Re: Scientists Say Dieting does not work

#42 04-18-2007, 08:36 AM

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:56:42 -0400, in
sci.med.cardiology,alt.support.diabetes,alt.suppor t.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition
you wrote:

- quote -

> In article <1bvor45iuug7h$.ypkwymg8dnvk$.dlg[at]40tude.net> ,
> nocowinthismu[at]gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:23:20 -0400, Will Brink wrote:
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > "...the number one reason diets fail, which is a lack of compliance. The
> > > > > lead researcher of this recent study stated:
> > > > >
> > > > > �Our trial found that adherence level rather than diet type was the
> > > > > primary predictor of weight loss�(3)
> > > > >
> > > > > Translated, it�s not which diet they chose per se, but their ability to
> > > > > actually stick to a diet that predicted their weight loss success."
> > > > >
> > > > > Cont:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.brinkzone.com/articledeta...d=102&acatid=3
> > > >
> > > > Most diets require a compliance factor of 9.9 on the scale of 10.
> > >
> > > That of course is false and based on your opinion vs any physiology or
> > > data per say.
> >
> > It's not false because the opinion has no data,
>
> It is false AND based on no data. I didn't say it was false due to lack of data.

Then produce the data that makes it false.

- quote -

> > empirically it is easy
> > to see that the mainstream diets, most require significant reading,
> > comprehension, journaling and/or monitoring, counting of cals or carbs
> > or whatever (all of which is rarely accurate by the dieter), weighing,
> > supplementation and on and on and on. Since we are talking about success
> > as in a lifetime, these diets are built to induce noncompliance not
> > obtain it.
>
> Depending on which diet, the above is often true, yes. Regardless,
> compliance to some form of calorie restriction is what's needed to lose
> weight.
>
> >
> > Why? Because you can't as easily sell something simple such as a high
> > compliance WOE as the 2PDiet.
>
> In most cases, simple is often best, at least in the beginning and
> depending on goals.

Best doesn't sell and revenue drives the diets of the populace, Will.

- quote -

> >
> > > Yes, compliance is important, as it is for everything in
> > > life. If you don't study in school, and fail, this is the fault of the
> > > school or you?
> >
> > You but who goes to school for life?
>
> Who diets for life? Eating well to control your weight after reaching a
> target weight is not dieting. If you are dieting for life, you are doing
> something wrong. Human physiology being what it is, one can't simply eat
> what ever we want, thus at least some control is required as it is for all
> things in life.

Semantical argument over the use of the term "diet", you must have
learned this attitude from Chung lol

All commercial diets ultimately evolve into a maintenance stage where
eating this or that over time will = no weight gain. hence, once on a
diet, the maintenance phase is part of the "diet". Now if you want to
say "I'm off my diet", then either you skipped the last chapters or you
are making the word "diet" to mean only the weight loss periods. Fine
with me, I got off the 2Pound Diet when I hit an optimum weight.

- quote -

> > > End of the day, find a diet you can follow and follow it.
> >
> > That's the whole point, if there were such things, there would be more
> > compliance and less obese. It's not just the people, it's the diets
> > themselves which are co-contributors to the problem ofcompliance.
>
> Depends on the diet. One can come up with a very simple diet thats easy to
> follow, though it may not be healthy, etc.

Sure, the Ten Ton Air Diet for one.

- quote -

> spam removed.

Spam redacted, now returned.

"2PDiet covers everything I need."

What's your problem with the 2PDiet?

#41 04-17-2007, 09:56 PM

In article <1bvor45iuug7h$.ypkwymg8dnvk$.dlg[at]40tude.net> ,
nocowinthismu[at]gmail.com wrote:

- quote -

> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:23:20 -0400, Will Brink wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > "...the number one reason diets fail, which is a lack of compliance. The
> > > > lead researcher of this recent study stated:
> > > >
> > > > �Our trial found that adherence level rather than diet type was the
> > > > primary predictor of weight loss�(3)
> > > >
> > > > Translated, it�s not which diet they chose per se, but their ability to
> > > > actually stick to a diet that predicted their weight loss success."
> > > >
> > > > Cont:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.brinkzone.com/articledeta...d=102&acatid=3
> > >
> > > Most diets require a compliance factor of 9.9 on the scale of 10.
> >
> > That of course is false and based on your opinion vs any physiology or
> > data per say.
>
> It's not false because the opinion has no data,

It is false AND based on no data. I didn't say it was false due to lack of data.

- quote -

> empirically it is easy
> to see that the mainstream diets, most require significant reading,
> comprehension, journaling and/or monitoring, counting of cals or carbs
> or whatever (all of which is rarely accurate by the dieter), weighing,
> supplementation and on and on and on. Since we are talking about success
> as in a lifetime, these diets are built to induce noncompliance not
> obtain it.

Depending on which diet, the above is often true, yes. Regardless,
compliance to some form of calorie restriction is what's needed to lose
weight.

- quote -

>
> Why? Because you can't as easily sell something simple such as a high
> compliance WOE as the 2PDiet.

In most cases, simple is often best, at least in the beginning and
depending on goals.

- quote -

>
> > Yes, compliance is important, as it is for everything in
> > life. If you don't study in school, and fail, this is the fault of the
> > school or you?
>
> You but who goes to school for life?

Who diets for life? Eating well to control your weight after reaching a
target weight is not dieting. If you are dieting for life, you are doing
something wrong. Human physiology being what it is, one can't simply eat
what ever we want, thus at least some control is required as it is for all
things in life.

