OT humor "Army insurance" OR Frilegh Starts The TPD!!!!!
*Mu*
wrote:
>Here's my first day on the 2lb.Diet. It sure beat's canned mackerel!
>If anyone wants to do the calorie math Igo for it it as I'm not
>counting calories on this one
>
>4 oz. prunes and yogurt
>2 oz. asparagus
>2 oz. cheese
>4 oz baked beans
>3.5 nectarine
>4 liver pate
>2 oz. baby green beans, buttered
>2 oz. mushrooms
>4 oz. turkey,minced
>1 oz. tomato juice (sauce for turkey and mushrooms)
>3 oz. yogurt including honey
>1/2 oz. slivered almonds
And you are still alive?
amazing.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Comments:
(1) It's easier to stick with it *forever* if each item isn't weighed
singly but rather on a per meal basis instead. Example: 6 ounces for
breakfast, 10 ounces for lunch, and 16 ounces for supper makes 32
ounces total for the day. If you are eating only one or two meals a
day, it is even easier. The rationale is that more complicated
rituals tend to "feed" tendencies toward becoming more food-centric.
"Living to eat" is a big part of the problem with overeating.
(2) It is important to know the baseline (the amount you were eating
before) so you can recognize how much less you are eating. It would
help you understand why you may be feeling extremely hungry if you had
decreased from 10 lbs to 2 lbs in one day, for example, and allow you
to back up for a slower decrease if you find yourself unable to
tolerate the hunger. The stomach is a smooth muscle organ analogous
to the uterus. And, like the uterus, it is able the "shrink" given
time lessening the "hunger."
(3) Your doctor should be involved. S/he needs to be made aware that
your weight may drop precipitously (depends on your baseline intake)
in a fashion not unlike someone who has had gastric bypass. S/he will
likely advise you on his/her preferences as to how to lower either
diabetic and/or hypertensive medications as you lose weight. Ime,
folks on these medications really need their doctors' help to adjust
their medicines to keep from feeling unwell as they start to lose
significant amounts of weight.
Regards,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
Carol Frilegh
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>> Comments:
>
> (1) It's easier to stick with it *forever* if each item isn't weighed
> singly but rather on a per meal basis instead.
I already started doing that..
>
> (2) It is important to know the baseline (the amount you were eating
> before) so you can recognize how much less you are eating. It would
> help you understand why you may be feeling extremely hungry if you had
> decreased from 10 lbs to 2 lbs in one day,
I'm eating quite well and not feeling hungry. I perplanned my foods and
left room for a 6 oz. streak and 3 oz. of buttered green beans, 1 oz.
of mushrooms in a Steak and Frites Bistro.
My food list isn't strange or radically unbalanced with great amounts
if a single food like chocolate.
> (3) Your doctor should be involved.
She'll be back from holidays next week and I'll involve her.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andrew
> --
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Board-Certified Cardiologist
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/
--
Kitten May
*********
I've learned that you shouldn't go through life with a catcher's mitt on
both hands. You need to be able to throw something back.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> In article <a7cd9c35.03070...@posting.google.com>, Dr.
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >> Comments:
> >
> > (1) It's easier to stick with it *forever* if each item isn't weighed
> > singly but rather on a per meal basis instead.
>
> I already started doing that..
Good.
> > (2) It is important to know the baseline (the amount you were eating
> > before) so you can recognize how much less you are eating. It would
> > help you understand why you may be feeling extremely hungry if you had
> > decreased from 10 lbs to 2 lbs in one day,
>
> I'm eating quite well and not feeling hungry. I perplanned my foods and
> left room for a 6 oz. streak and 3 oz. of buttered green beans, 1 oz.
> of mushrooms in a Steak and Frites Bistro.
Uh-oh, you should feel at least a little bit hungry if you are truly
eating less than your baseline.
> My food list isn't strange or radically unbalanced with great amounts
> if a single food like chocolate.
That's fine. They key is being able to picture doing this for the
rest of your life. Eat to live instead of living to eat.
> > (3) Your doctor should be involved.
>
> She'll be back from holidays next week and I'll involve her.
Excellent.
Carol Frilegh
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> Uh-oh, you should feel at least a little bit hungry if you are truly
> eating less than your baseline.
>
Dear Dandy Dr. Andy,
It's 5;30 a.m. and my stomach thinks my throat has been cut but the
scale is already missing a few pounds.
--
Diva
*************
The Best Man for the Job is a Woman
*Mu*
wrote:
>Dear Dandy Dr. Andy,
>
>It's 5;30 a.m. and my stomach thinks my throat has been cut but the
>scale is already missing a few pounds.
lol
What was your original average daily consumption?
Carol Frilegh
<MuIsNo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I never did it, but started 2PD as soon as I read the FAQs I had
excellent recall about a number of items that were magically finding
theirway down my gullet with only semi conscious tallying by me. I was
into measuring by the handful or unit at that time.
Now, back to the Future!
rosie readandpost
on this 2PD do you pit your fruit before you weigh it?
--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie
ever wonder if we would care more about each other if we realized how much we have in common?
.............................R. Nagy
Carol Frilegh
readandpost <reada...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, I had a necatarine and weighed the pit after and subtracted it
from the weight of the fruit.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> In article <0MAPa.201617$Xl.33...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, rosie
> readandpost <reada...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > question:
> >
> > on this 2PD do you pit your fruit before you weigh it?
> >
> > --
> > read and post daily, it works!
> > rosie
> >
> > ever wonder if we would care more about each other if we realized how much we
> > have in common?
> > .............................R. Nagy
>
> Yes, I had a necatarine and weighed the pit after and subtracted it
> from the weight of the fruit.
Uh-oh, you expended extra work for a morsel of food that probably was
less than half an ounce if even that. That's the psychology of
"living to eat." You'll need to overcome this to keep food from
staying at the center of your life.
Regards,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
*Mu*
wrote:
>> What was your original average daily consumption?
>
>I never did it, but started 2PD as soon as I read the FAQs I had
>excellent recall about a number of items that were magically finding
>theirway down my gullet with only semi conscious tallying by me. I was
>into measuring by the handful or unit at that time.
Not good, Carol. Here's why.
Suppose you started at 5 pounds per day. Dropped to two. Guaranteed
that your body and appetite will not like you. the starting weight
measurement is important so that you can follow the simple rules of
volumetric decrease.
Then, if you were only eating say 3 pounds per day, this drop to two
becomes much easier. Either way, you learned something about food
volumes that you did not know before.
A big chunk(g) of the 2PD is the realization of where you were to
where you are going. It is an essential piece of deprogramming.
*Mu*
>> Yes, I had a necatarine and weighed the pit after and subtracted it
>> from the weight of the fruit.
On 11 Jul 2003 16:00:32 -0700, and...@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew B.
Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>Uh-oh, you expended extra work for a morsel of food that probably was
>less than half an ounce if even that. That's the psychology of
>"living to eat." You'll need to overcome this to keep food from
>staying at the center of your life.
I wonder if Carol is just being attentive to detail or fighting for
each little ounce she can have.
Ron Ritzman
wrote:
>> ever wonder if we would care more about each other if we realized how much we
>> have in common?
>> .............................R. Nagy
>
>Yes, I had a necatarine and weighed the pit after and subtracted it
>from the weight of the fruit.
It seems to me that you should only have to weigh a fruit once. Take
an "average" sized apple, peach, banana, etc (subtract the pits and
peel the oranges if you want") and weigh them once and write the
weights down. Future fruits might be a little bigger or a little
smaller but I suspect everything will come out in the wash.
--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address
Carol Frilegh
<MuIsNo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Attentive, to be sure.
It's 10:00 p.m. and i still have a 5 oz, credit balance.
I am creative about food and see no reason not to enjoy what IS allowed
on 2PD. Of course if it will make you happy I can swallow the pit LOL!
Also by proving the food here can be "primo" it may make it appealing
to the doubters.
Today:
Breakfast: 1 egg omelet with fresh tomato and mushroom sauce, grated
Parmesan and basil, o.j.
