My Progress

I have lost 16.6 lbs in the last 7 weeks and only changed 1 meal a
day. new products from a new company in Carlsbad CA

www.EatCheat.com has all the info

its free to sign up too

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:50:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I have lost 16.6 lbs in the last 7 weeks and only changed 1 meal a
day.

If you were eating 2.75 pounds of food and dropped one meal that weighed
one pound, you would achieve the same results. Except that you would not
have lost weight so drastically and placed yourself in an inevitable
rebound, return to or past original weight, for which you are now most
assuredly doomed.
--
http://tinyurl.com/5gt7

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:13:45 -0500, MU wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:50:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I have lost 16.6 lbs in the last 7 weeks and only changed 1 meal a
day.

If you were eating 2.75 pounds of food and dropped one meal that weighed
one pound, you would achieve the same results. Except that you would not
have lost weight so drastically and placed yourself in an inevitable
rebound, return to or past original weight, for which you are now most
assuredly doomed.


If you continue eating as on the diet, your weight will not rebound. This is
generally true with any diet which results in a weight loss.

The reason the vast majority do not maintain their weight loss is that they
go back to their old eating habits.

Wonder if two pounds of celery or two pounds of peanut butter would give the
same weight loss in a short overweight female and a 6 feet 4 inch overweight
man. Also in some who leads a sedentary life versus someone doing a lot of
physical activity at work and home. Wonder if an athlete who participates in
the Ironman (swimming, bicycling and running) in Hawaii can do that on a 2
pound diet ..... most of these athletes are thin and would expect they eat a
lot more than Chung's "2 PD" All these simple questions without any answer.

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:44:31 -0500, MM wrote:

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:13:45 -0500, MU wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:50:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I have lost 16.6 lbs in the last 7 weeks and only changed 1 meal a
day.

If you were eating 2.75 pounds of food and dropped one meal that weighed
one pound, you would achieve the same results. Except that you would not
have lost weight so drastically and placed yourself in an inevitable
rebound, return to or past original weight, for which you are now most
assuredly doomed.


If you continue eating as on the diet, your weight will not rebound. This is
generally true with any diet which results in a weight loss.

Correct. The problem is that so few, less than 3% over time remain on
the diet. Rebound is practically inevitable by conclusion.

The reason the vast majority do not maintain their weight loss is that they
go back to their old eating habits.

See above.

Wonder if two pounds of celery or two pounds of peanut butter would give the
same weight loss in a short overweight female and a 6 feet 4 inch overweight
man. Also in some who leads a sedentary life versus someone doing a lot of
physical activity at work and home. Wonder if an athlete who participates in
the Ironman (swimming, bicycling and running) in Hawaii can do that on a 2
pound diet ..... most of these athletes are thin and would expect they eat a
lot more than Chung's "2 PD" All these simple questions without any answer.

Answers are simple.

No one gains weight, everyone reaches optimal weight by eating 2PD or
less. Considering that I have extensive experience with training and
athletes in traning, and common folk, I speak from those realities.
--
http://tinyurl.com/5gt7

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:15:15 -0500, MU wrote
(in article ):

Answers are simple.

No one gains weight, everyone reaches optimal weight by eating 2PD or
less. Considering that I have extensive experience with training and
athletes in traning, and common folk, I speak from those realities.

Hmmm ..... so will two identical twins one eating 2PD of peanut butter and
the other eating 2PD of celery result in the same weight of the two even
though there is a big difference of calories consumed ..... they both have
the same activity level so the only variable is the what they eat .... would
seem that the one eating two pounds of peanut butter which has more calories
than the two pounds of celery would end up with a much higher weight.

Perhaps you could inform us of just what is your "extensive experience" ?

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:32:38 -0500, MM wrote:

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:15:15 -0500, MU wrote
(in article ):

Answers are simple.

No one gains weight, everyone reaches optimal weight by eating 2PD or
less. Considering that I have extensive experience with training and
athletes in traning, and common folk, I speak from those realities.

Hmmm ..... so will two identical twins one eating 2PD of peanut butter and
the other eating 2PD of celery result in the same weight of the two even
though there is a big difference of calories consumed ..... they both have
the same activity level so the only variable is the what they eat .... would
seem that the one eating two pounds of peanut butter which has more calories
than the two pounds of celery would end up with a much higher weight.

Perhaps you could inform us of just what is your "extensive experience" ?

Asked and answered the first paragraph, Mr. Disingenuous.

As to "extensive experience", Google is your multiple friend.

On 2009-04-30, MM wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:15:15 -0500, MU wrote
(in article ):

Answers are simple.

No one gains weight, everyone reaches optimal weight by eating 2PD or
less. Considering that I have extensive experience with training and
athletes in traning, and common folk, I speak from those realities.

Hmmm ..... so will two identical twins one eating 2PD of peanut butter and
the other eating 2PD of celery result in the same weight of the two even
though there is a big difference of calories consumed

This is a strawman argument against the two pound diet.

Chung may be a loon, but the idea has merit.

Of course the specific mass of the food doesn't matter; that is,
there is nothing magic about two pounds.

The point is that mass of food can be used as an estimate of intake and
a control parameter, and that there may be advantages to doing it that
way---advantages such as the diet is as simple as possible, while still
being tied to closed-loop parameter control.

Of course, if you drastically vary the average caloric density of the food,
then you are violating the spirit of the idea, right? I.e. basically cheating.

Can you name any reasonable self-administered diet system in which cheating is
absolutely impossible?

