Very high triglyceride numbers (what does it mean, what can be done)?
Myo Cardium
Buddy of mine (mid-30's, male, recent ex-smoker, 6ft, 195 lbs) has
come back with triglyceride numbers between 400 and 700 (yes he was
fasting and has had these tests repeated several times). This was for
a cholesterol test - apparently with triglyceride levels that high the
HDL and LDL numbers are not trust-worthy?
Anyways, he's on a diet of reduced (or no) sugar, cola, juices, red
meat, and with a daily dose of flax seed for a few months before
another test. No symptoms of diabetes that I'm aware of. He's
vauguely aware that his brother also may have either high cholseterol
or triglycerides. Sister, mother test ok. Father died in his 50's
(heart disease of some sort).
Anyways, I was wondering what other tests would be worth-while (say,
thyroid?).
Say that because of this diet his triglyceride levels test normal and
so do the cholsterol levels. If this happens, and if he goes back to
his normal diet, then presumably his triglyceride levels will go back
up. If they do, is it a given that his cholsterol will also shoot up?
OR, if the only consequence of an uncontrolled diet is high
tryglycerides (but normal cholsterol) then is that a bad thing? Are
there any medications that can reduce tryglceride levels?
Please post any responses. Thanx.
Julie Bove
"Myo Cardium" <M...@Cardium.com> wrote in message
news:3FB99857...@Cardium.com...
High triglycerides can be caused by eating too many carbs, particularly of
the refined variety. It's not just sugar, but white flour and other things.
He will need to modify his diet and continue for the rest of his life on
such a diet. Otherwise, the problem will return. There are meds for high
triglycerides, but I don't know the particulars of them.
--
Type 2
http://users.bestweb.net/~jbove/
Matti Narkia
<vrjap3e...@corp.supernews.com> "Julie Bove" <jnosp...@bestweb.net>
wrote:
Exactly. Low carb diet may help. Reduction in carbs means increase in fat
or/and protein. The increased fat should IMHO consists mainly of
monounsaturated and omega-3 fatty acids. In fact, fish oil has also been
shown to reduce triglyceride levels, see
Chan DC, Watts GF, Mori TA, Barrett PH, Redgrave TG, Beilin LJ.
Randomized controlled trial of the effect of n-3 fatty acid
supplementation on the metabolism of apolipoprotein B-100 and chylomicron
remnants in men with visceral obesity.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Feb;77(2):300-7.
PMID: 12540386 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12540386&dopt=Abstract>
Jonkers IJ, Smelt AH, Ledeboer M, Hollum ME, Biemond I, Kuipers F,
Stellaard F, Boverhof R, Meinders AE, Lamers CH, Masclee AA.
Gall bladder dysmotility: a risk factor for gall stone formation in
hypertriglyceridaemia and reversal on triglyceride lowering therapy by
bezafibrate and fish oil.
Gut. 2003 Jan;52(1):109-15.
PMID: 12477770 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12477770&dopt=Abstract>
Durrington PN, Bhatnagar D, Mackness MI, Morgan J, Julier K, Khan MA,
France M.
An omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid concentrate administered for one
year decreased triglycerides in simvastatin treated patients with coronary
heart disease and persisting hypertriglyceridaemia.
Heart. 2001 May;85(5):544-8.
PMID: 11303007 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11303007&dopt=Abstract>
Stark KD, Park EJ, Maines VA, Holub BJ.
Effect of a fish-oil concentrate on serum lipids in postmenopausal women
receiving and not receiving hormone replacement therapy in a
placebo-controlled, double-blind trial.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Aug;72(2):389-94.
PMID: 10919932 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10919932&dopt=Abstract>
Harris WS.
Nonpharmacologic treatment of hypertriglyceridemia: focus on fish oils.
Clin Cardiol. 1999 Jun;22(6 Suppl):II40-3. Review.
PMID: 10376196 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10376196&dopt=Abstract>
Marckmann P, Bladbjerg EM, Jespersen J.
Dietary fish oil (4 g daily) and cardiovascular risk markers in healthy
men.
Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1997 Dec;17(12):3384-91.
PMID: 9437183 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9437183&dopt=Abstract>
Roche HM, Gibney MJ.
Postprandial triacylglycerolaemia: the effect of low-fat dietary treatment
with and without fish oil supplementation.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1996 Sep;50(9):617-24.
PMID: 8880041 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8880041&dopt=Abstract>
Mori TA, Vandongen R, Beilin LJ, Burke V, Morris J, Ritchie J.
Effects of varying dietary fat, fish, and fish oils on blood lipids in a
randomized controlled trial in men at risk of heart disease.
Am J Clin Nutr. 1994 May;59(5):1060-8.
PMID: 8172092 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8172092&dopt=Abstract>
Tato F, Keller C, Wolfram G.
Effects of fish oil concentrate on lipoproteins and apolipoproteins in
familial combined hyperlipidemia.
Clin Investig. 1993 Apr;71(4):314-8.
PMID: 8471818 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8471818&dopt=Abstract>
Zakaria B, Bertsch S.
[Low-dose omega-3 fatty acids as lipid lowering agents in the practice. A
field study of ambulatory patients in general practice]
Fortschr Med. 1992 Apr 10;110(10):178-82. German.
PMID: 1577358 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1577358&dopt=Abstract>
Bairati I, Roy L, Meyer F.
Effects of a fish oil supplement on blood pressure and serum lipids in
patients treated for coronary artery disease.
Can J Cardiol. 1992 Jan-Feb;8(1):41-6.
PMID: 1617510 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1617510&dopt=Abstract>
Burr ML.
Fish food, fish oil and cardiovascular disease.
Clin Exp Hypertens A. 1992;14(1-2):181-92. Review.
PMID: 1541036 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1541036&dopt=Abstract>
Deslypere JP.
Influence of supplementation with N-3 fatty acids on different coronary
risk factors in men--a placebo controlled study.
Verh K Acad Geneeskd Belg. 1992;54(3):189-216.
PMID: 1413984 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1413984&dopt=Abstract>
Harris WS, Windsor SL, Dujovne CA.
Effects of four doses of n-3 fatty acids given to hyperlipidemic patients
for six months.
J Am Coll Nutr. 1991 Jun;10(3):220-7.
PMID: 1832701 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1832701&dopt=Abstract>
Terres W, Beil U, Reimann B, Tiede S, Bleifeld W.
[Low-dose fish oil in primary hypertriglyceridemia. A randomized
placebo-controlled study]
Z Kardiol. 1991 Jan;80(1):20-4. German.
PMID: 2035283 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2035283&dopt=Abstract>
DeLany JP, Vivian VM, Snook JT, Anderson PA.
Effects of fish oil on serum lipids in men during a controlled feeding
trial.
Am J Clin Nutr. 1990 Sep;52(3):477-85.
PMID: 2203252 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2203252&dopt=Abstract>
Bohn KA, Friisk CF, Boe OW, Hysing J.
[Effect on the lipid profile of diet supplemented with fish oil
concentrate]
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1990 May 20;110(13):1693-6. Norwegian.
PMID: 2195704 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2195704&dopt=Abstract>
Radack KL, Deck CC, Huster GA.
n-3 fatty acid effects on lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins at
very low doses: results of a randomized controlled trial in
hypertriglyceridemic subjects.
Am J Clin Nutr. 1990 Apr;51(4):599-605.
PMID: 2181859 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2181859&dopt=Abstract>
Bhathena SJ, Ali AA, Haudenschild C, Latham P, Ranich T, Mohamed AI,
Hansen CT, Velasquez MT.
Dietary Flaxseed Meal is More Protective Than Soy Protein Concentrate
Against Hypertriglyceridemia and Steatosis of the Liver in an Animal Model
of Obesity.
J Am Coll Nutr. 2003 Apr;22(2):157-64.
PMID: 12672712 [PubMed - in process]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12672712&dopt=Abstract>
oldal4865
Myo Cardium wrote in message <3FB99857...@Cardium.com>...
". . . .No symptoms of diabetes that I am aware of. . ."
Well, he has at least one symptom of diabetes, high triglycerides.
He also displays a suspicious circumstance, a blood relative who died young
from a heart attack. Dying young from a heart attack can be the
first-noticed-symptom of developing Type 2 diabetes, a disease which "runs
in the family".
Type 2 diabetes is caused by a genetic condition. The genetic condition
causes high Insulin Resistance which attacks the body for an average of 10
years before any easily detected symptoms such as high blood sugar emerge.
However, it does cause high triglycerides levels which is usually regarded
as a marker for Type 2 diabetes.
A test which reveals high Insulin Resistance is a simultaneous measurement
of fasting blood sugar and fasting insulin in the blood.
Most folks have a fasting insulin level somewhere around 5 milliUnits per
mL. Non-Insulin Resistant folks are characterized by a HOMA index less
than about 30 (most of them are below 20),
HOMA index = fasting blood sugar x fasting insulin/22.5
(that's using U.S. measurements, blood sugar in mg/dL, fasting insulin in
milliUnits/mL)
It would be really useful to measure his blood sugar at 2 hours after a
**high carb** meal. (If he has any diabetic friends, the diabetic friend
should have a home blood testing meter.) Any blood sugar much over 100
mg/dL at 2 hours after eating a high carb meal is getting suspicious, any
blood sugar much over 140 mg/dL mg/dL is a definite marker of developing
Type 2 diabetes.
However, that kind of blood sugar test isn't that descriptive for folks
eating low carb unless they are already full-blown diabetic.
Some over the counter self-treatments for high triglycerides are:
a. one gram of fish oil 3 - 5 times a day. For triglycerides that
high, 5 times a day is better.
b. Flax seed ( note, he's not looking for the Flax Oil!. It's the
outer casing of the seed he wants!)
c. Time-release, (over the counter) niacin. 500 mg, taken twice a
day.
There are at least two prescription meds. Statins and Lopid work.
http://www.reducetriglycerides.com/Bstdtreatment.htm
Metformin is an anti-Insulin Resistance med which would help reduce any high
Insulin Resistance.
Good thing he's concerned. His father's early death and those lousy
triglycerides indicate things don't go well genetically in his family.
Best to get right after the problem when he's young.
If they detect high Insulin Resistance, the lifestyle change which he
needs is:
a. Lose fat lb, especially around the abdomen
b. Gain muscle lb
c. Exercise vigorously every day. Daily is very important.
d. Ration his daily carbohydrate, eat slowly digesting carbohydrate,
split the daily carb over several small meals.
Regards
Old Al
oldal4865
oldal4865 wrote in message ...
>
>Myo Cardium wrote in message <3FB99857...@Cardium.com>...
>>
>>Buddy of mine (mid-30's, male, recent ex-smoker, 6ft, 195 lbs) has
>>OR, if the only consequence of an uncontrolled diet is high
>>tryglycerides (but normal cholsterol) then is that a bad thing? Are
>>there any medications that can reduce tryglceride levels?
>>
>>Please post any responses. Thanx.
>
>
>
> ". . . .No symptoms of diabetes that I am aware of. . ."
>
> Well, he has at least one symptom of diabetes, high triglycerides.
>
>. . .(snip). .>
>Some over the counter self-treatments for high triglycerides are:
>
> a. one gram of fish oil 3 - 5 times a day. For triglycerides that
>high, 5 times a day is better.
>
> b. Flax seed ( note, he's not looking for the Flax Oil!. It's the
>outer casing of the seed he wants!)
>
> c. Time-release, (over the counter) niacin. 500 mg, taken twice a
>day.
>
>There are at least two prescription meds. Statins and Lopid work.
>
> http://www.reducetriglycerides.com/Bstdtreatment.htm
>
>Metformin is an anti-Insulin Resistance med which would help reduce any
high
>Insulin Resistance.
>
>Good thing he's concerned. His father's early death and those lousy
>triglycerides indicate things don't go well genetically in his family.
>Best to get right after the problem when he's young.
>
>If they detect high Insulin Resistance, the lifestyle change which he
>needs is:
>
> a. Lose fat lb, especially around the abdomen
> b. Gain muscle lb
> c. Exercise vigorously every day. Daily is very important.
> d. Ration his daily carbohydrate, eat slowly digesting carbohydrate,
>split the daily carb over several small meals.
>
>Regards
> Old Al
>
>
Oops! Little bit of a brain f*rt there. . .lots of "hows" , no "whys"
or "who says so"
1. McGowan, Mary P. M.D. "50 Ways to Lower Your Cholesterol" says so
(she's a cardiologist)
2. The cardiologist who advises my diabetic support group says so.
3. I say so (hey, I tried it and it worked)
4. Sadly, the big "WHY"
WHY would you want to do this stuff?
To avoid early heart attack!
High triglycerides are a killer!
Regards
Old Al
Regard
Myo Cardium
and hence will result in Type 2 diabetes?
I mean, could anyone develop type 2 this way if for some reason their
metabolism keeps blood triglyceride levels high?
Getting back to my buddy, he is by no means over-weight and it's not
like he's constantly eating junk food. Should he get a home glucose
tester?
Is diabetes the worst - or most likely - outcome of persistent high
tryglyceride levels vs coronary artery occlusion?
Are triglycerides the same as (bad) cholesterol? I mean, can you have
high triglcerides and still have the desired levels of HDL and LDL???
If so, then is coronary artery health tied independently to
triglyceride levels - or cholesterol?
Basically what I'm trying to determine is that if he continues to eat
his regular diet (ok, maybe some omega-3 stuff and flax thrown in),
then can he take cholesterol-lowering drugs to get his LDL and HDL to
a desirable level and then his only problem is an elevated
triglyceride level which will pre-dispose him to type-2 diabetes?
Stuart
High tryglycerides are not a cause but a symptom of the metabolic
processes involved in developing type 2 diabetes. My history is not
unlike that of your friend. My fther died of a heart attack at 53,
I developed high blood pressure and high triglycerides in my mid-30s.
Despite the fact that I was not overweight, was very active physically,
and ate a reasonably healthy diet by the standards of the American
Heart Association, I had a poor HDL to LDL ratio.
I was put on Lopid, Questran, and told to eat a low fat diet. My doctor
considered me her model patient because of my compliance with the
recommended diet. I was diagnosed with diabetes at 52. I had moved and
changed doctors in the intervening years. My new doctor suggested I try
the low carb diet described in the Protein Power Life Plan by Michael
and Mary Eades. I have been on the low carb for 3 1/2 years. My blood
sugar is normal (HgbA1C low 5s), my HDL to LDL ratio is good, my
triglycerides run around 100.
Your friend has a chance to make a real difference in his long term
health. Al is right about the fact that he should have his fasting
insulin level checked. I believe the four essential measurements are
HgbA1C, fasting insulin, C reactive protein, and homocysteine.
Having read lots and lots of research papers I'm convinced that
impaired glucose processing is the primary cause of heart disease. A
significant secondary factor is B vitamin deficiency.
I eat a low carb diet with less than 40 grams of carbs a day. I eat
lots of low carb geen vegetables: leaf lettuce, broccoli, asparagus.
Plenty of mono saturated fats, avocados and olive oil. I take 3
tablespoonfuls of cod liver oil each day. Cod liver oil brought my
triglycerides down more than Lopid ever did.
There is a lot of hysterical opposition to low carb diets. It seems to
come mostly from people who have never tried it. Beside the book I
mentioned earlier I think Barry Sears of the Zone diet has some good
ideas.
Leaving this problem go until diabetes develops or a heart attack
happens is not a good approach. People who suffer the metabolic
impairment that causes diabetes benefit by coming to grips with the
problem sooner rather than later.
Wishing good health,
Stuart
In article <3FBA3DBF...@Cardium.com>, Myo Cardium
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Will high triglyceride levels eventually lead to insulin resistance
> and hence will result in Type 2 diabetes?
He may be at higher risk for it especially if there are other findings
to suggest metabolic syndrome (MetS).
> I mean, could anyone develop type 2 this way if for some reason their
> metabolism keeps blood triglyceride levels high?
See above.
> Getting back to my buddy, he is by no means over-weight and it's not
> like he's constantly eating junk food. Should he get a home glucose
> tester?
A male whose height is 6ft ideally should weigh 160 lbs. Being that
he is 195 lbs in your original post, he might be overweight. He could
be carrying the fat around his organs (visceral adiposity) so that he
does not look overweight. What is his weight circumference?
> Is diabetes the worst - or most likely - outcome of persistent high
> tryglyceride levels vs coronary artery occlusion?
If your friend has MetS, the high triglycerides increases risk of
occlusive coronary disease (heart attacks) and cerebrovascular disease
(strokes).
> Are triglycerides the same as (bad) cholesterol?
No.
> I mean, can you have
> high triglcerides and still have the desired levels of HDL and LDL???
Yes. However, with MetS, HDL is usually also low.
> If so, then is coronary artery health tied independently to
> triglyceride levels - or cholesterol?
See above.
> Basically what I'm trying to determine is that if he continues to eat
> his regular diet (ok, maybe some omega-3 stuff and flax thrown in),
> then can he take cholesterol-lowering drugs to get his LDL and HDL to
> a desirable level and then his only problem is an elevated
> triglyceride level which will pre-dispose him to type-2 diabetes?
See above.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
oldal4865
Myo Cardium wrote in message <3FBA3DBF...@Cardium.com>...
You've got the cart before the horse. When discussing Insulin Resistance
and Type 2 diabetes, high triglycerides are a "result" not a "cause".
Insulin Resistance is a common cause (not the only cause) of high
triglycerides.
However, Coronary Artery health is totally enmeshed in the overall subject,
i.e.:
1. High triglycerides damage arteries
2. High insulin levels which accompany Insulin Resistance damage
arteries.
3. High LDL which **tends** to follow Insulin Resistance and diabetes
damages arteries.
4. High blood sugars which accompany the diabetes which often results
from long term Insulin Resistance damages arteries.
5. High blood pressure which accompanies Insulin Resistance-damaged
arteries also, by itself, "encourages" premature heart attack. (I don't
know how that one works, btw)
One fact which I don't know how to fit into the above answer: a high
triglycerides to HDL ratio is very dangerous. A high ratio, above 3.0
means that certain lipids (LDL I think) are small sized, and therefore very
dangerous. The small-sized ones are more prone to depositing in the
arteries, oxidizing, and "sticking forever".
Triglycerides are not the same as cholesterol. The principal components of
a Lipid Panel are "Total Cholesterol, High Density Lipids (HDL), Low
Density Lipid (LDL), Very Low Density Lipid (VLDL) and Triglycerides. I'm
not qualified to give a lecture on them, I just know which are the bad ones
(LDL, VLDL, triglycerides) and what I should do to minimize them.
One can hope to fight the coronary artery damage by attacking the symptoms
of high Insulin Resistance. The anti-high triglycerides meds (flax,
niacin, fish oil) combined with the anti-cholesterol statins help.
However, high levels of circulating insulin which accompany high Insulin
Resistance will cause sufficient damage to cause premature heart attack all
by themselves.
It is in his best interest to find out if he has high Insulin Resistance
and if he has it, attack it with the diet/exercise/fat loss/muscle gain
tricks. If nobody will write the lab orders to test for high Insulin
Resistance, then he ought to embrace the lifestyle changes anyway. The
penalties are too severe to take chances.
It makes perfect sense to use all the weapons simultaneously:
anti-triglycerides meds, anti-cholesterol meds, and metformin anti-Insulin
Resistance meds. However, few docs will treat high Insulin Resistance by
itself. They tend to want to see something wrong with the glucose
metabolism (diabetes or pre-diabetes) before prescribing the anti-Insulin
Resistance meds metformin, Actos or Avandia.
Insulin Resistance and Type 2 diabetes are genetic problems. Looking at a
person's body and eating habits is not enough though abdominal fat is a
strong indicator. Some men have problems when they go from 300 to 350 lb;
some when they go from 160 to 180 lb.
Of course, diabetes and Insulin Resistance aren't the only causes of high
triglycerides:
http://www.cholesterol-and-triglycerides.com/html/causes-and-effects.php3
http://www.all-about-lowering-cholesterol.com/causes-of-high-triglycerides.h
tml
but they are a marker for High Insulin Resistance and Diabetes. When you
bring up such topics on Diabetes Newsgroups, you tend to get a lot of
diabetes/Insulin Resistance answers cause that's all must of know about the
subject.
Keep on digging. Good luck.
Regards
Old Al
Alan
Chung, Mu-D/PhD) wrote:
>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>Board-Certified Troll
>http://www.heartm-un.com/
Duh!
I did it again! I read all this before checking the sig.
I have to remember to check the headings on threads like this for
cross-postings.
DFTT
Cheers Alan, T2, Oz
dx May 2002, diet and not enough exercise.
--
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
<fabricated material snipped>
I'm sure the original poster appreciated your contribution.
FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message.
Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not
request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are
upset about reading this message, a few suggestions:
(1) Yell at Alan
(2) Report Alan to his ISP for violating their TOS with his fabricated
post.
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.
This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which
is described completely at:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this
Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has
been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community
service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen
from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of
Himself to better the health of folks He touched:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp
From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are
vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated
Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and
have lost the argument soundly at every point:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp
These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and
other discussion threads.
However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the
argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2
pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be
"if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the
messenger."
Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll"
is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no
redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting
"flame" wars.
