I am 5'11", used to be 223, started working on getting healthier
around June 1. Now I have lost 43 lbs, reached normal weight of 180,
and feel way better.

I accomplished it primarily by exercise. I walked about 2 hours per
day on average, plus I lifted weights a little bit. I also stopped
eating anything sweetened (no sugar and sweeteners) and no junk food
and that really curbed my appetite. So I could them manage how much I
eat and ate a little less than was supposed to maintain weight given
exercise energy expenditures.

No pills or supplements of any kind.

My biggest regret from all this is that I did not realize before that
losing weight was, relatively, speaking, not that difficult, if done
right. I wish I did it years ago.

Because I lost weight the natural way, I also have learned some
healthful habits and how to eat properly and ration foods. So
hopefully this will make maintaining my weight loss a little easier.

The walking that I do primarily comes from walking to train instead of
driving to train. It is great because it is easy to fit into my
schedule at a relatively low impact to my other activities.

i

Congratulations! You should feel great about this! 43 lbs in 3 months,
wow!

It does make you think, "Well, gee, why didn't I do this earlier?" I feel
the same way.

Congratulations again. A great accomplishment. Keep it up.

Rambler

"Ignoramus13012" <ignoramus13012@NOSPAM.13012.invalid> wrote in message
news:bjkihq$al6$3@pita.alt.net I am 5'11", used to be 223, started working on getting healthier around June 1. Now I have lost 43 lbs, reached normal weight of 180, and feel way better. I accomplished it primarily by exercise. I walked about 2 hours per day on average, plus I lifted weights a little bit. I also stopped eating anything sweetened (no sugar and sweeteners) and no junk food and that really curbed my appetite. So I could them manage how much I eat and ate a little less than was supposed to maintain weight given exercise energy expenditures. No pills or supplements of any kind. My biggest regret from all this is that I did not realize before that losing weight was, relatively, speaking, not that difficult, if done right. I wish I did it years ago. Because I lost weight the natural way, I also have learned some healthful habits and how to eat properly and ration foods. So hopefully this will make maintaining my weight loss a little easier. The walking that I do primarily comes from walking to train instead of driving to train. It is great because it is easy to fit into my schedule at a relatively low impact to my other activities. i

Thanks Rambler, and congratulations to you as well.

i

In article <bjkjfv$ofg40@imsp212.netvigator.com>, Rambler wrote: Congratulations! You should feel great about this! 43 lbs in 3 months, wow! It does make you think, "Well, gee, why didn't I do this earlier?" I feel the same way. Congratulations again. A great accomplishment. Keep it up. Rambler "Ignoramus13012" <ignoramus13012@NOSPAM.13012.invalid> wrote in message news:bjkihq$al6$3@pita.alt.net I am 5'11", used to be 223, started working on getting healthier around June 1. Now I have lost 43 lbs, reached normal weight of 180, and feel way better. I accomplished it primarily by exercise. I walked about 2 hours per day on average, plus I lifted weights a little bit. I also stopped eating anything sweetened (no sugar and sweeteners) and no junk food and that really curbed my appetite. So I could them manage how much I eat and ate a little less than was supposed to maintain weight given exercise energy expenditures. No pills or supplements of any kind. My biggest regret from all this is that I did not realize before that losing weight was, relatively, speaking, not that difficult, if done right. I wish I did it years ago. Because I lost weight the natural way, I also have learned some healthful habits and how to eat properly and ration foods. So hopefully this will make maintaining my weight loss a little easier. The walking that I do primarily comes from walking to train instead of driving to train. It is great because it is easy to fit into my schedule at a relatively low impact to my other activities. i

Ignoramus13012 <ignoramus13012@NOSPAM.13012.invalid> writes:
I am 5'11", used to be 223, started working on getting healthier around June 1. Now I have lost 43 lbs, reached normal weight of 180, and feel way better.

Excellent!
I accomplished it primarily by exercise. I walked about 2 hours per day on average, plus I lifted weights a little bit. I also stopped eating anything sweetened (no sugar and sweeteners) and no junk food and that really curbed my appetite. So I could them manage how much I eat and ate a little less than was supposed to maintain weight given exercise energy expenditures. No pills or supplements of any kind. My biggest regret from all this is that I did not realize before that losing weight was, relatively, speaking, not that difficult, if done right. I wish I did it years ago.

Well, finding 2 hours plus per day to exercize doesn't sound easy to _me_!

In article <Zsl7b.294460$cF.91705@rwcrnsc53>, Doug Anderson wrote: Ignoramus13012 <ignoramus13012@NOSPAM.13012.invalid> writes: I am 5'11", used to be 223, started working on getting healthier around June 1. Now I have lost 43 lbs, reached normal weight of 180, and feel way better. Excellent! I accomplished it primarily by exercise. I walked about 2 hours per day on average, plus I lifted weights a little bit. I also stopped eating anything sweetened (no sugar and sweeteners) and no junk food and that really curbed my appetite. So I could them manage how much I eat and ate a little less than was supposed to maintain weight given exercise energy expenditures. No pills or supplements of any kind. My biggest regret from all this is that I did not realize before that losing weight was, relatively, speaking, not that difficult, if done right. I wish I did it years ago. Well, finding 2 hours plus per day to exercize doesn't sound easy to _me_!

the first hour is in the morning when everyone else sleeps.

The second hour is going back home from the train, before anyone can
claim my time and while my son is napping anyway.

i

Ignoramus13012 <ignoramus13012@NOSPAM.13012.invalid> writes:
In article <Zsl7b.294460$cF.91705@rwcrnsc53>, Doug Anderson wrote: Ignoramus13012 <ignoramus13012@NOSPAM.13012.invalid> writes: I am 5'11", used to be 223, started working on getting healthier around June 1. Now I have lost 43 lbs, reached normal weight of 180, and feel way better. Excellent! I accomplished it primarily by exercise. I walked about 2 hours per day on average, plus I lifted weights a little bit. I also stopped eating anything sweetened (no sugar and sweeteners) and no junk food and that really curbed my appetite. So I could them manage how much I eat and ate a little less than was supposed to maintain weight given exercise energy expenditures. No pills or supplements of any kind. My biggest regret from all this is that I did not realize before that losing weight was, relatively, speaking, not that difficult, if done right. I wish I did it years ago. Well, finding 2 hours plus per day to exercize doesn't sound easy to _me_! the first hour is in the morning when everyone else sleeps.

Some of us need to sleep ourselves!
The second hour is going back home from the train, before anyone can claim my time and while my son is napping anyway.

Yes, as I said, finding two hours per day to exercise doesn't sound
easy to _me_! But I'm glad it was for you.

> Ignoramus13012 wrote:
I am 5'11", used to be 223, started working on getting healthier around June 1. Now I have lost 43 lbs, reached normal weight of 180, and feel way better. I accomplished it primarily by exercise. I walked about 2 hours per day on average, plus I lifted weights a little bit. I also stopped eating anything sweetened (no sugar and sweeteners) and no junk food and that really curbed my appetite. So I could them manage how much I eat and ate a little less than was supposed to maintain weight given exercise energy expenditures. No pills or supplements of any kind. My biggest regret from all this is that I did not realize before that losing weight was, relatively, speaking, not that difficult, if done right. I wish I did it years ago. Because I lost weight the natural way, I also have learned some healthful habits and how to eat properly and ration foods. So hopefully this will make maintaining my weight loss a little easier. The walking that I do primarily comes from walking to train instead of driving to train. It is great because it is easy to fit into my schedule at a relatively low impact to my other activities. i

Good job. I would have a hard time getting 2 hrs a day, but I have
been able to do 30-40 minutes 3-5 days a week. Not quite as
impressive, but still something. I do find that whenever I don't walk
for several days I feel it in a negative way.

> Ignoramus13012 wrote:
I am 5'11", used to be 223, started working on getting healthier around June 1. Now I have lost 43 lbs, reached normal weight of 180, and feel way better. I accomplished it primarily by exercise. I walked about 2 hours per day on average, plus I lifted weights a little bit. I also stopped eating anything sweetened (no sugar and sweeteners) and no junk food and that really curbed my appetite. So I could them manage how much I eat and ate a little less than was supposed to maintain weight given exercise energy expenditures. No pills or supplements of any kind. My biggest regret from all this is that I did not realize before that losing weight was, relatively, speaking, not that difficult, if done right. I wish I did it years ago. Because I lost weight the natural way, I also have learned some healthful habits and how to eat properly and ration foods. So hopefully this will make maintaining my weight loss a little easier. The walking that I do primarily comes from walking to train instead of driving to train. It is great because it is easy to fit into my schedule at a relatively low impact to my other activities.

If I may ask, how did not eating junk food curb your appetite? And,
what are you normally eating now? Thanks.

Food with processed sugars that metabolize quickly cause hunger cravings.
Here's how: You eat a candy bar. Your body is flooded with sugar in the
blood stream all at once. Insulin pumps out at a dramatic pace. Soon, the
blood sugar drops and is either metabolized or stored as fat. Problem is,
now you have too much insulin and your blood sugar drops too low. The body
says "eat" while it releases glycogen stores and increases cortisol and
adrenalin to normalize the extra insulin. Cortisol destroys muscle to get
at the sugar, while sparing fat. Too much cortisol raises blood sugar and
increases insulin resistance, thereby increasing insulin, which increases
fat stores.

Do you see the vicious cycle?

Simple carbs are SOOOOOOO bad for you in so many ways.

Thanks,

Mike

--
To reply via email remove the X's from my email address:
aXeXnXeXaXs@gwis.com


"The Dave©" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:VLq7b.3487$1U7.1730@news02.roc.ny... Ignoramus13012 wrote: I am 5'11", used to be 223, started working on getting healthier around June 1. Now I have lost 43 lbs, reached normal weight of 180, and feel way better. I accomplished it primarily by exercise. I walked about 2 hours per day on average, plus I lifted weights a little bit. I also stopped eating anything sweetened (no sugar and sweeteners) and no junk food and that really curbed my appetite. So I could them manage how much I eat and ate a little less than was supposed to maintain weight given exercise energy expenditures. No pills or supplements of any kind. My biggest regret from all this is that I did not realize before that losing weight was, relatively, speaking, not that difficult, if done right. I wish I did it years ago. Because I lost weight the natural way, I also have learned some healthful habits and how to eat properly and ration foods. So hopefully this will make maintaining my weight loss a little easier. The walking that I do primarily comes from walking to train instead of driving to train. It is great because it is easy to fit into my schedule at a relatively low impact to my other activities. If I may ask, how did not eating junk food curb your appetite? And, what are you normally eating now? Thanks.

In article <VLq7b.3487$1U7.1730@news02.roc.ny>, The Dave© wrote: Ignoramus13012 wrote: I am 5'11", used to be 223, started working on getting healthier around June 1. Now I have lost 43 lbs, reached normal weight of 180, and feel way better. I accomplished it primarily by exercise. I walked about 2 hours per day on average, plus I lifted weights a little bit. I also stopped eating anything sweetened (no sugar and sweeteners) and no junk food and that really curbed my appetite. So I could them manage how much I eat and ate a little less than was supposed to maintain weight given exercise energy expenditures. No pills or supplements of any kind. My biggest regret from all this is that I did not realize before that losing weight was, relatively, speaking, not that difficult, if done right. I wish I did it years ago. Because I lost weight the natural way, I also have learned some healthful habits and how to eat properly and ration foods. So hopefully this will make maintaining my weight loss a little easier. The walking that I do primarily comes from walking to train instead of driving to train. It is great because it is easy to fit into my schedule at a relatively low impact to my other activities. If I may ask, how did not eating junk food curb your appetite? And, what are you normally eating now? Thanks.

It is easier to say what I am not eating. I am not eating anything
sweetened, I am not eating store bread (I bake my own sourdough bread
from flour and water and salt), I am not eating any junk food in
packages. Also some dried fruits that are too sweet.

I eat the rest of the food universe, as far as I can remember. Bread,
sausages, fish, greens, nuts, whatever. But, the catch is, I do watch
the quantity of food eaten. It is not a free for all type thing where
I let myself eat unlimited quantities of anything.

How did it curb my appetite I do not know, but it did make me want to
eat less. Supposedly, from reading books, I learned that sugar has
this effect in many people caused by insulin fluctuations, if you eat
something sweet you will be feeling hungry again in a couple of
hours. Junk food, I guess, is designed by capitalists to be addictive
so that they can make money off of me binging on it.

Funny thing is, I first became sugar free by hunch, and only then read
a bunch of books about evils of sugar, after I lost 20 lbs or so.

I was still hungry at times, but I was never crazy hungry, ravenous,
out of control etc.

I am not saying that I found the perfect universal way to lose
weight. But it worked for me. In fact I felt much better duting my
whole weight loss, than before, even if I factored in being hungry
occasionally and walking 2 hrs per day.

It is worth it to be slightly hungry every day, be a little obsessed
with food, and exercise, if it prevents me from being obese. Being
obese is terrible.

People like to talk about food/diets etc, but in fact I consider
exercise to be no less important to my weight loss, maybe more
important.

i

Great post.

i

In article <0Tq7b.22898$2Y6.9174193@news2.news.adelphia.net>, Mike (Remove X's to reply) wrote: Food with processed sugars that metabolize quickly cause hunger cravings. Here's how: You eat a candy bar. Your body is flooded with sugar in the blood stream all at once. Insulin pumps out at a dramatic pace. Soon, the blood sugar drops and is either metabolized or stored as fat. Problem is, now you have too much insulin and your blood sugar drops too low. The body says "eat" while it releases glycogen stores and increases cortisol and adrenalin to normalize the extra insulin. Cortisol destroys muscle to get at the sugar, while sparing fat. Too much cortisol raises blood sugar and increases insulin resistance, thereby increasing insulin, which increases fat stores. Do you see the vicious cycle? Simple carbs are SOOOOOOO bad for you in so many ways. Thanks, Mike Ignoramus13012 wrote: I am 5'11", used to be 223, started working on getting healthier around June 1. Now I have lost 43 lbs, reached normal weight of 180, and feel way better. I accomplished it primarily by exercise. I walked about 2 hours per day on average, plus I lifted weights a little bit. I also stopped eating anything sweetened (no sugar and sweeteners) and no junk food and that really curbed my appetite. So I could them manage how much I eat and ate a little less than was supposed to maintain weight given exercise energy expenditures. No pills or supplements of any kind. My biggest regret from all this is that I did not realize before that losing weight was, relatively, speaking, not that difficult, if done right. I wish I did it years ago. Because I lost weight the natural way, I also have learned some healthful habits and how to eat properly and ration foods. So hopefully this will make maintaining my weight loss a little easier. The walking that I do primarily comes from walking to train instead of driving to train. It is great because it is easy to fit into my schedule at a relatively low impact to my other activities. If I may ask, how did not eating junk food curb your appetite? And, what are you normally eating now? Thanks.

Mike (Remove X's to reply) wrote: Food with processed sugars that metabolize quickly cause hunger cravings. Here's how: You eat a candy bar. Your body is flooded with sugar in the blood stream all at once. Insulin pumps out at a dramatic pace. Soon, the blood sugar drops and is either metabolized or stored as fat. Problem is, now you have too much insulin and your blood sugar drops too low

I thought it only dropped "too low" in the case of hypoglycemia.

"Ignoramus13012" <ignoramus13012@NOSPAM.13012.invalid> wrote in message
news:bjldt6$sr8$0@pita.alt.net

<snip>
It is worth it to be slightly hungry every day, be a little obsessed with food, and exercise, if it prevents me from being obese. Being obese is terrible.

Biting my tongue, but I have to jump in here. This is so true.

I think that people get very complacent about their bodies, and bodis in
general. The number of comments that I have seen about how it is just as
important to feel good about yourself as opposed to how much you weigh seems
to hammer it home. In truth, while I understand that self-image is
important mentally, it is not a repalcement for good health. THe body isn't
designed to function well with huge amounts of excess weight.

Somebody mentioned the diet and bagels. I was amazed to hear that Americans
eat like 120 lbs of suger a year, each, or some ludicrous amount. The
standard bagel and cream cheese for breakfast is like half of the daily
caloric intake. I look at pictures of the news from the US, and my god, are
people huge there.

Now, I feel I have some license to speak. I too am from the US, and I used
to be between 90 and 100 lbs overweight. I never even thought about it.
When I got to be 60 or so lbs overweight, I thought, "Yeah, putting on a
little." Putting on a little?!?!? I was already way over. By I was
complacent. In one of the moves over the past 18 months, I threw out a
bunch of old clothes, with the justification of "I'll never fit into these
again so why bother." Chucked out a fantastic pair of running pants, that
yes were very old, but because of my size i hadn't worn in 10 years. Wish I
had those as it starts to turn cold here.

Now I look at pictures and I think, "Holy G*d!" I still have some to go,
but you know what? People still look at me and say, "You need to loose more
wieght. You look fine." ANd in general I probably do, just got the five or
ten pound remainder to turn into muscle. But why do people default to "You
don't need to lose weight?"

Look at the lawsuits in the US. People suing McDonalds because McDonalds
used a pry bar to force open their mouths and dump double cheesburgers down
them. Is this justification or what, "Well, yer honor, it really t'aint mah
fault, cause that dad burned MaccccDunalds just forcet me to become this
here ohbeez."

Anyway, obesity kills. Obesity causes diabetes (if I recall correctly - not
the only thing, but contributes). Yes, one should not discriminate, but
sitting there and sayin, "Hey it is okay if I am a little overwieght beause
I am happy with myself," to me is a recipe for disaster.

/rant off - knowing I'll take heat on this

Rambler


People like to talk about food/diets etc, but in fact I consider exercise to be no less important to my weight loss, maybe more important. i

"Mike \(Remove X's to reply\)" <aXeXnXeXaXs@gwis.com> wrote in message news:<0Tq7b.22898$2Y6.9174193@news2.news.adelphia.net>... Food with processed sugars that metabolize quickly cause hunger cravings. Here's how: You eat a candy bar. Your body is flooded with sugar in the blood stream all at once. Insulin pumps out at a dramatic pace. Soon, the blood sugar drops and is either metabolized or stored as fat. Problem is, now you have too much insulin and your blood sugar drops too low. The body says "eat" while it releases glycogen stores and increases cortisol and adrenalin to normalize the extra insulin. Cortisol destroys muscle to get at the sugar, while sparing fat. Too much cortisol raises blood sugar and increases insulin resistance, thereby increasing insulin, which increases fat stores. Do you see the vicious cycle? Simple carbs are SOOOOOOO bad for you in so many ways.


