Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet

jmk,
You're "out of touch with reality" too?
Cool!
Good job,
Susie
"Don't Face Reality, Create it!"



count me in!
jmk in NC

On 5/24/2004 10:14 AM, Susie wrote:
jmk,
You're "out of touch with reality" too?
Cool!
Good job,
Susie
"Don't Face Reality, Create it!"




count me in!
jmk in NC



Well, those who weigh food are out of touch, I sometimes weigh food --
snack nuts are a big one. Therefore I must be out of touch. Besides, I
like parties!

--
jmk in NC

jmk,
I really don't know as anyone being 'out of touch'. We all do
things in our own way but I know that it works for me.
I think like you say about the snack nuts...................I think many
eat way too much because they aren't aware of portion sizes.
I was surprised the first time I saw what an ounce of sunflower
seeds where. Ya sure don't get much......lol.
Enjoy your day,
Susie


Well, those who weigh food are out of touch, I sometimes weigh food --
snack nuts are a big one. Therefore I must be out of touch. Besides, I
like parties!

--
jmk in NC

Chris Malcolm wrote:

(Wolfbrother) writes:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message
Agree.
Enter the 2PD approach:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
And, don't forget to involve your doctor before undertaking anything to
lose weight.

Anyone who weighs their food before eating it is so out of touch
with reality its not even funny (well it kinda is). To do something
so ridiculous just shows an extreme lack of understanding about
nutrition. Anyone with even the slightest bit of real knowledge about
human biochemistry and nutrition will tell you how simplistic and
foolish such a "diet" is.

That's always the problem with a slight bit of scientific
knowledge.

This is Chris Malcolm's standard, dismissive reply. That he has
scientific knowledge and you don't. Delivered with that archly
aristocratic tone; you can almost see him sweeping his hand away to
brush off any substantive objections.

Those with a bit more scientific knowledge will realise
that there is a possibility that average modern human diets and
preferences might well cause things to average out so that a
reasonably balanced diet from conventional ingredients for the average
sedentary person might well settle down with 2lbs close to the
breakpoint of starting to lose weight.

Notice all the qualifiers in that overlong sentence. "...the
possibility... average... might well... average... reasonably
balanced... conventional... average sedentary person... might well...
close to the... starting to..."

What it all says is that Chris lives on this ascetic diet and thinks
that everyone else who can be described by that overlong sentence - as
perhaps he can be - will lose weight meeting all those variables in
the way he does. But note how rigidly he adheres to a 2-meal a day
regimen and note that he knows the mass of his meals within an ounce
daily. It looks like something other than merely knowing what he eats.
The focus is a bit too severe, I think. Too concentrated. Kind of a
reverse gourmand.

Of course you can invent diets consisting entirely of (say) chocolate
which make nonsense of the 2lb diet idea. It is also easy to find
folk, such as athletes or diabetics, for whom it would be
inappropriate. That is missing the point.

It is most assuredly not missing the point. For the diet to work
intelligently, it presupposes a balanced diet to begin with. merely
restricting "conventional ingredients" (whatever that could mean in
the particular country, culture, region) intake by weight alone is
essentially prompting starvation. Of course people lose weight when
they're undernourished. But the rather significant question of
completeness of nutrient composition is simply brushed aside as a
"possibility." And the reality is that unless the dieter knows within
a reasonably close range the caloric composition of what they're
eating, all those qualifiers above are meaningless. Unless the dieter
knows what the nutrient composition is, they have no way of knowing if
their diet is healthy by any accepted criteria.

Extrapolating from the particular experience of one ascetic to the
general population is bad logic and worse science. This idea takes no
account of different sizes, different metabolic levels, or different
activity levels. It's the same prescription for an 80 year old, 5'2"
105 pound woman as a bubba 6'3" 235 pound bricklayer.

I have therefore removed the
diabetic newsgroups from this reply, since including them invites
justifiably angry responses which are beside the point.

I don't follow this diet, but I have for decades noticed that I very
slowly gain weight if I eat lunch (as well as breakfast and dinner),
and very slowly lose it if I omit lunch. The weight of my average
breakfast and dinner is 2lbs plus or minus no more than an oz.

Of course the 2lb diet idea is a gross simplification: that is the
whole point. The question is whether it is an oversimplification, or
whether it is a simplification which works.

It is a simplification that likely is an oversimplification and it may
work in the short term, but to what cost in the longer term for most
people? As long as considered nutrient balance isn't an integral part
of it, the likelihood of good guesswork for health maintenance is slim
to none.

This is an empirical
question which is not too hard to answer on an individual basis. If
you are overweight, and you have already established a diet which you
*know* by practical experiment causes you to lose weight very slowly
(e.g. less than a pound a fortnight), how much does it weigh?

And what if this successful diet is predicated on caloric density and
the weights are all over the place? And what if it's predicated on
low-fat or low-carb and it works but it's utterly not correlative with
weight of food? How can an irrelevant criterion be forced to fit? And
why bother if it already works? And what about different goals or
progress rates?

Bob

Very excellent points, Bob, every one of them considered and valid.

Chris Malcolm's post I took with a grain of salt and a giggle. Here's
someone saying that it's not scientific to quantify a process. To which I
say, "huh?"

Anyone who pooh-poohs an activity that is effective in its implementation
simply because it doesn't conform to his concept of 'science' is not
practicing science, he's practicing his own "stick my head in the sand"
religion.

He can have his two pounds of cake, and eat it too. I'll stick with a diet
that is healthy and effective, and be careful to note everything that goes
into my body. Just no cake.

Chris Malcolm wrote:

"Bob (this one)" writes:

Chris Malcolm wrote:

(Wolfbrother) writes:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message
Agree.
Enter the 2PD approach:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
And, don't forget to involve your doctor before undertaking anything to
lose weight.

