Re: My Progress

19 views
Skip to first unread message

MU

unread,
Apr 29, 2009, 3:13:45 PM4/29/09
to
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:50:10 -0700 (PDT), C...@EatCheat.com wrote:

> I have lost 16.6 lbs in the last 7 weeks and only changed 1 meal a
> day.

If you were eating 2.75 pounds of food and dropped one meal that weighed
one pound, you would achieve the same results. Except that you would not
have lost weight so drastically and placed yourself in an inevitable
rebound, return to or past original weight, for which you are now most
assuredly doomed.
--
http://tinyurl.com/5gt7

MM

unread,
Apr 29, 2009, 5:44:31 PM4/29/09
to
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:13:45 -0500, MU wrote
(in article <49f8...@news.x-privat.org>):

If you continue eating as on the diet, your weight will not rebound. This is
generally true with any diet which results in a weight loss.

The reason the vast majority do not maintain their weight loss is that they
go back to their old eating habits.

Wonder if two pounds of celery or two pounds of peanut butter would give the
same weight loss in a short overweight female and a 6 feet 4 inch overweight
man. Also in some who leads a sedentary life versus someone doing a lot of
physical activity at work and home. Wonder if an athlete who participates in
the Ironman (swimming, bicycling and running) in Hawaii can do that on a 2
pound diet ..... most of these athletes are thin and would expect they eat a
lot more than Chung's "2 PD" All these simple questions without any answer.

Kaz Kylheku

unread,
Apr 29, 2009, 5:44:49 PM4/29/09
to
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.support.diet.low-carb.]

On 2009-04-29, MU <efacs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:50:10 -0700 (PDT), C...@EatCheat.com wrote:
>
>> I have lost 16.6 lbs in the last 7 weeks and only changed 1 meal a
>> day.
>
> If you were eating 2.75 pounds of food and dropped one meal that weighed
> one pound, you would achieve the same results. Except that you would not

``Same results, except not.'' Bullshit equivocation, combined with
blind guessing.

> have lost weight so drastically and placed yourself in an inevitable
> rebound, return to or past original weight, for which you are now most
> assuredly doomed.

Pitiful imbecile, how do you know 16.6 pounds is drastic? It depends on the
total adiposity.

For someone carrying 20 pounds of body fat, it would be drastic (pretty much
regardless of how long it took, really).

For someone carrying 70 pounds, it wouldn't be drastic to lose 16.6 pounds
in 7 weeks.

There is empirical evidence that maximum amount of body fat that can be shed by
means of a dietary deficit, without loss of lean mass (which qualifies
as a good definition of non-drastic loss) is a fraction of the total adiposity.

This fraction is about 0.8% per day, give or take. (Source: this can be derived
from the results stated in the paper ``A limit on the energy transfer rate from
the human fat store in hypophagia'').

From this we can easily calculate the percentage over 49 days:

1 - (1 - .008)^49 = 0.325

(Note: ^ represents exponentiation).

I.e. over 7 weeks, you can safely lose about 33% of your body fat. If you are
carrying 48 pounds of it, then this is 16. The more fat you have in excess of
48 pounds, the easier and safer it is to lose 16 pounds over 7 weeks.

MU

unread,
Apr 30, 2009, 1:15:15 PM4/30/09
to
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:44:31 -0500, MM wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:13:45 -0500, MU wrote
> (in article <49f8...@news.x-privat.org>):
>
>> On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:50:10 -0700 (PDT), C...@EatCheat.com wrote:
>>
>>> I have lost 16.6 lbs in the last 7 weeks and only changed 1 meal a
>>> day.
>>
>> If you were eating 2.75 pounds of food and dropped one meal that weighed
>> one pound, you would achieve the same results. Except that you would not
>> have lost weight so drastically and placed yourself in an inevitable
>> rebound, return to or past original weight, for which you are now most
>> assuredly doomed.
>>
>
> If you continue eating as on the diet, your weight will not rebound. This is
> generally true with any diet which results in a weight loss.

Correct. The problem is that so few, less than 3% over time remain on
the diet. Rebound is practically inevitable by conclusion.



> The reason the vast majority do not maintain their weight loss is that they
> go back to their old eating habits.

See above.



> Wonder if two pounds of celery or two pounds of peanut butter would give the
> same weight loss in a short overweight female and a 6 feet 4 inch overweight
> man. Also in some who leads a sedentary life versus someone doing a lot of
> physical activity at work and home. Wonder if an athlete who participates in
> the Ironman (swimming, bicycling and running) in Hawaii can do that on a 2
> pound diet ..... most of these athletes are thin and would expect they eat a
> lot more than Chung's "2 PD" All these simple questions without any answer.

Answers are simple.

No one gains weight, everyone reaches optimal weight by eating 2PD or
less. Considering that I have extensive experience with training and
athletes in traning, and common folk, I speak from those realities.
--
http://tinyurl.com/5gt7

MM

unread,
Apr 30, 2009, 1:32:38 PM4/30/09
to
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:15:15 -0500, MU wrote
(in article <49f9...@news.x-privat.org>):

> Answers are simple.
>
> No one gains weight, everyone reaches optimal weight by eating 2PD or
> less. Considering that I have extensive experience with training and
> athletes in traning, and common folk, I speak from those realities.

Hmmm ..... so will two identical twins one eating 2PD of peanut butter and
the other eating 2PD of celery result in the same weight of the two even
though there is a big difference of calories consumed ..... they both have
the same activity level so the only variable is the what they eat .... would
seem that the one eating two pounds of peanut butter which has more calories
than the two pounds of celery would end up with a much higher weight.

Perhaps you could inform us of just what is your "extensive experience" ?

MU

unread,
Apr 30, 2009, 1:45:48 PM4/30/09
to

Asked and answered the first paragraph, Mr. Disingenuous.

As to "extensive experience", Google is your multiple friend.

MM

unread,
Apr 30, 2009, 1:52:57 PM4/30/09
to
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:45:48 -0500, MU wrote
(in article <49f9...@news.x-privat.org>):

Still waiting to hear if the calories of the two pounds of food eaten if one
follows Chung's 2PD make any difference in a person's final weight.