Amen; great explanation!

Now, can you please explain to everyone the difference between a
"simple" and a "complex" carb, and the different effect on the body?
It concerns me that so many people are eschewing ALL carbs these days
(zone/atkins). Not all carbs have this effect. Complex carbs (whole
grains such as whole wheat, brown rice, whole oats, etc) are quite
good for you and can have a stabilizing effect on the blood sugar
fluctuations.

jen

In article <bjlugv$e3i2@imsp212.netvigator.com>, Rambler wrote: "Ignoramus13012" <ignoramus13012@NOSPAM.13012.invalid> wrote in message news:bjldt6$sr8$0@pita.alt.net<snip> It is worth it to be slightly hungry every day, be a little obsessed with food, and exercise, if it prevents me from being obese. Being obese is terrible. Biting my tongue, but I have to jump in here. This is so true. I think that people get very complacent about their bodies, and bodis in general. The number of comments that I have seen about how it is just as important to feel good about yourself as opposed to how much you weigh seems to hammer it home. In truth, while I understand that self-image is important mentally, it is not a repalcement for good health. THe body isn't designed to function well with huge amounts of excess weight.

Correct.
Somebody mentioned the diet and bagels. I was amazed to hear that Americans eat like 120 lbs of suger a year, each, or some ludicrous

150 lbs, believe it or not. A scary thought.

I eat no more than an ounce per month, and feel way better than when I
was eating that ****.
Now, I feel I have some license to speak. I too am from the US, and I used to be between 90 and 100 lbs overweight. I never even thought about it. When I got to be 60 or so lbs overweight, I thought, "Yeah, putting on a little." Putting on a little?!?!? I was already way over. By I was complacent. In one of the moves over the past 18 months, I threw out a bunch of old clothes, with the justification of "I'll never fit into these again so why bother." Chucked out a fantastic pair of running pants, that yes were very old, but because of my size i hadn't worn in 10 years. Wish I had those as it starts to turn cold here.

I would call it lack of self awareness.

The thought that I was obese and that it was intolerable somehow was
not allowed in my mind. Then something clicked and I "got it".
Now I look at pictures and I think, "Holy G*d!" I still have some to go, but you know what? People still look at me and say, "You need to loose more wieght. You look fine." ANd in general I probably do, just got the five or ten pound remainder to turn into muscle. But why do people default to "You don't need to lose weight?"

I hear this also. The change that people see looks fairly
overwhelming. I do not plan on any more radical weight loss, but I
want to lose 4-5 more lbs. I am sure that those people are well
meaning, but the change looks like too much to them.
Anyway, obesity kills. Obesity causes diabetes (if I recall correctly - not the only thing, but contributes). Yes, one should not discriminate, but sitting there and sayin, "Hey it is okay if I am a little overwieght beause I am happy with myself," to me is a recipe for disaster.

yep... self esteem should be based on reality, not fantasy.

i

In article <c8cb5319.0309091805.2bad8803@posting.google.com>, shinypenny wrote: "Mike \(Remove X's to reply\)" <aXeXnXeXaXs@gwis.com> wrote in message news:<0Tq7b.22898$2Y6.9174193@news2.news.adelphia.net>... Food with processed sugars that metabolize quickly cause hunger cravings. Here's how: You eat a candy bar. Your body is flooded with sugar in the blood stream all at once. Insulin pumps out at a dramatic pace. Soon, the blood sugar drops and is either metabolized or stored as fat. Problem is, now you have too much insulin and your blood sugar drops too low. The body says "eat" while it releases glycogen stores and increases cortisol and adrenalin to normalize the extra insulin. Cortisol destroys muscle to get at the sugar, while sparing fat. Too much cortisol raises blood sugar and increases insulin resistance, thereby increasing insulin, which increases fat stores. Do you see the vicious cycle? Simple carbs are SOOOOOOO bad for you in so many ways. Amen; great explanation! Now, can you please explain to everyone the difference between a "simple" and a "complex" carb, and the different effect on the body? It concerns me that so many people are eschewing ALL carbs these days (zone/atkins). Not all carbs have this effect. Complex carbs (whole grains such as whole wheat, brown rice, whole oats, etc) are quite good for you and can have a stabilizing effect on the blood sugar fluctuations. jen

I am frankly not sure if white flour deserves to be vilified.

I bake my own bread and it does not cause hunger pangs in me.

Store bread though usually contains high fructose corn syrup and such.

The zone diet, actually, does not eschew carbs. While I think that
Barry Sears is a promoter, the proportions of fat/carb/protein
calories in his book do seem reasonable to me.

i

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0309091805.2bad8803@posting.google.c om... Amen; great explanation! Now, can you please explain to everyone the difference between a "simple" and a "complex" carb, and the different effect on the body? It concerns me that so many people are eschewing ALL carbs these days (zone/atkins). Not all carbs have this effect. Complex carbs (whole grains such as whole wheat, brown rice, whole oats, etc) are quite good for you and can have a stabilizing effect on the blood sugar fluctuations. jen

There are a couple of differant schools of thought on that....some agree,
some disagree. My opinion, somewhat rides the fence....with a leaning
towards disagreement on your statement. Again, opinion.

Storm

"Ignoramus13012" <ignoramus13012@NOSPAM.13012.invalid> wrote in message
news:bjm1bb$ukp$3@pita.alt.net In article <c8cb5319.0309091805.2bad8803@posting.google.com>, shinypenny wrote: "Mike \(Remove X's to reply\)" <aXeXnXeXaXs@gwis.com> wrote in message news:<0Tq7b.22898$2Y6.9174193@news2.news.adelphia.net>...

<snip>
Amen; great explanation! Now, can you please explain to everyone the difference between a "simple" and a "complex" carb, and the different effect on the body? It concerns me that so many people are eschewing ALL carbs these days (zone/atkins). Not all carbs have this effect. Complex carbs (whole grains such as whole wheat, brown rice, whole oats, etc) are quite good for you and can have a stabilizing effect on the blood sugar fluctuations. jen I am frankly not sure if white flour deserves to be vilified.

The thing that I heard is that whole grain/wheat flour, brown rice, etc, add
more fiber to the diet, not that the carbs are different. It is the fiber
that makes them more beneficial.

Note "more" beneficial. the others are beneficial. It wasn't until
McDonalds was introduced in Asia that Asians became fat - and previously a
large portion of their diet was white rice.

As to Chinese food not filling you up, this one is really a myth, or an
American myth. I agree, growing up in New Jersey, we would joke about the
local Chinese restaurant with Moo Goo Gai Pan and Spring Rolls, and how we
were always hungry a half hour later. I now cook tons of Asian food (Thai,
Japanese, Korean, different areas of Chinese, Malyasian and Vietnamese
(oops, let's not forget Indian and Persian and Filippino)) and I don't have
that "hungry ever after" feeling. I think that a lot of it is due to the
asian cooks in the US using MSG in order to enhance the flavours. Suffice
it to say, that after a meal, I am usually absolutely stuffed.

Rambler
I bake my own bread and it does not cause hunger pangs in me. Store bread though usually contains high fructose corn syrup and such. The zone diet, actually, does not eschew carbs. While I think that Barry Sears is a promoter, the proportions of fat/carb/protein calories in his book do seem reasonable to me. i

An interesting factoid. Prior to my weight loss, my total cholesterol
was 177. After weight loss, I bought a home test kit for cholesterol
off ebay for $6.99. (obviously inferior to a lab but probably OK). I
just measured my cholesterol and it was 128. It fell like a rock, even
though I ate meat, eggs from our chickens, etc very liberally.

Which confirms my supposition that cholesterol level is more of a
function of healthy lifestyle than meat/fat consumption.

Of course, there is a chance that it is just a measurement fluke.

i

"Rambler" <iam.removespam.rambler@yahoo.removespam.com> wrote in message
news:bjm235$e2v4@imsp212.netvigator.com... "Ignoramus13012" <ignoramus13012@NOSPAM.13012.invalid> wrote in message news:bjm1bb$ukp$3@pita.alt.net In article <c8cb5319.0309091805.2bad8803@posting.google.com>, shinypenny wrote: "Mike \(Remove X's to reply\)" <aXeXnXeXaXs@gwis.com> wrote in message news:<0Tq7b.22898$2Y6.9174193@news2.news.adelphia.net>... <snip> Amen; great explanation! Now, can you please explain to everyone the difference between a "simple" and a "complex" carb, and the different effect on the body? It concerns me that so many people are eschewing ALL carbs these days (zone/atkins). Not all carbs have this effect. Complex carbs (whole grains such as whole wheat, brown rice, whole oats, etc) are quite good for you and can have a stabilizing effect on the blood sugar fluctuations. jen I am frankly not sure if white flour deserves to be vilified. The thing that I heard is that whole grain/wheat flour, brown rice, etc,
add more fiber to the diet, not that the carbs are different. It is the fiber that makes them more beneficial.

Different carbs have different insulin response. This is measured with a
glycemic index. High levels are bad for you, but lower are better. The
amount of fiber in the food is just one of things that affects it. Here is
site about glycemic index: http://members.lycos.co.uk/ramendosa/gilists.htm

Jayne

Jen, Atkins (which I have followed since November and dropped 35, thank you
Doc Atkins) doesn't poo poo all carbs, just the ones from 'white' foods
(flour, sugar, cornstarch, etc.). We like our carbs just fine, but mostly
from veggies, some fruits and when our weightloss phase is over, we can
reintroduce the whole wheat, brown rice, etc. back into our diets. Atkins is
often misconstrued as HIGH protein. I eat no more protein than I did before
I started the diet, I just cut out the white stuff and lost my fear of eating
fats. :)

Cheryl

Storm wrote:
"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c8cb5319.0309091805.2bad8803@posting.google.c om... Amen; great explanation! Now, can you please explain to everyone the difference between a "simple" and a "complex" carb, and the different effect on the body? It concerns me that so many people are eschewing ALL carbs these days (zone/atkins). Not all carbs have this effect. Complex carbs (whole grains such as whole wheat, brown rice, whole oats, etc) are quite good for you and can have a stabilizing effect on the blood sugar fluctuations. jen There are a couple of differant schools of thought on that....some agree, some disagree. My opinion, somewhat rides the fence....with a leaning towards disagreement on your statement. Again, opinion. Storm

> Ignoramus13012 wrote:
An interesting factoid. Prior to my weight loss, my total cholesterol was 177. After weight loss, I bought a home test kit for cholesterol off ebay for $6.99. (obviously inferior to a lab but probably OK). I just measured my cholesterol and it was 128. It fell like a rock, even though I ate meat, eggs from our chickens, etc very liberally. Which confirms my supposition that cholesterol level is more of a function of healthy lifestyle than meat/fat consumption. Of course, there is a chance that it is just a measurement fluke. i

In general, I think you're right. As I learn more and more I am
becoming more convinced that an overall healthy lifetsyle is the
primary key. That doesn't mean you can never have fat or sugar, just
not in tne amounts that we have become accustomed to. Also,
pre-packaged foods have too much of the stuff that doesn't do us any
good, but merely enhances the taste, which ties right in with your
baking your own bread.

In article <ofI7b.3682$Ja5.2527@news02.roc.ny>, The Dave© wrote: Ignoramus13012 wrote: An interesting factoid. Prior to my weight loss, my total cholesterol was 177. After weight loss, I bought a home test kit for cholesterol off ebay for $6.99. (obviously inferior to a lab but probably OK). I just measured my cholesterol and it was 128. It fell like a rock, even though I ate meat, eggs from our chickens, etc very liberally. Which confirms my supposition that cholesterol level is more of a function of healthy lifestyle than meat/fat consumption. Of course, there is a chance that it is just a measurement fluke. i In general, I think you're right. As I learn more and more I am becoming more convinced that an overall healthy lifetsyle is the primary key. That doesn't mean you can never have fat or sugar, just not in tne amounts that we have become accustomed to. Also, pre-packaged foods have too much of the stuff that doesn't do us any good, but merely enhances the taste, which ties right in with your baking your own bread.

I am in full agreement with you Dave.

Cannibals in some remote places believed that you would become smarter
if you eat someone's brains. Their thinking was, eat more brains, have
more brains. Obviously they it was not based on evidence as the
brains, digested, would turn into basic amino acids and stuff, same as
if you ate a fish or an egg.

The current thinking of the medical establishment is similar, eat less
cholesterol, have less cholesterol in your system. But in fact, it
does not work this way for the same reason why cannibals did not
produce an Albert Einstein. Cholesterol lowering diets have very
minimal effect on cholesterol levels.

i

"Rambler" <iam.removespam.rambler@yahoo.removespam.com> wrote in message news:<bjm235$e2v4@imsp212.netvigator.com>... "Ignoramus13012" <ignoramus13012@NOSPAM.13012.invalid> wrote in message news:bjm1bb$ukp$3@pita.alt.net In article <c8cb5319.0309091805.2bad8803@posting.google.com>, shinypenny wrote: "Mike \(Remove X's to reply\)" <aXeXnXeXaXs@gwis.com> wrote in message news:<0Tq7b.22898$2Y6.9174193@news2.news.adelphia.net>... <snip> Amen; great explanation! Now, can you please explain to everyone the difference between a "simple" and a "complex" carb, and the different effect on the body? It concerns me that so many people are eschewing ALL carbs these days (zone/atkins). Not all carbs have this effect. Complex carbs (whole grains such as whole wheat, brown rice, whole oats, etc) are quite good for you and can have a stabilizing effect on the blood sugar fluctuations. jen I am frankly not sure if white flour deserves to be vilified. The thing that I heard is that whole grain/wheat flour, brown rice, etc, add more fiber to the diet, not that the carbs are different. It is the fiber that makes them more beneficial.

I have tried the Zone diet thing, and I'd much rather get my fiber
from whole grains than laxatives, thank-you-very-much!! :-Q

My understanding is that whole grain foods are absorbed differently by
the body. Plus, the fiber fills you up. And, it's not just that. Whole
grains have not had the vitamins and minerals processed out of them.

I definetly agree that we should all eat less simple carbs. Frankly,
the only thing white flour gives the body, IMHO, is calories. There's
very little nutrition along with those calories!!! For me, sugar and
refined, processed grains affect my blood sugar negatively. I get that
swing and then the crash. I feel awful and get real *****y, too!

OTOH, when I was vegetarian, I ate a diet low in protein but very high
in complex carbs (made everything from scratch using whole grains, not
the refined crap you find in the grocery stores). I felt great, no
hypoglycemic swings at all.

Currently I'm on what you might call a "modified" Atkins. For example,
today I had yogurt and banana for breakfast, and a
spinach/mushroom/dried fruit salad with hard-boiled eggs, cheese, and
3 olives for lunch.... yummm... tonight I'll eat chicken and brown
rice soup that I've got waiting for me in the crockpot, along with
whole wheat bread.

I find it helpful to eat a protein-rich meal early in the day (helps
me feel mentally sharper), and a serving or two of complex carbs at
dinner (helps me sleep -- if I go too low in carbs, I find I have real
trouble getting and staying asleep). It seems to be the right balance
for me.

<snip>
I bake my own bread and it does not cause hunger pangs in me.

Do you use whole grains?

Btw - Congrats, Igor, on the weight loss!!! I am jealous. Despite
diligent dieting and lots and lots of exercise (running 3-4 times per
week, 30-45 mins), my weight just doesn't seem to want to budge. It's
not that I'm overweight, but I'm hovering about 10 pounds over my
ideal, since quitting smoking.

I think I'm realizing the problem has little to do with quitting
smoking, and everything to do with the fact we simply eat out too
much! I've been fooling myself to think those calories somehow don't
count. I am really really good at all other times, it's just that my
fiancee and I like a good restaurant meal once or twice a week.

I keep telling my sweetie that I'm going to have to take drastic
measures and dump him, cuz it's soooo much easier to maintain my
weight when I don't have a man in my life!!!! He likes to see me eat!
And, he always encourages me to get dessert, the scrawny skinny
b*stard !! ... hee hee...

jen

Ignoramus13012 wrote: I am 5'11", used to be 223, started working on getting healthier around June 1. Now I have lost 43 lbs, reached normal weight of 180, and feel way better. I accomplished it primarily by exercise. I walked about 2 hours per day on average, plus I lifted weights a little bit. I also stopped eating anything sweetened (no sugar and sweeteners) and no junk food and that really curbed my appetite. So I could them manage how much I eat and ate a little less than was supposed to maintain weight given exercise energy expenditures. No pills or supplements of any kind. My biggest regret from all this is that I did not realize before that losing weight was, relatively, speaking, not that difficult, if done right. I wish I did it years ago. Because I lost weight the natural way, I also have learned some healthful habits and how to eat properly and ration foods. So hopefully this will make maintaining my weight loss a little easier. The walking that I do primarily comes from walking to train instead of driving to train. It is great because it is easy to fit into my schedule at a relatively low impact to my other activities. i
congratulations!

In article <c8cb5319.0309101204.42ae3147@posting.google.com>, shinypenny wrote: The thing that I heard is that whole grain/wheat flour, brown rice, etc, add more fiber to the diet, not that the carbs are different. It is the fiber that makes them more beneficial.

correct.
I have tried the Zone diet thing, and I'd much rather get my fiber from whole grains than laxatives, thank-you-very-much!! :-Q

Same here.

Thereis nothing wrong with fiber supplements, but somehow I like the
real thing.
My understanding is that whole grain foods are absorbed differently by the body. Plus, the fiber fills you up. And, it's not just that. Whole grains have not had the vitamins and minerals processed out of them.

Right.

