Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:31:33 -0500 in article
Sun & Mun_
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:39:30 +0200, Matti Narkia
wrote:

Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti?

Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread. In
fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread.
Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected.

Answer the question, Matti.

Between 30 and 50 % of people with diabetes are at risk of kidney disease,
but that was not an issue here. Chung's comment about protein and kidneys
was general and as such also and mostly aimed at the large majority of
general population with no kidney disease and no diabetes. Chung's attempts
to change the subject (the next twist would probably be totally off-topic
religious mantras) when caught answering inaccurately (or otherwise
challenged) should be resisted. A citation from the recently posted "Dr.
Chung FAQ, Issue 1"
(URL:http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=chungfaq-8E35A7.05173026012004%40library.airnews.net):

"o When challenged, he answers with evasions, non sequiturs,
dissembling, rhetorical questions, quotes from the bible, religious
mantras, thinly veiled death threats, ad hominem arguments, and other
such disreputable, unethical, and unprofessional tactics.

See also the chapters dealing with Mu. ;-)


--
Matti Narkia

Matti Narkia wrote:

25 Jan 2004 19:52:32 -0800 in article
(Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:

Matti Narkia wrote in message . ..
25 Jan 2004 14:46:32 -0800 in article
(Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:


High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground.

Not true for people with healthy kidneys.

Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti?

Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread.

Correct.

In
fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread.


Correct.

Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected.


My comment remains accurate.


would suggest you be careful in your answer

LOL.

Looks like you took care not to answer the question.

See above. If _anyone needs to be more careful with his/her answers
it's you. Does BMI 21-25 still define "mild obesity" as one of your recent
answers claimed? :-):-).

Yes.

Is 2 pounds of potatoes still about 3600 calories
as one of your even more recent answers claimed? :-):-):-).


Yes.

Humbly,

Andrew

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

"Moosh" wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:39:30 +0200, Matti Narkia
posted:

25 Jan 2004 19:52:32 -0800 in article
m (Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:

Matti Narkia wrote in message . ..
25 Jan 2004 14:46:32 -0800 in article
(Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:


High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground.

Not true for people with healthy kidneys.

Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti?

Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread. In
fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread.
Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected.

would suggest you be careful in your answer

LOL. See above. If _anyone needs to be more careful with his/her answers
it's you. Does BMI 21-25 still define "mild obesity" as one of your recent
answers claimed? :-):-). Is 2 pounds of potatoes still about 3600 calories
as one of your even more recent answers claimed? :-):-):-).

Hey, Andy, you blew it there mate

You meant 2# of *powdered* spud, didn't you? Easy arithmetic error in
my book. Geez, Matti is an anal retentive from way back
Hey, I've just had 2# of white wine. That OK?

Doesn't BMI depend on your racial height?

Height is not racial.

You're a short ass, No?


No.


Hey, a fit fatty is much better off than an unfit anything.

Yours in admiration, Moosh

Not sure if I should thank you for your comments.

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to
which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset
about reading this message, a few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Moosh
(2) Report Moosh to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at:

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

Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet discussion(s). His participation in
this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His
motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus
freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched:

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

From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet
approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost
the argument soundly at every point:

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

These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion thread(s).

However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected
their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not
discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger."

Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak
of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars.

These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made:

(1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc
(3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
(5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas).

Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's
credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio:

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

When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness
of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero.

Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily
dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at:

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

where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were
bought are easily and summarily debunked.

Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss
(ie JC Der Koenig and Mack):

(1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability).
(2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters.
(3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults.
(4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting.
(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author.

and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.

It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed.

It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the din of hissing from the
peanut gallery.


Sincerely,

Andrew

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

Matti Narkia wrote:

Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:31:33 -0500 in article
Sun & Mun_
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 10:39:30 +0200, Matti Narkia
wrote:

Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti?

Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread. In
fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread.
Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected.

Answer the question, Matti.

Between 30 and 50 % of people with diabetes are at risk of kidney disease,
but that was not an issue here. Chung's comment about protein and kidneys
was general and as such also and mostly aimed at the large majority of
general population with no kidney disease and no diabetes. Chung's attempts
to change the subject (the next twist would probably be totally off-topic
religious mantras) when caught answering inaccurately (or otherwise
challenged) should be resisted. A citation from the recently posted "Dr.
Chung FAQ, Issue 1"
(URL:http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=chungfaq-8E35A7.05173026012004%40library.airnews.net):

"o When challenged, he answers with evasions, non sequiturs,
dissembling, rhetorical questions, quotes from the bible, religious
mantras, thinly veiled death threats, ad hominem arguments, and other
such disreputable, unethical, and unprofessional tactics.

