| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" |
| Date: |
13 Apr 2007 03:41:50 PM |
| Object: |
Proof of LORD Almighty GOD: The 2PD-OMER Approach. |
satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:
brother "Mu" wrote:
neighbor Cubit wrote:
Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does not
factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
not **how much** to eat.
The truth is that you or anyone else can cut their consumption gradually
to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.
Wouldn't a 1PD diet or a 1.5PD diet work better than the 2PD diet? Just
wondering...
The 2 pounds (16 oz + 16 oz as described by Exodus 16:16) is by GOD's
design to be the optimal amount. Any amount more or less would not be
optimal and we would be less hungry.
"HE humbled you making you hungry... to teach you that man does not
live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the
LORD." -- Moses (Deuteronomy 8:3)
"Blessed are you who hunger now for you will be satisfied." -- LORD
Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21)
Amen.
Marana tha
Prayerfully in Jesus' ever-lasting love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://EmoryCardiology.com
May HIS immortal brethren pray for our dying mortal friends and
neighbors:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
In memory of our dearly departed Bob(this one) Pastorio:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Bob
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love
The Official SMC FAQ List:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/TheTruth/FAQ
.
|
|
| User: "Epinephrine" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
13 Apr 2007 04:19:57 PM |
|
|
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love1@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:1176496910.503834.98170@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:
brother "Mu" wrote:
neighbor Cubit wrote:
Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does
not
factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
not **how much** to eat.
Appropriate calorific restriction with cardiovascular exercise would be a
more meaningful approach. More importantly there a lot of evidence to also
suggest that calorific restriction is the way to live longer. Perhaps
tailoring your approach further could add to its credibility.
The truth is that you or anyone else can cut their consumption
gradually
to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.
Wouldn't a 1PD diet or a 1.5PD diet work better than the 2PD diet? Just
wondering...
The 2 pounds (16 oz + 16 oz as described by Exodus 16:16) is by GOD's
design to be the optimal amount.
Any amount more or less would not be
optimal and we would be less hungry.
"Less hungry" is very subjective. Perhaps this amount (2PD) is optimal for
*you* and keeps you less hungry? There is no evidence to suggest that this
amount is optimal for an athelete, a bedridden patient, or an infant.
Your assumption that 2PD is optimal for everyone is therefore flawed as it
does not take into account an individual's specific metabolism and
requirements. It appears to be construed to only serve religious agenda.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
13 Apr 2007 05:58:08 PM |
|
|
"Epinephrine" <me@x-privut.org> writes:
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love1@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:1176496910.503834.98170@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:
brother "Mu" wrote:
neighbor Cubit wrote:
Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does
not
factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
not **how much** to eat.
Appropriate calorific restriction with cardiovascular exercise would be a
more meaningful approach. More importantly there a lot of evidence to also
suggest that calorific restriction is the way to live longer. Perhaps
tailoring your approach further could add to its credibility.
The truth is that you or anyone else can cut their consumption
gradually
to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.
Wouldn't a 1PD diet or a 1.5PD diet work better than the 2PD diet? Just
wondering...
The 2 pounds (16 oz + 16 oz as described by Exodus 16:16) is by GOD's
design to be the optimal amount.
Any amount more or less would not be
optimal and we would be less hungry.
"Less hungry" is very subjective. Perhaps this amount (2PD) is optimal for
*you* and keeps you less hungry? There is no evidence to suggest that this
amount is optimal for an athelete, a bedridden patient, or an infant.
Your assumption that 2PD is optimal for everyone is therefore flawed as it
does not take into account an individual's specific metabolism and
requirements. It appears to be construed to only serve religious agenda.
Ah, but you see, Dr. Chung has informed us that:
The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. It has been
studied in more than 625,550 people worldwide
-- car
.
|
|
|
| User: "Epinephrine" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
13 Apr 2007 07:13:41 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:evp1u0$40k$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Epinephrine" <me@x-privut.org> writes:
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love1@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:1176496910.503834.98170@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The 2 pounds (16 oz + 16 oz as described by Exodus 16:16) is by GOD's
design to be the optimal amount.
