1 kg-omer (yes, it's Andrew's 2PD-omer)

blackrotspon wrote: Name some other M.D.s or Ph.D.s who have their patients follow this approach. Hopefully they won't be modest and allow you to post their full names.

It would be my choice to refrain from betraying their trust.

May GOD continue to heal your heart, dear neighbor Lisa.

Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,

Andrew -- Andrew B. Chung Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA HeartMDPhD/HolySpirit

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

It would be my choice to refrain from betraying their trust.

I knew you would say that. Too bad they are embarrassed to have their names associated with it (if there are any, indeed).

How about some of the 600,000+ patients you say it has helped. I would think they would be so happy to share their stories here.

To start an omer was a measure of volume, most often grain, not weight and a measure of same exceeded 2 pounds or 1 kg greatly. Evoking God is irrelevant except as for an agenda also irrelevant to the science involved, now onto the real point.

"Beef stew with potatoes and vegetables (including carrots, broccoli, and/or dark-green leafy), tomato-based sauce Serving: cup Grams: 252.00 Calories (kcal): 175.85"

1kg of the average mixed meal without overloading on single nutrients is around 1000 calories.

Untrue.

Would suggest you simply look up how much calories are in 1 kg of reconstituted baby formula which is mostly liquid. Alternatively, you may look up how many calories are in 1 kg of liquid food given to people through PEGs."

Using the typical mixed meal above as a reference, I was overly generous in the estimated average calories which is about 600 for a kg. But the example above had only 3 g of fat as I recall which is low and more fat could be easily used in such a meal which would put the calorie count igher. In any case it makes my point all the more strongly.

Of course the 2 pound/1 kg diet is meaningless without considering actual content and the height and activity level and nutritional needs of the person. In any case it is a calorie restricted diet using a gimmick to do the restricting that could just as easily be another common sense approach using volume, some fraction of an omer, or time of intake to impose the calorie limitation.

blackrotspon wrote: Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote: outsorcitynet.net wrote: 1kg of the average mixed meal without overloading on single nutrients is around 1000 calories.

Untrue.

Would suggest you simply look up how much calories are in 1 kg of reconstituted baby formula which is mostly liquid. Alternatively, you may look up how many calories are in 1 kg of liquid food given to people through PEGs.

I highly doubt that many of us here are eating baby food or have PEGs.

These examples serve to provide a lower limit that is higher than the 1000 kcal estimate even for things that are mostly water.

Indeed, the caloric density of "normal diets" will be around 2 kcal/gram so that 2 pounds of food will be around 1800 kcals.

May GOD continue to heal your heart, dear neighbor Lisa.

Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,

Andrew -- Andrew B. Chung Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA HeartMDPhD/HolySpirit

blackrotspon wrote: Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

It would be my choice to refrain from betraying their trust.

I knew you would say that.

Then your asking does not bode well for your intelligence.

Too bad they are embarrassed to have their names associated with it (if there are any, indeed).

No. They simply do not wish to be hassled (with death threats) by detractors as they know I have been:

HeartMDPhD/stalking.asp

How about some of the 600,000+ patients you say it has helped. I would think they would be so happy to share their stories here.

Some have done so anonymously but most also wish not to be hassled by detractors as I have been.

Hint: When you see "portion control" here on usenet, it likely means they are using the 2PD-OMER Approach :-)

May GOD continue to heal your heart, dear neighbor Lisa.

Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,

Andrew -- Andrew B. Chung Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA HeartMDPhD/HolySpirit

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam2heartmdphd> wrote in message news:1155609621.721362.216190h48g2000cwc.googlegroups... blackrotspon wrote: Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

It would be my choice to refrain from betraying their trust.

I knew you would say that.

Then your asking does not bode well for your intelligence.

Too bad they are embarrassed to have their names associated with it (if there are any, indeed).

No. They simply do not wish to be hassled (with death threats) by detractors as they know I have been:

HeartMDPhD/stalking.asp

I wonder what the FBI said when he notified them of the threats. Must have sent out a couple of SWAT teams to the supposed offends as well as provided twenty-four protection for Chung.

Funny, how Chung abouts stalking, when he adds groups that other posters frequent, like when he added misc.kids to a thread I was in. WWJD?

How about some of the 600,000+ patients you say it has helped. I would think they would be so happy to share their stories here.

Some have done so anonymously but most also wish not to be hassled by detractors as I have been.