These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the
following observations were made:
(1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting
the discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the
2PD to achieve near-ideal weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when
their weight becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc
(3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
(5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line
(including jpegs of the actual diplomas).
Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have
tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they
were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements,
the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed
louder in support of their fallen hero.
Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either
actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they
are, using the on-line third-party resources at:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp
where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and
libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily
debunked.
Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning
the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack):
(1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or
accountability).
(2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory
characters.
(3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to
deliver one-sided insults.
(4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by
cross-posting.
(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the
2PD or its author.
and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.
It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to
speed.
It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din
of hissing from the peanut gallery.
Sincerely,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Mack
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Specifically in the context of MetS. The 2PD approach is an safe way to
permanently lose fat weight (central adiposity) in this context, ime.
Use the pubmed links at HeartMDPhD.com if you want to look up the studies that
establish triglycerides as a CAD risk factors in folks with MetS.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> High tryglycerides are not a cause but a symptom of the metabolic
> processes involved in developing type 2 diabetes. My history is not
> unlike that of your friend. My fther died of a heart attack at 53,
> I developed high blood pressure and high triglycerides in my mid-30s.
> Despite the fact that I was not overweight, was very active physically,
> and ate a reasonably healthy diet by the standards of the American
> Heart Association, I had a poor HDL to LDL ratio.
>
Were you at "ideal" body weight (BMI=20)?
>
> I was put on Lopid, Questran, and told to eat a low fat diet. My doctor
> considered me her model patient because of my compliance with the
> recommended diet. I was diagnosed with diabetes at 52. I had moved and
> changed doctors in the intervening years. My new doctor suggested I try
> the low carb diet described in the Protein Power Life Plan by Michael
> and Mary Eades. I have been on the low carb for 3 1/2 years. My blood
> sugar is normal (HgbA1C low 5s), my HDL to LDL ratio is good, my
> triglycerides run around 100.
>
> Your friend has a chance to make a real difference in his long term
> health. Al is right about the fact that he should have his fasting
> insulin level checked. I believe the four essential measurements are
> HgbA1C, fasting insulin, C reactive protein, and homocysteine.
>
HgbA1C probably obviates the utility of fasting insulin. C reactive protein
(CRP) should be hsCRP. Homocysteine should be checked when someone shifts
to a high protein diet. Kidney function and uric acid levels should
probably also be monitored if one opts to go high protein. Ime, the 2PD
approach is simpler given these considerations.
>
> Having read lots and lots of research papers I'm convinced that
> impaired glucose processing is the primary cause of heart disease. A
> significant secondary factor is B vitamin deficiency.
>
> I eat a low carb diet with less than 40 grams of carbs a day. I eat
> lots of low carb geen vegetables: leaf lettuce, broccoli, asparagus.
> Plenty of mono saturated fats, avocados and olive oil. I take 3
> tablespoonfuls of cod liver oil each day. Cod liver oil brought my
> triglycerides down more than Lopid ever did.
>
> There is a lot of hysterical opposition to low carb diets. It seems to
> come mostly from people who have never tried it.
The opposition comes from concerns that "unbalanced" diets would lead to
more cancer, heart disease, and renal disease. These concerns arise not
from "not trying the low carb diets" but from scientific considerations.
> Beside the book I
> mentioned earlier I think Barry Sears of the Zone diet has some good
> ideas.
>
> Leaving this problem go until diabetes develops or a heart attack
> happens is not a good approach.
There are "safer" ways to lose weight, however.
> People who suffer the metabolic
> impairment that causes diabetes benefit by coming to grips with the
> problem sooner rather than later.
>
That they do.
>
> Wishing good health,
>
> Stuart
Thank you for your comments.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Fwiw, I have never seen anyone at "ideal" body weight (BMI=20) develop Type 2
diabetes.
Jim Horne
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <cardio...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
news:3FBBA7AA...@heartmdphd.com...
<snip>
: The 2PD approach is an safe way to
: permanently lose fat weight (central adiposity) in this context, ime.
:
speaking of diets:
Four Popular Diets Equally Effective for Weight Loss
Nov. 10, 2003 (Orlando) - In a randomized study comparing four popular diets
over the course of a year, all diets demonstrated efficacy for weight loss
and reduction of Framingham risk scores, but only the Atkins, Weight
Watchers, and Zone diets achieved statistically significant reductions in
Framingham scores, according to results presented here at the American Heart
Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions.
"Losing 20 pounds corresponded to about a 30% reduction in heart risk
score," said Michael L. Dansinger, MD, assistant professor of medicine at
Tufts University, New England Medical Center, in Boston, Massachusetts.
Although he explained that at this point "it isn't clear if a 30% reduction
in risk score is the same as a 30% reduction in heart attacks." Dr.
Dansinger presented his results at an AHA press conference.
(requires MedScape account)
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/464193
Oh and please remind me just how many research studies has the 2PD been
subjected to? and where can one find the published data?
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On 18 Nov 2003 19:19:38 -0800, cardio...@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew
> B. Chunk, MD/PhD) wrote:
Having trouble spelling, Mack?
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
Stuart
Andrew,
I suspect you are right that BMI=20 is a successful formula. There
might be exceptions among high risk populations like native americans.
I spent my adult life up to my late thirties at BMI=20. I have no
medical records going back to that period in my life so I don't know
what my numbers looked like. I was running 1600 miles a year and was in
superb areobic condition.
My first existing records are from about a year after I switched from
running to bicycling. I was still getting more excercise than most
Americans but my triglycerides were above 250. Within 5 years I also
had high blood pressure and 8 years after that I was diabetic. I do
have some native American ancestory. My BMI=25 at the present time and
I am working my way back down toward my running weight.
You and I both know how rare adults are in America who are non-smokers
who have a BMI of 20.
I have a technical/scientific background and now that I've spent three
years reading medical research papers I'm shocked at the poor level of
experimental design in many of the published studies.
Many of the attacks on low carb diets are less based on science than on
dietary religious zeal. I will stand by the low carb diet as an
excellent way to achieve glycemic control. The health claims for a low
fat diet are no better grounded in science and yet are subject to far
less criticism.
Regards,
Stuart
In article <3FBBAAE3...@heartmdphd.com>, Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
As many as the "commercial" diets mentioned in your citation at their inception.
The 2PD approach is as obvious a concept as the "wheel."
Was there ever a study to show the wheel works?
Think about it.
God's humble bond-servant,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew,
>
> I suspect you are right that BMI=20 is a successful formula.
It is really not a question of right or wrong. Nor is it a formula.
It remains my experience that lean folks (BMI=20 or less) don't
develope type 2 diabetes.
> There
> might be exceptions among high risk populations like native americans.
I can only speak from experience.
> I spent my adult life up to my late thirties at BMI=20. I have no
> medical records going back to that period in my life so I don't know
> what my numbers looked like. I was running 1600 miles a year and was in
> superb areobic condition.
>
> My first existing records are from about a year after I switched from
> running to bicycling. I was still getting more excercise than most
> Americans but my triglycerides were above 250.
What was your BMI?
> Within 5 years I also
> had high blood pressure and 8 years after that I was diabetic. I do
> have some native American ancestory. My BMI=25 at the present time and
> I am working my way back down toward my running weight.
>
> You and I both know how rare adults are in America who are non-smokers
> who have a BMI of 20.
The 2PD approach is changing that in my neck of the woods.
> I have a technical/scientific background and now that I've spent three
> years reading medical research papers I'm shocked at the poor level of
> experimental design in many of the published studies.
Poor experimental design happens in all fields.
> Many of the attacks on low carb diets are less based on science than on
> dietary religious zeal. I will stand by the low carb diet as an
> excellent way to achieve glycemic control.
Permanent weight loss is a better way of achieving glycemic control.
> The health claims for a low
> fat diet are no better grounded in science and yet are subject to far
> less criticism.
Low fat diets are actually better grounded in basic science research.
Look up "atherogenic diet" on pubmed.
> Regards,
>
> Stuart
>
Thank you for your comments, Stuart.
Matti Narkia
<a4b1bd78.03111...@posting.google.com> nos...@heartmdphd.com
(Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>
>Low fat diets are actually better grounded in basic science research.
I don't think so. Check out Walter Willett's article
Concepts and Controversies on Diet: Stop Recommending Low-Fat Diets!
Walter C Willett, MD, DrPH
Kaiser Permanente Permanente Journal, September 2003
http://www.countcarbs.com/research/stoprecommendinglowfat.htm
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Go ahead and do a PubMed search on "atherogenic diet" and get back
with us about the composition of such diets that have experimental
data showing them to be "atherogenic."
Nonetheless, you have clearly been pro-fat, there are others that have
been pro-protein, and even more who are pro-carb. The truth is that
when the excesses are gone (ie 2PD approach), a balanced approach is
better where all macronutrients are well-represented rather than any
one singled out as "culprit" for human disease/misery.
Matti Narkia
<a4b1bd78.0311...@posting.google.com> nos...@heartmdphd.com
(Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com> wrote in message news:<gptorvod3gkmi6agt...@4ax.com>...
>> 19 Nov 2003 22:18:48 -0800 in article
>> <a4b1bd78.03111...@posting.google.com> nos...@heartmdphd.com
>> (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>> >
>> >Low fat diets are actually better grounded in basic science research.
>>
>> I don't think so. Check out Walter Willett's article
>>
>> Concepts and Controversies on Diet: Stop Recommending Low-Fat Diets!
>> Walter C Willett, MD, DrPH
>> Kaiser Permanente Permanente Journal, September 2003
>> http://www.countcarbs.com/research/stoprecommendinglowfat.htm
>
>Go ahead and do a PubMed search on "atherogenic diet" and get back
>with us about the composition of such diets that have experimental
>data showing them to be "atherogenic."
>
The issue here is your claim that "Low fat diets are actually better
grounded in basic science research". Walter Willett says otherwise.
Now guess whom the readers will believe, you or Dr. Willett?
Just in case you haven't heard of him, see what's behind these urls:
<http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/facres/wlltt.html>
<http://www.channing.harvard.edu/willett.htm>
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=PureSearch&db=PubMed&details_term=%22Willett%20WC%22%5BAUTH%5D>
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> 20 Nov 2003 09:43:21 -0800 in article
> <a4b1bd78.0311...@posting.google.com> nos...@heartmdphd.com
> (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>
> >Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com> wrote in message news:<gptorvod3gkmi6agt...@4ax.com>...
> >> 19 Nov 2003 22:18:48 -0800 in article
> >> <a4b1bd78.03111...@posting.google.com> nos...@heartmdphd.com
> >> (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Low fat diets are actually better grounded in basic science research.
> >>
> >> I don't think so. Check out Walter Willett's article
> >>
> >> Concepts and Controversies on Diet: Stop Recommending Low-Fat Diets!
> >> Walter C Willett, MD, DrPH
> >> Kaiser Permanente Permanente Journal, September 2003
> >> http://www.countcarbs.com/research/stoprecommendinglowfat.htm
> >
> >Go ahead and do a PubMed search on "atherogenic diet" and get back
> >with us about the composition of such diets that have experimental
> >data showing them to be "atherogenic."
> >
> The issue here is your claim that "Low fat diets are actually better
> grounded in basic science research". Walter Willett says otherwise.
> Now guess whom the readers will believe, you or Dr. Willett?
Who's *here*, me or Dr. Willett?
Moreover, most readers here at SMC are discerning enough to do PubMed
searches on their own to find the truth. As for ASD, I wouldn't know
being that I am not a subscriber.
God's humble and truthful bond-servant,
Matti Narkia
<a4b1bd78.03112...@posting.google.com> nos...@heartmdphd.com
(Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com> wrote in message news:<7nvprvs2qpj4ltmi8...@4ax.com>...
>> 20 Nov 2003 09:43:21 -0800 in article
>> <a4b1bd78.0311...@posting.google.com> nos...@heartmdphd.com
>> (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>>
>> >Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com> wrote in message news:<gptorvod3gkmi6agt...@4ax.com>...
>> >> 19 Nov 2003 22:18:48 -0800 in article
>> >> <a4b1bd78.03111...@posting.google.com> nos...@heartmdphd.com
>> >> (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Low fat diets are actually better grounded in basic science research.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think so. Check out Walter Willett's article
>> >>
>> >> Concepts and Controversies on Diet: Stop Recommending Low-Fat Diets!
>> >> Walter C Willett, MD, DrPH
>> >> Kaiser Permanente Permanente Journal, September 2003
>> >> http://www.countcarbs.com/research/stoprecommendinglowfat.htm
>> >
>> >Go ahead and do a PubMed search on "atherogenic diet" and get back
>> >with us about the composition of such diets that have experimental
>> >data showing them to be "atherogenic."
>> >
>> The issue here is your claim that "Low fat diets are actually better
>> grounded in basic science research". Walter Willett says otherwise.
>> Now guess whom the readers will believe, you or Dr. Willett?
>
>Who's *here*, me or Dr. Willett?
>
Does it make your claim right, if you are "here", as you put it?
>Moreover, most readers here at SMC are discerning enough to do PubMed
>searches on their own to find the truth. As for ASD, I wouldn't know
>being that I am not a subscriber.
>
You made the claim, therefore the burden of proof (including Medline
searches, if necessary) is on you. Also, I suggest you read Dr. Willett's
article before continuing this discussion.
Mack
wrote:
why are you cross posting?
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Does make me more believable *here*, now doesn't it?
> >Moreover, most readers here at SMC are discerning enough to do PubMed
> >searches on their own to find the truth. As for ASD, I wouldn't know
> >being that I am not a subscriber.
> >
> You made the claim, therefore the burden of proof (including Medline
> searches, if necessary) is on you.
Not really. I have no agenda here.
> Also, I suggest you read Dr. Willett's
> article before continuing this discussion.
I have already.
ma...@sorbet.nothere
Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>> >> The issue here is your claim that "Low fat diets are actually better
>> >> grounded in basic science research". Walter Willett says otherwise.
>> >> Now guess whom the readers will believe, you or Dr. Willett?
>> >
>> >Who's *here*, me or Dr. Willett?
>> >
>> Does it make your claim right, if you are "here", as you put it?
>
>Does make me more believable *here*, now doesn't it?
NO! Willett is much more believable.
Matt
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:05:24 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
> wrote:
>
> why are you cross posting?
Matti has an agenda.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Go ahead and *overeat* a high-fat diet then. Would be more than happy to take
your money when you need my services :-) Must remember to send a "thank you"
note to Dr. Willett for giving me job security by distracting folks from
controlling food quantity.
Humbly,
Andrew
Matti Narkia
<qjpqrvc6is8u49te4...@4ax.com> Mack <asdn...@example.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:05:24 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>wrote:
>
>why are you cross posting?
>
I didn't start this thread. I didn't even know it was crossposted.
Mack
was Dr willet fired after only 88 days of employment for lack of
quality care? Does Dr willet put up web pages claiming people he
hates are dead when they are not?
the chung troll did and does.
Matti Narkia
>Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com> wrote in message news:<lpfqrv4ciu2vo232u...@4ax.com>...
>> 20 Nov 2003 14:24:31 -0800 in article
>> <a4b1bd78.03112...@posting.google.com> nos...@heartmdphd.com
>> (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>>
>> >Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com> wrote in message news:<7nvprvs2qpj4ltmi8...@4ax.com>...
>> >> 20 Nov 2003 09:43:21 -0800 in article
>> >> <a4b1bd78.0311...@posting.google.com> nos...@heartmdphd.com
>> >> >
>> >> The issue here is your claim that "Low fat diets are actually better
>> >> grounded in basic science research". Walter Willett says otherwise.
>> >> Now guess whom the readers will believe, you or Dr. Willett?
>> >
>> >Who's *here*, me or Dr. Willett?
>> >
>> Does it make your claim right, if you are "here", as you put it?
>
>Does make me more believable *here*, now doesn't it?
>
>> >Moreover, most readers here at SMC are discerning enough to do PubMed
>> >searches on their own to find the truth. As for ASD, I wouldn't know
>> >being that I am not a subscriber.
>> >
>> You made the claim, therefore the burden of proof (including Medline
>> searches, if necessary) is on you.
>
>Not really. I have no agenda here.
>
So you are withdrawing your claim that "Low fat diets are actually better
grounded in basic science research" then?
>> Also, I suggest you read Dr. Willett's
>> article before continuing this discussion.
>
>I have already.
And?
Matti Narkia
<b8eb65e4f24e5eeb...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>ma...@sorbet.nothere wrote:
>
>> On 20 Nov 2003 19:18:25 -0800, nos...@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew B.
>> Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>>
>> >> >> The issue here is your claim that "Low fat diets are actually better
>> >> >> grounded in basic science research". Walter Willett says otherwise.
>> >> >> Now guess whom the readers will believe, you or Dr. Willett?
>> >> >
>> >> >Who's *here*, me or Dr. Willett?
>> >> >
>> >> Does it make your claim right, if you are "here", as you put it?
>> >
>> >Does make me more believable *here*, now doesn't it?
>>
>> NO! Willett is much more believable.
>> Matt
>
>Go ahead and *overeat* a high-fat diet then. Would be more than happy to take
>your money when you need my services :-) Must remember to send a "thank you"
>note to Dr. Willett for giving me job security by distracting folks from
>controlling food quantity.
>
You're displaying the typical arrogance based on ignorance. See the
following excerpts from Harvard web pages
Fats and Cholesterol - The Good, The Bad, and The Healthy Diet.
Harvard School of Public Health Nutrition Source.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html
"Eat a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet." Most of us have heard
this simple recommendation so often over the past two decades
that we can recite it in our sleep. Touted as a way to lose
weight and prevent cancer and heart disease, it's no wonder
much of the nation--and food producers--hopped on board.
Unfortunately, this simple message now seems largely out of
date. Detailed research--particularly that done at Harvard--
shows that the total amount of fat in the diet, whether high
or low, has no real link with disease. Rather, what really
matters is the type of fat in the diet. There are bad fats
that increase the risk for certain diseases and good fats
that lower the risk. The key is to substitute good fats for
bad fats."
and
Carbohydrates
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates.html
"For years, you've probably heard the advice to cut back on
the total amount of fat you eat and to consume more complex
carbohydrates. And thousands of "low-fat" alternatives now
crowd the supermarket shelves. But is simply cutting back on
fat and loading up on carbohydrates a healthy way to eat or
to lose weight? Current research suggests that it isn't. Just
as researchers learned that not all types of fat are bad,
they're also discovering that not all types of carbohydrates
are good.
It's easy to fall into the "low-fat trap." Because fat, gram-
for-gram, has more than twice as many calories as either
protein or carbohydrates, it seems logical that choosing low-
fat products would help with weight loss. However, all too
often the low-fat products on supermarket shelves are packed
with sugar to make up for the taste that's lost when fat is
removed.
While people think that a low-fat alternative will hasten
weight loss, it often has just as many calories as the full-
fat version--and may even have more. In addition, many people
mistakenly think that because a food is low in fat, they can
eat as much of it as they want without gaining weight. But as
far as the body is concerned, one calorie is the same as
another, no matter where they came from. Eat too many
calories (whether from fat, carbohydrates, or protein), and
you'll gain weight.
Aside from weight loss, the popularity of low-fat food has
broader implications for health. Many people are increasing
the amount of carbohydrates in their diets, particularly in
the form of sugars, and as we know from the discussion of the
glycemic index, doing so may lead to increases in heart
disease and diabetes.
For example, in a study of 80,000 nurses, Harvard researchers
calculated that replacing a given number of calories from
polyunsaturated fat with an equivalent number from
carbohydrates increased the risk for heart disease by over 50
percent. And other studies have found that a low-fat, high-
carbohydrate diet, particularly one high in sugars, can
worsen blood cholesterol and triglycerides levels, both of
which are risk factors for heart disease.
"Eat a low-fat diet," long the mantra of health and diet
experts, has lost many adherents in recent years. Current
research suggests that rather than focus on total fat intake,
a healthier strategy is, first, to replace the "bad" fats
(saturated and trans fats) with "good" fats (polyunsaturated
and monounsaturated fats) and, second, to eat more whole
grains high in dietary fiber. For weight loss, the best
approach is to square the amount of food you eat with the
number of calories you burn in a day. One of the best ways to
lose weight or maintain a healthy weight is to exercise
regularly."
Matti Narkia
<85c910ea07be8394...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Mack wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:05:24 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> why are you cross posting?
>
>Matti has an agenda.
My agenda is to find the truth. Yours seems to be getting the last word in
every debate no matter what the truth is.
Matti Narkia
>Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com> wrote in message news:<lpfqrv4ciu2vo232u...@4ax.com>...
>> 20 Nov 2003 14:24:31 -0800 in article
>> <a4b1bd78.03112...@posting.google.com> nos...@heartmdphd.com
>> (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>>
>> >Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com> wrote in message news:<7nvprvs2qpj4ltmi8...@4ax.com>...
>> >> 20 Nov 2003 09:43:21 -0800 in article
>> >> <a4b1bd78.0311...@posting.google.com> nos...@heartmdphd.com
>> >> >
>> >> The issue here is your claim that "Low fat diets are actually better
>> >> grounded in basic science research". Walter Willett says otherwise.
