Re: Chung has died and returned with proof WAS:Re: The Bull*** Parade
From: Steve Marcus (smarcus_spamout__at_cox.net)
Date: 08/14/04
- Next message: Steve Marcus: "Re: Here, Steve... WAS:Re: Chung has died and returned with proof WAS:Re: The Bull*** Parade"
- Previous message: seuss: "Calorie restriction vs muscularity for general health ?"
- In reply to: Tiger Lily: "Re: Chung has died and returned with proof WAS:Re: The Bull*** Parade"
- Next in thread: Tiger Lily: "Re: Chung has died and returned with proof WAS:Re: The Bull*** Parade"
- Reply: Tiger Lily: "Re: Chung has died and returned with proof WAS:Re: The Bull*** Parade"
- Reply: MU: "Re: Chung has died and returned with proof WAS:Re: The Bull*** Parade"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 14:36:43 -0400
"Tiger Lily" <me@privacy.com> wrote in message
news:2o6mjeF784icU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Steve Marcus" <smarcus> wrote in message ...
> > I do not think that you are accurate. At best, Dr. Chung may have
written
> > that it is better for a morbidly obsese person to eat 2 lbs of chocolate
a
> > day than 3 lbs of chocolate a day. Only an idiot would believe that a
> > doctor would recommend that anyone eat 2 lbs of chocolate a day (and
> nothing
> > more) as a matter of dieting.
> >
> > I followed much of the discussion in real time. So I know that you and
> Bob
> > (the other one; why doesn'ot simply use his last name and be a man about
> > things? Come tho think of it, "Tiger Lily" ...) are just distorting the
> > situation. As to a google search, you are the one who made a claim
above
> re
> > 2 lbs of chocolate, so it would seem that it's incumbent upon you to do
> the
> > googling and to provide support for your claim.
> >
> > Steve
>
>
http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=chocolate+group:sci.med.cardiology+author:Chung&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=781c797fe005f549a1026428aca6d87c%40news.teranews.com&rnum=1
This URL shows that you can't really read for comprehension. What did Dr.
Chung post? He wrote this, in response to some nonsensical
"cross-examination" by the poster to whom Dr. Chung was replying:
"Go from 4 lbs of chocolate to 2 lbs of chocolate and you *will* lose
weight."
Do you doubt that if a person has been eating 4 lbs of chocolate daily, that
they will lose weight by consuming 1/2 of that amount?
The earlier part of Dr. Chung's post pointed out what he has been saying:
it's tougher to count calories than to measure the amount of food one
consumes. Assuming that a typical person wishes to lose weight, and has the
brains to choose to eat healthier foods rather than ice cream and chocolate
while attempting to lose weight, then confining one's daily intake to 2 lbs
or less will enable that person to lose weight and will be easier for that
person to stick to than it would be for that person to count calories.
This URL confirms what I have written elsewhere in this thread. Dr. Chung
isn't equating eating 2 lbs of jello with eating 2 lbs of chocolate. He
refers to eating 2 lbs of chocolate instead of 6 to 8 lbs of food. Dr.
Chung wrote:
"If you really want to lose weight, you won't work so hard to thwart the
effectiveness of the two pound diet. Certainly, if you *choose* to exchange
eating two pounds of chocolate instead of eating your current 6 to 8 pounds
of a more reasonably balanced diet, you can maintain your obesity but I
would be willing to bet you could not keep this up forever." and then wrote:
"If you are currently eating about 6 to 8 pounds of food per day and cut
down to 2 pounds of similar foodstuffs, I would be relatively certain that
you *will* lose weight."
This is totally sound logically, and undoubtedly medically as well. That
you, or anyone else, would interpret this as showing that there is some
problem with Dr. Chung as a doctor, or with his 2 lb approach, shows that
the problem is with you, and with them.
>
http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=chocolate+group:sci.med.cardiology+author:Chung&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=chungfaq-8E35A7.05173026012004%40library.airnews.net&rnum=11
>
> this one is 4/5ths of the way down where Chung explains WHAT the 2lb diet
> can consist of.... lettuce, chocolate, you name it
This post isn't even Dr. Chung's post. It proves nothing. What it claims
Dr. Chung "says" about the 2 lb diet is totally at odds with what the
previous URL demonstrates Dr. Chung in fact said. See the quotes above from
the second URL.
>
>
>
> those are just three...... there are 4 pages of google hits on Chung and
> chocolate
>
If those are the best that you can offer, then it would seem that you've
made my case for me. Dr. Chung's critics are just picking a fight, and
misinterpreting what he's written re the 2 lb diet. The pity is that it
takes an extreme lack of intelligence to misinterpret what Dr. Chung wrote,
so one would suspect that the critics are intentionally misinterpreting
things.
>
Steve
-- The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
- Next message: Steve Marcus: "Re: Here, Steve... WAS:Re: Chung has died and returned with proof WAS:Re: The Bull*** Parade"
- Previous message: seuss: "Calorie restriction vs muscularity for general health ?"
- In reply to: Tiger Lily: "Re: Chung has died and returned with proof WAS:Re: The Bull*** Parade"
- Next in thread: Tiger Lily: "Re: Chung has died and returned with proof WAS:Re: The Bull*** Parade"
- Reply: Tiger Lily: "Re: Chung has died and returned with proof WAS:Re: The Bull*** Parade"
- Reply: MU: "Re: Chung has died and returned with proof WAS:Re: The Bull*** Parade"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]