs over my ideal body weight so I decided to find
> >out how much I was eating per day... 3 lbs. I cut back to less than 2
> >lbs and was at my proper weight in one month.
>
> Since when did the weight of food determine it's calorific content?
>
Actually, there is a direct correlation. 2 lbs of food will have twice as
much calories as 1 lb of the same food.
>
> >
> >My patients have responded similarly except they have taken longer
> >because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese
> >patients were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the
> >ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally knocking their food
> >scales off the table and taking weeks to buy replacements.
> >
> >The specific instructions that I give my patients to help them lose the
> >weight permanently are available as free downloads from my website (see
> >links below my name).
> >
> Weight loss is only permanent after death. Before then it is only
> permanent if one can maintain lifestyle changes of eating less, eating
> different things and taking more exercise.
>
The key is helping people eat less for the rest of their life. The
instructions I give my patients help them do exactly that.
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
Bob wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 12:20:24 +0100, Surfer!
> <nevis...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <39CD02C7...@emory.edu>, Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
> ><ach...@emory.edu> writes
> ><snip>
> >>
> >>About two years ago, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing
> >>Mt. Everest and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the
> >>climbers consumed only 10 lbs of food per week. That's less than 2 lbs
> >>of food per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I
> >>think it is safe to assume that 2 lbs per day should be more than
> >>adequate for us non-climbing folks.
> >
> >Are you aware that Everest climbers (those that make it) have lost vast
> >amounts of weight and take quite a time to recover their fitness? The
> >only reason they consume so little food is because they have to carry
> >it, and can't simply pop round to the supermarket to get some more.
> >They also have to carry fuel so they can melt snow & ice for water to
> >drink & cook with.
> >
> >Of course your obese patients eat to much, but taking Everest climbers
> >as a model is totally cocked.
>
> No, not at all. It simply provided the starting point for the idea.
> The basic idea stands, whether 2 lb turns out to the correct amount,
> or not.
>
2 lbs is roughly 1 kg or 1000 gms of food. This is probably more than enough
calories by any computation you choose.
>
> >
> >>
> >>So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese patients in my
> >>care. I gave them ordinary food scales with instructions to weigh
> >>everything substantial that passes into their mouths. The only things
> >>exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What I learned was that my
> >>obese patients was consuming between 8 to 12 lbs of food per day! At the
> >>time, I was about 10 lbs over my ideal body weight so I decided to find
> >>out how much I was eating per day... 3 lbs. I cut back to less than 2
> >>lbs and was at my proper weight in one month.
> >
> >Since when did the weight of food determine it's calorific content?
>
> Always.
>
> 1/6 as much food contains 1/6 as many calories -- if the foods are the
> same. If not the same foods, then the relation between cal and wt will
> be more complex. It is almost inconceivable that consuming 1/6 as much
> food would not result in caloric decrease.
>
yes.
>
> His point is to provide a _simple_ way to guide/monitor/motivate
> reduction of food intake. Within the limits of the data so far, seems
> useful, and it certainly is rather logical. If the patients follow it,
> sounds good. Long term, who knows.
>
yes, the key is helping people continue a cap on their intakes. this is
where the "hints" section of the instructions come in. I am open to adding
more "hints" if any out there have some.
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Emory University Cardiology Fellow (PGY-7)
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
CBI wrote:
> So what you are saying is that you convinced your obese patients to eat
> 1/6th the amount of food they were accustomed to and that you find it
> amazing that they lost weight? DUH!
I find it amazing that I have found a way to convince people to eat less.
The conventional approach taught physicians is to have patients "count
calories". This method entailed patients to estimate the number of
calories in each food item they consumed and then add these numbers up,
not exceeding a limit (such as 1800 cal). This has NOT worked to convince
people to eat less.
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
Bob wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 09:47:06 -0400, "CBI" <c_ish...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >So what you are saying is that you convinced your obese patients to eat
> >1/6th the amount of food they were accustomed to and that you find it
> >amazing that they lost weight? DUH!
> >
>
> I think you missed his point -- which is how simple a way this is to
> cut food intake. Convincing "your obese patients to eat 1/6" as much
> is the point. He seems to have done that, at least over the time
> scale tested so far. Kudoes!
Thanks :-)
>
>
> Now, the big question... what happens over the long term? That is
> where most diets fail.
>
Yes, you are exactly right. I also have to give my patients a list of
hints on how to continue the discipline of weighing what they eat. It is
not easy because the instinct is strong to eat more during "feast" to
survive "famine".
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~achung
http://www.emory.edu/WHSC/MED/HTN/Andrew
http://members.xoom.com/DrChung777
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
jwwright wrote:
> In spite of this dreadful health problem, people basically ignore obesity.
or at least downplay it. these days, it is not politically correct unless
you're someone's doctor to point out a serious weight problem.
> I
> actually eat about 8 cups of fruit, veggies, milk, and don't count the
> coffee, tea, water. Most of what i eat has a lot of water. I think the
> mountain climbers use dried food, so rehydrated it would be maybe 4 #?
> Anyway 4# gets me 1800 kcals which is enough for me to do 1 hr of treadmill
> and weights.
>
> Salt, MSG, artificial flavoring, "natural" flavoring, fats, hydrolyzed
> vegetable protein, maltodextrin, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, are
> some of the reasons people eat too much.
Yes, when food tastes better, people do eat more. I am familiar with studies
where it has been shown that not only do obese people eat more but that they
are also *pickier* choosing tastier foods that non-obese folks.
> Almost everything prepared, canned,
> frozen, in the store has one of these and sometimes more. Salt and MSG seems
> to give a sense of being hungry and causes me to eat more.
Yes, they do.
> Tell anyone i eat
> 1800 kcals and they think i'm crazy, but i've still got 20# of fat to
> discard, and i'm never get any sever hunger pains.
Keep it up! You should be losing about 5# per month. If you don't, I would
suggest you make it less than 3# of food per day with your currect activity
level. Time your exercise *before* your largest meal of the day to help
suppress your appetite so you can eat less without being uncomfortable (one of
my tips in the instructions I give my patients).
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Emory University Cardiology Fellow (PGY-7)
Jackie & Barry
"Andrew Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
> CBI wrote:
> > So what you are saying is that you convinced your obese patients to eat
> > 1/6th the amount of food they were accustomed to and that you find it
> > amazing that they lost weight? DUH!
>
> I find it amazing that I have found a way to convince people to eat less.
> The conventional approach taught physicians is to have patients "count
> calories". This method entailed patients to estimate the number of
> calories in each food item they consumed and then add these numbers up,
> not exceeding a limit (such as 1800 cal). This has NOT worked to convince
> people to eat less.
Counting calories is a complicated chore.
You've found a *simpler* way - estimating weight.
The simpler the rules, the easier for us to follow.
It's the good old the KISS formula - Keep It Simple, Stupid.
Barry
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
Jackie & Barry wrote:
yep, I like that. What also surprises me is that my colleagues in nutrition
claim that the 2 lb limit could potentially cause nutritional deficiencies. So
they're still telling people to count calories rather than weigh their food
intake.
One warning I must make, however, is that because most if not all patients I
see are hypertensive on many medications, I have had frantic phone calls in the
middle of the night from patients whom I've put on the 2 lb diet who start
feeling dizzy after a couple of months on the diet. It has always turned out
these folks have become *hypotensive* after losing 10-30 lbs and needed their
amount of anti-hypertensive medications reduced. So far in the past two years,
I've yet to see pellagra, beri beri, or scurvy in my obese patients as they
slim down and come off of most of the BP medications (and reduce their need for
oral hypoglycemic medications and/or insulin).
It's also amazing how esophageal reflux, sleep apnea, and chronic lower back
pain also practically disappear with significant progress toward ideal body
weight. Of course, for my field of specialization, the drastic reductions in
lipids (esp triglycerides) and decreased angina are particularly gratifying.
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~achung
http://www.emory.edu/WHSC/MED/HTN/Andrew
http://members.xoom.com/DrChung777
Surfer!
<ach...@emory.edu> writes
>
>
>"Surfer!" wrote:
>
>> Are you aware that Everest climbers (those that make it) have lost vast
>> amounts of weight and take quite a time to recover their fitness? The
>> only reason they consume so little food is because they have to carry
>> it, and can't simply pop round to the supermarket to get some more.
>> They also have to carry fuel so they can melt snow & ice for water to
>> drink & cook with.
>>
>> Of course your obese patients eat to much, but taking Everest climbers
>> as a model is totally cocked.
>
>lbs. of food per day then surely those who don't exert themselves nearly as
>much can also.
They can't survive medium or long-term on their rations. They lose vast
amounts of weight & muscle during a summit attempt. In part this is
because things lose their taste at altitude, and people loose their
appetite. What they do eat tends to be comfort food.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese patients in my
>> >care. I gave them ordinary food scales with instructions to weigh
>> >everything substantial that passes into their mouths. The only things
>> >exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What I learned was that my
>> >obese patients was consuming between 8 to 12 lbs of food per day! At the
>> >time, I was about 10 lbs over my ideal body weight so I decided to find
>> >out how much I was eating per day... 3 lbs. I cut back to less than 2
>> >lbs and was at my proper weight in one month.
>>
>> Since when did the weight of food determine it's calorific content?
>>
>
>Actually, there is a direct correlation. 2 lbs of food will have twice as
>much calories as 1 lb of the same food.
Only if it's the same kind of food. Most people eat far too much sugar,
salt and fat. Another easy way of limiting calories is to persuade
people to reduce their intake of snack & convenience food, and to
instead eat fruit of veg when they have the munchies and to prepare more
of their own food. They will also eat a better diet that way.
>
>>
>> >
>> >My patients have responded similarly except they have taken longer
>> >because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese
>> >patients were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the
>> >ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally knocking their food
>> >scales off the table and taking weeks to buy replacements.
>> >
>> >The specific instructions that I give my patients to help them lose the
>> >weight permanently are available as free downloads from my website (see
>> >links below my name).
>> >
>> Weight loss is only permanent after death. Before then it is only
>> permanent if one can maintain lifestyle changes of eating less, eating
>> different things and taking more exercise.
>>
>
>The key is helping people eat less for the rest of their life. The
>instructions I give my patients help them do exactly that.
>
>
>--
>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
>http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~achung
>http://www.emory.edu/WHSC/MED/HTN/Andrew
>http://members.xoom.com/DrChung777
>
>
--
Surfer!
Hans Majong
the food and the medication in the hospital (two weeks) helped me eating
about a third of my normal daily consumption;
at home I continued this regime; eating only at regular meals;
gradually my dinner is up to normal; breakfast is fruit juice and one
sandwich; lunch I still don't feel to, so only medication pills;
I lost 21 kg (114 - 93) = approx. 40 lbs in three months;
exercise helps this process (1 hour with physiotherapists or 60 minutes
walking / cycling each day);
the more I exercise the more I will eat;
however I have now the time to prepare food with care;
rest (I did not continued my job yet) and peace of mind (training with
physiotherapists) are important as well;
injection rate is up from 34 to 44 ?, can you explain this more precise ?;
pulse is down from average 70 to 55;
upper blood pressure increased from average 103 to 110;
my cardiologist is happy but maintains it was medication only that created
these improvements;
Finding a balance at about 85 kg is my next goal;
When I pick up my job, it will be tougher to maintain this regime.
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD <ach...@emory.edu> schreef in berichtnieuws
39CD02C7...@emory.edu...
> About two years ago, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing
> Mt. Everest and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the
> climbers consumed only 10 lbs of food per week. That's less than 2 lbs
> of food per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I
> think it is safe to assume that 2 lbs per day should be more than
> adequate for us non-climbing folks.
>
> So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese patients in my
> care. I gave them ordinary food scales with instructions to weigh
> everything substantial that passes into their mouths. The only things
> exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What I learned was that my
> obese patients was consuming between 8 to 12 lbs of food per day! At the
> time, I was about 10 lbs over my ideal body weight so I decided to find
> out how much I was eating per day... 3 lbs. I cut back to less than 2
> lbs and was at my proper weight in one month.
>
> My patients have responded similarly except they have taken longer
> because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese
> patients were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the
> ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally knocking their food
> scales off the table and taking weeks to buy replacements.
>
> The specific instructions that I give my patients to help them lose the
> weight permanently are available as free downloads from my website (see
> links below my name).
>
Surfer!
<wil...@macknowledge.net> writes
>In article <39CE6DBC...@emory.edu>, ach...@emory.edu wrote:
>
>> The conventional approach taught physicians is to have patients "count
>> calories".
>
>keeping track of quantities is just too tedious and I can't even imagine
>doing it long term. If you just cut out the bullshit food and eat
>wholesome stuff you can be much less concerned about k/cals or portion
>weights. I've discovered a whole lot of great dishes to eat and I don't
>really miss the things I don't eat anymore. I used to think my diet
>wasn't so bad before but in hindsight I know it sucked. Pretty much, if
>I liked the taste, I ate it. It would still be a poor diet if I did
>nothing but reduce the quantity.
>
>I lost about 15 extra pounds I was carrying around and have kept it off
>for almost two yrs now without depriving myself or obsessing about
>quantities. I'm taking a weight lifting class at the local college and
>had a BMI last week using the skinfold technique. Coach was surprised
>that I had 8.2xx% body fat weight. He commented that I must be eating a
>very good diet.
>
>I've never been obese so I don't really know what things they struggle
>with but I'm skeptical that they simply eat too much food by volume.
>Seems to be more to it than that but my friends at Overeaters Anonymous
>would be better qualified to comment on that than I would.
>
>IMO, the genetic predisposition angle is grossly overstated. I believe
>poor eating habits is what gets passed on from generation to generation.
If the aim is simply to make a start on better eating habits I think
that instructing the patients to eat 3 meals a day sat at the dining
table (instead of in front of the TV) with no snacking (except on raw
fruit & veg with no dressing) and water instead of soft drinks would be
a big start. Lots of people in the UK slump in front of the TV with
snack food which by it's nature is salty & fatty with nothing to commend
it on the nutritional front, and it makes them thirsty so then they
start on the Coke. And whatever it may say on the can, Coke is simply
not a healthy drink. Sure some versions contain less calories, but they
are all very acidic & bad for the teeth.
--
Surfer!
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
willie raye wrote:
>
> Good post. Just in case you didn't know it, what you described is all
> too common in the USA also. Salt, fat & sugar are 'in' and it's killing
> people, not to mention lowering the quality of life for those still
> alive.
>
> Coke is not a healthy drink? That's an understatement! It doesn't even
> taste good either. If they didn't spend bazillions of dollars promoting
> it I doubt many people would even touch the stuff. Same thing with lots
> of other junk foods. In the USA fast food restaurant advertising makes
> up an entire one-third of all food advertising and it is generally aimed
> at young folks. They're recruiting life long customers through
> advertising just like the tobacco companies used to - and it's working.
>
> Overeating and eating low quality food makes a little bit of sense where
> food is scarce but there's just no reason for it when real food is
> plentiful. I agree completely with Dr Chung that we're looking at a
> problem of epidemic proportions. He gets to see the sad end result, the
> junk food dealers don't. They just count up the profits.
Thanks for the feedback.
An aside, some folks have requested that the instructions for the 2lb diet be
reposted in HTML for those who don't have MS-Word on their computers. To
comply with those requests, I plan to have an HTML version out by next week
(if not sooner) so stay tuned.
