Where are all the thin poeple from Atkins first book?

Cubit wrote:
MU wrote:
Cubit wrote:

As you can see on the chart, I have been almost exactly
at 1400 calories per day, when averaged a month at a time.
I sure as hell didn't do that intentionally. My original
goal was 1600 calories per day. Something else picked 1400.

Truthfully, you have no real idea whether or not you are
eating 1,400 or 1,600 cals per day since cal measurements are
elusive and nearly impossible, outside of a lab, to determine
with any reasonable accuracy.

Truthfully, you have no real idea how data bias happens in counts.

Perhaps, you do not know how the computer program "FitDay" enters data.

I'm guessing that my data is within 10% of being accurate.

In particular with a 10% bias error the 1600 you were targetting
would be 1760 and the 1400 you were measuring would be 1540.
Since the measurement method did not vary whatever bias it has
applies in every case. It is the ratio that is important, not
the exact numbers. 1760/1540 or 1600/1400, exact same rario.

I feel the key is my weighing the specific foods on my digital
scale before eating and logging.

You weight your food? Hard core. For a long time I used volume
but i eventually learned to recognize portion sizes.

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 13:50:58 GMT, Cubit wrote:

While I did not do a laboratory analysis of my food, the guys who made the
nutrition labels did.

The specific foods I have eaten have varied quite a bit since January, yet
the calorie chart stayed the same.

Perhaps, you do not know how the computer program "FitDay" enters data.

Most certainly do and FitDay has its own share of irregularities.

Btw, did you count the cals that "passed thru" undigested? Did you eat
exactly 2.2 grams of beans or was it 2.9 or was it 1.6 avoirdupois. And
did each and every bean have exactly the same cals per unit of weight?

And on and on and on........

I'm guessing that my data is within 10% of being accurate. I feel the key
is my weighing the specific foods on my digital scale before eating and
logging.

That helps but 10%? Who knows? Only a lab with a bomb calorimeter and a
scientific process.

10% btw could be a huge amount especially on maintenance.

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 13:50:58 GMT, Cubit wrote:

While I did not do a laboratory analysis of my food, the guys who made the
nutrition labels did.

The specific foods I have eaten have varied quite a bit since January, yet
the calorie chart stayed the same.

Perhaps, you do not know how the computer program "FitDay" enters data.

Most certainly do and FitDay has its own share of irregularities.

Btw, did you count the cals that "passed thru" undigested? Did you eat
exactly 2.2 grams of beans or was it 2.9 or was it 1.6 avoirdupois. And
did each and every bean have exactly the same cals per unit of weight?

And on and on and on........

I'm guessing that my data is within 10% of being accurate. I feel the key
is my weighing the specific foods on my digital scale before eating and
logging.

That helps but 10%? Who knows? Only a lab with a bomb calorimeter and a
scientific process.

10% btw could be a huge amount especially on maintenance.

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 13:50:58 GMT, Cubit wrote:

While I did not do a laboratory analysis of my food, the guys who made the
nutrition labels did.

The specific foods I have eaten have varied quite a bit since January, yet
the calorie chart stayed the same.

Perhaps, you do not know how the computer program "FitDay" enters data.

Most certainly do and FitDay has its own share of irregularities.

Btw, did you count the cals that "passed thru" undigested? Did you eat
exactly 2.2 grams of beans or was it 2.9 or was it 1.6 avoirdupois. And
did each and every bean have exactly the same cals per unit of weight?

And on and on and on........

I'm guessing that my data is within 10% of being accurate. I feel the key
is my weighing the specific foods on my digital scale before eating and
logging.

That helps but 10%? Who knows? Only a lab with a bomb calorimeter and a
scientific process.

10% btw could be a huge amount especially on maintenance.

MU wrote:

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 13:50:58 GMT, Cubit wrote:

While I did not do a laboratory analysis of my food, the guys who made the
nutrition labels did.

The specific foods I have eaten have varied quite a bit since January, yet
the calorie chart stayed the same.

