Bill wrote:

- quote -


Glycogen is the way the body stores carbs. It has a high water content so it is
not nearly as calorically dense as fat. Rapid changes in weight (more than 0.5
lbs per day) are more likely from water +/- glycogen than from fat gain/loss.


Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew[at]heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
news:40B4D449.6EB0A029[at]heartmdphd.com...
- quote -

>

Could you elaborate. I am focused on the specific impact of eating a chocolate
bar on weight gain, say, a week later assuming nothing else happens.

Thanks.

Bill

- quote -

> Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Board-Certified Cardiologist
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/
>
> **
> Who is the humblest person in the universe?
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
>
> What is all this about?
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48
>
> Is this spam?
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
>

>

John wrote:

- quote -

Well written, brother.

May God continue to bless you and yours in Christ's name.


Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867

Bill wrote:

- quote -

Glycogen storage would confound your Q.


Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867

Tony Lew wrote:

- quote -


Why do you feel that you must reach satiety?

Do you believe you will die if you don't?



Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867

"George W. Cherry" <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam[at]alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<j3Xsc.25881$hi6.2659601[at]attbi_s53>...
- quote -

Maybe this works for you; it doesn't work for me.
I could eat tons of such food and never reach satiety.
The opposite approach works for me. I lost 60 lbs
eating small (but satisfying) portions of high-fat
foods.


>
- quote -

George W. Cherry wrote:

- quote -

> "John" <john9212112[at]aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1i88b0p5ue0lu1tutj6kjdv0gsmf76563n[at]4ax.com...
>

>> Bob,
>>
>> On noticing a distinct improvement in the tone of your posts, I
>> decided to answer this one.
>>
>> The proof you are looking for is right under your nose - in your
>> own refrigerator, in fact. I'm going to skip over most of the
>> last post to focus on exactly what I'm talking about.
>>
>> On Tue, 25 May 2004 18:15:07 -0400, "Bob (this one)"
>> <Bob[at]nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But you say none of that matters. That only the weight is at
>>> issue, and, you imply, it'll all work out somehow. I can't see
>>> the conditions where packaged foods will contain the same
>>> nutrient composition because they weigh the same. I just went
>>> downstairs to look in my freezer at some prepared foods. I just
>>> picked the ones at the front. No special searching to affect
>>> the ratios. Here are some foods, portion sizes specified on the
>>> package and caloric content.
>>>
>>> Food port. cal. cal/g
>>>
>>> Mini quiches 139 g 440 cal 3.16
>>> personal pizzas 155 g 390 cal 2.52
>>> chicken bakes (in crust with veg) 227 g 290 cal 1.28
>>> roasted potatoes w/herbs 154 g 270 cal 1.75
>>> veg pot pie w/turkey 198 g 450 cal 2.27
>>> pot stickers (shao mai) 150 g 280 cal 1.87
>>> corn pudding 125 g 138 cal 1.10
>>> cut wax beans 120 g 20 cal 0.17
>>> vegetable kofta pilaf 128 g 229 cal 1.79
>>>
>>> I don't have any full meals prepared in single packages, so I
>>> can't speak to that directly. But the USDA has them in the
>>> database and here's a sampling:
>>>
>>> BANQUET, OUR ORIGINAL Fried Chicken Meal, frozen, with Mashed
>>> Potatoes & Corn, Seasoned Sauce 228 g 470 cal 2.06 MARIE
>>> CALLENDER'S Escalloped Noodles & Chicken, frozen entree 368 g
>>> 629 cal 1.71 TYSON Roasted Chicken with Garlic Sauce, Pasta and
>>> Vegetable Medley, frozen entree 255 g 214 cal 0.84 BANQUET
>>> EXTRA HELPING Salisbury Steak Dinner, with Gravy, Mashed
>>> Potatoes and Corn in Seasoned Sauce, frozen meal 468 g 782 cal
>>> 1.67 STOUFFER'S LEAN CUISINE HOMESTYLE Beef Pot Roast with
>>> Whipped Potatoes, frozen entree 255 g 207 cal 0.81 STOUFFER'S
>>> HOMESTYLE Salisbury Steak in Gravy & Macaroni and Cheese,
>>> frozen entree 272 g 386 cal 1.42
>>>
>>> The range of possibilities shown above is rather wide.
>>> Obviously, more food than just this is necessary to reach the 2
>>> pounds. Caloric beverages. More fruit and veg.
>>>
>>> If only eating two meals a day for a total of 2 pounds and
>>> assuming a lightish breakfast as you imply; two poached eggs,
>>> large 100 g 294 cal 1/2 cup muesli with 1/2 cup milk 93 g 195
>>> cal apple, medium 138 g 72 cal makes for a total of 331 g 561
>>> calories.
>>
>> I calculated the average caloric density of the items you report
>> as being in your refrigerator (plus the above breakfast and USDA
>> meals) and I see 18 items with an average density of 1.64 cal/gm.
>> Two pounds of randomly selected food from your refrigerator (and
>> the other stuff you mentioned) would provide 1500 calories. A
>> 1500 cal/day diet is not a "concentration camp" diet. But many
>> people would probably lose weight on this level of consumption.
>>
>> Under the 2PD diet, you don't need to read the labels, worry
>> about exactly how big a "portion" is, etc - you just weigh what
>> you actually eat. You stop eating for the day when the total
>> hits 2 pounds. In so doing, you will average 1500 cal/day based
>> on the contents of your own refrigerator. It's safe to assume
>> that it is food you like and find appealing or else it wouldn't
>> be in your refrigerator. If we assume you eat everything in
>> there before refilling it (and restock it identically), the above
>> statistic will continue to apply.
>>
>> Some days you'll consume more than 1500 calories, other days
>> you'll consume less but you'll average 1500 cal/day.
>>
>> Thanks for the data. I rest my case. ;-)
>>
>> John
>
- quote -