Lately I have been baking bread with half regular flour and half whole
wheat. Seems to have the right balance between taste, leavening, and
healthiness.
I definetly agree that we should all eat less simple carbs. Frankly, the only thing white flour gives the body, IMHO, is calories. There's very little nutrition along with those calories!!! For me, sugar and refined, processed grains affect my blood sugar negatively. I get that swing and then the crash. I feel awful and get real *****y, too!

And I felt like hungry and snacking all the time. Ugh.
OTOH, when I was vegetarian, I ate a diet low in protein but very high in complex carbs (made everything from scratch using whole grains, not the refined crap you find in the grocery stores). I felt great, no hypoglycemic swings at all.

But something made you switch away from your vegetarian diet?

And besides, can't vegetarians, in general, eat chocolates and
candies?
Currently I'm on what you might call a "modified" Atkins. For example, today I had yogurt and banana for breakfast, and a spinach/mushroom/dried fruit salad with hard-boiled eggs, cheese, and 3 olives for lunch.... yummm... tonight I'll eat chicken and brown rice soup that I've got waiting for me in the crockpot, along with whole wheat bread.

I am curious. Do you find brown rice much tastier than white rice?

I never liked white rice very much because it tasted like cotton -- no
taste.

But brown rice tastes almost like meat of some sort, much better
tasting.
I bake my own bread and it does not cause hunger pangs in me. Do you use whole grains?

No more than half. Bread baked from 100% whole grain flour does not
rise very well.
Btw - Congrats, Igor, on the weight loss!!! I am jealous. Despite diligent dieting and lots and lots of exercise (running 3-4 times per week, 30-45 mins), my weight just doesn't seem to want to budge. It's not that I'm overweight, but I'm hovering about 10 pounds over my ideal, since quitting smoking.

You are doing pretty well, according to the above. You should be
congratulated. Those 10 lbs may be not coming off for a reason.
Maybe you are just muscular or bony and not fat? I am also about 10
lbs above my ideal weight, and I am not sure if I want to reach it.
I think I'm realizing the problem has little to do with quitting smoking, and everything to do with the fact we simply eat out too much! I've been fooling myself to think those calories somehow don't count. I am really really good at all other times, it's just that my fiancee and I like a good restaurant meal once or twice a week.

Understood. For me, I now subscribe to the philosophy that "food is
fuel, not entertainment". So I never reward myself with food
anymore. My another discovery that was helpful is that I should not
care if food is left on the restaurant table or spoils in the fridge
if I do not eat it. I am not saving anything by stuffing it inside me
instead of garbage disposal.
I keep telling my sweetie that I'm going to have to take drastic measures and dump him, cuz it's soooo much easier to maintain my weight when I don't have a man in my life!!!! He likes to see me eat! And, he always encourages me to get dessert, the scrawny skinny b*stard !! ... hee hee...

sounds like you are happy with him!

i

> Ignoramus28259 wrote:
In article <c8cb5319.0309101204.42ae3147@posting.google.com>, shinypenny wrote: >> The thing that I heard is that whole grain/wheat flour, brown rice, etc, add >> more fiber to the diet, not that the carbs are different. It is the fiber >> that makes them more beneficial. correct. I have tried the Zone diet thing, and I'd much rather get my fiber from whole grains than laxatives, thank-you-very-much!! :-Q Same here. Thereis nothing wrong with fiber supplements, but somehow I like the real thing. My understanding is that whole grain foods are absorbed differently by the body. Plus, the fiber fills you up. And, it's not just that. Whole grains have not had the vitamins and minerals processed out of them. Right.

It has been my understanding that fiber slows the absorbtion of sugars
into the body, thus better regulating blood sugars and helping to
prevent hunger and spikes in blood sugar.
Lately I have been baking bread with half regular flour and half whole wheat. Seems to have the right balance between taste, leavening, and healthiness. I definetly agree that we should all eat less simple carbs. Frankly, the only thing white flour gives the body, IMHO, is calories. There's very little nutrition along with those calories!!! For me, sugar and refined, processed grains affect my blood sugar negatively. I get that swing and then the crash. I feel awful and get real *****y, too! And I felt like hungry and snacking all the time. Ugh. OTOH, when I was vegetarian, I ate a diet low in protein but very high in complex carbs (made everything from scratch using whole grains, not the refined crap you find in the grocery stores). I felt great, no hypoglycemic swings at all. But something made you switch away from your vegetarian diet? And besides, can't vegetarians, in general, eat chocolates and candies? Currently I'm on what you might call a "modified" Atkins. For example, today I had yogurt and banana for breakfast, and a spinach/mushroom/dried fruit salad with hard-boiled eggs, cheese, and 3 olives for lunch.... yummm... tonight I'll eat chicken and brown rice soup that I've got waiting for me in the crockpot, along with whole wheat bread. I am curious. Do you find brown rice much tastier than white rice? I never liked white rice very much because it tasted like cotton -- no taste. But brown rice tastes almost like meat of some sort, much better tasting. > I bake my own bread and it does not cause hunger pangs in me. Do you use whole grains? No more than half. Bread baked from 100% whole grain flour does not rise very well. Btw - Congrats, Igor, on the weight loss!!! I am jealous. Despite diligent dieting and lots and lots of exercise (running 3-4 times per week, 30-45 mins), my weight just doesn't seem to want to budge. It's not that I'm overweight, but I'm hovering about 10 pounds over my ideal, since quitting smoking. You are doing pretty well, according to the above. You should be congratulated. Those 10 lbs may be not coming off for a reason. Maybe you are just muscular or bony and not fat? I am also about 10 lbs above my ideal weight, and I am not sure if I want to reach it. I think I'm realizing the problem has little to do with quitting smoking, and everything to do with the fact we simply eat out too much! I've been fooling myself to think those calories somehow don't count. I am really really good at all other times, it's just that my fiancee and I like a good restaurant meal once or twice a week. Understood. For me, I now subscribe to the philosophy that "food is fuel, not entertainment".

Damn! That hits a chord with me. Part of my problem is I really like
good tasting food, and so often good tasting food tastes good because
it's high in fat or sugar or whatever.
So I never reward myself with food anymore. My another discovery that was helpful is that I should not care if food is left on the restaurant table or spoils in the fridge if I do not eat it. I am not saving anything by stuffing it inside me instead of garbage disposal. I keep telling my sweetie that I'm going to have to take drastic measures and dump him, cuz it's soooo much easier to maintain my weight when I don't have a man in my life!!!! He likes to see me eat! And, he always encourages me to get dessert, the scrawny skinny b*stard !! ... hee hee... sounds like you are happy with him! i

"The Dave©" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:ofI7b.3682$Ja5.2527@news02.roc.ny Ignoramus13012 wrote:
<Snip>
Also, pre-packaged foods have too much of the stuff that doesn't do us any good, but merely enhances the taste, which ties right in with your baking your own bread.

Just a thought on this, because I don't think it is actually true. I went
on a fat free diet about five or six years ago (to try and shed some pounds)
and basically became vegetarian (and gave up booze :-( ). I have
incorporated some of this into my currently lifestyle (fortunately realized
that giving up the booze was an absolute priority :-) ). I will admit my SO
had a little bit of an adjustment, because she was used to the fats and
whatnot used to cook things.

I don't think that the addatives make it taste good, I think that they
disguise the taste. To a certain extent, we have forgotten what food tastes
like because we have been putting on this and adding a dash of that. When
you strip all of that away, you get the unique individual taste of the
things you are eating.

MSG is a prime example. Asian cooks got addicted to the stuff, and it was
in every dish. The problem (besides giving me a headache) is that this
"flavour enhancer" really just blends the tastes of all the ingredients, so
one's chicken and snow peas tastes the same as orange beef with brocolli. A
dash of sugar works just as well as MSG, and doesn't hide the flavours.

Rambler

> Rambler wrote: Also, pre-packaged foods have too much of the stuff that doesn't do us any good, but merely enhances the taste, which ties right in with your baking your own bread. Just a thought on this, because I don't think it is actually true. I went on a fat free diet about five or six years ago (to try and shed some pounds) and basically became vegetarian (and gave up booze :-( ). I have incorporated some of this into my currently lifestyle (fortunately realized that giving up the booze was an absolute priority :-) ). I will admit my SO had a little bit of an adjustment, because she was used to the fats and whatnot used to cook things.

We still need fat in our diet, though, just like we need cholesterol,
sugar, etc. To go 100% fat free is not good, either. This is a very
general statement, but the extremes rarely seem to work, while
moderation usually does.
I don't think that the addatives make it taste good, I think that they disguise the taste.

That's pretty much what I meant. It
changes/disguises/(sometimes)enhances the taste.
To a certain extent, we have forgotten what food tastes like because we have been putting on this and adding a dash of that. When you strip all of that away, you get the unique individual taste of the things you are eating.

I know that I have become overly dependent on spices, etc.
MSG is a prime example. Asian cooks got addicted to the stuff, and it was in every dish. The problem (besides giving me a headache) is that this "flavour enhancer" really just blends the tastes of all the ingredients, so one's chicken and snow peas tastes the same as orange beef with brocolli. A dash of sugar works just as well as MSG, and doesn't hide the flavours.

There is a certain backlash against MSG now. Many Asian restauarants
have signs in their windows that say "No MSG".

Capitalists hide the taste of food for a very simple reason. They make
that food out the worst possible/cheapest components and it therefore
tastes very poorly. So they add so much salt/msg/whatever to the food,
simply so that we do not notice how bad it is.

I recently tried to eat a meat frank from a regular grocery. I ate
only half of it and had so spit out the other half because it was so
salty. Why was it so salty? Because I am sure they made that frank
out of really bad but cheap stuff to make profits.

We buy our franks/sausages at the polish store. Poles know what
real/good food tastes like and they won't buy the crap they sell in
regular grocery stores. Accidentally, the polish style meat products
are not more expensive -- but someone makes a thinner profit margin.
Which is fine with me.

That's one of the reasons why I avoid prepackaged foods.

i

In article <i_08b.4114$qX2.3371@news02.roc.ny>, The Dave© wrote: Rambler wrote: Also, pre-packaged foods have too much of the stuff that doesn't do us any good, but merely enhances the taste, which ties right in with your baking your own bread. Just a thought on this, because I don't think it is actually true. I went on a fat free diet about five or six years ago (to try and shed some pounds) and basically became vegetarian (and gave up booze :-( ). I have incorporated some of this into my currently lifestyle (fortunately realized that giving up the booze was an absolute priority :-) ). I will admit my SO had a little bit of an adjustment, because she was used to the fats and whatnot used to cook things. We still need fat in our diet, though, just like we need cholesterol, sugar, etc. To go 100% fat free is not good, either. This is a very general statement, but the extremes rarely seem to work, while moderation usually does. I don't think that the addatives make it taste good, I think that they disguise the taste. That's pretty much what I meant. It changes/disguises/(sometimes)enhances the taste. To a certain extent, we have forgotten what food tastes like because we have been putting on this and adding a dash of that. When you strip all of that away, you get the unique individual taste of the things you are eating. I know that I have become overly dependent on spices, etc. MSG is a prime example. Asian cooks got addicted to the stuff, and it was in every dish. The problem (besides giving me a headache) is that this "flavour enhancer" really just blends the tastes of all the ingredients, so one's chicken and snow peas tastes the same as orange beef with brocolli. A dash of sugar works just as well as MSG, and doesn't hide the flavours. There is a certain backlash against MSG now. Many Asian restauarants have signs in their windows that say "No MSG".

The Dave© wrote: Rambler wrote: Also, pre-packaged foods have too much of the stuff that doesn't do us any good, but merely enhances the taste, which ties right in with your baking your own bread. Just a thought on this, because I don't think it is actually true. I went on a fat free diet about five or six years ago (to try and shed some pounds) and basically became vegetarian (and gave up booze :-( ). I have incorporated some of this into my currently lifestyle (fortunately realized that giving up the booze was an absolute priority :-) ). I will admit my SO had a little bit of an adjustment, because she was used to the fats and whatnot used to cook things. We still need fat in our diet, though, just like we need cholesterol, sugar, etc. To go 100% fat free is not good, either. This is a very general statement, but the extremes rarely seem to work, while moderation usually does. I don't think that the addatives make it taste good, I think that they disguise the taste. That's pretty much what I meant. It changes/disguises/(sometimes)enhances the taste. To a certain extent, we have forgotten what food tastes like because we have been putting on this and adding a dash of that. When you strip all of that away, you get the unique individual taste of the things you are eating. I know that I have become overly dependent on spices, etc. MSG is a prime example. Asian cooks got addicted to the stuff, and it was in every dish. The problem (besides giving me a headache) is that this "flavour enhancer" really just blends the tastes of all the ingredients, so one's chicken and snow peas tastes the same as orange beef with brocolli. A dash of sugar works just as well as MSG, and doesn't hide the flavours. There is a certain backlash against MSG now. Many Asian restaurants have signs in their windows that say "No MSG".

Many restaurants use MSG not just Asian ones. I can usually tell with in
less than an hour when I have ate at one that is heavy on the MSG usage.
Don't know why but it sure doesn't like me much.

Lori Mc

Basically it's a pretty pathetic state of affairs when people are not
prepared to pay more for good, fresh and wholesome food, isn't it? Stuff
that we actually put into our bodies! Just how much can we disrespect our
lives and the quality of our existence?! When we support the manufacturer's
of junk food (and that isn't just take-away food - it's often just as much
the food we get from the supermarket as well) we are supporting a system
which will mean that our children end up eating it as well.

Let's all try and buy more organic/free range food..........and go for less
packaging too. Or even no packaging. Who on earth, when buying, say, a bunch
of bananas from the supermarket, needs to put them in a bag before they end
up in the carrier at the checkout?! And so many other things come with
multi-layers of plastic packaging - it's about time consumers grew up and
stopped supporting the savaging of our environment. How much don't we care?

--
Mark, UK

"Ignoramus10302" <ignoramus10302@NOSPAM.10302.invalid> wrote in message
news:bjq788$634$0@pita.alt.net... Capitalists hide the taste of food for a very simple reason. They make that food out the worst possible/cheapest components and it therefore tastes very poorly. So they add so much salt/msg/whatever to the food, simply so that we do not notice how bad it is. I recently tried to eat a meat frank from a regular grocery. I ate only half of it and had so spit out the other half because it was so salty. Why was it so salty? Because I am sure they made that frank out of really bad but cheap stuff to make profits. We buy our franks/sausages at the polish store. Poles know what real/good food tastes like and they won't buy the crap they sell in regular grocery stores. Accidentally, the polish style meat products are not more expensive -- but someone makes a thinner profit margin. Which is fine with me. That's one of the reasons why I avoid prepackaged foods. i In article <i_08b.4114$qX2.3371@news02.roc.ny>, The Dave© wrote: Rambler wrote: > Also, > pre-packaged foods have too much of the stuff that doesn't do us any > good, but merely enhances the taste, which ties right in with your > baking your own bread. Just a thought on this, because I don't think it is actually true. I went on a fat free diet about five or six years ago (to try and shed some pounds) and basically became vegetarian (and gave up booze :-( ). I have incorporated some of this into my currently lifestyle (fortunately realized that giving up the booze was an absolute priority :-) ). I will admit my SO had a little bit of an adjustment, because she was used to the fats and whatnot used to cook things. We still need fat in our diet, though, just like we need cholesterol, sugar, etc. To go 100% fat free is not good, either. This is a very general statement, but the extremes rarely seem to work, while moderation usually does. I don't think that the addatives make it taste good, I think that they disguise the taste. That's pretty much what I meant. It changes/disguises/(sometimes)enhances the taste. To a certain extent, we have forgotten what food tastes like because we have been putting on this and adding a dash of that. When you strip all of that away, you get the unique individual taste of the things you are eating. I know that I have become overly dependent on spices, etc. MSG is a prime example. Asian cooks got addicted to the stuff, and it was in every dish. The problem (besides giving me a headache) is that this "flavour enhancer" really just blends the tastes of all the ingredients, so one's chicken and snow peas tastes the same as orange beef with brocolli. A dash of sugar works just as well as MSG, and doesn't hide the flavours. There is a certain backlash against MSG now. Many Asian restauarants have signs in their windows that say "No MSG".

Lori Mc,

Absolutely! I can tolerate most foods very well, but when they stick in MSG
it's just beyond the limit!

--
Mark, UK

"LoriMc" <LoriMc11@THE_SPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vm291hebfisi79@corp.supernews.com... The Dave© wrote: Rambler wrote:> Also,> pre-packaged foods have too much of the stuff that doesn't do us any> good, but merely enhances the taste, which ties right in with your> baking your own bread. Just a thought on this, because I don't think it is actually true. I went on a fat free diet about five or six years ago (to try and shed some pounds) and basically became vegetarian (and gave up booze :-( ). I have incorporated some of this into my currently lifestyle (fortunately realized that giving up the booze was an absolute priority :-) ). I will admit my SO had a little bit of an adjustment, because she was used to the fats and whatnot used to cook things. We still need fat in our diet, though, just like we need cholesterol, sugar, etc. To go 100% fat free is not good, either. This is a very general statement, but the extremes rarely seem to work, while moderation usually does. I don't think that the addatives make it taste good, I think that they disguise the taste. That's pretty much what I meant. It changes/disguises/(sometimes)enhances the taste. To a certain extent, we have forgotten what food tastes like because we have been putting on this and adding a dash of that. When you strip all of that away, you get the unique individual taste of the things you are eating. I know that I have become overly dependent on spices, etc. MSG is a prime example. Asian cooks got addicted to the stuff, and it was in every dish. The problem (besides giving me a headache) is that this "flavour enhancer" really just blends the tastes of all the ingredients, so one's chicken and snow peas tastes the same as orange beef with brocolli. A dash of sugar works just as well as MSG, and doesn't hide the flavours. There is a certain backlash against MSG now. Many Asian restaurants have signs in their windows that say "No MSG". Many restaurants use MSG not just Asian ones. I can usually tell with in less than an hour when I have ate at one that is heavy on the MSG usage. Don't know why but it sure doesn't like me much. Lori Mc

That's brilliant.

