Re: Scientists Say Dieting does not work
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=67422
>
> We all srt of knew this, but the summary is pretty good.
> Key phrase: dieting is actually a consistent predictor of future
> weight gain."
> *******************************************************************
> Scientists Say Dieting Does Not Work
> 10 Apr 2007
>
> US scientists conducting a comprehensive review of dieting research
> have concluded that dieting does not work.
>
> The study is published in the April edition of American Psychologist,
> the journal of the American Psychological Association.
>
> Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA),
> reviewed 31 long-term studies lasting between 2 to 5 years.
>
> UCLA associate professor of psychology and lead author of the study,
> Traci Mann said:
>
> "You can initially lose 5 to 10 percent of your weight on any number
> of diets, but then the weight comes back."
>
> "We found that the majority of people regained all the weight, plus
> more," she added.
>
> The researchers found a very small minority of study participants
> managed to sustain weight loss, while the majority put all the weight
> back on, and more in the longer term.
>
> "Diets do not lead to sustained weight loss or health benefits for the
> majority of people," said Dr Mann.
>
> Dr Mann and colleagues sought to determine the long term effects of
> dieting and address the question "Would they have been better off to
> not go on a diet at all?".
>
> So they analyzed every study they could find that followed people on
> diets for 2 to 5 years. Studies that take less than 2 years are "too
> short to show whether dieters have regained the weight they lost,"
> they said.
>
> They discovered that it would have been better for most of them if
> they had not gone on a diet at all.
>
> "Their weight would be pretty much the same, and their bodies would
> not suffer the wear and tear from losing weight and gaining it all
> back," explained Dr Mann.
>
> Their findings show that:
>
> -- People on diets typically lose 5 to 10 per cent of their weight in
> the first 6 months.
> -- But 33 to 66 per cent regain more than what they lose within 4 to 5
> years.
>
> Dr Mann and colleagues suspect the real situation is actually even
> worse; the figures do not really reflect reality, making diet studies
> look better than they are. They say there are a number of reasons for
> this:
>
> -- Many participants phone or mail their results in themselves,
> without an impartial assessor.
> -- A lot of studies have a below 50 per cent follow up rate; and the
> people who put on a lot of weight are less likely to stay in touch.
>
> UCLA graduate student of psychology and co-author of the study, Janet
> Tomiyama said that "Several studies indicate that dieting is actually
> a consistent predictor of future weight gain."
>
> One study in particular that they looked at found that men and women
> who took part in a weight reduction programme gained significantly
> more weight than those who did not over the same period of time.
>
> Tomiyama mentioned another study, this time looking at links between
> lifestyle and weight in 19,000 healthy older men over four years. This
> study found that, "One of the best predictors of weight gain over the
> four years was having lost weight on a diet at some point during the
> years before the study started," she said.
>
> Also, in many studies with control groups, the people in the control
> group very often were better off than the participants who dieted.
>
> Dr Mann suggests that eating in moderation and exercise do make a
> difference. Although they were not looking at exercise in particular,
> Dr Mann said that:
>
> "Exercise may well be the key factor leading to sustained weight loss.
> Studies consistently find that people who reported the most exercise
> also had the most weight loss."
>
> One study following obese patients discovered that:
>
> -- Among those followed for under 2 years, 23 per cent of patients had
> regained their weight loss.
> -- Among those followed for more than 2 years, 83 per cent had
> regained their weight loss.
>
> Another study found that 50 per cent of dieters weighed 11 pounds (5
> kilos) more than their starting weight 5 years after their diet.
>
> Among the health hazards of repeated weight loss and regain are
> cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes and altered immune function,
> said Dr Mann and colleagues.
>
> They said more research is needed on the effects of weight loss and
> regain on health, and say scientists do not fully understand the
> underlying factors involved in this complex relationship.
>
> Dr Mann quoted her mother, who herself has tried to diet many times,
> without success. Dr Mann's mother said her daughter's findings were
> "obvious".
>
> Although this study reviewed 31 long term dieting projects, they did
> not look into specific diets.
>
> The researchers are of the opinion that weight loss programmes are not
> good value for money in the treatment of obesity.
>
> "The benefits of dieting are too small and the potential harm is too
> large for dieting to be recommended as a safe, effective treatment for
> obesity," said Dr Mann.
>
> Between 1980 and 2000, the proportion of obese Americans has doubled,
> from 15 to 31 per cent of the population.
Thankfully, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp
Suggested reading:
http://abchung.livejournal.com/986.html?thread=16090#t16090
May GOD bless you.
Prayerfully in Jesus' ever-lasting love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://EmoryCardiology.com
May HIS immortal brethren pray for our dying mortal friends and
neighbors:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
In memory of our dearly departed Bob(this one) Pastorio:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Bob
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love
The Official SMC FAQ List:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/TheTruth/FAQ
Pastor Kutchie, Earthquack's nemesis
wall and wrote:
> morris wrote:
> >http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=67422
>
> > We all srt of knew this, but the summary is pretty good.
> > Key phrase: dieting is actually a consistent predictor of future
> > weight gain."
> > *******************************************************************
> > Scientists Say Dieting Does Not Work
> > 10 Apr 2007
Humpty Dumpty...
> Thankfully, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet:
...had a great fall:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diet
July 31st will be a significant day for you, Earthquack.
tr...@squad.com
Then what you claimed in past is a lie? The internet has a long and
permanent memory, to the great loss of face for some.
In all respects, including the "duck" test, it is a diet. It is a gimic
to control food intake, the same result if one limited it by volume or
time to eat. It assumes an average of 1800 calories in two pounds of
typical foods, a claim by the author of it. Which means of course that
at about 10 calories to maintain weight status some will gain and some
lose weight depending on height and activity level. Not to mention of
course choice of foods, two pounds of butter or two of lettice makes the
point nicely.
Kurt Gavin
"Andrew B. muChung, MDemon/
>> Between 1980 and 2000, the proportion of obese Americans has doubled,
>> from 15 to 31 per cent of the population.
Advertising works; making food tasty by using lots of fat and sugar also
works.
> Thankfully, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet:
Yet more xian "truth" from the muChung demon.
tr...@squad.com
Then what you claimed in past is a lie? The internet has a long and
permanent memory, to the great loss of face for some. The previous
claims to it being a diet can easily be posted, again.
In all respects, including the "duck" test, it is a diet. It is a gimic
to
control food intake, the same result if one limited it by volume or time
to
eat. It assumes an average of 1800 calories in two pounds of typical
foods, a claim by the author of it. Which means of course that at about
10
calories per pound to maintain weight status some will gain and some
Mu
another way to play around with the overconsumption game, now we will
need a new alt.support. diet group, let's call it
alt.support.diet.thetruthhurtsrealbadwhatgameislefttoplaynow
soIcanstilltrytoloseweightandeatwhateverIwant
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/c8858ad68dce88a8?
