A Brilliant Cardiologist Once Wrote......

21 views
Skip to first unread message

Mu'

unread,
Jul 3, 2003, 3:54:30 PM7/3/03
to
Here are a couple of myths that need to be debunked in your travels to
lose weight:

Myth#1: Eating more fruits and vegetables will help you lose weight.

Reference:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12821968&dopt=Abstract

Comment:

*Replacing* what you are currently eating with fruits and vegetables
probably would help in weight loss, but would go more toward reducing
cholesterol which is perhaps a major concern in your case.

See:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

for more information about losing weight safely and surely.


Myth#2:

Low-carbing (with ketosis) is a way to lose weight that is proven to
be
safe.

Reference:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10388984&dopt=Abstract

Comment:

Hyperketonemia is probably a bad thing for anyone at risk for
developing
coronary disease. Oxidized lipids are the most atherogenic substances
around.

Bob Pastorio

unread,
Jul 3, 2003, 5:49:28 PM7/3/03
to
Mu' wrote:
>
> Here are a couple of myths that need to be debunked in your travels to
> lose weight:
>
> Myth#1: Eating more fruits and vegetables will help you lose weight.
> Reference:
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12821968&dopt=Abstract
> Comment:
> *Replacing* what you are currently eating with fruits and vegetables
> probably would help in weight loss, but would go more toward reducing
> cholesterol which is perhaps a major concern in your case.

Nice red herring, Fishbone. Nobody says that increasing your total
intake of food by increasing fruits and veggies will make you lose
weight. This is a myth like your usefulness to humanity would be. Only
you would consider it at all.

Here's what the study actually was about:
OBJECTIVE:: To assess whether intake of fruits and vegetables was
associated with change in body mass index (BMI) among a large sample of
children and adolescents in the United States.

Wasn't about dieting at all.

> See:
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
> for more information about losing weight safely and surely.

This is from Chung, King of Two-pounders. He says: "Recently, airlines
in the U.S. have widened the width of the seats on their planes to
accommodate this trend of increasing obesity." And, well, it isn't true.
I note that on his home page he neglects to mention his dismissal for
incompetent care from a hospital. But on that page, he talks about his
favorite movies, his pets and long walks on the beach or whatever. I got
warm, fuzzy tingles.

This comes from one of his "testimonials" -
From: Jerome R. Long (jrl...@vt.edu)
Subject: Dr. Chung and the 2 Pound Diet
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology
Date: 2002-05-29 13:03:03 PST
"Dr. Chung did make one strategic mistake in basing his two pounds on
the food weight rations of mountain climbers. The two pounds there is
concentrated and dehydrated. When properly hydrated before consumption
it ends up to be more like 5 or 6 pounds."

So his two-pound diet is "updated" to be more factual by the very people
who he says offer testimonials. So much for two pounds of food as a
rational benchmark.

> Myth#2:
>
> Low-carbing (with ketosis) is a way to lose weight that is proven to
> be safe.
> Reference:
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10388984&dopt=Abstract
> Comment:
> Hyperketonemia is probably a bad thing for anyone at risk for
> developing coronary disease. Oxidized lipids are the most
> atherogenic substances around.

"...probably a bad thing..."

You didn't even read it, did you? Says nothing about CHD. The name of
the study is:
"Effect of hyperketonemia on plasma lipid peroxidation levels in
diabetic patients."

The diabetic patients were type 1, people with juvenile onset diabetes.
Hyperketonemia is the result of severe insulin imbalance and
insufficiency. At least learn what you're ranting about if nothing else.
Ketosis doesn't equal hyperketonemia.

"OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to examine the effect of ketosis
on plasma lipid peroxidation levels in diabetic patients."

"CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated an association between
hyperketonemia and increased lipid peroxidation levels in diabetic
patients, which suggests that ketosis is a risk factor in the elevated
lipid peroxidation levels associated with diabetes. Further
investigation is needed to determine whether antioxidant supplementation
can be particularly beneficial in reducing lipid peroxidation and
complications in type 1 diabetic patients who frequently encounter
ketosis."

Let's define a few terms here"
Hyperketonemia - Condition characterized by an overproduction of ketones
by the body.
Ketones - Poisonous acidic chemicals produced by the body when fat
instead of glucose is burned for energy. Breakdown of fat occurs when
not enough insulin is present to channel glucose into body cells.
Insulin - A hormone secreted by the pancreas in response to high blood
sugar levels that induces hypoglycemia. Insulin regulates the body's use
of glucose and the levels of glucose in the blood by acting to open the
cells so that they can intake glucose.

Here, read:
<http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/diabetic_ketoacidosis.html>
to see how utterly irrelevant to LC this latest Mu/fishbone post is.

Three citations and three bombs. Good work, fishbone.

Tell us again what you do for a living? What you're good at? What you
know about?

Pastorio

jk

unread,
Jul 3, 2003, 9:25:36 PM7/3/03
to

Thanks Bob.... you did a great job!!


Bob Pastorio

unread,
Jul 3, 2003, 10:17:51 PM7/3/03
to
jk wrote:
>
> Thanks Bob.... you did a great job!!

Thank you for the kind words.

Pastorio

Dr. Jai Maharaj

unread,
Jul 3, 2003, 11:19:53 PM7/3/03
to
In article <h429gvgciqs6aqija...@4ax.com>,
Mu' <MuNot...@japan.com> <eatwellbuteatm...@usa.com> posted:
> [...]

MU ADMITS TO BEING CHANG'S WIFE

Copy of archived post:
[
[ From: "Mu" <"mu"@japan.com>
[ Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,sci.med
[ Subject: Re: ListServ at HeartMDPhD.com
[ Message-ID: <m7g6fvgt3cpolmdeg...@4ax.com>
[ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:15:09 -0400
[
[
[ On 19 Jun 2003 18:13:52 -0700, and...@heartmdphd.com
[ (Dr. Andrew B. Chung) wrote:
[
[ > Mu, you seem intent on starting the largest flame war
[ > in USENET history.
[ >
[ > You should probably run for cover.
[
[ You treat me like a wife.
[
[ Wait, I am your wife!
[
End of copy of post archived by Google at:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=m7g6fvgt3cpolmdeg88thfj3uastqluk7j%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

..

unread,
Jul 4, 2003, 9:45:20 AM7/4/03
to
"Bob Pastorio" <past...@rica.net> wrote [...]

> Three citations and three bombs. Good work, fishbone.
>
> Tell us again what you do for a living? What you're good at? What you
> know about?
>
> Pastorio


Excellent bit of research, Bob. Thanks for taking the time!


Phil Holman

unread,
Jul 5, 2003, 11:21:05 AM7/5/03
to
>
> This is from Chung, King of Two-pounders. He says: "Recently, airlines
> in the U.S. have widened the width of the seats on their planes to
> accommodate this trend of increasing obesity." And, well, it isn't
true.

Lets qualify this. The width of the seat is controlled by the width of
the airplane. Now it is possible to swap an economy class triple with a
business class double but this is something that is determined by flight
operations usually for economic considerations due to seasonal
fluctuations. Airlines normally adjust the seat pitch for leg room but
this again is done for customer perceived satisfaction and attempts to
capture the section of the traveling public who will pay a little more
for added comfort. I have not heard of this being done with regards to
width considerations but it is feasible with the reduced global traffic
and planes flying half empty.

> I note that on his home page he neglects to mention his dismissal for
> incompetent care from a hospital. But on that page, he talks about his
> favorite movies, his pets and long walks on the beach or whatever. I
got
> warm, fuzzy tingles.
>
> This comes from one of his "testimonials" -
> From: Jerome R. Long (jrl...@vt.edu)
> Subject: Dr. Chung and the 2 Pound Diet
> Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology
> Date: 2002-05-29 13:03:03 PST
> "Dr. Chung did make one strategic mistake in basing his two pounds on
> the food weight rations of mountain climbers. The two pounds there is
> concentrated and dehydrated. When properly hydrated before consumption
> it ends up to be more like 5 or 6 pounds."
>
> So his two-pound diet is "updated" to be more factual by the very
people
> who he says offer testimonials. So much for two pounds of food as a
> rational benchmark.

Nothing wrong with limiting ones intake to two pounds of food (1/2 of
the world would be pleased with the increase) and it kind of fits in
with the U = Q-W (thermo 1st law) philosophy.
As a first order effect it is a good rule of thumb. Get that one down
first and then worry about nutrients and vitamins and fluctuations for
additional physical activity.

(snip) the remaining over complication.

It is of questionable worth to be commenting on flora and forna when one
is upto their neck in an outhouse basement.
The US has a long way to go just to get the quantity under control. IMO
quality should be a lower priority and come later.

Phil Holman


Mu'

unread,
Jul 5, 2003, 12:35:16 PM7/5/03
to
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 15:21:05 GMT, "Phil Holman"
<phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:


>Nothing wrong with limiting ones intake to two pounds of food (1/2 of
>the world would be pleased with the increase)

And much of that half of the world lives in good health.

>and it kind of fits in
>with the U = Q-W (thermo 1st law) philosophy.
>As a first order effect it is a good rule of thumb. Get that one down
>first and then worry about nutrients and vitamins and fluctuations for
>additional physical activity.

Chung and I are not wholly in agreement here. He claims that the
weight loss/food volume issue must be tackled first, then
modifications to diet (like the removal of sat and trans fats, etc)
can be added later. I found it necessary to do all at the same time.
Prolly a personal decision but the overconsumption must stop either
way.

>It is of questionable worth to be commenting on flora and forna when one
>is upto their neck in an outhouse basement.

Excuse BOb. When the Chef gets outside the kitchen, all he can do is
wave his arms like an Italian octopus and scream like a banshee.

It's the best he can do, really.

>The US has a long way to go just to get the quantity under control. IMO
>quality should be a lower priority and come later.

Works for me.

Bob Pastorio

unread,
Jul 5, 2003, 4:27:03 PM7/5/03
to
Mu' wrote:
>
> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 15:21:05 GMT, "Phil Holman"
> <phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:

I notice you've neglected to deal with the phony facts of fishbone's
post and gone directly to endorsing his spurious thesis. I note you
endorse the first law of thermodynamics as the basis for a dietary
approach. Said so in
<http://www.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.med.cardiology+author:phil+author:holman&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=g7GLa.70851%24Io.6630878%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net&rnum=5&filter=0>

Sorry, Phil. Humans aren't bomb calorimeters. And, oh, doesn't this
sorta blow the two pound diet away? I mean how many calories are in two
pounds of food? Right.

> >Nothing wrong with limiting ones intake to two pounds of food (1/2 of
> >the world would be pleased with the increase)

Sorry. It's merely silly to make a blanket statement like this. Nothing
wrong? This observation is based on what? One-size-fits-all? Any special
kinds of food? No matter the activity level?

You posted in
<http://www.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.med.cardiology+author:phil+author:holman&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=JSJLa.71093%24Io.6659984%40newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net&rnum=2>
> (Weight-loss) Diet plans are attempts (honest or false) to find ways
> that people WILL reduce calories in compared to those expended
> and then balance the equation over the long haul.
> Credible data as to what works are scarce.

So there's nothing wrong but there's no data to support it. It's your
opinion.



> And much of that half of the world lives in good health.

And which half is that, fishbone? Maybe throw in some names and places
where people eat two pounds of food a day and are healthy. Um, it would
be good if it weren't just your opinion since you have virtually nom
credibility. Probably naming some tribe from the Amazon wouldn't make
your assertion look too good. Perhaps show any advanced country where
this is the case.

> >and it kind of fits in
> >with the U = Q-W (thermo 1st law) philosophy.

"Kind of..." Except you offer no definition of what the two pounds can
include. The caloric content can vary by orders of magnitude and all you
say here is that it's a good idea. Sorry. Thin.

> >As a first order effect it is a good rule of thumb. Get that one down
> >first and then worry about nutrients and vitamins and fluctuations for
> >additional physical activity.