Lunch; grilled chicken, baby green beans, blueberries with honey and
slivered almonds, spinach salad with garlic and olive oil dressing
Dinner: Zucchini with melted cheddar, toasted almonds and balance of
tomato sauce
Later; 3 oz. baked sausage
Still 5 oz. left
Likely some strawberries
I've been weighing my juice.is that how it's done?
Carol Frilegh
<MuIsNo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Remember I am already vascillating between two to three pounds above
goal and have limted my intake most of the time for three years. (lost
86)
Too late now. The 2 pounds seems about right to me so far.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Yes. It is more substantial than water :-)
You certainly are having a lot of variety. I am just imagining all
the perishables languishing in the corners of your kitchen waiting to
be eaten. I hope you are also cutting back on the shopping.
Carol Frilegh
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> You certainly are having a lot of variety.
And why would I not especially if this is to be long term? Cutting down
is not cutting out and this holds true of the 2PD for me.
> I am just imagining all
> the perishables languishing in the corners of your kitchen waiting to
> be eaten. I hope you are also cutting back on the shopping.
>
I have always had my animal protein "portion packed" in individual
units of 4 oz. and keep it in the freezer. I shop more often for
smaller amounts of fresh produce and was pleasantly surprised to find a
generous chunk of cheese was about 2 oz. and gave rich texture to the
zucchini with toasted almonds with fresh tomato sauce, yesterday.
Today I'll be making an individual cheesecake of pressed cottage
cheese, honey, yogurt and an egg which will be under 6 oz. and with
added fruit will be a fine breakfast or lunch. It is made in seconds
using a hand blender and bakes for 30 minutes. Actually 2pd does not
present any major changes in my food preparation. It does justify the
expense I went to to get a large and attractive food scale (about $30
U.S.) earlier this year.
Carol Frilegh
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> Uh-oh, you expended extra work for a morsel of food that probably was
> less than half an ounce if even that. That's the psychology of
> "living to eat." You'll need to overcome this to keep food from
> staying at the center of your life.
>
Gotcha. So the shorthand lesson starts. Memorize certain one unit items
like fruit and eggs , saving time and further simplifying but weigh a
whole meal. This grows easier every day.
An additional thought. Mu has promoted this diet with zeal in a number
of ways that may have been misunderstood, or pehaps it was how he
stated his cause.
I don't plan to evangelize this diet as Mu has, because of the type
of resistance he has encountered on some of the Usenet groups. I think
I have some credibility in the area of successful weight loss and a
good 'diet" attitude to lifelong maintenance and people mat respect my
results assuming they are encouraging.
So why do I try various diets from time to time? Because exercise seems
to keep me at a weight which is a few pounds over my low end goal which
( is below the original goal and maybe below the set point)
I want to keep my fitness plan, and remain toned but stay about three
pounds below what I am now. If that is not feasable, fine, I'm not
going to feel imperfect about it. However it would be very satisfying
to be a little slimmer and still strong and fit.
I think the 2PD is the answer. It could be the name that puts people
off. It does sound kooky until you analyze the principle and put it
into practice.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> In article <a7cd9c35.03071...@posting.google.com>, Dr.
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> > You certainly are having a lot of variety.
>
> And why would I not especially if this is to be long term? Cutting down
> is not cutting out and this holds true of the 2PD for me.
>
Not a problem. It does make nutritional deficiencies at the level of
vitamins, minerals and essential amino acids all the more unlikely.
>
> > I am just imagining all
> > the perishables languishing in the corners of your kitchen waiting to
> > be eaten. I hope you are also cutting back on the shopping.
> >
> I have always had my animal protein "portion packed" in individual
> units of 4 oz. and keep it in the freezer. I shop more often for
> smaller amounts of fresh produce and was pleasantly surprised to find a
> generous chunk of cheese was about 2 oz. and gave rich texture to the
> zucchini with toasted almonds with fresh tomato sauce, yesterday.
>
You clearly sound like someone who enjoys her food :-)
>
> Today I'll be making an individual cheesecake of pressed cottage
> cheese, honey, yogurt and an egg which will be under 6 oz. and with
> added fruit will be a fine breakfast or lunch. It is made in seconds
> using a hand blender and bakes for 30 minutes. Actually 2pd does not
> present any major changes in my food preparation. It does justify the
> expense I went to to get a large and attractive food scale (about $30
> U.S.) earlier this year.
>
> --
> Diva
> *************
> The Best Man for the Job is a Woman
Ok :-)
Regards,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
Carol Frilegh
MD/PhD <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> You clearly sound like someone who enjoys her food :-)
>
I take issue at "the eat to live" philosophy as sex is not practiced by
most strictly for procreation.
Why should food be ONLY fuel when nature has set it up as a pleasure
response (originally for survival and now for fuve star chefs :-)?
rosie readandpost
> I want to keep my fitness plan, and remain toned but stay about three
> pounds below what I am now.
i am curious, about the 3lb bit, do your clothes fit differently or something?
is it just an OBJECTIONABLE number?
if someone came in and adjusted your scale, (those 3lbs) would you notice?
*Mu*
wrote:
>Today:
>
>Breakfast: 1 egg omelet with fresh tomato and mushroom sauce, grated
>Parmesan and basil, o.j.
>
>Lunch; grilled chicken, baby green beans, blueberries with honey and
>slivered almonds, spinach salad with garlic and olive oil dressing
>
>Dinner: Zucchini with melted cheddar, toasted almonds and balance of
>tomato sauce
>
>Later; 3 oz. baked sausage
>
>Still 5 oz. left
>Likely some strawberries
>
>I've been weighing my juice.is that how it's done?
Yep.
'Weigh everything you eat or drink...." except water.
*Mu*
wrote:
>I've been weighing my juice.is that how it's done?
Which brings us to the discussion of why you weigh food on the first
place.
Not only is it about an education about total food intakes (almost
everyone is surprised st the real amounts we eat), it is about the
food volumes that pass thru your stomach.
The stomach is a muscular organ with a distensible membrane. The more
you distend it, the more it likes to be and expects to be. The less
you do, the less it wants to be distended. Simple enough, eh?
Because the stomach is not sensitive to macronutrient mix when it
comes to feeling "full" or triggering a decrease or removal of the
urge to eat. It doesn't care whether you put 2 pounds of <fill in
food> thru it. 2 pounds is two pounds. Volume is volume.
*Mu*
wrote:
>> A big chunk(g) of the 2PD is the realization of where you were to
>> where you are going. It is an essential piece of deprogramming.
>Remember I am already vascillating between two to three pounds above
>goal and have limted my intake most of the time for three years. (lost
>86)
>Too late now. The 2 pounds seems about right to me so far.
You did not have too far to "fall" if you were at 3 pounds of intake.
Glad the transition is easy. It usually is for those with only a 1/3
drop in volume.
Expect your weight loss to be slow but steady.
Carol Frilegh
readandpost <reada...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
Three pounds of food or three pounds of a person's body weight.
you made me trouble with the nectarine pit :-)
Now what? LOL
*Mu*
wrote:
>I take issue at "the eat to live" philosophy as sex is not practiced by
>most strictly for procreation.
I missed the analogy.
*Mu*
wrote:
>Gotcha. So the shorthand lesson starts. Memorize certain one unit items
>like fruit and eggs , saving time and further simplifying but weigh a
>whole meal. This grows easier every day.
So easy that soon you will be able to visually ID most food weights
which is, again, part of the learning curve. I thot I could; I
couldn't until I actually looked and weighed.
>An additional thought. Mu has promoted this diet with zeal in a number
>of ways that may have been misunderstood, or pehaps it was how he
>stated his cause.
Who Mu? Mu no Socrates. Mu no Billy Graham. Mu is Mu. Mu do best Mu
can Mu do.
>I don't plan to evangelize this diet as Mu has, because of the type
>of resistance he has encountered on some of the Usenet groups.
Mu has thick skin. Mu know what Mu do. Mu like fireman who go to fire.
Mu know it is hot. Mu were flame retardant undies.
> I think
>I have some credibility in the area of successful weight loss and a
>good 'diet" attitude to lifelong maintenance and people mat respect my
>results assuming they are encouraging.
Mu agree. Frilegh good girl.
