Wow

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

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:15:21 +0100, Epinephrine wrote:

I don't think health status of an individual matters when it comes to the 2
pound approach.

It is my understanding that as long as a supervising doctor has prescribed a
certain food, the magic dose of "2 pounds" would do the miracle.

I began the 2PD in spring/summer 2004 (??), there was no direction from
Chung to specific foods. Maybe that has changed.

This idea of "magic dose" is in your head and you know that, why
belittle yourself by saying so?

Many Muuns ago, I added to the 2PD AOOCS. That stands for "An Ounce Of
Common Sense". Common sense says no one can or ever will eat exactly 2
lbs per day, or that will it always be fatty foods or lettuce either.

Picking at the nonsensical doesn't advance your argument, it degrades it
and you in combo.

On 13 Apr 2007 21:41:55 GMT, wrote:

The two pound diet has no basis in science

Correct. Atkins did and it's a scam.

and ignores the equally to
calorie restriction factors of exercise and sound choice of nutrition.

A lie. First, exercise unless it is extreme burns very little cals over
and above sitting on the couch.

Sound nutrition, you know what that is? Write a book, it will scam
millions.

I have followed it from the beginning when mr. chung was confused by
watching a movie where mountain climbers consumed two pounds of food per
day. Confused because it is dehydrated energy dense foods easier to
carry up mountains for an energy intensive activity. That same diet
would almost surely cause most people to gain weight and become obese.
As I recall from calculating a similar diet it would be about 5000
calories a day..

It was 2 pounds of water-released food, add water, it increases, this
confused who?

This obvious fact was over looked because soon thereafter given him
personally he was also confused by an account in scripture of people
eating what he took mistakenly as two pounds of food a day. He confused
a measure of weight there that was in fact a measure of dry grain
volume. It too was not far from 5000 calories if that much grain was
consumed each day.

OK, cite that.

But fear not, by this time he was convinced that by divine direction he
was correct and that two pounds of food regardless of all other factors
was a divine directive for good health. Regardless of what was eaten
and how many calories consumed it would be divinely adjusted to each
person's nutritional needs.

Show me one nutritionally deprived individual in the USA on 2 lbs per
day.

Then when added internal belly fat was becoming widely discussed for its
adverse metabolic activity, the two pound diet was seen as the cure for
all
metabolic related disorders, a divine cure no doubt given him personaly.
This fat "vat" was at root of all manner of disorder for which the two
pound diet was the treatment, nay the cure.

????????????

Thus one can see the trash science,

It was never science....

the confusion, the willfull
distortions, the filtering of information, the illogical leaps made, all
firmly cemented in his mind as a divine plan in which he was to play a
central and vital role in its pronouncement to the world. Atendant with
world wide acclaim and medical praise no doubt and purchase of tourist
books for trips to sweden high on the must do list.

lol Whacko

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:46:20 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:

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

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

"diet", OED definition #3:

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

--c ary

I'm not certain that the word diet isn't more in tune with control and
direction of specific foodstuffs and their eating. The 2PD is about
volume but I have to admit what Chung has evolved this to, I have not
kept up.

All I know is that when I found out, to my surprise, the volume of food
I was eating, reduced it, I lost weight.

On 13 Apr 2007 16:40:20 -0700, Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

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

"diet", OED definition #3:

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

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

I don't see how or why it there could be.

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:42:01 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:

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

"diet", OED definition #3:

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

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

And of course everyone else understands that the act of
prescribing in the above phrase refers either to 1) prescribing
limits of kind, or 2) prescribing limits of amount.

-- cary

cary, you're being argumentative for what purpose? OK, so wth, call it a
diet?

It works, call it anything you want.

On 14 Apr 2007 00:47:33 GMT, wrote:

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

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

Of course, it is a poor gimic of a calorie restriction diet.

There is no caloric restriction and I am tiring of you're inability to
post to Usenet as if you have any real purpose other than to pass time
and gas.

Grow up, get a newsreader, subscribe to a real Usenet service, if you
can't afford $12 a year, get the hell off Usenet.

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 01:54:40 +0100, Epinephrine wrote:

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

There is no point in carrying a scale,

Incorrect. Speaking as one who did, interrupting one who never has but
speakd pontifically, it is a real eye opener.

then weighing 1.5 pounds or 2 pounds
of a certain prescribed course, if one can adhere to recommended guidelines
and making appropriate lifestyle changes, which have a proven benefit.

Really? such a broad and generic statement, which guidelines, which
proven lifestyle, oh, don't forget the citations, you wanted them for
the 2PD, it's your turn now, BigStuff.

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

lol

See how that double-edged sword you just cut yourself wide open works?

On Apr 14, 12:31 am, Mu wrote:
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).

And we all are awaiting your peer-reviewed research, including double-
blind testings.

Olrik

On 13 Apr 2007 12:12:07 -0700, Diva wrote:

Reports of death of the news group are greatly exaggerated. ASD has
always been a fertile feeding ground for trolls but has also always
survived.

Diva

Yes, it appears that there is always a need for people who obsess about
food to have a group who obsesses about food to intermingle with.

On Apr 14, 12:46 am, Mu wrote:
If so, one can only wonder where Dr. Chung obtained all the
requisite information on the state of their health. All of their
healths.
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:15:21 +0100, Epinephrine wrote:
I don't think health status of an individual matters when it comes to the 2
pound approach.

It is my understanding that as long as a supervising doctor has prescribed a
certain food, the magic dose of "2 pounds" would do the miracle.

I began the 2PD in spring/summer 2004 (??), there was no direction from
Chung to specific foods. Maybe that has changed.

This idea of "magic dose" is in your head and you know that, why
belittle yourself by saying so?

Many Muuns ago, I added to the 2PD AOOCS. That stands for "An Ounce Of
Common Sense". Common sense says no one can or ever will eat exactly 2
lbs per day, or that will it always be fatty foods or lettuce either.

Picking at the nonsensical doesn't advance your argument, it degrades it
and you in combo.

You pretty much degrade yourself by paying attention to Chung. Just
review Chung's posting history, and stop drinking the Kool-Aid (does
the 16 oz. include the sugar and the artificial colouring &
flavouring?)

Olrik