>
> Oh No, Atkins gets his teeth kicked in again. The low-carbers too,
> another way to play around with the overconsumption game, now we will
> need a new alt.support. diet group, let's call it
> alt.support.diet.thetruthhurtsrealbadwhatgameislefttoplaynow
> soIcanstilltrytoloseweightandeatwhateverIwant
Support groups would become obsolete if folks would come to realize
their being overweight happens because of the three lies they have in
their hearts about hunger:
(1) Hunger is like a red warning indicator light.
(2) The growling sounds of the stomach during hunger is like a warning
buzzer.
(3) Hunger means it is time to eat because energy levels are low.
Just as a person with a buzzing red low fuel warning light going off
in his/her car is immediately compelled to focus on refueling until
this light goes out, a person who believes in his/her heart that
hunger is like such a light in his/her car will be irresistibly
compelled to immediately focus on eating until s/he stops being hungry
and will imagine physical weakness/fatigue while hungry.
On the other hand, here is the truth about hunger:
(1) Hunger is a reassuring green light.
(2) The growling sounds of the stomach during hunger is a reassuring
sound like the sounds of a throaty large displacement engine.
(3) Hunger means "all systems go" and "two thumbs up."
Just as a shuttle astronaut is emboldened to ignite rocket engines
when reassured by green "all systems go" lights, a person who knows in
his heart that hunger means the same thing feels both bolder and
stronger when hungry.
Bolder and stronger people do not need support groups.
May GOD continue to bless you making you hungrier than you have ever
been in you life.
Prayerfully in Jesus' ever-lasting love,
Andrew <><
Mu
Outside of the fact that your wrong on several counts, get a newsreader,
they're free.
Mu
That's good stuff there, Chung.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
All praise and glory redirected to GOD so that we will both be blessed
thereby making us even hungrier.
It remains my choice to continue to receive the guidance of the Holy
Spirit in everything I say, do, and write.
May HE continue to heal our hearts with HIS living water so that we
can love our neighbors a little more and LORD Jesus Christ infinitely
more, dear brother Mu whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Jesus' ever-lasting love,
Andrew <><
Art Deco
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahah
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen
"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen
Art Deco
Phineas T Puddleduck
Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
> >That's good stuff there, Chung.
>
> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahah
Mu must be a troll egging Chung on, as no-one can truly be that stupid.
--
Got mail? I did ;-) Three and counting.
Got proof? Not yet, still waiting.
V
V:
Sure one can stay on diet and gain weight -- if the diet offers too
many calories for a given caloric budget. That is why I am in tune
with what I need to be at certain weight. It is no different from
balancing a money budget. $1800 a month to spend...1800 calories a day
to spend. Now the only choice is how do I spend? I can spend my $1800
each month on drugs, gambling and hookers and be kicked out of my
apartment and end up dying in the street of sickness and disease. Or I
can spend it on rent, healthy food, car and gas money, a massage and a
few lotto tickets. It is up to me how I wish to break it down - but
all our choices have consequences.
Same with food. I can eat 1800 calories of 100% junk each day, get
very little 'real food,' get nil nutrition and just feed my sensation
addiction and as a result I will develop poor health and sickness. Or
I can 'eat balanced' for the most part but still have a little fun
with my eating. And if I can't have 'any fun' with my eating as some
'celibate eaters' must do, then it is just good old basic eating for
me and I must find my fun in being normal sized and healthy. But it is
all a choice. If one desires some fun with food, life will not be 100%
perfect as I wrote in my sex post, but it is our choice with what we
like and what serves us best.
My goal is try to eat as normal as I can, but I also realize I can't
ever eat as normal person would. so I try to balance these two areas.
In any case, we can all be grateful when we feel resentful for our
'diets' as deer and cow eat only grass and they don't complain...so we
can glad we are not a herbivore.
....My discussion of this topic from an earlier post.
(...) writes:
"I would like to know the formula for finding the calories per day
that I would need to lose weight."
V writes:
For those that do not know how calories work, when you eat 3500
unburned or unneeded calories, whether in a day or over a week, it
puts on a pound of fat. (For reference: 3200 calories is the same as 4
sticks or one pound of butter.) We all burn up so much calories in a
day and my balance point at 53 years of age for my height and
metabolism and lifestyle is about 1800 to 1900 calories a day. It took
some time to figure this number out, but thorough trial and error I
now have it, although metabolisms change with age, as my caloric
balance point was about 2500 calories a day when I was 30 years old.
If you are in a big city you can get a Resting Metabolism Rate test at
a hospital or gym to find out your caloric Resting Metabolism Rate.
This Resting Metabolism Rate is very important to know since shows you
your budget in a numerical caloric figure and this gives you the
clarity to know the dividing line where good eating starts to turn to
bad eating or when you eat too many calories for your metabolism and
you start putting on the fat. I had to find it out by trial and error,
since I live in a rural area with no such test facility. The rough
calculation for a MIDDLE AGE person finding out how much to eat is
figured like this. You take 10% of the calories you CONSISTENTLY eat
each day and this will be your weight if you live sedentary life with
little or no exercise. This is a ROUGH calculation only and varies
with age, lifestyle and gender, but it works for me where I am at with
my life. Each of you must figure it yourself to find your caloric
balance point, and as you age this point will vary. But, once you have
some clarity in how to figure this number you can design a diet that
will take you to your goal weight.
One important note when you figure this calculation - you must be
steady with the calories you eat when you are figuring it out. You
cannot figure this number if you eat 3000 calories one day, then 2200
the next, then 1100 after that and 4200 the day after that and so on.
You must be somewhat steady and within a 100 to 150 calories a day or
less difference each day to learn from this. The more exacting in
consistency each day you can get the better. It doesn't matter if you
are consistent with eating 4000 calories a day. Eat it consistently
and see where it gets you then go from there. Once you settle on a
daily caloric figure you see what that figure gives you in body weight
then you have somewhere to start from when deciding how much you need
to eat to get where you want to be. If you lose no weight at the
figure you consistently eat at you must cut back. If you are gaining
weight at this consistent figure then you have the answer right there.
Your body will tell you what the figure is if you can listen to it.
