Re: Wow
Mu
> Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
The truth is that you or anyone else can cut their consumption gradually
to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.
You will get tired of almonds, candy, or whatever. Fat content will
moderate itself.
I KILLED YOUR GOD---IT WAS FUN!
"Mu" <nocowi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6525vo2vw0hp$.xu3dl3qsfrze$.dlg@40tude.net...
your stupid.you try to eat 2 pounds of cement just once.
you will lose weight allright-youll be dead.
besides-2 pounds of real food a day is way too much.
i'm 6 foot and weigh in at 175 and 46 and looking good.
i got pussy everywhere-damn chicks wont leave me alone.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Suggested reading:
http://abchung.livejournal.com/986.html?thread=16090#t16090
May GOD bless you.
Prayerfully in Jesus' ever-lasting love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://EmoryCardiology.com
May HIS immortal brethren pray for our dying mortal friends and
neighbors:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
In memory of our dearly departed Bob(this one) Pastorio:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Bob
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://HeartMDPhD.com/Love
The Official SMC FAQ List:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/TheTruth/FAQ
Pastor Kutchie, Earthquack's nemesis
What do socks eat 908g a day of?
Hollywood
Feet? But they tend to regurgitate them at the end of the day. It'd be
a sweaty foot to dump 908g of sweat a day. Although non-caloric fluids
are exempt on the s2PD-MORON diet.
I suppose this raises the question of whether Mu, chung's sock puppet,
can even do the s2PD-MORON DIET.
Diva
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:14:40 -0800, Cubit wrote:
> > Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
>
> Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
> the Two Pound Diet (
or saying, "I prefer some other type of diet."
Diva
( plus one half cup of coffee every morning)
Cary Kittrell
Oh, there's not a chance in the world that `Mu' is Andrew
socking about. The stylistic differences are WAY too
great.
Mu has an actual functioning sense of humor. Mu addresses
directly anything put to him. Mu does not invoke divine
backup for his own opinions. Mu has never presented
homebrew theological concepts. Mu does not imply that people
who become ill did so because they were not Christians.
And Mu most certainly has never posted anything
along the lines of "You do not have long to live",
or, "May LORD Almighty GOD put you out of
your misery soon" -- let alone something like
"At any moment, I could leave my walk with Christ and
ask our heavenly Father to annihilate you in Jesus' name
and it would be done, so be thankful that it remains my
choice to stick with the truth"
Mu does posts, not performance art.
-- cary
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> brother Mu <nocowinthi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:14:40 -0800, Cubit wrote:
>
> > > Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
> >
> > Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
> > the Two Pound Diet (
>
> or saying, "I prefer some other type of diet."
Thankfully the 2PD-OMER Approach is not even a diet but rather an
Approach to diets:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp
It now even comes with a million dollar guarantee...
... with scientific validation:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/c8858ad68dce88a8?
Art Deco
I take it you also believe Chung's nonsense that elite athletes are
always "hungry".
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen
"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen
Art Deco
another email address spewed:
>brother Mu wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:14:40 -0800, Cubit wrote:
>>
>> > Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
>>
>> Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
>> the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
>> chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
>>
>> The truth is that you or anyone else can cut their consumption gradually
>> to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.
>>
>> You will get tired of almonds, candy, or whatever. Fat content will
>> moderate itself.
>
>Suggested reading:
Request DENIED, fraud.
Art Deco
Phineas T Puddleduck
Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
> Mu <nocowi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:14:40 -0800, Cubit wrote:
> >
> >> Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
> >
> >Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
> >the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
> >chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
> >
> >The truth is that you or anyone else can cut their consumption gradually
> >to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.
> >
> >You will get tired of almonds, candy, or whatever. Fat content will
> >moderate itself.
>
> I take it you also believe Chung's nonsense that elite athletes are
> always "hungry".
Chung has apologists? Wow, a new low.
--
Got mail? I did ;-) Three and counting.
Got proof? Not yet, still waiting.
Art Deco
yet another email address spewed:
>friend Diva wrote:
>> brother Mu <nocowinthi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:14:40 -0800, Cubit wrote:
>>
>> > > Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
>> >
>> > Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
>> > the Two Pound Diet (
>>
>> or saying, "I prefer some other type of diet."
>
>Thankfully the 2PD-OMER Approach is not even a diet but rather an
>Approach to diets:
>
Wow, With Those Capital Letters, It Must Be Truth.
>
>It now even comes with a million dollar guarantee...
Pyramid scam.
>
>... with scientific validation:
Lies.
Art Deco
One, AFAIK, this Mu character. Careful, he'll plonk you for laughing
at poor Andy.
Phineas T Puddleduck
Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
> >Chung has apologists? Wow, a new low.
>
> One, AFAIK, this Mu character. Careful, he'll plonk you for laughing
> at poor Andy.
I think I can risk it.
Mu
wrote:
> your stupid
lol Yeah, tell me about it.
Mu
wrote:
> you try to eat 2 pounds of cement just once.
That was imbecilic.
> you will lose weight allright-youll be dead.
That was obvious.
> besides-2 pounds of real food a day is way too much.
That is nearly correct, good job.
> i'm 6 foot and weigh in at 175 and 46 and looking good.
That's unprovable.
> i got pussy everywhere-damn chicks wont leave me alone.
That could mean you are rich, not good looking.
Mu
> I suppose this raises the question of whether Mu, chung's sock puppet,
> can even do the s2PD-MORON DIET.
Do? Done. Next question.
Mu
> Oh, there's not a chance in the world that `Mu' is Andrew
> socking about. The stylistic differences are WAY too
> great.
I can't believe it, intelligence on Usenet.
> Mu has an actual functioning sense of humor. Mu addresses
> directly anything put to him. Mu does not invoke divine
> backup for his own opinions.
But Mu gets it.
> Mu has never presented
> homebrew theological concepts.
Have expressed my concepts on Christianity.
> Mu does not imply that people
> who become ill did so because they were not Christians.
>
> And Mu most certainly has never posted anything
> along the lines of "You do not have long to live",
> or, "May LORD Almighty GOD put you out of
> your misery soon" --
He could.
