Wow

On Apr 13, 4:41 pm, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:
satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:

brother "Mu" wrote:
neighbor Cubit wrote:

Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.

Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of insert
chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc and never gain weight? Hogwash!"

Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does not
factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.

The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
not **how much** to eat.

The truth is that you or anyone else can cut their consumption gradually
to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.

Wouldn't a 1PD diet or a 1.5PD diet work better than the 2PD diet? Just
wondering...

The 2 pounds (16 oz + 16 oz as described by Exodus 16:16) is by GOD's
design to be the optimal amount. Any amount more or less would not be
optimal and we would be less hungry.

You read it here. God prefers the Imperial system of weights and
measures.

On Apr 13, 8:47 pm, wrote:
"There is no prescribed course of food with the 2PD-OMER Approach.

The former (diet) is left up to the supervising doctor to prescribe."

Of course, it is a poor gimic of a calorie restriction diet. Just
ignore it, a doc will provide plans with calorie restriction anyway with
weight or volume as the guide for meal plans. The real diet from the
doc will also consider nutrition which the two pound diet does not and
stress adding exercise.

I just read about a study where exercise caused more belly fat loss then
calorie restriction alone.

One can just do a time restricted meal to also limit calories.

The two pound diet, in all its many and changing flavors over the past
few years is a scientific flop, trash science.

I wouldn't bother with calorie restriction except in life or death
cases of
morbid obesity. Exercise also has dramatic effects on cardiovascular
health; 4 weeks of daily, easy 8 mile bike rides (age 30, starting
from no
exercise whatsoever) brought my bp from 140 / 80 to 110 / 60, and my
resting pulse rate from 90 bpm to 55 -- the traditional "count beats
for
15 seconds and multiply by 4" method was no longer accurate. This
was on top on smoking 1 pack of Marlboro reds per day. Weight loss
was from 185 lbs to 150. I could still eat like a pig, and my weight
went
down.

"Epinephrine" wrote in message
...

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message
ps.com...
convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:
brother "Mu" wrote:
neighbor Cubit wrote:

Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.

Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to
disown
the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of
insert
chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc and never gain weight?
Hogwash!"

Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet
does not
factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.

The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
not **how much** to eat.

"diet", OED definition #3:

Prescribed course of food, restricted in kind or limited in
quantity,

There is no prescribed course of food with the 2PD-OMER Approach.

The former (diet) is left up to the supervising doctor to prescribe.

A prescribed diet would include the 'type of food' and the 'amount' to
consume. Just like a prescribed drug has to be taken at an appropriate
dose to have a beneficial effect, e.g. 1 tablet of X to be taken two times
a day, or 2 tablets of Y to be taken once daily, or 1 tablets of Y to be
taken as required, or 5mg of drug Z per kg of body weight.

Your approach suggests benefit is achieved only at a fixed dose of 2
pounds no matter what the prescribed course of food is, which would imply
that the 2lbs is the benefit-determining factor of the prescribed course
of food.

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

There is no point in carrying a scale, then weighing 1.5 pounds or 2
pounds of a certain prescribed course, if one can adhere to recommended
guidelines and making appropriate lifestyle changes, which have a proven
benefit.

The magic dose of "2 lbs" does not have any benefit, unless of course you
can come up with something more concrete than your anecdotal evidence.


He can't.

Smiler,
The godless one

Epinephrine wrote:

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

convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:

brother "Mu" wrote:

neighbor Cubit wrote:


Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.

Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to
disown
the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of
insert
chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc and never gain weight?
Hogwash!"

Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet
does not
factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.

The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
not **how much** to eat.

"diet", OED definition #3:

Prescribed course of food, restricted in kind or limited in quantity,

There is no prescribed course of food with the 2PD-OMER Approach.

The former (diet) is left up to the supervising doctor to prescribe.