My above extreme example was a way to try and get that answered.

Will see if the question is answered if calories make any difference in a
person's final weight if eats two pounds of food a day.


Kaz Kylheku

unread,
Apr 30, 2009, 9:09:28 PM4/30/09
to
On 2009-04-30, MM <morton...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:15:15 -0500, MU wrote
> (in article <49f9...@news.x-privat.org>):
>
>> Answers are simple.
>>
>> No one gains weight, everyone reaches optimal weight by eating 2PD or
>> less. Considering that I have extensive experience with training and
>> athletes in traning, and common folk, I speak from those realities.
>
> Hmmm ..... so will two identical twins one eating 2PD of peanut butter and
> the other eating 2PD of celery result in the same weight of the two even
> though there is a big difference of calories consumed

This is a strawman argument against the two pound diet.

Chung may be a loon, but the idea has merit.

Of course the specific mass of the food doesn't matter; that is,
there is nothing magic about two pounds.

The point is that mass of food can be used as an estimate of intake and
a control parameter, and that there may be advantages to doing it that
way---advantages such as the diet is as simple as possible, while still
being tied to closed-loop parameter control.

Of course, if you drastically vary the average caloric density of the food,
then you are violating the spirit of the idea, right? I.e. basically cheating.

Can you name any reasonable self-administered diet system in which cheating is
absolutely impossible?

Think about this: many people don't even think twice about using their body
mass as an estimate of how fat they are, and as a feedback parameter for
tracking progress. If body mass can be used a feedback parameter, why can't
food mass be used as the corresponding control parameter?

If you're measuring body mass on the feedback side, rather than precise
compartmentalized body composition, does it even make sense to compute precise
calories on the control side?

> the same activity level so the only variable is the what they eat .... would
> seem that the one eating two pounds of peanut butter which has more calories
> than the two pounds of celery would end up with a much higher weight.

Still, fact is, two pounds does impose an upper bound. The most calorie-dense
foods are fats, at 9 kcal/g. So the most energy you can get from 900 grams
of food is 8100 kcal.

So work with me for a second: if you use mass to estimate energy intake, you do
in fact have a parameter which establishes an upper bound on energy intake.
The energy intake cannot exceed around nine times multiplied by the mass in
grams, right? I.e. this is actually a sanely behaved parameter. Plug
it into a control loop and it should work. You may find that by eating 907 g
of peanut butter per day, you are not losing weight, or even gaining. I.e. for
the value of the control parameter being 907, you find that the feedback
parameter is not moving in a favorable direction. So try a lower value, like
750 g, et cetera. Eventually, you will discover the values of the control
parameter that change the direction of the feedback parameter.

I don't see any reason to disbelieve that people can do well on two pounds of a
variety of normal food with some sane average caloric density that is nowhere
near 9. Suppose your food has an average density of 2.0 kcal/g. Thus 907
grams of it is 1814 kcal. That's a decent weight loss energy intake for an
adult male. A caloric density of 2.0 kcal/g isn't particularly low, nor is it
particularly high. It's quite representative of normal food.

Chung isn't really saying anything other than: eat a reasonable amount of
normal food. That's not enough to qualify him as sane, or even intelligent, of
course.

But remember the message from 1980's seatbelt education?

``You can learn a lot from a dummy''.

MM

unread,
Apr 30, 2009, 10:07:36 PM4/30/09
to
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:09:28 -0500, Kaz Kylheku wrote
(in article <200905111...@gmail.com>):

> Of course the specific mass of the food doesn't matter; that is,
> there is nothing magic about two pounds.

Of course if you eat less food you will lose weight .... makes no difference
whether you reduce the number of calories or the sizes of the portions. A
successful and easy diet is simple to eat 3/4 or 2/3 or 1/2 of the usual
portion sizes that you normally eat. The problem with long term success is
that people go back to the calories or portion sizes they ate before and gain
the weight back.


Orlando Enrique Fiol

unread,
Apr 30, 2009, 11:33:37 PM4/30/09
to
morton...@gmail.com wrote:
>Of course if you eat less food you will lose weight .... makes no difference
>whether you reduce the number of calories or the sizes of the portions. A
>successful and easy diet is simple to eat 3/4 or 2/3 or 1/2 of the usual
>portion sizes that you normally eat. The problem with long term success is
>that people go back to the calories or portion sizes they ate before and gain
>the weight back.


This is utter nonsense! I am eating more calories on South Beach than when I
was calorie counting, therefore, my portions are much larger. All calories are
not equal and do not work the same way in all bodies. For obese people with
hyperinsulinism, there is no doubt that too many refined carbs, whether eaten
in small or large portions, will ultimately retain fat and perpetuate the
hyperinsulin cycle in which the body tries to process a carb barrage at every
meal. The size of adipose tissue and fat cells brings carb processing to a near
standstill, which is why anyone with an abdominal protrusion and elevated
fasting glucose levels can benefit from reducing or eliminating most refined
carbs.

Orlando

MM

unread,
May 1, 2009, 12:04:15 AM5/1/09
to
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:33:37 -0500, Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote
(in article <MPG.2464379a5...@news.motzarella.org>):

Yes, the South Beach and Atkins diets are not based on calories or portion
sizes.

My comments were in regards to diets based on reducing the calories through
smaller portions and lower calories.

None of these diets have high long term success rates because people do not
follow them long term and go back to their old eating habits. Each of these
diets also have their long term success stories in those who can maintain
them.

The fact that there are so many different diets, often means one is not
better than all the others in losing and maintaining weight loss.

Orlando Enrique Fiol

unread,
May 1, 2009, 12:25:54 AM5/1/09
to
morton...@gmail.com wrote:
>Yes, the South Beach and Atkins diets are not based on calories or portion
>sizes.

I'm glad you read for content.

>My comments were in regards to diets based on reducing the calories through
>smaller portions and lower calories.

You didn't specify that your comments only pertained to calorie focused diets.

>None of these diets have high long term success rates because people do not
>follow them long term and go back to their old eating habits.