>let alone something like
> "At any moment, I could leave my walk with Christ and
> ask our heavenly Father to annihilate you in Jesus' name
> and it would be done, so be thankful that it remains my
> choice to stick with the truth"
I would suppose getting to Heaven would be enough for me.
> Mu does posts, not performance art.
>
> -- cary
I thought Usenet was a stage?
Mu
Prefer any other diet and you prefer failure.
Mu
>> One, AFAIK, this Mu character. Careful, he'll plonk you for laughing
>> at poor Andy.
>
> I think I can risk it.
Never have, don't care how you feel about Chung but I don't have time
for imbecilic behaviour which is the only reason anyone gets plonked by
mu.
Phineas T Puddleduck
Mu <nocowi...@gmail.com> wrote:
So you often refer to yourself in the third person?
Mu
>> Never have, don't care how you feel about Chung but I don't have time
>> for imbecilic behaviour which is the only reason anyone gets plonked by
>> mu.
>
> So you often refer to yourself in the third person?
Often, relative, do it, yes, problem?
Phineas T Puddleduck
Mu <nocowi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yoda, Reminds me of, yes it do.
Art Deco
Phineas T Puddleduck
Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
> >
> >Prefer any other diet and you prefer failure.
>
> How much does Andy pay you to promote the 2-lb quack diet?
I take it double-blind tests have also been performed?
Art Deco
>In article <1066bjmawb37h$.4l887alo...@40tude.net>,
> Mu <nocowi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 01:20:46 +0100, Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
>>
>> >> Never have, don't care how you feel about Chung but I don't have time
>> >> for imbecilic behaviour which is the only reason anyone gets plonked by
>> >> mu.
>> >
>> > So you often refer to yourself in the third person?
>>
>> Often, relative, do it, yes, problem?
>
>
>Yoda, Reminds me of, yes it do.
Be sure to ask him about conservation of energy wrt the 2-lb quack diet.
Art Deco
>In article <120420071846091317%er...@caballista.org>,
> Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Prefer any other diet and you prefer failure.
>>
>> How much does Andy pay you to promote the 2-lb quack diet?
>
>
>I take it double-blind tests have also been performed?
Not necessary as the quack diet comes with a million-dollar "guarantee".
Phineas T Puddleduck
Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <120420071846091317%er...@caballista.org>,
> > Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >Prefer any other diet and you prefer failure.
> >>
> >> How much does Andy pay you to promote the 2-lb quack diet?
> >
> >
> >I take it double-blind tests have also been performed?
>
> Not necessary as the quack diet comes with a million-dollar "guarantee".
Assuming of course, that Chung has a million dollars... ;-)
Art Deco
>In article <120420071934214855%er...@caballista.org>,
> Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
>
>> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <120420071846091317%er...@caballista.org>,
>> > Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Prefer any other diet and you prefer failure.
>> >>
>> >> How much does Andy pay you to promote the 2-lb quack diet?
>> >
>> >
>> >I take it double-blind tests have also been performed?
>>
>> Not necessary as the quack diet comes with a million-dollar "guarantee".
>
>
>Assuming of course, that Chung has a million dollars... ;-)
Of course he doesn't; but he tries to get it $30 at a time by charging
people to see the details of the "guarantee". In other words, it's a
pyramid scam.
George
"Mu" <nocowi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1i83vrx6lfde5.1...@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:34:22 -0400, I KILLED YOUR GOD---IT WAS FUN!
> wrote:
.....
>> i got pussy everywhere-damn chicks wont leave me alone.
>
> That could mean you are rich, not good looking.
Maybe. But it's damn sure not due to his intellect.
Father Haskell
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:14:40 -0800, Cubit wrote:
> > Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
>
> Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
> chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
>
> The truth is that you or anyone else can cut their consumption gradually
> to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.
>
> You will get tired of almonds, candy, or whatever. Fat content will
> moderate itself.
2PD of arsenic.
Father Haskell
<ach...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> friend Diva wrote:
> > brother Mu <nocowinthi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:14:40 -0800, Cubit wrote:
>
> > > > Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
>
> > > Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
> > > the Two Pound Diet (
>
> > or saying, "I prefer some other type of diet."
>
> Thankfully the 2PD-OMER Approach is not even a diet but rather an
> Approach to diets:
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp
>
> It now even comes with a million dollar guarantee...
>
> http://TruthRUS.org/Guarantee
>
> ... with scientific validation:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/c8858ad68dce88a8?
2PD of broken fluorescent light bulb shards.
Father Haskell
wrote:
> brother Mu wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:14:40 -0800, Cubit wrote:
>
> > > Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
>
> > Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
> > chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
>
> > The truth is that you or anyone else can cut their consumption gradually
> > to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.
>
> > You will get tired of almonds, candy, or whatever. Fat content will
> > moderate itself.
2PD of asbestos insulation waste.
Mu
Egads, you may be right!! lol
Hollywood
> In article <1176371602.325711.179...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> "Pastor Kutchie, Earthquack's nemesis" <use...@heathens.org.uk> writes:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 5:39 am, Mu <nocowinthi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:14:40 -0800, Cubit wrote:
> > > > Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
>
> > > Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
> > > the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
> > > chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
>
> > > The truth is that you or anyone else can cut their consumption gradually
> > > to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.
>
> > > You will get tired of almonds, candy, or whatever. Fat content will
> > > moderate itself.
>
>
> socking about. The stylistic differences are WAY too
> great.
>
> directly anything put to him. Mu does not invoke divine
> homebrew theological concepts. Mu does not imply that people
> who become ill did so because they were not Christians.
>
> And Mu most certainly has never posted anything
> along the lines of "You do not have long to live",
> or, "May LORD Almighty GOD put you out of
> "At any moment, I could leave my walk with Christ and
> ask our heavenly Father to annihilate you in Jesus' name
> and it would be done, so be thankful that it remains my
> choice to stick with the truth"
>
>
> -- cary
Is is possible that Mu/Chung are facets of a sick persons multiple
personality disorder?
Mu as poster vs. performance artist? I think of him more as a drive-by
shooter. Little commitment, large aggression, big ego, sense of
invincibility. Could Mu be a Blood or Crip?
In all honesty, I don't think Mu = Chung. I think they two individuals
deeply in love with each other and some infantile conception of a
higher power.