>I think the 2PD is the answer. It could be the name that puts people
>off. It does sound kooky until you analyze the principle and put it
>into practice.
Mu told Chung Mu would change name of diet to Chung. Like Atkins.
Frilegh actually doing Chung or you are "on Chung".
Don't confuse with Wang Chung.
Roger Zoul
"*Mu*" <MuIsNo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cea0hv0v1vgbl1i7p...@4ax.com...
What about density? 2 pounds of this has differnt volume than 2 pounds of
that.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Sugar-free drinks, plain tea or coffee (ie without sugar or cream) don't
need to be weighed either.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
I believe she is referring to pleasure. Eating is pleasurable as is sex.
Folks engage in sex for pleasure. Folks also eat for pleasure. The problem
is that while the former reduces obesity (less time to eat), the latter
increases obesity. Logically, the solution is to have more sex if you
desire pleasure rather than eat more food :-)
Regards,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> What about density? 2 pounds of this has differnt volume than 2 pounds of
> that.
Simple experiment you can try at home:
Take two pounds of food and puree it in a blender.
Pour this mush into metric measuring cups (or a 1000 ml graduated cylinder if
you happen to have one lying around :-).
Prediction: The volume will be around 900 mls.
It's science not magic that the prediction works without know the "this and
that."
Comment: Only inorganic substances containing elements higher up on the
periodic table have densities significantly greater than 1 gram per ml. Food
does not contain such substances. Moreover, some foods (especially fat) are
even less dense so that balanced foods are very likely at 1 gram per ml in
density.
Carol Frilegh
<MuIsNo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Chung King Chung Rules!!
*Mu*
<and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>I believe she is referring to pleasure. Eating is pleasurable as is sex.
>Folks engage in sex for pleasure. Folks also eat for pleasure. The problem
>is that while the former reduces obesity (less time to eat), the latter
>increases obesity. Logically, the solution is to have more sex if you
>desire pleasure rather than eat more food :-)
Works for me. I'm hungry.
Honeyyyyyyyyyyyyyy................
*Mu*
<and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Roger Zoul wrote:
>
>> What about density? 2 pounds of this has differnt volume than 2 pounds of
>> that.
>
>Simple experiment you can try at home:
>
>Take two pounds of food and puree it in a blender.
>
>Pour this mush into metric measuring cups (or a 1000 ml graduated cylinder if
>you happen to have one lying around :-).
>
>Prediction: The volume will be around 900 mls.
>
>It's science not magic that the prediction works without know the "this and
>that."
>
>Comment: Only inorganic substances containing elements higher up on the
>periodic table have densities significantly greater than 1 gram per ml. Food
>does not contain such substances. Moreover, some foods (especially fat) are
>even less dense so that balanced foods are very likely at 1 gram per ml in
>density.
what Chung said.
Lyle McDonald
> Because the stomach is not sensitive to macronutrient mix when it
> comes to feeling "full" or triggering a decrease or removal of the
> urge to eat. It doesn't care whether you put 2 pounds of <fill in
> food> thru it. 2 pounds is two pounds. Volume is volume.
So 2 lbs of table sugar and 2 lbs of lettuce will take up the same
volume in the gut? methinks you forgot about density. Or does 1 lb of
lead and 1 lb of feathers take up the same volume of space too?
But I think you should call some physicists, you seem to have found
their missing dark matter.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
>
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>
> > What about density? 2 pounds of this has differnt volume than 2 pounds of
> > that.
>
> Simple experiment you can try at home:
>
> Take two pounds of food and puree it in a blender.
>
> Pour this mush into metric measuring cups (or a 1000 ml graduated cylinder if
> you happen to have one lying around :-).
>
> Prediction: The volume will be around 900 mls.
>
> It's science not magic that the prediction works without know the "this and
> that."
>
> Comment: Only inorganic substances containing elements higher up on the
> periodic table have densities significantly greater than 1 gram per ml. Food
> does not contain such substances. Moreover, some foods (especially fat) are
> even less dense so that balanced foods are very likely at 1 gram per ml in
> density.
A wonderfully irrelevant argument, I'm starting to agree with the others
who think you're a quack with a gimmick.
Because, in the universe most of us actually inhabit, folks don't puree
their food, they eat it. The energy density of food will change the
*volume* of food consumed for a given *weight* of food. See any work by
Rolls on energy density for example.
Lyle
Carol Frilegh
<MuIsNo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The stomach is a muscular organ with a distensible membrane. The more
> you distend it, the more it likes to be and expects to be. The less
> you do, the less it wants to be distended. Simple enough, eh?
>
> Because the stomach is not sensitive to macronutrient mix when it
> comes to feeling "full" or triggering a decrease or removal of the
> urge to eat. It doesn't care whether you put 2 pounds of <fill in
> food> thru it. 2 pounds is two pounds. Volume is volume.
>
Today I did not balance the volume of my meals very evenly and wound up
having more at dinner. I actually experienced discomfort. I compare it
to the "pouch" in gastric bypass surgery.
BTW: How can we consolidate my two threads into one for simplicity.
I'd like them to all be under the subject line above. ( easier for
others to kill file.
Do i just put the other in parenthesis ( was "Frilegh starts TPD!!!!)?
--
Diva
********
Carol Frilegh ON The TPD
DJ Delorie
Lyle McDonald <lyl...@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> writes:
> Because, in the universe most of us actually inhabit, folks don't puree
> their food, they eat it.
Doesn't eating, by its nature, puree the food? Between that and any
dissolving that goes on, much of the air pockets get removed, which
accounts for much of the density variations.
An interesting observation - lard, which is very calorie dense, is
actually slightly less dense than water (0.87 g/ml). And one of my
nitrotech bars is about 1 g/ml.
The USDA entry for shredded lettuce gives it a density of about 0.24
g/ml, which I assume is because of the air between the shreds. Won't
that air space be gone by the time you swallow the chewed food? I can
easily imagine that chewing would reduce the volume to 25%, which
would bring it in line with "dense" foods.
Of course, this has nothing to do with *caloric* density.
*Mu*
<lyl...@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:
>Because, in the universe most of us actually inhabit, folks don't puree
>their food, they eat it.
What the hell do you think it looks like when you grind it up and
swallow it?
*Mu*
>Doesn't eating, by its nature, puree the food?
By definition.
"a paste or thick liquid suspension"
> Between that and any
>dissolving that goes on, much of the air pockets get removed, which
>accounts for much of the density variations.
Correct.
*Mu*
wrote:
>Today I did not balance the volume of my meals very evenly and wound up
>having more at dinner. I actually experienced discomfort.
When I overeat, I pay. It is a great trigger to remind me to be a good
Mu.
>BTW: How can we consolidate my two threads into one for simplicity.
>I'd like them to all be under the subject line above. ( easier for
>others to kill file.
Start a new one.
>Do i just put the other in parenthesis ( was "Frilegh starts TPD!!!!)?
ok
*Mu*
>*Mu* wrote:
>
>> Because the stomach is not sensitive to macronutrient mix when it
>> comes to feeling "full" or triggering a decrease or removal of the
>> urge to eat. It doesn't care whether you put 2 pounds of <fill in
>> food> thru it. 2 pounds is two pounds. Volume is volume.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:42:15 -0500, Lyle McDonald
<lyl...@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:
>So 2 lbs of table sugar and 2 lbs of lettuce will take up the same
>volume in the gut? methinks you forgot about density. Or does 1 lb of
>lead and 1 lb of feathers take up the same volume of space too?
Me thinks that the stomach doesn't care about terms. Me knows the
stomach responds to filling up and with what food methinks it does not
care.
Elvis Parsley
news:3F1080B7...@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
> *Mu* wrote:
>
> So 2 lbs of table sugar and 2 lbs of lettuce will take up the same
> volume in the gut? methinks you forgot about density. Or does 1 lb of
> lead and 1 lb of feathers take up the same volume of space too?
Personally, I don't think you should advocate the use of lead and feathers
as macronutrients.
Tom
Like, say, two pounds of marshmallows?