>> >> Now guess whom the readers will believe, you or Dr. Willett?
>> >
>> >Who's *here*, me or Dr. Willett?
>> >
>> Does it make your claim right, if you are "here", as you put it?
>
>Does make me more believable *here*, now doesn't it?
>
Does it? Is your believability location dependent in your opinion?
Your claim is as wrong here as it is anywhere else.
Jim Horne
"Mack" <asdn...@example.com> wrote in message
news:qjpqrvc6is8u49te4...@4ax.com...
: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:05:24 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
: wrote:
:
:
: why are you cross posting?
actually it was the original post that began the crossposting...
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:10:45 -0800, ma...@sorbet.nothere wrote:
>
> >On 20 Nov 2003 19:18:25 -0800, nos...@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew B.
> >Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
> >
> >>> >> The issue here is your claim that "Low fat diets are actually better
> >>> >> grounded in basic science research". Walter Willett says otherwise.
> >>> >> Now guess whom the readers will believe, you or Dr. Willett?
> >>> >
> >>> >Who's *here*, me or Dr. Willett?
> >>> >
> >>> Does it make your claim right, if you are "here", as you put it?
> >>
> >>Does make me more believable *here*, now doesn't it?
> >
> >NO! Willett is much more believable.
> >Matt
>
> <libelous hissing snipped>
You have my pity and love, neighbor.
You are welcome to drop by the web chat that I am hosting this Sunday
(11/23/03) at 1:00 pm EST.
http://www.heartmdphd.com/chat.asp
Don't be afraid. I won't let anyone cut off your ear.
FYI Note: Because the author of the message is an ASD subscriber, I have added
ASD for his convenience. If you are upset about reading this message, a few
suggestions:
(1) Yell at Mack
(2) Report Mack to his ISP (ab...@cox.net) for violating their TOS with his
weak attempts at libel and defamation. Simply tell his ISP that there are a
team of lawyers salivating at the prospect of extracting million$ from those
ISPs who knowingly continue to participate as accessories to the like of Mack.
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.
This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is
described completely at:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet
discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and
has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been
entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian.
Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp
From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently
opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every
perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument
soundly at every point:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp
These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion
thread(s).
However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s),
certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach
toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the
message then try to discredit the messenger."
Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is
someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming
discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars.
These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following
observations were made:
(1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the
discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to
achieve near-ideal weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight
becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc
(3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
(5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including
jpegs of the actual diplomas).
Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to
attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to
libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful
folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of
their fallen hero.
Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively
or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the
on-line third-party resources at:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp
where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous
claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked.
Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon
posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack):
(1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or
accountability).
(2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters.
(3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver
one-sided insults.
(4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting.
(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its
author.
and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.
It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed.
It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above
the din of hissing from the peanut gallery.
Sincerely,
Andrew
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
No. Nor am I going to try to convince you.
>
> >> Also, I suggest you read Dr. Willett's
> >> article before continuing this discussion.
> >
> >I have already.
>
> And?
He is wrong about being pro-fat. He is right that people should strive to lower their BMI less than 21.
However, he has no clue as to how to help people do this.
God's humble bond-servant,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:28:16 GMT in article
> <b8eb65e4f24e5eeb...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >ma...@sorbet.nothere wrote:
> >
> >> On 20 Nov 2003 19:18:25 -0800, nos...@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew B.
> >> Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >> The issue here is your claim that "Low fat diets are actually better
> >> >> >> grounded in basic science research". Walter Willett says otherwise.
> >> >> >> Now guess whom the readers will believe, you or Dr. Willett?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Who's *here*, me or Dr. Willett?
> >> >> >
> >> >> Does it make your claim right, if you are "here", as you put it?
> >> >
> >> >Does make me more believable *here*, now doesn't it?
> >>
> >> NO! Willett is much more believable.
> >> Matt
> >
> >Go ahead and *overeat* a high-fat diet then. Would be more than happy to take
> >your money when you need my services :-) Must remember to send a "thank you"
> >note to Dr. Willett for giving me job security by distracting folks from
> >controlling food quantity.
> >
> You're displaying the typical arrogance based on ignorance. See the
> following excerpts from Harvard web pages
>
> <non-peer-reviewed material snipped>
Already seen it and have noted that Dr. Willett is distracted by food quality.
A discussion about food *quantity* can be found at:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
God's humble bond-servant,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:13:57 GMT in article
> <85c910ea07be8394...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >Mack wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:05:24 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> why are you cross posting?
> >
> >Matti has an agenda.
>
> My agenda is to find the truth.
Really?
Have you found Jesus Christ, yet?
> Yours seems to be getting the last word in
> every debate no matter what the truth is.
My success has nothing to do with my agenda. It is God's will.
God's humble bond-servant,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
It does. Folks can simply do a Google search to determine for themselves.
> Is your believability location dependent in your opinion?
>
Most folks need direct interactions with someone before they are likely to "believe" this someone.
>
> Your claim is as wrong here as it is anywhere else.
Not a claim but an observation.
God's humble bond-servant,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
Mack
<cardio...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Mack wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:10:45 -0800, ma...@sorbet.nothere wrote:
>>
>> >On 20 Nov 2003 19:18:25 -0800, nos...@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew B.
>> >Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>> >
>> >>> >> The issue here is your claim that "Low fat diets are actually better
>> >>> >> grounded in basic science research". Walter Willett says otherwise.
>> >>> >> Now guess whom the readers will believe, you or Dr. Willett?
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Who's *here*, me or Dr. Willett?
>> >>> >
>> >>> Does it make your claim right, if you are "here", as you put it?
>> >>
>> >>Does make me more believable *here*, now doesn't it?
>> >
>> >NO! Willett is much more believable.
>> >Matt
>>
>> <libelous hissing snipped>
>
>You have my pity and love, neighbor.
you pity those you love? you are strange one.
but don't worry I know you have no love in your heart for me as
evidenced by your anti christian lies and behavior posting a web site
that said I died.
>
>You are welcome to drop by the web chat that I am hosting this Sunday
>(11/23/03) at 1:00 pm EST.
>
>http://www.heartmdphd.com/chat.asp
>
>Don't be afraid. I won't let anyone cut off your ear.
>
>FYI Note: Because the author of the message is an ASD subscriber, I have added
>ASD for his convenience. If you are upset about reading this message, a few
>suggestions:
don't lie chung troll, I am an SMC subscriber, I don't read your posts
in ASD.
the truth is you are quack fraud who is advocating dangerous med
adjustments for diabetics on your quackery web site.
you got fired for lack of quality care from the florida heart center
you worked at and victimized their patients.
you have repeatedly lied about many usenet poster's deaths when none
of them have died.
You have no hospital privileges anywhere since your screw up in
Florida. no hospital would risk the malpractice l;aw suits you would
make them vulnerable too if they gave you hospital privileges.
>
spam of the quack web site snipped.
Mack
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
In tribute to the United States of America and the State
of Israel, two bastions of strength in a world filled with strife and
terrorism.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> <libelous hissing snipped>
Yes, I pity you. Yes, I love you too, neighbor, as pitiful as you are.
You're still welcome to visit with me when I host the web-chat this Sunday
(11/23/03) at 1:00 pm EST.
Simply click on:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/chat.asp
FYI Note: Because the author of the message is an ASD subscriber (see Google), I
have added ASD for his convenience. If you are upset about reading this message, a
few suggestions:
(1) Yell at Mack
(2) Report Mack to his ISP (ab...@cox.net) for violating their TOS with his weak
attempts at libel and defamation. Simply tell his ISP that there are a team of
lawyers salivating at the prospect of extracting million$ from those ISPs who
knowingly continue to participate as accessories to the likes of Mack.
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp
http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp
God's humble bond-servant,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Thorsten Schier
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>
> Matti Narkia wrote:
>
> > Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:13:57 GMT in article
> > <85c910ea07be8394...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> > MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >
[...]
> > >Matti has an agenda.
> >
> > My agenda is to find the truth.
>
> Really?
>
> Have you found Jesus Christ, yet?
Please note that Jesus and the bible are not everyone's idea of truth.
Thorsten
--
"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution"
(Theodosius Dobzhansky)
ma...@sorbet.nothere
wrote:
>Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:13:57 GMT in article
><85c910ea07be8394...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
>>Mack wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:05:24 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> why are you cross posting?
>>
>>Matti has an agenda.
>
>My agenda is to find the truth. Yours seems to be getting the last word in
>every debate no matter what the truth is.
Now THAT is the truth!<big grin>. Seeing him drone on and on even when
he is wrong makes him look even less trustworthy. He seems to think if
he says it enough times, it becomes truth. Sad, isn't it? I can't wait
for his "pity and love" canned reply to this.<grin>
Matt
Matti Narkia
<3FBE8E29...@heartmdphd.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:13:57 GMT in article
>> <85c910ea07be8394...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Matti has an agenda.
>>
>> My agenda is to find the truth.
>
>Really?
>
>Have you found Jesus Christ, yet?
>
As usual, you are hopelessly out of line. Do you expect to be taken
seriously or have you resigned to play the part of a clown?
Thorsten Schier
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>
> Matti Narkia wrote:
>
> > Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:28:16 GMT in article
> > <b8eb65e4f24e5eeb...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> > MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >
> > >ma...@sorbet.nothere wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 20 Nov 2003 19:18:25 -0800, nos...@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew B.
> > >> Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >> >> The issue here is your claim that "Low fat diets are actually better
> > >> >> >> grounded in basic science research". Walter Willett says otherwise.
> > >> >> >> Now guess whom the readers will believe, you or Dr. Willett?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Who's *here*, me or Dr. Willett?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> Does it make your claim right, if you are "here", as you put it?
> > >> >
> > >> >Does make me more believable *here*, now doesn't it?
> > >>
> > >> NO! Willett is much more believable.
> > >> Matt
> > >
> > >Go ahead and *overeat* a high-fat diet then. Would be more than happy to take
> > >your money when you need my services :-) Must remember to send a "thank you"
> > >note to Dr. Willett for giving me job security by distracting folks from
> > >controlling food quantity.
> > >
> > You're displaying the typical arrogance based on ignorance. See the
> > following excerpts from Harvard web pages
> >
> > <non-peer-reviewed material snipped>
Thought you would say something like that.
Then for something peer-reviewed:
Liu et al. (2000) A prospective study of dietary glycemic load,
carbohydrate intake, and risk of coronary heart disease in US women -
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 71, No. 6, 1455-1461
(http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/6/1455)
From the abstract:
"Results: During 10 y of follow-up (729472 person-years), 761 cases of
CHD (208 fatal and 553 nonfatal) were documented. Dietary glycemic load
was directly associated with risk of CHD after adjustment for age,
smoking status, total energy intake, and other coronary disease risk
factors. The relative risks from the lowest to highest quintiles of
glycemic load were 1.00, 1.01, 1.25, 1.51, and 1.98 (95% CI: 1.41, 2.77
for the highest quintile; P for trend < 0.0001). Carbohydrate classified
by glycemic index, as opposed to its traditional classification as
either simple or complex, was a better predictor of CHD risk. The
association between dietary glycemic load and CHD risk was most evident
among women with body weights above average [ie, body mass index (in
kg/m2) 23].
Conclusion: These epidemiologic data suggest that a high dietary
glycemic load from refined carbohydrates increases the risk of CHD,
independent of known coronary disease risk factors. "
Please note that the major part of the increase in glycemic load between
the quintiles was due to the increase in the amount of carbohydrates
consumed and not from the increase in glycemic index.
About fat:
Hu, Frank B. et al. (1997) Dietary Fat Intake and the Risk of Coronary
Heart Disease in Women -N Engl J Med 21, Volume 337:1491-1499
(http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/337/21/1491 - requires
registration)
From the abstract:
"Results
Each increase of 5 percent of energy intake from saturated fat, as
compared with equivalent energy intake from carbohydrates, was
associated with a 17 percent increase in the risk of coronary disease
(relative risk, 1.17; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.41; P =
0.10). As compared with equivalent energy from carbohydrates, the
relative risk for a 2 percent increment in energy intake from trans
unsaturated fat was 1.93 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.43 to 2.61;
P<0.001); that for a 5 percent increment in energy from monounsaturated
fat was 0.81 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.00; P = 0.05);
and that for a 5 percent increment in energy from polyunsaturated fat
was 0.62 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.85; P = 0.003). "
So while satured fats and particularly trans fats were associated with
an increase in the risk of coronary heart disease when compared to
carbohydrate, the reverse is true for unsatured fats, particularly
poly-unsatured fats.
> Already seen it and have noted that Dr. Willett is distracted by food quality.
>
> A discussion about food *quantity* can be found at:
>
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
>
Food quantity is certainly important but the quality does count, too, as
demonstrated for example by the Nurses Health Study and the Health
Professionals Follow Up Study, both organized from Harvard scientists.
But as a cardiologist you will no doubt be familiar with the results of
these studies.
And an important point is that the quality can have an impact on the the
quantity. Many people find it easier to control their food intake, when
they eat less carbohydrates, particularly those with a high glycemic
index.
Mack
<and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Mack wrote:
>
>> <libelous hissing snipped>
>
>Yes, I pity you. Yes, I love you too, neighbor, as pitiful as you are.
Coming from a fake christian like yourself, your so called love is
worthless.
seeing your behavior and lies in the newsgroups I am forced to wonder
if that "lack of quality care" reason for your termination had to do
with the way you treated the facility's patients after they rejected
your spin off of christianity. Meaning I suspect that you stopped
giving them what little real care you knew about after they rejected
your cult views. This would not surprise me as it is typical with
religious extremists and fruit cakes like yourself.
Read from SMC, replied to in SMC.
Mack
<cardio...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Mack wrote:
>
>> On 18 Nov 2003 19:19:38 -0800, cardio...@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew
>> B. Chunk, MD/PhD) wrote:
>
>Having trouble spelling, Mack?
>
>Humbly,
>
>Andrew
No, I just clicked okay when my spell checker tried to chang it from
chung to chunk like it always does.
Mack
Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com> wrote in message news:<7nvprvs2qpj4ltmi8...@4ax.com>...
>> 20 Nov 2003 09:43:21 -0800 in article
>> <a4b1bd78.0311...@posting.google.com> nos...@heartmdphd.com
>> (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>>
>> >Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com> wrote in message news:<gptorvod3gkmi6agt...@4ax.com>...
>> >> 19 Nov 2003 22:18:48 -0800 in article
>> >> <a4b1bd78.03111...@posting.google.com> nos...@heartmdphd.com
>> >> (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Low fat diets are actually better grounded in basic science research.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think so. Check out Walter Willett's article
>> >>
>> >> Concepts and Controversies on Diet: Stop Recommending Low-Fat Diets!
>> >> Walter C Willett, MD, DrPH
>> >> Kaiser Permanente Permanente Journal, September 2003
>> >> http://www.countcarbs.com/research/stoprecommendinglowfat.htm
>> >
>> >Go ahead and do a PubMed search on "atherogenic diet" and get back
>> >with us about the composition of such diets that have experimental
>> >data showing them to be "atherogenic."
>> >
>> The issue here is your claim that "Low fat diets are actually better
>> grounded in basic science research". Walter Willett says otherwise.
>> Now guess whom the readers will believe, you or Dr. Willett?
>
>Who's *here*, me or Dr. Willett?
well now we know why you think you're qualified.
>
>Moreover, most readers here at SMC are discerning enough to do PubMed
>searches on their own to find the truth. As for ASD, I wouldn't know
>being that I am not a subscriber, I only troll ASD by cross posting.
>
>God's arrogant and dishonest misleading cult member,
>
>Andrew
Mack
cardio...@heartmdphd.com wrote:
>Mack wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:05:24 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> why are you cross posting?
>
>Matti has an agenda.
as if you don't.
Mack
wrote:
>Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:12:57 -0500 in article
><qjpqrvc6is8u49te4...@4ax.com> Mack <asdn...@example.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:05:24 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>why are you cross posting?
>>
>I didn't start this thread. I didn't even know it was crossposted.
I went and checked, it was originally cross posted by the name myo
cardium. who has only ever made 2 posts to Sci.med.cardiology or ASD.
This may or may not be another chung sock puppet. It's unlikely as
the posts from myo are far more articulate than anything chung the mu
troll has posted.
Make no mistake, chung/mu is a well known troll. he was fired from a
florida heart center after only 88 days of employment for "lack of
quality care". That's what the facility in florida stated was the
reason for his termination. Before we found out about that chung/mu
made several posts claiming he was terminated because of some other
reason, and actually let it drop that it was racism. He also posted
that he would let only select individuals have access to his "proof"
if they requested a password and user name for his website. After the
florida facility was notified that chung/mu made that claim, he
clammed up on the subject and has even denied working there in a
couple of his posts.
we also know that he has no hospital privileges anywhere. no hospital
will risk the malpractice suits that would result.
if you disagree with him to much he will make claims as to your lack
of faith in God, his superiority in his cult views, and will resort to
a canned response that he spent hours writing out and then saved as a
file to paste in as a canned response when he cannot discuss with
facts any of his failing arguments. The piece although extremely long
only shows his lack of rational thought. It does his failing
reputation more harm than anything any poster has said about him.
Mack
wrote:
you're correct, I went back and checked.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Thanks for pointing out that quantity was the more important variable
here.
Those studies did *not* demonstrate that food quality is more
important that food quanitity in achieving permanent weight loss.
> But as a cardiologist you will no doubt be familiar with the results of
> these studies.
I am.
> And an important point is that the quality can have an impact on the the
> quantity.
On sense of hunger perhaps but not on quantity. Quantity and quality
are *independent* variables.
> Many people find it easier to control their food intake, when
> they eat less carbohydrates, particularly those with a high glycemic
> index.
Many people find it easier to control their food intake when they can
quantify the amount they are eating.
Check out the unsolicited testimonials at:
http://www/heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Not on this particular topic.
FYI Note: This is cross-posted to ASD for the convenience of an ASD
subscriber If you are upset about reading this message, a few
suggestions:
(1) Yell at Mack
(2) Report Mack to his ISP.
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.
This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which
is described completely at:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this
Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has
been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community
service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen
from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of
Himself to better the health of folks He touched:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp
From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are
vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated
Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and
have lost the argument soundly at every point:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp
These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and
other discussion threads.
http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp
It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din
of hissing from the peanut gallery.
Sincerely,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:49:50 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:12:57 -0500 in article
> ><qjpqrvc6is8u49te4...@4ax.com> Mack <asdn...@example.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:05:24 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>why are you cross posting?
> >>
> >I didn't start this thread. I didn't even know it was crossposted.
>
>
> I went and checked, it was originally cross posted by the name myo
> cardium. who has only ever made 2 posts to Sci.med.cardiology or ASD.
> This may or may not be another chung sock puppet. It's unlikely as
> the posts from myo are far more articulate than anything chung the mu
> troll has posted.
>
Sounds like I hit a raw nerve.
We can chat about it tomorrow if you like:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/chat.asp
FYI Note: This is being cross-posted for the convenience of a known
ASD subscriber. If you are upset about reading this message, a few
suggestions:
(1) Yell at Mack
(2) Report Mack to his ISP for violating their TOS with his feeble
attempts at libel and defamation.
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp
http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp
Humbly,
Thorsten Schier
Er, no, that is not what the results show. Those who consumed less
carbohydrates ate more protein and fat instead. And of course the number
of CAD events was adjusted for total intake of calories (and several
other possibly confounding variables).
As far as I know, they didn't investigate methods of weightloss in those
studies. If they did, I would be grateful for a reference.
What they they did demonstrate, however, was that some food choices are
probably better than other if you want to avoid conditions like CAD.
> > But as a cardiologist you will no doubt be familiar with the results of
> > these studies.
>
> I am.
>
> > And an important point is that the quality can have an impact on the the
> > quantity.
>
> On sense of hunger perhaps but not on quantity. Quantity and quality
> are *independent* variables.
I don't know how that works for you, but for me the quantity of food
that I eat is strongly influenced by my sense of hunger.
> > Many people find it easier to control their food intake, when
> > they eat less carbohydrates, particularly those with a high glycemic
> > index.
>
> Many people find it easier to control their food intake when they can
> quantify the amount they are eating.
>
> Check out the unsolicited testimonials at:
>
> http://www/heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
Works better with a dot in place of the third slash.
A few remarks to the text on this site:
"In 1998, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing Mt. Everest
and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the climbers consumed
only 10 lbs of food per week. That's less than 2 lbs. of food per day!
Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I think it is safe to
assume that 2 lbs. per day should be more than adequate for us
non-climbing folks."
1. The climbers will most likely have eaten calorie dense food like
chocolate as they would want to carry as little as possible.
2. They might well have lost a part of their body weight, even if they
were not overweight to begin with. People can usually live without any
food at all for a limited period of time. That is no proof that it is
healthy to eat next to nothing all of the time (of course I'm not
claiming that 2 lbs is next to nothing, my point is that the short term
survival of these climbers does not proof that an average person could
survive on the same amount or a somewhat larger one indefinitly).
3. Even people who don't die from starvation might be malnourished.
"What I learned was that my obese patients was consuming between 8 to 12
lbs. of food per day! "
I have a hard time believing that the average obese person could eat
that much food. Unless perhaps if a considerable part of it are juices
or sodas or the like.