A prescribed diet would include the 'type of food' and the 'amount' to
consume. Just like a prescribed drug has to be taken at an appropriate dose
to have a beneficial effect, e.g. 1 tablet of X to be taken two times a day,
or 2 tablets of Y to be taken once daily, or 1 tablets of Y to be taken as
required, or 5mg of drug Z per kg of body weight.

Your approach suggests benefit is achieved only at a fixed dose of 2 pounds
no matter what the prescribed course of food is, which would imply that the
2lbs is the benefit-determining factor of the prescribed course of food.


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


There is no point in carrying a scale, then weighing 1.5 pounds or 2 pounds
of a certain prescribed course, if one can adhere to recommended guidelines
and making appropriate lifestyle changes, which have a proven benefit.

The magic dose of "2 lbs" does not have any benefit, unless of course you
can come up with something more concrete than your anecdotal evidence.


There is no anecdotal evidence, only andy's crowing.

"."@ wrote in message ...
Epinephrine wrote:

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

convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:

brother "Mu" wrote:

neighbor Cubit wrote:


Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.

Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to
disown
the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of insert
chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc and never gain weight? Hogwash!"

Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does
not
factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.

The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
not **how much** to eat.

"diet", OED definition #3:

Prescribed course of food, restricted in kind or limited in
quantity,

There is no prescribed course of food with the 2PD-OMER Approach.

The former (diet) is left up to the supervising doctor to prescribe.


A prescribed diet would include the 'type of food' and the 'amount' to
consume. Just like a prescribed drug has to be taken at an appropriate
dose to have a beneficial effect, e.g. 1 tablet of X to be taken two
times a day, or 2 tablets of Y to be taken once daily, or 1 tablets of Y
to be taken as required, or 5mg of drug Z per kg of body weight.

Your approach suggests benefit is achieved only at a fixed dose of 2
pounds no matter what the prescribed course of food is, which would imply
that the 2lbs is the benefit-determining factor of the prescribed course
of food.


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


There is no point in carrying a scale, then weighing 1.5 pounds or 2
pounds of a certain prescribed course, if one can adhere to recommended
guidelines and making appropriate lifestyle changes, which have a proven
benefit.

The magic dose of "2 lbs" does not have any benefit, unless of course you
can come up with something more concrete than your anecdotal evidence.


There is no anecdotal evidence, only andy's crowing.

I was kindly referring to his "crowing" as anecdotal evidence.

i.e Chung's anecdotes = Chung's anecdotal evidence.

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:08:24 +0100, "Epinephrine"
wrote:


"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message
oups.com...
satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:
brother "Mu" wrote:
neighbor Cubit wrote:

Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.

Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of insert
chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc and never gain weight? Hogwash!"

Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does
not
factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.

The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
not **how much** to eat.

Appropriate calorific restriction with cardiovascular exercise would be a
more meaningful approach. More importantly there a lot of evidence to also
suggest that calorific restriction is the way to live longer. Perhaps
tailoring your approach further could add to its credibility.

The truth is that you or anyone else can cut their consumption
gradually
to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.

Wouldn't a 1PD diet or a 1.5PD diet work better than the 2PD diet? Just
wondering...

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

Any amount more or less would not be
optimal and we would be less hungry.

"Less hungry" is very subjective. Perhaps this amount (2PD) is optimal for
*you* and keeps you less hungry? There is no evidence to suggest that this
amount is optimal for an athelete, a bedridden patient, or an infant.

Your assumption that 2PD is optimal for everyone is therefore flawed as it
does not take into account an individual's specific metabolism and
requirements. It appears to be construed to only serve religious agenda.


I agree with what you say. However, using scientific conclusions
and time tested common sense on, Dung , is a waste of time. He doesn't
care about people. Only his superstition exists to him. That's why
he's not allowed hospital privileges and has no doubt (to me) severely
injured some of his 'believers'.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

On 13 Apr 2007 11:41:00 -0700, Hollywood wrote:

On Apr 13, 2:09 pm, Mu wrote:
On 13 Apr 2007 07:42:02 -0700, Hollywood wrote:

In all honesty, I don't think Mu = Chung.

