Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie

Don Kirkman wrote:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that GaryG wrote in article
:

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message
oups.com...
convicted neighbor GaryG wrote:

The National Weight Control Registry has been studying the common
characteristcs and strategies employed by folks who've lost significant
amounts of weight (avg. 30 kg) and kept it off for five years or longer.
According to their research, their subjects "also appear to be highly
active: they reported expending approximately 11830 kJ/wk (2825 kcal/wk)
through physical activity". That's an average of 400 calories per day
in
physical activity...or, about an hour of fairly vigorous effort.

The act of commiting oneself to an exercise program can also help with
the
"overconsumption control" you mention. When one is committed to getting
fit, it naturally follows that one will pay more attention to what one
ingests (at least, it does for many of us)..

Those who choose to unwisely engage in strenuous exercise while obese
typically end up being worse off when they sustain injury which often
is attributed to osteoarthritis rather than to the exercise. What is
clinically observed is that once people are lean and trim from eating
less, they find themselves more capable of exercising strenuously more
comfortably and with less injury.

Indeed, that has been my own
personal experience now physically able to run ultramarathons not
because of training but because of losing all my visceral adipose
tissue (VAT),

That's especially good because in 2004, at the age of 39, Dr. Chung ran
a half-marathon (13.1 miles) in 3 hours 27 minutes; he improved to 2:49
in 2005 and I found no record for him in the same race in 2006 (for
comparison, I'm a typical mid-pack runner, but in 1989 at the age of 60
I ran a 1:45 half-marathon and a 1:50 the year before that).
http://www.silvercomet10k.com/

Hey, that's pretty cool...I'm sure many athletes would be interested in that
"training strategy". So, you're saying that you're capable of running an
ultramarathon, due only to your lowered body fat levels? Have you ever
actually completed an ultramarathon to confirm your assertion? If so,
please provide us with a link to the results web page g.

To have run an ultra (whether 50 miles or 100, typical distances for
ultras), he would have to have been absent from the newsgroups for
twenty-four hours or more. Did that ever happen?

A Google search for Andrew Chung in ultramarathon results came up empty.
Since ultra running is such a small, tight-knit community I think the
sudden appearance of an unknown would have been remarked on by somebody
along the way.

Considering the nonsense I've seen him spew to usenet about hunger and
athletes, I have a very difficult time believing that he has ever done
anything as strenuous as a marathon.

[. . .]

Actually, my discussions with Don Kirkman about personally being
physically active remain in the Google archives to prove that you
remain untruthful.

Actually archiving your opinions adds nothing to their veracity. Garbage
into Google, garbage out. The same goes for your constant
self-referential "proofs" on your Web pages.

And his circular references.

You may have made some silly and unproven claims as to your physical
prowess, but the vast majority of your advice to others is to lose weight
only by focusing on becoming hungry...you never mention the health and/or
weight loss benefits of physical activity.

If your intent has been to deceive, you have now provided evidence for
you to be judged a liar.

If your intent has been to insult me, you have failed yet again.

Clearly you remain convicted by the Holy Spirit:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convects

Oh, oh, no! the macro's broken (or maybe it's just a climate change)

The teddy bear main page is still up, so perhaps Chung finally saw the
futility of keeping a hate list.

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

--
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
GaryG wrote:

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message
ups.com...
convicted neighbor GaryG wrote:
friend Mu wrote:
neighbor Caleb wrote:

If anyone else wants to share their successes or questions
about
losing weight through low-calorie methods, I'd be delighted to
see
them there!

Yours,

Caleb

Why don't you tell us how much you lost on the last 100 day
diet,
and
how much you regained from day 101 onwards?

janice

So it is him!

Yup! It sure is me. I'll be posting on
alt.support.diet.low-calorie
my
progress.

I guess one of my points is that it simply is not that difficult
or
complicated to take the weight off. There is no need for people
suffer
emotional turmoil, self-doubt, etc. If they follow a sensible
dietary
approach over time, they WILL lose weight. Nothing rocket science
about it. However, following a sensible approach over time is not
easy.

I've done it before (quite simply) and I'll do it again this
time --
hope it's the last time -- but regardless, it's just not that
tough
to
do. I sure am a hell of a lot healthier than when I first started
this
approach in '99. I am alive, am far more physically fit, etc.,
etc.

Couple of points for people to remember:

There's a lot of bad advice out there competing for their
attention.

It all does break down to calories in versus calories used up.

Weighing regularly is probably essential for most people. (I have
a
simple balance beam system that I have found very helpful since
'99
that you can read about if you search "indicator" "caleb"
"balance
beam" on Google.)