This happens because people really want to be eating as they always have. The
most effective diet is therefore the closest to their old eating habits, either
in terms of food type or portion size. Someone terrified of giving up most
carbs might opt for a calory counting diet where they can still have carbs, but
in smaller portions. Another might like meat so much that they especially prize
a diet like Atkins or South Beach that encourages meat consumption without
portion limitations.

>Each of these diets also have their long term success stories in those who can maintain
>them.
>The fact that there are so many different diets, often means one is not
>better than all the others in losing and maintaining weight loss.

Ultimately, the best diet for each individual strikes a balance between what
they like to eat and what their bodies need. It's just that simple. For big
eaters, no flavor of a calory counting diet will work because they'll always
feel hungry. For carb cravers, a calory counting diet similarly will not work
because they can never eat enough carbs to satisfy their cravings. For people
who love fatty foods, South Beach will please them much less than Atkins.

The problem with the diet industry is that it tends to appeal to people's sense
of healthy eating and moralizing sermons about obesity's social ills rather
than focus on what people actually enjoy eating. Part of the reason that people
gorge on low fat foods is that in order to reduce fat, flavor is sacrified. So,
they keep chasing down a flavor experience that will never come.

Orlando

MM

unread,
May 1, 2009, 8:41:49 AM5/1/09
to
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:25:54 -0500, Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote
(in article <MPG.246443de6...@news.motzarella.org>):

> Ultimately, the best diet for each individual strikes a balance between what
> they like to eat and what their bodies need. It's just that simple. For big
> eaters, no flavor of a calory counting diet will work because they'll always
> feel hungry. For carb cravers, a calory counting diet similarly will not work

> because they can never eat enough carbs to satisfy their cravings. For people

> who love fatty foods, South Beach will please them much less than Atkins.
>
> The problem with the diet industry is that it tends to appeal to people's
> sense
> of healthy eating and moralizing sermons about obesity's social ills rather
> than focus on what people actually enjoy eating. Part of the reason that
> people
> gorge on low fat foods is that in order to reduce fat, flavor is sacrified.
> So,
> they keep chasing down a flavor experience that will never come.
>
> Orlando

Well said.

Also, if you can increase your activity to a level you can maintain, that can
help.

Also, it seems if you try to lose too much weight too fast the body responds
by lowering the metabolic rate which makes it harder to lose weight.

Everything in moderation, even moderation, because in some rare occasions the
fate of the world may depend on having that piece of cake and that is the
least anyone can do for their fellow mankind ;-)

MU

unread,
May 1, 2009, 11:24:16 AM5/1/09
to
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:52:57 -0500, MM wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:45:48 -0500, MU wrote
> (in article <49f9...@news.x-privat.org>):
>
>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:32:38 -0500, MM wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:15:15 -0500, MU wrote
>>> (in article <49f9...@news.x-privat.org>):
>>>
>>>> Answers are simple.
>>>>
>>>> No one gains weight, everyone reaches optimal weight by eating 2PD or
>>>> less. Considering that I have extensive experience with training and
>>>> athletes in traning, and common folk, I speak from those realities.
>>>
>>> Hmmm ..... so will two identical twins one eating 2PD of peanut butter and
>>> the other eating 2PD of celery result in the same weight of the two even
>>> though there is a big difference of calories consumed ..... they both have
>>> the same activity level so the only variable is the what they eat ....
>>> would
>>> seem that the one eating two pounds of peanut butter which has more
>>> calories
>>> than the two pounds of celery would end up with a much higher weight.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you could inform us of just what is your "extensive experience" ?
>>
>> Asked and answered the first paragraph, Mr. Disingenuous.
>>
>> As to "extensive experience", Google is your multiple friend.
>
> Still waiting to hear if the calories of the two pounds of food eaten if one
> follows Chung's 2PD make any difference in a person's final weight.

Asked and answered.



> My above extreme example was a way to try and get that answered.

You got your answer.



> Will see if the question is answered if calories make any difference in a
> person's final weight if eats two pounds of food a day.

Answers are simple. Even to a simpleton, eh?
--
http://tinyurl.com/5gt7

MU

unread,
May 1, 2009, 11:39:42 AM5/1/09
to
On Fri, 1 May 2009 01:09:28 +0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku wrote:

> On 2009-04-30, MM <morton...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:15:15 -0500, MU wrote
>> (in article <49f9...@news.x-privat.org>):
>>
>>> Answers are simple.
>>>
>>> No one gains weight, everyone reaches optimal weight by eating 2PD or
>>> less. Considering that I have extensive experience with training and
>>> athletes in traning, and common folk, I speak from those realities.
>>
>> Hmmm ..... so will two identical twins one eating 2PD of peanut butter and
>> the other eating 2PD of celery result in the same weight of the two even
>> though there is a big difference of calories consumed
>
> This is a strawman argument against the two pound diet.
>
> Chung may be a loon, but the idea has merit.
>
> Of course the specific mass of the food doesn't matter; that is,
> there is nothing magic about two pounds.

Anything that works universally has a certainty of "majick" involved in
it.



> The point is that mass of food can be used as an estimate of intake and
> a control parameter, and that there may be advantages to doing it that
> way---advantages such as the diet is as simple as possible, while still
> being tied to closed-loop parameter control.

There you go.



> Of course, if you drastically vary the average caloric density of the food,
> then you are violating the spirit of the idea, right? I.e. basically cheating.

A cheat which in both my experience and Chung's that simply does not
work in any real life situation. However, a phool who is out to disprove
the 2PD at the risk of his health could, theoretically, do so. Then
again, this is not a real world situation either.



> Can you name any reasonable self-administered diet system in which cheating is
> absolutely impossible?

No.



> Think about this: many people don't even think twice about using their body
> mass as an estimate of how fat they are, and as a feedback parameter for
> tracking progress. If body mass can be used a feedback parameter, why can't
> food mass be used as the corresponding control parameter?

It can.



> If you're measuring body mass on the feedback side, rather than precise
> compartmentalized body composition, does it even make sense to compute precise
> calories on the control side?

None since it is, in a real life situation, nearly impossible to compute
ingested (used) cals.

