"Mirek Fídler" wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:29:17 +0100, Mirek Fídler wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, I am rather worried about your advices to anybody with BMI > 20
> >> to
> >> start weight-loss. It is well documented that most people that start
> >> dieting
> >> tend to gain more in the long term. I think your recommendations are
> >> irresponsible.
> >
> > So the answer is to *not* tell them to lose weight? Because they will
> > fail?
>
> Well, perhaps if your BMI is below 25, it is better not to open this
> pandora's box.
>
> Was not it you in original post saying that for most slightly overweight
> people (and that is BMI 25-30) health risks are low?
>
> Mirek

You seem to be having a conversation with yourself.


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/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D13B21FF9

"Mirek Fídler" wrote:
>
> >> potential, though as yet unproved, long-term risks of ketosis, they can
> >> eat
> >> a diet that both supports weight loss and maintenance while decreasing
> >> those
> >> potential risks.
> >
> > The mechanism by which low-carb diets achieve weight loss is by
> > suppressing appetite with hyperketonemia.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> The mechanism by which low-carb diets achieve weight loss is most likely by
> avoiding unnaturally increased appetite by refined (high GI/GL) carbs. You
> absolutely do not have to be in ketosis.

Incorrect.

You seem to be confusing low-carb diets with low-refined-carb diets.


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/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D13B21FF9

"Mirek Fídler" wrote:
>
> >> Another thing to consider is that actually there is food that you do not
> >> have to limit at all (it is called vegetables), due to its very low
> >> calorie
> >> density.
> >
> > Low is not zero. There are plenty of overweight vegetarians and strict
> > vegans.
>
> Then they must eating something else, like grains, potatoes or rice.
>
> >> > Did you fail on it?
> >>
> >> I have not failed on my current "plan" yet...
> >
> > Sounds like you are anticipating eventual failure...
>
> It is hard not to anticipate given the statistics...
>
> >> OK, so give us some numbers. How many people that you know are on 2PD (in
> >> its "eating not as much" phase) for more than 5 years, maintaining with
> >> BMI
> >> < 22 ?
> >
> > Ime (not Mu's), the number of non-responders is 0 (zero) for the 2PD
> > Approach.
>
> But that is not number of responders.

The number of responders is a dynamic one.

> But I am sure that you will rather
> find any way how to answer this question without giving the number (that is
> correct answer).

The effectiveness of the 2PD Approach is measured by the percentage of
folks who respond. As long as the number of non-responders is 0 (zero),
the percentage will remain 100% no matter how large the number of
responders grows. As far as I know, there is no other diet or diet
approach that can make the claim of being 100% effective for bringing
about weight loss. Moreover, 100% of those who have been using the 2PD
Approach for more than 5 years are lighter than their *before* weight
(i.e. none of these veteran 2PDers are heavier). So yes, the 2PD
Approach is now one way to "cure" obesity.

> Manipulation with truth was always your strongest instinct
>

It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.


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/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D13B21FF9

>> The mechanism by which low-carb diets achieve weight loss is most likely
>> by
>> avoiding unnaturally increased appetite by refined (high GI/GL) carbs.
>> You
>> absolutely do not have to be in ketosis.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> You seem to be confusing low-carb diets with low-refined-carb diets.

Low refined carb diets are low in carbs overall.

You seem to be confusing ketogenic diets and low-carb diets.

Mirek

>> The mechanism by which low-carb diets achieve weight loss is most likely
>> by
>> avoiding unnaturally increased appetite by refined (high GI/GL) carbs.
>> You
>> absolutely do not have to be in ketosis.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> You seem to be confusing low-carb diets with low-refined-carb diets.

Low refined carb diets are low in carbs overall.

You seem to be confusing ketogenic diets and low-carb diets.

Mirek

>> But that is not number of responders.
>
> The number of responders is a dynamic one.
>
>> But I am sure that you will rather
>> find any way how to answer this question without giving the number (that
>> is
>> correct answer).
>
> The effectiveness of the 2PD Approach is measured by the percentage of
> folks who respond. As long as the number of non-responders is 0 (zero),
> the percentage will remain 100% no matter how large the number of
> responders grows. As far as I know, there is no other diet or diet
> approach that can make the claim of being 100% effective for bringing
> about weight loss. Moreover, 100% of those who have been using the 2PD
> Approach for more than 5 years are lighter than their *before* weight
> (i.e. none of these veteran 2PDers are heavier). So yes, the 2PD
> Approach is now one way to "cure" obesity.