I'm sure that the combination of exercise and eating more sensibly is the
key to weight loss for every able bodied person, of all ages. It's a matter
of confidence-building, and then I think that the weight would come off
relatively easily.

--
Mark, UK

"Ignoramus13012" <ignoramus13012@NOSPAM.13012.invalid> wrote in message
news:bjkihq$al6$3@pita.alt.net... I am 5'11", used to be 223, started working on getting healthier around June 1. Now I have lost 43 lbs, reached normal weight of 180, and feel way better. I accomplished it primarily by exercise. I walked about 2 hours per day on average, plus I lifted weights a little bit. I also stopped eating anything sweetened (no sugar and sweeteners) and no junk food and that really curbed my appetite. So I could them manage how much I eat and ate a little less than was supposed to maintain weight given exercise energy expenditures. No pills or supplements of any kind. My biggest regret from all this is that I did not realize before that losing weight was, relatively, speaking, not that difficult, if done right. I wish I did it years ago. Because I lost weight the natural way, I also have learned some healthful habits and how to eat properly and ration foods. So hopefully this will make maintaining my weight loss a little easier. The walking that I do primarily comes from walking to train instead of driving to train. It is great because it is easy to fit into my schedule at a relatively low impact to my other activities. i

In article <vm291hebfisi79@corp.supernews.com>, LoriMc wrote: The Dave© wrote: Rambler wrote:> Also,> pre-packaged foods have too much of the stuff that doesn't do us any> good, but merely enhances the taste, which ties right in with your> baking your own bread. Just a thought on this, because I don't think it is actually true. I went on a fat free diet about five or six years ago (to try and shed some pounds) and basically became vegetarian (and gave up booze :-( ). I have incorporated some of this into my currently lifestyle (fortunately realized that giving up the booze was an absolute priority :-) ). I will admit my SO had a little bit of an adjustment, because she was used to the fats and whatnot used to cook things. We still need fat in our diet, though, just like we need cholesterol, sugar, etc. To go 100% fat free is not good, either. This is a very general statement, but the extremes rarely seem to work, while moderation usually does. I don't think that the addatives make it taste good, I think that they disguise the taste. That's pretty much what I meant. It changes/disguises/(sometimes)enhances the taste. To a certain extent, we have forgotten what food tastes like because we have been putting on this and adding a dash of that. When you strip all of that away, you get the unique individual taste of the things you are eating. I know that I have become overly dependent on spices, etc. MSG is a prime example. Asian cooks got addicted to the stuff, and it was in every dish. The problem (besides giving me a headache) is that this "flavour enhancer" really just blends the tastes of all the ingredients, so one's chicken and snow peas tastes the same as orange beef with brocolli. A dash of sugar works just as well as MSG, and doesn't hide the flavours. There is a certain backlash against MSG now. Many Asian restaurants have signs in their windows that say "No MSG". Many restaurants use MSG not just Asian ones. I can usually tell with in less than an hour when I have ate at one that is heavy on the MSG usage. Don't know why but it sure doesn't like me much.

You would be surprised just how many restaurants and how many products
have MSG in them. It is often disguised as "hydrolyzed yeast extract",
"calcium caseinate" and so on.

I have not however been able to ascertain that MSG is somehow
dangerous to those who are not intolerant to it. I have this spise
where MSG is the main ingredient, and I add it to many foods that I
cook, like meats.

i

In article <bjr9da$ibt$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, Mark, UK wrote:
Basically it's a pretty pathetic state of affairs when people are not prepared to pay more for good, fresh and wholesome food, isn't

I respectfully disagree Mark. Good, fresh and wholesome food usually
is much cheaper that "junk food". The junk food industry is just very
clever at creating the perception of "value". They give you a big
package full of fluff, salt and MSG, and you think that you got a good
deal. But you did not.

If you buy fresh/raw food ingredients at cheap stores, you will come
out way ahead financially.
it? Stuff that we actually put into our bodies! Just how much can we disrespect our lives and the quality of our existence?! When we support the manufacturer's of junk food (and that isn't just take-away food - it's often just as much the food we get from the supermarket as well) we are supporting a system which will mean that our children end up eating it as well.

Well, you know, this is a free country, so if someone is willing to
kill themselves, they ought to be able to... But I do not buy anything
from junk food capitalists.

i

In article <bjra4l$ivk$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, Mark, UK wrote: That's brilliant. I'm sure that the combination of exercise and eating more sensibly is the key to weight loss for every able bodied person, of all ages. It's a matter of confidence-building, and then I think that the weight would come off relatively easily.

thanks. It did take some effort, however, it was relatively easy and
pleasant. I kind of like walking to train. I started feeling way
better a couple of weeks into my weight loss program. Way before I
lost any significant amount of weight.

i

On 9 Sep 2003 12:54:18 GMT, Ignoramus13012
<ignoramus13012@NOSPAM.13012.invalid> wrote:
I am 5'11", used to be 223, started working on getting healthieraround June 1. Now I have lost 43 lbs, reached normal weight of 180,and feel way better.I accomplished it primarily by exercise. I walked about 2 hours perday on average, plus I lifted weights a little bit. I also stoppedeating anything sweetened (no sugar and sweeteners) and no junk foodand that really curbed my appetite. So I could them manage how much Ieat and ate a little less than was supposed to maintain weight givenexercise energy expenditures.No pills or supplements of any kind.My biggest regret from all this is that I did not realize before thatlosing weight was, relatively, speaking, not that difficult, if doneright. I wish I did it years ago.Because I lost weight the natural way, I also have learned somehealthful habits and how to eat properly and ration foods. Sohopefully this will make maintaining my weight loss a little easier.The walking that I do primarily comes from walking to train instead ofdriving to train. It is great because it is easy to fit into myschedule at a relatively low impact to my other activities.i


Hello Igor,

I am very pleased for you.

The diet specialists would no doubt find this appaulingly simplistic,
but - if truth be told - it is simple. Calories in, calories out.

No need for special diets, pills or anthing else. Of course it is
easier to hear how you can try this diet, or that diet, or anything at
all but the obvious truth - stop feeding your face, and get off your
fat arse.

As my grandfather cruelly, but very accurately, commented - nobody
came out of Belson fat.

David.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 02:01:15 +0000 (UTC), "Mark, UK"
<coopermg@btinternet.com> wrote:
Basically it's a pretty pathetic state of affairs when people are notprepared to pay more for good, fresh and wholesome food, isn't it? Stuffthat we actually put into our bodies! Just how much can we disrespect ourlives and the quality of our existence?! When we support the manufacturer'sof junk food (and that isn't just take-away food - it's often just as muchthe food we get from the supermarket as well) we are supporting a systemwhich will mean that our children end up eating it as well.

You've obviously not tried living on a budget where kids have to be
fed on a miserable number of £/$ per day without the luxury of
spreading that term over more than a week, or even day to day.
Budgets are efficient only when you have the cash up-front.

Fish fingers are more expensive per pound than fresh fish, sure, but
have you seen the real expense of cooking a meal consisting of fresh
fish, and getting kids to eat them ?

Consider this on the UK minimum wage of £4.10/hour, which gives a
disposable income (disregarding debt problems) of about £40/week. For
everything.

I would try reading something current, like Polly Toynbee's "Hard
Work" about life in low-pay Britain.
Let's all try and buy more organic/free range food..........and go for lesspackaging too. Or even no packaging. Who on earth, when buying, say, a bunchof bananas from the supermarket, needs to put them in a bag before they endup in the carrier at the checkout?! And so many other things come withmulti-layers of plastic packaging - it's about time consumers grew up andstopped supporting the savaging of our environment. How much don't we care?

I'm with you here. How stupid has a person got to be, if they get to
the checkout and suddenly realise they need bags to take all this
stuff home.

If they didn't take bags for a major outing, they ought to be fined on
the spot for reckless endangerment of the environment. Failing that,
the UK should follow the Ireland model and fine people 10p/bag for
being so stupid. At the end of the day, it's the only language people
understand.

David.

Ignoramus10302 <ignoramus10302@NOSPAM.10302.invalid> writes:
In article <bjr9da$ibt$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, Mark, UK wrote: Basically it's a pretty pathetic state of affairs when people are not prepared to pay more for good, fresh and wholesome food, isn't I respectfully disagree Mark. Good, fresh and wholesome food usually is much cheaper that "junk food". The junk food industry is just very clever at creating the perception of "value". They give you a big package full of fluff, salt and MSG, and you think that you got a good deal. But you did not.

It depends whether you measure by calorie or not.

My wife works with people who are often poor, and often malnourished.
One of the cheapest ways for them to get 1000 calories (in the U.S.)
and some protein is to go to McDonalds. Not that she encourages
people to do that, but when she is worried about an immediate calorie
deficit, she doesn't _dis_courage it.

So yeah, processed food is nutritionally a bad value if you are coming
from the point of view that getting enough calories is no problem
(true for most of us) and are worried about other nutritional content
and health effects, but it is often cheap per calorie.

In article <ksc2mv8eaivjug8269obfuess26mug223n@4ax.com>, David wrote: I am very pleased for you.

thank you.
The diet specialists would no doubt find this appaulingly simplistic,

and hard to make money off of...
but - if truth be told - it is simple. Calories in, calories out.

exactly. Any working diet is merely a way to make having a calorie
deficit palatable, and also a way to not suffer from side effects of
weight loss.
No need for special diets, pills or anthing else. Of course it is easier to hear how you can try this diet, or that diet, or anything at all but the obvious truth - stop feeding your face, and get off your fat arse.

Simple yet quite true.

I

In article <TJa8b.418278$YN5.282268@sccrnsc01>, Doug Anderson wrote: Ignoramus10302 <ignoramus10302@NOSPAM.10302.invalid> writes: In article <bjr9da$ibt$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, Mark, UK wrote: Basically it's a pretty pathetic state of affairs when people are not prepared to pay more for good, fresh and wholesome food, isn't I respectfully disagree Mark. Good, fresh and wholesome food usually is much cheaper that "junk food". The junk food industry is just very clever at creating the perception of "value". They give you a big package full of fluff, salt and MSG, and you think that you got a good deal. But you did not. It depends whether you measure by calorie or not. My wife works with people who are often poor, and often malnourished. One of the cheapest ways for them to get 1000 calories (in the U.S.) and some protein is to go to McDonalds. Not that she encourages people to do that, but when she is worried about an immediate calorie deficit, she doesn't _dis_courage it.

how about eating a pound of potatoes (10-16 cents) and 1/4 lbs of
cheap pork (50 cents)? And maybe some tomato? (another 50 cents). For
$1.20, you got fed fairly well.

I am not even beginning to say that rice is even cheaper, that you can
bake your own bread for $0.25 a loaf, etc.
So yeah, processed food is nutritionally a bad value if you are coming from the point of view that getting enough calories is no problem (true for most of us) and are worried about other nutritional content and health effects, but it is often cheap per calorie.

You are forgetting about staples such as rice, poultry, potatoes,
cabbage etc.

All cheap foods. That's what poor people eat worldwide. I respect you
greatly Doug, but your view of the food universe is limited.

i

In article <icd2mv89gsj32lh7vimvcilop4rjeaood7@4ax.com>, David wrote: On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 02:01:15 +0000 (UTC), "Mark, UK"<coopermg@btinternet.com> wrote:Basically it's a pretty pathetic state of affairs when people are notprepared to pay more for good, fresh and wholesome food, isn't it? Stuffthat we actually put into our bodies! Just how much can we disrespect ourlives and the quality of our existence?! When we support the manufacturer'sof junk food (and that isn't just take-away food - it's often just as muchthe food we get from the supermarket as well) we are supporting a systemwhich will mean that our children end up eating it as well. You've obviously not tried living on a budget where kids have to be fed on a miserable number of £/$ per day without the luxury of spreading that term over more than a week, or even day to day. Budgets are efficient only when you have the cash up-front.

that's called living within your means...
Fish fingers are more expensive per pound than fresh fish, sure, but

they are outrageously expensive compared to fresh fish.
have you seen the real expense of cooking a meal consisting of fresh fish, and getting kids to eat them ?

I will bite... And what is the real expense? A spoonful of oil, a
pinch of salt and 2 minutes of your time?
Consider this on the UK minimum wage of £4.10/hour, which gives a disposable income (disregarding debt problems) of about £40/week. For everything.

Must be for people who have not studied multiplication... it would be
L164/week gross income.
I'm with you here. How stupid has a person got to be, if they get to the checkout and suddenly realise they need bags to take all this stuff home.

while I think that the bag hysteria is overblown, they could reuse
bags that they take home if they wanted to.

i

Ignoramus10302 <ignoramus10302@NOSPAM.10302.invalid> writes:
In article <TJa8b.418278$YN5.282268@sccrnsc01>, Doug Anderson wrote: Ignoramus10302 <ignoramus10302@NOSPAM.10302.invalid> writes: In article <bjr9da$ibt$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, Mark, UK wrote: > Basically it's a pretty pathetic state of affairs when people are > not prepared to pay more for good, fresh and wholesome food, isn't I respectfully disagree Mark. Good, fresh and wholesome food usually is much cheaper that "junk food". The junk food industry is just very clever at creating the perception of "value". They give you a big package full of fluff, salt and MSG, and you think that you got a good deal. But you did not. It depends whether you measure by calorie or not. My wife works with people who are often poor, and often malnourished. One of the cheapest ways for them to get 1000 calories (in the U.S.) and some protein is to go to McDonalds. Not that she encourages people to do that, but when she is worried about an immediate calorie deficit, she doesn't _dis_courage it. how about eating a pound of potatoes (10-16 cents) and 1/4 lbs of cheap pork (50 cents)? And maybe some tomato? (another 50 cents). For $1.20, you got fed fairly well.

Add in the cost of cooking, flavoring, and the difficulty of getting
..50 cents worth of pork at a time, and you're up in McDonald's price
range.
I am not even beginning to say that rice is even cheaper, that you can bake your own bread for $0.25 a loaf, etc.

Sure, but you gotta eat a fair amount of rice (and it better be
whole-grain), and it takes a _long_ time to cook to approximate the
protein you get in a McDonald's meal.

Mind you I'm neither defending nor advocating McDonalds but there are
reasons people eat ther that have to do with more than being
brainwashed.`
So yeah, processed food is nutritionally a bad value if you are coming from the point of view that getting enough calories is no problem (true for most of us) and are worried about other nutritional content and health effects, but it is often cheap per calorie. You are forgetting about staples such as rice, poultry, potatoes, cabbage etc.

I'm not forgetting about these. Poultry ain't cheap in the US.
Potatoes are not nutrient dense, and cabbage has no protein. Brown
rice _is_ good, but see above.
All cheap foods. That's what poor people eat worldwide. I respect you greatly Doug, but your view of the food universe is limited.

But I'm not talking about the world. I specified in my previous post
that I'm talking about the US. Sure, we can hope people will change
their lives and live differently, but with a pregnant teenager in a
nutritional crisis who has no parents that cook, a meal at McDonalds
is a treasure trove of protein and calories. And it's pretty damn
cheap by US standards.

To compete on nutrition and cheapness in the US, you'd need a big
plate of rice and beans. A good goal to aspire to, and fine for
people who already eat that way.

Ignoramus10302 <ignoramus10302@NOSPAM.10302.invalid> writes:
In article <icd2mv89gsj32lh7vimvcilop4rjeaood7@4ax.com>, David wrote: On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 02:01:15 +0000 (UTC), "Mark, UK"<coopermg@btinternet.com> wrote:Basically it's a pretty pathetic state of affairs when people are notprepared to pay more for good, fresh and wholesome food, isn't it? Stuffthat we actually put into our bodies! Just how much can we disrespect ourlives and the quality of our existence?! When we support the manufacturer'sof junk food (and that isn't just take-away food - it's often just as muchthe food we get from the supermarket as well) we are supporting a systemwhich will mean that our children end up eating it as well. You've obviously not tried living on a budget where kids have to be fed on a miserable number of £/$ per day without the luxury of spreading that term over more than a week, or even day to day. Budgets are efficient only when you have the cash up-front. that's called living within your means... Fish fingers are more expensive per pound than fresh fish, sure, but they are outrageously expensive compared to fresh fish.

Actually, they aren't. At least in the US. And they take zero
cooking skill.

Ignoramus10302 <ignoramus10302@NOSPAM.10302.invalid> wrote:
David wrote: have you seen the real expense of cooking a meal consisting of fresh fish, and getting kids to eat them ?I will bite... And what is the real expense? A spoonful of oil, apinch of salt and 2 minutes of your time?

Divide the cost of the fish by the tiny percentage the kids will
actually eat, and the cost per pound grows by several orders of
magnitude.

In article <ekq2mvcmun9k55g4qm32con151pmkq9bl5@4ax.com>, Larry Kessler wrote: Ignoramus10302 <ignoramus10302@NOSPAM.10302.invalid> wrote:David wrote: have you seen the real expense of cooking a meal consisting of fresh fish, and getting kids to eat them ?I will bite... And what is the real expense? A spoonful of oil, apinch of salt and 2 minutes of your time? Divide the cost of the fish by the tiny percentage the kids will actually eat, and the cost per pound grows by several orders of magnitude.

Well, you can eat the rest...

i

That's fine, I know what you mean. Some better foods either nutritionally or
environmentally, are more expensive though. All I'm saying is when we
consider the things we are prepared to spend on, it seems rather sad when we
want to spend so little on something we put into our bodies!

