Chung

In article <1095341701.XLDSFQggs0dyjqK+1/pGYg@teranews>,

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

No, if you found it interesting, you probably have a tendency to "live to eat
rather than eat to live."

Many lead food-centric lives like yourself and Bob.

They also tend to have the greatest difficulty eating less and losing weight.

You are incorrect to disagree with me, Andrew. Mu said that Bob's post
was too much for any reasonable person to read through. I said that I
did and found it interesting and thus by Mu's viewpoint I must be
unreasonable. I believe you ought to be correcting Mu with the point
that it's not an unreasonable person that may read it through but one
who enjoys good food and looks forward to a well-prepared and quality
meal.

What I found it interesting to see is the pre and post cooking analysis.
For example:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here's filet mignon, probably the leanest good cut:
Beef, short loin, tenderloin, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/2"
fat, prime, raw: 454 grams total weight, 107 grams fat, 81 grams
protein. 24% fat.

Beef, short loin, tenderloin, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/2"
fat, prime, cooked, broiled: 454 grams total weight, 106 grams fat,
113 grams protein. 23% fat.

I found it curious that: the weight appeared to remain the same though
there ought to be water weight loss (perhaps this was captured, measured
and accounted for in the total); the fat loss is minimal (i'd assume
this is also due to the level of doneness - it may also have been
similarly captured and measured as might the water have been); and most
curious, the protein percentage rose after cooking (as it did on the
other examples).

Quoted message said:

You will be in my prayers, dear neighbor whom I love.

I, too, love you, Andrew.

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Bob (this one) wrote in article
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Mirek Fidler wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Average typical daily American intake probably exceeds 1 pound
> of meat daily (many American folks will routinely eat a 12-16
> oz of steak for just dinner). This would be more than 450
> grams.

Quoted message said:

Note *probably* - it's a guess. And note all the assumptions pulled
out of thin air.

I've been wondering just how many "American folks will routinely eat a
12-16 oz of steak for just dinner." IME of several decades few families
have steak even once a week, and usually much less than 3/4 to one pound
steaks at that. Eight ounces, maybe. Those 12-16 ouncers are
supersized restaurant portions, and common folks don't eat out regularly
at steak houses.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

OF MEAT.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is average 120g of protein and 100g of fat (40g saturated,
50g MUFA and 10g PUFA).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not for 450 grams of *cooked* lean meat.

Quoted message said:

New conditions not in the earlier example. Chung didn't say anything
about *cooked* or *lean* until now. No one talks about "a 12-16 oz
of steak" as its cooked weight (except Chung to evade his error), and
lean isn't a good criterion for palatability of beef steaks. Now comes
the weaseling and condition-setting and the Chungian mathematics.

Quoted message said:

But Chung is simply wrong. Again. Watch...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What you describe as more than 40% fat (by weight) would not be
usual.

Quoted message said:

But note the sneaky shift here - or the mathematical incompetence...

100 grams divided by 454 grams (16 ounces) = .2202643 = 22%
100 grams divided by 341 grams (12 ounces) = .2932551 = 29%
100 grams divided by 250 grams = .250 = 40%

Quoted message said:

So it's actually 22% fat in the example, not the 40% that Chung
mistakenly or duplicitously offers. Fat content in that 22% to 29 %
range is well within the center area of the bell curve of fat to total
weight ratios in beef. This example would be a comparatively low-fat
steak.

Quoted message said:

How typically Chung to be so blatantly wrong about nutrition.

Quoted message said:

There's no "usual" when discussing a subject with this many variables.
There are different grades of meat (prime is the fattiest, reducing as
quality declines), different cuts of meat (and different ways and
finish criteria of trimming it of fat) and different animals to get it
from. Beef can range from fat percentages in the teens (for low-grade,
tightly trimmed cuts) up to more than 75%, raw, with corresponding
ranges after cooking. A beef brisket cooked Texas-style can have well
over 40% fat as can popular cuts like short ribs and oxtails. It
surely is possible, if out at the opposite end from Chung's erroneous
example wherein he asserts a false condition. As is his usual M.O.