Any amount more or less would not be
optimal and we would be less hungry.
"Less hungry" is very subjective. Perhaps this amount (2PD) is optimal
for
*you* and keeps you less hungry? There is no evidence to suggest that
this
amount is optimal for an athelete, a bedridden patient, or an infant.
Your assumption that 2PD is optimal for everyone is therefore flawed as
it
does not take into account an individual's specific metabolism and
requirements. It appears to be construed to only serve religious agenda.
Ah, but you see, Dr. Chung has informed us that:
The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. It has been
studied in more than 625,550 people worldwide
Surely if such a significant number of people participated, it would be
worth reporting in any medical journal or christian magazine, but it is my
understanding that Chung has not done so. Why, I wonder!
As this approach clearly does not have any scientific basis whatsoever,
would it be taken seriously by the scientific world? Surely anectdotal
evidence alone wouldn't count - perhaps he would care to share the results
and methods used in this extensive intercontinental study?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
13 Apr 2007 07:47:12 PM |
|
|
"Epinephrine" <me@x-privut.org> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:evp1u0$40k$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Epinephrine" <me@x-privut.org> writes:
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love1@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:1176496910.503834.98170@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The 2 pounds (16 oz + 16 oz as described by Exodus 16:16) is by GOD's
design to be the optimal amount.
Any amount more or less would not be
optimal and we would be less hungry.
"Less hungry" is very subjective. Perhaps this amount (2PD) is optimal
for
*you* and keeps you less hungry? There is no evidence to suggest that
this
amount is optimal for an athelete, a bedridden patient, or an infant.
Your assumption that 2PD is optimal for everyone is therefore flawed as
it
does not take into account an individual's specific metabolism and
requirements. It appears to be construed to only serve religious agenda.
Ah, but you see, Dr. Chung has informed us that:
The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. It has been
studied in more than 625,550 people worldwide
Surely if such a significant number of people participated, it would be
worth reporting in any medical journal or christian magazine, but it is my
understanding that Chung has not done so. Why, I wonder!
As this approach clearly does not have any scientific basis whatsoever,
would it be taken seriously by the scientific world? Surely anectdotal
evidence alone wouldn't count - perhaps he would care to share the results
and methods used in this extensive intercontinental study?
Oh, let's just say that it has been suggested that nearly all of the
"participants" in Dr. Chung's study were the children of Israel,
wandering hither and yon (generally more yonly than hitherly)
all those years.
If so, one can only wonder where Dr. Chung obtained all the
requisite information on the state of their health. All of their
healths.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Epinephrine" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
13 Apr 2007 08:15:21 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:evp8ag$554$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Epinephrine" <me@x-privut.org> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:evp1u0$40k$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
"Epinephrine" <me@x-privut.org> writes:
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love1@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:1176496910.503834.98170@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
The 2 pounds (16 oz + 16 oz as described by Exodus 16:16) is by
GOD's
design to be the optimal amount.
Any amount more or less would not be
optimal and we would be less hungry.
"Less hungry" is very subjective. Perhaps this amount (2PD) is
optimal
for
*you* and keeps you less hungry? There is no evidence to suggest that
this
amount is optimal for an athelete, a bedridden patient, or an infant.
Your assumption that 2PD is optimal for everyone is therefore flawed
as
it
does not take into account an individual's specific metabolism and
requirements. It appears to be construed to only serve religious
agenda.
Ah, but you see, Dr. Chung has informed us that:
The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. It has been
studied in more than 625,550 people worldwide
Surely if such a significant number of people participated, it would be
worth reporting in any medical journal or christian magazine, but it is
my
understanding that Chung has not done so. Why, I wonder!
As this approach clearly does not have any scientific basis whatsoever,
would it be taken seriously by the scientific world? Surely anectdotal
evidence alone wouldn't count - perhaps he would care to share the
results
and methods used in this extensive intercontinental study?
Oh, let's just say that it has been suggested that nearly all of the
"participants" in Dr. Chung's study were the children of Israel,
wandering hither and yon (generally more yonly than hitherly)
all those years.
Quite unlikely as I doubt the participants had any scales at the time.