Regarding to your testimonials:
There does not seem not be much in the way of people who have actually
tried the diet and lost weight with it. Most people seem to argue from a
theoretical point of view, not from personal experience.
On the other hand, for low-carb diets, there are plenty of people who
lost considerable amounts of weight with these diets. Just have a look
at alt.support.diet.low-carb
While I think that portion control is certainly important (although this
is hardly news) there are two things that disturb me about the
two-pound-diet:
1. The "one size fits all" approach.
Should a sedentary 5 ft female really consume the same amount of food as
a 6 ft active male?
2. What we eat is just as important as the amount we eat. This seems to
be neglected in this aproach.
Let's say a person eats 10 lbs of food (the average of food you claimed
your obese neighbours were eating). Let's further say that half of that
is soda, the rest french fries, potatoes, meat, sauces, bread, bacon,
eggs and occasionally an apple or some vegetables. Now your advice would
be to just reduce the amount they are eating and clean up the diet
later. Then the person would consume one pound of soda and one pound of
rest of the food, thereby further reducing what little they ate in the
way of vegetables and fruits. They will probably lose weight on this
diet, if they can stick to it, but I don't think there is anything
healthy about such a diet, if only for the reason that they wouldn't get
enough vitamins, minerals and fiber.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Thorsten Schier <Moo...@firemail.de> wrote in part:
>
> >"The
> >association between dietary glycemic load and CHD risk was most evident
> >among women with body weights above average [ie, body mass index (in
> >kg/m2) 23]. "
>
> This is a common thread in a lot of the research. It seems pretty clear that,
> if you are thin, you are pretty safe from CHD and the balance of
> macronutrients has little effect.
>
> >"Each increase of 5 percent of energy intake from saturated fat, as
> >compared with equivalent energy intake from carbohydrates, was
> >associated with a 17 percent increase in the risk of coronary disease
> >(relative risk, 1.17; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.41; P =
> >0.10). As compared with equivalent energy from carbohydrates, the
> >relative risk for a 2 percent increment in energy intake from trans
> >unsaturated fat was 1.93 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.43 to 2.61;
> >P<0.001); that for a 5 percent increment in energy from monounsaturated
> >fat was 0.81 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.00; P = 0.05);
> >and that for a 5 percent increment in energy from polyunsaturated fat
> >was 0.62 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.85; P = 0.003). "
>
> In the above study, strong relationships were found that indicate that
> carbohydrates should be replaced with monounsaturated and cis-polyunsaturated
> fat. Saturated fats appear to be relatively neutral as compared with
> carbohydrate. This also is starting to seem very familiar.
>
> Isn't it clear that losing weight is the central need in reducing CHD and that
> reducing trans-fat and carbohydrate is important also, but especially for
> those who are of above average weight?
>
> Questions mostly remain about the most effective methods for losing weight.
>
Ime:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
Humbly,
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" schrieb:
> >
> > Matti Narkia wrote:
> >
> > > Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:13:57 GMT in article
> > > <85c910ea07be8394...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> > > MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> > >
> [...]
> > > >Matti has an agenda.
> > >
> > > My agenda is to find the truth.
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > Have you found Jesus Christ, yet?
>
> Please note that Jesus and the bible are not everyone's idea of truth.
Truth is universal.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:32:12 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:13:57 GMT in article
> ><85c910ea07be8394...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> >MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Mack wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:05:24 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> why are you cross posting?
> >>
> >>Matti has an agenda.
> >
> >My agenda is to find the truth. Yours seems to be getting the last word in
> >every debate no matter what the truth is.
>
> Now THAT is the truth!
Hardly.
> <big grin>.
Grin away.
> Seeing him drone on and on even when
> he is wrong makes him look even less trustworthy.
Is that hissing that I am reading?
> He seems to think if
> he says it enough times, it becomes truth.
Matti is the one looking for the truth.
> Sad, isn't it?
Why are you grinning, then?
> I can't wait
> for his "pity and love" canned reply to this.<grin>
> Matt
Sorry to disappoint you.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:14:01 -0500 in article
> <3FBE8E29...@heartmdphd.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >Matti Narkia wrote:
> >
> >> Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:13:57 GMT in article
> >> <85c910ea07be8394...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> >> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Matti has an agenda.
> >>
> >> My agenda is to find the truth.
> >
> >Really?
> >
> >Have you found Jesus Christ, yet?
> >
> As usual, you are hopelessly out of line. Do you expect to be taken
> seriously or have you resigned to play the part of a clown?
I take it the answer is "no."
The untruthful are the least likely to know the truth... much less to answer
truthfully.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:34:48 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >Mack wrote:
> >
> >> <libelous hissing snipped>
> >
> >Yes, I pity you. Yes, I love you too, neighbor, as pitiful as you are.
>
> <anti-christian hissing snipped>
You still have my pity and love, neighbor.
We can chat tomorrow if you aren't too scared.
http://www.hearttmdphd.com/chat.asp
FYI Note: Because the author of the message is an ASD subscriber, I have
added ASD for his convenience. If you are upset about reading this message,
a few suggestions:
(1) Yell at Mack
(2) Report Mack to his ISP (ab...@cox.net)
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp
http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp
Sincerely,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Sounds like you need to learn how to use a dictionary, instead. Spell
checkers are too complicated for some folks.
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp
http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp
Sincerely,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Thorsten Schier
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>
> Thorsten Schier wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> > >
> > > Matti Narkia wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:13:57 GMT in article
> > > > <85c910ea07be8394...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> > > > MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > [...]
> > > > >Matti has an agenda.
> > > >
> > > > My agenda is to find the truth.
> > >
> > > Really?
> > >
> > > Have you found Jesus Christ, yet?
> >
> > Please note that Jesus and the bible are not everyone's idea of truth.
>
> Truth is universal.
>
However, when it comes to religious beliefs, no one can be sure to know
the truth.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> >
> > Thorsten Schier wrote:
> >
> > > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> > > >
> > > > Matti Narkia wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:13:57 GMT in article
> > > > > <85c910ea07be8394...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> > > > > MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > [...]
> > > > > >Matti has an agenda.
> > > > >
> > > > > My agenda is to find the truth.
> > > >
> > > > Really?
> > > >
> > > > Have you found Jesus Christ, yet?
> > >
> > > Please note that Jesus and the bible are not everyone's idea of truth.
> >
> > Truth is universal.
> >
>
> However, when it comes to religious beliefs, no one can be sure to know
> the truth.
Truth is independent of religious beliefs.
Humbly,
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" schrieb:
<snip>
> On sense of hunger perhaps but not on quantity. Quantity and quality
> are *independent* variables.I don't know how that works for you, but for me the quantity of food
that I eat is strongly influenced by my sense of hunger.
> > Many people find it easier to control their food intake, when
> > they eat less carbohydrates, particularly those with a high glycemic
> > index.
>
> Many people find it easier to control their food intake when they can
> quantify the amount they are eating.
>
> Check out the unsolicited testimonials at:
>
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
Works better with a dot in place of the third slash.
A few remarks to the text on this site:"In 1998, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing Mt. Everest
and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the climbers consumed
only 10 lbs of food per week. That's less than 2 lbs. of food per day!
Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I think it is safe to
assume that 2 lbs. per day should be more than adequate for us
non-climbing folks."1. The climbers will most likely have eaten calorie dense food like
chocolate as they would want to carry as little as possible.
2. They might well have lost a part of their body weight, even if they
were not overweight to begin with.
People can usually live without any
food at all for a limited period of time.
That is no proof that it is
healthy to eat next to nothing all of the time (of course I'm not
claiming that 2 lbs is next to nothing,
my point is that the short term
survival of these climbers does not proof that an average person could
survive on the same amount or a somewhat larger one indefinitly).
3. Even people who don't die from starvation might be malnourished.
"What I learned was that my obese patients was consuming between 8 to 12
lbs. of food per day! "I have a hard time believing that the average obese person could eat
that much food.
Unless perhaps if a considerable part of it are juices
or sodas or the like.
Regarding to your testimonials:There does not seem not be much in the way of people who have actually
tried the diet and lost weight with it. Most people seem to argue from a
theoretical point of view, not from personal experience.
On the other hand, for low-carb diets, there are plenty of people who
lost considerable amounts of weight with these diets. Just have a look
at alt.support.diet.low-carb
While I think that portion control is certainly important (although this
is hardly news) there are two things that disturb me about the
two-pound-diet:1. The "one size fits all" approach.
Should a sedentary 5 ft female really consume the same amount of food as
a 6 ft active male?
2. What we eat is just as important as the amount we eat. This seems to
be neglected in this aproach.
Let's say a person eats 10 lbs of food (the average of food you claimed
your obese neighbours were eating). Let's further say that half of that
is soda, the rest french fries, potatoes, meat, sauces, bread, bacon,
eggs and occasionally an apple or some vegetables. Now your advice would
be to just reduce the amount they are eating and clean up the diet
later.
Then the person would consume one pound of soda and one pound of
rest of the food, thereby further reducing what little they ate in the
way of vegetables and fruits. They will probably lose weight on this
diet, if they can stick to it, but I don't think there is anything
healthy about such a diet, if only for the reason that they wouldn't get
enough vitamins, minerals and fiber.
Thank you for your comments.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
Bob Pastorio
>
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>
>>Check out the unsolicited testimonials at:
>>
>>http://www/heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
>
>
> Works better with a dot in place of the third slash.
He doesn't even know his own address.
It would also work better if they actually were testimonials. Chung
has me there with one of those quotes like they do for movies when the
reviewer blasts the stupidity of the film. I think that the
2POundPOWDiet is profoundly unintelligent, spuriously superficial and
essentially intended to get him customers. Click on the link.
> A few remarks to the text on this site:
>
> "In 1998, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing Mt. Everest
> and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the climbers consumed
> only 10 lbs of food per week. That's less than 2 lbs. of food per day!
> Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I think it is safe to
> assume that 2 lbs. per day should be more than adequate for us
> non-climbing folks."
Here are some references that blow Chung's story out of the water.
Note how many mentions of porters carrying food and equipment. Note
how many mentions of camps set up with food and equipment. Note the
word "rehydrating."
http://www.mounteverest.net/expguide/food.htm
http://everestnews.altrec.com/shop/dir/0/27/
http://www.adventure-video.com/everest/equipment.html
http://www.everesthistory.com/sherpas/nawanggombu.htm
http://www.windhorse-trek.com/everest_southcol.htm
http://classic.mountainzone.com/everest/98/climb5-19e.html
> 1. The climbers will most likely have eaten calorie dense food like
> chocolate as they would want to carry as little as possible.
Saw a program on tv recently where Bob Hoffman, Everest climber, says
that each climber on the teams will consume between 6,000 and 12,000
calories per day on the climb. He also says that the eat freeze-dried
foods almost exclusively, filling them out with snowmelt. Based on
normal rehydration ratios and averaging it across what they're likely
to be using, they're adding 3 to 4 pounds of water to every pound of
food. If these same foods were fresh, that 10 pounds per week would be
somewhere between 30 and 40 pounds. The entire reason for camps spread
up the line they'll follow is to put extra foods and provisions that
they don't have to carry.
I'd like to know the name of that film. Who said that they only ate
what they ate in pounds. Only Americans talk about pounds. In the
Himalayas, they'll be using different measures. And, if you look at
it, 10 pounds of food in 7 days is 1.43 pounds per day. Or do the
climbers go all the way up to 27,000 feet and back down in 5 days. Or
is it 10 pounds of food once they're above the last base camp?
Before climbing the mountain, climbers have to acclimatize themselves
to the altitude. Doing it without that period of adjustment guarantees
that they would die. In that process, they don't eat climbing
provisions, they eat "normal" foods. Here's a reference that details
acclimatization and what they eat. How much they eat can be estimated
by the menus. Three apparently large meals per day.
http://www.everestnews.com/everestnews3/hoffmandis2.htm
I love this one: "...all-you-can-eat buffets..." A wonderfully
sensationalized story at
<http://www.forbes.com/fyi/2001/1112/054_print.html>
> 2. They might well have lost a part of their body weight, even if they
> were not overweight to begin with. People can usually live without any
> food at all for a limited period of time. That is no proof that it is
> healthy to eat next to nothing all of the time (of course I'm not
> claiming that 2 lbs is next to nothing, my point is that the short term
> survival of these climbers does not proof that an average person could
> survive on the same amount or a somewhat larger one indefinitly).
Hoffman says that they counted on losing about a pound a day while
climbing and returning.
> 3. Even people who don't die from starvation might be malnourished.
>
> "What I learned was that my obese patients was consuming between 8 to 12
> lbs. of food per day! "
>
> I have a hard time believing that the average obese person could eat
> that much food. Unless perhaps if a considerable part of it are juices
> or sodas or the like.
He says beverages don't count.
> Regarding to your testimonials:
>
> There does not seem not be much in the way of people who have actually
> tried the diet and lost weight with it. Most people seem to argue from a
> theoretical point of view, not from personal experience.
Except for those of us who say it's a nonsensical and even potentially
dangerous approach. And who question the source of his information
about 10 pounds of food per week.
> On the other hand, for low-carb diets, there are plenty of people who
> lost considerable amounts of weight with these diets. Just have a look
> at alt.support.diet.low-carb
>
> While I think that portion control is certainly important (although this
> is hardly news) there are two things that disturb me about the
> two-pound-diet:
>
> 1. The "one size fits all" approach.
>
> Should a sedentary 5 ft female really consume the same amount of food as
> a 6 ft active male?
Chung doesn't deal with that question. He usually lets his "friend" Mu
answer it with his normal evasions. Things like, "Shouldn't need any
more." No clear answers forthcoming for that.
> 2. What we eat is just as important as the amount we eat. This seems to
> be neglected in this aproach.
Not neglected at all. Dismissed. He says to just keep eating what you
have been but use "common sense" without ever detailing what that is.
Chung's entire assertion is that only quantity matters.
> Let's say a person eats 10 lbs of food (the average of food you claimed
> your obese neighbours were eating). Let's further say that half of that
> is soda, the rest french fries, potatoes, meat, sauces, bread, bacon,
> eggs and occasionally an apple or some vegetables. Now your advice would
> be to just reduce the amount they are eating and clean up the diet
> later. Then the person would consume one pound of soda and one pound of
> rest of the food, thereby further reducing what little they ate in the
> way of vegetables and fruits. They will probably lose weight on this
> diet, if they can stick to it, but I don't think there is anything
> healthy about such a diet, if only for the reason that they wouldn't get
> enough vitamins, minerals and fiber.
Beverages don't count. So just plug in anything else you want and it's
still ludicrous. In addition to any weight lost by this ill-advised
technique, they'll likely also lose their their health because of the
virtually guaranteed imbalances in nutrients.
Pastorio
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> >
> > Thorsten Schier wrote:
> >
> > > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> > > >
> > > > Matti Narkia wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:13:57 GMT in article
> > > > > <85c910ea07be8394...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> > > > > MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> [...]
> > > > > >Matti has an agenda.
> > > > >
> > > > > My agenda is to find the truth.
> > > >
> > > > Really?
> > > >
> > > > Have you found Jesus Christ, yet?
> > >
> > > Please note that Jesus and the bible are not everyone's idea of truth.
> >
> > Truth is universal.
> >
>
> However, when it comes to religious beliefs, no one can be sure to know
> the truth.
Truth is sure.
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
Bob Pastorio
> nos...@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote in part:
>
>>Truth is sure.
>
> Knock it off.
Jim, you're getting the Chung display. This is the real guy coming
through.
Save your breath. He's exactly what he is and he demonstrates it more
fully every day. Like this. Man of science and says he thinks that
there's one and only one truth. Never studied physics or mathematics,
I guess. Certainly never studied metaphysics.
Pastorio
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> nos...@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote in part:
>
> >Truth is sure.
>
> Knock it off.
> --
> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Truth is not a knock off.
Steve
(in message <3FC00436...@heartmdphd.com>):
<you know the drill..>
>Two pounds is plenty of food for a day.
>
> Thank you for your comments.
>
> Humbly,
>
> Andrew
Right on, Humble Andrew, MD/PhD, Board-Certified Cardiologist!
and Two Feet is plenty also... and easier to measure!
--
God's Other Humble Servant
Steve
(Humble degrees and certifications omitted)
Steve
(in message <3FBFF2B5...@heartmdphd.com>):
> Mack wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:34:48 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
>> <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mack wrote:
>>>
>>>> <libelous hissing snipped>
>>>
>>> Yes, I pity you. Yes, I love you too, neighbor, as pitiful as you are.
>>
>> <anti-christian hissing snipped>
>
> You still have my pity and love, neighbor.
>
How about me Chung? Can I have some of that pity and love too?
FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message.
Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not
request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are
upset about reading this message, a few suggestions:
(1) Yell at Chung
(2) Report Chung to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.
This discussion(s) is related to the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) which
I developed as a replacement for Dr. Chung's Amazing Logic Defying Two
Pound Diet to avoid having to carry a scale around.
In 2003, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing the Bavarian
Alps and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the climbers
consumed only 10 packages of wieners per week. That's less than 2 feet
of wieners per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I
think it is safe to assume that 2 feet of food per day should be more
than adequate for us non-climbing folks.
So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese friends in my
neighborhood. I gave them ordinary 6 inch rulers with instructions to
measure the length of everything substantial that passed into their
mouths. The only things exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What
I learned was that my obese friends were consuming between 8 to 12 feet
of food per day! At the time, I was about 10 lbs. over my ideal body
weight so I decided to find out how much I was eating per day... 3
feet. I cut back to less than 2 feet and was at my proper weight in one
month.
My friends have responded similarly except they have taken longer
because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese
friends were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the
ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally loosing their 6
inch rulers and taking weeks to buy replacements.
So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's longest
dimension, and keep the total length to less than two feet per day.
That's all there is. No scales, no counting calories or carbohydrates.
Heck, if you loose your ruler, you can even use the first joint of your
thumb to measure.
I am making this diet available as a public service and without
compensation.
If you have any questions, just see Dr. Chung's helpful FAQ and
substitute "Two Feet" for "Two Pounds" everywhere... what could be
simpler?
Though Steve invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet
discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been
voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service.
His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his
religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to
better the health of folks He touched:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/hypocrite.asp
From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are
vehemently opposed to the 2 foot diet approach. They have debated
Steve on every perceived weakness of the 2 foot diet approach and have
lost the argument soundly at every point:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp ... just substitute "Foot" for
"Pound" everywhere.
These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and
other discussion threads.
However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the
argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 foot
diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you
can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger."
Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll"
is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no
redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting
"flame" wars.
These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the
following observations were made:
(1) Steve has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2FD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting
the discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2FD
to achieve near-ideal weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their
weight becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/moreChungbullshit
(3) Steve did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 foot diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have
tried to attack Steve's credentials knowing full well that they were
attempting to libel him. One notable example is Dr. Chung who is
jealous that Steve has improved on his diet.
When the full light was cast on Dr. Chung's libelous statements, the
hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity, most notably Mu,
only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero.
Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either
actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they
are, using the on-line third-party resources at:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/sign_up_to_be_a_patient.asp
Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning
the anon posters who continue to hiss, most notably Mu:
(1) They are anonymous and thus expect to have no credibility (or
accountability).
(2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory
characters.
(3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver
one-sided insults.
(4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Steve by cross-
posting.
(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the
2FD or its author.
and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.
Unfortunately, they keep Mu_Tating so that it is impossible to killfile
them.
It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to
speed.
It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din
of hissing from the peanut gallery.
Sincerely,
God's Other Humble Servant
Steve
Thorsten Schier
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>
> Thorsten Schier <Moo...@firemail.de> wrote in message news:<3FBFF5E0...@firemail.de>...
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> > >
> > > Thorsten Schier wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> > > > >
> > > > > Matti Narkia wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:13:57 GMT in article
> > > > > > <85c910ea07be8394...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> > > > > > MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > [...]
> > > > > > >Matti has an agenda.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My agenda is to find the truth.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really?
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you found Jesus Christ, yet?
> > > >
> > > > Please note that Jesus and the bible are not everyone's idea of truth.
> > >
> > > Truth is universal.
> > >
> >
> > However, when it comes to religious beliefs, no one can be sure to know
> > the truth.
>
> Truth is sure.
>
No one knows the truth ...
ma...@sorbet.nothere
<and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>ma...@sorbet.nothere wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:32:12 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:13:57 GMT in article
>> ><85c910ea07be8394...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>> >MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Mack wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:05:24 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> why are you cross posting?
>> >>
>> >>Matti has an agenda.
>> >
>> >My agenda is to find the truth. Yours seems to be getting the last word in
>> >every debate no matter what the truth is.
>>
>> Now THAT is the truth!
>
>Hardly.
Oh. I forgot that only you know the truth.
>
>> <big grin>.
>
>Grin away.
Grinning even more.
>
>> Seeing him drone on and on even when
>> he is wrong makes him look even less trustworthy.
>
>Is that hissing that I am reading?
