| |
Main
Date: 26 Aug 2006 07:45:39
From:
Subject: Bekele & Big Macs
|
If Bekele is eating McDonalds 24 hours before he's competing, it's just
part of his normal diet and he's eating McDonald's all the time.
Who's to argue?
-
The Myth:
"Ethiopia's long distance running can be attributed to a combination of
essentially three factors: Geography, diet, and psychological make-up.
" "Another reason for the success could also be the cereal-based diet
which is excellent for distance running. Much of the Ethiopian diet
consists of only naturally grown or developed components that are
nourishing for distance running".
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/sports/html/20060820T210000-0500_111637_OBS_A_LESSON_TO_LEARN_IN_DISTANCE_RUNNING_FROM_ETHIOPIA_.asp
Truth:
8/26/06
"Last night Kenenisa Bekele was spied by myself and colleague lining-up
to buy a burger from a famous fast food franchise which given his
spectacular run some 24 hours later in the men's 5000m, probably puts
pay to any suggestion that in moderation a little bit of saturated fat
can do you any harm - well this writer for one was happy to note the
fact anyway!" "At least for the World 5000m record holder fast food
gave him every bit of energy required to break the hopes and energy of
his opponents. Bekele, who was led through 3000m by his brother Tariku
(7:34.12) came home impressively in 12:48.09, his third fastest time
ever, and the 2006 season's world lead".
http://www.iaaf.org/GLE06/news/Kind=2/newsId=35971.html
8/26/06
-- Spotted last night: world and Olympic champion Kenenisa Bekele
eating out... at McDonald's. - Runnersweb
|
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 17:22:00
From: steve common
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
lanceandrew@aol.com wrote:
>If Bekele is eating McDonalds 24 hours before he's competing, it's just
>part of his normal diet and he's eating McDonald's all the time.
>Who's to argue?
So is Bush making Americans slow or is he using the Bekele mathod to make
'em faster :oP
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 10:05:26
From: Todd
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"steve common" <stevenZ.common@free.fr > wrote in message
news:0lp0f2tvfpesos72snq8vlhit8gj4ek0ng@4ax.com...
> lanceandrew@aol.com wrote:
>
> >If Bekele is eating McDonalds 24 hours before he's competing, it's just
> >part of his normal diet and he's eating McDonald's all the time.
> >Who's to argue?
>
> So is Bush making Americans slow or is he using the Bekele mathod to make
> 'em faster :oP
It's actually a way to save social security. If people eat themselves into
an early grave, less people will need social security and the system won't
go belly up (pun intended).
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 00:52:50
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Todd" <Todd33@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:D4idnVhZbJjX7G3ZnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "steve common" <stevenZ.common@free.fr> wrote in message
> news:0lp0f2tvfpesos72snq8vlhit8gj4ek0ng@4ax.com...
>> lanceandrew@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >If Bekele is eating McDonalds 24 hours before he's competing, it's
>> >just
>> >part of his normal diet and he's eating McDonald's all the time.
>> >Who's to argue?
>>
>> So is Bush making Americans slow or is he using the Bekele mathod to
>> make
>> 'em faster :oP
>
> It's actually a way to save social security. If people eat themselves
> into
> an early grave, less people will need social security and the system
> won't
> go belly up (pun intended).
I think the Iraqi war is doing just that - killing those that would draw
from the system down the line. Since privatization didn't work this cuts
the numbers a different way. No wonder we don't have a exit plan. Only
a little tongue in cheek.
-DF
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2006 20:49:30
From: Todd
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:C16Ig.19746$rI5.3339@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
> >
> > It's actually a way to save social security. If people eat themselves
> > into
> > an early grave, less people will need social security and the system
> > won't
> > go belly up (pun intended).
>
> I think the Iraqi war is doing just that - killing those that would draw
> from the system down the line. Since privatization didn't work this cuts
> the numbers a different way. No wonder we don't have a exit plan. Only
> a little tongue in cheek.
I know, you have a bug in your ass about the Iraqi war and it distorts your
understanding of everything else. Obesity is killing about 9 million times
the number of Americans compared to the Iraqi war and your solution is to
put the federal government in charge of controlling obesity. A more
effective solution is to put a cigarette type tax on all fast food (prepared
food with fat content > X). I don't like it but it would be effective to a
degree and it would generate a lot of revenue. Perhaps we could give away
carrots and Romaine lettuce?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 05:56:13
From: The Trailrunner
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
Todd wrote:
> I know, you have a bug in your ass about the Iraqi war and it distorts your
> understanding of everything else. Obesity is killing about 9 million times
> the number of Americans compared to the Iraqi war
Yeah Doug, it's only a few thousand Americans who've died in Iraq. No
need to count all those ragheads that have died. After all, they were
just collateral damage. Tongue nowhere near cheek but fingers gripping
nostrils at the stench of death.
--
- The Trailrunner
Anti-Spam Alert: If you wish to reply, cut the *BS*
Trails of the Diablo Valley
*Running - Hiking - Nature*
http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/trails/6016/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 13:20:42
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Todd" <Todd33@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:7NqdnV2qWd-glWzZnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> Obesity is killing about 9 million times
> the number of Americans compared to the Iraqi war and your solution is
> to
> put the federal government in charge of controlling obesity. A more
> effective solution is to put a cigarette type tax on all fast food
> (prepared
> food with fat content > X).
Ok and who would be in charge of setting this tax? Shall we wait for
all the states and all the planets, with or without the controversial
Pluto, to enact this tax? This dumb move would take a federal action.
Do you think Dubya is going to push that? He is going to piss off the
fast food industry? Psst, it's big business. You would have a better
chance at getting the Pope to advocate birth control.
By the way, we do the tax thing on gas and cigarettes and I don't think
it works. You need to EDUCATE but since you a Bush fan you must prefer
the mighty sword and threats to get your point across. I'm beginning to
see your values not just your politics.
-DF
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 13:59:53
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
On 2006-08-27, Doug Freese <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote:
[snip]
> By the way, we do the tax thing on gas and cigarettes and I don't think
> it works.
Gas prices are relatively low in the US. That's why Americans drive bigger cars
than people in other countries. Cigarettes are very hard to quit.
I think at least part of the reason people buy fast food is that it is really
cheap.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 07:42:30
From: Todd
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:K_gIg.25215$v82.18123@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
> "Todd" <Todd33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7NqdnV2qWd-glWzZnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > Obesity is killing about 9 million times
> > the number of Americans compared to the Iraqi war and your solution is
> > to
> > put the federal government in charge of controlling obesity. A more
> > effective solution is to put a cigarette type tax on all fast food
> > (prepared
> > food with fat content > X).
>
> Ok and who would be in charge of setting this tax? Shall we wait for
> all the states and all the planets, with or without the controversial
> Pluto, to enact this tax? This dumb move would take a federal action.
> Do you think Dubya is going to push that? He is going to piss off the
> fast food industry? Psst, it's big business. You would have a better
> chance at getting the Pope to advocate birth control.
>
Hey dumb dumb, I said it would be more effective than putting more dollars
into pe. And yes I know a shitload of people that quit smoking when
cigarettes got higher than $20 then $30 and up a carton.
> By the way, we do the tax thing on gas and cigarettes and I don't think
> it works. You need to EDUCATE but since you a Bush fan you must prefer
> the mighty sword and threats to get your point across. I'm beginning to
> see your values not just your politics.
From the beginning you needed to get Bush out of your thick head and think
of real ways to fight obesity because it wasn't on the radar when Bubba was
in office and it ain't now and it won't be for a long time because a lot of
fat americans don't want to hear it. After a while people accept their fat
selves for who they are and many think they are in fine shape until they are
on a killer diet, medicine or are dead. BTW, every fat person I know that
isn't delusional (kids included) knows they should get more exercise and eat
better. There is more to it than education and I tell you that culture is a
big part of it. Eat for every event known to man and get no exercise. Stop
being a BOOB (Blame everyOne thing On Bush) and start seeing reality.