Hollywood
2 Lbs daily, canned whoop ass?
Mu
> Mu as poster vs. performance artist? I think of him more as a drive-by
> shooter. Little commitment, large aggression, big ego, sense of
> invincibility. Could Mu be a Blood or Crip?
I am amazed at how much you criticize Mu and how little you actually
know of Mu.
Wait, no I'm not.
> In all honesty, I don't think Mu = Chung.
Put butter on that /waffle/, thanks.
> I think they two individuals
> deeply in love with each other and some infantile conception of a
> higher power.
Let's get this accurate, for once, for one time in your posts about Mu.
Once.
There is no "higher power", I believe definitively and completely in God
who made His Presence known as Jesus Christ.
Note the lack of butter.
I KILLED YOUR GOD---IT WAS FUN!
Hollywood
> On 13 Apr 2007 07:42:02 -0700, Hollywood wrote:
> > In all honesty, I don't think Mu = Chung.
>
> Put butter on that /waffle/, thanks.
I don't get how a loose comment in your direction when I consistently
suggest that you and chung are lovers, is a real waffle. Let's suggest
it's not because you are low regard so I don't pay attention to what I
say to you.
> > I think they two individuals
> > deeply in love with each other and some infantile conception of a
> > higher power.
>
> Let's get this accurate, for once, for one time in your posts about Mu.
> Once.
>
> There is no "higher power", I believe definitively and completely in God
> who made His Presence known as Jesus Christ.
You believe in the Lord God, who is both powerful and above everyone.
That would be a higher power. And I contend that Chung's conception is
infantile. Your's is less forward, but no less infantile.
> Note the lack of butter.
Butter is good for you. It's the carbs that are killing you, not the
sat fat.
Opinicus
> Mu does posts, not performance art.
And you do...
--
Bob
http://www.kanyak.com
Epinephrine
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:14:40 -0800, Cubit wrote:
>
>> Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
>
> Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
> the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
> chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does not
factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
> The truth is that you or anyone else can cut their consumption gradually
> to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.
Wouldn't a 1PD diet or a 1.5PD diet work better than the 2PD diet? Just
wondering...
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> brother "Mu" wrote:
> > neighbor Cubit wrote:
> >
> >> Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
> >
> > Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
> > the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
> > chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
>
> Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does not
> factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
not **how much** to eat.
> > The truth is that you or anyone else can cut their consumption gradually
> > to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.
>
> Wouldn't a 1PD diet or a 1.5PD diet work better than the 2PD diet? Just
> wondering...
The 2 pounds (16 oz + 16 oz as described by Exodus 16:16) is by GOD's
design to be the optimal amount. Any amount more or less would not be
optimal and we would be less hungry.
"HE humbled you making you hungry... to teach you that man does not
live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the
LORD." -- Moses (Deuteronomy 8:3)
"Blessed are you who hunger now for you will be satisfied." -- LORD
Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21)
Amen.
Marana tha
Prayerfully in Jesus' ever-lasting love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://EmoryCardiology.com
May HIS immortal brethren pray for our dying mortal friends and
neighbors:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
In memory of our dearly departed Bob(this one) Pastorio:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Bob
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://HeartMDPhD.com/Love
The Official SMC FAQ List:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/TheTruth/FAQ
Epinephrine
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:1176496910....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:
>> brother "Mu" wrote:
>> > neighbor Cubit wrote:
>> >
>> >> Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
>> >
>> > Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
>> > the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
>> > chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
>>
>> Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does
>> not
>> factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
>
> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
> used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
> not **how much** to eat.
Appropriate calorific restriction with cardiovascular exercise would be a
more meaningful approach. More importantly there a lot of evidence to also
suggest that calorific restriction is the way to live longer. Perhaps
tailoring your approach further could add to its credibility.
>> > The truth is that you or anyone else can cut their consumption
>> > gradually
>> > to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.
>>
>> Wouldn't a 1PD diet or a 1.5PD diet work better than the 2PD diet? Just
>> wondering...
>
> The 2 pounds (16 oz + 16 oz as described by Exodus 16:16) is by GOD's
> design to be the optimal amount.
> Any amount more or less would not be
> optimal and we would be less hungry.
"Less hungry" is very subjective. Perhaps this amount (2PD) is optimal for
*you* and keeps you less hungry? There is no evidence to suggest that this
amount is optimal for an athelete, a bedridden patient, or an infant.
Your assumption that 2PD is optimal for everyone is therefore flawed as it
does not take into account an individual's specific metabolism and
requirements. It appears to be construed to only serve religious agenda.
Epinephrine
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:1176496910....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> brother "Mu" wrote:
>> > neighbor Cubit wrote:
>> >
>> >> Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
>> >
>> > Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
>> > the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
>> > chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
>>
>> Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does
>> not
>> factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
>
> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
> used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
> not **how much** to eat.
Appropriate calorific restriction with cardiovascular exercise would be a
more meaningful approach. More importantly there a lot of evidence to also
suggest that calorific restriction is the way to live longer. Perhaps
tailoring your approach further could add to its credibility.
>> > The truth is that you or anyone else can cut their consumption
>> > gradually
>> > to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.
>>
>> Wouldn't a 1PD diet or a 1.5PD diet work better than the 2PD diet? Just
>> wondering...
>
> The 2 pounds (16 oz + 16 oz as described by Exodus 16:16) is by GOD's
> design to be the optimal amount.
> Any amount more or less would not be
> optimal and we would be less hungry.
"Less hungry" is very subjective. Perhaps this amount (2PD) is optimal for
Don Kirkman
article <1176399908.1...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>Thankfully the 2PD-OMER Approach is not even a diet but rather an
>Approach to diets:
Remind me again; what does the "D" stand for since you decided it was an
Approach and not a Diet?
--
Don Kirkman
Don Kirkman
article <phineaspuddleduck-0...@news.octanews.com>:
>In article <120420071846091317%er...@caballista.org>,
> Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
>> >Prefer any other diet and you prefer failure.
>> How much does Andy pay you to promote the 2-lb quack diet?
>I take it double-blind tests have also been performed?
