subject: Re: Opinions on dentist conduct

text:
On Sep 29, 6:42 pm, [email] wrote:

Remembering your a dentist (and one of the regulars). It is no
surprise you are defensive. but your ego never ceases
to astound me. Apparently on being confered a dental degree, your
grand proclomations are so important, that you
can merely call someone an asshole, repeatedly and poof it is so with
no explanation. This reminds me of your arguments on amalgam (which by
the way have been proven wrong by the FDA).

We are all peons in this world, and yes Denistry has significant
aspects of assebly line work regardless of how big
your ego became on being conferred the Degree of Denistry.


author: Simplicio

subject: Re: Opinions on dentist conduct

text:
On Sep 29, 6:42 pm, [email] wrote:

Really?, all jobs involve producing a product, and payment is related
to production of that product. Think of a screenwriter or an author
like Stephen King who has to produce the next hit. Do you get payed to
go on vacation?
What do you produce? Fillings, root canals,etc and you even have a
drill just like an autoline worker.

Let's see wasn't there a discussion about how denistry evolved from
barber shops earlier on this list. Can you see
the assembly line aspect to hair cutting, or would you consider that a
consulting job?


subject: Re: Opinions on dentist conduct

text:
On Sep 29, 6:42 pm, [email] wrote:

If I recall, this is WB's mail. If so I have made the mistake of
arguing with a well known foul-mouthed infant. So
congratulations, you did get me, but I'll only respond to (somewhat)
civilized individuals ....bye.


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Opinions on dentist conduct

text:
On Sep 26, 10:00 pm, [email] wrote:

No doubt, you are/do. I was engaging in some tongue-in-cheek parry to
your original assertion.


author: Steven Fawks

subject: Re: Opinions on dentist conduct

text:
Talented dentists are often in high demand.  They also have limits on
how much they can deliver in any given day or week.  That may be hard
for a particular patient to understand, but I have to deliver the
high quality care to every patient that comes in the office every day.

We are human.

One patient cannot intrude on my ability to fulfill my commitment to
the others.

BTW, you can always go back to the HMO dudes/dudettes.

Steve


author: Stormin Mormon

subject: Re: Opinions on dentist conduct

text:
I wasn't all that impressed with one of my former oral surgeon. He pulled a
tooth, dropped the tooth on the insturment tray, and immediately was out the
door of the treatment room. Less than one second after the tooth root
cleared my mouth, he was gone. Didn't see him for gosh knows how long after
that. And I did have a couple questions.


author: Dartos

subject: Re: Opinions on dentist conduct

text:
You seem a little edgy and easily offended.

Oh, I care.  However, I see the other side of the issue as well as
the side you are presenting.  I freely admit that this may have
been rude behavior that you did not deserve, but all we have is
your side of the story.

There is always the other side and the dentist isn't here to tell
his view on the subject.

Also, just because you pay your dental bill does not mean you 'own'
the dentist.  I'm not at your beck and call.  I will bend over
backwards to deliver comfortable, quality care and treat you
like I would like to be treated.  Abuse that relationship from
your side, and things might change.

D


subject: Re: Opinions on dentist conduct

text:
[email] wrote:
  It may be on the list of a prick

IMO, that's a lot of what is happening in professional and service
businesses.  You used to really 'know' your physician, dentist,
pharmacist, optomitrist, butcher, dry cleaner, shoe repairman, barber,
grocer, banker, mechanic, etc.

Now, you don't know them and they don't want to know you.

People wander around looking for an office, brand, or chain they
feel they can trust.  Nothing is on a personal level any more.

With the internet, lot's of stuff happens now with zero personal
contact.  Looks like the trend will just continue and likely get worse.

Old fogey rambling,

D


author: Mark & Steven Bornfeld

subject: Re: Opinions on dentist conduct

text:
[email] wrote:

	You sound quite reasonably peeved.  Your expectations are in no way out
of line.
	At the same time, I've known Dartos through his posting history here
for almost 10 years.  There is not a chance in hell that you'd be
treated by him in the way you were treated in your recent dental
experience.  By the same token, all of us  (Dartos and I are near
contemporaries--we've both been doing this 30 years or more) have had
patients who just suck the life forces out of us.  You may take comfort
that, just as there are patients who hate nothing more than the dental
experince, there are patients whose presence on the appointment provoke
instant diarrhea in the dental staff.
	This is a great big world--there are good and bad people everywhere.
Try and find the good ones.

Steve

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001


author: Amatus Cremona

subject: Re: Opinions on dentist conduct

text:
When I still had my old practice, there was one patient there who ALWAYS
would come in and ask a list of questions which would require I spend an
additional 30-40 minutes responding.  This was a wonderful person who was
pleasant and kind.  Just an extreme "question box".  My staff eventually
would do everything in their power to keep me away from this person.  I
would try to email this person during lunch or after hours to get the
questions answered.  Otherwise, I would have been behind schedule the rest
of the day.  And,,,,, some days do not allow the luxury of losing 30 minutes
in the middle of the day.


author: viet nam vet.

subject: Re: Opinions on dentist conduct

text:
In article <gfui52$d3r$[email]>,
 "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:

I read a book by a dentist a Dr. Macquire and he said most dentists are
so polluted by mercury that they are walking "Mad Hatters"/
They now must warn those preggers and mother's about Mercury.
They fought that for a long time.
so much for compassion.
Let's face it; they are into it for the bucks and a chance to inflict
pain.


subject: Re: Opinions on dentist conduct

text:
In article <gfui52$d3r$[email]>,
 "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:

Oh, I forgot. there is a NG you might be interested in.

   sci.med.dentistry

for a second opinion.


subject: Re: Opinions on dentist conduct

text:
On Sep 27, 3:03 pm, [email] wrote:

Okay , glorified assembly line. Many jobs may not be considered that
but are. For example, once I worked as a cashier. Is that assembly
line work? Well they have a scanner, which computes your overall
efficency each week. Also If you take too long with one customer then
it freezes up service to other customs. That is what they do on an
assembly line.

Also on an assembly line, they sometimes stick a slow or very fast
worker behind someone too give them grief. Ever see Lucille Ball in
the chocolate factor episode?

Are your reciepts directly related to your hourly production. If one
customer or tool causes a problem does it bring the
entire workplace to a halt. If one person in the office works too FAST
does that cause an immediate problem for another employee? If so that
fits an assembly-line model.

Granted all jobs could in some respect be considered assembly-line
work.


subject: Re: Opinions on dentist conduct

text:
Amatus Cremona wrote:

	Yeah, I think most of us have had similar experiences.  ;-)

Steve


author: Dave Featherstone

subject: resampling stats: for real?

text:
I keep hearing (reading) about 'resampling stats', supposedly a big
breakthrough in statistics.  But it seems that most of the time I hear
about it, it's associated with something for sale.

So, is resampling stats really heralded as the breakthrough these
advertisements claim, and is it really becoming widely used?  If the
answer to these questions is 'yes', where can I find some good
introductory material on the subject?

Thanks,

Dave Featherstone
Bekesy lab of Neurobiology
University of Hawaii

[email]


author: Herman Rubin

subject: Re: resampling stats: for real?

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Dave Featherstone) writes:

Resampling gives a method to obtain better estimates of the accuracy
of estimates.  Most of the results are asymptotic, where the importance
is less, anyhow.

It is computer intensive, and it is easy to use.  So if you believe
that anything turned out by the computer is gospel, it is the answer
to your problems.


author: Jan Deleeuw

subject: Re: resampling stats: for real?

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Dave Featherstone) writes:

   I keep hearing (reading) about 'resampling stats', supposedly a big
   breakthrough in statistics.  But it seems that most of the time I hear
   about it, it's associated with something for sale.

   So, is resampling stats really heralded as the breakthrough these
   advertisements claim, and is it really becoming widely used?  If the
   answer to these questions is 'yes', where can I find some good
   introductory material on the subject?

Two things are bound to be confused here (and have been in some follow-ups).
Resampling is important, gorgeous, here-to-stay, best-since-sliced-bread
and so on. Resampling Stats is a semi-commercial product, mostly used
for teaching, which is not in any real sense a "breakthrough". It can only
be called a breakthrough if it is compared with some of the "classical"
introductory statistics courses. But that, of course, is not saying much.

--- Jan


author: Coen Bernaards

subject: Re: resampling stats: for real?

text:
Dave Featherstone ([email]) wrote:
: I keep hearing (reading) about 'resampling stats', supposedly a big
: breakthrough in statistics.  But it seems that most of the time I hear
: about it, it's associated with something for sale.

: So, is resampling stats really heralded as the breakthrough these
: advertisements claim, and is it really becoming widely used?  If the
: answer to these questions is 'yes', where can I find some good
: introductory material on the subject?
well, If one can do resampling methods
like bootstrap or jackknife, one can also do mathematical methods.
Computerintensive methiods have the advantage that you don't need
to think on a high mathematical level anymore. But beware with the
use of resampling stats! Don't become a 'statistical construcionworker'!

I can advise you an excellent introductory test on this subject.
The mathematical level is very low though.
It's: Efron & Tibshirani, An introduction to the bootstrap
(Chapmann & Hall) 1993.

Greetings, Coen
: Thanks,

: Dave Featherstone
: Bekesy lab of Neurobiology
: University of Hawaii

: [email]


author: David S. Oderberg

subject: wind on the moon?

text:
Is there anyone out there - perhaps from JPL? - who might solve the
following problem. I am aware that there is supposed to be no wind
on the moon, since there is no atmosphere. There is certainly
no wind capable of blowing a flag. On the well-known "one small
step for man" film, the flag stands bolt upright, held up, it
is said, by wire supports.

