Mombu the Medicine Forum sponsored links

Go Back   Mombu the Medicine Forum > Medicine > A Brilliant Cardiologist Once Wrote......
User Name
Password
REGISTER NOW! Mark Forums Read

sponsored links


Reply
 
1 10th August 17:48
bob pastorio
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default A Brilliant Cardiologist Once Wrote......


Nice red herring, Fishbone. Nobody says that increasing your total
intake of food by increasing fruits and veggies will make you lose
weight. This is a myth like your usefulness to humanity would be. Only
you would consider it at all.

Here's what the study actually was about:
OBJECTIVE:: To assess whether intake of fruits and vegetables was
associated with change in body mass index (BMI) among a large sample of
children and adolescents in the United States.

Wasn't about dieting at all.


This is from Chung, King of Two-pounders. He says: "Recently, airlines
in the U.S. have widened the width of the seats on their planes to
accommodate this trend of increasing obesity." And, well, it isn't true.
I note that on his home page he neglects to mention his dismissal for
incompetent care from a hospital. But on that page, he talks about his
favorite movies, his pets and long walks on the beach or whatever. I got
warm, fuzzy tingles.

This comes from one of his "testimonials" -
From: Jerome R. Long (jrlong@vt.edu)
Subject: Dr. Chung and the 2 Pound Diet
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology
Date: 2002-05-29 13:03:03 PST
"Dr. Chung did make one strategic mistake in basing his two pounds on
the food weight rations of mountain climbers. The two pounds there is
concentrated and dehydrated. When properly hydrated before consumption
it ends up to be more like 5 or 6 pounds."

So his two-pound diet is "updated" to be more factual by the very people
who he says offer testimonials. So much for two pounds of food as a rational benchmark.

"...probably a bad thing..."

You didn't even read it, did you? Says nothing about CHD. The name of
the study is:
"Effect of hyperketonemia on plasma lipid peroxidation levels in
diabetic patients."

The diabetic patients were type 1, people with juvenile onset diabetes.
Hyperketonemia is the result of severe insulin imbalance and
insufficiency. At least learn what you're ranting about if nothing else.
Ketosis doesn't equal hyperketonemia.

"OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to examine the effect of ketosis
on plasma lipid peroxidation levels in diabetic patients."

"CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated an association between
hyperketonemia and increased lipid peroxidation levels in diabetic
patients, which suggests that ketosis is a risk factor in the elevated
lipid peroxidation levels associated with diabetes. Further
investigation is needed to determine whether antioxidant supplementation
can be particularly beneficial in reducing lipid peroxidation and
complications in type 1 diabetic patients who frequently encounter
ketosis."

Let's define a few terms here"
Hyperketonemia - Condition characterized by an overproduction of ketones
by the body.
Ketones - Poisonous acidic chemicals produced by the body when fat
instead of glucose is burned for energy. Breakdown of fat occurs when
not enough insulin is present to channel glucose into body cells.
Insulin - A hormone secreted by the pancreas in response to high blood
sugar levels that induces hypoglycemia. Insulin regulates the body's use
of glucose and the levels of glucose in the blood by acting to open the
cells so that they can intake glucose. Here, read:
<http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/diabetic_ketoacidosis.html>
to see how utterly irrelevant to LC this latest Mu/fishbone post is.

Three citations and three bombs. Good work, fishbone.

Tell us again what you do for a living? What you're good at? What you
know about?

Pastorio
  Reply With Quote


  sponsored links


2 11th August 14:09
..
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default A Brilliant Cardiologist Once Wrote......


Excellent bit of research, Bob. Thanks for taking the time!
  Reply With Quote
3 13th August 12:55
*mu*
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default A Brilliant Cardiologist Once Wrote......


Pastorio blathered while his butt is falling out of his britches:


I have so many converts, from the intensely exercising athletic world,
that I no longer need convincing. MOF, I go one better; I convinced
myself by actually trying it myself.

Has Pastorio tried the 2PDiet? No. So forget him.


No, he hasn't left the kitchen. Even his computer is just left of the
dried tomatoes.
  Reply With Quote
4 13th August 12:55
bob m
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default A Brilliant Cardiologist Once Wrote......


Please, Mu, stop changing your email address! I can't stand your drivel,
but you change your email address so much that I can't keep up with my
killfile.


--
Bob M in CT remove 'x.' to reply
  Reply With Quote
5 13th August 12:55
*mu*
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default A Brilliant Cardiologist Once Wrote......


On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:33:01 GMT, "Phil Holman"
<philjud@earthlink.not> wrote:


Nope, ain't gonna happen but the immense amount of effort, time and
money spent by members of these newsgroups trying to avoid the truth
is an amazing thing.

