carmen

Hi Bob,

<Snip>

In my estimation it comes down to a belief system as opposed to science.
A belief doesn't *require* proof. A thousand arguments based on fact
won't sway a belief, because it is inherently illogical. It's fruitless
to try. This seems to hold true regardless of the arena the belief
encompasses. Religion is rich with examples. Those who attempt to
argue based upon logic and facts aren't speaking the same language as
those arguing based upon faith/belief. Both parties are using a
different set of ground rules - it's as if one side is playing chess and
the other checkers. Both sides can lay claim to being "right" and do so
truthfully. The science and facts don't support the general premise.
The original facts (the mountain climbers' 2 pounds of food) were
misunderstood and the followons extrapolated based upon a flawed
understanding of the facts. All the conclusions that followed were
therefore similarly flawed. That being said, Mu's use of the result
(the 2PD) and his success using it were still valid, as is that of
anyone else who succeeds using it. At that point, the belief that the
2PD is valid is set. No amount of proof will sway it, because it worked
for him/them. See? Once a belief is established, it's next to
impossible to dislodge it. Even attempts to dissuade the believer from
the belief using facts may be seen as proof that the belief is valid.
It's my guess that that is what you're seeing - a belief being defended,
not a deliberate attempt at misleading people.

Humans are funny critters. :-)
Take care, Carmen

*mu*

I have to laugh about all this so-called proof all these so-called
expert critics claim to have or claim to need. Here's a clue. There
are no "proofs" in scientific exploration, citation writing or, in
science itself.

Proof is in the pudding and Chung and I have all the walk-in, talk to
"proof" we need.

And we are customers of the 2PDiet as well.

Want proof? Wait to die, ask God.


there is no proof except in seeing the results first hand. We do.
People may believe as they wish, they may scream and shout like Mad
Italian Maniacs all they want. It works. That's it.

Its a diet plan that works. simple as that. Nothing more, nothing
less.

bob pastorio

Or maybe Chung was acting perfectly in character and not taking care of
business. He has demonstrated a shockingly cavalier attitude towards
facts and information in general, both in his web site and his posts.

This just feels like more of the same.

BTW, It should be spelled "testimonials." It comes from the Roman
practice of men swearing on their testicles. The Latin word for
"witness" is "testis" for that reason. Also gives us "testify,"
"testimony" and other like words. Of course, for characters like Mu who
speak from concealment and appear to have no testes, this is an
impossibility.

Pastorio

dave

Carmen,

Probably not as differently as you think. It's not something I would do,
or advocate. I too like to see people play fair and be reasonable. But I
have a sense of humor, and I think poetic justice can be very amusing<g>.

Dave

bob pastorio

See, it's stupidly wrong stuff like this that makes everything you say
suspect. Of course, there's proof. I can prove that if you mix vinegar
and baking soda, you'll get a school science fair volcano. I can prove
it by writing the chemical reactions on the board (chemistry), or by
noting the number of times it's been done (reproducibility) and written
about by reliable reporters or I can actually mix them (empirical).

Right. But it's very interesting that neither of you will even respond
to sincere requests for "information" rather than proof. How many people
have done it? Who's doing it (what are their medical conditions?)? Show
us pictures of people in the various stages of losing weight. That sort
of thing.

Your strident assertions that no proof is needed talks to who you are.
You're a bullying fraud who can't substantiate what you say. Here's a
new abbreviation for you:

BUBO

It means "Back it Up or Back it Out."


And that, dear friends and neighbors, is that. Mu just told you all to
go **** yourselves. Whether because he's simply a fraud who has nothing
to offer, or because he thinks he's somehow too exalted to be bothered,
or because he has no respect for anyone, or because he's simply a crank
sociopath, it doesn't really matter.

He wants you to do the goddam plan, shut up and don't ask any goddam
questions, goddammit. Or else.

And like all strutting gasbags too cowardly to identify themselves,
that's all it'll ever be. He's a plain-vanilla fake. A blustering
popinjay with nothing to sell but belligerence, and that not done very
well. Tough talk with the most fragile and gossamer fist behind it. A
baby's hand in a cobweb glove.