For Example: If you eat 3000 calories per day and are sedentary you
could weigh in the 300 pound range. This calculation would apply to
female middle aged couch potatoes that sits at home all day and does
not move around much. I find that most people can add 250 to 400
calories to this figure to get a realistic reading. So, a middle age
300 pounder that works or exercises might be eating 3400 calories per
day on average. If they can eat more calories than this and not be
heavier they are blessed with a high metabolism, if the opposite is
true for them then they suffer from slower metabolism. Some overweight
people blame their fat on slow metabolisms? None of us have dead
metabolism that turn air to fat, if we stop eating we will starve to
death.
No one gets fat from breathing air and drinking water, even though
many overeaters swear to this belief. We each have a caloric balance
point whether it is a slow metabolism or not and for success with
weigh loss over the long haul we need to have clarity of what that
caloric number is. It is no different from the debtor that has a
financial balance point with their budget. If they stay within their
budget they are debt free, if they go beyond their financial balance
point or budget they are in debt. We debt to ourselves with fat when
we refuse to live within our caloric budget. With my lifestyle and
activity level, I can add 400 calories to the 1500 calories I need to
maintain 155 pounds, so this is where I get the 1900 calories a day
diet to live on. (Actually I try to eat 1800 per day 6 days a week and
can eat up to 2500 calories on Sundays when I eat breakfast with the
family.) All these figures don't have to exact. Some days I eat a
little more, some days less. But, on average I have to fit into the
caloric budget or will put on the fat. In addition, we burn a slightly
different amount of calories each day even if we do the same thing and
work at the same activities. Many variables with calories such as
external and internal temperature, stress and just the fact hat we are
not perfect calorie burning machines.
This brings up a point about the 2 types of fat people: Those that are
fat by desire and those that are fat by design. Those that
compulsively overeat are fat by desire (Even though they say they
don't desire to be fat, it is from their choosing.) Those that are fat
from ignorance of calories are fat from design. Such as traveling
salesman or busy people that don't necessarily eat that much or
compulsively eat, they just don't eat smart and eat too many calories
for their caloric budget from lack of clarity and knowledge. I can
tell you flat out, if I was not an overeater but added the "normal"
American breakfast of eggs, sausage, flapjacks with sweetened coffee
each morning I'd be fat - unless I cut those calories out someplace
else during the day. I just don't burn all those calories as I did
when I was young to eat 3 big meals, so, I must divide my calories
throughout the day somewhat methodically or I will be fat.
If we look at all the older people with pot belies, they ere the young
trim people of yesterday for the most part, but slowing metabolisms
caught up with them. As we age, we lose muscle as well as having our
metabolism slow down and this produces the double whammy effect that
just snowballs with more and more fat on our bodies. When we add a
pound of muscle through exercise such as weight training the pound of
muscle burns an extra 50 calories a day while resting, so the more
muscle we add the more calories we burn for free. (Some sources claim
this figure to be less if your muscles are inactive.) As we lose a
pound of muscles as we age the opposite holds true. so, our good diet
of today becomes the bad diet of tomorrow. Same calories only now
those same calories produces fat on our aging bodies that used to not
be fattening when we were younger. I think most of us on these lists
are fat from compulsively eating, but either way fat by design or fat
by desire, we need to have clarity about calories and nutrition if we
want to succeed with weight loss.
If a person refuses to count calories from some personal prejudice or
just lazy, they must be on a pre planned and pre weighed diet. This
way, someone has done the work for you. One thing is for sure, they
cannot keep on directing their own eating as their own direction got
them into all this mess, so they need some other standard that what
they feel like eating that day. With calorie counting, it is no big
deal for me since I soon learned the numbers for most foods and it
becomes second nature just as I write down my money with my Debtors
Anonymous program. I have been recording my finances and spending
since 1987 and recording my food and calories since the late 1990's. I
can tell you flat out, if I did not have this numerical clarity with
my food and finances I'd be sunk with my OA and DA programs.
As far as diets? My diet is diverse, nature based, balanced and based
on the food pyramid. Remember those of you that hate the word "diet"-
the word diet comes from the Greek word meaning "way of living" and we
all need a new way of living if our old way is not working for us.
When I lost my final 25 pounds of fat it was from cutting back 300
calories a day for many months and that was how I lost all the other
previous fat by cutting back few hundred calories until each plateau
in weight loss, then I would cut back some more if I wanted to lose
more fat. I lost the weight slow and consistently in a sustainable
manner eating a balanced diet. All these fad diets that are
unsustainable and not healthy can be harmful to you in the long run.
You need sustainability, for once you are off the old unbalanced diet
the fat comes back with your normal unhealthy eating patterns. The
only difference between my losing weight diet and my normal diet as of
now is the losing weight diet was on average 15% less calories per day
than the one I am on now. With eating 300 calories per day less I was
able to lose almost 2-3 pound per month to finally get the rest of my
fat off.
When I was heavier I had to cut back more, since I was eating over
2800 calories a day, but through trial and error I kept cutting back
with the calories when I would plateau and the weight stopped coming
off. I cut back from 2800 calories to 2400, then down to 2200 and then
to 2000. After each plateau in weight loss I would need to cut back
if I wanted to get to my goal (normal) weight. You see, the numbers
will tell you themselves what you need to do, If you stop losing
weight at 2500 calories a day, then you need to cut back to 2200
calories a day to see that that figure gives you and if that is not
enough you cut back some more. We are all different with all different
metabolic rates you we each need to figure our own numbers. If you
were towing sleds in Antarctica like a couple of women explorers did
they figured they need 5000 calories a day to stay balanced. But, once
they returned home they had to go back to a normal eating plan as
their workload was drastically changed and they did not have to burn
calories battling frigid temperatures as well. Once I have my diet
worked out I now have a "way of living" that can allows me to be at
peace with food. But, I must also practice acceptance as well as work
the 12 steps to find consistent peace and work a balanced recovery
program.
Balanced living is very important to addicts. You can lose weight by
eating a 1000 calories a day diet of candy bars. But is it healthy?
Is it sustainable? Is it balanced? What about vomiting and laxatives
so you can artificially eat more food? Working yourself ragged
exercising day and night to the point of ill health to eat more? All
must be answered as NO! These are not healthy or sustainable practices
for a lifetime of weight control. So make your losing weight diet and
lifestyle healthy and sustainable so the switch back to normal eating
is not that different from a diet of weight loss eating, with the main
difference just being less calories by 15%-20%. Healthy diets, being
smart about nutrition and calorie counting only goes so far - don't
neglect the spiritual end of recovery. In the 12 step programs we need
to work the steps as well and watch our stress. If our lives are in
ruin through unbalanced and stressful living, counting calories and
study metabolic rates will do nothing for us as we stuff the food to
pacify ourselves.
