2lb Diet

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 5:57:53 -0500, Archie wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

Are there any restrictions on the types of food you can eat in this diet? Or
is it a case of using common sense as well as weighing the food. Any foods
not allowed?

Archie

If one _had_ common sense, they wouldn't be following such an absurd
diet.

Steve

"Archie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Are there any restrictions on the types of food you can eat in this diet?

That would depend on your doctor. S/he would advise you on that.

For example, you may kave PKU and so foods containing phenylalanine
may be restricted in your case.

Quoted message said:

Or
is it a case of using common sense as well as weighing the food. Any foods
not allowed?

See above.

As for permanently losing weight, there is no *culprit* food.

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

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 5:57:53 -0500, Archie wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

Are there any restrictions on the types of food you can eat in this

diet? Or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is it a case of using common sense as well as weighing the food. Any

foods

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not allowed?

Archie

If one _had_ common sense, they wouldn't be following such an absurd
diet.

Steve

Steve,

Can you explain why you think it is absurd?

Archie

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:08:35 -0500, Archie wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 5:57:53 -0500, Archie wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

Are there any restrictions on the types of food you can eat in this

diet? Or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is it a case of using common sense as well as weighing the food. Any

foods

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not allowed?

Archie

If one _had_ common sense, they wouldn't be following such an absurd
diet.

Steve

Steve,

Can you explain why you think it is absurd?

Archie

Archie, does it make "common sense" to you that, as far as weight loss
is concerned, two pounds of pork fat = two pounds of celery = two
pounds of ice cream = two pounds of Crunch 'n Munch = two pounds of
brocolli = two pounds of lollipops = two pounds of any food? Does it
make sense to you that if two pounds is the right amount for a 5'
teenage girl it is also magically the right amount for a 6' 35 year old
man?

I didn't think so.

Steve

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Archie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are there any restrictions on the types of food you can eat in this

diet?

Quoted message said:

That would depend on your doctor. S/he would advise you on that.

For example, you may kave PKU and so foods containing phenylalanine
may be restricted in your case.

Quoted message said:

Or
is it a case of using common sense as well as weighing the food. Any

foods

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not allowed?

See above.

As for permanently losing weight, there is no *culprit* food.

I have been weighing food today, so that I get a handle on what I normally
consume. I must confess I am a little bit puzzled by the correlation in
terms of losing weight of comparing an apple weighing 6 ounces, and the
cereal I had at breakfast weighing 2 ounces. Can it all just be on the
weight of what one consumes? Doesn't the calorie content figure here?

Quoted message said:

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

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:41:12 -0500, Archie wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Archie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are there any restrictions on the types of food you can eat in this

diet?

Quoted message said:

That would depend on your doctor. S/he would advise you on that.

For example, you may kave PKU and so foods containing phenylalanine
may be restricted in your case.

Quoted message said:

Or
is it a case of using common sense as well as weighing the food. Any

foods

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not allowed?

See above.

As for permanently losing weight, there is no *culprit* food.

I have been weighing food today, so that I get a handle on what I normally
consume. I must confess I am a little bit puzzled by the correlation in
terms of losing weight of comparing an apple weighing 6 ounces, and the
cereal I had at breakfast weighing 2 ounces. Can it all just be on the
weight of what one consumes? Doesn't the calorie content figure here?

Well, Duh! ;-)

Steve

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:08:35 -0500, Archie wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 5:57:53 -0500, Archie wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

> Are there any restrictions on the types of food you can eat in this

diet? Or

Quoted message said:

> is it a case of using common sense as well as weighing the food. Any

foods

Quoted message said:

> not allowed?
>
> Archie

If one _had_ common sense, they wouldn't be following such an absurd
diet.

Steve

Steve,

Can you explain why you think it is absurd?

Archie

Archie, does it make "common sense" to you that, as far as weight loss
is concerned, two pounds of pork fat = two pounds of celery = two
pounds of ice cream = two pounds of Crunch 'n Munch = two pounds of
brocolli = two pounds of lollipops = two pounds of any food? Does it
make sense to you that if two pounds is the right amount for a 5'
teenage girl it is also magically the right amount for a 6' 35 year old
man?