Surfer!
<wil...@macknowledge.net> writes
>In article <RNohZsAb...@nevis-view.demon.co.uk>, Surfer!
>
>> If the aim is simply to make a start on better eating habits I think
>> that instructing the patients to eat 3 meals a day sat at the dining
>> table (instead of in front of the TV) with no snacking (except on raw
>> fruit & veg with no dressing) and water instead of soft drinks would be
>> a big start. Lots of people in the UK slump in front of the TV with
>> snack food which by it's nature is salty & fatty with nothing to commend
>> it on the nutritional front, and it makes them thirsty so then they
>> start on the Coke. And whatever it may say on the can, Coke is simply
>> not a healthy drink. Sure some versions contain less calories, but they
>> are all very acidic & bad for the teeth.
>
>too common in the USA also. Salt, fat & sugar are 'in' and it's killing
>people, not to mention lowering the quality of life for those still
>alive.
>
>Coke is not a healthy drink? That's an understatement! It doesn't even
>taste good either. If they didn't spend bazillions of dollars promoting
>it I doubt many people would even touch the stuff. Same thing with lots
>of other junk foods. In the USA fast food restaurant advertising makes
>up an entire one-third of all food advertising and it is generally aimed
>at young folks. They're recruiting life long customers through
>advertising just like the tobacco companies used to - and it's working.
>
>Overeating and eating low quality food makes a little bit of sense where
>food is scarce but there's just no reason for it when real food is
>plentiful. I agree completely with Dr Chung that we're looking at a
>problem of epidemic proportions. He gets to see the sad end result, the
>junk food dealers don't. They just count up the profits.
Thanks. Maybe I should have qualified my '3 meals a day' as '3 meals of
1 medium size plate and no refils'! I just started to imagine what some
people might reckon a meal is. My point being that if this is what
people eat the possible need to weigh food should go away, as I don't
reckon on this regime that the vast amounts of food reported by Dr Chung
could be consumed unless they are partial to lead shot. Plus also it
would do something about the nutritional content. The UK government
would add 'and make sure you have at least 5 helpings of gruit, fruit
juice or veg per day'. Again simple and easy to understand.
--
Surfer!
Surfer!
<ach...@emory.edu> writes
>
>
>willie raye wrote:
>
>>
>> Good post. Just in case you didn't know it, what you described is all
>> too common in the USA also. Salt, fat & sugar are 'in' and it's killing
>> people, not to mention lowering the quality of life for those still
>> alive.
>>
>> Coke is not a healthy drink? That's an understatement! It doesn't even
>> taste good either. If they didn't spend bazillions of dollars promoting
>> it I doubt many people would even touch the stuff. Same thing with lots
>> of other junk foods. In the USA fast food restaurant advertising makes
>> up an entire one-third of all food advertising and it is generally aimed
>> at young folks. They're recruiting life long customers through
>> advertising just like the tobacco companies used to - and it's working.
>>
>> Overeating and eating low quality food makes a little bit of sense where
>> food is scarce but there's just no reason for it when real food is
>> plentiful. I agree completely with Dr Chung that we're looking at a
>> problem of epidemic proportions. He gets to see the sad end result, the
>> junk food dealers don't. They just count up the profits.
>
>
>An aside, some folks have requested that the instructions for the 2lb diet be
>reposted in HTML for those who don't have MS-Word on their computers. To
>comply with those requests, I plan to have an HTML version out by next week
>(if not sooner) so stay tuned.
Why not do it in plain text which can be used on any computer (PC or
Unix) by anyone?
>
>--
>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
>http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~achung
>http://www.emory.edu/WHSC/MED/HTN/Andrew
>http://members.xoom.com/DrChung777
>
>
--
Surfer!
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
"Surfer!" wrote:
> Thanks. Maybe I should have qualified my '3 meals a day' as '3 meals of
> 1 medium size plate and no refils'! I just started to imagine what some
> people might reckon a meal is. My point being that if this is what
> people eat the possible need to weigh food should go away, as I don't
> reckon on this regime that the vast amounts of food reported by Dr Chung
> could be consumed unless they are partial to lead shot. Plus also it
> would do something about the nutritional content. The UK government
> would add 'and make sure you have at least 5 helpings of gruit, fruit
> juice or veg per day'. Again simple and easy to understand.
Except your medium size plate might be large to someone else and vice versa.
And, how much is a helping anyway? A tablespoon full, a soup spoon full, a
soup ladel full ?? Leveled or heaping?
Better to weigh it, IMO.
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
"Surfer!" wrote:
> In article <39D27A20...@emory.edu>, Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
> <ach...@emory.edu> writes
>
> >Thanks for the feedback.
> >
> >An aside, some folks have requested that the instructions for the 2lb diet be
> >reposted in HTML for those who don't have MS-Word on their computers. To
> >comply with those requests, I plan to have an HTML version out by next week
> >(if not sooner) so stay tuned.
>
> Why not do it in plain text which can be used on any computer (PC or
> Unix) by anyone?
Ok, I'll also post a plain text version.
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Emory University Cardiology Fellow (PGY-7)
Surfer!
<ach...@emory.edu> writes
>
>
>"Surfer!" wrote:
>
>> Thanks. Maybe I should have qualified my '3 meals a day' as '3 meals of
>> 1 medium size plate and no refils'! I just started to imagine what some
>> people might reckon a meal is. My point being that if this is what
>> people eat the possible need to weigh food should go away, as I don't
>> reckon on this regime that the vast amounts of food reported by Dr Chung
>> could be consumed unless they are partial to lead shot. Plus also it
>> would do something about the nutritional content. The UK government
>> would add 'and make sure you have at least 5 helpings of gruit, fruit
>> juice or veg per day'. Again simple and easy to understand.
>
>Except your medium size plate might be large to someone else and vice versa.
>And, how much is a helping anyway? A tablespoon full, a soup spoon full, a
>soup ladel full ?? Leveled or heaping?
>
>Better to weigh it, IMO.
>
to stop arguments about what the correct size of plate is) that in
itself limits the meal & makes a small meal look bigger. Lots of fast
food outlets use that trick! Also oval plates look bigger than they
are, in terms of the food that can be put on them.
--
Surfer!
Colin Rose
> One warning I must make, however, is that because most if not all patients I
> see are hypertensive on many medications, I have had frantic phone calls in the
> middle of the night from patients whom I've put on the 2 lb diet who start
> feeling dizzy after a couple of months on the diet. It has always turned out
> these folks have become *hypotensive* after losing 10-30 lbs and needed their
> amount of anti-hypertensive medications reduced. So far in the past two years,
> I've yet to see pellagra, beri beri, or scurvy in my obese patients as they
> slim down and come off of most of the BP medications (and reduce their need for
> oral hypoglycemic medications and/or insulin).
>
> It's also amazing how esophageal reflux, sleep apnea, and chronic lower back
> pain also practically disappear with significant progress toward ideal body
> weight. Of course, for my field of specialization, the drastic reductions in
> lipids (esp triglycerides) and decreased angina are particularly gratifying.
You mean that you are now convinced that coronary patients don't need instant
angioplasty or bypass with the slightest hint of ischemia? You are actually
willing to try lifestyle changes first? When did the light dawn? Amazing how with
a little experience the futility of invasive revascularization becomes apparent.
Would you now agree that you can effectively cure these diseases with lifestyle
change as I have been saying lo these many years?
Your food weighing formula is rather crude. Good for obesity but how do you know
they are getting the 5-10 veggies and fruits per day? Nonobese people also get CAD
and HBP. I have found that eliminating all refined fats and sugars works for all
diseases of "Western" civilization. Sort of a combination of the best of Ornish
and Mediterranean regimes. The key is selecting the right foods without obsessing
over calories. You can eat 5 pounds of *unbuttered* broccoli per day and lose
weight. On the other hand 5 pounds of chips would put on weight rapidly. I will
email you my patient information sheet.
Colin Rose MD
wate...@my-deja.com
> I think you missed his point -- which is how simple a way this is to
> cut food intake. Convincing "your obese patients to eat 1/6" as much
> is the point. He seems to have done that, at least over the time
> scale tested so far. Kudoes!
>
> where most diets fail.
>
Speaking from my own experience, once your body adjusts to eating less,
you feel so awful when you over eat that you don't do it very often. I
used to hear that the stomach shrinks after fasting or under eating for
a certain period of time.
When I was growing up, my mother would feed us huge meals, but when I
moved out on my own at age 20, I greatly reduced the amount of food I
ate. The rare times that I go out to a restaurant with relatives, I'm
astonished by the amount of food they're able to wolf down. If I eat
1/3 of what they do, especially if it's rich food, I'm literally in
pain. And of course pain is a good deterrent.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
drfr...@my-deja.com
as the amount of food eaten. Don't think the emphasis should be on
how much food you can eat but the type(s). No need to count calories
or weigh the food if the proper veggies and fruits etc are partaken
of in a daily diet.
frank
In article <39CEB614...@emory.edu>,
ach...@emory.edu wrote:
> > > The conventional approach taught physicians is to have patients
"count
> > > calories". This method entailed patients to estimate the number
of
> > > calories in each food item they consumed and then add these
numbers up,
> > > not exceeding a limit (such as 1800 cal). This has NOT worked to
convince
> > > people to eat less.
> >
> > Counting calories is a complicated chore.
> >
> > You've found a *simpler* way - estimating weight.
> >
> > The simpler the rules, the easier for us to follow.
> >
> > It's the good old the KISS formula - Keep It Simple, Stupid.
>
> yep, I like that. What also surprises me is that my colleagues in
nutrition
> claim that the 2 lb limit could potentially cause nutritional
deficiencies. So
> they're still telling people to count calories rather than weigh their
food
> intake.
>
> --
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~achung
> http://www.emory.edu/WHSC/MED/HTN/Andrew
> http://members.xoom.com/DrChung777
>
>
Colin Rose
> I don't see any mention of any exercise regimen: IMO it's as important
> as the amount of food eaten. Don't think the emphasis should be on
> how much food you can eat but the type(s). No need to count calories
> or weigh the food if the proper veggies and fruits etc are partaken
> of in a daily diet.
Agreed. And the refined junk is eliminated.
Colin Rose MD
wate...@my-deja.com
Most obese people already know what they are and aren't supposed to eat
and that they should exercise. Dr. Chung at least deserves some credit
for daring to employ a little creativity in his practice aside from the
usual Dr. Drone recommendations.
m
wate...@my-deja.com
Most obese people already know what they are and aren't supposed to eat
Colin Rose
> Most obese people already know what they are and aren't supposed to eat
> and that they should exercise. Dr. Chung at least deserves some credit
> for daring to employ a little creativity in his practice aside from the
> usual Dr. Drone recommendations.
On the contrary, in my experience most people with nutritionally related
disease(s) haven't a clue what to eat. Education is the key. Facile
solutions like just weighing food will not work (prevent disease) in the
long run.
Colin Rose MD
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
wate...@my-deja.com wrote:
Yes, the stomach does strink but that takes time. This is the reason for
the *gradual* decrease in quantity of food consumed per day.
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
drfr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I don't see any mention of any exercise regimen: IMO it's as important
> as the amount of food eaten. Don't think the emphasis should be on
> how much food you can eat but the type(s). No need to count calories
> or weigh the food if the proper veggies and fruits etc are partaken
> of in a daily diet.
>
You'll need to go to my website for the complete instructions where
exercise is mentioned as an important *adjunct* for helping people suppress
their appetites so that they will consume less.
The quantity of food consumed is by far more important than either kind of
food or exercise regimen if the objective is weight loss. You can run a
10K road race and *not* burn up the calories that were in the hamburger you
may have just consumed.
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
wate...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <39D6B15C...@sympatico.ca>,
> Colin Rose <col...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Most obese people already know what they are and aren't supposed to eat
> and that they should exercise. Dr. Chung at least deserves some credit
> for daring to employ a little creativity in his practice aside from the
> usual Dr. Drone recommendations.
Thanks :-)
Dr. Drone's recommendations for eating *more* fruits and vegetables simply
made my morbidly obese patients more obese... go figure.
Anyway, for those who are really interested in permanently losing weight:
you can download the detailed instructions from my website. I am working
on text and html versions as we write.
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
Colin Rose wrote:
See my earlier comments.
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
drfr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8r7bfo$j81$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> wate...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <39D6B15C...@sympatico.ca>,
> > Colin Rose <col...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Most obese people already know what they are and aren't supposed to
> eat
> > and that they should exercise. Dr. Chung at least deserves some credit
> > for daring to employ a little creativity in his practice aside from
> the
> > usual Dr. Drone recommendations.
> >
> > m
> >
> The problem is that all the diet guru's give contradictory
> information (high protein diet vs high carbo vs blood type diet to
> whatever the latest fad) and an individual goes from one diet
> to another seeking the magic grail. It's my opinion that many
> people are clueless to the proper foods or just confused!
>
> I'm sorry that I'm not impressed by Dr. Chung- to me it just
> another gimmick in the quest of losing weight. I stand by my
> original statements.
Rest assured that it is *not* a gimmick.
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
"Surfer!" wrote:
It's amazing how much food people can heap on even a *small* plate. Can
resemble the shape of Mt. Everest.
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
Colin Rose wrote:
> wate...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Most obese people already know what they are and aren't supposed to eat
> > and that they should exercise. Dr. Chung at least deserves some credit
> > for daring to employ a little creativity in his practice aside from the
> > usual Dr. Drone recommendations.
>
> On the contrary, in my experience most people with nutritionally related
> disease(s) haven't a clue what to eat. Education is the key. Facile
> solutions like just weighing food will not work (prevent disease) in the
> long run.
I would have to strongly disagree here. Our role as physicians is to
*facili*tate weight loss in our morbidly obese patients. This *will* slow
and perhaps even arrest progression of diseases exacerbated by the obesity.
People will continue to eat the foods that they are accustomed to, that they
grew up with, and that are part of their cultural heritage. To tout the
*mediterranean* diet as superior for disease prevention means you will be an
ineffective physician for non-mediterranean people.
Quantity of food consumed is still the key.
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
Bob wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Let's see. Shouldn't we be asking about data? All that matters is
> whether it works, especially over the long term. I'm not sure how much
> data Chung has at this point, and I gather it isn't very long term.
> But I am amazed at the hostility that has been expressed towards a
> logical suggestion.
I've encountered this hostility here at Emory as well. Largely this
reaction seems to come from those more formally trained in nutrition. My
guess is that if nearly everyone were able to reach their ideal body
weight, many of these folks would have less work (i.e. lose their jobs).
>
>
> Gimmick? Well, if it is a way that helps the folks do what is right,
> so what? The general point is that those who are consuming excessive
> amounts of food should consume less. Makes sense, yes? If it works,
> great. The whole story? No. The only way? No, and others have
> expressed some other ways; fine. But suggesting that it shouldn't be
> tried is a bizarre response.
>
> Chung... Is there data from other than your own practice?
>
yes, many of my colleagues here at Emory are reporting similarly good
results.
By the way, my weight loss instructions are now available in plain text
as well as html at the links below.
drfr...@my-deja.com
wate...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <39D6B15C...@sympatico.ca>,
> Colin Rose <col...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
eat
> and that they should exercise. Dr. Chung at least deserves some credit
> for daring to employ a little creativity in his practice aside from
the
> usual Dr. Drone recommendations.