Yes, I knew it. No number, just fuzzy talk we are already used to.

No problem, I did not hold my breath. I know you very well already...

Mirek

>> But that is not number of responders.
>
> The number of responders is a dynamic one.
>
>> But I am sure that you will rather
>> find any way how to answer this question without giving the number (that
>> is
>> correct answer).
>
> The effectiveness of the 2PD Approach is measured by the percentage of
> folks who respond. As long as the number of non-responders is 0 (zero),
> the percentage will remain 100% no matter how large the number of
> responders grows. As far as I know, there is no other diet or diet
> approach that can make the claim of being 100% effective for bringing
> about weight loss. Moreover, 100% of those who have been using the 2PD
> Approach for more than 5 years are lighter than their *before* weight
> (i.e. none of these veteran 2PDers are heavier). So yes, the 2PD
> Approach is now one way to "cure" obesity.

Yes, I knew it. No number, just fuzzy talk we are already used to.

No problem, I did not hold my breath. I know you very well already...

Mirek

Mirek F=EDdler wrote:

>>>But that is not number of responders.
>>
>>The number of responders is a dynamic one.
>>
>>>But I am sure that you will rather
>>>find any way how to answer this question without giving the number (th=
at=20
>>>is
>>>correct answer).
>>
>>The effectiveness of the 2PD Approach is measured by the percentage of
>>folks who respond. As long as the number of non-responders is 0 (zero)=
,
>>the percentage will remain 100% no matter how large the number of
>>responders grows. As far as I know, there is no other diet or diet
>>approach that can make the claim of being 100% effective for bringing
>>about weight loss. Moreover, 100% of those who have been using the 2PD=

>>Approach for more than 5 years are lighter than their *before* weight
>>(i.e. none of these veteran 2PDers are heavier). So yes, the 2PD
>>Approach is now one way to "cure" obesity.
>=20
> Yes, I knew it. No number, just fuzzy talk we are already used to.

Part of it is because the 2PD isn't more than 5 years old. Chung=20
claims there are people who have been doing it for more than that.

Bob

> No problem, I did not hold my breath. I know you very well already... :=
)
>=20
> Mirek=20

Mirek F=EDdler wrote:

>>>But that is not number of responders.
>>
>>The number of responders is a dynamic one.
>>
>>>But I am sure that you will rather
>>>find any way how to answer this question without giving the number (th=
at=20
>>>is
>>>correct answer).
>>
>>The effectiveness of the 2PD Approach is measured by the percentage of
>>folks who respond. As long as the number of non-responders is 0 (zero)=
,
>>the percentage will remain 100% no matter how large the number of
>>responders grows. As far as I know, there is no other diet or diet
>>approach that can make the claim of being 100% effective for bringing
>>about weight loss. Moreover, 100% of those who have been using the 2PD=

>>Approach for more than 5 years are lighter than their *before* weight
>>(i.e. none of these veteran 2PDers are heavier). So yes, the 2PD
>>Approach is now one way to "cure" obesity.
>=20
> Yes, I knew it. No number, just fuzzy talk we are already used to.

Part of it is because the 2PD isn't more than 5 years old. Chung=20
claims there are people who have been doing it for more than that.

Bob

> No problem, I did not hold my breath. I know you very well already... :=
)
>=20
> Mirek=20

Actually, he is right as always.

As there is nobody on 2PD for 5 years, there is also no failure, so 100% of
those that started 2PD 5 years ago (that is 0) is successful, so there is 0%
dropout ratio.

Andrew just likes these word/logic/truth games, you should knew it. That is
50% of reasons why he is (cross)posting to newsgroups.

Mirek

-------------
"Bob (this one)" > píse v diskusním príspevku
...
Mirek Fídler wrote:

>>>But that is not number of responders.
>>
>>The number of responders is a dynamic one.
>>
>>>But I am sure that you will rather
>>>find any way how to answer this question without giving the number (that
>>>is
>>>correct answer).
>>
>>The effectiveness of the 2PD Approach is measured by the percentage of
>>folks who respond. As long as the number of non-responders is 0 (zero),
>>the percentage will remain 100% no matter how large the number of
>>responders grows. As far as I know, there is no other diet or diet
>>approach that can make the claim of being 100% effective for bringing
>>about weight loss. Moreover, 100% of those who have been using the 2PD
>>Approach for more than 5 years are lighter than their *before* weight
>>(i.e. none of these veteran 2PDers are heavier). So yes, the 2PD
>>Approach is now one way to "cure" obesity.
>
> Yes, I knew it. No number, just fuzzy talk we are already used to.