He has said in the past that the peer-reviewed study is in his office
pending God's permission to publish it, but lately it seems to have been
superseded by the $1M Promise.
--
Don Kirkman
Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister
wrote:
> satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:
>
> > brother "Mu" wrote:
> > > neighbor Cubit wrote:
>
> > >> Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
>
> > > Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
> > > the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
> > > chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
>
> > Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does not
> > factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
>
> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet.
I put you straight on this already, liar.
Art Deco
another email address spewed:
>satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:
>> brother "Mu" wrote:
>> > neighbor Cubit wrote:
>> >
>> >> Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
>> >
>> > Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
>> > the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
>> > chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
>>
>> Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does not
>> factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
>
>The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
>used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
>not **how much** to eat.
No, it is a silly and transparent fraud, backed by a fraudulent
"guarantee".
>
>> > The truth is that you or anyone else can cut their consumption gradually
>> > to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.
>>
>> Wouldn't a 1PD diet or a 1.5PD diet work better than the 2PD diet? Just
>> wondering...
>
>The 2 pounds (16 oz + 16 oz as described by Exodus 16:16) is by GOD's
>design to be the optimal amount. Any amount more or less would not be
>optimal and we would be less hungry.
Numerological nonsense.
Art Deco
>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
>news:1176496910....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:
>>> brother "Mu" wrote:
>>> > neighbor Cubit wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
>>> >
>>> > Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
>>> > the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
>>> > chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
>>>
>>> Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does
>>> not
>>> factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
>>
>> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
>> used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
>> not **how much** to eat.
>
>Appropriate calorific restriction with cardiovascular exercise would be a
>more meaningful approach. More importantly there a lot of evidence to also
>suggest that calorific restriction is the way to live longer. Perhaps
>tailoring your approach further could add to its credibility.
Andy Chung the great scientist doesn't understand conservation of
energy.
>
>>> > The truth is that you or anyone else can cut their consumption
>>> > gradually
>>> > to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't a 1PD diet or a 1.5PD diet work better than the 2PD diet? Just
>>> wondering...
>>
>> The 2 pounds (16 oz + 16 oz as described by Exodus 16:16) is by GOD's
>> design to be the optimal amount.
>
>> Any amount more or less would not be
>> optimal and we would be less hungry.
>
>"Less hungry" is very subjective. Perhaps this amount (2PD) is optimal for
>*you* and keeps you less hungry? There is no evidence to suggest that this
>amount is optimal for an athelete, a bedridden patient, or an infant.
>
>Your assumption that 2PD is optimal for everyone is therefore flawed as it
>does not take into account an individual's specific metabolism and
>requirements. It appears to be construed to only serve religious agenda.
The Chung religion.
tr...@squad.com
calorie restriction factors of exercise and sound choice of nutrition.
I have followed it from the beginning when mr. chung was confused by
watching a movie where mountain climbers consumed two pounds of food per
day. Confused because it is dehydrated energy dense foods easier to
carry up mountains for an energy intensive activity. That same diet
would almost surely cause most people to gain weight and become obese.
As I recall from calculating a similar diet it would be about 5000
calories a day..
This obvious fact was over looked because soon thereafter given him
personally he was also confused by an account in scripture of people
eating what he took mistakenly as two pounds of food a day. He confused
a measure of weight there that was in fact a measure of dry grain
volume. It too was not far from 5000 calories if that much grain was
consumed each day.
But fear not, by this time he was convinced that by divine direction he
was correct and that two pounds of food regardless of all other factors
was a divine directive for good health. Regardless of what was eaten
and how many calories consumed it would be divinely adjusted to each
person's nutritional needs.
Then when added internal belly fat was becoming widely discussed for its
adverse metabolic activity, the two pound diet was seen as the cure for
all
metabolic related disorders, a divine cure no doubt given him personaly.
This fat "vat" was at root of all manner of disorder for which the two
pound diet was the treatment, nay the cure.
Thus one can see the trash science, the confusion, the willfull
distortions, the filtering of information, the illogical leaps made, all
firmly cemented in his mind as a divine plan in which he was to play a
central and vital role in its pronouncement to the world. Atendant with
world wide acclaim and medical praise no doubt and purchase of tourist
books for trips to sweden high on the must do list.
Art Deco
He also claims that this miracle "approach" cures all manner of
illness, including diabetes and heart disease.
Phineas T Puddleduck
Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
> >The 2 pounds (16 oz + 16 oz as described by Exodus 16:16) is by GOD's
> >design to be the optimal amount. Any amount more or less would not be
> >optimal and we would be less hungry.
>
> Numerological nonsense.
And they let this guy PRACTISE medicine?
Cary Kittrell
> satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:
> > brother "Mu" wrote:
> > > neighbor Cubit wrote:
> > >
> > >> Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
> > >
> > > Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
> > > the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
> > > chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
> >
> > Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does not
> > factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
>
> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
> used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
> not **how much** to eat.
"diet", OED definition #3:
Prescribed course of food, restricted in kind or limited in quantity,
--c ary
Cary Kittrell
Doubtless the same as the `b' in "Lb".
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
Ah, but you see, Dr. Chung has informed us that:
The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. It has been
studied in more than 625,550 people worldwide
-- car
Cary Kittrell
I suspect that he'll need to get more than God's permission for
that one.
-- cary
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:
> > > brother "Mu" wrote:
> > > > neighbor Cubit wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
> > > >
> > > > Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
> > > > the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
> > > > chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
> > >
> > > Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does not
> > > factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
> >
> > The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
> > used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
> > not **how much** to eat.
>
> "diet", OED definition #3:
>
> Prescribed course of food, restricted in kind or limited in quantity,
There is no prescribed course of food with the 2PD-OMER Approach.
The former (diet) is left up to the supervising doctor to prescribe.
For example, it is likely that a diabetic would be prescribed the ADA
diabetic diet while using the 2PD-OMER Approach.
May GOD bless you.
Epinephrine
"Cary Kittrell" <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:evp1u0$40k$1...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
>
> "Epinephrine" <m...@x-privut.org> writes:
>>
>>
>> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
>> news:1176496910....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> > The 2 pounds (16 oz + 16 oz as described by Exodus 16:16) is by GOD's
>> > design to be the optimal amount.