I didn't think so.

Steve

I take your point on the teenage girl/6ft man comparison. I am more
concerned that the food content (fat etc) does not seem to add up for me.
For instance today I have been weighing food and a slice of wholemeal bread
weighs 1 ounce whereas an apple weighs 6 ounces. Does this mean I can eat 6
slices of bread in place of 1 apple. Surely not! I have asked Dr Chung for
his thoughts on that.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:48:44 -0500, Archie wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:08:35 -0500, Archie wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 5:57:53 -0500, Archie wrote
> (in message <[email hidden]>😉:
>
>> Are there any restrictions on the types of food you can eat in this
diet? Or
>> is it a case of using common sense as well as weighing the food. Any
foods
>> not allowed?
>>
>> Archie
>
> If one _had_ common sense, they wouldn't be following such an absurd
> diet.
>
> Steve
>
Steve,

Can you explain why you think it is absurd?

Archie

Archie, does it make "common sense" to you that, as far as weight loss
is concerned, two pounds of pork fat = two pounds of celery = two
pounds of ice cream = two pounds of Crunch 'n Munch = two pounds of
brocolli = two pounds of lollipops = two pounds of any food? Does it
make sense to you that if two pounds is the right amount for a 5'
teenage girl it is also magically the right amount for a 6' 35 year old
man?

I didn't think so.

Steve

I take your point on the teenage girl/6ft man comparison. I am more
concerned that the food content (fat etc) does not seem to add up for me.
For instance today I have been weighing food and a slice of wholemeal bread
weighs 1 ounce whereas an apple weighs 6 ounces. Does this mean I can eat 6
slices of bread in place of 1 apple. Surely not!

Surely so! That's the whole point of the Two Pound Absurd Diet.

Quoted message said:

I have asked Dr Chung for his thoughts on that.

If you recieve anything but Mumbo-Jumbo with a Fundamentalist Christian
spin from "God's Humble Servant", you will be the first :-)

Steve

Archie said:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Archie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are there any restrictions on the types of food you can eat in this

diet?

Quoted message said:

That would depend on your doctor. S/he would advise you on that.

For example, you may kave PKU and so foods containing phenylalanine
may be restricted in your case.

Quoted message said:

Or
is it a case of using common sense as well as weighing the food. Any

foods

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not allowed?

See above.

As for permanently losing weight, there is no *culprit* food.

I have been weighing food today, so that I get a handle on what I normally
consume. I must confess I am a little bit puzzled by the correlation in
terms of losing weight of comparing an apple weighing 6 ounces, and the
cereal I had at breakfast weighing 2 ounces. Can it all just be on the
weight of what one consumes?

It can.

Quoted message said:

Doesn't the calorie content figure here?

Not for the 2PD approach. If you want something to become a lifelong habit, it
typically needs to be simple, ime.

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

Archie said:

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:08:35 -0500, Archie wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 5:57:53 -0500, Archie wrote
> (in message <[email hidden]>😉:
>
>> Are there any restrictions on the types of food you can eat in this
diet? Or
>> is it a case of using common sense as well as weighing the food. Any
foods
>> not allowed?
>>
>> Archie
>
> If one _had_ common sense, they wouldn't be following such an absurd
> diet.
>
> Steve
>
Steve,

Can you explain why you think it is absurd?

Archie

Archie, does it make "common sense" to you that, as far as weight loss
is concerned, two pounds of pork fat = two pounds of celery = two
pounds of ice cream = two pounds of Crunch 'n Munch = two pounds of
brocolli = two pounds of lollipops = two pounds of any food? Does it
make sense to you that if two pounds is the right amount for a 5'
teenage girl it is also magically the right amount for a 6' 35 year old
man?

I didn't think so.

Steve

I take your point on the teenage girl/6ft man comparison. I am more
concerned that the food content (fat etc) does not seem to add up for me.
For instance today I have been weighing food and a slice of wholemeal bread
weighs 1 ounce whereas an apple weighs 6 ounces. Does this mean I can eat 6
slices of bread in place of 1 apple. Surely not! I have asked Dr Chung for
his thoughts on that.

Follow the instructions. Do *not* weigh things item by item but meal by meal.
Breakfast now for you may very well be 16 ounces or more of food/drink. Work at
shaving this down over time until your day's intake is under two pounds without
significant alterations in the kinds of food you are eating. And, please do
involve your doctor.

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

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:54:03 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

From: "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology

Archie said:

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:08:35 -0500, Archie wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

>
> "Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 5:57:53 -0500, Archie wrote
>> (in message <[email hidden]>😉:
>>
>>> Are there any restrictions on the types of food you can eat in this
> diet? Or
>>> is it a case of using common sense as well as weighing the food. Any
> foods
>>> not allowed?
>>>
>>> Archie
>>
>> If one _had_ common sense, they wouldn't be following such an absurd
>> diet.
>>
>> Steve
>>
> Steve,
>
> Can you explain why you think it is absurd?
>
> Archie
>

Archie, does it make "common sense" to you that, as far as weight loss
is concerned, two pounds of pork fat = two pounds of celery = two
pounds of ice cream = two pounds of Crunch 'n Munch = two pounds of
brocolli = two pounds of lollipops = two pounds of any food? Does it
make sense to you that if two pounds is the right amount for a 5'
teenage girl it is also magically the right amount for a 6' 35 year old
man?

I didn't think so.

Steve

I take your point on the teenage girl/6ft man comparison. I am more
concerned that the food content (fat etc) does not seem to add up for me.
For instance today I have been weighing food and a slice of wholemeal bread
weighs 1 ounce whereas an apple weighs 6 ounces. Does this mean I can eat
6
slices of bread in place of 1 apple. Surely not! I have asked Dr Chung
for
his thoughts on that.

Follow the instructions. Do *not* weigh things item by item but meal by
meal.
Breakfast now for you may very well be 16 ounces or more of food/drink.
Work at
shaving this down over time until your day's intake is under two pounds
without
significant alterations in the kinds of food you are eating.

Ah, yes! Of course (slapping head)! How could I have missed that! The
old "the sum of the weights of the parts is not equal to the weight of
the whole" rule.

Thank you Dr. Chung for clearing that up. It's nice to have a true
scientist to keep things accurate.

Steve

Steve said:

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:54:03 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

From: "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]>
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology

Archie said:

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:08:35 -0500, Archie wrote
> (in message <[email hidden]>😉:
>
>>
>> "Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:[email hidden]...
>>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 5:57:53 -0500, Archie wrote
>>> (in message <[email hidden]>😉:
>>>
>>>> Are there any restrictions on the types of food you can eat in this
>> diet? Or
>>>> is it a case of using common sense as well as weighing the food. Any
>> foods
>>>> not allowed?
>>>>
>>>> Archie
>>>
>>> If one _had_ common sense, they wouldn't be following such an absurd
>>> diet.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> Can you explain why you think it is absurd?
>>
>> Archie
>>
>
> Archie, does it make "common sense" to you that, as far as weight loss
> is concerned, two pounds of pork fat = two pounds of celery = two
> pounds of ice cream = two pounds of Crunch 'n Munch = two pounds of
> brocolli = two pounds of lollipops = two pounds of any food? Does it
> make sense to you that if two pounds is the right amount for a 5'
> teenage girl it is also magically the right amount for a 6' 35 year old
> man?
>
> I didn't think so.
>
> Steve
>
I take your point on the teenage girl/6ft man comparison. I am more
concerned that the food content (fat etc) does not seem to add up for me.
For instance today I have been weighing food and a slice of wholemeal bread
weighs 1 ounce whereas an apple weighs 6 ounces. Does this mean I can eat
6
slices of bread in place of 1 apple. Surely not! I have asked Dr Chung
for
his thoughts on that.

Follow the instructions. Do *not* weigh things item by item but meal by
meal.
Breakfast now for you may very well be 16 ounces or more of food/drink.
Work at
shaving this down over time until your day's intake is under two pounds
without
significant alterations in the kinds of food you are eating.

<more hissing snipped>

You have my pity.

This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is
described completely at:

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

Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet
discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has
been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been
entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian.
Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched:

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

From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed
to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived
weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every
point:

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

These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and other
discussion threads.

However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s),
certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward
its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message
then try to discredit the messenger."

Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone
who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value
and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars.

These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following
observations were made:

(1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the
discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve
near-ideal weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight
becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc
(3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
(5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs
of the actual diplomas).

Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to
attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to
libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio:

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

When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful
folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their
fallen hero.

Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or
as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line
third-party resources at:

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

where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims
that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked.

Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon
posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack):

(1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or
accountability).
(2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters.
(3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided
insults.
(4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting.
(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its
author.

and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.

It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed.

It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing
from the peanut gallery.

Sincerely,

Andrew

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

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:09:06 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

You have my pity.

Likewise, I'm sure.

----

This discussion(s) is related to the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) which
is described completely at:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
(Just substitute "Foot" for "Pound"😉

Though Steve invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet
discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been
voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service.
His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his
religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to
better the health of folks He touched:

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

From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are
vehemently opposed to the 2 foot diet approach. They have debated
Steve on every perceived weakness of the 2 foot diet approach and have
lost the argument soundly at every point:

http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp
(Just substitute "Foot" for "Pound"😉

These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and
other discussion threads.

However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the
argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 foot
diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you
can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger."

Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll"
is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no
redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting
"flame" wars.

These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the
following observations were made:

(1) Steve has not been posting anonymously.

(2) The 2FD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting
the discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2FD
to achieve near-ideal weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their
weight becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/moreChungbullshit

(3) Steve did not start the discussion(s).

(4) The 2 foot diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).

Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have
tried to attack Steve's credentials knowing full well that they were
attempting to libel him. One notable example is Dr. Chung.

When the full light was cast on Dr. Chung's libelous statements, the
hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity, most notably Mu,
only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero.

Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either
actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they
are, using the on-line third-party resources at:

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

Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning
the anon posters who continue to hiss, most notably Mu:

(1) They are anonymous and thus expect to have no credibility (or
accountability).

(2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory
characters.

(3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver
one-sided insults.

(4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Steve by
cross-posting.
(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the
2FD or its author.

and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.
Unfortunately, they keep Mu_Tating so that it is impossible to killfile
them.

It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to
speed.

It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din
of hissing from the peanut gallery.

--
God's Other Humble Servant

Steve

Steve said:

If one _had_ common sense, they wouldn't be following such an absurd
diet.

Why should *one's* possession of common sense have any influence on
what *they* do, one wonders?

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:35:06 -0500, Chris Malcolm wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

Steve said:

If one _had_ common sense, they wouldn't be following such an absurd
diet.

Why should *one's* possession of common sense have any influence on
what *they* do, one wonders?

A novel idea, I'll grant you :-)

--
God's Other Humble Servant

Steve

Steve said:

Archie, does it make "common sense" to you that, as far as weight loss
is concerned, two pounds of pork fat = two pounds of celery = two
pounds of ice cream = two pounds of Crunch 'n Munch = two pounds of
brocolli = two pounds of lollipops = two pounds of any food? Does it
make sense to you that if two pounds is the right amount for a 5'
teenage girl it is also magically the right amount for a 6' 35 year old
man?

Quoted message said:

I didn't think so.

You have managed to grasp that two pounds of butter is not equivalent
to two pounds of lettuce. The next step is to realise that for many
people that knowledge is common sense.

When your brain recovers from that magnificent exertion have a go at
the next step, which is *incorporating* that insight in the idea of
the 2Lb diet, because, as you have managed to realise, without that
common sense it doesn't make sense. That is *why* common sense is a
recommended ingredinet in the diet.

Take your time, think about it, and don't hesitate to post any further
problems you may have in struggling with this concept. You needn't be
embarassed at seeming foolish; there are lots of posters here who have
trouble understanding how to use common sense.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:43:55 -0500, Chris Malcolm wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

Quoted message said:

Steve said:

Archie, does it make "common sense" to you that, as far as weight loss
is concerned, two pounds of pork fat = two pounds of celery = two
pounds of ice cream = two pounds of Crunch 'n Munch = two pounds of
brocolli = two pounds of lollipops = two pounds of any food? Does it
make sense to you that if two pounds is the right amount for a 5'
teenage girl it is also magically the right amount for a 6' 35 year old
man?

Quoted message said:

I didn't think so.

You have managed to grasp that two pounds of butter is not equivalent
to two pounds of lettuce. The next step is to realise that for many
people that knowledge is common sense.

When your brain recovers from that magnificent exertion have a go at
the next step, which is *incorporating* that insight in the idea of
the 2Lb diet, because, as you have managed to realise, without that
common sense it doesn't make sense. That is *why* common sense is a
recommended ingredinet in the diet.

Take your time, think about it, and don't hesitate to post any further
problems you may have in struggling with this concept. You needn't be
embarassed at seeming foolish; there are lots of posters here who have
trouble understanding how to use common sense.

Hey Chris, we're on the same page here! Common sense. Makes sense.
The only problem I have with the Two Pound Diet is that you have to
carry a scale around... that's why I invented the Two Foot Diet, see?
Same Common Sense principles, but you no longer have to worry about the
scale. One foot of butter is not the same as one foot of lettuce. Got
it!

----

Because this discussion concerns the Two Pound Diet (2PD), I am
providing the following as a Public Service:

I have developed the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) as a replacement for
Dr. Chung's Amazing Logic Defying Two Pound Diet to avoid having to
carry a scale around.

In 2003, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing the Bavarian
Alps and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the climbers
consumed only 10 packages of wieners per week. That's less than 2 feet
of wieners per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I
think it is safe to assume that 2 feet of food per day should be more
than adequate for us non-climbing folks.

So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese friends in my
neighborhood. I gave them ordinary 6 inch rulers with instructions to
measure the length of everything substantial that passed into their
mouths. The only things exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What
I learned was that my obese friends were consuming between 8 to 12 feet
of food per day! At the time, I was about 10 lbs. over my ideal body
weight so I decided to find out how much I was eating per day... 3
feet. I cut back to less than 2 feet and was at my proper weight in one
month.

My friends have responded similarly except they have taken longer
because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese
friends were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the
ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally loosing their 6
inch rulers and taking weeks to buy replacements.

So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's longest
dimension, and keep the total length to less than two feet per day.
That's all there is. No scales, no counting calories or carbohydrates.
Heck, if you loose your ruler, you can even use the first joint of your
thumb to measure.

I am making this diet available as a public service and without
compensation.

If you have any questions, just see Dr. Chung's helpful FAQ and
substitute "Two Feet" for "Two Pounds" everywhere... what could be
simpler?

Sincerely,

God's Other Humble Servant

Steve

Quoted message said:

Steve said:

Archie, does it make "common sense" to you that, as far as weight loss
is concerned, two pounds of pork fat = two pounds of celery = two
pounds of ice cream = two pounds of Crunch 'n Munch = two pounds of
brocolli = two pounds of lollipops = two pounds of any food? Does it
make sense to you that if two pounds is the right amount for a 5'
teenage girl it is also magically the right amount for a 6' 35 year old
man?

Quoted message said:

I didn't think so.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:43:55 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden] (Chris

Malcolm) said:

You have managed to grasp that two pounds of butter is not equivalent
to two pounds of lettuce. The next step is to realise that for many
people that knowledge is common sense.

That will be tough for a TROLL like Steve to do. Common sense is not
his forte'.

Quoted message said:

When your brain recovers from that magnificent exertion have a go at
the next step, which is *incorporating* that insight in the idea of
the 2Lb diet, because, as you have managed to realise, without that
common sense it doesn't make sense. That is *why* common sense is a
recommended ingredinet in the diet.

One ounce to be exact.

Quoted message said:

Take your time, think about it, and don't hesitate to post any further
problems you may have in struggling with this concept. You needn't be
embarassed at seeming foolish; there are lots of posters here who have
trouble understanding how to use common sense.

lol

There are many, sadly, who lack the ability to apply common sense as
you have said. Either they have none, to begin with, or they refuse to
use it. They refuse to use it for reasons, like Steve, because it
serves his agenda in attempting to disrupt this newsgroup. Steve's not
interested in anything more than that. See him all over Usenet rarely
saying anything positive or reasonable and there are others just like
him. Please chime in Chef Pastorio anytime you would like.
I think Chung has a different take on this issue of common sense and
that is why the 2PDiet is, contractually, The SIMPLE Two Pound diet.
Then Chung has more patients and patience than I do. Which is why I
rarely respond, anymore, to the common senseless TROLLS like Steve and
Chef Pastorio, Koenig etc. MOF, I don't even read them unless they are
addressed as you have, Chris.

Chris, it is your Usenet and use it like you wish. But you are beating
your head against a wall with these TROLLS who enjoy circular
arguments like rats running, in place, in a circular wheel.

But then, you may have been having a bit of fun. I sure laughed at
your post and at Steve.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030724.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:23:07 -0500, Mars at the Mu_n's Edge wrote
(in message <[email hidden]>😉:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

There are many, sadly, who lack the ability to apply common sense as
you have said. Either they have none, to begin with, or they refuse to
use it. They refuse to use it for reasons, like Steve, because it
serves his agenda in attempting to disrupt this newsgroup. Steve's not
interested in anything more than that.

Well Mu, I really don't think that is sporting of you. I have no
desire to disrupt this newsgroup or any other. I am merely responding
to yours and Chung's posts about the Two Pound Diet and Religion...
which are, I believe, Off-Topic for this newsgroup and the others in
which you post them.

I leave it to the reader to judge who is the "disruptor" here.

Quoted message said:

I think Chung has a different take on this issue of common sense and
that is why the 2PDiet is, contractually, The SIMPLE Two Pound diet.

Ah, but it's not SIMPLE... you have to carry a scale around. So I
improved it with the MUSC SIMPLER Two Foot Diet... but do I get any
thanks from you or Chung? Noooooooo! All I get is abuse. I'm shocked
I tell you... shocked.

Quoted message said:

Chris, it is your Usenet and use it like you wish.

You are in an uncommonly generous mood today, Mu. I'm sure Chris
appreciates your permission and approbation.

-----

Because this discussion concerns the Two Pound Diet (2PD), I am
providing the following as a Public Service:

I have developed the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) as a replacement for
Dr. Chung's Amazing Logic Defying Two Pound Diet to avoid having to
carry a scale around.

In 2003, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing the Bavarian
Alps and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the climbers
consumed only 10 packages of wieners per week. That's less than 2 feet
of wieners per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I
think it is safe to assume that 2 feet of food per day should be more
than adequate for us non-climbing folks.

So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese friends in my
neighborhood. I gave them ordinary 6 inch rulers with instructions to
measure the length of everything substantial that passed into their
mouths. The only things exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What
I learned was that my obese friends were consuming between 8 to 12 feet
of food per day! At the time, I was about 10 lbs. over my ideal body
weight so I decided to find out how much I was eating per day... 3
feet. I cut back to less than 2 feet and was at my proper weight in one
month.

My friends have responded similarly except they have taken longer
because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese
friends were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the
ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally loosing their 6
inch rulers and taking weeks to buy replacements.

So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's longest
dimension, and keep the total length to less than two feet per day.
That's all there is. No scales, no counting calories or carbohydrates.
Heck, if you loose your ruler, you can even use the first joint of your
thumb to measure.

I am making this diet available as a public service and without
compensation.

If you have any questions, just see Dr. Chung's helpful FAQ and
substitute "Two Feet" for "Two Pounds" everywhere... what could be
simpler?

Sincerely,

God's Other Humble Servant

Steve