Recording calories -- or at least insuring that what you eat
adheres
to your dietary goals -- is important.

Regular exercise is important, although the recent research from
Pennington (Ravussin et al) shows that exercise is not a panacea
and
that some of the vaunted effects of exercise (e.g., muscle
speeding
up
metabolism) are not supported by current data.

Most important is just to keep at it -- put your nose down and
just
keep plugging along. For every one who unreasonably assails you,
you
might imagine their face at a trough, wonder exactly what their
weight
loss history is (is there a weight-loss wing of the Mayo Clinic
in
their name?), etc. As Rosie used to say, "Your mileage may vary!"
And
certainly it is true that there are different strokes for
different
folks.

To repeat, weight-loss is not rocket science but it still is not
easy.
Too bad we can't be like a horse in blinders that continually
plows
a
road in a field, undistracted by harmful or inconsequential
things.

Yours,

Caleb

Caleb, Mu here.

Counting calories is such an inexact computation as to be
practically
worthless. Would you care for Mu to explain?

Cals in, cals out, thermodynamics OK, real usefulness = ZERO.

Reg exercise is of no real ongoing value for overconsumption
control,
so
few can or elect to do so. Scratch that.

Rubbish...plenty of successful weight loss has been achieved with the
assistance of exercise.

The National Weight Control Registry has been studying the common
characteristcs and strategies employed by folks who've lost
significant
amounts of weight (avg. 30 kg) and kept it off for five years or
longer.
According to their research, their subjects "also appear to be highly
active: they reported expending approximately 11830 kJ/wk (2825
kcal/wk)
through physical activity". That's an average of 400 calories per
day
in
physical activity...or, about an hour of fairly vigorous effort.

The act of commiting oneself to an exercise program can also help
with
the
"overconsumption control" you mention. When one is committed to
getting
fit, it naturally follows that one will pay more attention to what
one
ingests (at least, it does for many of us)..

Those who choose to unwisely engage in strenuous exercise while obese
typically end up being worse off when they sustain injury which often
is attributed to osteoarthritis rather than to the exercise. What is
clinically observed is that once people are lean and trim from eating
less, they find themselves more capable of exercising strenuously more
comfortably and with less injury.

Indeed, that has been my own
personal experience now physically able to run ultramarathons not
because of training but because of losing all my visceral adipose
tissue (VAT),

Hey, that's pretty cool...I'm sure many athletes would be interested in
that
"training strategy". So, you're saying that you're capable of running an
ultramarathon, due only to your lowered body fat levels? Have you ever
actually completed an ultramarathon to confirm your assertion? If so,
please provide us with a link to the results web page g.

which can not be completely lost by exercise but only by
eating less down to the optimal amount which does result in becoming
hungrier that one has ever been in one's life.

Again, this obsession with hunger...the more you speak of your experience
with the 2 Pound Diet (2PD), the more it sounds like an eating disorder.


And, of course, there are many, many other benefits to being
physically
active besides just the calories burned - increased cardiovascular
fitness
(strangely, whacko Chung never mentions this...perhaps he's too tired
to
exercise due to his eating disorder), increased mental function,
decreased
depression, etc., etc.

Actually, my discussions with Don Kirkman about personally being
physically active remain in the Google archives to prove that you
remain untruthful.

You may have made some silly and unproven claims as to your physical
prowess, but the vast majority of your advice to others is to lose weight
only by focusing on becoming hungry...you never mention the health and/or
weight loss benefits of physical activity.

If your intent has been to deceive, you have now provided evidence for
you to be judged a liar.

If your intent has been to insult me, you have failed yet again.

Where does this supposed "medical doctor" get this nonsense? Does
Chung just make it up as he goes along?

--
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert

"Patricia Heil" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"determined" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"LFM" wrote in message
. ..

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"The Queen of Cans and Jars" wrote in message
. ..
teachrmama wrote:

I'm just not clear on why you think that gives you the right to
tell me I
shouldn't talk to him either.

Talk to him all you want - in the group that he set up for talking
about
it. Is it really all that hard to understand?

Actually, yes it is. Why shouldn't we be free to talk here? There
are certainly some extremely obnoxious threads here right now that
haven't been jumped on the way this rather innocuous thread has been.

Caleb posts are considered trolling and off topid to ASD. Therefore
if you want to continue with an off topic dialog with a troll, then do
not be surprised with others chose to classify you in the same
category as they do him, and kill file you, ignore you and lose
respect in you. Your credibility is at risk by continuing your dialog
with him in this forum.

Why are you so upset about something so minor? You are making yourself
look like a control freak. Just ignore the threads you do not want to
participate in. That's what I do.

I guess we're just a bunch of control freaks then. Have fun with Caleb.

"We"? "A bunch"? How many people are you including in this? I just
think you are overreacting. Especially since there are a few threads
right now that are far worse than this one.





Don't you know anything about Web courtesy? Posting to an unrelated
newsgroup is rude. Take your discussion to the group Caleb set up

How do you figure it's unrelated?

"Jeri" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:
snip
Why are you so upset about something so minor? You are making
yourself look like a control freak. Just ignore the threads you do
not want to participate in. That's what I do.

I'm not going to suggest that you not discuss whatever you wish with
Caleb.
I do wish you would take him up on his invite though.

Here are a few facts about all this. Maybe you'll see that it's not so
"minor" afterall.

Year after year Caleb comes back to ASD with the same 100 day diet plan.
He
adopts an unbalanced low calorie diet and rigorous exercise plan so he can
lose as much weight as possible in 100 days. He then disappears until the
next year when he starts all over again.

The first year almost everyone tried to have a civil discussion with him
about the unhealthy way in which he was trying to lose weight.
The fact that finding a way of eating
that he could live with and follow for the rest of his life was so much
healthier in the long run, etc etc. He ignored everyone and for 100 days
the
newsgroup basically degenerated into Caleb's group. Then he disappeared.

Now every year he comes back and finds one or two new people who will
support him and think they can be the one to set him on the path to a more
healthy way to lose weight and keep it off. And they rail against the
unsupportive attitude of everyone else. The fact is, he doesn't want to
discuss anything. He wants attention, any attention, even if it's negative
and he knows exactly which buttons to push to get it.

Why do you think he posted here? He has his own newsgroup that he set up.
Here's a hint. For 30+ days he's been posting his "progress" over on
asd.low-calorie and he wasn't getting the attention he wanted. Ask
yourself
this..... if he really wanted to enter into a discussion why didn't he
reply
to you when you asked him a question over there?

What's really sad is that he doesn't care who he hurts in the process of
getting what he wants. Remember Jenny with the eating disorder who posted
here for awhile? So many people tried so hard to get her to realize that
eating healthy at this point in her life was more important than starving
herself to reach 95 lbs. Well she's over there now. Caleb has just
finished
congratulating her on her 703 calorie day and has assured her that with
that
kind of calorie deficit she's sure to lose the weight she wants.

I agree with you that Caleb's choice is not a healthy choice. And I have
told him that, without a plan for maintenance, I don't see how his plan can
really help in the long run. And, so far as I can see, he is in only one
thread here--among dozens odf threads--so it obviously is not becoming "his"
newsgroup. (And some of those threads are far, far worse than the one he is
in, BTW)

I did notice that Jenny is over on the other newsgroup. It makes me very
sad that she is continuing her insanity, rather than choosing a course that
will help her recover from her eating disorder. But my discussing what I
perceive to be the drawbacks of Caleb's plan with him is not causing Jenny
to continue her poor choices. I'm sorry that all of you dislike him, but I
don't see that as a reason for me to not talk to him.

"SFrunner" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 5, 10:30 am, "Jeri" wrote:
teachrmama wrote:

snip

Why are you so upset about something so minor? You are making
yourself look like a control freak. Just ignore the threads you do
not want to participate in. That's what I do.

I'm not going to suggest that you not discuss whatever you wish with
Caleb.
I do wish you would take him up on his invite though.

Here are a few facts about all this. Maybe you'll see that it's not so
"minor" afterall.

Year after year Caleb comes back to ASD with the same 100 day diet plan.
He
adopts an unbalanced low calorie diet and rigorous exercise plan so he
can
lose as much weight as possible in 100 days. He then disappears until the
next year when he starts all over again.

The first year almost everyone tried to have a civil discussion with him
about the unhealthy way in which he was trying to lose weight.
The fact that finding a way of eating
that he could live with and follow for the rest of his life was so much
healthier in the long run, etc etc. He ignored everyone and for 100 days
the
newsgroup basically degenerated into Caleb's group. Then he disappeared.

Now every year he comes back and finds one or two new people who will
support him and think they can be the one to set him on the path to a
more
healthy way to lose weight and keep it off. And they rail against the
unsupportive attitude of everyone else. The fact is, he doesn't want to
discuss anything. He wants attention, any attention, even if it's
negative
and he knows exactly which buttons to push to get it.

Why do you think he posted here? He has his own newsgroup that he set up.
Here's a hint. For 30+ days he's been posting his "progress" over on
asd.low-calorie and he wasn't getting the attention he wanted. Ask
yourself
this..... if he really wanted to enter into a discussion why didn't he
reply
to you when you asked him a question over there?

What's really sad is that he doesn't care who he hurts in the process of
getting what he wants. Remember Jenny with the eating disorder who posted
here for awhile? So many people tried so hard to get her to realize that
eating healthy at this point in her life was more important than starving
herself to reach 95 lbs. Well she's over there now. Caleb has just
finished
congratulating her on her 703 calorie day and has assured her that with
that
kind of calorie deficit she's sure to lose the weight she wants.
--
Jeri


OMG...that's horrible.

I hope the person defending him soon realizes who they are
defending.....

I am not defending Caleb's choices--I think his plan is destined to fail
unless he plans for maintenance--but I am defending my right to talk to him,
and not knuckle under to everyone on this group who feels that they have the
right to tell others what to do based on their own past experiences.

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:35:59 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:

I am not defending Caleb's choices--I think his plan is destined to fail
unless he plans for maintenance--but I am defending my right to talk to him,
and not knuckle under to everyone on this group who feels that they have the
right to tell others what to do based on their own past experiences.

Everyone???

Chris
262/130s/130s
started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004

"Chris Braun" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:35:59 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:

I am not defending Caleb's choices--I think his plan is destined to fail
unless he plans for maintenance--but I am defending my right to talk to
him,
and not knuckle under to everyone on this group who feels that they have
the
right to tell others what to do based on their own past experiences.

Everyone???

No, no, no, no, no--not "everyone" "Everyone who feels they have the right
to tell others what to do" That's far from "everyone". Sorry for the
confusion.

"SFrunner" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 4, 7:46 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"The Queen of Cans and Jars" wrote in
messagenews:1ht0z55.fetlsf16uxn0cN%dhrravr@ohatzha pu.bet...

teachrmama wrote:

Gosh, I am so glad nobody gave up on me because of all the times I
tried
to
do things my way. Or on certain family members who went to 12 step
meetings for "support" but really didn't follow the program. All of
us
seem
to have stumbled and bumbled our way to truths that we were blind
to--sometimes by choice--in the past. If I were to be judged only by
my
past choices, I would never be free to be the person I am becoming
today.
2002 was 5 years ago--I'm talking to him today.

You really don't get it, do you? Caleb's not stumbling. He
*deliberately* loses and regains weight. Wake the hell up and pay
attention to what people are telling you.

You honestly think he *deliberately* regains weight? What makes you say
that?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How dense are you???

Wait, don't answer that, I think we know the answer.

Fine--prove to me that he deliberately regains the weight. Show me where he
has posted that he loses weight just in order to gain it again.

Isn't it nice that you have never had a vice in your life that you returned
to again and again because you had just not accepted the way out that was
shown you time after time. So nobody ever had to hang in there and not give
up on you, did they?

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
oups.com...
"teachrmama" wrote:

You really don't get it, do you? Caleb's not stumbling. He
*deliberately* loses and regains weight. Wake the hell up and pay
attention to what people are telling you.

You honestly think he *deliberately* regains weight? What makes you say
that?

For several years in a row he has planned in advance for his diet to
last
100 days and then quit. Simple cause and effect says if we go back to
eating the way that got us fat in the first place then we gain it all
back
again. So yes, he does in fact plan to gain the weight back again.
it's
why folks have issues with Caleb - He resists advice to try to convert
his
methods to sustainable.

So do you think he deliberately plans to regain it? Or do you think he
fails to plan (a maintenance program) therefore he "plans to fail" because
of the lack of a maintenance program? And nobody else here has ever done
something similar (gaining and losing a number of times before they got it
right)? Caleb is very up front with his successes and failures, so it's
easy to criticize him. How many of us would like our successes and failures
paraded out in similar fashion? I know I wouldn't!! (Or maybe I'm the only
one here who ever lost, regained, lost, regained, before I finally got it
right)



So Caleb, What is your maintenance plan this time? You have learned
again and again that planning to quit equals planning to gain it all
back.
You have learned again and again that reducing your caloric intake
below
some point leads to your body requiring a refeed to the point you can
no
longer resist the urge. Are you this time following a milder loss
plan
that is slower to not trigger this refeed mandate? Do you have a
maintenance phase planned out in advance? If not, why are you trying
a fad diet again and again? If you gain it back of what use was the
losing?

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote in message
oups.com...
convicted neighbor GaryG wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
convicted neighbor GaryG wrote:
friend Mu wrote:
neighbor Caleb wrote:

If anyone else wants to share their successes or questions
about
losing weight through low-calorie methods, I'd be delighted to
see
them there!

Yours,

Caleb

Why don't you tell us how much you lost on the last 100 day
diet,
and
how much you regained from day 101 onwards?

janice

So it is him!

Yup! It sure is me. I'll be posting on
alt.support.diet.low-calorie
my
progress.

I guess one of my points is that it simply is not that difficult
or
complicated to take the weight off. There is no need for people
suffer
emotional turmoil, self-doubt, etc. If they follow a sensible
dietary
approach over time, they WILL lose weight. Nothing rocket
science
about it. However, following a sensible approach over time is
not
easy.

I've done it before (quite simply) and I'll do it again this
time --
hope it's the last time -- but regardless, it's just not that
tough
to
do. I sure am a hell of a lot healthier than when I first
started
this
approach in '99. I am alive, am far more physically fit, etc.,
etc.

Couple of points for people to remember:

There's a lot of bad advice out there competing for their
attention.

It all does break down to calories in versus calories used up.

Weighing regularly is probably essential for most people. (I
have a
simple balance beam system that I have found very helpful since
'99
that you can read about if you search "indicator" "caleb"
"balance
beam" on Google.)

Recording calories -- or at least insuring that what you eat
adheres
to your dietary goals -- is important.

Regular exercise is important, although the recent research from
Pennington (Ravussin et al) shows that exercise is not a panacea
and
that some of the vaunted effects of exercise (e.g., muscle
speeding
up
metabolism) are not supported by current data.

Most important is just to keep at it -- put your nose down and
just
keep plugging along. For every one who unreasonably assails you,
you
might imagine their face at a trough, wonder exactly what their
weight
loss history is (is there a weight-loss wing of the Mayo Clinic
in
their name?), etc. As Rosie used to say, "Your mileage may
vary!"
And
certainly it is true that there are different strokes for
different
folks.

To repeat, weight-loss is not rocket science but it still is not
easy.
Too bad we can't be like a horse in blinders that continually
plows
a
road in a field, undistracted by harmful or inconsequential
things.

Yours,

Caleb

Caleb, Mu here.

Counting calories is such an inexact computation as to be
practically
worthless. Would you care for Mu to explain?

Cals in, cals out, thermodynamics OK, real usefulness = ZERO.

Reg exercise is of no real ongoing value for overconsumption
control,
so
few can or elect to do so. Scratch that.

Rubbish...plenty of successful weight loss has been achieved with
the
assistance of exercise.

The National Weight Control Registry has been studying the common
characteristcs and strategies employed by folks who've lost
significant
amounts of weight (avg. 30 kg) and kept it off for five years or
longer.
According to their research, their subjects "also appear to be
highly
active: they reported expending approximately 11830 kJ/wk (2825
kcal/wk)
through physical activity". That's an average of 400 calories per
day
in
physical activity...or, about an hour of fairly vigorous effort.

The act of commiting oneself to an exercise program can also help
with
the
"overconsumption control" you mention. When one is committed to
getting
fit, it naturally follows that one will pay more attention to what
one
ingests (at least, it does for many of us)..

Those who choose to unwisely engage in strenuous exercise while obese
typically end up being worse off when they sustain injury which often
is attributed to osteoarthritis rather than to the exercise. What is
clinically observed is that once people are lean and trim from eating
less, they find themselves more capable of exercising strenuously more
comfortably and with less injury.

Indeed, that has been my own
personal experience now physically able to run ultramarathons not
because of training but because of losing all my visceral adipose
tissue (VAT),

Hey, that's pretty cool...

The truth is cool.

I'm sure many athletes would be interested in that
"training strategy".

The world class athletes already know that the hungrier they are the
more capable they physically become.

Bizarre...can you cite any studies or articles supporting this assertion
(other than the voices in your head)?


When an athlete loses in a competition where s/he was a physical match
with his/her competitior, s/he knows that s/he was not hungry enough.

Again...any proof of this?

In countries where the brainwashing that "hunger is bad" does not
occur (ie Kenya), the runners are leaner, trimmer, and much faster
because they know in their hearts that "hunger is good."

Yeah, I heard the Auschwitz 10,000 meter relay team was world class.

BTW - as usual, you ducked my earlier question: "Have you ever actually
completed an ultramarathon...?"

You asserted in your post above that you were capable of running an
"ultramarathon" (typically, 50 or 100 miles, per
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarathon ). Have you done so, or is this
just another delusion of grandeur on your part?

GG

Truth is absolute and invincible.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life..." -- LORD Jesus Christ

Amen ! Laus Deo ! ! ! Marana tha ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://EmoryCardialogy.com