Part of it is because the 2PD isn't more than 5 years old. Chung
claims there are people who have been doing it for more than that.

Bob

> No problem, I did not hold my breath. I know you very well already...
>
> Mirek

Actually, he is right as always.

As there is nobody on 2PD for 5 years, there is also no failure, so 100% of
those that started 2PD 5 years ago (that is 0) is successful, so there is 0%
dropout ratio.

Andrew just likes these word/logic/truth games, you should knew it. That is
50% of reasons why he is (cross)posting to newsgroups.

Mirek

-------------
"Bob (this one)" > píse v diskusním príspevku
...
Mirek Fídler wrote:

>>>But that is not number of responders.
>>
>>The number of responders is a dynamic one.
>>
>>>But I am sure that you will rather
>>>find any way how to answer this question without giving the number (that
>>>is
>>>correct answer).
>>
>>The effectiveness of the 2PD Approach is measured by the percentage of
>>folks who respond. As long as the number of non-responders is 0 (zero),
>>the percentage will remain 100% no matter how large the number of
>>responders grows. As far as I know, there is no other diet or diet
>>approach that can make the claim of being 100% effective for bringing
>>about weight loss. Moreover, 100% of those who have been using the 2PD
>>Approach for more than 5 years are lighter than their *before* weight
>>(i.e. none of these veteran 2PDers are heavier). So yes, the 2PD
>>Approach is now one way to "cure" obesity.
>
> Yes, I knew it. No number, just fuzzy talk we are already used to.

Part of it is because the 2PD isn't more than 5 years old. Chung
claims there are people who have been doing it for more than that.

Bob

> No problem, I did not hold my breath. I know you very well already...
>
> Mirek

"Mirek Fídler" wrote (edited for more truthfulness):
>
> Actually, he is truthful as usual.

It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.

> Since being published in 1988, the 2PD Approach has been used by many for more than 5 years since the year is now 2004,

Indeed, personally I have been using the 2PD Approach for more than 7
years now.


> there is also no failure,

Correct.


> so 100% of
> those that started 2PD 5 years ago (that is many more than 1) are successful,

Correct.

> so there is 0%
> failure rate and 100% cure.

Correct.

> Andrew just loves the truth, you should know this by now.

Correct.


> This is the good work he is called to do.

Yes.

> Mirek

May God bless you on this Lord's day, in Christ's holy name.


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/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D13B21FF9

"Mirek Fídler" wrote:
>
> >> But that is not number of responders.
> >
> > The number of responders is a dynamic one.
> >
> >> But I am sure that you will rather
> >> find any way how to answer this question without giving the number (that
> >> is
> >> correct answer).
> >
> > The effectiveness of the 2PD Approach is measured by the percentage of
> > folks who respond. As long as the number of non-responders is 0 (zero),
> > the percentage will remain 100% no matter how large the number of
> > responders grows. As far as I know, there is no other diet or diet
> > approach that can make the claim of being 100% effective for bringing
> > about weight loss. Moreover, 100% of those who have been using the 2PD
> > Approach for more than 5 years are lighter than their *before* weight
> > (i.e. none of these veteran 2PDers are heavier). So yes, the 2PD
> > Approach is now one way to "cure" obesity.
>
> Yes, I knew it. No number,

Written more plainly:

Failure rate: 0%

> just fuzzy talk we are already used to.
>
> No problem, I did not hold my breath. I know you very well already...

As I you.

> Mirek

You remain in my prayers, dear Mirek, in Christ's holy name.

May God bless you on this His Lord's day.


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/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D13B21FF9

"Mirek Fídler" wrote:
>
> >> The mechanism by which low-carb diets achieve weight loss is most likely
> >> by
> >> avoiding unnaturally increased appetite by refined (high GI/GL) carbs.
> >> You
> >> absolutely do not have to be in ketosis.
> >
> > Incorrect.
> >
> > You seem to be confusing low-carb diets with low-refined-carb diets.
>
> Low refined carb diets are low in carbs overall.