Anyone who weighs their food before eating it is so out of touch
with reality its not even funny (well it kinda is). To do something
so ridiculous just shows an extreme lack of understanding about
nutrition. Anyone with even the slightest bit of real knowledge about
human biochemistry and nutrition will tell you how simplistic and
foolish such a "diet" is.

That's always the problem with a slight bit of scientific
knowledge.

This is Chris Malcolm's standard, dismissive reply. That he has
scientific knowledge and you don't.

I was criticising one particular viewpoint which does depend on
partial knowledge. Wear the cap if its fits.

Delivered with that archly
aristocratic tone; you can almost see him sweeping his hand away to
brush off any substantive objections.

I never brush off substantive objections. I haven't posted for a long
time of this topic because despite what Chung calls the "hissing from
the peanut gallery" I haven't seen any, just the same old "common
sense" "obvious" non-arguments which the peanut gallery have been
congratulating itself with repetitively ad nauseam for months, if not
years.


I suspect you have a profanity filter :-)


It seems my "stadard reply" is so standard and well known to you that
you still haven't worked out what it means.


In a word:

Obsession.


that there is a possibility that average modern human diets and
preferences might well cause things to average out so that a
reasonably balanced diet from conventional ingredients for the average
sedentary person might well settle down with 2lbs close to the
breakpoint of starting to lose weight.

Notice all the qualifiers in that overlong sentence. "...the
possibility... average... might well... average... reasonably
balanced... conventional... average sedentary person... might well...
close to the... starting to..."

What it all says is that Chris lives on this ascetic diet

If you had actually bothered to read this or any of my previous
"standard" postings carefully you would have realised that I don't
live on this ascetic diet.


Moreover, the 2PD approach is hardly ascetic. By all accounts, American POWs
in Germany during WWII subsisted on something around 2-4 ounces per day. That
is 8 to 16 times less.


and thinks
that everyone else who can be described by that overlong sentence -

The sentence is clearly too long for Pastry Bob to parse, because had
he done so, he would have discovered that the reason for those
qualifiers is precisely because *not* everyone else is covered.


Now, now... I know full well how frustrating it can be to discuss things with
Bob. But, let's try to keep things civil. I believe that Bob has given up on
baking pastries and the like since his cardiac problems.


as
perhaps he can be - will lose weight meeting all those variables in
the way he does.

And had you bothered to finish the post before starting to clatter out
your mocking dismissal, you would have discovered that far from
supposing that everyone is covered by the simplifications of the 2lb
diet, I actually proposed the simple beginnings of an empirical test
of that hypothesis.

But note how rigidly he adheres to a 2-meal a day
regimen

Bob, you would get on so much better if you looked up from the
keyboard when typing these replies. Then you might have noticed where
I pointed out not only do I not adhere to the diet, nor to a rigid
two meals a day, but why.

and note that he knows the mass of his meals within an ounce
daily. It looks like something other than merely knowing what he eats.
The focus is a bit too severe, I think. Too concentrated. Kind of a
reverse gourmand.

Having short term memory problems again Bob? Forgotten my previous
explanation of how very easy it was to know the weight of my meals to
the ounce? Let me jog your memory: it's printed on the package. That's
right, I mostly eat prepared packaged meals. The weight, the
constituents, the amopunts of carbohydrate, various kinds of fat,
protein, fibre, etc., are all printed as required by law on the label.

My breakfasts aren't pre-package, but it is trivially easy to discover
how much an egg, half a cup of muesli, an apple, etc., weighs.


It certainly is easy.


Of course you can invent diets consisting entirely of (say) chocolate
which make nonsense of the 2lb diet idea. It is also easy to find
folk, such as athletes or diabetics, for whom it would be
inappropriate. That is missing the point.

It is most assuredly not missing the point. For the diet to work
intelligently, it presupposes a balanced diet to begin with. merely
restricting "conventional ingredients" (whatever that could mean in
the particular country, culture, region) intake by weight alone is
essentially prompting starvation. Of course people lose weight when
they're undernourished. But the rather significant question of
completeness of nutrient composition is simply brushed aside as a
"possibility." And the reality is that unless the dieter knows within
a reasonably close range the caloric composition of what they're
eating, all those qualifiers above are meaningless. Unless the dieter
knows what the nutrient composition is, they have no way of knowing if
their diet is healthy by any accepted criteria.

You have completely missed the point of my posting, which was first of
all to acknowledge the simplifications inherent in the 2lb diet
approach, secondly to explain the possibility -- only the possibility
-- that these simplifications, which we know apply to my diet, and
that of several other posters -- applied generally (i.e. with few
exceptions), and thirdly and finally, to propose an exploratory
experiment to assess the plausibility of that hypothesis.

Extrapolating from the particular experience of one ascetic to the
general population is bad logic and worse science.

Of course it is. That is why I concluded my posting with an invitation
for readers who could to supply particular data. An empirical test. We
know already from past postings that at least several posters doe eat
diets that conform to the simplifications of the 2lb diet. However,
despite all the furious derision the diet has attracted from those who
"know" it is "obviously" rubbish, nobody has actually supplied an
actual weight maintaining personal diet which shows it to be nonsense.


I believe they already know the truth having already weighed things out.

And this truth is fanning the flames of their hatred.

Truth has this effect on the untruthful.


I'm making the generous assumption that the reason for this is *not*
that the derision comes only from folk who haven't yet discovered a
personal weight-maintaining diet.


That would be a very generous assumption, imho.


This idea takes no
account of different sizes, different metabolic levels, or different
activity levels. It's the same prescription for an 80 year old, 5'2"
105 pound woman as a bubba 6'3" 235 pound bricklayer.

Whereas all you can find to do is to repeat once again what you have
already probably posted a thousand times, the school science teacher's
"obvious" explanation of why the thing is absurd.


What is more absurd is Bob's apparent belief that folks should be able to eat
to the point of never being hungry and still lose weight.