- quote -

>
> > End of the day, find a diet you can follow and follow it.
>
> That's the whole point, if there were such things, there would be more
> compliance and less obese. It's not just the people, it's the diets
> themselves which are co-contributors to the problem ofcompliance.

Depends on the diet. One can come up with a very simple diet thats easy to
follow, though it may not be healthy, etc.

spam removed.

--
Will [at] www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

#40 04-17-2007, 02:12 PM

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:23:20 -0400, Will Brink wrote:

- quote -

> > >
> > > "...the number one reason diets fail, which is a lack of compliance. The
> > > lead researcher of this recent study stated:
> > >
> > > �Our trial found that adherence level rather than diet type was the
> > > primary predictor of weight loss�(3)
> > >
> > > Translated, it�s not which diet they chose per se, but their ability to
> > > actually stick to a diet that predicted their weight loss success."
> > >
> > > Cont:
> > >
> > > http://www.brinkzone.com/articledeta...d=102&acatid=3
> >
> > Most diets require a compliance factor of 9.9 on the scale of 10.
>
> That of course is false and based on your opinion vs any physiology or
> data per say.

It's not false because the opinion has no data, empirically it is easy
to see that the mainstream diets, most require significant reading,
comprehension, journaling and/or monitoring, counting of cals or carbs
or whatever (all of which is rarely accurate by the dieter), weighing,
supplementation and on and on and on. Since we are talking about success
as in a lifetime, these diets are built to induce noncompliance not
obtain it.

Why? Because you can't as easily sell something simple such as a high
compliance WOE as the 2PDiet.

- quote -

> Yes, compliance is important, as it is for everything in
> life. If you don't study in school, and fail, this is the fault of the
> school or you?

You but who goes to school for life?

- quote -

> End of the day, find a diet you can follow and follow it.

That's the whole point, if there were such things, there would be more
compliance and less obese. It's not just the people, it's the diets
themselves which are co-contributors to the problem ofcompliance.

- quote -

> Article above covers the needed info.

2PDiet covers everything I need.

#39 04-17-2007, 01:23 PM

In article <13xmhnmoa4kyw$.160mlgjoewau9$.dlg[at]40tude.net> ,
nocowinthismu[at]gmail.com wrote:

- quote -

> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:56:11 -0400, Will Brink wrote:
>
> > > > > ************************************************** *****************
> > > > > Scientists Say Dieting Does Not Work
> > > > > 10 Apr 2007
> >
> > It does not say anything of the sort. It says most people fail to follow
> > diets long term, not that diets dont work. There is a HUGE difference
> > between them. This has been known a long time and confirmed again
> > recently. Compliance is everything. From a recent article called "The Big
> > Picture of Permanent Weight Loss"
> >
> > "...the number one reason diets fail, which is a lack of compliance. The
> > lead researcher of this recent study stated:
> >
> > �Our trial found that adherence level rather than diet type was the
> > primary predictor of weight loss�(3)
> >
> > Translated, it�s not which diet they chose per se, but their ability to
> > actually stick to a diet that predicted their weight loss success."
> >
> > Cont:
> >
> > http://www.brinkzone.com/articledeta...d=102&acatid=3
>
> Most diets require a compliance factor of 9.9 on the scale of 10.

That of course is false and based on your opinion vs any physiology or
data per say. Yes, compliance is important, as it is for everything in
life. If you don't study in school, and fail, this is the fault of the
school or you? End of the day, find a diet you can follow and follow it.
Article above covers the needed info.

- quote -

> As far
> as I am concerned, if a diet is so compliant-oriented to begin,

Life is compliant oriented.

- quote -

> then the
> diet is to blame. Hence, dieting doesn't work.

I see logic and science are not your strong point.

--
Will [at] www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

#38 04-17-2007, 08:12 AM

On 16 Apr 2007 01:39:39 GMT, true[at]isbetter.com wrote:

- quote -

> > As a sensible person, I eat nutricious food daily, in fact, the same
> > foods I used to eat before starting this food regimen, just smaller
> > quantities. I never go hungry, although as I don't eat often after
> > dinner (about 6.30pm), I sometimes feel peckish on going to bed, which
> > a cup of organic cocoa helps me fall off to sleep easily.
>
> Yep, eat less and lose weight. For some the accidental choice of what
> foods to include in the two pounds combined with ones height and
> activity levl will cause a weight loss. For others the result will be a
> weight gain. It is a gimic, use standard measures of volume or set time
> to eat the same foods and the same results will occur.
>
> By accident one can find the right amount of calories for you or one can
> quickly narrow it down by not relying on accident and matching calories
> to height and activity level more directly and systematically.
>
> The two pound diet is based on trash science in its truth claims.

Did anyone get any idea what this joker just waffled?

#37 04-16-2007, 09:21 PM

Art Deco wrote:

