The Daniel Plan
Replies
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Speaking as a minister myself, I see it as a case of a "celebrity" pastor attempting to capitalize on the diet industry by twisting the true meaning of the Scriptural narrative into something it's not.
this is the kind of thing that makes people frown on faith based people....
And towards those who are guilty of things like this, I share that frown.
Then I frown at them again for giving a bad name to those of us who truly just want to seek God and serve others (what the ministry is really supposed to be).
Not everyone is a money grubbing televangelist. I personally know people who have walked away from good jobs and comfortable homes so they could live on less while doing what they felt God calling them to do.
Unfortunately, that's not the view of the church that society gets. What gets shown to society is guys like this and the ones offering an olive branch for your $100 donation.
You sound like a decent guy and I do not doubt that your intentions are honourable.
However, you don't get to do this. You do not get to disavow people who do things in the name of your religion simply because it is inconvenient or goes against what you believe the position truly is or should be. Should I be convinced by what you say simply because you tell me you know what the real deal is with your religion and not the high profile proponents saying they know better out there?
We must ask ourselves what religious texts say in relation to what individuals should and should not do in relation to their bodies (in this case diet), how this has then translated practically into commandments to the faithful by authority figures and whether this still goes on to this day.
I would hope people like you can wrestle your religion away from the power and control hungry out there. However from where I am sitting all major religions have a terrible track record in abusing such power and control and things like this are simply indicative of an established pattern of what has gone before - the true face of religion.
Welp, based on my several readings of the Bible, there is no "Daniel Plan" in there, so I'm not sure why any Christian has to take responsibility for this diet because a bunch of scam artists teamed up with one televangelist and suggested their diet is based on the Bible.
Most fad diets claim they are supported by scientific studies by cherry-picking results much like the Daniel Plan uses the Bible, so based on your argument we should all stop claiming that fad diets aren't based in science. I mean, some dude with a PhD can show a written study where this plan works, so science has to either kick all the charlatans out or support those fad diets!
Lulz, but as has been mentioned in this very thread there are churches which recommend an eating plan based on the biblical account of Daniel. It is not just these dudes (and I agree they are probably out to make a quick buck) who seek to dictate what people should or should not eat.
As to the point about bad science you are preaching to the converted (pardon the pun.) They should rightly be challenged but it is easier in this regard as it does not rely on trying to overcome faith but rather claims which can be falsified or not.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Speaking as a minister myself, I see it as a case of a "celebrity" pastor attempting to capitalize on the diet industry by twisting the true meaning of the Scriptural narrative into something it's not.
this is the kind of thing that makes people frown on faith based people....
And towards those who are guilty of things like this, I share that frown.
Then I frown at them again for giving a bad name to those of us who truly just want to seek God and serve others (what the ministry is really supposed to be).
Not everyone is a money grubbing televangelist. I personally know people who have walked away from good jobs and comfortable homes so they could live on less while doing what they felt God calling them to do.
Unfortunately, that's not the view of the church that society gets. What gets shown to society is guys like this and the ones offering an olive branch for your $100 donation.
You sound like a decent guy and I do not doubt that your intentions are honourable.
However, you don't get to do this. You do not get to disavow people who do things in the name of your religion simply because it is inconvenient or goes against what you believe the position truly is or should be. Should I be convinced by what you say simply because you tell me you know what the real deal is with your religion and not the high profile proponents saying they know better out there?
We must ask ourselves what religious texts say in relation to what individuals should and should not do in relation to their bodies (in this case diet), how this has then translated practically into commandments to the faithful by authority figures and whether this still goes on to this day.
I would hope people like you can wrestle your religion away from the power and control hungry out there. However from where I am sitting all major religions have a terrible track record in abusing such power and control and things like this are simply indicative of an established pattern of what has gone before - the true face of religion.
so the actions of a few are then translated to the whole???
No, we look to, as stated above, 1) what religious texts say in relation to what individuals should and should not do in relation to their bodies (in this case diet), how this has then translated practically into commandments to the faithful 2) by authority figures and whether this still goes on to this day to establish what the trend has been.