I don't follow this diet, but I have for decades noticed that I very
slowly gain weight if I eat lunch (as well as breakfast and dinner),
and very slowly lose it if I omit lunch. The weight of my average
breakfast and dinner is 2lbs plus or minus no more than an oz.

Of course the 2lb diet idea is a gross simplification: that is the
whole point. The question is whether it is an oversimplification, or
whether it is a simplification which works.

It is a simplification that likely is an oversimplification

Yes, "likely". It is not, as I hope you're beginning to realise, a
question that can be settled simply by arguing from common sense,
because it is a question of empirical fact, not of principle.


In truth, only one independent variable matters for the dependent variable of
body weight.


and it may
work in the short term, but to what cost in the longer term for most
people? As long as considered nutrient balance isn't an integral part
of it, the likelihood of good guesswork for health maintenance is slim
to none.

If it was true that the natural uneducated predilections and tastes of
humans when choosing their diet from the available resources had a
"slim to none" likelohood of meeting the nutrient requirements for
health maintenance, how do you explain that the human race did not die
out of malnutrition during the million years when there were no
scientifically trained nutrition specialists to advise us on what to
eat?


Because God gave the human body such an appetite for food that there is an
instinct to eat everything in sight (the see food diet) to survive periods of
famine.


This is an empirical
question which is not too hard to answer on an individual basis. If
you are overweight, and you have already established a diet which you
*know* by practical experiment causes you to lose weight very slowly
(e.g. less than a pound a fortnight), how much does it weigh?

And what if this successful diet is predicated on caloric density and
the weights are all over the place?

Are you really so stupid? You average them of course. And if you think
that they are so much "all over the place" that this is a serious
problem for the 2lb diet idea, then you supply the actual figures and
explain why it is a problem.

Or supply one example of an obese person perishing from malnutrition after
bariatric surgery which physically limits folks in the amount that they can
eat.


And what if it's predicated on
low-fat or low-carb and it works but it's utterly not correlative with
weight of food?

It couldn't possibly be *utterly* uncorrelated with the weight of the
food. If you cast an eye over the published tables of the calorific
densities of various kinds of food you will see that there would have
to be a fairly strong correlation. The empirical question is how
strong, and whether it is strong enough to support the idea of the 2lb
diet.


Ime, it is strong enough.


I have invited you before to do the arithmetic on the various extreme
diets you always quote at this point in your standard 2lb
counter-argument, but you never have. Instead you have posted this
same speculative counter-argument again and again hundreds of times
since then. Indeed. you have spent far more time repeating yourself in
your obsessive hounding of Chung and the 2lb diet approach than it
would have taken to analyse a few sample diets and publish the
refutation which you are so sure exists. That would have destroyed the
credibility of the 2lb diet for ever. Yet instead of doing that,

(I suspect he has done that only to present it would destroy his credibility).

you
simply repeat your speculative "common sense" sneerings a thousand
times.


.... ever hopeful that by perserverating, he will make untruths true.


Could it be that finding the simple facts to support your speculative
rebuttals is actually rather harder than you claim?


If not impossible as it would be rebutting the truth.


How can an irrelevant criterion be forced to fit?

You think it's irrelevant because you don't really understand how
degrees of correlation work when combined in proportions with strict
limits on the degree of variation, and can only see this question in
black and white terms of specific high correlation or its absence.


It remains his obsessive hope.


And
why bother if it already works?

If what works, the irrelevant criterion? Are you asking why bother to
test something in dispute? You've lost me here.


It appears to be Bob who is lost.


And what about different goals or
progress rates?

You seem to have forgotten that the basic idea behind the 2lb diet is
the idea of a balance point, the point at which nutrient intake is
balanced by expenditure. The hypothesis behind the 2lb diet is that,
generally speaking, this is slightly over 2lbs for those who are
overweight, so that 2lbs would result in a slight loss of weight.

Different goals? Well, if the goals are outwith the claimed scope of
the diet, then it is not applicable. Is that so difficult to
understand?

Different progress rates? Well, if the progress rate required is not
the progress rate claimed for the 2lb diet then it is not
applicable. Is that so difficult to understand?

It is would seem that these truths are very difficult for Bob to discern much
less understand.

For this, Bob remains in my prayers to God in Christ's name.


Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867

Chris Malcolm wrote:
"Bob (this one)" writes:

Chris Malcolm wrote:

that there is a possibility that average modern human diets and
preferences might well cause things to average out so that a
reasonably balanced diet from conventional ingredients for the
average sedentary person might well settle down with 2lbs close
to the breakpoint of starting to lose weight.

Notice all the qualifiers in that overlong sentence. "...the
possibility... average... might well... average... reasonably
balanced... conventional... average sedentary person... might
well... close to the... starting to..."

What it all says is that Chris lives on this ascetic diet

If you had actually bothered to read this or any of my previous
"standard" postings carefully you would have realised that I don't
live on this ascetic diet.

"...this ascetic diet" refers to what you *do* live on. Your diet. How
you say you actually eat. That diet.

The sentence is clearly too long for Pastry Bob to parse, because
had he done so, he would have discovered that the reason for those
qualifiers is precisely because *not* everyone else is covered.

I think you're saying it backwards: after factoring in all those
exclusionary criteria, almost everyone is out. So many are excluded by
that list that it leaves only a very few "average, sedentary" people
of indeterminate size, activity and metabolic function.

And "close to the breakpoint of starting to lose weight" is exactly
what isn't desirable. It's to lose weight. Close is for horseshoes.

And had you bothered to finish the post before starting to clatter
out your mocking dismissal, you would have discovered that far from
supposing that everyone is covered by the simplifications of the
2lb diet, I actually proposed the simple beginnings of an empirical
test of that hypothesis.

The essential question is this: why do the test at all if, as you
posit, people are succeeding on a different regimen? If they've
already found a way that works, why fix it if it isn't broke?

And, if any given day on some diet does come to 2 pounds, it proves
nothing. It's most likely a coincidence. It also assumes a rather
constant menu, otherwise substituting quiche for a grilled chicken
breast skews it badly.