Not for those without hyperketonemia.


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/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D13B21FF9

>> Low refined carb diets are low in carbs overall.
>
> Not for those without hyperketonemia.

Could you be more specific please?

AFAIK, USDA high-carb diet recommendation is 300g carbs/day, which should
make up 60% of your energy.

Meanwhile, anything above 100g will keep you from ketosis.

If 300g/60% is named high, how would you name 100g/20%?

Mirek

>> Low refined carb diets are low in carbs overall.
>
> Not for those without hyperketonemia.

Could you be more specific please?

AFAIK, USDA high-carb diet recommendation is 300g carbs/day, which should
make up 60% of your energy.

Meanwhile, anything above 100g will keep you from ketosis.

If 300g/60% is named high, how would you name 100g/20%?

Mirek

Must you cross post this crap into alt.support.diabetes?
We don't want it.
Take outside, as the bartender said.


Mirek Fídler wrote:

>>>The mechanism by which low-carb diets achieve weight loss is most likely
>>>by
>>>avoiding unnaturally increased appetite by refined (high GI/GL) carbs.
>>>You
>>>absolutely do not have to be in ketosis.
>>
>>Incorrect.
>>
>>You seem to be confusing low-carb diets with low-refined-carb diets.
>
>
> Low refined carb diets are low in carbs overall.
>
> You seem to be confusing ketogenic diets and low-carb diets.
>
> Mirek
>
>

Must you cross post this crap into alt.support.diabetes?
We don't want it.
Take outside, as the bartender said.


Mirek Fídler wrote:

>>>The mechanism by which low-carb diets achieve weight loss is most likely
>>>by
>>>avoiding unnaturally increased appetite by refined (high GI/GL) carbs.
>>>You
>>>absolutely do not have to be in ketosis.
>>
>>Incorrect.
>>
>>You seem to be confusing low-carb diets with low-refined-carb diets.
>
>
> Low refined carb diets are low in carbs overall.
>
> You seem to be confusing ketogenic diets and low-carb diets.
>
> Mirek
>
>

Must you cross post this crap into alt.support.diabetes?
We don't want it.
Take outside, as the bartender said.

Bob (this one) wrote:

> Mirek Fídler wrote:
>
>>>> But that is not number of responders.
>>>
>>>
>>> The number of responders is a dynamic one.
>>>
>>>> But I am sure that you will rather
>>>> find any way how to answer this question without giving the number
>>>> (that is
>>>> correct answer).
>>>
>>>
>>> The effectiveness of the 2PD Approach is measured by the percentage of
>>> folks who respond. As long as the number of non-responders is 0 (zero),
>>> the percentage will remain 100% no matter how large the number of
>>> responders grows. As far as I know, there is no other diet or diet
>>> approach that can make the claim of being 100% effective for bringing
>>> about weight loss. Moreover, 100% of those who have been using the 2PD
>>> Approach for more than 5 years are lighter than their *before* weight
>>> (i.e. none of these veteran 2PDers are heavier). So yes, the 2PD
>>> Approach is now one way to "cure" obesity.
>>
>>
>> Yes, I knew it. No number, just fuzzy talk we are already used to.
>
>
> Part of it is because the 2PD isn't more than 5 years old. Chung claims
> there are people who have been doing it for more than that.
>
> Bob
>
>> No problem, I did not hold my breath. I know you very well already...
>>
>> Mirek
>
>

Must you cross post this crap into alt.support.diabetes?
We don't want it.
Take outside, as the bartender said.

Bob (this one) wrote:

> Mirek Fídler wrote:
>
>>>> But that is not number of responders.
>>>
>>>
>>> The number of responders is a dynamic one.
>>>
>>>> But I am sure that you will rather
>>>> find any way how to answer this question without giving the number
>>>> (that is
>>>> correct answer).
>>>
>>>
>>> The effectiveness of the 2PD Approach is measured by the percentage of
>>> folks who respond. As long as the number of non-responders is 0 (zero),
>>> the percentage will remain 100% no matter how large the number of
>>> responders grows. As far as I know, there is no other diet or diet
>>> approach that can make the claim of being 100% effective for bringing
>>> about weight loss. Moreover, 100% of those who have been using the 2PD
>>> Approach for more than 5 years are lighter than their *before* weight
>>> (i.e. none of these veteran 2PDers are heavier). So yes, the 2PD
>>> Approach is now one way to "cure" obesity.
>>
>>
>> Yes, I knew it. No number, just fuzzy talk we are already used to.
>
>
> Part of it is because the 2PD isn't more than 5 years old. Chung claims
> there are people who have been doing it for more than that.
>
> Bob
>
>> No problem, I did not hold my breath. I know you very well already...
>>
>> Mirek
>
>

Must you cross post this crap into alt.support.diabetes?
We don't want it.
Take outside, as the bartender said.