>>
>> > Any amount more or less would not be
>> > optimal and we would be less hungry.
>>
>> "Less hungry" is very subjective. Perhaps this amount (2PD) is optimal
>> for
>> *you* and keeps you less hungry? There is no evidence to suggest that
>> this
>> amount is optimal for an athelete, a bedridden patient, or an infant.
>>
>> Your assumption that 2PD is optimal for everyone is therefore flawed as
>> it
>> does not take into account an individual's specific metabolism and
>> requirements. It appears to be construed to only serve religious agenda.
>
>
> Ah, but you see, Dr. Chung has informed us that:
>
> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. It has been
> studied in more than 625,550 people worldwide
Surely if such a significant number of people participated, it would be
worth reporting in any medical journal or christian magazine, but it is my
understanding that Chung has not done so. Why, I wonder!
As this approach clearly does not have any scientific basis whatsoever,
would it be taken seriously by the scientific world? Surely anectdotal
evidence alone wouldn't count - perhaps he would care to share the results
and methods used in this extensive intercontinental study?
Epinephrine
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:1176507620....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> > satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:
>> > > brother "Mu" wrote:
>> > > > neighbor Cubit wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
>> > > >
>> > > > Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to
>> > > > disown
>> > > > the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of
>> > > > <insert
>> > > > chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight?
>> > > > Hogwash!"
>> > >
>> > > Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet
>> > > does not
>> > > factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
>> >
>> > The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
>> > used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
>> > not **how much** to eat.
>>
>> "diet", OED definition #3:
>>
>> Prescribed course of food, restricted in kind or limited in quantity,
>
> There is no prescribed course of food with the 2PD-OMER Approach.
>
> The former (diet) is left up to the supervising doctor to prescribe.
A prescribed diet would include the 'type of food' and the 'amount' to
consume. Just like a prescribed drug has to be taken at an appropriate dose
to have a beneficial effect, e.g. 1 tablet of X to be taken two times a day,
or 2 tablets of Y to be taken once daily, or 1 tablets of Y to be taken as
required, or 5mg of drug Z per kg of body weight.
Your approach suggests benefit is achieved only at a fixed dose of 2 pounds
no matter what the prescribed course of food is, which would imply that the
2lbs is the benefit-determining factor of the prescribed course of food.
> For example, it is likely that a diabetic would be prescribed the ADA
> diabetic diet while using the 2PD-OMER Approach.
There is no point in carrying a scale, then weighing 1.5 pounds or 2 pounds
of a certain prescribed course, if one can adhere to recommended guidelines
and making appropriate lifestyle changes, which have a proven benefit.
The magic dose of "2 lbs" does not have any benefit, unless of course you
can come up with something more concrete than your anecdotal evidence.
nos...@luck.com
The former (diet) is left up to the supervising doctor to prescribe."
Of course, it is a poor gimic of a calorie restriction diet. Just
ignore it, a doc will provide plans with calorie restriction anyway with
weight or volume as the guide for meal plans. The real diet from the
doc will also consider nutrition which the two pound diet does not and
stress adding exercise.
I just read about a study where exercise caused more belly fat loss then
calorie restriction alone.
One can just do a time restricted meal to also limit calories.
The two pound diet, in all its many and changing flavors over the past
few years is a scientific flop, trash science.
Cary Kittrell
> convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:
> > > > brother "Mu" wrote:
> > > > > neighbor Cubit wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
> > > > > the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
> > > > > chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
> > > >
> > > > Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does not
> > > > factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
> > >
> > > The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
> > > used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
> > > not **how much** to eat.
> >
> > "diet", OED definition #3:
> >
> > Prescribed course of food, restricted in kind or limited in quantity,
>
> There is no prescribed course of food with the 2PD-OMER Approach.
And of course everyone else understands that the act of
prescribing in the above phrase refers either to 1) prescribing
limits of kind, or 2) prescribing limits of amount.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
Oh, let's just say that it has been suggested that nearly all of the
"participants" in Dr. Chung's study were the children of Israel,
wandering hither and yon (generally more yonly than hitherly)
all those years.
If so, one can only wonder where Dr. Chung obtained all the
requisite information on the state of their health. All of their
healths.
-- cary
Epinephrine
Quite unlikely as I doubt the participants had any scales at the time.
> If so, one can only wonder where Dr. Chung obtained all the
> requisite information on the state of their health. All of their
> healths.
I don't think health status of an individual matters when it comes to the 2
pound approach.
It is my understanding that as long as a supervising doctor has prescribed a
certain food, the magic dose of "2 pounds" would do the miracle.
Art Deco
An excellent summary. Note that Chung is also confused by the fact
that muscle mass is denser than body fat. He also fails to understand
conservation of energy; during a three-week European grand tour bicycle
race (like the Tour de France), riders will lose weight over the course
of the event despite eating many thousands of calories per day. The
energy expended by these elite athletes is that great. If they were
"hungry", as he ignorantly asserts, they would simply not be able to
complete a stage of the race. In fact, some riders do not and are
forced to withdraw because of what is called "bonking" (running out of
energy).
Father Haskell
> On Apr 12, 11:06 pm, "Father Haskell" <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 3:31 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > brother Mu wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:14:40 -0800, Cubit wrote:
>
> > > > > Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
>
> > > > Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
> > > > the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
> > > > chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
>
> > > > to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.
>
> > > > moderate itself.
>
> > 2PD of asbestos insulation waste.
>
> 2 Lbs daily, canned whoop ass?
2PD Canned Squirrel Gut with Ptomaine.
Father Haskell
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in
>
> >Thankfully the 2PD-OMER Approach is not even a diet but rather an
> >Approach to diets:
>
> Remind me again; what does the "D" stand for since you decided it was an
> Approach and not a Diet?
"Dick," as in 2PD Dick diet.
Epinephrine
"Art Deco" <er...@caballista.org> wrote in message
news:130420071543359507%er...@caballista.org...
> Epinephrine <m...@x-privut.org> wrote:
>
>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
>>news:1176496910....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:
>>>> brother "Mu" wrote:
>>>> > neighbor Cubit wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
>>>> >
>>>> > Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to
>>>> > disown
>>>> > the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
>>>> > chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
>>>>
>>>> Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does
>>>> not
>>>> factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
>>>
>>> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
>>> used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
>>> not **how much** to eat.