--
Mark, UK

"Ignoramus10302" <ignoramus10302@NOSPAM.10302.invalid> wrote in message
news:bjrc0t$dhi$1@pita.alt.net... In article <bjr9da$ibt$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, Mark, UK wrote: Basically it's a pretty pathetic state of affairs when people are not prepared to pay more for good, fresh and wholesome food, isn't I respectfully disagree Mark. Good, fresh and wholesome food usually is much cheaper that "junk food". The junk food industry is just very clever at creating the perception of "value". They give you a big package full of fluff, salt and MSG, and you think that you got a good deal. But you did not. If you buy fresh/raw food ingredients at cheap stores, you will come out way ahead financially. it? Stuff that we actually put into our bodies! Just how much can we disrespect our lives and the quality of our existence?! When we support the manufacturer's of junk food (and that isn't just take-away food - it's often just as much the food we get from the supermarket as well) we are supporting a system which will mean that our children end up eating it as well. Well, you know, this is a free country, so if someone is willing to kill themselves, they ought to be able to... But I do not buy anything from junk food capitalists. i

David,

Today I'm travelling to Wolverhampton, where I was brought up. Tomorrow
morning I'll be running through 'The Scotlands' - know it? One of the
poorest and troubled areas of the UK, where often the fathers are in the
pub, the mothers are on the streets and the kids are in the gutter. I know
all about living in poorer areas, and the problems associated with it. OK
I'm relatively well off now, but you don't forget.

I hear all you say about living within a budget.

(anyway, hope I don't get mugged doing that running tomorrow!)

Regards,

--
Mark, UK

"David" <d.bayer> wrote in message
news:icd2mv89gsj32lh7vimvcilop4rjeaood7@4ax.com... On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 02:01:15 +0000 (UTC), "Mark, UK" <coopermg@btinternet.com> wrote:Basically it's a pretty pathetic state of affairs when people are notprepared to pay more for good, fresh and wholesome food, isn't it? Stuffthat we actually put into our bodies! Just how much can we disrespect ourlives and the quality of our existence?! When we support the
manufacturer'sof junk food (and that isn't just take-away food - it's often just as
muchthe food we get from the supermarket as well) we are supporting a systemwhich will mean that our children end up eating it as well. You've obviously not tried living on a budget where kids have to be fed on a miserable number of £/$ per day without the luxury of spreading that term over more than a week, or even day to day. Budgets are efficient only when you have the cash up-front. Fish fingers are more expensive per pound than fresh fish, sure, but have you seen the real expense of cooking a meal consisting of fresh fish, and getting kids to eat them ? Consider this on the UK minimum wage of £4.10/hour, which gives a disposable income (disregarding debt problems) of about £40/week. For everything. I would try reading something current, like Polly Toynbee's "Hard Work" about life in low-pay Britain.Let's all try and buy more organic/free range food..........and go for
lesspackaging too. Or even no packaging. Who on earth, when buying, say, a
bunchof bananas from the supermarket, needs to put them in a bag before they
endup in the carrier at the checkout?! And so many other things come withmulti-layers of plastic packaging - it's about time consumers grew up andstopped supporting the savaging of our environment. How much don't we
care? I'm with you here. How stupid has a person got to be, if they get to the checkout and suddenly realise they need bags to take all this stuff home. If they didn't take bags for a major outing, they ought to be fined on the spot for reckless endangerment of the environment. Failing that, the UK should follow the Ireland model and fine people 10p/bag for being so stupid. At the end of the day, it's the only language people understand. David.

In alt.support.marriage Ignoramus10302 <ignoramus10302@nospam.10302.invalid> wrote: I respectfully disagree Mark. Good, fresh and wholesome food usually is much cheaper that "junk food".
<...> If you buy fresh/raw food ingredients at cheap stores, you will come out way ahead financially.

Finding cheap stores, or farmers markets, is tricky. Supermarkets generally
mark up staples and produce to a ridiculous degree, and they rarely go on
sale the way prepared foods do.

"Ignoramus10302" <ignoramus10302@NOSPAM.10302.invalid> wrote in message
news:bjreae$kcb$1@pita.alt.net...
how about eating a pound of potatoes (10-16 cents) and 1/4 lbs of cheap pork (50 cents)? And maybe some tomato? (another 50 cents). For $1.20, you got fed fairly well.

Generally speaking, a grocery store doesn't sell a 50 cent package of pork,
though - to get the cheapest price/pound you have to buy a larger package.
While it is true that it is less expensive to buy it that way, I think the
previous posters point may have been that some people don't have the
cashflow to buy several dollars worth at once - and the really poor might
not have a working refrigerator to store the unused portion in. That is
where the poorest of the poor may run into real trouble - they may not have
an adequate kitchen to cook in, or may only have access to a communal
kitchen where somebody else will eat their food if they have more than they
can eat at a meal.

"Ignoramus10302" <ignoramus10302@NOSPAM.10302.invalid> wrote in message
news:bjrefk$kcb$2@pita.alt.net... have you seen the real expense of cooking a meal consisting of fresh fish, and getting kids to eat them ? I will bite... And what is the real expense? A spoonful of oil, a pinch of salt and 2 minutes of your time?

The real expense is the kitchen to cook in and the refrigerator to store the
food in. If a person has no working refrigerator (and there are people who
don't), no pots and pans, or the stove is broken and they can't afford a new
one, then that can be a real problem. This is more common among the poorest
of the poor, of course - the very people who can afford prepared food the
least often can't afford the food preparation/storage areas that would
permit them to eat more cheaply.

In article <bjs284$gap$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, Mark, UK wrote: That's fine, I know what you mean. Some better foods either nutritionally or environmentally, are more expensive though. All I'm saying is when we consider the things we are prepared to spend on, it seems rather sad when we want to spend so little on something we put into our bodies!

I agree if by "spending" we mean not only money, but time also.

i

In article <34i831-c2g.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: In alt.support.marriage Ignoramus10302 <ignoramus10302@nospam.10302.invalid> wrote: I respectfully disagree Mark. Good, fresh and wholesome food usually is much cheaper that "junk food".<...> If you buy fresh/raw food ingredients at cheap stores, you will come out way ahead financially. Finding cheap stores, or farmers markets, is tricky. Supermarkets generally mark up staples and produce to a ridiculous degree, and they rarely go on sale the way prepared foods do.

Agreed. But if you look a little byond supermarkets, you can find
something -- or at least that has been my experience.

Ethnic stores are usually much cheaper.

i

In article <_Ai8b.3610$aR1.747@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, fairly_happy wrote: "Ignoramus10302" <ignoramus10302@NOSPAM.10302.invalid> wrote in message news:bjreae$kcb$1@pita.alt.net... how about eating a pound of potatoes (10-16 cents) and 1/4 lbs of cheap pork (50 cents)? And maybe some tomato? (another 50 cents). For $1.20, you got fed fairly well. Generally speaking, a grocery store doesn't sell a 50 cent package of pork, though - to get the cheapest price/pound you have to buy a larger package.

That's right. Buy a larger package!
While it is true that it is less expensive to buy it that way, I think the previous posters point may have been that some people don't have the cashflow to buy several dollars worth at once - and

Um, first of all, let's consider the people who can save, say, $50.

It is probably the great majority of non-substance-abusing people.
the really poor might not have a working refrigerator to store the

not in this country... people put working fridges into garbage all the
time...
unused portion in. That is where the poorest of the poor may run into real trouble - they may not have an adequate kitchen to cook in, or may only have access to a communal kitchen where somebody else will eat their food if they have more than they can eat at a meal.

let's face it, such poor people that they do not have $10 saved exist
mostly in our imagination or they are drunkards. Let's concentrate on
more regular folks who may have little money, but who can buy a $10
pack of pork or a $4 pack of chicken thighs.

i

> Ignoramus10302 wrote: I have not however been able to ascertain that MSG is somehow dangerous to those who are not intolerant to it. I have this spise where MSG is the main ingredient, and I add it to many foods that I cook, like meats.

Some people claim a bloating or swelling in their throat and neck areas
when they eat MSG, suggesting a possible allergy. I've never had that
happen to me, though.

Ignoramus25572 <ignoramus25572@nospam.25572.invalid> wrote: In article <34i831-c2g.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Finding cheap stores, or farmers markets, is tricky. Supermarkets generally mark up staples and produce to a ridiculous degree, and they rarely go on sale the way prepared foods do. Agreed. But if you look a little byond supermarkets, you can find something -- or at least that has been my experience. Ethnic stores are usually much cheaper.

Ethnic stores, definitely. For produce, farmers markets even more so.
Amazingly, around here "specialty" markets tend to be cheaper for many
things (and better quality) despite the stereotype of being more expensive
(ie "health food.")

That said, I'm in a major city and have time. When people are short on
time, or if they live in the 'burbs where the local Safeway/Pathmark/
whatever is the only option besides convenience stores, it isn't always
practical to track such places down -- if they're driveable at all. I'd
imagine that in genuinely rural areas, it can be more of an issue although
local produce etc may be easily available.

In article <779931-msv.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Ignoramus25572 <ignoramus25572@nospam.25572.invalid> wrote: In article <34i831-c2g.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Finding cheap stores, or farmers markets, is tricky. Supermarkets generally mark up staples and produce to a ridiculous degree, and they rarely go on sale the way prepared foods do. Agreed. But if you look a little byond supermarkets, you can find something -- or at least that has been my experience. Ethnic stores are usually much cheaper. Ethnic stores, definitely. For produce, farmers markets even more so. Amazingly, around here "specialty" markets tend to be cheaper for many things (and better quality) despite the stereotype of being more expensive (ie "health food.") That said, I'm in a major city and have time. When people are short on time, or if they live in the 'burbs where the local Safeway/Pathmark/ whatever is the only option besides convenience stores, it isn't always practical to track such places down -- if they're driveable at all. I'd imagine that in genuinely rural areas, it can be more of an issue although local produce etc may be easily available.

I live in the suburbs and we have stores selling cheap and very good
products.

i

The Dave© wrote: Ignoramus10302 wrote: I have not however been able to ascertain that MSG is somehow dangerous to those who are not intolerant to it. I have this spise where MSG is the main ingredient, and I add it to many foods that I cook, like meats. Some people claim a bloating or swelling in their throat and neck areas when they eat MSG, suggesting a possible allergy. I've never had that happen to me, though.

Never had that type problem with MSG, thank goodness. I find food with this
additive pretty tasty, but I avoid it like the plague considering it gives
me horrible stomach cramps and basically goes right through me.....think you
get the picture :)

Lori Mc

LoriMc said for all posterity... The Dave© wrote: Ignoramus10302 wrote: I have not however been able to ascertain that MSG is somehow dangerous to those who are not intolerant to it. I have this spise where MSG is the main ingredient, and I add it to many foods that I cook, like meats. Some people claim a bloating or swelling in their throat and neck areas when they eat MSG, suggesting a possible allergy. I've never had that happen to me, though. Never had that type problem with MSG, thank goodness. I find food with this additive pretty tasty, but I avoid it like the plague considering it gives me horrible stomach cramps and basically goes right through me.....think you get the picture :)

I got incredibly dizzy one day after gorging on a Chinese buffet.
I had trouble standing. I called another guy who had eaten with me
and he was having the same problems.

It had never happened before and has never happened again. Must
have been a ton of MSG in the food. I never ate at that particular
restaurant again.



Casey

"It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser."

Casey wrote: LoriMc said for all posterity... The Dave© wrote:> Ignoramus10302 wrote:> I have not however been able to ascertain that MSG is somehow> dangerous to those who are not intolerant to it. I have this spise> where MSG is the main ingredient, and I add it to many foods that I> cook, like meats. Some people claim a bloating or swelling in their throat and neck areas when they eat MSG, suggesting a possible allergy. I've never had that happen to me, though. Never had that type problem with MSG, thank goodness. I find food with this additive pretty tasty, but I avoid it like the plague considering it gives me horrible stomach cramps and basically goes right through me.....think you get the picture :) I got incredibly dizzy one day after gorging on a Chinese buffet. I had trouble standing. I called another guy who had eaten with me and he was having the same problems.

So how much Sake was involved with the meal? ; ) It had never happened before and has never happened again. Must have been a ton of MSG in the food. I never ate at that particular restaurant again.

I don't blame ya there I don't like to pay to get ill.

Lori Mc

Ignoramus25572 <ignoramus25572@nospam.25572.invalid> wrote: In article <779931-msv.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: time, or if they live in the 'burbs where the local Safeway/Pathmark/ whatever is the only option besides convenience stores, I live in the suburbs and we have stores selling cheap and very good products.

Different sort of 'burbs, I guess. When I was in a "relatively nice" section
of Bay Area 'burbs, the ONLY things that weren't a reasonably lengthy drive
were two supermarkets and gas-station minimarts.

> LoriMc wrote: Never had that type problem with MSG, thank goodness. I find food with this additive pretty tasty, but I avoid it like the plague considering it gives me horrible stomach cramps and basically goes right through me.....think you get the picture :)

Sounds like me and apple juice, which sucks because I really like apple
juice.

The Dave© wrote: LoriMc wrote: Never had that type problem with MSG, thank goodness. I find food with this additive pretty tasty, but I avoid it like the plague considering it gives me horrible stomach cramps and basically goes right through me.....think you get the picture :) Sounds like me and apple juice, which sucks because I really like apple juice.

yup, it is usually the restaurant I thought was just wonderful
then..........Oh my not again!

Lori Mc

LoriMc said for all posterity... Casey wrote: LoriMc said for all posterity...
Never had that type problem with MSG, thank goodness. I find food with this additive pretty tasty, but I avoid it like the plague considering it gives me horrible stomach cramps and basically goes right through me.....think you get the picture :) I got incredibly dizzy one day after gorging on a Chinese buffet. I had trouble standing. I called another guy who had eaten with me and he was having the same problems. So how much Sake was involved with the meal? ; )

None, I'll have you to know. Well, it was actually lunch and I was
with the president of the company I worked with. He was the other
one that got dizzy.

Now, dinner would probaby have been a different story...


Casey

"It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser."

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:TJa8b.418278$YN5.282268@sccrnsc01... Ignoramus10302 <ignoramus10302@NOSPAM.10302.invalid> writes: In article <bjr9da$ibt$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, Mark, UK wrote: Basically it's a pretty pathetic state of affairs when people are not prepared to pay more for good, fresh and wholesome food, isn't I respectfully disagree Mark. Good, fresh and wholesome food usually is much cheaper that "junk food". The junk food industry is just very clever at creating the perception of "value". They give you a big package full of fluff, salt and MSG, and you think that you got a good deal. But you did not. It depends whether you measure by calorie or not. My wife works with people who are often poor, and often malnourished. One of the cheapest ways for them to get 1000 calories (in the U.S.) and some protein is to go to McDonalds. Not that she encourages people to do that, but when she is worried about an immediate calorie deficit, she doesn't _dis_courage it.

While poor people (in the U.S.) may be "malnourished," it is usually due to
various vitamin/minteral deficiencies and not raw calorie or protetin
deficits. There are far more poor people in this country who face health
risks due to obesity than who face health risks due to lack of calories. The
cruel irony is that is can be more challenging for poor people to maintain a
healthy weight than it is for middle class populations! And I don't know how
it is that she's calculating McDonald's as "one of the cheapest ways to get
a thousand calories." Even if you allow for the fact that the poorest of the
poor don't have access to food storage, you either get a thousand calories
of nutrient-poor burger and fries for your $3.00 at McDonalds--and be hungry
again in a few hours, or you can get a loaf of bread (cost $.50, total
calories 1400), a package of cheese singles ($1.50, total calories around
1200), and two quarts of apple juice--(cost $1.00, total calories around
900). 3500 calories instead of 1000, and while it's not "health food
deluxe," it's still better'n McDonalds, and it still doesn't require any
special food prep equip. Three bucks will buy you 1,000 calories worth of
apples. It'll buy you better than 2,000 calories worth of bananas. It'll buy
you 2,000+ calories worth of store-brand cheerios. It'll buy you 2,500
calories of milk. The cheapest way to get 1,000 calories is to go to Aldis
(a super-no-frills, cash-only grocery chain in the U.S.), not McDonalds.
So yeah, processed food is nutritionally a bad value if you are coming from the point of view that getting enough calories is no problem (true for most of us) and are worried about other nutritional content and health effects, but it is often cheap per calorie.

There is an element of truth to what you say, of course. For those of us who
still eat bread, for example--100% whole wheat costs 2-3X what store brand
or day-old white bread costs. Lower-fat chicken breasts are more expensive
than the fatier thighs, even when you figure in the meatiness factor, etc.
Pork is cheaper than beef. And fish--God, don't get me started on fish--it's
so highly recommended for a number of reasons, but generally expensive
(though cheaper here on the east coast, I've discovered, than in the
midwest). 100% juice costs more than "juice drinks." Etc., etc. So trust me,
as someone who lived below the poverty line for several years, and has
recently risen to the ranks of the "working poor" (household income is a
couple thou too high to qualify for free/reduced lunch program, and all the
other things that are tied to whether or not you qualify for free/reduced
lunch)--I have every sympathy for poor people trying to feed their families
adequately on a limited budget. But McDonalds still does not surpass a
number of healthier options that still take into account the particular
challenges

"fairly_happy" <fairly_happywithoutspam@withoutspamyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<6Fi8b.3626$aR1.3000@bignews1.bellsouth.net>... "Ignoramus10302" <ignoramus10302@NOSPAM.10302.invalid> wrote in message news:bjrefk$kcb$2@pita.alt.net... have you seen the real expense of cooking a meal consisting of fresh fish, and getting kids to eat them ? I will bite... And what is the real expense? A spoonful of oil, a pinch of salt and 2 minutes of your time? The real expense is the kitchen to cook in and the refrigerator to store the food in. If a person has no working refrigerator (and there are people who don't), no pots and pans, or the stove is broken and they can't afford a new one, then that can be a real problem. This is more common among the poorest of the poor, of course - the very people who can afford prepared food the least often can't afford the food preparation/storage areas that would permit them to eat more cheaply.