Mirek Fídler wrote:

>>>Low refined carb diets are low in carbs overall.
>>
>>Not for those without hyperketonemia.
>
>
> Could you be more specific please?
>
> AFAIK, USDA high-carb diet recommendation is 300g carbs/day, which should
> make up 60% of your energy.
>
> Meanwhile, anything above 100g will keep you from ketosis.
>
> If 300g/60% is named high, how would you name 100g/20%?
>
> Mirek
>
>

Must you cross post this crap into alt.support.diabetes?
We don't want it.
Take outside, as the bartender said.


Mirek Fídler wrote:

>>>Low refined carb diets are low in carbs overall.
>>
>>Not for those without hyperketonemia.
>
>
> Could you be more specific please?
>
> AFAIK, USDA high-carb diet recommendation is 300g carbs/day, which should
> make up 60% of your energy.
>
> Meanwhile, anything above 100g will keep you from ketosis.
>
> If 300g/60% is named high, how would you name 100g/20%?
>
> Mirek
>
>

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

> "Mirek F=EDdler" wrote (edited for more truthfulness):

>> Since being published in 1988, the 2PD Approach has been used by=20
>> many for more than 5 years since the year is now 2004,

"many..." No actual number.

He says this on his page with URL <http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp>

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

"So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese patients in
my care. I gave them ordinary food scales with instructions to weigh
everything substantial that passed into their mouths. The only things
exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What I learned was that my
obese patients was consuming between 8 to 12 lbs. of food per day! At
the time, I was about 10 lbs. over my ideal body weight (ok, it was
more like 20 lbs) so I decided to find out how much I was eating per
day... 3-4 lbs. I cut back to less than 2 lbs. and was at my proper
weight in a few months."

>> so 100% of those that started 2PD 5 years ago (that is many more=20
>> than 1) are successful,

But never an actual number. No data to support that "many more than 1"=20
claim.

> Correct.
>=20
>> so there is 0% failure rate and 100% cure.

Except Chung never mentions how many there are actually doing it that
he knows of. It also implies that *everyone* who started it has stayed=20
with it. All are still alive. All are still in contact with Chung.

All puffery and claims; no documentation, data or testimonials to=20
support any of it. Lies followed by more lies.

Bob

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

> "Mirek F=EDdler" wrote (edited for more truthfulness):

>> Since being published in 1988, the 2PD Approach has been used by=20
>> many for more than 5 years since the year is now 2004,

"many..." No actual number.

He says this on his page with URL <http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp>

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

"So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese patients in
my care. I gave them ordinary food scales with instructions to weigh
everything substantial that passed into their mouths. The only things
exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What I learned was that my
obese patients was consuming between 8 to 12 lbs. of food per day! At
the time, I was about 10 lbs. over my ideal body weight (ok, it was
more like 20 lbs) so I decided to find out how much I was eating per
day... 3-4 lbs. I cut back to less than 2 lbs. and was at my proper
weight in a few months."

>> so 100% of those that started 2PD 5 years ago (that is many more=20
>> than 1) are successful,

But never an actual number. No data to support that "many more than 1"=20
claim.

> Correct.
>=20
>> so there is 0% failure rate and 100% cure.

Except Chung never mentions how many there are actually doing it that
he knows of. It also implies that *everyone* who started it has stayed=20
with it. All are still alive. All are still in contact with Chung.

All puffery and claims; no documentation, data or testimonials to=20
support any of it. Lies followed by more lies.

Bob

"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> > "Mirek Fídler" wrote (edited for more truthfulness):
>
> >> Since being published in 1988,


Oops. Sorry, I meant to type 1998.

Thank you for pointing out my error.

Please forgive me.