1) And the point here is that the text does not support the teaching that the Daniel Fast should be followed as a diet plan.
2) Rick Warren is the pastor of a local (though very large) church. His authority reaches no further than his own congregation.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Speaking as a minister myself, I see it as a case of a "celebrity" pastor attempting to capitalize on the diet industry by twisting the true meaning of the Scriptural narrative into something it's not.
this is the kind of thing that makes people frown on faith based people....
And towards those who are guilty of things like this, I share that frown.
Then I frown at them again for giving a bad name to those of us who truly just want to seek God and serve others (what the ministry is really supposed to be).
Not everyone is a money grubbing televangelist. I personally know people who have walked away from good jobs and comfortable homes so they could live on less while doing what they felt God calling them to do.
Unfortunately, that's not the view of the church that society gets. What gets shown to society is guys like this and the ones offering an olive branch for your $100 donation.
You sound like a decent guy and I do not doubt that your intentions are honourable.
However, you don't get to do this. You do not get to disavow people who do things in the name of your religion simply because it is inconvenient or goes against what you believe the position truly is or should be. Should I be convinced by what you say simply because you tell me you know what the real deal is with your religion and not the high profile proponents saying they know better out there?
We must ask ourselves what religious texts say in relation to what individuals should and should not do in relation to their bodies (in this case diet), how this has then translated practically into commandments to the faithful by authority figures and whether this still goes on to this day.
I would hope people like you can wrestle your religion away from the power and control hungry out there. However from where I am sitting all major religions have a terrible track record in abusing such power and control and things like this are simply indicative of an established pattern of what has gone before - the true face of religion.
Actually, as a representative of my faith and a student of the Scriptures, I absolutely can disavow those who abuse and/or misrepresent the Word of God. Christ taught that we will "know them by their fruits."
If what someone is doing (especially what they are doing in the name of Christ or His church) is out of line with the teachings of Scripture, I not only have the right, I have the duty, to call them out on it.
Teaching Daniel's fast as a diet plan rather than a short term exercise of consecration via self denial during a period of intense prayer for divine intervention is a misrepresentation of Scripture. I will call it as such.
But this dodges my original point of why should I believe you, not them, when you say you represent the true version of your religion? That is why I posed the questions earlier about what the texts actually say and so forth.
Don't get me wrong. I much prefer the version that you present here but what evidence do you have to say it is the correct interpretation?0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Speaking as a minister myself, I see it as a case of a "celebrity" pastor attempting to capitalize on the diet industry by twisting the true meaning of the Scriptural narrative into something it's not.
this is the kind of thing that makes people frown on faith based people....
And towards those who are guilty of things like this, I share that frown.
Then I frown at them again for giving a bad name to those of us who truly just want to seek God and serve others (what the ministry is really supposed to be).
Not everyone is a money grubbing televangelist. I personally know people who have walked away from good jobs and comfortable homes so they could live on less while doing what they felt God calling them to do.
Unfortunately, that's not the view of the church that society gets. What gets shown to society is guys like this and the ones offering an olive branch for your $100 donation.
You sound like a decent guy and I do not doubt that your intentions are honourable.
However, you don't get to do this. You do not get to disavow people who do things in the name of your religion simply because it is inconvenient or goes against what you believe the position truly is or should be. Should I be convinced by what you say simply because you tell me you know what the real deal is with your religion and not the high profile proponents saying they know better out there?
We must ask ourselves what religious texts say in relation to what individuals should and should not do in relation to their bodies (in this case diet), how this has then translated practically into commandments to the faithful by authority figures and whether this still goes on to this day.
I would hope people like you can wrestle your religion away from the power and control hungry out there. However from where I am sitting all major religions have a terrible track record in abusing such power and control and things like this are simply indicative of an established pattern of what has gone before - the true face of religion.
so the actions of a few are then translated to the whole???
No, we look to, as stated above, 1) what religious texts say in relation to what individuals should and should not do in relation to their bodies (in this case diet), how this has then translated practically into commandments to the faithful 2) by authority figures and whether this still goes on to this day to establish what the trend has been.