Hold it. Stop. "As a first order effect, it's a good rule of thumb"...?
You've accepted the notion of two pounds of food being right for
everybody and now you're dismissing the content of the food? Don't worry
about nutrients, just weigh out two pounds and that'll be T-H-E
A-N-S-W-E-R?

Please.

> Chung and I are not wholly in agreement here. He claims that the
> weight loss/food volume issue must be tackled first, then
> modifications to diet (like the removal of sat and trans fats, etc)
> can be added later. I found it necessary to do all at the same time.
> Prolly a personal decision but the overconsumption must stop either
> way.

And his undocumented and unsupported "experience" should be taken
seriously when he routinely mocks anecdotal offerings from others?
Chung's web site has fewer "testimonials" than I have fingers and
several are rather weak, pointing out flaws in the idea. So this tiny
universe "studied" is the basis for a plan everyone should follow? Can
you really support something so scantily documented?

> >It is of questionable worth to be commenting on flora and forna when one
> >is upto their neck in an outhouse basement.

Non sequiturs at this IQ level really do brighten the day. It's like
bringing a knife to a gunfight. Fun to watch it all unfold. BTW, it's
"fauna."

It is even more questionable to endorse the nonsense of a two pound diet
with no further conditions. And the gigantic flaw that Chung missed
through ignorance and a superficial observation makes it even more
questionable; even up at laughable. He based his two-pound diet on what
mountaineers carry not knowing it was dehydrated and required another 4
or 5 pounds of water to make into consumable food. That alone blows his
thesis out of the water. And it makes your endorsement a bit suspect,
frankly.



> Excuse BOb. When the Chef gets outside the kitchen, all he can do is
> wave his arms like an Italian octopus and scream like a banshee.

Mu is merely a persistent troll who likes to offer invective instead of
information, pain instead of intelligence. The post to which I replied
and to which you knelt here was a demolition of his fraudulent efforts
to create discomfort in a low-carb dieting group. He offered three
studies that he misrepresented and likely didn't understand to support
spurious assertions. I note you didn't find anything to dispute in what
I said and merely offered agreement to his marvelously silly dietary
notion.

He crossposts because he can. Much like animals that lick their
genitalia.

> It's the best he can do, really.

Condescension from you is merely funny. You're such a lightweight that
I'm prescribing lead shoes to hold you down.



> >The US has a long way to go just to get the quantity under control. IMO
> >quality should be a lower priority and come later.
>
> Works for me.

Get a room, you two.

Oh, wait. Mu has said he's Chung's wife. No hanky-panky.

Perhaps you know... did he ever tell you why he called himself fishbone?
And in French, no less. What an international kinda guy, huh?

Pastorio

Phil Holman

unread,
Jul 5, 2003, 9:02:26 PM7/5/03
to

"Bob Pastorio" <past...@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3F073497...@rica.net...

> Mu' wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 15:21:05 GMT, "Phil Holman"
> > <phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:
>
> I notice you've neglected to deal with the phony facts of fishbone's
> post and gone directly to endorsing his spurious thesis. I note you
> endorse the first law of thermodynamics as the basis for a dietary
> approach. Said so in
>
<http://www.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.med.cardiology+author:phil+aut
hor:holman&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=g7GLa.70851%24Io.6630878%40newsread2.
prod.itd.earthlink.net&rnum=5&filter=0>
>
> Sorry, Phil. Humans aren't bomb calorimeters. And, oh, doesn't this
> sorta blow the two pound diet away? I mean how many calories are in
> two pounds of food? Right.

2lbs of canola oil = ~8000.
How stupid do you want me to get with this?

>
> > >Nothing wrong with limiting ones intake to two pounds of food (1/2
> > > of the world would be pleased with the increase)
>
> Sorry. It's merely silly to make a blanket statement like this.
> Nothing wrong? This observation is based on what? One-size-fits-all?
> Any special kinds of food? No matter the activity level?
>
> You posted in
>
<http://www.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.med.cardiology+author:phil+aut
hor:holman&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=JSJLa.71093%24Io.6659984%40newsread2.
prod.itd.earthlink.net&rnum=2>
> > (Weight-loss) Diet plans are attempts (honest or false) to find ways
> > that people WILL reduce calories in compared to those expended
> > and then balance the equation over the long haul.
> > Credible data as to what works are scarce.
>
> So there's nothing wrong but there's no data to support it. It's your
> opinion.

My opinion is based on a mountain of global empirical observation. Maybe
you could offer up a more inclusive example of where this is
invalidated.

>
> > And much of that half of the world lives in good health.
>
> And which half is that, fishbone? Maybe throw in some names and places

> where people eat two pounds of food a day and are healthy. Um, it
> would be good if it weren't just your opinion since you have virtually
nom
> credibility. Probably naming some tribe from the Amazon wouldn't make
> your assertion look too good. Perhaps show any advanced country where
> this is the case.

Europe. Is the concept of eating less food totally lost on you or is it
that you don't believe it's a good portion of the problem.

>
> > >and it kind of fits in
> > >with the U = Q-W (thermo 1st law) philosophy.
>
> "Kind of..." Except you offer no definition of what the two pounds can
> include. The caloric content can vary by orders of magnitude and all
>you say here is that it's a good idea. Sorry. Thin.

Eat exactly the same kind of food as today except less. One wonders
about the vested interest in something more complicated. Entrusting your
body weight to an over complicated diet plan is like boarding your dog
at a taxidermist. Sure, you'll get it back.

>
> > >As a first order effect it is a good rule of thumb. Get that one
> > > down first and then worry about nutrients and vitamins and
> > > fluctuations for additional physical activity.
>
> Hold it. Stop. "As a first order effect, it's a good rule of
> thumb"...? You've accepted the notion of two pounds of food being
right for
> everybody and now you're dismissing the content of the food? Don't
> worry about nutrients, just weigh out two pounds and that'll be T-H-E
> A-N-S-W-E-R?
>
> Please.

See previous response.

>
> > Chung and I are not wholly in agreement here. He claims that the
> > weight loss/food volume issue must be tackled first, then
> > modifications to diet (like the removal of sat and trans fats, etc)
> > can be added later. I found it necessary to do all at the same time.
> > Prolly a personal decision but the overconsumption must stop either
> > way.
>
> And his undocumented and unsupported "experience" should be taken
> seriously when he routinely mocks anecdotal offerings from others?
> Chung's web site has fewer "testimonials" than I have fingers and
> several are rather weak, pointing out flaws in the idea. So this tiny
> universe "studied" is the basis for a plan everyone should follow? Can
> you really support something so scantily documented?

Other than the US, is there a real global obesity problem or as much
infatuation with dieting.

>
> > > It is of questionable worth to be commenting on flora and forna
> > > when one is upto their neck in an outhouse basement.
>
> Non sequiturs at this IQ level really do brighten the day. It's like
> bringing a knife to a gunfight. Fun to watch it all unfold. BTW, it's
> "fauna."

You just miss the relevance.

>
> It is even more questionable to endorse the nonsense of a two pound
> diet with no further conditions. And the gigantic flaw that Chung
> missed through ignorance and a superficial observation makes it even
> more questionable; even up at laughable. He based his two-pound
> diet on what mountaineers carry not knowing it was dehydrated and
> required another 4 or 5 pounds of water to make into consumable
> food. That alone blows his thesis out of the water. And it makes your
> endorsement a bit suspect, frankly.

Good rhetoric, again you apply total stupidity to the scenario.

>
> > Excuse BOb. When the Chef gets outside the kitchen, all he can do is
> > wave his arms like an Italian octopus and scream like a banshee.
>
> Mu is merely a persistent troll who likes to offer invective instead
> of information, pain instead of intelligence. The post to which I
> replied and to which you knelt here was a demolition of his
> fraudulent efforts to create discomfort in a low-carb dieting group.
> He offered three studies that he misrepresented and likely didn't
> understand to support spurious assertions. I note you didn't find
> anything to dispute in what I said and merely offered agreement to
> his marvelously silly dietary notion.


Phil Holman


Bob Pastorio

unread,
Jul 5, 2003, 10:59:29 PM7/5/03
to
Phil Holman wrote:
>
> "Bob Pastorio" <past...@rica.net> wrote in message
> news:3F073497...@rica.net...
> > Mu' wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 15:21:05 GMT, "Phil Holman"
> > > <phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:
> >
> > I notice you've neglected to deal with the phony facts of fishbone's
> > post and gone directly to endorsing his spurious thesis. I note you
> > endorse the first law of thermodynamics as the basis for a dietary
> > approach. Said so in
> >
> <http://www.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.med.cardiology+author:phil+aut
> hor:holman&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=g7GLa.70851%24Io.6630878%40newsread2.
> prod.itd.earthlink.net&rnum=5&filter=0>
> >
> > Sorry, Phil. Humans aren't bomb calorimeters. And, oh, doesn't this
> > sorta blow the two pound diet away? I mean how many calories are in
> > two pounds of food? Right.
>
> 2lbs of canola oil = ~8000.
> How stupid do you want me to get with this?

This is quite stupid enough. The point, not all that subtle, is that two
pounds of food is a measure that doesn't measure anything coherent
beyond two pounds. The caloric content can run from none to 8000. So how
many should the "average" person consume? Any measuring or counting or
calculating necessary? So just weighing two pounds may not be enough
care in the diet?

> > > >Nothing wrong with limiting ones intake to two pounds of food (1/2
> > > > of the world would be pleased with the increase)
> >
> > Sorry. It's merely silly to make a blanket statement like this.
> > Nothing wrong? This observation is based on what? One-size-fits-all?
> > Any special kinds of food? No matter the activity level?
> >
> > You posted in
> >
> <http://www.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.med.cardiology+author:phil+aut
> hor:holman&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=JSJLa.71093%24Io.6659984%40newsread2.
> prod.itd.earthlink.net&rnum=2>
> > > (Weight-loss) Diet plans are attempts (honest or false) to find ways
> > > that people WILL reduce calories in compared to those expended
> > > and then balance the equation over the long haul.
> > > Credible data as to what works are scarce.
> >
> > So there's nothing wrong but there's no data to support it. It's your
> > opinion.
>
> My opinion is based on a mountain of global empirical observation.

Right. But I note you didn't actually include any "global empirical
observation." How big the "mountain" is would be good. And where it
comes from might be instructive. You say Europe later in this post, but
all that demonstrates is your unfamiliarity with Europe.

> Maybe
> you could offer up a more inclusive example of where this is
> invalidated.

Lessee how this works: You make a silly blanket statement, I say prove
it, and you say disprove it. That about it? *I'm* stupid?

> > > And much of that half of the world lives in good health.
> >
> > And which half is that, fishbone? Maybe throw in some names and places
>
> > where people eat two pounds of food a day and are healthy. Um, it
> > would be good if it weren't just your opinion since you have virtually
> nom
> > credibility. Probably naming some tribe from the Amazon wouldn't make
> > your assertion look too good. Perhaps show any advanced country where
> > this is the case.
>
> Europe. Is the concept of eating less food totally lost on you or is it
> that you don't believe it's a good portion of the problem.

Do you just not pay attention to what happens in the world? The
governments of England, Australia and Italy within the past month said
their citizens are too fat. At last count, England and Italy were in
Europe. Happens I've been in almost all the European countries. I missed
Andorra, Liechtenstein and a few of those other tiny principalities.
I've eaten in European homes and restaurants. The German burgher is the
archetype for the fat guy.

Places where people eat less than two pounds of food a day are not
places where health is fine. It's where the people don't have enough to
eat. Two pounds is 32 ounces. Assume three meals (not everywhere adheres
to that convention) and do the arithmetic. Less than eleven ounces of
food in each meal. Not including beverages. No other food permitted. And
if you like the odd snack, that has to come out of the eleven ounces for
some meal.

Not for an instant do I believe that you do this. Ride a bike
competitively and eat like this? Bullshit. A few years ago, I fed the
Tour DuPont riders when they came through Virginia. I was given
instructions that they needed 10,000 calories a day to endure the grind.
Not even two pounds of pure fat will give you that. Maybe gasoline.

Less food isn't the whole answer. What food is another part. There are
quite a few others.