If so, one can only wonder where Dr. Chung obtained all the
requisite information on the state of their health. All of their
healths.
I don't think health status of an individual matters when it comes to the 2
pound approach.
It is my understanding that as long as a supervising doctor has prescribed a
certain food, the magic dose of "2 pounds" would do the miracle.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mu" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
13 Apr 2007 11:46:51 PM |
|
|
If so, one can only wonder where Dr. Chung obtained all the
requisite information on the state of their health. All of their
healths.
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:15:21 +0100, Epinephrine wrote:
I don't think health status of an individual matters when it comes to the 2
pound approach.
It is my understanding that as long as a supervising doctor has prescribed a
certain food, the magic dose of "2 pounds" would do the miracle.
I began the 2PD in spring/summer 2004 (??), there was no direction from
Chung to specific foods. Maybe that has changed.
This idea of "magic dose" is in your head and you know that, why
belittle yourself by saying so?
Many Muuns ago, I added to the 2PD AOOCS. That stands for "An Ounce Of
Common Sense". Common sense says no one can or ever will eat exactly 2
lbs per day, or that will it always be fatty foods or lettuce either.
Picking at the nonsensical doesn't advance your argument, it degrades it
and you in combo.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
14 Apr 2007 12:18:36 AM |
|
|
On Apr 14, 12:46 am, Mu <nocowinthi...@gmail.com> wrote:
If so, one can only wonder where Dr. Chung obtained all the
requisite information on the state of their health. All of their
healths.
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:15:21 +0100, Epinephrine wrote:
I don't think health status of an individual matters when it comes to the 2
pound approach.
It is my understanding that as long as a supervising doctor has prescribed a
certain food, the magic dose of "2 pounds" would do the miracle.
I began the 2PD in spring/summer 2004 (??), there was no direction from
Chung to specific foods. Maybe that has changed.
This idea of "magic dose" is in your head and you know that, why
belittle yourself by saying so?
Many Muuns ago, I added to the 2PD AOOCS. That stands for "An Ounce Of
Common Sense". Common sense says no one can or ever will eat exactly 2
lbs per day, or that will it always be fatty foods or lettuce either.
Picking at the nonsensical doesn't advance your argument, it degrades it
and you in combo.
You pretty much degrade yourself by paying attention to Chung. Just
review Chung's posting history, and stop drinking the Kool-Aid (does
the 16 oz. include the sugar and the artificial colouring &
flavouring?)
Olrik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mu" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
14 Apr 2007 12:49:03 AM |
|
|
On 13 Apr 2007 22:18:36 -0700, Olrik wrote:
You pretty much degrade yourself by paying attention to Chung.
A lot of kiddies on Usenet tonight, of course, it's Sat. *plonk*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
14 Apr 2007 10:30:05 AM |
|
|
Mu <nocowinthismu@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 Apr 2007 22:18:36 -0700, Olrik wrote:
You pretty much degrade yourself by paying attention to Chung.
A lot of kiddies on Usenet tonight, of course, it's Sat. *plonk*
Coward.
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen
"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
14 Apr 2007 01:45:48 AM |
|
|
On Apr 14, 1:49 am, Mu <nocowinthi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 Apr 2007 22:18:36 -0700,Olrikwrote:
You pretty much degrade yourself by paying attention to Chung.
A lot of kiddies on Usenet tonight, of course, it's Sat. *plonk*
Poor "Mu". Well, I guess, being a shill has its obligations.
Olrik
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mu" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
13 Apr 2007 11:38:47 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:47:12 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
Oh, let's just say that it has been suggested that nearly all of the
"participants" in Dr. Chung's study were the children of Israel,
wandering hither and yon (generally more yonly than hitherly)
all those years.
Suggested or factual?
If so, one can only wonder where Dr. Chung obtained all the
requisite information on the state of their health. All of their
healths.
-- cary
Why don't you ask him?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
16 Apr 2007 12:34:40 PM |
|
|
In article <d2djs6ziv57m.1st2c4zxlibta.dlg@40tude.net> Mu <nocowinthismu@gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:47:12 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
Oh, let's just say that it has been suggested that nearly all of the
"participants" in Dr. Chung's study were the children of Israel,
wandering hither and yon (generally more yonly than hitherly)
all those years.