I mostly eat prepared packaged meals. The weight, the constituents,
the amounts of carbohydrate, various kinds of fat, protein, fibre,
etc., are all printed as required by law on the label.

But you say none of that matters. That only the weight is at issue,
and, you imply, it'll all work out somehow. I can't see the conditions
where packaged foods will contain the same nutrient composition
because they weigh the same. I just went downstairs to look in my
freezer at some prepared foods. I just picked the ones at the front.
No special searching to affect the ratios. Here are some foods,
portion sizes specified on the package and caloric content.

Food port. cal. cal/g

Mini quiches 139 g 440 cal 3.16
personal pizzas 155 g 390 cal 2.52
chicken bakes (in crust with veg)
227 g 290 cal 1.28
roasted potatoes w/herbs
154 g 270 cal 1.75
veg pot pie w/turkey 198 g 450 cal 2.27
pot stickers (shao mai) 150 g 280 cal 1.87
corn pudding 125 g 138 cal 1.10
cut wax beans 120 g 20 cal 0.17
vegetable kofta pilaf 128 g 229 cal 1.79

I don't have any full meals prepared in single packages, so I can't
speak to that directly. But the USDA has them in the database and
here's a sampling:

BANQUET, OUR ORIGINAL Fried Chicken Meal, frozen, with Mashed Potatoes
& Corn, Seasoned Sauce 228 g 470 cal 2.06
MARIE CALLENDER'S Escalloped Noodles & Chicken, frozen entree
368 g 629 cal 1.71
TYSON Roasted Chicken with Garlic Sauce, Pasta and Vegetable Medley,
frozen entree 255 g 214 cal 0.84
BANQUET EXTRA HELPING Salisbury Steak Dinner, with Gravy, Mashed
Potatoes and Corn in Seasoned Sauce, frozen meal
468 g 782 cal 1.67
STOUFFER'S LEAN CUISINE HOMESTYLE Beef Pot Roast with Whipped
Potatoes, frozen entree 255 g 207 cal 0.81
STOUFFER'S HOMESTYLE Salisbury Steak in Gravy & Macaroni and Cheese,
frozen entree 272 g 386 cal 1.42

The range of possibilities shown above is rather wide. Obviously, more
food than just this is necessary to reach the 2 pounds. Caloric
beverages. More fruit and veg.

If only eating two meals a day for a total of 2 pounds and assuming a
lightish breakfast as you imply;
two poached eggs, large 100 g 294 cal
1/2 cup muesli with 1/2 cup milk
93 g 195 cal
apple, medium 138 g 72 cal
makes for a total of 331 g 561 calories.

Nearly 12 ounces of food at 561 calories. Obviously, to stay at 2
pounds, more food will need to be eaten, either at the meals or
between them. I distantly seem to recall that you've said you have
some small things to eat between meals, but I'm not sure about that.

My breakfasts aren't pre-package, but it is trivially easy to
discover how much an egg, half a cup of muesli, an apple, etc.,
weighs.

Sure it is. All you have to do is weigh it. And all you learn is how
much it weighs.

Of course you can invent diets consisting entirely of (say)
chocolate which make nonsense of the 2lb diet idea. It is also
easy to find folk, such as athletes or diabetics, for whom it
would be inappropriate. That is missing the point.

It is most assuredly not missing the point. For the diet to work
intelligently, it presupposes a balanced diet to begin with.
Merely restricting "conventional ingredients" (whatever that
could mean in the particular country, culture, region) intake by
weight alone is essentially prompting starvation. Of course
people lose weight when they're undernourished. But the rather
significant question of completeness of nutrient composition is
simply brushed aside as a "possibility." And the reality is that
unless the dieter knows within a reasonably close range the
caloric composition of what they're eating, all those qualifiers
above are meaningless. Unless the dieter knows what the nutrient
composition is, they have no way of knowing if their diet is
healthy by any accepted criteria.

You have completely missed the point of my posting, which was first
of all to acknowledge the simplifications inherent in the 2lb diet
approach,

C'mon Chris. Of course it's a simplification. The only issue is
whether it's a generally useful one. Whether it, in its simple form,
can be posited to be constructive for enough people to adopt as a
reasonable standard.

secondly to explain the possibility -- only the possibility -- that
these simplifications, which we know apply to my diet, and that of
several other posters -- applied generally (i.e. with few
exceptions),

The possibility is merely that. A possibility with no impetus of
substantiation beyond a very few examples. I trust your word here and
a very few others (Carol Frilegh, and I can't think of another but I'm
sure I've found one or two more credible), but that's insufficient to
extrapolate to a larger population.

That long string of exemptions and qualifiers can effectively discount
most people. And you omit the ones that have to do with the
differences between the larger percentage of the general public of
size, activity level and metabolism. The assertion of the possibility
is supported only by a very slim sample.

and thirdly and finally, to propose an exploratory experiment to
assess the plausibility of that hypothesis.

But here's the problem. Suppose that some other people who do
different sorts of regimens find that they sometimes do eat only 2
pounds in a day. It's 2 pounds based on other criteria than weight. If
it isn't constant, daily, almost always, it has no value as
corroboration. If it isn't at least an average, it disproves the (not
well-elaborated) theory. But even if it is around 2 pounds, it merely
shows one element that is an imposed value rather than the deciding one.

Extrapolating from the particular experience of one ascetic to
the general population is bad logic and worse science.

Of course it is. That is why I concluded my posting with an
invitation for readers who could to supply particular data. An
empirical test. We know already from past postings that at least
several posters do eat diets that conform to the simplifications of
the 2lb diet. However, despite all the furious derision the diet
has attracted from those who "know" it is "obviously" rubbish,
nobody has actually supplied an actual weight maintaining personal
diet which shows it to be nonsense.

Chris, any of the regimens that people actually use are evidence
enough. And you're still talking about it as a maintenance diet when
Chung et al talk about it as weight reduction.

