CDC Calorie Recommendations

And how does one get to the point where these few calories can be
consumed and one can live with these reduced food intakes?

http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

==================================================


On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 10:04:19 -0500, "Jenny"
wrote:

The news story posted yesterday about how researchers at the CDC blamed
increased carb consumption for the obesity epidemic contained an interesting
bit of info that seems to have slipped by without comment.

It said that the recommended daily calorie intake for women was 1600
calories and 2200 for men.

Quoting one version from
http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Storie...39654,00.html:

"The study, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and
reported in its current Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, found that in
1971, women ate 1,542 calories on average, compared with today's 1,877,
while men went from 2,450 calories a day to 2,618. Those numbers dwarf the
government's recommendations of 1,600 calories a day for women and 2,200 for
men."

These numbers are 600 calories LOWER than the numbers I have gotten both
from a "professional
nutritionist and all the calculators available on the web.

But the 1600 number does match, exactly, with what I found after logging my
food for a year and comparing it with my weight status.

All along I figured that something was dreadfully wrong with my metabolism
since 1600 was the most amount I can eat and still maintain, but these
figures would suggest this is normal! The article said that more could be
eaten by people who are physically active, but everything I've read suggests
that "physically active" means putting in many hours a day of physical
activity, not spending 45 minutes in the gym four times a week followed by 8
hours at a desk.

If there is some reason to believe that the 1600/2200 calorie numbers are
legit (and the CDC has my respect as a medical institution that doesn't
screw around) then the conclusion reported in the book I read about
successful long term dieters, published in the early 1980s--that most of
them ate 1200 calories a day while losing and not more than 1800 calories a
day while maintaining falls into place too.

Bottom line: If your female and really expect to maintain that under 150 lb
weight, you're going to be eating 1600 calories a day or less for the rest
of your life, or forget it. Men should prepare to live on that 2200
calories.


http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap950909.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

Last Shot At The Mu_n wrote:

And how does one get to the point where these few calories can be
consumed and one can live with these reduced food intakes?

In the last 25 days on Atkins I have consumed an average of 2354
calories (an overestimate due to overly fatty beef counts in tables,
for certian). I am not limiting my calorie intake at all. Simply
sticking to Atkins-level carbs. I eat until full and I eat/snack
whenever I am hungry.

I started being a 350 lb male and have no issue eating at this level.
Have already impressed friends with how easily I avoided all the "bad"
foods at a superbowl party. And this despite that I have showed sadly
little willpower in my life where food is concerned. I enjoy eating
many, many different foods.


DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)

DigitalVinyl wrote:

Last Shot At The Mu_n wrote:

And how does one get to the point where these few calories can be
consumed and one can live with these reduced food intakes?

In the last 25 days on Atkins I have consumed an average of 2354
calories (an overestimate due to overly fatty beef counts in tables,
for certian). I am not limiting my calorie intake at all. Simply
sticking to Atkins-level carbs. I eat until full and I eat/snack
whenever I am hungry.

Uh-oh.

How many pounds of food per day are we talking about on average?

(Note: that your saying 2354 calories really does not tell me how much you
are eating).



I started being a 350 lb male and have no issue eating at this level.

Your doctor might take issue.


Have already impressed friends with how easily I avoided all the "bad"
foods at a superbowl party.

I take it that carbs are "bad".

And this despite that I have showed sadly
little willpower in my life where food is concerned. I enjoy eating
many, many different foods.

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)

Would suggest you invest in a food scale and involve your doctor in
supervising you to lose weight.

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 DV ;-)
(2) Report DV 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://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
(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.


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/?L21532147





--
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/?L21532147

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:07:12 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message ):

DigitalVinyl wrote:

Last Shot At The Mu_n wrote:

And how does one get to the point where these few calories can be
consumed and one can live with these reduced food intakes?

In the last 25 days on Atkins I have consumed an average of 2354
calories (an overestimate due to overly fatty beef counts in tables,
for certian). I am not limiting my calorie intake at all. Simply
sticking to Atkins-level carbs. I eat until full and I eat/snack
whenever I am hungry.

snip


**************************** WARNING *****************************
* *
* The Original Poster should be very cautious in *
* crediting any advice posted in a newsgroup. In exercising *
* this caution, they would be well advised to *
* carefully consider the source. *
* *
************************************************** ****************
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 5:17:30 -0500, A. B. Chung FAQ wrote
(in message ):


---------------------------------
| The Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD FAQ |
| Version 1.0, January, 2004 |
---------------------------------

Introduction
------------
New people arriving in sci.med.cardiology (s.m.c.) are often puzzled
and troubled by the controversy surrounding the poster who posts as Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD (Dr. Chung) and want to know what the
controversy is about. This FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) attempts
to provide an answer.