>
>
The problem is that all the diet guru's give contradictory
information (high protein diet vs high carbo vs blood type diet to
whatever the latest fad) and an individual goes from one diet
to another seeking the magic grail. It's my opinion that many
people are clueless to the proper foods or just confused!
I'm sorry that I'm not impressed by Dr. Chung- to me it just
another gimmick in the quest of losing weight. I stand by my
original statements.
frank
Bob
>In article <8r7bfo$j81$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> wate...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> In article <39D6B15C...@sympatico.ca>,
>> Colin Rose <col...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> > drfr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >
<snip>
>No need to count
>> calories
>> > > or weigh the food if the proper veggies and fruits etc are
>partaken
>> > > of in a daily diet.
That is nonsense. Eating fruits and veggies in excess leads to gaining
weight! If you consume more cal than you use, you gain weight. Fruits
and veggies may be a healthier source for those cal than some of the
alternatives, but certainly does not replace the issue of amount.
>I'm sorry that I'm not impressed by Dr. Chung- to me it just
>another gimmick in the quest of losing weight. I stand by my
>original statements.
>
>frank
Let's see. Shouldn't we be asking about data? All that matters is
whether it works, especially over the long term. I'm not sure how much
data Chung has at this point, and I gather it isn't very long term.
But I am amazed at the hostility that has been expressed towards a
logical suggestion.
Gimmick? Well, if it is a way that helps the folks do what is right,
so what? The general point is that those who are consuming excessive
amounts of food should consume less. Makes sense, yes? If it works,
great. The whole story? No. The only way? No, and others have
expressed some other ways; fine. But suggesting that it shouldn't be
tried is a bizarre response.
Chung... Is there data from other than your own practice?
bob
Surfer!
<ach...@emory.edu> writes
>
>
>> > and that they should exercise. Dr. Chung at least deserves some credit
>> > for daring to employ a little creativity in his practice aside from the
>> > usual Dr. Drone recommendations.
>>
>> disease(s) haven't a clue what to eat. Education is the key. Facile
>> solutions like just weighing food will not work (prevent disease) in the
>> long run.
>
>I would have to strongly disagree here. Our role as physicians is to
>*facili*tate weight loss in our morbidly obese patients. This *will* slow
>and perhaps even arrest progression of diseases exacerbated by the obesity.
>
>People will continue to eat the foods that they are accustomed to, that they
>grew up with, and that are part of their cultural heritage. To tout the
>*mediterranean* diet as superior for disease prevention means you will be an
>ineffective physician for non-mediterranean people.
If people are accustomed to a diet of burgers, chips, fries, snacks &
sweets (candies?) they are 1) eating a very unhealthy diet and 2)
eating a diet on which they would have to eat so little to loose weight
and maintain a weight loss that they will be unable to stick to it long
term.
Long term weight loss requires not only fewer calories to be consumed,
but almost always different food to be consumed and a permanent change
in life-style.
IMHO your idea of weighing food is a good starting place, but is not and
never will be the total answer. If they are eating 10 lbs per day of
crisps (unlikely but chosen as an extreme example) they will still be
eating too many calories if they are eating 2 lbs per day.
Personally (and I know a number of very fat people) being morbidly obese
is hard to crack as it's multifactorial. In my experience most of these
people have an eating disorder, many of them don't actually like food
very much (bizarre but true) and they also have major problems with
self-esteem and confidence. Many parents have used food (especially
sweets and crisps) as bribes to gain a desired behaviour, and ended up
with children confused about what love is. We know it's not a chocolate
bar, but how many people reward themselves with food (usually of the
more fattening variety) in their day-to-day lives?
Unless you can fix all these things they will not stay slim (or plump
instead of obese) long term as these issues have not been addressed. My
mother always thought I would be happier if I was slim. That's just not
true for me, and for many other overweight or obese people. Finally
more and more people live alone, which personally I regard as something
pushing us towards a greater consumption of convenience foods (which
tend to be high in calories for their bulk) and less preparation of our
own food.
>
>Quantity of food consumed is still the key.
And quality and quantity of alcohol and lack of exercise.
>
>--
>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
>http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~achung
>http://www.emory.edu/WHSC/MED/HTN/Andrew
>http://members.xoom.com/DrChung777
>
>
--
Surfer!
jwwright
Sears rec's? You will lose weight just trying to figure out what the plan
is.
Regards.
Eric Inazaki
<jwwr...@livingston.net> wrote:
> His suggestion is rather simplistic, BUT have you ever tried to follow DR
> Sears rec's? You will lose weight just trying to figure out what the plan
> is.
KISS
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
"Surfer!" wrote:
> <snip>
>
> If people are accustomed to a diet of burgers, chips, fries, snacks &
> sweets (candies?) they are 1) eating a very unhealthy diet and 2)
> eating a diet on which they would have to eat so little to loose weight
> and maintain a weight loss that they will be unable to stick to it long
> term.
2 pounds is actually a lot. I would suggest you get a food scale and weigh the
quantity out for yourself.
>
>
> Long term weight loss requires not only fewer calories to be consumed,
> but almost always different food to be consumed and a permanent change
> in life-style.
>
Most people I know can't eat the same thing everyday for the rest of their life.
>
>
>
> IMHO your idea of weighing food is a good starting place, but is not and
> never will be the total answer. If they are eating 10 lbs per day of
> crisps (unlikely but chosen as an extreme example) they will still be
> eating too many calories if they are eating 2 lbs per day.
But it will be one fifth of the usual caloric intake needed to keep them at 300
lbs. They *will* most certainly lose weight.
>
>
> Personally (and I know a number of very fat people) being morbidly obese
> is hard to crack as it's multifactorial. In my experience most of these
> people have an eating disorder, many of them don't actually like food
> very much (bizarre but true) and they also have major problems with
> self-esteem and confidence. Many parents have used food (especially
> sweets and crisps) as bribes to gain a desired behaviour, and ended up
> with children confused about what love is. We know it's not a chocolate
> bar, but how many people reward themselves with food (usually of the
> more fattening variety) in their day-to-day lives?
They still can...they just have to weigh it. You can eat that candy bar every
once in a while (if you aren't diabetic). It just means you will eat less for
dinner if you are going to keep under two pounds for the day. Candy bars are
quite heavy.
>
>
> Unless you can fix all these things they will not stay slim (or plump
> instead of obese) long term as these issues have not been addressed. My
> mother always thought I would be happier if I was slim.
you would be healthier.
> That's just not
> true for me, and for many other overweight or obese people. Finally
> more and more people live alone, which personally I regard as something
> pushing us towards a greater consumption of convenience foods (which
> tend to be high in calories for their bulk) and less preparation of our
> own food.
I would suggest you give my recommendations a try at least for a few weeks.
What have you got to lose except the weight?
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
Bruce wrote:
> In sci.med
> "Andrew Chung, MD/PhD" <ach...@emory.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Let's see. Shouldn't we be asking about data? All that matters is
> >> whether it works, especially over the long term.
>
> This diet is very easy to make work or not work, whatever you choose. Want
> it to fail? Eat 2 lbs of french fries or Hagen Daz. Want it to work, eat
> 2lbs of iceberg lettuce. Hell, drink 2lbs of Coke per day and lose weight
> like crazy because that is only 375 calories.
The recommendations are for you to gradually cut back to eating 2 lbs of what
you usually eat. If you are morbidly obese from eating 10 lbs of Hagen Daz
everyday, then my getting you to eat just 2 lbs of ice cream per day will mean
that I will have a big impact on your losing weight.
>
>
> >> But I am amazed at the hostility that has been expressed towards a
> >> logical suggestion.
>
> It isn't logical at all. There is absolutely no weight (pun intended)
> given to the caloric content of the food. It treats all foods the same,
> which is simply illogical. People on this diet long term will gravitate
> towards food that contain more energy per pound.
Actually, they tend to gravitate toward food with more bulk per pound
(vegetables).
> This is obviously high
> fat foods. And here we are in a cardiology newsgroup.
If people really tend to gravitate toward high fat foods, non-fat chips and
cookies really shouldn't be selling.
>
>
> >I've encountered this hostility here at Emory as well. Largely this
> >reaction seems to come from those more formally trained in nutrition. My
> >guess is that if nearly everyone were able to reach their ideal body
> >weight, many of these folks would have less work (i.e. lose their jobs).
>
> Hmmm, conspiracy theory or folks that know what they are talking about...
> let me think...
folks who have had little success in getting people to permanently lose
weight.
Bruce
"Andrew Chung, MD/PhD" <ach...@emory.edu> wrote:
>> Let's see. Shouldn't we be asking about data? All that matters is
>> whether it works, especially over the long term.
This diet is very easy to make work or not work, whatever you choose. Want
it to fail? Eat 2 lbs of french fries or Hagen Daz. Want it to work, eat
2lbs of iceberg lettuce. Hell, drink 2lbs of Coke per day and lose weight
like crazy because that is only 375 calories.
>> But I am amazed at the hostility that has been expressed towards a
>> logical suggestion.
It isn't logical at all. There is absolutely no weight (pun intended)
given to the caloric content of the food. It treats all foods the same,
which is simply illogical. People on this diet long term will gravitate
towards food that contain more energy per pound. This is obviously high
fat foods. And here we are in a cardiology newsgroup.
>I've encountered this hostility here at Emory as well. Largely this
>reaction seems to come from those more formally trained in nutrition. My
>guess is that if nearly everyone were able to reach their ideal body
>weight, many of these folks would have less work (i.e. lose their jobs).
Hmmm, conspiracy theory or folks that know what they are talking about...
let me think...
For an excellent diet plan, I recommend the Hackers Diet available free at
http://www.fourmilab.to/hackdiet/
Bruce
Surfer!
<ach...@emory.edu> writes
>
>
>"Surfer!" wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> If people are accustomed to a diet of burgers, chips, fries, snacks &
>> sweets (candies?) they are 1) eating a very unhealthy diet and 2)
>> eating a diet on which they would have to eat so little to loose weight
>> and maintain a weight loss that they will be unable to stick to it long
>> term.
>
>2 pounds is actually a lot. I would suggest you get a food scale and weigh the
>quantity out for yourself.
2 pounds of what? 2 pounds of salad - the bowl would be a bucket. 2
pounds of jacket potato - now that's not so large. But 1 1/2 pounds of
baked potato with 8 ounces of butter - still 2 pounds but a much more
fattening 2 pounds!
>
>>
>>
>> Long term weight loss requires not only fewer calories to be consumed,
>> but almost always different food to be consumed and a permanent change
>> in life-style.
>
>>
>
>Most people I know can't eat the same thing everyday for the rest of their life.
I never suggested them eating the same thing everyday for the rest of
their life - but if there is no movement in general in what is eaten
then I don't hold out much help for long-term weight loss.
>
>>
>
>>
>>
>> IMHO your idea of weighing food is a good starting place, but is not and
>> never will be the total answer. If they are eating 10 lbs per day of
>> crisps (unlikely but chosen as an extreme example) they will still be
>> eating too many calories if they are eating 2 lbs per day.
>
>But it will be one fifth of the usual caloric intake needed to keep them at 300
>lbs. They *will* most certainly lose weight.
So long as they don't eat (say) more crisps, which are high in both fat
& salt.
>
>>
>>
>> Personally (and I know a number of very fat people) being morbidly obese
>> is hard to crack as it's multifactorial. In my experience most of these
>> people have an eating disorder, many of them don't actually like food
>> very much (bizarre but true) and they also have major problems with
>> self-esteem and confidence. Many parents have used food (especially
>> sweets and crisps) as bribes to gain a desired behaviour, and ended up
>> with children confused about what love is. We know it's not a chocolate
>> bar, but how many people reward themselves with food (usually of the
>> more fattening variety) in their day-to-day lives?
>
>They still can...they just have to weigh it. You can eat that candy bar every
>once in a while (if you aren't diabetic). It just means you will eat less for
>dinner if you are going to keep under two pounds for the day. Candy bars are
>quite heavy.
>
>>
>>
>> Unless you can fix all these things they will not stay slim (or plump
>> instead of obese) long term as these issues have not been addressed. My
>> mother always thought I would be happier if I was slim.
>
>you would be healthier.
But being healthier is not 'selling' diets or long-term weight loss. If
it was you would not have your patients. They would have been sold on a
diet, lost that weight & stayed thin. And IMHO the only people who
really think they will be happy if they just lost another pound or two
are well on the way to anorexia or bulimia.
>
>> That's just not
>> true for me, and for many other overweight or obese people. Finally
>> more and more people live alone, which personally I regard as something
>> pushing us towards a greater consumption of convenience foods (which
>> tend to be high in calories for their bulk) and less preparation of our
>> own food.
>
>I would suggest you give my recommendations a try at least for a few weeks.
>What have you got to lose except the weight?
I don't think I have said clearly if I'm fat or thin at the moment. Now
without giving the game away, I was able to enjoy trekking for 2 weeks
in Nepal last November and reached an altitude of 3,700m. I have asthma
but didn't suffer with it, nor with my dodgy ankle (nasty fall a few
years ago) or my dodgy back (years of bad beds before I knew better plus
another fall at school plus bad posture) despite the ultra-hard Nepali
'beds'. So clearly whatever shape I might be it's not morbidly obese,
or severely underweight.
--
Surfer!
dt...@my-deja.com
ach...@emory.edu wrote:
> Since I started seeing patients in clinic in 1994, I discovered that
> there existed a dreadful
> health problem that predicted certain mortality and was resistant to my
> very best efforts at
> treatment. Cardiovascular problems, endocrine abnormalities, and even
> cancers were more
> responsive to treatment than this increasingly more common "ailment."
>
> Yes, I am talking about obesity. Despite valiant counseling by clinic
> nutritionists and
> dietitians... despite calorie counting... despite food journals...
> despite exercise... my obese
> patients typically (more than 90%) gained rather than lost weight.
>
> Americans are getting fatter! Recently, airlines in the U.S. have
> widened the width of the
> seats on their planes to accommodate this trend of increasing obesity.
> Why is this happening?
>
> As much as I am a big proponent of genetics being behind many human
> ailments, this trend of increasing girth is occurring too fast to be a
> phenomenon of newly inherited obesity genes. Instead, I suspect that
> what has changed is the increasing success of the food industry toward
> getting people to eat and drink more. There are the extra value meals,
> the biggie fries, and the supersizing. There are the buffets and the
> all-you-can eateries. There is the emphasis of three meals per day and
> four food groups (Got milk?). There are the soda and snack machines at
> every corner. There are the cholesterol free, low-fat or fat-free foods
> that prey on the popular misconception that eating *more* of these foods
> is healthier.
>
> This has got to stop.
>
> About two years ago, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing
> Mt. Everest and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the
> climbers consumed only 10 lbs of food per week. That's less than 2 lbs
> of food per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I
> think it is safe to assume that 2 lbs per day should be more than
> adequate for us non-climbing folks.
>
> So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese patients in my
> care. I gave them ordinary food scales with instructions to weigh
> everything substantial that passes into their mouths. The only things
> exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What I learned was that my
> obese patients was consuming between 8 to 12 lbs of food per day! At the
> time, I was about 10 lbs over my ideal body weight so I decided to find
> out how much I was eating per day... 3 lbs. I cut back to less than 2
> lbs and was at my proper weight in one month.