Adrenal steroids (cortisol) and adrenaline are secreted when a person
is under stress reach the brain and over time can affect the structure
of the brain. When stress hormones, intended for a life or death fight
or flight situation, remain switched for an extended period, they can
slow the growth of nerve fibers in the areas of the brain responsible
for emotions and other brain functions. We also produce cortisol from
any other stressors the body perceives, whether it is physical stress,
such as a sickness, injury, surgery, or temperature extremes as well
as psychological stress that we and the world put on us.
Each of us has produces a different amount of these chemicals and has
a different sensitivity to them and this might be the missing link as
to a part of the question as to why some of us are more addictive than
others with how we each produce and react to these stress chemicals
differently. Besides fat, anger and depression can be helped with
exercise. Exercise helps remove these stress chemicals from our bodies
as well as produce other chemicals that give us a sense of well being
- endorphins. Yes, we have our own drug pusher within each of us. We
can learn to reduce the urge to pacify ourselves with food, drugs,
alcohol, compulsive spending from stress, but really need to work on
restructuring our lives so they are less stressful if we ever want to
find peace and serenity. You see, 12 steps or not, we all have to
answer to natural law. Within the boundaries of natural law is where
stress chemicals come from within us and as addicts I believe we are
super sensitized to these chemicals and we seek relief though our
various addictions. So, as addicts we should be in tune with using any
tools available to us for recovery purposes whether it is the
spiritual tools of the 12 steps or the mechanical tools of eating
right and exercise.
I find that sometime spiritual practitioners neglect the natural laws
that govern our bodies and suffer in this area from lack of living a
balanced life. Some of us forget we are spiritual beings residing in
physical bodies living in physical world and governed my both
spiritual and physical or natural laws in addition to man made laws.
We need some effort with spiritual work and some effort in physical
work for a good balance or as the Buddha recommended - taking the
middle path. Joining the simple living movent in 1996 also helped with
reducing stress and giving me a new life.
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2
Art Deco
>In article <120420071841133537%er...@caballista.org>,
> Art Deco <er...@caballista.org> wrote:
>
>> >That's good stuff there, Chung.
>>
>> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahah
>
>
>Mu must be a troll egging Chung on, as no-one can truly be that stupid.
Neither of these clowns understand conservation of energy. Current
suspicions are that Mu is paid to promote Chung's 2-lb quack diet.
Art Deco
This exchange could be presented as the definition of the term
"kookslurp".
Father Haskell
wrote:
>
> Thankfully, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet:
2PD of Mentos (tm) and diet coke.
Father Haskell
<ach...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
>
> Support groups would become obsolete if folks would come to realize
> their being overweight happens because of the three lies they have in
> their hearts about hunger
(snip)
2PD of Drano (tm)
Father Haskell
<ach...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> All praise and glory redirected to GOD so that we will both be blessed
> thereby making us even hungrier.
2PD of Liquid Plumr.
Mu
> Mu must be a troll egging Chung on
*plonk* the children.
Mu
> Sure one can stay on diet and gain weight -- if the diet offers too
> many calories for a given caloric budget. That is why I am in tune
> with what I need to be at certain weight. It is no different from
> balancing a money budget. $1800 a month to spend...1800 calories a day
> to spend. Now the only choice is how do I spend?
Pure crap, you have no way of exacting calories from what you eat.
Pastor Kutchie, Earthquack's nemesis
> *plonk* the children.
Has Mu plonked himself, then?
Pastor Kutchie, Earthquack's nemesis
That's what I like to see: Somebody whose presence is for the specific
purpose of sticking up for somebody they have failed to realise is a
complete loon, getting into an argument with somebody else they fail
to realise is a complete loon.
Art Deco
Usenet for the coward is defined as Andy Chung and Mu. Any efforts to
provide clues results in him running away.
Diva
Two pounds of Pinot Noir and a caper or olive. It's a lifestyle--
Hiccup
Diva
DonnaB shallotpeel
<1176483071.1...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, "Diva"
<c.fr...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Oh, no, what a dilemma. Someone I read in another NG, posting here to someone
replying to a troll in massive inappropriate cross-post! What to do, what to do,
...
--
DonnaB
"My God -- Life! Who can understand even one little minute of it." - Kurt
Vonnegut, Jr. [Nov 11, 1922-Apr 11, 2007], Jonah, CAT'S CRADLE
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> neighbor "Diva" <c.fr...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > convicted neighbor Haskell wrote:
> > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > >
> > > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/c8858ad68dce88a8?
> > >
> > >
> > > 2PD of Mentos (tm) and diet coke.
> >
> > Two pounds of Pinot Noir and a caper or olive. It's a lifestyle--
> > Hiccup
>
> Oh, no, what a dilemma. Someone I read in another NG, posting here to someone
> replying to a troll in massive inappropriate cross-post! What to do, what to do,
Rethink your unwise choice to engage in name-calling.
"Name-calling is lying." -- Holy Spirit
Amen.
"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the
sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all
liars-their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is
the second death." -- GOD (Revelation 21:8)
Amen.
The brethren of LORD Jesus Christ are not perfect though with HIS
help, we have stopped sinning.
"With man this is impossible but with GOD all things are possible." --
LORD Jesus Christ (Matthew 19:26)
Amen.
More importantly, we are forgiven:
http://InterviewWithGOD.com/Forgiven
Marana tha
Prayerfully in Jesus' ever-lasting love,
Andrew <><
Don Kirkman
article <1176422326....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>Support groups would become obsolete if folks would come to realize
>their being overweight happens because of the three lies they have in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>their hearts about hunger:
>(1) Hunger is like a red warning indicator light.
And you think this is what people believe based on what
evidence/studies?
>(2) The growling sounds of the stomach during hunger is like a warning
>buzzer.
And you think this is what people believe based on what
evidence/studies?
>(3) Hunger means it is time to eat because energy levels are low.
And you think this is what people believe based on what
evidence/studies?
--
Don Kirkman
Kurt Gavin
"Andrew B. Chung, MDemon luvs Reverend TediBare Haggard
> Rethink your unwise choice to engage in name-calling.
>
> "Name-calling is lying when you don;t like it." -- Holy Spirit
>
> Amen.
>
> "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the
> sexually immoral, those who practice Christian magic, the idolaters and
> all
> liars-their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is
> the second death." -- GOD (Revelation 21:8)
>
> Amen.
>When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the
> end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who
>bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.
>But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who
>broke the
>contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to
marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must
>treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes
another wife,
>he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her
>as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may
>leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
>Amen
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> >their being overweight happens because of the three lies they have in
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >their hearts about hunger:
>
> >(1) Hunger is like a red warning indicator light.
