On 2004-12-13, Dimitri > wrote:
>
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > The inconsiderate
>
> http://help.sbcglobal.net/article.php?item=391
>
> Don't crosspost to more than 2 or 3 newsgroups. (With SBC Yahoo!, the limit
> for crossposting is 7 newsgroups.) The term velveeta means the excessive
> crossposting of an article to many newsgroups, also known as ECP. This is a
> close cousin of spam and a violation of newsgroup netiquette.

And you are just perpetuating the crossposting. Do us and yourself a favor
and killfile all those other newsgroups and you wont see their posts here
anymore.

nb

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

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

On 14 Dec 2004 15:31:25 GMT, Screamed something
into the void that sounded like:

>"Water in frozen form is still not food to be weighed per the 2PD
>Approach. Nor is hot tea (unless something substantial such as cream
>and/or sugar is added)."
>
>A bit misleading, the "2 lb diet" depends on the water content of foods to
>work. As noted by myself and others, many common foods at 2 lbs would
>greatly exceed calorie needs and in fact cause weight gain or be below
>healthy levels of calories to lose weight and maintain loss. This simple
>minded approach is but an example of an external constraint being applied
>which keeps calories below needs but still requires detailed attention to
>actual calorie content and a healthy balance of food choices. We can use
>a measure or time or other constraint, all would work the same way..


the 2lb diet fraud has nothing to do with a healthy diabetic way of
eating and the method on the chung quack's website for adjusting
diabetic meds including insulin is very dangerous advice to follow.

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

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:22:59 -0500, Bob (this one) wrote:

> Oh, look. It's "John." Mathematically challenged "John"

Oh, look, It's "Puppy" TROLL challenged "Puppy"

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:22:59 -0500, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote:

[previous contributions trimmed]

>John wrote:
>> 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.

Ok, Mr. Super Reader, let us see if you offer any actual rebuttal.

>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.

You say you need more than 2 pounds/day. Possibly true but I doubt
it. But whatever floats your boat (or controls your weight).

>Your point was demolished then and it
>still is just as stupid today.

That is not the way I see it. You offered an interesting sample data
point, namely the partial contents of your refrigerator. I calculated
the average caloric density of this sample. You did not challenge the
calculation then and you do not challenge it now with an alternate
calculation. I then observed that with a pantry/refrigerator such as
yours, if one ate a randomly selected 2 pounds per day from that
sample of food, that you'd average 1500 calories per day. I concluded
then (and now) that most people could lose weight on that consumption
rate.

Now.....show me my bad arithmetic. You didn't/couldn't do it then and
you can't do it now because it is obvious to everyone that it is
correct. So stop your flatulatent bloviating.

John

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:22:59 -0500, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote:

[previous contributions trimmed]

>John wrote:
>> 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.

Ok, Mr. Super Reader, let us see if you offer any actual rebuttal.

>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.

You say you need more than 2 pounds/day. Possibly true but I doubt
it. But whatever floats your boat (or controls your weight).

>Your point was demolished then and it
>still is just as stupid today.

That is not the way I see it. You offered an interesting sample data
point, namely the partial contents of your refrigerator. I calculated
the average caloric density of this sample. You did not challenge the
calculation then and you do not challenge it now with an alternate
calculation. I then observed that with a pantry/refrigerator such as
yours, if one ate a randomly selected 2 pounds per day from that
sample of food, that you'd average 1500 calories per day. I concluded
then (and now) that most people could lose weight on that consumption
rate.

Now.....show me my bad arithmetic. You didn't/couldn't do it then and
you can't do it now because it is obvious to everyone that it is
correct. So stop your flatulatent bloviating.

John

"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

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

> "Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
>>John wrote:

>>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).

My fans? Little ol' me...?

By offering to help "John" with the hard words and ideas? I doubt it.
I'm sure they'd want "John" to get the best possible help.

No autographs, though.

Bob

> That is not the way I see it. You offered an interesting sample data
> point, namely the partial contents of your refrigerator. I calculated
> the average caloric density of this sample. You did not challenge the
> calculation then and you do not challenge it now with an alternate
> calculation. I then observed that with a pantry/refrigerator such as
> yours, if one ate a randomly selected 2 pounds per day from that
> sample of food, that you'd average 1500 calories per day. I concluded
> then (and now) that most people could lose weight on that consumption
> rate.
>
> Now.....show me my bad arithmetic. You didn't/couldn't do it then and
> you can't do it now because it is obvious to everyone that it is
> correct. So stop your flatulatent bloviating.