>
> My patients have responded similarly except they have taken longer
> because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese
> patients were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the
> ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally knocking their food
> scales off the table and taking weeks to buy replacements.
>
> The specific instructions that I give my patients to help them lose the
> weight permanently are available as free downloads from my website (see
> links below my name).
>
> --
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~achung
> http://www.emory.edu/WHSC/MED/HTN/Andrew
> http://members.xoom.com/DrChung777
>
>
Today I ate between breakfast, lunch and an after noon snack, 2 egg whites, 3
ounces of mackerel, frozen spinach, canned crushed tomatoes, fresh tomato,
cucumber, cauliflower, zucchini, some onion red bell pepper and a little
olive oil and a small apple. It is now three in the afternoon and I only
have 2 ounces left if I want to stick to the 2 pound limit. I suspect I am
going to be getting very hungry shortly. Although I went up to 2 pounds very
quickly I estimate that the number of calories I ate was 800 at the outside
although I would guess it was actually closer to 700. 2 more ounces isn't
going to add that many calories. I believe that this would be considered an
extremely low calorie diet and as such I wonder if it would be healthful even
for the morbidly obese. If fat people could eat this sparingly there wouldn't
be any fat people. I frankly do not know how anyone could tolerate eating
only two pounds of food a day for very long, although it is obvious how
someone would lose weight if he could stick to eating this way.
Dolores
Dolores
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
dt...@my-deja.com wrote:
> <snip>
> >
>
> Today I ate between breakfast, lunch and an after noon snack, 2 egg whites, 3
> ounces of mackerel, frozen spinach, canned crushed tomatoes, fresh tomato,
> cucumber, cauliflower, zucchini, some onion red bell pepper and a little
> olive oil and a small apple.
sounds like a lot of food.
> It is now three in the afternoon and I only
> have 2 ounces left if I want to stick to the 2 pound limit.
you don't have to hit the two pound limit right away. First find out where you
are at.
> I suspect I am
> going to be getting very hungry shortly.
yes, you will. your stomach isn't used to less food yet.
> Although I went up to 2 pounds very
> quickly I estimate that the number of calories I ate was 800 at the outside
> although I would guess it was actually closer to 700.
I would guess more.
> 2 more ounces isn't
> going to add that many calories. I believe that this would be considered an
> extremely low calorie diet and as such I wonder if it would be healthful even
> for the morbidly obese.
Given the amount of food you described, it doesn't sound low calorie to me.
Actually sounded pretty healthy with plenty of vitamin C. No risk of scurvy
here.
> If fat people could eat this sparingly there wouldn't
> be any fat people.
*exactly*
> I frankly do not know how anyone could tolerate eating
> only two pounds of food a day for very long, although it is obvious how
> someone would lose weight if he could stick to eating this way.
>
See my hints.
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Emory University Cardiology Fellow (PGY-7)
Colin Rose
> Today I ate between breakfast, lunch and an after noon snack, 2 egg whites, 3
> ounces of mackerel, frozen spinach, canned crushed tomatoes, fresh tomato,
> cucumber, cauliflower, zucchini, some onion red bell pepper and a little
> olive oil and a small apple. It is now three in the afternoon and I only
> have 2 ounces left if I want to stick to the 2 pound limit. I suspect I am
> going to be getting very hungry shortly. Although I went up to 2 pounds very
> quickly I estimate that the number of calories I ate was 800 at the outside
> although I would guess it was actually closer to 700. 2 more ounces isn't
> going to add that many calories. I believe that this would be considered an
> extremely low calorie diet and as such I wonder if it would be healthful even
> for the morbidly obese. If fat people could eat this sparingly there wouldn't
> be any fat people. I frankly do not know how anyone could tolerate eating
> only two pounds of food a day for very long, although it is obvious how
> someone would lose weight if he could stick to eating this way.
>
> Dolores
This is the problem with Dr. Chung's gimmick. It works as long as the two pounds
is mostly high fat stuff. But even two pounds of pure butter (~4000 calories)
would be too much. I eat like you and easily go thru 5 pounds a day of mostly
veggies, legumes, fruit, low-fat dairy and bread with *no* refined grease at all
and maintain 165 pounds on a 6 foot frame. In my opinion (supported by a number
of controlled studies)this is the way everyone should eat regardless of the
total weight of food, a figure which is completely irrelevant to nutrition,body
weight and health.
Colin Rose MD
Kurt Ullman
<wil...@macknowledge.net> wrote:
>You can ask a Registered Dietician about the long term success rates of
>programs that use gimmicks to get obese people to eat less.
Actually the long term success rate of ANY intervention is not that
great in the morbidly obese.
--------------------------------------------------------
"Never in the history of mankind, has there been an incident recorded where large numbers of people were motivated to go to their windows, fling them open wide, lean out and scream at the top of their lungs: 'I'm as content as Hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!'"
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
willie raye wrote:
> In article <39D80820...@emory.edu>, ach...@emory.edu wrote:
>
> > I've encountered this hostility here at Emory as well. Largely this
> > reaction seems to come from those more formally trained in nutrition. My
> > guess is that if nearly everyone were able to reach their ideal body
> > weight, many of these folks would have less work (i.e. lose their jobs).
>
> Interesting that you would see it that way. I wonder if the formally
> trained nutritionists think that you are afraid of losing cardiac
> patients?
no hostility here.
>
>
> I don't think either one of you have anything to worry about. There is
> no shortage of overweight people or people with heart disease in the
> USA. Quite the opposite. I'd say your jobs are secure for the forseeable
> future.
I'm not in this calling for job security.
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~achung
http://www.emory.edu/WHSC/MED/HTN/Andrew
http://members.xoom.com/DrChung777
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <willie-8D904B....@enews.newsguy.com>, willie raye
> <wil...@macknowledge.net> wrote:
>
> >You can ask a Registered Dietician about the long term success rates of
> >programs that use gimmicks to get obese people to eat less.
>
> Actually the long term success rate of ANY intervention is not that
> great in the morbidly obese.
yep.
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
willie raye wrote:
> In article <39d7fe8e...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
> bbr...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Bob) wrote:
>
> > Let's see. Shouldn't we be asking about data? All that matters is
> > whether it works, especially over the long term. I'm not sure how much
> > data Chung has at this point, and I gather it isn't very long term.
> > But I am amazed at the hostility that has been expressed towards a
> > logical suggestion.
>
> Dr Chung's approach is hardly new. It is a repackaging of an 'eat less'
> program. He advocates a food scale, Weight Watchers uses pre-packaged
> (pre-weighed) meals, Jenny Craig assigns point values to food and you
> count points, etc., etc. At the core they are all the same idea.
There is a difference. I don't make any money by helping people lose
weight. If anything, by losing weight, people are less likely to require
my more specialized and expensive skills as a cardiologist.
> There
> are no doubt tons of data collected because the 'eat less' approach has
> been around the block (wearing new clothes each time) more times than
> any other plan in the world.
>
and does work.
>
> You can ask a Registered Dietician about the long term success rates of
> programs that use gimmicks to get obese people to eat less.
there is no gimmick in what I recommend. unless you consider given people
insight into their overeating a gimmick.
> Or attend a
> local meeting of Overeaters Anonymous and ask their opinion of such a
> plan. OA has no political or economic incentive to mislead anyone.
except that their very existence depends on people overeating.
> I'm
> almost positive the good people at OA will tell you that ALL 'eat less'
> programs treat symptoms and ignore core issues so in practice they have
> poor long term track records.
what core issues? poor insight?
>
>
> In any case, eating less (by volume) of a poor diet is still a poor
> diet.
and eating more (by weight) of a good diet is still a poor diet for someone
who is obese.
> IMO, people with existing cardiac problems need a healthier
> approach to their food intake than just eating less of the same foods
> that made them sick in the first place.
people with existing cardiac problems *and* are overweight need to lose the
weight.
> It's too late in the game for
> them to simply moderate.
it's never too late to make lifestyle changes.
> And that's assuming they even can, or more
> importantly, will moderate.
do or die.
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
Colin Rose wrote:
> >
> > Today I ate between breakfast, lunch and an after noon snack, 2 egg whites, 3
> > ounces of mackerel, frozen spinach, canned crushed tomatoes, fresh tomato,
> > cucumber, cauliflower, zucchini, some onion red bell pepper and a little
> > olive oil and a small apple. It is now three in the afternoon and I only
> > have 2 ounces left if I want to stick to the 2 pound limit. I suspect I am
> > going to be getting very hungry shortly. Although I went up to 2 pounds very
> > quickly I estimate that the number of calories I ate was 800 at the outside
> > although I would guess it was actually closer to 700. 2 more ounces isn't
> > going to add that many calories. I believe that this would be considered an
> > extremely low calorie diet and as such I wonder if it would be healthful even
> > for the morbidly obese. If fat people could eat this sparingly there wouldn't
> > be any fat people. I frankly do not know how anyone could tolerate eating
> > only two pounds of food a day for very long, although it is obvious how
> > someone would lose weight if he could stick to eating this way.
> >
> > Dolores
>
> This is the problem with Dr. Chung's gimmick.
gimmick ? why not a simple idea ?
> It works as long as the two pounds
> is mostly high fat stuff.
it also works even better if it's the healthy food you like. the beauty of this
simple idea is that though healthy foods are recommended, a person on my 2 lb diet
can also have more variety in what they eat.
> But even two pounds of pure butter (~4000 calories)
> would be too much.
and unlikely to be sustained for very long as a person gets sick of eating just
butter.
> I eat like you
except you aren't as overweight.
> and easily go thru 5 pounds a day of mostly
> veggies, legumes, fruit, low-fat dairy and bread with *no* refined grease at all
> and maintain 165 pounds on a 6 foot frame.
and if you were overweight eating 5 pounds of what you normally eat per day, I
would tell you to cut back a few pounds and tell you that I am certain you would
lose weight. That's why I tell people to weigh the amount they eat at baseline
first before starting to gradually cut back toward a goal of 2 pounds. The
assumption is that a person is obese in the first place. Since you are not obese
at 6 foot and 165 pounds, there is no reason for you to follow my instructions
unless you want to lose the 5 pounds you have in excess of your ideal body weight.
However, there are plenty of people out there eating 8 to 10 pounds of healthy
veggies, legumes, fruit, and low-fat diary and bread thinking that because they've
been told it's healthy that they couldn't possible be obese from what they eat
(gee, where did the fat come from when I haven't been eating it ?)
> In my opinion (supported by a number
> of controlled studies)this is the way everyone should eat regardless of the
> total weight of food, a figure which is completely irrelevant to nutrition,body
> weight and health.
Go ahead a cite those studies that support your opinion that obesity can be
addressed by the quality rather than the quantity of food ingested.
drfr...@my-deja.com
>
> >No need to count
> >> calories
> >> > > or weigh the food if the proper veggies and fruits etc are
> >partaken
> >> > > of in a daily diet.
>
> That is nonsense. Eating fruits and veggies in excess leads to gaining
> weight! If you consume more cal than you use, you gain weight. Fruits
> and veggies may be a healthier source for those cal than some of the
> alternatives, but certainly does not replace the issue of amount.
>
But even if eaten in excess I dare you to find an overweight vegatarian.
I've never seen one.
> >I'm sorry that I'm not impressed by Dr. Chung- to me it just
> >another gimmick in the quest of losing weight. I stand by my
> >original statements.
> >
> >frank
>
> Let's see. Shouldn't we be asking about data? All that matters is
> whether it works, especially over the long term. I'm not sure how much
> data Chung has at this point, and I gather it isn't very long term.
> But I am amazed at the hostility that has been expressed towards a
> logical suggestion.
>
No hostility here other than the gut feeling of someone pushing
an "overhyped" solution. Long-term data is critical- it's the
keeping off of the weight and not the actual weight loss that's
the challenge.
> Gimmick? Well, if it is a way that helps the folks do what is right,
> so what? The general point is that those who are consuming excessive
> amounts of food should consume less. Makes sense, yes? If it works,
> great. The whole story? No. The only way? No, and others have
> expressed some other ways; fine. But suggesting that it shouldn't be
> tried is a bizarre response.
>
I never posted it shouldn't be tried. Just stating that the method
may miss the boat in proper diet management.
wate...@my-deja.com
obesity being caused by a virus? When I heard a radio news commentator
say something like: "Imagine becoming obese because someone with the
obesity virus sneezed on you in an elevator", I thought Oh come on!
What about families where there's one thin kid whose parents and
siblings are all obese? Surely that kid was exposed to the virus.
In article <39DBF024...@emory.edu>,
ach...@emory.edu wrote:
>
>
> willie raye wrote:
>
> > In article <39d7fe8e...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
> > bbr...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Bob) wrote:
> >
> > > Let's see. Shouldn't we be asking about data? All that matters is
> > > whether it works, especially over the long term. I'm not sure how
much
> > > data Chung has at this point, and I gather it isn't very long
term.
> > > But I am amazed at the hostility that has been expressed towards
a
> > > logical suggestion.
> >
> > programs treat symptoms and ignore core issues so in practice they
have
> > poor long term track records.
>
> what core issues? poor insight?
>
> >
> >
> > In any case, eating less (by volume) of a poor diet is still a poor
> > diet.
>
> and eating more (by weight) of a good diet is still a poor diet for
someone
> who is obese.
>
> > IMO, people with existing cardiac problems need a healthier
> > approach to their food intake than just eating less of the same
foods
> > that made them sick in the first place.
>
> people with existing cardiac problems *and* are overweight need to
lose the
> weight.
>
> > It's too late in the game for
> > them to simply moderate.
>
> it's never too late to make lifestyle changes.
>
> > And that's assuming they even can, or more
> > importantly, will moderate.
>
> do or die.
>
> --
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~achung
> http://www.emory.edu/WHSC/MED/HTN/Andrew
> http://members.xoom.com/DrChung777
>
>
Surfer!
<ach...@emory.edu> writes
>
>
>willie raye wrote:
>
<snip>
>> Or attend a
>> local meeting of Overeaters Anonymous and ask their opinion of such a
>> plan. OA has no political or economic incentive to mislead anyone.
>
>except that their very existence depends on people overeating.
>
>> I'm
>> almost positive the good people at OA will tell you that ALL 'eat less'
>> programs treat symptoms and ignore core issues so in practice they have
>> poor long term track records.
>
>what core issues? poor insight?
OA actually has members with all eating disorders - overeating, bulimia
and anorexia. People only go to OA once they have insight that their
condition is not normal, and since the view is (as with all 12-step
programs) that one is always potentially an overeater / bulimic /
anorectic people continue to go even if the 'loose (or gain) the
weight'. They continue to go for as long as they feel they are getting
something from the group. Some people get no benefit, some get real
long-term improvements in their mental condition and physical health.
<snip>
--
Surfer!
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
drfr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> I guess you missed the point of "proper veggies and fruits" part.
> But even if eaten in excess I dare you to find an overweight vegatarian.
> I've never seen one.
Look around. There are plenty of them.
>
>
> > >I'm sorry that I'm not impressed by Dr. Chung- to me it just
> > >another gimmick in the quest of losing weight. I stand by my
> > >original statements.
> > >
> > >frank
> >
> > Let's see. Shouldn't we be asking about data? All that matters is
> > whether it works, especially over the long term. I'm not sure how much
> > data Chung has at this point, and I gather it isn't very long term.