> > > >and it kind of fits in
> > > >with the U = Q-W (thermo 1st law) philosophy.
> >
> > "Kind of..." Except you offer no definition of what the two pounds can
> > include. The caloric content can vary by orders of magnitude and all
> >you say here is that it's a good idea. Sorry. Thin.
>
> Eat exactly the same kind of food as today except less.

And it's just that simple? Amazing that the American Medical Association
hasn't propounded it, wouldn't you say. Or any scientific body. Or any
school of public health. Perhaps the reason they don't is because it's
an incomplete notion. No questions about nutritive content. No question
about the nature of the foods. No further thought necessary. Um, how
much less should we eat of what? How do we discover how much less and
where's the balance point? Do we have to be hungry all the time? Just
shut up and eat less?

> One wonders
> about the vested interest in something more complicated.

How about if the "vested interest" is in actually succeeding on dealing
with weight using something more definitive than *only* the weight of
that consumed. Just eat less, you say. Does that mean smaller portions
of everything I eat now? Should I try to cut down on my sat fat as
fishbone endlessly says? How do I know where it is? Should I try to get
a balance of nutrients? What is that balance? Who says so? How do they
arrive at those figures?

Did it just get complicated? Well, of course it did. It's a complex
subject.

> Entrusting your
> body weight to an over complicated diet plan is like boarding your dog
> at a taxidermist. Sure, you'll get it back.

Cute but as uninformative as the notion of eating two pounds of food -
and nothing else need be considered. Get this one at Non Sequiturs "R"
Us?

> > > >As a first order effect it is a good rule of thumb. Get that one
> > > > down first and then worry about nutrients and vitamins and
> > > > fluctuations for additional physical activity.
> >
> > Hold it. Stop. "As a first order effect, it's a good rule of
> > thumb"...? You've accepted the notion of two pounds of food being
> right for
> > everybody and now you're dismissing the content of the food? Don't
> > worry about nutrients, just weigh out two pounds and that'll be T-H-E
> > A-N-S-W-E-R?
> >
> > Please.
>
> See previous response.

The one that that says "Eat exactly the same kind of food as today
except less." Funny, I don't see any "worry about nutrients and vitamins
and fluctuations for additional physical activity." So it matters or it
doesn't? You seem inconsistent here, he said in a burst of irony.

> > > Chung and I are not wholly in agreement here. He claims that the
> > > weight loss/food volume issue must be tackled first, then
> > > modifications to diet (like the removal of sat and trans fats, etc)
> > > can be added later. I found it necessary to do all at the same time.
> > > Prolly a personal decision but the overconsumption must stop either
> > > way.
> >
> > And his undocumented and unsupported "experience" should be taken
> > seriously when he routinely mocks anecdotal offerings from others?
> > Chung's web site has fewer "testimonials" than I have fingers and
> > several are rather weak, pointing out flaws in the idea. So this tiny
> > universe "studied" is the basis for a plan everyone should follow? Can
> > you really support something so scantily documented?
>
> Other than the US, is there a real global obesity problem or as much
> infatuation with dieting.

Yes. There is a problem. It does happen in other parts of the globe, but
it isn't universal. But, yes, the problem is appearing in more places
daily. As I noted above.

> > > > It is of questionable worth to be commenting on flora and forna
> > > > when one is upto their neck in an outhouse basement.
> >
> > Non sequiturs at this IQ level really do brighten the day. It's like
> > bringing a knife to a gunfight. Fun to watch it all unfold. BTW, it's
> > "fauna."
>
> You just miss the relevance.

Right. you're still peddling that "it's very simple, just do this one
thing and it's THE ANSWER" and my adding other elements makes it
unnecessarily complicated. Very interesting that only you, the Chungster
and fishbone think so. Not a scientist in the bunch. Two amateurs and
one lousy observer. Grand. I'll trust my health to that group.

> > It is even more questionable to endorse the nonsense of a two pound
> > diet with no further conditions. And the gigantic flaw that Chung
> > missed through ignorance and a superficial observation makes it even
> > more questionable; even up at laughable. He based his two-pound
> > diet on what mountaineers carry not knowing it was dehydrated and
> > required another 4 or 5 pounds of water to make into consumable
> > food. That alone blows his thesis out of the water. And it makes your
> > endorsement a bit suspect, frankly.
>
> Good rhetoric, again you apply total stupidity to the scenario.

Nice try, Sparky. Chung was wrong, it was demonstrated, and you and he
remain proponents for a very silly idea. No rhetoric there. Facts.

And your endorsement remains suspect and grows moreso each time. Your
unquestioning acceptance of this nonsense about two pounds of food being
enough for everyone and anyone is as absurd as the original thesis.
Chung misunderstood what he saw. He hasn't seen fit to make any sort of
adjustment fro that original blunder to more realistic conditions. You
and he and the Mu fraud persist in promulgating a clearly preposterous
dietary approach in an effort to make human nutrition merely a matter of
poundage.

Pound this.

> > > Excuse BOb. When the Chef gets outside the kitchen, all he can do is
> > > wave his arms like an Italian octopus and scream like a banshee.
> >
> > Mu is merely a persistent troll who likes to offer invective instead
> > of information, pain instead of intelligence. The post to which I
> > replied and to which you knelt here was a demolition of his
> > fraudulent efforts to create discomfort in a low-carb dieting group.
> > He offered three studies that he misrepresented and likely didn't
> > understand to support spurious assertions. I note you didn't find
> > anything to dispute in what I said and merely offered agreement to
> > his marvelously silly dietary notion.

This paragraph stands. You did offer objection, but it was meritless.

And you and fishbone keep missing that one most salient point: I'm a
food professional and you two aren't. He even snidely compliments me on
my knowledge about food and cooking and the like. I know what people do
around the world because I study it. I have books from scores of nations
detailing their foods and their customs.

You?

Pastorio

Mu'

unread,
Jul 6, 2003, 12:08:30 PM7/6/03
to
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:02:26 GMT, "Phil Holman"
<phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:

>2lbs of canola oil = ~8000.

>How stupid do you want me to get with this, Pastorio?

Phil, remember, Pastorio is a chef out of a kitchen. He believes that
since he can boil water and make al dente that he is THE sage on diet
in the newsgroups he trolls.

You're gong to have to get down and dirty, eight grade level, for him
to comprehend.

I tried. I no longer care to educate the witless.

Your turn.

>Europe. Is the concept of eating less food totally lost on you Pastorio or is it


>that you don't believe it's a good portion of the problem.

The vast majority of the people who frequent these newsgroups are in
blanket denial when it comes to their overconsumption. They blame it
on "tricky carbs" or foods that, somehow, mysteriously and
persuasively, force then to pick up food and do endless elbow flexions
until they are "satiated".

Problem is, they fear and run from hunger as if it was a deadly and
unbearable force. Ask them if it is okay to be hungry and what you get
is a resounding "No".

The other problem is more deeply rooted. since they refuse to weigh
their food, most have no clue how much they are eating. Sure, a few
count calories or carb or some such index that is full of erroneous
computations.

KNow how much they really eat? Not a chance.

Simply, most of these folks want to figure out a way to remain
gluttonous, retain their overeating extravagance, and weigh 110.

So they turn to commercial diets that are known to fail them
miserably, like lemmings, they know that the road will run to failure
but onward they march, all the while screaming at the top of their
lemming lungs that all is well and go to hell.

>Eat exactly the same kind of food as today except less. One wonders
>about the vested interest in something more complicated.

Chung's "vested interest" is zip. He gives freely of his advice and
his time.

I asked Chung why he did not write a book about the 2PD and he said,
"There is not enough to write about and its already freely distributed
in the public domain."

> Entrusting your
>body weight to an over complicated diet plan is like boarding your dog
>at a taxidermist. Sure, you'll get it back.

Probably "fatter" too.

Phil Holman

unread,
Jul 6, 2003, 12:33:01 PM7/6/03
to

"Mu'" <MuNot...@japan.com> wrote in message
news:ghhggvsr4ih3jtce7...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 01:02:26 GMT, "Phil Holman"
> <phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:
>
> >2lbs of canola oil = ~8000.
> >How stupid do you want me to get with this, Pastorio?
>
> Phil, remember, Pastorio is a chef out of a kitchen. He believes that
> since he can boil water and make al dente that he is THE sage on diet
> in the newsgroups he trolls.
>
> You're gong to have to get down and dirty, eight grade level, for him
> to comprehend.
>
> I tried. I no longer care to educate the witless.
>
> Your turn.

You can't educate pork.

>
> >Europe. Is the concept of eating less food totally lost on you
Pastorio or is it
> >that you don't believe it's a good portion of the problem.
>
> The vast majority of the people who frequent these newsgroups are in
> blanket denial when it comes to their overconsumption. They blame it
> on "tricky carbs" or foods that, somehow, mysteriously and
> persuasively, force then to pick up food and do endless elbow flexions
> until they are "satiated".
>
> Problem is, they fear and run from hunger as if it was a deadly and
> unbearable force. Ask them if it is okay to be hungry and what you get
> is a resounding "No".
>
> The other problem is more deeply rooted. since they refuse to weigh
> their food, most have no clue how much they are eating. Sure, a few
> count calories or carb or some such index that is full of erroneous
> computations.
>
> KNow how much they really eat? Not a chance.
>
> Simply, most of these folks want to figure out a way to remain
> gluttonous, retain their overeating extravagance, and weigh 110.

The laws of physics say you can't do that. No one has ever demonstrated
a non compliance to the law of conservation of energy. Sorry, no thinner
thighs in 30 days.

>
> So they turn to commercial diets that are known to fail them
> miserably, like lemmings, they know that the road will run to failure
> but onward they march, all the while screaming at the top of their
> lemming lungs that all is well and go to hell.
>
> >Eat exactly the same kind of food as today except less. One wonders
> >about the vested interest in something more complicated.
>
> Chung's "vested interest" is zip. He gives freely of his advice and
> his time.

There is no vested interest in a simple statement that says balance you
calorie checkbook every day. Common sense is free.

>
> I asked Chung why he did not write a book about the 2PD and he said,
> "There is not enough to write about and its already freely distributed
> in the public domain."
>
> > Entrusting your
> >body weight to an over complicated diet plan is like boarding your
dog
> >at a taxidermist. Sure, you'll get it back.
>
> Probably "fatter" too.

Yes it'll be stuffed, metaphorically and literally.

Thanks for the level set.

Phil Holman

Phil Holman

unread,
Jul 6, 2003, 12:40:53 PM7/6/03
to

> > 2lbs of canola oil = ~8000.
> > How stupid do you want me to get with this?
>
> This is quite stupid enough. The point, not all that subtle, is that
> two pounds of food is a measure that doesn't measure anything
> coherent beyond two pounds. The caloric content can run from
> none to 8000. So how many should the "average" person
> consume? Any measuring or counting or calculating necessary?
> So just weighing two pounds may not be enough care in the diet?

This is a diet we are talking about right, for someone who needs to lose
weight. The basic message is to eat less than the energy expended. Yes
this is very simplistic but being obese embodies the very simplistic
state of being unhealthy.
There is a pattern here. You continually attribute an argument to an
opponent that does not represent the opponent's true position. I.e. the
one that suggests there is no concern for a healthy diet.

> > My opinion is based on a mountain of global empirical observation.
>
> Right. But I note you didn't actually include any "global empirical
> observation." How big the "mountain" is would be good. And where it
> comes from might be instructive. You say Europe later in this post,
> but all that demonstrates is your unfamiliarity with Europe.

http://www.wheatfoods.org/nut_info/stackup.html

> Do you just not pay attention to what happens in the world? The
> governments of England, Australia and Italy within the past month said
> their citizens are too fat.

Compared to what. US citizens, I think not. Do you understand the
concept of relativity.

> At last count, England and Italy were in
> Europe. Happens I've been in almost all the European countries. I
> missed Andorra, Liechtenstein and a few of those other tiny
principalities.
> I've eaten in European homes and restaurants. The German burgher is
> the archetype for the fat guy.