>
> And you think this is what people believe based on what
> evidence/studies?
>
> >(2) The growling sounds of the stomach during hunger is like a warning
> >buzzer.
>
> And you think this is what people believe based on what
> evidence/studies?
>
> >(3) Hunger means it is time to eat because energy levels are low.
>
> And you think this is what people believe based on what
> evidence/studies?
The research as described on-line as can be found at the following
link:
http://abchung.livejournal.com
May GOD bless you.
Father Haskell
wrote:
> neighbor DonnaB shallotpeel wrote:
> > neighbor "Diva" <c.fril...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > convicted neighbor Haskell wrote:
> > > > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/c8858ad68dce88a8?
>
> > > > > Thankfully, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet:
>
> > > > 2PD of Mentos (tm) and diet coke.
>
> > > Two pounds of Pinot Noir and a caper or olive. It's a lifestyle--
> > > Hiccup
>
> > Oh, no, what a dilemma. Someone I read in another NG, posting here to someone
> > replying to a troll in massive inappropriate cross-post! What to do, what to do,
>
> Rethink your unwise choice to engage in name-calling.
>
> "Name-calling is lying." -- Holy Spirit
>
> Amen.
2PD of gorilla snot.
Father Haskell
wrote:
> convicted neighbor Don Kirkman wrote:
>
>
>
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > >Support groups would become obsolete if folks would come to realize
> > >their being overweight happens because of the three lies they have in
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >their hearts about hunger:
>
> > >(1) Hunger is like a red warning indicator light.
>
> > And you think this is what people believe based on what
> > evidence/studies?
>
> > >(2) The growling sounds of the stomach during hunger is like a warning
> > >buzzer.
>
> > And you think this is what people believe based on what
> > evidence/studies?
>
> > >(3) Hunger means it is time to eat because energy levels are low.
>
> > And you think this is what people believe based on what
> > evidence/studies?
>
> The research as described on-line as can be found at the following
> link:
(snip)
2PD of porpoise vomit.
Kurt Gavin
Mu
Excellent counterpoint, you really hit all the high spots. Is this sort
of dialogue considered incisive debate in your circles or
merely witty banter?
And you think people believe you based you on what evidence/studies?
lol I sure enjoy Usenet.
Kirkman, it's too bad, for the most part, you're wasted intell.
Mr. Natural-Health
STOP eating and you will starve to death.
Ergo, dieting does work.
Just thought that this MORON might want to know.
Pastor Kutchie, Earthquack's nemesis
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:16:38 -0700, Don Kirkman wrote:
> > It seems to me I heard somewhere that Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote in
>
> >>Support groups would become obsolete if folks would come to realize
> >>their being overweight happens because of the three lies they have in
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>their hearts about hunger:
>
> >>(1) Hunger is like a red warning indicator light.
>
> > And you think this is what people believe based on what
> > evidence/studies?
>
> >>(2) The growling sounds of the stomach during hunger is like a warning
> >>buzzer.
>
> > And you think this is what people believe based on what
> > evidence/studies?
>
> >>(3) Hunger means it is time to eat because energy levels are low.
>
> > And you think this is what people believe based on what
> > evidence/studies?
> > --
> > Don Kirkman
>
> Excellent counterpoint, you really hit all the high spots. Is this sort
> of dialogue considered incisive debate in your circles or
> merely witty banter?
>
> And you think people believe you based you on what evidence/studies?
>
> lol I sure enjoy Usenet.
>
> Kirkman, it's too bad, for the most part, you're wasted intell.
People who live in glass houses....
Art Deco
When asked to provide objective evidence of the efficacy of the 2-lb
fraud diet, you instead offer nothing but froth. What a surprise.
Jack Baun
Jack
"Mu" <nocowi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11osetjp2qvdu.w...@40tude.net...
> On 12 Apr 2007 14:46:39 GMT, tr...@squad.com wrote:
>
>> "Thankfully, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet:"
>>
>> permanent memory, to the great loss of face for some. The previous
>> claims to it being a diet can easily be posted, again.
>>
>> In all respects, including the "duck" test, it is a diet. It is a gimic
>> to
>> control food intake, the same result if one limited it by volume or time
>> to
>> eat. It assumes an average of 1800 calories in two pounds of typical
>> foods, a claim by the author of it. Which means of course that at about
>> 10
>> calories per pound to maintain weight status some will gain and some
>> lose
>> weight depending on height and activity level. Not to mention of course
>> choice of foods, two pounds of butter or two of lettice makes the point
>> nicely.
>
> Outside of the fact that your wrong on several counts, get a newsreader,
> they're free.
FOB
Kurt Gavin
"Mu" <nocowi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1fe2xbnsktkmb$.inwrlfyzupqs$.dlg@40tude.net...
Mu
> What is a good news reader (FREE) ??
> Jack
40tude,
Free Agent
XNews
luis
> morris wrote:
>> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=67422
>>
>> We all srt of knew this, but the summary is pretty good.
>> Key phrase: dieting is actually a consistent predictor of future
>> weight gain."
>> *******************************************************************
>> Scientists Say Dieting Does Not Work
>> 10 Apr 2007
>>
>> US scientists conducting a comprehensive review of dieting research
>> have concluded that dieting does not work.
>>
>> The study is published in the April edition of American Psychologist,
>> the journal of the American Psychological Association.
>>
>> Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA),
>> reviewed 31 long-term studies lasting between 2 to 5 years.
>>
>> UCLA associate professor of psychology and lead author of the study,
>> Traci Mann said:
>>
>> "You can initially lose 5 to 10 percent of your weight on any number
>> of diets, but then the weight comes back."
>>
>> "We found that the majority of people regained all the weight, plus
>> more," she added.
>>
>> The researchers found a very small minority of study participants
>> managed to sustain weight loss, while the majority put all the weight
>> back on, and more in the longer term.
>>
>> "Diets do not lead to sustained weight loss or health benefits for the
>> majority of people," said Dr Mann.
>>
>> Dr Mann and colleagues sought to determine the long term effects of
>> dieting and address the question "Would they have been better off to
>> not go on a diet at all?".
>>
>> So they analyzed every study they could find that followed people on
>> diets for 2 to 5 years. Studies that take less than 2 years are "too
>> short to show whether dieters have regained the weight they lost,"
>> they said.
>>
>> They discovered that it would have been better for most of them if
>> they had not gone on a diet at all.
>>
>> "Their weight would be pretty much the same, and their bodies would
>> not suffer the wear and tear from losing weight and gaining it all
>> back," explained Dr Mann.
>>
>> Their findings show that:
>>
>> -- People on diets typically lose 5 to 10 per cent of their weight in
>> the first 6 months.
