On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 02:13:24 -0500, Bob wrote:

Mike Coleman wrote:

Last Shot At The Mu_n writes:

And how does one get to the point where these few calories can be
consumed and one can live with these reduced food intakes?

Well, if for example you limit yourself to fresh fruits and vegetables, you
might actually find it rather difficult to consume 1600-2000 kcals per day.

Might be even more difficult after you consider how much time that
would leave you after the bathroom visits.

http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp

Interesting, though I think "nutrient density" makes more sense as a measure
that simple weight.

Oh, sure, Mike. You're gonna trot out that old calorie thing, aren't
you? That's so yesterday, with all that arithmetic and counting and all.

No. Chung's cute little toy diet makes more sense for today's
population. Except for that calculating and remembering how much
you've already eaten today and how much you have left. And you have to
use base 16 for your figuring. See how much better it is? No worrying
about vitamins or minerals or anything like that. No more milligrams
and stuff like that.

What could be smarter? Besides, "nutrient density" sounds so, I dunno,
scientific and all.

Bob

Meet Bob Pastorio.

Bob likes to think he is an upscale, right on kind of guy. But in the
darkness, he would prefer to endanger the lives of cardiac care
patients so he TROLLS sci.med.cardiology dozens of times each day.

Now you know all you need to know about this king-sized egomaniac.


http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960222.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.