Discussion:
Training Week Ending 11 September 2011
(too old to reply)
MU
2011-09-17 05:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Which is why the 2PD OMER approach to eating attacks the central problem
- oversconsumption.
http://heartmdphd.com/BeHealthier
I would like to think that this would probably work. I found that when
I started keeping track of what I ate that I lost weight (at least at
first) despite the fact that I never really felt hungry. Being more
conscious of what I ate was almost more important than how many calories
I took in.
Cal counting doesn't work when work is defined as more than a temporary
approach to eating. The most significant issue with cal counting is the
reliability of your own data. Was that 6oz of salmon...or 5? Was that
really a 8oz sirloin...or was it 9? Or 7? How much fat did you eat v.s
meat? How much was digested and useful?
The problem with an eating system like yours is that I think that I
would find it too tempting to game the system.
It's your game, neither the 2PD OMER nor any eating system can be
blamed, it's your game.
For example, I am pretty
sure that eating two pounds of bacon per day would not be good for me,
but I am also pretty sure that I would at least be tempted to try it.
Go ahead.
I know that when I experimented with the Atkins diet I had a *bacon*
day. Eating piles of bacon made me happy (for a bit), but I don't
think that it got me closer to my goal.
Atkins was, is and always will be a complete failure. No worries, he's
in excellent company with every other calorie or carb counting diet that
has ever existed.
Counting calories is not significantly more difficult than simply
weighing your food, and it helps steer me towards foods like vegetables
that are low in calories.
Overconsumption is the issue not what is consumed. Just ask any Atkins
ex-dieter.
MU
2011-09-17 07:14:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by MU
Which is why the 2PD OMER approach to eating attacks the central problem
- oversconsumption.
http://heartmdphd.com/BeHealthier
I would like to think that this would probably work. I found that when
I started keeping track of what I ate that I lost weight (at least at
first) despite the fact that I never really felt hungry. Being more
conscious of what I ate was almost more important than how many calories
I took in.
Cal counting doesn't work when work is defined as more than a
temporary approach to eating. The most significant issue with cal
counting is the reliability of your own data. Was that 6oz of
salmon...or 5? Was that really a 8oz sirloin...or was it 9? Or 7? How
much fat did you eat v.s meat? How much was digested and useful?
Granted, unless you are far more persnickety than I am about your
measurements there is going to be a certain amount of fuzz in your data.
At equilibrium caloric intake (no weight gain or loss) let's assume for
mathematical purposes is 3,000 cals, an error of 10%. Nothing fuzzy
about it.

One pound of body weight is roughly equivalent to 3500 calories, so
eating an extra 2,100 calories per week will cause you to gain half to
three quarters pounds a week. A year? You're obese.

This assumes you, MU or anyone else other than a lab technician, has a
bomb calorimeter and would use it to establish *true* caloric content.

Point being; cal counting doesn't work on so many levels it's a Mute
argument.
Still, I tend to weigh most of the things that I eat (instead of using
volume measurements). So the difference between what I do and what you
propose is not likely to be that great.
The difference is that I never consider caloric content at all. No fuzz
to worry about.
My guess is that your method is actually a useful shorthand. Weighing
foods is quite a bit easier than weighing food and then guessing how
many calories per gram, and I would not be surprised to find out it
works just as well.
Post by MU
The problem with an eating system like yours is that I think that I
would find it too tempting to game the system.
It's your game, neither the 2PD OMER nor any eating system can be
blamed, it's your game.
True. I would only be cheating myself.
Post by MU
For example, I am pretty sure that eating two pounds of bacon per day
would not be good for me, but I am also pretty sure that I would at
least be tempted to try it.
Go ahead.
Heck, it might even work. It did not kill me when I experimented with
Atkins.
Post by MU
I know that when I experimented with the Atkins diet I had a *bacon*
day. Eating piles of bacon made me happy (for a bit), but I don't
think that it got me closer to my goal.
Atkins was, is and always will be a complete failure. No worries, he's
in excellent company with every other calorie or carb counting diet
that has ever existed.
Atkins made me feel like crap. I like a few carbs in my meals. Bacon
is still delicious though.
Atkins ranks among the most villanous men in the history of faux
dieting. Even his death was manipulated.

Thanks to his death certificate, we know Atkins was 6', 258 pounds at
the time of his death, obese by any definition. Yet according to a copy
of his medical records, from the Atkins widow, Atkins weighed 195 pounds
upon admission to the hospital 8 April 2003 following his fall. He died
on 17 April 2003.

Even in death, he was a deceitful, pitiful evil man.
Post by MU
Counting calories is not significantly more difficult than simply
weighing your food, and it helps steer me towards foods like
vegetables that are low in calories.
Overconsumption is the issue not what is consumed. Just ask any Atkins
ex-dieter.
I agree. Everything in moderation.
Jason
Moderation to what? The immoderate, overconsuming gluttony now taken as
the norm?
Mr. Millican
2011-09-17 08:59:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by MU
At equilibrium caloric intake (no weight gain or loss) let's assume for
mathematical purposes is 3,000 cals, an error of 10%. Nothing fuzzy
about it.
Good to know that! And your qualifications for understanding these
studies is...lol...