The FAQ is arranged in typical FAQ form, i.e. a series of questions and
answers. For those who don=B9t wish to read the whole FAQ, the following
summary is provided.

Summary
-------
Dr. Chung represents himself to be a licensed physician specializing in
cardiology. In this capacity he responds to medical questions on
s.m.c.. If that were all he did, there would probably be no
controversy.

The controversy arises from Dr. Chung=B9s other behaviors on s.m.c., in
particular:

o He uses s.m.c. to not only proselytize his particular interpretation
of Christianity, but also to disparage and attack anyone with a
different interpretation or different religion.

o He uses s.m.c. to promote his unscientific Two Pound Diet (2PD) and,
in fact, cross posts this information to other groups in order to
gain more exposure.

o When challenged on the above issues, or one of his medical opinions,
he attacks his challengers as "obsessive anti-Christians",
"libelers", "homosexuals", "people who can=B9t understand English",
etc.

o When challenged he performs Internet searches on his challengers in
order to "get the dirt" on them and smear their reputations.

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.

o He is insufferably full of himself, claiming to have "the gift of
Truth Discernment" and to be "Humble" while behaving anything but
humbly.

o He uses a foil who posts under variations of the name "Mu" to avoid
killfiles. Mu=B9s job is to troll other newsgroups and, when he gets
a reaction, to cross post the reaction to s.m.c. so that Dr. Chung
can disingenuously claim to be "only responding" to a cross post.
Whereas Dr. Chung has to be somewhat careful what he says and so
attacks primarily through insinuation and innuendo, Mu=B9s tactics
are blunt and direct like those of a playground bully.

The above lists only the highlights of Dr. Chung=B9s egregious behavior
on s.m.c.. If anything, it understates it. Everything can be verified
in the Google archives.

The issue then arises: so what? As long as Dr. Chung provides free
medical advice on s.m.c., who cares what else he does?

Many people provide free medical advice on the internet. How does one
know whether it is good advice or bad advice? If the person giving the
advice is, or represents himself to be, a doctor shouldn=B9t that be
enough? Unfortunately, no.

Medical education alone is not enough to guarantee good advice.
Knowledge must be tempered with judgment, impartiality, integrity,
ethics, and professionalism. If someone consistently demonstrates by
their behavior that they lack these qualities, how much credence should
be given to their medical advice?

People arrive in this group looking for help. For their own
protection, they deserve to know the quality of the person purporting
to dispense that help and not be lulled into a false sense of security
simply because someone displays an MD after their name. It is the
intention of this FAQ to provide people with enough information to
allow them to make an informed decision.

List of Questions Answered
--------------------------
1. Who is Dr. Andrew B Chung, MD/PhD?
2. What is the Charter of s.m.c.?
3. Aren=B9t Religious Discussions Covered by the Charter?
4. So Dr. Chung is Religious... What=B9s the Problem With That?
5. But it=B9s Just a Little "Tag Line" in His Signature.
6. But I=B9m a Christian Too!
7. Well, Why Not Just Ignore His Religious Rants?
8. But Isn=B9t It Wonderful That Dr. Chung Offers This Free
Medical Advice Out of the Goodness of His Heart?
9. How Does a Practicing Physician Find so Much Time to Spend on
Usenet?
10. Won=B9t Challenging Dr. Chung Drive People Away?
11. Doesn't the "Fault" for all Those Posts Lay With Those Who
Challenge Dr. Chung?
12. Why Do I see So Many "Ad Hominem" Attacks?
13. I'm Sick of Seeing All This!
14. What is the Two Pound Diet?
15. Is Discussion of the Two Pound Diet "On Topic"?
16. Who is Mu?
17. What is Mu=B9s Role?


1. Who is Dr. Andrew B Chung, MD/PhD?
--------------------------------------
The poster who posts as Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD claims to be a
licensed physician, practicing internal medicine in Atlanta, Georgia,
USA and specializing in cardiology. His signature contains a link to a
website which is consistent with his posts.