Bob does stock his fridge with better foods than these. The ones at
the top of the list are, indeed, in my freezer, but not for me. The
rest were picked off the USDA database as exemplars for calculations,
not something I'd eat.

Caloric density only means that I need to be moderate in my
consumption of them, if it's high, not that I need to discard anything
high in calories for that reason alone.

- quote -

I'm afraid I find this sort of menu unappealing. I know it works for
many people, but for me, food is more than just fuel. I do eat all the
foods mentioned (except fat-free yogurt - I make my own), I just don't
eat them this way. Nor am I interested in this sort of spartan
approach to calorie restriction. I'd rather eat foods that appeal to
me. That gives me more satisfaction and better satiety. A vegetarian
dietary regimen isn't something I would do.

I take 4 fish oil caps a day but I certainly don't consider them part
of my food allotment.

Bob

"George W. Cherry" <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam[at]alum.mit.edu> wrote in
message news:j3Xsc.25881$hi6.2659601[at]attbi_s53...
>
- quote -

> "John" <john9212112[at]aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1i88b0p5ue0lu1tutj6kjdv0gsmf76563n[at]4ax.com...
> > Bob,
> >
> > On noticing a distinct improvement in the tone of your posts, I
> > decided to answer this one.
> >
> > The proof you are looking for is right under your nose - in your own
> > refrigerator, in fact. I'm going to skip over most of the last post
> > to focus on exactly what I'm talking about.
> >
> > On Tue, 25 May 2004 18:15:07 -0400, "Bob (this one)" <Bob[at]nospam.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >But you say none of that matters. That only the weight is at issue,
> > >and, you imply, it'll all work out somehow. I can't see the conditions
> > >where packaged foods will contain the same nutrient composition
> > >because they weigh the same. I just went downstairs to look in my
> > >freezer at some prepared foods. I just picked the ones at the front.
> > >No special searching to affect the ratios. Here are some foods,
> > >portion sizes specified on the package and caloric content.
> > >
> > >Food port. cal. cal/g
> > >
> > >Mini quiches 139 g 440 cal 3.16
> > >personal pizzas 155 g 390 cal 2.52
> > >chicken bakes (in crust with veg)
> > > 227 g 290 cal 1.28
> > >roasted potatoes w/herbs
> > > 154 g 270 cal 1.75
> > >veg pot pie w/turkey 198 g 450 cal 2.27
> > >pot stickers (shao mai) 150 g 280 cal 1.87
> > >corn pudding 125 g 138 cal 1.10
> > >cut wax beans 120 g 20 cal 0.17
> > >vegetable kofta pilaf 128 g 229 cal 1.79
> > >
> > >I don't have any full meals prepared in single packages, so I can't
> > >speak to that directly. But the USDA has them in the database and
> > >here's a sampling:
> > >