> Still, fact is, two pounds does impose an upper bound. The most calorie-dense
> foods are fats, at 9 kcal/g. So the most energy you can get from 900 grams
> of food is 8100 kcal.

Yes.



> So work with me for a second: if you use mass to estimate energy intake, you do
> in fact have a parameter which establishes an upper bound on energy intake.
> The energy intake cannot exceed around nine times multiplied by the mass in
> grams, right? I.e. this is actually a sanely behaved parameter. Plug
> it into a control loop and it should work. You may find that by eating 907 g
> of peanut butter per day, you are not losing weight, or even gaining. I.e. for
> the value of the control parameter being 907, you find that the feedback
> parameter is not moving in a favorable direction. So try a lower value, like
> 750 g, et cetera. Eventually, you will discover the values of the control
> parameter that change the direction of the feedback parameter.
>
> I don't see any reason to disbelieve that people can do well on two pounds of a
> variety of normal food with some sane average caloric density that is nowhere
> near 9. Suppose your food has an average density of 2.0 kcal/g. Thus 907
> grams of it is 1814 kcal. That's a decent weight loss energy intake for an
> adult male. A caloric density of 2.0 kcal/g isn't particularly low, nor is it
> particularly high. It's quite representative of normal food.

I have experienced highly trained, endurance and anaerobic athletes who
have performed to par, who have controlled their weight by the 2PD.

I have also experienced athletes who have exceeded their weight, on
purpose, (offensive tackles for one)by purposefully choosing to weigh
out 3 or more pounds of food daily.

> Chung isn't really saying anything other than: eat a reasonable amount of
> normal food. That's not enough to qualify him as sane, or even intelligent, of
> course.

The charges of insanity, etc come from those who wish to disparage the
2PD for whatever self-enabling agendas.

In truth, as you have pointed out, the diet will work and the detractors
come off as drooling morons with childlike tantrums.



> But remember the message from 1980's seatbelt education?
>
> ``You can learn a lot from a dummy''.

Dummy or not, the message is greater than the messenger (if you consider
Chung and I "messengers").
--
http://tinyurl.com/5gt7

MU

unread,
May 1, 2009, 11:42:02 AM5/1/09
to
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:04:15 -0500, MM wrote:

> Yes, the South Beach and Atkins diets are not based on calories or portion
> sizes.

Yes and they also enjoy astronomical failure rates. They are scams when
considering eating for a lifetime.
--
http://tinyurl.com/5gt7

Mel

unread,
May 1, 2009, 11:48:39 AM5/1/09
to
> Answers are simple. Even to a simpleton, eh?

Paraphrasing Samuel Johnson's (no relation) famous quote:

Using ad hominem attacks is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

I guess it makes some feel stronger and superior to make ad hominem
attacks. What they fail to realize is that those attacks reflect on
the themselves because most realize it and do not need someone else
pointing it out. A simple answer or ignoring it is best.

I have no doubt the readers of this group can come to their own
conclusions about your above comment.

MU

unread,
May 1, 2009, 11:51:34 AM5/1/09
to
On Fri, 1 May 2009 00:25:54 -0400, Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

> The problem with the diet industry is that it tends to appeal to people's sense
> of healthy eating and moralizing sermons about obesity's social ills rather
> than focus on what people actually enjoy eating. Part of the reason that people
> gorge on low fat foods is that in order to reduce fat, flavor is sacrified. So,
> they keep chasing down a flavor experience that will never come.

The industry follow on the heels of a massive campaign, one that has
been going on for decades, that pushes the concepts of fullness,
satiation and ridiculous portion sizes. This has been confused with
"healthy", eat what is on your plate, don't waste, etc etc, anyone over
the age of 40 knows the mantra explicitly.

This is no defence of the industry, rather a condemnation. Where else
can you get the catastrophic, pandemic rates of illness from
overconsumption (failed diets born to failure as they are composed) and
claim "success"?
--
http://tinyurl.com/5gt7

MU

unread,
May 1, 2009, 11:53:47 AM5/1/09
to
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:21:40 -0700, Cheri wrote:

> "MU" <efacs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:49f9dcbd$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>
>> Goodbye, little child.
>>
>> *plonk*
>
> The irony. You're publicly plonking someone, and calling them a little
> child? One thing I can say for you, you never change. LOL
>
> Cheri

Everyone changes. What hasn't changed is my lack of time and patience
for Usenet kiddies.

And my support of the 2PD, Ms. Cheri, nice to hear from you.
--
http://tinyurl.com/5gt7

Kaz Kylheku

unread,
May 1, 2009, 1:25:35 PM5/1/09
to
On 2009-05-01, MU <efacs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:21:40 -0700, Cheri wrote:
>
>> "MU" <efacs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:49f9dcbd$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>>
>>> Goodbye, little child.
>>>
>>> *plonk*
>>
>> The irony. You're publicly plonking someone, and calling them a little
>> child? One thing I can say for you, you never change. LOL
>>
>> Cheri
>
> Everyone changes. What hasn't changed is my lack of time and patience
> for Usenet kiddies.

But, exactly as predicted, you followed up to me today. So your *plonk* was
only a meaningless overture, and your claim that you lack time is laughable.
As for patience, the need for that is obviated by your appetite.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
May 1, 2009, 4:28:35 PM5/1/09
to
Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

<snip>


>
>Ultimately, the best diet for each individual strikes a balance between what
>they like to eat and what their bodies need. It's just that simple.

It is even simpler.

The best diet comprises of ones favorite foods so that there is more
joy in eating and ever increasing hunger, which indicates ever
increasing health.

The healthiest people in the world are the hungriest people in the
world.

For healthier (hungrier) people, the food scale is to eating as the
speedometer is to driving.

The food scale helps to keep those of us with high-performance bodies
(no VAT) from overeating (eating more than 32 ounces) just as the
speedometer helps to keep those of us with high-performance cars from
speeding:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/BeSmart

Be hungrier, which is truly healthier:

http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthier

Love in the truth,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Human Geneticist, Molecular Biologist,
and Board-certified Cardiologist
http://EmoryCardiology.com

that...@lies-madness.com

unread,
May 1, 2009, 7:11:52 PM5/1/09
to
>Ultimately, the best diet for each individual strikes a balance between
what
>they like to eat and what their bodies need. It's just that simple.