So far so good. But I _also_ recently saw film, said by the presenter
(a non-NASA physicist) to be NASA film of an Apollo mission, 11 if I
recall (not sure), in which the US flag FLUTTERS as if in a strong
breeze. It well and truly WAVES and FLAPS as surely as it would have
had it been in a strong breeze on Earth. I cannot recall for certain
whether it was a colour film, but I _think_ so. It was of higher
quality than the "one small step" grainy b&w film.

What is the explanation? Several have been suggested to me on email,
all of them, to my mind, ludicrous: gas from the space suits, exhaust
from the module, a practical joke by an astronaut (there were _no_ hands
on the flagpole, though there were astonauts moving around, if I recall),
optical illusion, trick photography.

My eyes did not deceive me. It fluttered, long and hard.

Suggestions welcome.
David


author: Dave Michelson

subject: Re: wind on the moon?

text:
In article <ldsoderb.729538124@reading> [email] (David S. Oderberg) writes:

I'm almost 100% certain that what you saw was the view of Tranquility Base
from the ascent stage of the lunar module during lunar lift-off.  The
exhaust from the ascent engine whips the flag around something fierce and
Buzz Aldrin even reported seeing the flag fall to the ground although this
isn't visible on the film.  The same camera was also used to take pictures
of the Apollo 11 EVA.  It's entirely possible that you saw shots of Armstrong
and Aldrin on the surface immediately followed by the lunar lift-off sequence.

Sorry to disappoint you...

---
Dave Michelson                             University of British Columbia
[email]                                  Antenna Laboratory


author: Ray Swartz Oh, that guy again

subject: Re: wind on the moon?

text:
In article <ldsoderb.729538124@reading>, [email] (David S. Oderberg) writes:

	If you notice, that film was shot from above, and throughout the 5 or
so seconds, from an increasing height.  What this film shows is the flag
reacting to the rockets on the lunar module as the module was taking off from
the lunar surface.  In a sense, the rocket exhaust could be considered a
"wind", of a very short duration.  Other than at that event, the flag was quite
stationary in all of the films I saw (and I NEVER pass up an opportunity to see
them).

Raymond L. Swartz Jr. ([email])
================================================================================
Excel in everything -- specialization is for insects!! (paraphrase of R.H.)
Fantasy: Wave soaring over Olympus Mons on Mars
================================================================================


author: Dillon Pyron

subject: Re: wind on the moon?

text:
In article <[email]>, [email] (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again)) writes:

I remember Walter Cronkite (the most trusted man in America) saying, at the
time, that a spring wire would allow the flag to vibrate, producing a motion
that looked like waving.  Or so my fuzzy memory tells me.


author: ADR

subject:
Re: Origin of the Greek Alphabet (Re: Proof That Homer's Hero was
 Real ...)

text:
On Sep 11, 5:53 am, "Agamemnon" <[email]_SPAM> wrote:

Aggie, Aggie, Aggie....the Greek text is freely available and SteN has
already posted it.   Assuming that we got the wrong Greek text, do you
mind posting the real one?  The one that you claim translates into
"Hesiod and Homer ere in their prime..."?  I would love to see it

A prediction.  You will not be able to post it, because it does not
exist.  But do make an effort, would you?

You can disabuse my delusions by posting the text.  If you do not,
shut up.


author: Agamemnon

subject: Re: Origin of the Greek Alphabet (Re: Proof That Homer's Hero was Real ...)

text:
"ADR" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Sep 11, 5:53 am, "Agamemnon" <[email]_SPAM> wrote:

<<<Aggie, Aggie, Aggie....the Greek text is freely available and SteN has
already posted it.   Assuming that we got the wrong Greek text, do you
mind posting the real one?  The one that you claim translates into
"Hesiod and Homer ere in their prime..."?  I would love to see it

A prediction.  You will not be able to post it, because it does not
exist.  But do make an effort, would you?>>>

It's already been posted and it shows that you cannot either read or
translated ancient Greek.

<<<You can disabuse my delusions by posting the text.  If you do not,
shut up.>>>

See above.


author: SteN

text:
On 12.9.2010 г. 22:13 ч., Agamemnon wrote:

Herodotus, Histories: Translated with Notes by George Rawlinson; With an
Introduction by Tom Griffith, Ware: Wordsworth Classics of World
Literature, 1996.
"For Homer and Hesiod were the first to compose Theogonies, and give the
gods their epithets, to allot them their several offices and
occupations, and describe their forms; and they lived but four hundred
years before my time, as I believe.

===========================

An Account of Egypt, By Herodotus, Translated by
G. C. Macaulay, April, 2000
The Project Gutenberg Etext

http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/gutenberg/etext00/agypt10.txt

"for Hesiod and Homer I
suppose were four hundred years before my time and not more, and these
are they who made a theogony for the Hellenes and gave the titles to
the gods and distributed to them honours and arts, and set forth their
forms

============================
Inquiries by Herodotus
translated by Shlomo Felberbaum

http://www.losttrails.com/pages/Tales/Inquiries/Herodotus.html

" in that Hesiod and Homer, I think, prove four hundred years earlier
than me in date and not more and they are the makers of the Greeks’
theogony both by giving epithets and distributing honors and skills to
the gods and indicating their looks.

====================================================

Perseus

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D2%3Achapter%3D53%3Asection%3D2

[2] for I suppose Hesiod and Homer flourished not more than four hundred
years earlier than I; and these are the ones who taught the Greeks the
descent of the gods, and gave the gods their names, and determined their
spheres and functions, and described their outward forms.

============================================

I can also bring in Latin, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian
translations but this is beyond the point. This passage of Herodotus was
used by Origen, and St. Theophilus in their discussions on pagan Greek
deities (to prove that the pagan gods were not true Gods).


author: Chris Malcolm

subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
[email] (Barbara) writes:

So why not eat as much energy dense foods as you like, and just eat
less?


author: Mxsmanic

subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Chris Malcolm" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
ab97bp$6og$[email]...

The one thing that fad dieters do not wish to hear is "eat less."  If they
could tolerate and actually do that, they wouldn't need fad diets.


author: Barbara

subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
[email] (Chris Malcolm) wrote in message news:<ab97bp$6og$[email]>...

Because that is not healthy as eating as much nutritious, low energy
dense food as I need to satisfy my hunger, and eating only a small
quantity of energy dense food.

Barbara


author: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Mxsmanic wrote:

I would disagree here.  They want the answer to "How ?" when they hear "Eat
Less."


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Mxsmanic" <[email]> wrote in message news:<JQXB8.104031$[email]>...

Please do not describe me as a fad dieter - that is the last thing I
am. I am, in fact, eating considerably less than I was this time last
year, and especially I am eating less energy-dense and highly
processed foods, but more fruit and vegetables and whole grains. I am
also doing more exercise, and my intention is to maintain these
changes for life. These are not the actions of a fad dieter.

Barbara


author: Michael Roose

subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On 8 May 2002 01:53:35 -0700, [email] (Barbara)
wrote:

|Because that is not healthy as eating as much nutritious, low energy
|dense food as I need to satisfy my hunger, and eating only a small
|quantity of energy dense food.

I am uncomfortable with classifying foods  as nutritious or not based
on energy densities.


author: M'isa

subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
they
"Eat

I think it is more "how do I do that and not feel like I'm going on a hunger
strike?"


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le
message de news: [email]...

Eating is a much more complex activity than not eating.  If they could
master the former with such skill, they can certainly master the latter ...
if they really want to.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Michael Roose <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Well strictly speaking I wasn't, cos I meant food which was both
nutritious AND had low energy density. Such food is advantageous for
people wishing to control their weight, cos it gives them maximum
nutirtion (meaning: vitamins, fibre, phytochemicals etc) for minimal
calories.

But as it happens, many of the foods we are advised to eat more of
because of their nutrition (fruits and vegetables, whole grains, fish)
have low to moderate energy densities. While many of the foods we are
advised to eat less of because of their high energy density (cakes,
sweets, fries) also have high energy densities.

Barbara


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Michael Roose" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message
de news: [email]...

If you mean "nutritious" in terms of "providing usable energy," then
obviously the classification makes perfect sense.

However, if you mean "nutritious" in the the sense of providing all macro
and micronutrients in addition to mere operating fuel, then energy density
is almost irrelevant.


author: Ron Ritzman

subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Wed, 08 May 2002 07:46:21 GMT, "M'isa" <[email]> wrote:

That's a good point. The muscles that are responsible for putting food in
ones mouth are voluntary so in theory, it should be very easy to lose
weight, just don't make those muscles put food in your mouth. In practice
it's not so easy. If it were then there would be no fat people.

Even with the appetite suppression effects of the ephedrine stack, eating
less was the hardest thing I ever tried to do because my body kept
screaming at me to eat. Though I was able to do it and lose 65 pounds (I
then switched to low carb and lost another 55 without the hunger), my
experience allows me to have some level of empathy for what other dieters
are going through and why they so often fail. It's not just a matter of not
wanting to give up the taste of donuts. Anybody who says that it is has
never really been there and had to go through that. If they have been there
and are still saying that then they are assholes who are upset that they
didn't get enough pats on the back for their efforts.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"M'isa" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
hJ4C8.560143$[email]...

By counting calories very carefully, and by eating only _slightly_ less, not
a thousand calories a day less.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Wed, 08 May 2002 07:46:21 GMT, "M'isa" <[email]>
wrote:

|I think it is more "how do I do that and not feel like I'm going on a hunger
|strike?"

I wondered the sam thing but I found the key is to incrementally
reduce the weight you eat even if it is a less aggressive one than
prescribed by Chung.  The issue is getting there and how you get there
is a lot less important than getting there.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
|> I think it is more "how do I do that and not
|> feel like I'm going on a hunger strike?"

On Wed, 08 May 2002 17:16:39 GMT, "Mxsmanic" <[email]>
wrote:

|By counting calories very carefully, and by eating only _slightly_ less, not
|a thousand calories a day less.