1) And the point here is that the text does not support the teaching that the Daniel Fast should be followed as a diet plan.
2) Rick Warren is the pastor of a local (though very large) church. His authority reaches no further than his own congregation.
Thanks for the info. I will look up Rick Warren but now I have to run away, excuse me, I mean do some work...
0 -
Dear Posters,
I wanted to remind you of this community guideline:
15. Divisive Topics Are Better Suited For Groups, Not the Main Forums
Divisive topics and posts, particularly those that seek input from or are relevant only to a select group of users, are better placed within an appropriate Group rather than the Main Forums. For example, topics relevant to only one religion should not be placed on the main forums but rather within a group related to that religion.
This thread is evolving into a religious debate. I would like to leave this thread open, but if the religious debate continues I'll be forced to close it.
Thank you,
USMCMP
MyFitnessPal Moderator0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »(I'd also thought it was a fasting thing, no idea why.)
Isn't that just Lent?
Oh, I'm very familiar with Lent. Nothing to do with the Daniel Plan. At least not traditionally. In some denominations, maybe. (Making Lent into a way to lose weight always annoys me, also, as I think it's contrary to the spirit.)
I don't know why I assumed there was some fasting element to the Daniel Plan, I'm sure it's just my ignorance!
Lol, please accept my apologies as I was being frivolous.
I've seen a few people suggest that Lent and fasting should go hand in hand so that's why it sprang to mind.
Religion has been involved in the diet business for ages so frankly this plan doesn't surprise me one iota.
No apologies necessary, I'm not being super serious either.0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »@lemurcat12 The Daniel Fast is a different thing, where people took the story of Daniel, stripped it of what I believe is its actual meaning, and decided that the core message is not to eat any meat or processed foods. They call it a fast but you can eat, it just eliminates a lot of foods.
Oh, thanks! I'm not totally crazy then--there's a reason for my mistake. ;-)0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Speaking as a minister myself, I see it as a case of a "celebrity" pastor attempting to capitalize on the diet industry by twisting the true meaning of the Scriptural narrative into something it's not.
this is the kind of thing that makes people frown on faith based people....
And towards those who are guilty of things like this, I share that frown.
Then I frown at them again for giving a bad name to those of us who truly just want to seek God and serve others (what the ministry is really supposed to be).
Not everyone is a money grubbing televangelist. I personally know people who have walked away from good jobs and comfortable homes so they could live on less while doing what they felt God calling them to do.
Unfortunately, that's not the view of the church that society gets. What gets shown to society is guys like this and the ones offering an olive branch for your $100 donation.
You sound like a decent guy and I do not doubt that your intentions are honourable.
However, you don't get to do this. You do not get to disavow people who do things in the name of your religion simply because it is inconvenient or goes against what you believe the position truly is or should be. Should I be convinced by what you say simply because you tell me you know what the real deal is with your religion and not the high profile proponents saying they know better out there?
We must ask ourselves what religious texts say in relation to what individuals should and should not do in relation to their bodies (in this case diet), how this has then translated practically into commandments to the faithful by authority figures and whether this still goes on to this day.
I would hope people like you can wrestle your religion away from the power and control hungry out there. However from where I am sitting all major religions have a terrible track record in abusing such power and control and things like this are simply indicative of an established pattern of what has gone before - the true face of religion.
Actually, as a representative of my faith and a student of the Scriptures, I absolutely can disavow those who abuse and/or misrepresent the Word of God. Christ taught that we will "know them by their fruits."
If what someone is doing (especially what they are doing in the name of Christ or His church) is out of line with the teachings of Scripture, I not only have the right, I have the duty, to call them out on it.
Teaching Daniel's fast as a diet plan rather than a short term exercise of consecration via self denial during a period of intense prayer for divine intervention is a misrepresentation of Scripture. I will call it as such.
But this dodges my original point of why should I believe you, not them, when you say you represent the true version of your religion? That is why I posed the questions earlier about what the texts actually say and so forth.