Ron Ritzman
<lyl...@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:
>So 2 lbs of table sugar and 2 lbs of lettuce will take up the same
>volume in the gut? methinks you forgot about density.
Furthermore, a liquid (1 pound per pint more or less) will clear the
stomach very quickly and have zero effect on satiety. An exception is
milk which is turned into a solid by stomach acid.
Which is why "drinking calories" is not a good idea on any diet, 2
pound or otherwise. An exception being a smoothie because ice
temporarily shuts down the stomach.
--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address
Ron Ritzman
<and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>> 'Weigh everything you eat or drink...." except water.
>
>Sugar-free drinks, plain tea or coffee (ie without sugar or cream) don't
>need to be weighed either.
That depends on your definition of "substantial". Artificial
sweeteners have a calorie value but it usually comes out to less then
1/2 a calorie for a realistic serving of any drink (Splenda can add
calories to some recipes)
When I do use sugar in coffee/tea (which also has trace calories) it's
only 1/2 to 1 teaspoon (7-14 calories) which I personally wouldn't
count as substantial, ditto for that 10 calorie teaspoon of creamer. I
also wouldn't weigh a diet drink with 5-10 calories per serving.
(unless I was gulping down 2 liters of it) Of course that's just me.
It would also be kind of silly to weigh that little can of sugar free
Red Bull taken for a pre workout boost.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> > Because the stomach is not sensitive to macronutrient mix when it
> > comes to feeling "full" or triggering a decrease or removal of the
> > urge to eat. It doesn't care whether you put 2 pounds of <fill in
> > food> thru it. 2 pounds is two pounds. Volume is volume.
>
> So 2 lbs of table sugar and 2 lbs of lettuce will take up the same
> volume in the gut?
Actually, very close. By the time the lettuce ends up in the stomach,
it is chewed up. Put 2 lbs of lettuce in a blender and puree it to
see for yourself.
Food matter all chewed up have a density very close to water no matter
the composition. This wouldn't be the case if there were significant
amounts of metal in it.
> methinks you forgot about density. Or does 1 lb of
> lead and 1 lb of feathers take up the same volume of space too?
Lead is not organic.
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Lyle McDonald <lyl...@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> writes:
> > Because, in the universe most of us actually inhabit, folks don't puree
> > their food, they eat it.
>
> Doesn't eating, by its nature, puree the food?
Yes.
> Between that and any
> dissolving that goes on, much of the air pockets get removed, which
> accounts for much of the density variations.
Correct.
> An interesting observation - lard, which is very calorie dense, is
> actually slightly less dense than water (0.87 g/ml). And one of my
> nitrotech bars is about 1 g/ml.
>
> The USDA entry for shredded lettuce gives it a density of about 0.24
> g/ml, which I assume is because of the air between the shreds.
Correct.
> Won't
> that air space be gone by the time you swallow the chewed food?
Yes.
> I can
> easily imagine that chewing would reduce the volume to 25%, which
> would bring it in line with "dense" foods.
And your imagination would be realized by doing the described
experiment.
> Of course, this has nothing to do with *caloric* density.
But everything to do with what you feel is filling your stomach. You
sense the latter and not the former (caloric density).
Regards,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
> > Simple experiment you can try at home:
> >
> > Take two pounds of food and puree it in a blender.
> >
> > Pour this mush into metric measuring cups (or a 1000 ml graduated cylinder if
> > you happen to have one lying around :-).
> >
> > Prediction: The volume will be around 900 mls.
> >
> > It's science not magic that the prediction works without know the "this and
> > that."
> >
> > Comment: Only inorganic substances containing elements higher up on the
> > periodic table have densities significantly greater than 1 gram per ml. Food
> > does not contain such substances. Moreover, some foods (especially fat) are
> > even less dense so that balanced foods are very likely at 1 gram per ml in
> > density.
>
> A wonderfully irrelevant argument, I'm starting to agree with the others
> who think you're a quack with a gimmick.
Folks tend to say that when they lose the argument rather than bow out
gracefully.
> Because, in the universe most of us actually inhabit, folks don't puree
> their food, they eat it.
... by chewing it...
> The energy density of food will change the
> *volume* of food consumed for a given *weight* of food.
No, the energy density will not affect the volume that the food will
occupy in the stomach. The weight, however, will.
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Tiger_Lily
> Lyle McDonald .net> wrote in message .net>...
> > A wonderfully irrelevant argument, I'm starting to agree with the others
> > who think you're a quack with a gimmick.
>
> Folks tend to say that when they lose the argument rather than bow out
> gracefully.
http://www.heartmdphd.com/rip.asp
where those who don't 100% agree with Chung end up....... for newsgroup
postings such as this one below:
Character: "Tiger Lily" (Tige...@nospam.alt-support-diabetes.org)
i have challenged you to compare your diet to the harvard pyramid.........
still haven't heard and answer to that challenge....... just more bs posting
from you Chung
Date of listing: 06-03-2002
Phyl
>
> Lyle McDonald <lyl...@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in message news:<3F108102...@grandecomIMRETARDED.net>...
> > Because, in the universe most of us actually inhabit, folks don't puree
> > their food, they eat it.
>
> ... by chewing it...
Actually, a pureed consistency is quite a bit finer/smoother than the
bolus that's created by mastication.
--
Phyl
"The woods would be very silent if no birds sang
there except those that sang best." -- Henry Van Dyke
Carol Frilegh
<nobod...@example.com> wrote:
I just checked out the site for the Harvard Pyramid and am puzzled
about your request for the comparison. It's an apples and oranges
thing. If you want to use the percentages of food groups and then
weigh the food, the TBD would still work. If you want to low carb and
weigh food or use a low fat diet and weigh food TPD would still work.
You don't seem to grasp that you can proportion daily food allowance
any way you please as long as you weigh it. But why make it hard work?
Checking my menus for the past few days there is a nice balance.I see
fruit, vegetables, nuts fats, and monosaccharide carbs.
i don't understand why those who question the diet, don't try it out
before judging and condemning. people tend to negate things they don't
grasp.
*Mu*
<ritz...@paniximretarded.com> wrote:
>It would also be kind of silly to weigh that little can of sugar free
>Red Bull taken for a pre workout boost.
Not when you start the 2PDiet. Weigh everything, learn what your total
consumption actually is.
*Mu*
<lyl...@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:
>A wonderfully irrelevant argument, I'm starting to agree with the others
>who think you're a quack with a gimmick, Chung.
Typical McDonald. When you lose the argument, the next out of your
mouth is a personal attack.
Please don't forget to be vulgar and childish. It would be so unlike
you not to be.
>Because, in the universe most of us actually inhabit, folks don't puree
>their food, they eat it.
Same thing.
lol
*Mu*
<nobod...@example.com> wrote:
>
>Character: "Tiger Lily" (Tige...@nospam.alt-support-diabetes.org)
>
>i have challenged you to compare your diet to the harvard pyramid.........
>still haven't heard and answer to that challenge....... just more bs posting
>from you Chung
>
>Date of listing: 06-03-2002
What a crock. You are truly and completely clueless. You don't grasp
the concept of the 2PDiet yet you spend all this energy posting drivel
and making yourself the spotlight for the Dunce of The Year Award.
Have at it. Curtains up.
*Mu*
wrote:
>
>i don't understand why those who question the diet, don't try it out
>before judging and condemning. people tend to negate things they don't
>grasp.
Having pondered this question myself, many times, the common answer to
the rejection of the Simple Two Pound Diet is. in itself, simple.
People will fight with their last breath, use the most inane and
insane arguments, anything to keep that food coming in the quantities
that they want.
"Live To Eat? Nyet. Eat To Live!"
*Mu*
>"Lyle McDonald" <lyl...@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in message
>news:3F1080B7...@grandecomIMRETARDED.net...
>> So 2 lbs of table sugar and 2 lbs of lettuce will take up the same
>> volume in the gut? methinks you forgot about density. Or does 1 lb of
>> lead and 1 lb of feathers take up the same volume of space too?