We've been fed so many "counting calories" approaches, all of which
have exceedingly high failure rates when reviewed for results over a
lifetime, that if this was going to work, it would have proven itself
out long ago.

If hunger was related to calories, and then related to satiety of
hunger, then the debate would be over.  It's not and it isn't.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Michael Roose" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message
de news: [email]...

Exactly the same can be said for all diets in general, which means, if one
follows your logic, that dieting never works, and weight loss is never
possible (otherwise it would have proven itself long ago).

The reality is that counting calories _does_ work, and it works well, but
few people have the discipline to follow it, and fat people who wish to
overeat, in particular, hate being reminded of their overeating (which is
inevitable if they count calories).

Hunger is very intimately related to calories.  If it were not, you'd
balloon up to a thousand pounds in six months, or you'd wither away and die
over the same period.  In fact, however, hunger is so precisely regulated
that it allows you to maintain a consistent body weight over your lifetime
with an accuracy of better than 99.8%.


author: roxan

subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Mxsmanic" <[email]> wrote in message
news:hDgC8.55407$[email]...
message
die

Hunger is not always related to calories, some are hunger not matter what
they eat. This only applies to those who have normal responses to food and
probably don't have a wieght problem.
Roxan


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Wed, 08 May 2002 21:19:09 GMT, "Mxsmanic" <[email]>
wrote:

|Exactly the same can be said for all diets in general, which means, if one
|follows your logic, that dieting never works,

Rarely for a lifetime.

| and weight loss is never
|possible.

Highly possible in the short run.

|The reality is that counting calories _does_ work, and it works well, but
|few people have the discipline to follow it,

Then we only disagree on the term "successful".  Most reasonable
people I have met want their diets or eating plans to benefit their
health for a lifetime.  They are not happy with any plan that does not
do exactly that.

Short term weight loss can be had by so many different ways that it
hardly makes a difference if you count, weigh or starve.  That's not
the point at least not mine.  I want either to find an eating plan
that I, and the mass of others, can adhere to for the long haul.

And calorie counting is not it.

|and fat people who wish to
|overeat, in particular, hate being reminded of their overeating (which is
|inevitable if they count calories).

They don't have to count calories to look in a mirror or watch the
scale freeze.

|Hunger is very intimately related to calories.  If it were not, you'd
|balloon up to a thousand pounds in six months, or you'd wither away and die
|over the same period.

Under that line of logic, no obese, overeating individual would ever
be hungry.  They consume a ton of calories, don't they?  Yet, most
report they are still hungry.

|  In fact, however, hunger is so precisely regulated
|that it allows you to maintain a consistent body weight over your lifetime
|with an accuracy of better than 99.8%.

Not a chance.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"roxan" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
eiBF8.19908$[email]...

Your statements contradict each other.  Being continuously hungry is not a
normal response to food.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Michael Roose" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message
de news: [email]...

They have to count calories if they want to know for sure what is happening
to their weight.  Just looking at a scale or the mirror won't do that.

In general, no obese, overeating individual ever _is_ hungry, at least
physiologically.  There are lots of reasons why people overeat, but
physiological hunger is not among them.

Their hunger is psychological.  Their inability or unwillingness to
recognize that is one reason why they are fat.

Do the math:

A typical normal person might gain or lose 20 lbs over an adult lifetime.
That's about 70,000 kcal.  During the same period of 60 years or so, he will
consume some 48,000,000 kcal.  If he were unusually hungry and consumed even
one percent more food than he required, he'd gain 137 lbs.  If he were not
hungry enough and ate just one percent less than he required, he'd die of
starvation.  But in fact, since hunger is so precisely regulated, he'll only
gain or lose about 0.15% of his total body weight over his adult lifetime.
That's the equivalent of about one Tic Tac per day.

Put this another way:  A person eating just one slice of bread beyond his
calorie requirements each day will gain 500 lbs or so over his lifetime.
The fact that virtually no one gains 500 lbs demonstrates just how precisely
calorie intake is regulated, and hunger is a key regulating influence for
that, since it controls when a person actually eats.

A consequence of this is that anyone who overeats or undereats even very
slightly will experience huge swings in body weight over his lifetime.
Physiological hunger is precisely regulated and won't cause this ... but
even a tiny _psychological_ change in eating habits is more than enough to
produce this sort of effect.  And so we have morbid obesity and anorexia.


author: RoadRunner

subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Mxsmanic" <[email]> wrote in message
news:dG%F8.83378$[email]...
She is refering to the difference between appetite and hunger.  Appetite is
of the mind, while hunger is of the body. So, even tho you might not be
hungry, you may still eat due to your appetite.

Alan


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Thu, 09 May 2002 08:01:59 GMT, "Mxsmanic" <[email]>
wrote:

|> They don't have to count calories to look in
|> a mirror or watch the scale freeze.

|They have to count calories if they want to know for sure what is happening
|to their weight.  Just looking at a scale or the mirror won't do that.

One of us is missing something here.  If a dieter is moderating food
intake, and is losing weight, and is not counting calories, then is
the dieter actually NOT losing weight.

Weight is a measure of heaviness, a mass/gravitational computation.
You will find no definition of weight that includes counting calories.

|A consequence of this is that anyone who overeats or undereats even very
|slightly will experience huge swings in body weight over his lifetime.

I am sure you believe this.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Mxsmanic wrote:

Imagined pain can be as bad or worse than the real thing.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Mxsmanic" <[email]> wrote in message news:<X1qC8.116224$[email]>...

And just what, in your book, counts as physiological hunger? Because
plenty of obese people do experience growling stomachs..... is that
not hunger? Does someone actually have to swoon away before you count
it as real hunger?

Barbara


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"RoadRunner" <NoSpamMa'[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
nqiG8.33956$[email]...

What difference?

Odd that medical texts make no such distinction.  Loss of appetite = loss of
hunger, and vice versa.

You're distinction is specious.  Either you are physiologically hungry, or
you aren't.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Michael Roose" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message
de news: [email]...

If the dieter is losing weight, she is losing weight.

Last I checked, a mirror can't measure mass.  A scale can ... if you use it
correctly.

Nor will you find any definition of weight that involves images in a mirror.

It is a mathematical inevitability.  In fact, this is how the vast majority
of obese people become obese.  They don't just binge during one week and
suddenly gain 80 pounds.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le
message de news: [email]...

True, but imagined pain does not correspond to actual injury or disease,
whereas unimagined pain often does.

Similarly, real hunger corresponds to a calorie deficit, whereas imaginary
hunger does not.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Barbara" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
[email]...

Hunger engendered by an inadquate intake of calories.  Ultimately that is
the only real source of physiological hunger.  If you ignore this type of
hunger long enough, you'll starve.

A growling stomach is not hunger; it is enhanced peristalsis, which can be
and often is psychogenic.

No, it is not hunger.

How I count it doesn't matter.  If it is not real hunger, but they eat
anyway, they'll get fat.  But that is their problem, not mine.  They're
welcome to try to rationalize their psychological hunger if they wish, but
they'll never convince me, as I know better.


author: Wayne Crannell

subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
In article <TKtG8.91187$[email]>,
 "Mxsmanic" <[email]> wrote:

How quaintly naive. How would you explain the binging and purging of
bulemia? If hunger is a physiological condition, why is it that
sufferers are checked into psych wards?

If hunger was purely physical, no one would be fat because everyone
would stop eating when they weren't hungry.

*****************
Wayne Crannell
250/180/165
Atkins 10/27/01


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Mxsmanic" <[email]> wrote in message
news:TKtG8.91187$[email]...
of

Maybe you should read more carefully.

Appetite is determined by processes that occur in both the BRAIN and
gastrointestinal tract. So, even if you aren't physically hungry, your brain
may think you are. An extreme example are  overweight people who are
genetically deficient in leptin or say have defective leptin/melanocortin-4
receptors.  Their  brains think they are always hungry because there is no
leptin response to suppress appetite.
    Also, researchers have found certain brain chemicals known as endorphins
and enkephalins play a critical role in appetite regulation, which explains
emotional eating in some.  Also it's been well known that there are some
foods, like chocalate, that  people have appetites for because of the "feel
good" feelings they induce.

See:

Genotype-environment interaction in human obesity. Nutr Rev. 1999 May; 57(5
Pt 2): S31-7; discussion S37-8. Review.

Recent advances in basic obesity research. JAMA. 1999 Oct 27; 282(16):
1504-6.

for more information.

Alan


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Mxsmanic" <[email]> wrote in message
news:TKtG8.91187$[email]...
of
Neat article about exercise and endorphins in New York times which relates
somewhat to what we're discussing
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/21/health/fitness/21RUN.html?pagewanted=1

Specifically,  "Animals that were left in their cages, without running
wheels and without food, for the other 23 hours did fine; they quickly
learned to eat all their day's calories in one hourlong session. But those
that had running wheels for those 23 hours ran so much that they could not
eat enough to compensate, actually eating less and less as they ran more and
more, reaching distances of 12 miles by running nonstop. In a week or two,
nearly all were dead of starvation."

Even tho the rats were physiologically hungry, their appetite was diminished
from the running.  So, clearly, there is an  effect of
endorphins/enkephalins on appetite and there is a  distinction between
appetite, which is intrinsic to the mind, and  hunger, which is intrinsic to
the body.

Alan


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Mxsmanic" <[email]> wrote in message news:<R8KC8.126595$[email]>...

Please define "inadequate intake of calories". And be careful.... it
looks like you're starting to suggest that as long as people are
overweight, any hunger they feel is not physiological. Although
elsewhere you suggested that people should not reduce intake more than
200 calories below current maintenance level.... are you suggesting
that as long as intake >= (maintenance - 200), people don't feel real
hunger, but below that level they do?

It's one of the factors that most people would include in their
evaluation as to whether they are hungry or not.

That's about the most intelligent thing you've said on this subject.