> > >BANQUET, OUR ORIGINAL Fried Chicken Meal, frozen, with Mashed Potatoes
> > >& Corn, Seasoned Sauce 228 g 470 cal 2.06
> > >MARIE CALLENDER'S Escalloped Noodles & Chicken, frozen entree
> > > 368 g 629 cal 1.71
> > >TYSON Roasted Chicken with Garlic Sauce, Pasta and Vegetable Medley,
> > >frozen entree 255 g 214 cal 0.84
> > >BANQUET EXTRA HELPING Salisbury Steak Dinner, with Gravy, Mashed
> > >Potatoes and Corn in Seasoned Sauce, frozen meal
> > > 468 g 782 cal 1.67
> > >STOUFFER'S LEAN CUISINE HOMESTYLE Beef Pot Roast with Whipped
> > >Potatoes, frozen entree 255 g 207 cal 0.81
> > >STOUFFER'S HOMESTYLE Salisbury Steak in Gravy & Macaroni and Cheese,
> > >frozen entree 272 g 386 cal 1.42
> > >
> > >The range of possibilities shown above is rather wide. Obviously, more
> > >food than just this is necessary to reach the 2 pounds. Caloric
> > >beverages. More fruit and veg.
> > >
> > >If only eating two meals a day for a total of 2 pounds and assuming a
> > >lightish breakfast as you imply;
> > >two poached eggs, large 100 g 294 cal
> > >1/2 cup muesli with 1/2 cup milk
> > > 93 g 195 cal
> > >apple, medium 138 g 72 cal
> > >makes for a total of 331 g 561 calories.
> >
> > I calculated the average caloric density of the items you report as
> > being in your refrigerator (plus the above breakfast and USDA meals)
> > and I see 18 items with an average density of 1.64 cal/gm. Two pounds
> > of randomly selected food from your refrigerator (and the other stuff
> > you mentioned) would provide 1500 calories. A 1500 cal/day diet is
> > not a "concentration camp" diet. But many people would probably lose
> > weight on this level of consumption.
> >
> > Under the 2PD diet, you don't need to read the labels, worry about
> > exactly how big a "portion" is, etc - you just weigh what you actually
> > eat. You stop eating for the day when the total hits 2 pounds. In so
> > doing, you will average 1500 cal/day based on the contents of your own
> > refrigerator. It's safe to assume that it is food you like and find
> > appealing or else it wouldn't be in your refrigerator. If we assume
> > you eat everything in there before refilling it (and restock it
> > identically), the above statistic will continue to apply.
> >
> > Some days you'll consume more than 1500 calories, other days you'll
> > consume less but you'll average 1500 cal/day.
> >
> > Thanks for the data. I rest my case. ;-)
> >
> > John
>
> Bob ought to stock his refrigerator with foods which
> have lower calorie density. Vegetables and fruits typ-
> ically have a calorie density of 0.5 or less. Fat-free
> plain yogurt has a calorie density of about 0.5. So
> does oatmeal. So does tofu. A cucumber has a cal-
> orie density of only 0.1 or so. Eat food like this to
> satiety and then eat some nuts or seeds and swallow
> a couple of Menhaden fish oil capsules.
>
> George
>