You'll note I didn't argue the war (I have some real mized feelings there)
because it obfuscates the issue we are talking about and you look like a
fool blaming everything on him.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 01:30:45
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Todd" <Todd33@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:vcKdnSuYp8jUPGzZnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> From the beginning you needed to get Bush out of your thick head and
> think
> of real ways to fight obesity because it wasn't on the radar when
> Bubba was
> in office and it ain't now and it won't be for a long time because a
> lot of
> fat americans don't want to hear it. After a while people accept
> their fat
> selves for who they are and many think they are in fine shape until
> they are
> on a killer diet, medicine or are dead. BTW, every fat person I know
> that
> isn't delusional (kids included) knows they should get more exercise
> and eat
> better. There is more to it than education and I tell you that
> culture is a
> big part of it. Eat for every event known to man and get no exercise.
> Stop
> being a BOOB (Blame everyOne thing On Bush) and start seeing reality.
> You'll note I didn't argue the war (I have some real mized feelings
> there)
> because it obfuscates the issue we are talking about and you look like
> a
> fool blaming everything on him.
Ok, so your solution it the status quo which is the same as this
administration so I can see why like the guys in office. All you do is
point the finger. In the mean time the kids get more obese and more
cases if childhood diabeties. I can only assume you don't give a shit
about kids that can't fend for themselves. All you do is sound bite that
we are blaming poor dufus. He is the current one in charge and doing
nothing. Oh wait, you wanted a fat food tax. How about having people
get weighed as input to their income tax and having a fat table. We can
then funnel some of that extra money back to to the likes of Exon/Mobile
or Nabisco.
You blame, you have no solutions, classic dubya.
-DF
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 19:52:36
From: Todd
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:9HrIg.25249$v82.17098@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
>
> Ok, so your solution it the status quo which is the same as this
> administration so I can see why like the guys in office. All you do is
> point the finger. In the mean time the kids get more obese and more
> cases if childhood diabeties. I can only assume you don't give a shit
> about kids that can't fend for themselves. All you do is sound bite that
> we are blaming poor dufus. He is the current one in charge and doing
> nothing. Oh wait, you wanted a fat food tax. How about having people
> get weighed as input to their income tax and having a fat table. We can
> then funnel some of that extra money back to to the likes of Exon/Mobile
> or Nabisco.
>
> You blame, you have no solutions, classic dubya.
Hey dumbass, reread some of the posts. There are a lot of solutions I
stated that you can't accept because it doesn't involve your precious
federal government getting in charge and you didn't read for clarity because
I said I wasn't in favor of a fat tax but that it would be more effective
than a fart in the wind PE (I am surprised you aren't you as you are on
record as being a tax lover). The real solutions are similar to ones that
have been more effective against cigarettes and drugs i.e., parental
involvement. Now get off your ass and go be a coach of some kids team that
is underprivileged (basketball, running, skateboarding, swimming) or you are
the classic hater with no balls to back up your position.
>
> -DF
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 02:10:02
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Todd" <Todd33@hotmail.com > wrote
> Hey dumbass, reread some of the posts.
[....]
> Now get off your ass and go be a coach of some kids team that is
> underprivileged (basketball, running, skateboarding, swimming)
> or you are the classic hater with no balls to back up your
> position.
Why are you so determined to make this personal? This is not
about Doug, this is about the President.
-- __________________
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:09:31
From: Todd
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Mark Hutchinson" <marhutch@goamil.com > wrote in message
news:44f25079$0$8825$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> "Todd" <Todd33@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > Hey dumbass, reread some of the posts.
> [....]
> > Now get off your ass and go be a coach of some kids team that is
> > underprivileged (basketball, running, skateboarding, swimming)
> > or you are the classic hater with no balls to back up your
> > position.
>
> Why are you so determined to make this personal? This is not
> about Doug, this is about the President.
>
No, this is about why kids are fat. It has nothing to do with the
president. Doug has a vendetta against the president.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 02:24:38
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Todd" <Todd33@hotmail.com > wrote
>
> "Mark Hutchinson" <marhutch@goamil.com> wrote in message
> news:44f25079$0$8825$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>> "Todd" <Todd33@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>> > Hey dumbass, reread some of the posts.
>> [....]
>> > Now get off your ass and go be a coach of some kids team that is
>> > underprivileged (basketball, running, skateboarding, swimming)
>> > or you are the classic hater with no balls to back up your
>> > position.
>>
>> Why are you so determined to make this personal? This is not
>> about Doug, this is about the President.
>>
> No, this is about why kids are fat. It has nothing to do with the
> president. Doug has a vendetta against the president.
So what? It's a lot more sporting to criticize a sitting President
than to defend him. He doesn't really need your "defending".
--
__________________
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2006 21:24:49
From: Todd
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Mark Hutchinson" <marhutch@goamil.com > wrote in message
news:44f253e6$0$8943$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> >>
> >> Why are you so determined to make this personal? This is not
> >> about Doug, this is about the President.
> >>
> > No, this is about why kids are fat. It has nothing to do with the
> > president. Doug has a vendetta against the president.
>
> So what? It's a lot more sporting to criticize a sitting President
> than to defend him. He doesn't really need your "defending".
>
No, but the fat kids do need defending, not just hot air from those that
don't have a clue concerning obesity.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> __________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 02:45:44
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Todd" <Todd33@hotmail.com > wrote
>
> "Mark Hutchinson" <marhutch@goamil.com> wrote in message
> news:44f253e6$0$8943$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>> >>
>> >> Why are you so determined to make this personal? This is
>> >> not about Doug, this is about the President.
>> >>
>> > No, this is about why kids are fat. It has nothing to do
>> > with the president. Doug has a vendetta against the
>> > president.
>>
>> So what? It's a lot more sporting to criticize a sitting
>> President than to defend him. He doesn't really need your
>> "defending".
>>
>
> No, but the fat kids do need defending, not just hot air from
> those that don't have a clue concerning obesity.
I disagree. The last thing fat kids need is "defending". They need
to eat less and exercise more.
How does Bush fit into this? Like this - one of the culprits causing
the current obesity epidemic is the absurd "Food Pyramid" promoted by
the USDA. With its emphasis on low-fat but high-carbohydrate foods,
weight gain is just about guaranteed. Is that Bush's fault? Well,
yes, indirectly perhaps, but he *is* in charge. And the guy in
charge gets the credit if things go right and the blame if they
don't. That's how it's supposed to work. Bush needs to show some
presidential leadership in helping us address this particular issue.
And he's not doing that. I think that was Doug's point.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 07:12:58
From: Todd
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Mark Hutchinson" <marhutch@goamil.com > wrote in message
news:44f258d8$0$8870$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> >
> > No, but the fat kids do need defending, not just hot air from
> > those that don't have a clue concerning obesity.
>
> I disagree. The last thing fat kids need is "defending". They need
> to eat less and exercise more.
No, the first thing they need is defending in the sense that they need
effective solutions. If you have read anything, you have read that I said
the kiddies need to eat less and exercise more. It's not effective to just
blame someone because we don't like him on the war. The one thing Dubya has
done over his predecessor is led by example. He used to run a lot more and
doesn't stop at McDonald's every five minutes. Other than that, the answers
lie with families, extended families, volunteers and local initiatives. The
absurd food pyramid and food groups are perfect examples of why the federal
government wasn't even set up to address issues like obesity.
Thomas Jefferson would roll in his grave if he heard that people had so
little initiative as to demand their government help them lose weight. To
paraphrase Kennedy, "Ask not how your government can make your ass smaller,
ask you how you make government smaller."
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 13:31:35
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Todd" <Todd33@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:S4idndgDBexDdm_ZnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@comcast.com...
> No, the first thing they need is defending in the sense that they need
> effective solutions. If you have read anything, you have read that I
> said
> the kiddies need to eat less and exercise more.
That's a statement not a solution.
> The one thing Dubya has done over his predecessor is led by example.
Boy oh boy you do lead with your chin. I wanna grow up to be just like
him. Even the European nations( less Tony in England who is on thin ice)
recognize him as a buffoon. Doesn't it bother you that we as nation are
lower than whale manure. From and international perspective he and his
cadre are poster boys for how not to run a government or better yet,
piss of the world.
> He used to run a lot more and
> doesn't stop at McDonald's every five minutes.
That's leading? Wow? I'll bet that will really curb obesity in the
kids.
> Other than that, the answers
> lie with families, extended families,
It isn't working or we wouldn't be where we are today. You seem to think
that by osmosis people will wake up? It's a cycle that needs to be
broken by education not showing Bubba running. Hell, we have a TV full
of non-drug sports hero's for a positive influence and it doesn't get
the kids off their asses to go exercise. A film clip on a News program
is not exactly what kids watch.