BTW, John, you seem to be successful with this 2PD thing.

Please, do not find anything offending with it, I am just curious. What
exactly did you ate yesterday?

Mirek

> That is not the way I see it. You offered an interesting sample data
> point, namely the partial contents of your refrigerator. I calculated
> the average caloric density of this sample. You did not challenge the
> calculation then and you do not challenge it now with an alternate
> calculation. I then observed that with a pantry/refrigerator such as
> yours, if one ate a randomly selected 2 pounds per day from that
> sample of food, that you'd average 1500 calories per day. I concluded
> then (and now) that most people could lose weight on that consumption
> rate.
>
> Now.....show me my bad arithmetic. You didn't/couldn't do it then and
> you can't do it now because it is obvious to everyone that it is
> correct. So stop your flatulatent bloviating.

BTW, John, you seem to be successful with this 2PD thing.

Please, do not find anything offending with it, I am just curious. What
exactly did you ate yesterday?

Mirek

"Mirek Fídler" wrote:
>
> > That is not the way I see it. You offered an interesting sample data
> > point, namely the partial contents of your refrigerator. I calculated
> > the average caloric density of this sample. You did not challenge the
> > calculation then and you do not challenge it now with an alternate
> > calculation. I then observed that with a pantry/refrigerator such as
> > yours, if one ate a randomly selected 2 pounds per day from that
> > sample of food, that you'd average 1500 calories per day. I concluded
> > then (and now) that most people could lose weight on that consumption
> > rate.
> >
> > Now.....show me my bad arithmetic. You didn't/couldn't do it then and
> > you can't do it now because it is obvious to everyone that it is
> > correct. So stop your flatulatent bloviating.
>
> BTW, John, you seem to be successful with this 2PD thing.
>
> Please, do not find anything offending with it, I am just curious. What
> exactly did you ate yesterday?
>
> Mirek


Folks following the 2PD Approach know how much they are eating because
they are mindful of the *amount* for this is what they are instructed to
write down. They may or may not remember exactly what they have eaten
because they have not written individual food items down. Personally, I
like variety so that each meal has multiple items (each reduced
typically to half of usual portion sizes). Yesterday, my breakfast was
9 ounces, my lunch was 10 ounces, and my supper was 12 ounces for a
total that was one ounce shy of 2 pounds.

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

>> Please, do not find anything offending with it, I am just curious. What
>> exactly did you ate yesterday?
>>
>> Mirek
>
>
> Folks following the 2PD Approach know how much they are eating because
> they are mindful of the *amount* for this is what they are instructed to
> write down. They may or may not remember exactly what they have eaten
> because they have not written individual food items down. Personally, I
> like variety so that each meal has multiple items (each reduced
> typically to half of usual portion sizes). Yesterday, my breakfast was
> 9 ounces, my lunch was 10 ounces, and my supper was 12 ounces for a
> total that was one ounce shy of 2 pounds.

My beloved Andrew, I was asking John, not you. Perhaps John has not lost his
memory abilities on 2PD.

Sure, my question has hidden point which is clear for all of us, but at this
moment I am really just curious.

Mirek

"Mirek Fídler" wrote:
>
> >> Please, do not find anything offending with it, I am just curious. What
> >> exactly did you ate yesterday?
> >>
> >> Mirek
> >
> >
> > Folks following the 2PD Approach know how much they are eating because
> > they are mindful of the *amount* for this is what they are instructed to
> > write down. They may or may not remember exactly what they have eaten
> > because they have not written individual food items down. Personally, I
> > like variety so that each meal has multiple items (each reduced
> > typically to half of usual portion sizes). Yesterday, my breakfast was
> > 9 ounces, my lunch was 10 ounces, and my supper was 12 ounces for a
> > total that was one ounce shy of 2 pounds.
>
> My beloved Andrew, I was asking John, not you.

There's always personal email if you want only an answer from John.

> Perhaps John has not lost his
> memory abilities on 2PD.

From what I have been reading of John's posts, his memory seems to be
better than yours.

> Sure, my question has hidden point which is clear for all of us, but at this
> moment I am really just curious.

