Re: Daily Weighing and Quick Action Keeps Pounds Off
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Seen this ?
>
> http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/2006-07/06-035.html
> Most successful dieters regain the weight they lost. But new research shows
> that a daily weigh-in - and quick adjustments to diet and exercise - can
> significantly help dieters maintain weight loss. The clinical trial,
> conducted by researchers at The Miriam Hospital and Brown Medical School,
> reports results of the first program designed specifically for weight loss
> maintenance. The study appears in the New England Journal of Medicine.
>
> Unlike other obesity studies, which focus on how to lose weight, the "STOP
> Regain" trial tested a method that taught participants how to keep those
> pounds from coming back - regardless of the method they used to lose the
> weight in the first place.
>
> Self-regulation is the core of STOP Regain
> Rena Wing, professor of psychiatry and human behavior at Brown Medical
> School, directs the Weight Control and Diabetes Research Center at The
> Miriam Hospital. Weight reduction is only part of the battle. Knowing how to
> keep pounds off is key.
It seems they would advocate the tail wagging the dog.
The tail is the weigh-in and daily weigh-ins would be a lot of
tail-wagging.
Much wiser is addressing the dog, which is overeating.
Knowing how to eat less down to the right amount and staying at this
right amount by befriending the hunger that arises with better
leaner&trimmer health (overcoming type-2 diabetes) is the true key to
losing weight permanently.
May GOD continue to heal your heart by curing your diabetes, dear
neighbor GysdeJongh whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f4dad7fe68478acf?
Hollywood
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> GysdeJongh wrote:
> > Seen this ?
> >
> > http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/2006-07/06-035.html
> > Most successful dieters regain the weight they lost. But new research shows
> > that a daily weigh-in - and quick adjustments to diet and exercise - can
> > significantly help dieters maintain weight loss. The clinical trial,
> > conducted by researchers at The Miriam Hospital and Brown Medical School,
> > reports results of the first program designed specifically for weight loss
> > maintenance. The study appears in the New England Journal of Medicine.
<snip>
> It seems they would advocate the tail wagging the dog.
No, I think a better analogy would be that they advocate putting a
calorometer on the dog's tail to measure the effect of whatever they
are doing to the dog.
> The tail is the weigh-in and daily weigh-ins would be a lot of
> tail-wagging.
To borrow shamelessly from MasterCard:
Scale: $24.95
One minute to Weigh in every morning: $0.42 (Average American makes
~$50K/year incl fringe)
The Measurement to assist in maintaining your new form: PRICELESS
> Much wiser is addressing the dog, which is overeating.
I suspect that you could incorporate measurement into a plan to
eliminate overeating. In fact, I would say suspect is putting it very
very cautiously without necessity.
<Chung Speak Snipped... We've all bee there before.>
-Hollywood, who always says, you will have a tough time managing what
you are not measuring (others will take this further).
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > GysdeJongh wrote:
> > > Seen this ?
> > >
> > > http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/2006-07/06-035.html
> > > Most successful dieters regain the weight they lost. But new research shows
> > > that a daily weigh-in - and quick adjustments to diet and exercise - can
> > > significantly help dieters maintain weight loss. The clinical trial,
> > > conducted by researchers at The Miriam Hospital and Brown Medical School,
> > > reports results of the first program designed specifically for weight loss
> > > maintenance. The study appears in the New England Journal of Medicine.
>
> <snip>
>
> > It seems they would advocate the tail wagging the dog.
>
> No, I think a better analogy would be that they advocate putting a
> calorometer on the dog's tail to measure the effect of whatever they
> are doing to the dog.
Just as meaningless.
> > The tail is the weigh-in and daily weigh-ins would be a lot of
> > tail-wagging.
>
> To borrow shamelessly from MasterCard:
> Scale: $24.95
> One minute to Weigh in every morning: $0.42 (Average American makes
> ~$50K/year incl fringe)
> The Measurement to assist in maintaining your new form: PRICELESS
Watching one's weight fluctuate from day to day while still overeating
without a clue about how much one is eating: WORTHLESS.
Life without faith in LORD Jesus Christ: MEANINGLESS.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/eb42672896d36d4b?
May GOD continue to mercifully keep your heart beating to give you time
to understand this, dear neighbor Hollywood whom I love
Hollywood
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > To borrow shamelessly from MasterCard:
> > Scale: $24.95
> > One minute to Weigh in every morning: $0.42 (Average American makes
> > ~$50K/year incl fringe)
> > The Measurement to assist in maintaining your new form: PRICELESS
>
> Watching one's weight fluctuate from day to day while still overeating
> without a clue about how much one is eating: WORTHLESS.
Hrm. Would you say that monitoring once a week is worthwhile? How about
once a month? Annually? Or should we just toss the scale and any other
way of measuring progress? I would say that's dopey.
I weigh daily. Do I get wigged by a one or two day fluctuation? No.
Should anyone else, no. But, what if it stays on for two weeks? Then, I
would like to know when it first showed up so I can figure what caused
it. If you weigh scientifically (I weigh at the same time of day, on
the same scale, in the same clothes {none}, after the shower, and after
evacuation), I think you can have some real data of value towards
what's going on with you.
Do I think the scale is the only metric? No. Do I think it's the best?
No again. Do I think it's the easiest way to get regular data that is
somewhat relevant to what I'm up to? You betcha.
Again, if you are not measuring in some way, you are going to have a
difficult time reaching goals and managing the process. If your goals
aren't something you can measure against, you are going to have a hard
time knowing that you have gotten to them or where you are relative to
them.
I know we should take it on faith that it's working, but:
1- I wouldn't run my business like that
2- I wouldn't ask my supervisors to run me like that
3- I wouldn't run my projects like that
4- I wouldn't manage my investments like that
So why would I manage myself like that? I am sure that you are
different. I am sure that your way works for you. But I am sure that
your way is not the One True Way for measurement just as the 2PD-OMER
Diet is not the One True Way for weight loss and health management.
-Hollywood, who wants to share his spreadsheet with you.
Hollywood
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Seen this ?
> >
> > http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/2006-07/06-035.html
> > Most successful dieters regain the weight they lost. But new research shows
> > that a daily weigh-in - and quick adjustments to diet and exercise - can
> > significantly help dieters maintain weight loss. The clinical trial,
> > conducted by researchers at The Miriam Hospital and Brown Medical School,
> > reports results of the first program designed specifically for weight loss
> > maintenance. The study appears in the New England Journal of Medicine.
> >
> > Unlike other obesity studies, which focus on how to lose weight, the "STOP
> > Regain" trial tested a method that taught participants how to keep those
> > pounds from coming back - regardless of the method they used to lose the
> > weight in the first place.
> >
> > Self-regulation is the core of STOP Regain
> > Rena Wing, professor of psychiatry and human behavior at Brown Medical
> > School, directs the Weight Control and Diabetes Research Center at The
> > Miriam Hospital. Weight reduction is only part of the battle. Knowing how to
> > keep pounds off is key.
>
> It seems they would advocate the tail wagging the dog.
>
> The tail is the weigh-in and daily weigh-ins would be a lot of
> tail-wagging.
>
> Much wiser is addressing the dog, which is overeating.
By the way, I forgot. Where is your peer reviewed study? They actually
created a study with a control group and two different versions of
intervention. Then they followed them for 18 months. They logged all
this in such a way that it passed the peer review at the New England
Journal of Medicine, one of the premier journals catering to medical
research.
I missed your paper on the 2PD-OMER Diet's efficacy when compared to
other diets, with proper controls and measurements. Maybe it wasn't in
NEJM but in Lancet or some other prestigious peer reviewed journal of
medical research. Like I said, I must have missed it.
-Hollywood, who thinks weighing properly can have an important role to
play in loss and maintenance.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Hollywood wrote:
>
> > > To borrow shamelessly from MasterCard:
> > > Scale: $24.95
> > > One minute to Weigh in every morning: $0.42 (Average American makes
> > > ~$50K/year incl fringe)
> > > The Measurement to assist in maintaining your new form: PRICELESS
> >
> > Watching one's weight fluctuate from day to day while still overeating
> > without a clue about how much one is eating: WORTHLESS.
>
> Hrm. Would you say that monitoring once a week is worthwhile?
No.
> How about once a month?
Ok.
> Annually?
Ok.
> Or should we just toss the scale and any other way of measuring progress?
No.
> I would say that's dopey.
You may say anything you choose. You have the free will that GOD has
generously given all souls including those belonging to fig trees (Mark
11:12-14, 20).
> I weigh daily.
Your choice.
> Do I get wigged by a one or two day fluctuation? No.
> Should anyone else, no. But, what if it stays on for two weeks? Then, I
> would like to know when it first showed up so I can figure what caused
> it.
Either with or without the daily weighing, a tighter fit around the
waistline would indicate the cause has been from overeating.
> If you weigh scientifically (I weigh at the same time of day, on
> the same scale, in the same clothes {none}, after the shower, and after
> evacuation), I think you can have some real data of value towards
> what's going on with you.
See above.
> Do I think the scale is the only metric? No. Do I think it's the best?