I know people who do weight watchers who have taken weight off and
kept it off. They eat a good bit more than 2 pounds of food a day.
Their approach is based on the very simple chart they use. Likewise
the many more people who post to low-fat and low carb newsgroups and
lists that have succeeded in losing weight and maintained a stable
result.

I'm not saying that limiting intake is nonsense, I am saying that
using a single universal standard irrespective of any other
implications or considerations is an oversimplification tending
towards irrelevancy.

This idea takes no account of different sizes, different
metabolic levels, or different activity levels. It's the same
prescription for an 80 year old, 5'2" 105 pound woman as a bubba
6'3" 235 pound bricklayer.

Whereas all you can find to do is to repeat once again what you
have already probably posted a thousand times, the school science
teacher's "obvious" explanation of why the thing is absurd.

But your reply offers nothing to deal with the issues raised here, nor
has anyone else. Are you suggesting that everyone consume the same
weight daily? If not, what are the criteria for differentiating?

If you were to offer a range for people to experiment with including
some suggestions for what to eat and what to avoid and why, I might be
more convinced. If other significant variables were included in the
structuring of the approach, I might be more convinced. If there were
*any* reliable studies that deal with the question, I might be more
receptive. The fact that no one has done such a study reported in any
reliable journal seems to emphasize the insufficiency of the idea.

I don't follow this diet, but I have for decades noticed that I
very slowly gain weight if I eat lunch (as well as breakfast
and dinner), and very slowly lose it if I omit lunch. The
weight of my average breakfast and dinner is 2lbs plus or minus
no more than an oz.

Of course the 2lb diet idea is a gross simplification: that is
the whole point. The question is whether it is an
oversimplification, or whether it is a simplification which
works.

It is a simplification that likely is an oversimplification

Yes, "likely". It is not, as I hope you're beginning to realise, a
question that can be settled simply by arguing from common sense,
because it is a question of empirical fact, not of principle.

And yet, I see only your example and a very few others to support it.
It's the general rule in the development of a thesis that the proposer
has the burden of proof to carry. I don't doubt your sincerity, and
that's not at issue. But Chung claims that he has many patients doing
it yet not a shred of data.

I disagree about the empirical imperative of the question. The reality
is that none of the objections or questions have been dealt with
substantively. Balance, long-term results, achievability, comfort and
the whole host of complaints leveled against other dietary plans can
be as easily pointed at this one.

and it may work in the short term, but to what cost in the longer
term for most people? As long as considered nutrient balance
isn't an integral part of it, the likelihood of good guesswork
for health maintenance is slim to none.

If it was true that the natural uneducated predilections and tastes
of humans when choosing their diet from the available resources
had a "slim to none" likelihood of meeting the nutrient
requirements for health maintenance, how do you explain that the
human race did not die out of malnutrition during the million years
when there were no scientifically trained nutrition specialists to
advise us on what to eat?

Is it your position that humans have been well-nourished through
history? That people ate wisely and well? There's a world of
difference between starving to death and being habitually
malnourished. People can go on for rather a long time with drastically
unbalanced menus; look at war prisoners through history. They lose
fat, muscle mass and bone matter. And they can live much shortened
lifespans. And there can be famines that kill millions and millions
over time.

Likely, 2 pounds of food will sustain most people to an equilibrium
point when mass loss will stop. But I submit that it will be rather
different from person to person with differing effect and final
result, too much so to offer it as *the* universal prescription.

This is an empirical question which is not too hard to answer
on an individual basis.

This "individual basis" notion begins to let light in. It points to
the prospect of two pounds not being an ideal, but more a touchstone.
So that little, old granny can do with 1 pound 12 ounces and big,
young junior needs 3 pounds 7 ounces. But even then, the composition
of the diet needs some scrutiny.

If you are overweight, and you have already established a diet
which you *know* by practical experiment causes you to lose
weight very slowly (e.g. less than a pound a fortnight), how
much does it weigh?

And what if this successful diet is predicated on caloric density
and the weights are all over the place?

You average them of course. And if you think that they are so much
"all over the place" that this is a serious problem for the 2lb
diet idea, then you supply the actual figures and explain why it is
a problem.

Just looking at packaged meals you can see the rather large variation
in caloric content. It's a problem because of its inconsistency.

I think it's about time you did some of the work you want everyone
else to bring to you. Go wander around the USDA database and see the
vast differences in caloric content for 100 grams of many different
foods. They even have packaged foods to help you understand why the
correlations are so weak.

As for that question of serious variations between days of balanced
meals and the averages, you're the one saying it doesn't matter.
You're still trying to extrapolate from one experience.

And what if it's predicated on low-fat or low-carb and it works
but it's utterly not correlative with weight of food?

It couldn't possibly be *utterly* uncorrelated with the weight of
the food. If you cast an eye over the published tables of the
calorific densities of various kinds of food you will see that
there would have to be a fairly strong correlation.

See, Chris, you're doing it again. You're saying that there has to be
a "fairly strong correlation" between weight and caloric density.
The differences between like weights of lettuce and carrots are
significant. Between potatoes and cauliflower. Between grains and
soybeans. Between ham and turkey. Between strawberries and bananas.

I've made my living by casting my eye over the calorie tables and
writing about them. Talking about them on radio. Consulting about them
in product design.

But I'll agree that "utterly not correlative" is overstating the case.

The empirical question is how strong, and whether it is strong
enough to support the idea of the 2lb diet.

I have invited you before to do the arithmetic on the various
extreme diets you always quote at this point in your standard 2lb
counter-argument, but you never have.

I don't talk about extreme diets. I advocate caloric limitation and
caloric expenditure irrespective of the regimen. I further advocate
watching nutrient balance and adjusting as needed with either dietary
alteration or food supplements.

