Re: Wow

Epinephrine said:

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,

Incorrect. Speaking as one who did, interrupting one who never has but
speakd pontifically, it is a real eye opener.

Quoted message said:

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.

Really? such a broad and generic statement, which guidelines, which
proven lifestyle, oh, don't forget the citations, you wanted them for
the 2PD, it's your turn now, BigStuff.

Quoted message said:

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.

lol

See how that double-edged sword you just cut yourself wide open works?

Mu said:

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:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"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).

And we all are awaiting your peer-reviewed research, including double-
blind testings.

Olrik

Mu said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

You pretty much degrade yourself by paying attention to Chung. Just
review Chung's posting history, and stop drinking the Kool-Aid (does
the 16 oz. include the sugar and the artificial colouring &
flavouring?)

Olrik

Mu said:

Cary Kittrell 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.

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.

Quoted message said:

"diet", OED definition #3:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

--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.

It's called the "duh" factor. Look into it, shill.

Olrik

Stephen Knight said:

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

Oh look, another child with a recycled pink MAC. *plonk*

Olrik said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"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).

And we all are awaiting your peer-reviewed research, including double-
blind testings.

Olrik

Don't hold your urine for it. Your credentials to review if were
availble, please?

Olrik said:

You pretty much degrade yourself by paying attention to Chung.

A lot of kiddies on Usenet tonight, of course, it's Sat. *plonk*

Mu said:

On 13 Apr 2007 22:18:36 -0700,Olrikwrote:

Quoted message said:

You pretty much degrade yourself by paying attention to Chung.

A lot of kiddies on Usenet tonight, of course, it's Sat. *plonk*

Poor "Mu". Well, I guess, being a shill has its obligations.

Olrik

Mu said:

On 13 Apr 2007 22:10:30 -0700,Olrikwrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> "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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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:

And we all are awaiting your peer-reviewed research, including double-
blind testings.

Quoted message said:

Olrik

Don't hold your urine for it. Your credentials to review if were
availble, please?

Poor little shill.

You posted this :

"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)."

I still reply : "And we all are awaiting your peer-reviewed research,
including double-blind testings."

Olrik

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

Quoted message said:

Epinephrine said:

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,

Incorrect. Speaking as one who did, interrupting one who never has but
speakd pontifically, it is a real eye opener.

Unfortunately anecdotal evidence will not convince me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Really? such a broad and generic statement, which guidelines, which
proven lifestyle, oh, don't forget the citations, you wanted them for
the 2PD, it's your turn now, BigStuff.

Sorry. Given that you have plonked me and that it would be too complicated
for you to handle, I feel there is no point in. Unless of course un plonk
me..

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Rubbish.

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

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:26:17 +0100, Epinephrine wrote:

Quoted message said:

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

Which is why people have asked if 2 pounds of cats or 2 pounds of lard would
do the job. Are you usually this dim?

Mu said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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?

no.

Thank you.

Mu said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Put butter on that /waffle/, thanks.

Quoted message said:

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.

You clearly do not understand satire and parody. But those with no
humor and planetary sized egos seldom do.

Mu said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Put butter on that /waffle/, thanks.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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:

Quoted message said:

Note the lack of butter.

Quoted message said:

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.

Please cite:

Plagarist (this I'd really like to see)
Fraud

Everyone knows that you are an agitator of the lowest rank, with
little of value to add to any conversation. If you ever offer a useful
nugget of anything, it is clearly accidental. So, your best bet is to
invent a time machine and shoot yourself ten years ago.

Mu said:

On 13 Apr 2007 11:41:00 -0700, Hollywood wrote:

Quoted message said:

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,

If you're tired, retire.Clearly you enjoy the banter.

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."
At very very best it works because for the energy needs of some people
two pounds of chosen foods happens to be fewer calories then required to
maintain current weight status. Thus for those who happen by luck to
fall in this narrow window it is a calorie restriction diet gimic, that
can also be achived by other such gimics as rest4riction by volume of
food consumed or by time allowed to consume. By chance for some they
will also be fewer calories and weight loss will proceed.

I find admirable that you come to the defence of your friend as he
cycles through various stages of decompensation. In the mean time
however such devotion to a friend must not be allowed to mislead readers
who might think there is some scientific validity in the two pound diet
and use it other then valid inoput from sound health expertes.

I often feel sorry for the undeserved abuse our mutual friend
experiences but in the medical area of weight and metabolic disorders he
must be corrected for the sake of others who might be taken in and to
that end I will continue to correct the trash science posted.

If he or you care to interact on a scientific basis it would be welcome.
As for newsgroup methods, the vast cross posted trolling and
spam of our friend is far worse then any methid I have chosen by which
to participate.

God bless.

Hollywood said:

Quoted message said:

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.

You clearly do not understand satire and parody. But those with no
humor and planetary sized egos seldom do.

Now its satire and parody, You change your colors like the chameleon you
are. Settle on something, you're beginning to become a dynamic
distraction (forgetting just for a moment what a fool you are making our
of yourself).

Hollywood said:

Everyone knows that you are an agitator of the lowest rank, with
little of value to add to any conversation.

Now you speak for everyone, heh, here's a clue, I'm part of "everyone"
and the chance I would ever let a lying hypocrite like you speak in my
behalf is zero.

Hollywood said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

On 14 Apr 2007 08:29:35 -0700, "Hollywood" who called out Mu for using

an alias LOL said:

If you're tired, retire.Clearly you enjoy the banter.

Excellent idea. Let' smake this as permanent as possible. *plonk*