What, exactly, is the source of your "knowledge" as to what is real
hunger or not.... does it have anything to do with how hunger is
defined by people who actually study it for a living?

Barbara


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"rosie@readandpost" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de
news: m9uG8.23111$[email]...

It's a physiological reality.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Wayne Crannell" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
[email]...

Mental illness.

Because they are mentally ill.  I don't see what the character of hunger has
to do with it.

Your logic is flawed.  Hunger is indeed physical, but people eat for many
reasons besides hunger, and those who eat beyond the motivation of hunger
become fat.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
RoadRunner wrote:

extreme and very rare...  the vast majority (greater than 99%) of overweight
folks do not have a leptin defect.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"RoadRunner" <NoSpamMa'[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
pKuG8.42202$[email]...

I have.  Nothing in what you describe in your post makes a clear distinction
between appetite and hunger; on the contrary, it appears to treat the two as
equivalent.  QED.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Tue, 21 May 2002 16:38:45 GMT, "RoadRunner"
<NoSpamMa'[email]> wrote:

|Appetite is determined by processes that occur in both the BRAIN and
|gastrointestinal tract. So, even if you aren't physically hungry, your brain
|may think you are. An extreme example are  overweight people who are
|genetically deficient in leptin or say have defective leptin/melanocortin-4
|receptors.  Their  brains think they are always hungry because there is no
|leptin response to suppress appetite.

In nothing but the smallest, minority of cases is this the cause.


author: S. Peacock

subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Continuous high levels of exertion (HR of 150+ over 6+ hour period
during each of 10 days) at high altitude causes substantial loss of
appetite and subsequent loss of body mass.  Even knowing this problem,
the 'subjects' were unable to eat enough food to replace energy
requirements.

Don't know if it is endorphins causing the problem, however.

Similar (better documented) study at:

Tanner DA, Stager JM. Partitioned weight loss and body composition
changes during a mountaineering expedition: a field study.
Wilderness Environ Med. 1998 Fall;9(3):143-52. PMID: 11990186 [PubMed -
in process]

Glad to see rats had same problem at (near) sea level. I think the study
obviously indicates one shouldn't run. :)


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"RoadRunner" <NoSpamMa'[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
PxxG8.43021$[email]...

No, if they were hungry, they'd eat.  Appetite and hunger are synonymous in
this context.  If they had no appetite, they were not hungry.

No.  The distinction is specious.  The article you quote says nothing
essentially nothing about hunger, and certainly says nothing to support the
distinction between appetite and hunger that you claim exists.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"RoadRunner" <NoSpamMa'[email]> wrote in message news:<PxxG8.43021$[email]>...

According to Lyle, hunger and appetite have distinct definitions when
used in the scientific literature. Hunger is the short-term urge to
eat, which regulates when we start and stop eating. Appetite is the
long-term drive to obtain food.

What lay people mean by appetite and hunger may be different, of
course.

And finally, appetite is (AIUI) driven by the brain, rather than the
mind. The brain is a concrete physical thing, with an incredibly
complicated range of electrical and chemical signals going on. And it
is every bit as real as the physical sensations caused by an empty
digestive system and low blood sugar.

Mind is a more difficult concept, because it's not physical. But most
people are agreed that "mind" lives in the brain. We tend to assume
that it is higher, more abstract, and somehow separate. But if you
know the vaguest thing about the chemical basis of depression, you
will be aware that physical processes in the brain can have a profound
effect on the mind.

Barbara


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On 10 May 2002 04:00:48 -0700, [email] (Barbara) wrote:

He has already answered that question. The source of his knowledge is his
own personal experience. He was fat and had high blood pressure, went out
and learned a "little" about nutrition, cut his calories below maintenance,
was able to ignore or otherwise deal with the resulting desire for food,
(physical/psycological hunger/appetite or whatever you might want to call
it) and lost weight.

His experience is very similar to mine. I was fat, learned a "little" about
nutrition, cut calories, lost weight. There are some differences though...

For me, dealing with the "quasi-hunger" (or whatever) was one of the
hardest things I ever had to do in my life. This gives me some empathy for
what other dieters are going through. "M" seems to have zero empathy for
those who are struggling with it.

The more I learn about nutrition, the more I realize that I don't know. I
recognize my ignorance. "M" thinks he knows everything there is to know
about nutrition and weight loss and this is very irritating to those who
work in the field, have studied it for years, and who spend a lot of time
staying on top of the current research.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
[email] (Barbara) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Just out of interest, I asked a couple of my colleagues what hunger
feels like. They both described sensations in their stomachs. One
described it as if something was pushing him in the stomach, the other
said it was similar to indigestion, and he sometimes had to stop and
ask himself which he was feeling. Both agreed the sensation was
unpleasant, and that eating made it go away.

I then asked them about other sensations such as faintness, nausea,
dizziness. One said he never felt this, while the other said he
sometimes did.... and he identified that sensation particularly as
"needing chocolate", because eating chocolate made it go away. He then
volunteered that this was probably a rationalisation for his desire to
eat chocolate, because if he was experiencing low blood sugar, which
these symptoms suggest, then eating fruit would be just as effective
at raising it.

Barbara


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Barbara" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
[email]...

Insufficient to mean energy requirements, beyond a small deficit.

Yes, although it's a continuum, not an on/off value.

Probably, but they'd be wrong.  A growling stomach is often psychogenic in
origin--looking at tasty food can cause it, even if one is not hungry.  This
is especially true when the stomach is empty.

I read their books.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Wed, 22 May 2002 01:18:24 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email]> wrote:

Isn't it true that people who don't produce any leptin have other problems
besides obesity, such as never going through puberty?


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le
message de news: [email]...

But probably 50% of them, once the defect is described to them, will insist
that they have it.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
news:
loss
brain
leptin/melanocortin-4
overweight

Uh I never said leptin defect.   Normal and obese people produce above or
normal levels of leptin.  What they MAY have is lack of leptin RECEPTORS or
an over-reponse to leptin(through overproduction of say AGRP).


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Mxsmanic" <[email]> wrote in message
news:dvGG8.99968$[email]...
distinction
as

Coz you're retarded.  Why else are pharma companies spending countless
dollars trying to find the pill that does control appetite? Dexatrime? Enuf'
said.  I ain't bothering to reply to your ignorance.  Coz everyone knows how
retarded you are despite your pseudo-eloquence.

RR


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Michael Roose" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
brain
leptin/melanocortin-4
no

        Prove it.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Wed, 22 May 2002 02:20:52 GMT, "S. Peacock"
<[email]> wrote:

|Glad to see rats had same problem at (near) sea level. I think the study
|obviously indicates one shouldn't run. :)

At least not in cages.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Mxsmanic" <[email]> wrote in message
news:2BGG8.211691$[email]...
in
the

    Yea it does.  I'll draw a little picture for you.  The rat's appetites
was blunted from the running/endorphin release. Endorphins > Appetite.  Even
tho they were physiologically hungry, they stilll didn't eat.
Deductive reasoning was not your specialty was it?  The sock does come
before the shoe Mxmaniac.

RR


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On 22 May 2002 01:50:35 -0700, [email] (Barbara)
wrote:

|According to Lyle, hunger and appetite have distinct definitions when
|used in the scientific literature. Hunger is the short-term urge to
|eat, which regulates when we start and stop eating. Appetite is the
|long-term drive to obtain food.
|
|What lay people mean by appetite and hunger may be different, of
|course.

Finding common terminology is always a difficult proposition however
McDonald is right and these definitions are very straight forward and
well defined in the research community.  Usenet lay need to catch up.

|And finally, appetite is (AIUI) driven by the brain, rather than the
|mind. The brain is a concrete physical thing, with an incredibly
|complicated range of electrical and chemical signals going on. And it
|is every bit as real as the physical sensations caused by an empty
|digestive system and low blood sugar.

Sure is; when you select a strength trainer or a physical trainer or
an enduearnce/cardio trainer or a nutritionist, if he doesn't
understand the control central function of the brain, boot him.

|Mind is a more difficult concept, because it's not physical. But most
|people are agreed that "mind" lives in the brain. We tend to assume
|that it is higher, more abstract, and somehow separate. But if you
|know the vaguest thing about the chemical basis of depression, you
|will be aware that physical processes in the brain can have a profound
|effect on the mind.

I have no idea where the mind is since my mind has a mind of its own.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Fri, 10 May 2002 09:16:19 -0400, Ron Ritzman
<[email]> wrote:

|The more I learn about nutrition, the more I realize that I don't know.

Speak out, bro.

| I
|recognize my ignorance. "M" thinks he knows everything there is to know
|about nutrition and weight loss and this is very irritating to those who
|work in the field, have studied it for years, and who spend a lot of time
|staying on top of the current research.

Why should it be?  Recognize him for what he is and move on.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On 10 May 2002 09:17:00 -0700, [email] (Barbara)
wrote:

|Just out of interest, I asked a couple of my colleagues what hunger
|feels like. They both described sensations in their stomachs. One
|described it as if something was pushing him in the stomach, the other
|said it was similar to indigestion, and he sometimes had to stop and
|ask himself which he was feeling. Both agreed the sensation was
|unpleasant, and that eating made it go away.

Same here in the many that I have spoken to.  Not one has ever said
that they were hungry without some kind of feeling in the stomach
area. I'm getting to the point where I am about ready to assume that
there is a high correlation, near universal correlation in the
abundant food world, that one and the other go hand in hand.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
|> extreme and very rare...  the vast majority
|> (greater than 99%) of overweight folks do not
|> have a leptin defect.

On Wed, 22 May 2002 06:02:29 GMT, "Mxsmanic" <[email]>
wrote:

|But probably 50% of them, once the defect is described to them, will insist
|that they have it.

The obese are among the best in finding "comfort" excuses.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Mxsmanic" <[email]> wrote in message news:<VvGG8.20888$[email]>...