If it were clear, it would not be hidden.

> Mirek


Hope the above information enlightens you.

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 Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:42:52 +0100, "Mirek Fídler" >
wrote:

>> That is not the way I see it. You offered an interesting sample data
>> point, namely the partial contents of your refrigerator. I calculated
>> the average caloric density of this sample. You did not challenge the
>> calculation then and you do not challenge it now with an alternate
>> calculation. I then observed that with a pantry/refrigerator such as
>> yours, if one ate a randomly selected 2 pounds per day from that
>> sample of food, that you'd average 1500 calories per day. I concluded
>> then (and now) that most people could lose weight on that consumption
>> rate.
>>
>> Now.....show me my bad arithmetic. You didn't/couldn't do it then and
>> you can't do it now because it is obvious to everyone that it is
>> correct. So stop your flatulatent bloviating.
>
>BTW, John, you seem to be successful with this 2PD thing.
>
>Please, do not find anything offending with it, I am just curious. What
>exactly did you ate yesterday?
>
>Mirek

A very fair question, Mirek. For breakfast, I had one egg and one
slice of toast. I cooked the egg in a small covered fry pan with a
tiny bit of butter to wet the surface. I sprinkled about 1/2 oz of
shredded cheese with Mexican spices (Kraft's Taco Cheese) on the egg
before I covered it. The toast is a 1 oz slice of Orowheat Bakery's
'Best' bread, a whole wheat bread with sunflower seeds and nuts - very
tasty, lightly buttered and with Montana Huckleberry jam (sort of like
blueberry, but better...you can find it at Costco.) Total weight - 4
oz.

Lunch was a sandwich made with two slices of the above bread, a slice
of provolone cheese and two (very thin) slices of "black forest" ham,
with light mayo and dijon mustard. Plus two little pecan topped
cookies still warm from the oven. Total weight - 6 oz.

Dinner was a sort of chile relleno but the chile was stuffed with fish
instead of cheese and we didn't bother actually stuffing the chile but
layered it on top of the fish. Vegetable was diced carrots and yellow
squash, lightly sauteed. Salad was a mixed green salad with diced
apples and nuts with a vinegrette dressing. Dessert was a couple
ounces of low fat chocolate ice cream with a bit of tapioca pudding on
top. Also, six ounces of a French white burgundy. Total weight - 23
oz. The dinner plate contents weighed 12 oz.

Total for the day - 33 oz - oops. My weight this morning was down 1/2
pound from yesterday morning. I am still recovering (weight-wise)
from a four day trip to Las Vegas last week for the National Finals
Rodeo. Too much eating out.

Breakfast and lunch may seem a little light to some of you but I find
it is plenty for me - I feel energetic all day long. Dinner is very
satisfying both in terms of taste and quantity.

An additional factor - I exercised 30 minutes yesterday morning before
lunch - 10 minutes in NordicTrak machine, 10 minutes on treadmill
comprised of 7 minutes fast walk at 4 mph and 3 min running at 6 mph,
plus 10 minutes on my Schwinn aerodyne (I think) exercise bike.

Another factor I use in practicing the 2 PD diet is that we always
serve the meals buffet style. That is, the serving bowls and platters
remain on the counter and are not placed on the table. This helps us
restrain the temptation for 'seconds'. If we have leftovers - fine.
(maybe I'll have some of that fish chili relleno for lunch today.)
If some gets fed to the disposal - fine.

Merry Christmas,
John

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:42:52 +0100, "Mirek Fídler" >
wrote:

>> That is not the way I see it. You offered an interesting sample data
>> point, namely the partial contents of your refrigerator. I calculated
>> the average caloric density of this sample. You did not challenge the
>> calculation then and you do not challenge it now with an alternate
>> calculation. I then observed that with a pantry/refrigerator such as
>> yours, if one ate a randomly selected 2 pounds per day from that
>> sample of food, that you'd average 1500 calories per day. I concluded
>> then (and now) that most people could lose weight on that consumption
>> rate.
>>
>> Now.....show me my bad arithmetic. You didn't/couldn't do it then and
>> you can't do it now because it is obvious to everyone that it is
>> correct. So stop your flatulatent bloviating.
>
>BTW, John, you seem to be successful with this 2PD thing.
>
>Please, do not find anything offending with it, I am just curious. What
>exactly did you ate yesterday?
>
>Mirek

A very fair question, Mirek. For breakfast, I had one egg and one
slice of toast. I cooked the egg in a small covered fry pan with a
tiny bit of butter to wet the surface. I sprinkled about 1/2 oz of
shredded cheese with Mexican spices (Kraft's Taco Cheese) on the egg
before I covered it. The toast is a 1 oz slice of Orowheat Bakery's
'Best' bread, a whole wheat bread with sunflower seeds and nuts - very
tasty, lightly buttered and with Montana Huckleberry jam (sort of like
blueberry, but better...you can find it at Costco.) Total weight - 4
oz.

