Wow

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.

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:26:17 +0100, Epinephrine wrote:

"Mu" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:14:40 -0800, 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.

Vague? Eat less than two pounds of food and caloried liquid a day.
What's vague about that?

Right, it doesn't factor calories. Why? Because it doesn't need to.

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:26:17 +0100, Epinephrine wrote:

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...

Yes in terms of more rapid weight loss. I eat in the 1.75 range myself.

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

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.

I trained athletes, strength and power, several who were obese, put on
the 2PD, no ill results either in their strength and power gains or in
their on field performance (the ultimate test).

Ah, but you see, Dr. Chung has informed us that:

The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. It has been
studied in more than 625,550 people worldwide

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 01:13:41 +0100, Epinephrine wrote:

Surely if such a significant number of people participated, it would be
worth reporting in any medical journal or christian magazine, but it is my
understanding that Chung has not done so. Why, I wonder!

I haven't looked at Chung's claim of participants but I can say that
participation is not necessarily by choice or by taking a particular
direction.

As this approach clearly does not have any scientific basis whatsoever,
would it be taken seriously by the scientific world?

For scientists who observe truth without need for research, absolutely.
For those that require clinical review, no.

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:47:12 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:

Oh, let's just say that it has been suggested that nearly all of the
"participants" in Dr. Chung's study were the children of Israel,
wandering hither and yon (generally more yonly than hitherly)
all those years.

Suggested or factual?

If so, one can only wonder where Dr. Chung obtained all the
requisite information on the state of their health. All of their
healths.

-- cary

Why don't you ask him?