So how many 300lb people did you see compared to the US. I lived in
the UK for 30 years and didn't see as many compared to the US.
I've also visited France, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Ireland, Holland
and Japan............ditto.

> Places where people eat less than two pounds of food a day are not
> places where health is fine.

The places where they eat more than 2lbs are not fine and dandy either.

> It's where the people don't have enough
> to eat. Two pounds is 32 ounces. Assume three meals (not everywhere
> adheres to that convention) and do the arithmetic. Less than eleven
> ounces of food in each meal. Not including beverages. No other food
> permitted. And if you like the odd snack, that has to come out of the
> eleven ounces for some meal.

"And if you like the odd snack"........the emperor has no clothes. You
don't get it.
With your philosophy, I would be surprized if you didn't have a weight
problem

>
> Not for an instant do I believe that you do this. Ride a bike
> competitively and eat like this?

No but I'm not 300lbs either.

> Bullshit. A few years ago, I fed the
> Tour DuPont riders when they came through Virginia. I was given
> instructions that they needed 10,000 calories a day to endure the
grind.
> Not even two pounds of pure fat will give you that. Maybe gasoline.

You picked a group of people who know exactly how U=Q-W works. 2000 +
1000/hr is a rough guide for training and racing per day. A little less
for
reducing.

>
> Less food isn't the whole answer. What food is another part. There are
> quite a few others.

What I said was. "Get that one down first (less food) and then worry


about nutrients and vitamins and fluctuations for additional physical

activity". Does that sound like less food is the whole answer. The only
statistics I'm aware of for malnutrition in the US is for AN.

>
> > One wonders
> > about the vested interest in something more complicated.
>
> How about if the "vested interest" is in actually succeeding on
> dealing with weight using something more definitive than *only* the
> weight of that consumed. Just eat less, you say. Does that mean
> smaller portions of everything I eat now? Should I try to cut down
> on my sat fat as fishbone endlessly says? How do I know where it is?
> Should I try to get a balance of nutrients? What is that balance?
> Who says so? How do they arrive at those figures?
>
> Did it just get complicated? Well, of course it did. It's a complex
> subject.
>
> > Entrusting your
> > body weight to an over complicated diet plan is like boarding your
> > dog at a taxidermist. Sure, you'll get it back.
>
> Cute but as uninformative as the notion of eating two pounds of food -
> and nothing else need be considered. Get this one at Non Sequiturs "R"
> Us?

Merely entertainment value. How about this. The Titanic is sinking but
instead of going below to plug the hole, Bob is seen up on deck
polishing the hand rails ........and the band played on.

> >
> > Good rhetoric, again you apply total stupidity to the scenario.
>
> Nice try, Sparky. Chung was wrong, it was demonstrated, and you and he
> remain proponents for a very silly idea. No rhetoric there. Facts.

Stupid because I'm sure the intent of the 2lb diet was for consumable
food. Trivial nitpicking is pathetic.

>
> Pound this.

Answer this. Is it possible to provide a balanced nutritional diet
weighing 2 lbs for the majority of our sedentary population?

> And you and fishbone keep missing that one most salient point: I'm a
> food professional and you two aren't.

"food professional" you're part of the problem and I can see why.


> He even snidely compliments me on my knowledge about food and
> cooking and the like. I know what people
> do around the world because I study it. I have books from scores of
> nations detailing their foods and their customs.

> You?

My comparison is based on living 30 years in the UK and 22 years in the
US. The US diet has wider selection and if done wisely is healthier. The
down side is this requires greater self control. I was in London,
Manchester and Cardiff as recently as 2000 and observed that the
population was still relatively leaner.

Phil Holman

*Mu*

unread,
Jul 6, 2003, 2:57:02 PM7/6/03
to
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:40:53 GMT, "Phil Holman"
<phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:

>This is a diet we are talking about right, for someone who needs to lose

>weight. The basic message is to eat less than the energy expended, Pastorio.
> Yes
>this is very simplistic, the 2PDiet, but being obese embodies the very simplistic
>state of being unhealthy.

Simplistic is both the beauty and the need.

>There is a pattern here, Pastorio. You continually attribute an argument to an


>opponent that does not represent the opponent's true position. I.e. the
>one that suggests there is no concern for a healthy diet.

We hear this all the time. "You mean I can eat two pounds of chocolate
every day for the rest of my life"?

That's all that is left. Rather moronic arguments that have no basis
in reality.

The reality is that the 2PD works; the reality further is that it
requires discipline, not tricks with carbs or fats or any other such
nonsense.


>So how many 300lb people did you see compared to the US. I lived in
>the UK for 30 years and didn't see as many compared to the US.
>I've also visited France, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Ireland, Holland
>and Japan............ditto.

This is not even a close call. The USA is by far the most obese nation
on the planet.


>> Less food isn't the whole answer. What food is another part. There are
>> quite a few others.
>
>What I said was. "Get that one down first (less food) and then worry
>about nutrients and vitamins and fluctuations for additional physical
>activity". Does that sound like less food is the whole answer. The only
>statistics I'm aware of for malnutrition in the US is for AN.

No less food is not the whole answer and no on, including Chung, ever
said it was. But less food is the FIRST and most important answer;
education and food consumption alternatives can come while and after
the weight loss.


>Stupid because I'm sure the intent of the 2lb diet was for consumable
>food. Trivial nitpicking is pathetic.

What else is there for the likes of Pastorio et al but trivial
nitpicking? It's all they have. the 2PD works, it is simple and it
doesn't need a damn newsgroup to try to figure it out either.

>Answer this. Is it possible to provide a balanced nutritional diet
>weighing 2 lbs for the majority of our sedentary population?

Most certainly and I have many clients and patients that are doing ab
fab on the diet.

So does Chung.

>> And you and fishbone keep missing that one most salient point: I'm a
>> food professional and you two aren't.
>
>"food professional" you're part of the problem and I can see why.

Food professionals should stay in their domain. The kitchen. Training,
cardiologists and nutrition specialists are needed, better yet
scientists and those are the folks that I seek out and listen to.

>My comparison is based on living 30 years in the UK and 22 years in the
>US. The US diet has wider selection and if done wisely is healthier. The
>down side is this requires greater self control.

Yes it does.

Or a different view on food altogether.

*Mu*

unread,
Jul 6, 2003, 3:02:56 PM7/6/03
to
Pastorio blathered while his butt is falling out of his britches:

>>Places where people eat less than two pounds of food a day are not
>>places where health is fine. It's where the people don't have enough to
>>eat.

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:20:53 +0000 (UTC), c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:


>Rubbish. Although most of the folk I know eat more than 2lbs of food a
>day, if I strike out the overweight ones, I end up with a list of folk
>most of whom eat around 2lbs a day, like me, and are healthy and fit
>on it.

I have so many converts, from the intensely exercising athletic world,
that I no longer need convincing. MOF, I go one better; I convinced
myself by actually trying it myself.

Has Pastorio tried the 2PDiet? No. So forget him.

>You're having reading comprehension problems again, Pastorio. The two pound diet
>is meant for car driving desk workers, not competitive athletes.

See above.

>>> Other than the US, is there a real global obesity problem or as much

>>I know what people do


>>around the world because I study it. I have books from scores of nations
>>detailing their foods and their customs.
>

>It's obvious you haven't travelled to these places, Patorio. The most common
>two observations of a European visiting the US for the first time is
>gagging at the size of food helpings in restaurants, cafes, etc., and
>being startled by the number of folk who are large enough that it's
>not clear whether you could put your arms round them and get your
>hands to meet on the other side.

No, he hasn't left the kitchen. Even his computer is just left of the
dried tomatoes.

Bob M

unread,
Jul 6, 2003, 3:02:21 PM7/6/03
to
Please, Mu, stop changing your email address! I can't stand your drivel,
but you change your email address so much that I can't keep up with my
killfile.

--
Bob M in CT remove 'x.' to reply

*Mu*

unread,
Jul 6, 2003, 3:08:54 PM7/6/03
to

>> Phil, remember, Pastorio is a chef out of a kitchen. He believes that
>> since he can boil water and make al dente that he is THE sage on diet
>> in the newsgroups he trolls.
>>
>> You're gong to have to get down and dirty, eight grade level, for him
>> to comprehend.
>>
>> I tried. I no longer care to educate the witless.
>>
>> Your turn.

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:33:01 GMT, "Phil Holman"
<phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:


>You can't educate pork.

lol


>> Simply, most of these folks want to figure out a way to remain
>> gluttonous, retain their overeating extravagance, and weigh 110.

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:33:01 GMT, "Phil Holman"
<phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:


>The laws of physics say you can't do that. No one has ever demonstrated
>a non compliance to the law of conservation of energy. Sorry, no thinner
>thighs in 30 days.

Nope, ain't gonna happen but the immense amount of effort, time and
money spent by members of these newsgroups trying to avoid the truth
is an amazing thing.

>> Chung's "vested interest" is zip. He gives freely of his advice and
>> his time.

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:33:01 GMT, "Phil Holman"
<phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:


>There is no vested interest in a simple statement that says balance you
>calorie checkbook every day. Common sense is free.

Common sense is in short supply when it comes to dieting, I'm afraid.
Too much denial, too much wanting things to stay the same and have
weight loss happen as if by magic.

Simply put, way too much ado about nothing. Way too much emotion and
territory defending.

and why is this? why is it that somewhat educated people can run so
swiftly and quickly from the truth of their overconsumption.

Avoidance is one way to deal with your gluttony.

>Thanks for the level set.

Good luck.

*Mu*

unread,
Jul 6, 2003, 3:13:36 PM7/6/03
to
On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 16:51:39 +0000 (UTC), c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:

>I've noticed that on that diet my weight stays pretty constant. If I
>shift up to 3 meals a day, prob 2.5 lbs a day, I start gaining
>weight. I lose weight either by shifting down to only one meal a day
>of about 1lb, plus snacks of less than 1lb, or increasing exercise.

I can't realistically exercise any more than I do. I have to get my
weight maintenance from curbing overconsumption.

At first glance, this may seem a monstrous task. One of the benefits
of the 2PDiet is that the slowing down, incrementally, of one's
overconsumption is a physiological, emotional and psychological
teaching tool. A little less each week, a little adjustment each
phase.

>I've never tried to use the the 2lb diet idea, it's just my
>observation that it happens to fit my own natural eating pattern, and
>that when I eat more than that I slowly but surely gain weight.

Call it whatever you wish. It's about developing a more disciplined
approach to eating, one that makes you accountable since it will work.

The Queen of Cans and Jars

unread,
Jul 6, 2003, 3:51:54 PM7/6/03
to
Bob M <ctvi...@x.rcn.com> wrote:

> Please, Mu, stop changing your email address! I can't stand your drivel,
> but you change your email address so much that I can't keep up with my
> killfile.

get a better killfile. one that relies only on the sender's address is
pretty poor.

http://www.nfilter.org

Bob Pastorio

unread,
Jul 6, 2003, 5:11:34 PM7/6/03
to
Phil Holman wrote:

> > The point, not all that subtle, is that
> > two pounds of food is a measure that doesn't measure anything
> > coherent beyond two pounds. The caloric content can run from
> > none to 8000. So how many should the "average" person
> > consume? Any measuring or counting or calculating necessary?
> > So just weighing two pounds may not be enough care in the diet?
>
> This is a diet we are talking about right, for someone who needs to lose
> weight. The basic message is to eat less than the energy expended. Yes
> this is very simplistic but being obese embodies the very simplistic
> state of being unhealthy.

Phil, my point, again, is that it's *too* simple to use a single
criterion with such vastly variable content. I can see the general
principle of limiting dietary intake to lose weight. But not as a
general principle, for everybody, all the time, which is what the
feckless Mu and careless Chung preach.

Besides, what you're really talking about is counting calories. That
makes sense because it's the final arbiter in the context of losing
weight.

Talking about weight as the criterion makes as much sense as talking
about volume. The "One Liter" diet. Only eat one liter of food a day.