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:45:17 GMT, "Elvis Parsley"
<elvisp...@rogers.com> wrote:
>Personally, I don't think you should advocate the use of lead and feathers
>as macronutrients.
lol
*Mu*
>On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:42:15 -0500, Lyle McDonald
><lyl...@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:
>
>>So 2 lbs of table sugar and 2 lbs of lettuce will take up the same
>>volume in the gut? methinks you forgot about density.
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 07:00:35 -0400, Ron Ritzman
<ritz...@paniximretarded.com> wrote:
>Furthermore, a liquid (1 pound per pint more or less) will clear the
>stomach very quickly and have zero effect on satiety. An exception is
>milk which is turned into a solid by stomach acid.
Which is why I only mentioned food only in terms of satiety. Although
my intake of H2O, about 3 liters a day direct, helps. It is entirely
possible to keep your stomach near to full with liquids.
>Which is why "drinking calories" is not a good idea on any diet, 2
>pound or otherwise. An exception being a smoothie because ice
>temporarily shuts down the stomach.
YMMV.
Lyle McDonald
>
> Lyle McDonald <lyl...@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> writes:
> > Because, in the universe most of us actually inhabit, folks don't puree
> > their food, they eat it.
>
> Doesn't eating, by its nature, puree the food? Between that and any
> dissolving that goes on, much of the air pockets get removed, which
> accounts for much of the density variations.
water content is a larger contributor to it
most energy dense foods (esp processed) have had the water content removed
> The USDA entry for shredded lettuce gives it a density of about 0.24
> g/ml, which I assume is because of the air between the shreds. Won't
> that air space be gone by the time you swallow the chewed food? I can
> easily imagine that chewing would reduce the volume to 25%, which
> would bring it in line with "dense" foods.
so you think 8 oz of jelly beans and 8 oz of lettuce are going to take
up the same volume in your gut?
Lyle
Tiger_Lily
my point Carol, being that a diet has to be balanced to ensure proper
nutrients and also respects the fact that not all fats are created equal as
far as the bodies use of them are
simply stating 2 lb diets is sufficient certainly is NOT sufficient......
micro and macro nutrients come into play in this issue
the Harvard diet lends that "balance" to a diet that the simple statement of
"2PD" does not
Chung never did respond to my query....... but he quickly put me on his RIP
page for having the audacity to ask the question........ tad touchy isn't
he?
rosie readandpost
>
> my point Carol, being that a diet has to be balanced to ensure proper
> nutrients and also respects the fact that not all fats are created equal as
> far as the bodies use of them are
>
> simply stating 2 lb diets is sufficient certainly is NOT sufficient......
have you looked at carol's posting of menu's?
seem VERY balanced to me!
Carol Frilegh
<nobod...@example.com> wrote:
I have not found him to be so but I had the courtesy to give him the
benefit of the doubt and assume he had health and good nutrition as an
'a priori" of his theory. Technically eating two pounds of anything
would probably work but that is his contention, not his intention. He
may be better at doctoring than constructing sentences so I made
assumptions of my own and Dr. Chung affirmed them. Personally I think
it's uselss to compare this to other diets. Anyone who gives it a try
will be pleased, maybe even delighted.
BTW: I have no vested interest in this, have gone on it independently
and will identify any faults I encounter. So far it's perfect.
*Mu*
<nobod...@example.com> wrote:
>Chung never did respond to my query....... but he quickly put me on his RIP
>page for having the audacity to ask the question........ tad touchy isn't
>he?
Uh, when you get morons calling your office, emailing threats and
leaving obscene voice messages, touchy should be the least of your
worries.
*Mu*
wrote:
> Personally I think
>it's uselss to compare this 2PDiet to other diets. Anyone who gives it a try
>will be pleased, maybe even delighted.
So few will. So few actually want to be held so accountable.
>BTW: I have no vested interest in this, have gone on it independently...
Oops.
Good thing it's Sunday.
<running to mailbox to get Frilegh's "endorsement" check>
lol
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message .com...
> > Lyle McDonald .net> wrote in message .net>...
>
> > > A wonderfully irrelevant argument, I'm starting to agree with the others
> > > who think you're a quack with a gimmick.
> >
> > Folks tend to say that when they lose the argument rather than bow out
> > gracefully.
>
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/rip.asp
> where those who don't 100% agree with
...and become obsessed with...
> Chung end up.......
> for newsgroup
> postings such as this one below:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=69B49.25919%24Z5.974914%40news1.telusplanet.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=f2EK8.5456%24J51.362256%40news1.telusplanet.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=lJCK8.5424%24J51.348279%40news1.telusplanet.net
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Kali Blonde
I am curious about the slashie thing in your professional designation. . .
I work for several physicians-one is an MD, MPH another is a JD, MD. They
use commas, not slashes. Do you use a slash because you earned both degrees
at the same time?
Kali Blonde
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
news:a7cd9c35.03071...@posting.google.com...
Carol Frilegh
<kalib...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Dr. Chung,
>
> I am curious about the slashie thing in your professional designation. . .
>
> I work for several physicians-one is an MD, MPH another is a JD, MD. They
> use commas, not slashes. Do you use a slash because you earned both degrees
> at the same time?
>
> Kali Blonde
>
>
>>
Hey Kali, how ya doing?
Roger Zoul
So, Chung, why not a three-pound diet?
DJ Delorie
Lyle McDonald <lyl...@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> writes:
> water content is a larger contributor to it most energy dense foods
> (esp processed) have had the water content removed
It sound like we may be on different subjects. The theory I was
talking about is this: "A given weight of food will fill the stomach
the same, mostly independent of the type of food". Half a pound of
butter, Half a pound of jelly beans, half a pound of meat, half a
pound of water. They all have about the same density, so once you
reduce it to mush by chewing they should occupy about the same volume
in your stomach.
> so you think 8 oz of jelly beans and 8 oz of lettuce are going to take
> up the same volume in your gut?
I think that if you, on an empty stomach, ate either 8 oz (by weight)
jelly beans, or 8 oz (by weight) lettuce, in a short time period (to
avoid differences caused by gastric emptying), the volume they occupy
in your stomach immediately after eating would be similar. I don't
know the specific density of jelly beans, but various other high-carb
calorie-dense foods I happen to have are about 1 g/ml. Lettuce is 97%
water so I assume it has a density about the same as water, or about 1
g/ml.
This assumes that the air between the lettuce leaves is either not
ingested, or burped out. And all bets are off once gastric emptying
comes into play.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Hello Dr. Chung,
>
> I am curious about the slashie thing in your professional designation. . .
>
> I work for several physicians-one is an MD, MPH another is a JD, MD. They
> use commas, not slashes. Do you use a slash because you earned both degrees
> at the same time?
>
> Kali Blonde
Largely personal preference to underscore that the PhD training in
human genetics has significantly enhanced the MD training.
Regards,
Andrew
Carol Frilegh
<roger...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So, Chung, why not a three-pound diet?
>
Some may find that they need a three pound diet, but are to start with
two. I believe Dr. Chung found this worked for him so based the plan on
it. if you read the facts you will see how oine eventually finds the
right level for loss and then maintenance. Roger have you read the
FAQs?
Roger Zoul
:: In article <vh3tr1d...@corp.supernews.com>, Roger Zoul
No. I don't plan to. What "facts" are you referring to?
Bob Pastorio
>
> >*Mu* wrote:
> >
> >> Because the stomach is not sensitive to macronutrient mix when it
> >> comes to feeling "full" or triggering a decrease or removal of the
> >> urge to eat. It doesn't care whether you put 2 pounds of <fill in
> >> food> thru it. 2 pounds is two pounds. Volume is volume.
>
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:42:15 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> <lyl...@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:
>
> >So 2 lbs of table sugar and 2 lbs of lettuce will take up the same
>
> Me thinks that the stomach doesn't care about terms. Me knows the
> stomach responds to filling up and with what food methinks it does not
> care.
And this is why you're an idiot.
See how simple it is when you prove it all by yourself?
So it doesn't matter what we eat as long as we're full? And density
doesn't matter? And nutritive components don't matter? Stomach doesn't
care?
Like that's an intelligent criterion.
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
>
> DJ Delorie <d...@delorie.com> wrote
> > Of course, this has nothing to do with *caloric* density.
