If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
Bob wrote in message ...
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote: Thorsten Schier wrote: 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? It is not a mistake to guestimate 3600 calories per 2 lbs of potatoes (especially if one is trying to lose weight). USDA Nutrient database for potatoes shows (among other things) caloric content per 100 grams. 2 pounds is approximately 900 grams, so I multiplied caloric counts below by 9 to get figures for 2 pounds. Potatoes, baked, flesh and skin, with salt - 93 cal (X 9= 837) Potatoes, boiled, cooked in skin, flesh, without salt - 87 cal (X 9 = 783) Potatoes, boiled, cooked without skin, flesh, without salt - 86 cal (X 9= 774) Potatoes, frozen, french fried, par fried, cottage-cut, unprepared - 153 cal (X 9= 1337) Potatoes, mashed, dehydrated, flakes without milk, dry form - 354 cal (X 9= 3186) Potato flour - 357 (X 9= 3213) Fast foods, potato, mashed - 83 cal (X 9= 747) Fast foods, potato, french fried in vegetable oil - 342 (X 9= 3078) Snacks, potato chips, made from dried potatoes, plain - 558 (X 9= 5022) [38 g of fat = 342 cal of 558 or just 216 from potato] Snacks, potato chips, plain, unsalted - 536 (X 9= ) [34 g of fat = 306 of 536 cal or just 230 from potato] After reviewing the above, is it really any wonder that calorie-counting fails? So when Chung says that 2 pounds of potatoes contain 3600 calories, it's simply nonsense. 2 pounds of pure carbohydrate at 4 calories per gram would give 3600 calories, but even sugar falls short: Sugars, powdered - 389 cal (X 9= 3501) Even dehydrating potatoes doesn't give 3600 calories per 2 pounds. The only way to get numbers that high is to include fat as in French fries (38% by weight) or American-style chips (34% by weight). In which case, it's not about potatoes anymore. But does Chung think that we should eat 2 pounds of potatoes a day? Or 3600 calories? He's not answering those questions. Your questions have already been answered at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp 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 Bob (2) Report Bob 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 this 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 and other discussion threads. 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, Steve, 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 participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Chung FAQ
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:48:54 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message ) : Bob wrote in message ... Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote: Thorsten Schier wrote: 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? It is not a mistake to guestimate 3600 calories per 2 lbs of potatoes (especially if one is trying to lose weight). USDA Nutrient database for potatoes shows (among other things) caloric content per 100 grams. 2 pounds is approximately 900 grams, so I multiplied caloric counts below by 9 to get figures for 2 pounds. Potatoes, baked, flesh and skin, with salt - 93 cal (X 9=3D 837) Potatoes, boiled, cooked in skin, flesh, without salt - 87 cal (X 9 =3D 783) Potatoes, boiled, cooked without skin, flesh, without salt - 86 cal (X 9=3D 774) Potatoes, frozen, french fried, par fried, cottage-cut, unprepared - 153 cal (X 9=3D 1337) Potatoes, mashed, dehydrated, flakes without milk, dry form - 354 cal (X 9=3D 3186) Potato flour - 357 (X 9=3D 3213) Fast foods, potato, mashed - 83 cal (X 9=3D 747) Fast foods, potato, french fried in vegetable oil - 342 (X 9=3D 3078) Snacks, potato chips, made from dried potatoes, plain - 558 (X 9=3D 5022) [38 g of fat =3D 342 cal of 558 or just 216 from potato] Snacks, potato chips, plain, unsalted - 536 (X 9=3D ) [34 g of fat =3D 306 of 536 cal or just 230 from potato] desperate, hateful Chung hissing snipped Oh, and Chung... when you respond, please trim your headers to only sci.med.cardiology. Thanks ever so much. 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. Comments and/or corrections to this FAQ will be taken under advisement. -- Steve Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003 |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