Don't get me wrong. I much prefer the version that you present here but what evidence do you have to say it is the correct interpretation?
Scripture itself offers two examples of when Daniel adhered to a certain way of eating.
In Daniel, chapter 1, as Daniel and his companions are brought captive into Babylon, they are offered the king's meat and wine (being that they were nobles in their own country they were to be schooled as dignitaries).
The king's meat was unlawful for them to eat for several reasons (offered first to idols, served rare (Israelites were forbidden to eat bloody food), often pork...). The wine was also always first offered to idols before being served.
For that reason, Daniel requested to be served only vegetables (the text reads "pulse" which could mean all plants or legumes specifically) and water.
Initially, his caretaker refused for fear of the king (if you're in charge of taking care of prospective dignitaries you better be feeding them "the best food" as prescribed). So Daniel made a challenge for them to try it for ten days to see if they looked as good as the others.
After ten days they (Daniel and his friends) looked better than the others. God gave them favor and blessed them in their dealings with the Babylonians because of their obedience.
It's a story of "stand up for what's right even in the face of danger and you'll be blessed for it."
In chapter 10, Daniel (who has by now been promoted to a place of leadership) is in distress for his people and for 3 weeks he dedicates himself to prayer while abstaining from "pleasant bread," wine and meat (indicating that now that he has authority, he also has the ability to procure meat and wine which is lawful for him to eat and he does so. thus the pulse diet described in chapter one was not a lifestyle, only a temporary means of abstaining from food offered to idols).
After 3 weeks, he is visited by an angel who gives him a message concerning the fate of his people and his "fast" comes to an end.0 -
Just now saw USMCMP's reminder.
Hopefully my explanation of the stories of Daniel posted above can be taken as a critical review of the premise of The Daniel Diet itself, rather than a religious argument.0 -
The mere fact that Dr. Oz is invested in it would be enough to turn me off. CICO requires no fees, no books to buy, no classes to attend, etc. to be successful. While some more religious people may need that level of support, it *is* possible to lose the weight w/o it.0
-
I have the book at home. The proposed lifestyle choice may seem a little shady and read on the internet mixed reviews. The debate is whether or not it is a legitimate lifestyle choice or a facade these doctors proposed to sell books?! I guess if it's only supposed to be for 40 days it shouldn't be that big of a deal. I just wanted to know others thoughts on it. I wasn't trying to take a religious stand. More like, if anyone has experienced the plan if it's worked or if they think it's hogwash?!
0 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »(I'd also thought it was a fasting thing, no idea why.)
Isn't that just Lent?
Oh, I'm very familiar with Lent. Nothing to do with the Daniel Plan. At least not traditionally. In some denominations, maybe. (Making Lent into a way to lose weight always annoys me, also, as I think it's contrary to the spirit.)
I don't know why I assumed there was some fasting element to the Daniel Plan, I'm sure it's just my ignorance!
It's a reasonable assumption. Fasting can be year round; Lent is just the most prolonged and important fast. In the middle ages the church had set fast days (every Friday, for example), which was helpful for both spiritual purposes, but also helped ensure that the rich didn't eat ALL the food out of the mouths of the poor, just MOST of the food. There was always a fast before every feast day as well, to make the feast more meaningful and special. The Jewish tradition had fasting year round as well. And then there is the tradition of the ascetics and the hard-core fasting in monastic communities, as well as private fasts by devout individuals as needed.
what? most important to whom??? I feel like you're reaching.
0 -
Also- I can't stop giggling about Dr. Hyman.
#sorrynotsorry0 -
daniellejacobs714 wrote: »
I have the book at home. The proposed lifestyle choice may seem a little shady and read on the internet mixed reviews. The debate is whether or not it is a legitimate lifestyle choice or a facade these doctors proposed to sell books?! I guess if it's only supposed to be for 40 days it shouldn't be that big of a deal. I just wanted to know others thoughts on it. I wasn't trying to take a religious stand. More like, if anyone has experienced the plan if it's worked or if they think it's hogwash?!
