cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (chris

Bob Pastorio <pastorio@rica.net> writes:


I'm blissfully ignorant of it? It was *I* who pointed it out, because
you ignored it your previous argument.

I'm glad you can't find anything wrong with my argument.


Good. I've some up with another argument you can't dispute.

Good. And no personal invective? Even better.

We happen to be discussing a novel recommendation, Chung's 2lb diet
idea. It's novel. That means authorities haven't been recommending it.
That means we have to consider it on its merits. And if the best you
can come up with as a criticism of a novel idea is that it's new
there's little point in going further.
--
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*

Interestingly, Chung said the same thing recently but in my
conversations with him last summer, I remember agreeing with him that
there have been no volumetric studies of stomach size to determine if
this is the case. Of course, all that means is that neither of us had
found one or maybe one has been done recently.

Or maybe I heard wrong, I dunno.


lol

That's no drum you hear. That's Cheffie's wooden spoon banging against
his wooden head.

lol

*mu*

And requires an Ounce of Common Sense as well. No one, over time, is
going to eat 8,000 cals daily of chocolate or an all fat diet. No one
has, in modern times, and no one will.

So, yes, it is based on averages and an Ounce of Common Sense. If you
lack common sense, no diet in the world will solve your inadequacies.

bob pastorio

So maybe Chris is dealing with things that aren't so "well established,
scientifically" as he says, huh? Could that be? I mean, given the vast
amount of, uh, like, real science and, er, you know, like math and all
with the complicated explanations? Could it be that his "science" might
not be so scientific?

Gotta give you a tiny bit of credit, Mu for an admission that seems like
a truthful contribution to the discourse. Good thing.


Yeah. That's the ticket. Um, heard wrong. Right. Scientifically
established. Beyond any doubt.

Could that really be, um, like, beyond a volumetric donut? Yes. I bet
that's it.

Sounds like maybe you're - sorta - endorsing how Chris nearly salvaged
your nonsensical "eating less spurs the need for less food" because the
utter absurdity of the statement has finally penetrated the surreal
density of your brain.

You spout nonsense, he turns it into a semi-coherent, if utterly
different, idea so now it's *What You Said* even though it isn't.

Still waiting for anything besides the personal, and increasingly
dubious, experience of one Scotsman and two dubious nutritional wizards
with no evidence they're willing to show. If, indeed, there exists any.
In the information and evidentiary vacuum, the conclusion needs to be
that there's enough hot air from these Two-Pounders to keep a huge
balloon aloft for days.

LOL, so where's a shred, an iota, a tiny dash, a hint... of
scientifically derived evidence for the two pound diet?

Right. Same place where Dorothy keeps her glittery shoes.

Coulda saved everybody all this wasted time by saying that up front.

Hey you. Behind the curtain. That you, Chung? That little squeaky guy
hovering around your ankles Count Mu of Fishbone...?

Pastorio

mack

On 7 Jul 2003 22:32:13 -0700, andrew@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew B.


then you have none after being fired from that hospital in florida.

bob pastorio

One of the criticisms of Atkins, Ornish and the rest of the diet gurus
is that they had no data. That they didn't pay for the responsible
research to support their theses. The research being done with and
without them is showing some fairly clear trends in favor of low carb.

Chung is in that same position with his idea as they were a decade ago.
Only lots more huckstering, and a great deal less information. Acolytes
who beat the drum and offer lots of heat but little light. Propagandists
for "The Answer." Who answer all questions, "Mu." Nothing.

And right, they offer no reasoned information except that tired stuff
about mountain climbers and "people all over the world..." and
"everybody knows..." and other data-free vagaries. "Never mind the
nutrition, just weigh the food. We'll worry about nutrition later." But
they can't see why worrying about the nutrition at all means that
they'll have to take the ****ytical steps at some point in time. Why not
up front? They never deal with that. They try to dismiss it.

They say it takes discipline. All diet plans take discipline. No news
there. The absurd part is that whole concept of limiting quantity with
no other criteria until some "later" that's not specified.

If, in fact is turns out to be a reasonable approach (with whatever
modifications reality imposes), wacko blowhards like fishbone-Mu will
have effectively killed and buried it. Being associated with such an
unbalanced, demonstrable fraud taints it all. Snake oil salesman that he
is, his bragging style and empty "information" dooms him to dismissal by
any serious questioner and, along with him, all considerations of what
he's peddling. Neither one sees that they're their own worst enemies for
this notion. Sociopathic swaggering like nothing-mu does can only turn
away anyone who might have some curiosity.

How's that song go? "Another one bites the dust..."

Pastorio

andrew@heartmdphd.com (dr. andrew b. chung,

<snip>

Correct, not one but many...

Weighing food is the gold standard used by scientists to determine the
quantity of food ingested.

Some examples:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12197792&dopt=Abstract

"Girls were served a standard meal and actual intake was assessed by
weighing food portions before and after the meal."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12117432&dopt=Abstract

"The diet was assessed by food weighing plus consecutive individual 3
d food records."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12081829&dopt=Abstract

"During the 12 mo before blood collection, food intakes were assessed
repeatedly by a combination of dietary recalls, food weighing, and
food diaries [mean (+/-SD) days of food intake data..."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11818300&dopt=Abstract

"Because larger food portions could be contributing to the increasing
prevalence of overweight and obesity, this study was designed to weigh
samples of marketplace foods, identify historical changes in the sizes
of those foods, and compare current portions with federal standards."


There are many more examples if you want them. Let me know :-)


--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
*and* Physician-Scientist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/ac.asp

*mu*

http://www.heartmdphd.com/rip.asp

rosescripter@yahoo.com (tony

What a paranoid midget.

dave

Carmen,


A ****er punch? C'mon. A practical joke, perhaps. Let's say your
favorite politician is at a rally, and someone hands this person a
banner that says "Look at me, I'm an idiot." What would it do to your
estimation of this person if s/he never looked at what it said, but
just waved it in the air. And then proceeded to do it repeatedly with
other, also derogatory, banners? You'd think this person was a clueless
bozo or illiterate, and you'd reconsider your vote, because politicians
need to be able to read the signs. And you'd probably thank the
prankster for pointing this out.

Dave