Instead you have posted this same speculative counter-argument
again and again hundreds of times since then. Indeed. you have
spent far more time repeating yourself in your obsessive hounding
of Chung and the 2lb diet approach than it would have taken to
analyse a few sample diets and publish the refutation which you are
so sure exists. That would have destroyed the credibility of the
2lb diet for ever. Yet instead of doing that, you simply repeat
your speculative "common sense" sneerings a thousand times.

Chris, this is simply nonsense and sends the whole thing in irrelevant
directions. If you look at the infinite permutations of an individual
dietary regimen that provides slightly less than maintenance caloric
levels (factoring in caloric usage), the weight of the food can range
rather wider than 2 pounds can accept. Since you're advocating a
universal, daily, fixed quantity, all advice from experts (of whatever
stripe) in nutritional questions runs counter to that position.

Rather than consider the question of anyone destroying the credibility
of a wide-reaching plan of 2 pounds of food per day for everyone, it
would seem that support and proof of effectiveness is incumbent on the
proponents. One or two or 5 is a small universe, indeed.

Could it be that finding the simple facts to support your
speculative rebuttals is actually rather harder than you claim?

They're above.

How can an irrelevant criterion be forced to fit?

You think it's irrelevant because you don't really understand how
degrees of correlation work when combined in proportions with
strict limits on the degree of variation, and can only see this
question in black and white terms of specific high correlation or
its absence.

Give it a rest. This is the same spiel you started your other post
with. According to Chung, there is no issue of degrees of correlation.
It's absolute. You seem to be saying pretty much the same thing. For
yourself, it's 2 pounds +/- an ounce a day of what sounds like a
rather constant menu. But you also hint at individual differences.
Need to make that clearer.

And why bother if it already works?

If what works, the irrelevant criterion?

The other dietary approach.

Are you asking why bother to test something in dispute? You've lost
me here.

Your whole premise here is to test the weight of foods in other diets
that are successful for people. I say that if it's working, what's the
point of weighing? All other dietary plans are intended to maintain
balance through design. The details are being considered. The
nutritional variables are being taken into account. No such thing is
being offered for the 2PD.

If the average weight is approximately 2 pounds a day, are you going
to tell people to forget the rest of the criteria they're applying now
and just go to 2 pounds? Forget the ratio of macronutrients? Forget
consideration of vitamins and minerals? This is where I have to part
company with the idea. Simplistic rather than merely simple.

And what about different goals or progress rates?

You seem to have forgotten that the basic idea behind the 2lb diet
is the idea of a balance point, the point at which nutrient intake
is balanced by expenditure.

Chung and Mu have talked about it as a weight loss program. It's on
Chung's web site as a weight loss program. He talks about it as a
weight loss program and now, in a change from when he advocated
"common sense" as the only additional ingredient, tells people to talk
with their doctors about it. I've mentioned it to a few doctors to be
greeted with laughter.

I think you have a broader, more coherent picture of this concept than
Chung does.

The hypothesis behind the 2lb diet is that, generally speaking,
this is slightly over 2lbs for those who are overweight, so that
2lbs would result in a slight loss of weight.

This seems unclear to me. Are you suggesting that everyone consume the
same weight daily? If not, what are the criteria for differentiating?
Can it be done predictively?

Different goals? Well, if the goals are outwith the claimed scope
of the diet, then it is not applicable. Is that so difficult to
understand?

Different progress rates? Well, if the progress rate required is
not the progress rate claimed for the 2lb diet then it is not
applicable. Is that so difficult to understand?

What progress rate is claimed for the 2PD? You keep saying it's for
weight maintenance, a balance point, while Chung says it's for weight
loss. I think that your note about losing a pound per fortnight
finally puts a definitional element in place that hasn't been in
discussion before.

I see the utility for you as you've looked at it for yourself with a
critical eye. But I remain unconvinced that weight alone is a
sufficient criterion for an entire dietary regimen for anything
approaching mass usage.

Bob

Bob,

On noticing a distinct improvement in the tone of your posts, I
decided to answer this one.

The proof you are looking for is right under your nose - in your own
refrigerator, in fact. I'm going to skip over most of the last post
to focus on exactly what I'm talking about.

On Tue, 25 May 2004 18:15:07 -0400, "Bob (this one)"
wrote:


But you say none of that matters. That only the weight is at issue,
and, you imply, it'll all work out somehow. I can't see the conditions
where packaged foods will contain the same nutrient composition
because they weigh the same. I just went downstairs to look in my
freezer at some prepared foods. I just picked the ones at the front.
No special searching to affect the ratios. Here are some foods,
portion sizes specified on the package and caloric content.

Food port. cal. cal/g

Mini quiches 139 g 440 cal 3.16
personal pizzas 155 g 390 cal 2.52
chicken bakes (in crust with veg)
227 g 290 cal 1.28
roasted potatoes w/herbs
154 g 270 cal 1.75
veg pot pie w/turkey 198 g 450 cal 2.27
pot stickers (shao mai) 150 g 280 cal 1.87
corn pudding 125 g 138 cal 1.10
cut wax beans 120 g 20 cal 0.17
vegetable kofta pilaf 128 g 229 cal 1.79

I don't have any full meals prepared in single packages, so I can't
speak to that directly. But the USDA has them in the database and
here's a sampling:

BANQUET, OUR ORIGINAL Fried Chicken Meal, frozen, with Mashed Potatoes
& Corn, Seasoned Sauce 228 g 470 cal 2.06
MARIE CALLENDER'S Escalloped Noodles & Chicken, frozen entree
368 g 629 cal 1.71
TYSON Roasted Chicken with Garlic Sauce, Pasta and Vegetable Medley,
frozen entree 255 g 214 cal 0.84
BANQUET EXTRA HELPING Salisbury Steak Dinner, with Gravy, Mashed
Potatoes and Corn in Seasoned Sauce, frozen meal
468 g 782 cal 1.67
STOUFFER'S LEAN CUISINE HOMESTYLE Beef Pot Roast with Whipped
Potatoes, frozen entree 255 g 207 cal 0.81
STOUFFER'S HOMESTYLE Salisbury Steak in Gravy & Macaroni and Cheese,
frozen entree 272 g 386 cal 1.42

The range of possibilities shown above is rather wide. Obviously, more
food than just this is necessary to reach the 2 pounds. Caloric
beverages. More fruit and veg.