>>
>>Appropriate calorific restriction with cardiovascular exercise would be a
>>more meaningful approach. More importantly there a lot of evidence to
>>also
>>suggest that calorific restriction is the way to live longer. Perhaps
>>tailoring your approach further could add to its credibility.
>
> Andy Chung the great scientist doesn't understand conservation of
> energy.
Chung will do anything to maintain his position, even if in the wrong.
He full well knows this 2 pound diet and the modified 2 pound approach is
flawed, but will stick to it till the day he dies.
Unfortunately in real life when he tried a similar approach (maintaining his
position no matter what) with the other cardios in Florida, sadly it
resulted in him losing the job, packing his backs and leaving that state.
He failed to heed the wise words of Dr Hildner.
6 years from that email, Chung has only dug his the hole deeper.
There is still time to change, Chung.
Father Haskell
wrote:
> satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:
>
> > brother "Mu" wrote:
> > > neighbor Cubit wrote:
>
> > >> Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
>
> > > Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
> > > the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
> > > chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
>
> > Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does not
> > factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
>
> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
> used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
> not **how much** to eat.
>
> > > to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.
>
> > wondering...
>
> design to be the optimal amount. Any amount more or less would not be
> optimal and we would be less hungry.
You read it here. God prefers the Imperial system of weights and
measures.
Epinephrine
> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <120420071934214855%er...@caballista.org>,
>> Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineasp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <120420071846091317%er...@caballista.org>,
>>> > Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Prefer any other diet and you prefer failure.
>>> >>
>>> >> How much does Andy pay you to promote the 2-lb quack diet?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >I take it double-blind tests have also been performed?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Assuming of course, that Chung has a million dollars... ;-)
>
> Of course he doesn't; but he tries to get it $30 at a time by charging
> people to see the details of the "guarantee". In other words, it's a
> pyramid scam.
Wouldn't a fee of $16 + $16 or £2 have been more relevant in his case?
Father Haskell
I wouldn't bother with calorie restriction except in life or death
cases of
morbid obesity. Exercise also has dramatic effects on cardiovascular
health; 4 weeks of daily, easy 8 mile bike rides (age 30, starting
from no
exercise whatsoever) brought my bp from 140 / 80 to 110 / 60, and my
resting pulse rate from 90 bpm to 55 -- the traditional "count beats
for
15 seconds and multiply by 4" method was no longer accurate. This
was on top on smoking 1 pack of Marlboro reds per day. Weight loss
was from 185 lbs to 150. I could still eat like a pig, and my weight
went
down.
Smiler
"Epinephrine" <m...@x-privut.org> wrote in message
news:46202529$1...@x-privat.org...
He can't.
Smiler,
The godless one
"."
There is no anecdotal evidence, only andy's crowing.
Epinephrine
<"."@> wrote in message news:46203726$1...@x-privat.org...
I was kindly referring to his "crowing" as anecdotal evidence.
i.e Chung's anecdotes = Chung's anecdotal evidence.
Stephen Knight
wrote:
>
>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lo...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
>news:1176496910....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:
>>> brother "Mu" wrote:
>>> > neighbor Cubit wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
>>> >
>>> > Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
>>> > the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
>>> > chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
>>>
>>> Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does
>>> not
>>> factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
>>
>> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
>> used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
>> not **how much** to eat.
>
>Appropriate calorific restriction with cardiovascular exercise would be a
>more meaningful approach. More importantly there a lot of evidence to also
>suggest that calorific restriction is the way to live longer. Perhaps
>tailoring your approach further could add to its credibility.
>
>>> > The truth is that you or anyone else can cut their consumption
>>> > gradually
>>> > to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't a 1PD diet or a 1.5PD diet work better than the 2PD diet? Just
>>> wondering...
>>
>> The 2 pounds (16 oz + 16 oz as described by Exodus 16:16) is by GOD's
>> design to be the optimal amount.
>
>> Any amount more or less would not be
>> optimal and we would be less hungry.
>
>"Less hungry" is very subjective. Perhaps this amount (2PD) is optimal for
>*you* and keeps you less hungry? There is no evidence to suggest that this
>amount is optimal for an athelete, a bedridden patient, or an infant.
>
>Your assumption that 2PD is optimal for everyone is therefore flawed as it
>does not take into account an individual's specific metabolism and
>requirements. It appears to be construed to only serve religious agenda.
>
>
I agree with what you say. However, using scientific conclusions
and time tested common sense on, Dung , is a waste of time. He doesn't
care about people. Only his superstition exists to him. That's why
he's not allowed hospital privileges and has no doubt (to me) severely
injured some of his 'believers'.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
Art Deco
All correct; time and again when he has painted himself into a corner
he has refused to admit he is wrong (after all, his words are inspired
by the "holy spirit"). Instead he keeps right on painting, including
himself.
Mu
> On Apr 13, 2:09 pm, Mu <nocowinthi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 13 Apr 2007 07:42:02 -0700, Hollywood wrote:
>
>>> In all honesty, I don't think Mu = Chung.
>>
>> Put butter on that /waffle/, thanks.
>
> I don't get how a loose comment in your direction when I consistently
> suggest that you and chung are lovers, is a real waffle. Let's suggest
> it's not because you are low regard so I don't pay attention to what I
> say to you.
You simply cannot follow a Usenet conversation with any sense of
clarity. In less than a day, you have gone from Mu=Chung to "oh no, I
really don't think so" because Kittrell pointed out what a dim bulb you
are for saying so. Not to mention that the archives are chock full of
evidence that Mu and Chung are separate folk.
You're not only a dunce with your pointed hat cocked to the side, you're
a pathological liar.
Mu
> On Apr 13, 2:09 pm, Mu <nocowinthi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 13 Apr 2007 07:42:02 -0700, Hollywood wrote:
>
>>> In all honesty, I don't think Mu = Chung.
>>
>> Put butter on that /waffle/, thanks.