And yet, and yet... The claims are extravagant. 100% success from
Chung's site. I flat out don't believe it. Period. I think they're both
caught up in their own hyperbole, like they're believing their own
inflated posts. And the net effect is untruth. Whether it's deliberate
or merely character weakness, the result is still the same.

Right, Mu. And that's the end of it. Take Mu's word for it. Or, worse,
take Chung's. Oh, and as Mu said above, **** you and everybody you know
because you have all the information you're getting. It's only your
health, why the hell are you so damn particular about getting
information. Now get the hell out of here.

Pastorio (yassuh, boss...)

bob pastorio

Notice, Grasshoppah how deftly Mu dials. His hands are like the
butterfly that wafts on silent currents of scented air. Ooops. He hit
the # instead of the 0. A moment. He redials. He swears, but most
delicately and with elegant diction. Good. Ringing...

Soon he will talk in third person about himself. This is a sign of a
highly developed man. A man of unusual scope. And perhaps a man who has
forgotten his pronouns and sentence structure.


Yes, Grasshoppah. Not the cleverness of the doctor's answer. He wants
you to burrow deep within yourself to find the truth. And mostly, it
saves him the trouble of trying to justify a very silly thing he has
permitted. He's desperately trying to stop peeing on his foot where
people can see it.


Ewwwwww. Here's a handkerchief. Now wipe up and cut that out. No. no.
You may keep that.

Ah, Grasshoppah, these are very wise words. Very wise, indeed. It is
good when Mu speaks of Mu in the third person. Very good, indeed. It
makes Mu seem so wise and full of shit.

Mu is going to get to the bottom of why people overeat, as though it
isn't already studied and do***ented to death. Mu should get a
subscription to a few science reporting sites. They've already done the
work. But Mu must be Mu and take the stupid path, Grasshoppah. Mu must
be Mu-ish to the end. And I like that third person thing. May do it
myself. THen I will be as wise as Mu. On second thought...


The answer, Grasshoppah lies in the doctor's own words and actions
recently online. He has posted URLs that assert that his plan is silly.
He has agreed that the testimonials actually show his plan to be silly.

Why did he post them? Because he has the attention span of a gnat. He
can't be bothered to actually read things before distributing them. But
think, Grasshoppah. When other people demolish Chung's silly posts and
web sites, they tell him why they're silly and save him the trouble of
actually thinking about them in advance. Very efficient.

Oh, so many and so little time.

Here's one. Why did you, a wise man who speaks of himself in the third
person, call yourself fishbone?

And why are you calling yourself "nothing" in Japanese but suddenly it's
not that at all, but now it's Chinese?

You said to ask. And Grasshoppah wants to know...

Pastorio

jim horne

: *Mu* wrote:
:
: Notice, Grasshoppah how deftly Mu dials. His hands are like the
: butterfly that wafts on silent currents of scented air. Ooops. He hit
: the # instead of the 0. A moment. He redials. He swears, but most
: delicately and with elegant diction. Good. Ringing...
:
: Soon he will talk in third person about himself. This is a sign of a
: highly developed man. A man of unusual scope. And perhaps a man who has
: forgotten his pronouns and sentence structure. :
: > <dialing Chung; answered at his office>
: >
: > <response as follows> <Mu typing from notes>
: >
: > Apologies to Carmen; very busy.
: >
: > Yes, many of the "testimonials" don't fit the term as described in a
: > dictionary. Consider them "negative testimonials" but almost all have
: > relevant information to the discerning reader. why does Hayycat act so
: > vigilantly and irrationally about her health? Same with Delores who
: > actually concedes the 2PDiet will work.
:
: Yes, Grasshoppah. Not the cleverness of the doctor's answer. He wants
: you to burrow deep within yourself to find the truth. And mostly, it
: saves him the trouble of trying to justify a very silly thing he has
: permitted. He's desperately trying to stop peeing on his foot where
: people can see it. :
: > <MU interjects..
:
: Ewwwwww. Here's a handkerchief. Now wipe up and cut that out. No. no.
: You may keep that. :
: > Carmen, one thing you have to understand about andrew and I is that we
: > see things differently than most. We are looking not so much for
: > applause as for information. why do people overeat? Why do they fight
: > to cling on to such unhealthy ways? What is the psychology? Mu is Mu
: > because Mu knows to get at these answers, Mu has to be Mu. Hornets
: > only fly when the nest is stirred>
:
: Ah, Grasshoppah, these are very wise words. Very wise, indeed. It is
: good when Mu speaks of Mu in the third person. Very good, indeed. It
: makes Mu seem so wise and full of shit.
:
: Mu is going to get to the bottom of why people overeat, as though it
: isn't already studied and do***ented to death. Mu should get a
: subscription to a few science reporting sites. They've already done the
: work. But Mu must be Mu and take the stupid path, Grasshoppah. Mu must
: be Mu-ish to the end. And I like that third person thing. May do it
: myself. THen I will be as wise as Mu. On second thought... :
: > <Chung>
: >
: > Yes, I did read those and yes they are on the website with by my hand.
: > Think for a moment. Why would I pout up an obviously negative
: > testimonial? Why? Answer that and you have your answer>
:
: The answer, Grasshoppah lies in the doctor's own words and actions
: recently online. He has posted URLs that assert that his plan is silly.
: He has agreed that the testimonials actually show his plan to be silly.
:
: Why did he post them? Because he has the attention span of a gnat. He
: can't be bothered to actually read things before distributing them. But
: think, Grasshoppah. When other people demolish Chung's silly posts and
: web sites, they tell him why they're silly and save him the trouble of
: actually thinking about them in advance. Very efficient. :
: > <Mu...in>
: >
: > Carmen, if you would like, to get straight to the point, why don't you
: > call him yourself. Set up an appointment time for him to take your
: > call. Tell him Mu said so. He will. You will much enjoy his
: > conversation. I have put in a good word for you.
: >
: > Questions?
:
: Oh, so many and so little time.
:
: Here's one. Why did you, a wise man who speaks of himself in the third
: person, call yourself fishbone?
:
: And why are you calling yourself "nothing" in Japanese but suddenly it's
: not that at all, but now it's Chinese?
:
: You said to ask. And Grasshoppah wants to know...
:
: Pastorio

is this becoming a ****ing soap opera?

bob pastorio

I understand that, Lyle, and, of course, can't fault the concept. The
assumptions that accompany it are where I find fault.

Very quickly, questions for the real world intrude. It's not enough to
simply "eat less and you'll lose weight" if that amount is still more
than the body needs for simple maintenance in the given cir***stances.
As soon as that question occurs, it's calculation time. How much is
enough becomes the question. Positing a single amount by weight for
everybody in all cir***stances isn't merely simple, it's simplistic.
Overly simple to the point of omitting significant components of the
process.

To be sure, if I ate two pounds of food a day, I would most assuredly
lose weight. What I ate would clearly have serious impact on what
nutrients I get. If I also have to deal with that question, I've now
moved out of the realm of what the overly simply prescription is
ostensibly for and have come out to the realities of losing weight in a
healthy manner.

So I get to finding my basic caloric needs, my major and minor nutrients
and suddenly the weight of the food isn't a constructive parameter. It's
merely a limitation with no effective value.

Can a normal person stay on this 2 pound diet and lose 100 pounds and be
healthy? What are the long term effects of eating this way? No info.


I think something in the middle would likely work best.

What is suggested is to eat what you always eat, just less of it. "Use
common sense" is what they've been saying. But I'd like to see what that
means to the creators of this program and how their patients have dealt
with it. I'm profoundly skeptical that it can be useful beyond a very
limited set of cir***stances. They say it has universal applicability.
I'm saying show me. They say there are currently "hundreds" of people
doing it. Nobody's tracking anything? Right.


Again, no argument with the concept of eating less. It's when they try
to translate it into this rigid format that I challenge them.

And as far as that takes it, I have no problem. It's when they portray
it as a reasonable and very specific "plan" for everybody that I find it
flawed. "Eat less?" No problem. "Eat this exact amount no matter who
you are?" Problem.

If they say it works to feed people 2 pounds a day and it's 100%
effective like Chung says and that 100% of the people stay on it like
Chung says, and there are no nutritional downsides like they imply, then
I smell a barnyard nearby.

Pastorio

bob pastorio

Sure. Why not?

Wanna play the handsome, heroic man-about-town with the tragic past and
the eyepatch? Or perhaps the brainy scientist who only appears on-camera
in a white lab coat with stylish glasses and disheveled hair? Or maybe
the scion of the Mandeville fortune with the graying temples, tweed
shooting jacket and the Rolex he keeps nervously looking at.

I got it. You're the doctor with the radical diet plan that says to only
eat yellow and blue food so that it turns green while you chew. And
it'll cure everything and make everything else better. Stethoscope
d****d casually around your neck with a picture of Britney Spears on the
bell that you press against people's chests. Hospital ID tag clipped to
your collar. Perfect...

Doctor with the wonderful diet? Great...

Pastorio

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

Glad you now agree.

With the weighing held up as the standard.


One of the primary if not only measurement of amount of food.

The food weighing was fundamental. The cited studies used food
weighing as a tool to study their subject. Such use emphasizes how
widely accepted the concept of weighing food is to scientists.

Recall your statement:

"But, not one scientist has endorsed weighing food rather than
****yzing
the contents."

There is not greater endor*****t possible than for a scientist to use
something as a "tool" to study something else.


Check it again. It on the floor in pieces.


This would be a *different* claim. A parameter (independent variable)
does not make an approach (dietary or otherwise).


They do it because it is the most reliable way of measuring the quantity of food.

Weighing food yields data. Again, it is the most reliable way of
measuring the quantity of food. If you dispute this, go right ahead
and describe a more reliable way.

As for causing and sustaining weight loss, I would assert that the
most effective methodology would be expected to use the most reliable
way of measuring the quantity of food because all the scientific
evidence point to the reduction of food quantity (or portions) as
necessary for achieving weight loss.

As far as I know, only the two pound diet methodology utilizes this
most reliable method of quantifying food.

Which is very appropriate to this discussion. The weighing of food
was the standard for assessing the accuracy of the visual estimate.

But does have a lot to do with how visual estimates can be way off.
Such visual estimates are the basis for quantifying food intake in traditional ineffective dieting.

Only if it were a memory quiz... which it wasn't. Sorry, it still
stands to refute your statement:

"But, not one scientist has endorsed weighing food rather than
****yzing the contents."


Was not the purpose of the study.


Quantifying the food intake by weighing food provide data that was key
to the study. Nothing mere about it.


Sorry, it still stands to refute your statement:

"But, not one scientist has endorsed weighing food rather than
****yzing the contents."

Sorry, it still stands to refute your statement:

"But, not one scientist has endorsed weighing food rather than
****yzing the contents."

It is for folks that claim that trends for increasing obesity are
arising largely from increased carb intake.

Because the determination of trends for increasing portions depended
on data from weighing foods, the reliable way of verifying that
portions are indeed smaller is to weigh them.


Sorry, it still stands to refute your statement:

"But, not one scientist has endorsed weighing food rather than
****yzing the contents."


For that, you will have to go here: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

It is a fundamental concept that is evident everywhere.

Reducing portions is pretty concrete and simple.


Yes. And if they visit http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp, they'll also learn how.

A smaller physical volume of something will have less energy content.

Conversely...

Less energy content means a smaller physical volume.

Fewer ounces = fewer grams = fewer calories.


There is a direct connection by a constant.

Food weight * caloric density = calories

More mass is more energy.


They continue to stand to refute your statement:

"But, not one scientist has endorsed weighing food rather than
****yzing
the contents."

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