No. It is the truth as revealed in the Bible. As someone who always
knows the truth, I'm surprised you didn't know that. Try Google, as
you always suggest to others, and you will find it.
>
>> He seems to think if
>> he says it enough times, it becomes truth.
>
>Matti is the one looking for the truth.
I understand. When he agrees with you, he will have found the truth,
but not before that. I need to remember that only you know the truth.
>
>> Sad, isn't it?
>
>Why are you grinning, then?
Sometimes I grin, sometimes I am sad, just like all of us. That is
truth. <grin> And it is sad, too. As someone who always knows the
truth, I'm sure you understand.
>
>> I can't wait
>> for his "pity and love" canned reply to this.<grin>
>> Matt
>
>Sorry to disappoint you.
Sorry there is no room in your heart for pity and love. Matti is
right, though, you will try to get in the last word.
Matt
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:35:18 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> (in message <3FBFF2B5...@heartmdphd.com>):
>
> > Mack wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:34:48 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> >> <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Mack wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> <libelous hissing snipped>
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I pity you. Yes, I love you too, neighbor, as pitiful as you are.
> >>
> >> <anti-christian hissing snipped>
> >
> > You still have my pity and love, neighbor.
> >
>
> How about me Chung? Can I have some of that pity and love too?
You have my thanks for the sincerest form of flattery.
<imitation snipped>
> Sincerely,
>
> God's Other Humble Servant
>
> Steve
Neighbor, have you accepted Christ as your Lord and Savior, yet?
When you do, we can worship Him together.
FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message.
Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not
request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are
upset about reading this message, a few suggestions:
(1) Yell at Steve
(2) Report Steve to his ISP.
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.
This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which
is described completely at:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this
Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has
been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community
service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen
from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of
Himself to better the health of folks He touched:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp
From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are
vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated
Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and
have lost the argument soundly at every point:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp
These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and
other discussion threads.
However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the
argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2
pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be
"if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the
messenger."
Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll"
is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no
redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting
"flame" wars.
These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the
following observations were made:
(1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting
the discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the
2PD to achieve near-ideal weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when
their weight becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc
(3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
(5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line
(including jpegs of the actual diplomas).
Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have
tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they
were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements,
the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed
louder in support of their fallen hero.
Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either
actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they
are, using the on-line third-party resources at:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp
where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and
libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily
debunked.
Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning
the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack):
(1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or
accountability).
(2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory
characters.
(3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to
deliver one-sided insults.
(4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by
cross-posting.
(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the
2PD or its author.
and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.
It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to
speed.
It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din
of hissing from the peanut gallery.
God's humble bond-servant,
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" schrieb:
> >
> > Thorsten Schier <Moo...@firemail.de> wrote in message news:<3FBFF5E0...@firemail.de>...
> > > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> > > >
> > > > Thorsten Schier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Matti Narkia wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:13:57 GMT in article
> > > > > > > <85c910ea07be8394...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> > > > > > > MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> [...]
> > > > > > > >Matti has an agenda.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My agenda is to find the truth.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Really?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have you found Jesus Christ, yet?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please note that Jesus and the bible are not everyone's idea of truth.
> > > >
> > > > Truth is universal.
> > > >
> > >
> > > However, when it comes to religious beliefs, no one can be sure to know
> > > the truth.
> >
> > Truth is sure.
> >
>
> No one knows the truth ...
>
> Thorsten
Except those who know Jesus Christ.
From John 14:
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one
comes to the Father except through me..."
http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Steve
(in message <a4b1bd78.03112...@posting.google.com>):
> Steve <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:<0001HW.BBE60845...@text.giganews.com>...
>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:35:18 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
>> (in message <3FBFF2B5...@heartmdphd.com>):
>>
>>> Mack wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:34:48 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
>>>> <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mack wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <libelous hissing snipped>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I pity you. Yes, I love you too, neighbor, as pitiful as you are.
>>>>
>>>> <anti-christian hissing snipped>
>>>
>>> You still have my pity and love, neighbor.
>>>
>>
>> How about me Chung? Can I have some of that pity and love too?
>
> You have my thanks for the sincerest form of flattery.
>
You are certainly welcome, Brother Chung. Any time I can "flatter"
you like that, I'll be happy to do it. Maybe you could give me my own
page on heartmd.com where I could flatter you even more?
FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message.
Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not
request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are
upset about reading this message, a few suggestions:
(1) Yell at Chung
(2) Report Chung to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.
This discussion(s) is related to the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) which
Though Steve invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet
discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been
voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service.
His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his
religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to
better the health of folks He touched:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/hypocrite.asp
From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are
vehemently opposed to the 2 foot diet approach. They have debated
Steve on every perceived weakness of the 2 foot diet approach and have
lost the argument soundly at every point:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp ... just substitute "Foot" for
"Pound" everywhere.
These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and
other discussion threads.
However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the
argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 foot
diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you
can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger."
Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll"
is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no
redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting
"flame" wars.
These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the
following observations were made:
(1) Steve has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2FD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting
the discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2FD
to achieve near-ideal weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their
weight becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/moreChungbullshit
(3) Steve did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 foot diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have
tried to attack Steve's credentials knowing full well that they were
attempting to libel him. One notable example is Dr. Chung who is
jealous that Steve has improved on his diet.
When the full light was cast on Dr. Chung's libelous statements, the
hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity, most notably Mu,
only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero.
Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either
actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they
are, using the on-line third-party resources at:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/sign_up_to_be_a_patient.asp
Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning
the anon posters who continue to hiss, most notably Mu:
(1) They are anonymous and thus expect to have no credibility (or
accountability).
(2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory
characters.
(3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver
one-sided insults.
(4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Steve by cross-
posting.
(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the
2FD or its author.
and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.
Unfortunately, they keep Mu_Tating so that it is impossible to killfile
them.
It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to
speed.
It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din
of hissing from the peanut gallery.
Sincerely,
Bob Pastorio
>>
>>Thorsten
>
> Except those who know Jesus Christ.
>
> From John 14:
>
> 6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one
> comes to the Father except through me..."
>
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp
This is a wonderful essay in self-referential exposition. A perfect
example of begging the question. Using the subject as definition of
the subject. "The bible is true because it's the word of god." Right.
But first you have to prove that it's the word of god without quoting
the book itself. Try another source. There isn't one. You either
believe or not, and no amount of cajoling and exhorting generates
faith. There are no proofs for faith. There are no rational
justifications. You either believe or not.
Chung makes the fatal error of equating faith with knowledge. Of
equating belief with fact. Of equating *his* belief with absolute
truth all the while ignoring vast portions of the bible that are
inconvenient to his hubris. He equates the arrogance of his
exclusionary belief with humility, defying all rational definition of
"faith" and "humility."
All fanatics believe themselves to have an exclusive grasp on truth.
All fundamentalists believe they have an exclusive pipeline to god.
All propagandists believe that if they shout loudly enough or repeat
themselves enough that all will be convinced and converted.
All egotists believe that anyone who doesn't agree with them is
foolish and generally inferior to them.
All True Believers believe that their faith covers everything about
everything and that they KNOW what is proper and what isn't out to
100% of all issues and questions.
The True Believers also believe that anything they do in their
perverse understanding of their "cause" is acceptable. That nothing is
immoral or unethical in the cause of their religion, their faith. That
any harm and any inconvenience caused to others is acceptable because
it's for a noble cause. They may say anything, imply anything, slander
and libel anyone, distort and dissemble, even outright lie to gain
ascendancy and remain atop that moral high ground. It's the madness of
the terrorist, the nullity of the martyr.
That True Believer has one fatal flaw. His belief is so
all-encompassing that it cannot have, must not have, any flaws. His
belief is finally fragile because it must be absolute or all of it
falls. So the TB cannot grant even the smallest point to anyone who
doesn't agree with him. He cannot offer true compassion to anyone who
doesn't agree with him 100% He cannot indicate any unsurety in his
belief. The TB is, finally, a fraud because of the enormous distance
and cognitive dissonance between action and words. The truly sad part
of it is that the TB has no idea of his weakness and frailty. No idea
of his appearance of folly and dishonesty. No idea that his relentless
hypocrisy is his own strongest opponent and most strident critic.
What a profoundly sad waste.
Pastorio
Mack
<and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Mack wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:59:14 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
>> <cardio...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Mack wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 18 Nov 2003 19:19:38 -0800, cardio...@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew
>> >> B. Chunk, MD/PhD) wrote:
>> >
>> >Having trouble spelling, Mack?
>> >
>> >Humbly,
>> >
>> >Andrew
>>
>> No, I just clicked okay when my spell checker tried to change it from
>> chung to chunk like it always does.
>
>Sounds like you need to learn how to use a dictionary, instead. Spell
>checkers are too complicated for some folks.
>
obviously since a self professed PhD doesn't have a clue how they
work.
Mack
>On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 12:40:44 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
>(in message <a4b1bd78.03112...@posting.google.com>):
>
>> Steve <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:<0001HW.BBE60845...@text.giganews.com>...
>>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:35:18 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
>>> (in message <cardio...@heartmdphd.com>):
>>>
>>>> Mack wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:34:48 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
>>>>> <cardio...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mack wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <libelous hissing snipped>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I pity you. Yes, I love you too, neighbor, as pitiful as you are.
>>>>>
>>>>> <anti-christian hissing snipped>
>>>>
>>>> You still have my pity and love, neighbor.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How about me Chung? Can I have some of that pity and love too?
>>
>> You have my thanks for the sincerest form of flattery.
>>
>
>You are certainly welcome, Brother Chung. Any time I can "flatter"
>you like that, I'll be happy to do it. Maybe you could give me my own
>page on heartmd.com where I could flatter you even more?
give him time, he will start praying for your death in true cult
fashion like he did others, then you'll see your name listed on his
these people are dead page.
Mack
Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>Mack <asdn...@example.com> wrote in message news:<0s3urvspi5l4pptjf...@4ax.com>...
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:13:57 GMT, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
>> cardio...@heartmdphd.com wrote:
>>
>> >Mack wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:05:24 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> why are you cross posting?
>> >
>> >Matti has an agenda.
>>
>> as if you don't.
>
>Not on this particular topic.
since you keep trolling a group I am not reading these posts in and
intentionally crossposting to that group when I am not your agenda is
quite clear.
>
>FYI Note: This is cross-posted to ASD for the convenience of an ASD
>subscriber If you are upset about reading this message, a few
>suggestions:
more lies from the fake christian.
Mack
B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>Mack <asdn...@example.com> wrote in message news:<v64urvktagiho9pkq...@4ax.com>...
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:49:50 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:12:57 -0500 in article
>> ><qjpqrvc6is8u49te4...@4ax.com> Mack <asdn...@example.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:05:24 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>why are you cross posting?
>> >>
>> >I didn't start this thread. I didn't even know it was crossposted.
>>
>>
>> I went and checked, it was originally cross posted by the name myo
>> cardium. who has only ever made 2 posts to Sci.med.cardiology or ASD.
>> This may or may not be another chung sock puppet. It's unlikely as
>> the posts from myo are far more articulate than anything chung the mu
>> troll has posted.
>>
>> Make no mistake, chung/mu is a well known troll. <desperate attemp to hide the truth about chung/mu by snipping>
>
>Sounds like I hit a raw nerve.
why are you trolling groups that have unanimously labeled you a quack,
fraud, troll and host other appropriate titles based on your anti
social behavior?
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 12:40:44 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> (in message <a4b1bd78.03112...@posting.google.com>):
>
> > Steve <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:<0001HW.BBE60845...@text.giganews.com>...
> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:35:18 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> >> (in message <3FBFF2B5...@heartmdphd.com>):
> >>
> >>> Mack wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:34:48 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> >>>> <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Mack wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> <libelous hissing snipped>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, I pity you. Yes, I love you too, neighbor, as pitiful as you are.
> >>>>
> >>>> <anti-christian hissing snipped>
> >>>
> >>> You still have my pity and love, neighbor.
> >>>
> >>
> >> How about me Chung? Can I have some of that pity and love too?
> >
> > You have my thanks for the sincerest form of flattery.
> >
>
> You are certainly welcome, Brother Chung. Any time I can "flatter"
> you like that, I'll be happy to do it. Maybe you could give me my own
> page on heartmd.com where I could flatter you even more?
>
Neighbor Steve, would need your real name and email address to consider it. The
untruthful have a tough time with real things. Nonetheless, you have my love,
neighbor.
Again, sincere thanks for spreading the word about the 2PD approach.
May you believe that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior someday.
> <imitation snipped>
FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message.
Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not
request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are
upset about reading this message, a few suggestions:
(1) Yell at Steve
(2) Report Steve to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.
This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is
described completely at:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet
discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and
has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been
entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian.
Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp
From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently
opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every
perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument
soundly at every point:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp
These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and other
discussion threads.
However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s),
certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward
its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message
then try to discredit the messenger."
Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone
who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion
value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars.
These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following
observations were made:
(1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the
discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to
achieve near-ideal weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight
becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc
(3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
(5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs
of the actual diplomas).
Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to
attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to
libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful
folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their
fallen hero.
Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or
as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line
third-party resources at:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp
where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims
that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked.
Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon
posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack):
(1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or
accountability).
(2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters.
(3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided
insults.
(4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting.
(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its
author.
and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.
It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed.
It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing
from the peanut gallery.
God's humble bond-servant,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Thorsten Schier
Don't all religions claim to have the one and only truth?
Thorsten Schier
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>
> Thorsten Schier wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> > <snip>
> > > On sense of hunger perhaps but not on quantity. Quantity and
> > quality
> > > are *independent* variables.
> >
> > I don't know how that works for you, but for me the quantity of food
> >
> > that I eat is strongly influenced by my sense of hunger.
> >
>
> Not if you are following the 2PD approach.
So if my hunger is greater than the amount of food allowed I could
either stay hungry most of the time (which would make the diet hard to
follow) or I could opt for more caloriedense foods like chocolate or
nuts instead of fruit or vegetables, thereby defeating the purpose of
the diet.
According to Bob Pastorio the food they consume is dehydrated so that 10
pound would probably weigh between 30 and 40 pounds when rehydrated.
(<vs01q7h...@corp.supernews.com>)
> >
> > 2. They might well have lost a part of their body weight, even if
> > they
> > were not overweight to begin with.
>
> So what if they did?
See below.
> > People can usually live without any
> > food at all for a limited period of time.
>
> Who said anything about fasting?
See below.
> > That is no proof that it is
> > healthy to eat next to nothing all of the time (of course I'm not
> > claiming that 2 lbs is next to nothing,
>
> Then why write it?
Because extrem examples are often better suited to detect logical
errors. If people can survive without any food at all for a limited
time, than their survival for the same time on any given amount of food
doesn't proof that this amount is enough to keep them alive indefinitly.
> > my point is that the short term
> > survival of these climbers does not proof that an average person
> > could
> > survive on the same amount or a somewhat larger one indefinitly).
>
> The climbers were a source of inspiration for the 2PD approach rather
> than a proof of either safety or efficacy.
Ok. That raises the question how you know that 2 lbs are the right
amount and not 1 1/2 lbs or 3 pounds or whatever.
> >
> > 3. Even people who don't die from starvation might be malnourished.
>
> Not in my experience as a physician who has been recommending the 2PD
> approach to his patients since 1998. I have seen no cases of
> beriberi, scurvy, etc in any of my patients.
Beriberi and scurvy are extrem variants of avitaminoses. People might
get enough vitamin C to prevent scurvey and yet not enough for optimal
health.
> >
> > "What I learned was that my obese patients was consuming between 8
> > to 12
> > lbs. of food per day! "
> >
> > I have a hard time believing that the average obese person could eat
> >
> > that much food.
>
> My guess is that you are not obese.
Well, I *do* wish you were right on this. Unfortunatly you're not. I'm
working on changing that.
> > Unless perhaps if a considerable part of it are juices
> > or sodas or the like.
>
> They do count.
>
> >
> > Regarding to your testimonials:
> >
> > There does not seem not be much in the way of people who have
> > actually
> > tried the diet and lost weight with it. Most people seem to argue
> > from a
> > theoretical point of view, not from personal experience.
> >
>
> Does there need to be?
Many things sound reasonable but don't really work in the real world. It
would be more convincing, if you could cite people who actually tried
the diet.
> >
> > On the other hand, for low-carb diets, there are plenty of people
> > who
> > lost considerable amounts of weight with these diets. Just have a
> > look
> > at alt.support.diet.low-carb
>
> If that were true, why the need for "support" then?
I don't claim that people don't encounter problems when they low-carb.
Some problems are as simple as: What do I eat for breakfast? (Obviously,
you can't have bread, what most people normally eat then)
Or: How many carbs has this or another food?
How many protein should I eat?
Some are more serious:
Can I go on Atkins when I have condition xyz?
What do I do, when I stall?
There are many questions that arise with low-carbing, many of them due
to the fact that this way of eating is a lot different from what most
people do. For example, if people have problems finding suitable food
choices at restaurants, this is not a problem with the diet as such, but
more with the fact that our society depends on carbohydrates to such a
great degree.
> >
> > While I think that portion control is certainly important (although
> > this
> > is hardly news) there are two things that disturb me about the
> > two-pound-diet:
> >
> > 1. The "one size fits all" approach.
> >
> > Should a sedentary 5 ft female really consume the same amount of
> > food as
> > a 6 ft active male?
> >
>
> If that female is obese, she should eat less and not care how much
> others are eating.
Less than 2 lbs? So 2 lbs might be to much for some people?
> >
> > 2. What we eat is just as important as the amount we eat. This seems
> > to
> > be neglected in this aproach.
>
> The 2PD approach helps obese folks lose weight permanently.
If they can stick to the diet. However, if they continue to consume
their high-carb foods, most of them will still have the problem with
reactive hypoglycemia that makes them hungry some time after eating.
> >
> > Let's say a person eats 10 lbs of food (the average of food you
> > claimed
> > your obese neighbours were eating). Let's further say that half of
> > that
> > is soda, the rest french fries, potatoes, meat, sauces, bread,
> > bacon,
> > eggs and occasionally an apple or some vegetables. Now your advice
> > would
> > be to just reduce the amount they are eating and clean up the diet
> > later.
>
> My advice would be to have them ask their doctors about supervising
> them for the 2PD approach.
Now let's assume you are their doctor. Would you advise them to continue
eating and drinking the way they do, if only they don't exceed the 2
pounds?
> > Then the person would consume one pound of soda and one pound of
> > rest of the food, thereby further reducing what little they ate in
> > the
> > way of vegetables and fruits. They will probably lose weight on this
> >
> > diet, if they can stick to it, but I don't think there is anything
> > healthy about such a diet, if only for the reason that they wouldn't
> > get
> > enough vitamins, minerals and fiber.
>
> If their doctors are concerned, they may opt to prescribe
> supplements. Ime, folks following the 2PD approach don't need
> supplements. Two pounds is plenty of food for a day.
>
A study on patients in a hospital in Boston revealed that the majority
of the participants were deficient in vitamin D. Even 37 % of those who
exceeded the recommended daily allowance of intake were deficient. This
demonstrates that deficiencies of vitamins might be widespread even if
few people develop such extrem symptoms like scurvy or rickets.
Thomas, M. (1998) "Hypovitaminosis D in Medical Inpatients" - N Engl J
Med, Volume 338:777-783 March 19
(http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/338/12/777)
Steve
(in message <hu52svo87rba5urqf...@4ax.com>):
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:37:07 -0500, Steve <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 12:40:44 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
>> (in message <a4b1bd78.03112...@posting.google.com>):
>>
>>> Steve <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:<0001HW.BBE60845...@text.giganews.com>...
>>>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:35:18 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
>>>> (in message <cardio...@heartmdphd.com>):
>>>>
>>>>> Mack wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:34:48 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
>>>>>> <cardio...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mack wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <libelous hissing snipped>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I pity you. Yes, I love you too, neighbor, as pitiful as you
>>>>>>> are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <anti-christian hissing snipped>
>>>>>
>>>>> You still have my pity and love, neighbor.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about me Chung? Can I have some of that pity and love too?
>>>
>>> You have my thanks for the sincerest form of flattery.
>>>
>>
>> You are certainly welcome, Brother Chung. Any time I can "flatter"
>> you like that, I'll be happy to do it. Maybe you could give me my own
>> page on heartmd.com where I could flatter you even more?
>
> give him time, he will start praying for your death in true cult
> fashion like he did others, then you'll see your name listed on his
> these people are dead page.
Heh... yeah, and then he will "just happen" to have a web page
discussing what I died from, like he did with John Ritter... all
"totally altruistic" of course.
... and by the way, while you are there don't forget to sign up to be a
patient at http://www.heartmdphd.com/office.asp...
"Ca-Chung!"
--
Steve
(in message <ce5389e126b0fb10...@news.teranews.com>):
Oh, you are quite welcome, Brother Chung. In fact, every time I see
the 2PD approach, I just can't resist "spreading the word" as you call
it, since it was that wonderful approach which gave me the inspiration
for my Two Foot Diet Approach, described below.
You have done all the missionary work, for which we are all thankful.