Perhaps, you do not know how the computer program "FitDay" enters data.

Most certainly do and FitDay has its own share of irregularities.

Btw, did you count the cals that "passed thru" undigested? Did you eat
exactly 2.2 grams of beans or was it 2.9 or was it 1.6 avoirdupois. And
did each and every bean have exactly the same cals per unit of weight?

And on and on and on........

And did you calibrate your scale to weight *EXACTLY* 2 pounds? But,
even if you did, it doesn't matter, based on your won words.

Funny thing how you say you can do it by eye nowadays. Kinda puts the
lie to all your pontificating about how inaccurate everybody else's
approaches are.

I'm guessing that my data is within 10% of being accurate. I feel the key
is my weighing the specific foods on my digital scale before eating and
logging.

That helps but 10%? Who knows? Only a lab with a bomb calorimeter and a
scientific process.

10% btw could be a huge amount especially on maintenance.

Could be the difference between 2 pounds and a kilo, huh?

But if it *works* it really doesn't matter what the discrepancy is,
now does it?

MU_sic-from-beans, wacko/fraud that he is, wants to measure with a
micrometer, mark with chalk and cut with a hatchet. What a great
scientist.

Bob

MU wrote:

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 13:50:58 GMT, Cubit wrote:

While I did not do a laboratory analysis of my food, the guys who made the
nutrition labels did.

The specific foods I have eaten have varied quite a bit since January, yet
the calorie chart stayed the same.

Perhaps, you do not know how the computer program "FitDay" enters data.

Most certainly do and FitDay has its own share of irregularities.

Btw, did you count the cals that "passed thru" undigested? Did you eat
exactly 2.2 grams of beans or was it 2.9 or was it 1.6 avoirdupois. And
did each and every bean have exactly the same cals per unit of weight?

And on and on and on........

And did you calibrate your scale to weight *EXACTLY* 2 pounds? But,
even if you did, it doesn't matter, based on your won words.

Funny thing how you say you can do it by eye nowadays. Kinda puts the
lie to all your pontificating about how inaccurate everybody else's
approaches are.

I'm guessing that my data is within 10% of being accurate. I feel the key
is my weighing the specific foods on my digital scale before eating and
logging.

That helps but 10%? Who knows? Only a lab with a bomb calorimeter and a
scientific process.

10% btw could be a huge amount especially on maintenance.

Could be the difference between 2 pounds and a kilo, huh?

But if it *works* it really doesn't matter what the discrepancy is,
now does it?

MU_sic-from-beans, wacko/fraud that he is, wants to measure with a
micrometer, mark with chalk and cut with a hatchet. What a great
scientist.

Bob

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 15:47:23 -0400, Bob (this one) wrote:

Perhaps, you do not know how the computer program "FitDay" enters data.

Most certainly do and FitDay has its own share of irregularities.

Btw, did you count the cals that "passed thru" undigested? Did you eat
exactly 2.2 grams of beans or was it 2.9 or was it 1.6 avoirdupois. And
did each and every bean have exactly the same cals per unit of weight?

And on and on and on........

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 15:47:23 -0400, Bob (this one) wrote:

And did you calibrate your scale to weight *EXACTLY* 2 pounds? But,
even if you did, it doesn't matter, based on your won words.

What won words? What did I win? A quadbypass like you?

Funny thing how you say you can do it by eye nowadays. Kinda puts the
lie to all your pontificating about how inaccurate everybody else's
approaches are.

I don't know, Bobbie, I am fit, thin and more active than 99% of the
population. You, otoh, are a TROLL who spends his time on cardiology
newsgrops with you're great "advice"......on how to nearly kill yourself
with food overconsumed. Tasty Pasorio food, yum yum......oops, got several
blockages there Bobbie; damn near dug your own grave. Then, as if to mock
both the surgeons who saved you, the God who decided not to take your
overplumped torso, you TROLL cardiology newsgroups foe funsies.

