XPost: alt.support.diet.low-carb, alt.support.diabetes, sci.med.cardiology   
   From: MuIsNotChung@hotmail.com   
      
   On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 16:40:53 GMT, "Phil Holman"   
    wrote:   
      
   >This is a diet we are talking about right, for someone who needs to lose   
   >weight. The basic message is to eat less than the energy expended, Pastorio.   
   > Yes   
   >this is very simplistic, the 2PDiet,  but being obese embodies the very   
   simplistic   
   >state of being unhealthy.   
      
   Simplistic is both the beauty and the need.   
      
   >There is a pattern here, Pastorio.  You continually attribute an argument to   
   an   
   >opponent that does not represent the opponent's true position. I.e. the   
   >one that suggests there is no concern for a healthy diet.   
      
   We hear this all the time. "You mean I can eat two pounds of chocolate   
   every day for the rest of my life"?   
      
   That's all that is left. Rather moronic arguments that have no basis   
   in reality.   
      
   The reality is that the 2PD works; the reality further is that it   
   requires discipline, not tricks with carbs or fats or any other such   
   nonsense.   
      
      
   >So how many 300lb people did you see compared to the US. I lived in   
   >the UK for 30 years and didn't see as many compared to the US.   
   >I've also visited France, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Ireland, Holland   
   >and Japan............ditto.   
      
   This is not even a close call. The USA is by far the most obese nation   
   on the planet.   
      
      
   >> Less food isn't the whole answer. What food is another part. There are   
   >> quite a few others.   
   >   
   >What I said was. "Get that one down first (less food) and then worry   
   >about nutrients and vitamins and fluctuations for additional physical   
   >activity". Does that sound like less food is the whole answer. The only   
   >statistics I'm aware of for malnutrition in the US is for AN.   
      
   No less food is not the whole answer and no on, including Chung, ever   
   said it was. But less food is the FIRST and most important answer;   
   education and food consumption alternatives can come while and after   
   the weight loss.   
      
      
   >Stupid because I'm sure the intent of the 2lb diet was for consumable   
   >food. Trivial nitpicking is pathetic.   
      
   What else is there for the likes of Pastorio et al but trivial   
   nitpicking? It's all they have. the 2PD works, it is simple and it   
   doesn't need a damn newsgroup to try to figure it out either.   
      
   >Answer this. Is it possible to provide a balanced nutritional diet   
   >weighing 2 lbs for the majority of our sedentary population?   
      
   Most certainly and I have many clients and patients that are doing ab   
   fab on the diet.   
      
   So does Chung.   
      
   >> And you and fishbone keep missing that one most salient point: I'm a   
   >> food professional and you two aren't.   
   >   
   >"food professional" you're part of the problem and I can see why.   
      
   Food professionals should stay in their domain. The kitchen. Training,   
   cardiologists and nutrition specialists are needed, better yet   
   scientists and those are the folks that I seek out and listen to.   
      
   >My comparison is based on living 30 years in the UK and 22 years in the   
   >US. The US diet has wider selection and if done wisely is healthier. The   
   >down side is this requires greater self control.   
      
   Yes it does.   
      
   Or a different view on food altogether.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)