> No again. Do I think it's the easiest way to get regular data that is
> somewhat relevant to what I'm up to? You betcha.
Tail wagging.
> Again, if you are not measuring in some way, you are going to have a
> difficult time reaching goals and managing the process. If your goals
> aren't something you can measure against, you are going to have a hard
> time knowing that you have gotten to them or where you are relative to
> them.
The dog is the quantity of food being eaten.
> I know we should take it on faith that it's working, but:
> 1- I wouldn't run my business like that
> 2- I wouldn't ask my supervisors to run me like that
> 3- I wouldn't run my projects like that
> 4- I wouldn't manage my investments like that
Folks automatically know it is working by the increasing looseness of
their clothes around the waistline.
> So why would I manage myself like that? I am sure that you are
> different. I am sure that your way works for you. But I am sure that
> your way is not the One True Way for measurement just as the 2PD-OMER
> Diet is not the One True Way for weight loss and health management.
The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet.
The heart of the Approach, which is "eat less," is true while "eat
right and exercise" is false when addressing the cause of folks
becoming more overweight.
May GOD mercifully continue to keep your heart beating to give you time
Hollywood
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Hollywood wrote:
> > Or should we just toss the scale and any other way of measuring progress?
>
> No.
Thank you.
> > I would say that's dopey.
>
> You may say anything you choose. You have the free will that GOD has
> generously given all souls including those belonging to fig trees (Mark
> 11:12-14, 20).
Even you like the scale once a month. So you might agree (if your GOD
allows you to) that tossing the scale and all other forms of
measurement would be dopey. Amazing. We can agree on something.
> > I weigh daily.
>
> Your choice.
>
> > Do I get wigged by a one or two day fluctuation? No.
> > Should anyone else, no. But, what if it stays on for two weeks? Then, I
> > would like to know when it first showed up so I can figure what caused
> > it.
>
> Either with or without the daily weighing, a tighter fit around the
> waistline would indicate the cause has been from overeating.
Maybe for a short guy like you. I am 6'2" tall. Five lbs on me is not
much at all. When I get to my goal, that's going to be less than 2% of
total weight. I suppose that with the proper religious instruction my
senses will get better and I will be able to notice even a 1%
fluctuation just by the amount of stretch in the waistband of my suit
pants. I'm not there yet.
Isn't this "waistband" approach just another way of measuring
progress/maintenance? In the 20+ that I have lost to date, it is one of
the markers I look at. It's not the only one, because it relies on too
many bad rulers (memory is bad... read "Stumbling on Happiness" for a
thorough evisceration of memory... also my pants are bad. Wife/I
might've shrunk them in the wash. Lastly, the time gap is bad. I rotate
through 4 suits, a pair of suit pants, two pairs of khakis and three
pairs of jeans. My suits were fitted at different times in my life.
Recalling how this pair fits versus last time is very sloppy). I will
grant you that the scale has slop in it too (I'm talking about the
daily fluctuations that people have). But that slop is the same slop
that's in the "waistband approach" you advocate. With the scale, I can
fix the memory problem (excel does nicely... if you were to perform a
study, you might get familiar with it). I can fix the changing
ruler/shrunk pants problem (my scale retares everytime I turn it on).
And I can fix the many ruler/many pants problem (I have but one scale
and it is the only scale I weigh with).
If you read a fuller write up of the study, you will find that they are
not just weighing everyday. They are getting incentives to keep it in
the green zone (less than 3lbs gained) and are given help when they get
over 3lbs. They worked with three groups: 1)a monthly newsletter,
non-incentive, non-intervention group, 2)an email based intervention
group and 3) a one-on-one intervention group. They could have done one
group that was left to their own devices, but that would raise ethical
questions given the general 95% recidivism rate for dieters. And,
amazingly enough, they found that the more you bug people, and the more
on top of it your people are, the less recidivism you see. By a lot.
That they conducted this study with a control group (the newsletter
group), got it peer reviewed and published in one of the most
prestigious journals of medicine there is (NEJM), suggests to me a few
hints towards making it work. When your "waistband" approach is tested
with a control group (perhaps people who weigh daily) for over a year
(this one went 18 months... unclear if that's a funding issue or a
"that's when they're in the clear" issue or "that's when we got bored")
and published in a prestigious peer reviewed publication, I will dump
my scale and use the waistband.
> > Do I think the scale is the only metric? No. Do I think it's the best?
> > No again. Do I think it's the easiest way to get regular data that is
> > somewhat relevant to what I'm up to? You betcha.
>
> Tail wagging.
Hrm. What if the dog enjoys wagging the tail? What is there is a health
benefit to tail wagging? This metaphor is getting a little extended,
but I think it's still workable. I am a wonk. Total wonk. Among my MBA
peers at my job, I am the one mos liable to build a spreadsheet. In my
blog over at SportingNews, I use the numbers to break things down at a
different level, and apply management science, as I understand it, to
the task. Naturally, I need a wonky approach to weight loss and health
management. It's about increasing my involvement and therefore my
chances of success. So, in this case, the dog enjoys wagging the tail
and the tail wagging enhances the dog's shot at success. A less
measured approach, with fuzzy data (ie the "waistband approach") simply
will not provide the same benefit for this dog.
> Folks automatically know it is working by the increasing looseness of
> their clothes around the waistline.
See above. Again, after you do your control group containing, peer
reviewed and published study of the 2PD-OMER Diet, you can then, among
the survivors, do a control group, peer reviewed, published study on
your "waistband approach." Till then, you are being that first one to
cast stones.
> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet.
>
> The heart of the Approach, which is "eat less," is true while "eat
> right and exercise" is false when addressing the cause of folks
> becoming more overweight.
Eating less is a diet. You are altering food input with the goal of
losing weight or improving health. That is a DIET! If you are not going
to use the language properly, please do not use it at all. This kind of
fuzzy communication where a diet isn't a diet is just obfuscation
designed to confuse people. The 2PD-OMER Diet may very well be an
approach, but it is an approach to dieting. I do not know why you don't
get this. Perhaps if I find the equivalent words in Mandarin, you will
get it.
-Hollywood, who has posted three links to dictionary definitions of
"Diet", apparently in vain.
Noway2
I doubt if Mandarin would work either as I don't think there are any
words that are small enough in any language for him to "get it", with
the exception of Ebonics which has half words like mother. If the
words of his own God aren't enough for him, how is anything that a mere
person comes up with going to be sufficient?
It continues to amuse me, how he goes on and on claiming to be
spreading the word of god, and to love us all, and that it is his love
of man that drives him. The part that I find so comical, though, is
that he fails to see the how he has failed to live up to his own dogma.
If Chung were really as good of a Christian as he claims, he would
demonstrating it by show ing respect for others and take his posts
elsewhere.
I am not a Christian and have spent little time studying Christianity,
but from what little I do know about its teaching it is clear to me
that Chung doesn't truely understand the meaning either.
Chung: Least you get some idea that you need to start praying for my
soul, I will tell you that I have chosen my path and I am happy with
it. What I really don't get, though, is why you doen't take it
somehwere other than an LC newsgroup?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Hollywood wrote:
>
> > > Or should we just toss the scale and any other way of measuring progress?
> >
> > No.
>
> Thank you.
You are welcome.
All thanks and praises belong to GOD, Whom I love with all my heart,
soul, mind, and strength.
> > > I would say that's dopey.
> >
> > You may say anything you choose. You have the free will that GOD has
> > generously given all souls including those belonging to fig trees (Mark
> > 11:12-14, 20).
>
> Even you like the scale once a month.
Measuring bodyweight even monthly is not necessary for folks using the
2PD-OMER Approach.
> So you might agree (if your GOD
> allows you to) that tossing the scale and all other forms of
> measurement would be dopey. Amazing. We can agree on something.
A person weighing his/her meals to keep from eating over the optimal
amount will not need to know his/her bodyweight to become and stay
lean&trim.
> > > I weigh daily.
> >
> > Your choice.
> >
> > > Do I get wigged by a one or two day fluctuation? No.
> > > Should anyone else, no. But, what if it stays on for two weeks? Then, I
> > > would like to know when it first showed up so I can figure what caused
> > > it.
> >
> > Either with or without the daily weighing, a tighter fit around the
> > waistline would indicate the cause has been from overeating.
>
> Maybe for a short guy like you.
My height is average.
> I am 6'2" tall.
Does not matter.
> Five lbs on me is not
> much at all.
It will still be about 5 inches at the waistline if the 5 lbs is
visceral adipose tissue (VAT) which is pathological.
> When I get to my goal, that's going to be less than 2% of
> total weight. I suppose that with the proper religious instruction my
> senses will get better and I will be able to notice even a 1%
> fluctuation just by the amount of stretch in the waistband of my suit
> pants. I'm not there yet.
>
> Isn't this "waistband" approach just another way of measuring
> progress/maintenance?
No. It is simply an awareness.
I suspect you believe "Stop world hunger" is the truth and not a
marketing ploy.
> > > Do I think the scale is the only metric? No. Do I think it's the best?
> > > No again. Do I think it's the easiest way to get regular data that is
> > > somewhat relevant to what I'm up to? You betcha.