>
> I don't get how a loose comment in your direction when I consistently
> suggest that you and chung are lovers, is a real waffle. Let's suggest
> it's not because you are low regard so I don't pay attention to what I
> say to you.
>
>>> I think they two individuals
>>> deeply in love with each other and some infantile conception of a
>>> higher power.
>>
>> Let's get this accurate, for once, for one time in your posts about Mu.
>> Once.
>>
>> There is no "higher power", I believe definitively and completely in God
>> who made His Presence known as Jesus Christ.
>
> You believe in the Lord God, who is both powerful and above everyone.
> That would be a higher power. And I contend that Chung's conception is
> infantile. Your's is less forward, but no less infantile.
>
>> Note the lack of butter.
>
> Butter is good for you. It's the carbs that are killing you, not the
> sat fat.
Carbs are killing me. lol
I have some helpful information for you.
There are exactly two categories of people who might read any article
you post. The first group comprises those who know you're a liar, a
plagiarist, a fraud and an idiot. The second includes only those who
have never heard of you. If you want to maintain as good an image as
possible, don't ever post again. Your truthlessness and incoherent
nonsense just give the first group an opportunity to laugh at you, and
any of the second group who see that crap will immediately migrate to
the first. So your best bet is to shut up.
Art Deco
Care to prop up the 2-lb chung diet with regard to conservation of
energy, Mu?
Mu
>>
>> Let's get this accurate, for once, for one time in your posts about Mu.
>> Once.
>>
>> There is no "higher power", I believe definitively and completely in God
>> who made His Presence known as Jesus Christ.
>
> You believe in the Lord God, who is both powerful and above everyone.
> That would be a higher power.
Which part of my post, forget it, all of it.
> And I contend that Chung's conception is
> infantile. Your's is less forward, but no less infantile.
Contend all you want. Your expressed opinions carry the exact weight of
your posting character and Usenet-archived childishness.
I'm getting tired of you, you're like a needle in a haystack, no, no,
OK, let me put it another way.
In the movie Jurassic Park, there's a scene where a researcher sticks
her hand in a pile of dinosaur dung, digs around,and pulls out an
undigested berry. I'm sure if I listened to more of "Hollywood", I too
may discover a berry, but to me, the price in time is waaay too high.
Mu
> "Mu" <nocowi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6525vo2vw0hp$.xu3dl3qsfrze$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:14:40 -0800, Cubit wrote:
>>
>>> Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
>>
>> Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
>> the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
>> chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
>
> Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does not
> factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
Vague? Eat less than two pounds of food and caloried liquid a day.
What's vague about that?
Right, it doesn't factor calories. Why? Because it doesn't need to.
Mu
>> The truth is that you or anyone else can cut their consumption gradually
>> to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.
>
> Wouldn't a 1PD diet or a 1.5PD diet work better than the 2PD diet? Just
> wondering...
Yes in terms of more rapid weight loss. I eat in the 1.75 range myself.
Mu
>> The 2 pounds (16 oz + 16 oz as described by Exodus 16:16) is by GOD's
>> design to be the optimal amount.
>
>> Any amount more or less would not be
>> optimal and we would be less hungry.
>
> "Less hungry" is very subjective. Perhaps this amount (2PD) is optimal for
> *you* and keeps you less hungry? There is no evidence to suggest that this
> amount is optimal for an athelete, a bedridden patient, or an infant.
I trained athletes, strength and power, several who were obese, put on
the 2PD, no ill results either in their strength and power gains or in
their on field performance (the ultimate test).
Mu
>> Ah, but you see, Dr. Chung has informed us that:
>>
>> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. It has been
>> studied in more than 625,550 people worldwide
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 01:13:41 +0100, Epinephrine wrote:
> Surely if such a significant number of people participated, it would be
> worth reporting in any medical journal or christian magazine, but it is my
> understanding that Chung has not done so. Why, I wonder!
I haven't looked at Chung's claim of participants but I can say that
participation is not necessarily by choice or by taking a particular
direction.
> As this approach clearly does not have any scientific basis whatsoever,
> would it be taken seriously by the scientific world?
For scientists who observe truth without need for research, absolutely.
For those that require clinical review, no.
Mu
> Oh, let's just say that it has been suggested that nearly all of the
> "participants" in Dr. Chung's study were the children of Israel,
> wandering hither and yon (generally more yonly than hitherly)
> all those years.
Suggested or factual?
> If so, one can only wonder where Dr. Chung obtained all the
> requisite information on the state of their health. All of their
> healths.
>
> -- cary
Why don't you ask him?
Mu
>> If so, one can only wonder where Dr. Chung obtained all the
>> requisite information on the state of their health. All of their
>> healths.
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:15:21 +0100, Epinephrine wrote:
> I don't think health status of an individual matters when it comes to the 2
> pound approach.
>
> It is my understanding that as long as a supervising doctor has prescribed a
> certain food, the magic dose of "2 pounds" would do the miracle.
I began the 2PD in spring/summer 2004 (??), there was no direction from
Chung to specific foods. Maybe that has changed.
This idea of "magic dose" is in your head and you know that, why
belittle yourself by saying so?
Many Muuns ago, I added to the 2PD AOOCS. That stands for "An Ounce Of
Common Sense". Common sense says no one can or ever will eat exactly 2
lbs per day, or that will it always be fatty foods or lettuce either.
Picking at the nonsensical doesn't advance your argument, it degrades it
and you in combo.
Mu
> The two pound diet has no basis in science
Correct. Atkins did and it's a scam.
> and ignores the equally to
> calorie restriction factors of exercise and sound choice of nutrition.
A lie. First, exercise unless it is extreme burns very little cals over
and above sitting on the couch.
Sound nutrition, you know what that is? Write a book, it will scam
millions.
> I have followed it from the beginning when mr. chung was confused by
> watching a movie where mountain climbers consumed two pounds of food per
> day. Confused because it is dehydrated energy dense foods easier to
> carry up mountains for an energy intensive activity. That same diet
> would almost surely cause most people to gain weight and become obese.
> As I recall from calculating a similar diet it would be about 5000
> calories a day..
It was 2 pounds of water-released food, add water, it increases, this
confused who?
