bob pastorio

You may have said things to the contrary, but Mu said that eating should
be separated from the pleasure. His current sig tells you as much. Chung
says love of food - as love of everything - is irrational. Doesn't sound
like either one thinks it's good.

I stand emphatically opposed to that idea. I think the pleasures of the
table are central to a good quality of life. The food, yes. The sharing.
The company. The moments. The accessibility of other friends and family.
And the food itself.


It does here, as well.


I understand that you find your menu enjoyable. I wouldn't. Based on the
foods you listed in a recent post, I find it low on breadth of flavor
and low on interest. Rather spartan. OTOH, my British-born wife
generally wants her food relatively unseasoned. Tastes vary.

I found food in Scotland hearty, pleasant and plentiful, but nothing
much bowled me over like it did in other places. Not an indictment,
merely a report. The cold-smoked salmon was brilliant. Local cheeses good.


From being the same height as you and weighing more than 140 pounds
since I was about 15, when I was gangly and narrow. It was when I began
competitive sport that I filled out. During those years, I weighed
between 170 and 185 pounds and was most assuredly not fat. I was a
sprinter and pole vaulter in high school and college. Played semi-pro
American-style football in the 60s as a back. Was a competitive
equestrian in the US and rode a good bit overseas, later, for fun.
Motocross rider. Bicycle rider.


You discovered what *you* were eating. You didn't prove anything much
beyond that. I'm happy for you that you know your range is from ca. 2
pounds to 3 pounds 8 ounces IIRC. A range from 32 to 56 ounces. That's a
considerably wider range than you first indicated your diet covered. A
range from 2 pounds to 175% of it is hardly eating "close to the 2lb
diet" as you portrayed it. I don't think it's a quibble, YMMV.

But Mu talks about athletes in training eating this way. Not one example
does he offer. I've sat a many training tables. Nobody else I've ever
met in the world of sports nutrition thinks this is a good idea. They
all advocate tailoring diet very specifically to the person and the
activity. No rigid formulas.

It isn't a debate about a matter of fact. I can't imagine that anyone
would dispute that a human could survive on 2Pounds of food a day for a
time. It's more about desirability and realistic expectation. I need
more evidence than one man's word that very many people would try it and
stay with it. Chung and Mu say that there are many, but his web site
most emphatically doesn't demonstrate that. Mu merely offers his usual
hot air about training hundreds of athletes and having them on this
plan. Not one name, not one checkable fact.

Scientists doing this sort of ****yses recognize bell curves of
distributions. Now that your range is identified, a few hundred more and
the work to extrapolate meaningful data from it can begin.


You're welcome. Chung has gained a statement of *range* of your normal
intake. It's the first and only one I've seen from any source about his "plan."


No. I don't. That's two. The research is off and running.

Pity Chung doesn't understand the value of real data.

Or maybe he does.

Pastorio

cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (chris

"bj" <bjones44@bellatlantic.net> writes:


If you care to fill out the calendar for the history of the Atkins
diet you will find that it supports my view rather than yours.


--
Chris Malcolm cam@inf.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 650 3085 DoD #205
School of Informatics, Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill,
Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK. [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/ ]

*mu*

there you go. Very crafty of you.

lol


"Live To Eat? Nyet. Eat To Live!"

cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (chris

Bob Pastorio <pastorio@rica.net> writes:

In short neither has said what you claimed, but with some assumptions
and speculation you think you can deduce what they would say.

I agree. Quantity is all we disagree about. Where does that come into
it? All you've written above is about quality, not quantity.

But neither of us is trying to convince the other of preferences in
taste. The only dispute is about quantity.


Ah, so when you said I was atypically skinny and spartanly abstemious
in the context of the general amount of food required by an average
member of the human race what you *really* meant was that someone with
a BMI smack in the middle of the normal healthy range is skinnier and
eats less than a fat man.


Never claimed to be doing otherwise. I was refuting the claim you made
that the 2lb diet was so close to starvation as to be risking health
damage through malnutrition. Claims like that *can* be refuted by a
single example of someone who is not a physiological freak.


Where did you get this idea that the 2lb diet is a rigid formula?
You've said it frequently before, and a number of folk have corrected you.


But somebody recently repeatedly suggested in particularly florid
terms that the 2lb diet was so close to a starvation diet as to be
seriously risking damage through malnutrition quite apart from
unacceptably rapid weight loss. His name is Bob Pastorio.

It's unlikely to be a bell curve for well known reasons. Speaking as a
scientist if someone found that distribtion to be a bell curve I'd be suspicious.

"Extrapolate"? Why would anyone be doing extrapolation in this kind of
study? "Extrapolate meaningful data"? That phrase suggests to me that
you don't know what you're talking about and are just trying to use
scientific sounding words.

IMHO, speaking as a scientist, I think it would be waste of time at
this stage to put effort into doing this kind of study. In time, maybe
a few to several years, either it will be clear that the idea is
obviously dead, or less effort will be able to produce stronger
results, and in addition much of the effort will be volunteer rather
than Chung or someone he would have to find funds to employ.


Speaking as a scientist, I think your ideas and requirements about how
to make this 2lb diet idea more scientific are based on a naive model
of how science picks up and validates these ideas, and are premature
and procrustean.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@inf.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 650 3085 DoD #205
School of Informatics, Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill,
Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK. [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/ ]

bob pastorio

Nice try, both of you. Here are your very own words; two consecutive
lines in a single post - from both of you prattling to each other:
CHRIS: >and avoid eating stuff just because it's enjoyable....