> >
> > Tail wagging.
>
> Hrm. What if the dog enjoys wagging the tail? What is there is a health
> benefit to tail wagging? This metaphor is getting a little extended,
> but I think it's still workable. I am a wonk. Total wonk. Among my MBA
> peers at my job, I am the one mos liable to build a spreadsheet. In my
> blog over at SportingNews, I use the numbers to break things down at a
> different level, and apply management science, as I understand it, to
> the task. Naturally, I need a wonky approach to weight loss and health
> management. It's about increasing my involvement and therefore my
> chances of success. So, in this case, the dog enjoys wagging the tail
> and the tail wagging enhances the dog's shot at success. A less
> measured approach, with fuzzy data (ie the "waistband approach") simply
> will not provide the same benefit for this dog.
I suspect you believe a person when s/he says "I am so hungry that I am
starving."
> > Folks automatically know it is working by the increasing looseness of
> > their clothes around the waistline.
>
> See above. Again, after you do your control group containing, peer
> reviewed and published study of the 2PD-OMER Diet, you can then, among
> the survivors, do a control group, peer reviewed, published study on
> your "waistband approach." Till then, you are being that first one to
> cast stones.
The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet.
The fact that this Approach works for permanent weightloss does not
depend on the publication of our peer-review study.
> > The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet.
> >
> > The heart of the Approach, which is "eat less," is true while "eat
> > right and exercise" is false when addressing the cause of folks
> > becoming more overweight.
>
> Eating less is a diet.
If this were true, fasting would be a diet and the 2PD-OMER Approach
would be as incompatible with true diets as true diets are incompatible
with each other.
Truth is simple.
May GOD continue to mercifully keep your heart beating to give you time
Hollywood
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Hollywood wrote:
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > Hollywood wrote:
> > Even you like the scale once a month.
>
> Measuring bodyweight even monthly is not necessary for folks using the
> 2PD-OMER Approach.
Measuring bodyweight is not NECESSARY for anyone. The question is
rather whether it helps or doesn't. This study found that it helps
people who have lost weight to maintain that loss. I think it's a
pretty credible study, given the CVs of the authors, the journal it's
been published in, and the finding. You may attempt to find the flaws
(they are there, as there is no such thing as the perfect study), but
their program showed good results. Better than good. And they like
weighing. But, there were the control group, and a full 28% of them
didn't gain back more than 5 lbs in 18 months, so it's clearly not
necessary. But if it helps, and it takes five seconds, why are you
against it?
> > So you might agree (if your GOD
> > allows you to) that tossing the scale and all other forms of
> > measurement would be dopey. Amazing. We can agree on something.
>
> A person weighing his/her meals to keep from eating over the optimal
> amount will not need to know his/her bodyweight to become and stay
> lean&trim.
So, if I eat two pounds of potato chips (that'd be 32 servings... 480
grams of carbs (incl fiber), 314 g of fats and nearly 5000 calories...
in the configuration designed to have the WORST impact on BG and
insulin metabolism), and only that, I can pitch my scale? I thought you
were worried about LPO.
Again, you miscontrue the question. It is not a question of need. Need
is air. It is a question of positive impact on outcome. While I'm
certain that people who follow the 2PD-OMER Diet have no problem
maintaining for all time (and can probably do without air), people who
live in the real world apparently need more help than you offer with
your "waistband approach."
> > > Either with or without the daily weighing, a tighter fit around the
> > > waistline would indicate the cause has been from overeating.
> >
> > Maybe for a short guy like you.
>
> My height is average.
Then you are short standing next to me.
> > Isn't this "waistband" approach just another way of measuring
> > progress/maintenance?
>
> No. It is simply an awareness.
Semantics. That's 30% of you. When you weigh on the scale, you are
aware of your weight. When you break out the tape measure, you are
aware of your measurements. When your pants don't fit right, you are
aware of your measurements (or a bad experiment with hot water, or a
faulty memory). It's a measurement, whether it is well calibrated or
not. I suspect that this is why I fail to find a clinical report on the
efficacy of the 2PD-OMER diet against other diets. It is because no one
will publish a study with the title "Food Intake Restrictions Aid Pant
Fitting by 30%"
> I suspect you believe "Stop world hunger" is the truth and not a
> marketing ploy.
I suspect you thought that the stick figures that were paraded in front
of us from Ethiopia in the 80's were actually fine, and just naturally
following your 2PD-OMER Diet. I suspect those skeletal jews we see film
of during the Holocaust were actually just working the 2PD-OMER diet
too.
I guess you also think you can live in the third world on less than a
dollar a day.
> I suspect you believe a person when s/he says "I am so hungry that I am
> starving."
That's a metaphor your moron. I believe that they are hungry. Perhaps
very much so. Probably, they are doing a low fat version of the 2PD
OMER Diet.
> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet.
>
> The fact that this Approach works for permanent weightloss does not
> depend on the publication of our peer-review study.
Since it has never been studied by anyone but you, and your statistics
are of the 100% efficacy type (aka completely unbelievable until
reproduced clinically by someone who isn't blinded by faith and making
a priori assumptions to put it kindly), your claims cannot be believed.
When people go out and find something, they generally report it so that
others can evaluate it. That's the underlying assumption and big
benefit of the peer review, publication system. It filters out the
garbage by the process. Since you have not subjected your work to that
process, we can only assume it would filter out in the process if it
were subjected.
In other words, until you have someone other than you report on your
diet's efficacy at short term, long term or lifetime weight loss, with
some charts, statistics, pictures, whatever, from a soundly designed
study, no one with a brain in their head is going to believe you.You
are simply unbelievable with natural reason.
> > Eating less is a diet.
>
> If this were true, fasting would be a diet and the 2PD-OMER Approach
> would be as incompatible with true diets as true diets are incompatible
> with each other.
Whatever. That's nonsense on it's face. Fasting is a form of diet.
Diets, as we understand the concept in the English speaking world, can
be done together. I have done, very compatibly the Warrior Diet with
the Step Diet with the Atkins Diet.
I will say it again. If you decide to eliminate certain foods, or limit
your intake of food, you are dieting, you are a dieter, and the
approach you are following is a diet. Clearly, your limit of an Omer a
day is a DIET. As restricting intake is the only discernable portion of
the 2PD-OMER diet, it is clearly a diet, the people who do it are
dieting and they are dieters.
> Truth is simple.
I concur. Weighing helps people maintain loss and the 2PD-OMER Diet is
a diet.
-Hollywood, who'll take the word of an 18 month study in NEJM by
reputable authors over the word of CHUNG (or whoever speaks to/though
him) any day.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Hollywood wrote:
> > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > Hollywood wrote:
>
> > > Even you like the scale once a month.
> >
> > Measuring bodyweight even monthly is not necessary for folks using the
> > 2PD-OMER Approach.
>
> Measuring bodyweight is not NECESSARY for anyone. The question is
> rather whether it helps or doesn't. This study found that it helps
> people who have lost weight to maintain that loss. I think it's a
> pretty credible study, given the CVs of the authors, the journal it's
> been published in, and the finding. You may attempt to find the flaws
> (they are there, as there is no such thing as the perfect study), but
> their program showed good results. Better than good. And they like
> weighing. But, there were the control group, and a full 28% of them
> didn't gain back more than 5 lbs in 18 months, so it's clearly not
> necessary. But if it helps, and it takes five seconds, why are you
> against it?
It is wiser for the dog to wag the tail than for the tail to wag the
dog.
> > > So you might agree (if your GOD
> > > allows you to) that tossing the scale and all other forms of
> > > measurement would be dopey. Amazing. We can agree on something.
> >
> > A person weighing his/her meals to keep from eating over the optimal
> > amount will not need to know his/her bodyweight to become and stay
> > lean&trim.
>
> So, if I eat two pounds of potato chips (that'd be 32 servings... 480
> grams of carbs (incl fiber), 314 g of fats and nearly 5000 calories...
> in the configuration designed to have the WORST impact on BG and
> insulin metabolism), and only that, I can pitch my scale? I thought you
> were worried about LPO.
It is unlikely that your doctor who is supervising your use of the
2PD-OMER Approach would approve your dovetailing the Approach with the
potato chip diet.
> Again, you miscontrue the question. It is not a question of need. Need
> is air. It is a question of positive impact on outcome. While I'm
> certain that people who follow the 2PD-OMER Diet have no problem
> maintaining for all time (and can probably do without air), people who
> live in the real world apparently need more help than you offer with
> your "waistband approach."
When you know the cause (overeating) of the problem (obesity),
addressing the cause (overeating) of the problem (obesity) solves the
problem (obesity).
Truth is simple.
> > > > Either with or without the daily weighing, a tighter fit around the
> > > > waistline would indicate the cause has been from overeating.
> > >
> > > Maybe for a short guy like you.
> >
> > My height is average.
>
> Then you are short standing next to me.
You are short standing next to 8 '4" Leonid Stadnik
http://www.artukraine.com/huminterest/stadnik.htm
> > > Isn't this "waistband" approach just another way of measuring
> > > progress/maintenance?
> >
> > No. It is simply an awareness.
>
> Semantics.