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:33:01 GMT, "Phil Holman"
<philjud@earthlink.not> wrote:

Common sense is in short supply when it comes to dieting, I'm afraid.
Too much denial, too much wanting things to stay the same and have
weight loss happen as if by magic.

Simply put, way too much ado about nothing. Way too much emotion and
territory defending.

and why is this? why is it that somewhat educated people can run so
swiftly and quickly from the truth of their overconsumption.

Avoidance is one way to deal with your gluttony.

Good luck.
  Reply With Quote
6 13th August 12:55
*mu*
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default A Brilliant Cardiologist Once Wrote......


I can't realistically exercise any more than I do. I have to get my
weight maintenance from curbing overconsumption.

At first glance, this may seem a monstrous task. One of the benefits
of the 2PDiet is that the slowing down, incrementally, of one's
overconsumption is a physiological, emotional and psychological
teaching tool. A little less each week, a little adjustment each phase.


Call it whatever you wish. It's about developing a more disciplined
approach to eating, one that makes you accountable since it will work.
  Reply With Quote
7 13th August 12:55
dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet (the queen of cans and
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default A Brilliant Cardiologist Once Wrote......


get a better killfile. one that relies only on the sender's address is
pretty poor.

http://www.nfilter.org
  Reply With Quote
8 13th August 12:55
bob pastorio
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default A Brilliant Cardiologist Once Wrote......


Phil, my point, again, is that it's *too* simple to use a single
criterion with such vastly variable content. I can see the general
principle of limiting dietary intake to lose weight. But not as a
general principle, for everybody, all the time, which is what the
feckless Mu and careless Chung preach.

Besides, what you're really talking about is counting calories. That
makes sense because it's the final arbiter in the context of losing
weight.

Talking about weight as the criterion makes as much sense as talking
about volume. The "One Liter" diet. Only eat one liter of food a day.


Perhaps I've overstated it. You say that the first concern is for two
pounds and the other stuff can come along later. But suddenly, the
number of dimensions in this matrix becomes larger. So we need to
consider nutrients. And caloric content. We need to consider ingredients
to maintain health, as in sat fats, etc. Suddenly, the two pound limit
becomes, at best, a mushy guideline. If all the other numbers fall into
place, the weight of the food is irrelevant. Eat 5 pounds if it's still
below the caloric threshold and is nutritively sound. Or eat one pound
if it works for you. What's the difference? How does the weight matter?


I looked at the site and I'm a bit disappointed in it. Her agenda is to
promote grain consumption using some rather bad postulates. She accepts
the American food pyramid as good nutritional advice. She asserts that
it's the grain consumption as measured against fats that is the reason
for her notions of better health in different places. She admits no
other variables. She promotes a low-fat, high-carb diet and I have to
contrast that assertion with Dr. Walter Willet's view that there's no
demonstrated need in human nutrition for carbs. Both are extreme, but
he's chair of the public Health school at Harvard, and his notions
reflect a rather more modern view closer to the research being reported.
She's a bit too selective in her statistics, too.

She says things like this:
"How does this higher bread intake affect the health of Europeans?
Because bread and other grain foods are rich in complex carbohydrates,
one apparent outcome is that Europeans consume a higher-carbohydrate
diet than their American counterparts. This high-carbohydrate intake may
contribute to Europeans' lower obesity, coronary heart and other disease
rates."

She omits the large amount of sugars and other trash carbs in the
American diet. She only counts the grain carbs. There are carbs and
there are carbs. Like fats. Bad science. Bad reportage.

Agreed. Have we maybe transcended the origins of the discussion here?
And maybe gotten to the real subject of all of it. People with bounty
use it carelessly and people with little do what they can. This could
get into politics very simply from this point.


Phil, I was dealing with the rigidity of the two pound limit. And please
don't tell me you eat only at meals and never anything between. Don't
make "an odd snack" into a deluge of salty crunchies and sugary ice
cream because that's not what I meant. I was only saying that the sizes
of the meals are small for most adults and if they must, further,
subtract anything else consumed from them, they become small to the
point of not satiating.

Come on, Phil. The story about how he came to it has been told again and
again. Mountaineers carried about two pounds of food to go climb
mountains, by his calculations. Freeze dried food. I'm equally sure he
meant consumable food, but he didn't know what he was looking at. The
real-world weight of the food was triple what he suggests. And that's
for mountain climbers about to go up a mountain. Makes as much sense as
telling bike riders to only eat two pounds or four pounds or any other
weight of food rather than how many calories they need. Or trying to
apply the activities of participants in a very specific and demanding
activity to everyone. Chung doesn't limit it to people wishing to lose
weight, he says it's for everyone all the time.

I'd say it would be possible. With good ****yses of the balance of
nutrients and caloric content. Yes. But I also say that if you're doing
all that calculating anyway, why even bother to include the weights of
the foods as a restricting characteristic? It's a complicating factor
with no direct bearing on efficacy. It won't be more effective if the
1500 calories are in food that weighs 1.5 pounds as opposed the same
number of calories in 2.5 pounds of food.


