General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Re: Wow

Started by Mu · · Last activity · 97 posts · 712 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
12 April 2007
Last activity
18 April 2007
Original author
Mu
Posts
97
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
712
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 81–97 of 97
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. The Rev Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN. said:
    Mu said:
    Quoted message said:

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

    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.

    Welcome.

    ???????


  2. Quoted message said:

    The two pound diet has no basis in science

    "Correct. Atkins did and it's a scam."

    A meaningless strawman argument, our friend evokes science constantly in
    support of his trash science.

    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."

    He and you are both ignorant of current literature on the topic.

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

    Two pounds of lard, sound nutrition?

    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?"

    Him, the weekly food ration was mentioned as I recall, doing some quick
    math it came out to about two pounds per person a day. Without adding
    water, making much more then two pounds, it is about 5000 calories.

    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."

    Posted several times in the archives, a simple noting of how much barley
    grain would fill the measure at question and finding the calorie content
    of same at standard sources.

    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."

    Irrelevant, a red herring argument. Two pounds of lard?

    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...."

    You got that right, in spite him parading it as though it is, with a
    good portion of divine private revelation thrown in for good effect.

    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"

    Level of discorse noted, failure to refute on any but personal wish to
    help a friend in time of need and affliction accepted.

  3. In article 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.

    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.

    I'm not sure why you found this surprising? Eat less: lose weight.
    It's always worked for me.

    -- cry

  4. In article said:
    Cary Kittrell 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?

    Because Andrew always uses this imaginary distinction to
    go into willfully disingenuous mode and thus avoid
    questions or objections raised to his "diet.

    Quoted message said:

    OK, so wth, call it a > diet?

    Find with me. Not fine with Andrew.

    -- cary

  5. Cary Kittrell said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > 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?

    Because Andrew always uses this imaginary distinction to
    go into willfully disingenuous mode and thus avoid
    questions or objections raised to his "diet.

    What? Chung has answered a zillion ?? regarding the 2PD. You're picking
    nits, it's nonsensical for you to do so. It makes no difference what the
    thing is called if in the end, it works. Which it does.

  6. Cary Kittrell said:
    Quoted message said:

    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.

    I'm not sure why you found this surprising? Eat less: lose weight.
    It's always worked for me.

    -- cry

    What volume of food did you eat before and after losing wieght?

  7. In article said:
    Quoted message said:
    In article Mu said:


    On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:47:12 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:

    > 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?

    Once more, suggested or factual?

    As I've said once already: Chung won't tell.

    -- cary

  8. In article said:
    Cary Kittrell 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.
    >
    > -- cary

    Why don't you ask him?

    And of course I have -- curious, as you may imagine, how
    one person, apparently working alone, could have carried out
    what would easily be the largest single medical study
    in history.

    He was most unforthcoming.

    -- cary

    he said nothing, nothing at all?

    I provided a link for you. Go see for yourself.

    --- cary

  9. In article said:
    Cary Kittrell said:
    Quoted message said:

    >> 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?

    Because Andrew always uses this imaginary distinction to
    go into willfully disingenuous mode and thus avoid
    questions or objections raised to his "diet.

    What? Chung has answered a zillion ?? regarding the 2PD. You're picking
    nits, it's nonsensical for you to do so. It makes no difference what the
    thing is called if in the end, it works. Which it does.

    I agree that it makes no difference.

    Andrew disagrees. Vehementely and repeatedly.

    -- cary

  10. In article said:
    Cary Kittrell said:
    Quoted message said:

    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.

    I'm not sure why you found this surprising? Eat less: lose weight.
    It's always worked for me.

    -- cry

    What volume of food did you eat before and after losing wieght?

    I don't go by volume; I go by estimated calories.

    If I swap a small cheeseburger for a very large salad, I
    reduce caolries.

    In any event, why are we talking about volume when the, um,
    originator of all this insists that weight is the critical
    parameter?

    -- cary

  11. Cary Kittrell said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message 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?

    Once more, suggested or factual?

    As I've said once already: Chung won't tell.

    -- cary

    I'm asking you when Chung, as you claim, "suggested" that <see above>, I
    was seeing if you were true to your wording. Suggesting is highly
    subjective on part of the one who is listening, factual representation
    cannot be missed, it is clear, straightforward.