No. What is qualitative is not quantitative.
> That's 30% of you. When you weigh on the scale, you are
> aware of your weight. When you break out the tape measure, you are
> aware of your measurements. When your pants don't fit right, you are
> aware of your measurements (or a bad experiment with hot water, or a
> faulty memory). It's a measurement, whether it is well calibrated or
> not. I suspect that this is why I fail to find a clinical report on the
> efficacy of the 2PD-OMER diet against other diets. It is because no one
> will publish a study with the title "Food Intake Restrictions Aid Pant
> Fitting by 30%"
Your 30% is meaningless.
> > I suspect you believe "Stop world hunger" is the truth and not a
> > marketing ploy.
>
> I suspect you thought that the stick figures that were paraded in front
> of us from Ethiopia in the 80's were actually fine, and just naturally
> following your 2PD-OMER Diet.
They likely ate on average less than 2 ounces of food per day which
would be 16 times less than those using the 2PD-OMER Approach.
> I suspect those skeletal jews we see film
> of during the Holocaust were actually just working the 2PD-OMER diet
> too.
The POWs in Nazi prison camps were subsisting for years on essentially
one slice (1-2 ounces) of bread per day so the Jews were likely getting
even less.
> I guess you also think you can live in the third world on less than a
> dollar a day.
>From firsthand experience, I know folks can go without meals for 40
days fasting day and night.
> > I suspect you believe a person when s/he says "I am so hungry that I am
> > starving."
>
> That's a metaphor your moron. I believe that they are hungry. Perhaps
> very much so. Probably, they are doing a low fat version of the 2PD
> OMER Diet.
Name-calling simply confirms that you remain lost.
> > The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet.
> >
> > The fact that this Approach works for permanent weightloss does not
> > depend on the publication of our peer-review study.
>
> Since it has never been studied by anyone but you, and your statistics
> are of the 100% efficacy type (aka completely unbelievable until
> reproduced clinically by someone who isn't blinded by faith and making
> a priori assumptions to put it kindly), your claims cannot be believed.
The 2PD-OMER Approach has been publicly available since 1998 on the
Internet. Whereas other methods have people coming forward publicly
with documentation proving failure despite adherence to the method, the
2PD-OMER has had no such detractors even when thousands of dollars were
offered as reward for documented evidence of failure to lose weight
from eating less using the 2PD-OMER Approach.
> When people go out and find something, they generally report it so that
> others can evaluate it.
The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a discovery but a solution to a problem.
Others have continued to evaluate it since it was made available since
1998.
> That's the underlying assumption and big
> benefit of the peer review, publication system.
Go ahead and name one weight-loss method that has been proven to be
efficacious for lasting (greater than 5 yr) significant (greater than
20%) weight loss in a study published in a peer-reviewed journal
**prior** to being released for public use or even **after**.
> It filters out the
> garbage by the process. Since you have not subjected your work to that
> process, we can only assume it would filter out in the process if it
> were subjected.
Your assumption is obviously wrong.
> In other words, until you have someone other than you report on your
> diet's efficacy at short term, long term or lifetime weight loss, with
> some charts, statistics, pictures, whatever, from a soundly designed
> study, no one with a brain in their head is going to believe you.
That would be your unfounded hope.
> You are simply unbelievable with natural reason.
Difficult to reconcile with the following:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp
> > > Eating less is a diet.
> >
> > If this were true, fasting would be a diet and the 2PD-OMER Approach
> > would be as incompatible with true diets as true diets are incompatible
> > with each other.
>
> Whatever.
Popular standalone sentence for those who have no regard for the truth.
> That's nonsense on it's face. Fasting is a form of diet.
It is simply not a diet in any way, shape, or form.
> Diets, as we understand the concept in the English speaking world, can
> be done together. I have done, very compatibly the Warrior Diet with
> the Step Diet with the Atkins Diet.
Let me know when you figure out how to do the Ornish Diet with the
Atkins diet.
> I will say it again. If you decide to eliminate certain foods, or limit
> your intake of food, you are dieting, you are a dieter, and the
> approach you are following is a diet.
Incorrect.
A diet is simply what people are eating.
For this reason, simply eating less is not a diet.
> Clearly, your limit of an Omer a
> day is a DIET. As restricting intake is the only discernable portion of
> the 2PD-OMER diet, it is clearly a diet, the people who do it are
> dieting and they are dieters.
Everyone's intake is restricted by the physical capacity of their
stomach, so that by your logic everyone is dieting.
Therefore, your logic is fallacious.
> > Truth is simple.
>
> I concur. Weighing helps people maintain loss and the 2PD-OMER Diet is
> a diet.
See above.
May GOD continue to mercifully keep your heart beating to help you
understand this, dear neighbor whom I love unconditionally.
Hollywood
> Hollywood wrote:
> > Measuring bodyweight is not NECESSARY for anyone. The question is
> > rather whether it helps or doesn't. This study found that it helps
> > people who have lost weight to maintain that loss. I think it's a
> > pretty credible study, given the CVs of the authors, the journal it's
> > been published in, and the finding. You may attempt to find the flaws
> > (they are there, as there is no such thing as the perfect study), but
> > their program showed good results. Better than good. And they like
> > weighing. But, there were the control group, and a full 28% of them
> > didn't gain back more than 5 lbs in 18 months, so it's clearly not
> > necessary. But if it helps, and it takes five seconds, why are you
> > against it?
>
> It is wiser for the dog to wag the tail than for the tail to wag the
> dog.
I don't see this as the tail wagging the dog. I see it as something
extra to enhance the odds of successfully maintain weight loss and
successfully achieving weight loss. Clearly, you are against anything
that would enhance those goals.
In fact, I know that someone on the 2LB/Day-1Omer Diet could in fact
weigh hourly if they so wanted to, without upsetting anything in your
diet. So, I don't see why you resist the robust finding of a robust
study. Unless you just want people to fail.
> > Again, you miscontrue the question. It is not a question of need. Need
> > is air. It is a question of positive impact on outcome. While I'm
> > certain that people who follow the 2PD-OMER Diet have no problem
> > maintaining for all time (and can probably do without air), people who
> > live in the real world apparently need more help than you offer with
> > your "waistband approach."
>
> When you know the cause (overeating) of the problem (obesity),
> addressing the cause (overeating) of the problem (obesity) solves the
> problem (obesity).
You continue to misconstrue. This is not a question of the best
approach to lose weight. The study is a discussion of a series of "best
practices" from a very successful study. It does not talk about
restricting input of calories or increasing use of those calories
through extra movement. It does not weigh the merits of the Single OMER
diet. It is merely an add on that can be worked following (I suggest
even during) any diet, even yours. Weighing is obviously not the whole
answer. But I think, for many people, it can be part of the solution.
This finding supports that view.
> Truth is simple.
If it's so simple, why do you play with it?
> > > No. It is simply an awareness.
> >
> > Semantics.
>
> No. What is qualitative is not quantitative.
Qualitative! Ha! Here's the definitions of that one:
1- involving distinctions based on qualities
2- relating to or involving comparisons based on qualities
By definition, what is qualitative is not quantitative. But both are
types of analysis. If you say you are making a qualitative argument, it
is, in fact, necessarily containing qualitative MEASUREMENTS. For
instance: "These pants seem tighter today than they did the last time I
wore them." While this isn't a number, it is a measurement, whether you
like it or don't. Just cause you don't use a number, doesn't mean it's
not measured.
> > I guess you also think you can live in the third world on less than a
> > dollar a day.
>
> >From firsthand experience, I know folks can go without meals for 40
> days fasting day and night.
I'm told they get crazy visions like they think they see God or the
deer spirit or Richard Nixon. Something about lack of nourishment to
the brain. Is that what happened to you? I know, name calling is just a
sign that I'm lost.
> The 2PD-OMER Approach has been publicly available since 1998 on the
> Internet. Whereas other methods have people coming forward publicly
> with documentation proving failure despite adherence to the method, the
> 2PD-OMER has had no such detractors even when thousands of dollars were
> offered as reward for documented evidence of failure to lose weight
> from eating less using the 2PD-OMER Approach.
This is not a clinical study. It is annecdotal, at best. Considering
the source, it's hardly even that.
> > When people go out and find something, they generally report it so that
> > others can evaluate it.
>
> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a discovery but a solution to a problem.
> Others have continued to evaluate it since it was made available since
> 1998.
It is a solution that you came up with. Or you researched it out of the
Bible. Or the Apocrypha. Or Historical Records. Or Jesus came down and
wrote it out for you. Whatever. You came up with a solution to a
problem, put it on the web, and promote it as if it is gospel. It has
never been subjected to even a short term, clinical trial that would
meet any standard for publication. I think that makes the case right
there.
> > It filters out the
> > garbage by the process. Since you have not subjected your work to that
> > process, we can only assume it would filter out in the process if it
> > were subjected.
>
> Your assumption is obviously wrong.