> There is a pattern here. You continually attribute an argument to an
> opponent that does not represent the opponent's true position. I.e. the
> one that suggests there is no concern for a healthy diet.

Perhaps I've overstated it. You say that the first concern is for two
pounds and the other stuff can come along later. But suddenly, the
number of dimensions in this matrix becomes larger. So we need to
consider nutrients. And caloric content. We need to consider ingredients
to maintain health, as in sat fats, etc. Suddenly, the two pound limit
becomes, at best, a mushy guideline. If all the other numbers fall into
place, the weight of the food is irrelevant. Eat 5 pounds if it's still
below the caloric threshold and is nutritively sound. Or eat one pound
if it works for you. What's the difference? How does the weight matter?



> > > My opinion is based on a mountain of global empirical observation.
>

> http://www.wheatfoods.org/nut_info/stackup.html

I looked at the site and I'm a bit disappointed in it. Her agenda is to
promote grain consumption using some rather bad postulates. She accepts
the American food pyramid as good nutritional advice. She asserts that
it's the grain consumption as measured against fats that is the reason
for her notions of better health in different places. She admits no
other variables. She promotes a low-fat, high-carb diet and I have to
contrast that assertion with Dr. Walter Willet's view that there's no
demonstrated need in human nutrition for carbs. Both are extreme, but
he's chair of the public Health school at Harvard, and his notions
reflect a rather more modern view closer to the research being reported.
She's a bit too selective in her statistics, too.

She says things like this:
"How does this higher bread intake affect the health of Europeans?
Because bread and other grain foods are rich in complex carbohydrates,
one apparent outcome is that Europeans consume a higher-carbohydrate
diet than their American counterparts. This high-carbohydrate intake may
contribute to Europeans' lower obesity, coronary heart and other disease
rates."

She omits the large amount of sugars and other trash carbs in the
American diet. She only counts the grain carbs. There are carbs and
there are carbs. Like fats. Bad science. Bad reportage.

> > Places where people eat less than two pounds of food a day are not
> > places where health is fine.
>
> The places where they eat more than 2lbs are not fine and dandy either.

Agreed. Have we maybe transcended the origins of the discussion here?
And maybe gotten to the real subject of all of it. People with bounty
use it carelessly and people with little do what they can. This could
get into politics very simply from this point.

> > It's where the people don't have enough
> > to eat. Two pounds is 32 ounces. Assume three meals (not everywhere
> > adheres to that convention) and do the arithmetic. Less than eleven
> > ounces of food in each meal. Not including beverages. No other food
> > permitted. And if you like the odd snack, that has to come out of the
> > eleven ounces for some meal.
>
> "And if you like the odd snack"........the emperor has no clothes. You
> don't get it.
> With your philosophy, I would be surprized if you didn't have a weight
> problem

Phil, I was dealing with the rigidity of the two pound limit. And please
don't tell me you eat only at meals and never anything between. Don't
make "an odd snack" into a deluge of salty crunchies and sugary ice
cream because that's not what I meant. I was only saying that the sizes
of the meals are small for most adults and if they must, further,
subtract anything else consumed from them, they become small to the
point of not satiating.

> I'm sure the intent of the 2lb diet was for consumable
> food. Trivial nitpicking is pathetic.

Come on, Phil. The story about how he came to it has been told again and
again. Mountaineers carried about two pounds of food to go climb
mountains, by his calculations. Freeze dried food. I'm equally sure he
meant consumable food, but he didn't know what he was looking at. The
real-world weight of the food was triple what he suggests. And that's
for mountain climbers about to go up a mountain. Makes as much sense as
telling bike riders to only eat two pounds or four pounds or any other
weight of food rather than how many calories they need. Or trying to
apply the activities of participants in a very specific and demanding
activity to everyone. Chung doesn't limit it to people wishing to lose
weight, he says it's for everyone all the time.

> Answer this. Is it possible to provide a balanced nutritional diet
> weighing 2 lbs for the majority of our sedentary population?

I'd say it would be possible. With good analyses of the balance of
nutrients and caloric content. Yes. But I also say that if you're doing
all that calculating anyway, why even bother to include the weights of
the foods as a restricting characteristic? It's a complicating factor
with no direct bearing on efficacy. It won't be more effective if the
1500 calories are in food that weighs 1.5 pounds as opposed the same
number of calories in 2.5 pounds of food.

> My comparison is based on living 30 years in the UK and 22 years in the
> US. The US diet has wider selection and if done wisely is healthier. The
> down side is this requires greater self control.

Agreed. With the addition that it also requires good information. The
food pyramid has been disastrous in effects and results.

Another factor that's becoming more global: Lamentably, the evolution of
the US culture has fostered a bizarre fear of food while simultaneously
encouraging gorging on it. As though somehow, a trip to the Dairy Queen
for a super-slurper is outside consideration of the diet. As though we
can make parentheses in life and do things we know better than to do
without consequence. The next logical, even more bizarre, step is in the
direction of suing the people who give us what we want for our being
fat.

> I was in London,
> Manchester and Cardiff as recently as 2000 and observed that the
> population was still relatively leaner.

It's that relative thing, Phil. I agree that the rest of the world's
folks aren't as fat as Americans. But I can't see Chung's notion and
fishbone's verbal adaptation of it as a workable solution to any of the
problems. The American culture isn't one where meals are done mostly in
the home. Go out to eat and, what, don't finish your meal because it
weighs too much? Carry a scale and put your poached fish on it to see?
It's very much easier to count calories. Easier to do WeightWatchers.
Easier to reduce carbs. Easier to do more exercise.

Two pounds of food per day may well work for some people and more power
to them. But it doesn't work for most. Restaurant portions in the
Americas and other countries, European and Asian, will be too large for
this approach. These are measures that prevail around the world. A
standard potato weighs right up at eight ounces. An eating apple will
weigh upwards of 5 ounces. A small banana weighs 4 ounces or more. A cup
(US measure - about 250 ml) of cooked beans will weigh about 7 ounces. A
piece of beef the size of a deck of cards weighs about 3 ounces - rather
small for most tastes. A moderate-sized Bacon, lettuce and tomato
sandwich weighs about 6 ounces. Bagel? 3 to 5 ounces. A medium-sized
cucumber runs 10-12 ounces. A cup of pasta (a very scant portion if an
entree item) is about 6 ounces. A reasonable portion of lasagna begins
at about 8 ounces. A half bone-in chicken breast weighs about 4 ounces
and slightly less for a bone-in thigh of which, for both, about 3 ounces
is meat. A chicken quarter generally offers about 8 ounces meat. A piece
of cheese the size of a deck of cards will weigh roughly 4 ounces. A
bowl of oatmeal, about a cup, goes up from 8 ounces.

A smallish steak, a cup of broccoli and a medium potato will be about a
pound of food. Add a small roll and a small salad, and we're up at more
than 20 ounces. I don't think that most adults would see that as
anything extravagant. Make it a chicken breast and reduce the total
weight by an ounce or two. Still...

Two pounds of food can be worked from this list to be nutritively
balanced. Will it be interesting to do for a long haul? Will it be
satisfying? Will it be something that people can adhere to? I don't
think so. Others seem to.

YMMV.

Pastorio

Bob Pastorio

unread,
Jul 6, 2003, 5:28:28 PM7/6/03
to
Chris Malcolm wrote:

>
> Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> writes:
>
> >The point, not all that subtle, is that two
> >pounds of food is a measure that doesn't measure anything coherent
> >beyond two pounds. The caloric content can run from none to 8000. So how
> >many should the "average" person consume? Any measuring or counting or
> >calculating necessary? So just weighing two pounds may not be enough
> >care in the diet?
>
> This is an empirical question, the answer to which depends on the
> general average mix of foods in the average diet, and how sensitive
> this is the average amount of variation between food components of
> different caloric density.

Wonderful. <clap, clap> You've managed to pack the least idea into the
most words. Amazing.

> Chung has answered this question
> empirically, as have a number of newsgroup osters over the years. The
> objections have almost entirely come from folk like you, who have no
> empirical data at all, but spend time specualting on all the kinds of
> ways in which this idea wouldn't work. All of these ideas are quite
> correct, but what matters is the statistical distributions in diets
> and the sensitivity of the 2lb diet notion to these variations. That
> is an empirical question.

This is twaddle.

The question still remains. I haven't said it won't work. It may just
work fine if all the variables are dealt with - like nutritive content,
caloric content and the like. I've said it a silly index for diet
because weight has no correlation with efficacy. Two pounds of food has
no correlation with what's in it. It's the caloric content and the
balance of nutrients that matter. The volume, weight, color, shape and
temperature are incidentals to contemplate, not worry about or use as
deciding criteria. Might as well worry about the dishes the food is
served on.

> I know plenty of folk who have a light breakfast, e.g. a boiled egg
> and bit of toast,

Boiled egg=2 ounces
Bit of toast (two slices)=2.5 to 3 ounces
Large sandwich=6 to 10 ounces

> a lunch of something like a large sandwich, coming
> out at something like half a pound total,

Good luck getting that to come out to 8 ounces. Looks more like 10.5 to
15 ounces.

> then an evening meal of
> something like 1.5lbs, all of which comes out to about 2lbs a day.

All of which comes out to a minimum of 24+10.5 or 34.5 ounces - 2 pounds
and a couple ounces. Or up to 24+15 or 39 ounces or almost 2.5 pounds.
And this assumes they never have a chocolate or a banana or a piece of
their birthday cake.

> >Yes. There is a problem. It does happen in other parts of the globe, but
> >it isn't universal. But, yes, the problem is appearing in more places
> >daily. As I noted above.
>

> It is appearing in other places as they move towards modern American
> habits of life (very little physical exercise in the everyday life
> because of the car) and habits of eating (food that is fast to
> prepare, calorie dense, and fast to eat, so that it is as easy as
> possible to overeat).

Unfortunately, yes.

> >I know what people do
> >around the world because I study it. I have books from scores of nations
> >detailing their foods and their customs.
>

> It's obvious you haven't travelled to these places.

Right. I've lived on three continents and visited literally, scores of
countries.

> The most common
> two observations of a European visiting the US for the first time is
> gagging at the size of food helpings in restaurants, cafes, etc., and
> being startled by the number of folk who are large enough that it's
> not clear whether you could put your arms round them and get your
> hands to meet on the other side.

Yes. And you think that two pounds of food per day per person is a wise
way to live? Practical? Rational?

Pastorio

Bob Pastorio

unread,
Jul 6, 2003, 5:33:35 PM7/6/03
to
Mu' wrote:
>
> since they refuse to weigh
> their food, most have no clue how much they are eating. Sure, a few
> count calories or carb or some such index that is full of erroneous
> computations.

So weight gives you an exact number. And when you've weighed your food,
you know how much it weighs. Nothing else. Not caloric content. Not
nutritive balance. Nothing else. But you know how much it weighs.

Erroneous computations... My, aren't you the little scientist.

Hey, fishbone, listen, my tomatoes aren't looking good. They need
fertilizer.

Mind if I dip out some of that shit in your head to spread around them?

Good lad.

Pastorio

Bob Pastorio

unread,
Jul 6, 2003, 5:42:21 PM7/6/03
to
Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
> Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> writes:
>
> >And which half is that, fishbone? Maybe throw in some names and places
> >where people eat two pounds of food a day and are healthy.
>
> I estimate that for most of my not untypical North European life I've
> eaten on average about 2lbs a day of food.

So when I visit Scotland, the astonishing breakfasts are just for the
tourists? The banoffee pies? The afternoon teas with pastries and fruit?
The pub life?

Can't extrapolate from the particular to the universal. Logic 101.

> My docs consider me
> unusually fit for my age (60). For example, my evening meal frequently
> consists of a nearly exactly 1lb weight dinner, pre-cooked in a
> supermarket pack, no extras, no extra water, no extra courses. The
> rest of my meals usually consist of one other meal about half a pound
> plus some snacking on fruit or sandwich about half a pound.

Might be interesting if, instead of estimating, you actually weighed
your daily intake. Everything eaten over 24 hours. Might be better to do
it over a few months.

I find that even foodservice professionals who deal with measured
portions every day don't estimate weight very well. I'm not saying you
aren't telling the truth, I'm saying I don't trust estimates, including
my own.



> I've noticed that on that diet my weight stays pretty constant. If I
> shift up to 3 meals a day, prob 2.5 lbs a day, I start gaining
> weight. I lose weight either by shifting down to only one meal a day
> of about 1lb, plus snacks of less than 1lb, or increasing exercise.
>

> I've never tried to use the the 2lb diet idea, it's just my
> observation that it happens to fit my own natural eating pattern, and
> that when I eat more than that I slowly but surely gain weight.

Your natural eating pattern works for you. Others have other patterns.
Forcing them makes for hard times.

Pastorio

Tom

unread,
Jul 6, 2003, 6:00:54 PM7/6/03
to
Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> wrote in message > Three citations and three bombs. Good work, fishbone.
>
> Tell us again what you do for a living? What you're good at? What you
> know about?
>
> Pastorio

Touche, Bob, Touche!
;>)
Tom

Bob Pastorio

unread,
Jul 6, 2003, 6:57:22 PM7/6/03
to
*Mu* wrote:
>
> Pastorio blathered while his butt is falling out of his britches:
>

I just love it when you display your entire IQ in a simple but
grammatically absurd sentence. Have a 5th grader explain to you about
verb tenses, ignoramus.

It's a pure delight watching you pee in your own shoes. I love watching
you do your twists and turns to try to keep ascendant. Struggling so
hard to win a prize. To be the emperor.

The emperor of ice cream...

Sad, sad little man.

Cyber narcissist with no future; only a shabby now.

Fight on, fishbone. I'm sure somebody besides your sock puppets will
listen to you.

Pastorio

Bob Pastorio

unread,
Jul 6, 2003, 7:14:27 PM7/6/03
to
*Mu* wrote:
>
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:40:53 GMT, "Phil Holman"
> <phi...@earthlink.not> wrote:

> >Answer this. Is it possible to provide a balanced nutritional diet
> >weighing 2 lbs for the majority of our sedentary population?
>
> Most certainly and I have many clients and patients that are doing ab
> fab on the diet.
>
> So does Chung.

Funny thing about proof. Um, lack of proof. Any sort of science. Any
sort of endorsement from anybody but the Fraudulent Mu-ster and
Competency-challenged Chung. No system. No regimen. No details. No
results available. Yawwwwwwnnnnnn.

But what can we expect from a guy who claims to train the military, has
clients and patients (never heard any other professional anybody use
those distinctly), isn't a trainer but evaluates them every day and on
and on with braggadocio in living color...

I bet you discovered other planets, too, fishbone. Maybe Uranus, huh?

Pastorio

Bob Pastorio

unread,
Jul 6, 2003, 7:21:17 PM7/6/03
to
*Mu* wrote:
>
> Call it whatever you wish. It's about developing a more disciplined
> approach to eating, one that makes you accountable since it will work.

As though counting calories won't work. Silly, silly little man.

Weigh your food.

How much does a handful of raisins weigh, Fishbone? Anybody...?

>Waves hand frantically> Oh. Me, let me answer the question> Pick Me...

<whew> Thanks for picking me. The answer is: Who cares. It's only the
calories that matter, right? And don't forget the nutrients. How much do
the nutrients weigh?

I liked you better when you were Roose. Mostly because you went away for
a while.

Pastorio

Wesley Groleau

unread,
Jul 6, 2003, 7:48:42 PM7/6/03
to
Bob Pastorio wrote:
> The question still remains. I haven't said it won't work. It may just
> work fine if all the variables are dealt with - like nutritive content,
> caloric content and the like. I've said it a silly index for diet
> because weight has no correlation with efficacy. Two pounds of food has
> no correlation with what's in it. It's the caloric content and the

Chung's website seemed to suggest "eat the same things"
you have been eating, only less. A reasonable idea, IF
it can actually be done. What was not reasonable was
the advice to the dieter to compute changes in medications
on their own.

Bob Pastorio

unread,
Jul 7, 2003, 12:15:56 AM7/7/03
to

To be sure. And a rather significant blunder like that coupled with his
apparent blunder about dehydrated versus whole foods makes the whole
fragile framework suspect.

Right. Eat less. How much less? Of what? Just eat less of everything
until the total weight equals two pounds? Really? So scale down
everything. Eat half a chicken leg. 1.4 slices of pizza? Most of an
apple?

Only his suckup acolytes prize the "simplicity" of the idea - just eat
less - over the realities of what the idea translates into in pragmatic
terms. Just eat less and later we'll look at the nutritive implications.
In principle, it is appealing. But why bother with the two pounds
business if you finally have to do the arithmetic anyway?

Pastorio

Tony Lew

unread,
Jul 7, 2003, 2:02:00 AM7/7/03
to
Wesley Groleau <wesgr...@despammed.com> wrote in message news:<DGGdnblLfbj...@gbronline.com>...

What do you expect from a doctor fired from a hospital for
giving substandard care?

Phil Holman

unread,
Jul 7, 2003, 2:19:16 PM7/7/03
to
rosesc...@yahoo.com (Tony Lew) wrote in message news:<5c7896da.03070...@posting.google.com>...

People who make these kinds of claims either have irrefutable evidence
and are somewhat protected or do not and are wide open for libel
litigation. Which are you?

Phil Holman

*Mu*

unread,
Jul 7, 2003, 8:45:57 PM7/7/03
to
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:48:42 -0500, Wesley Groleau
<wesgr...@despammed.com> wrote:

>Chung's website seemed to suggest "eat the same things"
>you have been eating, only less. A reasonable idea, IF
>it can actually be done. What was not reasonable was
>the advice to the dieter to compute changes in medications
>on their own.

uhhhhh, and you get off calling down Chung with what credentials?

Ron Ritzman

unread,
Jul 7, 2003, 10:33:38 PM7/7/03
to
On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:45:57 -0400, *Mu* <MuIsNo...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>>Chung's website seemed to suggest "eat the same things"
>>you have been eating, only less. A reasonable idea, IF
>>it can actually be done. What was not reasonable was
>>the advice to the dieter to compute changes in medications
>>on their own.
>
>uhhhhh, and you get off calling down Chung with what credentials?

Since when have "credentials" been necessary on Usenet?

--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address

Bob Pastorio

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 12:41:22 AM7/8/03
to
Ron Ritzman wrote:
>
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:45:57 -0400, *Mu* <MuIsNo...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>Chung's website seemed to suggest "eat the same things"
> >>you have been eating, only less. A reasonable idea, IF
> >>it can actually be done. What was not reasonable was
> >>the advice to the dieter to compute changes in medications
> >>on their own.
> >
> >uhhhhh, and you get off calling down Chung with what credentials?
>
> Since when have "credentials" been necessary on Usenet?

C'mon. You have to be a clown school graduate like Mu of the clan
Fishbone to spot another clown, right? Why he and Chung are such bosom
buddies. Well, that and he says he's Chung's wife.

So if anybody ought to know, it's certainly him.

Another thought: What credentials are necessary to recognize
questionable competence? Right.

What I thought.

Pastorio

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 1:32:13 AM7/8/03
to
Ron Ritzman <ritz...@paniximretarded.com> wrote in message news:<l3bkgvc43c5fpqva8...@4ax.com>...

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:45:57 -0400, *Mu* <MuIsNo...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>Chung's website seemed to suggest "eat the same things"
> >>you have been eating, only less. A reasonable idea, IF
> >>it can actually be done. What was not reasonable was
> >>the advice to the dieter to compute changes in medications
> >>on their own.
> >
> >uhhhhh, and you get off calling down Chung with what credentials?
>
> Since when have "credentials" been necessary on Usenet?

They are helpful for credibility.

As for the comment:

"What was not reasonable was the advice to the dieter to compute
changes in medications on their own."

I would have to agree with it *if* it were true.

See the narrative at:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

and note that a doctor is involved (me if the person is my patient) to
"review a person's progress" with the 2 pound diet approach.
Adjustment in medications needed as weight is being lost and intake is
changing is fine under a doctor's supervision. As far as I know, the
2 pound diet approach is the only "published" diet that explicitly
involves doctors in supervising the adjustment of medications. Ime,
some folks "fail" at dieting because they start feeling ill as they
lose weight because their medications are not adjusted.

Regards,

Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com

Ron Ritzman

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 7:38:25 AM7/8/03
to
On 7 Jul 2003 22:32:13 -0700, and...@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew B.
Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:

>> Since when have "credentials" been necessary on Usenet?
>
>They are helpful for credibility.

BINGO

*Mu*

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 11:05:37 AM7/8/03
to
On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 22:33:38 -0400, Ron Ritzman
<ritz...@paniximretarded.com> wrote:

>>uhhhhh, and you get off calling down Chung with what credentials?
>
>Since when have "credentials" been necessary on Usenet?

Only necessary when Groleau takes on a board certified cardiologist
claiming to know better then he about his field of discipline.

*Mu*

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 11:16:17 AM7/8/03
to
Pastaoreo bleats:

>>Yes. And you think that two pounds of food per day per person is a wise
>>way to live? Practical? Rational?

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:47:08 +0000 (UTC), c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:

>I'm 60, and have eaten like that for decades. If I ate more I'd feel
>stuffed and listless. I simply offered my experience as a
>validation that for at least some people it's neither a restrictive
>not an unhealthy diet.

That's right, it is only restrictive to those whose views on food
consumptions are skewed to begin with. This is one of my major
arguments. People who should know better, such as consistent and
so-called regular posters to Usenet, don't. They have not come to
grips with their food volumes for many reasons. Or they have and are
looking for ways to "trick diet" ...diets that meet _their_criteria.

>Apart from it's simplicity, it focusses attention on an important idea
>which many dieters try very hard to avoid: you need to eat *less*.

It is the single most fundamental component to any diet plan. I have
never seen anybody gaining weight who was eating within the 2 pound
limit. And I never will.

So there it is. You can run but not hide from the truth. Eat less.
Know how much you eat. Adjust to the truth that 2 pounds is not only
enough but more than enough.

>The
>calorie counter dieters I know seem to regard calorie counting as a
>way of being clever enough with your choices and calculations that you
>can eat the same amount and get thinner, by avoiding "fattening"
>foods.

"Trick" dieting with all the prerequisites of journaling, inaccurate
calorie counting, etc...simply nothing more than ways to get around
the one infallible axiom.

Eat less.

*Mu*

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 11:19:41 AM7/8/03
to
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:04:58 +0000 (UTC), c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:

>. A small level of exercise, such as walking up hills for a
>few hours a week, does for some reason make it easier to cut down on
>food intake, as well as getting rid of some food calories. My guess is
>that the human appetite, fatigue, and other biochemical systems, work
>best with a certain level of exercise, and become disordered with too
>low a level of exercise.

That's an interesting observation and although I do not believe it is
a blanket fact, I do believe for many that is exactly what is
happening.

Bob Pastorio

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 12:17:33 PM7/8/03
to
Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
> Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> writes:
>
> >*Mu* wrote:
> >>
> >> Call it whatever you wish. It's about developing a more disciplined
> >> approach to eating, one that makes you accountable since it will work.
>
> >As though counting calories won't work. Silly, silly little man.
>
> Counting calories is much harder, and also much more dubious. For
> example, suppose I cut myself a thick slice of heavy rye
> bread. Finding out how many calories that might be is difficult.

Oh, bullshit, Chris. All those wonderful scales in your house should
provide you a wonderful few minutes of mathematical nirvana. How much
does it weigh, what's the caloric density (right off the supermarket
label) and some grade school math and there you are. You have both the
good number of calories it contains and you can indulge your pedantic
side. Win-win, huh, and nobody else need participate.



> >How much does a handful of raisins weigh, Fishbone? Anybody...?
>

> I have three weighing scales in my kitchen. What's the problem about
> weighing things? It's very easy! Counting calories would be easy if I
> could just pop stuff onto a calorimeter and read off the calories.

You contradict yourself at a very basic level. You trust the packaging
that you get from supermarkets to be reasonably accurate, but not the
calorie charts from the various sources that have actually measured them
for you.

You don't need a calorimeter any more than you need three scales.
Particularly since the labels give you so much information and you seem
to like packaged foods.

> It's even easier when my dinner consists of a supermarket package you
> stick in the oven which is labelled as 410gms. Of course it's a little
> lighter after being cooked, but that keeps the calculations
> conservative.

And withal, you say you eat about two pounds of food a day as a matter
of normal course and you're still overweight? Wow. What a testimonial
for the Sure-Fire, No-Need-to-do-Arithmetic, One-Size-Fits-All,
Somehow-Magic, Brilliantly-Simple Two-Pound Diet.

And, as Mu says, it's the simplicity of it that makes it so desirable,
even though he asserts that it takes discipline. As though *ANY* diet
plan doesn't take discipline. He also says this howler, that it's a good
plan because it's "one that makes you accountable since it will work."
Makes you accountable since it will work? What an interesting use of
logic and precision.

I say this:


>The question still remains. I haven't said it won't work. It may just
>work fine if all the variables are dealt with

Then you explain the delightful simplicity like this:
Chris: What you don't understand is that variables of many functions
have
idioscyncratic sensitivities to changes in those variables. It's a
well known technique to first of all calculate the sensitivities, and
then to combine that with the typical distributions of values in the
variables. This is how mathematicians calculate acceptable
simplifications of complex formulae.

Pastorio: I note that there are no diet or nutrition books written by
mathematicians. It's a logical absurdity to equate this abstraction of
theoretical mathematics to real-world conditions where the each of the
scores of variables can wander across several orders of magnitude. It's
that old "one foot in the fire, one in the ice water" business where the
average temperature is nice and comfortable. Nonsense on the face of it.

Chris: If the calculations are
formidable, or the functions and distributions not well specified, it
can be done empirically.

Chung's 2lb diet is a suggestion of an empirical simplification of a
complex multivariable function. The question of how good a
simplification it is can be answered either empirically or
theoretically. Every criticism you've posted has been a criticism of
it being unacceptable as a deductive transformation, i.e., you point
out special circumstances in which it won't work, which is completely
missing the point.

End quote.

To which I say,

My criticism is apparently too uncomplicated for you. It is this:
Weighing food informs you of one dimension of it: the weight. Given that
we have to deal with an n-dimensional matrix in formulating a good diet,
the mere consideration of mass, a single dimension with no fixed or even
approximate relationship to any other, provides, at very best, the
insufficient skeleton of a dietary approach.

Knowing the weight alone, as your own experience demonstrates, isn't
sufficient to prevent your being overweight, nor is it sufficient to
help you lose weight.

And you say this:
Chris: I'm 60, and have eaten like that for decades. If I ate more I'd
feel
stuffed and listless. My doctors sometimes enquire about my diet, and
always consider it good. It's obviously adequate, since I'm slightly
overweight. My doctors don't agree, but I have higher standards than
their wall weight charts.

Pastorio: Your standards are *different* not higher. This isn't a
morality contest.

Chris: However, I wouldn't advocate it as a practical limit for most
folk,
since people have different efficiencies with which they digest and
metabolise food, different basal metabolisms, different habits of
exercise, different sizes, etc.. I simply offered my experience as a


validation that for at least some people it's neither a restrictive
not an unhealthy diet.

Pastorio: So you wouldn't advocate it, you say, yet here you are
advocating it. And you seem to have stopped extrapolating from the
particular (you) to the universal (everybody else).

Apart from it's simplicity, it focusses attention on an important idea

which many dieters try very hard to avoid: you need to eat *less*. The


calorie counter dieters I know seem to regard calorie counting as a
way of being clever enough with your choices and calculations that you
can eat the same amount and get thinner, by avoiding "fattening"
foods.

Pastorio: I can accept the notion that we should eat less. But the index
is caloric reduction, the reason is caloric reduction, the only
effective way is caloric reduction, not weight and not volume. It makes
as much sense to predicate a diet on weight as it does on color. I will
grant that less of the same thing will contain fewer calories. But those
"indices" are spurious. "Less" and "fewer" don't address sufficiency.
And your experience demonstrates that it doesn't work as a maintenance
program much less a weight-reduction one. For you.

Pastorio

Bob Pastorio

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 12:33:18 PM7/8/03
to
Ron Ritzman wrote:
>
> On 7 Jul 2003 22:32:13 -0700, and...@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew B.
> Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>
> >> Since when have "credentials" been necessary on Usenet?
> >
> >They are helpful for credibility.
>
> BINGO

So, Ron, where does this leave our poor Mu/fishbone sockpuppet who
hasn't demonstrated any?

Pastorio

Bob Pastorio

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 2:12:06 PM7/8/03
to
*Mu* wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 09:47:08 +0000 (UTC), c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Chris
> Malcolm) wrote:
>
> >I'm 60, and have eaten like that for decades. If I ate more I'd feel
> >stuffed and listless. I simply offered my experience as a
> >validation that for at least some people it's neither a restrictive
> >not an unhealthy diet.
>
> That's right, it is only restrictive to those whose views on food
> consumptions are skewed to begin with. This is one of my major
> arguments. People who should know better, such as consistent and
> so-called regular posters to Usenet, don't. They have not come to
> grips with their food volumes for many reasons. Or they have and are
> looking for ways to "trick diet" ...diets that meet _their_criteria.

Nice try, fraud-boy. You snipped off the best part and it's this:


> It's obviously adequate, since I'm slightly
> overweight. My doctors don't agree, but I have higher standards
> than their wall weight charts.

See, *slightly overweight.* What a wonderful testimonial for the
Sure-Fire, No-Need-to-do-Arithmetic, One-Size-Fits-All, Somehow-Magic,
Brilliantly-Simple Two-Pound Diet. Except for the fact that it doesn't
work, it's a wonderful idea.



> >Apart from it's simplicity, it focusses attention on an important idea
> >which many dieters try very hard to avoid: you need to eat *less*.
>
> It is the single most fundamental component to any diet plan. I have
> never seen anybody gaining weight who was eating within the 2 pound
> limit. And I never will.

Well, yes you will. I mean, have.

I assume you read above that Chris where he said he's overweight in
spite of eating two pounds of food a day. And, he goes on to say
elsewhere, that it doesn't help him lose weight unless he cuts it back
further.

> So there it is. You can run but not hide from the truth. Eat less.
> Know how much you eat. Adjust to the truth that 2 pounds is not only
> enough but more than enough.

Apparently, in the case of Chris, much more than enough since he can't
keep his weight low even at that weight. A fine demonstration that the
idea is inherently unsound since he's "60, and have eaten like that for
decades" and he's still overweight. Might just show that the weight of
the food is essentially irrelevant.

But I love those new tapdancing shoes. They make such nice clicking
noises on the floor as you sing the same old discredited tune.

> >The
> >calorie counter dieters I know seem to regard calorie counting as a
> >way of being clever enough with your choices and calculations that you
> >can eat the same amount and get thinner, by avoiding "fattening"
> >foods.
>
> "Trick" dieting with all the prerequisites of journaling, inaccurate
> calorie counting, etc...simply nothing more than ways to get around
> the one infallible axiom.
>
> Eat less.

And yet, Chris also says this:


> However, I wouldn't advocate it as a practical limit for most
> folk, since people have different efficiencies with which they
> digest and metabolise food, different basal metabolisms, different
> habits of exercise, different sizes, etc..

So even your "testimonial" doesn't support your position any more than
the ones on Chung's web site do. It's hilarious that those luke-warm
notes are the best he's got. Nobody else wants to say anything positive
about him and his plan? Must be winning excited converts by the
hundreds, thousands, millions...

It's truly wonderful watching you try to screw in a nail. Making other
people's words agree with you by editing and messing with them. This is
how you demonstrate your credentials. This is how you prove you're worth
listening to. This is how you show who you are, whether you want to or
not.

You're a mere sock puppet with a streak of ignorant malice and not a
very good one at that.

Everybody get the sheet music to "Poor Johnny one-note" so fishbone can
dine and dance to an appropriate tune.

Pastorio

Bob Pastorio

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 2:13:38 PM7/8/03
to

Wait. Let me write that down. Another trickle of wisdom from fishbone.
Weasel words and all.

Pastorio

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 2:56:38 PM7/8/03
to
Chris Malcolm wrote:

> Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> writes:
> >This is twaddle.
>
> >The question still remains. I haven't said it won't work. It may just
> >work fine if all the variables are dealt with
>

> What you don't understand is that variables of many functions have
> idioscyncratic sensitivities to changes in those variables. It's a
> well known technique to first of all calculate the sensitivities, and
> then to combine that with the typical distributions of values in the
> variables. This is how mathematicians calculate acceptable

> simplifications of complex formulae. If the calculations are


> formidable, or the functions and distributions not well specified, it
> can be done empirically.
>
> Chung's 2lb diet is a suggestion of an empirical simplification of a
> complex multivariable function. The question of how good a
> simplification it is can be answered either empirically or
> theoretically. Every criticism you've posted has been a criticism of
> it being unacceptable as a deductive transformation, i.e., you point
> out special circumstances in which it won't work, which is completely
> missing the point.
>

Eloquently written, though I suspect the point will still be lost on Mr.
Pastorio.

>
> >> I know plenty of folk who have a light breakfast, e.g. a boiled egg
> >> and bit of toast,
>
> >Boiled egg=2 ounces
> >Bit of toast (two slices)=2.5 to 3 ounces
>

> A singular "bit" of toast to me is one small slice.
>

To me, a bit is a half or a quarter slice of or "regular" sandwich size bread.
Better to weigh it so we would agree on the exact quantity :-)

>
> >Large sandwich=6 to 10 ounces
>
> >> a lunch of something like a large sandwich, coming
> >> out at something like half a pound total,
>
> >Good luck getting that to come out to 8 ounces. Looks more like 10.5 to
> >15 ounces.
>

> I meant what *I* think of a large sandwich, not what an American
> thinks is a large sandwich.
>

10 ounces is a large sandwich to me and I am an American, btw.

>
> >> then an evening meal of
> >> something like 1.5lbs, all of which comes out to about 2lbs a day.
>
> >All of which comes out to a minimum of 24+10.5 or 34.5 ounces - 2 pounds
> >and a couple ounces. Or up to 24+15 or 39 ounces or almost 2.5 pounds.
>

> When inflated by your gluttonous assumptions.
>

It is too much. However, it does take time to become accustomed to eating less.

>
> >And this assumes they never have a chocolate or a banana or a piece of
> >their birthday cake.
>

> A chocolate? I suggest you weigh a chocolate. They're not as heavy as
> you think!

Some American chocolate bars are literally *huge*

> As for birthday cake, I may attend six or seven birthdays a
> year. Those six or seven slices of cake don't add much averaged out
> over a year. My evening meal of 1.5lbs included a piece of fruit, such
> as a banana.


>
> >> The most common
> >> two observations of a European visiting the US for the first time is
> >> gagging at the size of food helpings in restaurants, cafes, etc., and
> >> being startled by the number of folk who are large enough that it's
> >> not clear whether you could put your arms round them and get your
> >> hands to meet on the other side.
>
> >Yes. And you think that two pounds of food per day per person is a wise
> >way to live? Practical? Rational?
>

> I'm 60, and have eaten like that for decades. If I ate more I'd feel
> stuffed and listless.

Go to a few Anerican all-you-can-eat buffets to eat your money's worth and
you'll be "cured" of feeling stuffed on moderate amounts of food :-)

> My doctors sometimes enquire about my diet, and

> always consider it good. It's obviously adequate, since I'm slightly


> overweight. My doctors don't agree, but I have higher standards than
> their wall weight charts.
>

> However, I wouldn't advocate it as a practical limit for most folk,
> since people have different efficiencies with which they digest and
> metabolise food, different basal metabolisms, different habits of

> exercise, different sizes, etc.. I simply offered my experience as a


> validation that for at least some people it's neither a restrictive
> not an unhealthy diet.
>

> Apart from it's simplicity, it focusses attention on an important idea

> which many dieters try very hard to avoid: you need to eat *less*. The


> calorie counter dieters I know seem to regard calorie counting as a
> way of being clever enough with your choices and calculations that you
> can eat the same amount and get thinner, by avoiding "fattening"
> foods.
>

> --
> Chris Malcolm c...@inf.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 650 3085 DoD #205
> School of Informatics, Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill,
> Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK. [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/ ]

Thank you for your comments, Chris.

Regards,

Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

Board-Certified Atlanta Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com

Jim Horne

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 3:07:20 PM7/8/03
to

"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bee22n$am3$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
: Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> writes:
:
: >Right. Eat less. How much less? Of what? Just eat less of everything

: >until the total weight equals two pounds? Really? So scale down
: >everything. Eat half a chicken leg. 1.4 slices of pizza? Most of an
: >apple?
:
: You seem to have trouble working things out for yourself. It can be
: done much more easily, e.g., skip a meal,

this is being crossposted to a diabetes NG..skipping meals for a diabetic is
dangerous...


Bob Pastorio

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 3:45:04 PM7/8/03
to
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
>
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
> > Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> writes:
> > >This is twaddle.
> >
> > >The question still remains. I haven't said it won't work. It may just
> > >work fine if all the variables are dealt with
> >
> > What you don't understand is that variables of many functions have
> > idioscyncratic sensitivities to changes in those variables. It's a
> > well known technique to first of all calculate the sensitivities, and
> > then to combine that with the typical distributions of values in the
> > variables. This is how mathematicians calculate acceptable
> > simplifications of complex formulae. If the calculations are
> > formidable, or the functions and distributions not well specified, it
> > can be done empirically.
> >
> > Chung's 2lb diet is a suggestion of an empirical simplification of a
> > complex multivariable function. The question of how good a
> > simplification it is can be answered either empirically or
> > theoretically. Every criticism you've posted has been a criticism of
> > it being unacceptable as a deductive transformation, i.e., you point
> > out special circumstances in which it won't work, which is completely
> > missing the point.
> >
>
> Eloquently written, though I suspect the point will still be lost on Mr.
> Pastorio.

You're not quite as good at this as fishbone. Actually, in several
posts, I've detailed why your notion is so flawed. I note you and your
sock puppet take glancing blows at what I say rather than to actually
confront it and offer countering information beyond mere opinion.

> > >> I know plenty of folk who have a light breakfast, e.g. a boiled egg
> > >> and bit of toast,
> >
> > >Boiled egg=2 ounces
> > >Bit of toast (two slices)=2.5 to 3 ounces
> >
> > A singular "bit" of toast to me is one small slice.
>
> To me, a bit is a half or a quarter slice of or "regular" sandwich size bread.
> Better to weigh it so we would agree on the exact quantity :-)

Right. Count the angels on the head of that pin. That's not enough food
for a child much less an adult.

> > >Large sandwich=6 to 10 ounces
> >
> > >> a lunch of something like a large sandwich, coming
> > >> out at something like half a pound total,
> >
> > >Good luck getting that to come out to 8 ounces. Looks more like 10.5 to
> > >15 ounces.
> >
> > I meant what *I* think of a large sandwich, not what an American
> > thinks is a large sandwich.
>
> 10 ounces is a large sandwich to me and I am an American, btw.

Right. I note that you only picked the upper end of the range I quoted
to cluck over.

You say that so easily yet when you look at what a reasonably meager
sandwich usually contains, the numbers become clear. Two slices of bread
will be at least 2.5 ounces. Less than 2 ounces of meat or cheese won't
even be a condiment, much less anything to consider as sufficient for a
normal person. That's two, very thin slices of ham of sufficient size to
just cover a slice of bread. Or two thin slices of cheese. Add some mayo
or other condiments, about an ounce. Lettuce? Tomato? That basic
sandwich is up at 5+ ounces with no lettuce or tomato additions. I've
eaten that basic sandwich in various incarnations in two dozen countries
and less than 6 ounces is virtually impossible to find.

> > >> then an evening meal of
> > >> something like 1.5lbs, all of which comes out to about 2lbs a day.

Actually, 1.5 pounds of food at a single sitting is rather heavy. Think
of a steak that weighs 1.5 pounds. Now imagine eating it. That's 24
ounces of food by weight. Most people would have difficulty finishing
it.

And most people couldn't comfortably get by the remaining part of the
day with a total of only 8 ounces of food. The balance is skewed badly.

> > >All of which comes out to a minimum of 24+10.5 or 34.5 ounces - 2 pounds
> > >and a couple ounces. Or up to 24+15 or 39 ounces or almost 2.5 pounds.
> >
> > When inflated by your gluttonous assumptions.

See, here we get into credentials. I've been around the world as a
foodservice person. Your understandings of how much food is served at
typical meals isn't even remotely informed. My assumptions are based on
actual measurements in literally hundreds of feeding establishments.
You're guessing about a good deal of it, even with all your scales.

> It is too much. However, it does take time to become accustomed to eating less.

Hey, Chris. He says you eat too much.

Piggy.

> > >And this assumes they never have a chocolate or a banana or a piece of
> > >their birthday cake.
> >
> > A chocolate? I suggest you weigh a chocolate. They're not as heavy as
> > you think!
>
> Some American chocolate bars are literally *huge*

And both of you missed the point, again. That with two pounds of food
distributed across three or more meals means that each will be so small
as to be mere snacks and that any hungers between those sparse meals
must either go unsatisfied or they must be subtracted from this silly
prescription.



> > As for birthday cake, I may attend six or seven birthdays a
> > year. Those six or seven slices of cake don't add much averaged out
> > over a year. My evening meal of 1.5lbs included a piece of fruit, such
> > as a banana.

Whoosh...

I offered examples about *anything* not planned into the two pounds. No
room for addition unless it's subtracted from the two pounds..

> > I'm 60, and have eaten like that for decades. If I ate more I'd feel
> > stuffed and listless.
>
> Go to a few Anerican all-you-can-eat buffets to eat your money's worth and
> you'll be "cured" of feeling stuffed on moderate amounts of food :-)

It takes discipline to restrain one self at those buffets. But then
again it takes discipline to restrict eating by whatever name you call
it. It takes discipline to restrict carbs. Or to eat low-fat. It all
takes discipline. But the ones where caloric intake is counted rather
than gross weight have actual science behind them rather than some
fanciful story about mountain climbers.

> > My doctors sometimes enquire about my diet, and
> > always consider it good. It's obviously adequate, since I'm slightly
> > overweight. My doctors don't agree, but I have higher standards than
> > their wall weight charts.
> >
> > However, I wouldn't advocate it as a practical limit for most folk,

Hey. Chris doesn't think it's good for everybody. Stop the presses.

Another glowing testimonial.

As if.

Pastorio

Colin Andrew Percival

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 3:30:02 PM7/8/03
to
In alt.support.diabetes Jim Horne <hor...@ufl.edu> wrote:
> this is being crossposted to a diabetes NG..skipping meals for a diabetic is
> dangerous...

ITYM "skipping meals is dangerous for some diabetics". I can skip as many
meals as I like without suffering anything beyond hunger and weight loss.

Colin Percival

*Mu*

unread,
Jul 9, 2003, 10:05:17 AM7/9/03
to
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 15:07:20 -0400, "Jim Horne" <hor...@ufl.edu>
wrote:

>skipping meals for a diabetic is
>dangerous...

Not always and not universally.

*Mu*

unread,
Jul 9, 2003, 10:13:15 AM7/9/03
to
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:11:44 +0000 (UTC), c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:

> What I meant to communicate was that when
>my diet clearly clearly exceeds 2lbs a day, I gain weight slowly,
>about 2lbs a month. When my diet is probably close to 2lbs/day, I
>lose weight slowly, about 2lbs a month.

Same here with modifications to times of heavy, consistent exercise.

> A well know side
>effect of that steroid drug is a large appetite and considerable
>weight gain. I gained two stones. It didn't bother me until I
>developed heart problems a couple of years ago. Then I decided I ought
>to lose some. I adopted the simple regime of eating a little less,
>which in practice means eating a little less about half the time.

Isn't it amazing that "simply eating less" get such unbelievable
resistance from dieters like Chef Pastorio?

Why is that?

Bet they don't want to eat less. Ya' think?


>As it happens, purely by co-incidence, it seems that when I exceed
>2lbs I gain weight, and when I'm within a few ounces of 2lbs a day, I
>slowly lose.

It may have been by coincidence that your food intake level is 2
pounds but I assure you that it is no coincidence that that number
works nearly universally for all peoples healthy.

>I'm not following the two pound diet. I'm following an even simpler
>diet of my own devising, which we might call the "2 meals a day
>diet". I don't get hungry or tired on it. All I have to do is curb my
>natural gluttony.....

...appropriate word, thank you....

>and avoid eating stuff just because it's enjoyable....

...removing pleasure from food choices is a major component...

>when I'm not hungry. For example, it means I stop eating before I'm
>full up.

Pure rocket science, isn't it?

*Mu*

unread,
Jul 9, 2003, 10:16:42 AM7/9/03
to
Chung not Mu' wrote:

>> Eloquently written, though I suspect the point will still be lost on Mr.
>> Pastorio.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:45:04 -0400, Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net>
wrote:

>You're not quite as good at this as fishbone.

Oh goodee, I so want to take your money. How much do you want to bet?
$10,000 works for me.

I bet Chung is not Mu, $10,000, escrow contract is written and waiting
(damn that Gregory chicken bawk bawk).

Ready to go, Cheffie?

Put up or shut up.

*Mu*

unread,
Jul 9, 2003, 10:21:47 AM7/9/03
to
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:33:33 +0000 (UTC), c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:

>I think the terms with which food is described have suffered serious
>inflation on corssing the Atlantic.

Serious inflation but for a reason. Americans have up the scale of
intake to the point that it takes a large portion to make up a small
percentage of food consumption.

>At my first visit to America, eating in restuarants and hotels, and
>feeling that I ought to clear my plate to get my money's worth,

Not a novel feeling at all. Very common. You had to dump this myth
too, didn't you?

You "get your money's worth" when you get what you need, not when you
get all of it eaten.

>I got
>to feeling really stuffed and bloated at the end of my third day. The
>hotel had an option on the menu called "light snacks". So I ordered a
>chicken and salad sandwich.
>
>What arrived was what in Britain would be considered a small loaf,
>split in half. Between the halves was half a chicken. The whole lot
>floated on top of a mixed salad, the lettuce part alone of which
>seemed to consist of the leaves of one entire lettuce.

Welcome to America! Land o' plenty......fat folks.

>I've never, at one sitting, ever eaten that much salad, *or* that much
>bread, *or* that much chicken. Yet this whole plate was called "a
>light snack" and a "chicken sandwich". I can still remember my horror
>and disbelief when faced with this "light snack".

Don't order the dinner portion then. It's a feast not a meal.

> Hardly surprising,
>I thought, that you can't stroll in a US street or mall without seeing
>some folk who are so fat they can hardly walk.

Yep, we waddle all over the place and then select diets that fail us.
Plain and simple, we, here in America, are made up of way too many
gluttonous fools.

Btw, when was the last time your preacher had a sermon named
"Gluttony: Our Largest Sin?

*Mu*

unread,
Jul 9, 2003, 10:24:15 AM7/9/03
to
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:44:39 +0000 (UTC), c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:

>No, all I wished to indicate, in the face of assertions that the two
>pound diet was "obviously" disatrously nonsensical, was that in my
>case, give or take a few ounces, its claims seem to hold.

Sure does.

>No, I wasn't advocating it in the posting to which you refer. I was
>simply pointing out that the claims of the 2 lb diet are borne out in
>the case of my own diet. I made that comment simply because some other
>posters were claiming it was so silly that it couldn't possibly work.

Read 'em and weep, folks.

Bob M

unread,
Jul 9, 2003, 10:25:00 AM7/9/03