MU: ...removing pleasure from food choices is a major component...
From Google <http://tinyurl.com/h0n3> on July 9. Or full URL
<http://www.google.com/groups?q=pleasure+pastorio+group:alt.support.diet. low-carb+author:mu&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&as_drrb=b&as_mind=7&as_minm=7&as_miny=2003&as_ma xd=15&as_maxm=7&as_maxy=2003&selm=5a8ogvgef732iib1 vjrlk1ue11pjqla5oi%404ax.com&rnum=1>

So here we are. You two dissembling and trying to deny your own words
and your own meanings. Chris will reply with a 350 line post explaining
why a true scientist wouldn't see this as fragile attempts at lies. Mu
will simply not reply because I'm in his killfile, he says. Besides, he
never replies coherently when his ass is sooo nailed to the wall.

Nothing I like better than dealing with obvious liars so caught up in
their falsity that nothing else matters but to score. Did I say you said
this?

Yes?

Well, it's because you did.

Q.E.D.

And demonstrate it you both did.

What makes you think you can lie when Google exists?

Pastorio

cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (chris

Bob Pastorio <pastorio@rica.net> writes:

In short neither has said what you claimed, but with some assumptions
and speculation you think you can deduce what they would say.

I agree. Quantity is all we disagree about. Where does that come into
it? All you've written above is about quality, not quantity.

But neither of us is trying to convince the other of preferences in
taste. The only dispute is about quantity.


Ah, so when you said I was atypically skinny and spartanly abstemious
in the context of the general amount of food required by an average
member of the human race what you *really* meant was that someone with
a BMI smack in the middle of the normal healthy range is skinnier and
eats less than a fat man.


Never claimed to be doing otherwise. I was refuting the claim you made
that the 2lb diet was so close to starvation as to be risking health
damage through malnutrition. Claims like that *can* be refuted by a
single example of someone who is not a physiological freak.


I'm sorry you've been misled by a typo. The reason the 3lb 8oz figure
is so much larger than any of the other figures I've posted is that
it's a typo. It was meant to be 2lb 8oz, i.e., the range from weight
loss to weight gain is for me from 32oz to 40oz. Sorry about that. I'm
sure you were really enjoying the thought of those extra 16oz.


Why do you persist in this idea that the 2lb diet is a rigid formula?
You've said it often before, and often been corrected.


But somebody recently repeatedly suggested in particularly florid
terms that the 2lb diet was so close to a starvation diet as to be
seriously risking damage through malnutrition quite apart from
unacceptably rapid weight loss. His name is Bob Pastorio.

It's unlikely to be a bell curve for well known reasons. Speaking as a
scientist if someone found that distribtion to be a bell curve I'd be rather suspicious.

"Extrapolate"? Why would anyone be doing extrapolation in this kind of
study? "Extrapolate meaningful data"? That phrase suggests to me that
you don't know what you're talking about and are just trying to use
scientific sounding words. And why do you suggest so very many more
subjects than is the accepted norm in dietary studies? Do you think
the dietary authorities whose approval you think Chung should seek are
wrong?

IMHO, speaking as a scientist, I think it would be waste of time at
this stage to put effort into doing this kind of study. In time, maybe
a few to several years, either it will be clear that the idea is
obviously dead, or less effort will be able to produce stronger
results, and in addition much of the effort will be volunteer rather
than Chung or someone he would have to find funds to employ.

Speaking as a scientist, I think your ideas and requirements about how
to make this 2lb diet idea more scientific are based on a naive model
of how science picks up and validates these ideas, and are premature
and procrustean.

I don't know what Chung's intentions and ambitions are with respect to
his 2lb diet idea, but I would strongly advise him against taking
advice from someone with your grasp of science and dietary research.
--
Chris Malcolm cam@inf.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 650 3085 DoD #205
School of Informatics, Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill,
Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK. [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/ ]

bob pastorio

Not in and of itself, but coupled with his statement about dieting that
"...removing pleasure from food choices is a major component..." it says
it loud and clear. The sig is merely what he thinks is a smartass, witty
thing to say, complete with the Russian "no" in the middle. Reinforce
each other, they do.

That "removing..." comment was his confirming advice to Chris Malcolm in
a snug little lovefest where they each confirmed their common
brilliance. The notes above deny that they posted it, but here are their
own words to prove it. Look here for the full text from Google
<http://tinyurl.com/h0n3>. Chris actually offered the sentiment first.

And that intelligently moderate viewpoint is exactly what makes your
perspective balanced. By contrast with what Mu is saying.

Pastorio

diatharnathoron

8 ounces extra large eggs (about 3)
4 ounces bacon (4 or 5 strips or so)
16 ounces = 2 steaks or burgers 1/2 lb each
4 ounces salad greens about 2 to 3 cups
No snacks
+ water or sugar free soda

sounds like 2lbs could be a
reasonable diet.
Maybe even too many calories for some?

One thing I certainly agree with is we Americans eat too much!
Super sizing carb portions at fast food joints can only be a bad thing. But
then fast food places generally serve up crappy food anyway (excess sugar,
hydrogenated oil fried foods, more bun and toppings than meat etc.) People
want to eat more because they cant get adequate nutrition from a meal! I'll
bet you 2 lbs of fish, steak, and salad a day will keep most people pretty
well satisfied. But 2lbs of French fries a day for long enough will put you
in the hospital with a vitamin deficiency.


JF(NYC)

dr. andrew b. chung, md/phd

Then it should be easy to prove it. Show people the posts that I have made that proves I am a quack.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

wayne crannell

You are proven a fraud by the reality that, if you were an actual,
working doctor, not to mention a cardiologist, there is no way in hell
you would have time to continue to post this non-sense or anything else
hour after hour, day after day.

But, to your credit, you are amusing.

By the way doc, your sig is wrong. You either list "Dr." or your degrees.

\/
\/
\/
\/
Wayne T. Crannell, M.M., D.M.A.
Chair, Department of Music
Director of Choral/Vocal Music
Austin College
--
Wayne Crannell