Your research at the IMAX should surely qualify for a Nobel Prize....
now all one needs to do is to substitute "Two Foot" for "Two Pound"
everywhere to complete the picture. If I have seen farther than you,
it is surely because I have stood on the shoulders of a giant.
One thing puzzles me, however... why won't you acknowledge me and the
other posters as "Brothers" but insist on calling us "Neighbors"?
Don't you believe in the Brotherhood of Man? Could your faith and
heart be so small that you can only believe in the "Neighborhood of
Man"?
Brotherhood is difficult for the unbrotherly.
Sincerely,
God's Other Humble Servant
Steve
FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message.
Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not
request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are
upset about reading this message, a few suggestions:
(1) Yell at Chung
(2) Report Chung to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.
This discussion(s) is related to the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) which
Though Steve invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet
discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been
voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service.
His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his
religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to
better the health of folks He touched:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/hypocrite.asp
From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are
vehemently opposed to the 2 foot diet approach. They have debated
Steve on every perceived weakness of the 2 foot diet approach and have
lost the argument soundly at every point:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp ... just substitute "Foot" for
"Pound" everywhere.
These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and
other discussion threads.
However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the
argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 foot
diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you
can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger."
Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll"
is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no
redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting
"flame" wars.
These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the
following observations were made:
(1) Steve has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2FD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting
the discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2FD
to achieve near-ideal weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their
weight becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/moreChungbullshit
(3) Steve did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 foot diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have
tried to attack Steve's credentials knowing full well that they were
attempting to libel him. One notable example is Dr. Chung who is
jealous that Steve has improved on his diet.
When the full light was cast on Dr. Chung's libelous statements, the
hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity, most notably Mu,
only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero.
Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either
actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they
are, using the on-line third-party resources at:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/sign_up_to_be_a_patient.asp
Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning
the anon posters who continue to hiss, most notably Mu:
(1) They are anonymous and thus expect to have no credibility (or
accountability).
(2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory
characters.
(3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver
one-sided insults.
(4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Steve by cross-
posting.
(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the
2FD or its author.
and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.
Unfortunately, they keep Mu_Tating so that it is impossible to killfile
them.
It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to
speed.
It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din
of hissing from the peanut gallery.
Sincerely,
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
No. Some claim that there are multiple truths that are all figments of ones imagination.
Humbly,
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" schrieb:
> >
> > Thorsten Schier wrote:
> >
> > > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> > > <snip>
> > > > On sense of hunger perhaps but not on quantity. Quantity and
> > > quality
> > > > are *independent* variables.
> > >
> > > I don't know how that works for you, but for me the quantity of food
> > >
> > > that I eat is strongly influenced by my sense of hunger.
> > >
> >
> > Not if you are following the 2PD approach.
>
> So if my hunger is greater than the amount of food allowed I could
> either stay hungry most of the time (which would make the diet hard to
> follow)
If you followed the instructions with a *gradual* reduction in intake, you
won't stay hungry most of the time. Your stomach as an organ comprised of
smooth muscle has the ability to "shrink" given time in much the same way a
woman's uterus (also made of smooth muscle) "shrinks" after birth to a term
infant.
> or I could opt for more caloriedense foods like chocolate or
> nuts instead of fruit or vegetables, thereby defeating the purpose of
> the diet.
You will eventually get tired of "rich" foods thereby fulfilling the
long-term purpose of the 2PD approach.
According to Mr. Pastorio, I don't have a medical license and there is no
God. Also, according to Mr. Pastorio, his love of food did not contribute
to his developing coronary disease.
If the food is dehydrated, we are talking about carbs. If the food is
calorie dense, we are talking about foods (nuts and butter cubes) that are
*not* dehydrated. Can't have it both ways. Not only would Mr. Pastorio
have you believe that I don't have a medical license... he would have you
believe that 10 pounds of butter cubes will rehydrate to 40 pounds of butter
and that there is no God much less a risen Christ.
>
> (<vs01q7h...@corp.supernews.com>)
>
> > >
> > > 2. They might well have lost a part of their body weight, even if
> > > they
> > > were not overweight to begin with.
> >
> > So what if they did?
>
> See below.
>
> > > People can usually live without any
> > > food at all for a limited period of time.
> >
> > Who said anything about fasting?
>
> See below.
>
> > > That is no proof that it is
> > > healthy to eat next to nothing all of the time (of course I'm not
> > > claiming that 2 lbs is next to nothing,
> >
> > Then why write it?
>
> Because extrem examples are often better suited to detect logical
> errors.
Not when the extreme example is a logical error.
> If people can survive without any food at all for a limited
> time, than their survival for the same time on any given amount of food
> doesn't proof that this amount is enough to keep them alive indefinitly.
>
The same could be said of any diet or non-diet.
>
> > > my point is that the short term
> > > survival of these climbers does not proof that an average person
> > > could
> > > survive on the same amount or a somewhat larger one indefinitly).
> >
> > The climbers were a source of inspiration for the 2PD approach rather
> > than a proof of either safety or efficacy.
>
> Ok. That raises the question how you know that 2 lbs are the right
> amount and not 1 1/2 lbs or 3 pounds or whatever.
>
Empirically determined. Works for me, my patients, friends and family.
>
> > >
> > > 3. Even people who don't die from starvation might be malnourished.
> >
> > Not in my experience as a physician who has been recommending the 2PD
> > approach to his patients since 1998. I have seen no cases of
> > beriberi, scurvy, etc in any of my patients.
>
> Beriberi and scurvy are extrem variants of avitaminoses. People might
> get enough vitamin C to prevent scurvey and yet not enough for optimal
> health.
>
This could be said of any diet or non-diet.
>
> > >
> > > "What I learned was that my obese patients was consuming between 8
> > > to 12
> > > lbs. of food per day! "
> > >
> > > I have a hard time believing that the average obese person could eat
> > >
> > > that much food.
> >
> > My guess is that you are not obese.
>
> Well, I *do* wish you were right on this. Unfortunatly you're not. I'm
> working on changing that.
>
Well, how much food/drink are you consuming each day?
>
> > > Unless perhaps if a considerable part of it are juices
> > > or sodas or the like.
> >
> > They do count.
> >
> > >
> > > Regarding to your testimonials:
> > >
> > > There does not seem not be much in the way of people who have
> > > actually
> > > tried the diet and lost weight with it. Most people seem to argue
> > > from a
> > > theoretical point of view, not from personal experience.
> > >
> >
> > Does there need to be?
>
> Many things sound reasonable but don't really work in the real world. It
> would be more convincing, if you could cite people who actually tried
> the diet.
>
I have. How many people do you need?
>
> > >
> > > On the other hand, for low-carb diets, there are plenty of people
> > > who
> > > lost considerable amounts of weight with these diets. Just have a
> > > look
> > > at alt.support.diet.low-carb
> >
> > If that were true, why the need for "support" then?
>
> I don't claim that people don't encounter problems when they low-carb.
>
> Some problems are as simple as: What do I eat for breakfast? (Obviously,
> you can't have bread, what most people normally eat then)
>
> Or: How many carbs has this or another food?
>
> How many protein should I eat?
>
> Some are more serious:
>
> Can I go on Atkins when I have condition xyz?
>
> What do I do, when I stall?
>
Sounds like a PC way of saying the diet is failing them.
>
> There are many questions that arise with low-carbing, many of them due
> to the fact that this way of eating is a lot different from what most
> people do.
Different from what people are accustomed to doing.
> For example, if people have problems finding suitable food
> choices at restaurants, this is not a problem with the diet as such, but
> more with the fact that our society depends on carbohydrates to such a
> great degree.
>
Not to mention, our bodies make and store carbohydrates in the form of "body
starch" (glycogen).
Moreover, more than 2/3rds of the world's population subsists on primarily
carbs (rice) without obesity problems.
>
> > >
> > > While I think that portion control is certainly important (although
> > > this
> > > is hardly news) there are two things that disturb me about the
> > > two-pound-diet:
> > >
> > > 1. The "one size fits all" approach.
> > >
> > > Should a sedentary 5 ft female really consume the same amount of
> > > food as
> > > a 6 ft active male?
> > >
> >
> > If that female is obese, she should eat less and not care how much
> > others are eating.
>
> Less than 2 lbs?
Less than the X amount of pounds of food/drink she is currently consuming.
2 pounds will be less than X.
> So 2 lbs might be to much for some people?
>
Haven't seen it. A 5 foot person is less than 20% shorter than a 6 foot
person, so one would not expect a large difference in caloric requirements.
>
> > >
> > > 2. What we eat is just as important as the amount we eat. This seems
> > > to
> > > be neglected in this aproach.
> >
> > The 2PD approach helps obese folks lose weight permanently.
>
> If they can stick to the diet. However, if they continue to consume
> their high-carb foods, most of them will still have the problem with
> reactive hypoglycemia that makes them hungry some time after eating.
More than 2/3rds of the world population is handling it fine.
>
>
> > >
> > > Let's say a person eats 10 lbs of food (the average of food you
> > > claimed
> > > your obese neighbours were eating). Let's further say that half of
> > > that
> > > is soda, the rest french fries, potatoes, meat, sauces, bread,
> > > bacon,
> > > eggs and occasionally an apple or some vegetables. Now your advice
> > > would
> > > be to just reduce the amount they are eating and clean up the diet
> > > later.
> >
> > My advice would be to have them ask their doctors about supervising
> > them for the 2PD approach.
>
> Now let's assume you are their doctor. Would you advise them to continue
> eating and drinking the way they do, if only they don't exceed the 2
> pounds?
>
Depends on the patient and his/her other medical problems. For example, if
there is diabetes, they will need to dovetail the 2PD approach with ADA diet
recommendations.
>
> > > Then the person would consume one pound of soda and one pound of
> > > rest of the food, thereby further reducing what little they ate in
> > > the
> > > way of vegetables and fruits. They will probably lose weight on this
> > >
> > > diet, if they can stick to it, but I don't think there is anything
> > > healthy about such a diet, if only for the reason that they wouldn't
> > > get
> > > enough vitamins, minerals and fiber.
> >
> > If their doctors are concerned, they may opt to prescribe
> > supplements. Ime, folks following the 2PD approach don't need
> > supplements. Two pounds is plenty of food for a day.
> >
>
> A study on patients in a hospital in Boston revealed that the majority
> of the participants were deficient in vitamin D.
That may be specific for that population especially it being made up of
hospitalized folks in a northern city (less sunlight exposure).
> Even 37 % of those who
> exceeded the recommended daily allowance of intake were deficient.
For that population, the recommended daily allowance would appear to be
insufficient.
> This
> demonstrates that deficiencies of vitamins might be widespread even if
> few people develop such extrem symptoms like scurvy or rickets.
>
The solution would be a balanced diet rather than eating more of an
unbalanced one.
>
> Thomas, M. (1998) "Hypovitaminosis D in Medical Inpatients" - N Engl J
> Med, Volume 338:777-783 March 19
>
> (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/338/12/777)
>
> Thorsten
The appropriate analogy for this discussion is the problem of motorists
speeding on the highways.
The solution is to enforce the speed limit which attacks the variable of
interest simply and directly.
The observation that folks driving "fast" cars tend to do more speeding is a
distraction. Folks caught speeding in these "fast" cars would like the
officer to blame the "fast" cars instead of ticketing them.
Truth is simple.
God's humble bond-servant,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Steve
(in message <b1c7718cba7adf47...@news.teranews.com>):
> According to Mr. Pastorio, I don't have a medical license and there is no
> God.
...
> Not only would Mr. Pastorio
> have you believe that I don't have a medical license... he would have you
> believe ... that there is no God
I don't believe Mr. Pastorio has ever said that you don't have a
medical license or that there is no God. I know I have never seen him
make these statements.
> Truth is simple.
Then it will be simple for you to provide us with a citation for these
two allegations.
--
Bob Pastorio
> Thorsten Schier wrote:
>
>
>>"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>>
>>>Thorsten Schier wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>On sense of hunger perhaps but not on quantity. Quantity and
>>>>quality are *independent* variables.
>>>>
>>>>I don't know how that works for you, but for me the quantity of food
>>>>that I eat is strongly influenced by my sense of hunger.
>>>>
>>>Not if you are following the 2PD approach.
>>
>>So if my hunger is greater than the amount of food allowed I could
>>either stay hungry most of the time (which would make the diet hard to
>>follow)
>
> If you followed the instructions with a *gradual* reduction in intake, you
> won't stay hungry most of the time. Your stomach as an organ comprised of
> smooth muscle has the ability to "shrink" given time in much the same way a
> woman's uterus (also made of smooth muscle) "shrinks" after birth to a term
> infant.
Except hunger is a much more complex series of mechanisms than how
much can fit into the muscle sack.
>>or I could opt for more caloriedense foods like chocolate or
>>nuts instead of fruit or vegetables, thereby defeating the purpose of
>>the diet.
>
> You will eventually get tired of "rich" foods thereby fulfilling the
> long-term purpose of the 2PD approach.
There's not a shred of evidence that this would occur. In fact, it's
plain nonsense on the face of it.
>>>>>>Many people find it easier to control their food intake, when
>>>>>>they eat less carbohydrates, particularly those with a high
>>>>>>glycemic index.
>>>>>
>>>>>Many people find it easier to control their food intake when they
>>>>>can quantify the amount they are eating.
>>>>>
>>>>>Check out the unsolicited testimonials at:
And here start the Chung lies. Really look at them. See how many offer
any endorsement. Mine certainly doesn't. IN fact, the post from which
Chung took it out of context is a demolition of the 2PD.
>>>>>http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
>>>>
>>>>Works better with a dot in place of the third slash.
>>>>
>>>Sorry about that. It is fixed now.
>>>
>>>
>>>>A few remarks to the text on this site:
>>>>
>>>>"In 1998, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing Mt.
>>>>Everest and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the climbers
>>>>consumed only 10 lbs of food per week. That's less than 2 lbs. of food per
>>>>day!
>>>>Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I think it is safe
>>>>to assume that 2 lbs. per day should be more than adequate for us
>>>>non-climbing folks."
>>>>
>>>>1. The climbers will most likely have eaten calorie dense food like
>>>>chocolate as they would want to carry as little as possible.
>>>>
>>>It is 10 pounds.
Chung keeps saying that but has yet to name the movie he saw that in.
Or offer any other references to that effect. Within the past couple
days, I posted many URL's that contradict that 10-pound fantasy. That
they eat freeze-dried foods up the mountain supplemented by foods in
the camps on the way. That they consume between 6000 and 12000
calories per day. And before going up, in the acclimatization stages,
they eat rather heavily. One site mentions "all-you-can-eat buffets.
>>>The choices on what to eat is climber dependent.
>>>Some like carbs and others like proteins. They will bring what they
>>>like to eat because it is treacherous climbing Mt. Everest. Who knows
>>>which meal will be their last.
They bring what they know will sustain them. Packaged, freeze-dried,
extremely lightweight provisions. Those foods require rehydration to
make them equivalent to fresh foods. That either would triple or
quadruple Chung's unsubstantiated 10 pounds. 30 or 40 pounds of food
per week. And still they lose a pound a day. How absurd to formulate a
rational dietary approach for the general run of population from that.
>>According to Bob Pastorio the food they consume is dehydrated so that 10
>>pound would probably weigh between 30 and 40 pounds when rehydrated.
Actually, it was according to several credible sources (Everest
climbers) that discussed food and nutritional conditions facing
Everest climbers. I merely posted the results of some very simple
research. Research that Chung didn't do, very much in keeping with his
history with his silly diet, that would have shown him that his idea
of what those Everest climbers actually consume and what happens to them.
> According to Mr. Pastorio, I don't have a medical license and there is no
> God. Also, according to Mr. Pastorio, his love of food did not contribute
> to his developing coronary disease.
According to Mr. Pastorio, Chung is a demonstrable liar. I have never
said that Chung doesn't have a license. I've checked and seen that he
does. And I have never said there is no god. I have even explained
that I seriously considered becoming a member of the clergy.
Since Chung has no idea of my dietary habits, my genetic history or
any other conditions I may or may not have, if this is another example
of his medical diagnostic capability, it certainly confirms the
failures and flaws of his earlier ones regarding me and my actions.
> If the food is dehydrated, we are talking about carbs. If the food is
> calorie dense, we are talking about foods (nuts and butter cubes) that are
> *not* dehydrated. Can't have it both ways. Not only would Mr. Pastorio
> have you believe that I don't have a medical license... he would have you
> believe that 10 pounds of butter cubes will rehydrate to 40 pounds of butter
> and that there is no God much less a risen Christ.
And Chung is still a liar and a bad scientist and an even worse
logician. If beef is dehydrated, it still beef. Dehydrated beef is
calorie dense with nary a carb in sight. Apparently Chung knows so
little about foods in general and carbs in particular that he has no
idea what those Everest climbers actually eat. That blows his whole
hole-riddled *theory* out the window.
The matter of what's eaten and what's not eaten is a matter of very
public record. No need to rely on any guesswork. As Chung has and
continues to.
Again, I have never said Chung isn't licensed. And I have never denied
god. I have derided Chung's fanatical, fundamentalist, self-serving,
sanctimonious vending of god as a commodity, as a comprehensible
entity so superficially grasped as he claims to. God is the supreme
mystery but Chung claims to have an inside pipeline to TRUTH.
Right. Except when he lies as he does here.
>>(<vs01q7h...@corp.supernews.com>)
>>
>>>>2. They might well have lost a part of their body weight, even if
>>>>they were not overweight to begin with.
>>>
>>>So what if they did?
>>
>>See below.
>>
>>
>>>>People can usually live without any
>>>>food at all for a limited period of time.
>>>
>>>Who said anything about fasting?
>>
>>See below.
>>
>>
>>>>That is no proof that it is
>>>>healthy to eat next to nothing all of the time (of course I'm not
>>>>claiming that 2 lbs is next to nothing,
>>>
>>>Then why write it?
>>
>>Because extreme examples are often better suited to detect logical
>>errors.
>
> Not when the extreme example is a logical error.
Chung hasn't shown that it is. Merely another pronouncement with no
backing.
>>If people can survive without any food at all for a limited
>>time, than their survival for the same time on any given amount of food
>>doesn't proof that this amount is enough to keep them alive indefinitly.
>
> The same could be said of any diet or non-diet.
It's being said specifically about Chung's flawed "diet." No proof of
efficacy for longer-term health.
>>>>my point is that the short term
>>>>survival of these climbers does not proof that an average person
>>>>could survive on the same amount or a somewhat larger one indefinitly).
>>>
>>>The climbers were a source of inspiration for the 2PD approach rather
>>>than a proof of either safety or efficacy.
>>
>>Ok. That raises the question how you know that 2 lbs are the right
>>amount and not 1 1/2 lbs or 3 pounds or whatever.
>>
> Empirically determined. Works for me, my patients, friends and family.
So where did that 10 pounds come from? Was that for a 5-day week or a
7-day week. Makes a big difference in formulating the "theory."
And given that the Everest climbers say they lost weight while
consuming 6000 to 12000 calories of freeze-dried protein, fats and
carbs and Chung asserts that they only ate 10 pounds per week, the
caloric/energy density of their food must be approaching gasoline or
maybe dynamite.
That's net loss of ca. 3500 calories per day in spite of 6K to 12K
consumed. Trying to extrapolate from Everest climbers whose metabolic
functions run at these levels to normal citizens is a logical leap of
astonishingly misguided proportions.
>>>>3. Even people who don't die from starvation might be malnourished.
>>>
>>>Not in my experience as a physician who has been recommending the 2PD
>>>approach to his patients since 1998. I have seen no cases of
>>>beriberi, scurvy, etc in any of my patients.
This is one of the examples that Chung likes: when the extreme is
logically flawed.
>>Beriberi and scurvy are extreme variants of avitaminoses. People might
>>get enough vitamin C to prevent scurvey and yet not enough for optimal
>>health.
>
> This could be said of any diet or non-diet.
But the likelihood of it happening in a "diet" of no restriction
except quantity with no nutritive considerations, is enormously
higher. The odds are strongly stacked against Chung's diet being sound
over time.
>>>>"What I learned was that my obese patients was consuming between 8
>>>>to 12 lbs. of food per day! "
>>>>
>>>>I have a hard time believing that the average obese person could eat
>>>>that much food.
>>>
>>>My guess is that you are not obese.
Irrelevant.
>>Well, I *do* wish you were right on this. Unfortunatly you're not. I'm
>>working on changing that.
>>
> Well, how much food/drink are you consuming each day?
>
>
>>>>Unless perhaps if a considerable part of it are juices
>>>>or sodas or the like.
>>>
>>>They do count.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Regarding to your testimonials:
>>>>
>>>>There does not seem not be much in the way of people who have
>>>>actually tried the diet and lost weight with it. Most people seem to argue
>>>>from a theoretical point of view, not from personal experience.
>>>>
>>>Does there need to be?
tes.ti.mo'.ni.al, n.
1. A written statement in favor of one's character, worth,
attainments, conduct, qualifications, etc. or in favor of some
product, service, etc.; a letter or statement of recommendation.
Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary.
If Chung leaves the "testimonials" on his web site, that's de facto
proof of dishonesty.