USDA Nutrient database for potatoes shows (among other things) caloric content per 100 grams. 2 pounds is approximately 900 grams, so I multiplied caloric counts below by 9 to get figures for 2 pounds. Potatoes, baked, flesh and skin, with salt - 93 cal (X 9= 837) Potatoes, boiled, cooked in skin, flesh, without salt - 87 cal (X 9 = 783) Potatoes, boiled, cooked without skin, flesh, without salt - 86 cal (X 9= 774) Potatoes, frozen, french fried, par fried, cottage-cut, unprepared - 153 cal (X 9= 1337) Potatoes, mashed, dehydrated, flakes without milk, dry form - 354 cal (X 9= 3186) Potato flour - 357 (X 9= 3213) Fast foods, potato, mashed - 83 cal (X 9= 747) Fast foods, potato, french fried in vegetable oil - 342 (X 9= 3078) Snacks, potato chips, made from dried potatoes, plain - 558 (X 9= 5022) [38 g of fat = 342 cal of 558 or just 216 from potato] Snacks, potato chips, plain, unsalted - 536 (X 9= ) [34 g of fat = 306 of 536 cal or just 230 from potato] On 27 Jan 2004 09:48:54 -0800, (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote: After reviewing the above, is it really any wonder that calorie-counting fails? lol I would just as soon want to make a diary of my daily footsteps. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031122.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
What a bunch of clowns ( Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh)
Ron Ritzman wrote in message . ..
Fat cells are always storing and releasing fat simultaneously. Insulin makes fat cells release a little less and store a little more, glucagon and certain other hormones have the opposite effect. Sure lipoprotein lipase is not only affected by insulin, sufficient fatty acid levels can trigger it as well. But the detail you are missing is the level of insulin that is released in the wake of a high carb meal especially in insulin resistant individuals. The insulin spike drives an LPL spike, there is no such LPL spike in response to fatty acids in the blood. Blood glucose levels are tightly controlled whereas fatty acid levels are not. Excess fatty acid molecules can ride the blood stream longer and so can be metabolized through cellular respiration more readily. When a cell needs extra energy above and beyond what is provided by glucose, it uses some of the fat floating around in the bloodstream. The fat that is released that is not used by cells goes back into the fat cells. The blood is a partial reservoir for this fat in the wake of a meal. Not all of the consumed fat goes straight to the fat cells. Also, fat cells do not release fat at the same rate they store it, otherwise there would be no accumulation. Therefore, if you eat more calories then you burn, the fat cells store more fat then they release and you gain fat, if you eat less then you burn, then the fat cells release more fat then they store and you lose fat. This is based on steady state balance assumptions. There are significant differences between fat storage rates during the transient phase following a meal depending on the insulin output which reflect differences in the induced LPL activity. The initial fatty acid excess stops being excess hours later. But you do not have a choice when it comes to excess glucose, it is either stored or burned off shortly after a meal. "Insulin" is not the cause of fat gain, it's the primary mechanism the body uses to store excess fat if there is excess fat to be stored. There are other mechanisms however. Therefore, if you were to consume 8000 calories of oil a day, you would gain weight despite the lack of insulin. And you would gain much more weight on 6000 calories of carbs. This is the whole point: on a low carb diet you avoid the levels of fat storage that you get from a high carb diet for a similar caloric intake. Of course there is a level above which an individual will gain weight on a low carb diet. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh
wrote: "Moosh" writes: On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:42:12 GMT, posted: Note: of course restricting calories CAN lead to weight loss (even if a person has to be locked up to prevent their escaping in search of food). The question is, does calorie deficit fully explain weight loss--meaning that all diets at a given calorie level will be equally eficacious in promoting weight loss. By experience, most of us know that the answer is "no". What experience is that? Many of us have changed from gaining to losing, without reducing calories, by changing dietary composition. Are you really so dense that you have to ask the question? And you know for a scientific fact that you were consuming and expending the same number of calories before and after changing your WOL? Don't you think that lifestyle change is a contributing factor as a part of WOE? -- jmk in NC |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
Sun & Mun_ wrote:
USDA Nutrient database for potatoes shows (among other things) caloric content per 100 grams. 2 pounds is approximately 900 grams, so I multiplied caloric counts below by 9 to get figures for 2 pounds. Potatoes, baked, flesh and skin, with salt - 93 cal (X 9= 837) Potatoes, boiled, cooked in skin, flesh, without salt - 87 cal (X 9 = 783) Potatoes, boiled, cooked without skin, flesh, without salt - 86 cal (X 9= 774) Potatoes, frozen, french fried, par fried, cottage-cut, unprepared - 153 cal (X 9= 1337) Potatoes, mashed, dehydrated, flakes without milk, dry form - 354 cal (X 9= 3186) Potato flour - 357 (X 9= 3213) Fast foods, potato, mashed - 83 cal (X 9= 747) Fast foods, potato, french fried in vegetable oil - 342 (X 9= 3078) Snacks, potato chips, made from dried potatoes, plain - 558 (X 9= 5022) [38 g of fat = 342 cal of 558 or just 216 from potato] Snacks, potato chips, plain, unsalted - 536 (X 9= ) [34 g of fat = 306 of 536 cal or just 230 from potato] On 27 Jan 2004 09:48:54 -0800, (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote: After reviewing the above, is it really any wonder that calorie-counting fails? lol Laugh at Chung's flaccid efforts to divert attention from his astonishing blunder of asserting and then insisting that 2 pounds of potatoes contain 3600 calories. I agree. It's funny. I would just as soon want to make a diary of my daily footsteps. What has a diary to do with the flagrantly inaccurate posturing of Chung and your efforts to change the subject. You've mentioned diaries several times as though people who are trying to lose weight all have to keep some sort of ledgers or something. As though low fat people can't remember to not eat too much fat or low carbers not to eat too many carbs. How stupid must be the people you associate with that they can only live using these crutches. Bob |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:42:12 -0500 in article
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote: Matti Narkia wrote: 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. What happened to your search for the truth, Matti? It's a life time commitment. Right now one of the active projects is the truth about you. In that project the above FAQ is a great help. -- Matti Narkia |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:22:32 GMT, posted:
"Moosh" writes: On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 03:22:51 GMT, posted: But what were you trying to shed light on wrt our conversation, is what I mean. I know what a closed system is... "(whatever that arbitrary system means exactly)." --Moosh And? Is the human body in a metabolic chamber a closed system or not, and what has that to do with the discussion? You are so full of red herrings it's rather pathetic. If you can't show a met lab study that shows what you claim, that 1000 excess fat calories has a significantly different effect on fat stores than 1000 excess glucose calories, then perhaps you should just bow out quietly. It is the second law--that's why I refer to it as "the second law". It is relevant to any system in which energy is converted. Only if you are interested into what it is converted. Sigh. Childish avoidance tricks noted. Cells do not run on ham sandwiches, my learned friend. One of your tautologies? Snarfff! They run on ATP *only*. Conversion from ham sandwiches to ATP is the ENTIRE point of the discussion. So when glucose is converted to triglycerides for storage? Doh! You have confused yourself with ATP. It is merely a carrier of energy. Glucose is not converted to ATP. Merely transfers its energy to this energetic molecule. The glucose is converted to carbon dioxide, water and the energy that is carried by the ATP. Why are you avoiding the question of this discussion? All properly done evidence so far shows that the type of food fed to properly measured subjects has insignificant effect on fat storage or loss. You appear to claim otherwise, so please make with the evidence, and stop beating around the bush with red herrings (that's a mixed metaphor, in case you were wondering). With that definition, calories consumed but not expended are stored as fat--by definition. So where is the tautology? That's the definition of hypercaloric. Sigh. If you define "expended" as above, your statement becomes trivially true by definition Trivially true does not a tautology make. Look it up if you don't know. The statement is trivially true coz dumbfux like you and TC don't understand it. --i.e., a "tautology". For *other* definitions, your statement becomes false. What definitions would these be? The usual, loose definition of "expended" is one such, since it ignores energy lost due to the inefficiency of conversion (and improperly accounts for malabsorption). Malabsorption is not absorption. Please keep up. All inefficiencies of any conversion, (no matter how defined) are accounted for. In a metabolic chamber, all inputs will exactly balance all outputs. Now unless you are saying that the human body must absorb one heck of a lot more heat than it needs, how come body temperature is pretty constant between individuals? Then you are dodging the interesting question. Atkins claimed a "metabolic advantage" which is neither more nor less than the claim that a body in ketosis "expends" non-carb calories differently than a body not in ketosis "expends" carb calories. Sorry, you won't be in ketosis when you get 40% of your calories from carb, and the modern Atkins diet involves this, apparently. The only thing that's obvious is that you can't read. 40% of calories come from carb (more or less) ON MAINTENANCE. Maintenance being "the rest of your life"? Or are you saying that weight loss only occurs during the first two weeks of Atkins diet? You can't have it both ways. Are we in ketosis or not? So, 1000 calories into the bloodstream as trigycerides, and 1000 calories into the bloodstream as glucose. Both can be used to provide the same amount of muscular energy, or stored as roughly 111 grams of fat... Sigh. Are you tired? Do you need a nap? Then quit the childish dramatics, Drama Queen! Only *ONE* question on your plate, and you fumble it! Neither provides any energy whatsoever in that form--they must be converted to ATP first, There you go with the confusion again. One thousand calories of glucose provides 1000 calories of energy. Just because the energy pathway include ATP should really not throw you. Or are you saying that sometimes glucose calories are transferred to ATP, and sometimes they just disappear? which is the ONLY fuel used by cells. Well calling it a fuel is a total misnomer, it is merely an energy carrier. Glucose (or precursors) is the fuel. Now, complete your OWN argument: what is the efficiency of conversion of 1000 calories of glucose into ATP, and 1000 calories of your favorite triglyceride? Totally irrelevant. What do the measurements of different diets in a metabolic chamber tell you? All evidence so far shows insignificant difference in food constituent variations. You say different? Where's your evidence? (Hint: the second law guarantees that it's 100%, and a priori one would find it astonishing if the efficiency in each case were the same.) This reaction pathway is irrelevant to the figures we get from metabolic chambers where insignificant differences are shown wrt fat storage from different food constituent ratios. What are you actually trying to say? What is the form of this "waste energy"? Energy contained in said glucose, but not contained in the resulting quantity of ATP. You can't possibly be this dense, while still pretending to be taking a scientific perspective. So you don't know? Can't characterise it? I asked you, remember? Your arrogant attitude would earn you a smack in the face from someone so inclined, but I realise that your aggressiveness is an artefact of your insecurity. Then of course you ARE advancing a tautology which has NOTHING to do with the assertion that all food calories are equal. Sorry, this tautology or repetition of the same idea is where exactly? I can't see what you keep referring to. "Repetition of the same idea"? Thanks, all is clear now! You have NO idea what a tautology is, and went to dictionary.com when I used the word. (Hint: the definition at dictionary.com is wrong, or at best misleading.) Then tell us your definition. You obviously have a unique definition that only you use. How convenient you must find communication. BTW, I don't use dictionary.com. I use a dictionary of the person I'm communicating with. In this case I would consult my American Heritage Dictionary if I needed to know what a tautology was to Americans. I am fully aware what a tautology is. Tell us how you use the word. In a normal individual, 1000 calories of whatever will yield 1000 calories of mechanical/heat energy... And you say that you count ALL outputs, and that the second law is irrelevant! *THE* question could be stated thus: how much of that is mechanical, and how much is waste? Define waste. Hint: heat output is mostly NOT waste. Are you referring to the thermal efficiency of production of mechanical energy from muscle cells? You resort to childish insult whenever you are cornered, so it is difficult to know what your position is. If the body requires 100 calories of mechanical energy, WTF does this mean? Do you need lifting into the bath or something? then the number of food calories required will depend on the conversion efficiency. No **** Sherlock! What is your point? The body needs to produce a lot of heat for itself, remember. I'd be careful with throwing around that "waste energy" that you are fond of. Given two foods with conversion efficiency x and y, the required food energy is 100/x and 100/y. If food composition doesn't matter, then you are asserting that x equals y. Now prove it. All the work done so far backs this. Pick any you like when you hit the medical library. BTW, neither can be proven. HTH As YOU are claiming vast differences in x and y, then the onus is on you to show where this claim comes from, if you can. TC can't and I've asked you and you can't. But what has this to do with the second law of thermodynamics? Isn't entropy just a given that we put up with and why we must make measurement? It changes nothing here. It cancels itself out. Well I don't know what "conversion efficiency" means other than percentage yield of product perhaps, but you still haven't said what the conversion is to. Then we can talk turkey, so to speak. You disappoint. You mean you don't know what "efficiency" means? No, fool, I'm disappointed that you don't know what the conversion is to. Well I was wondering if it might be to glycogen, or tryglycerides. I think YOU have earned the "fool" title here. It's to ATP, friend. Thanks, was that too difficult? A simple answer of what you mean between alternatives instead of childish abuse. Helps the flow of discussion. You are arguing about the physiology of food metabolism without knowing the most basic fact of biology. Well back at yer. There are many different conversions of glucose. I suggest you consult an elementary text on the subject afore ye put the foot in the mouth again. [further ignorant ranting snipped] Avoiding civil answers is a sure sign of lack of cogent argument. Was there something embarrassing you that you had to snip? Like characterising this "waste energy" that you keep waving your arms about? Answer your own question, concerning conversion of glucose or triglycerides to ATP, and we can then finish the conversation handily. And you talked about the conversion of glucose. I asked to what, and you went off your face. If glucose is converted to ATP as you erroniously assume, where does the phosphorus come from? You have been hoist by your own petard in cocking up the simple "burning" or storing of glucose, and coz your original attack on me has been shown to be childish attack on the bleedin' obvious you have spat the dummy (pacifier) Look, if you have any proper evidence that changing the dietary constituents in any significant way changes the fat storage status, spit it out, or STFU. Take your pick. Moosh |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:27:58 GMT, posted:
"Moosh" writes: On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 03:31:30 GMT, posted: He is not. He is claiming that the useful energy yield differs between equal-calorie diets depending on their composition. Yes, and he supplies absolutely NO evidence for this wild assertion. The second law of thermodynamics gives good a priori reasons for doubting that conversion of glucose and trygliceride to ATP is equally efficient. Yet you haven't defined the efficiencey you refer to here. I wonder why. Lack of understandinng springs to mind. Why shouldn't the energy of these substances be transferred to ATP in a roughly equal manner? That which is not transferred to ATP remains as what? You haven't answered except with insult. The bottom line that you are avoiding is for you to show any evidence that a significant difference can be brought to fat storage by varying the food constituents supplied. It's YOUR view that is wild, given an understanding of the biochemistry involved (and mine is of the most basic; your's is simply pathetic). So just for argument, of the 1000 calories of the glucose energy, 100 calories is transferred to ATP. What happens to the 900 calories? You haven't answered this, apart from you resort to personal attack. Tell me, what happens to the say 1000 cal fat and 1000 cal glucose being compared? What do you define as "useful energy"? They are converted to ATP, which is then used to fuel the cell. So what happens to that not converted? If you say heat, why do you regard that as "wasted"? For a definition of "useful energy", I'll be content with that energy not wasted during the conversion to ATP. Something you should, I hope, have heard of. So what exactly is this "wasted energy" that you keep talking about, yet only characterise with personal insult? [further ignorant ranting snipped] Code for can't answer the awkward questions that show Len is an argumentative twit without a point. Moosh |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
You want PROOF - Here's Quackery Proof. | marengo | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 173 | April 17th, 2004 11:26 PM |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 135 | February 14th, 2004 04:56 PM |
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 23 | December 14th, 2003 11:39 AM |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works | Jim Marnott | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 108 | December 12th, 2003 03:12 AM |
Was Atkins Right After All? | Ken Kubos | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 5 | November 22nd, 2003 11:01 PM |