Bzzzzzzzt. Right answer. *NONE*

Unless that is, you can prove you qualifications.

Well?
MU
2011-09-17 11:28:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. Millican
Post by MU
At equilibrium caloric intake (no weight gain or loss) let's assume for
mathematical purposes is 3,000 cals, an error of 10%. Nothing fuzzy
about it.
Good to know that!
You bit. Like I was ever worried that you wouldn't. lol
Post by Mr. Millican
And your qualifications for understanding these studies is...
...the large number of developed relationships I have made over 20 years
with the scientfic and medical community who are capable of evaluating
clinical test quality and translating qualified citations into ideas and
concepts I can understand.

Acer, you forget, I was and still am involved in the latest in terms of
kinesiological, biomechanical and physiological research as it relates
to athletes and warfighters. This includes military medical (BUMED, etc)

Of course you knew that but since when have you ever been anything but a
lying, disingenous troll, huh?
Post by Mr. Millican
Well?
You can run along now.

*rofl*
Mr. Millican
2011-09-17 12:09:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by MU
Post by Mr. Millican
Post by MU
At equilibrium caloric intake (no weight gain or loss) let's assume for
mathematical purposes is 3,000 cals, an error of 10%. Nothing fuzzy
about it.
Good to know that!
You bit. Like I was ever worried that you wouldn't. lol
Post by Mr. Millican
And your qualifications for understanding these studies is...
...the large number of developed relationships I
I? LOL. You are an unidentifiable anonymous sockpuppet.
Always have been, always will be. No identity whatsoever.
Post by MU
have made over 20 years
with the scientfic and medical community who are capable of evaluating
clinical test quality and translating qualified citations into ideas and
concepts I can understand.
That is your anecdotal hearsay, not proof.
Post by MU
Acer, you forget, I was and still am involved in the latest in terms of
kinesiological, biomechanical and physiological research as it relates
to athletes and warfighters. This includes military medical (BUMED, etc)
According to no source other than your own contrivances. You offer
nothing except for insubstantial claims. Nothing. And that's what I
remember.
Post by MU
Of course you knew that but since when have you ever been anything but a
lying, disingenous troll, huh?
Now you're projecting. You are purely disingenuous. Purely troll. By
your own admission; you post for the sole purpose "to piss off". But all
you've ever really achieved is endless reticule, from a great many
people, over a long period of time. Mu-Chung stalled out a long time
ago. I'm the only one left now willing to play with you these days. All
those years and 2pid-0mer has gone nowhere. How sad.
Post by MU
Post by Mr. Millican
Well?
You can run along now.
*rofl*
I'll gladly leave, just as soon as soon as you can provide a shred of
proof to back up what you've written about yourself, or a shred of proof
of the claims made by MU/Chung regarding the 2pid diet.

Proof, science man. Empirical evidence. Not anecdotal vapor.

Anything? Anything at all.

Well?...
Ace
2011-09-17 13:09:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by MU
Of course you knew that but since when have you ever been anything but a
lying, disingenous troll, huh?
"The use of a pseudonym while accusing another of lying is
automatically itself lying.

Therefore, lying sockpuppets like yourself can only succeed at proving
yourselves to be liars with anything you post"

Tee hee.

A*
Ace
2011-09-17 13:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by MU
Acer,
Why are you dragging me into this?
Post by MU
you forget, I was and still am involved in the latest in terms of
kinesiological, biomechanical and physiological research as it relates
to athletes and warfighters. This includes military medical (BUMED, etc)
Sorry to pee on MU's Cheerios, but I know nothing of the sort. I know
that others have said MU has made claims of what someone referred to
as being a "secret spy agent", which apparently no one has ever
believed. Quite the alter ego, you've come up with for yourself there,
Andrew.
Post by MU
Of course you knew that
No, I didn't. How egotistical of MU to assume that I've hung on to
every word MU has made up about "MU", or paid any attention
whatsoever. I do know MU has come up with a good (but hardly credible)
excuse for keeping "MU" anonymous. How convenient.
Post by MU
but since when have you ever been anything but a
lying, disingenous troll, huh?
That is correct, I'm not a genuine troll i.e. not a troll :-)

Dr. Brian Gene Kelley, PhD - Behavioral Science.
Henderson, NV
MU
2011-09-17 14:48:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ace
Acer,
Why are you dragging me into this?
Why do you always appear exactly after I expose one of your thousands of
sock puppets, Acer?
Ace
2011-09-18 03:49:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by MU
Post by Ace
Acer,
Why are you dragging me into this?
Why do you always appear exactly after I expose one of your thousands of
sock puppets, Acer?
MU, has always been known as Chung's sockpuppet. MU who according to
dozens, has undergone multiple incarnations "along with the FAQ, the
Mu incarnations" "MU to be the current incarnation of the Roose
troll"..........
On and on about MU being a Chung sockpuppet. On and on about MU
morphs.
MU offering nothing of substance. MU only offers vapor and evasion.

Silly MU is in no position to presume MU is in any kind of position to
ask such questions of others.

A*
Mr. Millican
2011-09-18 04:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by MU
Post by Ace
Acer,
Why are you dragging me into this?
Why do you always appear exactly after I expose one of your thousands of
sock puppets, Acer?
Looks more like Acer appeared after you wrote "Acer". "Thousands of
sockpuppets", what a sad display of obsessive paranoia.

According to MU<***@gmail.com>'s profile, you have written "Ace"
295 times in less than a year.

Now, let's get back to what you're attempting to sidetrack;

Provide a shred of proof to back up what you've written about yourself,
or a shred of proof of the claims made by MU/Chung regarding the 2pid diet.

Proof, science man. Empirical evidence. Not anecdotal vapor. Not
sidetracking and evasion.

Give me one empirical shred, and I'll go away.
Jason Earl
2011-09-17 16:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by MU
Post by MU
Which is why the 2PD OMER approach to eating attacks the central problem
- oversconsumption.
http://heartmdphd.com/BeHealthier
I would like to think that this would probably work. I found that
when I started keeping track of what I ate that I lost weight (at
least at first) despite the fact that I never really felt hungry.
Being more conscious of what I ate was almost more important than
how many calories I took in.
Cal counting doesn't work when work is defined as more than a
temporary approach to eating. The most significant issue with cal
counting is the reliability of your own data. Was that 6oz of
salmon...or 5? Was that really a 8oz sirloin...or was it 9? Or 7?
How much fat did you eat v.s meat? How much was digested and useful?
Granted, unless you are far more persnickety than I am about your
measurements there is going to be a certain amount of fuzz in your data.
At equilibrium caloric intake (no weight gain or loss) let's assume
for mathematical purposes is 3,000 cals, an error of 10%. Nothing
fuzzy about it.
One pound of body weight is roughly equivalent to 3500 calories, so
eating an extra 2,100 calories per week will cause you to gain half to
three quarters pounds a week. A year? You're obese.
First of all, you are assuming that the person counting their calories
is always 10% over. That's not particularly likely. What's more, you
are also assuming that the person in question doesn't have access to a
bathroom scale. That's even less likely.

The whole point of tracking calories is to determine how many calories
you actually need. If you find yourself gaining weight eating 3000
calories per day (and you almost certainly will) then you just need to
reduce your caloric intake.
Post by MU
This assumes you, MU or anyone else other than a lab technician, has a
bomb calorimeter and would use it to establish *true* caloric content.
Actually, it is probably even more tricky than that. Not only do you
have to measure the true caloric content of the food, but you
theoretically have to find a way to measure how many of those calories
are actually available to your body.

From a practical perspective, however, you only need so much precision.
Post by MU
Point being; cal counting doesn't work on so many levels it's a Mute
argument.
So your arguments against counting calories is that you feel that it is
too imprecise to work.
Post by MU
Still, I tend to weigh most of the things that I eat (instead of using
volume measurements). So the difference between what I do and what you
propose is not likely to be that great.
The difference is that I never consider caloric content at all. No fuzz
to worry about.
So let me get this straight. You disapprove of counting calories
because it is imprecise, and instead you propose a method that is even
less precise?

For example, right now I am hungry for peanuts, and I happen to have 6
one pound jars of Planters Dry Roasted Peanuts in my cupboard.
According to your theory I should be able to eat two pounds of those
peanuts a day and still lose weight.

Of course, that's over 5000 calories in a single day. Well over the
generous 10% margin for error that you believe I would get counting
calories. What's worse, tomorrow I think that I am going to be hungry
for bacon, a food that has an even greater caloric density.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think that your system is probably a very
useful shorthand. Weighing your food is certainly easier than weighing
your food and then calculating the calories, and I have done a bit of
spot checking from my own food log, and the calorie densities for most
foods work out about right. So while your method is less precise than
counting calories, I don't have any problem believing that it is precise
enough to work.

If I already didn't have a database that had the calories per gram of
all of the foods that I eat regularly I would probably be tempted to
give your method a try. I certainly will mention it to people that are
looking for an easy way to start losing weight that don't want to go
through the added hassle of actually estimating caloric intake.

Jason
MU
2011-09-17 17:07:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Earl
Post by MU
Post by MU
Which is why the 2PD OMER approach to eating attacks the central problem
- oversconsumption.
http://heartmdphd.com/BeHealthier
I would like to think that this would probably work. I found that
when I started keeping track of what I ate that I lost weight (at
least at first) despite the fact that I never really felt hungry.
Being more conscious of what I ate was almost more important than
how many calories I took in.
Cal counting doesn't work when work is defined as more than a
temporary approach to eating. The most significant issue with cal
counting is the reliability of your own data. Was that 6oz of
salmon...or 5? Was that really a 8oz sirloin...or was it 9? Or 7?
How much fat did you eat v.s meat? How much was digested and useful?
Granted, unless you are far more persnickety than I am about your
measurements there is going to be a certain amount of fuzz in your data.
At equilibrium caloric intake (no weight gain or loss) let's assume
for mathematical purposes is 3,000 cals, an error of 10%. Nothing
fuzzy about it.
One pound of body weight is roughly equivalent to 3500 calories, so
eating an extra 2,100 calories per week will cause you to gain half to
three quarters pounds a week. A year? You're obese.
First of all, you are assuming that the person counting their calories
is always 10% over. That's not particularly likely.
No, I am pointing out that a deviation from a true caloric count is
inevitable. For all the reasons I have set forth several times in this
thread.

I used 10% as a guess, who knows other than the chances that a person is
"right on" the true caloric count of their food intake is virtually nil.

So, want to use 5%? fine? Why not 15%? Fine.
Post by Jason Earl
What's more, you are also assuming that the person in question doesn't
have access to a bathroom scale. That's even less likely.
I made no assumption nor did I make any statement anything like that.
Post by Jason Earl
The whole point of tracking calories is to determine how many calories
you actually need.
It's pointless due to its inherent inaccuracy.
Post by Jason Earl
If you find yourself gaining weight eating 3000
calories per day (and you almost certainly will) then you just need to
reduce your caloric intake.
It's pointless due to its inherent inaccuracy.
Post by Jason Earl
Post by MU
This assumes you, MU or anyone else other than a lab technician, has a
bomb calorimeter and would use it to establish *true* caloric content.
Actually, it is probably even more tricky than that. Not only do you
have to measure the true caloric content of the food, but you
theoretically have to find a way to measure how many of those calories
are actually available to your body.
Correct. To wit, it's pointless due to its inherent inaccuracy.
Post by Jason Earl
From a practical perspective, however, you only need so much precision.
My 10% example proves that statement to wholly incorrect.
Post by Jason Earl
Post by MU
Point being; cal counting doesn't work on so many levels it's a Mute
argument.
So your arguments against counting calories is that you feel that it is
too imprecise to work.
Not only too imprecise, it doesn't deal with the quantity of food that
your stomach will accept comfortably. This conformableness is a key
point that determines the 2PD OMER as a "doable" eating approach.
Post by Jason Earl
Post by MU
Still, I tend to weigh most of the things that I eat (instead of using
volume measurements). So the difference between what I do and what you
propose is not likely to be that great.
The difference is that I never consider caloric content at all. No fuzz
to worry about.
So let me get this straight. You disapprove of counting calories
because it is imprecise, and instead you propose a method that is even
less precise?
Take a scale, weigh your food, stop at 2pounds, exactly what is
imprecise about that? It is bery precise.
Post by Jason Earl
For example, right now I am hungry for peanuts, and I happen to have 6
one pound jars of Planters Dry Roasted Peanuts in my cupboard.
According to your theory I should be able to eat two pounds of those
peanuts a day and still lose weight.
You won't do that, you cannot do that but, please, go ahead and knock
yourself out trying.
Post by Jason Earl
Of course, that's over 5000 calories in a single day. Well over the
generous 10% margin for error that you believe I would get counting
calories. What's worse, tomorrow I think that I am going to be hungry
for bacon, a food that has an even greater caloric density.
Eat what you want up to 2 pounds per day. Truth is simple.
Post by Jason Earl
Now, don't get me wrong. I think that your system is probably a very
useful shorthand. Weighing your food is certainly easier than weighing
your food and then calculating the calories, and I have done a bit of
spot checking from my own food log, and the calorie densities for most
foods work out about right.
Conjecture, imprecise conjecture.
Post by Jason Earl
So while your method is less precise than
counting calories, I don't have any problem believing that it is precise
enough to work.
If I already didn't have a database that had the calories per gram of
all of the foods that I eat regularly I would probably be tempted to
give your method a try. I certainly will mention it to people that are
looking for an easy way to start losing weight that don't want to go
through the added hassle of actually estimating caloric intake.
Jason
Do them and yourself a favor. Just because you have taken a fallacious
path is no excuse for getting on the right one. There isn't a calorie
counting approach known to man that doesn't have an extremely high
failure rate over time.

The 2PD OMER stands the test.

Truth is simple. Truth, or not, is your choice.
Existential Angst
2011-09-17 18:07:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by MU
Post by Jason Earl
Post by MU
Post by MU
Which is why the 2PD OMER approach to eating attacks the central problem
- oversconsumption.
http://heartmdphd.com/BeHealthier
I would like to think that this would probably work. I found that
when I started keeping track of what I ate that I lost weight (at
least at first) despite the fact that I never really felt hungry.
Being more conscious of what I ate was almost more important than
how many calories I took in.
Cal counting doesn't work when work is defined as more than a
temporary approach to eating. The most significant issue with cal
counting is the reliability of your own data. Was that 6oz of
salmon...or 5? Was that really a 8oz sirloin...or was it 9? Or 7?
How much fat did you eat v.s meat? How much was digested and useful?
Granted, unless you are far more persnickety than I am about your
measurements there is going to be a certain amount of fuzz in your data.
At equilibrium caloric intake (no weight gain or loss) let's assume
for mathematical purposes is 3,000 cals, an error of 10%. Nothing
fuzzy about it.
One pound of body weight is roughly equivalent to 3500 calories, so
eating an extra 2,100 calories per week will cause you to gain half to
three quarters pounds a week. A year? You're obese.
First of all, you are assuming that the person counting their calories
is always 10% over. That's not particularly likely.
No, I am pointing out that a deviation from a true caloric count is
inevitable. For all the reasons I have set forth several times in this
thread.
I used 10% as a guess, who knows other than the chances that a person is
"right on" the true caloric count of their food intake is virtually nil.
So, want to use 5%? fine? Why not 15%? Fine.
Post by Jason Earl
What's more, you are also assuming that the person in question doesn't
have access to a bathroom scale. That's even less likely.
I made no assumption nor did I make any statement anything like that.
Post by Jason Earl
The whole point of tracking calories is to determine how many calories
you actually need.
It's pointless due to its inherent inaccuracy.
Post by Jason Earl
If you find yourself gaining weight eating 3000
calories per day (and you almost certainly will) then you just need to
reduce your caloric intake.
It's pointless due to its inherent inaccuracy.
Post by Jason Earl
Post by MU
This assumes you, MU or anyone else other than a lab technician, has a
bomb calorimeter and would use it to establish *true* caloric content.
Actually, it is probably even more tricky than that. Not only do you
have to measure the true caloric content of the food, but you
theoretically have to find a way to measure how many of those calories
are actually available to your body.
Correct. To wit, it's pointless due to its inherent inaccuracy.
Post by Jason Earl
From a practical perspective, however, you only need so much precision.
My 10% example proves that statement to wholly incorrect.
Post by Jason Earl
Post by MU
Point being; cal counting doesn't work on so many levels it's a Mute
argument.
So your arguments against counting calories is that you feel that it is
too imprecise to work.
Not only too imprecise, it doesn't deal with the quantity of food that
your stomach will accept comfortably. This conformableness is a key
point that determines the 2PD OMER as a "doable" eating approach.
Post by Jason Earl
Post by MU
Still, I tend to weigh most of the things that I eat (instead of using
volume measurements). So the difference between what I do and what you
propose is not likely to be that great.
The difference is that I never consider caloric content at all. No fuzz
to worry about.
So let me get this straight. You disapprove of counting calories
because it is imprecise, and instead you propose a method that is even
less precise?
Take a scale, weigh your food, stop at 2pounds, exactly what is
imprecise about that? It is bery precise.
Post by Jason Earl
For example, right now I am hungry for peanuts, and I happen to have 6
one pound jars of Planters Dry Roasted Peanuts in my cupboard.
According to your theory I should be able to eat two pounds of those
peanuts a day and still lose weight.
You won't do that, you cannot do that but, please, go ahead and knock
yourself out trying.
Post by Jason Earl
Of course, that's over 5000 calories in a single day. Well over the
generous 10% margin for error that you believe I would get counting
calories. What's worse, tomorrow I think that I am going to be hungry
for bacon, a food that has an even greater caloric density.
Eat what you want up to 2 pounds per day. Truth is simple.
Absolute idiocy.
Jason hit the nail on the head.

2# of meat? 2# of lettuce? 2# of water?
What a fukn joke....

This MU asshole actually does make some good points, but like all assholes
on autopilot with a defective chip, he winds up crashing into the side of a
mountain.

Counting calories, if that is the crux of the diet process, likely is
destined to fail.
BUT, it is a very informative, educational process as well, and can only
help in the long run.
MU is, mraculously, correct, tho, that you don't need to count calories at
all, but Jason's point about "equilibrium" food intake is important also.

Overall, the diet process is subtle-er than most realize. The highly touted
craze of "volume eating", altho logical/compelling on its face, has its own
inherent flaws, which the psychotic MU alludes to.

Our very culture excludes rational eating behavior.
Get used to it.

I wonder how this MU dresses himself in the morning.
I wonder if he talks to people the same way he addresses people here. I'd
love to slap the shit out of this little prick.
--
EA
Post by MU
Post by Jason Earl
Now, don't get me wrong. I think that your system is probably a very
useful shorthand. Weighing your food is certainly easier than weighing
your food and then calculating the calories, and I have done a bit of
spot checking from my own food log, and the calorie densities for most
foods work out about right.
Conjecture, imprecise conjecture.
Post by Jason Earl
So while your method is less precise than
counting calories, I don't have any problem believing that it is precise
enough to work.
If I already didn't have a database that had the calories per gram of
all of the foods that I eat regularly I would probably be tempted to
give your method a try. I certainly will mention it to people that are
looking for an easy way to start losing weight that don't want to go
through the added hassle of actually estimating caloric intake.
Jason
Do them and yourself a favor. Just because you have taken a fallacious
path is no excuse for getting on the right one. There isn't a calorie
counting approach known to man that doesn't have an extremely high
failure rate over time.
The 2PD OMER stands the test.
Truth is simple. Truth, or not, is your choice.
Ace
2011-09-18 03:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Existential Angst
Post by MU
Eat what you want up to 2 pounds per day. Truth is simple.
Absolute idiocy.
Jason hit the nail on the head.
2# of meat?  2# of lettuce?   2# of water?
What a fukn joke....
This MU asshole
Yep, that's it and MU the Chung sockpuppet in a nutshell. Always has
been going back years and always will be.

Chung came up with a stupid Idea 15 years ago, which he's become
obsessed with beyond all reason. It has completely ruined him.

But like that OCD little ant trying to push down the rubber tree
plant..........

A*
MU
2011-09-18 11:48:14 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by MU
Post by Jason Earl
First of all, you are assuming that the person counting their
calories is always 10% over. That's not particularly likely.
No, I am pointing out that a deviation from a true caloric count is
inevitable. For all the reasons I have set forth several times in this
thread.
Yes, and I would bet that there are times when you have to *guess* how
much steak you ate at a restaurant.
If you practice the 2PD OMER, you weigh, you don't guess.
With practice, however, your guesses probably get pretty good. And
even when they are bad, they are *way* better than just eating as
much as you want.
Yes, of course.
Whosoever
2011-09-18 13:16:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by MU
If you practice the 2PD OMER, you weigh, you don't guess.
Of course 2IQ-0MER doesn't take into consideration that a rare steak
weighs more than a well done steak of the same cut. That the majority
of most food weight is water. That the 2 lbs of food (a wild guess by
Chung) the Everest climbers ate daily was of course 2 lbs of
dehydrated food, which would've weighed 6 lbs, if they didn't have to
lug it up 29029 feet.
That an apple weighs much more than a Twinkly.
That after 15 years, the 2IQ-0MER is still unheard of outside Usenet
and Chung's blogs and pamphlets.
MU
2011-09-18 11:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Yes, and I would bet that there are times when you have to *guess* how
much steak you ate at a restaurant. With practice, however, your
guesses probably get pretty good. And even when they are bad, they are
*way* better than just eating as much as you want.
My point is that you don't have to have a "true" caloric count for your
measurements to be useful.
See below.
Heck, that is why I have no problems believing that your method works.
As I stated before your method is inherently less precise than mine.
Unless, of course, you think that there is something magical about
two pounds of food.
Magickal? No, does it work for every single person that I have ever
seen, heard or read that has adhered to a 2lb/day limitation. Yes.

It's up to you if you want to define that as majickal...or not.
What eating two pounds of food per day really does is force the person
to be more conscious of what they put in their mouth. When push
comes to shove you are restricting calories even though you are
measuring weight.
Until you drop "calories" from your mindset, you're doomed.
Whosoever
2011-09-18 13:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by MU
 Unless, of course, you think that there is something magical about
two pounds of food.
Magickal?
No, "miraculous". After five years of failing to get anyone to accept
2IQ-0mer, Chung suddenly revealed that wile he cited himself as the
inventor, it was really a miraculous message from God. You know, like
Joesph Smith received. Except of course Smith's con job was a hit,
while Chung's remains a flop.

Now, all MU has to do is find a single theologian, Bible scholar or
historian to verify Chung's claims.
Or a single licensed nutritionist or dietitian to verify Chung's
claims.

Chung and MU have never provided anything other than anecdotal vapor.
Hot air.

MU
2011-09-18 11:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by MU
Post by Jason Earl
What's more, you are also assuming that the person in question doesn't
have access to a bathroom scale. That's even less likely.
I made no assumption nor did I make any statement anything like that.
Sure you did. For your criticism of calorie counting to work you have
to assume that the calorie counter would fail to measure their weight
often enough realize that they were eating too many calories. Unlike
your fixed, one-size-fits-all 2 pounds of food per day plan, calorie
counting is very flexible. If you find that you are still gaining
weight with the amount of calories that you are eating you can *gasp*
eat less. If you find that you are losing weight too slowly (or even
too rapidly) you can modify your calorie intake appropriately.
Bathroom scales are nice but unnecessary and potentially delusional. The
most important fat to lose can be seen wit a mirror. It's the VAT that
hangs about your belly.

I only need either a mirror or finger calipers to determine if my VAT
content is out of line.

Truth, like the 2PD OMER is simple. Complexity (calorie counting) is for
fools.
MU
2011-09-18 11:59:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by MU
Post by Jason Earl
So your arguments against counting calories is that you feel that it
is too imprecise to work.
Not only too imprecise, it doesn't deal with the quantity of food that
your stomach will accept comfortably. This conformableness is a key
point that determines the 2PD OMER as a "doable" eating approach.
My guess is that both two pounds of broccoli and two pounds of bacon
would upset my stomach (for different reasons).
Guess what, then you won't eat it over and over again then will you?
Which is why I encouraged you to try eating 2lbs/day of /anything/
repeatedly.
Besides, are you sure that two pounds fits *my* stomach comfortably, or
are you just generalizing.
Unless you are an extraterrestrial, I am positive.
Don't get me wrong. Like I have said before, I have no problems
believing your approach works. My guess is that two pounds of food per
day would put most people in a zone where on average they would be in
caloric deficit.
Forget calories. Write it down 100x with chalk on a scratchy blackboard
and get back to MU when you have gotten the point.
MU
2011-09-18 12:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Earl
For example, right now I am hungry for peanuts, and I happen to have
6 one pound jars of Planters Dry Roasted Peanuts in my cupboard.
According to your theory I should be able to eat two pounds of those
peanuts a day and still lose weight.
You won't do that, you cannot do that but, please, go ahead and knock
yourself out trying.
I am pretty sure that I could eat two pounds of peanuts in a single 24
hour period. Heck, I have eaten one of those jars of peanuts before and
still been hungry for peanuts.
Peanuts are delicious.
Go for it.
MU
2011-09-18 12:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by MU
Eat what you want up to 2 pounds per day. Truth is simple.
I am afraid in this case that your truth is a little too simple.
Now we get to the crux of your problem. Simple somehow equates to
"simple-minded"; complex equates to intellectual.

lol

You haven't a clue to the complexities in life with a simple-minded, 2
dimensional view of reality. As you get older, you might...or might
not... see that the simple is the basis of existence, that you will
never get the simplest grasp of the complexities that engulf you. Heck,
you can't see them, have never experienced them, much less understand
them.

So with the need to fulfill your intellectual approach to consumption,
you count calories since you are certain that you are intellectual
enough to do so despite the fact that cal counting is only a scientific
enterprise to have any basis in fact. Bought that bomb calorimeter yet?
The instructions should satisfy your need for complex intellectual
pursuit.

But, hey, you're /simply/ one of billions of conditioned minds that have
been deluded into thinking that calories can be counted, that your mind
will prevail over the complex. My gosh, haven't you been properly
educated yet? lol

Shame. Not like it isn't a common, constantly recurring theme. Age
should solve that.

Then again, maybe not.
MU
2011-09-18 12:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by MU
Truth is simple. Truth, or not, is your choice.
Let's just say that I generally require a bit more evidence before I am
willing to accept something as "truth."
What would be better evidence that you trying the 2PD OMER instead of
whining about not having any evidence?
I will admit that your idea
seems interesting, but I am quite happy with what I am doing now.
Then quit whining. When you are ready for evidence, instead of
"masterful" discussion, you'll try it.

Until then, it's whining.
It has worked for me well enough that I am willing to put up with the
hassle of recording everything I eat.
You won't keep up, no one does. Like the highwayman who /simply/ loves
the smooth tarmac, you conveniently ignore the =fact that the road you
have chosen comes to an abrupt deadend.
The only real reason that I can see for switching to just weighing my
food is that it would allow me to actually test to see if I could eat 2
pounds of peanuts in 24 hours.
I think I could.
<sigh>
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
2011-09-17 08:17:34 UTC
Permalink
I don't think I have ever eaten *half* a banana. Once I open one I
assume I have to eat the whole thing.
Here we have the ingrained behavior of the modern (post Great
Depression)consumer. It is the result of several/all of the
conditionings a few of which are "clean your plate; no waste" taught by
guilt conditioned parents, the marketing of the USDA, private marketing
of the agricultural megacorporateplex, the fast food industry and
others.
Mr. Earl is amply demonstrating his conditioning as clearly as Alex de
Large was conditioned to hate violence. Both are artificial, neither
inherent from birth, both taught consciously and subconsciously.
I agree with your assessments.
Which is why the 2PD OMER approach to eating attacks the central problem
- oversconsumption.
http://WDJW.net/BeSmart
Am I missing something?
No.
Don't overeat, that's the message?
No. That's the background.
This is news?
How to stop overeating will always be news for those who are
overeating because of their terrible attitude towards hunger combined
with their ignorance about the right daily amount (32 oz) of food.

Be hungrier, which really is wonderfully healthier especially for
diabetics and other heart disease patients:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb?

We do this by weighing our meals per the http://WDJW.net/2PD-OMER
Approach to get our...

http://WDJW.net/Status

and then...

http://WDJW.net/Update

so that there will be...

http://WDJW.net/NoVAT

Being hungry really is wonderful as proven by five lines of evidence:

Mathematical:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31113247&l=9583a55b45&id=1467768946

Historical:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31113078&l=0071d60632&id=1467768946

Medical:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31107542&l=a51ee83a50&id=1467768946

Psychological:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31229810&l=0b3a2ad60b&id=1467768946

Factual:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/21f7a54a0f52f174?

So that we really should http://WDJW.net/BeHungry and say we are
"wonderfully hungry" whenever we are greeted:

http://WDJW.net/WonderfullyHungry

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31113612&l=cbe72c46ca&id=1467768946

There is pure joy in being used by GOD to convince others:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/8824c8a5b7c7518c?

"A 2005 visit to an Atlanta cardiologist by the name of Andrew Chung
put me on some serious reality

I wasnt just chubby or husky, I am what they often call morbidly
obese. He explained that morbid obesity simply means that if something
happened to me that could be attiributed to weight and I were to end
up in the not breathing state

ok some call it DEAD

that a doctor could simply dismiss it as natural causes related to
weight more or less.

Ive been told I was a chunky fella a couple times, maybe even fat...
but not quite that harshly. Definitely made me think about a few
things, as much as I dislike scare tactics when it comes to health.

Well in the midst of the shock treatment, he also had me come to a
heart wellness seminar that he does on some Saturdays in Mableton.

Nice little get together, he has folks from the community come in and
discuss Tai Chi, exercises, testimonials, all kinds of good stuff.

Then he shows the movie SUPERSIZE ME to set up the pitch for his 2PD
Omer approach that he has his patients use to lose weight.

In a nutshell, in his view, HOW MUCH you eat is more of the issue than
WHAT you eat and portion is more important than any fat content or
calories.

I agree with this. This is why I have always been more successful on
more liquid diets (cabbage soup, slimfast, herbalife (tho dangerous))
than anything else. I wasnt eating the portions I was before that..."

Source:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/e82824a99ba4f187?

This has all been about the truth:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/fc8ddf9938aa594b?

May GOD continue to save the souls of those who are around this
physician ( http://WDJW.net/HeartDoc ) by changing stoney hearts to
fleshy hearts and giving their minds a new spirit (Ez11:19-20&36:26)
so that they would be born again of water and Spirit (Jn3:3&3:5),
http://WDJW.net/Forgiven by Him so that they would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus Christ of Nazareth:

http://T3WiJ.com

Amen.

Love in the Truth,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
and Author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9ad0c19df5ffc2f7?
Mr. Millican
2011-09-17 09:25:06 UTC
Permalink
The absolutely only healthy way to stop the overeating is to
the heart by holding to the
right daily amount (32 oz) of food.
Untrue.

The diet invented by Andrew B. Chung, is only one of many available
dietary options.

Take into consideration though; that there isn't a single bit of
obtainable empirical clinical evidence, to support Andrew B. Chung's
opinion of the diet he invented.

Nor is there a single licensed nutritionist or dietitian who's on on
record having supported Andrew B. Chung's opinion of the diet he
invented.

Nor is there a single theologian, Bible scholar or historian who will
back up Andrew B. Chung's opinion of what an "omer" weighs, or any of
Andrew B. Chung's other opinions as to how the Bible supposedly
applies
directly to the diet he invented.

All you really have to go by regarding the diet invented by Andrew B
Chung,
is nothing more than Andrew B. Chung's opinions and personal claims.

Andrew B. Chung will claim that the diet he invented was the result of
a vision form God, however he didn't start making this claim until
about five years after its 1998 inception.
He will also claim it's not a diet, even though he called it a diet
until about five years after its 1998 inception.
happened in 1997 during the viewing of an IMAX
Mt.Everest documentary that started playing at the Tennessee Aquarium
Untrue.

The release date for the IMAX documentary "Everest" was 6 March 1998.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120661/releaseinfo
2 pound diet
[I] Dr. Chung invented this approach
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.diet.low-carb/msg/fd713904855bfa2c?hl=en
That is a distortion of what is actually written [in the Bible] in a
vain attempt to change it.
Which of course is exactly what Chung has done with every single one of
the numerous Bible verses he's misapplied to his 2pid diet.
Using Chung's method of operation against him, really brings out his
hypocritical indignation :-)

On his rusted blog, Chung says that he started receiving a tremendously
negative outcome when he began misapplying Sacred Biblical Scripture in
an exploitative promotion of the 2pid diet he invented. This negativity,
this continual downward spiral he's been experiencing is the harvest of
the seeds of duplicity he's sown.
[I'm] Simply smarter as evident by the MD/PhD
It's a shame those smarts didn't withstand the test of time.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...