Put butter on that /waffle/, thanks.

I don't get how a loose comment in your direction when I consistently
suggest that you and chung are lovers, is a real waffle. Let's suggest
it's not because you are low regard so I don't pay attention to what I
say to you.

You simply cannot follow a Usenet conversation with any sense of
clarity. In less than a day, you have gone from Mu=Chung to "oh no, I
really don't think so" because Kittrell pointed out what a dim bulb you
are for saying so. Not to mention that the archives are chock full of
evidence that Mu and Chung are separate folk.

You're not only a dunce with your pointed hat cocked to the side, you're
a pathological liar.

On 13 Apr 2007 11:41:00 -0700, Hollywood wrote:

On Apr 13, 2:09 pm, Mu wrote:
On 13 Apr 2007 07:42:02 -0700, Hollywood wrote:

In all honesty, I don't think Mu = Chung.

Put butter on that /waffle/, thanks.

I don't get how a loose comment in your direction when I consistently
suggest that you and chung are lovers, is a real waffle. Let's suggest
it's not because you are low regard so I don't pay attention to what I
say to you.

I think they two individuals
deeply in love with each other and some infantile conception of a
higher power.

Let's get this accurate, for once, for one time in your posts about Mu.
Once.

There is no "higher power", I believe definitively and completely in God
who made His Presence known as Jesus Christ.

You believe in the Lord God, who is both powerful and above everyone.
That would be a higher power. And I contend that Chung's conception is
infantile. Your's is less forward, but no less infantile.

Note the lack of butter.

Butter is good for you. It's the carbs that are killing you, not the
sat fat.

Carbs are killing me. lol

I have some helpful information for you.

There are exactly two categories of people who might read any article
you post. The first group comprises those who know you're a liar, a
plagiarist, a fraud and an idiot. The second includes only those who
have never heard of you. If you want to maintain as good an image as
possible, don't ever post again. Your truthlessness and incoherent
nonsense just give the first group an opportunity to laugh at you, and
any of the second group who see that crap will immediately migrate to
the first. So your best bet is to shut up.

Mu wrote:

On 13 Apr 2007 11:41:00 -0700, Hollywood wrote:

On Apr 13, 2:09 pm, Mu wrote:
On 13 Apr 2007 07:42:02 -0700, Hollywood wrote:

In all honesty, I don't think Mu = Chung.

Put butter on that /waffle/, thanks.

I don't get how a loose comment in your direction when I consistently
suggest that you and chung are lovers, is a real waffle. Let's suggest
it's not because you are low regard so I don't pay attention to what I
say to you.

You simply cannot follow a Usenet conversation with any sense of
clarity. In less than a day, you have gone from Mu=Chung to "oh no, I
really don't think so" because Kittrell pointed out what a dim bulb you
are for saying so. Not to mention that the archives are chock full of
evidence that Mu and Chung are separate folk.

You're not only a dunce with your pointed hat cocked to the side, you're
a pathological liar.

Care to prop up the 2-lb chung diet with regard to conservation of
energy, Mu?

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen

"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen

On 13 Apr 2007 11:41:00 -0700, Hollywood wrote:


Let's get this accurate, for once, for one time in your posts about Mu.
Once.

There is no "higher power", I believe definitively and completely in God
who made His Presence known as Jesus Christ.

You believe in the Lord God, who is both powerful and above everyone.
That would be a higher power.

Which part of my post, forget it, all of it.

And I contend that Chung's conception is
infantile. Your's is less forward, but no less infantile.

Contend all you want. Your expressed opinions carry the exact weight of
your posting character and Usenet-archived childishness.

I'm getting tired of you, you're like a needle in a haystack, no, no,
OK, let me put it another way.

In the movie Jurassic Park, there's a scene where a researcher sticks
her hand in a pile of dinosaur dung, digs around,and pulls out an
undigested berry. I'm sure if I listened to more of "Hollywood", I too
may discover a berry, but to me, the price in time is waaay too high.