>>Many things sound reasonable but don't really work in the real world. It
>>would be more convincing, if you could cite people who actually tried
>>the diet.
>>
> I have. How many people do you need?
Somehow that part of it seems to be absent. Perhaps a reminder of the
citations would be good. People with identities rather than the
nebulous "my patients and friends" sort of non-citation.
And Chung has put me in there with his other "testimonials" despite
the fact that I have specifically denigrated the diet. He has
dishonestly taken a single line out of a single post and posted that
to his web site as though it really is an endorsement. Another example
of his flagrant misuse of truth. It is a deliberate effort at falsity.
>>>>On the other hand, for low-carb diets, there are plenty of people
>>>>who lost considerable amounts of weight with these diets. Just have a
>>>>look at alt.support.diet.low-carb
>>>
>>>If that were true, why the need for "support" then?
What a perfectly inane question. I wonder if Chung's patients he
claims to have started on his diet ever want to discuss any part of
it. Or have questions about limits and suggestions. What the
astronauts call "mid-course corrections." People who are drastically
changing their way of living don't need occasional support in their
endeavors? How compassionate.
>>I don't claim that people don't encounter problems when they low-carb.
>>
>>Some problems are as simple as: What do I eat for breakfast? (Obviously,
>>you can't have bread, what most people normally eat then)
>>
>>Or: How many carbs has this or another food?
>>
>>How many protein should I eat?
>>
>>Some are more serious:
>>
>>Can I go on Atkins when I have condition xyz?
>>
>>What do I do, when I stall?
>
> Sounds like a PC way of saying the diet is failing them.
Sounds like another Chung deliberate misunderstanding. Seeking
information seems more like a very healthy way of dealing with a
life-changing dietary regimen. Considerably more intelligent than "eat
two pounds of food a day and use 'common sense' for the rest."
>>There are many questions that arise with low-carbing, many of them due
>>to the fact that this way of eating is a lot different from what most
>>people do.
>
> Different from what people are accustomed to doing.
Much as restricting oneself to two pounds of food per day. Different
than usual.
>>For example, if people have problems finding suitable food
>>choices at restaurants, this is not a problem with the diet as such, but
>>more with the fact that our society depends on carbohydrates to such a
>>great degree.
>
> Not to mention, our bodies make and store carbohydrates in the form of "body
> starch" (glycogen).
Irrelevant.
> Moreover, more than 2/3rds of the world's population subsists on primarily
> carbs (rice) without obesity problems.
Oh, boy. Poor Chung isn't reading the newspapers or the medical
literature, it seems. Europeans, Japanese, Australians and most other
developed nations are having the same obesity problems as the US. Just
started later. And to talk about the average Bangladeshi or Ethiopian
who literally *subsists* on carbs is hardly to create an equality of
circumstance. In China, the newly prosperous urbanites are getting
fat, too.
>>>>While I think that portion control is certainly important (although
>>>>this is hardly news) there are two things that disturb me about the
>>>>two-pound-diet:
>>>>
>>>>1. The "one size fits all" approach.
>>>>
>>>>Should a sedentary 5 ft female really consume the same amount of
>>>>food as a 6 ft active male?
>>>>
>>>
>>>If that female is obese, she should eat less and not care how much
>>>others are eating.
This is the typical non-answer that Chung and Mu have offered
repeatedly. Evasion.
And if she isn't obese? Should she still confine herself to 2 pounds
of food per day? No matter where she lives. No matter how she spends
her days?
>>Less than 2 lbs?
>
> Less than the X amount of pounds of food/drink she is currently consuming.
> 2 pounds will be less than X.
>
>>So 2 lbs might be to much for some people?
>>
> Haven't seen it. A 5 foot person is less than 20% shorter than a 6 foot
> person, so one would not expect a large difference in caloric requirements.
This sounds like an adaptation of the 2-foot diet. As though people
are only two dimensional. A 6-foot person will have a good deal more
mass because of *cubic volume* that needs to be nourished than a
5-foot person. My next door neighbors read like this: she's 4'11" tall
and weighs about 100 pounds. He's 5'11" and weighs about 185 pounds.
Similar caloric requirements? How silly.
>>>>2. What we eat is just as important as the amount we eat. This seems
>>>>to be neglected in this aproach.
>>>
>>>The 2PD approach helps obese folks lose weight permanently.
>>
>>If they can stick to the diet. However, if they continue to consume
>>their high-carb foods, most of them will still have the problem with
>>reactive hypoglycemia that makes them hungry some time after eating.
>
> More than 2/3rds of the world population is handling it fine.
What? More than 2/3 of the world handles reactive hypoglycemia fine?
Or does Chung mean that 2/3 of the world is doing well at near
starvation levels?
Most of the world's population is demonstrably malnourished.
>>>>Let's say a person eats 10 lbs of food (the average of food you
>>>>claimed your obese neighbours were eating). Let's further say that half of
>>>>that is soda, the rest french fries, potatoes, meat, sauces, bread,
>>>>bacon, eggs and occasionally an apple or some vegetables. Now your advice
>>>>would be to just reduce the amount they are eating and clean up the diet
>>>>later.
>>>
>>>My advice would be to have them ask their doctors about supervising
>>>them for the 2PD approach.
Notice another non-answer. Now it's consult with a doctor. Any
responsible one will laugh out loud because of the utter lack of
discriminatory factors. Only the weight counts. And "common sense."
Nothing about balance or constituents in earlier posts about it. Now
it needs advice from doctors who would be damn sure to offer sheets of
food pyramid and forbidden foods. Lots of grains and carbs, very
little protein and fats. That mythical Mediterranean diet.
>>Now let's assume you are their doctor. Would you advise them to continue
>>eating and drinking the way they do, if only they don't exceed the 2
>>pounds?
>>
> Depends on the patient and his/her other medical problems. For example, if
> there is diabetes, they will need to dovetail the 2PD approach with ADA diet
> recommendations.
>
>
>>>>Then the person would consume one pound of soda and one pound of
>>>>rest of the food, thereby further reducing what little they ate in
>>>>the way of vegetables and fruits. They will probably lose weight on this
>>>>diet, if they can stick to it, but I don't think there is anything
>>>>healthy about such a diet, if only for the reason that they wouldn't
>>>>get enough vitamins, minerals and fiber.
>>>
>>>If their doctors are concerned, they may opt to prescribe
>>>supplements. Ime, folks following the 2PD approach don't need
>>>supplements. Two pounds is plenty of food for a day.
Once again, confusing "how much" with "how good."
>>A study on patients in a hospital in Boston revealed that the majority
>>of the participants were deficient in vitamin D.
>
> That may be specific for that population especially it being made up of
> hospitalized folks in a northern city (less sunlight exposure).
>
>>Even 37 % of those who
>>exceeded the recommended daily allowance of intake were deficient.
>
> For that population, the recommended daily allowance would appear to be
> insufficient.
So what's the doctor that's supposed to advise interested people to do?
>>This
>>demonstrates that deficiencies of vitamins might be widespread even if
>>few people develop such extrem symptoms like scurvy or rickets.
>
> The solution would be a balanced diet rather than eating more of an
> unbalanced one.
But the 2PD didn't used to say anything about balance. Said "common
sense" instead of any direct concern about nutritional implications.
Looks like it's changed lately. Must be all the good science directed
at the idea by everybody but Chung and Mu. Must be the exposure and
demolition of the whole Everest misunderstanding that "inspired" the
2PD idea. Whatever it is, it's starting to get a bit more rational.
Now it's just silly rather than dangerous.
>>Thomas, M. (1998) "Hypovitaminosis D in Medical Inpatients" - N Engl J
>>Med, Volume 338:777-783 March 19
>>
>>(http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/338/12/777)
>>
>>Thorsten
>
>
> The appropriate analogy for this discussion is the problem of motorists
> speeding on the highways.
>
> The solution is to enforce the speed limit which attacks the variable of
> interest simply and directly.
See there's a whopper of a fatal flaw in this tortured analogy. Speed
limits are arbitrary designations and are one-size-fits-all. They're
societal issues rather than the personal ones that obesity represents.
Enforcement is external to the speeder. Silly try at painting a
picture. All smudges and drips. Bad colors, too.
> The observation that folks driving "fast" cars tend to do more speeding is a
> distraction. Folks caught speeding in these "fast" cars would like the
> officer to blame the "fast" cars instead of ticketing them.
More diversion and evasion. The issues are about 2PD and how poorly
it's conceived and how unintelligently, maybe even negligently,
conceived as a lifelong program. Forget imaginary speeders and talk
about proof. Talk about research. Talk about effectiveness. Don't
forget the proof that's so dear to critics of Atkins and other
restricted dietary ways. Citations. Examples. Unforgeable stuff.
Science, for a change.
> Truth is simple.
And 2PD is, by contrast, simplistic. A bit dishonest, too, given the
amount of clarification and supplementation that has been offered by
so many people.
> God's humble bond-servant,
As if.
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:44:03 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> (in message <b1c7718cba7adf47...@news.teranews.com>):
>
>
>>According to Mr. Pastorio, I don't have a medical license and there is no
>>God.
>
> ...
>
>
>>Not only would Mr. Pastorio
>>have you believe that I don't have a medical license... he would have you
>>believe ... that there is no God
>
>
> I don't believe Mr. Pastorio has ever said that you don't have a
> medical license or that there is no God. I know I have never seen him
> make these statements.
I have never made these statements.
>>Truth is simple.
Truth is only simple when the eyes aren't sharp enough to make out the
full outlines. And the mind is too clouded to help.
> Then it will be simple for you to provide us with a citation for these
> two allegations.
It appears that all us critics of Chung look alike.
Pastorio
Matti Narkia
<3FBE8DB6...@heartmdphd.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:28:16 GMT in article
>> <b8eb65e4f24e5eeb...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>>
>> >ma...@sorbet.nothere wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 20 Nov 2003 19:18:25 -0800, nos...@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew B.
>> >> Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> >> The issue here is your claim that "Low fat diets are actually better
>> >> >> >> grounded in basic science research". Walter Willett says otherwise.
>> >> >> >> Now guess whom the readers will believe, you or Dr. Willett?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Who's *here*, me or Dr. Willett?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Does it make your claim right, if you are "here", as you put it?
>> >> >
>> >> >Does make me more believable *here*, now doesn't it?
>> >>
>> >> NO! Willett is much more believable.
>> >> Matt
>> >
>> >Go ahead and *overeat* a high-fat diet then. Would be more than happy to take
>> >your money when you need my services :-) Must remember to send a "thank you"
>> >note to Dr. Willett for giving me job security by distracting folks from
>> >controlling food quantity.
>> >
>> You're displaying the typical arrogance based on ignorance. See the
>> following excerpts from Harvard web pages
>>
>> <non-peer-reviewed material snipped>
>
The material you snipped is Harvard's nutritional educational material for
general public based on the recent research, a lot of which have been
conducted at Harvard. Although this material has probably not been
published in this form in peer-reviewed journals, it's based on the
peer-reviewed publications, and has most likely been internally
peer-reviewed at Harvard.
As for studies published in peer-reviewed Medline journals, the studies
below provide ample evidence that in the isocaloric diets the fat quality
is far more important than the fat quantity in the prevention and
treatment of diseases, and that consumption of some high fat foods such as
fatty fish and fish oil, nuts, almonds and almond oil, and extra virgin
olive oil is highly recommendable.
Willett WC, Leibel RL.
Dietary fat is not a major determinant of body fat.
Am J Med. 2002 Dec 30;113 Suppl 9B:47S-59S. Review.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12566139&dopt=Abstract>
( http://tinyurl.com/waiz )
"... in randomized trials lasting >or=1 year, fat consumption
within the range of 18% to 40% of energy appears to have
little if any effect on body fatness. ..."
Willett WC.
Dietary fat plays a major role in obesity: no.
Obes Rev. 2002 May;3(2):59-68. Review.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12120421&dopt=Abstract>
"... Diets high in fat do not account for the high
prevalence of excess body fat in Western countries;
reductions in the percentage of energy from fat will have no
important benefits and could further exacerbate this problem.
The emphasis on total fat reduction has been a serious
distraction in efforts to control obesity and improve health
in general."
Katan MB, Grundy SM, Willett WC.
[Less fat or a different fat?]
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1998 Apr 18;142(16):886-9. Review. Dutch.
"Current dietary advice with a view to avoiding
cardiovascular pathology is to replace fatty foodstuffs and
those rich in saturated fat and cholesterol by food rich in
complex carbohydrates. Although substitution of carbohydrates
for fat lowers the blood level of low-density lipoprotein
(LDL) cholesterol, it also lowers the level of high-density
lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, thereby adversely influencing
the risk profile for cardiovascular disease. Neither does a
low fat diet appear to reduce obesity, another risk factor. A
modern advice based on published research reads: obese
persons should reduce their intake of saturated and trans-
fatty acids by lowering the consumption of dairy fat, meat
and hardened oils (bakery products and catering products
fried in hardened fats), and in addition should consume less
products with added sugars and refined starch. Carbohydrates
should be provided by fruits, vegetables, leguminous plants
and whole-wheat products. Persons of about the ideal weight
should replace saturated and trans-fatty acids in their diet
by unsaturated plant oils, and products with refined
carbohydrates by fruits, vegetables and whole-wheat
products."
Willett WC.
Is dietary fat a major determinant of body fat?
Am J Clin Nutr. 1998 Mar;67(3 Suppl):556S-562S. Review.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9497170&dopt=Abstract>
( http://tinyurl.com/wamr )
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/67/3/556S.pdf>
"The percentage of energy from dietary fat is widely believed
to be an important determinant of body fat, and several
mechanisms have been proposed to account for such a relation.
Comparisons of both diets and the prevalence of obesity
between affluent and poor countries have been used to support
a causal association, but these contrasts are seriously
confounded by differences in physical activity and food
availability. Within areas of similar economic development,
regional intake of fat and prevalence of obesity have not
been positively correlated. Randomized trials are the
preferable method to evaluate the effect of dietary fat on
adiposity, and are feasible because the number of subjects
needed is not large. In short-term trials, a modest reduction
in body weight is typically seen in individuals randomly
assigned to diets with a lower percentage of energy from fat.
However, compensatory mechanisms appear to operate because in
trials lasting > or = 1 y, fat consumption within the range
of 18-40% of energy appears to have little if any effect on
body fatness. Moreover, within the United States, a
substantial decline in the percentage of energy from fat
consumed during the past two decades has corresponded with a
massive increase in obesity. Diets high in fat do not appear
to be the primary cause of the high prevalence of excess body
fat in our society, and reductions in fat will not be a
solution."
Lichtenstein AH.
Dietary fat and cardiovascular disease risk: quantity or quality?
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2003 Mar;12(2):109-14. Review.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12737709&dopt=Abstract>
( http://tinyurl.com/waoj )
"When considering dietary fat quantity, there are two main
factors to consider, impact on body weight and plasma
lipoprotein profiles. Data supporting a major role of dietary
fat quantity in determining body weight are weak and may be
confounded by differences in energy density, dietary fiber,
and dietary protein. With respect to plasma lipoprotein
profiles, relatively consistent evidence indicates that under
isoweight conditions, decreasing the total fat content of the
diet causes an increase in triglyceride and decrease in high-
density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. When
considering dietary fat quality, current evidence suggests
that saturated fatty acids tend to increase low-density
lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels, whereas monounsaturated
and polyunsaturated fatty acids tend to decrease LDL
cholesterol levels. Long-chain omega-3 fatty acids,
eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) (20:5n-3) and docosahexaenoic
acid (DHA) (22:6n-3), are associated with decreased
triglyceride levels in hypertriglyceridemic patients and
decreased risk of developing coronary heart disease (CHD).
Dietary trans-fatty acids are associated with increased LDL
cholesterol levels. Hence, a diet low in saturated and trans-
fatty acids, with adequate amounts of monounsaturated and
polyunsaturated fatty acids, especially long-chain omega-3
fatty acids, would be recommended to reduce the risk of
developing CHD. ..."
Grundy SM, Abate N, Chandalia M.
Diet composition and the metabolic syndrome: what is the optimal fat
intake?
Am J Med. 2002 Dec 30;113 Suppl 9B:25S-29S. Review.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12566135&dopt=Abstract>
( http://tinyurl.com/waq1 )
"... Emerging data suggest that diets higher in unsaturated fatty
acids, particularly monounsaturated fatty acids, have several
advantages over high-carbohydrate intakes."
[...]
At the same time, the experience with the Mediterranean
population reveals that in healthier populations, diets
relatively high in unsaturated fatty acids are well tolerated
and are associated with a low prevalence of both coronary
heart disease and type 2 diabetes."
Hu FB, van Dam RM, Liu S.
Diet and risk of Type II diabetes: the role of types of fat and
carbohydrate.
Diabetologia. 2001 Jul;44(7):805-17. Review.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11508264&dopt=Abstract>
( http://tinyurl.com/wat2 )
"Although diet and nutrition are widely believed to play an
important part in the development of Type II (non-insulin-
dependent) diabetes mellitus, specific dietary factors have
not been clearly defined. Much controversy exists about the
relations between the amount and types of dietary fat and
carbohydrate and the risk of diabetes. In this article, we
review in detail the current evidence regarding the
associations between different types of fats and
carbohydrates and insulin resistance and Type II diabetes.
Our findings indicate that a higher intake of polyunsaturated
fat and possibly long-chain n-3 fatty acids could be
beneficial, whereas a higher intake of saturated fat and
trans-fat could adversely affect glucose metabolism and
insulin resistance. In dietary practice, exchanging
nonhydrogenated polyunsaturated fat for saturated and trans-
fatty acids could appreciably reduce risk of Type II
diabetes. In addition, a low-glycaemic index diet with a
higher amount of fiber and minimally processed whole grain
products reduces glycaemic and insulinaemic responses and
lowers the risk of Type II diabetes. Dietary recommendations
to prevent Type II diabetes should focus more on the quality
of fat and carbohydrate in the diet than quantity alone, in
addition to balancing total energy intake with expenditure to
avoid overweight and obesity."
Ascherio A, Willett WC.
Health effects of trans fatty acids.
Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Oct;66(4 Suppl):1006S-1010S. Review.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9322581&dopt=Abstract>
"trans Fatty acids are formed during the process of partial
hydrogenation in which liquid vegetable oils are converted to
margarine and vegetable shortening. Concern has existed that
this process may have adverse consequences because natural
essential fatty acids are destroyed and the new artificial
isomers are structurally similar to saturated fats, lack the
essential metabolic activity of the parent compounds, and
inhibit the enzymatic desaturation of linoleic and linolenic
acid. In the past 5 y a series of metabolic studies has
provided unequivocal evidence that trans fatty acids increase
plasma concentrations of low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol
and reduce concentrations of high-density-lipoprotein (HDL)
cholesterol relative to the parent natural fat. In these same
studies, trans fatty acids increased the plasma ratio of
total to HDL cholesterol nearly twofold compared with
saturated fats. On the basis of these metabolic effects and
the known relation of blood lipid concentrations to risk of
coronary artery disease, we estimate conservatively that
30,000 premature deaths/y in the United States are
attributable to consumption of trans fatty acids. ..."
Hu FB, Willett WC.
Optimal diets for prevention of coronary heart disease.
JAMA. 2002 Nov 27;288(20):2569-78. Review.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12444864&dopt=Abstract>
( http://tinyurl.com/wajd )
"... simply lowering the percentage of energy from total fat
in the diet is unlikely to improve lipid profile or reduce
CHD incidence. ..."
Hu FB, Manson JE, Willett WC.
Types of dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease: a critical
review.
J Am Coll Nutr. 2001 Feb;20(1):5-19. Review.
<http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/20/1/5>
"During the past several decades, reduction in fat intake has
been the main focus of national dietary recommendations to
decrease risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Several lines
of evidence, however, have indicated that types of fat have a
more important role in determining risk of CHD than total
amount of fat in the diet. Metabolic studies have long
established that the type of fat, but not total amount of
fat, predicts serum cholesterol levels. In addition, results
from epidemiologic studies and controlled clinical trials
have indicated that replacing saturated fat with unsaturated
fat is more effective in lowering risk of CHD than simply
reducing total fat consumption. Moreover, prospective cohort
studies and secondary prevention trials have provided strong
evidence that an increasing intake of n-3 fatty acids from
fish or plant sources substantially lowers risk of
cardiovascular mortality. ..."
Albert CM, Campos H, Stampfer MJ, Ridker PM, Manson JE, Willett WC, Ma J.
Blood levels of long-chain n-3 fatty acids and the risk of sudden death.
N Engl J Med. 2002 Apr 11;346(15):1113-8.
<http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/346/15/1113>
"... CONCLUSIONS: The n-3 fatty acids found in fish are
strongly associated with a reduced risk of sudden death among
men without evidence of prior cardiovascular disease."
Lemaitre RN, King IB, Mozaffarian D, Kuller LH, Tracy RP, Siscovick DS.
n-3 Polyunsaturated fatty acids, fatal ischemic heart disease, and
nonfatal myocardial infarction in older adults: the Cardiovascular Health
Study.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Feb;77(2):319-25.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12540389&dopt=Abstract>
( http://tinyurl.com/wap9 )
"... CONCLUSIONS: Higher combined dietary intake of DHA and
EPA, and possibly alpha-linolenic acid, may lower the risk of
fatal ischemic heart disease in older adults. The association
of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids with fatal ischemic heart
disease, but not with nonfatal myocardial infarction, is
consistent with possible antiarrhythmic effects of these
fatty acids."