>
> But everything to do with what you feel is filling your stomach. You
> sense the latter and not the former (caloric density).
And feeling that your stomach is full is the point of 2PD? How often?
How many times a day?
That's even more weak than asserting that 2 pounds of food is "enough"
for normal people to lose weight on while feeling full. And, obviously,
2PD is also god as a maintenance program, if Mu is to be believed.
But, why would anyone believe Mu?
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
>
> Lyle McDonald <lyl...@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> writes:
> > their food, they eat it.
>
Actually, no. Teeth are cutters and grinders. Foods are broken into
smaller pieces and mixed with saliva. Or, like bread, for example are
made into a paste (of varying smoothness, depending on constituents)
with the addition of saliva.
> Between that and any
> dissolving that goes on, much of the air pockets get removed, which
> accounts for much of the density variations.
Actually, a good bit of air is swallowed with every bite. Eating coarse
foods that aren't rendered as pastes (most of them) will cause you to
swallow sufficient air to temporarily skew your sense of repleteness.
One of the reasons we burp at the end of meals is because the stomach's
cardiac sphincter permits reflux of gases. That's why a few burps will
ease the sense of fullness. Then you aren't full any more.
> An interesting observation - lard, which is very calorie dense, is
> actually slightly less dense than water (0.87 g/ml). And one of my
> nitrotech bars is about 1 g/ml.
So what? This assumes that volume or weight are logical criteria - and
the sole criteria - for a healthy dietary regime. Makes as much sense as
predicating it on color or shape or reflectivity.
> The USDA entry for shredded lettuce gives it a density of about 0.24
> g/ml, which I assume is because of the air between the shreds. Won't
> that air space be gone by the time you swallow the chewed food? I can
> easily imagine that chewing would reduce the volume to 25%, which
> would bring it in line with "dense" foods.
>
> Of course, this has nothing to do with *caloric* density.
And that's the crux of the failure of this "plan" to make any sense.
With no discipline based on caloric or nutritive implications, it's just
another bit of vague advice - "eat less." Chung wants you to taper off
until you get to two pounds per day. Then, later, consider what you're
eating with an eye towards nutrients. Extra steps to no effectiveness.
Then maybe add some weight to your diet to make it suit you. Right.
Break it first and then fix it by yourself. And if it fails, you screwed
up.
No facts, no figures, no tracked success, no photos, flimsy
"testimonials" and no endorsements for weighing food as a weight control
program from any medical, dietary or scientific group.
Sounds like a winner to me.
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
>
> On 12 Jul 2003 18:31:22 -0400, DJ Delorie <d...@delorie.com> wrote:
>
> >Doesn't eating, by its nature, puree the food?
>
>
> "a paste or thick liquid suspension"
I'm taking your advice, Mu, and sticking to what I know. This is what I
know and you're simply wrong on both counts.
This definition of yours isn't the result of chewing. It's not what
happens. Chew a piece of beef and tell us that it's either a paste or a
thick liquid suspension. Nope. Maybe chew a raw carrot. See?
> > Between that and any
> >dissolving that goes on, much of the air pockets get removed, which
> >accounts for much of the density variations.
>
> Correct.
Wrong again, and I bet everyone's astonished. Air is incorporated *into*
food by the process of chewing.
Go lift something heavy. That's seems to be the limit of what you're
good at. Or so you say.
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
This makes absolutely no sense.
She didn't do any of those things. She posted a note on usenet.
Too complicated for you, sockpuppet?
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
And another irony detector hits the stratosphere...
The master of malice, the guru of gracelessness, the doctor of drivel,
the nabob of nastiness, the aristocrat of assininity, the fishbone of
nothing speaks...
Amazing how little he sees of himself in his own words.
And sad.
Pastorio
DJ Delorie
Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> writes:
> So what? This assumes that volume or weight are logical criteria - and
> the sole criteria - for a healthy dietary regime.
I certainly don't believe they're useful criteria at all. It just
never occurred to me that most foods have the same density, but it
turns out (as far as my experimentation goes) that they're all pretty
close in density (weight/volume). Mostly just an amusing factoid.
> And that's the crux of the failure of this "plan" to make any sense.
I never said the plan made sense. I was just talking about the
density of food. Just getting the recommended 64 oz of water each day
puts you well over the 2 lb limit.
Bob Pastorio
Oh, right, Chung.
Obsession, you say.
Looks more like poking holes in a gasbag.
'Course, being the gasbag in question, you have a different view.
Bwahahahaha
So how long have you subscribed to this naturopathic stuff?
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
>
> Hello Dr. Chung,
>
> I am curious about the slashie thing in your professional designation. . .
>
> I work for several physicians-one is an MD, MPH another is a JD, MD. They
> use commas, not slashes. Do you use a slash because you earned both degrees
> at the same time?
>
In the real world, it's called a sad, little affectation. It's typically
the resort of the same sorts of people who would need to say "Paris,
France" or "Champagne wine" as though anyone listening would be like
them. Probably hear him way over to the next trailer.
Next it'll be Dr. Andrew B. "Visionary" Chung, MD/PhD
Or maybe Dr. Andrew B. "Persecuted martyr for the masses" Chung, MD/PhD
Perhaps Dr. Andrew B(ubba) Chung, MD/PhD
(Or maybe "Dr. Andrew B. 'Redundancy "R" Us' Chung, MD/PhD")
I may start calling myself Bob Pastorio, AA/GE - all around/ good egg.
That slash has a certain panache, no?
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
>
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:43:29 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> <lyl...@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:
>
> >A wonderfully irrelevant argument, I'm starting to agree with the others
>
> Typical McDonald. When you lose the argument, the next out of your
> mouth is a personal attack.
>
> Please don't forget to be vulgar and childish. It would be so unlike
> you not to be.
This is Mu speaking. My irony board just fell over. I was doing my irony
for the coming week - steam irony - and suddenly this post appeared on
the screen and it all fell apart. I'll have to get some help with
getting my irony done. Oh, well. These things happen...
> >Because, in the universe most of us actually inhabit, folks don't puree
> >their food, they eat it.
>
> Same thing.
Only a lackwit with no knowledge of the digestive system would say that.
Oh, wait. It's Mu.
Redundant, huh...?
> lol
You certainly are.
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
>
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 17:35:17 -0400, Carol Frilegh <c...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >Today I did not balance the volume of my meals very evenly and wound up
> >having more at dinner. I actually experienced discomfort.
>
> When I overeat, I pay. It is a great trigger to remind me to be a good
> Mu.
But... but... Chung doesn't think it's necessary to "balance" the volume
of meals, just that your stomach is filled each time.
I already said that a balanced meal volume would go a long way to
creating satiety. Now it seems I was right.
As one of our Great Minds* said (sorta) I don't get no credit...
I'm simply devastated by Mu's not giving me the credit I deserve. After
all we've meant to each other.
See, Grasshoppah, how the fishbone speaks in the third person of
himself? It shows that this Mu person is most wise and deeply needy. It
shows why he needs to have all the sunbeams come to him that he may be
the shining light to all others. Anyone with a magnifying glass can fry
his delicate glutes and often they do.
But this is of no consequence in the large world, for all know him to be
a bag of the gasses from behind unsettled buffaloes and the deer and the
antelopes.
Listen to Mu and form your ideas about how to act. Diametrically
opposite would be a good starting point.
Good Grasshoppah.
Pastorio
*Sir Rodney of Dangerfield
Bob Pastorio
>
> >On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 16:42:15 -0500, Lyle McDonald
> ><lyl...@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:
> >
> >>So 2 lbs of table sugar and 2 lbs of lettuce will take up the same
> >>volume in the gut? methinks you forgot about density.
>
> <ritz...@paniximretarded.com> wrote:
>
> >Furthermore, a liquid (1 pound per pint more or less) will clear the
> >stomach very quickly and have zero effect on satiety. An exception is
> >milk which is turned into a solid by stomach acid.
Actually, the milk curdles and separates into curds and whey. The whey
will represent the vast preponderance of both weight and volume
(depending on the specific dairy product) and will pass rather quickly
out of the stomach. Curds stay behind for a longer time.
