Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:

Matti Narkia wrote:

25 Jan 2004 19:52:32 -0800 in article
(Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:

Matti Narkia wrote in message . ..
25 Jan 2004 14:46:32 -0800 in article
(Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:


High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground.

Not true for people with healthy kidneys.

Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti?

Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread.

Correct.

In
fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread.


Correct.

Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected.


My comment remains accurate.


would suggest you be careful in your answer

LOL.

Looks like you took care not to answer the question.

See above. If _anyone needs to be more careful with his/her answers
it's you. Does BMI 21-25 still define "mild obesity" as one of your recent
answers claimed? :-):-).

Yes.

Is 2 pounds of potatoes still about 3600 calories
as one of your even more recent answers claimed? :-):-):-).


Yes.


Why can't you just admit that you made a mistake when you stated that 2
pounds of potatoes have 3600 calories?

Even the best of us make mistakes.

Thorsten

--
"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution"

(Theodosius Dobzhansky)

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:

Matti Narkia wrote in message . ..
25 Jan 2004 14:46:32 -0800 in article
(Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:

wrote in message ...

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000620.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

sigh.... you poor idiot....

Extremes do not prove or disprove anything other than the extreme.


So would you please point out any metabolic lab study that shows that
a hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage loss as you keep
claiming?

Moosh


Great programme on BBC last week. Scientists have been puzzled by the
success of Atkins diet but conclusion is that protein food makes you
feel full but they still maintain it is dangerous. Diana (a non
dieter)

High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground.

Not true for people with healthy kidneys.

Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti?

If diagnosed early enough, probably yes. And if they want to keep it
that way, they are well-advised to strive for excellent blood sugar
control. Something that is a lot easier on a low-carb diet than on a
high-carb diet, at least for type II diabetics.

Btw., low-carb diets don't have to be "high protein".

Thorsten

--
"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution"

(Theodosius Dobzhansky)

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:13:05 -0500, Thorsten Schier wrote
(in message ):



"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:

snip

Yes.

Is 2 pounds of potatoes still about 3600 calories
as one of your even more recent answers claimed? :-):-):-).


Yes.


Why can't you just admit that you made a mistake when you stated that 2
pounds of potatoes have 3600 calories?

Even the best of us make mistakes.


But the worst of us can't admit it :-)

--
Steve

Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003

Matti Narkia wrote:

Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:20:00 -0500 in article
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:

Matti Narkia wrote:

Between 30 and 50 % of people with diabetes are at risk of kidney disease,
but that was not an issue here. Chung's comment about protein and kidneys
was general and as such also and mostly aimed at the large majority of
general population with no kidney disease and no diabetes. Chung's attempts
to change the subject (the next twist would probably be totally off-topic
religious mantras) when caught answering inaccurately (or otherwise
challenged) should be resisted. A citation from the recently posted "Dr.
Chung FAQ, Issue 1"
(URL:http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=chungfaq-8E35A7.05173026012004%40library.airnews.net):

"o When challenged, he answers with evasions, non sequiturs,
dissembling, rhetorical questions, quotes from the bible, religious
mantras, thinly veiled death threats, ad hominem arguments, and other
such disreputable, unethical, and unprofessional tactics.

See also the chapters dealing with Mu. ;-)

Is the source you cite a reliable source by your usual "vitamin-counter" standards, Matti?

Anyone who has followed this ng for a few weeks or longer and read the cited
FAQ knows that the FAQ is highly accurate and hence reliable.

--
Matti Narkia

What happened to your search for the truth, Matti?

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message
to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are
upset about reading this message, a few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Matti Narkia
(2) Report Mattie Narkia to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at:

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

Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet discussion(s). His
participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community
service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a
Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched:

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

From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet
approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have
lost the argument soundly at every point:

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

These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion thread(s).

However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have
redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if
you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger."

Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the
cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting
"flame" wars.

These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made:

(1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc
(3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
(5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual
diplomas).

Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's
credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr.
Pastorio:

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

When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the
darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero.

Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily
dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at:

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

where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were
bought are easily and summarily debunked.

Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to
hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack):

(1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability).
(2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters.
(3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults.
(4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting.
(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author.

and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.

It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed.

It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the din of hissing from the
peanut gallery.


Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:42:12 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message ):

snip

What happened to your search for the truth, Matti?

He found it in the reference below. You should read it.

Oh, and Chung... when you respond, please trim your headers to
only sci.med.cardiology. Thanks ever so much.


On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 5:17:30 -0500, A. B. Chung FAQ wrote
(in message ):


---------------------------------
| The Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD FAQ |
| Version 1.0, January, 2004 |
---------------------------------

Introduction
------------
New people arriving in sci.med.cardiology (s.m.c.) are often puzzled
and troubled by the controversy surrounding the poster who posts as Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD (Dr. Chung) and want to know what the
controversy is about. This FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) attempts
to provide an answer.

The FAQ is arranged in typical FAQ form, i.e. a series of questions and
answers. For those who don=B9t wish to read the whole FAQ, the following
summary is provided.

Summary
-------
Dr. Chung represents himself to be a licensed physician specializing in
cardiology. In this capacity he responds to medical questions on
s.m.c.. If that were all he did, there would probably be no
controversy.

The controversy arises from Dr. Chung=B9s other behaviors on s.m.c., in
particular:

o He uses s.m.c. to not only proselytize his particular interpretation
of Christianity, but also to disparage and attack anyone with a
different interpretation or different religion.

o He uses s.m.c. to promote his unscientific Two Pound Diet (2PD) and,
in fact, cross posts this information to other groups in order to
gain more exposure.

o When challenged on the above issues, or one of his medical opinions,
he attacks his challengers as "obsessive anti-Christians",
"libelers", "homosexuals", "people who can=B9t understand English",
etc.

o When challenged he performs Internet searches on his challengers in
order to "get the dirt" on them and smear their reputations.

o When challenged, he answers with evasions, non sequiturs,
dissembling, rhetorical questions, quotes from the bible, religious
mantras, thinly veiled death threats, ad hominem arguments, and other
such disreputable, unethical, and unprofessional tactics.

o He is insufferably full of himself, claiming to have "the gift of
Truth Discernment" and to be "Humble" while behaving anything but
humbly.

o He uses a foil who posts under variations of the name "Mu" to avoid
killfiles. Mu=B9s job is to troll other newsgroups and, when he gets
a reaction, to cross post the reaction to s.m.c. so that Dr. Chung
can disingenuously claim to be "only responding" to a cross post.
Whereas Dr. Chung has to be somewhat careful what he says and so
attacks primarily through insinuation and innuendo, Mu=B9s tactics
are blunt and direct like those of a playground bully.

The above lists only the highlights of Dr. Chung=B9s egregious behavior
on s.m.c.. If anything, it understates it. Everything can be verified
in the Google archives.

The issue then arises: so what? As long as Dr. Chung provides free
medical advice on s.m.c., who cares what else he does?

Many people provide free medical advice on the internet. How does one
know whether it is good advice or bad advice? If the person giving the
advice is, or represents himself to be, a doctor shouldn=B9t that be
enough? Unfortunately, no.

Medical education alone is not enough to guarantee good advice.
Knowledge must be tempered with judgment, impartiality, integrity,
ethics, and professionalism. If someone consistently demonstrates by
their behavior that they lack these qualities, how much credence should
be given to their medical advice?

People arrive in this group looking for help. For their own
protection, they deserve to know the quality of the person purporting
to dispense that help and not be lulled into a false sense of security
simply because someone displays an MD after their name. It is the
intention of this FAQ to provide people with enough information to
allow them to make an informed decision.

List of Questions Answered
--------------------------
1. Who is Dr. Andrew B Chung, MD/PhD?
2. What is the Charter of s.m.c.?
3. Aren=B9t Religious Discussions Covered by the Charter?
4. So Dr. Chung is Religious... What=B9s the Problem With That?
5. But it=B9s Just a Little "Tag Line" in His Signature.
6. But I=B9m a Christian Too!
7. Well, Why Not Just Ignore His Religious Rants?
8. But Isn=B9t It Wonderful That Dr. Chung Offers This Free
Medical Advice Out of the Goodness of His Heart?
9. How Does a Practicing Physician Find so Much Time to Spend on
Usenet?
10. Won=B9t Challenging Dr. Chung Drive People Away?
11. Doesn't the "Fault" for all Those Posts Lay With Those Who
Challenge Dr. Chung?
12. Why Do I see So Many "Ad Hominem" Attacks?
13. I'm Sick of Seeing All This!
14. What is the Two Pound Diet?
15. Is Discussion of the Two Pound Diet "On Topic"?
16. Who is Mu?
17. What is Mu=B9s Role?


1. Who is Dr. Andrew B Chung, MD/PhD?
--------------------------------------
The poster who posts as Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD claims to be a
licensed physician, practicing internal medicine in Atlanta, Georgia,
USA and specializing in cardiology. His signature contains a link to a
website which is consistent with his posts.

It should be noted that anyone can claim to be anyone on Usenet and so
caution is always advised. Indeed there are those who claim that the
poster in question is not Dr. Andrew B. Chung, or is not the Dr. Andrew
B. Chung listed in the Atlanta telephone directory, and/or has lost his
license and/or hospital privileges for misconduct. This FAQ does not
attempt to address those claims one way or the other. The reader with
an interest in these matters can easily find the relevant discussions
archived in Google Groups.

This FAQ deals with the poster who posts as Dr. Chung and restricts
itself to issues demonstrated by those posts. No position is taken on
his "true" identity.

2. What is the Charter of s.m.c.?
----------------------------------
The purpose of this newsgroup is to establish electronic media for
communication between health care providers, scientists and other
individuals with interest in the cardiovascular field. Such
communications will provide quick and efficacious means to exchange
information and knowledge, and offer problems to solutions.

The sci.med.cardiology newsgroup will welcome participants who are
health care providers, trainees, researchers, students or recipients
with interest in the field of cardiovascular problems."

(ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.announc...med.cardiology)


3. Aren=B9t Religious Discussions Covered by the Charter?
--------------------------------------------------------
What do you think?

4. So Dr. Chung is Religious... What=B9s the Problem With That?
--------------------------------------------------------------
There is no problem with that. Most of the people who participate in
s.m.c. are probably religious. However no one but Dr. Chung feels
compelled to characterize themselves as the "Humble Servant of God" in
their signatures, continually thank God for the opportunity to
"witness", question others about their religious beliefs, claim the
"Gift of Truth Discernment", etc.

When one person insists on introducing his personal religious
interpretations into the discussions, it naturally generates responses
from others who feel just as strongly that their viewpoints are
correct. The resulting debate easily swirls out of control, especially
given Dr. Chung=B9s intolerant and dismissive attitude towards beliefs
which differ from his. The situation is further exacerbated by Mu=B9s
rabble raising from the sidelines.

There are over 160 Usenet groups dedicated to the discussion of
religion. Dr. Chung should take his beliefs to one of these and stick
to cardiology in s.m.c. It is a simple matter of respect for others.

5. But it=B9s Just a Little "Tag Line" in His Signature.
-------------------------------------------------------
No, it is not. He has even gone so far as to "investigate" someone
asking for advice about stents and accuse her of being anti-Christian.

6. But I=B9m a Christian Too!
----------------------------
Lots of people are Christians. There is a time and a place for
everything. s.m.c. isn=B9t the place to "witness" or recruit. In
addition, lots of other people are Jews, Moslems, Buddhists,
Taoists, Hindus, etc. Would s.m.c. be better or worse if they
all emulated Dr. Chung in their proselytizing and recruiting?

Furthermore, if you are a Christian, you should be appalled by Dr.
Chung=B9s pharisaical, cynical, and manipulative use of Christianity. He
is truly a "whitened sepulcher", loudly proclaiming his adherence to
Christian values while overtly lying, carrying on smear campaigns
against others, making false accusations, dissembling, and marketing
his web site under the guise of altruism. He is "bearing false
witness" and true Christians should be concerned.

As an example, when John Ritter recently died unexpectedly, Dr. Chung
rushed to use this unfortunate event to market his web site. He showed
a total lack of Christian compassion for Mr. Ritter and his family,
even when challenged to do so.

As another example, he recently choreographed a smear campaign against
a poster who had criticized him. Dr. Chung found a homosexual author
with the same first name and then insinuated that the poster and anyone
who agreed with him were engaged in a homosexual relationship. Ask
yourself if this the brand of Christianity you identify with.

7. Well, Why Not Just Ignore His Religious Rants?
--------------------------------------------------
Why should one individual be given carte blanche to violate the rights
of everyone else? Usenet is a community. It is up to the community to
sanction its members. There is nothing "ad hominem" about challenging
inappropriate and antisocial behavior.

8. But Isn=B9t It Wonderful That Dr. Chung Offers This Free
Medical Advice Out of the Goodness of His Heart?
----------------------------------------------------------
First, it is only of value if it is good advice. Medical education
alone is not enough to guarantee good advice. Knowledge must be
tempered with judgment, impartiality, integrity, ethics, and
professionalism. If someone consistently demonstrates by their
behavior that they lack these qualities, how much credence should be
given to their medical advice?

Secondly, despite his protestations to the contrary, Dr. Chung is not
simply motivated by altruism. Every post of Dr. Chung's contains a
link to a website with the following quote:

"If you are looking for a cardiologist and reside in Georgia,
please consider me your best option for a personal heart advocate.
Check out my credentials and my background. Additional information
is available in the protected sections of this web site. Email me at
to me of your interest and I may send
you a temporary username and password to allow a preview. The more
information you email, the more likely my decision to send you a
temporary username and password. If you like what you see and learn
from this website and wish to confer with me about your heart, you
or your doctor should email me privately or call my voicemail at
404-699-2780 to schedule an appointment to see me at my *real*
office."
(http://www.heartmdphd.com/office.asp)

Thirdly, Dr. Chung has repeatedly stated that one of his key
motivations for participating is s.m.c. is to "witness" and win
converts to his religious beliefs.

9. How Does a Practicing Physician Find so Much Time to Spend on
Usenet?
------------------------------------------------------------------
An interesting question.

10. Won=B9t Challenging Dr. Chung Drive People Away?
--------------------------------------------------
Perhaps. But not challenging him will drive others away.

s.m.c. is historically a "low traffic" group. Therefore, when Dr. Chung
misbehaves, he generates an apparently large response. This is
compounded by Dr. Chung=B9s need to "get in the last word" and Mu=B9s
provocations. In spite of this, if someone has a question it will
usually be answered.

Dr. Chung is not the only participant who offers advice in s.m.c. He
is not even the only doctor who participates in s.m.c. However, the
controversy he generates and sustains often makes it appear that he is
the "only game in town".

Finally, Dr. Chung himself drives others away including other
physicians who leave in disgust after being verbally assaulted by him,
and other knowledgeable posters who point out where Dr. Chung=B9s medical
opinion might be in error or at least not the only one generally held.
Anyone disagreeing with Dr. Chung on any subject can expect a series of
increasingly vitriolic attacks, including threats of libel suits.

11. Doesn't the "Fault" for all Those Posts Lay With Those Who
Challenge Dr. Chung?
--------------------------------------------------------------
An interesting perspective: blame the victim. No other poster
(with the exception of Mu, of course) introduces religion or
the Two Pound Diet. How can it be acceptable for Dr. Chung
to introduce these topics, but not acceptable for others to
respond?

In any thread, someone must, of necessity "get the last word".
Dr. Chung has amply demonstrated that he will not be outdone
in this respect.

12. Why Do I see So Many "Ad Hominem" Attacks?
----------------------------------------------
You are probably referring to an "Ad Hominem" _argument_, which
attempts to disprove an adversary's fact by personal attack on
the adversary. An example would be "You are opposed to the
Two Pound Diet because you are anti-Christian".

When someone misbehaves, for example lies or distorts what
someone else is saying, it is not an "ad hominem attack" to
call them on it. It is a legitimate social sanction.

There are also, unfortunately too often, simple personal
attacks and insults on both sides. While we can all wish
it weren't so, it is simply human nature when an argument
becomes heated or the other person is obviously not arguing
in good faith. If you are distressed by this, see the next
question.

13. I'm Sick of Seeing All This!
--------------------------------
There is no reason why you have to see it. Just as you can
change the TV channel if you don't like a show, you can killfile
a poster or thread you don't want to see. See the manual
that came with your Usenet reader for directions on how to do it.

Before you do this, however, you may wish to consider if a truer
picture of the world is not gained by seeing all that goes on -
both the good and the bad.

14. What is the Two Pound Diet?
-------------------------------
The Two pound Diet is a diet which Dr. Chung "invented". It=B9s only
rule is to restrict yourself to two pounds of food per day. That=B9s it.
Doesn=B9t matter if you are a 16 year old girl or an 80 year old man; a
5=B9 2" woman or a 7=B9 man; a weight lifter or a mattress tester. Two
pounds. That=B9s it. No more, less if you want. One size fits all.

Oh, and the food? Whatever you want: two pounds of lettuce, two pounds
of ice cream, two pounds of celery, two pounds of bacon, two pounds of
chocolate, two pounds of peanuts... doesn=B9t matter. Mix and match.
Just keep it under two pounds.

Dr. Chung=B9s claim is that this magical weight of food, this universal
gustatory constant will cause everyone to arrive at and maintain their
ideal weight. His scientific basis for this claim: none. The proof he
offers: none. Studies supporting this claim: none. Nutritional
explanation: none. Metabolic explanation: none.

And this from a doctor who expects people to take him seriously on
other issues.

15. Is Discussion of the Two Pound Diet "On Topic"?
---------------------------------------------------
Dr. Chung says it is because being overweight is a risk factor for
heart problems and therefore discussion of the Two Pound Diet is On
Topic. However criticism of the Two Pound Diet is Off Topic as is
discussion of any other diet.

As with religion, Dr. Chung takes every opportunity to introduce the
Two Pound Diet (2PD) into any other thread. In addition Mu trolls
other newsgroups, particularly the diet groups looking for
opportunities to introduce the 2PD in these groups and then cross post
the resulting discussion back to s.m.c so that Dr. Chung can
disingenuously claim to be "only responding" to a cross post.

Since Dr. Chung and Mu have been laughed off of these other groups and
have been asked repeatedly not to bring up the 2PD in them,
participants of these groups are understandably angered when it happens
yet again=8A and, because of Mu=B9s cross-posting, all their anger spills
back into s.m.c.

Another reason for ongoing 2PD discussions is Dr. Chung=B9s habit of
researching anyone who criticizes the 2PD and then cross-posting his
responses back to other groups which the critic has been found to
frequent. He disingenuously claims that he does this as a
"convenience" to the critic, but his true reasons are transparent.
Once again, the cross-post generates a firestorm in s.m.c.

The bottom line is that if the Two Pound Diet is "On Topic" for
anyone, it is "On Topic" for everyone... including it's critics.
If it is "Off Topic", it should not be continually re-introduced
by Dr. Chung.

16. Who is Mu?
--------------
Mu is a longtime Usenet Troll who has even merited his own FAQ. He
postures as some kind of personal physical trainer, but who really
knows? He has allied himself with Dr. Chung and serves as the "Bad Cop"
in the Chung - Mu "Good Cop - Bad Cop" routine. He specializes in the
short, nasty one-liner and, because unlike Dr. Chung, he has no
reputation to protect, he can afford to be much more direct and
offensive.

Mu parrots an even meaner-spirited version of Dr. Chung=B9s
"Christianity" and does not hesitate to employ anti-Semitism and
homophobia in his attacks.

Naturally, most people would have long ago killfiled Mu, so he changes
his handle on an almost daily basis.

17. What is Mu=B9s Role?
----------------------
Mu=B9s role is to troll other newsgroups and, when he gets a reaction, to
cross post the reaction to s.m.c. so that Dr. Chung can disingenuously
claim to be "only responding" to a cross post.

Mu is also responsible for pitching softballs to Dr. Chung so he can
hit them out of the park, and for re-introducing religion and the Two
Pound Diet should the discussion flag.

Finally, Mu=B9s role is to tirelessly wear down unsuspecting Dr. Chung
critics, deflecting the blows that would otherwise be aimed at Dr.
Chung. He is Dr. Chung=B9s Internet equivalent of the "rope-a-dope".
Insults roll off him like water off a duck as do attempts to reason
with him or even have a civil discussion.

Most people have learned to ignore him and his comment is usually the
last one in any thread sub-tree where it appears.

Comments and/or corrections to this FAQ will be taken under advisement.

--
Steve

Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003

Thorsten Schier wrote:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:

Matti Narkia wrote:

25 Jan 2004 19:52:32 -0800 in article
(Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:

Matti Narkia wrote in message . ..
25 Jan 2004 14:46:32 -0800 in article
(Dr.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:


High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the ground.

Not true for people with healthy kidneys.

Do diabetics have healthy kidneys, Matti?

Your comment was not restricted to diabetics, neither is this thread.

Correct.

In
fact there has been hardly any reference to diabetes in this thread.


Correct.

Therefore your comment was inaccurate and needed to be corrected.


My comment remains accurate.


would suggest you be careful in your answer

LOL.

Looks like you took care not to answer the question.

See above. If _anyone needs to be more careful with his/her answers
it's you. Does BMI 21-25 still define "mild obesity" as one of your recent
answers claimed? :-):-).

Yes.

Is 2 pounds of potatoes still about 3600 calories
as one of your even more recent answers claimed? :-):-):-).


Yes.


Why can't you just admit that you made a mistake when you stated that 2
pounds of potatoes have 3600 calories?


It is not a mistake to guestimate 3600 calories per 2 lbs of potatoes (especially if one is trying to lose
weight).


Even the best of us make mistakes.


Correct.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

On 26 Jan 2004 07:21:46 -0800, (tcomeau) wrote:

Fat storage occurs when there are excess calories about.
Without these, no fat storage occurs.
To get fat, you have to eat too much. End of story.
Unless you want to get into why folks eat too much. I don't.


Here is an interesting question for you.

What is the precise mechanism that allows the body to know that there
is an overabundance of calories and to start storing it as fat? What
mechanism is there for the individual cells to register that it has
its maximum intake of calories? Are all nutrients broken down to their
basic energy values at all times in every circumstance? How does the
body gauge that it has consumed more energy than needed and how does
it then know to store the excess?

Fat cells are always storing and releasing fat simultaneously. Insulin
makes fat cells release a little less and store a little more,
glucagon and certain other hormones have the opposite effect. When a
cell needs extra energy above and beyond what is provided by glucose,
it uses some of the fat floating around in the bloodstream. The fat
that is released that is not used by cells goes back into the fat
cells. Therefore, if you eat more calories then you burn, the fat
cells store more fat then they release and you gain fat, if you eat
less then you burn, then the fat cells release more fat then they
store and you lose fat.

"Insulin" is not the cause of fat gain, it's the primary mechanism the
body uses to store excess fat if there is excess fat to be stored.
There are other mechanisms however. Therefore, if you were to consume
8000 calories of oil a day, you would gain weight despite the lack of
insulin.

--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

Thorsten Schier wrote:

Is 2 pounds of potatoes still about 3600 calories
as one of your even more recent answers claimed? :-):-):-).

Yes.

Why can't you just admit that you made a mistake when you stated that 2
pounds of potatoes have 3600 calories?

It is not a mistake to guestimate 3600 calories per 2 lbs of potatoes (especially if one is trying to lose
weight).

USDA Nutrient database for potatoes shows (among other things) caloric
content per 100 grams. 2 pounds is approximately 900 grams, so I
multiplied caloric counts below by 9 to get figures for 2 pounds.

Potatoes, baked, flesh and skin, with salt - 93 cal (X 9= 837)
Potatoes, boiled, cooked in skin, flesh, without salt - 87 cal (X 9 = 783)
Potatoes, boiled, cooked without skin, flesh, without salt - 86 cal (X
9= 774)
Potatoes, frozen, french fried, par fried, cottage-cut, unprepared -
153 cal (X 9= 1337)
Potatoes, mashed, dehydrated, flakes without milk, dry form - 354 cal
(X 9= 3186)
Potato flour - 357 (X 9= 3213)
Fast foods, potato, mashed - 83 cal (X 9= 747)
Fast foods, potato, french fried in vegetable oil - 342 (X 9= 3078)
Snacks, potato chips, made from dried potatoes, plain - 558 (X 9=
5022) [38 g of fat = 342 cal of 558 or just 216 from potato]
Snacks, potato chips, plain, unsalted - 536 (X 9= ) [34 g of fat = 306
of 536 cal or just 230 from potato]

So when Chung says that 2 pounds of potatoes contain 3600 calories,
it's simply nonsense. 2 pounds of pure carbohydrate at 4 calories per
gram would give 3600 calories, but even sugar falls short:
Sugars, powdered - 389 cal (X 9= 3501)

Even dehydrating potatoes doesn't give 3600 calories per 2 pounds. The
only way to get numbers that high is to include fat as in French fries
(38% by weight) or American-style chips (34% by weight). In which
case, it's not about potatoes anymore.