It should be noted that anyone can claim to be anyone on Usenet and so
caution is always advised. Indeed there are those who claim that the
poster in question is not Dr. Andrew B. Chung, or is not the Dr. Andrew
B. Chung listed in the Atlanta telephone directory, and/or has lost his
license and/or hospital privileges for misconduct. This FAQ does not
attempt to address those claims one way or the other. The reader with
an interest in these matters can easily find the relevant discussions
archived in Google Groups.

This FAQ deals with the poster who posts as Dr. Chung and restricts
itself to issues demonstrated by those posts. No position is taken on
his "true" identity.

2. What is the Charter of s.m.c.?
----------------------------------
The purpose of this newsgroup is to establish electronic media for
communication between health care providers, scientists and other
individuals with interest in the cardiovascular field. Such
communications will provide quick and efficacious means to exchange
information and knowledge, and offer problems to solutions.

The sci.med.cardiology newsgroup will welcome participants who are
health care providers, trainees, researchers, students or recipients
with interest in the field of cardiovascular problems."

(ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.announc...med.cardiology)


3. Aren=B9t Religious Discussions Covered by the Charter?
--------------------------------------------------------
What do you think?

4. So Dr. Chung is Religious... What=B9s the Problem With That?
--------------------------------------------------------------
There is no problem with that. Most of the people who participate in
s.m.c. are probably religious. However no one but Dr. Chung feels
compelled to characterize themselves as the "Humble Servant of God" in
their signatures, continually thank God for the opportunity to
"witness", question others about their religious beliefs, claim the
"Gift of Truth Discernment", etc.

When one person insists on introducing his personal religious
interpretations into the discussions, it naturally generates responses
from others who feel just as strongly that their viewpoints are
correct. The resulting debate easily swirls out of control, especially
given Dr. Chung=B9s intolerant and dismissive attitude towards beliefs
which differ from his. The situation is further exacerbated by Mu=B9s
rabble raising from the sidelines.

There are over 160 Usenet groups dedicated to the discussion of
religion. Dr. Chung should take his beliefs to one of these and stick
to cardiology in s.m.c. It is a simple matter of respect for others.

5. But it=B9s Just a Little "Tag Line" in His Signature.
-------------------------------------------------------
No, it is not. He has even gone so far as to "investigate" someone
asking for advice about stents and accuse her of being anti-Christian.

6. But I=B9m a Christian Too!
----------------------------
Lots of people are Christians. There is a time and a place for
everything. s.m.c. isn=B9t the place to "witness" or recruit. In
addition, lots of other people are Jews, Moslems, Buddhists,
Taoists, Hindus, etc. Would s.m.c. be better or worse if they
all emulated Dr. Chung in their proselytizing and recruiting?

Furthermore, if you are a Christian, you should be appalled by Dr.
Chung=B9s pharisaical, cynical, and manipulative use of Christianity. He
is truly a "whitened sepulcher", loudly proclaiming his adherence to
Christian values while overtly lying, carrying on smear campaigns
against others, making false accusations, dissembling, and marketing
his web site under the guise of altruism. He is "bearing false
witness" and true Christians should be concerned.

As an example, when John Ritter recently died unexpectedly, Dr. Chung
rushed to use this unfortunate event to market his web site. He showed
a total lack of Christian compassion for Mr. Ritter and his family,
even when challenged to do so.

As another example, he recently choreographed a smear campaign against
a poster who had criticized him. Dr. Chung found a homosexual author
with the same first name and then insinuated that the poster and anyone
who agreed with him were engaged in a homosexual relationship. Ask
yourself if this the brand of Christianity you identify with.

7. Well, Why Not Just Ignore His Religious Rants?
--------------------------------------------------
Why should one individual be given carte blanche to violate the rights
of everyone else? Usenet is a community. It is up to the community to
sanction its members. There is nothing "ad hominem" about challenging
inappropriate and antisocial behavior.

8. But Isn=B9t It Wonderful That Dr. Chung Offers This Free
Medical Advice Out of the Goodness of His Heart?
----------------------------------------------------------
First, it is only of value if it is good advice. Medical education
alone is not enough to guarantee good advice. Knowledge must be
tempered with judgment, impartiality, integrity, ethics, and
professionalism. If someone consistently demonstrates by their
behavior that they lack these qualities, how much credence should be
given to their medical advice?

