A Brilliant Cardiologist Once Wrote...... - sci.med.cardiology

Message from discussion A Brilliant Cardiologist Once Wrote......

Bob Pastorio

View profile

More options Jul 11 2003, 11:47 pm

Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb, alt.support.diabetes, sci.med.cardiology, alt.support.diet

From: Bob Pastorio <pasto...@rica.net>

Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 00:02:09 -0400

Local: Sat, Jul 12 2003 12:02 am

Subject: Re: A Brilliant Cardiologist Once Wrote......

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

Lyle McDonald wrote:

> Bob Pastorio wrote:

> > LOL, so where's a shred, an iota, a tiny dash, a hint... of
> > scientifically derived evidence for the two pound diet?

> Not that I'm in any way defending it but, honestly, what type of science
> do you want?

> If people are eating X and you get them to eat <X weight will be lost
> (or the body adjusts metabolism downwards). That's basic thermodynamics.

I understand that, Lyle, and, of course, can't fault the concept. The
assumptions that accompany it are where I find fault.

Very quickly, questions for the real world intrude. It's not enough to
simply "eat less and you'll lose weight" if that amount is still more
than the body needs for simple maintenance in the given circumstances.
As soon as that question occurs, it's calculation time. How much is
enough becomes the question. Positing a single amount by weight for
everybody in all circumstances isn't merely simple, it's simplistic.
Overly simple to the point of omitting significant components of the
process.

To be sure, if I ate two pounds of food a day, I would most assuredly
lose weight. What I ate would clearly have serious impact on what
nutrients I get. If I also have to deal with that question, I've now
moved out of the realm of what the overly simply prescription is
ostensibly for and have come out to the realities of losing weight in a
healthy manner.

So I get to finding my basic caloric needs, my major and minor nutrients
and suddenly the weight of the food isn't a constructive parameter. It's
merely a limitation with no effective value.

Can a normal person stay on this 2 pound diet and lose 100 pounds and be
healthy? What are the long term effects of eating this way? No info.

> There are simpler and more complex ways to accomplish this. Complex
> approaches involve percentages, rigorous calorie/macronutrient counting
> and all of the rest.

I think something in the middle would likely work best.

> This 2PD is obviously a simple approach. These generally work up to a
> point and humans, being crafty bastards, frequently find ways to abuse
> the system. Someone could eat 2 lbs of jelly beans a day and not lose
> weight but that's hardly what's being suggested.

What is suggested is to eat what you always eat, just less of it. "Use
common sense" is what they've been saying. But I'd like to see what that
means to the creators of this program and how their patients have dealt
with it. I'm profoundly skeptical that it can be useful beyond a very
limited set of circumstances. They say it has universal applicability.
I'm saying show me. They say there are currently "hundreds" of people
doing it. Nobody's tracking anything? Right.

> But, at a fundamental level, both low fat and low carb approaches fall
> into the simple category: Since food Y (where Y = fat or carbs)
> contributes a lot of calories to the diet (fat because it's calorie
> dense, carbs because they typically make up 50% or more of the total
> diet), if you get people to eat less of Y, they will eat less total
> calories and lose weight. There are some ASSumptions (which are more or
> less correct) that goes into this but I have to go train and don't have
> time for one of my typical long-assed posts.

> If you make them aware of how much X was to begin with (X typically
> being far larger than most people are aware) all the better. Weighing
> food is a huge pain in the ass but it gives people food awareness and
> that's a good thing.

Again, no argument with the concept of eating less. It's when they try
to translate it into this rigid format that I challenge them.

> So other than the fact that Mu is an annoying retard troll (standard
> troll tactic is to change screennames to avoid killfiling), what exactly
> is your problem with the simple concept that 'if you eat less than you
> were eating previously, you'll lose weight'? Because, at its heart,
> that's all this 2PD thing is: a fairly simplistic way of getting people
> to eat less.

And as far as that takes it, I have no problem. It's when they portray
it as a reasonable and very specific "plan" for everybody that I find it
flawed. "Eat less?" No problem. "Eat this exact amount no matter who
you are?" Problem.

If they say it works to feed people 2 pounds a day and it's 100%
effective like Chung says and that 100% of the people stay on it like
Chung says, and there are no nutritional downsides like they imply, then
I smell a barnyard nearby.

Pastorio

Reply to author Forward