"It is even simpler.

The best diet comprises of ones favorite foods so that there is more joy
in eating and ever increasing hunger, which indicates ever increasing
health.

The healthiest people in the world are the hungriest people in the
world.

For healthier (hungrier) people, the food scale is to eating as the
speedometer is to driving.

The food scale helps to keep those of us with high-performance bodies
(no VAT) from overeating (eating more than 32 ounces) just as the
speedometer helps to keep those of us with high-performance cars from
speeding:"

It is only by the grace of God that it could have been any of us. It
strikes when least expected and often when young in life just starting
into the adult world with all the promise before them. It is a life
changing life long struggle. God have merc7y.

May God bless and protect and heal.


L.B. Listmann

unread,
May 1, 2009, 11:52:40 PM5/1/09
to

"MU" <efacs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49fb...@news.x-privat.org...


So you're saying twins can eat 2 lbs a day and still weigh the same thing
even if one eats peanut butter and the other twin eats celery? That
calories don't count as long as they both eat 2 lbs a day?


Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
May 2, 2009, 2:18:18 AM5/2/09
to
satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted:
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/5f39a7ba914b286f?

>
> It is only by the grace of God that it could have been any of us.

It is by the grace of GOD that we, who are Jesus' disciples (either
Jew or gentile), are able to continue to be mindful of WDJW by
rebuking you at each GOD-given opportunity as GOD desires:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/6b5ed2ca868902b1?

<><

"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the
LORD." (Proverbs 16:33)

Amen.

A Spirit-guided exegesis of Proverbs 16:33 ...

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/085dcffcafb7e4e2?

Nothing happens by chance because everything happens only as GOD
allows it (Ecclesiastes 9:11):

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/21527d1832960109?

Sign that GOD can easily unleash an H5N1 Pandemic (Pan-Flu) at any
time:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/a4581567229974c0?

What we are teaching to prepare folks for the eventuality of a
catastrophic Pan-Flu:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmkax1wbRU

How to not be fearful:

Trust the truth, Who is Jesus !!!

http://T3WiJ.com

May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful
2009th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as our Messiah,
the Son of Man ...

... by being hungrier:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f891e617d10bd689?

Hunger is wonderful ! ! !

It's how we know the answer to the question "What does Jesus
want?" (WDJW):

http://WDJW.net

Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve
paid for with their and our immortal lives:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/52a3db8576495806?

Hunger is the physical "hearts burning within us" feeling that unlocks
the 4 mysteries of the "Road to Emmaus" adventure described in Luke
24:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/386f56c2f6d0b154?

Moreover, being hungrier is the key to being Jesus' disciples:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/bd20d7c4fe878897?

Being physically hungrier is how we will physically recognize Jesus
when He physically returns for us to meet Him physically in the air:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/ffa6609710ea9587?

"Blessed are you who hunger NOW...

... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21)

Amen.

Here is a Spirit-guided exegesis of Luke 6:21 given in hopes of
promoting much greater understanding:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cc2aa8f8a4d41360?

Jesus is LORD, forever !!!

http://JiL4ever.net

Be hungrier, which is truly healthier for mind, body, and soul:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/991d4e30704307e7?

Marana tha

Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ,

Andrew <><
--
"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/035c93540862751c?

What does Jesus want (WDJW) ?

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/11194899724b810d?

MU

unread,
May 2, 2009, 2:35:35 AM5/2/09
to
On Fri, 01 May 2009 16:28:35 -0400, Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>>Ultimately, the best diet for each individual strikes a balance between what
>>they like to eat and what their bodies need. It's just that simple.
>
> It is even simpler.
>
> The best diet comprises of ones favorite foods so that there is more
> joy in eating and ever increasing hunger, which indicates ever
> increasing health.

A notion that is not recognized widely.



> The healthiest people in the world are the hungriest people in the
> world.

Undeniably.



> For healthier (hungrier) people, the food scale is to eating as the
> speedometer is to driving.
>
> The food scale helps to keep those of us with high-performance bodies
> (no VAT) from overeating (eating more than 32 ounces) just as the
> speedometer helps to keep those of us with high-performance cars from
> speeding:

Cruise control.



> http://HeartMDPhD.com/BeSmart
>
> Be hungrier, which is truly healthier:
>
> http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthier
>
> Love in the truth,
>
> Andrew <><


--
http://tinyurl.com/5gt7

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
May 2, 2009, 2:53:35 AM5/2/09
to
MU wrote:

> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>>Ultimately, the best diet for each individual strikes a balance between what
>>>they like to eat and what their bodies need. It's just that simple.
>>
>> It is even simpler.
>>
>> The best diet comprises of ones favorite foods so that there is more
>> joy in eating and ever increasing hunger, which indicates ever
>> increasing health.
>
>A notion that is not recognized widely.

This is because the delusion that "hunger is starvation" has blinded


widely.

>> The healthiest people in the world are the hungriest people in the
>> world.
>
>Undeniably.

Absolutely true.



>> For healthier (hungrier) people, the food scale is to eating as the
>> speedometer is to driving.
>>
>> The food scale helps to keep those of us with high-performance bodies
>> (no VAT) from overeating (eating more than 32 ounces) just as the
>> speedometer helps to keep those of us with high-performance cars from
>> speeding:

> Cruise control.

The setting of the cruise control at the correct speed is not possible
without a speedometer.

What is required to receive a cure for the delusion that "hunger is
starvation" is saying "wonderfully hungry" whenever greeted by others
and working to convince others that this is indeed true:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/BeSmart

Be hungrier, which is truly healthier:

http://TheWellnessFoundation.com

Love in the truth,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
http://EmoryCardiology

MU

unread,
May 2, 2009, 3:59:14 AM5/2/09
to
On Sat, 02 May 2009 02:53:35 -0400, Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

>>> For healthier (hungrier) people, the food scale is to eating as the
>>> speedometer is to driving.
>>>
>>> The food scale helps to keep those of us with high-performance bodies
>>> (no VAT) from overeating (eating more than 32 ounces) just as the
>>> speedometer helps to keep those of us with high-performance cars from
>>> speeding:
>
>> Cruise control.
>
> The setting of the cruise control at the correct speed is not possible
> without a speedometer.
>
> What is required to receive a cure for the delusion that "hunger is
> starvation" is saying "wonderfully hungry" whenever greeted by others
> and working to convince others that this is indeed true:

Here is the testimony of the former head of the FDA, an obviously
intelligent, well informed man who can avail himself of any and all
science.

