Re: Invitation to discuss low-calorie approaches to weight-loss on alt.support.diet.low-calorie

convicted neighbor GaryG wrote:
> friend Mu wrote:
> > neighbor Caleb wrote:
> >
> > >>>>If anyone else wants to share their successes or questions about
> > >>>>losing weight through low-calorie methods, I'd be delighted to see
> > >>>>them there!
> > >>
> > >>>>Yours,
> > >>
> > >>>>Caleb
> > >>
> > >>> Why don't you tell us how much you lost on the last 100 day diet, and
> > >>> how much you regained from day 101 onwards?
> > >>
> > >>> janice
> > >>
> > >> So it is him!
> > >
> > > Yup! It sure is me. I'll be posting on alt.support.diet.low-calorie my
> > > progress.
> > >
> > > I guess one of my points is that it simply is not that difficult or
> > > complicated to take the weight off. There is no need for people suffer
> > > emotional turmoil, self-doubt, etc. If they follow a sensible dietary
> > > approach over time, they WILL lose weight. Nothing rocket science
> > > about it. However, following a sensible approach over time is not
> > > easy.
> > >
> > > I've done it before (quite simply) and I'll do it again this time --
> > > hope it's the last time -- but regardless, it's just not that tough to
> > > do. I sure am a hell of a lot healthier than when I first started this
> > > approach in '99. I am alive, am far more physically fit, etc., etc.
> > >
> > > Couple of points for people to remember:
> > >
> > > There's a lot of bad advice out there competing for their attention.
> > >
> > > It all does break down to calories in versus calories used up.
> > >
> > > Weighing regularly is probably essential for most people. (I have a
> > > simple balance beam system that I have found very helpful since '99
> > > that you can read about if you search "indicator" "caleb" "balance
> > > beam" on Google.)
> > >
> > > Recording calories -- or at least insuring that what you eat adheres
> > > to your dietary goals -- is important.
> > >
> > > Regular exercise is important, although the recent research from
> > > Pennington (Ravussin et al) shows that exercise is not a panacea and
> > > that some of the vaunted effects of exercise (e.g., muscle speeding up
> > > metabolism) are not supported by current data.
> > >
> > > Most important is just to keep at it -- put your nose down and just
> > > keep plugging along. For every one who unreasonably assails you, you
> > > might imagine their face at a trough, wonder exactly what their weight
> > > loss history is (is there a weight-loss wing of the Mayo Clinic in
> > > their name?), etc. As Rosie used to say, "Your mileage may vary!" And
> > > certainly it is true that there are different strokes for different
> > > folks.
> > >
> > > To repeat, weight-loss is not rocket science but it still is not easy.
> > > Too bad we can't be like a horse in blinders that continually plows a
> > > road in a field, undistracted by harmful or inconsequential things.
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > >
> > > Caleb
> >
> > Caleb, Mu here.
> >
> > Counting calories is such an inexact computation as to be practically
> > worthless. Would you care for Mu to explain?
> >
> > Cals in, cals out, thermodynamics OK, real usefulness = ZERO.
> >
> > Reg exercise is of no real ongoing value for overconsumption control, so
> > few can or elect to do so. Scratch that.
>
> Rubbish...plenty of successful weight loss has been achieved with the
> assistance of exercise.
>
> The National Weight Control Registry has been studying the common
> characteristcs and strategies employed by folks who've lost significant
> amounts of weight (avg. 30 kg) and kept it off for five years or longer.
> According to their research, their subjects "also appear to be highly
> active: they reported expending approximately 11830 kJ/wk (2825 kcal/wk)
> through physical activity". That's an average of 400 calories per day in
> physical activity...or, about an hour of fairly vigorous effort.
>
> The act of commiting oneself to an exercise program can also help with the
> "overconsumption control" you mention. When one is committed to getting
> fit, it naturally follows that one will pay more attention to what one
> ingests (at least, it does for many of us)..

Those who choose to unwisely engage in strenuous exercise while obese
typically end up being worse off when they sustain injury which often
is attributed to osteoarthritis rather than to the exercise. What is
clinically observed is that once people are lean and trim from eating
less, they find themselves more capable of exercising strenuously more
comfortably and with less injury. Indeed, that has been my own
personal experience now physically able to run ultramarathons not
because of training but because of losing all my visceral adipose
tissue (VAT), which can not be completely lost by exercise but only by
eating less down to the optimal amount which does result in becoming
hungrier that one has ever been in one's life.

> And, of course, there are many, many other benefits to being physically
> active besides just the calories burned - increased cardiovascular fitness
> (strangely, whacko Chung never mentions this...perhaps he's too tired to
> exercise due to his eating disorder), increased mental function, decreased
> depression, etc., etc.

Actually, my discussions with Don Kirkman about personally being
physically active remain in the Google archives to prove that you
remain untruthful.

If your intent has been to deceive, you have now provided evidence for
you to be judged a liar.

Clearly you remain convicted by the Holy Spirit:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts

May you wisely choose to surrender to HIM by publicly confessing with
your mouth that "Jesus is LORD:"