Secondly, despite his protestations to the contrary, Dr. Chung is not
simply motivated by altruism. Every post of Dr. Chung's contains a
link to a website with the following quote:

"If you are looking for a cardiologist and reside in Georgia,
please consider me your best option for a personal heart advocate.
Check out my credentials and my background. Additional information
is available in the protected sections of this web site. Email me at
to me of your interest and I may send
you a temporary username and password to allow a preview. The more
information you email, the more likely my decision to send you a
temporary username and password. If you like what you see and learn
from this website and wish to confer with me about your heart, you
or your doctor should email me privately or call my voicemail at
404-699-2780 to schedule an appointment to see me at my *real*
office."
(http://www.heartmdphd.com/office.asp)

Thirdly, Dr. Chung has repeatedly stated that one of his key
motivations for participating is s.m.c. is to "witness" and win
converts to his religious beliefs.

9. How Does a Practicing Physician Find so Much Time to Spend on
Usenet?
------------------------------------------------------------------
An interesting question.

10. Won=B9t Challenging Dr. Chung Drive People Away?
--------------------------------------------------
Perhaps. But not challenging him will drive others away.

s.m.c. is historically a "low traffic" group. Therefore, when Dr. Chung
misbehaves, he generates an apparently large response. This is
compounded by Dr. Chung=B9s need to "get in the last word" and Mu=B9s
provocations. In spite of this, if someone has a question it will
usually be answered.

Dr. Chung is not the only participant who offers advice in s.m.c. He
is not even the only doctor who participates in s.m.c. However, the
controversy he generates and sustains often makes it appear that he is
the "only game in town".

Finally, Dr. Chung himself drives others away including other
physicians who leave in disgust after being verbally assaulted by him,
and other knowledgeable posters who point out where Dr. Chung=B9s medical
opinion might be in error or at least not the only one generally held.
Anyone disagreeing with Dr. Chung on any subject can expect a series of
increasingly vitriolic attacks, including threats of libel suits.

11. Doesn't the "Fault" for all Those Posts Lay With Those Who
Challenge Dr. Chung?
--------------------------------------------------------------
An interesting perspective: blame the victim. No other poster
(with the exception of Mu, of course) introduces religion or
the Two Pound Diet. How can it be acceptable for Dr. Chung
to introduce these topics, but not acceptable for others to
respond?

In any thread, someone must, of necessity "get the last word".
Dr. Chung has amply demonstrated that he will not be outdone
in this respect.

12. Why Do I see So Many "Ad Hominem" Attacks?
----------------------------------------------
You are probably referring to an "Ad Hominem" _argument_, which
attempts to disprove an adversary's fact by personal attack on
the adversary. An example would be "You are opposed to the
Two Pound Diet because you are anti-Christian".

When someone misbehaves, for example lies or distorts what
someone else is saying, it is not an "ad hominem attack" to
call them on it. It is a legitimate social sanction.

There are also, unfortunately too often, simple personal
attacks and insults on both sides. While we can all wish
it weren't so, it is simply human nature when an argument
becomes heated or the other person is obviously not arguing
in good faith. If you are distressed by this, see the next
question.

13. I'm Sick of Seeing All This!
--------------------------------
There is no reason why you have to see it. Just as you can
change the TV channel if you don't like a show, you can killfile
a poster or thread you don't want to see. See the manual
that came with your Usenet reader for directions on how to do it.

Before you do this, however, you may wish to consider if a truer
picture of the world is not gained by seeing all that goes on -
both the good and the bad.

14. What is the Two Pound Diet?
-------------------------------
The Two pound Diet is a diet which Dr. Chung "invented". It=B9s only
rule is to restrict yourself to two pounds of food per day. That=B9s it.
Doesn=B9t matter if you are a 16 year old girl or an 80 year old man; a
5=B9 2" woman or a 7=B9 man; a weight lifter or a mattress tester. Two
pounds. That=B9s it. No more, less if you want. One size fits all.

Oh, and the food? Whatever you want: two pounds of lettuce, two pounds
of ice cream, two pounds of celery, two pounds of bacon, two pounds of
chocolate, two pounds of peanuts... doesn=B9t matter. Mix and match.
Just keep it under two pounds.

