Re: Wow

Quoted message said:

"There is no prescribed course of food with the 2PD-OMER Approach.

The former (diet) is left up to the supervising doctor to prescribe."

Of course, it is a poor gimic of a calorie restriction diet. Just
ignore it, a doc will provide plans with calorie restriction anyway with
weight or volume as the guide for meal plans. The real diet from the
doc will also consider nutrition which the two pound diet does not and
stress adding exercise.

I just read about a study where exercise caused more belly fat loss then
calorie restriction alone.

One can just do a time restricted meal to also limit calories.

The two pound diet, in all its many and changing flavors over the past
few years is a scientific flop, trash science.

I wouldn't bother with calorie restriction except in life or death
cases of
morbid obesity. Exercise also has dramatic effects on cardiovascular
health; 4 weeks of daily, easy 8 mile bike rides (age 30, starting
from no
exercise whatsoever) brought my bp from 140 / 80 to 110 / 60, and my
resting pulse rate from 90 bpm to 55 -- the traditional "count beats
for
15 seconds and multiply by 4" method was no longer accurate. This
was on top on smoking 1 pack of Marlboro reds per day. Weight loss
was from 185 lbs to 150. I could still eat like a pig, and my weight
went
down.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell said:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:
> > brother "Mu" wrote:
> > > neighbor Cubit wrote:
> > >
> > >> Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
> > >
> > > Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to
> > > disown
> > > the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of
> > > <insert
> > > chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight?
> > > Hogwash!"
> >
> > Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet
> > does not
> > factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
>
> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
> used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
> not **how much** to eat.

"diet", OED definition #3:

Prescribed course of food, restricted in kind or limited in
quantity,

There is no prescribed course of food with the 2PD-OMER Approach.

The former (diet) is left up to the supervising doctor to prescribe.

A prescribed diet would include the 'type of food' and the 'amount' to
consume. Just like a prescribed drug has to be taken at an appropriate
dose to have a beneficial effect, e.g. 1 tablet of X to be taken two times
a day, or 2 tablets of Y to be taken once daily, or 1 tablets of Y to be
taken as required, or 5mg of drug Z per kg of body weight.

Your approach suggests benefit is achieved only at a fixed dose of 2
pounds no matter what the prescribed course of food is, which would imply
that the 2lbs is the benefit-determining factor of the prescribed course
of food.

Quoted message said:

For example, it is likely that a diabetic would be prescribed the ADA
diabetic diet while using the 2PD-OMER Approach.

There is no point in carrying a scale, then weighing 1.5 pounds or 2
pounds of a certain prescribed course, if one can adhere to recommended
guidelines and making appropriate lifestyle changes, which have a proven
benefit.

The magic dose of "2 lbs" does not have any benefit, unless of course you
can come up with something more concrete than your anecdotal evidence.

He can't.

Smiler,
The godless one

Epinephrine said:

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

Quoted message said:

convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell said:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

>satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:
>
>>brother "Mu" wrote:
>>
>>>neighbor Cubit wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
>>>
>>>Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to
>>>disown
>>>the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of
>>><insert
>>>chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight?
>>>Hogwash!"
>>
>>Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet
>>does not
>>factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
>
>The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
>used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
>not **how much** to eat.

"diet", OED definition #3:

Prescribed course of food, restricted in kind or limited in quantity,

There is no prescribed course of food with the 2PD-OMER Approach.

The former (diet) is left up to the supervising doctor to prescribe.

A prescribed diet would include the 'type of food' and the 'amount' to
consume. Just like a prescribed drug has to be taken at an appropriate dose
to have a beneficial effect, e.g. 1 tablet of X to be taken two times a day,
or 2 tablets of Y to be taken once daily, or 1 tablets of Y to be taken as
required, or 5mg of drug Z per kg of body weight.

Your approach suggests benefit is achieved only at a fixed dose of 2 pounds
no matter what the prescribed course of food is, which would imply that the
2lbs is the benefit-determining factor of the prescribed course of food.

Quoted message said:

For example, it is likely that a diabetic would be prescribed the ADA
diabetic diet while using the 2PD-OMER Approach.

There is no point in carrying a scale, then weighing 1.5 pounds or 2 pounds
of a certain prescribed course, if one can adhere to recommended guidelines
and making appropriate lifestyle changes, which have a proven benefit.

The magic dose of "2 lbs" does not have any benefit, unless of course you
can come up with something more concrete than your anecdotal evidence.

There is no anecdotal evidence, only andy's crowing.

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

Quoted message said:

Epinephrine said:

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

Quoted message said:

convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:

>Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
>>satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:
>>
>>>brother "Mu" wrote:
>>>
>>>>neighbor Cubit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
>>>>
>>>>Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to
>>>>disown
>>>>the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
>>>>chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
>>>
>>>Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does
>>>not
>>>factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
>>
>>The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
>>used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
>>not **how much** to eat.
>
>"diet", OED definition #3:
>
> Prescribed course of food, restricted in kind or limited in
> quantity,

There is no prescribed course of food with the 2PD-OMER Approach.

The former (diet) is left up to the supervising doctor to prescribe.

A prescribed diet would include the 'type of food' and the 'amount' to
consume. Just like a prescribed drug has to be taken at an appropriate
dose to have a beneficial effect, e.g. 1 tablet of X to be taken two
times a day, or 2 tablets of Y to be taken once daily, or 1 tablets of Y
to be taken as required, or 5mg of drug Z per kg of body weight.

Your approach suggests benefit is achieved only at a fixed dose of 2
pounds no matter what the prescribed course of food is, which would imply
that the 2lbs is the benefit-determining factor of the prescribed course
of food.

Quoted message said:

For example, it is likely that a diabetic would be prescribed the ADA
diabetic diet while using the 2PD-OMER Approach.

There is no point in carrying a scale, then weighing 1.5 pounds or 2
pounds of a certain prescribed course, if one can adhere to recommended
guidelines and making appropriate lifestyle changes, which have a proven
benefit.

The magic dose of "2 lbs" does not have any benefit, unless of course you
can come up with something more concrete than your anecdotal evidence.

There is no anecdotal evidence, only andy's crowing.

I was kindly referring to his "crowing" as anecdotal evidence.

i.e Chung's anecdotes = Chung's anecdotal evidence.

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:08:24 +0100, "Epinephrine" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

satan via a sockpuppet (demon) said:

brother "Mu" wrote:
> neighbor Cubit wrote:
>
>> Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
>
> Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
> the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
> chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"

Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does
not
factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.

The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
not **how much** to eat.

Appropriate calorific restriction with cardiovascular exercise would be a
more meaningful approach. More importantly there a lot of evidence to also
suggest that calorific restriction is the way to live longer. Perhaps
tailoring your approach further could add to its credibility.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The truth is that you or anyone else can cut their consumption
> gradually
> to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.

Wouldn't a 1PD diet or a 1.5PD diet work better than the 2PD diet? Just
wondering...

The 2 pounds (16 oz + 16 oz as described by Exodus 16:16) is by GOD's
design to be the optimal amount.

Quoted message said:

Any amount more or less would not be
optimal and we would be less hungry.

"Less hungry" is very subjective. Perhaps this amount (2PD) is optimal for
*you* and keeps you less hungry? There is no evidence to suggest that this
amount is optimal for an athelete, a bedridden patient, or an infant.

Your assumption that 2PD is optimal for everyone is therefore flawed as it
does not take into account an individual's specific metabolism and
requirements. It appears to be construed to only serve religious agenda.

I agree with what you say. However, using scientific conclusions
and time tested common sense on, Dung , is a waste of time. He doesn't
care about people. Only his superstition exists to him. That's why
he's not allowed hospital privileges and has no doubt (to me) severely
injured some of his 'believers'.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

Hollywood said:

Mu said:

On 13 Apr 2007 07:42:02 -0700, Hollywood wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In all honesty, I don't think Mu = Chung.

Put butter on that /waffle/, thanks.

I don't get how a loose comment in your direction when I consistently
suggest that you and chung are lovers, is a real waffle. Let's suggest
it's not because you are low regard so I don't pay attention to what I
say to you.

You simply cannot follow a Usenet conversation with any sense of
clarity. In less than a day, you have gone from Mu=Chung to "oh no, I
really don't think so" because Kittrell pointed out what a dim bulb you
are for saying so. Not to mention that the archives are chock full of
evidence that Mu and Chung are separate folk.

You're not only a dunce with your pointed hat cocked to the side, you're
a pathological liar.

Hollywood said:

Mu said:

On 13 Apr 2007 07:42:02 -0700, Hollywood wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In all honesty, I don't think Mu = Chung.

Put butter on that /waffle/, thanks.

I don't get how a loose comment in your direction when I consistently
suggest that you and chung are lovers, is a real waffle. Let's suggest
it's not because you are low regard so I don't pay attention to what I
say to you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think they two individuals
deeply in love with each other and some infantile conception of a
higher power.

Let's get this accurate, for once, for one time in your posts about Mu.
Once.

There is no "higher power", I believe definitively and completely in God
who made His Presence known as Jesus Christ.

You believe in the Lord God, who is both powerful and above everyone.
That would be a higher power. And I contend that Chung's conception is
infantile. Your's is less forward, but no less infantile.

Quoted message said:

Note the lack of butter.

Butter is good for you. It's the carbs that are killing you, not the
sat fat.

Carbs are killing me. lol

I have some helpful information for you.

There are exactly two categories of people who might read any article
you post. The first group comprises those who know you're a liar, a
plagiarist, a fraud and an idiot. The second includes only those who
have never heard of you. If you want to maintain as good an image as
possible, don't ever post again. Your truthlessness and incoherent
nonsense just give the first group an opportunity to laugh at you, and
any of the second group who see that [censored] will immediately migrate to
the first. So your best bet is to shut up.

Mu said:

Hollywood said:

Mu said:

On 13 Apr 2007 07:42:02 -0700, Hollywood wrote:

Quoted message said:

> In all honesty, I don't think Mu = Chung.

Put butter on that /waffle/, thanks.

I don't get how a loose comment in your direction when I consistently
suggest that you and chung are lovers, is a real waffle. Let's suggest
it's not because you are low regard so I don't pay attention to what I
say to you.

You simply cannot follow a Usenet conversation with any sense of
clarity. In less than a day, you have gone from Mu=Chung to "oh no, I
really don't think so" because Kittrell pointed out what a dim bulb you
are for saying so. Not to mention that the archives are chock full of
evidence that Mu and Chung are separate folk.

You're not only a dunce with your pointed hat cocked to the side, you're
a pathological liar.

Care to prop up the 2-lb chung diet with regard to conservation of
energy, Mu?

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen

"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen

Hollywood said:

Quoted message said:

Let's get this accurate, for once, for one time in your posts about Mu.
Once.

There is no "higher power", I believe definitively and completely in God
who made His Presence known as Jesus Christ.

You believe in the Lord God, who is both powerful and above everyone.
That would be a higher power.

Which part of my post, forget it, all of it.

Quoted message said:

And I contend that Chung's conception is
infantile. Your's is less forward, but no less infantile.

Contend all you want. Your expressed opinions carry the exact weight of
your posting character and Usenet-archived childishness.

I'm getting tired of you, you're like a needle in a haystack, no, no,
OK, let me put it another way.

In the movie Jurassic Park, there's a scene where a researcher sticks
her hand in a pile of dinosaur dung, digs around,and pulls out an
undigested berry. I'm sure if I listened to more of "Hollywood", I too
may discover a berry, but to me, the price in time is waaay too high.

Epinephrine said:

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

Quoted message said:

Cubit said:

Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.

Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"

Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does not
factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.

Vague? Eat less than two pounds of food and caloried liquid a day.
What's vague about that?

Right, it doesn't factor calories. Why? Because it doesn't need to.

Epinephrine said:

Quoted message said:

The truth is that you or anyone else can cut their consumption gradually
to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.

Wouldn't a 1PD diet or a 1.5PD diet work better than the 2PD diet? Just
wondering...

Yes in terms of more rapid weight loss. I eat in the 1.75 range myself.

Epinephrine said:

Quoted message said:

The 2 pounds (16 oz + 16 oz as described by Exodus 16:16) is by GOD's
design to be the optimal amount.

Quoted message said:

Any amount more or less would not be
optimal and we would be less hungry.

"Less hungry" is very subjective. Perhaps this amount (2PD) is optimal for
*you* and keeps you less hungry? There is no evidence to suggest that this
amount is optimal for an athelete, a bedridden patient, or an infant.

I trained athletes, strength and power, several who were obese, put on
the 2PD, no ill results either in their strength and power gains or in
their on field performance (the ultimate test).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ah, but you see, Dr. Chung has informed us that:

The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. It has been
studied in more than 625,550 people worldwide

Epinephrine said:

Surely if such a significant number of people participated, it would be
worth reporting in any medical journal or christian magazine, but it is my
understanding that Chung has not done so. Why, I wonder!

I haven't looked at Chung's claim of participants but I can say that
participation is not necessarily by choice or by taking a particular
direction.

Quoted message said:

As this approach clearly does not have any scientific basis whatsoever,
would it be taken seriously by the scientific world?

For scientists who observe truth without need for research, absolutely.
For those that require clinical review, no.

Cary Kittrell said:

Oh, let's just say that it has been suggested that nearly all of the
"participants" in Dr. Chung's study were the children of Israel,
wandering hither and yon (generally more yonly than hitherly)
all those years.

Suggested or factual?

Quoted message said:

If so, one can only wonder where Dr. Chung obtained all the
requisite information on the state of their health. All of their
healths.