Have you seen anyone on this newsgroup claiming to have leptin
deficiency? I haven't.

Mx, I get the impression you really don't like fat people. Why do you
spend so much time and effort trying to help people you don't like?

Barbara


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Wed, 22 May 2002 16:35:53 GMT, "RoadRunner"
<NoSpamMa'[email]> wrote:

| Normal and obese people produce above or
|normal levels of leptin.  What they MAY have is lack of leptin RECEPTORS or
|an over-reponse to leptin(through overproduction of say AGRP).

Dream on.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
RoadRunner wrote:

Greater than 99% of overweight folks have no biochemical defect... whether it
be the leptin molecule, it's receptor, or any related pathway.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"RoadRunner" <NoSpamMa'[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
bUPG8.45658$[email]...

Papers.  Show me papers.

There are already lots of pills that suppress appetite.  They aren't
necessarily legal as OTC drugs, however, nor are they necessarily safe or
without side effects.

And yet here you are.

I don't understand.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Wed, 22 May 2002 16:42:47 GMT, "RoadRunner"
<NoSpamMa'[email]> wrote:

|Why else are pharma companies spending countless
|dollars trying to find the pill that does control appetite?

If you have to ask, you are too stupid to understand the answer.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
RoadRunner wrote:

The same reason that the food industry spends countless dollars to increase
appetite.

To increase their market share and to make more countless dollars than they
spend.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
RoadRunner wrote:

see

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11549688&dopt=Abstract


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"RoadRunner" <NoSpamMa'[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
0VPG8.45662$[email]...

You are postulating the deviation from the norm, therefore the burden of
proof is yours.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"RoadRunner" <NoSpamMa'[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
J2QG8.45701$[email]...

I saw no mention of this in the article.

I'm quite good at it, actually.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Michael Roose" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message
de news: [email]...

I see many such excuses right in this thread.  I can pretty much pick out
the people who will always be fat, and those who will eventually be thin (or
already are).


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Barbara" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
[email]...

Whether a person is fat or not is of little concern to me, as long as her
fatness (if any) is not a burden upon others.  I have no sympathy for fat
people who claim they want to lose weight but take no steps to do so, or
find excuses why they cannot do what any other human being is able to do.
However, it's not a question of like or dislike.

A substantial number of people coming to this newsgroup simply want to know
how to lose weight.  Once they find out, and lose the weight, they
disappear, which only makes sense.  In order to assist them, I try to steer
them away from the deep mythology in which fat people who don't want to lose
weight typically believe.

As I've said many times, losing weight is a matter of eating less and
exercising more.  Nothing else matters.  It's important to help people
understand this, as not all obese people have a pathological mental defect
that compels them to overeat even as they deny overeating.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
=
your
or
or
it
Show me papers doctor.  I wanna see papers.  That's like saying people who
have diabetes have no defect in insulin production.

RR.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
news:
two
Enuf'
how
increase

Yea so you do agree there is a difference between appetite and true hunger.

they

Well my main point is that they recognize appetite an important factor when
it comes to obesity, weight control etc.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
your
is
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list
_uids=11549688&dopt=Abstract
It may not be that leptin is the only hormone at work when it comes to the
defect.  There are other hormones that leptin and insulin effects which may
go awry like AGRP/MSH/NPY.  Or the defect may come from the receptors
themselves.
See
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui
ds=12007532&dopt=Abstract

and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui
ds=11840217&dopt=Abstract


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Wed, 22 May 2002 20:03:28 GMT, "Mxsmanic" <[email]>
wrote:

Interesting way to debate. Declare your position "the norm" and say
that every other position has to be proven but yours doesn't.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Wed, 22 May 2002 20:07:48 GMT, "Mxsmanic" <[email]>
wrote:

Debating is a wonderfull skill to have (I think I'l learn to do it
better myself) and you are probably better at it then most people
here. However, be aware that one can have a better formed argument
then his opponent, "win" the debate but still be wrong.


author: tracey dont email me .. i forgot my password :

subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Mxsmanic <[email]> wrote in message
news:L7MG8.216777$[email]...
message
(or
what about lotto numbers?


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
I can pretty much pick out
(or

thanks for you insight cowboy!


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
(or

LOL.  Talk about ignorance.  You think I'm fat? Lol.  Why don't you come to
my gym and I'll show you how phat I am.

Alan


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Wed, 22 May 2002 12:30:44 GMT, "Mxsmanic" <[email]> wrote:

Umn, see my sig.

PS. Why did use "her" when refering to fat people in general?


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Wed, 22 May 2002 12:30:44 GMT, "Mxsmanic" <[email]>
wrote:

|A substantial number of people coming to this newsgroup simply want to know
|how to lose weight.  Once they find out, and lose the weight, they
|disappear, which only makes sense.

You're speaking of alt.support.diet which is the case.  Begs the
question as to who is being supported ie the overweight, the weight
maintainers.  It certainly isn't the weight regainers which make up
the vast majority of those that disappear.

| In order to assist them, I try to steer
|them away from the deep mythology in which fat people who don't want to lose
|weight typically believe.

In summary, what would that be?

|As I've said many times, losing weight is a matter of eating less and
|exercising more.  Nothing else matters.

Exercise is optional even if preferable. The type of exercise is also
optional and also can be preferential.

| It's important to help people
|understand this, as not all obese people have a pathological mental defect
|that compels them to overeat even as they deny overeating.

True.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"RoadRunner" <NoSpamMa'[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
ZjSG8.45834$[email]...

The burden of proving people have a biochemical defect rests with the person
making the claim.  By default, people are normal, until proven otherwise.
And by default, a person who is fat is overeating, until proven otherwise.

Most of them don't.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
RoadRunner wrote:

That would be the case for Type 2 (non-insulin dependent) Diabetes.

As for papers with data showing leptin related problems account forvery few case
of human obesity, see my other post on the topic.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
RoadRunner wrote:

Physiologically, yes.  The more important question is whether people can tell
the difference and my answer here would be generally not.

My point is that they recognize market forces rather than important factors.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"RoadRunner" <NoSpamMa'[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
7tSG8.45836$[email]...

It may be that fat people will grasp at any excuse for their overeating ...
any excuse that allows them to avoid responsibility for their own behavior.
These people will be fat all their lives; and they will often die young,
still fat as ever.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
RoadRunner wrote:

no epidemiological data.

Again, no epidemiological data.

Since the discovery of leptin, the hope has always been that a molecular
mechansm for human obesity had been discovered.  The leptin investigators have
been sorely disappointed.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
<[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
[email]...

I didn't invent it.

Nothing needs to be declared.  The burden of proof falls upon the person
making an assertion for which there is no evidence.  For example, if I
assert that the room is filled with ghosts--an assertion for which there is
no evidence--it's up to me to prove that the ghosts are there ... it is not
up to anyone else to prove that they are not.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
<[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
[email]...

Only if the premises agreed upon by all parties are themselves incorrect, in
which case everyone involved in the debate will be wrong.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
He's not phat I saw him, him is reel nic loken, got thum muscls to.
Roxan
"RoadRunner" <NoSpamMa'[email]> wrote in message
news:LPPG8.45638$[email]...
out
to


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"RoadRunner" <NoSpamMa'[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
LPPG8.45638$[email]...

Interesting.  I didn't name names.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Ron Ritzman" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
[email]...

Obesity is a problem for things like air travel, in which cases it can be a
burden or even a danger for others.

Women are more likely to be obese than men, and women are more likely to
frequent dieting discussions than men, so the female pronoun seems more
appropriate.  I could use "it," which would be entirely gender-neutral, but
it sounds bizarre to most people.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Michael Roose <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

In fact, there are a number of long-time maintainers among the regular
posters here.

How you set out to do it matters a lot, because it can make the
difference between success and failure. Alleging that 50% of fat
people would claim to have a leptin defect once they had heard about
it suggests a prejudice against fat people, and moreover is NOT
SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.

I haven't seen one person who posts regularly on a.s.d claim leptin
defects as the cause of their obesity - although there is discussion
about the role of leptin in slowing weight loss after extended
dieting, and the benefit of refeeds.

There are plenty of examples of people alleging some of the myths you
quoted, but they are usually challenged by someone. If anything, I see
people as being more likely to blame themselves for not being able to
stick to their diet, than any wholesale wail of "it's not my fault".

Barbara
235.5/235/230
highest: 294


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Michael Roose" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message
de news: [email]...

Several common myths:

1. It is possible to lose weight while still eating more calories than one
burns.
2. It is possible to gain weight while eating fewer calories than one burns.
3. It is possible to not lose weight no matter how few calories one eats.
4. There are drugs that will allow a person to overeat and still lose
weight.
5. There are medical conditions that will prevent a person from losing
weight even if she eats far fewer calories than she burns.
6. Medical conditions are a common cause of obesity.
7. Overeating will not produce obesity if you eat the "right foods."
8. Undereating will still produce obesity if you eat the "wrong foods."
9. There are medical conditions that will cause a person to gain weight even
if she is not overeating.
10. "Cardio" exercise or other specific types of exercise will cause more
rapid weight loss than other types.

... and there are many others.

So is a reduction in calories.  However, _one_ of the two must be practiced
in order to create a calorie deficit and thereby produce a loss of weight.
One cannot lose weight without eating less and without exercising more.

The type of exercise has no influence on weight loss.  Only the number of
calories burned matters (see myth #10 above).


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Pardon? The progressive loss of beta cell function in type 2 diabetes
is well documented. As is the early loss of phase 1 insulin response
to a glucose challenge. By the time diabetes is diagnosed, over 40% of
beta cells have been lost on average.

OK, so the overwhelming majority of people with type 2 can still make
useful amounts of insulin. But that doesn't mean they have no defect
in insulin production - they clearly do.

Barbara
(Who has it, and does her best to learn about it)


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le
message de news: [email]...