> > But I am amazed at the hostility that has been expressed towards a
> > logical suggestion.
> >
>
> No hostility here other than the gut feeling of someone pushing
> an "overhyped" solution. Long-term data is critical- it's the
> keeping off of the weight and not the actual weight loss that's
> the challenge.
If a person has a handle on the quantity of food consumed, that person will
always have the option of regulating his/her weight.
>
>
> > Gimmick? Well, if it is a way that helps the folks do what is right,
> > so what? The general point is that those who are consuming excessive
> > amounts of food should consume less. Makes sense, yes? If it works,
> > great. The whole story? No. The only way? No, and others have
> > expressed some other ways; fine. But suggesting that it shouldn't be
> > tried is a bizarre response.
> >
> I never posted it shouldn't be tried. Just stating that the method
> may miss the boat in proper diet management.
2 lbs of food with a mix of the four food groups is unlikely to cause any
nutritional deficiencies.
N. Katherine Wolfe
"Andrew Chung, MD/PhD" <ach...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:39DD50B8...@emory.edu...
>
>
> 2 lbs of food with a mix of the four food groups is unlikely to cause any
> nutritional deficiencies.
>
doesn't include a good mix of the four food groups, it won't automatically
start to do so when food intake is restricted. If your idea of a good
nutritious meal is chicken fried steak with gravy and mashed potatoes with
some fried okra as a vegetable, you're not going to automatically switch to
a big dinner salad with grilled fish without some education. I would think
that the "sausage and biscuit for breakfast" crowd is rather prevalent at
Emory (Emory U, for folks that don't already know, is in Atlanta, GA). Do
you give these folks any guidance in food selection? I would think that
would help your '2 pound' diet be more successful.
Nancy
N. Katherine Wolfe
Yes, I see that you advise people to avoid junk food, that's good. I think
you'd do even better if you pointed people at a resource for healthy eating
according to the four food groups.
Here's one link from the American Heart Assn.:
http://www.deliciousdecisions.org/
And here's one from the American Dietetic Association:
http://www.eatright.org/
You might find your patients, and folks reading your material over the net,
would have an easier time with your two pound diet if they had some idea of
what constituted a healthy diet. Hope these links help!
Nancy
"Andrew Chung, MD/PhD" <ach...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:39DEACCB...@emory.edu...
>
>
> "N. Katherine Wolfe" wrote:
>
> > "Andrew Chung, MD/PhD" <ach...@emory.edu> wrote in message
> > news:39DD50B8...@emory.edu...
> > >
> > >
> > > 2 lbs of food with a mix of the four food groups is unlikely to cause
any
> > > nutritional deficiencies.
> > >
> > Aye, but there's the rub, isn't it? If someone's habitual eating
pattern
> > doesn't include a good mix of the four food groups, it won't
automatically
> > start to do so when food intake is restricted. If your idea of a good
> > nutritious meal is chicken fried steak with gravy and mashed potatoes
with
> > some fried okra as a vegetable, you're not going to automatically switch
to
> > a big dinner salad with grilled fish without some education. I would
think
> > that the "sausage and biscuit for breakfast" crowd is rather prevalent
at
> > Emory (Emory U, for folks that don't already know, is in Atlanta, GA).
Do
> > you give these folks any guidance in food selection? I would think that
> > would help your '2 pound' diet be more successful.
> >
>
> see my instructions. they're freely available on my website.
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
"N. Katherine Wolfe" wrote:
> "Andrew Chung, MD/PhD" <ach...@emory.edu> wrote in message
> news:39DD50B8...@emory.edu...
> >
> >
> > 2 lbs of food with a mix of the four food groups is unlikely to cause any
> > nutritional deficiencies.
> >
> Aye, but there's the rub, isn't it? If someone's habitual eating pattern
> doesn't include a good mix of the four food groups, it won't automatically
> start to do so when food intake is restricted. If your idea of a good
> nutritious meal is chicken fried steak with gravy and mashed potatoes with
> some fried okra as a vegetable, you're not going to automatically switch to
> a big dinner salad with grilled fish without some education. I would think
> that the "sausage and biscuit for breakfast" crowd is rather prevalent at
> Emory (Emory U, for folks that don't already know, is in Atlanta, GA). Do
> you give these folks any guidance in food selection? I would think that
> would help your '2 pound' diet be more successful.
>
see my instructions. they're freely available on my website.
Colin Rose
> > It works as long as the two pounds
> > is mostly high fat stuff.
>
> it also works even better if it's the healthy food you like. the beauty of this
> simple idea is that though healthy foods are recommended, a person on my 2 lb diet
> can also have more variety in what they eat.
"healthy food you like"?? Why wouldn't you recommend healthy food to everyone? Why
would a doctor say it's OK to eat unhealthy food as long as it's no more than two
pounds?
> > But even two pounds of pure butter (~4000 calories)
> > would be too much.
>
> and unlikely to be sustained for very long as a person gets sick of eating just
> butter.
Sooner or later people will figure out that by eating a high fat diet they can easily
gain weight with 2 pounds of food.
> > I eat like you
>
> except you aren't as overweight.
>
> > and easily go thru 5 pounds a day of mostly
> > veggies, legumes, fruit, low-fat dairy and bread with *no* refined grease at all
> > and maintain 165 pounds on a 6 foot frame.
>
> and if you were overweight eating 5 pounds of what you normally eat per day, I
> would tell you to cut back a few pounds and tell you that I am certain you would
> lose weight. That's why I tell people to weigh the amount they eat at baseline
> first before starting to gradually cut back toward a goal of 2 pounds. The
> assumption is that a person is obese in the first place. Since you are not obese
> at 6 foot and 165 pounds, there is no reason for you to follow my instructions
> unless you want to lose the 5 pounds you have in excess of your ideal body weight.
> However, there are plenty of people out there eating 8 to 10 pounds of healthy
> veggies, legumes, fruit, and low-fat diary and bread thinking that because they've
> been told it's healthy that they couldn't possible be obese from what they eat
> (gee, where did the fat come from when I haven't been eating it ?)
I have yet to meet such a person. With a careful diet history (that's why we have
dietitians) you invariably find lots of fat in any obese person's diet. "Just a
little butter on the toast". "Just a little oil in the salad". "Just a few peanuts as
a snack" etc.
> > In my opinion (supported by a number
> > of controlled studies)this is the way everyone should eat regardless of the
> > total weight of food, a figure which is completely irrelevant to nutrition,body
> > weight and health.
>
> Go ahead a cite those studies that support your opinion that obesity can be
> addressed by the quality rather than the quantity of food ingested.
We are talking about health not only obesity. Lots of studies eg Biosphere 2, Ornish,
STARS, DASH, Lyons. All these diets are variations on the low-fat, high complex
carbo, lots of fruit, veggie theme. With this knowledge that it is possible to reduce
or elimate most cardiovascular disease by lifestyle alone, it is imperative that
every physician recommend this type of lifestyle regardless of total weight of food.
Colin Rose MD
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
"N. Katherine Wolfe" wrote:
> Yes, I see that you advise people to avoid junk food, that's good. I think
> you'd do even better if you pointed people at a resource for healthy eating
> according to the four food groups.
>
> Here's one link from the American Heart Assn.:
> http://www.deliciousdecisions.org/
>
> And here's one from the American Dietetic Association:
> http://www.eatright.org/
>
> You might find your patients, and folks reading your material over the net,
> would have an easier time with your two pound diet if they had some idea of
> what constituted a healthy diet. Hope these links help!
>
I suggest you read also the history behind the two pound diet.
IMO, obesity in this country is a problem that has arisen not from ignorance of
the importance of food quality (find someone who really doesn't know fruits and
vegetables are good for them) but rather ignorance of quantity. How many out
there recall childhood memories of their mothers insisting a second or third
helping, of finishing everything on their plate, of references to starving
children in either Africa or Asia? How many out there feel guilt-free about
leaving more than half the food on their plate un-eaten whether at home or when
dining out?
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
Colin Rose wrote:
> >
> > > It works as long as the two pounds
> > > is mostly high fat stuff.
> >
> > it also works even better if it's the healthy food you like. the beauty of this
> > simple idea is that though healthy foods are recommended, a person on my 2 lb diet
> > can also have more variety in what they eat.
>
> "healthy food you like"?? Why wouldn't you recommend healthy food to everyone? Why
> would a doctor say it's OK to eat unhealthy food as long as it's no more than two
> pounds?
read my instructions again. try to remember that the goal here is to help people lose
weight with a diet that they can tolerate for the rest of their life. telling them what
the can't have only makes them want it more.
>
>
> > > But even two pounds of pure butter (~4000 calories)
> > > would be too much.
> >
> > and unlikely to be sustained for very long as a person gets sick of eating just
> > butter.
>
> Sooner or later people will figure out that by eating a high fat diet they can easily
> gain weight with 2 pounds of food.
only by choice. two pounds of high fat foods will leave the stomach feeling especially
empty (dense foods will have less volume).
>
>
> > > I eat like you
> >
> > except you aren't as overweight.
> >
> > > and easily go thru 5 pounds a day of mostly
> > > veggies, legumes, fruit, low-fat dairy and bread with *no* refined grease at all
> > > and maintain 165 pounds on a 6 foot frame.
> >
> > and if you were overweight eating 5 pounds of what you normally eat per day, I
> > would tell you to cut back a few pounds and tell you that I am certain you would
> > lose weight. That's why I tell people to weigh the amount they eat at baseline
> > first before starting to gradually cut back toward a goal of 2 pounds. The
> > assumption is that a person is obese in the first place. Since you are not obese
> > at 6 foot and 165 pounds, there is no reason for you to follow my instructions
> > unless you want to lose the 5 pounds you have in excess of your ideal body weight.
> > However, there are plenty of people out there eating 8 to 10 pounds of healthy
> > veggies, legumes, fruit, and low-fat diary and bread thinking that because they've
> > been told it's healthy that they couldn't possible be obese from what they eat
> > (gee, where did the fat come from when I haven't been eating it ?)
>
> I have yet to meet such a person.
Well, I have. And I suspect many reading this have also. Many obese people out there
are quite intelligent folks who have seen more than their fair share of dieticians.
> With a careful diet history (that's why we have
> dietitians) you invariably find lots of fat in any obese person's diet. "Just a
> little butter on the toast". "Just a little oil in the salad". "Just a few peanuts as
> a snack" etc.
I suppose you subscribe to the *myth* that "eat no fat to gain no fat."
Since the introduction of fat-free foods, the trend is that people have gained more
weight rather than lose.
>
>
> > > In my opinion (supported by a number
> > > of controlled studies)this is the way everyone should eat regardless of the
> > > total weight of food, a figure which is completely irrelevant to nutrition,body
> > > weight and health.
> >
> > Go ahead a cite those studies that support your opinion that obesity can be
> > addressed by the quality rather than the quantity of food ingested.
>
> We are talking about health not only obesity.
Please review this thread... I started it... the topic is about obesity.
> Lots of studies eg Biosphere 2, Ornish,
> STARS, DASH, Lyons. All these diets are variations on the low-fat, high complex
> carbo, lots of fruit, veggie theme.
I take issue with *lots* of anything.
> With this knowledge that it is possible to reduce
> or elimate most cardiovascular disease by lifestyle alone, it is imperative that
> every physician recommend this type of lifestyle regardless of total weight of food.
Not so if a person is morbidly obese. If a person is morbidly obese, quantity and not
quality of food is the key to ameliorating *all* the other health problems of that
person.
*****************************************
To others following this thread:
If you or your loved ones are overweight and want to make diet changes for achieving
lifelong ideal body weight, go pick up the instructions I have on my website at the
links below my name. This information is completely free of charge. I can guarantee
that those following the instructions will reach their ideal body weight and will be
empowered with the *choice* of staying at their ideal body weight for the rest of their
lives.
*****************************************
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
PhD in Genetics and Molecular Medicine
Board-Certified Specialist in Internal Medicine
Board-Eligible Specialist in Cardiovascular Medicine
Webmaster for Emory Division of Cardiology in Atlanta, GA.
(what the above means is that I have had way too much training)
Surfer!
<ach...@emory.edu> writes
>
>
>Colin Rose wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>> With a careful diet history (that's why we have
>> dietitians) you invariably find lots of fat in any obese person's diet. "Just
>a
>> little butter on the toast". "Just a little oil in the salad". "Just a few
>peanuts as
>> a snack" etc.
>
>I suppose you subscribe to the *myth* that "eat no fat to gain no fat."
>
>Since the introduction of fat-free foods, the trend is that people have gained
>more
>weight rather than lose.
>
But is this casual or causal?
--
Surfer!
CBI
>
> I suggest you read also the history behind the two pound diet.
>
> IMO, obesity in this country is a problem that has arisen not from
ignorance of
> the importance of food quality (find someone who really doesn't know
fruits and
> vegetables are good for them) but rather ignorance of quantity.
>
This is exactly what I find when trying to help people lose weight. That,
and trying to show how much little nibbles and snacks add up.
--
CBI, M.D.
Please note: It is impossible to accurately diagnose medical problems
without seeing the patient and reviewing the entire history. These posts are
intended to be helpful and informative. Always check with your doctor before
following any advice given.
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
"Surfer!" wrote:
> In article <39DF4A60...@emory.edu>, Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
> <ach...@emory.edu> writes
> >
> >
> >Colin Rose wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >
> >> With a careful diet history (that's why we have
> >> dietitians) you invariably find lots of fat in any obese person's diet. "Just
> >a
> >> little butter on the toast". "Just a little oil in the salad". "Just a few
> >peanuts as
> >> a snack" etc.
> >
> >I suppose you subscribe to the *myth* that "eat no fat to gain no fat."
> >
> >Since the introduction of fat-free foods, the trend is that people have gained
> >more
> >weight rather than lose.
> >
> <snip>
>
> But is this casual or causal?
Eating *more* food, even fat-free food, *causes* obesity.
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~achung
http://www.emory.edu/WHSC/MED/HTN/Andrew
http://members.xoom.com/DrChung777
Colin Rose
> read my instructions again. try to remember that the goal here is to help people lose
> weight with a diet that they can tolerate for the rest of their life. telling them what
> the can't have only makes them want it more.
So if I tell a patient tobacco is bad, heroin is bad, a bottle of Scotch per day is bad
they are just going to want it more and I shouldn't bother?
> > > > But even two pounds of pure butter (~4000 calories)
> > > > would be too much.
> > >
> > > and unlikely to be sustained for very long as a person gets sick of eating just
> > > butter.
> >
> > Sooner or later people will figure out that by eating a high fat diet they can easily
> > gain weight with 2 pounds of food.
>
> only by choice. two pounds of high fat foods will leave the stomach feeling especially
> empty (dense foods will have less volume).
Exactly! And they will end up eating more than enough calories weighing less than 2 pounds.
> Well, I have. And I suspect many reading this have also. Many obese people out there
> are quite intelligent folks who have seen more than their fair share of dieticians.
Intelligence is no criterion for changing habits. Some very intelligent people just can't
see food as something that requires thought like every other choice in life. When they are
educated about the direct effect of food choice on the body they usually see the light but
it takes a lot of time.
> > With a careful diet history (that's why we have
> > dietitians) you invariably find lots of fat in any obese person's diet. "Just a
> > little butter on the toast". "Just a little oil in the salad". "Just a few peanuts as
> > a snack" etc.
