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.
Where do you come up with this 3900 cal/day stuff? That's quite an
imagination, Bob. Back then you were arguing that 1500 cal/day
wouldn't be enough for you.

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?

Merry Christmas,
John