>> -- But 33 to 66 per cent regain more than what they lose within 4 to 5
>> years.
>>
>> Dr Mann and colleagues suspect the real situation is actually even
>> worse; the figures do not really reflect reality, making diet studies
>> look better than they are. They say there are a number of reasons for
>> this:
>>
>> -- Many participants phone or mail their results in themselves,
>> without an impartial assessor.
>> -- A lot of studies have a below 50 per cent follow up rate; and the
>> people who put on a lot of weight are less likely to stay in touch.
>>
>> UCLA graduate student of psychology and co-author of the study, Janet
>> Tomiyama said that "Several studies indicate that dieting is actually
>> a consistent predictor of future weight gain."
>>
>> One study in particular that they looked at found that men and women
>> who took part in a weight reduction programme gained significantly
>> more weight than those who did not over the same period of time.
>>
>> Tomiyama mentioned another study, this time looking at links between
>> lifestyle and weight in 19,000 healthy older men over four years. This
>> study found that, "One of the best predictors of weight gain over the
>> four years was having lost weight on a diet at some point during the
>> years before the study started," she said.
>>
>> Also, in many studies with control groups, the people in the control
>> group very often were better off than the participants who dieted.
>>
>> Dr Mann suggests that eating in moderation and exercise do make a
>> difference. Although they were not looking at exercise in particular,
>> Dr Mann said that:
>>
>> "Exercise may well be the key factor leading to sustained weight loss.
>> Studies consistently find that people who reported the most exercise
>> also had the most weight loss."
>>
>> One study following obese patients discovered that:
>>
>> -- Among those followed for under 2 years, 23 per cent of patients had
>> regained their weight loss.
>> -- Among those followed for more than 2 years, 83 per cent had
>> regained their weight loss.
>>
>> Another study found that 50 per cent of dieters weighed 11 pounds (5
>> kilos) more than their starting weight 5 years after their diet.
>>
>> Among the health hazards of repeated weight loss and regain are
>> cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes and altered immune function,
>> said Dr Mann and colleagues.
>>
>> They said more research is needed on the effects of weight loss and
>> regain on health, and say scientists do not fully understand the
>> underlying factors involved in this complex relationship.
>>
>> Dr Mann quoted her mother, who herself has tried to diet many times,
>> without success. Dr Mann's mother said her daughter's findings were
>> "obvious".
>>
>> Although this study reviewed 31 long term dieting projects, they did
>> not look into specific diets.
>>
>> The researchers are of the opinion that weight loss programmes are not
>> good value for money in the treatment of obesity.
>>
>> "The benefits of dieting are too small and the potential harm is too
>> large for dieting to be recommended as a safe, effective treatment for
>> obesity," said Dr Mann.
>>
>> Between 1980 and 2000, the proportion of obese Americans has doubled,
>> from 15 to 31 per cent of the population.
>
> Thankfully, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet:
>
>
> Suggested reading:
>
> http://abchung.livejournal.com/986.html?thread=16090#t16090
>
> May GOD bless you.
>
> Prayerfully in Jesus' ever-lasting love,
>
> Andrew <><
> --
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> http://EmoryCardiology.com
>
> May HIS immortal brethren pray for our dying mortal friends and
> neighbors:
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
>
> In memory of our dearly departed Bob(this one) Pastorio:
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Bob
>
> As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
> unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
> (Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love
>
> The Official SMC FAQ List:
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/TheTruth/FAQ
>
patients behavior and not in diet itself.
Antonio L Rodrigues
Nutritionist
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> I do not consider this a scientific work, because it is based in
> patients behavior and not in diet itself.
It is scientific work because it is application of the scientific
method.
May GOD bless you.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
luis
>
> Prayerfully in Jesus' ever-lasting love,
>
> Andrew <><
> --
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> May HIS immortal brethren pray for our dying mortal friends and
> neighbors:
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
>
> In memory of our dearly departed Bob(this one) Pastorio:
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Bob
>
> As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
> unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
> (Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love
>
> The Official SMC FAQ List:
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/TheTruth/FAQ
>
patients behavior and not in diet itself.
Nutritionist
luis
Antonio L Rodrigues
Nutritionist
tr...@salt-savor.com
In every way but the obfuscation by which its trash science truth claims
are made, it is in all respects a diet plan of the goal to lose weight
by
calorie intake modification. Sadly, it is such trash science one can as
easily gain weight as lose it by ones choice of two pounds of what to
eat
and compounded in error by not adding exercise as a vital factor in all
long term weight loss and maintenance.
Truth is truth, and the truth here is simple.
May God bless you.
percy
>>
> I do not consider this a scientific work, because it is based in
> patients behavior and not in diet itself.
> Antonio L Rodrigues
>
> Nutritionist
Kookle Search Results
30 matches for "chung".
Dr. Andrew B Chung
Rookie Kook of the Year, 2006
Coward of the Year, 2006
Bardley Annual "Whining Baby New Year" Award, 2007
Kook of the Month, June 2006
Golden Killfile, November 2006
Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award, June 2006
Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award, February 2007
Looney Maroon Award, June 2006
Looney Maroon Award, August 2006
Looney Maroon Award, January 2007
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, January 2007
George Pickett Memorial Trophy, January 2007
Coward of the Month, October 2006
Coward of the Month, November 2006
Coward of the Month, December 2006
Joseph Bartlo "Pathetic Anal Pineapple" Award, October 2006
Joseph Bartlo "Pathetic Anal Pineapple" Award, March 2007
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, December 2006
Busted Urinal Award
Unabomber Surprise
Bolo Bullis Foam Duck #24
George Armstrong Custer "Kicked @$$" Award
Kluck Lysaght "Tar & Feathers" Award
Kenny McCormick Memorial Medal
Goofy Azzed Babboon
72 Raisins "Crackpot Religion" Award
Fr00tcake, 2006
Edmond Wollmann Memorial Rubber Turkey Award, Easter Weekend 2006
Edmond Wollmann Memorial Rubber Turkey Award, Thanksgiving 2006
www.heartmdphd.com [Dr. Andrew B Chung]
Richbull.com Memorial Award for Kooksite of the Year, 2006
Will Brink
> >> *******************************************************************
> >> Scientists Say Dieting Does Not Work
> >> 10 Apr 2007
It does not say anything of the sort. It says most people fail to follow
diets long term, not that diets dont work. There is a HUGE difference
between them. This has been known a long time and confirmed again
recently. Compliance is everything. From a recent article called "The Big
Picture of Permanent Weight Loss"
"...the number one reason diets fail, which is a lack of compliance. The
lead researcher of this recent study stated:
łOur trial found that adherence level rather than diet type was the
primary predictor of weight loss˛(3)
Translated, itąs not which diet they chose per se, but their ability to
actually stick to a diet that predicted their weight loss success."
