Diet/Exercise Equally Useful for Weight Loss

GaryG wrote:

No one needs your permission to run any scientific study
they might wish of 2PD-OMER. I do not need Pfizer's permission
to conduct a study of Viagra, I do not the Maharishi's permssion
to investigate the medical effects of Transcendental Meditation,
I do not need Arthur Agaston's permission to run a study
on the South Beach Diet. And no scientist needs your permission
to investigate 2PD-OMER.

It remains wise to get permission before using copyrighted material.

Having a group of people limit their food intake to two pounds
a day has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright law.

Using the 2PD-OMER Approach in the manner as described as published on
the HeartMDPhD.com web site however does.


Why, is it a pyramid scheme, wherein the suckers have to pass
on your written words to ten of their friends?

Because if it does not involve repeating your words, at length and
without your permission, then there is no violation of copyright
law.


Truth is simple.


-- cary

Congratulations, Cary...Andy now imagines that you're one of the
"convicted". Of course, with his delusions it doesn't take much for him to
put you in that category. Last year, he was imagining that he could see the
"mark of Satan" on lots of folks' foreheads.

Or even transmogrified into a "demon" and "sockpuppet of satan",
lacking "free will", and "loitering on usenet".

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

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 07:26:19 -0800, GaryG wrote:

Well now, GG, here's your Golden Chance to be the one who makes the
million, drawing attention and praise and chicks and endorsements galore
for breaking the 2PD Davinci Code or...

to take it tho the science reviews yourself, it is a win-win for you.

Somehow I think, God Himself only knows why, you're going to do neither.
Disprove the 2PD or embrace it and have it "proven" by scientific
means".

I'll wait for you to decide. Don't count on me holding Mu breath.

Welcome back, Mrs. Chung. It's been a while.

Poor Mr. Chung must be getting quite upset if he's decided to let you out to
play.

Is it because the world didn't end via the "global earthquake" and "nuclear
exchange" he predicted last spring? Is he still upset that his visions of
worldwide death and destruction haven't come to pass?

GG

Oh good, another Chung=Mu dolt. No matter that this has been resolved,
archived and put to the ultimate test, we still have the those like GG
who defy Google Groups evidences to make patter with their pitter.

How should Mu deal with this? Hmmmmmmmm. Same way as ever?

*PLONK*

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:46:26 +0900, en wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 02:58:18 -0500, Mu
wrote:

Well now, GG, here's your Golden Chance to be the one who makes the
million, drawing attention and praise and chicks and endorsements galore
for breaking the 2PD Davinci Code or...

to take it tho the science reviews yourself, it is a win-win for you.

Somehow I think, God Himself only knows why, you're going to do neither.
Disprove the 2PD or embrace it and have it "proven" by scientific
means".

I'll wait for you to decide. Don't count on me holding Mu breath.

So tell us these secret conditions of this offer, and we'll all have a
go and see for ourselves.

jack

Done hunfreds of times, jack, try Google Groups.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On 30 Jan 2007 03:12:31 -0800, Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet.

This can be a difficult concept for those who attend alt.supportdiet
or similar groups. Everything has to be seen as a program, a diet, a way
of temporal existence. Look at the two modern definitions of the word
"diet"

# The usual food and drink of a person or animal.
# A regulated selection of foods, as for medical reasons or cosmetic
weight loss.

Chung and I talk of the first, everyone else talks of the second.
Regulated, "selection of foods", et al.

So sad. Eat less, that's all.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Mu" wrote in message
...


"In 1997, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing
Mt. Everest and learned that despite their exhausting regimen,
the climbers consumed only 10 lbs of food per week. That's less
than 2 lbs of food per day! Since none of the climbers died from
starvation, my initial thought was that 2 lbs of food per day
should be more than adequate for us non-climbing folks."


On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 19:50:25 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:

Of course, climbers of Mount Everest a

-- incredibly fit athletes, who:

-- ate so little, not because it was all they
would wish, but because:

-- like climbers everywhere, they begrudge
e v e r y s i n g l e g r a m that
they have to carry six miles up through
cold, impossible terrain, and scant
oxygen, so they:

-- choose the most concentrated possible
foodstuffs available, meaning that two
pounds of mountaineer's food is quite
different from two pounds from your
local produce section or meat counter,
and finally that:

-- these dietary restrictions, imposed
by necessity, were in effect for at
most weeks at a time.



Not that I am denigrating the benefits for some of
us, possibly most of us, in lowering our caloric intakes.
I just point out that you're comparing apples and raccoons.

-- cary

The climbers were incredibly fit, in what respect? As to ability to max
caloric intake to energy system output? Oxygen (in)dependent
environments?

The point is that regardless of their "fitness", they were able to push
their ( your words) incredible fitness to the max on an incredible lack
of food per pound.

2 pounds of simple "trail mix" is about 4200 kcalories. Most people who
aren't trying to climb Everest would easily gain weight on that "diet".


Btw, when you went on the 2PD, what were your experiences?

Why would anyone want to go on a "diet" that's never been seriously studied,
makes no recommendations regarding macro or micro nutrients, and is only
espoused by a single Usenet whacko who claims it was inspired by God (or,
IMAX...not sure which)? This same whacko last year predicted that the world
would soon end due to a "global earthquake" and a "nuclear exchange".

GG


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

Mu wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 07:26:19 -0800, GaryG wrote:

Well now, GG, here's your Golden Chance to be the one who makes the
million, drawing attention and praise and chicks and endorsements galore
for breaking the 2PD Davinci Code or...

to take it tho the science reviews yourself, it is a win-win for you.

Somehow I think, God Himself only knows why, you're going to do neither.
Disprove the 2PD or embrace it and have it "proven" by scientific
means".

I'll wait for you to decide. Don't count on me holding Mu breath.

Welcome back, Mrs. Chung. It's been a while.

Poor Mr. Chung must be getting quite upset if he's decided to let you out to
play.

Is it because the world didn't end via the "global earthquake" and "nuclear
exchange" he predicted last spring? Is he still upset that his visions of
worldwide death and destruction haven't come to pass?

GG

Oh good, another Chung=Mu dolt. No matter that this has been resolved,
archived and put to the ultimate test, we still have the those like GG
who defy Google Groups evidences to make patter with their pitter.

How should Mu deal with this? Hmmmmmmmm. Same way as ever?

*PLONK*

Run Away!

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

Mu wrote:

On 30 Jan 2007 03:12:31 -0800, Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet.

This can be a difficult concept for those who attend alt.supportdiet
or similar groups. Everything has to be seen as a program, a diet, a way
of temporal existence. Look at the two modern definitions of the word
"diet"

# The usual food and drink of a person or animal.
# A regulated selection of foods, as for medical reasons or cosmetic
weight loss.

Chung and I talk of the first, everyone else talks of the second.
Regulated, "selection of foods", et al.

But Chung is a kook. So what is your excuse?

So sad. Eat less, that's all.

Did you send him your thirty bucks yet?

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

GaryG wrote:

"Mu" wrote in message
.. .


"In 1997, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing
Mt. Everest and learned that despite their exhausting regimen,
the climbers consumed only 10 lbs of food per week. That's less
than 2 lbs of food per day! Since none of the climbers died from
starvation, my initial thought was that 2 lbs of food per day
should be more than adequate for us non-climbing folks."


On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 19:50:25 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:

Of course, climbers of Mount Everest a

-- incredibly fit athletes, who:

-- ate so little, not because it was all they
would wish, but because:

-- like climbers everywhere, they begrudge
e v e r y s i n g l e g r a m that
they have to carry six miles up through
cold, impossible terrain, and scant
oxygen, so they:

-- choose the most concentrated possible
foodstuffs available, meaning that two
pounds of mountaineer's food is quite
different from two pounds from your
local produce section or meat counter,
and finally that:

-- these dietary restrictions, imposed
by necessity, were in effect for at
most weeks at a time.



Not that I am denigrating the benefits for some of
us, possibly most of us, in lowering our caloric intakes.
I just point out that you're comparing apples and raccoons.

-- cary

The climbers were incredibly fit, in what respect? As to ability to max
caloric intake to energy system output? Oxygen (in)dependent
environments?

The point is that regardless of their "fitness", they were able to push
their ( your words) incredible fitness to the max on an incredible lack
of food per pound.

2 pounds of simple "trail mix" is about 4200 kcalories. Most people who
aren't trying to climb Everest would easily gain weight on that "diet".


Btw, when you went on the 2PD, what were your experiences?

Why would anyone want to go on a "diet" that's never been seriously studied,
makes no recommendations regarding macro or micro nutrients, and is only
espoused by a single Usenet whacko who claims it was inspired by God (or,
IMAX...not sure which)? This same whacko last year predicted that the world
would soon end due to a "global earthquake" and a "nuclear exchange".

Note: no response from either of the physiology "experts".

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

There was discussion about the "Chung" filter problem in newsreaders.

Agent was suggested as a way of getting rid of the Chung crossposts, for
reasons I have now managed to forget. Something about being able to
reject crossposted threads, I believe.

Thunderbird will eliminate Chung postings by just making a filter for
"Chung" in the Sender section. Also click on the dot beside "Contains
Any of the Following".

This method won't eliminate the cross posted replies to these Chung
based threads in Thunderbird.

Getting rid of Chung is a sort of pleasurable thing to do, and seeing
the residual threads is a reminder that you have choked off his direct
messages.

Chung's ego probably prevents him from crossposting under the names
"Nancy" or "Phyllis". :-)

Jim

In article writes:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:46:26 +0900, en wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 02:58:18 -0500, Mu
wrote:

Well now, GG, here's your Golden Chance to be the one who makes the
million, drawing attention and praise and chicks and endorsements galore
for breaking the 2PD Davinci Code or...

to take it tho the science reviews yourself, it is a win-win for you.

Somehow I think, God Himself only knows why, you're going to do neither.
Disprove the 2PD or embrace it and have it "proven" by scientific
means".

I'll wait for you to decide. Don't count on me holding Mu breath.

So tell us these secret conditions of this offer, and we'll all have a
go and see for ourselves.

jack

Done hunfreds of times, jack, try Google Groups.

The conditions surrounding the supposed million dollar
guarantee?

No, not even once, actually.

-- cary