I don't get this comparison. Lots of prepared food has to be stored in
a frig or freezer, too, doesn't it? And it is also usually cooked
before eaten, isn't it? You still need a pot to boil the pasta to
make Mac & Cheese, or to heat up a can of highly salted Campbell's
soup. Chicken fingers and fish sticks need to be cooked in the oven.
Well, hot dogs can be eaten raw, but most people cook them first.

jen

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0309121514.60fdb366@posting.google.c om... "fairly_happy" <fairly_happywithoutspam@withoutspamyahoo.com> wrote in
message news:<6Fi8b.3626$aR1.3000@bignews1.bellsouth.net>... "Ignoramus10302" <ignoramus10302@NOSPAM.10302.invalid> wrote in message news:bjrefk$kcb$2@pita.alt.net... > have you seen the real expense of cooking a meal consisting of fresh > fish, and getting kids to eat them ? I will bite... And what is the real expense? A spoonful of oil, a pinch of salt and 2 minutes of your time? The real expense is the kitchen to cook in and the refrigerator to store
the food in. If a person has no working refrigerator (and there are people
who don't), no pots and pans, or the stove is broken and they can't afford a
new one, then that can be a real problem. This is more common among the
poorest of the poor, of course - the very people who can afford prepared food
the least often can't afford the food preparation/storage areas that would permit them to eat more cheaply. I don't get this comparison. Lots of prepared food has to be stored in a frig or freezer, too, doesn't it? And it is also usually cooked before eaten, isn't it? You still need a pot to boil the pasta to make Mac & Cheese, or to heat up a can of highly salted Campbell's soup. Chicken fingers and fish sticks need to be cooked in the oven. Well, hot dogs can be eaten raw, but most people cook them first.

Sure. I was mostly comparing to going to McDonald's, which might not be
cheaper but doesn't require any food prep or storage at all.

I have met people who didn't have working refrigeration in their house
(well, they kept a cooler with a bag of ice in it) - in this country, within
the last decade - as well as people without indoor plumbing. I've also met
people who lived in places where they shared a kitchen with other tenants
who would eat any food left unsecured - and if the other tenants didn't get
it the roaches or mice would. These are the people that I think have the
hardest time with food expenses - because they have trouble buying in bulk,
or keeping it if they bought it. That is what I was thinking of when
considering the expenses of having a kitchen as part of the cost of
preparing food. It *is* part of the cost of eating, it is just that for
most of us it is a "hidden" cost that we don't even think about. Some of
these other people I was referring to really did have to think about it.
When you get that far down, it really is harder to dig yourself out....

The whole "low fat" concept actually is a scam.

Eat a smaller piece of fat chicken thigh and you won't harm yourself.

The key to low cholesterol is not low fat, it is being trim and
exercising. The low fat idea is based on very tenuous evidence, such
as epidemiological studies.

i

In article <bjtjd4$1gu$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>, DrLith wrote:
or day-old white bread costs. Lower-fat chicken breasts are more expensive than the fatier thighs, even when you figure in the meatiness factor, etc. Pork is cheaper than beef. And fish--God, don't get me started on fish--it's so highly recommended for a number of reasons, but generally expensive (though cheaper here on

buffalo is pretty cheap, so is catfish on sale.
the east coast, I've discovered, than in the midwest). 100% juice costs more than "juice drinks." Etc., etc. So trust me, as someone who lived below the poverty line for several years, and has recently risen to the ranks of the "working poor" (household income is a couple thou too high to qualify for free/reduced lunch program, and all the other things that are tied to whether or not you qualify for free/reduced lunch)--I have every sympathy for poor people trying to feed their families adequately on a limited budget. But McDonalds still does not surpass a number of healthier options that still take into account the particular challenges

you hit the nail on the head Kathy.

i

On 13 Sep 2003 02:40:36 GMT, Ignoramus25572
<ignoramus25572@NOSPAM.25572.invalid> wrote:
The whole "low fat" concept actually is a scam.Eat a smaller piece of fat chicken thigh and you won't harm yourself.The key to low cholesterol is not low fat, it is being trim andexercising. The low fat idea is based on very tenuous evidence, suchas epidemiological studies.i


Eat a high fat diet, but not too much of it, and exercise well and you
will be trim. Calories in, calories out - it really is that simple.

The subject of what makes a healthy diet is far larger and open to
valid and often contradictory viewpoints. For instance, slim&trim
does not mean one need not worry about cholestrol levels by any means.

David.

In article <gl15mv8pj9qpudn10lku703m8am9gu60b6@4ax.com>, David wrote: On 13 Sep 2003 02:40:36 GMT, Ignoramus25572<ignoramus25572@NOSPAM.25572.invalid> wrote:The whole "low fat" concept actually is a scam.Eat a smaller piece of fat chicken thigh and you won't harm yourself.The key to low cholesterol is not low fat, it is being trim andexercising. The low fat idea is based on very tenuous evidence, suchas epidemiological studies.i Eat a high fat diet, but not too much of it, and exercise well and you will be trim. Calories in, calories out - it really is that simple. The subject of what makes a healthy diet is far larger and open to valid and often contradictory viewpoints. For instance, slim&trim does not mean one need not worry about cholestrol levels by any means.

Well, sure, I doubt that you can do well on a hypothetical diet
containing beef liver only.

But a normal person eating an egg per day and some meat etc, will
probably have high cholesterol if he does not have a belly, if he is
not overweight, and if he is well exercised.

Most cholesterol is produced by the liver, not taken in via food.

i

In article <bju4tr$htk$0@pita.alt.net>, Ignoramus25572 wrote: In article <gl15mv8pj9qpudn10lku703m8am9gu60b6@4ax.com>, David wrote: On 13 Sep 2003 02:40:36 GMT, Ignoramus25572<ignoramus25572@NOSPAM.25572.invalid> wrote:The whole "low fat" concept actually is a scam.Eat a smaller piece of fat chicken thigh and you won't harm yourself.The key to low cholesterol is not low fat, it is being trim andexercising. The low fat idea is based on very tenuous evidence, suchas epidemiological studies.i Eat a high fat diet, but not too much of it, and exercise well and you will be trim. Calories in, calories out - it really is that simple. The subject of what makes a healthy diet is far larger and open to valid and often contradictory viewpoints. For instance, slim&trim does not mean one need not worry about cholestrol levels by any means. Well, sure, I doubt that you can do well on a hypothetical diet containing beef liver only. But a normal person eating an egg per day and some meat etc, will probably have high cholesterol if he does not have a belly, if he is

i meant low hc...

not high...

i
not overweight, and if he is well exercised. Most cholesterol is produced by the liver, not taken in via food. i

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 03:01:07 -0700, trajan@sfchat.org (Marcus Ulpius
Traianus) wrote:
In alt.support.marriage Ignoramus10302 <ignoramus10302@nospam.10302.invalid> wrote: I respectfully disagree Mark. Good, fresh and wholesome food usually is much cheaper that "junk food".<...> If you buy fresh/raw food ingredients at cheap stores, you will come out way ahead financially.Finding cheap stores, or farmers markets, is tricky. Supermarkets generallymark up staples and produce to a ridiculous degree, and they rarely go onsale the way prepared foods do.

A chronic problem of the poor in this country (the US) is that there
are no grocery stores, at least in cities, cheap or not. Plenty of
liquor stores, but to get to a supermarket requires a long bus ride to
another section of town. And then you're not going to be buying large
quantities.

- Randy

In article <1s16mv8fv25p23qstr7t0i40lqlk06jnpb@4ax.com>, Randy Poe wrote: A chronic problem of the poor in this country (the US) is that there are no grocery stores, at least in cities, cheap or not. Plenty of liquor stores, but to get to a supermarket requires a long bus ride to another section of town. And then you're not going to be buying large quantities.

because they should not be burning those stores during riots...

Also, my guess is that first, your statement is not entirely true, and
second, the other reason for relative lack of such stores is lack of
demand.

I once lived in a black neighborhood by mistake. I had no idea that
"black neighborhoods" were somehow different from "white
neighborhoods", I was basically completely unaware of any "racial
issues". I thought that there was no difference between races except
for skin color. I saw a cheap apartment and rented it. That simple!

Anyway, living there was not all miserable, I was not abused or
anything, although I did move away when my lease expired. And there
was indeed a very cheap grocery store a couple of miles away. Cheap
poultry, meat, vegetables, that sort of thing. I shopped there all the
time.

i

On 12 Sep 2003 03:25:02 GMT, Ignoramus10302
<ignoramus10302@NOSPAM.10302.invalid> wrote:
In article <TJa8b.418278$YN5.282268@sccrnsc01>, Doug Anderson wrote: Ignoramus10302 <ignoramus10302@NOSPAM.10302.invalid> writes: In article <bjr9da$ibt$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, Mark, UK wrote: > Basically it's a pretty pathetic state of affairs when people are > not prepared to pay more for good, fresh and wholesome food, isn't I respectfully disagree Mark. Good, fresh and wholesome food usually is much cheaper that "junk food". The junk food industry is just very clever at creating the perception of "value". They give you a big package full of fluff, salt and MSG, and you think that you got a good deal. But you did not. It depends whether you measure by calorie or not. My wife works with people who are often poor, and often malnourished. One of the cheapest ways for them to get 1000 calories (in the U.S.) and some protein is to go to McDonalds. Not that she encourages people to do that, but when she is worried about an immediate calorie deficit, she doesn't _dis_courage it.how about eating a pound of potatoes (10-16 cents) and 1/4 lbs ofcheap pork (50 cents)? And maybe some tomato? (another 50 cents). For$1.20, you got fed fairly well.I am not even beginning to say that rice is even cheaper, that you canbake your own bread for $0.25 a loaf, etc. So yeah, processed food is nutritionally a bad value if you are coming from the point of view that getting enough calories is no problem (true for most of us) and are worried about other nutritional content and health effects, but it is often cheap per calorie.You are forgetting about staples such as rice, poultry, potatoes,cabbage etc.All cheap foods. That's what poor people eat worldwide. I respect yougreatly Doug, but your view of the food universe is limited.i

Igor -

So you think some inner city chick working two jobs and raising 3 kids
is going to take the time to bake he own bread? Buy a bag of potatoes
and cook dinner? No, she's going to take her kids to KFC and get them
fat on cheap fried foods. So the cycle begins.

--Brian

In article <1ea6mvkb9v0il213h9abdctk255k35kbov@4ax.com>, Brian wrote: On 12 Sep 2003 03:25:02 GMT, Ignoramus10302<ignoramus10302@NOSPAM.10302.invalid> wrote:In article <TJa8b.418278$YN5.282268@sccrnsc01>, Doug Anderson wrote: Ignoramus10302 <ignoramus10302@NOSPAM.10302.invalid> writes:> In article <bjr9da$ibt$1@sparta.btinternet.com>, Mark, UK wrote:>> > Basically it's a pretty pathetic state of affairs when people are> > not prepared to pay more for good, fresh and wholesome food, isn't>> I respectfully disagree Mark. Good, fresh and wholesome food usually> is much cheaper that "junk food". The junk food industry is just very> clever at creating the perception of "value". They give you a big> package full of fluff, salt and MSG, and you think that you got a good> deal. But you did not. It depends whether you measure by calorie or not. My wife works with people who are often poor, and often malnourished. One of the cheapest ways for them to get 1000 calories (in the U.S.) and some protein is to go to McDonalds. Not that she encourages people to do that, but when she is worried about an immediate calorie deficit, she doesn't _dis_courage it.how about eating a pound of potatoes (10-16 cents) and 1/4 lbs ofcheap pork (50 cents)? And maybe some tomato? (another 50 cents). For$1.20, you got fed fairly well.I am not even beginning to say that rice is even cheaper, that you canbake your own bread for $0.25 a loaf, etc. So yeah, processed food is nutritionally a bad value if you are coming from the point of view that getting enough calories is no problem (true for most of us) and are worried about other nutritional content and health effects, but it is often cheap per calorie.You are forgetting about staples such as rice, poultry, potatoes,cabbage etc.All cheap foods. That's what poor people eat worldwide. I respect yougreatly Doug, but your view of the food universe is limited.i Igor - So you think some inner city chick working two jobs and raising 3 kids is going to take the time to bake he own bread?

Takes me 4 minutes, I clocked it.
Buy a bag of potatoes and cook dinner? No, she's going to take her kids to KFC and get them fat on cheap fried foods. So the cycle begins.

Well, sure, why do you think she became a fat inner city chick?
Because her parents did not bother to spend time on her to get her
educated, teach her how to cook, not sleep around etc.

And surely there is a bad cycle. But for a motivated individual who
knows what he is doing, cooking is not a big deal.

i

On 13 Sep 2003 13:08:09 GMT, Ignoramus8896
<ignoramus8896@NOSPAM.8896.invalid> wrote:
In article <1s16mv8fv25p23qstr7t0i40lqlk06jnpb@4ax.com>, Randy Poe wrote: A chronic problem of the poor in this country (the US) is that there are no grocery stores, at least in cities, cheap or not. Plenty of liquor stores, but to get to a supermarket requires a long bus ride to another section of town. And then you're not going to be buying large quantities.because they should not be burning those stores during riots...Also, my guess is that first, your statement is not entirely true, andsecond, the other reason for relative lack of such stores is lack ofdemand.

I can speak to two cities: Washington, DC (Anacostia area) and
Philadelphia. In both cases the need is chronic, there are many
activists trying without success to get stores to locate in their
area, and there are none of these "riots" you seem to think happen on
a daily basis. The statement is entirely true.
I once lived in a black neighborhood by mistake. I had no idea that"black neighborhoods" were somehow different from "whiteneighborhoods", I was basically completely unaware of any "racialissues". I thought that there was no difference between races exceptfor skin color. I saw a cheap apartment and rented it. That simple!Anyway, living there was not all miserable, I was not abused oranything, although I did move away when my lease expired. And therewas indeed a very cheap grocery store a couple of miles away.

Right. In a city, without a car, that's a bus ride. That's precisely
what I said.

It's not just in the poor areas. In the DC area, Prince George's
County is well-known as an area with a large fairly affluent black
middle class. They have grocery stores, but a chronic problem with
large department stores. So those people have to drive to DC, to
Montgomery County, or to Virginia to visit the big retailers.

- Randy

"Ignoramus8896" <ignoramus8896@NOSPAM.8896.invalid> wrote in message
news:bjvsqk$ji1$0@pita.alt.net... So you think some inner city chick working two jobs and raising 3 kids is going to take the time to bake he own bread? Takes me 4 minutes, I clocked it.

How do you bake bread in 4 minutes? Seriously, I'd like to know. It takes
me a lot longer than that, even when I use a breadmaker (which,
incidentally, that inner city chick working two jobs isn't going to own).
Start to finish it takes 3 hours including rising time - I love fresh bread
right out of the oven, but there is no way I can pull that off in time for
dinner after work.

In article <tbP8b.2793$me.1171@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, fairly_happy wrote: "Ignoramus8896" <ignoramus8896@NOSPAM.8896.invalid> wrote in message news:bjvsqk$ji1$0@pita.alt.net... So you think some inner city chick working two jobs and raising 3 kids is going to take the time to bake he own bread? Takes me 4 minutes, I clocked it. How do you bake bread in 4 minutes?

Well, it takes the machine 4 hours to bake the bread. But it takes
only 4 minutes ouf of my time.

How I do it: take the starter out of the fridge,. let stay in warm
place for 8+ hours. 30 seconds. Pour in starter, add flour and salt.
Start the machine. 2 more minutes. Add flour/water to starter, mix,
put back into fridge. Total: 4 minutes. The bread will be done in 4
bours, at which point it needs to be put in a plastic bag to become
softer.
Seriously, I'd like to know. It takes me a lot longer than that, even when I use a breadmaker (which, incidentally, that inner city chick working two jobs isn't going to own).

maybe she should... all little things that poor people always did to
save $$$.

But let me posit this: a person who has the mindset to save money in
ways I outlined, is likely not dirt poor because they have enough
brains and persistence to make at least $30k/yr. The people who cannot
save $10 and who "must" buy a happy meal for their kids because they
did not remember to take the starter out of the fridge before leaving
to work, those people will stay poor.
Start to finish it takes 3 hours including rising time - I love fresh bread right out of the oven, but there is no way I can pull that off in time for dinner after work.

No way I could put more than 10 minutes into baking bread, but
fortunately I do not have to.

i

In article <he57mvsugmuoq0a3ro5obd6bplqk3np24r@4ax.com>, Randy Poe wrote: On 13 Sep 2003 13:08:09 GMT, Ignoramus8896<ignoramus8896@NOSPAM.8896.invalid> wrote:In article <1s16mv8fv25p23qstr7t0i40lqlk06jnpb@4ax.com>, Randy Poe wrote: A chronic problem of the poor in this country (the US) is that there are no grocery stores, at least in cities, cheap or not. Plenty of liquor stores, but to get to a supermarket requires a long bus ride to another section of town. And then you're not going to be buying large quantities.because they should not be burning those stores during riots...Also, my guess is that first, your statement is not entirely true, andsecond, the other reason for relative lack of such stores is lack ofdemand. I can speak to two cities: Washington, DC (Anacostia area) and Philadelphia. In both cases the need is chronic, there are many activists trying without success to get stores to locate in their area, and there are none of these "riots" you seem to think happen on a daily basis. The statement is entirely true.

Sounds weird to me, if there is money to be made, someone will want to
open a cheap store... I would suppose that there is not in fact money
to be made.
I once lived in a black neighborhood by mistake. I had no idea that"black neighborhoods" were somehow different from "whiteneighborhoods", I was basically completely unaware of any "racialissues". I thought that there was no difference between races exceptfor skin color. I saw a cheap apartment and rented it. That simple!Anyway, living there was not all miserable, I was not abused oranything, although I did move away when my lease expired. And therewas indeed a very cheap grocery store a couple of miles away. Right. In a city, without a car, that's a bus ride. That's precisely what I said.

they can ride a bus then... big deal... I lived in Russia and few
people had cars... they walked to stores.

i

in article bk0jcf$gpj$3@pita.alt.net, Ignoramus8896 at
ignoramus8896@NOSPAM.8896.invalid wrote on 9/13/03 8:22 PM:
In article <he57mvsugmuoq0a3ro5obd6bplqk3np24r@4ax.com>, Randy Poe wrote: On 13 Sep 2003 13:08:09 GMT, Ignoramus8896 <ignoramus8896@NOSPAM.8896.invalid> wrote: In article <1s16mv8fv25p23qstr7t0i40lqlk06jnpb@4ax.com>, Randy Poe wrote:> A chronic problem of the poor in this country (the US) is that there> are no grocery stores, at least in cities, cheap or not. Plenty of> liquor stores, but to get to a supermarket requires a long bus ride to> another section of town. And then you're not going to be buying large> quantities. because they should not be burning those stores during riots... Also, my guess is that first, your statement is not entirely true, and second, the other reason for relative lack of such stores is lack of demand. I can speak to two cities: Washington, DC (Anacostia area) and Philadelphia. In both cases the need is chronic, there are many activists trying without success to get stores to locate in their area, and there are none of these "riots" you seem to think happen on a daily basis. The statement is entirely true. Sounds weird to me, if there is money to be made, someone will want to open a cheap store... I would suppose that there is not in fact money to be made.