See also the chapters dealing with Mu. ;-)

--
Matti Narkia

Is the source you cite a reliable source by your usual "vitamin-counter" standards, Matti?

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the
message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it.
If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Matti Narkia
(2) Report Matti Narkia to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at:

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

Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet discussion(s). His
participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of
community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious
beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched:

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

From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound
diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach
and have lost the argument soundly at every point:

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

These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion thread(s).

However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have
redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be
"if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger."

Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the
cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting
"flame" wars.

These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made:

(1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight.

(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc
(3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
(5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual
diplomas).

Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's
credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr.
Pastorio:

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

When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the
darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero.

Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can
easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at:

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

where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials
were bought are easily and summarily debunked.

Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue
to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack):

(1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability).
(2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters.
(3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults.
(4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting.
(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author.

and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.

It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed.

It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the din of hissing from
the peanut gallery.


God's humble bond-servant,

Andrew

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

See there is your main problem. You do not even know what a low-carb
diet is. The mainstream recommends a 55 to 65% carb diet. Anything
less than this is a low-carb diet. 40% carbs is a low carb diet. Now

Another possible definition is anything less than 100g a day. Zone aims
for 100g.

Mirek

kvs wrote:
tcomeau quoted:

http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896

Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight
By DANIEL Q. HANEY

Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.

When the data does not make sense, that is the time that a real scientific
advance is in the works. Everyone with a good basic eduction in the
scientific method should recognize this and understnad it's implication.

"It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania
State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has
ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."

Thermodynamics is about energy flow not weight. So much for weight
loss being explained by energy flow. As to the claim that no one has
ever found any miraculous metabolic effects, the *miracle* is when a
scientist says something like "It doesn't make sense, does it?". That's
one of the best clues of a scientific discovery there is. It is THE
classic mark of a discovery.

Of course it isn't Barbara Rolls's discovery. She just ran an experiment
to confirm someone else's discovery and proved to herslef that the
discovery was true. She demonstrated a 'miraculous metabolic effect'
in her experiment then refused to acknowledge that she had done so.

This is not uttered by a scientist but a lemming.

Exactly.

Why is it so hard
for these drones to understand that the action of insulin affects how
glucose is metabolized? Diets which involve higher insulin output
will involve more fat storage than those that do not. In addition,
insulin resistance differentiates individuals in terms of fat storage
rate.

Right. The experiment did not reveal the mechanism that is well known
at this point. What it did was demonstrate that a metabolic effect did
in fact happen.

Individuals with fewer insulin receptors in the membranes of
their cells will convert more glucose to tryglicerides stored in
adipose tissue than "normal" individuals who convert glucose to heat
through higher levels of cellular respiration. Both types of
individuals will get fat on sufficient excess food consumption for a
given exercise level but the former will get fatter faster. No
violations of energy conservation are involved.

No violations of mass conservation either.

Clearly Barbara Rolls doesn't know anything about thermodynamics.

Nor the basic mechanism of how scientific discoveries work. One fell
from the sky and hit her on the head and she didn't even recognize the
classic "That doesn't make any sense, does it?" event.

Thermodynamics is the aggregate behaviour of a system and derives from
the microphysics of the system (in statistical mechanics everything
flows from the system Hamiltonian, but good luck writing it down).

That's physical lingo for saying "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie"
is demonstrated false by this experiment.

Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra
calories did so well. Maybe they burned up more calories digesting
their food.

Whatever the mechanism, a metabolic advantage was factually demonstrated.

It couldn't possibly be insulin related could it now...sheesh.

Well it could. But it's still possible other mechanisms will be
discovered.

Insulin is the fat storage switch. It is obvious why the people that
ate a diet which induced less insulin output could avoid fat storage
at a higher calorie level.

Okay.

The only way that you can lose weight on
a high carbohydrate diet is through the right level of exercise or
calorie restriction.

But this part doesn't automatically follow. Sure, the experiment
demonstrated a metabolic edge for low carbers. But compared to, for
lack of a better term mid-carbers/mid-fatters, low fat has a
metabolic edge of its own. It's just that the low fat one comes
with the less of continual hunger for so many people.

If the additional 300 calories were given to the
high carb group they would not have lost anywhere near the amount of
weight that the low carb group did. This shows that the study is
"fixed" against low carb. The only fair comparison is for identical
calorie consumption on both types of diet.

Right. But equal calories in the experiment would have resulted in
a much larger difference. Say goodbye to a calorie being a calorie
being a calories.

Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's
president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the
people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less
apt to cheat because they were less hungry.

Twit. This joker is accusing the people on the high carb diet of
cheating and spoiling the image of the rotten theory he adheres to.
He should buy a clue instead of buying a phony internet M.D.
certificate.

Chuckle. When the results of an experiment are hard to believe a *good*
scientist tries other experiments to duplicate teh trend, then works on
an explanation. Of course in this case the explanation is already quite
well known and Dr Klein is simply in denial that he's encountered what
to him is a new discovery.

Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:20:00 -0500 in article
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:

Matti Narkia wrote:

Between 30 and 50 % of people with diabetes are at risk of kidney disease,
but that was not an issue here. Chung's comment about protein and kidneys
was general and as such also and mostly aimed at the large majority of
general population with no kidney disease and no diabetes. Chung's attempts
to change the subject (the next twist would probably be totally off-topic
religious mantras) when caught answering inaccurately (or otherwise
challenged) should be resisted. A citation from the recently posted "Dr.
Chung FAQ, Issue 1"
(URL:http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=chungfaq-8E35A7.05173026012004%40library.airnews.net):

"o When challenged, he answers with evasions, non sequiturs,
dissembling, rhetorical questions, quotes from the bible, religious
mantras, thinly veiled death threats, ad hominem arguments, and other
such disreputable, unethical, and unprofessional tactics.

See also the chapters dealing with Mu. ;-)

Is the source you cite a reliable source by your usual "vitamin-counter" standards, Matti?

Anyone who has followed this ng for a few weeks or longer and read the cited
FAQ knows that the FAQ is highly accurate and hence reliable.


--
Matti Narkia

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:

Matti Narkia wrote:

25 Jan 2004 19:52:32 -0800 in article
(Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:

Matti Narkia wrote in message . ..
25 Jan 2004 14:46:32 -0800 in article
(Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:


High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground.

Not true for people with healthy kidneys.

Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti?

Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread.

Correct.

In
fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread.


Correct.

Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected.


My comment remains accurate.


would suggest you be careful in your answer

LOL.

Looks like you took care not to answer the question.

See above. If _anyone needs to be more careful with his/her answers
it's you. Does BMI 21-25 still define "mild obesity" as one of your recent
answers claimed? :-):-).

Yes.

Is 2 pounds of potatoes still about 3600 calories
as one of your even more recent answers claimed? :-):-):-).


Yes.


Why can't you just admit that you made a mistake when you stated that 2
pounds of potatoes have 3600 calories?

Even the best of us make mistakes.

Thorsten

--
"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution"

(Theodosius Dobzhansky)

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:

Matti Narkia wrote in message . ..
25 Jan 2004 14:46:32 -0800 in article
(Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:

wrote in message ...

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000620.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

sigh.... you poor idiot....

Extremes do not prove or disprove anything other than the extreme.


So would you please point out any metabolic lab study that shows that
a hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage loss as you keep
claiming?

Moosh


Great programme on BBC last week. Scientists have been puzzled by the
success of Atkins diet but conclusion is that protein food makes you
feel full but they still maintain it is dangerous. Diana (a non
dieter)

High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground.

Not true for people with healthy kidneys.

Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti?

If diagnosed early enough, probably yes. And if they want to keep it
that way, they are well-advised to strive for excellent blood sugar
control. Something that is a lot easier on a low-carb diet than on a
high-carb diet, at least for type II diabetics.

Btw., low-carb diets don't have to be "high protein".

Thorsten

--
"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution"

(Theodosius Dobzhansky)

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:13:05 -0500, Thorsten Schier wrote
(in message ):



"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:

snip

Yes.

Is 2 pounds of potatoes still about 3600 calories
as one of your even more recent answers claimed? :-):-):-).


Yes.


Why can't you just admit that you made a mistake when you stated that 2
pounds of potatoes have 3600 calories?

Even the best of us make mistakes.


But the worst of us can't admit it :-)

--
Steve

Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003