Suggested or factual?
If so, one can only wonder where Dr. Chung obtained all the
requisite information on the state of their health. All of their
healths.
-- cary
Why don't you ask him?
And of course I have -- curious, as you may imagine, how
one person, apparently working alone, could have carried out
what would easily be the largest single medical study
in history.
He was most unforthcoming.
-- cary
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/14ceac2a49c53201?dmode=source
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mu" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
16 Apr 2007 02:48:24 PM |
|
|
In article <d2djs6ziv57m.1st2c4zxlibta.dlg@40tude.net> Mu <nocowinthismu@gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:47:12 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
Oh, let's just say that it has been suggested that nearly all of the
"participants" in Dr. Chung's study were the children of Israel,
wandering hither and yon (generally more yonly than hitherly)
all those years.
Suggested or factual?
Once more, suggested or factual?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
16 Apr 2007 03:06:09 PM |
|
|
In article <frhyu0aimsxu$.1rxnulylm7zm7$.dlg@40tude.net> writes:
In article <d2djs6ziv57m.1st2c4zxlibta.dlg@40tude.net> Mu < > writes:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:47:12 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
Oh, let's just say that it has been suggested that nearly all of the
"participants" in Dr. Chung's study were the children of Israel,
wandering hither and yon (generally more yonly than hitherly)
all those years.
Suggested or factual?
Once more, suggested or factual?
As I've said once already: Chung won't tell.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mu" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
16 Apr 2007 03:27:26 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:06:09 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
Oh, let's just say that it has been suggested that nearly all of the
"participants" in Dr. Chung's study were the children of Israel,
wandering hither and yon (generally more yonly than hitherly)
all those years.
Suggested or factual?
Once more, suggested or factual?
As I've said once already: Chung won't tell.
-- cary
I'm asking you when Chung, as you claim, "suggested" that <see above>, I
was seeing if you were true to your wording. Suggesting is highly
subjective on part of the one who is listening, factual representation
cannot be missed, it is clear, straightforward.
This leaves me to believe that you maybe incorrect in your listening,
subjectively misguided. This allows you to dance around however if Chung
said it was fact, then we have a discussion. Now, we don't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
16 Apr 2007 04:29:37 PM |
|
|
In article <1u2f3oemanjn5.1acnrb91gmdn6.dlg@40tude.net> writes:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:06:09 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
Oh, let's just say that it has been suggested that nearly all of the
"participants" in Dr. Chung's study were the children of Israel,
wandering hither and yon (generally more yonly than hitherly)
all those years.
Suggested or factual?
Once more, suggested or factual?
As I've said once already: Chung won't tell.
-- cary
I'm asking you when Chung, as you claim, "suggested" that <see above>,
I claim that Andrew suggested this where, exactly?
In fact, I neither meant nor said that Andy was the one who
suggested this to me, and indeed it was not (that would have
been surprisingly forthcoming on his part, actually)
I was seeing if you were true to your wording. Suggesting is highly
subjective on part of the one who is listening, factual representation
cannot be missed, it is clear, straightforward.
This leaves me to believe that you maybe incorrect in your listening,
subjectively misguided.
And this leaves me to believe that "you maybe incorrect in your
listening".
This allows you to dance around however if Chung
said it was fact, then we have a discussion. Now, we don't.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mu" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
17 Apr 2007 03:13:33 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:29:37 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1u2f3oemanjn5.1acnrb91gmdn6.dlg@40tude.net> writes:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:06:09 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
Oh, let's just say that it has been suggested that nearly all of the
"participants" in Dr. Chung's study were the children of Israel,
wandering hither and yon (generally more yonly than hitherly)
all those years.
Suggested or factual?
Once more, suggested or factual?
As I've said once already: Chung won't tell.
-- cary
I'm asking you when Chung, as you claim, "suggested" that <see above>,
Above.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
17 Apr 2007 11:12:06 AM |
|
|
In article <1trt2bos61ysl.1skrznhcwaskb$.dlg@40tude.net> writes:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:29:37 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1u2f3oemanjn5.1acnrb91gmdn6.dlg@40tude.net> writes:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:06:09 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
Oh, let's just say that it has been suggested that nearly all of the
"participants" in Dr. Chung's study were the children of Israel,
wandering hither and yon (generally more yonly than hitherly)
all those years.
Suggested or factual?
Once more, suggested or factual?
As I've said once already: Chung won't tell.
-- cary
I'm asking you when Chung, as you claim, "suggested" that <see above>,
Above.
Well, having given you the truth on that one, I now find that
it's not what you wanted to hear.
So: what exactly would you like me to make up for you? Some degree
of detail would be useful.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mu" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
18 Apr 2007 03:40:11 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:12:06 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1trt2bos61ysl.1skrznhcwaskb$.dlg@40tude.net> writes:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:29:37 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1u2f3oemanjn5.1acnrb91gmdn6.dlg@40tude.net> writes:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:06:09 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
Oh, let's just say that it has been suggested that nearly all of the
"participants" in Dr. Chung's study were the children of Israel,
wandering hither and yon (generally more yonly than hitherly)
all those years.
Suggested or factual?
Once more, suggested or factual?
As I've said once already: Chung won't tell.
-- cary
I'm asking you when Chung, as you claim, "suggested" that <see above>,
Above.
Well, having given you the truth on that one, I now find that
it's not what you wanted to hear.
So: what exactly would you like me to make up for you? Some degree
of detail would be useful.
-- cary
Cary, you refuse to address several requests from Mu regarding relevant
things like your credentials, your potential for being overzealous in
your capabilities to report opinions (on things you seem to have no
expertise)and the like. I'm not interested in playing Usenet "chase my
meaning" with you so find another PlayBoy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
18 Apr 2007 11:11:18 AM |
|
|
In article <96escrclp0mb$.6cqf0pgzdm18.dlg@40tude.net> writes:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:12:06 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1trt2bos61ysl.1skrznhcwaskb$.dlg@40tude.net> writes:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:29:37 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1u2f3oemanjn5.1acnrb91gmdn6.dlg@40tude.net> writes:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:06:09 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
Oh, let's just say that it has been suggested that nearly all of the
"participants" in Dr. Chung's study were the children of Israel,
wandering hither and yon (generally more yonly than hitherly)
all those years.
Suggested or factual?
Once more, suggested or factual?
As I've said once already: Chung won't tell.
-- cary
I'm asking you when Chung, as you claim, "suggested" that <see above>,
Above.
Well, having given you the truth on that one, I now find that
it's not what you wanted to hear.
So: what exactly would you like me to make up for you? Some degree
of detail would be useful.
-- cary
Cary, you refuse to address several requests from Mu regarding relevant
things like your credentials, your potential for being overzealous in
your capabilities to report opinions (on things you seem to have no
expertise)and the like. I'm not interested in playing Usenet "chase my
meaning" with you so find another PlayBoy.
Above.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mu" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
16 Apr 2007 02:48:51 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:34:40 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
If so, one can only wonder where Dr. Chung obtained all the
requisite information on the state of their health. All of their
healths.
-- cary
Why don't you ask him?
And of course I have -- curious, as you may imagine, how
one person, apparently working alone, could have carried out
what would easily be the largest single medical study
in history.
He was most unforthcoming.
-- cary
he said nothing, nothing at all?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
16 Apr 2007 03:06:31 PM |
|
|
In article <gbcqf79yq7p9.1vt9pf5miai2l$.dlg@40tude.net> writes:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:34:40 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
If so, one can only wonder where Dr. Chung obtained all the
requisite information on the state of their health. All of their
healths.
-- cary
Why don't you ask him?
And of course I have -- curious, as you may imagine, how
one person, apparently working alone, could have carried out
what would easily be the largest single medical study
in history.
He was most unforthcoming.
-- cary
he said nothing, nothing at all?
I provided a link for you. Go see for yourself.
--- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mu" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
16 Apr 2007 04:09:22 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:06:31 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <gbcqf79yq7p9.1vt9pf5miai2l$.dlg@40tude.net> writes:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:34:40 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
If so, one can only wonder where Dr. Chung obtained all the
requisite information on the state of their health. All of their
healths.
-- cary
Why don't you ask him?
And of course I have -- curious, as you may imagine, how
one person, apparently working alone, could have carried out
what would easily be the largest single medical study
in history.
He was most unforthcoming.
-- cary
he said nothing, nothing at all?
I provided a link for you. Go see for yourself.
--- cary
The link, one of many that you could have found, says little, others say
quite a bit more. The only question that you should have is how Chung
reasoned his model building and theoretical questions. Then you might
have a case for argument however, since you haven't been inclined to
answer as to your scientific or philosophical credentials, you may not
have a lucid argument to proffer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
16 Apr 2007 04:30:57 PM |
|
|
In article <ug69v1vm82d3$.1w9sb4rz7zg6y$.dlg@40tude.net> writes:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:06:31 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <gbcqf79yq7p9.1vt9pf5miai2l$.dlg@40tude.net> writes:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:34:40 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
If so, one can only wonder where Dr. Chung obtained all the
requisite information on the state of their health. All of their
healths.
-- cary
Why don't you ask him?
And of course I have -- curious, as you may imagine, how
one person, apparently working alone, could have carried out
what would easily be the largest single medical study
in history.
He was most unforthcoming.
-- cary
he said nothing, nothing at all?
I provided a link for you. Go see for yourself.
--- cary
The link, one of many that you could have found, says little,
It says that I in fact did ask him.
Which was your question.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
14 Apr 2007 10:28:57 AM |
|
|
Mu <nocowinthismu@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:47:12 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
Oh, let's just say that it has been suggested that nearly all of the
"participants" in Dr. Chung's study were the children of Israel,
wandering hither and yon (generally more yonly than hitherly)
all those years.
Suggested or factual?
If so, one can only wonder where Dr. Chung obtained all the
requisite information on the state of their health. All of their
healths.
-- cary
Why don't you ask him?
Because, much like yourself, he's a coward who doesn't answer direct
questions.
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen
"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mu" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
13 Apr 2007 11:37:38 PM |
|
|
Ah, but you see, Dr. Chung has informed us that:
The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. It has been
studied in more than 625,550 people worldwide
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 01:13:41 +0100, Epinephrine wrote:
Surely if such a significant number of people participated, it would be
worth reporting in any medical journal or christian magazine, but it is my
understanding that Chung has not done so. Why, I wonder!
I haven't looked at Chung's claim of participants but I can say that
participation is not necessarily by choice or by taking a particular
direction.
As this approach clearly does not have any scientific basis whatsoever,
would it be taken seriously by the scientific world?
For scientists who observe truth without need for research, absolutely.
For those that require clinical review, no.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Epinephrine" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
14 Apr 2007 08:12:20 AM |
|
|
"Mu" <nocowinthismu@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:v3b65fehfawp$.7a19j5nzh4ml.dlg@40tude.net...
As this approach clearly does not have any scientific basis whatsoever,
would it be taken seriously by the scientific world?
For scientists who observe truth without need for research, absolutely.
For those that require clinical review, no.
Rubbish.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Rev Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN." |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
14 Apr 2007 09:34:47 AM |
|
|
On Apr 14, 5:37 am, Mu <nocowinthi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ah, but you see, Dr. Chung has informed us that:
The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. It has been
studied in more than 625,550 people worldwide
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 01:13:41 +0100, Epinephrine wrote:
Surely if such a significant number of people participated, it would be
worth reporting in any medical journal or christian magazine, but it is my
understanding that Chung has not done so. Why, I wonder!
I haven't looked at Chung's claim of participants but I can say that
participation is not necessarily by choice or by taking a particular
direction.
As this approach clearly does not have any scientific basis whatsoever,
would it be taken seriously by the scientific world?
no.
Thank you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mu" |
|
| Title: Re: WoW |
14 Apr 2007 11:38:30 AM |
|
|
On 14 Apr 2007 07:34:47 -0700, The Rev Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN. wrote:
On Apr 14, 5:37 am, Mu <nocowinthi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ah, but you see, Dr. Chung has informed us that:
The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. It has been
studied in more than 625,550 people worldwide
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 01:13:41 +0100, Epinephrine wrote:
Surely if such a significant number of people participated, it would be
worth reporting in any medical journal or christian magazine, but it is my
understanding that Chung has not done so. Why, I wonder!
I haven't looked at Chung's claim of participants but I can say that
participation is not necessarily by choice or by taking a particular
direction.
As this approach clearly does not have any scientific basis whatsoever,
would it be taken seriously by the scientific world?
no.
Thank you.
Welcome.
???????
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Epinephrine" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of LORD Almighty GOD: The 2PD-OMER Approach. |
13 Apr 2007 04:08:24 PM |
|
|
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love1@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:1176496910.503834.98170@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
satan via a sockpuppet (demon) wrote:
brother "Mu" wrote:
neighbor Cubit wrote:
Your 2 pounds of Almonds is not very inspiring.
Cubit, Usenet history is chock full of people who have tried to disown
the Two Pound Diet (2PD) saying "Well I can eat two pounds of <insert
chocolate, cement, fat, frogs, etc> and never gain weight? Hogwash!"
Well that is because the diet says "2PD". This rather vague diet does
not
factor in the caloric content of foods, hence such questions.
The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Instead, the Approach can be
used with any diet, which are instructions about **what** to eat and
not **how much** to eat.
Appropriate calorific restriction with cardiovascular exercise would be a
more meaningful approach. More importantly there a lot of evidence to also
suggest that calorific restriction is the way to live longer. Perhaps
tailoring your approach further could add to its credibility.
The truth is that you or anyone else can cut their consumption
gradually
to 2PD and the weight will come off and stay off.
Wouldn't a 1PD diet or a 1.5PD diet work better than the 2PD diet? Just
wondering...
The 2 pounds (16 oz + 16 oz as described by Exodus 16:16) is by GOD's
design to be the optimal amount.
Any amount more or less would not be
optimal and we would be less hungry.
"Less hungry" is very subjective. Perhaps this amount (2PD) is optimal for
*you* and keeps you less hungry? There is no evidence to suggest that this
amount is optimal for an athelete, a bedridden patient, or an infant.
Your assumption that 2PD is optimal for everyone is therefore flawed as it
does not take into account an individual's specific metabolism and
requirements. It appears to be construed to only serve religious agenda.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Proof by LORD Almighty GOD: repeatedly rebuked by Jesus' brethren...satan unwittingly endorses the 2PD-OMER Approach ! ! !
Proof of GOD: Million Dollar guarantee from GOD for the 2PD-OMER Approach.
Re: 2PD-OMER Approach
Re: How the 2PD-OMER Approach works.
Amazing Proofs by LORD Almighty GOD: The miracle of crossing the Red Sea, the miracle of the USS Texas, the miracle of the 2PD-OMER Approach curing type-2 diabetes, Patsy's miracle, RFC's Pastorio dying on April Fool's day, and the futility of satan'
Proofs of LORD Almighty GOD: The miracle of the parting of the Red Sea, the miracle of the USS Texas, the miracle of the 2PD-OMER Approach curing type-2 diabetes, and Pastorio dying on April Fool's day.
Re: The 2PD-OMER Approach
OT: Endorsed version of 2PD diet by Dr Andrew B Chung
| Proof by LORD Almighty GOD: satan unable to stomach the 2PD-OMERApproach.
Proof by LORD Almighty GOD: An omer of food-ready-to-eat (i.e. manna)weighs 2 pounds...
Proof by LORD Almighty GOD: by HIS design there is the omer, which is the one optimal daily amount of food for all.
Proofs of LORD Almighty GOD: Pastorio died on April Fool's day, an omer of bread/food (not grain) is still a weight measure, and convicted diabetic neighbor Vicky keeps getting angrier.
Re: Results of one year on the OMER approach
Proof of LORD Almighty GOD: Still no witnesses for atheism.
Proof of LORD Almighty GOD: Paranoia in demons.
|
|
|