But does Chung think that we should eat 2 pounds of potatoes a day? Or
3600 calories? He's not answering those questions.

"Moosh" wrote:

Does it not worry you that you claim that energy content of foods
depends on the composition apart from the energy content(???), yet you
can't show one study or reference to back this? My backing is the
total body of science and to ask me to quote it is puerile and
avoiding the question.

You need to make the distinction between the 'raw' energy in say, a gram
of glucose, and what that corresponds to when the glucose is converted
to ATP. Energy is lost in the conversion of protein/fat/carb to ATP so
the calories in ATP are less than the calories in the glucose(or
whatever) it was made from. If the conversion to ATP differs for each of
the macronutrients (which it does) then the net energy gain also
differs. While the overall energy balances (taking energy to include
matter), the proportion that's stored and that's lost can be influenced
by diet.

Please even just explain the difference between absorbing 1000 cal
glucose, fatty acids, or amino acids. You said it, so demonstrate that
you don't derive 1000 cal from each when doing violent physical
exercise, to simplify matters.

They all need to be converted to something else first before they can be
used for muscular work. Even converting glucose to fat loses calories,
and in fact ATP calories are consumed just to make it happen. If you're
doing violent physical exercise you can't use fat as a fuel source
anyway.

MattLB

"Moosh" wrote in message . ..

And I've been waiting just as long for you to show us the one seminal
metabolic lab study, or any metabolic lab study that conclusively
proves otherwise.

Huh? The basic laws of physics show that calories are the only source
of fat storage. Calories are indestructible, and uncreatable.

What basic law of physics shows this? The Laws of Thermodynamics do
not make any reference to food-calories and the human body. It only
makes reference to energy and systems. Food calories are not to be
confused with a calorie of pure energy. And the human body does not
operate on the basis of the pure energy values of food. It is all
derived energy.


You are claiming different, and yet you can show NOT ONE study to
demonstrate this. ALL metabolic lab studies to date back up the
physical laws exactly.


Then give me the name of even one metabolic lab study that clearly
demonstrates this. Put the **** up or shut the **** up.

Why are you avoiding giving us just one study?
Perhaps there are none?


If there is none, then there is none. I do not have one to support my
revolutionary ideas, oh well, I'm just an upstart aren't I. No big
disaster there.

But surely there must be one metabolic lab study that supports what
the entire nutrition establishment has based its science on. Surely
the entire field of nutritional science has something to show for its
rock solid beliefs. Where is it?

I'm still waiting. I may not have the study to
disprove the calorie fallacy,

Well you still have your cockeyed scientific train of thought.
The calorie theory "conservation of energy" has NEVER been faulted.
You claim different, make with the evidence!


I do not have the evidence. Do you have the evidence to support your
POV?

but you do not have the study or studies
that proved it in the first place.

Yes, they ALL do, every one of them!
The principle of conservation of energy has NEVER been faulted.
Are you angling for a Nobel Prize? Oh, no, of course not, they have a
conflict of interest


Which one exactly? Which one clearly states that food calories are a
valid and proven method of weight management in humans and that the
Laws of Thermo are directly applicable to humans and weigh management?

You are placing your trust in a
theory that has never been proven scientifically, it has only been
assumed.

Well that's because you appear to have lived in the dark all your
life.
Science has been trying to disprove the laws underpinning them for
centuries. There has NEVER been any evidence that the laws of thermo
are ever false.

Moosh

But are they applicable directly to weigh management in humans? A lot
of the evidence suggests that it isn't. No metabolic lab studies, but
plenty of evidence that restricting calories does not necessarily lead
to weight loss in humans. Nor that increasing calories consumption
necessarily leads to weight gain in every circumstance. There is
plenty of new studies involving low-carb diets to raise serious
questions about the calorie theory as applied to weight management.
There is no metabolic lab study that dis-proves the calorie theory.

The only thing left that will end this argument once and for all is a
metabolic lab study that shows the data and the specific finding that
the laws of thermo apply directly to weight management in humans.
Please show us this document and I will gladly concede the argument to
you.

TC