- quote -

> Mu <nocowinthismu[at]gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:56:11 -0400, Will Brink wrote:
> >
> > > > > > ************************************************** *****************
> > > > > > Scientists Say Dieting Does Not Work
> > > > > > 10 Apr 2007
> > >
> > > It does not say anything of the sort. It says most people fail to follow
> > > diets long term, not that diets dont work. There is a HUGE difference
> > > between them. This has been known a long time and confirmed again
> > > recently. Compliance is everything. From a recent article called "The
> > > Big Picture of Permanent Weight Loss"
> > >
> > > "...the number one reason diets fail, which is a lack of compliance. The
> > > lead researcher of this recent study stated:
> > >
> > > �Our trial found that adherence level rather than diet type was the
> > > primary predictor of weight loss�(3)
> > >
> > > Translated, it�s not which diet they chose per se, but their ability to
> > > actually stick to a diet that predicted their weight loss success."
> > >
> > > Cont:
> > >
> > > http://www.brinkzone.com/articledeta...d=102&acatid=3
> >
> > Most diets require a compliance factor of 9.9 on the scale of 10. As far
> > as I am concerned, if a diet is so compliant-oriented to begin, then the
> > diet is to blame. Hence, dieting doesn't work.
> >
> > The other argument is that any dieter who knowingly takes on such a
> > diet, and continually repeats the same dieting choice/plan mistake may
> > be too dumb to ever learn how to control consumption.
>
> Energy out > energy in = weight loss
>
> The basic equation you two quacks (i.e. Mu and Andy Chunk) refuse to
> acknowledge.
>

have you acknowledged your fat tankass yet?

--
*********.-------.
*******.'.-'''''-.'._
******//`*********`\\\
*****;;*************;;'.__.===============,
*****||******.*<-***||**__*****************)
*****;:****your*****;;.'**'==============='
******\\***penus***///
*******':...___...:'~
*********`'-----'`

"The fact that you're being increasing annoying..." - QuackfArt

#36 04-16-2007, 09:09 PM

"Did anyone get any idea what this joker just waffled?"

Sure both of us got it, that is why you try to divert from the truth
that the tewo pound diet is trash science.

If by accident one chooses fewer calories then required for two pounds
one will lose weight. If one chooses more calories then required then
one will gain weight.

All the while the equally important factors of exercise and the
nutritional value of what one is eating to gain or lose weight is
ignored.

Truth is simple.

God bless.

#35 04-16-2007, 08:37 PM

Mu <nocowinthismu[at]gmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

> On 16 Apr 2007 01:39:39 GMT, true[at]isbetter.com wrote:
>
> > > As a sensible person, I eat nutricious food daily, in fact, the same
> > > foods I used to eat before starting this food regimen, just smaller
> > > quantities. I never go hungry, although as I don't eat often after
> > > dinner (about 6.30pm), I sometimes feel peckish on going to bed, which
> > > a cup of organic cocoa helps me fall off to sleep easily.
> >
> > Yep, eat less and lose weight. For some the accidental choice of what
> > foods to include in the two pounds combined with ones height and
> > activity levl will cause a weight loss. For others the result will be a
> > weight gain. It is a gimic, use standard measures of volume or set time
> > to eat the same foods and the same results will occur.
> >
> > By accident one can find the right amount of calories for you or one can
> > quickly narrow it down by not relying on accident and matching calories
> > to height and activity level more directly and systematically.
> >
> > The two pound diet is based on trash science in its truth claims.
>
> Did anyone get any idea what this joker just waffled?

Get a new line, coward. Or better yet, just *plonk* him.

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen

"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen

#34 04-16-2007, 08:36 PM

Mu <nocowinthismu[at]gmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:56:11 -0400, Will Brink wrote:
>
> > > > > ************************************************** *****************
> > > > > Scientists Say Dieting Does Not Work
> > > > > 10 Apr 2007
> >
> > It does not say anything of the sort. It says most people fail to follow
> > diets long term, not that diets dont work. There is a HUGE difference
> > between them. This has been known a long time and confirmed again
> > recently. Compliance is everything. From a recent article called "The Big
> > Picture of Permanent Weight Loss"
> >
> > "...the number one reason diets fail, which is a lack of compliance. The
> > lead researcher of this recent study stated:
> >
> > �Our trial found that adherence level rather than diet type was the
> > primary predictor of weight loss�(3)
> >
> > Translated, it�s not which diet they chose per se, but their ability to
> > actually stick to a diet that predicted their weight loss success."
> >
> > Cont:
> >
> > http://www.brinkzone.com/articledeta...d=102&acatid=3
>
> Most diets require a compliance factor of 9.9 on the scale of 10. As far
> as I am concerned, if a diet is so compliant-oriented to begin, then the
> diet is to blame. Hence, dieting doesn't work.
>
> The other argument is that any dieter who knowingly takes on such a
> diet, and continually repeats the same dieting choice/plan mistake may
> be too dumb to ever learn how to control consumption.

Energy out > energy in = weight loss

The basic equation you two quacks (i.e. Mu and Andy Chunk) refuse to
acknowledge.

[support groups snecked, ++sci.physics]

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen

"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen

#33 04-16-2007, 07:46 PM

On 16 Apr 2007 01:39:39 GMT, true[at]isbetter.com wrote:

- quote -

> > As a sensible person, I eat nutricious food daily, in fact, the same
> > foods I used to eat before starting this food regimen, just smaller
> > quantities. I never go hungry, although as I don't eat often after
> > dinner (about 6.30pm), I sometimes feel peckish on going to bed, which
> > a cup of organic cocoa helps me fall off to sleep easily.
>
> Yep, eat less and lose weight. For some the accidental choice of what
> foods to include in the two pounds combined with ones height and
> activity levl will cause a weight loss. For others the result will be a
> weight gain. It is a gimic, use standard measures of volume or set time
> to eat the same foods and the same results will occur.
>
> By accident one can find the right amount of calories for you or one can
> quickly narrow it down by not relying on accident and matching calories
> to height and activity level more directly and systematically.
>
> The two pound diet is based on trash science in its truth claims.

Did anyone get any idea what this joker just waffled?