Think about this: many people don't even think twice about using their body
mass as an estimate of how fat they are, and as a feedback parameter for
tracking progress. If body mass can be used a feedback parameter, why can't
food mass be used as the corresponding control parameter?

If you're measuring body mass on the feedback side, rather than precise
compartmentalized body composition, does it even make sense to compute precise
calories on the control side?

the same activity level so the only variable is the what they eat .... would
seem that the one eating two pounds of peanut butter which has more calories
than the two pounds of celery would end up with a much higher weight.

Still, fact is, two pounds does impose an upper bound. The most calorie-dense
foods are fats, at 9 kcal/g. So the most energy you can get from 900 grams
of food is 8100 kcal.

So work with me for a second: if you use mass to estimate energy intake, you do
in fact have a parameter which establishes an upper bound on energy intake.
The energy intake cannot exceed around nine times multiplied by the mass in
grams, right? I.e. this is actually a sanely behaved parameter. Plug
it into a control loop and it should work. You may find that by eating 907 g
of peanut butter per day, you are not losing weight, or even gaining. I.e. for
the value of the control parameter being 907, you find that the feedback
parameter is not moving in a favorable direction. So try a lower value, like
750 g, et cetera. Eventually, you will discover the values of the control
parameter that change the direction of the feedback parameter.

I don't see any reason to disbelieve that people can do well on two pounds of a
variety of normal food with some sane average caloric density that is nowhere
near 9. Suppose your food has an average density of 2.0 kcal/g. Thus 907
grams of it is 1814 kcal. That's a decent weight loss energy intake for an
adult male. A caloric density of 2.0 kcal/g isn't particularly low, nor is it
particularly high. It's quite representative of normal food.

Chung isn't really saying anything other than: eat a reasonable amount of
normal food. That's not enough to qualify him as sane, or even intelligent, of
course.

But remember the message from 1980's seatbelt education?

``You can learn a lot from a dummy''.

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.support.diet.low-carb.]
On 2009-04-29, MU wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:50:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I have lost 16.6 lbs in the last 7 weeks and only changed 1 meal a
day.

If you were eating 2.75 pounds of food and dropped one meal that weighed
one pound, you would achieve the same results. Except that you would not

``Same results, except not.'' Bull**** equivocation, combined with
blind guessing.

have lost weight so drastically and placed yourself in an inevitable
rebound, return to or past original weight, for which you are now most
assuredly doomed.

Pitiful imbecile, how do you know 16.6 pounds is drastic? It depends on the
total adiposity.

For someone carrying 20 pounds of body fat, it would be drastic (pretty much
regardless of how long it took, really).

For someone carrying 70 pounds, it wouldn't be drastic to lose 16.6 pounds
in 7 weeks.

There is empirical evidence that maximum amount of body fat that can be shed by
means of a dietary deficit, without loss of lean mass (which qualifies
as a good definition of non-drastic loss) is a fraction of the total adiposity.

This fraction is about 0.8% per day, give or take. (Source: this can be derived
from the results stated in the paper ``A limit on the energy transfer rate from
the human fat store in hypophagia'').

From this we can easily calculate the percentage over 49 days:

1 - (1 - .008)^49 = 0.325

(Note: ^ represents exponentiation).

I.e. over 7 weeks, you can safely lose about 33% of your body fat. If you are
carrying 48 pounds of it, then this is 16. The more fat you have in excess of
48 pounds, the easier and safer it is to lose 16 pounds over 7 weeks.

On Apr 29, 5:44*pm, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.support.diet.low-carb.]
On 2009-04-29, MU wrote:

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:50:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I have lost 16.6 lbs in the last 7 weeks and only changed 1 meal a
day.

If you were eating 2.75 pounds of food and dropped one meal that weighed
one pound, you would achieve the same results. Except that you would not

``Same results, except not.'' Bull**** equivocation, combined with
blind guessing.

have lost weight so drastically and placed yourself in an inevitable
rebound, return to or past original weight, for which you are now most
assuredly doomed.

Pitiful imbecile, how do you know 16.6 pounds is drastic? It depends on the
total adiposity.

For someone carrying 20 pounds of body fat, it would be drastic (pretty much
regardless of how long it took, really).

For someone carrying 70 pounds, it wouldn't be drastic to lose 16.6 pounds
in 7 weeks.

There is empirical evidence that maximum amount of body fat that can be shed by
means of a dietary deficit, without loss of lean mass (which qualifies
as a good definition of non-drastic loss) is a fraction of the total adiposity.

This fraction is about 0.8% per day, give or take. (Source: this can be derived
from the results stated in the paper ``A limit on the energy transfer rate from
the human fat store in hypophagia'').

From this we can easily calculate the percentage over 49 days:

* 1 - (1 - .008)^49 = 0.325

* (Note: ^ represents exponentiation).

I.e. over 7 weeks, you can safely lose about 33% of your body fat. If you are
carrying 48 pounds of it, then this is 16. The more fat you have in excess of
48 pounds, the easier and safer it is to lose 16 pounds over 7 weeks.

Checkout this website http://www.smash-marketing.com/diet.htm for some
non-exercise, non-diet tips to losing weight

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:44:49 +0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku wrote:

If you were eating 2.75 pounds of food and dropped one meal that weighed
one pound, you would achieve the same results. Except that you would not

``Same results, except not.'' Bull**** equivocation, combined with
blind guessing.

Goodbye, little child.

*plonk*
--
http://tinyurl.com/5gt7