Lunch was a sandwich made with two slices of the above bread, a slice
of provolone cheese and two (very thin) slices of "black forest" ham,
with light mayo and dijon mustard. Plus two little pecan topped
cookies still warm from the oven. Total weight - 6 oz.

Dinner was a sort of chile relleno but the chile was stuffed with fish
instead of cheese and we didn't bother actually stuffing the chile but
layered it on top of the fish. Vegetable was diced carrots and yellow
squash, lightly sauteed. Salad was a mixed green salad with diced
apples and nuts with a vinegrette dressing. Dessert was a couple
ounces of low fat chocolate ice cream with a bit of tapioca pudding on
top. Also, six ounces of a French white burgundy. Total weight - 23
oz. The dinner plate contents weighed 12 oz.

Total for the day - 33 oz - oops. My weight this morning was down 1/2
pound from yesterday morning. I am still recovering (weight-wise)
from a four day trip to Las Vegas last week for the National Finals
Rodeo. Too much eating out.

Breakfast and lunch may seem a little light to some of you but I find
it is plenty for me - I feel energetic all day long. Dinner is very
satisfying both in terms of taste and quantity.

An additional factor - I exercised 30 minutes yesterday morning before
lunch - 10 minutes in NordicTrak machine, 10 minutes on treadmill
comprised of 7 minutes fast walk at 4 mph and 3 min running at 6 mph,
plus 10 minutes on my Schwinn aerodyne (I think) exercise bike.

Another factor I use in practicing the 2 PD diet is that we always
serve the meals buffet style. That is, the serving bowls and platters
remain on the counter and are not placed on the table. This helps us
restrain the temptation for 'seconds'. If we have leftovers - fine.
(maybe I'll have some of that fish chili relleno for lunch today.)
If some gets fed to the disposal - fine.

Merry Christmas,
John

"John" > píse v diskusním príspevku
...

>>Please, do not find anything offending with it, I am just curious. What
>>exactly did you ate yesterday?
>>
>>Mirek
>
> A very fair question, Mirek. For breakfast, I had one egg and one

Thank you John. That is exactly what I wanted to know. Now I have wider
perspective.

Mirek

"John" > píse v diskusním príspevku
...

>>Please, do not find anything offending with it, I am just curious. What
>>exactly did you ate yesterday?
>>
>>Mirek
>
> A very fair question, Mirek. For breakfast, I had one egg and one

Thank you John. That is exactly what I wanted to know. Now I have wider
perspective.