> volunteers and local initiatives.
Some of it being tried with meals and the removal a candy machines from
schools. It still does not educate so they don't stop and have a double
whopper on the way home.
> The
> absurd food pyramid and food groups are perfect examples of why the
> federal
> government wasn't even set up to address issues like obesity.
So show me your nutitional knowledge and tell us what is wrong with the
pyramid. I'm sure you not going disagree with exercise being at the
base. Fruits and complex carbs are bad? Minimizing processed carbs and
eliminating simple sugar like most the kids cereals that they see on TV
and told they get energy from?
> Thomas Jefferson would roll in his grave if he heard that people had
> so
> little initiative as to demand their government help them lose weight.
Jefferson would roll over if knew big business targeting children TV ads
to eat shit food. Pick any network cartoon show and look at the ads. I
don't think you have any idea of the power of TV ads especially with
kids. We got cigarettes off why not brainwashing ads to get kids to eat
shit food. I'm sure it has nothing to with the lobbyists and election
campaigns. Of course not.
> paraphrase Kennedy, "Ask not how your government can make your ass
> smaller,
> ask you how you make government smaller."
And how has Bush made it smaller - Home-land security? I'm sure you will
argue that HS is necessary and I would probably agree although the
implementation is political not security. It's not clear that the action
to solve the obesity issue would take massive more government pe se. It
might take some money for schools to implement some aggressive programs
but we know he is not interested in health nor how to educate in general
but only tests.
There is a reason that he is down to 30% because 70% don't like the way
he leads across all the issues with the Iraqi situation showing his
administraions inability to assess and lead. They are just gun slinging
bullies creating a massive deficit. If he and the rest of his cronies,
and I use cronies to the fullest, are an example to follow I hope no
other country follows in our footsteps.
In essence you have no solutions just catch phrases and finger pointing
which means status quo. I see why you like Bush. Yup, a great leader by
avoidance.
-DF
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 07:57:59
From: Todd
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:XkXIg.20262$rI5.10883@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
> In essence you have no solutions just catch phrases and finger pointing
> which means status quo. I see why you like Bush. Yup, a great leader by
> avoidance.
A thousand effective solutions and you can't even read one. Just fixate on
Bush and and no solutions. People like you are the reason the looney left
lost all three branches of government. Whine, complain, and ignore the
obvious if difficult solutions. Did you volunteer to help a kids club yet?
Didn't think so. It is easier to talk than act.
>
>
> -DF
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 17:19:12
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
Todd said...
>
>"Mark Hutchinson" <marhutch@goamil.com> wrote in message
>No, the first thing they need is defending in the sense that they
>need effective solutions. If you have read anything, you have
>read that I said the kiddies need to eat less and exercise more.
Yeah, I know what you said and we pretty much agree on that. But
I'm glad you clarified what you meant by "defending". Too often
parents will "defend" their fat kids by making up all kinds of
excuses for them.
>It's not effective to just blame someone because we don't like
>him on the war. The one thing Dubya has done over his
>predecessor is led by example. He used to run a lot more and
>doesn't stop at McDonald's every five minutes.
I have to tell you that whatever respect I had left for Dubya went
out the window the moment he stopped running. :-(
>Other than that, the answers lie with families, extended
>families, volunteers and local initiatives. The absurd food
>pyramid and food groups are perfect examples of why the federal
>government wasn't even set up to address issues like obesity.
>Thomas Jefferson would roll in his grave if he heard that people
>had so little initiative as to demand their government help them
>lose weight.
I don't think he would. He understood that in a democracy we cede
certain of our liberties to the government in exchange for certain
forms of protection (Army, police, FDA, SEC, etc.).
This nutrition issue sort of falls into that category. It's an
extremely complex subject, without much of a consensus even among
the leading researchers. So what's the average person to do?
It's so difficult to become knowledgeable enough to use your own
judgement that you look to some authority to help you out. In
this case, that authority has been the government, primarily
through the USDA, but also through the leadership provided by
someone like the President. If he felt this issue was important
enough, I think he could provide tremendous help by focusing
public attention on this problem. But his contribution has been
absent. Perhaps it's AWOL in Iraq, as Doug suggests.
>To paraphrase Kennedy, "Ask not how your government can make your
>ass smaller, ask you how you make government smaller."
I like the way you phrased that, but are you seriously suggesting
this administration has made our government smaller in any way? To
the contrary, the fiscal irresponsibility exhibited by the
Republicans has been nothing short of stunning. Or do you
disagree?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 17:30:49
From: Todd
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Mark Hutchinson" <marhutch@goamil.com > wrote in message
news:44f47710$0$8832$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Todd said...
>
> This nutrition issue sort of falls into that category. It's an
> extremely complex subject, without much of a consensus even among
> the leading researchers. So what's the average person to do?
There are no solutions that I can see the federal government being effective
in doing. It is like managing debt, drinking, drugs etc. There is a
certain amount of being responsible comes in. I certainly don't want the
federal government coming in with skin calipers and writing citations.
>
> It's so difficult to become knowledgeable enough to use your own
> judgement that you look to some authority to help you out.
I don't believe this. Every fat person I have ever known is well educated
on the subject but has given up or makes excuses. That is why I think
public service announcements, additional health classes, and more PE (where
they actually do little physical activity) is not the answer. Make health
insurance like car insurance. If your BMI or fat level or whatever is to
high, you pay a premium. The really obese people I know stick to reasonable
diet plans when something becomes unbearable (i.e. heart attack and dire
death warnings etc.)
> > >To paraphrase Kennedy, "Ask not how your government can make your
> >ass smaller, ask you how you make government smaller."
>
> I like the way you phrased that, but are you seriously suggesting
> this administration has made our government smaller in any way?
To the contrary. If you read anything into the statement, read that both
asses and government have both gotten too big and silly people have dumb
answers to both problems. I think we agree here.
> To the contrary, the fiscal irresponsibility exhibited by the
> Republicans has been nothing short of stunning. Or do you
> disagree?
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 01:07:56
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
Todd said...
>
>Make health insurance like car insurance. If your BMI or fat
>level or whatever is to high, you pay a premium.
There's no reason the private insurance industry couldn't
implement that approach if they really wanted to. They get to
decide who they want to insure and how much they'll charge, so to
some extent that is probably already happening.
The problem is that there is no evidence that being obese is
health-threatening enough for them to justify raising the fatso
rates high enough to act as a disincentive. As long as they can
make money at it, they'll continue offering reasonably priced
health insurance to fat people.
So the private industry can't help you and you have given up on
the government. What's left?
>The really obese people I know stick to reasonable diet plans
>when something becomes unbearable (i.e. heart attack and dire
>death warnings etc.)
Sure, but the majority of obese people are not facing that threat.
You need to come with another incentive to get them to quit
eating. And whatever you do, don't underestimate the power of
food. My guess would be that even if the insurance rates were
substantially higher for them, they'd pay it just so they could
keep porking out. Or they'd go without insurance.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 13:35:33
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
On 2006-08-30, Mark Hutchinson <marhutch@goamil.com > wrote:
> Todd said...
>>
>>Make health insurance like car insurance. If your BMI or fat
>>level or whatever is to high, you pay a premium.
>
> There's no reason the private insurance industry couldn't
> implement that approach if they really wanted to. They get to
Yes there is. In fact there are a whole lot of reasons.
You don't really have "health insurance" in the US. You have a health
care cost sharing scheme. When it's employer-provided, the employer
does not adjust your salary based on your health insurance costs (and
even then, it's heavily regulated -- there are rules about what they can
and can't build into the cost). When it's not employer provided,
depending on state, it can be even more regulated.
For example, in NJ they have "community rating" which means that
individual health plans *must* be offered to everyone at the same rate.
That in my book is not health insurance, because (a) programs designed
primarily to deal with major risk like catastrophic coverage can not
be sold in NJ, and (b) the insurance companies aren't allowed to use
risk as a factor in pricing. Again, it's a health cost sharing scheme.
> decide who they want to insure and how much they'll charge, so to
> some extent that is probably already happening.
>
> The problem is that there is no evidence that being obese is
> health-threatening enough for them to justify raising the fatso
> rates high enough to act as a disincentive.