MU_sic-from-beans, wacko/fraud that he is, wants to measure with a
micrometer, mark with chalk and cut with a hatchet. What a great
scientist.

Bobbie The Cardiology Troll

I am no scientist and never have acted like one. You, otoh, spout science
as if you were.

Which leads us back to the highly unscientific but hugely succesful

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

Thank you and on to your next cardiac event. Keep us posted.

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 15:47:23 -0400, Bob (this one) wrote:

Perhaps, you do not know how the computer program "FitDay" enters data.

Most certainly do and FitDay has its own share of irregularities.

Btw, did you count the cals that "passed thru" undigested? Did you eat
exactly 2.2 grams of beans or was it 2.9 or was it 1.6 avoirdupois. And
did each and every bean have exactly the same cals per unit of weight?

And on and on and on........

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 15:47:23 -0400, Bob (this one) wrote:

And did you calibrate your scale to weight *EXACTLY* 2 pounds? But,
even if you did, it doesn't matter, based on your won words.

What won words? What did I win? A quadbypass like you?

Funny thing how you say you can do it by eye nowadays. Kinda puts the
lie to all your pontificating about how inaccurate everybody else's
approaches are.

I don't know, Bobbie, I am fit, thin and more active than 99% of the
population. You, otoh, are a TROLL who spends his time on cardiology
newsgrops with you're great "advice"......on how to nearly kill yourself
with food overconsumed. Tasty Pasorio food, yum yum......oops, got several
blockages there Bobbie; damn near dug your own grave. Then, as if to mock
both the surgeons who saved you, the God who decided not to take your
overplumped torso, you TROLL cardiology newsgroups foe funsies.

MU_sic-from-beans, wacko/fraud that he is, wants to measure with a
micrometer, mark with chalk and cut with a hatchet. What a great
scientist.

Bobbie The Cardiology Troll

I am no scientist and never have acted like one. You, otoh, spout science
as if you were.

Which leads us back to the highly unscientific but hugely succesful

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

Thank you and on to your next cardiac event. Keep us posted.

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 15:47:23 -0400, Bob (this one) wrote:

Perhaps, you do not know how the computer program "FitDay" enters data.

Most certainly do and FitDay has its own share of irregularities.

Btw, did you count the cals that "passed thru" undigested? Did you eat
exactly 2.2 grams of beans or was it 2.9 or was it 1.6 avoirdupois. And
did each and every bean have exactly the same cals per unit of weight?

And on and on and on........

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 15:47:23 -0400, Bob (this one) wrote:

And did you calibrate your scale to weight *EXACTLY* 2 pounds? But,
even if you did, it doesn't matter, based on your won words.

What won words? What did I win? A quadbypass like you?

Funny thing how you say you can do it by eye nowadays. Kinda puts the
lie to all your pontificating about how inaccurate everybody else's
approaches are.

I don't know, Bobbie, I am fit, thin and more active than 99% of the
population. You, otoh, are a TROLL who spends his time on cardiology
newsgrops with you're great "advice"......on how to nearly kill yourself
with food overconsumed. Tasty Pasorio food, yum yum......oops, got several
blockages there Bobbie; damn near dug your own grave. Then, as if to mock
both the surgeons who saved you, the God who decided not to take your
overplumped torso, you TROLL cardiology newsgroups foe funsies.

MU_sic-from-beans, wacko/fraud that he is, wants to measure with a
micrometer, mark with chalk and cut with a hatchet. What a great
scientist.

Bobbie The Cardiology Troll

I am no scientist and never have acted like one. You, otoh, spout science
as if you were.

Which leads us back to the highly unscientific but hugely succesful

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

Thank you and on to your next cardiac event. Keep us posted.

"Rob" wrote in message
...
JC Der Koenig wrote:

Where are those jpegs?



Hope this link works.


http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/che...&.dnm=ba73.jpg


You're in decent shape, now all you have to do is learn that there is more
than one way to get there.