Marchioli R, Barzi F, Bomba E, Chieffo C, Di Gregorio D, Di Mascio R,
Franzosi MG, Geraci E, Levantesi G, Maggioni AP, Mantini L, Marfisi RM,
Mastrogiuseppe G, Mininni N, Nicolosi GL, Santini M, Schweiger C, Tavazzi
L, Tognoni G, Tucci C, Valagussa F; GISSI-Prevenzione Investigators.
Early protection against sudden death by n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids
after myocardial infarction: time-course analysis of the results of the
Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto Miocardico
(GISSI)-Prevenzione.
Circulation. 2002 Apr 23;105(16):1897-903.
<http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/105/16/1897>
"... CONCLUSIONS: The early effect of low-dose (1 g/d) n-3
PUFAs on total mortality and sudden death supports the
hypothesis of an antiarrhythmic effect of this drug. Such a
result is consistent with the wealth of evidence coming from
laboratory experiments on isolated myocytes, animal models,
and epidemiological and clinical studies."
Bucher HC, Hengstler P, Schindler C, Meier G. Related Articles, Links
N-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in coronary heart disease: a
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Am J Med. 2002 Mar;112(4):298-304.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11893369&dopt=Abstract>
( http://tinyurl.com/warg )
"... CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that dietary and
non-dietary intake of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reduces
overall mortality, mortality due to myocardial infarction,
and sudden death in patients with coronary heart disease."
Hu FB, Bronner L, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Rexrode KM, Albert CM, Hunter
D, Manson JE.
Fish and omega-3 fatty acid intake and risk of coronary heart disease in
women.
JAMA. 2002 Apr 10;287(14):1815-21.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11939867&dopt=Abstract>
( http://tinyurl.com/wak3 )
"... CONCLUSION: Among women, higher consumption of fish and
omega-3 fatty acids is associated with a lower risk of CHD,
particularly CHD deaths."
Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, Rimm EB, Wolk A, Colditz GA, Hennekens CH,
Willett WC.
Dietary intake of alpha-linolenic acid and risk of fatal ischemic heart
disease among women.
Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 May;69(5):890-7.
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/5/890>
"... CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the hypothesis that a
higher intake of alpha-linolenic acid is protective against
fatal IHD. Higher consumption of foods such as oil-based
salad dressing that provide polyunsaturated fats, including
alpha-linolenic acid, may reduce the risk of fatal IHD."
Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Rimm E, Ascherio A, Rosner BA, Spiegelman D,
Willett WC.
Dietary fat and coronary heart disease: a comparison of approaches for
adjusting for total energy intake and modeling repeated dietary
measurements.
Am J Epidemiol. 1999 Mar 15;149(6):531-40.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10084242&dopt=Abstract>
( http://tinyurl.com/wall )
"... The substantive results were consistent across all
models; that is, higher intakes of saturated and trans fats
were associated with increased risk of CHD, while higher
intakes of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats were
associated with reduced risk. ..."
Albert CM, Hennekens CH, O'Donnell CJ, Ajani UA, Carey VJ, Willett WC,
Ruskin JN, Manson JE.
Fish consumption and risk of sudden cardiac death.
JAMA. 1998 Jan 7;279(1):23-8.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9424039&dopt=Abstract>
( http://tinyurl.com/wan3 )
"... RESULTS: There were 133 sudden deaths over the course of
the study. After controlling for age, randomized aspirin and
beta carotene assignment, and coronary risk factors, dietary
fish intake was associated with a reduced risk of sudden
death, with an apparent threshold effect at a consumption
level of 1 fish meal per week (P for trend=.03). For men who
consumed fish at least once per week, the multivariate
relative risk of sudden death was 0.48 (95% confidence
interval, 0.24-0.96; P=.04) compared with men who consumed
fish less than monthly. Estimated dietary n-3 fatty acid
intake from seafood also was associated with a reduced risk
of sudden death but without a significant trend across
increasing categories of intake. Neither dietary fish
consumption nor n-3 fatty acid intake was associated with a
reduced risk of total myocardial infarction, nonsudden
cardiac death, or total cardiovascular mortality. However,
fish consumption was associated with a significantly reduced
risk of total mortality. CONCLUSION: These prospective data
suggest that consumption of fish at least once per week may
reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death in men."
Hu FB, Cho E, Rexrode KM, Albert CM, Manson JE.
Fish and long-chain omega-3 fatty acid intake and risk of coronary heart
disease and total mortality in diabetic women.
Circulation. 2003 Apr 15;107(14):1852-7. Epub 2003 Mar 31.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12668520&dopt=Abstract>
( http://tinyurl.com/wao8 )
"... CONCLUSIONS: A higher consumption of fish and long-chain
omega-3 fatty acids was associated with a lower CHD incidence
and total mortality among diabetic women."
Jiang R, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Liu S, Willett WC, Hu FB.
Nut and peanut butter consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes in women.
JAMA. 2002 Nov 27;288(20):2554-60.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12444862&dopt=Abstract>
( http://tinyurl.com/wajm )
"... CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest potential benefits of
higher nut and peanut butter consumption in lowering risk of
type 2 diabetes in women. To avoid increasing caloric intake,
regular nut consumption can be recommended as a replacement
for consumption of refined grain products or red or processed
meats."
Hu FB. R
The role of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in the prevention and
treatment of cardiovascular disease.
Drugs Today (Barc). 2001 Jan;37(1):49-56.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12783097&dopt=Abstract>
( http://tinyurl.com/wasy )
"Growing evidence has suggested an important role of n-3
polyunsaturated fatty acids in reducing risk of
cardiovascular disease in the general population and patients
with preexisting heart disease. In particular, several long-
term epidemiologic studies have found an inverse association
between fish consumption and risk of coronary heart disease
or stroke. Two secondary prevention trials have found that
increasing fish consumption or fish oil supplementation
significantly reduced coronary death among patients with
existing myocardial infarction. In addition, epidemiologic
and clinical studies have suggested that alpha-linolenic acid
(ALA), a short-chain n3-3 fatty acid from plant sources, may
have similar cardiac benefits as long-chain n-3 fatty acids
from fish. Potential mechanisms through which n-3
polyunsaturated fatty acids protect against CVD include their
antiarrhythmic and antithrombotic effects, and improving
insulin sensitivity and endothelial function."
Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, Rimm EB, Colditz GA, Rosner BA, Speizer FE,
Hennekens CH, Willett WC.
Frequent nut consumption and risk of coronary heart disease in women:
prospective cohort study.
BMJ. 1998 Nov 14;317(7169):1341-5.
<http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/317/7169/1341>
"... CONCLUSIONS: Frequent nut consumption was associated
with a reduced risk of both fatal coronary heart disease and
non-fatal myocardial infarction. These data, and those from
other epidemiological and clinical studies, support a role
for nuts in reducing the risk of coronary heart disease."
Almario RU, Vonghavaravat V, Wong R, Kasim-Karakas SE.
Effects of walnut consumption on plasma fatty acids and lipoproteins in
combined hyperlipidemia.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Jul;74(1):72-9.
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/74/1/72>
"... CONCLUSIONS: Walnut supplementation may beneficially
alter lipid distribution among various lipoprotein subclasses
even when total plasma lipids do not change. This may be an
additional mechanism underlying the antiatherogenic
properties of nut intake."
Sabate J.
Nut consumption and body weight.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Sep;78(3 Suppl):647S-650S. Review.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12936960&dopt=Abstract>
( http://tinyurl.com/want )
"... the available cumulative data do not indicate that
free-living people on self-selected diets including nuts
frequently have a higher body mass index or a tendency to
gain weight."
Carluccio MA, Siculella L, Ancora MA, Massaro M, Scoditti E, Storelli C,
Visioli F, Distante A, De Caterina R.
Olive oil and red wine antioxidant polyphenols inhibit endothelial
activation: antiatherogenic properties of mediterranean diet
phytochemicals.
Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2003 Apr 1;23(4):622-9. Epub 2003 Feb 20.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12615669&dopt=Abstract>
"... CONCLUSIONS: Olive oil and red wine antioxidant polyphenols at
nutritionally relevant concentrations transcriptionally inhibit
endothelial adhesion molecule expression, thus partially explaining
atheroprotection from Mediterranean diets."
Moreno JA, Lopez-Miranda J, Gomez P, Benkhalti F, El Boustani ES,
Perez-Jimenez F.
[Effect of phenolic compounds of virgin olive oil on LDL oxidation
resistance]
Med Clin (Barc). 2003 Feb 8;120(4):128-31. Spanish
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12605836&dopt=Abstract>
Fernandez-Jarne E, Martinez-Losa E, Prado-Santamaria M, Brugarolas-Brufau
C, Serrano-Martinez M, Martinez-Gonzalez MA.
Risk of first non-fatal myocardial infarction negatively associated with
olive oil consumption: a case-control study in Spain.
Int J Epidemiol. 2002 Apr;31(2):474-80.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11980820&dopt=Abstract>
"... CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that olive oil may reduce the risk
of coronary disease. ..."
Tuck KL, Hayball PJ.
Major phenolic compounds in olive oil: metabolism and health effects.
J Nutr Biochem. 2002 Nov;13(11):636-644.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12550060&dopt=Abstract>
Gimeno E, Fito M, Lamuela-Raventos RM, Castellote AI, Covas M, Farre M, de
La Torre-Boronat MC, Lopez-Sabater MC.
Effect of ingestion of virgin olive oil on human low-density lipoprotein
composition.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002 Feb;56(2):114-20.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11857044&dopt=Abstract>
Covas MI, Fito M, Marrugat J, Miro E, Farre M, de la Torre R, Gimeno E,
Lopez-Sabater MC, Lamuela-Raventos R, de la Torre-Boronat MC.
[Coronary disease protective factors: antioxidant effect of olive oil]
Therapie. 2001 Sep-Oct;56(5):607-11. Review. French.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11806301&dopt=Abstract>
Visioli F, Poli A, Gall C.
Antioxidant and other biological activities of phenols from olives and
olive oil.
Med Res Rev. 2002 Jan;22(1):65-75. Review.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11746176&dopt=Abstract>
Covas MI, Fito M, Lamuela-Raventos RM, Sebastia N, de la Torre-Boronat C,
Marrugat J.
Virgin olive oil phenolic compounds: binding to human low density
lipoprotein (LDL) and effect on LDL oxidation.
Int J Clin Pharmacol Res. 2000;20(3-4):49-54.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11314237&dopt=Abstract>
Vissers MN, Zock PL, Leenen R, Roodenburg AJ, van Putte KP, Katan MB.
Effect of consumption of phenols from olives and extra virgin olive oil on
LDL oxidizability in healthy humans.
Free Radic Res. 2001 Nov;35(5):619-29.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11767419&dopt=Abstract>
Visioli F, Galli C.
Antiatherogenic components of olive oil.
Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2001 Jan;3(1):64-7. Review.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11123850&dopt=Abstract>
Kris-Etherton PM, Pearson TA, Wan Y, Hargrove RL, Moriarty K, Fishell V,
Etherton TD.
High-monounsaturated fatty acid diets lower both plasma cholesterol and
triacylglycerol concentrations.
Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Dec;70(6):1009-15.
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/6/1009>
"... CONCLUSION: A high-MUFA, cholesterol-lowering diet may be
preferable to a low-fat diet because of more favorable effects on the
CVD risk profile."
Stark AH, Madar Z.
Olive oil as a functional food: epidemiology and nutritional approaches.
Nutr Rev. 2002 Jun;60(6):170-6. Review.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12078915&dopt=Abstract>
Kelly CM, Smith RD, Williams CM.
Dietary monounsaturated fatty acids and haemostasis.
Proc Nutr Soc. 2001 May;60(2):161-70. Review
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11681631&dopt=Abstract>
Lahoz C, Alonso R, Porres A, Mata P.
[Diets enriched with monounsaturated fatty acids and omega-3
polyunsaturated fatty acids decrease blood pressure without changing the
plasma insulin concentration in healthy subjects]
Med Clin (Barc). 1999 Feb 6;112(4):133-7. Spanish.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10074631&dopt=Abstract>
Oosthuizen W, Vorster HH, Jerling JC, Barnard HC, Smuts CM, Silvis N,
Kruger A, Venter CS.
Both fish oil and olive oil lowered plasma fibrinogen in women with high
baseline fibrinogen levels.
Thromb Haemost. 1994 Oct;72(4):557-62.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7878632&dopt=Abstract>
Jenkins DJ, Kendall CW, Marchie A, Parker TL, Connelly PW, Qian W, Haight
JS, Faulkner D, Vidgen E, Lapsley KG, Spiller GA.
Dose response of almonds on coronary heart disease risk factors: blood
lipids, oxidized low-density lipoproteins, lipoprotein(a), homocysteine,
and pulmonary nitric oxide: a randomized, controlled, crossover trial.
Circulation. 2002 Sep 10;106(11):1327-32.
<http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/106/11/1327>
"... CONCLUSIONS: Almonds used as snacks in the diets of
hyperlipidemic subjects significantly reduce coronary heart disease
risk factors, probably in part because of the nonfat (protein and
fiber) and monounsaturated fatty acid components of the nut."
Hyson DA, Schneeman BO, Davis PA.
Almonds and almond oil have similar effects on plasma lipids and LDL
oxidation in healthy men and women.
J Nutr. 2002 Apr;132(4):703-7.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11925464&dopt=Abstract>
Sang S, Lapsley K, Jeong WS, Lachance PA, Ho CT, Rosen RT.
Antioxidative phenolic compounds isolated from almond skins (Prunus
amygdalus Batsch).
J Agric Food Chem. 2002 Apr 10;50(8):2459-63.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11929314&dopt=Abstract>
He K, Merchant A, Rimm EB, Rosner BA, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC, Ascherio A.
Dietary fat intake and risk of stroke in male US healthcare professionals:
14 year prospective cohort study.
BMJ. 2003 Oct 4;327(7418):777-82.
<http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7418/777>
"... CONCLUSIONS: These findings do not support associations
between intake of total fat, cholesterol, or specific types
of fat and risk of stroke in men."
Iso H, Rexrode KM, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, Colditz GA, Speizer FE,
Hennekens CH, Willett WC.
Intake of fish and omega-3 fatty acids and risk of stroke in women.
JAMA. 2001 Jan 17;285(3):304-12
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11176840&dopt=Abstract>
( http://tinyurl.com/waki )
"... CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that higher consumption
of fish and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids is associated
with a reduced risk of thrombotic infarction, primarily among
women who do not take aspirin regularly, but is not related
to risk of hemorrhagic stroke."
Skerrett PJ, Hennekens CH.
Consumption of fish and fish oils and decreased risk of stroke.
Prev Cardiol. 2003 Winter;6(1):38-41. Review.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12624561&dopt=Abstract>
( http://tinyurl.com/wapp )
"... A significant decrease in the risk of thrombotic stroke
(relative risk, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.93) was
observed among women who ate fish at least two times per week
compared with women who ate fish less than once per month,
after adjustment for age, smoking, and other cardiovascular
risk factors; a nonsignificant decrease was observed among
women in the highest quintile of long-chain omega-3
polyunsaturated fatty acid intake. No association was
observed between consumption of fish or fish oil and
hemorrhagic stroke. These data support the hypothesis that
consumption of fish several times per week reduces the risk
of thrombotic stroke but does not increase the risk of
hemorrhagic stroke."
Willett WC.
Dietary fat intake and cancer risk: a controversial and instructive story.
Semin Cancer Biol. 1998 Aug;8(4):245-53.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9870031&dopt=Abstract>
( http://tinyurl.com/walv )
"Strong correlations among countries between per capita
dietary fat consumption and rates of cancers of the breast,
colon, and rectum have suggested possible causal
relationships. However, in large prospective studies, total
fat intake has not been associated with risk of breast
cancer, suggesting that the international correlations are
seriously confounded by differences in other variables
related to affluence, including reproductive variables,
physical activity, and food availability. For colon and
prostate cancer, the data from prospective studies are more
limited, but also suggest that fat per se is not a risk
factor. High red meat consumption may be related to risk of
colon cancer independent of total fat intake, and some factor
associated with consumption of animal fat, but not vegetable
fat, appears to be related to risk of prostate cancer. Excess
body fat, which is determined by the balance between physical
activity and energy intake from all sources, is an important
cause of post-menopausal breast cancer and probably colon
cancer. These developments suggest that international
comparisons of diets and disease rates should be interpreted
cautiously and may be highly misleading."
Pischon T, Hankinson SE, Hotamisligil GS, Rifai N, Willett WC, Rimm EB.
Habitual dietary intake of n-3 and n-6 fatty acids in relation to
inflammatory markers among US men and women.
Circulation. 2003 Jul 15;108(2):155-60. Epub 2003 Jun 23.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12821543&dopt=Abstract>
( http://tinyurl.com/waiv )
"... CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that n-6 fatty acids
do not inhibit the antiinflammatory effects of n-3 fatty
acids and that the combination of both types of fatty acids
is associated with the lowest levels of inflammation. The
inhibition of inflammatory cytokines may be one possible
mechanism for the observed beneficial effects of these fatty
acids on chronic inflammatory-related diseases."
Simopoulos AP.
Omega-3 fatty acids in inflammation and autoimmune diseases.
J Am Coll Nutr. 2002 Dec;21(6):495-505. Review.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12480795&dopt=Abstract>
( http://tinyurl.com/waqh )
"... Many of the placebo-controlled trials of fish oil in chronic
inflammatory diseases reveal significant benefit, including decreased
disease activity and a lowered use of anti-inflammatory drugs."
McCullough ML, Feskanich D, Rimm EB, Giovannucci EL, Ascherio A, Variyam
JN, Spiegelman D, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC.
Adherence to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and risk of major
chronic disease in men.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Nov;72(5):1223-31.
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/72/5/1223>
"BACKGROUND: The Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the
food guide pyramid aim to reduce the risk of major chronic
disease in the United States, but data supporting their
overall effectiveness are sparse. The healthy eating index
(HEI) measures the concordance of dietary patterns with these
guidelines.
[...]
CONCLUSIONS: The HEI-f was only weakly associated with risk
of major chronic disease, suggesting that improvements to the
HEI may be warranted. Further research on the HEI could have
implications for refinements to the Dietary Guidelines for
Americans and the food guide pyramid."
>Already seen it and have noted that Dr. Willett is distracted by food quality.
>
Distracted? What arrogance. Dr. Willett is one of world's leading, if not
_the_ leading nutrition researcher, who has been an author in many
milestone studies. Much of our current and future knowledge of nutrition
relies on the efforts of Dr. Willett's research team.
See also the studies above. They provide compelling evidence that fat
quality, i.e. the type of fat, is far more important than fat quantity.
BTW, do you have any qualifications at all in the field of nutrition?
Bob Pastorio
> Dr. Willett is one of world's leading, if not
> _the_ leading nutrition researcher, who has been an author in many
> milestone studies. Much of our current and future knowledge of nutrition
> relies on the efforts of Dr. Willett's research team.
I had the good fortune to attend a seminar that Dr. Willett
participated in last spring in Montreal. A deep thinker, careful
scientist and good reporter.
> See also the studies above. They provide compelling evidence that fat
> quality, i.e. the type of fat, is far more important than fat quantity.
Matti, a wonderful bit of research to gather these references. You've
been a very significant contributor to the quality of information in
this group.
Pastorio
Larry Blanchard
>
> This is a wonderful essay in self-referential exposition. A perfect
> example of begging the question. Using the subject as definition of
> the subject. "The bible is true because it's the word of god." Right.
> But first you have to prove that it's the word of god without quoting
> the book itself.
Excellent post!
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
No such thing.
>
>
> As for studies published in peer-reviewed Medline journals, the studies
> below provide ample evidence that in the isocaloric diets the fat quality
> is far more important than the fat quantity in the prevention and
> treatment of diseases
Not in the treatment of obesity which is a disease, btw.
> , and that consumption of some high fat foods such as
> fatty fish and fish oil, nuts, almonds and almond oil, and extra virgin
> olive oil is highly recommendable.
>
Not for the obese. I take it that you are buying into the "oil" commercials...
"don't change your eating habits... change your oil"
Truth is simple.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
It does prove that God has given us free will. Even to libelers like Mr.
Pastorio (http://www.heartmdphd.asp/libel.asp)
"There will be a time when every head will bow..."
http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp
God's humble bond-servant,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
Steve
(in message <3FC24EE2...@heartmdphd.com>):
<Chungspeak snipped>
> Truth is simple.
Apparently not simple enough for you to grasp. You have been caught in
public lying about Mr. Pastorio.
Have you no shame?
>
> Arrogantly,
>
> Andrew
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
But of course:
On the issue of Mr. Pastorio having you believe I have no medical
license (ie that I am a quack/fraud):
http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
On the issue of Mr. Pastorio having you believe there is no God.
Simply Google him. To get you started:
God's humble bond-servant,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/