>

I'll go even further off topic here. I like the idea of calorie density but I
would think it would be useful to have a similar quantity, call it Q, which
represents the number of pounds gained (or not lost) per pound of the item
consumed. I think this would be the calorie count per pound divided by 3600.
Butter would be close to 1. (If you eat a pound of butter, over and above your
daily requirement, you will gain nearly a pound I think.) Water would be zero.
Thus, someone could look at a 6 oz chocolate bar and know right away what
eating that would translate into in terms of weight gain. (E.g. if Q=.5 then
it would be 3 oz.)

Bill

"John" <john9212112[at]aol.com> wrote in message
news:1i88b0p5ue0lu1tutj6kjdv0gsmf76563n[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

> Bob,
>
> On noticing a distinct improvement in the tone of your posts, I
> decided to answer this one.
>
> The proof you are looking for is right under your nose - in your own
> refrigerator, in fact. I'm going to skip over most of the last post
> to focus on exactly what I'm talking about.
>
> On Tue, 25 May 2004 18:15:07 -0400, "Bob (this one)" <Bob[at]nospam.com>
> wrote:
>

>
- quote -

Bob ought to stock his refrigerator with foods which
have lower calorie density. Vegetables and fruits typ-
ically have a calorie density of 0.5 or less. Fat-free
plain yogurt has a calorie density of about 0.5. So
does oatmeal. So does tofu. A cucumber has a cal-
orie density of only 0.1 or so. Eat food like this to
satiety and then eat some nuts or seeds and swallow
a couple of Menhaden fish oil capsules.

George

John wrote:

- quote -

"John," I live for your approval.

- quote -

> The proof you are looking for is right under your nose - in your own
> refrigerator, in fact. I'm going to skip over most of the last post
> to focus on exactly what I'm talking about.
>
> On Tue, 25 May 2004 18:15:07 -0400, "Bob (this one)" <Bob[at]nospam.com>
> wrote:
>

>>But you say none of that matters. That only the weight is at issue,
>>and, you imply, it'll all work out somehow. I can't see the conditions
>>where packaged foods will contain the same nutrient composition
>>because they weigh the same. I just went downstairs to look in my
>>freezer at some prepared foods. I just picked the ones at the front.
>>No special searching to affect the ratios. Here are some foods,
>>portion sizes specified on the package and caloric content.
>>
>>Food port. cal. cal/g
>>
>>Mini quiches 139 g 440 cal 3.16
>>personal pizzas 155 g 390 cal 2.52
>>chicken bakes (in crust with veg)
>> 227 g 290 cal 1.28
>>roasted potatoes w/herbs
>> 154 g 270 cal 1.75
>>veg pot pie w/turkey 198 g 450 cal 2.27
>>pot stickers (shao mai) 150 g 280 cal 1.87
>>corn pudding 125 g 138 cal 1.10
>>cut wax beans 120 g 20 cal 0.17
>>vegetable kofta pilaf 128 g 229 cal 1.79
>>
>>I don't have any full meals prepared in single packages, so I can't
>>speak to that directly. But the USDA has them in the database and
>>here's a sampling:
>>
>>BANQUET, OUR ORIGINAL Fried Chicken Meal, frozen, with Mashed Potatoes
>>& Corn, Seasoned Sauce 228 g 470 cal 2.06
>>MARIE CALLENDER'S Escalloped Noodles & Chicken, frozen entree
>> 368 g 629 cal 1.71
>>TYSON Roasted Chicken with Garlic Sauce, Pasta and Vegetable Medley,
>>frozen entree 255 g 214 cal 0.84
>>BANQUET EXTRA HELPING Salisbury Steak Dinner, with Gravy, Mashed
>>Potatoes and Corn in Seasoned Sauce, frozen meal
>> 468 g 782 cal 1.67
>>STOUFFER'S LEAN CUISINE HOMESTYLE Beef Pot Roast with Whipped
>>Potatoes, frozen entree 255 g 207 cal 0.81
>>STOUFFER'S HOMESTYLE Salisbury Steak in Gravy & Macaroni and Cheese,
>>frozen entree 272 g 386 cal 1.42
>>
>>The range of possibilities shown above is rather wide. Obviously, more
>>food than just this is necessary to reach the 2 pounds. Caloric
>>beverages. More fruit and veg.
>>
>>If only eating two meals a day for a total of 2 pounds and assuming a
>>lightish breakfast as you imply;
>>two poached eggs, large 100 g 294 cal
>>1/2 cup muesli with 1/2 cup milk
>> 93 g 195 cal
>>apple, medium 138 g 72 cal
>>makes for a total of 331 g 561 calories.
>
>
- quote -

Randomly selected doesn't work very well if you're looking at food as
anything besides fuel.

- quote -

.... an average of...

- quote -

"John," I don't eat this frozen stuff. My wife of the splendidly
independent spirit consume the ones at the top of the list when I'm
not available and she's up against tight deadlines; neither of us does
the packaged meals. I included them to show the range of caloric
density in packaged foods for Chris who says that's pretty much all he
eats, and the wide range it is.

I eat mostly rather straightforward (by my standards) meats, veggies,
grains, legumes, fruit and the like. My food doesn't come in boxes.

That's not enough food for me, and if the USDA standards are to be
considered, it's not enough for most people.

- quote -

I don't eat those things, "John." It said that in the post to which
you're replying. And I wonder why you so avoid discussing nutrient
balance.

You have no idea what I have in my refrigerator, and I expect you
don't know many of the things I eat. But I'll list some of what's in
there for you: fried gluten balls, tomatillo salsa and herbed
tortillas I made, tofu sheets and noodles, caponata, abura age, eggs,
boiled ham, gelled chicken soup, pork tenderloin roast, chocolate
mousse my daughter made this evening, bacon, prosciutto, nuts (3
kinds), 7 kinds of cheese (queso fresco, parmesan, asiago, gouda,
cheddar, muenster, yak milk), shirataki (four forms), strawberries,
cantaloupe, jicama, milk (3 kinds), 40% fat cream, miso shiru, romaine
lettuce, fresh gingerroot, assorted herbs, several jams and jellies I
made, butter, fruit juice curds (lemon, key lime, orange-blackbery,
cranberry), salame (two kinds), beef stock, chocolate sauce I made, my
horseradish-wasabi blend, black soy beans, capers, the last of a
strawberry flan we made yesterday... You get the idea. Haven't even
looked at the pantry...

- quote -

My normal caloric requirement is upward of 1800 a day, varying some
with season, activity and press of work. Summer with lots more
physical activity, it goes up.

- quote -

Nice case. Samsonite...?

I'm not concerned with weight loss. I'm not concerned with portion
size. I'm concerned with balance of nutrients, breadth of trace
minerals, vitamins, macronutrients, caloric content, satisfaction. As
long as they're all in reasonable balance and the food is pleasing to
both senses and body needs, the size plate it fits on is supremely
irrelevant.

Bob

Bob,

On noticing a distinct improvement in the tone of your posts, I
decided to answer this one.

The proof you are looking for is right under your nose - in your own
refrigerator, in fact. I'm going to skip over most of the last post
to focus on exactly what I'm talking about.

On Tue, 25 May 2004 18:15:07 -0400, "Bob (this one)" <Bob[at]nospam.com>
wrote:


>But you say none of that matters. That only the weight is at issue,
>and, you imply, it'll all work out somehow. I can't see the conditions
>where packaged foods will contain the same nutrient composition
>because they weigh the same. I just went downstairs to look in my
>freezer at some prepared foods. I just picked the ones at the front.
>No special searching to affect the ratios. Here are some foods,
>portion sizes specified on the package and caloric content.
>
>Food port. cal. cal/g
>
>Mini quiches 139 g 440 cal 3.16
>personal pizzas 155 g 390 cal 2.52
>chicken bakes (in crust with veg)
> 227 g 290 cal 1.28
>roasted potatoes w/herbs
> 154 g 270 cal 1.75
>veg pot pie w/turkey 198 g 450 cal 2.27
>pot stickers (shao mai) 150 g 280 cal 1.87
>corn pudding 125 g 138 cal 1.10
>cut wax beans 120 g 20 cal 0.17
>vegetable kofta pilaf 128 g 229 cal 1.79
>
>I don't have any full meals prepared in single packages, so I can't
>speak to that directly. But the USDA has them in the database and
>here's a sampling:
>
>BANQUET, OUR ORIGINAL Fried Chicken Meal, frozen, with Mashed Potatoes
>& Corn, Seasoned Sauce 228 g 470 cal 2.06
>MARIE CALLENDER'S Escalloped Noodles & Chicken, frozen entree
> 368 g 629 cal 1.71
>TYSON Roasted Chicken with Garlic Sauce, Pasta and Vegetable Medley,
>frozen entree 255 g 214 cal 0.84
>BANQUET EXTRA HELPING Salisbury Steak Dinner, with Gravy, Mashed
>Potatoes and Corn in Seasoned Sauce, frozen meal
> 468 g 782 cal 1.67
>STOUFFER'S LEAN CUISINE HOMESTYLE Beef Pot Roast with Whipped
>Potatoes, frozen entree 255 g 207 cal 0.81
>STOUFFER'S HOMESTYLE Salisbury Steak in Gravy & Macaroni and Cheese,
>frozen entree 272 g 386 cal 1.42
>
>The range of possibilities shown above is rather wide. Obviously, more
>food than just this is necessary to reach the 2 pounds. Caloric
>beverages. More fruit and veg.
>
>If only eating two meals a day for a total of 2 pounds and assuming a
>lightish breakfast as you imply;
>two poached eggs, large 100 g 294 cal
>1/2 cup muesli with 1/2 cup milk
> 93 g 195 cal
>apple, medium 138 g 72 cal
>makes for a total of 331 g 561 calories.

I calculated the average caloric density of the items you report as
being in your refrigerator (plus the above breakfast and USDA meals)
and I see 18 items with an average density of 1.64 cal/gm. Two pounds
of randomly selected food from your refrigerator (and the other stuff
you mentioned) would provide 1500 calories. A 1500 cal/day diet is
not a "concentration camp" diet. But many people would probably lose
weight on this level of consumption.

Under the 2PD diet, you don't need to read the labels, worry about
exactly how big a "portion" is, etc - you just weigh what you actually
eat. You stop eating for the day when the total hits 2 pounds. In so
doing, you will average 1500 cal/day based on the contents of your own
refrigerator. It's safe to assume that it is food you like and find
appealing or else it wouldn't be in your refrigerator. If we assume
you eat everything in there before refilling it (and restock it
identically), the above statistic will continue to apply.

Some days you'll consume more than 1500 calories, other days you'll
consume less but you'll average 1500 cal/day.

Thanks for the data. I rest my case. ;-)

John

Chris Malcolm wrote:
- quote -

> "Bob (this one)" <Bob[at]nospam.com> writes:
>

>> Chris Malcolm wrote:

>>> that there is a possibility that average modern human diets and
>>> preferences might well cause things to average out so that a
>>> reasonably balanced diet from conventional ingredients for the
>>> average sedentary person might well settle down with 2lbs close
>>> to the breakpoint of starting to lose weight.
>
>> Notice all the qualifiers in that overlong sentence. "...the
>> possibility... average... might well... average... reasonably
>> balanced... conventional... average sedentary person... might
>> well... close to the... starting to..."
>
>> What it all says is that Chris lives on this ascetic diet
>
- quote -

"...this ascetic diet" refers to what you *do* live on. Your diet. How
you say you actually eat. That diet.

- quote -

I think you're saying it backwards: after factoring in all those
exclusionary criteria, almost everyone is out. So many are excluded by
that list that it leaves only a very few "average, sedentary" people
of indeterminate size, activity and metabolic function.

And "close to the breakpoint of starting to lose weight" is exactly
what isn't desirable. It's to lose weight. Close is for horseshoes.

- quote -

The essential question is this: why do the test at all if, as you
posit, people are succeeding on a different regimen? If they've
already found a way that works, why fix it if it isn't broke?

And, if any given day on some diet does come to 2 pounds, it proves
nothing. It's most likely a coincidence. It also assumes a rather
constant menu, otherwise substituting quiche for a grilled chicken
breast skews it badly.

- quote -

But you say none of that matters. That only the weight is at issue,
and, you imply, it'll all work out somehow. I can't see the conditions
where packaged foods will contain the same nutrient composition
because they weigh the same. I just went downstairs to look in my
freezer at some prepared foods. I just picked the ones at the front.
No special searching to affect the ratios. Here are some foods,
portion sizes specified on the package and caloric content.

Food port. cal. cal/g

Mini quiches 139 g 440 cal 3.16
personal pizzas 155 g 390 cal 2.52
chicken bakes (in crust with veg)
227 g 290 cal 1.28
roasted potatoes w/herbs
154 g 270 cal 1.75
veg pot pie w/turkey 198 g 450 cal 2.27
pot stickers (shao mai) 150 g 280 cal 1.87
corn pudding 125 g 138 cal 1.10
cut wax beans 120 g 20 cal 0.17
vegetable kofta pilaf 128 g 229 cal 1.79

I don't have any full meals prepared in single packages, so I can't
speak to that directly. But the USDA has them in the database and
here's a sampling:

BANQUET, OUR ORIGINAL Fried Chicken Meal, frozen, with Mashed Potatoes
& Corn, Seasoned Sauce 228 g 470 cal 2.06
MARIE CALLENDER'S Escalloped Noodles & Chicken, frozen entree
368 g 629 cal 1.71
TYSON Roasted Chicken with Garlic Sauce, Pasta and Vegetable Medley,
frozen entree 255 g 214 cal 0.84
BANQUET EXTRA HELPING Salisbury Steak Dinner, with Gravy, Mashed
Potatoes and Corn in Seasoned Sauce, frozen meal
468 g 782 cal 1.67
STOUFFER'S LEAN CUISINE HOMESTYLE Beef Pot Roast with Whipped
Potatoes, frozen entree 255 g 207 cal 0.81
STOUFFER'S HOMESTYLE Salisbury Steak in Gravy & Macaroni and Cheese,
frozen entree 272 g 386 cal 1.42

The range of possibilities shown above is rather wide. Obviously, more
food than just this is necessary to reach the 2 pounds. Caloric
beverages. More fruit and veg.

If only eating two meals a day for a total of 2 pounds and assuming a
lightish breakfast as you imply;
two poached eggs, large 100 g 294 cal
1/2 cup muesli with 1/2 cup milk
93 g 195 cal
apple, medium 138 g 72 cal
makes for a total of 331 g 561 calories.

Nearly 12 ounces of food at 561 calories. Obviously, to stay at 2
pounds, more food will need to be eaten, either at the meals or
between them. I distantly seem to recall that you've said you have
some small things to eat between meals, but I'm not sure about that.

- quote -

Sure it is. All you have to do is weigh it. And all you learn is how
much it weighs.

>>> Of course you can invent diets consisting entirely of (say)
>>> chocolate which make nonsense of the 2lb diet idea. It is also
>>> easy to find folk, such as athletes or diabetics, for whom it
>>> would be inappropriate. That is missing the point.
>
>> It is most assuredly not missing the point. For the diet to work
>> intelligently, it presupposes a balanced diet to begin with.
>> Merely restricting "conventional ingredients" (whatever that
>> could mean in the particular country, culture, region) intake by
>> weight alone is essentially prompting starvation. Of course
>> people lose weight when they're undernourished. But the rather
>> significant question of completeness of nutrient composition is
>> simply brushed aside as a "possibility." And the reality is that
>> unless the dieter knows within a reasonably close range the
>> caloric composition of what they're eating, all those qualifiers
>> above are meaningless. Unless the dieter knows what the nutrient
>> composition is, they have no way of knowing if their diet is
>> healthy by any accepted criteria.
>
- quote -

C'mon Chris. Of course it's a simplification. The only issue is
whether it's a generally useful one. Whether it, in its simple form,
can be posited to be constructive for enough people to adopt as a
reasonable standard.

- quote -

The possibility is merely that. A possibility with no impetus of
substantiation beyond a very few examples. I trust your word here and
a very few others (Carol Frilegh, and I can't think of another but I'm
sure I've found one or two more credible), but that's insufficient to
extrapolate to a larger population.

That long string of exemptions and qualifiers can effectively discount
most people. And you omit the ones that have to do with the
differences between the larger percentage of the general public of
size, activity level and metabolism. The assertion of the possibility
is supported only by a very slim sample.

- quote -

But here's the problem. Suppose that some other people who do
different sorts of regimens find that they sometimes do eat only 2
pounds in a day. It's 2 pounds based on other criteria than weight. If
it isn't constant, daily, almost always, it has no value as
corroboration. If it isn't at least an average, it disproves the (not
well-elaborated) theory. But even if it is around 2 pounds, it merely
shows one element that is an imposed value rather than the deciding one.

>> Extrapolating from the particular experience of one ascetic to
>> the general population is bad logic and worse science.
>
- quote -

Chris, any of the regimens that people actually use are evidence
enough. And you're still talking about it as a maintenance diet when
Chung et al talk about it as weight reduction.

I know people who do weight watchers who have taken weight off and
kept it off. They eat a good bit more than 2 pounds of food a day.
Their approach is based on the very simple chart they use. Likewise
the many more people who post to low-fat and low carb newsgroups and
lists that have succeeded in losing weight and maintained a stable
result.

I'm not saying that limiting intake is nonsense, I am saying that
using a single universal standard irrespective of any other
implications or considerations is an oversimplification tending
towards irrelevancy.

>> This idea takes no account of different sizes, different
>> metabolic levels, or different activity levels. It's the same
>> prescription for an 80 year old, 5'2" 105 pound woman as a bubba
>> 6'3" 235 pound bricklayer.
>
- quote -

But your reply offers nothing to deal with the issues raised here, nor
has anyone else. Are you suggesting that everyone consume the same
weight daily? If not, what are the criteria for differentiating?

If you were to offer a range for people to experiment with including
some suggestions for what to eat and what to avoid and why, I might be
more convinced. If other significant variables were included in the
structuring of the approach, I might be more convinced. If there were
*any* reliable studies that deal with the question, I might be more
receptive. The fact that no one has done such a study reported in any
reliable journal seems to emphasize the insufficiency of the idea.

>>> I don't follow this diet, but I have for decades noticed that I
>>> very slowly gain weight if I eat lunch (as well as breakfast
>>> and dinner), and very slowly lose it if I omit lunch. The
>>> weight of my average breakfast and dinner is 2lbs plus or minus
>>> no more than an oz.
>>>
>>> Of course the 2lb diet idea is a gross simplification: that is
>>> the whole point. The question is whether it is an
>>> oversimplification, or whether it is a simplification which
>>> works.
>
>> It is a simplification that likely is an oversimplification
>
- quote -

> Yes, "likely". It is not, as I hope you're beginning to realise, a
> questi