I don't think this is correct. They'd be happy to raise rates if they were
allowed to.
When you get life insurance, a nurse takes your blood pressure, weighs you,
etc. If this doesn't happen with health insurance, it is because they aren't
allowed to use any of this stuff.
> As long as they can make money at it, they'll continue offering reasonably
> priced health insurance to fat people.
Or as long as the government are in the business of shielding the obese from
the consequences of their choices, while at the same time waggling their
fingers and saying "eat healthy and exercise" ...
> So the private industry can't help you and you have given up on
> the government. What's left?
Ultimately, any solution needs to involve the government, since it's them,
not parents of other kids, and not insurance companies, who are accountable
to us.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 14:08:49
From: Robert Grumbine
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
In article <slrnefb515.fg8.abuse@panix2.panix.com >,
Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com > wrote:
>On 2006-08-30, Mark Hutchinson <marhutch@goamil.com> wrote:
>> Todd said...
>>>
>>>Make health insurance like car insurance. If your BMI or fat
>>>level or whatever is to high, you pay a premium.
>>
>> There's no reason the private insurance industry couldn't
>> implement that approach if they really wanted to. They get to
>
>Yes there is. In fact there are a whole lot of reasons.
>
>You don't really have "health insurance" in the US. You have a health
>care cost sharing scheme.
Er, cost sharing (risk sharing) is what insurance _is_. A bunch of
people (originally commercial shipping) get together and put money
into a pot such that if any of them get hit by the risk insured against,
they get money back from the pot to cover their losses.
Details about deciding who can put money into the pot, and how
much you charge them or pay them, are details. They don't change
that fundamental.
[snip]
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 14:40:48
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
On 2006-08-30, Robert Grumbine <bobg@radix.net > wrote:
> In article <slrnefb515.fg8.abuse@panix2.panix.com>,
> Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
>>On 2006-08-30, Mark Hutchinson <marhutch@goamil.com> wrote:
>>> Todd said...
>>>>
>>>>Make health insurance like car insurance. If your BMI or fat
>>>>level or whatever is to high, you pay a premium.
>>>
>>> There's no reason the private insurance industry couldn't
>>> implement that approach if they really wanted to. They get to
>>
>>Yes there is. In fact there are a whole lot of reasons.
>>
>>You don't really have "health insurance" in the US. You have a health
>>care cost sharing scheme.
>
> Er, cost sharing (risk sharing) is what insurance _is_. A bunch of
Cost sharing is not the same thing as risk sharing.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 13:07:56
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
Donovan Rebbechi said...
>
>You don't really have "health insurance" in the US. You have a
>health care cost sharing scheme. When it's employer-provided, the
>employer does not adjust your salary based on your health
>insurance costs (and even then, it's heavily regulated -- there
>are rules about what they can and can't build into the cost).
But the insurance company ultimately determines what rate it will
charge your employer for the health coverage. If the rates get
high enough, it will be your employer, not the insurance company,
that will be incentivized to address your obesity.
>For example, in NJ they have "community rating" which means that
>individual health plans *must* be offered to everyone at the same
>rate. That in my book is not health insurance, because (a)
>programs designed primarily to deal with major risk like
>catastrophic coverage can not be sold in NJ, and (b) the
>insurance companies aren't allowed to use risk as a factor in
>pricing. Again, it's a health cost sharing scheme.
I'm not familiar with this so I can't argue. You mean everyone in
New Jersey gets the same coverage for the same cost, regardless of
age, health status, pre-existing conditions, etc.?
>I don't think this is correct. They'd be happy to raise rates if
>they were allowed to.
>
>When you get life insurance, a nurse takes your blood pressure,
>weighs you, etc. If this doesn't happen with health insurance, it
>is because they aren't allowed to use any of this stuff.
Sure about that? I know plenty of people who have been either
declined for insurance coverage, or quoted very high premiums
because of their health status issues. In the states I am
familiar with, it is legal for insurance companies to adjust rates
based on the insured's health status.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 13:40:01
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Mark Hutchinson" <marhutch@goamil.com > wrote in message
news:44f58dac$0$8896$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Donovan Rebbechi said...
>>
>>You don't really have "health insurance" in the US. You have a
>>health care cost sharing scheme. When it's employer-provided, the
>>employer does not adjust your salary based on your health
>>insurance costs (and even then, it's heavily regulated -- there
>>are rules about what they can and can't build into the cost).
>
> But the insurance company ultimately determines what rate it will
> charge your employer for the health coverage. If the rates get
> high enough, it will be your employer, not the insurance company,
> that will be incentivized to address your obesity.
Most people at least working for corporations pay for their health
insurance - it simply gets passed to the employee. Where I worked they
froze the amount they put in the plan in the year 2000. Each year my
costs go up significantly. By the way they promised me free medical till
I died.
I'm really lucky, next year I can draw my SS and use it to pay for my
health insurance. I didn't think
I'd use that money so I can go to a dor.
This all really gets down to not having a health care system. Ya know,
that issue that shows up on chart with education and social security
labeled future. Anyone know when the future will get here?
-Doug
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2006 10:24:43
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
And right on cue:
"Waistlines continue to grow in U.S."
http://tinyurl.com/gxhvb
Trust for America's Health made scores of recommendations for
reducing obesity. For example:
•Employers should offer their workers benefits that help them stay
healthy, such as nutrition counseling and subsidized health club
memberships.
•The government should mandate routine screenings that measure the
fitness of Medicaid beneficiaries, plus subsidize or reimburse
them for participating in exercise and fitness programs.
•At the local level, governments should approve zoning and land
use laws that give people more chances to walk or bike to the
store or to work. Local governments also should set aside more
funding for sidewalks.
The group also makes recommendations for individuals. But the
recommendations that people eat well and exercise are known to
Americans. And clearly, many just don't care to follow.
Collins said tobacco use is another area that could be labeled a
personal choice, but government agencies have taken many steps to
provide people with the environment and information they need to
help them make their choices. The same should be done with
obesity.
-- __________________
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 13:25:42
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Mark Hutchinson" <marhutch@goamil.com > wrote in message
news:44f5676a$0$8842$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Trust for America's Health made scores of recommendations for
> reducing obesity. For example:
>
> .Employers should offer their workers benefits that help them stay
> healthy, such as nutrition counseling and subsidized health club
> memberships.
Just to pick on this one. I used to work for a large corporation which
used to do precisely this. Then in the last 10 years, those benefits
went into the toilet along with retirements. Lot's of studies show happy
healthy employees are more productive. Studies aside, if you didn't
work 60+ hours a week(salaried) you were labeled a poor performer and
either no raises or out the door. get your 60 in and then exercise.
That's no possible and maintain a family and marriage. They basically
don't care about the health and just hire someone else to burn out. They
don't give a shit about health because they pass the costs on the
employee - no skin off their ass.
I had 6 weeks of earned vacation before I retired and if I took it all 6
weeks I would be on the outside looking in. It's the bottom line to do
more with less. When I would speak with people working for other big
corporations, they experienced the same. There were some exceptions but
getting fewer and the trend is geting worse.
How do we make this better? Dubya sure as hell won't lift a hand - he's
all for them making more and more money.
>
> .The government should mandate routine screenings that measure the
> fitness of Medicaid beneficiaries, plus subsidize or reimburse
> them for participating in exercise and fitness programs.
>
> .At the local level, governments should approve zoning and land
> use laws that give people more chances to walk or bike to the
> store or to work. Local governments also should set aside more
> funding for sidewalks.
>
> The group also makes recommendations for individuals. But the
> recommendations that people eat well and exercise are known to
> Americans. And clearly, many just don't care to follow.
>
> Collins said tobacco use is another area that could be labeled a
> personal choice, but government agencies have taken many steps to
> provide people with the environment and information they need to
> help them make their choices. The same should be done with
> obesity.
Think about the tobacco issue. We have created a cash cow with cigarette
tax money. Why would we want to kill the cash cow? We took ads of TV
and they moved to every other printed publication. How much of that
money goes to spreading the word of the evils of smokes - hardly any.
As you note there are many things the government can do and not with
more government but direction and we are rudderless.
-Doug
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 18:48:52
From: TxRengade
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
Doug Freese Wrote:
> "Mark Hutchinson" marhutch@goamil.com wrote in message
> news:44f5676a$0$8842$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...-
> Trust for America's Health made scores of recommendations for
> reducing obesity. For example:
>
> .Employers should offer their workers benefits that help them stay
> healthy, such as nutrition counseling and subsidized health club
> memberships.-
>
> Just to pick on this one. I used to work for a large corporation which
>
> used to do precisely this. Then in the last 10 years, those benefits
> went into the toilet along with retirements. Lot's of studies show
> happy
> healthy employees are more productive. Studies aside, if you didn't
> work 60+ hours a week(salaried) you were labeled a poor performer and
> either no raises or out the door. get your 60 in and then exercise.
> That's no possible and maintain a family and marriage. They basically
> don't care about the health and just hire someone else to burn out.
> They
> don't give a **** about health because they pass the costs on the
> employee - no skin off their ass.
>
> I had 6 weeks of earned vacation before I retired and if I took it all
> 6
> weeks I would be on the outside looking in. It's the bottom line to do
>
> more with less. When I would speak with people working for other big
> corporations, they experienced the same. There were some exceptions but
>
> getting fewer and the trend is geting worse.
>
> How do we make this better? Dubya sure as hell won't lift a hand -
> he's
> all for them making more and more money.
>
>
> -
>
> .The government should mandate routine screenings that measure the
> fitness of Medicaid beneficiaries, plus subsidize or reimburse
> them for participating in exercise and fitness programs.
>
> .At the local level, governments should approve zoning and land
> use laws that give people more chances to walk or bike to the
> store or to work. Local governments also should set aside more
> funding for sidewalks.
>
> The group also makes recommendations for individuals. But the
> recommendations that people eat well and exercise are known to
> Americans. And clearly, many just don't care to follow.
>
> Collins said tobacco use is another area that could be labeled a
> personal choice, but government agencies have taken many steps to
> provide people with the environment and information they need to
> help them make their choices. The same should be done with
> obesity.-
>
> Think about the tobacco issue. We have created a cash cow with
> cigarette
> tax money. Why would we want to kill the cash cow? We took ads of TV
>
> and they moved to every other printed publication. How much of that
> money goes to spreading the word of the evils of smokes - hardly any.
>
> As you note there are many things the government can do and not with
> more government but direction and we are rudderless.
>
> -Doug
Such whining. This is America. Nobody owes you anything.
--
TxRengade
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 03:03:46
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"TxRengade" <TxRengade.2df5xb@news.fitnessbanter.com > wrote in message
news:TxRengade.2df5xb@news.fitnessbanter.com...
> Such whining. This is America. Nobody owes you anything.
You are correct, to expect honesty is looking for way to much.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 18:52:22
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
TxRengade <TxRengade.2df5xb@news.fitnessbanter.com > wrote
> Such whining. This is America. Nobody owes you anything.
Then quit Txes out of my paycheck.
--
__________________
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 12:58:44
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Mark Hutchinson" <marhutch@goamil.com > wrote in message
news:44f47710$0$8832$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> This nutrition issue sort of falls into that category. It's an
> extremely complex subject, without much of a consensus even among
> the leading researchers. So what's the average person to do?
I think there is some solid information out there. I have found the
Harvard School of Public Health and the Center For Science in the Public
Interest which produces The Nutrition Action Newsletter devoid of
politics and contains good science. CSPI is a little like Consumers
Reports in they are free of ads and dismember the big companies for
producing crap products using labeling terms like less or low on the
label to deceive. It's hard to find places that aren't being funded by
the fox.
It's taken how many years to get nutrition information on the packages?
Of course it's only those people that already care that bother to read
the label. It's not until nutrition is taught in school and we have an
active administration willing to save the kids, that we will stem the
obesity wave. Screw the fat parents but give the kids a chance but we
know fat parents raise fat kids. If it takes more government as Todd
like to whine about, then let's do it. As parents or at least people
with humanitarian resolve we should be making this a better place for
out the next generation. If what we have today is "better" with the
trends getting worse and worse we are all in deep shit. I often wonder
how politicians, all flavors, sleep at night. The must have to check
their "balls" at the political door.
When will the good nutrition make it into mainline knowledge - right
after lobbyists cease to run and fund politics.
-Doug
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 19:08:37
From: Robert Grumbine
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
In article <82BJg.21250$rI5.18816@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com >,
Doug Freese <dfreese@NOBShvc.rr.com > wrote:
>
>"Mark Hutchinson" <marhutch@goamil.com> wrote in message
>news:44f47710$0$8832$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
[snip]
>It's taken how many years to get nutrition information on the packages?
>Of course it's only those people that already care that bother to read
>the label. It's not until nutrition is taught in school and we have an
>active administration willing to save the kids, that we will stem the
>obesity wave.
I doubt it's a matter of an active administration, or of one
trying to save the kids ...
>Screw the fat parents but give the kids a chance but we
>know fat parents raise fat kids. If it takes more government as Todd
>like to whine about, then let's do it. As parents or at least people
>with humanitarian resolve we should be making this a better place for
>out the next generation. If what we have today is "better" with the
>trends getting worse and worse we are all in deep shit. I often wonder
>how politicians, all flavors, sleep at night. The must have to check
>their "balls" at the political door.
>
>When will the good nutrition make it into mainline knowledge - right
>after lobbyists cease to run and fund politics.
... that's a crux. More precisely: It will happen when people
get pissed off about their government lying to them. For all
that people talk about being unhappy, they keep voting in
people who lie to them, and more particularly, who put lies
in to governent reports, or keep the truth out.
Up to Reagan, both parties were basically supportive of
the principle that the offices of the government should be
honest and non-partisan. Lots of disagreement, of course,
about what they should be working on, and whether the department
should exist in the first place. But if the office said anything
about, for instance, the health value of some 'nutritional
supplement', then both parties were agreed that it should be
factual.
From Reagan on, and accelerating greatly with W, the Republican
party as a whole (I do know some exceptions, but also see that
they're taking flak from their party for it) has taken a very
different approach, one that what the 'government of Bush' (now)
says should accord with what he wants to be true. Per his spokesman
before the election, the administration is not reality based. They
think this is good, and considering that they got re-elected, they
appear to be right w.r.t. the majority.
So now we have political appointees rewriting scientific
reports, deleting sciences (evolutionary biology was deleted
recently as an eligible major for a federal student grant program
-- restored after they got caught at it), etc.
Not telling lies would be a good start on the nutrition front.
Allowing the best science to be published by the FDA et al.,
without political revision, would also help.
Giving the FDA a budget to do their job (vs. current tactic
starting from Gingrich if not Reagan of giving them too little
to carry out their function, so quality and quantity of their
work both suffer) would also be a help.
Joint FTC/FDA ability to pursue false claims would help.
(Gingrich and co. removed anything labelled 'nutritional
supplement' from review.)
Whether you want to do it at federal or local level, or
local with federal support, or ...
1) Ensure that the foods provided in schools (vending machines,
school lunch and snack programs) are actually something resembling
nutritious. 80% of calories from fat for half of the day is not
resembling nutritious. And, unfortunately, this is the sort
of thing that kids have available to choose from. Even a kid
(such as my daughter, sons, nieces, nephew) who has an idea
of what a nutritious lunch would look like is hard pressed to
assemble such a thing given the absolute garbage that is
pushed by the school.
2) Teach from earliest days what healthier choices are vs.
less healthy choices.
But I think the biggest step is for the government to stop
lying, and to pursue with meaningful penalties those who do
lie in their marketing. (n.b., I'd include diet plans in
this.) If the information by way of ads and government
reports were consistently honest, it'd be easier for people
to know what dietary guides they were actually breaking. As
it is, in the course of a day's television or surfing, you
can easily find that any food is wonderful or awful, and you
should always/never eat it. So the response is to throw up
your hands and go eat the proverbial big mac, which is comforting
and you can't get a straight answer on whether it's nutritionally
good or bad anyhow.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 18:30:40
From: Todd
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Robert Grumbine" <bobg@radix.net > wrote in message
news:12fectlh23moa5e@corp.supernews.com...
>> If it takes more government as Todd
> >like to whine about, then let's do it.
It won't take more government, it will take an epidemic that awakes some
people. I still contend that 400 pound people have decided that eating
exercising is just too much trouble. Flat out not caring is the problem for
a lot of people.
If you are fat, buy a set of scales and weigh yourself every day. Drink
more water than you currently do (at least 8 good sixed glasses a day). Eat
more fruit and vegetables and limit yourself to three desserts a week. Walk
every day and do two hours a day on the weekend. Quit drinking soda and
drink more water.
Quit eating prepared food as it is shit for your body in the long run.
Never buy food from a machine or a drive through window. Watch less than 1
hour of tv a day and play less than 1 hour of video games a day.
Park at the fartherest part of the parking lot. Take the stairs.
If you are still fat and not losing weight, you are eating too much. Cut
back.
Don't eat when you are happy, sad or bored. Eat when your stomach growls
and keep track.
There. There is the education. Most fat people find those conditions
unacceptable and have accepted the consequences.
I know very few people that have read a silly government report and most fat
people don't care about the answer.
You could spend billions and you'll come down to the same answers and unless
you are willing to take away free will, you will have fat people,
bankruptcies, drug addicts and drunks.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 12:55:22
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Todd" <Todd33@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:6rCdnZXoEPav4mrZnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Robert Grumbine" <bobg@radix.net> wrote in message
> news:12fectlh23moa5e@corp.supernews.com...
>>> If it takes more government as Todd
>> >like to whine about, then let's do it.
>
> It won't take more government, it will take an epidemic that awakes
> some
> people. I still contend that 400 pound people have decided that
> eating
> exercising is just too much trouble. Flat out not caring is the
> problem for
> a lot of people.
Not more government but direction from them. You calling fat people fat
and expecting them to have a epiphany isn't going to do it. The numbers
are going up and very fast. How many kids do we maim before there is
some accountability. This sounds like acceptable collateral damage just
like innocent Iraqi's that get killed.
Untie the hands of the FDA(at least toss out the political appointees)
or better yet create a new organization made up of non-political
nutritional people and give them some power to tell the world that
Little Debbie's cakes and Mickey D burgers are shit food and meant to be
munched once a year. There are hundreds of ways to get the nutritional
ball rolling but it will piss off big business and you know W isn't
going cut his purse strings. If you can't smell the rat your holding
your nostrils closed.
> If you are fat, buy a set of scales and weigh yourself every day.
> Drink
> more water than you currently do (at least 8 good sixed glasses a
> day). Eat
> more fruit and vegetables and limit yourself to three desserts a week.
> Walk
> every day and do two hours a day on the weekend. Quit drinking soda
> and
> drink more water.
>
> Quit eating prepared food as it is shit for your body in the long run.
> Never buy food from a machine or a drive through window. Watch less
> than 1
> hour of tv a day and play less than 1 hour of video games a day.
>
> Park at the fartherest part of the parking lot. Take the stairs.
>
> If you are still fat and not losing weight, you are eating too much.
> Cut
> back.
>
> Don't eat when you are happy, sad or bored. Eat when your stomach
> growls
> and keep track.
>
> There. There is the education. Most fat people find those conditions
> unacceptable and have accepted the consequences.
You're preaching to the choir but it isn't working. You're pointing at
an action to take which is commendable. Now tell us how you make it
happen. With your status quo answer the kids get screwed. Does this get
brushed under the rug as collateral damage too along with the dead
Iraqi's?
>
> I know very few people that have read a silly government report and
> most fat
> people don't care about the answer.
>
> You could spend billions and you'll come down to the same answers and
> unless
> you are willing to take away free will, you will have fat people,
> bankruptcies, drug addicts and drunks.
Wow, you make Rush look like screaming liberal. I'm glad we didn't take
this view with polio or AIDS. In some years ahead type II diabetes will
become an epidemic and then you may wake up.
-D
-Doug
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 07:21:36
From: Todd
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote in message
news:_4WJg.28713$v82.26991@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
> >
> > You could spend billions and you'll come down to the same answers and
> > unless
> > you are willing to take away free will, you will have fat people,
> > bankruptcies, drug addicts and drunks.
>
> Wow, you make Rush look like screaming liberal. I'm glad we didn't take
> this view with polio or AIDS. In some years ahead type II diabetes will
> become an epidemic and then you may wake up.
So if someone knows the answers and doesn't care, are you for taking away
free will? You sound like a looney communist. People cared about AIDS and
Polio (and BTW, you'll be surprised to know that neither is a choice by and
large) but fatness is different. A lot of fat people don't want your skin
caliper police.
Did you sign up yet to coach a bunch of fat kids or any kids? Then you must
be all talk and wait for someone else to do the job. Some of us are awake
and aren't pissing around with no-good solutions.
>
> -D
>
> -Doug
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 12:31:21
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Robert Grumbine" <bobg@radix.net > wrote in message
news:12fectlh23moa5e@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <82BJg.21250$rI5.18816@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>,
> Doug Freese <dfreese@NOBShvc.rr.com> wrote:
> ... that's a crux. More precisely: It will happen when people
> get pissed off about their government lying to them. For all
> that people talk about being unhappy, they keep voting in
> people who lie to them, and more particularly, who put lies
> in to governent reports, or keep the truth out.
You can thank Rove for mastering Bush to run one issue, fear and it
worked. The lastest tact coming from Rove and Company is to accuse those
of critisizing the war as working for al queda. As deceitful and dirty
as it is, it may work again. With poll numbers so low they are getting
very desperate.
>
> Up to Reagan, both parties were basically supportive of
> the principle that the offices of the government should be
> honest and non-partisan. Lots of disagreement, of course,
> about what they should be working on, and whether the department
> should exist in the first place. But if the office said anything
> about, for instance, the health value of some 'nutritional
> supplement', then both parties were agreed that it should be
> factual.
>
> From Reagan on, and accelerating greatly with W, the Republican
> party as a whole (I do know some exceptions, but also see that
> they're taking flak from their party for it) has taken a very
> different approach, one that what the 'government of Bush' (now)
> says should accord with what he wants to be true. Per his spokesman
> before the election, the administration is not reality based. They
> think this is good, and considering that they got re-elected, they
> appear to be right w.r.t. the majority.
>
> So now we have political appointees rewriting scientific
> reports, deleting sciences (evolutionary biology was deleted
> recently as an eligible major for a federal student grant program
> -- restored after they got caught at it), etc.
>
> Not telling lies would be a good start on the nutrition front.
I'd settle for accross the board truth, period!
> Allowing the best science to be published by the FDA et al.,
> without political revision, would also help.
It goes back to the lobbyists and their power. As callus as it sounds
each politician wants to get re-elected and that takes money. Disallow
this kind of money, some financial election reform, so they don't need
to chew on the lobbyists teats and maybe, just maybe, we may see some
change. Unfortunately neither side wants reform because getting
elected and re-elected, even if you don't get anything accomplished, is
most important. I often wonder how they sleep at night getting nothing
accomplished. Talk about a big D contest!
> Giving the FDA a budget to do their job (vs. current tactic
> starting from Gingrich if not Reagan of giving them too little
> to carry out their function, so quality and quantity of their
> work both suffer) would also be a help.
Pure heresy!
> 1) Ensure that the foods provided in schools (vending machines,
> school lunch and snack programs) are actually something resembling
> nutritious. 80% of calories from fat for half of the day is not
> resembling nutritious. And, unfortunately, this is the sort
> of thing that kids have available to choose from. Even a kid
> (such as my daughter, sons, nieces, nephew) who has an idea
> of what a nutritious lunch would look like is hard pressed to
> assemble such a thing given the absolute garbage that is
> pushed by the school.
There is some grass roots uprising on this, at least at the local level
by me. An AP article Wednesday reported waistlines continue to grow.
Curious anomaly - 9 of the 10 with the highest obesity rates are in the
south - almost 30%. I'll bet it's related to NASCAR. ;) Obesity now
exceeds 25% in 13 states.
> 2) Teach from earliest days what healthier choices are vs.
> less healthy choices.
Unless it gets funded from Uncle Sam it isn't going happen. All the
pressure and money goes into passing the tests so the keep getting
funded. This 'no rug rat left behind" program is not working. If
anything it has pushed minorities out of school.
> But I think the biggest step is for the government to stop
> lying, and to pursue with meaningful penalties those who do
> lie in their marketing. (n.b., I'd include diet plans in
> this.) If the information by way of ads and government
> reports were consistently honest, it'd be easier for people
> to know what dietary guides they were actually breaking.
More damn heresy. They spend so much time lying, er, repackaging the
truth, they accept it as fact. If one's nose really did grow with each
lie, Bush and his cronies would like swordfishes. How about some day we
invent the honesty radar gun. Then each time a politician speaks we can
determine the degree of truth, just like we track the speed of a pitch
at a baseball game on the TV screen.
The best action we can take today is to vote the SOB's out of office.
Hold them, regardless of party, accountable. Screw them where it hurts,
at the polls and we may get their attention. Democracy does work
although at a glacial pace. We have had piss poor administrations
before.
-Doug
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 16:54:39
From: Robert Grumbine
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
In article <tKVJg.50655$u05.4093@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com >,
Doug Freese <dfreese@NOBShvc.rr.com > wrote:
>
>"Robert Grumbine" <bobg@radix.net> wrote in message
>news:12fectlh23moa5e@corp.supernews.com...
>> In article <82BJg.21250$rI5.18816@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>,
>> Doug Freese <dfreese@NOBShvc.rr.com> wrote:
>> ... that's a crux. More precisely: It will happen when people
>> get pissed off about their government lying to them. For all
>> that people talk about being unhappy, they keep voting in
>> people who lie to them, and more particularly, who put lies
>> in to governent reports, or keep the truth out.
>
>You can thank Rove for mastering Bush to run one issue, fear and it
>worked. The lastest tact coming from Rove and Company is to accuse those
>of critisizing the war as working for al queda. As deceitful and dirty
>as it is, it may work again. With poll numbers so low they are getting
>very desperate.
Old news. They (Rove and Bush) have run on fear the whole
time. They and their echo chamber have said anything less
than total support for Bush means support for al qaeda since
9/11/2001.
The numbers, however, have been rising, with a jump after
the arrests in the UK.
>> Up to Reagan, both parties were basically supportive of
>> the principle that the offices of the government should be
>> honest and non-partisan. Lots of disagreement, of course,
>> about what they should be working on, and whether the department
>> should exist in the first place. But if the office said anything
>> about, for instance, the health value of some 'nutritional
>> supplement', then both parties were agreed that it should be
>> factual.
>>
>> From Reagan on, and accelerating greatly with W, the Republican
>> party as a whole (I do know some exceptions, but also see that
>> they're taking flak from their party for it) has taken a very
>> different approach, one that what the 'government of Bush' (now)
>> says should accord with what he wants to be true. Per his spokesman
>> before the election, the administration is not reality based. They
>> think this is good, and considering that they got re-elected, they
>> appear to be right w.r.t. the majority.
>>
>> So now we have political appointees rewriting scientific
>> reports, deleting sciences (evolutionary biology was deleted
>> recently as an eligible major for a federal student grant program
>> -- restored after they got caught at it), etc.
>>
>> Not telling lies would be a good start on the nutrition front.
>
>I'd settle for accross the board truth, period!
I want it, certainly. 'settle for', however, isn't the word.
Snip a number of my heresies. I do realize they're heresies.
>There is some grass roots uprising on this, at least at the local level
>by me. An AP article Wednesday reported waistlines continue to grow.
>Curious anomaly - 9 of the 10 with the highest obesity rates are in the
>south - almost 30%. I'll bet it's related to NASCAR. ;) Obesity now
>exceeds 25% in 13 states.
And the 10th, iirc, is also a red state.
>> 2) Teach from earliest days what healthier choices are vs.
>> less healthy choices.
>
>Unless it gets funded from Uncle Sam it isn't going happen. All the
>pressure and money goes into passing the tests so the keep getting
>funded. This 'no rug rat left behind" program is not working. If
>anything it has pushed minorities out of school.
So it's doing what the president and his crew wanted. Plus,
by soaking out upwards of 20% of teaching time (for the mandatory
testings), it helps reduce the learning accomplished.
Agreed as a practical matter that it has to be done federally.
State and local are capable, so as with other things, if the feds
don't step up, some local areas can still do so. (will is a
different matter).
>More damn heresy. They spend so much time lying, er, repackaging the
>truth, they accept it as fact.
As the administration spokesman said, they are not reality based.
This is a better description, I find. Reality based people, the
spokesman said, do things like study the issues and base policy on
what they find to be the facts. The administration, spokesman said,
doesn't do that. They act, he said, as if the facts were as they
choose, and this _creates_ those choices as reality.
They're not repackaging the truth, or (if you're generous about
the definition) lying. They simply regard the truth as irrelevant.
They declared this, and got re-elected after declaring it.
>The best action we can take today is to vote the SOB's out of office.
>Hold them, regardless of party, accountable. Screw them where it hurts,
>at the polls and we may get their attention. Democracy does work
>although at a glacial pace. We have had piss poor administrations
>before.
Indeed. But not (if you take the usual historians' list of
worst presidents) while we've had nuclear weapons. Much less
nukes and an admistration with people looking forward to
armageddon.
Probably one of the less helpful comments is 'they're all
liars'. True as it might be, the difference between ignoring
outright what is true, and trying to make yourself look better
(while still knowing what it is you're coloring) is huge.
Getting reality based is a start. Even reality-based lies
would be an improvement.
But I'm a heretic ...
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2006 12:34:54
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Mark Hutchinson" <marhutch@goamil.com > wrote in message
news:44f258d8$0$8870$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> How does Bush fit into this? Like this - one of the culprits causing
> the current obesity epidemic is the absurd "Food Pyramid" promoted by
> the USDA.
I think the revised pyramid see
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramids.html is a step in
the right direction. It has exercise at the base and made some changes.
> With its emphasis on low-fat but high-carbohydrate foods,
> weight gain is just about guaranteed.
That's no obviuos to me but I'm willing to hear your view.
> Is that Bush's fault? Well,
> yes, indirectly perhaps, but he *is* in charge. And the guy in
> charge gets the credit if things go right and the blame if they
> don't. That's how it's supposed to work. Bush needs to show some
> presidential leadership in helping us address this particular issue.
> And he's not doing that. I think that was Doug's point.
Exactly but Todd keeps claiming I'm a Bush hater. If Mother Theresa was
the president and not setting any direction I would jump in her shit
also.
The only issues that This administration seems to respond to, at least
in rhetoric is, has been the gas prices. And what did do - nothing. How
aggressive has he been since took office to encourage alternate sources
and remove our dependencies? Like nada. Place Suva's in with cars and
fleet mileage might help. Right now I feel bad for those auto workers
that are about to lose their jobs because the SUVA gas hogs are not
selling. In a way the higher prices are doing some good but at a cost to
all of us.
How does Exxon/Mobile for instance make billions of profit per quarter?
Way more then they used to make before the oil glut. Sure the price of
a barrel has gone up and we can expect to pay more at the pump. Why does
that mean the oil companies should in crease their profits
astronomically. Why, because we hear about the oil prices and accept the
increases. We don't know we are being screwed and the boys sure as hell
ain't looking Dubya will only take action if it affects votes and
being a lame duck means his can sit on his hands even more. OTOH he is
getting incredible pressure from his party because he is taking them
down with him. I have no crystal ball but I think we will see a revolt
at the elections this year and one or both of houses changes sides. The
democratic process is slow but when it gets out of reasonable balance,
the masses will take to the ballot box.
So what has the Bush and the boys done, nothing I can discern. What has
he done for the our kids and obesity, nothing. Come to think of it what
has he done except get us into Iraq and we can't get out. Even Rove
can't get him out of this quarmire.
-Doug
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2006 16:55:26
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote
> "Mark Hutchinson" <marhutch@goamil.com> wrote in message
>> How does Bush fit into this? Like this - one of the culprits
>> causing the current obesity epidemic is the absurd "Food
>> Pyramid" promoted by the USDA.
>
> I think the revised pyramid see
> http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramids.html is a
> step in the right direction. It has exercise at the base and
> made some changes.
You may be thinking of the alternative pyramid proposed by the
Harvard group -- the one with the pretty pictures inside it. As the
article you referenced outlines, the new USDA pyramid is still hugely
flawed:
- The guidelines suggest that it is fine to consume half of our
grains as refined starch. That's a shame, since refined starches
behave like sugar. They add empty calories, have adverse metabolic
effects, and increase the risks of diabetes and heart disease.
- In terms of protein, the guidelines continue to lump together red
meat, poultry, fish, and beans (including soy products). They ask us
to judge these protein sources by their total fat content, "make
choices that are lean, low-fat, or fat-free." This ignores the
evidence that these foods have different types of fats. It also
overlooks mounting evidence that replacing red meat with a
combination of fish, poultry, beans, and nuts offers numerous health
benefits.
- The recommendation to drink three glasses of low-fat milk or eat
three servings of other dairy products per day to prevent
osteoporosis is another step in the wrong direction. Of all the
recommendations, this one represents the most radical change from
current dietary patterns. Three glasses of low-fat milk add more than
300 calories a day. This is a real issue for the millions of
Americans who are trying to control their weight. What's more,
millions of Americans are lactose intolerant, and even small amounts
of milk or dairy products give them stomachaches, gas, or other
problems. This recommendation ignores the lack of evidence for a link
between consumption of dairy products and prevention of osteoporosis.
It also ignores the possible increases in risk of ovarian cancer and
prostate cancer associated with dairy products.
>> With its emphasis on low-fat but high-carbohydrate foods,
>> weight gain is just about guaranteed.
>
> That's no obviuos to me but I'm willing to hear your view.
Eating too much of the wrong kind of fats may clog your arteries, but
it won't make you fat. Eating too much of the wrong kind of carbs is
guaranteed to make you fat.
I think carbs are a dangerous game even for us, high-intesity
runners. For the average couch spud, the effects of carbs on the
system can be lethal. Ceratinly fattening, as the evidence over the
last 20 years suggests.
--
__________________
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 12:27:59
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Mark Hutchinson" <marhutch@goamil.com > wrote in message
news:44f4717e$0$8895$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Three glasses of low-fat milk add more than
> 300 calories a day. This is a real issue for the millions of
> Americans who are trying to control their weight.
Groan! The real issue is they eat too many calories (and a lot of crap
food which isn't milk) and don't exercise.
> I think carbs are a dangerous game even for us, high-intesity
> runners. For the average couch spud, the effects of carbs on the
> system can be lethal. Ceratinly fattening, as the evidence over the
> last 20 years suggests.
I don't want to turn this into a low carb vs whatever but this statement
is flawed. To broad brush the rise in weigh and make carbs the guilty
party is not a realistic nor true statement. The rise in weight over the
last 20 years is from people eating too many total calories AND too
many made up of simple carbs. To simply blame all carbs which includes
the complex variety like peas and carrots and whole grains throws the
baby out with the bath water.
I found
http://www.peakrunningperformance.com/docs/Truth_about_Macronutrient_Composition.htmhas reasonable synopsis for athletes.If you take a look at the Harvard pyramid which is devoid of politics, Ithink it is on the money as it addresses the simple carbs and toavoid/minimize processed foods. Will Uncle Sam ever make any changes,not with all politicians at the PAC money trough. And with pro bigbusiness Bush first in line the odds are slim to none(poking Todd in theeye <G >).http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramids.htmlTell me what you think is wrong with the Harvard pyramid.-Doug
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2006 18:48:06
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
Doug Freese said...
>"Mark Hutchinson" <marhutch@goamil.com> wrote in message
>
>> Three glasses of low-fat milk add more than 300 calories a day.
>> This is a real issue for the millions of Americans who are
>> trying to control their weight.
>
>Groan! The real issue is they eat too many calories (and a lot
>of crap food which isn't milk) and don't exercise.
"Groan"? But that's a direct quote from the article you yourself
recommended! :-) Did you even read it?
>> I think carbs are a dangerous game even for us, high-intensity
>> runners. For the average couch spud, the effects of carbs on
>> the system can be lethal. Ceratinly fattening, as the evidence
>> over the last 20 years suggests.
>
>I don't want to turn this into a low carb vs whatever but this
>statement is flawed.
What part of that statement is flawed? That overconsumption of
carbs (simple or complex) will make you fat? Hate to break it to
you, but it's true.
Not so with the consumption of fats. It's the very focus on
eliminating fats from the diet that has led to the obesity
epidemic. Fats and proteins are not as easily digested as carbs
and will you feel more sated, thus reducing your overall food
requirements. When fats are eliminated or reduced, carbs are
substituted. This leads to the vicious cycle of deep insulin and
blood sugar swings, increased hunger and consequent overeating.
>To broad brush the rise in weigh and make carbs the guilty party
>is not a realistic nor true statement. The rise in weight over
>the last 20 years is from people eating too many total calories
>AND too many made up of simple carbs.
Yes, but you are also failing to ask the questions of WHY people
are all of a sudden eating more calories. The answer is that the
overconsumption of carbs (in lieu of fats and proteins) itself
causes the increased hunger.
>To simply blame all carbs which includes the complex variety like
>peas and carrots and whole grains throws the baby out with the
>bath water.
No doubt that low GI carbs are "better" than high GI carbs, but
that's a distinction most people are not likely to make. Beyond a
certain point, it just gets too complicated. It can be done, but
it's huge educational, cultural and societal challenge.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2006 03:36:12
From: Doug Freese
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Mark Hutchinson" <marhutch@goamil.com > wrote in message
news:44f72ee6$0$8884$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> What part of that statement is flawed? That overconsumption of
> carbs (simple or complex) will make you fat? Hate to break it to
> you, but it's true.
Over consumption of carbs, fats or protein will make you fat. It's
calories in vs calories out.
> Yes, but you are also failing to ask the questions of WHY people
> are all of a sudden eating more calories.
>The answer is that the
> overconsumption of carbs (in lieu of fats and proteins) itself
> causes the increased hunger.
There are many answers to this and it isn't just carbs. Two double
whoppers for lunch or dinner is not about carbs. Now following them with
some Dunkin' Donuts is carbs. Sorry buy we abuse all the groups. Both
parents working, people exercising less, supersized fast food, constant
TV ads just to name a few
For example:
"The No. 2 fast food chain debuted its Enormous Omelet Sandwich Monday.
The sandwich has one sausage patty, two eggs, two American cheese slices
and three strips of bacon.
That works out to 730 calories and 47 grams of fat -- more than a
Whopper sandwich, which the Burger King Web site said has 700 calories
and 42 grams of fat."
"The Grand Slam breakfast at Denny's, which comes with two pancakes, two
eggs, two strips of bacon and two sausage links, has 665 calories and 49
grams of fat, according to the Denny's Web site.
The Fabulous French Toast Platter -- with three slices of French toast,
two bacon strips and two sausage links -- contains 1261 calories and 79
grams of fat. "
And you want to blame carbs?
> No doubt that low GI carbs are "better" than high GI carbs, but
> that's a distinction most people are not likely to make. Beyond a
> certain point, it just gets too complicated. It can be done, but
> it's huge educational, cultural and societal challenge.
A lot of people toss out the GI or GL and point the blame. When push
comes to shove, only a samll percent of people are GI sensitive(sans the
type I and II diabetics). When eating a balanced diet, the insulin bump
is even less. Sears was the primary guy that brought GI to light and
then proclaimed 40/30/30 was the almighty answer. Atkins took this ever
further to strike fear and sell his book and products, insisting we are
all insulin whackos.
We both agree that nutrition knowledge is lacking.
-D
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Sep 2006 13:52:41
From: Mark Hutchinson
Subject: Re: Bekele & Big Macs
|
"Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote
> Over consumption of carbs, fats or protein will make you fat.
> It's calories in vs calories out.
Yes, that's true, but it's not the point beign argued. See my
other more complete response to Donovan.
> And you want to blame carbs?
Yes, I do. There is nothing else left to blame. You can choose
to keep blaming the lack of discipline in people (if that makes
you feel superior) but it won't help solve this problem.
At some point you have to consider that maybe there's nothing
wrong with the people, but that there may be something wrong with
the message. We have been telling people for 50 years that
moderation is the key. And it hasn't done any good -- we keep
getting fatter and fatter.
When presented with an abundance of cheap food, people will
overeat and get fat. No matter how much you preach at them.
That's just a fact of nature.
How do you solve this problem? So far, nobody has come up with an
effective solution, so I don't see any harm whatsoever in giving
these low-carb diets a chance. We are at point where we have very
little to lose -- except for some fat.
-- __________________
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
