Wow

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

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.

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.

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.

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

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.

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.

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.

The two pound diet has no basis in science and ignores the equally to
calorie restriction factors of exercise and sound choice of nutrition.

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..

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.

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.

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.


Thus one can see the trash science, 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.

On Apr 13, 9:41 pm, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
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.

I put you straight on this already, liar.

In article . com "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" writes:
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,


--c ary

"Epinephrine" writes:


"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

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.

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.

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.


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



-- car

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.

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

May GOD bless you.

Prayerfully in Jesus' ever-lasting love,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://EmoryCardiology.com

May HIS immortal brethren pray for our dying mortal friends and
neighbors:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts

In memory of our dearly departed Bob(this one) Pastorio:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Bob

As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love

The Official SMC FAQ List:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/TheTruth/FAQ

"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
...

"Epinephrine" writes:


"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message
ups.com...

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

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.


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

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!

As this approach clearly does not have any scientific basis whatsoever,
would it be taken seriously by the scientific world? Surely anectdotal
evidence alone wouldn't count - perhaps he would care to share the results
and methods used in this extensive intercontinental study?

In article om "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" writes:
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.

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

"Epinephrine" writes:


"Cary Kittrell" wrote in message
...

"Epinephrine" writes:


"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message
ups.com...

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

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.


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

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!


As this approach clearly does not have any scientific basis whatsoever,
would it be taken seriously by the scientific world? Surely anectdotal
evidence alone wouldn't count - perhaps he would care to share the results
and methods used in this extensive intercontinental study?


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.

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