This should be a red flag. Anything designed to be done for only 40 days is likely not sustainable. Anything that isn't sustainable isn't worth doing from a diet perspective.0 -
daniellejacobs714 wrote: »
I have the book at home. The proposed lifestyle choice may seem a little shady and read on the internet mixed reviews. The debate is whether or not it is a legitimate lifestyle choice or a facade these doctors proposed to sell books?! I guess if it's only supposed to be for 40 days it shouldn't be that big of a deal. I just wanted to know others thoughts on it. I wasn't trying to take a religious stand. More like, if anyone has experienced the plan if it's worked or if they think it's hogwash?!
Nothing about your OP asked for a religious debate in my opinion, no worries. We just got a little out of hand
I would say if you are a person of faith, and wanted to do this program as a part of the community to show commitment, you aren't going to hurt yourself and you might lose some weight. But understand that the specific rules are just extrapolations of a Bible story that have nothing to do with weight loss or even health.
If you are just looking for a way of eating in order to lose weight, don't bother with this. Plug your stats into MFP, get a food scale, start logging your food and go from there. All you really need to do to lose weight is eat less calories than you burn.0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Speaking as a minister myself, I see it as a case of a "celebrity" pastor attempting to capitalize on the diet industry by twisting the true meaning of the Scriptural narrative into something it's not.
Amen.
(No pun intended. Really.)
It should have been intended, it would have been funny.0 -
What's everyone's problem with the doctors listed above? Dr Mark Hyman is one I have read. He has written much on the digestive biome and its effects on the immune system and more which I found interesting. Many people are not blessed with bodies which perform in the expected ways putting up all manor of reactions to food and the modern environment. Some of us find the functional approach to medicine helpful particularly when ones issues are at the cutting edge of scientific understanding and general medicine fail us.
Whether or not to take a religious approach is a personal thing.0 -
OP, I have a few friends who have tried the Daniel Plan. One lost about 5 pounds and plateaued in the middle of the 40 days. The other did not lose any weight.0
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »Speaking as a minister myself, I see it as a case of a "celebrity" pastor attempting to capitalize on the diet industry by twisting the true meaning of the Scriptural narrative into something it's not.
this is the kind of thing that makes people frown on faith based people....
No true Scotsman and all that jazz...
Important enough to be repeated.0 -
What's everyone's problem with the doctors listed above? Dr Mark Hyman is one I have read. He has written much on the digestive biome and its effects on the immune system and more which I found interesting. Many people are not blessed with bodies which perform in the expected ways putting up all manor of reactions to food and the modern environment. Some of us find the functional approach to medicine helpful particularly when ones issues are at the cutting edge of scientific understanding and general medicine fail us.
Whether or not to take a religious approach is a personal thing.
A lot of people here, myself included, read the blog Science Based Medicine, which is written by a group of science based doctors and/or research scientists. It examines dubious medical claims vs the available research on the topic. Both Drs Oz and Hyman regularly make the blog, and not in a good way. Here a sampling of some of the available articles on Hyman:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/30/inflamed
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/09/08/dr-mark-hyman-mangles-autism-science-on/
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/personalized-medicine-bait-and-switch/
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/11/09/mark-hyman-mangling-cancer-research/
Honestly, I'd put Hyman and other practitioners like him in the same category as religion. The research mostly doesn't support their claims, so it becomes about beliefs.0 -
ILiftHeavyAcr - thank you for taking the time to put those links together. I can't share your blind faith in science when I've experienced something which "is not so", I can't raise the blind faith needed simply because I'm told, "because it is".0
-
-
This content has been removed.
-
When you are told by your doctor "you can't possibly have those symptoms", You know you have them, that they are real. Then you discover researching endocrinology papers at a much later date years, the mechanism by which it can happen. I can't put all my faith in that kind of general medicine. There are many of us out there failed by the blind application of modern medicine.0
-
ILiftHeavyAcr - thank you for taking the time to put those links together. I can't share your blind faith in science when I've experienced something which "is not so", I can't raise the blind faith needed simply because I'm told, "because it is".