>
> I suppose you subscribe to the *myth* that "eat no fat to gain no fat."
>
> Since the introduction of fat-free foods, the trend is that people have gained more
> weight rather than lose.
Many of the low fat "foods" are actually have a higher caloric density than the original
due to more refined carbohdrate. We always advocate unrefined complex carbohdrate. Again,
careful choice of *quality* is the key.
> > We are talking about health not only obesity.
>
> Please review this thread... I started it... the topic is about obesity.
Why worry about obesity if it were not unhealthy?
> > Lots of studies eg Biosphere 2, Ornish,
> > STARS, DASH, Lyons. All these diets are variations on the low-fat, high complex
> > carbo, lots of fruit, veggie theme.
>
> I take issue with *lots* of anything.
>
> > With this knowledge that it is possible to reduce
> > or elimate most cardiovascular disease by lifestyle alone, it is imperative that
> > every physician recommend this type of lifestyle regardless of total weight of food.
>
> Not so if a person is morbidly obese. If a person is morbidly obese, quantity and not
> quality of food is the key to ameliorating *all* the other health problems of that
> person.
Yes and no. There are plenty of normal weight people with bad arteries. eg David Letterman
who lived on chocolate bars and deep fried salami and smoked cigars. Obesity per se is not
a *cause* of anything. It's what they have eaten to get obese in the first place. BTW, the
AHA has now started recommending *specific* foods rather than just percentages and
quantities (see below). They have finally gotten the message. Face it, Andrew.
Unfortunately, you are going to have to tell the patients to eliminate certain foods. Just
not good for you, like tobacco.
Colin Rose MD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less Math With New Dietary Guide
October 5, 2000
DALLAS (AP) - Eating right just got easier, especially for health-conscious folks who get
a heady thrill from fruits and
vegetables - but a headache from math.
The American Heart Association revised its influential dietary guidelines Thursday,
stressing common sense in choosing
one's daily fare and playing down complicated percentages of fat or nutrients.
``We are moving toward a diet that focuses on food rather than strictly on the numbers,''
said Dr. Ronald M. Krauss, lead
author of the report.
It's the first significant revision in four years of the association's guidelines, which
are widely mimicked by other health
organizations.
The association urges a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, lowfat
dairy products, fish, lean meats and
poultry. Five servings of fruits and vegetables and six servings of grains are recommended
daily.
And, for the first time, two weekly servings of fatty fish, such as tuna or salmon, are
recommended.
``In the past we have focused rather heavily on the percent of calories as fat and amounts
of cholesterol,'' Krauss said.
``These are still important considerations, but the emphasis has shifted.''
For the first time, the association also emphasizes the prevention of obesity. Prevention
is key, Krauss said, because
shedding pounds - and keeping them off - is so difficult.
``The lowfat message for many people is distorted so they are selecting food with high
junk calories,'' such as soft drinks
and baked goods, Krauss said. ``That just leads to excess weight gain without any real
nutrition.''
The association recommends tailoring people's menus to their own risk of heart disease and
stroke, and outlines dietary
directions for doctors and their patients for a variety of diseases.
No-no's, again, are saturated fats and trans-fatty acids, especially for adults prone to
heart disease, the association said.
Saturated fats are found in animal products and tropical oils, and trans-fatty acids
include hydrogenated oil used in
commercially prepared foods and some hard margarines.
The new guidelines, to be published in the Oct. 31 issue of Circulation, a journal of the
American Heart Association,
should help consumers, said Edith Howard Hogan, a dietitian and spokeswoman for the
American Dietetic Association.
``This mirrors the ADA's recommendations of a diet based on a variety of foods,'' she
said. ``People are more interested in
adding things to their diet than taking things out.''
But eating sensibly can still be tough, especially with fast food so readily available,
said Margo Denke, associate
professor of nutrition at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School at Dallas.
The guidelines say the average adult should cut saturated fats and trans-fatty acids to 10
percent of calories, which would
be a cut of 2 to 3 percentage points for the average adult.
``That's setting a high mark for people to achieve,'' Denke said. ``Is it doable for
people who are eating out? Without a
message that can be translated to people in restaurants, it's not going to be an effective
message.''
Krauss, though, said the guidelines should help even those who relish fast food.
``When people eat out, it's hard to think about what percentage of the dinner comes from
saturated fat,'' he said. ``It's
much easier to think about the various food groups.''
For the obese, the guidelines recommend a gradual weight loss of no more than 1 to 2
pounds a week by eating fewer
calories and increasing physical activity.
The guidelines also weigh in on popular diet strategies. For example, there is little
scientific evidence to support the
belief that high-protein diets result in significant changes in metabolism, sustained
weight loss or improved health.
Copyright 2000 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Sue Spence
>
>In article <39d7fe8e...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
> bbr...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Bob) wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 01:56:41 GMT, drfr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >No need to count
>> >> calories
>> >> > > or weigh the food if the proper veggies and fruits etc are
>> >partaken
>> >> > > of in a daily diet.
>>
>> That is nonsense. Eating fruits and veggies in excess leads to gaining
>> weight! If you consume more cal than you use, you gain weight. Fruits
>> and veggies may be a healthier source for those cal than some of the
>> alternatives, but certainly does not replace the issue of amount.
>>
>I guess you missed the point of "proper veggies and fruits" part.
>But even if eaten in excess I dare you to find an overweight vegatarian.
>I've never seen one.
I have. She might have been cheating, of course.
>Before you buy.
ronald
> >But even if eaten in excess I dare you to find an overweight vegatarian.
> >I've never seen one.
>
>
i used to go to these "all you can eat" buffets at an indian restaurant
some
time ago in a city in which i used to live. i only ate vegetarian
offerings.
i used to eat until i was stuffed because i wanted to make sure that i
was
getting my money's worth. over a period of about 6 months i found that
i had
put on 20 pounds.
ronald
> >
> > I suggest you read also the history behind the two pound diet.
> >
> > IMO, obesity in this country is a problem that has arisen not from
> ignorance of
> > the importance of food quality (find someone who really doesn't know
> fruits and
> > vegetables are good for them) but rather ignorance of quantity.
> >
>
> This is exactly what I find when trying to help people lose weight. That,
> and trying to show how much little nibbles and snacks add up.
>
[this message is free of any reference to the mercedes-benz s-class]
a few years ago i had read the results of a study on weight gain/loss in
which
the subjects were to count calories and physical activity. what they
found was
that people who were overweight tended to underestimate the amount of
food that
they ate, and overestimate the amount of physical activity in which they
engaged.
i suppose if you're used to eating a lot and exercising a little, a lot
of food
looks like not much and a little bit of physical activity looks like a
lot...
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
Sue Spence wrote:
> In article <8rh3p8$c14$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, drfr...@my-deja.com says...
> >
> >In article <39d7fe8e...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
> > bbr...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Bob) wrote:
> >> On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 01:56:41 GMT, drfr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >No need to count
> >> >> calories
> >> >> > > or weigh the food if the proper veggies and fruits etc are
> >> >partaken
> >> >> > > of in a daily diet.
> >>
> >> That is nonsense. Eating fruits and veggies in excess leads to gaining
> >> weight! If you consume more cal than you use, you gain weight. Fruits
> >> and veggies may be a healthier source for those cal than some of the
> >> alternatives, but certainly does not replace the issue of amount.
> >>
> >I guess you missed the point of "proper veggies and fruits" part.
> >But even if eaten in excess I dare you to find an overweight vegatarian.
> >I've never seen one.
>
> I have. She might have been cheating, of course.
more likely is overconsumption.
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
ronald wrote:
> CBI wrote:
> >
> > "Andrew Chung, MD/PhD" <ach...@emory.edu> wrote in message
*exactly*
The required food scale empowers the obese individual with objectivity when
they follow my two pound diet instructions.
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Specialist in Internal Medicine
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~achung
http://www.emory.edu/WHSC/MED/HTN/Andrew
http://members.xoom.com/DrChung777
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
ronald wrote:
> Sue Spence wrote:
> >
> > In article <8rh3p8$c14$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, drfr...@my-deja.com says...
> > >
> > >I guess you missed the point of "proper veggies and fruits" part.
> > >But even if eaten in excess I dare you to find an overweight vegatarian.
> > >I've never seen one.
> >
> > I have. She might have been cheating, of course.
> >
>
> i used to go to these "all you can eat" buffets at an indian restaurant
> some
> time ago in a city in which i used to live. i only ate vegetarian
> offerings.
> i used to eat until i was stuffed because i wanted to make sure that i
> was
> getting my money's worth. over a period of about 6 months i found that
> i had
> put on 20 pounds.
I am glad you did not disprove that simple law of physics regarding matter and
energy.
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~achung
http://www.emory.edu/WHSC/MED/HTN/Andrew
http://members.xoom.com/DrChung777
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
Colin Rose wrote:
> "Andrew Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
>
> > read my instructions again. try to remember that the goal here is to help people lose
> > weight with a diet that they can tolerate for the rest of their life. telling them what
> > the can't have only makes them want it more.
>
> So if I tell a patient tobacco is bad, heroin is bad, a bottle of Scotch per day is bad
> they are just going to want it more and I shouldn't bother?
You really shouldn't bother telling people what they already know.
>
>
> > > > > But even two pounds of pure butter (~4000 calories)
> > > > > would be too much.
> > > >
> > > > and unlikely to be sustained for very long as a person gets sick of eating just
> > > > butter.
> > >
> > > Sooner or later people will figure out that by eating a high fat diet they can easily
> > > gain weight with 2 pounds of food.
> >
> > only by choice. two pounds of high fat foods will leave the stomach feeling especially
> > empty (dense foods will have less volume).
>
> Exactly! And they will end up eating more than enough calories weighing less than 2 pounds.
But, they receive negative reinforcement for this behavior (awfully empy stomach feeling)
without actually having inadequate caloric intake (actually they will still have excess by
your assessment). The negative reinforcement comes into play the following day when they
start *choosing* foods that are less dense but more filling. Even though my two pound diet
plan sounds incredibly too simple to work, it does apply several sound scientific principles
from physics to psychology.
>
>
> > Well, I have. And I suspect many reading this have also. Many obese people out there
> > are quite intelligent folks who have seen more than their fair share of dieticians.
>
> Intelligence is no criterion for changing habits. Some very intelligent people just can't
> see food as something that requires thought like every other choice in life. When they are
> educated about the direct effect of food choice on the body they usually see the light but
> it takes a lot of time.
>
food choice is not the light. food amount is.
>
> > > With a careful diet history (that's why we have
> > > dietitians) you invariably find lots of fat in any obese person's diet. "Just a
> > > little butter on the toast". "Just a little oil in the salad". "Just a few peanuts as
> > > a snack" etc.
> >
> > I suppose you subscribe to the *myth* that "eat no fat to gain no fat."
> >
> > Since the introduction of fat-free foods, the trend is that people have gained more
> > weight rather than lose.
>
> Many of the low fat "foods" are actually have a higher caloric density than the original
> due to more refined carbohdrate.
*exactly* and they weigh more too (coincidence? no)
> We always advocate unrefined complex carbohdrate. Again,
> careful choice of *quality* is the key.
>
disagree. lots of unrefined complex carbohydrates is still a bad thing.
>
> > > We are talking about health not only obesity.
> >
> > Please review this thread... I started it... the topic is about obesity.
>
> Why worry about obesity if it were not unhealthy?
>
Because it is a *precursor* to poor health but not necessarily a state of poor health. I
would dare say that a young but *big* SUMO wrestler could flatten any of us and easily exceed
our limits of oxygen consumption (measure of cardiovascular fitness).
>
> > > Lots of studies eg Biosphere 2, Ornish,
> > > STARS, DASH, Lyons. All these diets are variations on the low-fat, high complex
> > > carbo, lots of fruit, veggie theme.
> >
> > I take issue with *lots* of anything.
> >
> > > With this knowledge that it is possible to reduce
> > > or elimate most cardiovascular disease by lifestyle alone, it is imperative that
> > > every physician recommend this type of lifestyle regardless of total weight of food.
> >
> > Not so if a person is morbidly obese. If a person is morbidly obese, quantity and not
> > quality of food is the key to ameliorating *all* the other health problems of that
> > person.
>
> Yes and no. There are plenty of normal weight people with bad arteries. eg David Letterman
> who lived on chocolate bars and deep fried salami and smoked cigars. Obesity per se is not
> a *cause* of anything.
Would suggest you re-read what I wrote.
>
> It's what they have eaten to get obese in the first place. BTW, the
> AHA has now started recommending *specific* foods rather than just percentages and
> quantities (see below).
Those recommendations are not for helping obese people lose weight.
> They have finally gotten the message.
We'll see if those folks lose weight (*not*).
> Face it, Andrew.
Nothing to face. My patients are losing the weight and buying new clothes while donating
their old loose clothes to their favorite charities. Can you say the same about your
patients?
>
> Unfortunately, you are going to have to tell the patients to eliminate certain foods. Just
> not good for you, like tobacco.
I don't tell my patients what they can *not* do. I teach them what they *can* do. Hopefully,
with the spread of my instructions (see links below my name) around the world via the
internet, I will be doing my part to eradicate obesity.
>
>
> Colin Rose MD
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Less Math With New Dietary Guide
>
> October 5, 2000
>
> DALLAS (AP) - Eating right just got easier, especially for health-conscious folks who get
> a heady thrill from fruits and
> vegetables - but a headache from math.
hopefully these folks who love fruits and vegetables are not overweight.
>
>
> The American Heart Association revised its influential dietary guidelines Thursday,
> stressing common sense in choosing
> one's daily fare and playing down complicated percentages of fat or nutrients.
I am all for common sense.
>
>
> ``We are moving toward a diet that focuses on food rather than strictly on the numbers,''
> said Dr. Ronald M. Krauss, lead
> author of the report.
Focusing on food is a bad idea. One of the problems with obesity is that people become
pre-occupied with food. Food becomes the central focus of the lives of obese people.
>
>
> It's the first significant revision in four years of the association's guidelines, which
> are widely mimicked by other health
> organizations.
>
A step backward.
>
> The association urges a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, lowfat
> dairy products, fish, lean meats and
> poultry. Five servings of fruits and vegetables and six servings of grains are recommended
> daily.
That can be a ton of food. Imagine someone thinking these recommendations mean they can eat
five oranges and five avocadoes a day along with six bowls of rice pilaf? And they would be
doing this guilt-free by quoting these recommendations.
>
>
> And, for the first time, two weekly servings of fatty fish, such as tuna or salmon, are
> recommended.
oh boy, with the six bowls of rice pilaf, five avocadoes, and five oranges. That'll be about
12 pounds of food per day.
>
>
> ``In the past we have focused rather heavily on the percent of calories as fat and amounts
> of cholesterol,'' Krauss said.
> ``These are still important considerations, but the emphasis has shifted.''
>
Well, it needs to be shifted to objectively regulating quantity of high quality food
ingested. Percentage fat was wrong. Eating *increased* amounts of high quality food is
wrong in the obese individual (which describes the majority of those in the U.S.).
>
> For the first time, the association also emphasizes the prevention of obesity. Prevention
> is key, Krauss said, because
> shedding pounds - and keeping them off - is so difficult.
And will now be darn near-impossible (unless a person absolutely hates fruits and vegetables)
with these new (and stupid) AHA recommendations which Krauss readily admits with the above is
*not* going to address obesity.