I guess most are not interested in the huge number of patients who would be knocking at their doors with open wallets and checkbooks. That's got to be what, an average of 1000 patients per physician. ;-)

Jeff

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

blackrotspon wrote: Name some other M.D.s or Ph.D.s who have their patients follow this approach. Hopefully they won't be modest and allow you to post their full names.

It would be my choice to refrain from betraying their trust.

Good doctors want to be known, bad doctors don't.

--

Pramesh Rutajit - p2976221tonguenewsguy - remove tongue to reply.

Pramesh Rutajit wrote: Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

blackrotspon wrote: Name some other M.D.s or Ph.D.s who have their patients follow this approach. Hopefully they won't be modest and allow you to post their full names.

It would be my choice to refrain from betraying their trust.

Good doctors want to be known, bad doctors don't.

By word of mouth and not by hit list.

May GOD continue to heal your heart, dear neighbor Pramesh.

Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,

Andrew -- Andrew B. Chung Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA HeartMDPhD/HolySpirit

Jeff wrote: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam2heartmdphd> wrote in message news:1155609621.721362.216190h48g2000cwc.googlegroups... blackrotspon wrote: Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

It would be my choice to refrain from betraying their trust.

I knew you would say that.

Then your asking does not bode well for your intelligence.

Too bad they are embarrassed to have their names associated with it (if there are any, indeed).

No. They simply do not wish to be hassled (with death threats) by detractors as they know I have been:

HeartMDPhD/stalking.asp

I wonder what the FBI said when he notified them of the threats. Must have sent out a couple of SWAT teams to the supposed offends as well as provided twenty-four protection for Chung.

The authorities said they would take care of it and apparently they have.

Only one sniper got by them but GOD's armor thankfully took care of it.

Laus Deo !

Funny, how Chung abouts stalking, when he adds groups that other posters frequent, like when he added misc.kids to a thread I was in.

No, cross-posting is not stalking.

WWJD?

The will of GOD the Father.

How about some of the 600,000+ patients you say it has helped. I would think they would be so happy to share their stories here.

Some have done so anonymously but most also wish not to be hassled by detractors as I have been.

I guess most are not interested in the huge number of patients who would be knocking at their doors with open wallets and checkbooks. That's got to be what, an average of 1000 patients per physician. ;-)

Most of the 600,000+ patients are not doctors.

Moreover, doctors publicizing their own personal success with the 2PD-OMER Approach know they are unlikely to draw away folks from their current primary physicians. Indeed, we have not seen people having to change doctors because there have been no doctors either unwilling or unable to supervise their using the 2PD-OMER Approach. Such is the powerful advantage of the simplicity of the Approach breaking down all the usual barriers that prevent widespread acceptance and use of something that clearly benefits patients from all socioeconomic strata:

groups.google/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/565dcf43b835714d?

May GOD continue to heal your heart, dear neighbor Jeff.

Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,

Andrew -- Andrew B. Chung Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA HeartMDPhD/HolySpirit

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam2heartmdphd> wrote in message news:1155609617.650339.297520i42g2000cwa.googlegroups... Indeed, the caloric density of "normal diets" will be around 2 kcal/gram so that 2 pounds of food will be around 1800 kcals.

But what's the difference between your diet and the other low calorie diets out there? I see no difference when I checked your website. In those diets people count calories and in your diet they weigh the food. Why not just push the usual low-calorie diets?

LW Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs Today - 158 lbs Goal - 130 lbs Height: 5'6" Age: 61 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In alt.support.diabetes L?~k?~ W?n? <noneno-one.net> wrote:

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam2heartmdphd> wrote in message news:1155609617.650339.297520i42g2000cwa.googlegroups...

Indeed, the caloric density of "normal diets" will be around 2 kcal/gram so that 2 pounds of food will be around 1800 kcals.

But what's the difference between your diet and the other low calorie diets out there? I see no difference when I checked your website. In those diets people count calories and in your diet they weigh the food. Why not just push the usual low-calorie diets?

Because dietary compliance is a problem, and anything which makes it easier to follow helps. I've tried calculating the calories in a day's eating, and I required the assistance of a computer connected to food databases and at least half an hour's work. Whereas just weighing the plate before you start and after you finish and subtracting is quick and easy. I'd need strong motivation to bother with all the tedious work of calorie counting, whereas weighing what I eat is easy enough that I've done it a for a week just out of curiosty.

I'm not a follower of the 2lb diet, and never have been, but I observed that when I eat 2.1 lbs of food a day, I slowly gain weight, and when I eat 1.9lbs of food a day, I slowly lose weight. Obviously how much food I need to maintain my body weight will be a function of my weight (below average for age and sex) and activity levels (above average for age and sex), but that suggests that the 2lbs idea is not in general too far off as a starting average.