-- cary

Why don't you ask him?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If so, one can only wonder where Dr. Chung obtained all the
requisite information on the state of their health. All of their
healths.

Epinephrine said:

I don't think health status of an individual matters when it comes to the 2
pound approach.

It is my understanding that as long as a supervising doctor has prescribed a
certain food, the magic dose of "2 pounds" would do the miracle.

I began the 2PD in spring/summer 2004 (??), there was no direction from
Chung to specific foods. Maybe that has changed.

This idea of "magic dose" is in your head and you know that, why
belittle yourself by saying so?

Many Muuns ago, I added to the 2PD AOOCS. That stands for "An Ounce Of
Common Sense". Common sense says no one can or ever will eat exactly 2
lbs per day, or that will it always be fatty foods or lettuce either.

Picking at the nonsensical doesn't advance your argument, it degrades it
and you in combo.

Quoted message said:

The two pound diet has no basis in science

Correct. Atkins did and it's a scam.

Quoted message said:

and ignores the equally to
calorie restriction factors of exercise and sound choice of nutrition.

A lie. First, exercise unless it is extreme burns very little cals over
and above sitting on the couch.

Sound nutrition, you know what that is? Write a book, it will scam
millions.

Quoted message said:

I have followed it from the beginning when mr. chung was confused by
watching a movie where mountain climbers consumed two pounds of food per
day. Confused because it is dehydrated energy dense foods easier to
carry up mountains for an energy intensive activity. That same diet
would almost surely cause most people to gain weight and become obese.
As I recall from calculating a similar diet it would be about 5000
calories a day..

It was 2 pounds of water-released food, add water, it increases, this
confused who?

Quoted message said:

This obvious fact was over looked because soon thereafter given him
personally he was also confused by an account in scripture of people
eating what he took mistakenly as two pounds of food a day. He confused
a measure of weight there that was in fact a measure of dry grain
volume. It too was not far from 5000 calories if that much grain was
consumed each day.

OK, cite that.

Quoted message said:

But fear not, by this time he was convinced that by divine direction he
was correct and that two pounds of food regardless of all other factors
was a divine directive for good health. Regardless of what was eaten
and how many calories consumed it would be divinely adjusted to each
person's nutritional needs.

Show me one nutritionally deprived individual in the USA on 2 lbs per
day.

Quoted message said:

Then when added internal belly fat was becoming widely discussed for its
adverse metabolic activity, the two pound diet was seen as the cure for
all
metabolic related disorders, a divine cure no doubt given him personaly.
This fat "vat" was at root of all manner of disorder for which the two
pound diet was the treatment, nay the cure.

????????????

Quoted message said:

Thus one can see the trash science,

It was never science....

Quoted message said:

the confusion, the willfull
distortions, the filtering of information, the illogical leaps made, all
firmly cemented in his mind as a divine plan in which he was to play a
central and vital role in its pronouncement to the world. Atendant with
world wide acclaim and medical praise no doubt and purchase of tourist
books for trips to sweden high on the must do list.

lol Whacko

Cary Kittrell said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does not
factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.

The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
not **how much** to eat.

"diet", OED definition #3:

Prescribed course of food, restricted in kind or limited in quantity,

--c ary

I'm not certain that the word diet isn't more in tune with control and
direction of specific foodstuffs and their eating. The 2PD is about
volume but I have to admit what Chung has evolved this to, I have not
kept up.

All I know is that when I found out, to my surprise, the volume of food
I was eating, reduced it, I lost weight.

MD/PhD said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
not **how much** to eat.

"diet", OED definition #3:

Prescribed course of food, restricted in kind or limited in quantity,

There is no prescribed course of food with the 2PD-OMER Approach.

I don't see how or why it there could be.

Cary Kittrell said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
> used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
> not **how much** to eat.

"diet", OED definition #3:

Prescribed course of food, restricted in kind or limited in quantity,

There is no prescribed course of food with the 2PD-OMER Approach.

And of course everyone else understands that the act of
prescribing in the above phrase refers either to 1) prescribing
limits of kind, or 2) prescribing limits of amount.

-- cary

cary, you're being argumentative for what purpose? OK, so wth, call it a
diet?

It works, call it anything you want.

Quoted message said:

"There is no prescribed course of food with the 2PD-OMER Approach.

The former (diet) is left up to the supervising doctor to prescribe."

Of course, it is a poor gimic of a calorie restriction diet.

There is no caloric restriction and I am tiring of you're inability to
post to Usenet as if you have any real purpose other than to pass time
and gas.

Grow up, get a newsreader, subscribe to a real Usenet service, if you
can't afford $12 a year, get the hell off Usenet.