Not so obvious. The logical conclusions one can be led to (by your lack
of publication of even a rigorous short term clinical trials, much less
long term longitudinal studies) are pretty much as follows:
1- You have done the work and it:
a- failed to pass peer review
b- didn't back up your claims
2- You haven't done the work because:
a- you know it is unpublishable, at least in a reputable publication
b- you cannot figure out how to do the work
c- you cannot afford to do even a short term study and cannot find
anyone interesting in funding it.
d- you are afraid of the results, because you know that your so called
approach is difficult for many people to adhere to.
e- The Holy Spirit told you that research-review-publication system is
essentially a tool of the east coast, godless liberals, and therefore
not worthy of your diet.
> > In other words, until you have someone other than you report on your
> > diet's efficacy at short term, long term or lifetime weight loss, with
> > some charts, statistics, pictures, whatever, from a soundly designed
> > study, no one with a brain in their head is going to believe you.
>
> That would be your unfounded hope.
Hrm, let's look at this from outside the discussion. Someone comes to
you. They go on and on about how a dog speaks to/through them, and
quote from Dr. Seuss's books as if the books are going out of style and
contain all the answers to life today. They present an exercise system
that is inherently hard to do (let's say high level plyometrics, like
Terrel Owens does), claim that it is: 1- the only way to work out worth
the time, 2- easy to do, and 3- 100% effective forever for everyone who
tries it.
I think we would look at that person with just a tad of skepticism.
Substitue God for Dog, the New Testament for Dr. Seuss, the 2PD-OMER
diet for high level plyometrics and we have you. I know it's hard for
you to believe, but anyone looking at you from outside might be a tad
skeptical of your claims. Hence the constant questions about your
practice, your licensing history, your patients, your belief system,
your motivation, etc. Oh, and the name calling, the general mockery,
the general derision, and the general snarky tone that almost anyone
you meet on the Internet takes with you. Is this all sounding familiar?
If it isn't, you might want to read your reponses with a little more of
a dispassionate eye.
> Difficult to reconcile with the following:
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/press.asp
You met with a women's group, the Governmor of Georgia and donated some
money to charity. Congratulations. I met with the Secretary of Labor
the other day (I have several pictures). I also met with the Assistant
Labor Secretary for Administration and Management. We talked about how
I've lost 21 lbs since we first met. He was interested. I also
presented my ideas on health promotion as an invited expert to a
meeting of HR/Work-Life managers at the Office of Personnel Management
just last month. That was really well recieved. I have some pics of
that too. And I don't even have a website.
None of this proves that I am not insane (I assure you, I am not). Or
that I'm a genius or that my approach is the ONE TRUE APPROACH to
weight loss and management. It only proves that I have some access
(being a government wonk has priviledges). Just as your press releases
do. You can get in places. Or you could. Nothing new since April of 05.
Been a slow year, I guess.
> > Whatever.
>
> Popular standalone sentence for those who have no regard for the truth.
You cut my paragraph and then blast me for a one word sentance? These
are the tactics of SATAN. Jesus has proper respect for all speakers
before pointing out their errors. Tsk.
> > Diets, as we understand the concept in the English speaking world, can
> > be done together. I have done, very compatibly the Warrior Diet with
> > the Step Diet with the Atkins Diet.
>
> Let me know when you figure out how to do the Ornish Diet with the
> Atkins diet.
So, two diets are incompatible. That does not prove your hypothesis
that every diet is incompatible with every other diet. I, in fact, have
disproved your hypothesis. Any examples that you bring only show that
it is possible for diets to be incompatible. It does not prove that
your diet is not a diet because it can be done with Atkins or Ornish or
Warrior or whatever. If you think you have proven this, you need to
take a step back. Maybe ask the Holy Spirit.
> > I will say it again. If you decide to eliminate certain foods, or limit
> > your intake of food, you are dieting, you are a dieter, and the
> > approach you are following is a diet.
>
> Incorrect.
That's the FREAKING DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF DIET! Are you from Earth?
>From the US? Do you speak English on a daily basis? Is it a third
language?
> A diet is simply what people are eating.
That is one DEFINITION. I have presented a number of definitions that
make your "approach" a diet. It is a DIET. Your lame "it is compatible
with all diets and therefore cannot be a diet" hypothesis has been
punctured. Just for giggles, lemme kick you a full listing of the
definition of diet (Meriiam Webster Online here -- EMPHASIS ADDED):
1 a : food and drink regularly provided or consumed
b : habitual nourishment
c : the kind and amount of food prescribed for a person or animal for
a special reason
D: A REGIMEN OF EATING AND DRINKING SPARINGLY SO AS TO REDUCE ONE'S
WEIGHT <going on a diet>
2 : something provided or experienced repeatedly <a diet of Broadway
shows and nightclubs -- Frederick Wyatt>
Does 1-D sound a lot like "Gradually, decrease your food intake by a
few ounces each day as tolerated until you consume less than 2 pounds
per day?" It certainly sounds like a REGIMEN of eating sparingly
(relative to the 3-11 lbs/day that you cite as what people typically
eat) with the goal of REDUCING WEIGHT. Hrm. Seems familiar.
> For this reason, simply eating less is not a diet.
See above,
> Everyone's intake is restricted by the physical capacity of their
> stomach, so that by your logic everyone is dieting.
Don't be obtuse (I know, name calling is a sign of the lost... you can
even post the link). We are talking about reducing or altering one's
intake from what it would normally be if they were just left to eat as
they are doing so. Since a normal person cannot eat beyond the capacity
of their internal organs, that could be termed the baseline. It cannot
be considered a reduction with the goal of weight loss or maintenance.
Obtuse.
The fact of the matter is that you are against something that has been
shown to be helpful to many people. Are you an outlier? Yea, probably.
The majority of people who have lost weight can use a scale daily to
monitor their fluctuations and stay on top of it. You can check you
pants fit (BTW, my waistband is about the same as it was before, but my
pants hang a lot looser according to the wife. I cannot tell the
difference, since it has been gradual and I wear them frequently).
-Hollywood, a member of the "reality based world."
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f490a54318dc5aa3?
... and comparing with what you covertly snipped out below, even the
most casual observer should be able to see that you suffer from a very
strong delusion.
May GOD continue to show you HIS infinite mercy and grace in keeping
your heart beating to give you time to overcome your delusions, dear
neighbor Hollywood whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f4dad7fe68478acf?
Mu
wrote:
> This is not a question of the best
>approach to lose weight. The study is a discussion of a series of "best
>practices" from a very successful study.
I love to listen to folks talk about studies as if they have the
clinical backgrounds to even know if the study was properly, er,
studied. Fun talk, lotsa of bullshit flying around though.
Hollywood
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> By simply reviewing this ...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f490a54318dc5aa3?
>
> ... and comparing with what you covertly snipped out below, even the
> most casual observer should be able to see that you suffer from a very
> strong delusion.
That is the Pot (you) calling the Dirty Stainless Steel Kettle (Me)
black.
You NEVER note where you have cut things.
You DO that CONSTANTLY.
What's worse is that you did nothing to answer my reponse.
The facts of the matter are this:
1- A sound study published in a prestigous journal suggests that
weighing daily as part of a post weight loss program was observed to
put negative (good) pressure on recidivism rates.
2- You brought this study to our attentions by cross posting your
response very broadly indeed.
3- You are opposed to daily weighing. I am unsure why as you ahve been
less than clear on this. As close as I can tell, it is too much work
and the scale tends to move around a little from day to day naturally.
4- Instead, you advocate daily weighing of everything you put in your
mouth (except water and non-caloric beverages) (this from
http://www.heartmdphd.com/losewtnd.pdf) and checking your recidivism
against the waistline of your pants.
5- It seems to me than weighing myself once a day (one measurement) is
less time intensive than weighing my breakfast, lunch, dinner and snack
(no fewer than 4 measurements). (BTW: I may very well be currently
eating less than 2lbs of food a day on many days. The appetite
suppression of LC is amazing as is the appetite supression of another
med that I take).
6- It also seems to me that a "waistband approach" could have value as
part of a broader regime towards monitoring. Afterall, Eternal
Vigilence is the price of freedom.
7- We have discussed the flaws of using the scale (both of us) and the
waistband (me, ignored by you).
The conclusion that I come to is this: If you are looking to lose the
weight, you might consider using more that one metric to measure your
progress. If the metrics you have are flawed (the scale, my pants,
whatever), having more than one can help compensate for your
measurement's deficiencies. Thus I do what I do. It is not right for
everyone. Your "measure every input and check the waistband" approach
will not do it for me. It's too focused on the topline (input) and
doesn't really factor the quality of poundage consumed at all. It also
is too fuzzy on the bottom line (results). I do not say that your
approach is unworkable for some people. I think some people could
probably do okay with it. I do not think it would work for me. I like
my bottom line focused plan where I monitor carbs and exercise on the
topline (vs. food weight) and measure a lot of things on the bottom
line (measurements, clothing, scale, BF%, BP, etc.)This approach is
more results focused that yours, and likely more responsive to changes
in a mostly static environment.
The puzzle that I cannot solve is this: What you have against the
scale. The study has not just robust results but amazing results. A
major reduction in recidivism. The #3 problem for followers of dietary
approaches, after getting started and staying motivated. The rates are
incredible, and they cut them, in their observation by HALF. I know
they didn't use the 2PD-OMER approach, but couldn't their work be
grafted onto 2PD? Since you suggest that 2PD is compatible with every
other selection of food and dietary approach, why not this?