IMHO many people who want to lose weight are prepared to go to considerable trouble and expense, but really do draw the line at going to the very serious extreme of actually eating less food. Hence the great popularity of all those diets which depend on a magic ingredient or pill which makes you lose weight, or a magic combination of different kinds of food so you can eat the same amount and lose weight.

My uncle was a doctor with a rather savage sense of humour. When he got fed up with someone who claimed to have followed all his advice, and was now eating hardly anything at all, racked with hunger pangs, yet still putting on weight, he used to plonk in front of them a photograph of skeletal Belsen inmates staring with their huge eyes through the wire netting of the camp. "This is a dietary experiment carried out by the Germans in the last war," he would day, "and it proved conclusively that eating less makes EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION lose weight!"

Of course eating less is particularly difficult if you happen to eat the kind of food which makes you hungry, but that's another story :-)

IMHO the invisible elephant at the dinner table is the idea that in order to get thinner you have to eat less food. I think Chung's 2lb "diet" (which isn't a diet in the sense of telling you *what* to eat, which confuses a lot of people) is a sensible approach to making that elephant visible.

-- Chris Malcolm caminfirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm wrote: In alt.support.diabetes L?~k?~ W?n? <noneno-one.net> wrote: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam2heartmdphd> wrote in message news:1155609617.650339.297520i42g2000cwa.googlegroups...

Indeed, the caloric density of "normal diets" will be around 2 kcal/gram so that 2 pounds of food will be around 1800 kcals.

But what's the difference between your diet and the other low calorie diets out there? I see no difference when I checked your website. In those diets people count calories and in your diet they weigh the food. Why not just push the usual low-calorie diets?

Because dietary compliance is a problem, and anything which makes it easier to follow helps. I've tried calculating the calories in a day's eating, and I required the assistance of a computer connected to food databases and at least half an hour's work. Whereas just weighing the plate before you start and after you finish and subtracting is quick and easy. I'd need strong motivation to bother with all the tedious work of calorie counting, whereas weighing what I eat is easy enough that I've done it a for a week just out of curiosty.

I'm not a follower of the 2lb diet, and never have been, but I observed that when I eat 2.1 lbs of food a day, I slowly gain weight, and when I eat 1.9lbs of food a day, I slowly lose weight. Obviously how much food I need to maintain my body weight will be a function of my weight (below average for age and sex) and activity levels (above average for age and sex), but that suggests that the 2lbs idea is not in general too far off as a starting average.

IMHO many people who want to lose weight are prepared to go to considerable trouble and expense, but really do draw the line at going to the very serious extreme of actually eating less food. Hence the great popularity of all those diets which depend on a magic ingredient or pill which makes you lose weight, or a magic combination of different kinds of food so you can eat the same amount and lose weight.

My uncle was a doctor with a rather savage sense of humour. When he got fed up with someone who claimed to have followed all his advice, and was now eating hardly anything at all, racked with hunger pangs, yet still putting on weight, he used to plonk in front of them a photograph of skeletal Belsen inmates staring with their huge eyes through the wire netting of the camp. "This is a dietary experiment carried out by the Germans in the last war," he would say, "and it proved conclusively that eating less makes EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION lose weight!"

Of course eating less is particularly difficult if you happen to eat the kind of food which makes you hungry, but that's another story :-)

IMHO the invisible elephant at the dinner table is the idea that in order to get thinner you have to eat less food. I think Chung's 2lb "diet" (which isn't a diet in the sense of telling you *what* to eat, which confuses a lot of people) is a sensible approach to making that elephant visible.

-- Chris Malcolm caminfirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Yes.

May GOD's peace be with you, dear friend Chris.

Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,

Andrew -- Andrew B. Chung Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA HeartMDPhD/HolySpirit

Chris Malcolm wrote:

:: IMHO the invisible elephant at the dinner table is the idea that in :: order to get thinner you have to eat less food. I think Chung's 2lb :: "diet" (which isn't a diet in the sense of telling you *what* to eat, :: which confuses a lot of people) is a sensible approach to making that :: elephant visible.

Wow.

Andrew Bee Chung DID refer to it as a "diet" when he first came up with this idea and didn't mention GOD. He had quite the wicked tongue back then and admitted that he enjoyed psychology and enjoyed the "bantering" as it made him "sharper." This was back when he was at Emory. Don't know why he left there.