Agreed. With the addition that it also requires good information. The
food pyramid has been disastrous in effects and results.

Another factor that's becoming more global: Lamentably, the evolution of
the US culture has fostered a bizarre fear of food while simultaneously
encouraging g****ng on it. As though somehow, a trip to the Dairy Queen
for a super-slurper is outside consideration of the diet. As though we
can make parentheses in life and do things we know better than to do
without consequence. The next logical, even more bizarre, step is in the
direction of suing the people who give us what we want for our being fat.


It's that relative thing, Phil. I agree that the rest of the world's
folks aren't as fat as Americans. But I can't see Chung's notion and
fishbone's verbal adaptation of it as a workable solution to any of the
problems. The American culture isn't one where meals are done mostly in
the home. Go out to eat and, what, don't finish your meal because it
weighs too much? Carry a scale and put your poached fish on it to see?
It's very much easier to count calories. Easier to do WeightWatchers.
Easier to reduce carbs. Easier to do more exercise.

Two pounds of food per day may well work for some people and more power
to them. But it doesn't work for most. Restaurant portions in the
Americas and other countries, European and Asian, will be too large for
this approach. These are measures that prevail around the world. A
standard potato weighs right up at eight ounces. An eating apple will
weigh upwards of 5 ounces. A small banana weighs 4 ounces or more. A cup
(US measure - about 250 ml) of cooked beans will weigh about 7 ounces. A
piece of beef the size of a deck of cards weighs about 3 ounces - rather
small for most tastes. A moderate-sized Bacon, lettuce and tomato
sandwich weighs about 6 ounces. Bagel? 3 to 5 ounces. A medium-sized
cu***ber runs 10-12 ounces. A cup of pasta (a very scant portion if an
entree item) is about 6 ounces. A reasonable portion of lasagna begins
at about 8 ounces. A half bone-in chicken breast weighs about 4 ounces
and slightly less for a bone-in thigh of which, for both, about 3 ounces
is meat. A chicken quarter generally offers about 8 ounces meat. A piece
of cheese the size of a deck of cards will weigh roughly 4 ounces. A
bowl of oatmeal, about a cup, goes up from 8 ounces.

A smallish steak, a cup of broccoli and a medium potato will be about a
pound of food. Add a small roll and a small salad, and we're up at more
than 20 ounces. I don't think that most adults would see that as
anything extravagant. Make it a chicken breast and reduce the total
weight by an ounce or two. Still...

Two pounds of food can be worked from this list to be nutritively
balanced. Will it be interesting to do for a long haul? Will it be
satisfying? Will it be something that people can adhere to? I don't
think so. Others seem to.

YMMV.

Pastorio
  Reply With Quote
9 13th August 12:55
bob pastorio
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default A Brilliant Cardiologist Once Wrote......


Wonderful. <clap, clap> You've managed to pack the least idea into the most words. Amazing.

This is twaddle.

The question still remains. I haven't said it won't work. It may just
work fine if all the variables are dealt with - like nutritive content,
caloric content and the like. I've said it a silly index for diet
because weight has no correlation with efficacy. Two pounds of food has
no correlation with what's in it. It's the caloric content and the
balance of nutrients that matter. The volume, weight, color, shape and
temperature are incidentals to contemplate, not worry about or use as
deciding criteria. Might as well worry about the dishes the food is served on.

Boiled egg=2 ounces
Bit of toast (two slices)=2.5 to 3 ounces
Large sandwich=6 to 10 ounces

Good luck getting that to come out to 8 ounces. Looks more like 10.5 to 15 ounces.

All of which comes out to a minimum of 24+10.5 or 34.5 ounces - 2 pounds
and a couple ounces. Or up to 24+15 or 39 ounces or almost 2.5 pounds.
And this assumes they never have a chocolate or a banana or a piece of
their birthday cake.

Right. I've lived on three continents and visited literally, scores of countries.

Yes. And you think that two pounds of food per day per person is a wise
way to live? Practical? Rational?

Pastorio
  Reply With Quote
10 13th August 12:55
bob pastorio
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default A Brilliant Cardiologist Once Wrote......


So weight gives you an exact number. And when you've weighed your food,
you know how much it weighs. Nothing else. Not caloric content. Not
nutritive balance. Nothing else. But you know how much it weighs.

Erroneous computations... My, aren't you the little scientist.

Hey, fishbone, listen, my tomatoes aren't looking good. They need
fertilizer.

Mind if I dip out some of that shit in your head to spread around them?

Good lad.

Pastorio
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes




Copyright 2006 SmartyDevil.com - Dies Mies Jeschet Boenedoesef Douvema Enitemaus -
666