You remain in my prayers, dear Bob, whom I love, in Christ's holy name.

May you accept Him as your personal Lord and Savior on this His Lord's
day.



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

"Mirek Fídler" wrote:
>
> >> Low refined carb diets are low in carbs overall.
> >
> > Not for those without hyperketonemia.
>
> Could you be more specific please?

I have written plainly.

> AFAIK, USDA high-carb diet recommendation is 300g carbs/day, which should
> make up 60% of your energy.

Depends on your activity level and basal metabolic rate.


> Meanwhile, anything above 100g will keep you from ketosis.

That too depends on many things including your activity level, basal
metabolic rate, and protein intake.


> If 300g/60% is named high, how would you name 100g/20%?

"Low-carb" means that there are not enough carbohydrate being consumed
to sustain the Krebs cycle resulting in hyperketonemia. The exact
number of grams of carbohydrates will vary from person to person, meal
to meal, and time to time.

Any time I hear someone saying that they are singling out carbohydrates
to be reduced, what they are doing is likely "low-carb" if there is
weight-loss especially if there is loss of appetite. When I smell their
"ketone breath," I then *know* that they are low-carbing.


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

Bob, may I respectfully request that you stop cross posting this crap
into alt.diabetes.support

If not I will be forced to put you in the small exclusive club called
my killfile.

It is just cluttering it up. I am sure people in some of the other
newsgroups feel the same way.


Bob (this one) wrote:

<snip>
>
> Except Chung never mentions how many there are actually doing it that
> he knows of. It also implies that *everyone* who started it has stayed
> with it. All are still alive. All are still in contact with Chung.
>
> All puffery and claims; no documentation, data or testimonials to
> support any of it. Lies followed by more lies.
>
> Bob
>

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:42:33 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> The effectiveness of the 2PD Approach is measured by the percentage of
> folks who respond. As long as the number of non-responders is 0 (zero),
> the percentage will remain 100% no matter how large the number of
> responders grows. As far as I know, there is no other diet or diet
> approach that can make the claim of being 100% effective for bringing
> about weight loss. Moreover, 100% of those who have been using the 2PD
> Approach for more than 5 years are lighter than their *before* weight
> (i.e. none of these veteran 2PDers are heavier). So yes, the 2PD
> Approach is now one way to "cure" obesity.

Many of the folks reading this on the alt.support.x groups will spout about
studies where the number of individuals in the study is less than 30. Ok if
it supports LC, not OK if it concerns the 2PSpaceDiet.

It's so interesting to watch ppl fight against a diet that straightaway
stares at the truth = eating less. What is particularly interesting is why
they fight that notion in the first place. Herein lies the psychology of
the modern day "dieter" and how the charlatans like Atkins play on this
"nothing gets something" mentality.

The 2PDiet is about conditioning yourself to eat less. To eat less than you
prolly ever imagined would be healthful. Eat less than most everyone else.
Eat waaay less than the mainstream. Eat less than you thought you ever
could.

What do we hear? "Gonna starve, not enof nutrients" myth after myth all to
keep the one *basic* myth alive. That the human body must constantly be
refueled with large quantities of food (over 2 lbs per day). Yes, that's
right; over 2 pounds per day is "large", it's too much, and it is not
required.

If ever gluttony had a face.........

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:42:33 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> The effectiveness of the 2PD Approach is measured by the percentage of
> folks who respond. As long as the number of non-responders is 0 (zero),
> the percentage will remain 100% no matter how large the number of
> responders grows. As far as I know, there is no other diet or diet
> approach that can make the claim of being 100% effective for bringing
> about weight loss. Moreover, 100% of those who have been using the 2PD
> Approach for more than 5 years are lighter than their *before* weight
> (i.e. none of these veteran 2PDers are heavier). So yes, the 2PD
> Approach is now one way to "cure" obesity.

Many of the folks reading this on the alt.support.x groups will spout about
studies where the number of individuals in the study is less than 30. Ok if
it supports LC, not OK if it concerns the 2PSpaceDiet.

It's so interesting to watch ppl fight against a diet that straightaway
stares at the truth = eating less. What is particularly interesting is why
they fight that notion in the first place. Herein lies the psychology of
the modern day "dieter" and how the charlatans like Atkins play on this
"nothing gets something" mentality.

