Re: Effective diet to reduce cardiovascular disease

From: GaryG (sorrynoemail_at_NOSPAMX.com)
Date: 12/21/04 

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:05:03 -0800

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
news:1103555448.6287ecbb74872161f8737e7cfea3cbae@teranews...
> GaryG wrote:
> >
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> > news:1103549118.87a199f86c9b2b7c3cdc48b6cb38e107@teranews...
> > > GaryG wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com> wrote in
message
> > > > news:1103503685.d6727046c262ce0431f6fe984b914a39@teranews...
> > > > > wondering@worldnet.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "No, but you remain amusing."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Glad I can provide emotional nourishment for you. The task
before
> > us
> > > > will
> > > > > > not be easy and half measures even in the area of humor will
help no
> > > > one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Getting back to revising the 2 lb diet, let's review. 1. it has
> > flaws.
> > > > 2.
> > > > > > it doesn't fit calories a person needs to lose and keep a
certain
> > weight
> > > > > > by just throwing everyone into the same pot and provides no good
way
> > to
> > > > > > know what food to choose to make this happen. 3. it ignores
health
> > > > goals
> > > > > > which are important when thinking about which foods to include
4. it
> > > > > > ignores nutrition goals which are also important for choosing
foods
> > for
> > > > > > the diet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think someone could go to a fast food place and eat 2 lbs only
and
> > > > flunk
> > > > > > in all of the flaw areas but still seem to be doing ok because
it is
> > > > only
> > > > > > 2 lbs. You have suggested some changes in the health area to
fix it
> > > > > > because you know something about that kind of thing. The other
> > areas
> > > > are
> > > > > > not your strong areas because your training in human energetics
and
> > > > > > nutrition are only given very short mention in medical training.
> > That's
> > > > > > where we are asking for the input of other people to help revise
the
> > 2
> > > > lb
> > > > > > diet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your logic continues to remind me of the following driver who has
been
> > > > > caught overspeeding on the highway:
> > > > >
> > > > > Officer: You were going over 55 mph
> > > > >
> > > > > Speeder: I have a lot of problems with going just 55 mph. What if
I
> > > > > were pregnant and about to have a baby? Or what if someone had a
gun
> > > > > pointed at my head and were threatening to shoot me if I drove
only 55
> > > > > mph. Or what if I were Keanu Reeves in that movie Speed where if
I
> > > > > slowed down to 55 mph, the bus would explode?
> > > > >
> > > > > Officer: Are you sure you want me to imagine that you are Keanu
> > Reeves?
> > > > >
> > > > > Speeder: Yes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Officer: Ok. Here's your ticket Mr. Reeves.
> > > > >
> > > > > Speeder: $2000.00 !!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Officer: Yes, you should be able to afford that Mr. Reeves ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope the above analogy continues to enlighten you and others.
> > > > >
> > > > > Such is the work being done here for Christ's glory
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
> > > > >
> > > > > Andrew
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> > > > > Board-Certified Cardiologist
> > > >
> > >> Hey, Doc...that's an incredibly lame analogy. Can't you do any
better?
> > >>
> > >> I discern that you are unable to answer the questions being raised
and
> > have
> > >> resorted to repeating this silly analogy because you can't come up
with
> > >> anything more cogent. I also notice that in your frustration, you
are
> > >> adding more and more newsgroups to your (cross-)posts. That's very
> > >> passive/agressive behavior, but you've probably heard that before,
eh?
> > >>
> > >> GG
> > >
> > > Sorry the analogy bothers you (shrug).
> >
> > Sorry, but your analogy (shrug) doesn't bother me (shrug). I was merely
> > critiquing it's content.
>
> With the word "lame."

Yes...that's a valid word to use when critiquing the content of a post. Are
you unfamiliar with the word? Here's the definition:

"Weak and ineffectual; unsatisfactory: a lame attempt to apologize; lame
excuses for not arriving on time."

>
> > >
> > > Hope my response enlightens you.
> >
> > Yes, it does...the way you snip content, avoid the issues raised, and
> > cross-post when you find yourself frustrated is very enlightening as to
your
> > character.
>
> Sorry my choice to not comment on much of what you or others write
> offends you (shrug).

Offended? No. Enlightened as to your character? Yes.

>
>
> Hope my written response enlightens you.
>
> Such is the work being done here for Christ's glory
> ( http://makeashorterlink.com/?C11D1211A).
>
>
> Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Board-Certified Cardiologist
>
> **
> Who is the humblest person in the universe?
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?E13D2411A
>
> What is all this about?
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?E13D2411A
>
> Is this spam?
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?E13D2411A

Relevant Pages