He could not understand why he was unable to maintain a constant,
healthy weight.

http://tinyurl.com/cd5rty

In a more recent interview, Bill Mahrer had Kressler on for 15 minutes
and the gist of that discussion was the constant barrage by the food and
diet industries (Kessler tells that all mainstream diets are doomed to
fail) the food industry to produce overconsumption, the diet to feed off
of it. Both industries accomplish the same thing...overconsumption.

The problem is greater than our ability to solve.

Which circles us back to the 2PD. It solves the overconsumption problem
and why is that? Because the 2PD is borne from a place which has the
power to solve complex, human problems.

I, like Kessler, struggled for years with trying to understand why I
continually gained small amounts of weight. I ate no breakfast, little
lunch and had large dinners. I was very active, working 70-80 hours per
week on my strength training gym floors, lifting, racking, tons of iron
plates and chrome Olympic bars daily. Yet, I gained weight.

After we met, I weighed for the first time my daily food intake.
Goshogolly, it was 2.5+ pounds on the average.

I dropped to just under 2 pounds per day, never once looking at what I
ate, weight dropped off at the rate of 1/2 to 1 pound per week.

Simple.
--
http://tinyurl.com/5gt7

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
May 2, 2009, 4:38:15 AM5/2/09
to
MU wrote:
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9fc134affa701c67?

>
> >>> For healthier (hungrier) people, the food scale is to eating as the
> >>> speedometer is to driving.
> >>>
> >>> The food scale helps to keep those of us with high-performance bodies
> >>> (no VAT) from overeating (eating more than 32 ounces) just as the
> >>> speedometer helps to keep those of us with high-performance cars from
> >>> speeding:
> >
> >> Cruise control.
> >
> > The setting of the cruise control at the correct speed is not possible
> > without a speedometer.
> >
> > What is required to receive a cure for the delusion that "hunger is
> > starvation" is saying "wonderfully hungry" whenever greeted by others
> > and working to convince others that this is indeed true:
>
> Here is the testimony of the former head of the FDA, an obviously
> intelligent, well informed man who can avail himself of any and all
> science.
>
> He could not understand why he was unable to maintain a constant,
> healthy weight.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cd5rty
>
> In a more recent interview, Bill Mahrer had Kressler on for 15 minutes
> and the gist of that discussion was the constant barrage by the food and
> diet industries (Kessler tells that all mainstream diets are doomed to
> fail) the food industry to produce overconsumption, the diet to feed off
> of it. Both industries accomplish the same thing...overconsumption.
>
> The problem is greater than our ability to solve.

Only GOD is able to cure our delusion that "hunger is starvation."

HE does require that we use the 2PD-OMER Approach before HE operates
on our heart of hearts to cut out the world's ancient lie that "hunger
is starvation."

The world first started using this lie to mess people up back in the
time of Jacob and Essau (Genesis 25:32).

It is not by chance but by GOD that the verse number is 32 to remind
us about the 32 ounces being the optimal amount of daily food intake.

> Which circles us back to the 2PD. It solves the overconsumption problem
> and why is that? Because the 2PD is borne from a place which has the
> power to solve complex, human problems.

The Holy Spirit is the Source of the 2PD-OMER Approach.

> I, like Kessler, struggled for years with trying to understand why I
> continually gained small amounts of weight. I ate no breakfast, little
> lunch and had large dinners. I was very active, working 70-80 hours per
> week on my strength training gym floors, lifting, racking, tons of iron
> plates and chrome Olympic bars daily. Yet, I gained weight.
>
> After we met, I weighed for the first time my daily food intake.
> Goshogolly, it was 2.5+ pounds on the average.
>
> I dropped to just under 2 pounds per day, never once looking at what I
> ate, weight dropped off at the rate of 1/2 to 1 pound per week.
>
> Simple.

Hungrier is healthier :-)

Being hungrier is wonderful.

Why was the turkey on the dinner table not hungry?

Because it was both dead and stuffed.

Therefore, not being hungry is terrible.

Truth is simple :-)

Love in the truth,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist

http://T3WiJ.com

rpautrey2

unread,
May 2, 2009, 6:18:19 AM5/2/09
to
What is required to receive a cure for the delusion that "hunger is
starvation" is saying "wonderfully hungry" whenever greeted by others
and working to convince others that this is indeed true

sci.med.cardiology, alt.support.diet.low-carb,
misc.health.alternative, sci..med, alt.christnet.christianlife

> Board-certified Cardiologisthttp://EmoryCardiology- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
May 2, 2009, 6:25:01 AM5/2/09
to
RP Autrey wrote:
>
> What is required to receive a cure for the delusion that "hunger is
> starvation" is saying "wonderfully hungry" whenever greeted by others
> and working to convince others that this is indeed true

Correct :-)

Hunger is wonderful:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/b37422264a6caade?

Truth is simple :-)

May GOD soften your heart, RP Autrey, so that you would come to trust
the truth, Who is Jesus:

http://T3WiJ.com

Amen.

Love in the truth,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist

http://WDJW.net

Meg Griffin

unread,
May 2, 2009, 8:46:18 AM5/2/09
to
You two faggots outta get a room and spawn a retard monkey fish frog.

MM

unread,
May 2, 2009, 8:57:57 AM5/2/09
to
On Sat, 2 May 2009 02:59:14 -0500, MU wrote

There are many testimonials from all sorts of people using their real names
with all the diets and this is just one more of the same.

There has been no scientific evidence presented here or to peer reviewed
medical journals.