> This obvious fact was over looked because soon thereafter given him
> personally he was also confused by an account in scripture of people
> eating what he took mistakenly as two pounds of food a day. He confused
> a measure of weight there that was in fact a measure of dry grain
> volume. It too was not far from 5000 calories if that much grain was
> consumed each day.
OK, cite that.
> But fear not, by this time he was convinced that by divine direction he
> was correct and that two pounds of food regardless of all other factors
> was a divine directive for good health. Regardless of what was eaten
> and how many calories consumed it would be divinely adjusted to each
> person's nutritional needs.
Show me one nutritionally deprived individual in the USA on 2 lbs per
day.
> Then when added internal belly fat was becoming widely discussed for its
> adverse metabolic activity, the two pound diet was seen as the cure for
> all
> metabolic related disorders, a divine cure no doubt given him personaly.
> This fat "vat" was at root of all manner of disorder for which the two
> pound diet was the treatment, nay the cure.
????????????
> Thus one can see the trash science,
It was never science....
> the confusion, the willfull
> distortions, the filtering of information, the illogical leaps made, all
> firmly cemented in his mind as a divine plan in which he was to play a
> central and vital role in its pronouncement to the world. Atendant with
> world wide acclaim and medical praise no doubt and purchase of tourist
> books for trips to sweden high on the must do list.
lol Whacko
Mu
>>> Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does not
>>> factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
>>
>> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
>> used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
>> not **how much** to eat.
>
> "diet", OED definition #3:
>
> Prescribed course of food, restricted in kind or limited in quantity,
>
> --c ary
I'm not certain that the word diet isn't more in tune with control and
direction of specific foodstuffs and their eating. The 2PD is about
volume but I have to admit what Chung has evolved this to, I have not
kept up.
All I know is that when I found out, to my surprise, the volume of food
I was eating, reduced it, I lost weight.
Mu
>>> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
>>> used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
>>> not **how much** to eat.
>>
>> "diet", OED definition #3:
>>
>> Prescribed course of food, restricted in kind or limited in quantity,
>
> There is no prescribed course of food with the 2PD-OMER Approach.
I don't see how or why it there could be.
Mu
>>> > The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
>>> > used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
>>> > not **how much** to eat.
>>>
>>> "diet", OED definition #3:
>>>
>>> Prescribed course of food, restricted in kind or limited in quantity,
>>
>> There is no prescribed course of food with the 2PD-OMER Approach.
>
> And of course everyone else understands that the act of
> prescribing in the above phrase refers either to 1) prescribing
> limits of kind, or 2) prescribing limits of amount.
>
> -- cary
cary, you're being argumentative for what purpose? OK, so wth, call it a
diet?
It works, call it anything you want.
Mu
> "There is no prescribed course of food with the 2PD-OMER Approach.
>
> The former (diet) is left up to the supervising doctor to prescribe."
>
> Of course, it is a poor gimic of a calorie restriction diet.
There is no caloric restriction and I am tiring of you're inability to
post to Usenet as if you have any real purpose other than to pass time
and gas.
Grow up, get a newsreader, subscribe to a real Usenet service, if you
can't afford $12 a year, get the hell off Usenet.
Mu
>> For example, it is likely that a diabetic would be prescribed the ADA
>> diabetic diet while using the 2PD-OMER Approach.
>
> There is no point in carrying a scale,
Incorrect. Speaking as one who did, interrupting one who never has but
speakd pontifically, it is a real eye opener.
> then weighing 1.5 pounds or 2 pounds
> of a certain prescribed course, if one can adhere to recommended guidelines
> and making appropriate lifestyle changes, which have a proven benefit.
Really? such a broad and generic statement, which guidelines, which
proven lifestyle, oh, don't forget the citations, you wanted them for
the 2PD, it's your turn now, BigStuff.
> The magic dose of "2 lbs" does not have any benefit, unless of course you
> can come up with something more concrete than your anecdotal evidence.
lol
See how that double-edged sword you just cut yourself wide open works?
Olrik
And we all are awaiting your peer-reviewed research, including double-
blind testings.
Olrik
Olrik
You pretty much degrade yourself by paying attention to Chung. Just
review Chung's posting history, and stop drinking the Kool-Aid (does
the 16 oz. include the sugar and the artificial colouring &
flavouring?)
Olrik
Olrik
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:04:12 +0100, Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
> > In article <130420071542245245%e...@caballista.org>,
> > Art Deco <e...@caballista.org> wrote:
>
> >> >The 2 pounds (16 oz + 16 oz as described by Exodus 16:16) is by GOD's
> >> >design to be the optimal amount. Any amount more or less would not be
> >> >optimal and we would be less hungry.
>
>
> > And they let this guy PRACTISE medicine?
>
> Maybe in a third world country.
Heck, third world countries may be poor, but they have standards!
Olrik
> --
> #1 Offishul Ruiner of Usenet, March 2007
> #1 Usenet Asshole, March 2007
> #1 Bartlo Pset, March 13-24 2007
> #10 Most hated Usenetizen of all time
> Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2004
> COOSN-266-06-25794
Mu
> Remind me again; what does the "D" stand for since you decided it was an
> Approach and not a Diet?
> --
> Don Kirkman
Don? It's named after you, Don, Don.
Mu
> Chung will do anything to maintain his position, even if in the wrong.
>
> He full well knows this 2 pound diet and the modified 2 pound approach is
> flawed, but will stick to it till the day he dies.
So will I. Which is a real problem for the Society Of Children Agin
Chung and if you have to ask why, please do, I love to have discussions
wit those that don't do their homework.
> Unfortunately in real life
lol carry on.......
> when he tried a similar approach (maintaining his
> position no matter what) with the other cardios in Florida, sadly it
> resulted in him losing the job, packing his backs and leaving that state.
So? Never took a stand, always sucking up to The Man who hands you your
asspennies?
> He failed to heed the wise words of Dr Hildner.
lol Hildner is a liar, whether he is wise or not, liars can be. But not
in this case.
> 6 years from that email, Chung has only dug his the hole deeper.
>
> There is still time to change, Chung.
Into you?
lol lol
Olrik
It's called the "duh" factor. Look into it, shill.
Olrik
Mu
> And they let this guy PRACTISE medicine?
lol *plonk*