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/TheWay

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://EmoryCardiology.com

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love10@thetruth.com> wrote in message
news:1170676834.165964.3250@v45g2000cwv.googlegrou ps.com...
> convicted neighbor GaryG wrote:
> > friend Mu wrote:
> > > neighbor Caleb wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>>If anyone else wants to share their successes or questions about
> > > >>>>losing weight through low-calorie methods, I'd be delighted to see
> > > >>>>them there!
> > > >>
> > > >>>>Yours,
> > > >>
> > > >>>>Caleb
> > > >>
> > > >>> Why don't you tell us how much you lost on the last 100 day diet,
and
> > > >>> how much you regained from day 101 onwards?
> > > >>
> > > >>> janice
> > > >>
> > > >> So it is him!
> > > >
> > > > Yup! It sure is me. I'll be posting on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
my
> > > > progress.
> > > >
> > > > I guess one of my points is that it simply is not that difficult or
> > > > complicated to take the weight off. There is no need for people
suffer
> > > > emotional turmoil, self-doubt, etc. If they follow a sensible
dietary
> > > > approach over time, they WILL lose weight. Nothing rocket science
> > > > about it. However, following a sensible approach over time is not
> > > > easy.
> > > >
> > > > I've done it before (quite simply) and I'll do it again this time --
> > > > hope it's the last time -- but regardless, it's just not that tough
to
> > > > do. I sure am a hell of a lot healthier than when I first started
this
> > > > approach in '99. I am alive, am far more physically fit, etc., etc.
> > > >
> > > > Couple of points for people to remember:
> > > >
> > > > There's a lot of bad advice out there competing for their attention.
> > > >
> > > > It all does break down to calories in versus calories used up.
> > > >
> > > > Weighing regularly is probably essential for most people. (I have a
> > > > simple balance beam system that I have found very helpful since '99
> > > > that you can read about if you search "indicator" "caleb" "balance
> > > > beam" on Google.)
> > > >
> > > > Recording calories -- or at least insuring that what you eat adheres
> > > > to your dietary goals -- is important.
> > > >
> > > > Regular exercise is important, although the recent research from
> > > > Pennington (Ravussin et al) shows that exercise is not a panacea and
> > > > that some of the vaunted effects of exercise (e.g., muscle speeding
up
> > > > metabolism) are not supported by current data.
> > > >
> > > > Most important is just to keep at it -- put your nose down and just
> > > > keep plugging along. For every one who unreasonably assails you, you
> > > > might imagine their face at a trough, wonder exactly what their
weight
> > > > loss history is (is there a weight-loss wing of the Mayo Clinic in
> > > > their name?), etc. As Rosie used to say, "Your mileage may vary!"
And
> > > > certainly it is true that there are different strokes for different
> > > > folks.
> > > >
> > > > To repeat, weight-loss is not rocket science but it still is not
easy.
> > > > Too bad we can't be like a horse in blinders that continually plows
a
> > > > road in a field, undistracted by harmful or inconsequential things.
> > > >
> > > > Yours,
> > > >
> > > > Caleb
> > >
> > > Caleb, Mu here.
> > >
> > > Counting calories is such an inexact computation as to be practically
> > > worthless. Would you care for Mu to explain?
> > >
> > > Cals in, cals out, thermodynamics OK, real usefulness = ZERO.
> > >
> > > Reg exercise is of no real ongoing value for overconsumption control,
so
> > > few can or elect to do so. Scratch that.
> >
> > Rubbish...plenty of successful weight loss has been achieved with the
> > assistance of exercise.
> >
> > The National Weight Control Registry has been studying the common
> > characteristcs and strategies employed by folks who've lost significant
> > amounts of weight (avg. 30 kg) and kept it off for five years or longer.
> > According to their research, their subjects "also appear to be highly
> > active: they reported expending approximately 11830 kJ/wk (2825 kcal/wk)
> > through physical activity". That's an average of 400 calories per day
in
> > physical activity...or, about an hour of fairly vigorous effort.
> >
> > The act of commiting oneself to an exercise program can also help with
the
> > "overconsumption control" you mention. When one is committed to getting
> > fit, it naturally follows that one will pay more attention to what one
> > ingests (at least, it does for many of us)..
>
> Those who choose to unwisely engage in strenuous exercise while obese
> typically end up being worse off when they sustain injury which often
> is attributed to osteoarthritis rather than to the exercise. What is
> clinically observed is that once people are lean and trim from eating
> less, they find themselves more capable of exercising strenuously more
> comfortably and with less injury.

> Indeed, that has been my own
> personal experience now physically able to run ultramarathons not
> because of training but because of losing all my visceral adipose
> tissue (VAT),

Hey, that's pretty cool...I'm sure many athletes would be interested in that
"training strategy". So, you're saying that you're capable of running an
ultramarathon, due only to your lowered body fat levels? Have you ever
actually completed an ultramarathon to confirm your assertion? If so,
please provide us with a link to the results web page <g>.

> which can not be completely lost by exercise but only by
> eating less down to the optimal amount which does result in becoming
> hungrier that one has ever been in one's life.

Again, this obsession with hunger...the more you speak of your experience
with the 2 Pound Diet (2PD), the more it sounds like an eating disorder.

>
> > And, of course, there are many, many other benefits to being physically
> > active besides just the calories burned - increased cardiovascular
fitness
> > (strangely, whacko Chung never mentions this...perhaps he's too tired to
> > exercise due to his eating disorder), increased mental function,
decreased
> > depression, etc., etc.
>
> Actually, my discussions with Don Kirkman about personally being
> physically active remain in the Google archives to prove that you
> remain untruthful.

You may have made some silly and unproven claims as to your physical
prowess, but the vast majority of your advice to others is to lose weight
only by focusing on becoming hungry...you never mention the health and/or
weight loss benefits of physical activity.

> If your intent has been to deceive, you have now provided evidence for
> you to be judged a liar.

If your intent has been to insult me, you have failed yet again.

> Clearly you remain convicted by the Holy Spirit:
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convects
>
> May you wisely choose to surrender to HIM by publicly confessing with
> your mouth that "Jesus is LORD:"
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirot/TheWay
>
> Andrew <><
> --
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> http://EmoryCardialogy.com
>

On Feb 5, 2:41 pm, "GaryG" <sorrynoem...@NOSPAMX.com> wrote:
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com> wrote in messagenews:1170676834.165964.3250@v45g2000cwv.goo glegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > convicted neighbor GaryG wrote:
> > > friend Mu wrote:
> > > > neighbor Caleb wrote:
>
> > > > >>>>If anyone else wants to share their successes or questions about
> > > > >>>>losing weight through low-calorie methods, I'd be delighted to see
> > > > >>>>them there!
>
> > > > >>>>Yours,
>
> > > > >>>>Caleb
>
> > > > >>> Why don't you tell us how much you lost on the last 100 day diet,
> and
> > > > >>> how much you regained from day 101 onwards?
>
> > > > >>> janice
>
> > > > >> So it is him!
>
> > > > > Yup! It sure is me. I'll be posting on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
> my
> > > > > progress.
>
> > > > > I guess one of my points is that it simply is not that difficult or
> > > > > complicated to take the weight off. There is no need for people
> suffer
> > > > > emotional turmoil, self-doubt, etc. If they follow a sensible
> dietary
> > > > > approach over time, they WILL lose weight. Nothing rocket science
> > > > > about it. However, following a sensible approach over time is not
> > > > > easy.
>
> > > > > I've done it before (quite simply) and I'll do it again this time --
> > > > > hope it's the last time -- but regardless, it's just not that tough
> to
> > > > > do. I sure am a hell of a lot healthier than when I first started
> this
> > > > > approach in '99. I am alive, am far more physically fit, etc., etc.
>
> > > > > Couple of points for people to remember:
>
> > > > > There's a lot of bad advice out there competing for their attention.
>
> > > > > It all does break down to calories in versus calories used up.
>
> > > > > Weighing regularly is probably essential for most people. (I have a
> > > > > simple balance beam system that I have found very helpful since '99
> > > > > that you can read about if you search "indicator" "caleb" "balance
> > > > > beam" on Google.)
>
> > > > > Recording calories -- or at least insuring that what you eat adheres
> > > > > to your dietary goals -- is important.
>
> > > > > Regular exercise is important, although the recent research from
> > > > > Pennington (Ravussin et al) shows that exercise is not a panacea and
> > > > > that some of the vaunted effects of exercise (e.g., muscle speeding
> up
> > > > > metabolism) are not supported by current data.
>
> > > > > Most important is just to keep at it -- put your nose down and just
> > > > > keep plugging along. For every one who unreasonably assails you, you
> > > > > might imagine their face at a trough, wonder exactly what their
> weight
> > > > > loss history is (is there a weight-loss wing of the Mayo Clinic in
> > > > > their name?), etc. As Rosie used to say, "Your mileage may vary!"
> And
> > > > > certainly it is true that there are different strokes for different
> > > > > folks.
>
> > > > > To repeat, weight-loss is not rocket science but it still is not
> easy.
> > > > > Too bad we can't be like a horse in blinders that continually plows
> a
> > > > > road in a field, undistracted by harmful or inconsequential things.
>
> > > > > Yours,
>
> > > > > Caleb
>
> > > > Caleb, Mu here.
>
> > > > Counting calories is such an inexact computation as to be practically
> > > > worthless. Would you care for Mu to explain?
>
> > > > Cals in, cals out, thermodynamics OK, real usefulness = ZERO.
>
> > > > Reg exercise is of no real ongoing value for overconsumption control,
> so
> > > > few can or elect to do so. Scratch that.
>
> > > Rubbish...plenty of successful weight loss has been achieved with the
> > > assistance of exercise.
>
> > > The National Weight Control Registry has been studying the common
> > > characteristcs and strategies employed by folks who've lost significant
> > > amounts of weight (avg. 30 kg) and kept it off for five years or longer.
> > > According to their research, their subjects "also appear to be highly
> > > active: they reported expending approximately 11830 kJ/wk (2825 kcal/wk)
> > > through physical activity". That's an average of 400 calories per day
> in
> > > physical activity...or, about an hour of fairly vigorous effort.
>
> > > The act of commiting oneself to an exercise program can also help with
> the
> > > "overconsumption control" you mention. When one is committed to getting
> > > fit, it naturally follows that one will pay more attention to what one
> > > ingests (at least, it does for many of us)..
>
> > Those who choose to unwisely engage in strenuous exercise while obese
> > typically end up being worse off when they sustain injury which often
> > is attributed to osteoarthritis rather than to the exercise. What is
> > clinically observed is that once people are lean and trim from eating
> > less, they find themselves more capable of exercising strenuously more
> > comfortably and with less injury.
> > Indeed, that has been my own
> > personal experience now physically able to run ultramarathons not
> > because of training but because of losing all my visceral adipose
> > tissue (VAT),
>
> Hey, that's pretty cool...I'm sure many athletes would be interested in that
> "training strategy". So, you're saying that you're capable of running an
> ultramarathon, due only to your lowered body fat levels? Have you ever
> actually completed an ultramarathon to confirm your assertion? If so,
> please provide us with a link to the results web page <g>.
>
> > which can not be completely lost by exercise but only by
> > eating less down to the optimal amount which does result in becoming
> > hungrier that one has ever been in one's life.
>
> Again, this obsession with hunger...the more you speak of your experience
> with the 2 Pound Diet (2PD), the more it sounds like an eating disorder.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > And, of course, there are many, many other benefits to being physically
> > > active besides just the calories burned - increased cardiovascular
> fitness
> > > (strangely, whacko Chung never mentions this...perhaps he's too tired to
> > > exercise due to his eating disorder), increased mental function,
> decreased
> > > depression, etc., etc.
>
> > Actually, my discussions with Don Kirkman about personally being
> > physically active remain in the Google archives to prove that you
> > remain untruthful.
>
> You may have made some silly and unproven claims as to your physical
> prowess, but the vast majority of your advice to others is to lose weight
> only by focusing on becoming hungry...you never mention the health and/or
> weight loss benefits of physical activity.
>
> > If your intent has been to deceive, you have now provided evidence for
> > you to be judged a liar.
>
> If your intent has been to insult me, you have failed yet again.
>

Earthquack's intended insults are compliments. The ultimate accolade
is "Demon"

"The Rev Dr Hugh Jarse NLAHN" <hugh.jarse@heathens.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1170687433.643468.87090@a34g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> On Feb 5, 2:41 pm, "GaryG" <sorrynoem...@NOSPAMX.com> wrote:
> > "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com> wrote in
messagenews:1170676834.165964.3250@v45g2000cwv.goo glegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > convicted neighbor GaryG wrote:
> > > > friend Mu wrote:
> > > > > neighbor Caleb wrote:
> >
> > > > > >>>>If anyone else wants to share their successes or questions
about
> > > > > >>>>losing weight through low-calorie methods, I'd be delighted to
see
> > > > > >>>>them there!
> >
> > > > > >>>>Yours,
> >
> > > > > >>>>Caleb
> >
> > > > > >>> Why don't you tell us how much you lost on the last 100 day
diet,
> > and
> > > > > >>> how much you regained from day 101 onwards?
> >
> > > > > >>> janice
> >
> > > > > >> So it is him!
> >
> > > > > > Yup! It sure is me. I'll be posting on
alt.support.diet.low-calorie
> > my
> > > > > > progress.
> >
> > > > > > I guess one of my points is that it simply is not that difficult
or
> > > > > > complicated to take the weight off. There is no need for people
> > suffer
> > > > > > emotional turmoil, self-doubt, etc. If they follow a sensible
> > dietary
> > > > > > approach over time, they WILL lose weight. Nothing rocket
science
> > > > > > about it. However, following a sensible approach over time is
not
> > > > > > easy.
> >
> > > > > > I've done it before (quite simply) and I'll do it again this
time --
> > > > > > hope it's the last time -- but regardless, it's just not that
tough
> > to
> > > > > > do. I sure am a hell of a lot healthier than when I first
started
> > this
> > > > > > approach in '99. I am alive, am far more physically fit, etc.,
etc.
> >
> > > > > > Couple of points for people to remember:
> >
> > > > > > There's a lot of bad advice out there competing for their
attention.
> >
> > > > > > It all does break down to calories in versus calories used up.
> >
> > > > > > Weighing regularly is probably essential for most people. (I
have a
> > > > > > simple balance beam system that I have found very helpful since
'99
> > > > > > that you can read about if you search "indicator" "caleb"
"balance
> > > > > > beam" on Google.)
> >
> > > > > > Recording calories -- or at least insuring that what you eat
adheres
> > > > > > to your dietary goals -- is important.
> >
> > > > > > Regular exercise is important, although the recent research from
> > > > > > Pennington (Ravussin et al) shows that exercise is not a panacea
and
> > > > > > that some of the vaunted effects of exercise (e.g., muscle
speeding
> > up
> > > > > > metabolism) are not supported by current data.
> >
> > > > > > Most important is just to keep at it -- put your nose down and
just
> > > > > > keep plugging along. For every one who unreasonably assails you,
you
> > > > > > might imagine their face at a trough, wonder exactly what their
> > weight
> > > > > > loss history is (is there a weight-loss wing of the Mayo Clinic
in
> > > > > > their name?), etc. As Rosie used to say, "Your mileage may
vary!"
> > And
> > > > > > certainly it is true that there are different strokes for
different
> > > > > > folks.
> >
> > > > > > To repeat, weight-loss is not rocket science but it still is not
> > easy.
> > > > > > Too bad we can't be like a horse in blinders that continually
plows
> > a
> > > > > > road in a field, undistracted by harmful or inconsequential
things.
> >
> > > > > > Yours,
> >
> > > > > > Caleb
> >
> > > > > Caleb, Mu here.
> >
> > > > > Counting calories is such an inexact computation as to be
practically
> > > > > worthless. Would you care for Mu to explain?
> >
> > > > > Cals in, cals out, thermodynamics OK, real usefulness = ZERO.
> >
> > > > > Reg exercise is of no real ongoing value for overconsumption
control,
> > so
> > > > > few can or elect to do so. Scratch that.
> >
> > > > Rubbish...plenty of successful weight loss has been achieved with
the
> > > > assistance of exercise.
> >
> > > > The National Weight Control Registry has been studying the common
> > > > characteristcs and strategies employed by folks who've lost
significant
> > > > amounts of weight (avg. 30 kg) and kept it off for five years or
longer.
> > > > According to their research, their subjects "also appear to be
highly
> > > > active: they reported expending approximately 11830 kJ/wk (2825
kcal/wk)
> > > > through physical activity". That's an average of 400 calories per
day
> > in
> > > > physical activity...or, about an hour of fairly vigorous effort.
> >
> > > > The act of commiting oneself to an exercise program can also help
with
> > the
> > > > "overconsumption control" you mention. When one is committed to
getting
> > > > fit, it naturally follows that one will pay more attention to what
one
> > > > ingests (at least, it does for many of us)..
> >
> > > Those who choose to unwisely engage in strenuous exercise while obese
> > > typically end up being worse off when they sustain injury which often
> > > is attributed to osteoarthritis rather than to the exercise. What is
> > > clinically observed is that once people are lean and trim from eating
> > > less, they find themselves more capable of exercising strenuously more
> > > comfortably and with less injury.
> > > Indeed, that has been my own
> > > personal experience now physically able to run ultramarathons not
> > > because of training but because of losing all my visceral adipose
> > > tissue (VAT),
> >
> > Hey, that's pretty cool...I'm sure many athletes would be interested in
that
> > "training strategy". So, you're saying that you're capable of running
an
> > ultramarathon, due only to your lowered body fat levels? Have you ever
> > actually completed an ultramarathon to confirm your assertion? If so,
> > please provide us with a link to the results web page <g>.
> >
> > > which can not be completely lost by exercise but only by
> > > eating less down to the optimal amount which does result in becoming
> > > hungrier that one has ever been in one's life.
> >
> > Again, this obsession with hunger...the more you speak of your
experience
> > with the 2 Pound Diet (2PD), the more it sounds like an eating disorder.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > And, of course, there are many, many other benefits to being
physically
> > > > active besides just the calories burned - increased cardiovascular
> > fitness
> > > > (strangely, whacko Chung never mentions this...perhaps he's too
tired to
> > > > exercise due to his eating disorder), increased mental function,
> > decreased
> > > > depression, etc., etc.
> >
> > > Actually, my discussions with Don Kirkman about personally being
> > > physically active remain in the Google archives to prove that you
> > > remain untruthful.
> >
> > You may have made some silly and unproven claims as to your physical
> > prowess, but the vast majority of your advice to others is to lose
weight
> > only by focusing on becoming hungry...you never mention the health
and/or
> > weight loss benefits of physical activity.
> >
> > > If your intent has been to deceive, you have now provided evidence for
> > > you to be judged a liar.
> >
> > If your intent has been to insult me, you have failed yet again.
> >
>
> Earthquack's intended insults are compliments. The ultimate accolade
> is "Demon"
>

LOL - I think the order of progression is "Dear Neighbor",
"Liar/Untruthful", "Convicted", "Mark of Satan", and finally "Demon" (though
I may have overlooked some intermediate categories).

GG

convicted neighbor GaryG wrote:
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > convicted neighbor GaryG wrote:
> > > friend Mu wrote:
> > > > neighbor Caleb wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>>>If anyone else wants to share their successes or questions about
> > > > >>>>losing weight through low-calorie methods, I'd be delighted to see
> > > > >>>>them there!
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>Yours,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>Caleb
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Why don't you tell us how much you lost on the last 100 day diet,
> and
> > > > >>> how much you regained from day 101 onwards?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> janice
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So it is him!
> > > > >
> > > > > Yup! It sure is me. I'll be posting on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
> my
> > > > > progress.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess one of my points is that it simply is not that difficult or
> > > > > complicated to take the weight off. There is no need for people
> suffer
> > > > > emotional turmoil, self-doubt, etc. If they follow a sensible
> dietary
> > > > > approach over time, they WILL lose weight. Nothing rocket science
> > > > > about it. However, following a sensible approach over time is not
> > > > > easy.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've done it before (quite simply) and I'll do it again this time --
> > > > > hope it's the last time -- but regardless, it's just not that tough
> to
> > > > > do. I sure am a hell of a lot healthier than when I first started
> this
> > > > > approach in '99. I am alive, am far more physically fit, etc., etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Couple of points for people to remember:
> > > > >
> > > > > There's a lot of bad advice out there competing for their attention.
> > > > >
> > > > > It all does break down to calories in versus calories used up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Weighing regularly is probably essential for most people. (I have a
> > > > > simple balance beam system that I have found very helpful since '99
> > > > > that you can read about if you search "indicator" "caleb" "balance
> > > > > beam" on Google.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Recording calories -- or at least insuring that what you eat adheres
> > > > > to your dietary goals -- is important.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regular exercise is important, although the recent research from
> > > > > Pennington (Ravussin et al) shows that exercise is not a panacea and
> > > > > that some of the vaunted effects of exercise (e.g., muscle speeding
> up
> > > > > metabolism) are not supported by current data.
> > > > >
> > > > > Most important is just to keep at it -- put your nose down and just
> > > > > keep plugging along. For every one who unreasonably assails you, you
> > > > > might imagine their face at a trough, wonder exactly what their
> weight
> > > > > loss history is (is there a weight-loss wing of the Mayo Clinic in
> > > > > their name?), etc. As Rosie used to say, "Your mileage may vary!"
> And
> > > > > certainly it is true that there are different strokes for different
> > > > > folks.
> > > > >
> > > > > To repeat, weight-loss is not rocket science but it still is not
> easy.
> > > > > Too bad we can't be like a horse in blinders that continually plows
> a
> > > > > road in a field, undistracted by harmful or inconsequential things.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yours,
> > > > >
> > > > > Caleb
> > > >
> > > > Caleb, Mu here.
> > > >
> > > > Counting calories is such an inexact computation as to be practically
> > > > worthless. Would you care for Mu to explain?
> > > >
> > > > Cals in, cals out, thermodynamics OK, real usefulness = ZERO.
> > > >
> > > > Reg exercise is of no real ongoing value for overconsumption control,
> so
> > > > few can or elect to do so. Scratch that.
> > >
> > > Rubbish...plenty of successful weight loss has been achieved with the
> > > assistance of exercise.
> > >
> > > The National Weight Control Registry has been studying the common
> > > characteristcs and strategies employed by folks who've lost significant
> > > amounts of weight (avg. 30 kg) and kept it off for five years or longer.
> > > According to their research, their subjects "also appear to be highly
> > > active: they reported expending approximately 11830 kJ/wk (2825 kcal/wk)
> > > through physical activity". That's an average of 400 calories per day
> in
> > > physical activity...or, about an hour of fairly vigorous effort.
> > >
> > > The act of commiting oneself to an exercise program can also help with
> the
> > > "overconsumption control" you mention. When one is committed to getting
> > > fit, it naturally follows that one will pay more attention to what one
> > > ingests (at least, it does for many of us)..
> >
> > Those who choose to unwisely engage in strenuous exercise while obese
> > typically end up being worse off when they sustain injury which often
> > is attributed to osteoarthritis rather than to the exercise. What is
> > clinically observed is that once people are lean and trim from eating
> > less, they find themselves more capable of exercising strenuously more
> > comfortably and with less injury.
>
> > Indeed, that has been my own
> > personal experience now physically able to run ultramarathons not
> > because of training but because of losing all my visceral adipose
> > tissue (VAT),
>
> Hey, that's pretty cool...

The truth is cool.

> I'm sure many athletes would be interested in that
> "training strategy".

The world class athletes already know that the hungrier they are the
more capable they physically become.

When an athlete loses in a competition where s/he was a physical match
with his/her competitior, s/he knows that s/he was not hungry enough.

In countries where the brainwashing that "hunger is bad" does not
occur (ie Kenya), the runners are leaner, trimmer, and much faster
because they know in their hearts that "hunger is good."

Truth is absolute and invincible.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life..." -- LORD Jesus Christ

Amen ! Laus Deo ! ! ! Marana tha ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://EmoryCardiology.com

On Feb 5, 4:12 pm, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<ach...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
> convicted neighbor GaryG wrote:
> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > > convicted neighbor GaryG wrote:
> > > > friend Mu wrote:
> > > > > neighbor Caleb wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>>If anyone else wants to share their successes or questions about
> > > > > >>>>losing weight through low-calorie methods, I'd be delighted to see
> > > > > >>>>them there!
>
> > > > > >>>>Yours,
>
> > > > > >>>>Caleb
>
> > > > > >>> Why don't you tell us how much you lost on the last 100 day diet,
> > and
> > > > > >>> how much you regained from day 101 onwards?
>
> > > > > >>> janice
>
> > > > > >> So it is him!
>
> > > > > > Yup! It sure is me. I'll be posting on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
> > my
> > > > > > progress.
>
> > > > > > I guess one of my points is that it simply is not that difficult or
> > > > > > complicated to take the weight off. There is no need for people
> > suffer
> > > > > > emotional turmoil, self-doubt, etc. If they follow a sensible
> > dietary
> > > > > > approach over time, they WILL lose weight. Nothing rocket science
> > > > > > about it. However, following a sensible approach over time is not
> > > > > > easy.
>
> > > > > > I've done it before (quite simply) and I'll do it again this time --
> > > > > > hope it's the last time -- but regardless, it's just not that tough
> > to
> > > > > > do. I sure am a hell of a lot healthier than when I first started
> > this
> > > > > > approach in '99. I am alive, am far more physically fit, etc., etc.
>
> > > > > > Couple of points for people to remember:
>
> > > > > > There's a lot of bad advice out there competing for their attention.
>
> > > > > > It all does break down to calories in versus calories used up.
>
> > > > > > Weighing regularly is probably essential for most people. (I have a
> > > > > > simple balance beam system that I have found very helpful since '99
> > > > > > that you can read about if you search "indicator" "caleb" "balance
> > > > > > beam" on Google.)
>
> > > > > > Recording calories -- or at least insuring that what you eat adheres
> > > > > > to your dietary goals -- is important.
>
> > > > > > Regular exercise is important, although the recent research from
> > > > > > Pennington (Ravussin et al) shows that exercise is not a panacea and
> > > > > > that some of the vaunted effects of exercise (e.g., muscle speeding
> > up
> > > > > > metabolism) are not supported by current data.
>
> > > > > > Most important is just to keep at it -- put your nose down and just
> > > > > > keep plugging along. For every one who unreasonably assails you, you
> > > > > > might imagine their face at a trough, wonder exactly what their
> > weight
> > > > > > loss history is (is there a weight-loss wing of the Mayo Clinic in
> > > > > > their name?), etc. As Rosie used to say, "Your mileage may vary!"
> > And
> > > > > > certainly it is true that there are different strokes for different
> > > > > > folks.
>
> > > > > > To repeat, weight-loss is not rocket science but it still is not
> > easy.
> > > > > > Too bad we can't be like a horse in blinders that continually plows
> > a
> > > > > > road in a field, undistracted by harmful or inconsequential things.
>
> > > > > > Yours,
>
> > > > > > Caleb
>
> > > > > Caleb, Mu here.
>
> > > > > Counting calories is such an inexact computation as to be practically
> > > > > worthless. Would you care for Mu to explain?
>
> > > > > Cals in, cals out, thermodynamics OK, real usefulness = ZERO.
>
> > > > > Reg exercise is of no real ongoing value for overconsumption control,
> > so
> > > > > few can or elect to do so. Scratch that.
>
> > > > Rubbish...plenty of successful weight loss has been achieved with the
> > > > assistance of exercise.
>
> > > > The National Weight Control Registry has been studying the common
> > > > characteristcs and strategies employed by folks who've lost significant
> > > > amounts of weight (avg. 30 kg) and kept it off for five years or longer.
> > > > According to their research, their subjects "also appear to be highly
> > > > active: they reported expending approximately 11830 kJ/wk (2825 kcal/wk)
> > > > through physical activity". That's an average of 400 calories per day
> > in
> > > > physical activity...or, about an hour of fairly vigorous effort.
>
> > > > The act of commiting oneself to an exercise program can also help with
> > the
> > > > "overconsumption control" you mention. When one is committed to getting
> > > > fit, it naturally follows that one will pay more attention to what one
> > > > ingests (at least, it does for many of us)..
>
> > > Those who choose to unwisely engage in strenuous exercise while obese
> > > typically end up being worse off when they sustain injury which often
> > > is attributed to osteoarthritis rather than to the exercise. What is
> > > clinically observed is that once people are lean and trim from eating
> > > less, they find themselves more capable of exercising strenuously more
> > > comfortably and with less injury.
>
> > > Indeed, that has been my own
> > > personal experience now physically able to run ultramarathons not
> > > because of training but because of losing all my visceral adipose
> > > tissue (VAT),
>
> > Hey, that's pretty cool...
>
> The truth is cool.
>
> > I'm sure many athletes would be interested in that
> > "training strategy".
>
> The world class athletes already know that the hungrier they are the
> more capable they physically become.
>
> When an athlete loses in a competition where s/he was a physical match
> with his/her competitior, s/he knows that s/he was not hungry enough.
>
> In countries where the brainwashing that "hunger is bad" does not
> occur (ie Kenya), the runners are leaner, trimmer, and much faster
> because they know in their hearts that "hunger is good."
>

Remember, back in 1972, when all those Biafran athletes swept the
board. Boy! Were they hungry!

It seems to me I heard somewhere that GaryG wrote in article
<khHxh.1$6b.0@newsfe05.lga>:

>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love10@thetruth.com> wrote in message
>news:1170676834.165964.3250@v45g2000cwv.googlegro ups.com...
>> convicted neighbor GaryG wrote:

>> > The National Weight Control Registry has been studying the common
>> > characteristcs and strategies employed by folks who've lost significant
>> > amounts of weight (avg. 30 kg) and kept it off for five years or longer.
>> > According to their research, their subjects "also appear to be highly
>> > active: they reported expending approximately 11830 kJ/wk (2825 kcal/wk)
>> > through physical activity". That's an average of 400 calories per day
>in
>> > physical activity...or, about an hour of fairly vigorous effort.

>> > The act of commiting oneself to an exercise program can also help with
>the
>> > "overconsumption control" you mention. When one is committed to getting
>> > fit, it naturally follows that one will pay more attention to what one
>> > ingests (at least, it does for many of us)..

>> Those who choose to unwisely engage in strenuous exercise while obese
>> typically end up being worse off when they sustain injury which often
>> is attributed to osteoarthritis rather than to the exercise. What is
>> clinically observed is that once people are lean and trim from eating
>> less, they find themselves more capable of exercising strenuously more
>> comfortably and with less injury.

>> Indeed, that has been my own
>> personal experience now physically able to run ultramarathons not
>> because of training but because of losing all my visceral adipose
>> tissue (VAT),

That's especially good because in 2004, at the age of 39, Dr. Chung ran
a half-marathon (13.1 miles) in 3 hours 27 minutes; he improved to 2:49
in 2005 and I found no record for him in the same race in 2006 (for
comparison, I'm a typical mid-pack runner, but in 1989 at the age of 60
I ran a 1:45 half-marathon and a 1:50 the year before that).
http://www.silvercomet10k.com/

>Hey, that's pretty cool...I'm sure many athletes would be interested in that
>"training strategy". So, you're saying that you're capable of running an
>ultramarathon, due only to your lowered body fat levels? Have you ever
>actually completed an ultramarathon to confirm your assertion? If so,
>please provide us with a link to the results web page <g>.

To have run an ultra (whether 50 miles or 100, typical distances for
ultras), he would have to have been absent from the newsgroups for
twenty-four hours or more. Did that ever happen?

A Google search for Andrew Chung in ultramarathon results came up empty.
Since ultra running is such a small, tight-knit community I think the
sudden appearance of an unknown would have been remarked on by somebody
along the way.

[. . .]

>> Actually, my discussions with Don Kirkman about personally being
>> physically active remain in the Google archives to prove that you
>> remain untruthful.

Actually archiving your opinions adds nothing to their veracity. Garbage
into Google, garbage out. The same goes for your constant
self-referential "proofs" on your Web pages.

>You may have made some silly and unproven claims as to your physical
>prowess, but the vast majority of your advice to others is to lose weight
>only by focusing on becoming hungry...you never mention the health and/or
>weight loss benefits of physical activity.

>> If your intent has been to deceive, you have now provided evidence for
>> you to be judged a liar.

>If your intent has been to insult me, you have failed yet again.

>> Clearly you remain convicted by the Holy Spirit:
>> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convects

Oh, oh, no! the macro's broken (or maybe it's just a climate change)
--
Don Kirkman

GaryG <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com> wrote:

>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love10@thetruth.com> wrote in message
>news:1170676834.165964.3250@v45g2000cwv.googlegro ups.com...
>> convicted neighbor GaryG wrote:
>> > friend Mu wrote:
>> > > neighbor Caleb wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >>>>If anyone else wants to share their successes or questions about
>> > > >>>>losing weight through low-calorie methods, I'd be delighted to see
>> > > >>>>them there!
>> > > >>
>> > > >>>>Yours,
>> > > >>
>> > > >>>>Caleb
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> Why don't you tell us how much you lost on the last 100 day diet,
>and
>> > > >>> how much you regained from day 101 onwards?
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> janice
>> > > >>
>> > > >> So it is him!
>> > > >
>> > > > Yup! It sure is me. I'll be posting on alt.support.diet.low-calorie
>my
>> > > > progress.
>> > > >
>> > > > I guess one of my points is that it simply is not that difficult or
>> > > > complicated to take the weight off. There is no need for people
>suffer
>> > > > emotional turmoil, self-doubt, etc. If they follow a sensible
>dietary
>> > > > approach over time, they WILL lose weight. Nothing rocket science
>> > > > about it. However, following a sensible approach over time is not
>> > > > easy.
>> > > >
>> > > > I've done it before (quite simply) and I'll do it again this time --
>> > > > hope it's the last time -- but regardless, it's just not that tough
>to
>> > > > do. I sure am a hell of a lot healthier than when I first started
>this
>> > > > approach in '99. I am alive, am far more physically fit, etc., etc.
>> > > >
>> > > > Couple of points for people to remember:
>> > > >
>> > > > There's a lot of bad advice out there competing for their attention.
>> > > >
>> > > > It all does break down to calories in versus calories used up.
>> > > >
>> > > > Weighing regularly is probably essential for most people. (I have a
>> > > > simple balance beam system that I have found very helpful since '99
>> > > > that you can read about if you search "indicator" "caleb" "balance
>> > > > beam" on Google.)
>> > > >
>> > > > Recording calories -- or at least insuring that what you eat adheres
>> > > > to your dietary goals -- is important.
>> > > >
>> > > > Regular exercise is important, although the recent research from
>> > > > Pennington (Ravussin et al) shows that exercise is not a panacea and
>> > > > that some of the vaunted effects of exercise (e.g., muscle speeding
>up
>> > > > metabolism) are not supported by current data.
>> > > >
>> > > > Most important is just to keep at it -- put your nose down and just
>> > > > keep plugging along. For every one who unreasonably assails you, you
>> > > > might imagine their face at a trough, wonder exactly what their
>weight
>> > > > loss history is (is there a weight-loss wing of the Mayo Clinic in
>> > > > their name?), etc. As Rosie used to say, "Your mileage may vary!"
>And
>> > > > certainly it is true that there are different strokes for different
>> > > > folks.
>> > > >
>> > > > To repeat, weight-loss is not rocket science but it still is not
>easy.
>> > > > Too bad we can't be like a horse in blinders that continually plows
>a
>> > > > road in a field, undistracted by harmful or inconsequential things.
>> > > >
>> > > > Yours,
>> > > >
>> > > > Caleb
>> > >
>> > > Caleb, Mu here.
>> > >
>> > > Counting calories is such an inexact computation as to be practically
>> > > worthless. Would you care for Mu to explain?
>> > >
>> > > Cals in, cals out, thermodynamics OK, real usefulness = ZERO.
>> > >
>> > > Reg exercise is of no real ongoing value for overconsumption control,
>so
>> > > few can or elect to do so. Scratch that.
>> >
>> > Rubbish...plenty of successful weight loss has been achieved with the
>> > assistance of exercise.
>> >
>> > The National Weight Control Registry has been studying the common
>> > characteristcs and strategies employed by folks who've lost significant
>> > amounts of weight (avg. 30 kg) and kept it off for five years or longer.
>> > According to their research, their subjects "also appear to be highly
>> > active: they reported expending approximately 11830 kJ/wk (2825 kcal/wk)
>> > through physical activity". That's an average of 400 calories per day
>in
>> > physical activity...or, about an hour of fairly vigorous effort.
>> >
>> > The act of commiting oneself to an exercise program can also help with
>the
>> > "overconsumption control" you mention. When one is committed to getting
>> > fit, it naturally follows that one will pay more attention to what one
>> > ingests (at least, it does for many of us)..
>>
>> Those who choose to unwisely engage in strenuous exercise while obese
>> typically end up being worse off when they sustain injury which often
>> is attributed to osteoarthritis rather than to the exercise. What is
>> clinically observed is that once people are lean and trim from eating
>> less, they find themselves more capable of exercising strenuously more
>> comfortably and with less injury.
>
>> Indeed, that has been my own
>> personal experience now physically able to run ultramarathons not
>> because of training but because of losing all my visceral adipose
>> tissue (VAT),
>
>Hey, that's pretty cool...I'm sure many athletes would be interested in that
>"training strategy". So, you're saying that you're capable of running an
>ultramarathon, due only to your lowered body fat levels? Have you ever
>actually completed an ultramarathon to confirm your assertion? If so,
>please provide us with a link to the results web page <g>.
>
>> which can not be completely lost by exercise but only by
>> eating less down to the optimal amount which does result in becoming
>> hungrier that one has ever been in one's life.
>
>Again, this obsession with hunger...the more you speak of your experience
>with the 2 Pound Diet (2PD), the more it sounds like an eating disorder.
>
>>
>> > And, of course, there are many, many other benefits to being physically
>> > active besides just the calories burned - increased cardiovascular
>fitness
>> > (strangely, whacko Chung never mentions this...perhaps he's too tired to
>> > exercise due to his eating disorder), increased mental function,
>decreased
>> > depression, etc., etc.
>>
>> Actually, my discussions with Don Kirkman about personally being
>> physically active remain in the Google archives to prove that you
>> remain untruthful.
>
>You may have made some silly and unproven claims as to your physical
>prowess, but the vast majority of your advice to others is to lose weight
>only by focusing on becoming hungry...you never mention the health and/or
>weight loss benefits of physical activity.
>
>> If your intent has been to deceive, you have now provided evidence for
>> you to be judged a liar.
>
>If your intent has been to insult me, you have failed yet again.

Where does this supposed "medical doctor" get this nonsense? Does
Chung just make it up as he goes along?

--
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert

The Rev Dr Hugh Jarse NLAHN <hugh.jarse@heathens.org.uk> wrote:

>> > > And, of course, there are many, many other benefits to being physically
>> > > active besides just the calories burned - increased cardiovascular
>> fitness
>> > > (strangely, whacko Chung never mentions this...perhaps he's too tired to
>> > > exercise due to his eating disorder), increased mental function,
>> decreased
>> > > depression, etc., etc.
>>
>> > Actually, my discussions with Don Kirkman about personally being
>> > physically active remain in the Google archives to prove that you
>> > remain untruthful.
>>
>> You may have made some silly and unproven claims as to your physical
>> prowess, but the vast majority of your advice to others is to lose weight
>> only by focusing on becoming hungry...you never mention the health and/or
>> weight loss benefits of physical activity.
>>
>> > If your intent has been to deceive, you have now provided evidence for
>> > you to be judged a liar.
>>
>> If your intent has been to insult me, you have failed yet again.
>>
>
>Earthquack's intended insults are compliments. The ultimate accolade
>is "Demon"

Yes, as the official "netcabal.com demon" and "sockpuppet of satan" who
is "loitering on usenet", I can confirm this statement.

--
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert

Don Kirkman <donsno2@wavecable.com> wrote:

>It seems to me I heard somewhere that GaryG wrote in article
><khHxh.1$6b.0@newsfe05.lga>:
>
>>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love10@thetruth.com> wrote in message
>>news:1170676834.165964.3250@v45g2000cwv.googlegr oups.com...
>>> convicted neighbor GaryG wrote:
>
>>> > The National Weight Control Registry has been studying the common
>>> > characteristcs and strategies employed by folks who've lost significant
>>> > amounts of weight (avg. 30 kg) and kept it off for five years or longer.
>>> > According to their research, their subjects "also appear to be highly
>>> > active: they reported expending approximately 11830 kJ/wk (2825 kcal/wk)
>>> > through physical activity". That's an average of 400 calories per day
>>in
>>> > physical activity...or, about an hour of fairly vigorous effort.
>
>>> > The act of commiting oneself to an exercise program can also help with
>>the
>>> > "overconsumption control" you mention. When one is committed to getting
>>> > fit, it naturally follows that one will pay more attention to what one
>>> > ingests (at least, it does for many of us)..
>
>>> Those who choose to unwisely engage in strenuous exercise while obese
>>> typically end up being worse off when they sustain injury which often
>>> is attributed to osteoarthritis rather than to the exercise. What is
>>> clinically observed is that once people are lean and trim from eating
>>> less, they find themselves more capable of exercising strenuously more
>>> comfortably and with less injury.
>
>>> Indeed, that has been my own
>>> personal experience now physically able to run ultramarathons not
>>> because of training but because of losing all my visceral adipose
>>> tissue (VAT),
>
>That's especially good because in 2004, at the age of 39, Dr. Chung ran
>a half-marathon (13.1 miles) in 3 hours 27 minutes; he improved to 2:49
>in 2005 and I found no record for him in the same race in 2006 (for
>comparison, I'm a typical mid-pack runner, but in 1989 at the age of 60
>I ran a 1:45 half-marathon and a 1:50 the year before that).
>http://www.silvercomet10k.com/
>
>>Hey, that's pretty cool...I'm sure many athletes would be interested in that
>>"training strategy". So, you're saying that you're capable of running an
>>ultramarathon, due only to your lowered body fat levels? Have you ever
>>actually completed an ultramarathon to confirm your assertion? If so,
>>please provide us with a link to the results web page <g>.
>
>To have run an ultra (whether 50 miles or 100, typical distances for
>ultras), he would have to have been absent from the newsgroups for
>twenty-four hours or more. Did that ever happen?
>
>A Google search for Andrew Chung in ultramarathon results came up empty.
>Since ultra running is such a small, tight-knit community I think the
>sudden appearance of an unknown would have been remarked on by somebody
>along the way.

Considering the nonsense I've seen him spew to usenet about hunger and
athletes, I have a very difficult time believing that he has ever done
anything as strenuous as a marathon.
>
>[. . .]
>
>>> Actually, my discussions with Don Kirkman about personally being
>>> physically active remain in the Google archives to prove that you
>>> remain untruthful.
>
>Actually archiving your opinions adds nothing to their veracity. Garbage
>into Google, garbage out. The same goes for your constant
>self-referential "proofs" on your Web pages.

And his circular references.
>
>>You may have made some silly and unproven claims as to your physical
>>prowess, but the vast majority of your advice to others is to lose weight
>>only by focusing on becoming hungry...you never mention the health and/or
>>weight loss benefits of physical activity.
>
>>> If your intent has been to deceive, you have now provided evidence for
>>> you to be judged a liar.
>
>>If your intent has been to insult me, you have failed yet again.
>
>>> Clearly you remain convicted by the Holy Spirit:
>>> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convects
>
>Oh, oh, no! the macro's broken (or maybe it's just a climate change)

The teddy bear main page is still up, so perhaps Chung finally saw the
futility of keeping a hate list.

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

--
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert

"Art Deco" <erfc-1024@usa.net> wrote in message
news:050220071831059548%erfc-1024@usa.net...
> GaryG <sorrynoemail@NOSPAMX.com> wrote:
>
> >"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love10@thetruth.com> wrote in message
> >news:1170676834.165964.3250@v45g2000cwv.googlegro ups.com...
> >> convicted neighbor GaryG wrote:
> >> > friend Mu wrote:
> >> > > neighbor Caleb wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >>>>If anyone else wants to share their successes or questions
about
> >> > > >>>>losing weight through low-calorie methods, I'd be delighted to
see
> >> > > >>>>them there!
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>>>Yours,
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>>>Caleb
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>> Why don't you tell us how much you lost on the last 100 day
diet,
> >and
> >> > > >>> how much you regained from day 101 onwards?
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>> janice
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> So it is him!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Yup! It sure is me. I'll be posting on
alt.support.diet.low-calorie
> >my
> >> > > > progress.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I guess one of my points is that it simply is not that difficult
or
> >> > > > complicated to take the weight off. There is no need for people
> >suffer
> >> > > > emotional turmoil, self-doubt, etc. If they follow a sensible
> >dietary
> >> > > > approach over time, they WILL lose weight. Nothing rocket science
> >> > > > about it. However, following a sensible approach over time is not
> >> > > > easy.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I've done it before (quite simply) and I'll do it again this
time --
> >> > > > hope it's the last time -- but regardless, it's just not that
tough
> >to
> >> > > > do. I sure am a hell of a lot healthier than when I first started
> >this
> >> > > > approach in '99. I am alive, am far more physically fit, etc.,
etc.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Couple of points for people to remember:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > There's a lot of bad advice out there competing for their
attention.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It all does break down to calories in versus calories used up.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Weighing regularly is probably essential for most people. (I have
a
> >> > > > simple balance beam system that I have found very helpful since
'99
> >> > > > that you can read about if you search "indicator" "caleb"
"balance
> >> > > > beam" on Google.)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Recording calories -- or at least insuring that what you eat
adheres
> >> > > > to your dietary goals -- is important.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Regular exercise is important, although the recent research from
> >> > > > Pennington (Ravussin et al) shows that exercise is not a panacea
and
> >> > > > that some of the vaunted effects of exercise (e.g., muscle
speeding
> >up
> >> > > > metabolism) are not supported by current data.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Most important is just to keep at it -- put your nose down and
just
> >> > > > keep plugging along. For every one who unreasonably assails you,
you
> >> > > > might imagine their face at a trough, wonder exactly what their
> >weight
> >> > > > loss history is (is there a weight-loss wing of the Mayo Clinic
in
> >> > > > their name?), etc. As Rosie used to say, "Your mileage may vary!"
> >And
> >> > > > certainly it is true that there are different strokes for
different