Cont:
http://www.brinkzone.com/articledetails.php?aid=102&acatid=3
--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com
"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> patients behavior and not in diet itself.
That which is based on the scientific method is scientific work by
definition.
This would not be a matter of opinion.
Truth is simple.
May GOD bless you.
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
tr...@squad.com
Well said, the two pound diet is trash science which can cause a weight
loss or a weight gain depending on the accident of what one chooses to
consume in the two pounds.
It leaves the user at a disadvantage because it ignores the vital role
of exercise in weight status. It can even be dangerous to ones health
because it ignores consideration of the nutrition of what one chooses to
put in the two pound diet fare.
Mu
Most diets require a compliance factor of 9.9 on the scale of 10. As far
as I am concerned, if a diet is so compliant-oriented to begin, then the
diet is to blame. Hence, dieting doesn't work.
The other argument is that any dieter who knowingly takes on such a
diet, and continually repeats the same dieting choice/plan mistake may
be too dumb to ever learn how to control consumption.
Mu
>> As a sensible person, I eat nutricious food daily, in fact, the same
>> foods I used to eat before starting this food regimen, just smaller
>> quantities. I never go hungry, although as I don't eat often after
>> dinner (about 6.30pm), I sometimes feel peckish on going to bed, which
>> a cup of organic cocoa helps me fall off to sleep easily.
>
> Yep, eat less and lose weight. For some the accidental choice of what
> foods to include in the two pounds combined with ones height and
> activity levl will cause a weight loss. For others the result will be a
> weight gain. It is a gimic, use standard measures of volume or set time
> to eat the same foods and the same results will occur.
>
> By accident one can find the right amount of calories for you or one can
> quickly narrow it down by not relying on accident and matching calories
> to height and activity level more directly and systematically.
>
> The two pound diet is based on trash science in its truth claims.
Did anyone get any idea what this joker just waffled?
Art Deco
Energy out > energy in = weight loss
The basic equation you two quacks (i.e. Mu and Andy Chunk) refuse to
acknowledge.
[support groups snecked, ++sci.physics]
Art Deco
Flying Fuck
> Mu <nocowi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:56:11 -0400, Will Brink wrote:
>>
>>>>>> *******************************************************************
>>>>>> Scientists Say Dieting Does Not Work
>>>>>> 10 Apr 2007
>>>
>>> It does not say anything of the sort. It says most people fail to follow
>>> diets long term, not that diets dont work. There is a HUGE difference
>>> between them. This has been known a long time and confirmed again
>>> recently. Compliance is everything. From a recent article called "The
>>> Big Picture of Permanent Weight Loss"
>>>
>>> "...the number one reason diets fail, which is a lack of compliance. The
>>> lead researcher of this recent study stated:
>>>
>>> ³Our trial found that adherence level rather than diet type was the
>>> primary predictor of weight loss²(3)
>>>
>>> Translated, it¹s not which diet they chose per se, but their ability to
>>> actually stick to a diet that predicted their weight loss success."
>>>
>>> Cont:
>>>
>>> http://www.brinkzone.com/articledetails.php?aid=102&acatid=3
>>
>>Most diets require a compliance factor of 9.9 on the scale of 10. As far
>>as I am concerned, if a diet is so compliant-oriented to begin, then the
>>diet is to blame. Hence, dieting doesn't work.
>>
>>The other argument is that any dieter who knowingly takes on such a
>>diet, and continually repeats the same dieting choice/plan mistake may
>>be too dumb to ever learn how to control consumption.
>
> Energy out > energy in = weight loss
>
> The basic equation you two quacks (i.e. Mu and Andy Chunk) refuse to
> acknowledge.
>
have you acknowledged your fat tankass yet?
--
.-------.
.'.-'''''-.'._
//` `\\\
;; ;;'.__.===============,
|| . <- || __ )
;: your ;;.' '==============='
\\ penus ///
':...___...:'~
`'-----'`
"The fact that you're being increasing annoying..." - QuackfArt
tr...@isbetter.com
Sure both of us got it, that is why you try to divert from the truth
that the tewo pound diet is trash science.
If by accident one chooses fewer calories then required for two pounds
one will lose weight. If one chooses more calories then required then
one will gain weight.
All the while the equally important factors of exercise and the
nutritional value of what one is eating to gain or lose weight is
ignored.
Truth is simple.
God bless.
Mu
Did anyone get any idea what this joker just waffled?
Mu
> have you acknowledged your fat tankass yet?
>
> --
> .-------.
> .'.-'''''-.'._
> //` `\\\
> ;; ;;'.__.===============,
> || . <- || __ )
> ;: your ;;.' '==============='
> \\ penus ///
> ':...___...:'~
Check your penus for spelling, d00d lol
Will Brink
nocowi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:56:11 -0400, Will Brink wrote:
>
> >>>> *******************************************************************
> >>>> Scientists Say Dieting Does Not Work
> >>>> 10 Apr 2007
> >
> > It does not say anything of the sort. It says most people fail to follow
> > diets long term, not that diets dont work. There is a HUGE difference
> > between them. This has been known a long time and confirmed again
> > recently. Compliance is everything. From a recent article called "The Big
> > Picture of Permanent Weight Loss"
> >
> > "...the number one reason diets fail, which is a lack of compliance. The
> > lead researcher of this recent study stated:
> >
> > łOur trial found that adherence level rather than diet type was the
> > primary predictor of weight loss˛(3)
> >
> > Translated, itąs not which diet they chose per se, but their ability to
> > actually stick to a diet that predicted their weight loss success."
> >
> > Cont:
> >
> > http://www.brinkzone.com/articledetails.php?aid=102&acatid=3
>
> Most diets require a compliance factor of 9.9 on the scale of 10.
That of course is false and based on your opinion vs any physiology or
data per say. Yes, compliance is important, as it is for everything in
life. If you don't study in school, and fail, this is the fault of the
school or you? End of the day, find a diet you can follow and follow it.
Article above covers the needed info.
> As far
> as I am concerned, if a diet is so compliant-oriented to begin,
Life is compliant oriented.
>then the
> diet is to blame. Hence, dieting doesn't work.
I see logic and science are not your strong point.
Mu
>>>
>>> "...the number one reason diets fail, which is a lack of compliance. The
>>> lead researcher of this recent study stated:
>>>
>>> łOur trial found that adherence level rather than diet type was the
>>> primary predictor of weight loss˛(3)
>>>
>>> Translated, itąs not which diet they chose per se, but their ability to
>>> actually stick to a diet that predicted their weight loss success."