#32 04-16-2007, 07:45 PM

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:56:11 -0400, Will Brink wrote:

- quote -

> > > > ************************************************** *****************
> > > > Scientists Say Dieting Does Not Work
> > > > 10 Apr 2007
>
> It does not say anything of the sort. It says most people fail to follow
> diets long term, not that diets dont work. There is a HUGE difference
> between them. This has been known a long time and confirmed again
> recently. Compliance is everything. From a recent article called "The Big
> Picture of Permanent Weight Loss"
>
> "...the number one reason diets fail, which is a lack of compliance. The
> lead researcher of this recent study stated:
>
> �Our trial found that adherence level rather than diet type was the
> primary predictor of weight loss�(3)
>
> Translated, it�s not which diet they chose per se, but their ability to
> actually stick to a diet that predicted their weight loss success."
>
> Cont:
>
> http://www.brinkzone.com/articledeta...d=102&acatid=3

Most diets require a compliance factor of 9.9 on the scale of 10. As far
as I am concerned, if a diet is so compliant-oriented to begin, then the
diet is to blame. Hence, dieting doesn't work.

The other argument is that any dieter who knowingly takes on such a
diet, and continually repeats the same dieting choice/plan mistake may
be too dumb to ever learn how to control consumption.

#31 04-16-2007, 05:53 PM

"> > Thankfully, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet:"

Well said, the two pound diet is trash science which can cause a weight
loss or a weight gain depending on the accident of what one chooses to
consume in the two pounds.

It leaves the user at a disadvantage because it ignores the vital role
of exercise in weight status. It can even be dangerous to ones health
because it ignores consideration of the nutrition of what one chooses to
put in the two pound diet fare.

#30 04-16-2007, 04:17 PM

luis wrote:
- quote -

> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > morris wrote:
> > > http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/heal...p?newsid=67422
> > >
> > > We all srt of knew this, but the summary is pretty good.
> > > Key phrase: dieting is actually a consistent predictor of future
> > > weight gain."
> > > ************************************************** *****************
> > > Scientists Say Dieting Does Not Work
> > > 10 Apr 2007
> > >
> > > US scientists conducting a comprehensive review of dieting research
> > > have concluded that dieting does not work.
> > >
> > > The study is published in the April edition of American Psychologist,
> > > the journal of the American Psychological Association.
> > >
> > > Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA),
> > > reviewed 31 long-term studies lasting between 2 to 5 years.
> > >
> > > UCLA associate professor of psychology and lead author of the study,
> > > Traci Mann said:
> > >
> > > "You can initially lose 5 to 10 percent of your weight on any number
> > > of diets, but then the weight comes back."
> > >
> > > "We found that the majority of people regained all the weight, plus
> > > more," she added.
> > >
> > > The researchers found a very small minority of study participants
> > > managed to sustain weight loss, while the majority put all the weight
> > > back on, and more in the longer term.
> > >
> > > "Diets do not lead to sustained weight loss or health benefits for the
> > > majority of people," said Dr Mann.
> > >
> > > Dr Mann and colleagues sought to determine the long term effects of
> > > dieting and address the question "Would they have been better off to
> > > not go on a diet at all?".
> > >
> > > So they analyzed every study they could find that followed people on
> > > diets for 2 to 5 years. Studies that take less than 2 years are "too
> > > short to show whether dieters have regained the weight they lost,"
> > > they said.
> > >
> > > They discovered that it would have been better for most of them if
> > > they had not gone on a diet at all.
> > >
> > > "Their weight would be pretty much the same, and their bodies would
> > > not suffer the wear and tear from losing weight and gaining it all
> > > back," explained Dr Mann.
> > >
> > > Their findings show that:
> > >
> > > -- People on diets typically lose 5 to 10 per cent of their weight in
> > > the first 6 months.
> > > -- But 33 to 66 per cent regain more than what they lose within 4 to 5
> > > years.
> > >
> > > Dr Mann and colleagues suspect the real situation is actually even
> > > worse; the figures do not really reflect reality, making diet studies
> > > look better than they are. They say there are a number of reasons for
> > > this:
> > >
> > > -- Many participants phone or mail their results in themselves,
> > > without an impartial assessor.
> > > -- A lot of studies have a below 50 per cent follow up rate; and the
> > > people who put on a lot of weight are less likely to stay in touch.
> > >
> > > UCLA graduate student of psychology and co-author of the study, Janet
> > > Tomiyama said that "Several studies indicate that dieting is actually
> > > a consistent predictor of future weight gain."
> > >
> > > One study in particular that they looked at found that men and women
> > > who took part in a weight reduction programme gained significantly
> > > more weight than those who did not over the same period of time.
> > >
> > > Tomiyama mentioned another study, this time looking at links between
> > > lifestyle and weight in 19,000 healthy older men over four years. This
> > > study found that, "One of the best predictors of weight gain over the
> > > four years was having lost weight on a diet at some point during the
> > > years before the study started," she said.
> > >
> > > Also, in many studies with control groups, the people in the control
> > > group very often were better off than the participants who dieted.
> > >
> > > Dr Mann suggests that eating in moderation and exercise do make a
> > > difference. Although they were not looking at exercise in particular,
> > > Dr Mann said that:
> > >
> > > "Exercise may well be the key factor leading to sustained weight loss.
> > > Studies consistently find that people who reported the most exercise
> > > also had the most weight loss."
> > >
> > > One study following obese patients discovered that:
> > >
> > > -- Among those followed for under 2 years, 23 per cent of patients had
> > > regained their weight loss.
> > > -- Among those followed for more than 2 years, 83 per cent had
> > > regained their weight loss.
> > >
> > > Another study found that 50 per cent of dieters weighed 11 pounds (5
> > > kilos) more than their starting weight 5 years after their diet.
> > >
> > > Among the health hazards of repeated weight loss and regain are
> > > cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes and altered immune function,
> > > said Dr Mann and colleagues.
> > >
> > > They said more research is needed on the effects of weight loss and
> > > regain on health, and say scientists do not fully understand the
> > > underlying factors involved in this complex relationship.
> > >
> > > Dr Mann quoted her mother, who herself has tried to diet many times,
> > > without success. Dr Mann's mother said her daughter's findings were
> > > "obvious".
> > >
> > > Although this study reviewed 31 long term dieting projects, they did
> > > not look into specific diets.
> > >
> > > The researchers are of the opinion that weight loss programmes are not
> > > good value for money in the treatment of obesity.
> > >
> > > "The benefits of dieting are too small and the potential harm is too
> > > large for dieting to be recommended as a safe, effective treatment for
> > > obesity," said Dr Mann.
> > >
> > > Between 1980 and 2000, the proportion of obese Americans has doubled,
> > > from 15 to 31 per cent of the population.
> >
> > Thankfully, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet:
> >
> > http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp
> >
> > Suggested reading:
> >
> > http://abchung.livejournal.com/986.h...d=16090#t16090
>
> I do not consider this a scientific work, because it is based in
> patients behavior and not in diet itself.

That which is based on the scientific method is scientific work by
definition.

This would not be a matter of opinion.

Truth is simple.

May GOD bless you.

Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,

Andrew <> <
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth

#29 04-16-2007, 01:56 PM

- quote -

> > > ************************************************** *****************
> > > Scientists Say Dieting Does Not Work
> > > 10 Apr 2007

It does not say anything of the sort. It says most people fail to follow
diets long term, not that diets dont work. There is a HUGE difference
between them. This has been known a long time and confirmed again
recently. Compliance is everything. From a recent article called "The Big
Picture of Permanent Weight Loss"

"...the number one reason diets fail, which is a lack of compliance. The
lead researcher of this recent study stated:

�Our trial found that adherence level rather than diet type was the
primary predictor of weight loss�(3)

Translated, it�s not which diet they chose per se, but their ability to
actually stick to a diet that predicted their weight loss success."

Cont:

http://www.brinkzone.com/articledeta...d=102&acatid=3

--
Will [at] www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus! " - Mr Natural

#28 04-16-2007, 12:22 PM

luis wrote:

- quote -

> >
> I do not consider this a scientific work, because it is based in
> patients behavior and not in diet itself.
> Antonio L Rodrigues
>
> Nutritionist

Kookle Search Results

30 matches for "chung".
Dr. Andrew B Chung
Rookie Kook of the Year, 2006
Coward of the Year, 2006
Bardley Annual "Whining Baby New Year" Award, 2007
Kook of the Month, June 2006
Golden Killfile, November 2006
Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award, June 2006
Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award, February 2007
Looney Maroon Award, June 2006
Looney Maroon Award, August 2006
Looney Maroon Award, January 2007
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, January 2007
George Pickett Memorial Trophy, January 2007
Coward of the Month, October 2006
Coward of the Month, November 2006
Coward of the Month, December 2006
Joseph Bartlo "Pathetic Anal Pineapple" Award, October 2006
Joseph Bartlo "Pathetic Anal Pineapple" Award, March 2007
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, December 2006
Busted Urinal Award
Unabomber Surprise
Bolo Bullis Foam Duck #24
George Armstrong Custer "Kicked [at]$$" Award
Kluck Lysaght "Tar & Feathers" Award
Kenny McCormick Memorial Medal
Goofy Azzed Babboon
72 Raisins "Crackpot Religion" Award
Fr00tcake, 2006
Edmond Wollmann Memorial Rubber Turkey Award, Easter Weekend 2006
Edmond Wollmann Memorial Rubber Turkey Award, Thanksgiving 2006
www.heartmdphd.com [Dr. Andrew B Chung]
Richbull.com Memorial Award for Kooksite of the Year, 2006

#27 04-16-2007, 01:49 AM

- quote -

> > Thankfully, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet:

In every way but the obfuscation by which its trash science truth claims
are made, it is in all respects a diet plan of the goal to lose weight
by
calorie intake modification. Sadly, it is such trash science one can as
easily gain weight as lose it by ones choice of two pounds of what to
eat
and compounded in error by not adding exercise as a vital factor in all
long term weight loss and maintenance.

Truth is truth, and the truth here is simple.

May God bless you.

#26 04-16-2007, 12:05 AM

I repeat I do not consider this a scientific work, because it is based
in patients behavior and not in diet itself.

Antonio L Rodrigues
Nutritionist

#25 04-15-2007, 11:32 PM

luis wrote:
- quote -

> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > morris wrote:
> > > http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/heal...p?newsid=67422
> > >
> > > We all srt of knew this, but the summary is pretty good.
> > > Key phrase: dieting is actually a consistent predictor of future
> > > weight gain."
> > > ************************************************** *****************
> > > Scientists Say Dieting Does Not Work
> > > 10 Apr 2007
> > >
> > > US scientists conducting a comprehensive review of dieting research
> > > have concluded that dieting does not work.
> > >
> > > The study is published in the April edition of American Psychologist,
> > > the journal of the American Psychological Association.
> > >
> > > Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA),
> > > reviewed 31 long-term studies lasting between 2 to 5 years.
> > >
> > > UCLA associate professor of psychology and lead author of the study,
> > > Traci Mann said:
> > >
> > > "You can initially lose 5 to 10 percent of your weight on any number
> > > of diets, but then the weight comes back."
> > >
> > > "We found that the majority of people regained all the weight, plus
> > > more," she added.
> > >
> > > The researchers found a very small minority of study participants
> > > managed to sustain weight loss, while the majority put all the weight
> > > back on, and more in the longer term.
> > >
> > > "Diets do not lead to sustained weight loss or health benefits for the
> > > majority of people," said Dr Mann.
> > >
> > > Dr Mann and colleagues sought to determine the long term effects of
> > > dieting and address the question "Would they have been better off to
> > > not go on a diet at all?".
> > >
> > > So they analyzed every study they could find that followed people on
> > > diets for 2 to 5 years. Studies that take less than 2 years are "too
> > > short to show whether dieters have regained the weight they lost,"
> > > they said.
> > >
> > > They discovered that it would have been better for most of them if
> > > they had not gone on a diet at all.
> > >
> > > "Their weight would be pretty much the same, and their bodies would
> > > not suffer the wear and tear from losing weight and gaining it all
> > > back," explained Dr Mann.
> > >
> > > Their findings show that:
> > >
> > > -- People on diets typically lose 5 to 10 per cent of their weight in
> > > the first 6 months.
> > > -- But 33 to 66 per cent regain more than what they lose within 4 to 5
> > > years.
> > >
> > > Dr Mann and colleagues suspect the real situation is actually even
> > > worse; the figures do not really reflect reality, making diet studies
> > > look better than they are. They say there are a number of reasons for
> > > this:
> > >
> > > -- Many participants phone or mail their results in themselves,
> > > without an impartial assessor.
> > > -- A lot of studies have a below 50 per cent follow up rate; and the
> > > people who put on a lot of weight are less likely to stay in touch.
> > >
> > > UCLA graduate student of psychology and co-author of the study, Janet
> > > Tomiyama said that "Several studies indicate that dieting is actually
> > > a consistent predictor of future weight gain."
> > >
> > > One study in particular that they looked at found that men and women
> > > who took part in a weight reduction programme gained significantly
> > > more weight than those who did not over the same period of time.
> > >
> > > Tomiyama mentioned another study, this time looking at links between
> > > lifestyle and weight in 19,000 healthy older men over four years. This
> > > study found that, "One of the best predictors of weight gain over the
> > > four years was having lost weight on a diet at some point during the
> > > years before the study started," she said.
> > >
> > > Also, in many studies with control groups, the people in the control
> > > group very often were better off than the participants who dieted.
> > >
> > > Dr Mann suggests that eating in moderation and exercise do make a
> > > difference. Although they were not looking at exercise in particular,
> > > Dr Mann said that:
> > >
> > > "Exercise may well be the key factor leading to sustained weight loss.
> > > Studies consistently find that people who reported the most exercise
> > > also had the most weight loss."
> > >
> > > One study following obese patients discovered that:
> > >
> > > -- Among those followed for under 2 years, 23 per cent of patients had
> > > regained their weight loss.
> > > -- Among those followed for more than 2 years, 83 per cent had
> > > regained their weight loss.
> > >
> > > Another study found that 50 per cent of dieters weighed 11 pounds (5
> > > kilos) more than their starting weight 5 years after their diet.
> > >
> > > Among the health hazards of repeated weight loss and regain are
> > > cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes and altered immune function,
> > > said Dr Mann and colleagues.
> > >
> > > They said more research is needed on the effects of weight loss and
> > > regain on health, and say scientists do not fully understand the
> > > underlying factors involved in this complex relationship.
> > >
> > > Dr Mann quoted her mother, who herself has tried to diet many times,
> > > without success. Dr Mann's mother said her daughter's findings were
> > > "obvious".
> > >
> > > Although this study reviewed 31 long term dieting projects, they did
> > > not look into specific diets.
> > >
> > > The researchers are of the opinion that weight loss programmes are not
> > > good value for money in the treatment of obesity.
> > >
> > > "The benefits of dieting are too small and the potential harm is too
> > > large for dieting to be recommended as a safe, effective treatment for
> > > obesity," said Dr Mann.
> > >
> > > Between 1980 and 2000, the proportion of obese Americans has doubled,
> > > from 15 to 31 per cent of the population.
> >
> > Thankfully, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet:
> >
> > http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp
> >
> > Suggested reading:
> >
> > http://abchung.livejournal.com/986.h...d=16090#t16090

> I do not consider this a scientific work, because it is based in
> patients behavior and not in diet itself.

It is scientific work because it is application of the scientific
method.

May GOD bless you.

Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,

Andrew <> <
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth

#24 04-15-2007, 11:04 PM

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD escreveu:
- quote -

> morris wrote:
> > http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/heal...p?newsid=67422
> >
> > We all srt of knew this, but the summary is pretty good.
> > Key phrase: dieting is actually a consistent predictor of future
> > weight gain."
> > ************************************************** *****************
> > Scientists Say Dieting Does Not Work
> > 10 Apr 2007
> >
> > US scientists conducting a comprehensive review of dieting research
> > have concluded that dieting does not work.
> >
> > The study is published in the April edition of American Psychologist,
> > the journal of the American Psychological Association.
> >
> > Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA),
> > reviewed 31 long-term studies lasting between 2 to 5 years.
> >
> > UCLA associate professor of psychology and lead author of the study,
> > Traci Mann said:
> >
> > "You can initially lose 5 to 10 percent of your weight on any number
> > of diets, but then the weight comes back."
> >
> > "We found that the majority of people regained all the weight, plus
> > more," she added.
> >
> > The researchers found a very small minority of study participants
> > managed to sustain weight loss, while the majority put all the weight
> > back on, and more in the longer term.
> >
> > "Diets do not lead to sustained weight loss or health benefits for the
> > majority of people," said Dr Mann.
> >
> > Dr Mann and colleagues sought to determine the long term effects of
> > dieting and address the question "Would they have been better off to
> > not go on a diet at all?".
> >
> > So they analyzed every study they could find that followed people on
> > diets for 2 to 5 years. Studies that take less than 2 years are "too
> > short to show whether dieters have regained the weight they lost,"
> > they said.
> >
> > They discovered that it would have been better for most of them if
> > they had not gone on a diet at all.
> >
> > "Their weight would be pretty much the same, and their bodies would
> > not suffer the wear and tear from losing weight and gaining it all
> > back," explained Dr Mann.
> >
> > Their findings show that:
> >
> > -- People on diets typically lose 5 to 10 per cent of their weight in
> > the first 6 months.
> > -- But 33 to 66 per cent regain more than what they lose within 4 to 5
> > years.
> >
> > Dr Mann and colleagues suspect the real situation is actually even
> > worse; the figures do not really reflect reality, making diet studies
> > look better than they are. They say there are a number of reasons for
> > this:
> >
> > -- Many participants phone or mail their results in themselves,
> > without an impartial assessor.
> > -- A lot of studies have a below 50 per cent follow up rate; and the
> > people who put on a lot of weight are less likely to stay in touch.
> >
> > UCLA graduate student of psychology and co-author of the study, Janet
> > Tomiyama said that "Several studies indicate that dieting is actually
> > a consistent predictor of future weight gain."
> >
> > One study in particular that they looked at found that men and women
> > who took part in a weight reduction programme gained significantly
> > more weight than those who did not over the same period of time.
> >
> > Tomiyama mentioned another study, this time looking at links between
> > lifestyle and weight in 19,000 healthy older men over four years. This
> > study found that, "One of the best predictors of weight gain over the
> > four years was having lost weight on a diet at some point during the
> > years before the study started," she said.
> >
> > Also, in many studies with control groups, the people in the control
> > group very often were better off than the participants who dieted.
> >
> > Dr Mann suggests that eating in moderation and exercise do make a
> > difference. Although they were not looking at exercise in particular,
> > Dr Mann said that:
> >
> > "Exercise may well be the key factor leading to sustained weight loss.
> > Studies consistently find that people who reported the most exercise
> > also had the most weight loss."
> >
> > One study following obese patients discovered that:
> >
> > -- Among those followed for under 2 years, 23 per cent of patients had
> > regained their weight loss.
> > -- Among those followed for more than 2 years, 83 per cent had
> > regained their weight loss.
> >
> > Another study found that 50 per cent of dieters weighed 11 pounds (5
> > kilos) more than their starting weight 5 years after their diet.
> >
> > Among the health hazards of repeated weight loss and regain are
> > cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes and altered immune function,
> > said Dr Mann and colleagues.
> >
> > They said more research is needed on the effects of weight loss and
> > regain on health, and say scientists do not fully understand the
> > underlying factors involved in this complex relationship.
> >
> > Dr Mann quoted her mother, who herself has tried to diet many times,
> > without success. Dr Mann's mother said her daughter's findings were
> > "obvious".
> >
> > Although this study reviewed 31 long term dieting projects, they did
> > not look into specific diets.
> >
> > The researchers are of the opinion that weight loss programmes are not
> > good value for money in the treatment of obesity.
> >
> > "The benefits of dieting are too small and the potential harm is too
> > large for dieting to be recommended as a safe, effective treatment for
> > obesity," said Dr Mann.
> >
> > Between 1980 and 2000, the proportion of obese Americans has doubled,
> > from 15 to 31 per cent of the population.
>
> Thankfully, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet:
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp
>
> Suggested reading:
>
> http://abchung.livejournal.com/986.h...d=16090#t16090
>
> May GOD bless you.
>
> Prayerfully in Jesus' ever-lasting love,
>
> Andrew <> <
> --
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> http://EmoryCardiology.com
>
> May HIS immortal brethren pray for our dying mortal friends and
> neighbors:
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
>
> In memory of our dearly departed Bob(this one) Pastorio:
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Bob
>
> As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
> unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
> (Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love
>
> The Official SMC FAQ List:
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/TheTruth/FAQ
>
I do not consider this a scientific work, because it is based in

patients behavior and not in diet itself.
Antonio L Rodrigues

Nutritionist

#23 04-15-2007, 10:07 PM

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD escreveu:
- quote -

> morris wrote:
> > http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/heal...p?newsid=67422
> >
> > We all srt of knew this, but the summary is pretty good.
> > Key phrase: dieting is actually a consistent predictor of future
> > weight gain."
> > ************************************************** *****************
> > Scientists Say Dieting Does Not Work
> > 10 Apr 2007
> >
> > US scientists conducting a comprehensive review of dieting research
> > have concluded that dieting does not work.
> >
> > The study is published in the April edition of American Psychologist,
> > the journal of the American Psychological Association.
> >
> > Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA),
> > reviewed 31 long-term studies lasting between 2 to 5 years.
> >
> > UCLA associate professor of psychology and lead author of the study,
> > Traci Mann said:
> >
> > "You can initially lose 5 to 10 percent of your weight on any number
> > of diets, but then the weight comes back."
> >
> > "We found that the majority of people regained all the weight, plus
> > more," she added.
> >
> > The researchers found a very small minority of study participants
> > managed to sustain weight loss, while the majority put all the weight
> > back on, and more in the longer term.
> >
> > "Diets do not lead to sustained weight loss or health benefits for the
> > majority of people," said Dr Mann.
> >
> > Dr Mann and colleagues sought to determine the long term effects of
> > dieting and address the question "Would they have been better off to
> > not go on a diet at all?".
> >
> > So they analyzed every study they could find that followed people on
> > diets for 2 to 5 years. Studies that take less than 2 years are "too
> > short to show whether dieters have regained the weight they lost,"
> > they said.
> >
> > They discovered that it would have been better for most of them if
> > they had not gone on a diet at all.
> >
> > "Their weight would be pretty much the same, and their bodies would
> > not suffer the wear and tear from losing weight and gaining it all
> > back," explained Dr Mann.
> >
> > Their findings show that:
> >
> > -- People on diets typically lose 5 to 10 per cent of their weight in
> > the first 6 months.
> > -- But 33 to 66 per cent regain more than what they lose within 4 to 5
> > years.
> >
> > Dr Mann and colleagues suspect the real situation is actually even
> > worse; the figures do not really reflect reality, making diet studies
> > look better than they are. They say there are a number of reasons for
> > this:
> >
> > -- Many participants phone or mail their results in themselves,
> > without an impartial assessor.
> > -- A lot of studies have a below 50 per cent follow up rate; and the
> > people who put on a lot of weight are less likely to stay in touch.
> >
> > UCLA graduate student of psychology and co-author of the study, Janet
> > Tomiyama said that "Several studies indicate that dieting is actually
> > a consistent predictor of future weight gain."
> >
> > One study in particular that they looked at found that men and women
> > who took part in a weight reduction programme gained significantly
> > more weight than those who did not over the same period of time.
> >
> > Tomiyama mentioned another study, this time looking at links between
> > lifestyle and weight in 19,000 healthy older men over four years. This
> > study found that, "One of the best predictors of weight gain over the
> > four years was having lost weight on a diet at some point during the
> > years before the study started," she said.
> >
> > Also, in many studies with control groups, the people in the control
> > group very often were better off than the participants who dieted.
> >
> > Dr Mann suggests that eating in moderation and exercise do make a
> > difference. Although they were not looking at exercise in particular,
> > Dr Mann said that:
> >
> > "Exercise may well be the key factor leading to sustained weight loss.
> > Studies consistently find that people who reported the most exercise
> > also had the most weight loss."
> >
> > One study following obese patients discovered that:
> >
> > -- Among those followed for under 2 years, 23 per cent of patients had
> > regained their weight loss.
> > -- Among those followed for more than 2 years, 83 per cent had
> > regained their weight loss.
> >
> > Another study found that 50 per cent of dieters weighed 11 pounds (5
> > kilos) more than their starting weight 5 years after their diet.
> >
> > Among the health hazards of repeated weight loss and regain are
> > cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes and altered immune function,
> > said Dr Mann and colleagues.
> >
> > They said more research is needed on the effects of weight loss and
> > regain on health, and say scientists do not fully understand the
> > underlying factors involved in this complex relationship.
> >
> > Dr Mann quoted her mother, who herself has tried to diet many times,
> > without success. Dr Mann's mother said her daughter's findings were
> > "obvious".
> >
> > Although this study reviewed 31 long term dieting projects, they did
> > not look into specific diets.
> >
> > The researchers are of the opinion that weight loss programmes are not
> > good value for money in the treatment of obesity.
> >
> > "The benefits of dieting are too small and the potential harm is too
> > large for dieting to be recommended as a safe, effective treatment for
> > obesity," said Dr Mann.
> >
> > Between 1980 and 2000, the proportion of obese Americans has doubled,
> > from 15 to 31 per cent of the population.
>
> Thankfully, the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet:
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp
>
> Suggested reading:
>
> http://abchung.livejournal.com/986.h...d=16090#t16090
>
> May GOD bless you.
>
> Prayerfully in Jesus' ever-lasting love,
>
> Andrew <> <
> --
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> http://EmoryCardiology.com
>
> May HIS immortal brethren pray for our dying mortal friends and
> neighbors:
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
>
> In memory of our dearly departed Bob(this one) Pastorio:
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Bob
>
> As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
> unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
> (Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love
>
> The Official SMC FAQ List:
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/TheTruth/FAQ
>
I do not consider this a scientific work, because it is based in

patients behavior and not in diet itself.
Antonio L Rodrigues

Nutritionist

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Calories and dieting Hindian: Is it true that when i eat something, i need only look at the number of calories it contains (if i am trying to determine if it will make me fat)? i.e. forget about the fat, carbohydrates, proteins..etc etc and just look at the calories. ...	Hindian	Nutrition	23	12-18-2004 10:42 PM
Article on No Carb Dieting Trent Duke: Men's Health has a great article on low carb dieting foods...approx 5 pages...and why low carb dieting will cause people to gain weight in the long run. Highly suggest reading even for the ladies. Beware of all the tricks these low carb or...	Trent Duke	Nutrition	2	04-26-2004 04:50 AM
Medscape on dieting Tabi Kasanari: Medscape is running a series of articles with a sensible overview of weight-reduction schemes. Here's the first part in the series. See the link at the end for the references. I don't plan on posting the remaining parts. Note: Medscape requires...	Tabi Kasanari	Nutrition	2	03-02-2004 10:50 PM

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode