|
|
|
|
"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> John wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:40:49 -0500, "Bob (this one)" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Don Kirkman wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>The December, 2004, issue of Discover magazine has an article on
> >>>>>>the Peary-MacMillan Arctic Museum with some discussion of the
> >>>>>>artifacts and displays commemorating the 1909 expedition to the
> >>>>>>North Pole.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>The displays include a list of the daily food ration per man:
> >>>>>>pemmican, one pound [the pemmican comprised dried beef, beef fat,
> >>>>>>and dried raisins], dry biscuit, one pound, and condensed milk,
> >>>>>>four ounces. These were usually mixed together with tea made with
> >>>>>>melted ice. When rations ran low, this regimen was supplemented
> >>>>>>with dog meat.
> >>>>
> >>>>Pemmican is a very concentrated food, a pound of which would
> >>>>contribute between 3000 and 5500 calories.
> >>
> >>Here's the source for the 3000; actually 2960, but I rounded it since
> >>Chung says it can never be accurate even though he uses caloric values
> >>when it's convenient. <http://www.whiteoak.org/learning/food.htm>
> >>
> >>I write calories (lower case "C") as a shorthand for KCal or Calories
> >>(capital "C"), just like most people in casual circumstances. Of
> >>course it's kilocalories we're dealing with.
> >>
> >>See below for the higher end figures.
> >>
> >>
> >>>One pound is essentially 454 grams.
> >>>
> >>>If Pemmican were comprised entirely of carbohydrates (and no water),
> >>>someone would measure using a bomb calorimeter about 1816 kcals (454 gms
> >>>x 4 kcals/gm).
> >>
> >>If it were entirely glucose, it would be about 1884. If it were
> >>entirely pectin, it would still register something in that range in a
> >>calorimeter but be meaningless because we derive no nutritive value
> >
> >>from it.
> >
> >>>If Pemmican were comprised entirely of fat (and no water), that same
> >>>someone with a bomb calorimeter would measure about 4086 kcals (454 gms
> >>>x 9 kcals/gm)
> >>
> >>Actually, it would be more like 4268 cal.
> >>
> >>If you want to talk about calorimeters, then the rules of thumb are
> >>merely conveniences, not useful data.
> >>
> >>"55 pounds of pemmican and 45 pounds of dried meat came from 400
> >>pounds of fresh meat."
> >>
> >>The normal fresh-to-dried ratio is between .25 and .30 with jerky
> >>makers. Usually, in actual practice, four pounds of meat comes down to
> >>about one pound dried. Four pounds of select grade beef contains 5044
> >>calories. Four pounds of choice-grade beef contains 5280 calories.
> >>Only water is eliminated in drying it. Meats for pemmican are dried to
> >>brittleness, far beyond what jerky is, and ground to a fine shred or
> >>powder and mixed with fat.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Protein has a caloric density that is intermediate to carbohydrates and
> >>>fat.
> >>
> >>Actually protein can show from a little over 2 cal/gm to near 6
> >>cal/gm, depending on which proteins are being measured. The rule of
> >>thumb is predicated on an average of 4 cal/gm, but it's only a
> >>guideline, not an absolute. Alcohol is intermediate between carbs and
> >>fats at 7 cal/gm.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Thus, a pound of Pemmican should be somewhere between 1816 and 4086
> >>>kcal. It is not clear where your "between 3000 and 5500 calories" came
> >>>from. My guess is you have been reading a sales brochure.
> >>
> >>Your guesses are, unfortunately for your vanishing credibility,
> >>exactly as accurate as your "discernments."
> >>
> >>I'm deeply crushed that you don't like my numbers.
> >>
> >>So let's use *your* numbers instead of mine and it doesn't get any
> >>better for your assertions. The finished range of caloric possibility
> >>in this menu is between 3900 and 6200 calories per day by your
> >>figures. It is plainly absurd to say that most people would lose
> >>weight on that caloric intake. It is even more absurd to say that most
> >>people would maintain a fixed, healthy weight with that calorie intake.
> >>
> >>
> >>>The bottomline: Two pounds of food per the 2PD Approach is clearly
> >>>plenty for regular folks despite it being probably less than half the
> >>>amount that most folks would eat ad libitum.
> >>
> >>"Probably... most folks..." How scientific. Just like when you make
> >>assertions and call it "data" - knowing full well that your weasely
> >>avoidance of offering numbers of participants in your 2PD means that
> >>your claim is all there is to it. Too many lies, deliberate diversions
> >>and smart-assed word games means no credibility. Everybody has
> >>succeeded? How many everybodies? What does succeeded mean? No one has
> >>failed? What does failed mean? Do people who go off it "fail" or are
> >>they simply dropped from the list of people who succeed?
> >>
> >>Without *facts* no belief in either the efficacy of the idea or the
> >>absurdly silly claims.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Hope the above information helps you become more truthful, Bob.
> >>
> >><LOL> This from the Master Liar himself. Everything Chung writes is
> >>truthful; for a correlation with fact approaching zero.
> >>
> >>So how many people are doing the 2PD? And how much weight will they
> >>lose eating between 3900 and 6200 calories per day?
> >>
> >>This little exercise *disproves* the premise that 2 pounds of food is
> >>a rational index for *anything* nutritional for humans. By your own
> >>numbers, people should eat less than *ONE* pound of this stuff to get
> >>under 2000 calories a day. Right. Just like in real life.
> >>
> >>Bob
> >
> >
> > Just like real life at Bob's house. Maybe you've forgotten, but back
> > in May you made a posting where you listed 18 different food items
> > found in your refrigerator. I computed the average caloric density of
> > these foods and the result was 1.65 cal/gm. Two pounds per day of the
> > food in your own refrigerator would provide 1500 calories per day.
>
> Oh, look. It's "John." Mathematically challenged "John" who claims to
> be an engineer but who also can't seem to actually read.
>
> And I need more than that. Like just about anyone who weighs more than
> 100 pounds and gets up out of a chair now and again. Just like anyone
> who's even moderately active. Your point was demolished then and it
> still is just as stupid today. Apparently your arithmetic handicap
> isn't the only one you have. That unfortunately limited research
> ability is showing again, "John."
>
> > Where do you come up with this 3900 cal/day stuff?
>
> The numbers come from Chung. You'll want to discuss it with him.
>
> Right up above (you seem to have missed it, "John"), it says:
> >>So let's use *your* numbers instead of mine and it doesn't get any
> >>better for your assertions. The finished range of caloric
> >>possibility in this menu is between 3900 and 6200 calories per day
> >>by your figures. It is plainly absurd to say that most people would
> >>lose weight on that caloric intake. It is even more absurd to say
> >>that most people would maintain a fixed, healthy weight with that
> >>calorie intake.
>
> > That's quite an
> > imagination, Bob. Back then you were arguing that 1500 cal/day
> > wouldn't be enough for you.
>
> <LOL> I know that science is too hard for you and that actual thinking
> imposes a terrible burden on you, but do look at nutritional
> requirements for people before embarrassing yourself like this.
>
> > BTW, how much weight have you lost (or gained) since last May, Bob.
> > My BMI is now below 25 and still falling. What's yours and how has
> > the trend been?
>
> I hope you get to where you want to be. Then you can spend some time
> in a remedial reading class to help with comprehension. Best of luck,
> "John." If I can help with the big words, let me know...
>
> Bob
It seems you have chosen to disappoint your fans (ie Mirek and Zee).
You remain in my prayers, dear Bob whom I love, in Christ's holy name.
Such is the work being done here for Christ's glory
( http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A).
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D13B21FF9
|