>>>
>>> Cont:
>>>
>>> http://www.brinkzone.com/articledetails.php?aid=102&acatid=3
>>
>> Most diets require a compliance factor of 9.9 on the scale of 10.
>
> That of course is false and based on your opinion vs any physiology or
> data per say.
It's not false because the opinion has no data, empirically it is easy
to see that the mainstream diets, most require significant reading,
comprehension, journaling and/or monitoring, counting of cals or carbs
or whatever (all of which is rarely accurate by the dieter), weighing,
supplementation and on and on and on. Since we are talking about success
as in a lifetime, these diets are built to induce noncompliance not
obtain it.
Why? Because you can't as easily sell something simple such as a high
compliance WOE as the 2PDiet.
> Yes, compliance is important, as it is for everything in
> life. If you don't study in school, and fail, this is the fault of the
> school or you?
You but who goes to school for life?
> End of the day, find a diet you can follow and follow it.
That's the whole point, if there were such things, there would be more
compliance and less obese. It's not just the people, it's the diets
themselves which are co-contributors to the problem ofcompliance.
> Article above covers the needed info.
2PDiet covers everything I need.
Will Brink
nocowi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:23:20 -0400, Will Brink wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>> "...the number one reason diets fail, which is a lack of compliance. The
> >>> lead researcher of this recent study stated:
> >>>
> >>> łOur trial found that adherence level rather than diet type was the
> >>> primary predictor of weight loss˛(3)
> >>>
> >>> Translated, itąs not which diet they chose per se, but their ability to
> >>> actually stick to a diet that predicted their weight loss success."
> >>>
> >>> Cont:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.brinkzone.com/articledetails.php?aid=102&acatid=3
> >>
> >> Most diets require a compliance factor of 9.9 on the scale of 10.
> >
> > That of course is false and based on your opinion vs any physiology or
> > data per say.
>
> It's not false because the opinion has no data,
It is false AND based on no data. I didn't say it was false due to lack of data.
>empirically it is easy
> to see that the mainstream diets, most require significant reading,
> comprehension, journaling and/or monitoring, counting of cals or carbs
> or whatever (all of which is rarely accurate by the dieter), weighing,
> supplementation and on and on and on. Since we are talking about success
> as in a lifetime, these diets are built to induce noncompliance not
> obtain it.
Depending on which diet, the above is often true, yes. Regardless,
compliance to some form of calorie restriction is what's needed to lose
weight.
>
> Why? Because you can't as easily sell something simple such as a high
> compliance WOE as the 2PDiet.
In most cases, simple is often best, at least in the beginning and
depending on goals.
>
> > Yes, compliance is important, as it is for everything in
> > life. If you don't study in school, and fail, this is the fault of the
> > school or you?
>
> You but who goes to school for life?
Who diets for life? Eating well to control your weight after reaching a
target weight is not dieting. If you are dieting for life, you are doing
something wrong. Human physiology being what it is, one can't simply eat
what ever we want, thus at least some control is required as it is for all
things in life.
>
> > End of the day, find a diet you can follow and follow it.
>
> That's the whole point, if there were such things, there would be more
> compliance and less obese. It's not just the people, it's the diets
> themselves which are co-contributors to the problem ofcompliance.
Depends on the diet. One can come up with a very simple diet thats easy to
follow, though it may not be healthy, etc.
spam removed.
Mu
sci.med.cardiology,alt.support.diabetes,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition
you wrote:
> In article <1bvor45iuug7h$.ypkwymg8dnvk$.d...@40tude.net>,
> nocowi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:23:20 -0400, Will Brink wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "...the number one reason diets fail, which is a lack of compliance. The
>>>>> lead researcher of this recent study stated:
>>>>>
>>>>> łOur trial found that adherence level rather than diet type was the
>>>>> primary predictor of weight loss˛(3)
>>>>>
>>>>> Translated, itąs not which diet they chose per se, but their ability to
>>>>> actually stick to a diet that predicted their weight loss success."
>>>>>
>>>>> Cont:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.brinkzone.com/articledetails.php?aid=102&acatid=3
>>>>
>>>> Most diets require a compliance factor of 9.9 on the scale of 10.
>>>
>>> That of course is false and based on your opinion vs any physiology or
>>> data per say.
>>
>> It's not false because the opinion has no data,
>
> It is false AND based on no data. I didn't say it was false due to lack of data.
Then produce the data that makes it false.
>>empirically it is easy
>> to see that the mainstream diets, most require significant reading,
>> comprehension, journaling and/or monitoring, counting of cals or carbs
>> or whatever (all of which is rarely accurate by the dieter), weighing,
>> supplementation and on and on and on. Since we are talking about success
>> as in a lifetime, these diets are built to induce noncompliance not
>> obtain it.
>
> Depending on which diet, the above is often true, yes. Regardless,
> compliance to some form of calorie restriction is what's needed to lose
> weight.
>
>>
>> Why? Because you can't as easily sell something simple such as a high
>> compliance WOE as the 2PDiet.
>
> In most cases, simple is often best, at least in the beginning and
> depending on goals.
Best doesn't sell and revenue drives the diets of the populace, Will.
>>
>>> Yes, compliance is important, as it is for everything in
>>> life. If you don't study in school, and fail, this is the fault of the
>>> school or you?
>>
>> You but who goes to school for life?
>
> Who diets for life? Eating well to control your weight after reaching a
> target weight is not dieting. If you are dieting for life, you are doing
> something wrong. Human physiology being what it is, one can't simply eat
> what ever we want, thus at least some control is required as it is for all
> things in life.
Semantical argument over the use of the term "diet", you must have
learned this attitude from Chung lol
All commercial diets ultimately evolve into a maintenance stage where
eating this or that over time will = no weight gain. hence, once on a
diet, the maintenance phase is part of the "diet". Now if you want to
say "I'm off my diet", then either you skipped the last chapters or you
are making the word "diet" to mean only the weight loss periods. Fine
with me, I got off the 2Pound Diet when I hit an optimum weight.
>>> End of the day, find a diet you can follow and follow it.
>>
>> That's the whole point, if there were such things, there would be more
>> compliance and less obese. It's not just the people, it's the diets
>> themselves which are co-contributors to the problem ofcompliance.
>
> Depends on the diet. One can come up with a very simple diet thats easy to
> follow, though it may not be healthy, etc.
Sure, the Ten Ton Air Diet for one.
> spam removed.
Spam redacted, now returned.
"2PDiet covers everything I need."
What's your problem with the 2PDiet?