Dr. Chung=B9s claim is that this magical weight of food, this universal
gustatory constant will cause everyone to arrive at and maintain their
ideal weight. His scientific basis for this claim: none. The proof he
offers: none. Studies supporting this claim: none. Nutritional
explanation: none. Metabolic explanation: none.

And this from a doctor who expects people to take him seriously on
other issues.

15. Is Discussion of the Two Pound Diet "On Topic"?
---------------------------------------------------
Dr. Chung says it is because being overweight is a risk factor for
heart problems and therefore discussion of the Two Pound Diet is On
Topic. However criticism of the Two Pound Diet is Off Topic as is
discussion of any other diet.

As with religion, Dr. Chung takes every opportunity to introduce the
Two Pound Diet (2PD) into any other thread. In addition Mu trolls
other newsgroups, particularly the diet groups looking for
opportunities to introduce the 2PD in these groups and then cross post
the resulting discussion back to s.m.c so that Dr. Chung can
disingenuously claim to be "only responding" to a cross post.

Since Dr. Chung and Mu have been laughed off of these other groups and
have been asked repeatedly not to bring up the 2PD in them,
participants of these groups are understandably angered when it happens
yet again=8A and, because of Mu=B9s cross-posting, all their anger spills
back into s.m.c.

Another reason for ongoing 2PD discussions is Dr. Chung=B9s habit of
researching anyone who criticizes the 2PD and then cross-posting his
responses back to other groups which the critic has been found to
frequent. He disingenuously claims that he does this as a
"convenience" to the critic, but his true reasons are transparent.
Once again, the cross-post generates a firestorm in s.m.c.

The bottom line is that if the Two Pound Diet is "On Topic" for
anyone, it is "On Topic" for everyone... including it's critics.
If it is "Off Topic", it should not be continually re-introduced
by Dr. Chung.

16. Who is Mu?
--------------
Mu is a longtime Usenet Troll who has even merited his own FAQ. He
postures as some kind of personal physical trainer, but who really
knows? He has allied himself with Dr. Chung and serves as the "Bad Cop"
in the Chung - Mu "Good Cop - Bad Cop" routine. He specializes in the
short, nasty one-liner and, because unlike Dr. Chung, he has no
reputation to protect, he can afford to be much more direct and
offensive.

Mu parrots an even meaner-spirited version of Dr. Chung=B9s
"Christianity" and does not hesitate to employ anti-Semitism and
homophobia in his attacks.

Naturally, most people would have long ago killfiled Mu, so he changes
his handle on an almost daily basis.

17. What is Mu=B9s Role?
----------------------
Mu=B9s role is to troll other newsgroups and, when he gets a reaction, to
cross post the reaction to s.m.c. so that Dr. Chung can disingenuously
claim to be "only responding" to a cross post.

Mu is also responsible for pitching softballs to Dr. Chung so he can
hit them out of the park, and for re-introducing religion and the Two
Pound Diet should the discussion flag.

Finally, Mu=B9s role is to tirelessly wear down unsuspecting Dr. Chung
critics, deflecting the blows that would otherwise be aimed at Dr.
Chung. He is Dr. Chung=B9s Internet equivalent of the "rope-a-dope".
Insults roll off him like water off a duck as do attempts to reason
with him or even have a civil discussion.

Most people have learned to ignore him and his comment is usually the
last one in any thread sub-tree where it appears.

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

DigitalVinyl wrote:

Last Shot At The Mu_n wrote:

And how does one get to the point where these few calories can be
consumed and one can live with these reduced food intakes?

In the last 25 days on Atkins I have consumed an average of 2354
calories (an overestimate due to overly fatty beef counts in tables,
for certian). I am not limiting my calorie intake at all. Simply
sticking to Atkins-level carbs. I eat until full and I eat/snack
whenever I am hungry.

Uh-oh.

How many pounds of food per day are we talking about on average?

(Note: that your saying 2354 calories really does not tell me how much you
are eating).

LOL Same old, same old.

It also doesn't tell Chung how long the pile would be. Nor how high.
Doesn't tell him what color it is, either. How on earth is a guy
supposed to spam a macro across several newsgroups if that sort of
information isn't available to say phony things about?

Actually, the caloric content tells *everybody else* how much he's
eating. In the only measure that is recognized by people without
callouses on their knuckles.

