"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

>> 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

"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

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
>
>

"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

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
>
>

>> 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
>
>

>> 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

"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

>> 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

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

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
>
>

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

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

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
>
>

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

"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 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

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.........

> 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?

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?

> 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

>> 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

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.........