The 2PDiet is about conditioning yourself to eat less. To eat less than you
prolly ever imagined would be healthful. Eat less than most everyone else.
Eat waaay less than the mainstream. Eat less than you thought you ever
could.

What do we hear? "Gonna starve, not enof nutrients" myth after myth all to
keep the one *basic* myth alive. That the human body must constantly be
refueled with large quantities of food (over 2 lbs per day). Yes, that's
right; over 2 pounds per day is "large", it's too much, and it is not
required.

If ever gluttony had a face.........

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 04:29:53 -0500, Bob (this one) wrote:

> Part of it is because the 2PD isn't more than 5 years old.

Correct.

I wondered where my PuppyDog Pastorio wandered off to.

Here, Boy.

<whistle> lol

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 04:29:53 -0500, Bob (this one) wrote:

> Part of it is because the 2PD isn't more than 5 years old.

Correct.

I wondered where my PuppyDog Pastorio wandered off to.

Here, Boy.

<whistle> lol

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 19:07:27 GMT, URAQT2 wrote:

> Bob, may I respectfully request that you stop cross posting this crap
> into alt.diabetes.support
>
> If not I will be forced to put you in the small exclusive club called
> my killfile.

Egads. Pastorio is an exclusive club!

> It is just cluttering it up. I am sure people in some of the other
> newsgroups feel the same way.

They'll be fine and certainly don't need a spokesperson. MOF, since you and
relatively few others are complaining, considering the hundreds of ppl in
all these Xposted groups, you're in a minority, an "exclusive club" called
Whiners Who Want To Control Usenet. lol

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 19:07:27 GMT, URAQT2 wrote:

> Bob, may I respectfully request that you stop cross posting this crap
> into alt.diabetes.support
>
> If not I will be forced to put you in the small exclusive club called
> my killfile.

Egads. Pastorio is an exclusive club!

> It is just cluttering it up. I am sure people in some of the other
> newsgroups feel the same way.

They'll be fine and certainly don't need a spokesperson. MOF, since you and
relatively few others are complaining, considering the hundreds of ppl in
all these Xposted groups, you're in a minority, an "exclusive club" called
Whiners Who Want To Control Usenet. lol

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > píse v diskusním
príspevku news:1102874560.9807320697ef60c4db108f8be3def8fc@t eranews...

> I have written plainly.

Not enough plainly for me to understand. Forgive me not being able to.

>> Meanwhile, anything above 100g will keep you from ketosis.
>
> That too depends on many things including your activity level, basal
> metabolic rate, and protein intake.

Protein? AFAIK protein intake is more or less neutral w.r.t. ketosis.

> "Low-carb" means that there are not enough carbohydrate being consumed
> to sustain the Krebs cycle resulting in hyperketonemia.

That is your definition. Standard name for this situation is "ketogenic" (or
"very-low-carb", if you insist).

> "ketone breath," I then *know* that they are low-carbing.

Sure, you know everything, that is well known.

Mirek

"Mirek Fídler" wrote:
>
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > píse v diskusním
> príspevku news:1102874560.9807320697ef60c4db108f8be3def8fc@t eranews...
>
> > I have written plainly.
>
> Not enough plainly for me to understand. Forgive me not being able to.
>
> >> Meanwhile, anything above 100g will keep you from ketosis.
> >
> > That too depends on many things including your activity level, basal
> > metabolic rate, and protein intake.
>
> Protein? AFAIK protein intake is more or less neutral w.r.t. ketosis.

It is not.

> > "Low-carb" means that there are not enough carbohydrate being consumed
> > to sustain the Krebs cycle resulting in hyperketonemia.
>
> That is your definition. Standard name for this situation is "ketogenic" (or
> "very-low-carb", if you insist).

Asked and answered (shrug).


> > "ketone breath," I then *know* that they are low-carbing.
>
> Sure, you know everything, that is well known.

It seems you have me confused with Whom I serve.