> Which is why I only mentioned food only in terms of satiety. Although
> my intake of H2O, about 3 liters a day direct, helps. It is entirely
> possible to keep your stomach near to full with liquids.
No, it isn't. Most liquids remain in the stomach for a short time,
particularly water. To keep your stomach full, you would have to drink
every 10 or 15 minutes all day long. You know about how fast it blasts
through, like how often you have to pee when you're out with the guys
drinking beer and acting all butch. Patting their tattoos and all...
So what do you do, tell the Marines to wait while you slug another cup
of water?
Guess you haven't seen the research that says that too much water taxes
the kidneys. But of course you haven't.
> >Which is why "drinking calories" is not a good idea on any diet, 2
> >pound or otherwise. An exception being a smoothie because ice
> >temporarily shuts down the stomach.
>
> YMMV.
And then again, they likely won't vary much. But they will vary from
what you think is happening in your body. And everybody else's.
Pastorio
Kali Blonde
microdiscectomy and after that patient hurt me. How are you doin? How's
Tronno?
Kali Blonde
"Carol Frilegh" <c...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:130720031908352114%c...@sympatico.ca...
Kali Blonde
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
I wrote:
> > Hello Dr. Chung,
> >
> > I am curious about the slashie thing in your professional designation. .
.
> >
> > I work for several physicians-one is an MD, MPH another is a JD, MD.
They> > use commas, not slashes. Do you use a slash because you earned both
degrees
> > at the same time?
> >
> > Kali Blonde
>
> Largely personal preference to underscore that the PhD training in> human
genetics has significantly enhanced the MD training.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andrew
> --
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Ok, so I am entering the fray a bit late ;-)
I have a question re the 2 pound diet thingy-
I am the poster child for Syndrome X-as a physician (can't dx over the net,
blah-blah-blah)
am I correct in thinking that you would not recommend that I eat 2 pounds of
wheat flour based food per day? I mean, really, as someone who is
hyper-sensitive to wheat and corn sugar you wouldn't say to me "Kali you
just need to eat 2 pounds of food per day to lose weight." if I were subject
to hyperinsulinemia, would you?
Thanks so much for your kind consideration in this matter. . .and your wife
is really kewl to let you hang on the net over the weekend.
Kali Blonde
Kali Blonde
Not a fan of the diet but Dr Chung did say he analyzed his diet and found
that he was eating 3 pounds of food per day and was something like 10 pounds
overweight. He ate at 2 pounds per day per the hikers on Everest and his
weight normalized.
Just FYI, not taking sides since I believe the type of fuel is just as
important as the amount of food.
Kali Blonde
"Roger Zoul" <roger...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vh3tr1d...@corp.supernews.com...
Kali Blonde
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
Kali wrote:
> > Hello Dr. Chung,
> >
> > I am curious about the slashie thing in your professional designation. .
.
> >
> > I work for several physicians-one is an MD, MPH another is a JD, MD.
They
> > use commas, not slashes. Do you use a slash because you earned both
degrees
> > at the same time?
> >
> > Kali Blonde
>
> Largely personal preference to underscore that the PhD training in
> human genetics has significantly enhanced the MD training.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andrew
> --
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Board-Certified Cardiologist
> http://www.heartmdphd.com
Still, commas are the norm. Hmm. k
Kali Blonde
Carol Frilegh
<roger...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You arediscussing the two pound diet and asking why not "three." The
answer is in the FAQs for the diet.
>
--
Diva
********
Discover the freedom of eating wisely. Go TPD!
Carol Frilegh
<kalib...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I am doin' okey dokey-finally getting back on track after the L4-5
> microdiscectomy and after that patient hurt me. How are you doin? How's
> Tronno?
>
> Kali Blonde
>
>
> "Carol Frilegh" <c...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:130720031908352114%c...@sympatico.ca...
> > In article <xvlQa.48866$GL4.13064@rwcrnsc53>, Kali Blonde
> > <kalib...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Dr. Chung,
> > >
> > > I am curious about the slashie thing in your professional designation. .
> .
> > >
> > > I work for several physicians-one is an MD, MPH another is a JD, MD.
> They
> > > use commas, not slashes. Do you use a slash because you earned both
> degrees
> > > at the same time?
> > >
> > > Kali Blonde
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > Hey Kali, how ya doing?
>
Toronto is SARS free at last. the Stones will be rolling in for a
concert and I feel like I've discovered America while trying the Two
Pound Diet. i think it's fantastic and iggnore the bullshit barrage
that is directed about it.
--
Diva
*************
The Best Man for the Job is a Woman
Bob Pastorio
>
> Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> writes:
>
> >*Mu* wrote:
>
> >> >*Mu* wrote:
>
> >> >> Because the stomach is not sensitive to macronutrient mix when it
> >> >> comes to feeling "full" or triggering a decrease or removal of the
> >> >> urge to eat. It doesn't care whether you put 2 pounds of <fill in
> >> >> food> thru it. 2 pounds is two pounds. Volume is volume.
>
> >> >volume in the gut? methinks you forgot about density. Or does 1 lb of
> >> >lead and 1 lb of feathers take up the same volume of space too?
>
> >> Me thinks that the stomach doesn't care about terms. Me knows the
> >> stomach responds to filling up and with what food methinks it does not
> >> care.
>
> >doesn't matter? And nutritive components don't matter? Stomach doesn't
> >care?
>
> >Like that's an intelligent criterion.
>
> how the stomach decides it's had enough, and the stomach *isn't*
> intelligent. That's why stapling the stomach or inserting balloons
> full of water into the stomach causes folk to eat smaller
> meals. Stomachs are stupid, and it's stupid to expect an intellifgent
> criterion from a stomach.
Precisely. That's what I just said. And that's exactly why it's a bad
idea to posit the effectiveness of a dietary approach on it.
I wasn't talking about the intelligence of the stomach; it was about the
intelligence of the criterion. The intelligence of the postulate that
volume is a necessary and sufficient criterion for weight loss. And, oh,
it was a sarcastic reference. HTH.
Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
> Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> writes:
>
> >No facts, no figures, no tracked success, no photos, flimsy
> >"testimonials" and no endorsements for weighing food as a weight control
> >program from any medical, dietary or scientific group.
>
> >Sounds like a winner to me.
>
> I've pointed out before that it's pretty silly to criticise a novel
> approach on the grounds that it's new. The fact that you persist in
> using such silly arguments, and continue dpesite corrections to
> misrepresent the idea in order to mock it further, is beginning to
> suggest that your criticisms are not rational.
Yes. You've pointed out many things of equally compelling depth, to some
discredit.
The criticism isn't that it's new, it's that it's rather startling to
see a person with an MD and a Ph.D. suggesting it with no supportive
data he's willing to publish. He claims a lot, his mouthpiece, Mu,
claims a lot and yet they offer nothing to substantiate their
*CONCLUSIONS* and recommendations.
The existence of conclusions presupposes data, for any intelligent
person. For someone who claims a scientific background, Chung
demonstrates little of it. They show no data, only the most watery
"testimonials" from people with more questions than endorsements. Not
much to kindle credibility.
Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
> Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> writes:
>
> >And that's the crux of the failure of this "plan" to make any sense.
> >With no discipline based on caloric or nutritive implications, it's just
> >another bit of vague advice - "eat less." Chung wants you to taper off
> >until you get to two pounds per day. Then, later, consider what you're
> >eating with an eye towards nutrients. Extra steps to no effectiveness.
> >Then maybe add some weight to your diet to make it suit you. Right.
> >Break it first and then fix it by yourself. And if it fails, you screwed
> >up.
>
> Sounds like a sensible plan for discovering something that's not too
> hard to discover by experiment. Before science was invented a few
> hundred years ago that's how people built cathedrals, warships,
> armies, swords, spears, bows and arrows, and conquered the world. We
> don't need science for everything, and there's plenty of areas where
> trying to apply the finical and pedestrian methods of science is
> futile
Your sad education is showing. Tactics conquered what worlds were
conquered, not things. Read about the Wasa that sank on launch and the
cathedrals that tumbled about the ears of the builders. More to the
point, you're advocating rejecting what's already clear and known to
accept a weak and redundant notion. Let's all reinvent wheels and
levers. You're saying that volume is *the* criterion for weight control.