You would likely have loved a place I shop at. It's a "liquidation" place
that acquired produce coolers from a bankruptcy sale, and then proceeded to
fill them with produce that was "ready" - stuff that was ripe and would
probably be overripe before it turned over at a grocery store - lots of
fruit, tomatoes, bananas. For example, I tried to get some avocados the
other day, and thee prices ranged from 79 cents through to 1.25 - Iused to
get them there for 10 cents. I once got a 20 lb box of peaches for $5 - it
easily made $50 worth of jam. Then, unfortunately, his cooler broke, and the
margins were such that it wasn't worth it to fix it.

I still get a helluva deal on mangled cereal boxes there.


M.

In article <BB893034.21D0D%erosewater@ziplip.com>, Michael wrote: in article bk0jcf$gpj$3@pita.alt.net, Ignoramus8896 at ignoramus8896@NOSPAM.8896.invalid wrote on 9/13/03 8:22 PM: In article <he57mvsugmuoq0a3ro5obd6bplqk3np24r@4ax.com>, Randy Poe wrote: On 13 Sep 2003 13:08:09 GMT, Ignoramus8896 <ignoramus8896@NOSPAM.8896.invalid> wrote:> In article <1s16mv8fv25p23qstr7t0i40lqlk06jnpb@4ax.com>, Randy Poe wrote:>> A chronic problem of the poor in this country (the US) is that there>> are no grocery stores, at least in cities, cheap or not. Plenty of>> liquor stores, but to get to a supermarket requires a long bus ride to>> another section of town. And then you're not going to be buying large>> quantities.>> because they should not be burning those stores during riots...>> Also, my guess is that first, your statement is not entirely true, and> second, the other reason for relative lack of such stores is lack of> demand. I can speak to two cities: Washington, DC (Anacostia area) and Philadelphia. In both cases the need is chronic, there are many activists trying without success to get stores to locate in their area, and there are none of these "riots" you seem to think happen on a daily basis. The statement is entirely true. Sounds weird to me, if there is money to be made, someone will want to open a cheap store... I would suppose that there is not in fact money to be made. You would likely have loved a place I shop at. It's a "liquidation" place that acquired produce coolers from a bankruptcy sale, and then proceeded to fill them with produce that was "ready" - stuff that was ripe and would probably be overripe before it turned over at a grocery store - lots of fruit, tomatoes, bananas. For example, I tried to get some avocados the other day, and thee prices ranged from 79 cents through to 1.25 - Iused to get them there for 10 cents. I once got a 20 lb box of peaches for $5 - it easily made $50 worth of jam. Then, unfortunately, his cooler broke, and the margins were such that it wasn't worth it to fix it. I still get a helluva deal on mangled cereal boxes there.

Sounds wonderful, the kind of place to shop at!

I am a liquidation kind of guy, I buy military surplus items and sell
them on ebay. Works out great, in my spare time.

I would like to buy a lot of fruits and bananas that are "ripe" for
next to nothing and dry them in my dehydrator.

i

"Ignoramus8896" <ignoramus8896@NOSPAM.8896.invalid> wrote in message
news:bk0j90$gpj$2@pita.alt.net... In article <tbP8b.2793$me.1171@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, fairly_happy
wrote: Seriously, I'd like to know. It takes me a lot longer than that, even when I use a breadmaker (which, incidentally, that inner city chick working two jobs isn't going to own). maybe she should... all little things that poor people always did to save $$$.

If I were prioritizing expenses and had a real limited budget, but still had
some income to allocate, I'd probably buy a microwave before buying a
breadmaker. For that matter, I didn't have a dishwasher until I was
probably in my mid-thirties - and acquiring that was almost a life-altering
event....
But let me posit this: a person who has the mindset to save money in ways I outlined, is likely not dirt poor because they have enough brains and persistence to make at least $30k/yr. The people who cannot save $10 and who "must" buy a happy meal for their kids because they did not remember to take the starter out of the fridge before leaving to work, those people will stay poor.

I think that is true for a lot of people, but maybe not everybody. I
remember being dirt poor myself - and it wasn't because I wasn't capable of
saving money - it was because my spouse overspent and point-blank refused to
budget. Granted, I am no longer in that situation - but I am well aware of,
and grateful for, a support system that allowed me to dig myself out.
Somebody equally capable but without the support system I had would not have
had the same opportunities, and would have had a much harder time of it.

Start to finish it takes 3 hours including rising time - I love fresh bread right out of the oven, but there is no way I can pull that off in time for dinner after work. No way I could put more than 10 minutes into baking bread, but fortunately I do not have to.

The big hindrance for me is that I don't get home from work until 6:00 pm or
later, and that is just too late to start baking fresh bread for dinner (and
I just don't like day-old bread as well as the fresh-from-the-oven kind). I
also find myself having convenience food more often than I'd like to admit
because by the time I get home we are already starving - and if I spend very
much time on dinner a.) we will have already snacked and spoiled our
appetites and b.) pushing dinner too late in the evening interferes with
other activities, like working out, that I also consider to be valuable. I
think I make just as many decisions based on time allocation as I do based
on money allocation. I don't know if that is good or bad, it just seems to
be the way it is....

In article <TiS8b.2056$KN1.1910@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, fairly_happy wrote: "Ignoramus8896" <ignoramus8896@NOSPAM.8896.invalid> wrote in message news:bk0j90$gpj$2@pita.alt.net... In article <tbP8b.2793$me.1171@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, fairly_happy wrote: Seriously, I'd like to know. It takes me a lot longer than that, even when I use a breadmaker (which, incidentally, that inner city chick working two jobs isn't going to own). maybe she should... all little things that poor people always did to save $$$. If I were prioritizing expenses and had a real limited budget, but still had some income to allocate, I'd probably buy a microwave before buying a breadmaker. For that matter, I didn't have a dishwasher until I was probably in my mid-thirties - and acquiring that was almost a life-altering event....

fine with me...
But let me posit this: a person who has the mindset to save money in ways I outlined, is likely not dirt poor because they have enough brains and persistence to make at least $30k/yr. The people who cannot save $10 and who "must" buy a happy meal for their kids because they did not remember to take the starter out of the fridge before leaving to work, those people will stay poor. I think that is true for a lot of people, but maybe not everybody. I remember being dirt poor myself - and it wasn't because I wasn't capable of saving money - it was because my spouse overspent and point-blank refused to budget. Granted, I am no longer in that situation - but I am well aware of, and grateful for, a support system that allowed me to dig myself out. Somebody equally capable but without the support system I had would not have had the same opportunities, and would have had a much harder time of it.

or maybe you would have dumped your spouse earlier if you knew there
would not be a support system. Called a "moral hazard".
The big hindrance for me is that I don't get home from work until 6:00 pm or later, and that is just too late to start baking fresh bread for dinner (and I just don't like day-old bread as well as the fresh-from-the-oven kind). I also find myself having convenience food more often than I'd like to admit because by the time I get home we are already starving - and if I spend very much time on dinner a.) we will have already snacked and spoiled our appetites and b.) pushing dinner too late in the evening interferes with other activities, like working out, that I also consider to be valuable. I think I make just as many decisions based on time allocation as I do based on money allocation. I don't know if that is good or bad, it just seems to be the way it is....

Is it working okay for your body? You are not fat or anything? How old
are you? Feeling older than your age, or not?

On the scale of what is the worst food, I do not think that Big Mac is
that bad actually, especially if you throw away the bun. Twinkies and
snickers bars and so on are much worse.

i

shinypenny wrote: "Rambler" <iam.removespam.rambler@yahoo.removespam.com> wrote in message news:<bjm235$e2v4@imsp212.netvigator.com>... "Ignoramus13012" <ignoramus13012@NOSPAM.13012.invalid> wrote in message news:bjm1bb$ukp$3@pita.alt.net shinypenny wrote:>> It concerns me that so many people are eschewing ALL carbs these days> (zone/atkins). Not all carbs have this effect. Complex carbs (whole> grains such as whole wheat, brown rice, whole oats, etc) are quite> good for you and can have a stabilizing effect on the blood sugar> fluctuations. The thing that I heard is that whole grain/wheat flour, brown rice, etc, add more fiber to the diet, not that the carbs are different. It is the fiber that makes them more beneficial.
I have tried the Zone diet thing, and I'd much rather get my fiber from whole grains than laxatives, thank-you-very-much!! :-Q

You are villifying the Zone thing overly. It doesn't say to avoid carbs,
in fact, it says to get 45% of your calories from carbs and to make THOSE
carbs come from high-fiber, low-glycemic-index carbs. I've lost 53 pounds
following a Zone-style diet in the past year and I routinely eat brown
rice, wasa crisp bread, veggies of all kinds and oatmeal.

The Zone, South Beach, Glycemic Index, and Body for Life diets are all
pretty much based on balancing lean proteins with complex carbs and some
healthy fats. The Atkins diet can be modified to be healthy by choosing
lean meats and fishes instead of saturated fats and skipping the first
two week induction period (part of his schtick). It also recommends
getting most of your calories from carbs in the form of vegetables and
high-fiber foods.

In the end, the reason to cut out refined flour and simple sugar carbs is
that they don't have enough nutrients and fiber to make their calorie load
be worth it. Yes, they taste good, but they just don't fit in a tight
calorie budget. When you realize you feel better after eating different
foods it becomes easy to cut out the junk food when cuts have to be made.

Wendy

"Ignoramus2033" <ignoramus2033@NOSPAM.2033.invalid> wrote in message
news:bk2b4n$dqf$0@pita.alt.net... In article <TiS8b.2056$KN1.1910@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, fairly_happy
wrote: I think that is true for a lot of people, but maybe not everybody. I remember being dirt poor myself - and it wasn't because I wasn't capable
of saving money - it was because my spouse overspent and point-blank
refused to budget. Granted, I am no longer in that situation - but I am well aware
of, and grateful for, a support system that allowed me to dig myself out. Somebody equally capable but without the support system I had would not
have had the same opportunities, and would have had a much harder time of it. or maybe you would have dumped your spouse earlier if you knew there would not be a support system. Called a "moral hazard".

I didn't quite understand. Were you thinking that my spouse was my support
system, and that is why I didn't dump him sooner? That was not the case -
my spouse was not my support system. Other family members were. If
anything, my spouse was a drain on resources. (By support I don't mean
financial support in the sense of paying household bills - I brought income
into household, and the last several years of the marriage I was the primary
breadwinner by a wide margin - I mean things like help with the kids, which
my family was great about, that kind of thing).
The big hindrance for me is that I don't get home from work until 6:00
pm or later, and that is just too late to start baking fresh bread for dinner
(and I just don't like day-old bread as well as the fresh-from-the-oven
kind). I also find myself having convenience food more often than I'd like to
admit because by the time I get home we are already starving - and if I spend
very much time on dinner a.) we will have already snacked and spoiled our appetites and b.) pushing dinner too late in the evening interferes with other activities, like working out, that I also consider to be valuable.
I think I make just as many decisions based on time allocation as I do
based on money allocation. I don't know if that is good or bad, it just seems
to be the way it is.... Is it working okay for your body? You are not fat or anything? How old are you? Feeling older than your age, or not? On the scale of what is the worst food, I do not think that Big Mac is that bad actually, especially if you throw away the bun. Twinkies and snickers bars and so on are much worse.

I'm still working on losing 15 more pounds. (I'm the one who posted a while
back about starting an exercise program, which I am still following).
Overall, I feel pretty good for my age.

By convenience food, I don't necessarily mean Big Macs (I don't like
McDonald's, never go there). I do indulge in the occasional barbeque
sandwich (I'm from a region that more or less worships good barbeque), and
we eat something on the order of a Subway sandwich or Chinese food fairly
regularly, but I was also thinking in terms of buying pre-cooked chicken
instead of less expensive raw chicken, the more expensive pre-cut vegetables
instead of the regular uncut ones, etc. The last several times we had
potato salad it came in a tub from the deli, instead of making it myself,
that kind of thing. It is more expensive, but it sure is faster.

Wendy Marsden <wmarsden@mtholyoke.edu> wrote in message news:<3f64ce84@nap.mtholyoke.edu>... You are villifying the Zone thing overly. It doesn't say to avoid carbs, in fact, it says to get 45% of your calories from carbs and to make THOSE carbs come from high-fiber, low-glycemic-index carbs. I've lost 53 pounds following a Zone-style diet in the past year and I routinely eat brown rice, wasa crisp bread, veggies of all kinds and oatmeal. The Zone, South Beach, Glycemic Index, and Body for Life diets are all pretty much based on balancing lean proteins with complex carbs and some healthy fats. The Atkins diet can be modified to be healthy by choosing lean meats and fishes instead of saturated fats and skipping the first two week induction period (part of his schtick). It also recommends getting most of your calories from carbs in the form of vegetables and high-fiber foods.

it's also against milk and coffee
according to the news, it's now safe to get coffee from stARbucks
because they are no longer using GM products including bovine
growth hormone milk. Morons on the news, as if bgh is GM.

mk5000

"No; it only moves one direction. If an entity has
rights, that implies obligations on the part of others."--jonathan ball

In article <3f64ce84@nap.mtholyoke.edu>, Wendy Marsden wrote: shinypenny wrote: "Rambler" <iam.removespam.rambler@yahoo.removespam.com> wrote in message news:<bjm235$e2v4@imsp212.netvigator.com>... "Ignoramus13012" <ignoramus13012@NOSPAM.13012.invalid> wrote in message news:bjm1bb$ukp$3@pita.alt.net > shinypenny wrote: >> >> It concerns me that so many people are eschewing ALL carbs these days >> (zone/atkins). Not all carbs have this effect. Complex carbs (whole >> grains such as whole wheat, brown rice, whole oats, etc) are quite >> good for you and can have a stabilizing effect on the blood sugar >> fluctuations. The thing that I heard is that whole grain/wheat flour, brown rice, etc, add more fiber to the diet, not that the carbs are different. It is the fiber that makes them more beneficial. I have tried the Zone diet thing, and I'd much rather get my fiber from whole grains than laxatives, thank-you-very-much!! :-Q You are villifying the Zone thing overly. It doesn't say to avoid carbs, in fact, it says to get 45% of your calories from carbs and to make THOSE carbs come from high-fiber, low-glycemic-index carbs. I've lost 53 pounds following a Zone-style diet in the past year and I routinely eat brown rice, wasa crisp bread, veggies of all kinds and oatmeal.

Wendy, do you feel that Barry Sears' promises regarding how great you
will feel etc, were fulfilled in your case?
The Zone, South Beach, Glycemic Index, and Body for Life diets are all pretty much based on balancing lean proteins with complex carbs and some healthy fats. The Atkins diet can be modified to be healthy by choosing lean meats and fishes instead of saturated fats and skipping the first two week induction period (part of his schtick). It also recommends getting most of your calories from carbs in the form of vegetables and high-fiber foods.

Right.

i

In article <so49b.10333$Ci3.7726@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, fairly_happy wrote: "Ignoramus2033" <ignoramus2033@NOSPAM.2033.invalid> wrote in message news:bk2b4n$dqf$0@pita.alt.net... In article <TiS8b.2056$KN1.1910@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, fairly_happy wrote: I think that is true for a lot of people, but maybe not everybody. I remember being dirt poor myself - and it wasn't because I wasn't capable of saving money - it was because my spouse overspent and point-blank refused to budget. Granted, I am no longer in that situation - but I am well aware of, and grateful for, a support system that allowed me to dig myself out. Somebody equally capable but without the support system I had would not have had the same opportunities, and would have had a much harder time of it. or maybe you would have dumped your spouse earlier if you knew there would not be a support system. Called a "moral hazard". I didn't quite understand. Were you thinking that my spouse was my support system, and that is why I didn't dump him sooner? That was

Sorry, I was not clear. I mean, without knowing that you had your
support system, you may have left your overspending husband earlier as
you your perception of the risk of sticking with him would be higher.
Is it working okay for your body? You are not fat or anything? How old are you? Feeling older than your age, or not? On the scale of what is the worst food, I do not think that Big Mac is that bad actually, especially if you throw away the bun. Twinkies and snickers bars and so on are much worse. I'm still working on losing 15 more pounds. (I'm the one who posted a while back about starting an exercise program, which I am still following). Overall, I feel pretty good for my age.

Oustanding. Do not relax until you actually lose those 15 lbs.

i

"Ignoramus2033" <ignoramus2033@NOSPAM.2033.invalid> wrote in message
news:bk37jj$pmu$1@pita.alt.net... In article <so49b.10333$Ci3.7726@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, fairly_happy
wrote: "Ignoramus2033" <ignoramus2033@NOSPAM.2033.invalid> wrote in message news:bk2b4n$dqf$0@pita.alt.net... In article <TiS8b.2056$KN1.1910@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, fairly_happy wrote: > > > I think that is true for a lot of people, but maybe not everybody. I > remember being dirt poor myself - and it wasn't because I wasn't
capable of > saving money - it was because my spouse overspent and point-blank refused to > budget. Granted, I am no longer in that situation - but I am well
aware of, > and grateful for, a support system that allowed me to dig myself out. > Somebody equally capable but without the support system I had would
not have > had the same opportunities, and would have had a much harder time of
it. or maybe you would have dumped your spouse earlier if you knew there would not be a support system. Called a "moral hazard". I didn't quite understand. Were you thinking that my spouse was my support system, and that is why I didn't dump him sooner? That was Sorry, I was not clear. I mean, without knowing that you had your support system, you may have left your overspending husband earlier as you your perception of the risk of sticking with him would be higher.