Sooo, you'd rather use blind faith to subscribe to Dr. Oz's woo-woo, than tried and true SCIENCE??? Wow...0 -
Readbread - you are reading more into what I said than what was there. When it comes to my getting out of my health issues, I like to know the whys and where's of all things, no blind faith in anyone least of all those who call themselves doctor. I think that covers Oz too. I go my own way, reading thinking things through, see where some sort of sense lies which is how come I found the mechanism which was and still is making me ill.
There is so much more to be discovered about how our bodies work not least that some fail at a much lower level than others. Blind science can be just as dangerous and unfettered science.0 -
Readbread - you are reading more into what I said than what was there. When it comes to my getting out of my health issues, I like to know the whys and where's of all things, no blind faith in anyone least of all those who call themselves doctor. I think that covers Oz too. I go my own way, reading thinking things through, see where some sort of sense lies which is how come I found the mechanism which was and still is making me ill.
There is so much more to be discovered about how our bodies work not least that some fail at a much lower level than others. Blind science can be just as dangerous and unfettered science.
0 -
Oh yes, even MFP say that the calories taken up by 12 spoons of sugar equalling 10% of total is enough for anyone on 2000 calories per day. Naturally that is added sugars not from whole fruit. Science moves.0
-
Readbread - you are reading more into what I said than what was there. When it comes to my getting out of my health issues, I like to know the whys and where's of all things, no blind faith in anyone least of all those who call themselves doctor. I think that covers Oz too. I go my own way, reading thinking things through, see where some sort of sense lies which is how come I found the mechanism which was and still is making me ill.
There is so much more to be discovered about how our bodies work not least that some fail at a much lower level than others. Blind science can be just as dangerous and unfettered science.
I have health issues that science can't completely explain either so I get the temptation to look toward people who claim to know the answer. It'd be so much nicer to hear "we know what does this and it's gluten (or whatever)" rather than "we just don't know." The problem with alt-med practitioners is that, as one of the articles above points out, when their theories are disproved they cling to them anyway. Science-based medicine can be wrong but at least it's self-correcting. When research shows that something doesn't work those researchers discard the treatment. They don't double down, which is what I've experienced from those in the alt-med camp.
Do I have absolute faith that everything scientists currently believe about the body is true? No. The great thing about science is that it's always being re-evaluated and corrected for current knowledge. Do I believe scientists are going to be closer than the average alt-med practitioner who is still using disproved theories from the Dark Ages? Yes, I do. If you think that's nothing but "blind faith" then there's nothing I can do about that.
Whether you want to place your trust in science or psuedoscience is up to you and makes no difference to me. But you asked why people are skeptical of Dr Hyman and that's why.0 -
Oh yes, even MFP say that the calories taken up by 12 spoons of sugar equalling 10% of total is enough for anyone on 2000 calories per day. Naturally that is added sugars not from whole fruit. Science moves.
This is incomprehensible.
12 spoons of sugar -- do you mean teaspoons? That's about 195 calories. (And a lot of added sugar, nearly 50 grams.)
MFP doesn't have an added sugar goal. Yes, the current US dietary recommendations are for no more than 10% of calories in added sugar (not much different than old recommendations, just quantified -- do you think we were recommended to eat unlimited sugar before? That's not the case. Also, the reasons given (as for the WHO's recommendation) is that eating lots of added sugar tends to equate to eating lots of calories from high cal, low nutrient items (either sugary soda or, often, products involving both sugar and fat, with as many calories or more from fat -- the calories are the issue, really, according to the explanation). This tends to result in excessive calories and an unbalanced diet without adequate nutrients. If someone eats a sensible diet with adequate nutrients and not too many calories, one is not going to have to worry about the sugar. For example, I don't think about sugar, and yet am nowhere near 10% of calories from added sugar on average (on an occasional day? sure, maybe).
More significantly, I don't see what this has to do with the merits of Hyman and Oz or the Daniel Plan (I still wish I knew what the diet portion of the DP is).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions