Phil Holman said:
"Bob Pastorio" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:Mu said:
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 15:21:05 GMT, "Phil Holman"
<[email hidden]> 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>
Quoted message said:
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?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:>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>
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:(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.
Quoted message said: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?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said: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
Quoted message said: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
Quoted message said: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? [censored]. 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.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:>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?
Quoted message said: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.
Quoted message said: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?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:>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
Quoted message said: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.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said: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.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:> 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.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said: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.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said: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