Mirek

John wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:42:52 +0100, "Mirek Fídler" >
> wrote:
>
> >> That is not the way I see it. You offered an interesting sample data
> >> point, namely the partial contents of your refrigerator. I calculated
> >> the average caloric density of this sample. You did not challenge the
> >> calculation then and you do not challenge it now with an alternate
> >> calculation. I then observed that with a pantry/refrigerator such as
> >> yours, if one ate a randomly selected 2 pounds per day from that
> >> sample of food, that you'd average 1500 calories per day. I concluded
> >> then (and now) that most people could lose weight on that consumption
> >> rate.
> >>
> >> Now.....show me my bad arithmetic. You didn't/couldn't do it then and
> >> you can't do it now because it is obvious to everyone that it is
> >> correct. So stop your flatulatent bloviating.
> >
> >BTW, John, you seem to be successful with this 2PD thing.
> >
> >Please, do not find anything offending with it, I am just curious. What
> >exactly did you ate yesterday?
> >
> >Mirek
>
> A very fair question, Mirek. For breakfast, I had one egg and one
> slice of toast. I cooked the egg in a small covered fry pan with a
> tiny bit of butter to wet the surface. I sprinkled about 1/2 oz of
> shredded cheese with Mexican spices (Kraft's Taco Cheese) on the egg
> before I covered it. The toast is a 1 oz slice of Orowheat Bakery's
> 'Best' bread, a whole wheat bread with sunflower seeds and nuts - very
> tasty, lightly buttered and with Montana Huckleberry jam (sort of like
> blueberry, but better...you can find it at Costco.) Total weight - 4
> oz.
>
> Lunch was a sandwich made with two slices of the above bread, a slice
> of provolone cheese and two (very thin) slices of "black forest" ham,
> with light mayo and dijon mustard. Plus two little pecan topped
> cookies still warm from the oven. Total weight - 6 oz.
>
> Dinner was a sort of chile relleno but the chile was stuffed with fish
> instead of cheese and we didn't bother actually stuffing the chile but
> layered it on top of the fish. Vegetable was diced carrots and yellow
> squash, lightly sauteed. Salad was a mixed green salad with diced
> apples and nuts with a vinegrette dressing. Dessert was a couple
> ounces of low fat chocolate ice cream with a bit of tapioca pudding on
> top. Also, six ounces of a French white burgundy. Total weight - 23
> oz. The dinner plate contents weighed 12 oz.
>
> Total for the day - 33 oz - oops. My weight this morning was down 1/2
> pound from yesterday morning. I am still recovering (weight-wise)
> from a four day trip to Las Vegas last week for the National Finals
> Rodeo. Too much eating out.
>
> Breakfast and lunch may seem a little light to some of you but I find
> it is plenty for me - I feel energetic all day long. Dinner is very
> satisfying both in terms of taste and quantity.
>
> An additional factor - I exercised 30 minutes yesterday morning before
> lunch - 10 minutes in NordicTrak machine, 10 minutes on treadmill
> comprised of 7 minutes fast walk at 4 mph and 3 min running at 6 mph,
> plus 10 minutes on my Schwinn aerodyne (I think) exercise bike.
>
> Another factor I use in practicing the 2 PD diet is that we always
> serve the meals buffet style. That is, the serving bowls and platters
> remain on the counter and are not placed on the table. This helps us
> restrain the temptation for 'seconds'. If we have leftovers - fine.
> (maybe I'll have some of that fish chili relleno for lunch today.)
> If some gets fed to the disposal - fine.
>
> Merry Christmas,
> John


May you also have a blessed Christmas, dear John.

You have a good memory.

Thanks for sharing :-)

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 Wed, 15 Dec 2004 07:57:59 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> Folks following the 2PD Approach know how much they are eating because
> they are mindful of the *amount* for this is what they are instructed to
> write down. They may or may not remember exactly what they have eaten
> because they have not written individual food items down.

I don't because I don't care. The overconsuming trigger is built into my
system and I don't equate food with fun. I like to eat well (as in well
prepared) but if I don't, so what?

When I hear obese ppl discussing their "relationship" with food, I know
what they are saying but the terms relationship and food, ime, are at poles
end.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 02:07:37 -0500, Bob (this one) wrote:

> Little ol' me...?

I'd ask you how much you weigh, Puppy, but a) you'd probably lie and b) I
don't care.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:37:37 -0700, John wrote:

> If we have leftovers - fine.
> (maybe I'll have some of that fish chili relleno for lunch today.)
> If some gets fed to the disposal - fine.

Congrats. This last sentence is a big one. Getting over being "wasteful". I
don't know how old you are but I was brought up in a "clean your plate,
think of the poor starving <fillin>" mentality. Catholics actually preached
it was a sin to be "wasteful". Never heard them once say "all you 300 pound
gluttons are going to Hell."

What's wasteful is bloating up and wasting away your health.

Socially, ppl look at my portion sizes and wonder why I eat like a bird.
then, of course, they want to throw food at me. I have a couple of friends
who won't invite me to BBQ or dinner b/c they have told me that I didn't
like their food so why bother? Of course, their overfat too.

Their are social consequences to the 2PDiet. I expected that. This is the
truth. One friend got divorced as a result. Yep, he lost weight, she
didn't, he hit the gym with me, got looking pretty good, his wife went off
on an insecurity complex-driven rage that ended up busting them up. She was
sure he was cheating on her since, she later told me, she looked like a
"blob and he looked so good". Of course, I took the blame. Sheesh. Never
spoke to me again.