If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:31:33 -0500 in article
Sun & Mun_ wrote: On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:39:30 +0200, Matti Narkia wrote: Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti? Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread. In fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread. Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected. Answer the question, Matti. Between 30 and 50 % of people with diabetes are at risk of kidney disease, but that was not an issue here. Chung's comment about protein and kidneys was general and as such also and mostly aimed at the large majority of general population with no kidney disease and no diabetes. Chung's attempts to change the subject (the next twist would probably be totally off-topic religious mantras) when caught answering inaccurately (or otherwise challenged) should be resisted. A citation from the recently posted "Dr. Chung FAQ, Issue 1" (URL:http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=chungfaq-8E35A7.05173026012004%40library.airnews.net): "o When challenged, he answers with evasions, non sequiturs, dissembling, rhetorical questions, quotes from the bible, religious mantras, thinly veiled death threats, ad hominem arguments, and other such disreputable, unethical, and unprofessional tactics. See also the chapters dealing with Mu. ;-) -- Matti Narkia |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
Matti Narkia wrote:
25 Jan 2004 19:52:32 -0800 in article (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote: Matti Narkia wrote in message . .. 25 Jan 2004 14:46:32 -0800 in article (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote: High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground. Not true for people with healthy kidneys. Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti? Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread. Correct. In fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread. Correct. Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected. My comment remains accurate. would suggest you be careful in your answer LOL. Looks like you took care not to answer the question. See above. If _anyone needs to be more careful with his/her answers it's you. Does BMI 21-25 still define "mild obesity" as one of your recent answers claimed? :-):-). Yes. Is 2 pounds of potatoes still about 3600 calories as one of your even more recent answers claimed? :-):-):-). Yes. Humbly, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
"Moosh" wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:39:30 +0200, Matti Narkia posted: 25 Jan 2004 19:52:32 -0800 in article m (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote: Matti Narkia wrote in message . .. 25 Jan 2004 14:46:32 -0800 in article (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote: High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground. Not true for people with healthy kidneys. Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti? Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread. In fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread. Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected. would suggest you be careful in your answer LOL. See above. If _anyone needs to be more careful with his/her answers it's you. Does BMI 21-25 still define "mild obesity" as one of your recent answers claimed? :-):-). Is 2 pounds of potatoes still about 3600 calories as one of your even more recent answers claimed? :-):-):-). Hey, Andy, you blew it there mate You meant 2# of *powdered* spud, didn't you? Easy arithmetic error in my book. Geez, Matti is an anal retentive from way back Hey, I've just had 2# of white wine. That OK? Doesn't BMI depend on your racial height? Height is not racial. You're a short ass, No? No. Hey, a fit fatty is much better off than an unfit anything. Yours in admiration, Moosh Not sure if I should thank you for your comments. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Moosh (2) Report Moosh to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion thread(s). However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
Matti Narkia wrote:
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:31:33 -0500 in article Sun & Mun_ wrote: On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:39:30 +0200, Matti Narkia wrote: Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti? Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread. In fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread. Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected. Answer the question, Matti. Between 30 and 50 % of people with diabetes are at risk of kidney disease, but that was not an issue here. Chung's comment about protein and kidneys was general and as such also and mostly aimed at the large majority of general population with no kidney disease and no diabetes. Chung's attempts to change the subject (the next twist would probably be totally off-topic religious mantras) when caught answering inaccurately (or otherwise challenged) should be resisted. A citation from the recently posted "Dr. Chung FAQ, Issue 1" (URL:http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=chungfaq-8E35A7.05173026012004%40library.airnews.net): "o When challenged, he answers with evasions, non sequiturs, dissembling, rhetorical questions, quotes from the bible, religious mantras, thinly veiled death threats, ad hominem arguments, and other such disreputable, unethical, and unprofessional tactics. See also the chapters dealing with Mu. ;-) -- Matti Narkia Is the source you cite a reliable source by your usual "vitamin-counter" standards, Matti? FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Matti Narkia (2) Report Matti Narkia to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion thread(s). However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. God's humble bond-servant, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
See there is your main problem. You do not even know what a low-carb
diet is. The mainstream recommends a 55 to 65% carb diet. Anything less than this is a low-carb diet. 40% carbs is a low carb diet. Now Another possible definition is anything less than 100g a day. Zone aims for 100g. Mirek |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
What a bunch of clowns ( Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh)
kvs wrote:
tcomeau quoted: http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896 Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight By DANIEL Q. HANEY Others, though, found the data hard to swallow. When the data does not make sense, that is the time that a real scientific advance is in the works. Everyone with a good basic eduction in the scientific method should recognize this and understnad it's implication. "It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has ever found any miraculous metabolic effects." Thermodynamics is about energy flow not weight. So much for weight loss being explained by energy flow. As to the claim that no one has ever found any miraculous metabolic effects, the *miracle* is when a scientist says something like "It doesn't make sense, does it?". That's one of the best clues of a scientific discovery there is. It is THE classic mark of a discovery. Of course it isn't Barbara Rolls's discovery. She just ran an experiment to confirm someone else's discovery and proved to herslef that the discovery was true. She demonstrated a 'miraculous metabolic effect' in her experiment then refused to acknowledge that she had done so. This is not uttered by a scientist but a lemming. Exactly. Why is it so hard for these drones to understand that the action of insulin affects how glucose is metabolized? Diets which involve higher insulin output will involve more fat storage than those that do not. In addition, insulin resistance differentiates individuals in terms of fat storage rate. Right. The experiment did not reveal the mechanism that is well known at this point. What it did was demonstrate that a metabolic effect did in fact happen. Individuals with fewer insulin receptors in the membranes of their cells will convert more glucose to tryglicerides stored in adipose tissue than "normal" individuals who convert glucose to heat through higher levels of cellular respiration. Both types of individuals will get fat on sufficient excess food consumption for a given exercise level but the former will get fatter faster. No violations of energy conservation are involved. No violations of mass conservation either. Clearly Barbara Rolls doesn't know anything about thermodynamics. Nor the basic mechanism of how scientific discoveries work. One fell from the sky and hit her on the head and she didn't even recognize the classic "That doesn't make any sense, does it?" event. Thermodynamics is the aggregate behaviour of a system and derives from the microphysics of the system (in statistical mechanics everything flows from the system Hamiltonian, but good luck writing it down). That's physical lingo for saying "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" is demonstrated false by this experiment. Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra calories did so well. Maybe they burned up more calories digesting their food. Whatever the mechanism, a metabolic advantage was factually demonstrated. It couldn't possibly be insulin related could it now...sheesh. Well it could. But it's still possible other mechanisms will be discovered. Insulin is the fat storage switch. It is obvious why the people that ate a diet which induced less insulin output could avoid fat storage at a higher calorie level. Okay. The only way that you can lose weight on a high carbohydrate diet is through the right level of exercise or calorie restriction. But this part doesn't automatically follow. Sure, the experiment demonstrated a metabolic edge for low carbers. But compared to, for lack of a better term mid-carbers/mid-fatters, low fat has a metabolic edge of its own. It's just that the low fat one comes with the less of continual hunger for so many people. If the additional 300 calories were given to the high carb group they would not have lost anywhere near the amount of weight that the low carb group did. This shows that the study is "fixed" against low carb. The only fair comparison is for identical calorie consumption on both types of diet. Right. But equal calories in the experiment would have resulted in a much larger difference. Say goodbye to a calorie being a calorie being a calories. Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less apt to cheat because they were less hungry. Twit. This joker is accusing the people on the high carb diet of cheating and spoiling the image of the rotten theory he adheres to. He should buy a clue instead of buying a phony internet M.D. certificate. Chuckle. When the results of an experiment are hard to believe a *good* scientist tries other experiments to duplicate teh trend, then works on an explanation. Of course in this case the explanation is already quite well known and Dr Klein is simply in denial that he's encountered what to him is a new discovery. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:20:00 -0500 in article
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote: Matti Narkia wrote: Between 30 and 50 % of people with diabetes are at risk of kidney disease, but that was not an issue here. Chung's comment about protein and kidneys was general and as such also and mostly aimed at the large majority of general population with no kidney disease and no diabetes. Chung's attempts to change the subject (the next twist would probably be totally off-topic religious mantras) when caught answering inaccurately (or otherwise challenged) should be resisted. A citation from the recently posted "Dr. Chung FAQ, Issue 1" (URL:http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=chungfaq-8E35A7.05173026012004%40library.airnews.net): "o When challenged, he answers with evasions, non sequiturs, dissembling, rhetorical questions, quotes from the bible, religious mantras, thinly veiled death threats, ad hominem arguments, and other such disreputable, unethical, and unprofessional tactics. See also the chapters dealing with Mu. ;-) Is the source you cite a reliable source by your usual "vitamin-counter" standards, Matti? Anyone who has followed this ng for a few weeks or longer and read the cited FAQ knows that the FAQ is highly accurate and hence reliable. -- Matti Narkia |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb: Matti Narkia wrote: 25 Jan 2004 19:52:32 -0800 in article (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote: Matti Narkia wrote in message . .. 25 Jan 2004 14:46:32 -0800 in article (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote: High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground. Not true for people with healthy kidneys. Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti? Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread. Correct. In fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread. Correct. Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected. My comment remains accurate. would suggest you be careful in your answer LOL. Looks like you took care not to answer the question. See above. If _anyone needs to be more careful with his/her answers it's you. Does BMI 21-25 still define "mild obesity" as one of your recent answers claimed? :-):-). Yes. Is 2 pounds of potatoes still about 3600 calories as one of your even more recent answers claimed? :-):-):-). Yes. Why can't you just admit that you made a mistake when you stated that 2 pounds of potatoes have 3600 calories? Even the best of us make mistakes. Thorsten -- "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution" (Theodosius Dobzhansky) |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:13:05 -0500, Thorsten Schier wrote
(in message ): "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb: snip Yes. Is 2 pounds of potatoes still about 3600 calories as one of your even more recent answers claimed? :-):-):-). Yes. Why can't you just admit that you made a mistake when you stated that 2 pounds of potatoes have 3600 calories? Even the best of us make mistakes. But the worst of us can't admit it :-) -- Steve Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Low carb diets | General Discussion | 249 | January 8th, 2004 11:15 PM | |
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 23 | December 14th, 2003 11:39 AM |
CIMT Noninvasive testing for atherosclerosis or "hardening of the arteries" | Mineral Mu_n | General Discussion | 16 | October 30th, 2003 07:40 AM |
The Atkins Spousal Syndrome: Partners of Low-Carb Dieters Suffer | Mars at the Mu_n's Edge | General Discussion | 0 | October 28th, 2003 04:08 PM |
Is this better than Atkins? | Ferrante | General Discussion | 13 | October 8th, 2003 08:46 PM |