View Single Post
  #3  
Old May 10th, 2009, 03:24 AM posted to sci.med.cardiology,soc.support.fat-acceptance,misc.fitness.weights,alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diet.weightwatchers
Kaz Kylheku
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 347
Default Kirstie Alley: 'Yes, I Gained 83 Pounds'

On 2009-05-09, wrote:
Truth:

The two pound diet,aka 2pd etc. is quack science. It has flaws of both
fact and logic.


What flaws does it have that can't be rectified by any earnest dieter
who has two brain cells to rub together?

It was invented to fit a preexisting agenda and does


Evidence?

not flow from evidence based on research.


I found a paper documenting a study according to which, two pounds of food
corresponds to a roughly good dieting amount of calories. The study followed
more than 80,000 Europeans found that the women ate, on average, at a caloric
density of 1.4 kcal/g, and men at 1.9 kcal/g. Multiply that by two pounds (907
g) and you have some reasonable caloric figures for dieting.

The diet inventor


.... is who precisely? You wouldn't be claiming anything so ridiculous as that
Chung is the originator of the idea of restricting food intake by mass?

has many
times been appraised of his flaws


Ad hominem fallacy: ``Food-mass-controlled diet is advocated by loonie, so it
must be a loonie diet.''

If Chung started to openly promote breathing, would you stop?

All of this nonsense of measure by weight or volume comes from the
agenda fitting, not well established research.


What agenda fitting?

Exactly how does he profit if someone decides to eat two pounds of food a day?

Maybe he owns stock in a corporation that makes kitchen scales?

I already have an electronic scale, though I don't use it this way.
I could go on a two pound diet without spending a cent.