    This leaves me to believe that you maybe incorrect in your listening,
    subjectively misguided. This allows you to dance around however if Chung
    said it was fact, then we have a discussion. Now, we don't.

  12. Cary Kittrell said:
    In article said:
    Cary Kittrell 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?

    And of course I have -- curious, as you may imagine, how
    one person, apparently working alone, could have carried out
    what would easily be the largest single medical study
    in history.

    He was most unforthcoming.

    -- cary

    he said nothing, nothing at all?

    I provided a link for you. Go see for yourself.

    --- cary

    The link, one of many that you could have found, says little, others say
    quite a bit more. The only question that you should have is how Chung
    reasoned his model building and theoretical questions. Then you might
    have a case for argument however, since you haven't been inclined to
    answer as to your scientific or philosophical credentials, you may not
    have a lucid argument to proffer.

  13. Cary Kittrell said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > cary, you're being argumentative for what purpose?

    Because Andrew always uses this imaginary distinction to
    go into willfully disingenuous mode and thus avoid
    questions or objections raised to his "diet.

    What? Chung has answered a zillion ?? regarding the 2PD. You're picking
    nits, it's nonsensical for you to do so. It makes no difference what the
    thing is called if in the end, it works. Which it does.

    I agree that it makes no difference.

    Andrew disagrees. Vehementely and repeatedly.

    -- cary

    So? Let him. Pick your own pimples.

  14. Cary Kittrell said:

    In article <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Cary Kittrell said:

    > 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.

    I'm not sure why you found this surprising? Eat less: lose weight.
    It's always worked for me.

    -- cry

    What volume of food did you eat before and after losing wieght?

    I don't go by volume; I go by estimated calories.

    If I swap a small cheeseburger for a very large salad, I
    reduce caolries.

    In any event, why are we talking about volume when the, um,
    originator of all this insists that weight is the critical
    parameter?

    The simple fact that Mu and Chung refuse to consider, and for which the
    claims surrounding the 2-lb fraud diet have no answer:

    Energy out > Energy in = Weight loss

    But since both cowards have plonked me, they are safe from having to
    account for the truth.

    --
    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

  15. Mu said:
    Cary Kittrell said:
    Quoted message said:

    >> cary, you're being argumentative for what purpose?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Because Andrew always uses this imaginary distinction to
    > go into willfully disingenuous mode and thus avoid
    > questions or objections raised to his "diet.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    What? Chung has answered a zillion ?? regarding the 2PD. You're picking
    nits, it's nonsensical for you to do so. It makes no difference what the
    thing is called if in the end, it works. Which it does.

    Quoted message said:

    I agree that it makes no difference.

    Quoted message said:

    Andrew disagrees. Vehementely and repeatedly.

    Quoted message said:

    -- cary

    So? Let him. Pick your own pimples.

    Wow, real wisdom. Please forward to Chung and take own advice.

  16. In article said:
    Cary Kittrell said:
    In article said:

    On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:06:09 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:

    >>>>> 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?
    >>
    >> Once more, suggested or factual?
    >
    > As I've said once already: Chung won't tell.
    >
    > -- cary

    I'm asking you when Chung, as you claim, "suggested" that <see above>,

    Above.

    Well, having given you the truth on that one, I now find that
    it's not what you wanted to hear.

    So: what exactly would you like me to make up for you? Some degree
    of detail would be useful.

    -- cary

  17. Cary Kittrell said:
    In article said:
    Cary Kittrell said:

    In article <[email hidden]> [email hidden] writes:
    > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:06:09 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
    >
    >>>>>> 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?
    >>>
    >>> Once more, suggested or factual?
    >>
    >> As I've said once already: Chung won't tell.
    >>
    >> -- cary
    >
    > I'm asking you when Chung, as you claim, "suggested" that <see above>,

    Above.

    Well, having given you the truth on that one, I now find that
    it's not what you wanted to hear.

    So: what exactly would you like me to make up for you? Some degree
    of detail would be useful.

    -- cary

    Cary, you refuse to address several requests from Mu regarding relevant
    things like your credentials, your potential for being overzealous in
    your capabilities to report opinions (on things you seem to have no
    expertise)and the like. I'm not interested in playing Usenet "chase my
    meaning" with you so find another PlayBoy.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.