If there were a molecular mechanism for human obesity, it would not affect
Americans so disproportionately.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Thu, 23 May 2002 06:50:06 GMT, "Mxsmanic" <[email]>
wrote:

Has there been any incidents of someone being hurt or killed on an
airplane because someone else was fat?


author: Sylver

subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Not only would it sound bizarre, it would be, according to Canadian/UK
English without the Politically Correct conotations attached,
grammatically incorrect.  It is perfectly acceptable to use he/she when
appropriate, like you did.  That is, as long as the PC Police aren't out
and about, trying to screw with the language some more.  Where's George
Carlin when you need him, eh???


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
|> In summary, what would that be?

On Wed, 22 May 2002 13:42:11 GMT, "Mxsmanic" <[email]>
wrote:

|Several common myths:
|
|1. It is possible to lose weight while still eating more calories than one
|burns.
|2. It is possible to gain weight while eating fewer calories than one burns.
|3. It is possible to not lose weight no matter how few calories one eats.
|4. There are drugs that will allow a person to overeat and still lose
|weight.
|5. There are medical conditions that will prevent a person from losing
|weight even if she eats far fewer calories than she burns.
|6. Medical conditions are a common cause of obesity.
|7. Overeating will not produce obesity if you eat the "right foods."
|8. Undereating will still produce obesity if you eat the "wrong foods."
|9. There are medical conditions that will cause a person to gain weight even
|if she is not overeating.
|10. "Cardio" exercise or other specific types of exercise will cause more
|rapid weight loss than other types.
|
|... and there are many others.

Michael Roose:

Good list.

Michael Roose:

|> The type of exercise is also optional and
|> also can be preferential.

On Wed, 22 May 2002 13:42:11 GMT, "Mxsmanic" <[email]>
wrote:

|The type of exercise has no influence on weight loss.  Only the number of
|calories burned matters (see myth #10 above).

No way that's right.  Extreme exercise (mountain hiking) versus
Pilates?


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Mxsmanic wrote:

yes, there are.

Actually, without eating less... in many instances, it is physically impossible
to exercise enough to "burn" the excess intake.

agree


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Barbara wrote:

The defect is with insulin resistance.  Any problems with insulin production is not a (primary) defect but is
secondary to the insulin resistance.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Barbara" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
[email]...

When it occurs, it is an effect, not a cause.  Type 2 diabetics typically
produce normal levels of insulin, or even more than normal levels of insulin
(in an attempt to compensate for poor response to insulin elsewhere in the
body).

How is this determined, without an immediate vivisection?


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Mxsmanic" <[email]> wrote in message news:<Ff0H8.111793$[email]>...

Doesn't follow. Gene expression is modulated by environment. Pick up
people from other countries, plonk them in America, and what happens?
Usually, they get fatter than the folks back home.

The genetic/molecular mechanisms which are hypothesised are ones which
make obesity *possible* in the presence of an abundant supply of
energy dense food. Obviously to actually become obese, one has to
consume the food, and not just look at it.

Those who refrain from such consumption will not become obese.... but
do they refrain as a matter of conscious choice, or do they refrain
because they don't feel hungry - however you define that - as much as
the people who do consume too much?

Barbara


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
<[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
[email]...

Obese people can interfere with evacuation of the aircraft in an emergency.
That's one reason why very fat people, as well as people with certain types
of handicaps, are not eligible to sit near emergency exits.  Only
able-bodied individuals can sit near these exits, as they must be able to
assist others if an emergency arises, and they must not interfere with
evacuation themselves.

Obviously, a hugely fat person in the aisle or blocking an exit would be a
serious problem, and might cause many needless deaths.


author: aurora

subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
[email] wrote:

About 10 years ago, in Sweden, a fat union leader died in a small
airplane crash. He, among with a couple of other "heavy weights" were
seated in the back of the small airplane and it was said that this
caused the accident. Just like you have to distribute cargo weight in
airplanes, you have to distribute people around the cabin to prevent the
(uneven) weight to cause accidents.

I have personally been on flights with very few people aboard and we
were "distributed" around the cabin for this reason, albeit no one was
fat.

Just my 2 ore. -aurora


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Michael Roose" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message
de news: [email]...

Only the number of calories burned matters.  Strenuous exercise burns
calories faster than light exercise, but the type of exercise--swimming,
walking, weight training, "cardio," etc.--has no influence on weight loss.
A hundred calories burned with "cardio" doesn't produce any more weight loss
than a hundred calories burned by walking.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
message
one
burns.
eats.
even
more
practiced
weight.
impossible
of

Is it me or would these three - Roose, Mxsmaniac, and Michael Roose make a
great three stooges ? )

Alan.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

So a secondary defect is not a defect? Seems a strange definition to
me, but there we are. And not all T2's are insulin resistant anyway,
although admittedly most are.

Barbara


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Mxsmanic" <[email]> wrote in message news:<JPaH8.10919$[email]>...

Which is in virtually every case, AIUI.

So? They still end up with a defect in insulin production, which
remains even if the insulin resistance is reversed. And some do not
have insuiln resistance at all, although a minority.

AIUI, by measurement of the peak blood levels of insulin in response
to a glucose challenge.

Barbara


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On 23 May 2002 07:49:37 -0700, [email] (Barbara)
wrote:

|The genetic/molecular mechanisms which are hypothesised are ones which
|make obesity *possible* in the presence of an abundant supply of
|energy dense food. Obviously to actually become obese, one has to
|consume the food, and not just look at it.

LOL!

|Those who refrain from such consumption will not become obese.... but
|do they refrain as a matter of conscious choice, or do they refrain
|because they don't feel hungry - however you define that - as much as
|the people who do consume too much?

All of the above is possible.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Barbara wrote:

Which means the obesity is more dependent on the environment.

By mechanisms of disease, we usually want *pathological* mechanisms that would define an abnormality.

It was hoped that leptin would be a *pathological* mechanism by being deficient in the overweight.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Barbara" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
[email]...

Usually, they also start to overeat.  Obesity follows.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Mon, 27 May 2002 18:46:06 GMT, "Mxsmanic" <[email]>
wrote:

But still, he would have to be extremely fat for that to be possible.
Even at 365, I was still able to fit in a standard airline seat and
was mobile enough to help others of necessary.

That rare person who is morbidly obese enough to potentially create
this risk doesn't change my view that obesity hurts nobody but the
person carrying the lard.


author: allison aka psycho

subject: Weight and Balance (was Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Mon, 27 May 2002 14:07:59 -0500, aurora <[email]>
wrote:

Can;t believe I'm answering on this thread, but depending upon the
size of the aircraft, it's possible.  Weight and balance is *crucial*
in a smaller craft.  Too much weight in the back, and the nose of the
plane is higher, and you constantly have to compensate for the tail
drag.  I used to fly in a T-34 till I got too heavy, and they were
unable to let me go up anymore :-((((

Sucks.

allison aka psycho

"My family's coat of arms ties in back.  Is this normal?"


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Thu, 23 May 2002 06:40:56 GMT, "Mxsmanic" <[email]> wrote:

But obviously if I have only have a 30 minute break to exercise I will burn
more calories on the treadmill then I would walking leisurely around the
block. Similarly, if I spend 2 hours climbing up Stone Mountain I will burn
more calories then if I spend two hours walking around the mall. More
exercise bang for the buck. People don't set out to burn x number of
calories when they exercise, they set aside a block of time.

Similarly, if I choose an apple as a snack instead of a candy bar or a
serving of broccoli as a side instead of french fries, I will be eating
less calories. Yes I know I could choose to eat 1/4 of a candy bar or 5
fries but that would be unrealistic.

So to say that food and exercise choices don't matter is retarded. People
have to diet and exercise in the real world so food and exercise choices
matter a great deal.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Thu, 23 May 2002 06:40:56 GMT, "Mxsmanic" <[email]>
wrote:

|Only the number of calories burned matters.  Strenuous exercise burns
|calories faster than light exercise, but the type of exercise--swimming,
|walking, weight training, "cardio," etc.--has no influence on weight loss.
|A hundred calories burned with "cardio" doesn't produce any more weight loss
|than a hundred calories burned by walking.

Sure, but the reality is that people who exercise for weight loss (as
one benefit) do so in intervals or blocks of time. Which leads back to
my statement that exercise is not a necessary factor in weight loss
but it is a preference and, if undertaken, should be considered in
light of the most immediate health goals prescribed.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Gee I was just thinking the same thing, but which one is really Moe?
Roxan
"RoadRunner" <NoSpamMa'[email]> wrote in message
news:7SPG8.45648$[email]...
foods."
weight
more.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"RoadRunner" <NoSpamMa'[email]> wrote in message
news:7SPG8.45648$[email]...
foods."
weight
more.
<edit>  Dr Change, Mxsmaniac, and Michael Roose = 3 stooges.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Barbara" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
[email]...

It's an effect, not a cause.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Hmm..... I think it only means that environment is an influence, not
neccesarily that it's the bigger influence. Twin studies show that
around 60% of the variation in weight is genetic. But the precise
balance is by the by, we agree that both genetics and environment play
a part, yes?

Pathological means causing disease, doesn't it? In an environment of
frequent food scarcity, the thrifty genotype is a positive advantage.
In our environment, it makes obesity likely in those who don't
exercise conscious restraint over their eating and/or choose to be
more physically active than their lifestyoe absolutely requires. One
could argue that, *in this environment*, the thrifty genotype is
effectively pathological.

The other interesting point is what constitutes an abnormality, and
what is normal. Is it normal to be "normal weight", in a society where
more than 50% of the population is above that weight? In strictly
mathematical terms, it is the overweight who are normal - BUT - not
the healthiest.

And the hope was in vain, so far. But the research around leptin has
revealed that human appetite and weight regulation are far more
complex than was previously thought. The body resists weight loss, and
this happens even in people who are still overweight. Understanding
this can lead to better strategies to deal with losing large amounts
of weight.

We are left with the same ultimate conclustion - those who have the
thrifty genotype must, in this environment, maniuplate things so that
they eat less and move more. But getting some understanding of the
mechanism underlying appetite regulation go a long way towards a)
removing the guilt and shame which is very prevalent among the obese -
especially the very obese; b) formulating more effective strategies to
reduce their obesity.

And the hope still remains that one day research will find ways of
manipulating appetite at will, without the adverse effects of all
current treatments. That would make an awful lot of people's lives a
great deal easier, not to say healthier.

Barbara


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
<[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
[email]...

There are a lot of extremely fat people around!  Especially in the United
States.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Ron Ritzman wrote:

Actually, people do not *have to* diet nor exercise.  There are plenty of folks
that go through life (normal lifespan) without doing either.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Ron Ritzman" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
[email]...

That would depend on the topography of your block.

Food and exercise choices don't matter as long as a person is still eating
too much food and getting too little exercise.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Mxsmanic" <[email]> wrote in message news:<YioH8.4257$[email]>...

It's still a defect!!!!


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On 24 May 2002 08:32:26 -0700, [email] (Barbara)
wrote:

|Twin studies show that
|around 60% of the variation in weight is genetic.

Under conditions of overeating or maintenance eating?


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On 24 May 2002 08:32:26 -0700, [email] (Barbara)
wrote:

|And the hope still remains that one day research will find ways of
|manipulating appetite at will, without the adverse effects of all
|current treatments. That would make an awful lot of people's lives a
|great deal easier, not to say healthier.

I see your point but I an concerned with the precedence of this
research. Forgetting any arguments about those who cannot control food
intake, those who can and should are sure to be given a free ride to
health.  I am in favor of health but I am concerned about magic pills
for things that could be avoided by simple determination and exercise
of discipline.  At what point we will become pill takers instead of
preventive and aggressive quality of life seekers?  What becomes of us
if we are excessive without consequence?


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Barbara" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
[email]...

Well, (a) they can reduce that shame enormously by simply losing weight,
instead of looking for reasons why being obese is not their fault; and (b)
there is already a 100% effective strategy for losing weight: eat less and
exercise more.

That will happen at about the same time that ways are found to manipulate
love, anger, depression, and so on.  But most manipulations are useful only
as long as they are actively continued; when the drugs wear off, the
problems return.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Barbara wrote:

yes.

maladaptive perhaps.

this discussion is not about normal weight but *ideal* weight

The thrifty genotype is generally reserved for something also known as syndrome X.  Most folks do not have the
thrifty genotype but nearly all folks are predisposed to overeating when food is abundant and easily had.

Recognizing this latter point is was makes the 2 lb diet (or lifestyle strategy) effective in permanently reducing
obesity in nearly everyone.

Meanwhile, the food industry is actively (and successfully) striving to increase everyone's appetite.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Thu, 23 May 2002 13:04:33 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email]> wrote:

True, but what I meant was that people who choose to diet and exercise have
to do so in the real world.

BTW I do plan on walking up Stone Mountain this weekend because for the
first time in 10 years, I am physically capable of doing so. Wonder how
many calories I will burn?


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Barbara" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
[email]...

Defect implies some sort of preexisting imperfection.  I wouldn't call it a
defect so much as a complication, just as retinopathy is a complication.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Michael Roose <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

I don't know whether that was recorded or not.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Michael Roose <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Think through the logic of what you're saying.... I think it looks
like a moral disapproval of getting things easily which one "should"
have to work for. Continue the logic to its extreme, and you end up
undoing 300 years of techological progress.

Bearing in mind I didn't restrict the research to coming up with
pills.... my own preference would be for it to come up with
suggestions about food choices which will impact appetite naturally,
rather than via a pill. But let's assume it comes up with a pill.

If so - and the pill works by making people less inclined to overeat,
and it has no adverse side effects - what's wrong with that? It would,
in effect, be the antidote to some of the less desirable effects of
modernisation to date.... the irony is that it is getting things with
little effort, e.g. large quantities of food and transport from A to
B, that has got us in this mess to start with.

Now, if everyone, realising that cheap food and universal car
ownership lead to obesity, would choose to moderate their consumption
and use the car less, well and good. But many can't, or won't. So
which is better.... that they stay obese and keel over early from
heart attacks, or that they take a pill which supresses their desire
to overeat, and live longer, healthier lives?

Then there are those who *will*, at the moment, make the conscious
choice to eat less and exercise more. They can reduce or eliminate
their obesity, although with considerable effort. So the pill comes
along, and makes it less of an effort for them.... and makes it more
likely they will succeed long term. Is that so bad?

In all of this debate about what is "natural", remember this: it is
not "natural" for human beings to live in centrally heated houses,
drive around in cars, or eat Big Macs and fries. Or, for that matter,
to have clean water, education and medical care. Do you want to go
back to the dark ages? If we did, few people would be obese. But most
of us wouldn't survive into adulthood either.

Barbara


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Mxsmanic" <[email]> wrote in message news:<wuxH8.4780$[email]>...

Well, (a) self-acceptance is a powerful ingredient in enabling people
to change; if guilt were so powerful, the success rate of dieting
would be far higher.

And (b), perhaps I phrased this wrongly, since you have clearly
misunderstood what I mean. I mean more effective strategies for
enabling obese people to eat less and exercise more, and continue with
those changes indefinitely so that their weight remains lower.

The strategy you propose is simply to tell people "eat less, exercise
more." I suggest that the evidence - i.e. the tiny proportion of
people who succeed based on this advice alone - indicates that
something more than this advice is required for the majority of obese
people.

I didn't specify drugs. They are one possibility, but there are others
- for instance, including regular moderate activity has a mild
appetite supressant effect. The manipulation could involve things such
as changing the prevailing attitude to car use versus person-powered
modes of transport.

Barbara


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Fri, 24 May 2002 20:35:40 GMT, "Mxsmanic" <[email]> wrote:

But some of those feelings can be manipulated by drugs and they have
improved the lives of many people who would otherwise be confined to
phychiatric institutions or would have to undergo disabling surgery. (think
lobotomies)

Effective and safe appetite suppressants with few side effects could
improve many people's lives, both normal overweight people and those few
who actually do have genetic disorders such as Prader-Willi Syndrome. (see
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/2002/04/17/news/front/3080370.htm)

If they result in weight loss then half the battle is won and then the
dieter (and his doctor) can start to deal with keeping it off which may or
may not involve the continuation of any drug used. However, the important
point is that the flab is gone.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Fri, 24 May 2002 18:56:46 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email]> wrote:

|Meanwhile, the food industry is actively (and successfully) striving to increase everyone's appetite.

This is a rarely challenged (on Usenet) concept. Is this because it is
so widely disbelieved, or miscredited or misunderstood?

It is so obvious to me. Yet, there is no discussion about this billion
dollar marketing hoax.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Thu, 23 May 2002 21:10:15 -0400, Ron Ritzman
<[email]> wrote:

|BTW I do plan on walking up Stone Mountain this weekend because for the
|first time in 10 years, I am physically capable of doing so. Wonder how
|many calories I will burn?

Watch out for the fireworks display and please don't pay homage to the
Confederate generals so "wonderfully" displayed on hillside.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Ron Ritzman <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Is that Stone Mountain, NC, near the Blue Ridge Parkway? If so, I
walked up there in March 2000 while I was working in the States for 3
months. It was a really hot day and we got sunburned, but then the
weather went all wet and foggy and we couldn't see a thing!

I recall it was quite hard work..... but I was about 50lb heavier
then!

Barbara


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Barbara wrote:

Increased healthcare costs.

If that were so, we would see rampant obesity in Europe too.

cheap food and universal car ownership does not cause obesity.

Why not become a two pounder and lose the weight permanently ?

It is not necessary.

No, just to the 2 lb diet.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On 27 May 2002 09:07:28 -0700, [email] (Barbara)
wrote:

|Think through the logic of what you're saying.... I think it looks
|like a moral disapproval of getting things easily which one "should"
|have to work for. Continue the logic to its extreme, and you end up
|undoing 300 years of techological progress.

The extreme, imo, is a life complete with incredible indulgences,
health dangers and overeverything all sanctioned because we will be
able to take pills to make our declining lack of discipline all too
acceptable.

I believe that we were created with a purpose, each to his own, but we
all must share some self-responsibility for what we do, how we behave
and who we are.

|If so - and the pill works by making people less inclined to overeat,
|and it has no adverse side effects - what's wrong with that? It would,
|in effect, be the antidote to some of the less desirable effects of
|modernisation to date.... the irony is that it is getting things with
|little effort, e.g. large quantities of food and transport from A to
|B, that has got us in this mess to start with.

The mess is one we embrace and we can, as I have, chosen not to. It is
not the sin but the sinner.

|Now, if everyone, realising that cheap food and universal car
|ownership lead to obesity, would choose to moderate their consumption
|and use the car less, well and good. But many can't, or won't.

And those numbers will increase if the consequences of their actions
are removed.

|So
|which is better.... that they stay obese and keel over early from
|heart attacks, or that they take a pill which supresses their desire
|to overeat, and live longer, healthier lives?

It is the theoretical applications across the broad spectrum of
"antidotes" where all of our submissiveness is resolved by a pill or
some much to easy method of reversing the poor decisions we make. As
to any individuals life/death, I make no judgments.

|Then there are those who *will*, at the moment, make the conscious
|choice to eat less and exercise more. They can reduce or eliminate
|their obesity, although with considerable effort. So the pill comes
|along, and makes it less of an effort for them.... and makes it more
|likely they will succeed long term. Is that so bad?

Not for them. But this is the relatively few.

|In all of this debate about what is "natural", remember this: it is
|not "natural" for human beings to live in centrally heated houses,
|drive around in cars, or eat Big Macs and fries. Or, for that matter,
|to have clean water, education and medical care. Do you want to go
|back to the dark ages? If we did, few people would be obese. But most
|of us wouldn't survive into adulthood either.

Let's not confuse quality of life improvements with magic pills for
curing poor choice and excess.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Barbara wrote:

Guilt is a powerful short-term rather than long-term motivator in my experience.  It can get someone started on a
diet *but* if that diet is unrealistically cumbersome, tedious, or complicated, guilt is not enough to keep
someone on the diet for the rest of their lives...  however, if the diet is extremely simple and easy to follow,
then people are able to stay on it long after the guilt passes...  possibly for the rest of their (longer :-)
lives.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On 27 May 2002 01:59:13 -0700, [email] (Barbara)
wrote:

|The strategy you propose is simply to tell people "eat less, exercise
|more." I suggest that the evidence - i.e. the tiny proportion of
|people who succeed based on this advice alone - indicates that
|something more than this advice is required for the majority of obese
|people.

Say "NO" to drugs.  Boy, that's been highly successful, hasn't it?


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Ron Ritzman" <[email]> a ï¿½crit dans le message de news:
[email]...

There is a difference between serious mental illness and a simple
unwillingness to stop overeating.

I don't know that a permanent dependence on drugs is necessarily an
improvement in this case.  Obese people don't need drugs any more than
children need Ritalin.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Sat, 25 May 2002 21:33:58 -0400, Michael Roose
<[email]> wrote:

I agree with you here. Also, it always seems that when a WOE (way of
eating) hits the mainstream, the first thing the food industry does is
come out with high caloric density foods to fit the WOE. It happened
with low fat so instead of eating braised and steamed low calorie
vegetables as LF advocates such as Dr. Ornish recommended, people are
consuming "fat free" snacks that are high in sugar content.

I'm certain that even if the "two pound diet" became mainstream, you
would have a flood of light weight high calorie foods hit the shelves.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Probably not, unless the pill is phenomenally expensive. The people
taking it will be much less likely to suffer heart attacks and type 2
diabetes, therefore their lifetine healthcare costs are likely to be
lower. Costs in the short term, saves in the long term.

There is a difference in degree in portion sizes and car dependence
between Europe and America.

Oh, please!! Eating more calories than you expend causes obesity. The
cheaper food is, the easier it is to consume too many calories. The
more you use a car, as opposed to walking or cycling to get from A to
B, the fewer calories you expend, and the easier it is to spend fewer
calories than you consume. It is not inevitable, but it is more
likely, that people will become overweight under those circumstances.

There are many possible strategies.... some (many) people don't want
to weight everything they eat.

We do a great many things in this life that are not necessary.

Barbara


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Michael Roose <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

I agree, I think. I'm not wild about the idea of using pills myself -
witness the fact that I've never sought the ones that are currently
available, even though I would undoubtedly fit the prescribing
criteria. They've always struck me as not the ideal solution. But when
you begin to experience some of the sequelae of obesity - I was
diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at the age of 34 - you begin to think,
well if I can't do this on my own, and there are alternatives
available, wouldn't it be better to take them.

I have resisted so far, and have had a good degree of success in
losing weight the old-fashioned way - 60lb so far. But I'm still
obese.

But they won't, that's the point. My mythical pill would remove the
desire to overeat, hence the people taking it would not overeat.

My point is, what starts out looking like a quality of life
improvement can end up biting us. For instance, it is thought that our
domestic cleanliness and centrally heated homes is contributing to the
rising incidence of asthma and excema among children - in conjunction
with the pollution from all those car fumes. We solve one problem, and
we create another.

The provision of cheap food, in a world where so many are starving,
should be a good thing. But it ends up being a bad thing, because too
much of it is consumed by too few, while many continue to starve.

Barbara


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Oh now Mxsmanic is a doctor and an expert in determining mental illness now.
This is so humorous from someone who won't tell us if it's male or female.
LOL.
Roxan
"Mxsmanic" <[email]> wrote in message
news:HlMH8.14253$[email]...


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Sat, 25 May 2002 13:30:15 GMT, "Mxsmanic" <[email]>
wrote:

Probably the most accurate thing you said so far.

That's for the obese person's doctor to decide.

Again, that's for the individual child's doctor to decide. If I were a
parent, I would, despite my own opinion that Ritalin is an
oversubscribed drug, be more likely to take the advice of a medical
professional over the opinion of some anonymous phantasm in ASD whose
qualifications are completely unknown to me. Sometimes it does matter
who you are, particularly when it comes to medical opinions. I do hope
you don't give such advise in ADD support forums.

BTW You are aware that Ritalin is subscribed for other medical
conditions besides ADD. It's an effective treatment for narcolepsy.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Ron Ritzman wrote:

If it is high calorie, it won't be light weight.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Barbara wrote:

Which it would be.

unless there is a fen-phen-like fiasco.

Actually sudden deaths from a heart attacks lowers healthcare costs.

However, food and transportation are just as readily available in Europe as here in the U.S.

Obesity is becoming more prevalent.  Is food becoming cheaper and car ownership more universal ?

I think *not*.

Yes.

Funny thing is that obesity is more prevalent among folk at lower SES strata where food has a higher relative cost.

Clearly you subscribe to the myth that if you ate too much, you can burn it off by walking or cycling.

Not for the reasons you give.

Ok, eat just one meal a day and weigh that one meal as an aggregate and deal with just one number.

That does not mean we should embrace doing unnecessary things.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On 28 May 2002 01:52:44 -0700, [email] (Barbara)
wrote:

| I was
|diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at the age of 34 - you begin to think,
|well if I can't do this on my own, and there are alternatives
|available, wouldn't it be better to take them. |I have resisted so far, and have had a good degree of success in
|losing weight the old-fashioned way - 60lb so far. But I'm still
|obese.

Congrats.

This is a different situation.  You may not have knowingly created
your problem.  Take a  decision to smoke or not.. make a pill that
reverses all the bad effects of smoking.  I now choose to smoke cuz
what the hell, it ain't going to hurt me. I'll take the pill!

I care not to live in this kind of world.

|But they won't, that's the point. My mythical pill would remove the
|desire to overeat, hence the people taking it would not overeat.

See above. Replace smoking with overeating or any excess you wish.

|My point is, what starts out looking like a quality of life
|improvement can end up biting us. For instance, it is thought that our
|domestic cleanliness and centrally heated homes is contributing to the
|rising incidence of asthma and excema among children - in conjunction
|with the pollution from all those car fumes. We solve one problem, and
|we create another.

the devil we know may be better than the devil we create.

|The provision of cheap food, in a world where so many are starving,
|should be a good thing. But it ends up being a bad thing, because too
|much of it is consumed by too few, while many continue to starve.

It is not the availability of food that is the problem or its
unbalanced distribution.

The enemy is us.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Oh please, tell me that broccoli wouldn't weigh more then a cream puff.
Which do you think has less caloires.
roxan
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
to increase everyone's appetite.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
Dr. Chung, this goes back to one of your earlier points of only 10
pounds for a climber for a week at high altitude on Everest.  Will be
glad to research what the ingredients were and the calorie per pound was
for you and the other particulars.  For one thing, there was zero water
in those pounds -- and absolutely minimum wrapping or containers.

However, I like your 2 pound concept.  Easy, simple, straight forward.


author: Paul

subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Sat, 25 May 2002 23:57:57 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email]> wrote:

Care to explain?  Calorific density of food (excluding Alcohol) ranges
from 0 to 900 kcal per 100g.  2lb is approx 900g, making a theoretical
maximum from eating 2 lb fat at around 8100 kcal.

There are many 'normal' foods with calories in the 400-500 / 100g
range.  One large tub of Pringles (200g) contains over 1000 k/cal.

Am I missing something here, because even as a simple rule, "eat 2lb a
day" sounds like it has no chance of working.

Paul.


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
On Tue, 28 May 2002 21:02:39 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email]> wrote:

|Funny thing is that obesity is more prevalent among folk at lower SES strata where food has a higher relative cost.

But still within their budgets for disposable income.  They probably
consider excess food expenditures "required" .


subject: Re: Re; The Two Pound diet

text:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

True, but note we were discussing the theoretical pill with no adverse
effects.

Yeah, but for those who survive and need bypass surgery, the cost is
high. And the cost of caring for someone with diabetes - even if they
exercise tight control and avoid complications - is higher than if
they managed to avoid diabetes in the first place.

Readily available, but more expensive. Trust me on this. Petrol is
half the price in the US that it is in the UK, cars cost less, food
costs less. That was my overwhelming impression from the 3 months I
spent in the USA - the whole society is set up on the assumption of
car ownership. While the UK is going the same way, it is not as far
along the track.

They also smoke more and drink more.... I don't understand it either.
But the contrast I'm making is between rich countries and poor ones.
In poor countries, the poor starve to death. In rich countries, they
live on burgers and fries.

I subscribe to the belief that what you weigh depends on your calorie
intake and expenditure, as well as other factors you can't change
(gender, age, height, genetics). Weight stability (
intake=expenditure) is possible at any weight..... and the higher your
habitual level of activity, the lower weight you are likely to
stabilise at.

If you ate too much, you may be able to work it off by walking or
cycling, but only up to a point. The odd hundred calories here and
there, yes. A thousand calories a day, no.

My point, anyway, is not about setting out to burn off a specific
number of calories thatyou overate. It is about habitual levels of
activity, and their relationship to weight.

What reasons do you know of for people becoming overweight, other than
they consumed more calories than they used?

Thanks, but no thanks. Eating just one meal a day is in conflict with
the recommendations for managing my diabetes, and in any event I don't
want to eat only once a day.

True, it means we make choices. To date, I have not chosen to take any
of the avaialble medications for weight loss, despite being a
potential candidate. I have, however, benefited from reading about
some of the research that lead to them being developed.

Barbara