If only eating two meals a day for a total of 2 pounds and assuming a
lightish breakfast as you imply;
two poached eggs, large 100 g 294 cal
1/2 cup muesli with 1/2 cup milk
93 g 195 cal
apple, medium 138 g 72 cal
makes for a total of 331 g 561 calories.

I calculated the average caloric density of the items you report as
being in your refrigerator (plus the above breakfast and USDA meals)
and I see 18 items with an average density of 1.64 cal/gm. Two pounds
of randomly selected food from your refrigerator (and the other stuff
you mentioned) would provide 1500 calories. A 1500 cal/day diet is
not a "concentration camp" diet. But many people would probably lose
weight on this level of consumption.

Under the 2PD diet, you don't need to read the labels, worry about
exactly how big a "portion" is, etc - you just weigh what you actually
eat. You stop eating for the day when the total hits 2 pounds. In so
doing, you will average 1500 cal/day based on the contents of your own
refrigerator. It's safe to assume that it is food you like and find
appealing or else it wouldn't be in your refrigerator. If we assume
you eat everything in there before refilling it (and restock it
identically), the above statistic will continue to apply.

Some days you'll consume more than 1500 calories, other days you'll
consume less but you'll average 1500 cal/day.

Thanks for the data. I rest my case. ;-)

John

John wrote:

Bob,

On noticing a distinct improvement in the tone of your posts, I
decided to answer this one.

"John," I live for your approval.

The proof you are looking for is right under your nose - in your own
refrigerator, in fact. I'm going to skip over most of the last post
to focus on exactly what I'm talking about.

On Tue, 25 May 2004 18:15:07 -0400, "Bob (this one)"
wrote:

But you say none of that matters. That only the weight is at issue,
and, you imply, it'll all work out somehow. I can't see the conditions
where packaged foods will contain the same nutrient composition
because they weigh the same. I just went downstairs to look in my
freezer at some prepared foods. I just picked the ones at the front.
No special searching to affect the ratios. Here are some foods,
portion sizes specified on the package and caloric content.

Food port. cal. cal/g

Mini quiches 139 g 440 cal 3.16
personal pizzas 155 g 390 cal 2.52
chicken bakes (in crust with veg)
227 g 290 cal 1.28
roasted potatoes w/herbs
154 g 270 cal 1.75
veg pot pie w/turkey 198 g 450 cal 2.27
pot stickers (shao mai) 150 g 280 cal 1.87
corn pudding 125 g 138 cal 1.10
cut wax beans 120 g 20 cal 0.17
vegetable kofta pilaf 128 g 229 cal 1.79

I don't have any full meals prepared in single packages, so I can't
speak to that directly. But the USDA has them in the database and
here's a sampling:

BANQUET, OUR ORIGINAL Fried Chicken Meal, frozen, with Mashed Potatoes
& Corn, Seasoned Sauce 228 g 470 cal 2.06
MARIE CALLENDER'S Escalloped Noodles & Chicken, frozen entree
368 g 629 cal 1.71
TYSON Roasted Chicken with Garlic Sauce, Pasta and Vegetable Medley,
frozen entree 255 g 214 cal 0.84
BANQUET EXTRA HELPING Salisbury Steak Dinner, with Gravy, Mashed
Potatoes and Corn in Seasoned Sauce, frozen meal
468 g 782 cal 1.67
STOUFFER'S LEAN CUISINE HOMESTYLE Beef Pot Roast with Whipped
Potatoes, frozen entree 255 g 207 cal 0.81
STOUFFER'S HOMESTYLE Salisbury Steak in Gravy & Macaroni and Cheese,
frozen entree 272 g 386 cal 1.42

The range of possibilities shown above is rather wide. Obviously, more
food than just this is necessary to reach the 2 pounds. Caloric
beverages. More fruit and veg.

If only eating two meals a day for a total of 2 pounds and assuming a
lightish breakfast as you imply;
two poached eggs, large 100 g 294 cal
1/2 cup muesli with 1/2 cup milk
93 g 195 cal
apple, medium 138 g 72 cal
makes for a total of 331 g 561 calories.


I calculated the average caloric density of the items you report as
being in your refrigerator (plus the above breakfast and USDA meals)
and I see 18 items with an average density of 1.64 cal/gm. Two pounds
of randomly

Randomly selected doesn't work very well if you're looking at food as
anything besides fuel.

selected food from your refrigerator (and the other stuff
you mentioned) would provide

.... an average of...

1500 calories. A 1500 cal/day diet is
not a "concentration camp" diet. But many people would probably lose
weight on this level of consumption.

"John," I don't eat this frozen stuff. My wife of the splendidly
independent spirit consume the ones at the top of the list when I'm
not available and she's up against tight deadlines; neither of us does
the packaged meals. I included them to show the range of caloric
density in packaged foods for Chris who says that's pretty much all he
eats, and the wide range it is.

I eat mostly rather straightforward (by my standards) meats, veggies,
grains, legumes, fruit and the like. My food doesn't come in boxes.

That's not enough food for me, and if the USDA standards are to be
considered, it's not enough for most people.

Under the 2PD diet, you don't need to read the labels, worry about
exactly how big a "portion" is, etc - you just weigh what you actually
eat. You stop eating for the day when the total hits 2 pounds. In so
doing, you will average 1500 cal/day based on the contents of your own
refrigerator. It's safe to assume that it is food you like and find
appealing or else it wouldn't be in your refrigerator. If we assume
you eat everything in there before refilling it (and restock it
identically), the above statistic will continue to apply.

I don't eat those things, "John." It said that in the post to which
you're replying. And I wonder why you so avoid discussing nutrient
balance.