-Hollywood
Hollywood
I love to read content free critques. I love it especially when they
are far off base.
A quick piece of advice: If you are going to snark people for not
understanding the study, you should point out where they went wrong.
Just for the stupid people in the audience.
-Hollywood, amazed that Chung hangs out with Mu
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
There was no name-calling by me.
There was no snipping except yours.
You may certainly try again if you choose.
You do have the free will that GOD has generously given you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/b1957ab18d3c93f1?
May GOD continue to show you HIS infinite mercy and grace by keeping
your heart beating to give you more time to understand this, dear
neighbor whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f4dad7fe68478acf?
Donna B
alt.support.diabetes,misc.health.diabetes,alt.support.diet.low-carb from
sci.med.cardiology,alt.support.diabetes,misc.health.diabetes,alt.support.diet.low-carb]
[Newsgroup list trimmed by one NG.]
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank any persons who add CHUNG to
appropriate subject lines since it helps out those of us who can filter on
specific words in subject lines!
--
Donna B : ^> 06-07-06 Diagnosis T2 hbA1C 8.1, D&E & Metformin 500mg.
09-11-06 hbA1C 5.0 <*>
In alt.support.diabetes on 17 Oct 2006 10:15:59 -0700 in Msg.#
<1161105359.5...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Hollywood"
Mu
>Mu wrote:
>> On 17 Oct 2006 16:31:31 -0700, "Hollywood" <maxlh...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > This is not a question of the best
>> >approach to lose weight. The study is a discussion of a series of "best
>> >practices" from a very successful study.
>>
>> I love to listen to folks talk about studies as if they have the
>> clinical backgrounds to even know if the study was properly, er,
>> studied. Fun talk, lotsa of bullshit flying around though.
On 18 Oct 2006 05:59:38 -0700, "Hollywood" <maxlh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>I love to read content free critques. I love it especially when they
>are far off base.
Then you should have an absolute ball re-reading your posts.
Mu
wrote:
>
>A quick piece of advice: If you are going to snark people for not
>understanding the study, you should point out where they went wrong.
That's the point. Neither you nor I nor anyone I have seen on these
groups have either the understanding or credentials to back their
opinions about clinical studies.
>Just for the stupid people in the audience.
>
>-Hollywood, amazed that Chung hangs out with Mu
Yeah, well, he buys lunch too, go hang your hat on that one.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On 18 Oct 2006 05:59:38 -0700, "Hollywood" <maxlh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >A quick piece of advice: If you are going to snark people for not
> >understanding the study, you should point out where they went wrong.
>
> That's the point. Neither you nor I nor anyone I have seen on these
> groups have either the understanding or credentials to back their
> opinions about clinical studies.
Actually, I do.
> >Just for the stupid people in the audience.
> >
> >-Hollywood, amazed that Chung hangs out with Mu
>
> Yeah, well, he buys lunch too, go hang your hat on that one.
As long as it is not more than 2 lbs of food :-)
May GOD continue to heal our hearts with HIS living water, dear brother
Mu whom I love unconditionally.
Hollywood
Mu wrote:
> On 18 Oct 2006 05:59:38 -0700, "Hollywood" <maxlh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >A quick piece of advice: If you are going to snark people for not
> >understanding the study, you should point out where they went wrong.
>
> That's the point. Neither you nor I nor anyone I have seen on these
> groups have either the understanding or credentials to back their
> opinions about clinical studies.
You do not know my background or credentials. So, you are typing out of
an orifice other than your mouth. Since you have expressed your lack of
both the understanding and the credentials to back up your opinion
about these studies, we can assume that you lack both the understanding
and the credentials to judge the interpretation of others. This is
clear logic. I expect you will have trouble following it.
As your lover Chung might say, "Judge not... blah blah blah."
-Hollywood, itching to put the Turing Test to both of you jokers.
Mu
wrote:
>PS- Your own advice (re: posting without quotes) seems to be ignored in
>your own household.
Are my kids posting again? Is that you Mu Jr? Go to bed.
>Fortunately, you are talking to someone with enough
>brain power to know when they are being spoken to.
We should cut you open and examine you, cortex up.
I did feel lucky today, yes, fortunate is the right word. Not that it
had anything to do with this self-promoting dialog with you though.
> I will be sure to
>look after those with less mental facility that the average bear (you)
>in future posts.
Looks like there is a malfunction in your grammatical junction.
Cancel exploratory surgery. Call in the psychotherapist, we may have a
classic case of Dellusional Grandeur. Someone give this guy a 24" wide
screen.
>-Hollywood, saying, Bring Chung Back. He at least provides content.
>Lousy content, but it's better than nothing.
Let me assist.
Xpost to sci.med.cardiology
Mu
> <snipped>
On 17 Oct 2006 17:48:11 -0700, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<lo...@thetruth.com> wrote:
>By simply reviewing this ...
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f490a54318dc5aa3?
>
>... and comparing with what you covertly snipped out below, even the
>most casual observer should be able to see that you suffer from a very
>strong delusion.
Ok, that's two of us who have come up with the same conclusion. We're
on to something.
>May GOD continue to show you HIS infinite mercy and grace in keeping
>your heart beating to give you time to overcome your delusions, dear
>neighbor Hollywood whom I love unconditionally.
>
>Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
>
>Andrew <><
Careful there, Andrew, that could be bad for business. lol
Hollywood
Mu wrote:
> >Hollywood wrote things into Usenet from his rather warped since of his own intelligence:
That'd be sense. Since you are a moron, the Usenet Gods will forgive.
You and your lover Chung both.
> On 17 Oct 2006 17:48:11 -0700, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote:
>
> >... and comparing with what you covertly snipped out below, even the
> >most casual observer should be able to see that you suffer from a very
> >strong delusion.
>
> Ok, that's two of us who have come up with the same conclusion. We're
> on to something.
Why wouldn't you? You drink the same Kool-Aid. Share the same bed.
Probably trade off use of the sorry excuse for a brain that you share.
Hell, I don't even want to know about the bacteria you swap back and
forth. I only hope the two of you play safe.
-Hollywood, who says, "Not that there's anything wrong with that."
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> >Hollywood wrote things into Usenet from his rather warped since of his own intelligence:
>
> > <snipped>
>
>
> >By simply reviewing this ...
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f490a54318dc5aa3?
> >
> >... and comparing with what you covertly snipped out below, even the
> >most casual observer should be able to see that you suffer from a very
> >strong delusion.
>
> Ok, that's two of us who have come up with the same conclusion. We're
> on to something.
>From a review of what others are writing about Mr. Hollywood, we aren't
alone Mu.
> >May GOD continue to show you HIS infinite mercy and grace in keeping
> >your heart beating to give you time to overcome your delusions, dear
> >neighbor Hollywood whom I love unconditionally.
> >
> >Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
> >
> >Andrew <><
>
> Careful there, Andrew, that could be bad for business.
Glorifying GOD is infinitely better than any business:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f9165a036d576f36?
May GOD continue to heal our hearts with HIS living water, dear friend
whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
Hollywood
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> > Ok, that's two of us who have come up with the same conclusion. We're
> > on to something.
>
> >From a review of what others are writing about Mr. Hollywood, we aren't
> alone Mu.
Is there any actual content here? Do you have some documentation? Do
you want to go there? I have the time to look up, over a given period
of history, every post where someone has said that you are wacky or
dellusional. I can even take out my musings on the subject of your
divorce from the "reality based" world.
As far as zealotry against your (s)2pd diet (that's Starve on 2 Pounds
or Less Daily), I wouldn't call it just that. You can even quote this
on your website, right next to Pastorio if you want. I believe that the
s2PD Diet will cause nearly anyone to lose weight. (you may clip this
next part) I think there are much better ways to do so that involve
less hunger, less deprivation, less discomfort, less health risk, less
work and more benefit to the dieter. Since you have several
instructions (in your tips on making it work pdf file on your site) for
how to deal with the hunger (including drinking more water and prayer),
and since you are always extolling the benefits of being hungry, one
can only assume that hunger is a large part of the diet. Lastly, since
a review of the caloric contents of a wide range of foods at the 2LB
measurement shows most lacking in sufficient nutrient value, we can
safely infer that the "approach" is very hard to do (there's the prayer
aspect again), and could prove deleterious to health.
Rather than extol on my zealotry, let us rather turn our lens on your
zealotry against the LC diet. We could certainly recount my concers
about the s2PD-OMER Diet and yours against LC. We could tally them up,
and even create a scale for venom content. I guarantee that under any
objective scrutiny, you Sir, will be found to be the bigger zealot. You
will, in the face of that evidence, probably claim that the Holy Spirit
drove you to this end, and it is part of your LORD's plan. Us in the
"reality based" world will only be confirmed in our suspicions.
Finally, talk to me. Not about me with your alter ego Mu. If you aren't
going to talk to the content, don't botherinvolving me in your
conversations at all. I have been guilty of doing it about you with Mu,
but I have kept it strictly to the content of your articles and his
claims. Since his posts tend to be less than content full, we are left
to our own devices.