Bob

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 18:09:55 GMT, DigitalVinyl
wrote:

Last Shot At The Mu_n wrote:

And how does one get to the point where these few calories can be
consumed and one can live with these reduced food intakes?

In the last 25 days on Atkins I have consumed an average of 2354
calories (an overestimate due to overly fatty beef counts in tables,
for certian). I am not limiting my calorie intake at all. Simply
sticking to Atkins-level carbs. I eat until full and I eat/snack
whenever I am hungry.

I started being a 350 lb male and have no issue eating at this level.
Have already impressed friends with how easily I avoided all the "bad"
foods at a superbowl party. And this despite that I have showed sadly
little willpower in my life where food is concerned. I enjoy eating
many, many different foods.


DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)

Good for you. Congrats on a great start.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960222.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

Home, Home On The Mu_n wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 18:09:55 GMT, DigitalVinyl
wrote:


Last Shot At The Mu_n wrote:


And how does one get to the point where these few calories can be
consumed and one can live with these reduced food intakes?

In the last 25 days on Atkins I have consumed an average of 2354
calories (an overestimate due to overly fatty beef counts in tables,
for certian). I am not limiting my calorie intake at all. Simply
sticking to Atkins-level carbs. I eat until full and I eat/snack
whenever I am hungry.

I started being a 350 lb male and have no issue eating at this level.
Have already impressed friends with how easily I avoided all the "bad"
foods at a superbowl party. And this despite that I have showed sadly
little willpower in my life where food is concerned. I enjoy eating
many, many different foods.

DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email)

Good for you. Congrats on a great start.

Hey, Mu_sclehead, Chung didn't agree with this. Said that just
calories doesn't tell him how much food was being consumed. Better go
check what the official word is here. You forgot to mention your
2PoundPOWDiet. Try to keep up. Think WWCD. What would Chung do?

Bob

Fri, 06 Feb 2004 15:18:38 -0500 in article
Bob wrote:

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

DigitalVinyl wrote:

Last Shot At The Mu_n wrote:

And how does one get to the point where these few calories can be
consumed and one can live with these reduced food intakes?

In the last 25 days on Atkins I have consumed an average of 2354
calories (an overestimate due to overly fatty beef counts in tables,
for certian). I am not limiting my calorie intake at all. Simply
sticking to Atkins-level carbs. I eat until full and I eat/snack
whenever I am hungry.

Uh-oh.

How many pounds of food per day are we talking about on average?

(Note: that your saying 2354 calories really does not tell me how much you
are eating).

LOL Same old, same old.

It also doesn't tell Chung how long the pile would be. Nor how high.
Doesn't tell him what color it is, either. How on earth is a guy
supposed to spam a macro across several newsgroups if that sort of
information isn't available to say phony things about?

Actually, the caloric content tells *everybody else* how much he's
eating. In the only measure that is recognized by people without
callouses on their knuckles.

Viola! Hmmm ..., sorry, ... voilà!


--
Matti Narkia

Last Shot At The Mu_n writes:
And how does one get to the point where these few calories can be
consumed and one can live with these reduced food intakes?

Well, if for example you limit yourself to fresh fruits and vegetables, you
might actually find it rather difficult to consume 1600-2000 kcals per day.

http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

Interesting, though I think "nutrient density" makes more sense as a measure
that simple weight.

Mike

Mike Coleman wrote:

Last Shot At The Mu_n writes:

And how does one get to the point where these few calories can be
consumed and one can live with these reduced food intakes?

Well, if for example you limit yourself to fresh fruits and vegetables, you
might actually find it rather difficult to consume 1600-2000 kcals per day.

Might be even more difficult after you consider how much time that
would leave you after the bathroom visits.

http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

Interesting, though I think "nutrient density" makes more sense as a measure
that simple weight.

Oh, sure, Mike. You're gonna trot out that old calorie thing, aren't
you? That's so yesterday, with all that arithmetic and counting and all.

No. Chung's cute little toy diet makes more sense for today's
population. Except for that calculating and remembering how much
you've already eaten today and how much you have left. And you have to
use base 16 for your figuring. See how much better it is? No worrying
about vitamins or minerals or anything like that. No more milligrams
and stuff like that.

What could be smarter? Besides, "nutrient density" sounds so, I dunno,
scientific and all.

Bob