>
>
> ``The lowfat message for many people is distorted so they are selecting food with high
> junk calories,'' such as soft drinks
> and baked goods, Krauss said. ``That just leads to excess weight gain without any real
> nutrition.''
Baked goods don't necessarily have poor nutritional value. Depends on what you bake. Baked
fish is good. Baked squash casserole is yummy and has exceptional nutritional value.
>
>
> The association recommends tailoring people's menus to their own risk of heart disease and
> stroke, and outlines dietary
> directions for doctors and their patients for a variety of diseases.
>
Yep, just ignore the growing obesity problem. Those people are goners. Prevention is the
key, according to this new AHA recommendations. There's no hope for those already obese
(according to the AHA).
>
> No-no's, again, are saturated fats and trans-fatty acids, especially for adults prone to
> heart disease, the association said.
> Saturated fats are found in animal products and tropical oils, and trans-fatty acids
> include hydrogenated oil used in
> commercially prepared foods and some hard margarines.
Finally, something in the new guidelines that I still agree with.
>
>
> The new guidelines, to be published in the Oct. 31 issue of Circulation, a journal of the
> American Heart Association,
> should help consumers, said Edith Howard Hogan, a dietitian and spokeswoman for the
> American Dietetic Association.
...not to lose weight. If anything, these guidelines will hurt obese consumers (especially
those who just *love* fruits and vegetables).
>
>
> ``This mirrors the ADA's recommendations of a diet based on a variety of foods,'' she
> said. ``People are more interested in
> adding things to their diet than taking things out.''
You bet. Everyone likes variety in the food they eat. The problem here is that no
instructions have been given on how to regulate the amount of food people eat. In times of
feast, it is a natural human instinct to over-eat because thoughout human history, there has
been times of severe famine (from war, drought, plaque, flooding) where the overweight had the
fat stores to survive the famine. Recommendations (such as my 2 pound diet) must be given to
help people fight this natural human instinct if we are to eradicate obesity.
>
>
> But eating sensibly can still be tough, especially with fast food so readily available,
> said Margo Denke, associate
> professor of nutrition at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School at Dallas.
>
> The guidelines say the average adult should cut saturated fats and trans-fatty acids to 10
> percent of calories, which would
> be a cut of 2 to 3 percentage points for the average adult.
>
> ``That's setting a high mark for people to achieve,'' Denke said. ``Is it doable for
> people who are eating out? Without a
> message that can be translated to people in restaurants, it's not going to be an effective
> message.''
>
> Krauss, though, said the guidelines should help even those who relish fast food.
>
> ``When people eat out, it's hard to think about what percentage of the dinner comes from
> saturated fat,'' he said. ``It's
> much easier to think about the various food groups.''
>
> For the obese, the guidelines recommend a gradual weight loss of no more than 1 to 2
> pounds a week by eating fewer
> calories and increasing physical activity.
These recommendation have not worked.
>
>
> The guidelines also weigh in on popular diet strategies. For example, there is little
> scientific evidence to support the
> belief that high-protein diets result in significant changes in metabolism, sustained
> weight loss or improved health.
>
yep.
*NOW*, there is the two pound diet!
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Specialist in Internal Medicine
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~achung
http://www.emory.edu/WHSC/MED/HTN/Andrew
http://members.xoom.com/DrChung777
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
drfr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <39E08D51...@ripco.com>,
> ronald <ron...@ripco.com> wrote:
> > Sue Spence wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <8rh3p8$c14$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, drfr...@my-deja.com
> says...
> > > >
> > > >I guess you missed the point of "proper veggies and fruits" part.
> > > >But even if eaten in excess I dare you to find an overweight
> vegatarian.
> > > >I've never seen one.
> > >
> > > I have. She might have been cheating, of course.
> > >
> >
> > i used to go to these "all you can eat" buffets at an indian
> restaurant
> > some
> > time ago in a city in which i used to live. i only ate vegetarian
> > offerings.
> > i used to eat until i was stuffed because i wanted to make sure that i
> > was
> > getting my money's worth. over a period of about 6 months i found
> that
> > i had
> > put on 20 pounds.
> >
>
> I bet you laid low on the fruits/veggies and concentrated on
> the pastas/high fat content offerings.
read the post again... vegetarian indian restaurants typically don't have
pasta/high fat offerrings
> Did you exercise at all
> during that 6 month period??
you can run a 10K road race and not burn up the calories in a bowl of rice.
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~achung
http://www.emory.edu/WHSC/MED/HTN/Andrew
http://members.xoom.com/DrChung777
ronald
>
> read the post again... vegetarian indian restaurants typically don't have
> pasta/high fat offerrings
>
they don't have much by way of pastas but they do have high fat
offerings.
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
ronald wrote:
oils of the unsaturated vegetable kind...
bottomline: focus on reducing quantity.
drfr...@my-deja.com
ronald <ron...@ripco.com> wrote:
> Sue Spence wrote:
> >
> > In article <8rh3p8$c14$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, drfr...@my-deja.com
says...
> > >
> > >But even if eaten in excess I dare you to find an overweight
vegatarian.
> > >I've never seen one.
> >
> >
>
> i used to go to these "all you can eat" buffets at an indian
restaurant
> some
> time ago in a city in which i used to live. i only ate vegetarian
> offerings.
> i used to eat until i was stuffed because i wanted to make sure that i
> was
> getting my money's worth. over a period of about 6 months i found
that
> i had
> put on 20 pounds.
>
I bet you laid low on the fruits/veggies and concentrated on
the pastas/high fat content offerings. Did you exercise at all
during that 6 month period??
frank
Colin Rose
> > > only by choice. two pounds of high fat foods will leave the stomach feeling especially
> > > empty (dense foods will have less volume).
> >
> > Exactly! And they will end up eating more than enough calories weighing less than 2 pounds.
>
> But, they receive negative reinforcement for this behavior (awfully empy stomach feeling)
> without actually having inadequate caloric intake (actually they will still have excess by
> your assessment). The negative reinforcement comes into play the following day when they
> start *choosing* foods that are less dense but more filling. Even though my two pound diet
> plan sounds incredibly too simple to work, it does apply several sound scientific principles
> from physics to psychology.
Like which?
> > We always advocate unrefined complex carbohdrate. Again,
> > careful choice of *quality* is the key.
> >
>
> disagree. lots of unrefined complex carbohydrates is still a bad thing.
Lots of? Try to eat lots of *unbuttered* whole wheat bread or *unoiled* brown rice. You get full
very fast and don't gain weight.
> > Why worry about obesity if it were not unhealthy?
> >
>
> Because it is a *precursor* to poor health but not necessarily a state of poor health. I
> would dare say that a young but *big* SUMO wrestler could flatten any of us and easily exceed
> our limits of oxygen consumption (measure of cardiovascular fitness).
An obese person is unhealthy. Certainly their endothelial function is impaired. So we are talking
about health too. Are there any studies of sumo wrestlers? That would be interesting.
> I don't tell my patients what they can *not* do. I teach them what they *can* do. Hopefully,
> with the spread of my instructions (see links below my name) around the world via the
> internet, I will be doing my part to eradicate obesity.
Sure.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Less Math With New Dietary Guide
> >
> > October 5, 2000
> >
> > DALLAS (AP) - Eating right just got easier, especially for health-conscious folks who get
> > a heady thrill from fruits and
> > vegetables - but a headache from math.
>
> hopefully these folks who love fruits and vegetables are not overweight.
I do and I have a BMI of 21.
> Focusing on food is a bad idea. One of the problems with obesity is that people become
> pre-occupied with food. Food becomes the central focus of the lives of obese people.
Eh? So they shouldn't look at what they are eating. Just close your eyes, put it on the scale and
swallow?
> > It's the first significant revision in four years of the association's guidelines, which
> > are widely mimicked by other health
> > organizations.
> >
>
> A step backward.
Why?
> > The association urges a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, lowfat
> > dairy products, fish, lean meats and
> > poultry. Five servings of fruits and vegetables and six servings of grains are recommended
> > daily.
>
> That can be a ton of food. Imagine someone thinking these recommendations mean they can eat
> five oranges and five avocadoes a day along with six bowls of rice pilaf? And they would be
> doing this guilt-free by quoting these recommendations.
Substitute 5 servings of broccoli or carrots or cabbage for the avocadoes and there is no
problem. If you paid attention to my recommendations you would see that avocadoes are
specifically excluded for obese people. Better if the rice is brown.
> > ``The lowfat message for many people is distorted so they are selecting food with high
> > junk calories,'' such as soft drinks
> > and baked goods, Krauss said. ``That just leads to excess weight gain without any real
> > nutrition.''
>
> Baked goods don't necessarily have poor nutritional value. Depends on what you bake. Baked
> fish is good. Baked squash casserole is yummy and has exceptional nutritional value.
By baked he means cakes and cookies and pies. Do I hear you actually mentioning nutrition? Fish?
Squash?
> > No-no's, again, are saturated fats and trans-fatty acids, especially for adults prone to
> > heart disease, the association said.
> > Saturated fats are found in animal products and tropical oils, and trans-fatty acids
> > include hydrogenated oil used in
> > commercially prepared foods and some hard margarines.
>
> Finally, something in the new guidelines that I still agree with.
Really? I thought you said you can eat 2 pounds of anything.
> > The new guidelines, to be published in the Oct. 31 issue of Circulation, a journal of the
> > American Heart Association,
> > should help consumers, said Edith Howard Hogan, a dietitian and spokeswoman for the
> > American Dietetic Association.
>
> ...not to lose weight. If anything, these guidelines will hurt obese consumers (especially
> those who just *love* fruits and vegetables).
I just love them and have no problem. Just don't eat the avocadoes.
> > ``This mirrors the ADA's recommendations of a diet based on a variety of foods,'' she
> > said. ``People are more interested in
> > adding things to their diet than taking things out.''
>
> You bet. Everyone likes variety in the food they eat. The problem here is that no
> instructions have been given on how to regulate the amount of food people eat. In times of
> feast, it is a natural human instinct to over-eat because thoughout human history, there has
> been times of severe famine (from war, drought, plaque, flooding) where the overweight had the
> fat stores to survive the famine. Recommendations (such as my 2 pound diet) must be given to
> help people fight this natural human instinct if we are to eradicate obesity.
>
With your instructions we would have to have a natural disaster to get people to reduce
quantities over the long term. Much easier to make a careful selection of the available foods.
Colin Rose MD
Sue Spence
Indian food, even the veggie stuff, tends to have a high fat content.
The point still stands - it is quite possible to be an overweight vegetarian.
There is nothing magic in animal products that causes their consumers to become
obese. There is nothing magic about vegetable products which protects their
consumers from gaining weight. Losing weight is a simple process. All we have
to do is eat less than we burn. Dr Chung has just tried to take this simple
formula and quantify it in a manner which will show people just how much food
they are eating and help them reduce it. It is up to the individual to put as
much value as they can in their 2 lbs of food per day.
ronald
>
> Indian food, even the veggie stuff, tends to have a high fat content.
>
> The point still stands - it is quite possible to be an overweight vegetarian.
> There is nothing magic in animal products that causes their consumers to become
> obese. There is nothing magic about vegetable products which protects their
> consumers from gaining weight.
>
this is true, but the weight gaining potential of foods is partly
a function of the caloric content of that food. vegetable products
tend to have lower caloric content than animal products. in the
case of indian foods, it's no so much the vegetables that have high
fat content as it is the *animal* products added to vegetable dishes
(butter, heavy cream, cheese, &c).
> Losing weight is a simple process. All we have
> to do is eat less than we burn. Dr Chung has just tried to take this simple
> formula and quantify it in a manner which will show people just how much food
> they are eating and help them reduce it. It is up to the individual to put as
> much value as they can in their 2 lbs of food per day.
>
i think that this last statement is insufficient. i see chung's
proposals as being part of a two stage process. the first is to
modify the *quantity* of food consumed. i mean, even if you're
eating high fat foods, 2 pounds of high fat food will cause less
weight gain than 4 pounds of high fat food. once you achieve that,
then you can focus on the caloric content of the volume consumed.
at this point you consider the *quality* of the food consumed
(i.e. substituting low fat foods for high fat foods). but it has
to be part of a coordinated strategy. if all chung is doing is
focusing on the "2 pounds per day" thing, then he has, at best, a
very incomplete solution.
a third component, which i've seen mentioned (even though i haven't
closely followed this thread) is physical activity; which goes
somewhat past straight weight loss to overall health and fitness.
i might add that in the united states, reducing volume is a real
challenge because "standard" serving sizes are large at restaurants.
in europe i've noticed that restaurants serve portions which are
considerably smaller. but once you've got the plate full of food
in front of you there is a tendancy to feel obligated to eat it all.
the net effect is that you end up eating too much food...
drfr...@my-deja.com
ach...@emory.edu wrote:
>
>
> you can run a 10K road race and not burn up the calories in a bowl of
rice.
>
> --
regular exercise regimen. It's not so much the cals burned up during
the actual exercise as it is changing your metabolism. But that's
stating the obvious- forgive me.
It would be interesting to see if there is any data comparing
rates of obsesity of vegatarians to non-vegatarians. I'd bet
the rate of being overweight on a non-vegatarian diet is signif-
icantly higher. BTW,I'm not a vegatarian myself but believe in
plenty of fruits and veggies- I'm eating a banana as I'm typing
(sic- keyboarding). I don't eat much or know much about
Indian food but have heard that the food can be high in fat
content.
frank
Lee Spector
2 lbs of food a day and you cut down to two pounds but don't change what you eat and the
proportion in which you eat them, you will lose weight. A better diet might be the 1.9 lb
diet, but apparently Dr. Chung has found that 2 lbs works better in terms of keeping folks
on it. Lee
Timothy J. Lee
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD <ach...@emory.edu> wrote:
>read the post again... vegetarian indian restaurants typically don't have
>pasta/high fat offerrings
While Indian restaurants typically don't offer pastas, some of the
food (including the vegetarian food) can be quite dense in fat and
calories.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
drfr...@my-deja.com
better. It can be called the "starvation diet".
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
drfr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <39E12FA3...@emory.edu>,
> ach...@emory.edu wrote:
> >
> >
> > you can run a 10K road race and not burn up the calories in a bowl of
> rice.
> >
> > --
> I guess you miss the point of metabolic changes that occurs with a
> regular exercise regimen. It's not so much the cals burned up during
> the actual exercise as it is changing your metabolism. But that's
> stating the obvious- forgive me.
The healthy individual can increase metabolism at most 3 times basal
level. Let's say for the sake or argument that exercise were able to
triple someone's metabolic level even at rest. This still will not help
someone eating more than three times the amount the body requires.
>
>
> It would be interesting to see if there is any data comparing
> rates of obsesity of vegatarians to non-vegatarians. I'd bet
> the rate of being overweight on a non-vegatarian diet is signif-
> icantly higher. BTW,I'm not a vegatarian myself but believe in
> plenty of fruits and veggies- I'm eating a banana as I'm typing
> (sic- keyboarding). I don't eat much or know much about
> Indian food but have heard that the food can be high in fat
> content.
>
The Masai in Africa have no obesity. They are exclusively meat-eaters.