Quoted message said:

Talking about "steaks" implies dry-cooking like searing, broiling or
charbroiling. The cuts useful for that have to be fattier or they cook
tough and flavorless. When talking about steaks, it's customary to
talk *raw* weight or weight before cooking. Depending on degree of
doneness there will be from about 12% loss up to 60% loss of weight
because of rendered fats and water loss. The variables are too many to
posit a "usual."

Quoted message said:

Here's raw versus dry-cooked for a high-quality cut:
Beef, short loin, top loin, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/2"
fat, prime, raw: 454 grams total weight, 124 grams fat, 81 grams
protein. 27% fat.

Quoted message said:

Beef, short loin, top loin, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/2"
fat, prime, cooked, broiled: 454 grams total weight, 117 grams fat,
112 grams protein. 25% fat.

Quoted message said:

Here's raw versus moist-cooked brisket:
Beef, brisket, whole, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/4" fat, all
grades, raw: 454 grams total weight, 120 grams fat, 77 grams protein.
26% fat.

Quoted message said:

Beef, brisket, whole, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/4" fat, all
grades, cooked, braised: 454 grams total weight, 143 grams fat, 106
grams protein. 32% fat.

Quoted message said:

Here's filet mignon, probably the leanest good cut:
Beef, short loin, tenderloin, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/2"
fat, prime, raw: 454 grams total weight, 107 grams fat, 81 grams
protein. 24% fat.

Quoted message said:

Beef, short loin, tenderloin, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/2"
fat, prime, cooked, broiled: 454 grams total weight, 106 grams fat,
113 grams protein. 23% fat.

Quoted message said:

Here's the leanest cut, of lowest grade sold in supermarkets (prime,
choice, select - below that, it's for canned products, processed foods
and animal foods), trimmed to 0 surface fat, and broiled. It would be
tough, dry and unpalatable, but certainly lean. More useful for stew
or pot roast:
Beef, tenderloin, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 0" fat, select,
cooked, broiled: 454 total weight, 45 grams of fat, 123 grams protein.
10% fat.

Quoted message said:

Here's the lowest fat content for any beef product I could find. It
*starts* as 95% lean. 454 grams of this meat cooks to 308 grams; a 32%
loss immediately for evaporation. It would taste and eat like sawdust:
Beef, ground, 95% lean meat/5% fat, crumbles, cooked, pan-browned: 454
grams total weight, 34 grams fat, 132 grams protein. 7% fat.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I thought you might want to know it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is not clear to me what you want me to know.

Quoted message said:

That, once again as is *always* the case when discussing nutrition,
you're wrong. Overstating the case and distorting the truth. Making
wild guesses and unsupported assertions that contradict and falsify
any claims you can make to being a scientist.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In fact, I would hardly be arguing if you would stated that you
are supposed to eat e.g. 300g of meat, 300g of bread and 300g of
e.g. nuts (as fat source) on 2PD.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suspect otherwise.

Quoted message said:

<LOL> Not "discern" merely "suspect."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But for the cardiologist relying on every mg of LDL your
statements are very, well, unprecise.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your judgment.

Quoted message said:

An observation based on the facts clearly in evidence above. Lack of
precision, equivalent lack of accuracy and lack of reliable support.

Quoted message said:

*This* truth is simple.

--
Don
[email hidden]

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article <1095341701.XLDSFQggs0dyjqK+1/pGYg@teranews>:

Quoted message said:

Owen Lowe wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
MU <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<snipped way too much for any reasonable person to take time to read>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I see you value the (your) time to input such a ridiculously long response
equals, as always, your unrealistic expectation that there is a significant
return on your effort. That many will read and be convinced.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Such it is with the prideful, self absorbed ego.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well,Mu, I found it rather interesting - guess I'm an unreasonable
person...

Quoted message said:

No, if you found it interesting, you probably have a tendency to "live to eat
rather than eat to live."

Quoted message said:

Many lead food-centric lives like yourself and Bob.

Quoted message said:

They also tend to have the greatest difficulty eating less and losing weight.