All the glory belongs to my heavenly Father, Whom I love with all my
heart, soul, mind, and strength :-)


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

> It's so interesting to watch ppl fight against a diet that straightaway
> stares at the truth = eating less. What is particularly interesting is why
> they fight that notion in the first place. Herein lies the psychology of
> the modern day "dieter" and how the charlatans like Atkins play on this
> "nothing gets something" mentality.
>
> The 2PDiet is about conditioning yourself to eat less. To eat less than
> you
> prolly ever imagined would be healthful. Eat less than most everyone else.
> Eat waaay less than the mainstream. Eat less than you thought you ever
> could.
>
> What do we hear? "Gonna starve, not enof nutrients" myth after myth all to
> keep the one *basic* myth alive. That the human body must constantly be
> refueled with large quantities of food (over 2 lbs per day). Yes, that's
> right; over 2 pounds per day is "large", it's too much, and it is not
> required.
>
> If ever gluttony had a face.........

You got it wrong.

Mirek

> It's so interesting to watch ppl fight against a diet that straightaway
> stares at the truth = eating less. What is particularly interesting is why
> they fight that notion in the first place. Herein lies the psychology of
> the modern day "dieter" and how the charlatans like Atkins play on this
> "nothing gets something" mentality.
>
> The 2PDiet is about conditioning yourself to eat less. To eat less than
> you
> prolly ever imagined would be healthful. Eat less than most everyone else.
> Eat waaay less than the mainstream. Eat less than you thought you ever
> could.
>
> What do we hear? "Gonna starve, not enof nutrients" myth after myth all to
> keep the one *basic* myth alive. That the human body must constantly be
> refueled with large quantities of food (over 2 lbs per day). Yes, that's
> right; over 2 pounds per day is "large", it's too much, and it is not
> required.
>
> If ever gluttony had a face.........

You got it wrong.

Mirek

> It's so interesting to watch ppl fight against a diet that straightaway
> stares at the truth = eating less. What is particularly interesting is why
> they fight that notion in the first place. Herein lies the psychology of
> the modern day "dieter" and how the charlatans like Atkins play on this
> "nothing gets something" mentality.
>
> The 2PDiet is about conditioning yourself to eat less. To eat less than
> you
> prolly ever imagined would be healthful. Eat less than most everyone else.
> Eat waaay less than the mainstream. Eat less than you thought you ever
> could.
>
> What do we hear? "Gonna starve, not enof nutrients" myth after myth all to
> keep the one *basic* myth alive. That the human body must constantly be
> refueled with large quantities of food (over 2 lbs per day). Yes, that's
> right; over 2 pounds per day is "large", it's too much, and it is not
> required.
>
> If ever gluttony had a face.........

You got it wrong.

Mirek

"Mirek Fídler" wrote:
>
> > It's so interesting to watch ppl fight against a diet that straightaway
> > stares at the truth = eating less. What is particularly interesting is why
> > they fight that notion in the first place. Herein lies the psychology of
> > the modern day "dieter" and how the charlatans like Atkins play on this
> > "nothing gets something" mentality.
> >
> > The 2PDiet is about conditioning yourself to eat less. To eat less than
> > you
> > prolly ever imagined would be healthful. Eat less than most everyone else.
> > Eat waaay less than the mainstream. Eat less than you thought you ever
> > could.
> >
> > What do we hear? "Gonna starve, not enof nutrients" myth after myth all to
> > keep the one *basic* myth alive. That the human body must constantly be
> > refueled with large quantities of food (over 2 lbs per day). Yes, that's
> > right; over 2 pounds per day is "large", it's too much, and it is not
> > required.
> >
> > If ever gluttony had a face.........
>
> You got it wrong.
>
> Mirek


He knows he has it right.

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

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:12:53 +0100, Mirek Fídler wrote:

>> It's so interesting to watch ppl fight against a diet that straightaway
>> stares at the truth = eating less. What is particularly interesting is why
>> they fight that notion in the first place. Herein lies the psychology of
>> the modern day "dieter" and how the charlatans like Atkins play on this
>> "nothing gets something" mentality.
>>
>> The 2PDiet is about conditioning yourself to eat less. To eat less than
>> you
>> prolly ever imagined would be healthful. Eat less than most everyone else.
>> Eat waaay less than the mainstream. Eat less than you thought you ever
>> could.
>>
>> What do we hear? "Gonna starve, not enof nutrients" myth after myth all to
>> keep the one *basic* myth alive. That the human body must constantly be
>> refueled with large quantities of food (over 2 lbs per day). Yes, that's
>> right; over 2 pounds per day is "large", it's too much, and it is not
>> required.
>>
>> If ever gluttony had a face.........
>
> You got it wrong.
>
> Mirek

Whatever do you mean?