-Hollywood
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
to prove your zealotry.
Laus Deo ! !
May GOD continue to mercifully keep your heart beating, dear neighbor
whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f4dad7fe68478acf?
Bob (this one)
> Hollywood wrote:
>> Five lbs on me is not much at all.
>
> It will still be about 5 inches at the waistline if the 5 lbs is
> visceral adipose tissue (VAT) which is pathological.
So let's see if I get this math...
If a person weighs 160 pounds and has a 32-inch waistline
and goes up to 200 pounds, he'll have a 72-inch waistline?
Got it.
Funny how, all those years back, my waistline went from 32
to 40 when I gained all that weight. Oh, maybe it wasn't all
VAT. Ya think...? And how it went back to 32 when I reached
170 with a low-carb diet and exercise.
Or could it be that fat is deposited much more widely that
Chung's fake "science" would assert?
Funny how Chung will post *anything* to seem to emerge as a
"winner" in these exchanges.
For the record, five pounds doesn't change my waist size
even to the next hole in my belt.
Pastorio
Bob (this one)
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> Mu wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, that's two of us who have come up with the same conclusion. We're
>>> on to something.
>> >From a review of what others are writing about Mr. Hollywood, we aren't
>> alone Mu.
>
> Is there any actual content here?
Mu hasn't posted much content over the course of his many
fraudulent online identities. Mostly, he boasts, ridicules,
impugns his betters, and demonstrates that he knows very
little about very much. All done with a smug, superior tone
that has not even the most gossamer support.
When he and Chung double-team, it's a guaranteed
mudslinging, name-calling disputation with the solitary goal
of "winning" the moment, no quality or value to emerge. Boys
in the schoolyard taunting because they know they can get
away with it. At least Chung identifies himself. The
cowardly Mu shouts from behind a tree, hiding. Poor
frightened baby, so brave when he can't be seen.
> As far as zealotry against your (s)2pd diet (that's Starve on 2 Pounds
> or Less Daily), I wouldn't call it just that. You can even quote this
> on your website, right next to Pastorio if you want.
<LOL> Right next to my comment and with exactly the same
integrity that his quoting me displays. The guy's a
charlatan, fraud, quack who's so utterly without moral
compunction that nothing he says can be considered rational.
I find it truly incomprehensible that anyone not utterly
insane could write the things he does. How can one with the
most distant scintilla of reason left miss the galaxy-sized
signals of his own mental fragility?
Nothing dietary advanced by either Chung or Mu is
falsifiable or corrigible, since they offer no measurable
data on the diet. So none of it is scientific. Period.
It is interesting to watch the evolution of what started as
the "2-Pound Diet" that advised that only "common sense" was
necessary to succeed in losing weight. It was originally
only for weight loss. Then, later, Mu said people needed to
keep an eye on *what* they ate, that it needed to be
*sensible*. Then later, it needed to be done with a doctor's
supervision; presumably after even the god-besotted Chung
could see around the Gibraltar-sized beam in his eye that he
was offering medical advice online. Then he had his OCD
hyperreligiosity crank up the whole biblical twaddle to
generate the spurious god-endorsed basis for it. Quoted a
passage numbered 16:16 in support of two pounds and to which
I had a hearty laugh. Because god knew that a few millennia
after the book was first transcribed, somebody would have a
unitary weight system with pounds in it and that two of them
would be meaningful - and they would have 16 subunits per
the each - and that a crank from Atlanta would make the
connection. Um, after the transcription were translated into
English with a numerication system invented by the committee
of translators.
Then Chung blundered further and mightily with his omer
foolishness, insisting that it's a unit of weight when
*every* citation of definition says it was volume, even to
explaining it's linguistic origins as coming from the grain
fields where every grain-growing culture uses volume as the
index for it. Then his bizarre obstinacy about "creating" a
diet and then denying that it's a diet - dictionaries
notwithstanding - merely adds fuel to the conflagration that
would be his credibility. That the diet was inspired by his
seeing an IMAX movie about Everest climbers wherein he
utterly misunderstood the facts and their implications makes
it even more ludicrous. And, finally, to assert it's the
correct way to eat for everyone, all the time, everywhere,
irrespective of size, activity, age (and apparently, all but
diabetics) pushes it outside the realm of sanity. It's pure
nutcase soapbox ranting from a pure nutcase.
One of the more bizarre posts was when Mu posted that he was
in Iraq and that prisoners were being fed very short rations
and were all very healthy. That was apparently in support of
the diet. And he never seemed to understand what it revealed
about him.
Pastorio
Ophelia
"Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:12jktru...@corp.supernews.com...
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> Hollywood wrote:
>>> Five lbs on me is not much at all.
>>
>> It will still be about 5 inches at the waistline if the 5 lbs is
>> visceral adipose tissue (VAT) which is pathological.
>
> So let's see if I get this math...
>
> If a person weighs 160 pounds and has a 32-inch waistline and goes up to
> 200 pounds, he'll have a 72-inch waistline? Got it.
LOL
Bob (this one)
> (memory is bad... read "Stumbling on Happiness" for a
thorough evisceration of memory...
Brilliant book. Smart, funny and eye-opening.
Pastorio
Hollywood
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for compelling you
> to prove your zealotry.
I prove yours. I will weigh and measure your zealotry and insanity
starting monday. It will be posted to SMC and AU.Kooks. Enjoy.
-Hollywood
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for compelling you
> > to prove your zealotry.
>
>
> I prove yours.
If that were true, you would not have snipped your proof.
Truth is simple.
> I will weigh and measure your zealotry and insanity
> starting monday.
What you are unable to do today, you will be less likely to be able to
do in 48 hrs.
Indeed, whether your heart will still be beating in 48 hrs will depend
on the LORD's will.
> It will be posted to SMC and AU.Kooks.
LORD willing. HIS will be done and not our will.
> Enjoy.
It remains my choice to enjoy every moment of doing GOD's will:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/175b5dc947a0781f?
May GOD continue in HIS infinite mercy and grace to keep your heart
beating to give you time to understand this, dear neighbor Hollywood
Art Deco
>Hollywood wrote:
>> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> > Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for compelling you
>> > to prove your zealotry.
>>
>> <proof snipped by Mr. Hollywood in a desperate act of cowardice>
>>
>> I prove yours.
>
>If that were true, you would not have snipped your proof.
Oh this is precious.
[support froups snecked]
--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth
"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen
Mu
wrote:
>So let's see if I get this math...
>
>If a person weighs 160 pounds and has a 32-inch waistline
>and goes up to 200 pounds, he'll have a 72-inch waistline?
>Got it.
Good job. Spaghetti. lol
Hollywood
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Hollywood wrote:
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for compelling you
> > > to prove your zealotry.
> >
> > <proof snipped by Mr. Hollywood in a desperate act of cowardice>
> >
> > I prove yours.
> If that were true, you would not have snipped your proof.
You twist. The truth is indeed simple.
> Truth is simple.
Then why do you have so much trouble with it.
> > I will weigh and measure your zealotry and insanity
> > starting monday.
>
> What you are unable to do today, you will be less likely to be able to
> do in 48 hrs.
That would be true for most. I have nothing to do for 8.5 hours at
work. I have a very busy weekend. See you Monday.
> Indeed, whether your heart will still be beating in 48 hrs will depend
> on the LORD's will.
Pray that it stops. The TRUTH (that is so simple for you) will be
revealed.
> > It will be posted to SMC and AU.Kooks.
>
> LORD willing. HIS will be done and not our will.
Whatever. You drink your Kool-Aid. I will drink mine, sugar free
please.
> > Enjoy.
>
> It remains my choice to enjoy every moment of doing GOD's will:
I suspect this will leave a bitter taste in your mouth.
<junk link to junk post about junk religion snipped. Say something new.
No one wants to read you quoting you.>
<Vain repetitive prayer, in clear opposition to Matthew 6:1-8 deleted
to save the immortal soul of Dr. Chung, who I'm sure God loves very
much. The rest of us don't care enough to love and are a lot more
honest about it than you. In fact, if you love me unconditionally, you
would be proving my case about zealotry and obsession. Love is deeper
than usenet autoresponding computers can understand.>
-Hollywood
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Dr. Chung, a zealot against the reality based world and me, personally"
The egocentric typically thinks everything is about him/her.
Such is the strong delusion of the self-worshipper:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/eb42672896d36d4b?
May GOD keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Hollywood whom I love
unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f4dad7fe68478acf?
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
Hollywood
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Hollywood wrote in the subject line:
>
> > "Dr. Chung, a zealot against the reality based world and me, personally"
>
> The egocentric typically thinks everything is about him/her.
So, you call me a zealot against your diet and I'M the egocentric one?
You besmirch my good alias and I'm paranoid? YOU have now called ME
egocentric (here), a zealot (earlier in this thread), and dellusional
(if you don't believe it, I will gladly provide the links), and I'm
wrong to feel that you have an agenda against me? Whatever. Join us in
reality.