Yes, like me. I found it interesting, too. I love to eat (and run and
surf the internet and discuss meaningful issues and do a bit of yard
work and some of the household shopping); 150 lbs at 6'0". But I've
worked toward becoming unreasonable in discussing questionable
propositions.

Oh, typo. should be "I live to eat."
--
Don
[email hidden]

Owen Lowe said:

In article <1095341701.XLDSFQggs0dyjqK+1/pGYg@teranews>, "Dr.

Andrew B. Chung said:

No, if you found it interesting, you probably have a tendency to
"live to eat rather than eat to live."

Many lead food-centric lives like yourself and Bob.

They also tend to have the greatest difficulty eating less and
losing weight.

You are incorrect to disagree with me, Andrew. Mu said that Bob's
post was too much for any reasonable person to read through. I said
that I did and found it interesting and thus by Mu's viewpoint I
must be unreasonable. I believe you ought to be correcting Mu with
the point that it's not an unreasonable person that may read it
through but one who enjoys good food and looks forward to a
well-prepared and quality meal.

What I found it interesting to see is the pre and post cooking
analysis. For example:

Ooops. I obviously wasn't clear about the comparisons. Sorry.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here's filet mignon, probably the leanest good cut: Beef, short
loin, tenderloin, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/2" fat,
prime, raw: 454 grams total weight, 107 grams fat, 81 grams
protein. 24% fat.

Beef, short loin, tenderloin, separable lean and fat, trimmed
to 1/2" fat, prime, cooked, broiled: 454 grams total weight,
106 grams fat, 113 grams protein. 23% fat.

I found it curious that: the weight appeared to remain the same
though there ought to be water weight loss (perhaps this was
captured, measured and accounted for in the total); the fat loss is
minimal (i'd assume this is also due to the level of doneness

That's one missing bit of information in their data. They don't
specify degree of doneness, merely that it's cooked, sometimes
specifying method, as broiled or pan-fried or braised.

Quoted message said:

- it may also have been similarly captured and measured as might
the water have been); and most curious, the protein percentage rose
after cooking (as it did on the other examples).

They're not "before and after" comparisons, they're two different
situations. The first is the nutrient profile of a pound of raw meat.
The second is a profile of a pound of cooked meat. Different pieces of
meat. Not the same pieces of meat before and after. Sorry for the
confusion.

They're in response to Chung's bad math and worse nutritional
information where he talked about lean and cooked meats as somehow
being drastically different than raw in nutrient composition. Where he
also posited a pound of *meat* as equalling a pound of *protein*.

Those data came from the USDA Nutrient Database where each description
is a separate consideration. The sheer volume of information is
amazing. They measure macro- and micro-nutrients to fine precision.
<http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/>

Bob

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

Owen Lowe said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

MU said:

<snipped way too much for any reasonable person to take time to read>

I see you value the (your) time to input such a ridiculously long response
equals, as always, your unrealistic expectation that there is a significant
return on your effort. That many will read and be convinced.

Such it is with the prideful, self absorbed ego.

Well,Mu, I found it rather interesting - guess I'm an unreasonable
person...

No, if you found it interesting, you probably have a tendency to "live to eat
rather than eat to live."

Many lead food-centric lives like yourself and Bob.

The Chung philosophy, "If it tastes good, spit it out."

Bob

Don Kirkman said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Bob (this one) wrote in article
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>Average typical daily American intake probably exceeds 1 pound
>>of meat daily (many American folks will routinely eat a 12-16
>>oz of steak for just dinner). This would be more than 450
>>grams.

Quoted message said:

Note *probably* - it's a guess. And note all the assumptions pulled
out of thin air.

I've been wondering just how many "American folks will routinely eat a
12-16 oz of steak for just dinner." IME of several decades few families
have steak even once a week, and usually much less than 3/4 to one pound
steaks at that. Eight ounces, maybe. Those 12-16 ouncers are
supersized restaurant portions, and common folks don't eat out regularly
at steak houses.

It's just Chung's uninformed but self-serving nonsense. Cruise the
meat cases in supermarkets. Typically, steaks are rarely cut to more
than 8 ounces except for the few promoted as such.

Restaurants have reduced the sizes of their standard red meat
portions, except for steak houses and those places that promote a
"belly buster" by whatever local name. But even they have reasonable
portions for the vast majority of customers who don't want the vast
quantity.

Chung simply doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to
nutrition, consumption and caloric issues. Quackery.

Bob

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob (this one) said:

Not the same pieces of meat before and after. Sorry for the
confusion.

No I'm prolly the one to apologize - I wasn't following along for much
of the thread and just jumped in without realizing I may not have known
the priors.

Quoted message said:

They're in response to Chung's bad math and worse nutritional
information where he talked about lean and cooked meats as somehow
being drastically different than raw in nutrient composition. Where he
also posited a pound of *meat* as equalling a pound of *protein*.

Those data came from the USDA Nutrient Database where each description
is a separate consideration. The sheer volume of information is
amazing. They measure macro- and micro-nutrients to fine precision.
<http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/>

It's amazing what the gov has done and made available via the Innernet.
Thank you for the direct link.

Owen Lowe said:

In article <1095341701.XLDSFQggs0dyjqK+1/pGYg@teranews>,

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

No, if you found it interesting, you probably have a tendency to "live to eat
rather than eat to live."

Many lead food-centric lives like yourself and Bob.

They also tend to have the greatest difficulty eating less and losing weight.

You are incorrect to disagree with me, Andrew.

It would be my choice to disagree.

Quoted message said:

Mu said that Bob's post
was too much for any reasonable person to read through. I said that I
did and found it interesting and thus by Mu's viewpoint I must be
unreasonable. I believe you ought to be correcting Mu with the point
that it's not an unreasonable person that may read it through but one
who enjoys good food and looks forward to a well-prepared and quality
meal.

Why should I do something that is already done by you?

Quoted message said:

What I found it interesting to see is the pre and post cooking analysis.

We've already established that you found the food "science" interesting.

Quoted message said:

For example:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here's filet mignon, probably the leanest good cut:
Beef, short loin, tenderloin, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/2"
fat, prime, raw: 454 grams total weight, 107 grams fat, 81 grams
protein. 24% fat.

Beef, short loin, tenderloin, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/2"
fat, prime, cooked, broiled: 454 grams total weight, 106 grams fat,
113 grams protein. 23% fat.

I found it curious that: the weight appeared to remain the same though
there ought to be water weight loss (perhaps this was captured, measured
and accounted for in the total); the fat loss is minimal (i'd assume
this is also due to the level of doneness - it may also have been
similarly captured and measured as might the water have been); and most
curious, the protein percentage rose after cooking (as it did on the
other examples).

Does not interest me at all (shrug).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You will be in my prayers, dear neighbor whom I love.

I, too, love you, Andrew.

May that please God.

You remain in my prayers, dear Owen whom I love.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BTW, I would think that 2PD would not be such a bad idea, IF you

would

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

make some better rules for including more vegetables.

Rules, journaling, counting, all these encumbrances are the main

reason

Quoted message said:

diets fail and people fail on diets.

Apply the 2PD. Engage an Ounce Of Common Sense.

Well, MU, I understand that 2PD is designed to be as simple as possible.

Anyway, speaking about rules and counting, 2PD is pretty heavy rules and
requires pretty heavy counting, weigting etc... My wife was on WW style
diet and I do not believe she had to do more then weight her food AND
apply some simple multiplication.

Personally, I had followed much simpler rules last year to get from BMI
29 to 22... (never used scales, never counted calories/carbs or
anything - just applied common sense and carfuly choosed food).

Mirek

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

Owen Lowe said:

In article <1095341701.XLDSFQggs0dyjqK+1/pGYg@teranews>, "Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, if you found it interesting, you probably have a tendency
to "live to eat rather than eat to live."

Many lead food-centric lives like yourself and Bob.

They also tend to have the greatest difficulty eating less and
losing weight.

You are incorrect to disagree with me, Andrew.

It would be my choice to disagree.

<LOL> AS if the issue were choice. Sap.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Mu said that Bob's post was too much for any reasonable person to
read through. I said that I did and found it interesting and thus
by Mu's viewpoint I must be unreasonable. I believe you ought to
be correcting Mu with the point that it's not an unreasonable
person that may read it through but one who enjoys good food and
looks forward to a well-prepared and quality meal.

Why should I do something that is already done by you?

Do you eat? Do you [censored]? Do you breathe...? What a profoundly
preposterous question.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What I found it interesting to see is the pre and post cooking
analysis.

We've already established that you found the food "science"
interesting.

<LOL> Chung is such a transparent clown. "We" didn't establish
anything. Owen did.

I find it especially interesting that you would put quotes around the
word "science" as though it weren't. Contrast with your offerings that
are flat out wrong and indefensible. Your math was wrong, your
assertion about macronutrients in foods was wrong and your insistence
about the nature of what comprises food was wrong. There was *no*
science in your post. You reject science and claim to be a scientist.
Fraud.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For example:

Quoted message said:

> Here's filet mignon, probably the leanest good cut: Beef,
> short loin, tenderloin, separable lean and fat, trimmed to
> 1/2" fat, prime, raw: 454 grams total weight, 107 grams fat,
> 81 grams protein. 24% fat.
>
> Beef, short loin, tenderloin, separable lean and fat, trimmed
> to 1/2" fat, prime, cooked, broiled: 454 grams total weight,
> 106 grams fat, 113 grams protein. 23% fat.

I found it curious that: the weight appeared to remain the same
though there ought to be water weight loss (perhaps this was
captured, measured and accounted for in the total); the fat loss
is minimal (i'd assume this is also due to the level of doneness
- it may also have been similarly captured and measured as might
the water have been); and most curious, the protein percentage
rose after cooking (as it did on the other examples).

Does not interest me at all (shrug).

For Wacko Chung, faith takes precedence over fact. The real reason
he's not interested is because it shows once again his charlatanry.

Bob

Don Kirkman said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article <1095341701.XLDSFQggs0dyjqK+1/pGYg@teranews>:

Quoted message said:

Owen Lowe wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
MU <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> <snipped way too much for any reasonable person to take time to read>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I see you value the (your) time to input such a ridiculously long response
> equals, as always, your unrealistic expectation that there is a significant
> return on your effort. That many will read and be convinced.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Such it is with the prideful, self absorbed ego.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well,Mu, I found it rather interesting - guess I'm an unreasonable
person...

Quoted message said:

No, if you found it interesting, you probably have a tendency to "live to eat
rather than eat to live."

Quoted message said:

Many lead food-centric lives like yourself and Bob.

Quoted message said:

They also tend to have the greatest difficulty eating less and losing weight.

Yes, like me.

Does not surprise me.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867

Don Kirkman said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Bob (this one) wrote in article
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Mirek Fidler wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Average typical daily American intake probably exceeds 1 pound
>> of meat daily (many American folks will routinely eat a 12-16
>> oz of steak for just dinner). This would be more than 450
>> grams.

Quoted message said:

Note *probably* - it's a guess. And note all the assumptions pulled
out of thin air.

I've been wondering just how many "American folks will routinely eat a
12-16 oz of steak for just dinner." IME of several decades few families
have steak even once a week, and usually much less than 3/4 to one pound
steaks at that. Eight ounces, maybe. Those 12-16 ouncers are
supersized restaurant portions, and common folks don't eat out regularly
at steak houses.

Meat-eating obese folks do.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

Don Kirkman said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Bob (this one) wrote in article
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Quoted message said:

>Mirek Fidler wrote:

Quoted message said:

>>>Average typical daily American intake probably exceeds 1 pound
>>>of meat daily (many American folks will routinely eat a 12-16
>>>oz of steak for just dinner). This would be more than 450
>>>grams.

Quoted message said:

Note *probably* - it's a guess. And note all the assumptions pulled
out of thin air.

I've been wondering just how many "American folks will routinely eat a
12-16 oz of steak for just dinner." IME of several decades few families
have steak even once a week, and usually much less than 3/4 to one pound
steaks at that. Eight ounces, maybe. Those 12-16 ouncers are
supersized restaurant portions, and common folks don't eat out regularly
at steak houses.

Meat-eating obese folks do.

<LOL> It's gone from "probably" to "do." Chunglish logic. Soon it's
going to be that it's mandatory for them to eat that much meat. SOunds
like Chung has contempt for "obese folks" when he delivers that snide
tone.

As always, nothing behind his position but his uninformed opinion.

Bob

Mirek Fidler said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BTW, I would think that 2PD would not be such a bad idea, IF you

would

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

make some better rules for including more vegetables.

MU:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Rules, journaling, counting, all these encumbrances are the main
reason
diets fail and people fail on diets.

Apply the 2PD. Engage an Ounce Of Common Sense.

Mirek Fidler said:

Well, MU, I understand that 2PD is designed to be as simple as possible.

Anyway, speaking about rules and counting, 2PD is pretty heavy rules and
requires pretty heavy counting, weigting etc... My wife was on WW style
diet and I do not believe she had to do more then weight her food AND
apply some simple multiplication.

Can't agree. Put the food on a scale, weigh, remember, no multiplication.

Quoted message said:

Personally, I had followed much simpler rules last year to get from BMI
29 to 22... (never used scales, never counted calories/carbs or
anything - just applied common sense and carfuly choosed food).

Mirek

Adn LESS food too, right?

MU said:

Mirek Fidler said:

Quoted message said:

>BTW, I would think that 2PD would not be such a bad idea, IF you

would

Quoted message said:

>make some better rules for including more vegetables.

MU:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Rules, journaling, counting, all these encumbrances are the main
reason
diets fail and people fail on diets.

Apply the 2PD. Engage an Ounce Of Common Sense.

Mirek Fidler said:

Well, MU, I understand that 2PD is designed to be as simple as possible.

Anyway, speaking about rules and counting, 2PD is pretty heavy rules and
requires pretty heavy counting, weigting etc... My wife was on WW style
diet and I do not believe she had to do more then weight her food AND
apply some simple multiplication.

Can't agree.

Of course not. Because you can't begin to see the implications. Idiot.

Quoted message said:

Put the food on a scale, weigh, remember, no multiplication.

No multiplication. Addition and subtraction. Idiot.

"Remember...?" So if you eat 13.78 ounces for breakfast, you have to
recall it all day long? And lunch is 12.63 ounces and you need to
remember that, too. and do the arithmetic to keep you on track So it
leaves you only, um, 5.59 ounces for dinner, right? And you remember
that every day, even when you're doing your secret missions behind
enemy lines and have to use the tiny kind of scales drug dealers use
on tv? Or do you not weigh everything? In which case, it's estimating
and how can that be any more accurate than calorie counting...?

Oh, wait. You can "discern" the weight. Idiot.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Personally, I had followed much simpler rules last year to get from BMI
29 to 22... (never used scales, never counted calories/carbs or
anything - just applied common sense and carfuly choosed food).

Mirek

And LESS food too, right?

"Discerning" again? Idiot. Trying to salvage some semblance of your
blunder-filled idiocy?

Bob

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article <1095439966.dE4KFD5Ibd8ViCjlNu5RGw@teranews>:

Quoted message said:

Don Kirkman wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article <1095341701.XLDSFQggs0dyjqK+1/pGYg@teranews>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Owen Lowe wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> In article <[email hidden]>,
> MU <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > <snipped way too much for any reasonable person to take time to read>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > I see you value the (your) time to input such a ridiculously long response
> > equals, as always, your unrealistic expectation that there is a significant
> > return on your effort. That many will read and be convinced.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Such it is with the prideful, self absorbed ego.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Well,Mu, I found it rather interesting - guess I'm an unreasonable
> person...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, if you found it interesting, you probably have a tendency to "live to eat
rather than eat to live."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Many lead food-centric lives like yourself and Bob.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They also tend to have the greatest difficulty eating less and losing weight.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, like me.

Quoted message said:

Does not surprise me.

Nor am I surprised that you continue to falsely attribute doctored
statements to those you oppose--out of "love" and "truth," I suppose.
What I wrote was

Quoted message said:

Yes, like me. I found it interesting, too. I love to eat (and run and
surf the internet and discuss meaningful issues and do a bit of yard
work and some of the household shopping); 150 lbs at 6'0". But I've
worked toward becoming unreasonable in discussing questionable
propositions.

Quoted message said:

Oh, typo. should be "I live to eat."

Now we can add your inane response: "Does not surprise me".
--
Don
[email hidden]

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article <1095439968.cCTrVg2SxpM608tlpkChfg@teranews>:

Quoted message said:

Don Kirkman wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Bob (this one) wrote in article
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Mirek Fidler wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> Average typical daily American intake probably exceeds 1 pound
>>> of meat daily (many American folks will routinely eat a 12-16
>>> oz of steak for just dinner). This would be more than 450
>>> grams.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Note *probably* - it's a guess. And note all the assumptions pulled
out of thin air.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've been wondering just how many "American folks will routinely eat a
12-16 oz of steak for just dinner." IME of several decades few families
have steak even once a week, and usually much less than 3/4 to one pound
steaks at that. Eight ounces, maybe. Those 12-16 ouncers are
supersized restaurant portions, and common folks don't eat out regularly
at steak houses.

Quoted message said:

Meat-eating obese folks do.

Andrew, you're apparently degenerating into a simpleminded transparent
troll. But I love to play with trolls. :-)
--
Don
[email hidden]

Don Kirkman said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article <1095439968.cCTrVg2SxpM608tlpkChfg@teranews>:

Quoted message said:

Don Kirkman wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Bob (this one) wrote in article
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Mirek Fidler wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>> Average typical daily American intake probably exceeds 1 pound
>>>> of meat daily (many American folks will routinely eat a 12-16
>>>> oz of steak for just dinner). This would be more than 450
>>>> grams.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Note *probably* - it's a guess. And note all the assumptions pulled
>out of thin air.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've been wondering just how many "American folks will routinely eat a
12-16 oz of steak for just dinner." IME of several decades few families
have steak even once a week, and usually much less than 3/4 to one pound
steaks at that. Eight ounces, maybe. Those 12-16 ouncers are
supersized restaurant portions, and common folks don't eat out regularly
at steak houses.

Quoted message said:

Meat-eating obese folks do.

Andrew, you're apparently degenerating into a simpleminded transparent
troll.

Ouch. You may have at the other cheek.

Quoted message said:

But I love to play with trolls. :-)

Your self-worship does not surprise me either.

Quoted message said:

--
Don
[email hidden]

You remain in my prayers, dear Don whom I love.

You remain in my prayers, dear neighbor whom I love.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867

Don Kirkman said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article <1095439966.dE4KFD5Ibd8ViCjlNu5RGw@teranews>:

Quoted message said:

Don Kirkman wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article <1095341701.XLDSFQggs0dyjqK+1/pGYg@teranews>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Owen Lowe wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> In article <[email hidden]>,
>> MU <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> > <snipped way too much for any reasonable person to take time to read>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> > I see you value the (your) time to input such a ridiculously long response
>> > equals, as always, your unrealistic expectation that there is a significant
>> > return on your effort. That many will read and be convinced.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> > Such it is with the prideful, self absorbed ego.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Well,Mu, I found it rather interesting - guess I'm an unreasonable
>> person...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>No, if you found it interesting, you probably have a tendency to "live to eat
>rather than eat to live."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Many lead food-centric lives like yourself and Bob.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>They also tend to have the greatest difficulty eating less and losing weight.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, like me.

Quoted message said:

Does not surprise me.

Nor am I surprised

I know.

You remain in my prayers, dear neighbor whom I love.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob (this one) said:

No multiplication. Addition and subtraction. Idiot.

"Remember...?" So if you eat 13.78 ounces for breakfast, you have to
recall it all day long? And lunch is 12.63 ounces and you need to
remember that, too. and do the arithmetic to keep you on track So it
leaves you only, um, 5.59 ounces for dinner, right? And you remember
that every day, even when you're doing your secret missions behind
enemy lines and have to use the tiny kind of scales drug dealers use
on tv? Or do you not weigh everything? In which case, it's estimating
and how can that be any more accurate than calorie counting...?

Ahhhh, but one does need to implement division... else how would you
know how many pounds you ate? 😉