I say it's *a* criterion, at best. And that it needs more science to
make it even remotely useful for normal people.
Remember Pink Floyd...?
Everybody sing...
"We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave the kids alone
Hey teacher leave us kids alone
All in all it's just another brick in the wall
All in all you're just another brick in the wall"
Pastorio
Carol Frilegh
<past...@rica.net> wrote:
>
> I may start calling myself Bob Pastorio, AA/GE - all around/ good egg.
> That slash has a certain panache, no?
>
> Pastorio
>
And I am starting to call you Bob "Killfiled* Pastorio" effective
immediately because although you have decided this diet is not for you
you have expended many bandwidths in criticizing the diet and it's
author. A mature person would have moved on to something positive or
tried to disprove the diet by testing it.
rosie readandpost
your objection to his using initials to indicate his education sounds a little like jealousy.
--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie
never let yesterday use up too much of today.
..........................anonymous
"Bob Pastorio" <past...@rica.net> wrote in message news:3F122B4A...@rica.net...
Tiger_Lily
news:a7cd9c35.03071...@posting.google.com...
> "Tiger_Lily" <nobod...@example.com> wrote in message
news:<berolp$893j7$1...@ID-181334.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message .com...
> > > Lyle McDonald .net> wrote in message .net>...
> >
others
> > > > who think you're a quack with a gimmick.
> > >
> > > Folks tend to say that when they lose the argument rather than bow out
> > > gracefully.
> >
> > where those who don't 100% agree with
>
> ...and become obsessed with...
>
> > Chung end up.......
>
> > for newsgroup
> > postings such as this one below:
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=69B49.25919%24Z5.974914%40news1.telusplanet.net
where i reply to someone who has chosen to post your phone number and i
request that your phone number be verified so that someone NOT involved in
this is NOT attacked...... i have NO desire to call you, nor have i
indicated that i have even looked up your phone number...... READ THE
POST>>>>>>....... fool
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=f2EK8.5456%24J51.362256%40news1.telusplanet.net
kewl....... and that says what???
YOU requested an e-mail.......... my e-mail to YOU was to point out that
Roose was not doing YOU any credibility........... you came to the diabetes
newsgroup and behaved like a 2 yr old
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=lJCK8.5424%24J51.348279%40news1.telusplanet.net
and i noted there are 2 Andrew D and Andrew B potential Chung drs.......
you have my name on a RIP page and i state i'm haunting you
push someone and they will reply Andrew/Roose/Mu/Feedrus and all of your
incarnations
you really have a twisted mind to come up with the fact that 3 times i
posted about you...... now check the date of YOU advertising YOUR RIP page
and the times i made the above posts........ all of which are totally
inconsequential
you are a sick sick sick excuse for a human being
cya Dr, Doctor
tell Mu to give it up....... have a nice close and personal talk with him
ok?
>
> --
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Board-Certified Cardiologist
> http://www.heartmdphd.com
Bob Pastorio
>
> In article <3F122B4A...@rica.net>, Bob Pastorio
> <past...@rica.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > I may start calling myself Bob Pastorio, AA/GE - all around/ good egg.
> > That slash has a certain panache, no?
> >
> > Pastorio
> >
> And I am starting to call you Bob "Killfiled* Pastorio" effective
> immediately because although you have decided this diet is not for you
> you have expended many bandwidths in criticizing the diet and it's
> author. A mature person would have moved on to something positive or
> tried to disprove the diet by testing it.
Thank you for your kind note.
Just a few bits here:
You should say "much bandwidth" rather than "many bandwidths." You might
also want to find out what it means before using the expression. Or you
could stop trying to sound more internet savvy than you really are and
just say I've posted a lot.
I have criticized both the 2Pound Starvation Diet and the zany guy who
created it - out of his misunderstanding of mountain climbers and their
food and drink. Your observation is correct.
A mature person would have kept the focus on the insubstantial ideas
that form the wonderfully whimsical 2Pound Starvation Plan so others
wouldn't be led into it without understanding how silly it is. Oh, wait.
That's what I did. Um, am doing.
There is no "diet." There's only a weak "plan" that says you should use
"common sense" in doing it and that all you have to do is starve
yourself by eating 2 pounds of anything you want as long as it's
"sensible" and everything will be all right. "Sensible" means to eat
what a good balanced diet includes. Oh, and the sizes of the meals
should also be balanced so the volumes are equivalent, but we only found
that out yesterday, and not from Chung. Of course, we know that stuff
about nutrients because scientists have done lots of tests and are still
doing more to find the subtle and surprising things that "common sense"
doesn't tell us.
Otherwise, it's a swell idea. I can't wait for the movie. Will it be
animated like The Little Mermaid with cool fish and some songs? Fish is
good, right?
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
>
> bob,
> your objection to his using initials to indicate his education sounds a little like jealousy.
Nah. It's all about trying to somehow inflate the credentials. The guy
has an MD *and* a Ph. D. and he doesn't need to play with it. If he
really had confidence in his accomplishments, he wouldn't need to try to
somehow blow it up.
Unfortunately, it seems to be all of a piece with the rest of his style.
The guy's a doctor, fer crissakes. He shouldn't need to brag. That's a
major accomplishment all by itself.
But the way he comports himself speaks volumes. Res ipsa loquitur.
Pastorio
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Roger Zoul" <roger...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<vh0f6ke...@corp.supernews.com>...
> <snip>
> > What about density? 2 pounds of this has differnt volume than 2 pounds of
> > that.
>
> Like, say, two pounds of marshmallows?
Once chewed up and swallowed (the puffed in air escapes)... similar volume. Isn't science wonderful?
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
Lyle McDonald
>
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> :: Lyle McDonald <lyl...@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in message
> :: news:<3F108102...@grandecomIMRETARDED.net>...
> ::: "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
> ::
> :::: Simple experiment you can try at home:
> ::::
> :::: Take two pounds of food and puree it in a blender.
> ::::
> :::: Pour this mush into metric measuring cups (or a 1000 ml graduated
> :::: cylinder if
> :::: you happen to have one lying around :-).
> ::::
> :::: Prediction: The volume will be around 900 mls.
> ::::
> :::: It's science not magic that the prediction works without know the
> :::: "this and
> :::: that."
> ::::
> :::: Comment: Only inorganic substances containing elements higher up
> :::: on the
> :::: periodic table have densities significantly greater than 1 gram
> :::: per ml. Food
> :::: does not contain such substances. Moreover, some foods
> :::: (especially fat) are
> :::: even less dense so that balanced foods are very likely at 1 gram
> :::: per ml in
> :::: density.
> :::
> ::: others
> ::: who think you're a quack with a gimmick.
> ::
> :: Folks tend to say that when they lose the argument rather than bow
> :: out
> :: gracefully.
> ::: Because, in the universe most of us actually inhabit, folks don't
> ::: puree
> ::: their food, they eat it.
> ::
> :: ... by chewing it...
> ::
> ::: The energy density of food will change the
> ::: *volume* of food consumed for a given *weight* of food.
> ::
> :: No, the energy density will not affect the volume that the food will
> :: occupy in the stomach. The weight, however, will.
> ::
Humans don't like odd numbers, as a general rule of thumb.
Lyle
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> <snip>
> Furthermore, a liquid (1 pound per pint more or less) will clear the
> stomach very quickly and have zero effect on satiety. An exception is
> milk which is turned into a solid by stomach acid.
>
> Which is why "drinking calories" is not a good idea on any diet, 2
> pound or otherwise. An exception being a smoothie because ice
> temporarily shuts down the stomach.
All the more reason for weighing it.
Regards,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> >
> > my point Carol, being that a diet has to be balanced to ensure proper
> > nutrients and also respects the fact that not all fats are created equal as
> > far as the bodies use of them are
> >
> > simply stating 2 lb diets is sufficient certainly is NOT sufficient......
>
> have you looked at carol's posting of menu's?
> seem VERY balanced to me!
And even if it were not, over time it will tend to become so anyway.