You have no idea what I have in my refrigerator, and I expect you
don't know many of the things I eat. But I'll list some of what's in
there for you: fried gluten balls, tomatillo salsa and herbed
tortillas I made, tofu sheets and noodles, caponata, abura age, eggs,
boiled ham, gelled chicken soup, pork tenderloin roast, chocolate
mousse my daughter made this evening, bacon, prosciutto, nuts (3
kinds), 7 kinds of cheese (queso fresco, parmesan, asiago, gouda,
cheddar, muenster, yak milk), shirataki (four forms), strawberries,
cantaloupe, jicama, milk (3 kinds), 40% fat cream, miso shiru, romaine
lettuce, fresh gingerroot, assorted herbs, several jams and jellies I
made, butter, fruit juice curds (lemon, key lime, orange-blackbery,
cranberry), salame (two kinds), beef stock, chocolate sauce I made, my
horseradish-wasabi blend, black soy beans, capers, the last of a
strawberry flan we made yesterday... You get the idea. Haven't even
looked at the pantry...

Some days you'll consume more than 1500 calories, other days you'll
consume less but you'll average 1500 cal/day.

My normal caloric requirement is upward of 1800 a day, varying some
with season, activity and press of work. Summer with lots more
physical activity, it goes up.

Thanks for the data. I rest my case. ;-)

Nice case. Samsonite...?

I'm not concerned with weight loss. I'm not concerned with portion
size. I'm concerned with balance of nutrients, breadth of trace
minerals, vitamins, macronutrients, caloric content, satisfaction. As
long as they're all in reasonable balance and the food is pleasing to
both senses and body needs, the size plate it fits on is supremely
irrelevant.

Bob

"John" wrote in message
...
Bob,

On noticing a distinct improvement in the tone of your posts, I
decided to answer this one.

The proof you are looking for is right under your nose - in your own
refrigerator, in fact. I'm going to skip over most of the last post
to focus on exactly what I'm talking about.

On Tue, 25 May 2004 18:15:07 -0400, "Bob (this one)"
wrote:


But you say none of that matters. That only the weight is at issue,
and, you imply, it'll all work out somehow. I can't see the conditions
where packaged foods will contain the same nutrient composition
because they weigh the same. I just went downstairs to look in my
freezer at some prepared foods. I just picked the ones at the front.
No special searching to affect the ratios. Here are some foods,
portion sizes specified on the package and caloric content.

Food port. cal. cal/g

Mini quiches 139 g 440 cal 3.16
personal pizzas 155 g 390 cal 2.52
chicken bakes (in crust with veg)
227 g 290 cal 1.28
roasted potatoes w/herbs
154 g 270 cal 1.75
veg pot pie w/turkey 198 g 450 cal 2.27
pot stickers (shao mai) 150 g 280 cal 1.87
corn pudding 125 g 138 cal 1.10
cut wax beans 120 g 20 cal 0.17
vegetable kofta pilaf 128 g 229 cal 1.79

I don't have any full meals prepared in single packages, so I can't
speak to that directly. But the USDA has them in the database and
here's a sampling:

BANQUET, OUR ORIGINAL Fried Chicken Meal, frozen, with Mashed Potatoes
& Corn, Seasoned Sauce 228 g 470 cal 2.06
MARIE CALLENDER'S Escalloped Noodles & Chicken, frozen entree
368 g 629 cal 1.71
TYSON Roasted Chicken with Garlic Sauce, Pasta and Vegetable Medley,
frozen entree 255 g 214 cal 0.84
BANQUET EXTRA HELPING Salisbury Steak Dinner, with Gravy, Mashed
Potatoes and Corn in Seasoned Sauce, frozen meal
468 g 782 cal 1.67
STOUFFER'S LEAN CUISINE HOMESTYLE Beef Pot Roast with Whipped
Potatoes, frozen entree 255 g 207 cal 0.81
STOUFFER'S HOMESTYLE Salisbury Steak in Gravy & Macaroni and Cheese,
frozen entree 272 g 386 cal 1.42

The range of possibilities shown above is rather wide. Obviously, more
food than just this is necessary to reach the 2 pounds. Caloric
beverages. More fruit and veg.

If only eating two meals a day for a total of 2 pounds and assuming a
lightish breakfast as you imply;
two poached eggs, large 100 g 294 cal
1/2 cup muesli with 1/2 cup milk
93 g 195 cal
apple, medium 138 g 72 cal
makes for a total of 331 g 561 calories.

I calculated the average caloric density of the items you report as
being in your refrigerator (plus the above breakfast and USDA meals)
and I see 18 items with an average density of 1.64 cal/gm. Two pounds
of randomly selected food from your refrigerator (and the other stuff
you mentioned) would provide 1500 calories. A 1500 cal/day diet is
not a "concentration camp" diet. But many people would probably lose
weight on this level of consumption.

Under the 2PD diet, you don't need to read the labels, worry about
exactly how big a "portion" is, etc - you just weigh what you actually
eat. You stop eating for the day when the total hits 2 pounds. In so
doing, you will average 1500 cal/day based on the contents of your own
refrigerator. It's safe to assume that it is food you like and find
appealing or else it wouldn't be in your refrigerator. If we assume
you eat everything in there before refilling it (and restock it
identically), the above statistic will continue to apply.

Some days you'll consume more than 1500 calories, other days you'll
consume less but you'll average 1500 cal/day.

Thanks for the data. I rest my case. ;-)

John

Bob ought to stock his refrigerator with foods which
have lower calorie density. Vegetables and fruits typ-
ically have a calorie density of 0.5 or less. Fat-free
plain yogurt has a calorie density of about 0.5. So
does oatmeal. So does tofu. A cucumber has a cal-
orie density of only 0.1 or so. Eat food like this to
satiety and then eat some nuts or seeds and swallow
a couple of Menhaden fish oil capsules.

George