MM

unread,
May 2, 2009, 9:01:47 AM5/2/09
to
On Sat, 2 May 2009 03:38:15 -0500, Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in article
<86bbfa73-34aa-4c74...@r34g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>):

> It is not by chance but by GOD that the verse number is 32 to remind
> us about the 32 ounces being the optimal amount of daily food intake.

Numerology.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
May 2, 2009, 9:28:23 AM5/2/09
to
MM wrote:
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/b37422264a6caade?
>
> Numerology.

Reality.

Truth is simple :-)

May GOD soften your heart, Morton, so that you would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus:

http://T3WiJ.com

Amen.

Love in the truth,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

Board-certified Heart Doctor
http://WDJW.net

MM

unread,
May 2, 2009, 9:36:31 AM5/2/09
to
On Sat, 2 May 2009 08:28:23 -0500, Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in article
<4461935a-c31b-4a72...@o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>):

> MM wrote:
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/b37422264a6caade?
>>
>> Numerology.
>
> Reality.
>


So God is a numerologist ?

rpautrey2

unread,
May 2, 2009, 9:42:00 AM5/2/09
to
> The healthiest people in the world are the hungriest people in the
> world.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
May 2, 2009, 10:06:00 AM5/2/09
to
MM wrote:
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > MM wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >>
> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/b37422264a6caade?
> >>
> >> Numerology.
> >
> > Reality.
>
> So God is a numerologist ?

No.

GOD is the Author of all reality.

L.B. Listmann

unread,
May 3, 2009, 1:13:57 AM5/3/09
to

"MU" <efacs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49fbfd5e$1...@news.x-privat.org...

>
> I dropped to just under 2 pounds per day, never once looking at what I
> ate, weight dropped off at the rate of 1/2 to 1 pound per week.
>
> Simple.
> --
> http://tinyurl.com/5gt7


What exactly did that 2 lbs consist of? Meat? Cereals? Lettuce or cheese?
2 lbs of cheese will have a lot more calories than 2 lbs of lean broiled
meat or broccoli and string beans.

L.B. Listmann

unread,
May 3, 2009, 1:18:27 AM5/3/09
to

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:86bbfa73-34aa-4c74...@r34g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...

>
> It is not by chance but by GOD that the verse number is 32 to remind
> us about the 32 ounces being the optimal amount of daily food intake.
>

So you're saying that 2 lbs is what a woman 5'2" tall and a man 6'2" tall
should eat? No adjustment for physical activity, height, sex or age? What
do you suggest the 2 lbs consist of? Baked fish or boiled broccoli? French
Fries? Lettuce and celery?

L.B. Listmann

unread,
May 3, 2009, 1:24:24 AM5/3/09
to

"MM" <morton...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C621AD85006CC3FEB01AD9AF@localhost...

> There are many testimonials from all sorts of people using their real
> names
> with all the diets and this is just one more of the same.
>
> There has been no scientific evidence presented here or to peer reviewed
> medical journals.
>

Where did this religious fanatic Andrew get this magic 2 lb diet of unnamed
foods from anyway? How could a man of, say 5'8", or a woman of 5'5" lose
weight if they ate 1 lb of cheese and 1 lbs of steak a day? Look at the
calories involved.

Having your stomach rumble and suffering a headache from hunger hardly
sounds like a blessing to me. It's very distracting if one has to work for a
living. It's also hard to fall asleep with a burning, churning, rumbling
stomach.

L.B. Listmann

unread,
May 3, 2009, 1:27:14 AM5/3/09
to

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:d46d821a-7c09-44b9...@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hunger is wonderful:
>

Tell that to the starving Africans as they watch their children die from
lack of adequate nutrients.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
May 3, 2009, 1:46:41 AM5/3/09
to

L.B. Listmann

unread,
May 3, 2009, 12:33:06 PM5/3/09
to

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com> wrote in message .........
total babbling bullshit!

This guy is a psycho case. Religion pushed him over the edge.

dolf

unread,
May 3, 2009, 12:59:46 PM5/3/09
to
Have you noticed that most of the individuals involved in world
government shenanigans as propaganda are Irish?

Here's a classic: "The United Nations has accordingly retracted claims
over one of the biggest controversies in the Gaza war, admitting that an
Israeli mortar attack on 6 January 2009 which killed 43 people did not
hit a school run by the UN agency."

When asked what I thought about the swine flu, I reminded my questioner
that I have a perspective of having known the names of the first 6 HIV
infections within the State of Victoria.

That while nations must test their readiness and preparedness for health
exigency, and I applaud them for whipping this latest up into a fever.

When do you think they start apologizing for what wasn't done for HIV?

- dolf

MU

unread,
May 3, 2009, 5:37:06 PM5/3/09
to
On Sun, 3 May 2009 00:13:57 -0500, L.B. Listmann wrote:

> "MU" <efacs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:49fbfd5e$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>>
>> I dropped to just under 2 pounds per day, never once looking at what I
>> ate, weight dropped off at the rate of 1/2 to 1 pound per week.
>>
>> Simple.
>> --
>> http://tinyurl.com/5gt7
>
> What exactly did that 2 lbs consist of? Meat? Cereals? Lettuce or cheese?

All and more.



> 2 lbs of cheese will have a lot more calories than 2 lbs of lean broiled
> meat or broccoli and string beans.

lol

Seriously?

MU

unread,
May 3, 2009, 5:40:46 PM5/3/09
to
On Sun, 3 May 2009 00:24:24 -0500, L.B. Listmann wrote:

> Where did this religious fanatic Andrew get this magic 2 lb diet of unnamed
> foods from anyway? How could a man of, say 5'8", or a woman of 5'5" lose
> weight if they ate 1 lb of cheese and 1 lbs of steak a day? Look at the
> calories involved.

Or they could lose weight, or gain less, than when they were eating 4
lbs per day.



> Having your stomach rumble and suffering a headache from hunger hardly
> sounds like a blessing to me.

I never had those issues.

> It's very distracting if one has to work for a
> living. It's also hard to fall asleep with a burning, churning, rumbling
> stomach.

Take a Tums.

L.B. Listmann

unread,
May 3, 2009, 11:09:06 PM5/3/09
to

"MU" <efacs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49fe0f67$1...@news.x-privat.org...

> On Sun, 3 May 2009 00:24:24 -0500, L.B. Listmann wrote:
>
>> Where did this religious fanatic Andrew get this magic 2 lb diet of
>> unnamed
>> foods from anyway? How could a man of, say 5'8", or a woman of 5'5" lose
>> weight if they ate 1 lb of cheese and 1 lbs of steak a day? Look at the
>> calories involved.
>
> Or they could lose weight, or gain less, than when they were eating 4
> lbs per day.

Who the hell eats 4 lbs of food a day? You're as crazy as Andrew is.

>
>> Having your stomach rumble and suffering a headache from hunger hardly
>> sounds like a blessing to me.
>
> I never had those issues.

Because you ate ENOUGH to prevent the HUNGER Andrew is obsessed with. You
weren't HUNGRY!

>
>> It's very distracting if one has to work for a
>> living. It's also hard to fall asleep with a burning, churning, rumbling
>> stomach.
>
> Take a Tums.

Is that how you prevented HUNGER? You gobbled bottles of Tums instead of
nutritious food?


L.B. Listmann

unread,
May 3, 2009, 11:11:09 PM5/3/09
to

"MU" <efacs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49fe0e8b$1...@news.x-privat.org...

> On Sun, 3 May 2009 00:13:57 -0500, L.B. Listmann wrote:
>
>> "MU" <efacs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:49fbfd5e$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>>>
>>> I dropped to just under 2 pounds per day, never once looking at what I
>>> ate, weight dropped off at the rate of 1/2 to 1 pound per week.
>>>
>>> Simple.
>>> --
>>> http://tinyurl.com/5gt7
>>
>> What exactly did that 2 lbs consist of? Meat? Cereals? Lettuce or
>> cheese?
>
> All and more.

Yep... a tsp of Cherios, a tsp of cheese.

>
>> 2 lbs of cheese will have a lot more calories than 2 lbs of lean broiled
>> meat or broccoli and string beans.
>
> lol
>
> Seriously?

You're as crazy as Andrew.

L.B. Listmann

unread,
May 3, 2009, 11:12:29 PM5/3/09
to

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:5730ed16-81e0-4942...@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/b32c5d6a93cd0ed2?
>
> <><
>
> "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the
> LORD." (Proverbs 16:33)
>

The lot? The LOT of what?

L.B. Listmann

unread,
May 3, 2009, 11:18:02 PM5/3/09
to

"MU" <efacs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49fb1b18$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>
> And my support of the 2PD, Ms. Cheri, nice to hear from you.
> --
> http://tinyurl.com/5gt7


And you support this diet because........?

Let me guess. You were eating vast amounts of food, many pounds a day before
you ran into Chung. Now you carry a scale with you 24/7 and make sure you
don't eat more than 2 lbs of burgers and fries and chips and dips each day.
Right?

Why do you refuse to answer the question of how 2 lbs would work for a 6'2"
man as well as a 5'2" woman and for those doing manual labor as well as
those bedridden.

MM

unread,
May 4, 2009, 1:09:29 AM5/4/09
to
On Sun, 3 May 2009 22:18:02 -0500, L.B. Listmann wrote
(in article <gtlmpk$2uq$1...@news.motzarella.org>):

> Why do you refuse to answer the question of how 2 lbs would work for a 6'2"
> man as well as a 5'2" woman and for those doing manual labor as well as
> those bedridden.

Because there is no way legitimate way to answer the question because the
idea that is would work the same is absurd and better to be evasive and hurl
personal insults.

MU tends to parrot Chung when it comes to the 2PD

MU

unread,
May 4, 2009, 2:05:57 AM5/4/09
to
On Mon, 4 May 2009 00:09:29 -0500, MM wrote:

> Because there is no way legitimate way

lol
--
http://tinyurl.com/5gt7

MU

unread,
May 4, 2009, 2:07:05 AM5/4/09
to
On Sun, 3 May 2009 22:18:02 -0500, L.B. Listmann wrote:

> "MU" <efacs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:49fb1b18$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>>
>> And my support of the 2PD, Ms. Cheri, nice to hear from you.
>> --
>> http://tinyurl.com/5gt7
>
> And you support this diet because........?

It works.


>
> Let me guess. You were eating vast amounts of food, many pounds a day before
> you ran into Chung. Now you carry a scale with you 24/7 and make sure you
> don't eat more than 2 lbs of burgers and fries and chips and dips each day.
> Right?

Wrong.



> Why do you refuse to answer the question of how 2 lbs would work for a 6'2"
> man as well as a 5'2" woman and for those doing manual labor as well as
> those bedridden.

I didn't refuse.
--
http://tinyurl.com/5gt7

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
May 4, 2009, 4:33:02 AM5/4/09
to
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/518c33efe51560d7?

<><

"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the
LORD." (Proverbs 16:33)

Amen.

A Spirit-guided exegesis of Proverbs 16:33 ...

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/085dcffcafb7e4e2?

Nothing happens by chance because everything happens only as GOD
allows it (Ecclesiastes 9:11):

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/21527d1832960109?

Sign that GOD can easily unleash an H5N1 Pandemic at any time:

L.B. Listmann

unread,
May 5, 2009, 2:34:18 AM5/5/09
to

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:b9ab746d-f69a-40ca...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/518c33efe51560d7?
>
> <><
>
> "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the
> LORD." (Proverbs 16:33)

WHAT *LOT* is cast into your lap? Can you not comprehend the question?

Godmania BS snipped for our sanity.

L.B. Listmann

unread,
May 5, 2009, 2:38:05 AM5/5/09
to

"MM" <morton...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C623E2B900AECBACB01AD9AF@localhost...

I can see the parroting and personal attacks instead of reasonable and
sensible answers. This whole P2 diet is absurd. It's just another diet
among so many others out there that fail because people can't or wont stick
to them.


L.B. Listmann

unread,
May 5, 2009, 2:39:04 AM5/5/09
to

"MU" <efacs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49fe...@news.x-privat.org...


Why don't you just answer the reasonable questions asked? Why give a troll
reply?

L.B. Listmann

unread,
May 5, 2009, 2:42:36 AM5/5/09