PS - Name-calling simply confirms that you remain lost.
and
"Those who are secure in the truth have the strength to refrain from
descending into name-calling" -- Holy Spirit
By the way, I found another post where you have trouble with the
dictionary, by the way. Just by accident. Random sample we might say.
First one I pulled when I searched this group for your Name-Calling
line. So, your bonafides on English remain in doubt. For the full text
of that discussion, check this link:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/browse_frm/thread/3fc42d03c2fb008/8fce6c6083ee9a4a?lnk=st&q=name+calling+lost&rnum=1#8fce6c6083ee9a4a
> Such is the strong delusion of the self-worshipper:
I believe in Crystal Lite and I believe in me! Is that so wrong? If it
is, it's the media's fault, clearly.
<selft serving link to boring self quote deleted>
> May GOD keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Hollywood whom I love
> unconditionally.
Quit it with the love. It is creepy and insincere. You do not love me.
If you do, you are doing it in a way that I would have you quit. If you
truly love us, set us free. Go away. If we come to your website or
clinical practice looking for help than you know the love is real.
<vain, repetitive, self serving prayers, in clear opposition to Matt
6:1-8 delted for the sake of Chung's immortal soul>
<bottom posted conversation removed for relevance to current
discussion... we've moved beyond all that>
Mu
wrote:
>Mu hasn't posted much content over the course of his many
>fraudulent online identities.
Such as........
> Mostly, he boasts, ridicules,
>impugns his betters, and demonstrates that he knows very
>little about very much. All done with a smug, superior tone
>that has not even the most gossamer support.
I bow to your superior use of the King's English, Lasagna. And that is
about all I bow to.
>When he and Chung double-team, it's a guaranteed
>mudslinging, name-calling disputation with the solitary goal
>of "winning" the moment, no quality or value to emerge.
Example please.
No, seriously.
> Boys
>in the schoolyard taunting because they know they can get
>away with it. At least Chung identifies himself. The
>cowardly Mu shouts from behind a tree, hiding. Poor
>frightened baby, so brave when he can't be seen.
Want to come to Atlanta and meet Mu? This invitation has been open to
anyone and everyone and Mu, as Mu has always, includes you.
What date would you like to pick?
>> As far as zealotry against your (s)2pd diet (that's Starve on 2 Pounds
>> or Less Daily),
Sorta like those who climbed Mt. Everst on 2PD, eh?
Ooops, extreme physical effort, no starvation.
There goes another PatorioMythology.
><LOL> Right next to my comment and with exactly the same
>integrity that his quoting me displays. The guy's a
>charlatan, fraud, quack who's so utterly without moral
>compunction that nothing he says can be considered rational.
Wax on, wax off, wax on,, wax off. Invitation stands, Mu in Atlanta,
Chung too.
>I find it truly incomprehensible that anyone not utterly
>insane could write the things he does. How can one with the
>most distant scintilla of reason left miss the galaxy-sized
>signals of his own mental fragility?
LOL Please, translate for us inferiors. lol
>Nothing dietary advanced by either Chung or Mu is
>falsifiable or corrigible, since they offer no measurable
>data on the diet. So none of it is scientific. Period.
Correct, not a scintilla of clinical science in study. Not one
scintilla.
>It is interesting to watch the evolution of what started as
>the "2-Pound Diet" that advised that only "common sense" was
>necessary to succeed in losing weight. It was originally
>only for weight loss.
Nope, never only for that. Lie less, eat less, Spaghetti.
>Then, later, Mu said people needed to
>keep an eye on *what* they ate, that it needed to be
>*sensible*.
I did? Google please.
Although I do admit that this is sound advice.
>Then later, it needed to be done with a doctor's
>supervision; presumably after even the god-besotted Chung
>could see around the Gibraltar-sized beam in his eye that he
>was offering medical advice online. Then he had his OCD
>hyperreligiosity crank up the whole biblical twaddle to
>generate the spurious god-endorsed basis for it. Quoted a
>passage numbered 16:16 in support of two pounds and to which
>I had a hearty laugh. Because god knew that a few millennia
>after the book was first transcribed, somebody would have a
>unitary weight system with pounds in it and that two of them
>would be meaningful - and they would have 16 subunits per
>the each - and that a crank from Atlanta would make the
>connection. Um, after the transcription were translated into
>English with a numerication system invented by the committee
>of translators.
Holy Semolina, who in this world can possibly understand that jumble
of shit?
Lesse, ego = mirror = Usenet = type = flagellation = Pastorio.
Yeppers.
>Then.........
Then I quit reading.
Mu
>Mu wrote:
>
> > my book on the 2PD
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:53:46 -0400, "Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com>
wrote:
>Brilliant book. Smart, funny and eye-opening.
>
>Pastorio
Garsh, thanks.
Mu
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Imagine how mightily you would be blessed if you choose to place your
faith in LORD Jesus Christ:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/352546a7bf4a81ee?
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating, dear neighbor Hollywood
whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
Phil Aypee
Describing anyone as egocentric is a purely subjective opinion.
In truth we are all literally egocentric - even those of us who want the best for all are egocentric.
We want the best for all because that will make *us* feel good.
That doesn't belie the generosity involved, it simply explains it in part.
--
Take care,
Phil.
"Time wounds all heels."
Diagnosed Type 2 December 2005
Metformin - 3 × 500 mg, Gliclazide - 2 × 80 mg, Simvastatin - 1 × 40 mg
Diet and Exercise
70 kg (fairly) stable
http://uk.geocities.com/philadkinsp/diabetes.html
http://uk.geocities.com/philadkinsp/index.html
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Hi,
>
> Describing anyone as egocentric is a purely subjective opinion.
Not really.
> In truth we are all literally egocentric - even those of us who want the best for all are egocentric.
No, not all are egocentric.
> We want the best for all because that will make *us* feel good.
Those with GOD's love in their hearts want the best for their neighbors
because they love their neighbors unconditionally.
> That doesn't belie the generosity involved, it simply explains it in part.
Your explanation is for the egocentric and not for those who have
chosen to die to self to follow LORD Jesus Christ.
May GOD continue to heal your heart by curing your diabetes, dear
neighbor Phil whom I love unconditionally.
Phil Aypee
Subjective - your egocentric is not the same as my egocentric.
Egocentric - self-centred (SOED).
Wanting the best for others starts in the self, the self *is* the centre.
QED.
Wanting the best for others makes us feel good.
Belief in deities is irrelevant.
As an apparent Christian you should be familiar with the parable of the Good Samaritan.
QED.
Christianity has, as a fundamental concept, free will.
This, necessarily, requires freedom *not* to believe.
It is also a specific requirement of Christianity.
Egocentricity is not necessarily bad, even from a Christian viewpoint.
It is complete egocentricity, when others just don't matter, that is bad.
That way lies the evil that is shown by what is wrongly called 'fundamentalism'.
I take drugs (on prescription).
Some are bad, perhaps very bad, in high doses but good in small (therapeutic) doses.
It's a fair parallel.
Take care,
Phil.
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Hi Mr Chung,
Hi dear neighbor Phil.
> Subjective - your egocentric is not the same as my egocentric.
Without the LORD, your opinion is meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
> Egocentric - self-centred (SOED).
> Wanting the best for others starts in the self, the self *is* the centre.
> QED.
This is the case for self-worshippers who are indeed egocentric.
This is not the case for the GOD-centered.
For the GOD-centered, wanting the best for others starts with the will
of GOD (John 3:16).
> Wanting the best for others makes us feel good.
The brethren of Christ Jesus have an overflowing spring of HIS love in
our hearts that we are compelled to provide the best things for our
neighbors:
http://TheWellnessFoundation.com
> Belief in deities is irrelevant.
Belief in GOD is essential for the faith in LORD Jesus Christ, Who is
the Source of GOD's love:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/love.asp
> As an apparent Christian you should be familiar with the parable of the Good Samaritan.
> QED.
It is the parable of the Good Muslim for me:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Muslim.asp
> Christianity has, as a fundamental concept, free will.
Free will is more than a concept:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/freewill.asp
> This, necessarily, requires freedom *not* to believe.
Correct.
There is the freedom to be good by doing the will of GOD or to be evil.
It seems that at this time you have chosen the latter.
> It is also a specific requirement of Christianity.
Actually, doing evil is a specific requirement of everything **except**
Christianity, which is not a religion but a relationship with the risen
Christ Jesus.
> Egocentricity is not necessarily bad, even from a Christian viewpoint.
It is evil.
> It is complete egocentricity, when others just don't matter, that is bad.
Just as half-truths are lies, half-evil is still evil.
> That way lies the evil that is shown by what is wrongly called 'fundamentalism'.
See above.
> I take drugs (on prescription).
> Some are bad, perhaps very bad, in high doses but good in small (therapeutic) doses.
Actually, the need for medications is never optimal.
> It's a fair parallel.
It is.
It would be my hope that you someday understand that turning to GOD is
optimal.
Fear GOD and dread nought:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/352546a7bf4a81ee?
> Take care,
> Phil.
Many thanks and much praise to GOD for your kind words.
May GOD continue to keep your heart beating to give you time to
understand and act on this, dear neighbor Phil whom I love