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
"Timothy J. Lee" wrote:
> In article <39E12FA3...@emory.edu>,
> Andrew Chung, MD/PhD <ach...@emory.edu> wrote:
> >read the post again... vegetarian indian restaurants typically don't have
> >pasta/high fat offerrings
>
> While Indian restaurants typically don't offer pastas, some of the
> food (including the vegetarian food) can be quite dense in fat and
> calories.
and if you limit your intake to two pounds or less of this food per day
according to my instructions, I would still guarantee weight loss.
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
Sue Spence wrote:
> In article <8rr7op$v9h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, drfr...@my-deja.com says...
> Indian food, even the veggie stuff, tends to have a high fat content.
>
> The point still stands - it is quite possible to be an overweight vegetarian.
> There is nothing magic in animal products that causes their consumers to become
> obese. There is nothing magic about vegetable products which protects their
> consumers from gaining weight. Losing weight is a simple process. All we have
> to do is eat less than we burn. Dr Chung has just tried to take this simple
> formula and quantify it in a manner which will show people just how much food
> they are eating and help them reduce it. It is up to the individual to put as
> much value as they can in their 2 lbs of food per day.
*YES*
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
ronald wrote:
> Sue Spence wrote:
> >
> > Indian food, even the veggie stuff, tends to have a high fat content.
> >
> > The point still stands - it is quite possible to be an overweight vegetarian.
> > There is nothing magic in animal products that causes their consumers to become
> > obese. There is nothing magic about vegetable products which protects their
> > consumers from gaining weight.
> >
>
> this is true, but the weight gaining potential of foods is partly
> a function of the caloric content of that food.
but mostly a function of the amount you eat.
> vegetable products
> tend to have lower caloric content than animal products.
you mean lower caloric density.
> in the
> case of indian foods, it's no so much the vegetables that have high
> fat content as it is the *animal* products added to vegetable dishes
> (butter, heavy cream, cheese, &c).
this is where calorie counting *fails*.
>
>
> > Losing weight is a simple process. All we have
> > to do is eat less than we burn. Dr Chung has just tried to take this simple
> > formula and quantify it in a manner which will show people just how much food
> > they are eating and help them reduce it. It is up to the individual to put as
> > much value as they can in their 2 lbs of food per day.
> >
>
> i think that this last statement is insufficient. i see chung's
> proposals as being part of a two stage process. the first is to
> modify the *quantity* of food consumed. i mean, even if you're
> eating high fat foods, 2 pounds of high fat food will cause less
> weight gain than 4 pounds of high fat food.
actually, in a person who has reached a stable weight eating 4 pounds of high fat
food per day, a reduction to 2 pounds of the same food will most certainly cause
weight loss.
> once you achieve that,
> then you can focus on the caloric content of the volume consumed.
> at this point you consider the *quality* of the food consumed
> (i.e. substituting low fat foods for high fat foods). but it has
> to be part of a coordinated strategy. if all chung is doing is
> focusing on the "2 pounds per day" thing, then he has, at best, a
> very incomplete solution.
>
Would suggest you read the complete set of instructions, including the hints.
>
> a third component, which i've seen mentioned (even though i haven't
> closely followed this thread) is physical activity; which goes
> somewhat past straight weight loss to overall health and fitness.
>
> i might add that in the united states, reducing volume is a real
> challenge because "standard" serving sizes are large at restaurants.
> in europe i've noticed that restaurants serve portions which are
> considerably smaller. but once you've got the plate full of food
> in front of you there is a tendancy to feel obligated to eat it all.
> the net effect is that you end up eating too much food...
no kidding.
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
Colin Rose wrote:
> "Andrew Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
>
> > > > only by choice. two pounds of high fat foods will leave the stomach feeling especially
> > > > empty (dense foods will have less volume).
> > >
> > > Exactly! And they will end up eating more than enough calories weighing less than 2 pounds.
> >
> > But, they receive negative reinforcement for this behavior (awfully empy stomach feeling)
> > without actually having inadequate caloric intake (actually they will still have excess by
> > your assessment). The negative reinforcement comes into play the following day when they
> > start *choosing* foods that are less dense but more filling. Even though my two pound diet
> > plan sounds incredibly too simple to work, it does apply several sound scientific principles
> > from physics to psychology.
>
> Like which?
conservation of matter and energy
behavior modification with negative reinforcement
mass times caloric density equals calories
exercise potentiates mobilization of fat stores
mobilization of fat stores suppress appetite
starvation causes a reduction in basal metabolic rate
increased food intake in social interactions
food intake is a function of food availability
>
>
> > > We always advocate unrefined complex carbohdrate. Again,
> > > careful choice of *quality* is the key.
> > >
> >
> > disagree. lots of unrefined complex carbohydrates is still a bad thing.
>
> Lots of? Try to eat lots of *unbuttered* whole wheat bread or *unoiled* brown rice. You get full
> very fast and don't gain weight.
>
Just because you or I can't eat lots of it, doesn't mean there aren't folks out there who can.
>
> > > Why worry about obesity if it were not unhealthy?
> > >
> >
> > Because it is a *precursor* to poor health but not necessarily a state of poor health. I
> > would dare say that a young but *big* SUMO wrestler could flatten any of us and easily exceed
> > our limits of oxygen consumption (measure of cardiovascular fitness).
>
> An obese person is unhealthy. Certainly their endothelial function is impaired.
not necessarily.
> So we are talking
> about health too.
no, the topic is still obesity, last I checked.
> Are there any studies of sumo wrestlers? That would be interesting.
>
> > I don't tell my patients what they can *not* do. I teach them what they *can* do. Hopefully,
> > with the spread of my instructions (see links below my name) around the world via the
> > internet, I will be doing my part to eradicate obesity.
>
> Sure.
>
yep
>
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Less Math With New Dietary Guide
> > >
> > > October 5, 2000
> > >
> > > DALLAS (AP) - Eating right just got easier, especially for health-conscious folks who get
> > > a heady thrill from fruits and
> > > vegetables - but a headache from math.
> >
> > hopefully these folks who love fruits and vegetables are not overweight.
>
> I do and I have a BMI of 21.
>
I would guess you have trouble eating very much of those foods you profess to love so much else you
would be overweight.
>
> > Focusing on food is a bad idea. One of the problems with obesity is that people become
> > pre-occupied with food. Food becomes the central focus of the lives of obese people.
>
> Eh? So they shouldn't look at what they are eating. Just close your eyes, put it on the scale and
> swallow?
No, move on and do something else. Weighing is fast and painless. No more obsessing about it.
>
>
> > > It's the first significant revision in four years of the association's guidelines, which
> > > are widely mimicked by other health
> > > organizations.
> > >
> >
> > A step backward.
>
> Why?
read on.
>
>
> > > The association urges a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, lowfat
> > > dairy products, fish, lean meats and
> > > poultry. Five servings of fruits and vegetables and six servings of grains are recommended
> > > daily.
> >
> > That can be a ton of food. Imagine someone thinking these recommendations mean they can eat
> > five oranges and five avocadoes a day along with six bowls of rice pilaf? And they would be
> > doing this guilt-free by quoting these recommendations.
>
> Substitute 5 servings of broccoli or carrots or cabbage for the avocadoes and there is no
> problem. If you paid attention to my recommendations you would see that avocadoes are
> specifically excluded for obese people. Better if the rice is brown.
you are obsessing about your food.
>
>
> > > ``The lowfat message for many people is distorted so they are selecting food with high
> > > junk calories,'' such as soft drinks
> > > and baked goods, Krauss said. ``That just leads to excess weight gain without any real
> > > nutrition.''
> >
> > Baked goods don't necessarily have poor nutritional value. Depends on what you bake. Baked
> > fish is good. Baked squash casserole is yummy and has exceptional nutritional value.
>
> By baked he means cakes and cookies and pies. Do I hear you actually mentioning nutrition? Fish?
> Squash?
>
Just pointing out contradictions and inconsistencies.
>
> > > No-no's, again, are saturated fats and trans-fatty acids, especially for adults prone to
> > > heart disease, the association said.
> > > Saturated fats are found in animal products and tropical oils, and trans-fatty acids
> > > include hydrogenated oil used in
> > > commercially prepared foods and some hard margarines.
> >
> > Finally, something in the new guidelines that I still agree with.
>
> Really? I thought you said you can eat 2 pounds of anything.
Try reading the instructions for my 2 pound diet sometine.
>
>
> > > The new guidelines, to be published in the Oct. 31 issue of Circulation, a journal of the
> > > American Heart Association,
> > > should help consumers, said Edith Howard Hogan, a dietitian and spokeswoman for the
> > > American Dietetic Association.
> >
> > ...not to lose weight. If anything, these guidelines will hurt obese consumers (especially
> > those who just *love* fruits and vegetables).
>
> I just love them and have no problem. Just don't eat the avocadoes.
>
you are obsessing about your food again.
>
> > > ``This mirrors the ADA's recommendations of a diet based on a variety of foods,'' she
> > > said. ``People are more interested in
> > > adding things to their diet than taking things out.''
> >
> > You bet. Everyone likes variety in the food they eat. The problem here is that no
> > instructions have been given on how to regulate the amount of food people eat. In times of
> > feast, it is a natural human instinct to over-eat because thoughout human history, there has
> > been times of severe famine (from war, drought, plaque, flooding) where the overweight had the
> > fat stores to survive the famine. Recommendations (such as my 2 pound diet) must be given to
> > help people fight this natural human instinct if we are to eradicate obesity.
> >
>
> With your instructions we would have to have a natural disaster to get people to reduce
> quantities over the long term. Much easier to make a careful selection of the available foods.
>
Since it it obvious you haven't read my instructions, how would you know ?
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~achung
http://www.emory.edu/WHSC/MED/HTN/Andrew
http://members.xoom.com/DrChung777
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
Lee Spector wrote:
> It all seems pretty clear to me. Dr. Chung's diet works like this. If you are eating over
> 2 lbs of food a day and you cut down to two pounds but don't change what you eat and the
> proportion in which you eat them, you will lose weight. A better diet might be the 1.9 lb
> diet, but apparently Dr. Chung has found that 2 lbs works better in terms of keeping folks
> on it. Lee
*yep*
another psychological principle put to work here (2 sounds significantly more than 1.9).
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
drfr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <39E22872...@bsuvc.bsu.edu>,
> 00lcs...@bsuvc.bsu.edu wrote:
> > It all seems pretty clear to me. Dr. Chung's diet works like this.
> If you are eating over
> > 2 lbs of food a day and you cut down to two pounds but don't change
> what you eat and the
> > proportion in which you eat them, you will lose weight. A better
> diet might be the 1.9 lb
> > diet, but apparently Dr. Chung has found that 2 lbs works better in
> terms of keeping folks
> > on it. Lee
> >
> If that's the case, maybe one pound of food intake would be even
> better. It can be called the "starvation diet".
The goal here is a *permanent* lifestyle change.
ti...@cheerful.com
<ach...@emory.edu> wrote:
>Since it it obvious you haven't read my instructions, how would you know ?
Having read 20 or so posts in this thread in one sitting, I strongly
suspect that those continuing to argue are desperately defending some
sort of sacred (to them) concept rather than looking at the idea
dispassionately. Maybe they simply don't want to admit that they eat
too much.
I too wondered initially about the possible problem of eating a
deficient diet but that has been adequately (and amicably) dealt with.
Tishy
drfr...@my-deja.com
ach...@emory.edu wrote:>
>
> The healthy individual can increase metabolism at most 3 times basal
> level. Let's say for the sake or argument that exercise were able to
> triple someone's metabolic level even at rest. This still will not
help
> someone eating more than three times the amount the body requires.
>
activity in diet control. Any increase in raising metabolic levels is
significant.
> >
> >
> > It would be interesting to see if there is any data comparing
> > rates of obsesity of vegatarians to non-vegatarians. I'd bet
> > the rate of being overweight on a non-vegatarian diet is signif-
> > icantly higher.
> The Masai in Africa have no obesity. They are exclusively
meat-eaters.
>
> --
I guess you don't have any meaningful data off hand. Otherwise
you wouldn't have responded with something so esoteric (there are
going to be exceptions to everything).
Surfer!
>
<snip>
>
>read the post again... vegetarian indian restaurants typically don't have
>pasta/high fat offerrings
I would agree that pasta isn't normally on offer at Indian restaurants
of any kind, but they certainly do have plenty of high-fat offerings -
fried poppadums, currys cooked with plenty of oil, Kulfi, not to mention
all the fried & sugary indian sweets such as Jellabies. This has been
true at all the many different kinds of Indian restaurant I have been
to.
--
Surfer!
wate...@my-deja.com
ach...@emory.edu wrote:
> I suggest you read also the history behind the two pound diet.
>
> IMO, obesity in this country is a problem that has arisen not from
ignorance of
> the importance of food quality (find someone who really doesn't know
fruits and
> vegetables are good for them) but rather ignorance of quantity. How
many out
> there recall childhood memories of their mothers insisting a second
or third
> helping, of finishing everything on their plate, of references to
starving
> children in either Africa or Asia? How many out there feel guilt-free
about
> leaving more than half the food on their plate un-eaten whether at
home or when
> dining out?
And whose parents came from a generation of farmers and mill workers
who worked off those big meals. I live in an area of the country that
was once mostly agrarian and industrial, it now has one of the highest
rates of obesity in the country.
jwwright
mac's fries are veggie. Eating anything in excess of what you burn cause
weight gain. The KEY is how to control hunger when ALL prepared foods
have too much salt. Salt makes you hungry. MSG especially so. That's why
you "can't eat just one" potato chip. My low fat veggie diet has proven
the best for me, but i'm not diabetic. I don't count calories much
anymore, because simply put, i can't eat too many calories when the food
is not calorie dense.
Regards.
Sue Spence wrote:
>
> In article <8rh3p8$c14$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, drfr...@my-deja.com says...
> >
> >In article <39d7fe8e...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
> > bbr...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Bob) wrote:
> >> On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 01:56:41 GMT, drfr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >No need to count
> >> >> calories
> >> >> > > or weigh the food if the proper veggies and fruits etc are
> >> >partaken
> >> >> > > of in a daily diet.
> >>
> >> That is nonsense. Eating fruits and veggies in excess leads to gaining
> >> weight! If you consume more cal than you use, you gain weight. Fruits
> >> and veggies may be a healthier source for those cal than some of the
> >> alternatives, but certainly does not replace the issue of amount.
jwwright
they can eat too many mac's fries. I gave up a long time ago telling any
what to eat. It's a disease which is helped on by the salt in our
prepared foods. "you can't eat just one". The feeling of hunger is put
into the food so people stuff themselves. I know a 500#er. One day i
past his desk and he was munching a very large bag of cheetos. In total
frustration, i said "How do you control your BP?. He said "with a pill?.
Obesity is a disease of the mind.
regards.
Colin Rose wrote:
>
> >
>
> Sooner or later people will figure out that by eating a high fat diet they can easily
> gain weight with 2 pounds of food.
>
>
> Colin Rose MD
Andrew Chung, MD/PhD
ti...@cheerful.com wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:39:37 -0400, "Andrew Chung, MD/PhD"
> <ach...@emory.edu> wrote:
>
> >Since it it obvious you haven't read my instructions, how would you know ?
>
> Having read 20 or so posts in this thread in one sitting, I strongly
> suspect that those continuing to argue are desperately defending some
> sort of sacred (to them) concept rather than looking at the idea
> dispassionately. Maybe they simply don't want to admit that they eat
> too much.
I suspect the same.