Maybe I wasn't clear either, sorry. The support system didn't have anything
to do with the timing of my divorce, actually. I stayed married for so long
because I really believe in committment, and felt a moral obligation to stay
married way, way, way longer than was reasonable.

What the support system did was allow me to dig myself out of poverty. I
was, for the first several years of my children's life, a stay at home mom.
We lived on what my ex could earn, which wasn't always above the federal
poverty level. It didn't help that he had substance abuse problems, and
that is where any "excess" money went. I had been out of the workforce a
few years, and had NO marketable skills (had never even turned on a
computer), at the point when I just got fed up with being poor and went
back to school - which I couldn't have done without the support system,
largely my mother, who babysat while I went to class. I did *not* have the
money to pay a babysitter, and could not have gone to school without
childcare. This is one of the things I meant by needing a support system -
sometimes a relatively small thing like child care can make the difference
between something being feasible or not feasible.

I was also fortunate to do really, really well in the grant and scholarship
department - I had a Pell Grant index number of 0 (that is right, zero) and
earned a 4.0 GPA, so I was eligible for lots of financial aid - so my
tuition was paid, and I got to pocket the excess. This way, I brought money
into the household while I was in school. Again, this was a type of support
that was available to me that maybe not everybody has - there was an
inexpensive state school nearby, I had transportation so I could get there,
and financial aid was available. If any of these three had been missing, I
couldn't have done it.

This is what makes me a little more sympathetic to the previously mentioned
"inner city chick with three kids". Yes, I managed to get enough education
to get a good job - but I don't think I could have done it with less
support - and a lot of those "inner city chicks" just don't have the
support.

Ignoramus2033 wrote: Wendy, do you feel that Barry Sears' promises regarding how great you will feel etc, were fulfilled in your case?

Yes. It's been a year since I read the book, but things I still recall
are these:

People who are insulin reistant (like I was) can be sated longer if
you don't have a blood sugar spike and the resulting blood sugar dip from
a meal or snack with a high glycemic load. (This message is in countless
other diet books, from Sugar Busters to Protein Power to Atkins to
Glycemic Index to Suzanne Somers to Body for Life to... well, anything but
Weight Watchers!)

You can practice portion control using something that is always "handy" -
your hand. (This is also in Covert Bailey's books and Body for Life.)

Getting back in the [fat-loss, good blood sugar balance] Zone is as close
as your next meal. No need to beat yourself up over what you did or
didn't do, just eat right in your next meal and you're back on track.

Anyway, it was a useful thing for me to read. I didn't follow a "diet
plan" from it, I just learned more about how I could fuel my body so that
it ran better on less calories.

Wendy

Wendy Marsden <wmarsden@mtholyoke.edu> wrote in message news:<3f64ce84@nap.mtholyoke.edu>... shinypenny wrote: "Rambler" <iam.removespam.rambler@yahoo.removespam.com> wrote in message news:<bjm235$e2v4@imsp212.netvigator.com>... "Ignoramus13012" <ignoramus13012@NOSPAM.13012.invalid> wrote in message news:bjm1bb$ukp$3@pita.alt.net > shinypenny wrote: >> >> It concerns me that so many people are eschewing ALL carbs these days >> (zone/atkins). Not all carbs have this effect. Complex carbs (whole >> grains such as whole wheat, brown rice, whole oats, etc) are quite >> good for you and can have a stabilizing effect on the blood sugar >> fluctuations. The thing that I heard is that whole grain/wheat flour, brown rice, etc, add more fiber to the diet, not that the carbs are different. It is the fiber that makes them more beneficial. I have tried the Zone diet thing, and I'd much rather get my fiber from whole grains than laxatives, thank-you-very-much!! :-Q You are villifying the Zone thing overly.

Well, I don't believe I was. I believe I was relating my personal
experience with the Zone. Admittedly, I didn't keep up with it for
very long, as I found the constipation to be too uncomfortable. I am
(personally) used to more fiber in my diet. Of course, YMMV.
It doesn't say to avoid carbs, in fact, it says to get 45% of your calories from carbs and to make THOSE carbs come from high-fiber, low-glycemic-index carbs. I've lost 53 pounds following a Zone-style diet in the past year and I routinely eat brown rice, wasa crisp bread, veggies of all kinds and oatmeal.

That's great and I'm happy for you. Whatever works! YMMV.
The Zone, South Beach, Glycemic Index, and Body for Life diets are all pretty much based on balancing lean proteins with complex carbs and some healthy fats. The Atkins diet can be modified to be healthy by choosing lean meats and fishes instead of saturated fats and skipping the first two week induction period (part of his schtick). It also recommends getting most of your calories from carbs in the form of vegetables and high-fiber foods.
In the end, the reason to cut out refined flour and simple sugar carbs is that they don't have enough nutrients and fiber to make their calorie load be worth it.

I agree that simple carbs and refined grains are not worth the
nutritional value and these should be limited or even eliminated.
Unfortunately, many people make the erroneous assumption that this
means ALL carbs and ALL grains. Whole, unrefined grains are quite good
for you and pack a lot of nutritional value for the calories.

Oh well, in the end it'll be another one of those pendulum things,
like the fat debate. First all fats were bad, now they say oops, we
made a mistake, not all fats are bad, you should eat them!

jen

Almost missed this, since your posts don't show up on google unless
someone quotes them:
Ignoramus28259 wrote:
Thereis nothing wrong with fiber supplements, but somehow I like the real thing.

Actually, there is. If you take fiber supplements routinely,
eventually your body becomes dependent on them to do what it is
normally designed to do, if you understand what I'm saying!

Lately I have been baking bread with half regular flour and half whole wheat. Seems to have the right balance between taste, leavening, and healthiness.

Yep, that's about right. I do also enjoy bread that's super dense and
100% whole grains. You have to get used to it, but it really fills you
up and sticks to you.

But something made you switch away from your vegetarian diet?

Yes -- I came to the realization that my vegetarianism was negatively
impacting my relationships. IOW, I had become too militant and
obnoxious about it.

And besides, can't vegetarians, in general, eat chocolates and candies?

Sure. But most of them eat very healthy and put a lot of thought into
what they eat. And despite eating a diet very high in carbs, it's
pretty hard to find a fat vegetarian; in fact, many tend to appear or
be considered underweight. That's because of the type of carbs they
tend to eat: beans, whole grains, veggies.

I am curious. Do you find brown rice much tastier than white rice?

Yum. Yes!
I never liked white rice very much because it tasted like cotton -- no taste.

Yep, esp the minute rice kind.
But brown rice tastes almost like meat of some sort, much better tasting.

Yes - even better when prepared in a rice cooker. I love my rice
cooker. Do you have one of those yet?


Understood. For me, I now subscribe to the philosophy that "food is fuel, not entertainment".

I understand exactly what you're saying, except for me, food used to
be about comfort. During my first marriage I wasn't very happy. Every
night I'd binge on ice cream or sugary cereal eaten straight from the
box. The simple carbs made me feel better temporarily, like a drug.
Later I learned to exercise instead.

I will still binge from time to time when I'm down, but it's rare. And
yes I still eat ice cream on occasion but I limit myself to 1/2 cup. I
have a tiny bowl I use just for this purpose.

As for food being entertainment, well, I do strongly believe that
sharing food is an important part of being human!! I love to cook with
my daughters and my fiancee. I love to sit down and share a meal with
them. And yes, I love to go out to the latest trendy restaurant with
my fiancee and enjoy a nice meal. You're right, I don't need to eat
everything on my plate. But this is an aspect of life that I am just
not willing to give up entirely. Otherwise, might as well hook me up
to an IV drip and take my "fuel" that way. What fun would that be?

No, sharing food is an important part of life, don't you think? And
this is why I gave up on being 100% vegetarian; I was pissing off too
many people and no one wanted to eat with me anymore because my meals
and requirements were too strange and demanding, or because I couldn't
help myself and I'd get up on my soapbox and tell people why what they
were eating was bad for them. I am still primarily vegetarian, but
now I eat meat on occasion. It's not what I'll order at a restaurant
or pack in my lunch box, but I will cook it at home for dinner about
once a week, since my fiancee and my children enjoy it.

sounds like you are happy with him!

Yes, but it just isn't fair. He can eat whatever he wants and not gain
a pound!!! For example, last night he wolfed down an entire quart of
Starbucks Java Chip. When we go out, he finishes whatever I don't eat,
which is usually 1/3 to 1/2 of my plate. He eats out for lunch each
day, either a foot-long meatball sub or greasy chinese food. Yet, he's
6 feet tall, weighs 145, has excellent cholesterol and BP levels, and
has a 31-in waist. WHY??? Because he commutes on his bike to work,
about an hour-and-a-half round trip, each day!!! It's just not fair.
:-(

jen

Thanks. I am not counting calories or units, but I also tend to
balance carbs/fats/proteins approximately according to the zone
recommendations, because I find them reasonable. I also feel like a
stud lately. However I resent his promotion of zone friendly junk food
bars.

i

In article <3f65e6f1@nap.mtholyoke.edu>, Wendy Marsden wrote: Ignoramus2033 wrote: Wendy, do you feel that Barry Sears' promises regarding how great you will feel etc, were fulfilled in your case? Yes. It's been a year since I read the book, but things I still recall are these: People who are insulin reistant (like I was) can be sated longer if you don't have a blood sugar spike and the resulting blood sugar dip from a meal or snack with a high glycemic load. (This message is in countless other diet books, from Sugar Busters to Protein Power to Atkins to Glycemic Index to Suzanne Somers to Body for Life to... well, anything but Weight Watchers!) You can practice portion control using something that is always "handy" - your hand. (This is also in Covert Bailey's books and Body for Life.) Getting back in the [fat-loss, good blood sugar balance] Zone is as close as your next meal. No need to beat yourself up over what you did or didn't do, just eat right in your next meal and you're back on track. Anyway, it was a useful thing for me to read. I didn't follow a "diet plan" from it, I just learned more about how I could fuel my body so that it ran better on less calories. Wendy

In article <c8cb5319.0309151059.610eaa66@posting.google.com>, shinypenny wrote: But brown rice tastes almost like meat of some sort, much better tasting. Yes - even better when prepared in a rice cooker. I love my rice cooker. Do you have one of those yet?

Yes, I own one, and it is great for cooking most cereals, not just
rice. Buckwheat, barley, etc, all of those things.

Understood. For me, I now subscribe to the philosophy that "food is fuel, not entertainment". I understand exactly what you're saying, except for me, food used to be about comfort. During my first marriage I wasn't very happy. Every night I'd binge on ice cream or sugary cereal eaten straight from the box. The simple carbs made me feel better temporarily, like a drug. Later I learned to exercise instead.

Understood.

i

Ignoramus16632 wrote: Thanks. I am not counting calories or units, but I also tend to balance carbs/fats/proteins approximately according to the zone recommendations, because I find them reasonable. I also feel like a stud lately. However I resent his promotion of zone friendly junk food bars.

I don't mind him making money off of it: I'm a capitalist. It's no worse
than candybars and those are sold everywhere. I tried one once. Seemed
like a candybar to me. I'd rather eat real food.

Wendy

Ignoramus8896 <ignoramus8896@nospam.8896.invalid> wrote: they can ride a bus then... big deal... I lived in Russia and few people had cars... they walked to stores.

That assumes there are stores in walking distance.

Ignoramus8896 <ignoramus8896@nospam.8896.invalid> wrote: In article <1ea6mvkb9v0il213h9abdctk255k35kbov@4ax.com>, Brian wrote: So you think some inner city chick working two jobs and raising 3 kids is going to take the time to bake he own bread? Takes me 4 minutes, I clocked it.

With a breadmaker that cost at least $50 (and probably a good bit more if
it's more than a couple of years old), and which itself takes several hours
to run.

If you make bread from scratch w/o a maker, there's no way it can take 4
minutes.

fairly_happy <fairly_happywithoutspam@withoutspamyahoo.com> wrote: "Ignoramus8896" <ignoramus8896@NOSPAM.8896.invalid> wrote in message Takes me 4 minutes, I clocked it. How do you bake bread in 4 minutes? Seriously, I'd like to know. It takes me a lot longer than that, even when I use a breadmaker (which, incidentally, that inner city chick working two jobs isn't going to own).

With a breadmaker, 4 minutes sounds about right if you're making a basic
recipe and you're organized about how you keep the ingredients. Perhaps even
a bit slow -- plain white bread is, after all, just water, salt, flour,
yeast, and the only part of that that takes much time is measuring the
flour.
Start to finish it takes 3 hours including rising time - I love fresh bread right out of the oven, but there is no way I can pull that off in time for dinner after work.

Does your breadmaker have a timer? I don't do it nearly as often as I
probably ought to, but it's quite easy to set the thing up on my way out to
work and have it start up in time to be done in time for dinner.

Trajan

2 miles is a walking distance.

i

In article <esbj31-tjl.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Ignoramus8896 <ignoramus8896@nospam.8896.invalid> wrote: they can ride a bus then... big deal... I lived in Russia and few people had cars... they walked to stores. That assumes there are stores in walking distance.

In article <h6cj31-tjl.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Ignoramus8896 <ignoramus8896@nospam.8896.invalid> wrote: In article <1ea6mvkb9v0il213h9abdctk255k35kbov@4ax.com>, Brian wrote: So you think some inner city chick working two jobs and raising 3 kids is going to take the time to bake he own bread? Takes me 4 minutes, I clocked it. With a breadmaker that cost at least $50 (and probably a good bit more if it's more than a couple of years old), and which itself takes several hours to run.

of course.

But I already saved several times the cost of that breadmaker.
If you make bread from scratch w/o a maker, there's no way it can take 4 minutes.

sure.

i

In article <igcj31-tjl.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: fairly_happy <fairly_happywithoutspam@withoutspamyahoo.com> wrote: "Ignoramus8896" <ignoramus8896@NOSPAM.8896.invalid> wrote in message Takes me 4 minutes, I clocked it. How do you bake bread in 4 minutes? Seriously, I'd like to know. It takes me a lot longer than that, even when I use a breadmaker (which, incidentally, that inner city chick working two jobs isn't going to own). With a breadmaker, 4 minutes sounds about right if you're making a basic recipe and you're organized about how you keep the ingredients. Perhaps even a bit slow -- plain white bread is, after all, just water, salt, flour, yeast, and the only part of that that takes much time is measuring the flour.

Correct. I bake sourdough bread, it is simply starter, flour and salt.
Start to finish it takes 3 hours including rising time - I love fresh bread right out of the oven, but there is no way I can pull that off in time for dinner after work. Does your breadmaker have a timer? I don't do it nearly as often as I probably ought to, but it's quite easy to set the thing up on my way out to work and have it start up in time to be done in time for dinner.

Exactly.

i

Ignoramus29060 <ignoramus29060@nospam.29060.invalid> wrote: In article <igcj31-tjl.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: a bit slow -- plain white bread is, after all, just water, salt, flour, yeast, and the only part of that that takes much time is measuring the flour. Correct. I bake sourdough bread, it is simply starter, flour and salt.

No added water? I didn't realize that starter was that thin, although it's
something I'm familiar with only in theory.

Ignoramus29060 <ignoramus29060@nospam.29060.invalid> wrote: In article <h6cj31-tjl.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: With a breadmaker that cost at least $50 (and probably a good bit more if it's more than a couple of years old), and which itself takes several hours to run. of course. But I already saved several times the cost of that breadmaker.

Depending on how you buy the ingredients ... at supermarket prices, the
cheaper prebaked breads aren't that much more expensive than yeast + flour
(both much cheaper if you make enough to buy in bulk). But that's mainly a
matter of how much you use it, and even if it's only slightly cheaper, the
quality certainly is better than anything that comes in plastic.

Ignoramus29060 <ignoramus29060@nospam.29060.invalid> wrote: In article <esbj31-tjl.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: That assumes there are stores in walking distance. 2 miles is a walking distance.

For whom? That's 20 minutes at a jog, or 30-40 at a walk. It's easily
walkable as a constitutional and _just_ possibly as a "commute", but hardly
"walking distance" in the sense that one can conveniently go to the store as
needed.

Who has an extra 40 minutes a couple of times a week to add to their
shopping time? You're certainly not going to be buying in bulk if you're
having to carry things on your back!

In article <jdrj31-bs7.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Ignoramus29060 <ignoramus29060@nospam.29060.invalid> wrote: In article <igcj31-tjl.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: a bit slow -- plain white bread is, after all, just water, salt, flour, yeast, and the only part of that that takes much time is measuring the flour. Correct. I bake sourdough bread, it is simply starter, flour and salt. No added water?

No added water.
I didn't realize that starter was that thin, although it's something I'm familiar with only in theory.

It is that thin indeed. Obviously starter is made of water and flour.

i

In article <o6sj31-bs7.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Ignoramus29060 <ignoramus29060@nospam.29060.invalid> wrote: In article <h6cj31-tjl.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: With a breadmaker that cost at least $50 (and probably a good bit more if it's more than a couple of years old), and which itself takes several hours to run. of course. But I already saved several times the cost of that breadmaker. Depending on how you buy the ingredients ... at supermarket prices,

usually I buy 25 lbs bags of flour at sam's club for $4.60 a bag.

For the cost of one McD meal or a little more, as you see, you can get
enough flour to make maybe 15 loaves of bread.
the cheaper prebaked breads aren't that much more expensive than yeast + flour (both much cheaper if you make enough to buy in bulk). But that's mainly a matter of how much you use it, and even if it's only slightly cheaper, the quality certainly is better than anything that comes in plastic.

Way better, you just cannot compare. Cheap store bread is very lousy.

i

In article <ecsj31-bs7.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Ignoramus29060 <ignoramus29060@nospam.29060.invalid> wrote: In article <esbj31-tjl.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: That assumes there are stores in walking distance. 2 miles is a walking distance. For whom? That's 20 minutes at a jog, or 30-40 at a walk. It's easily walkable as a constitutional and _just_ possibly as a "commute", but hardly "walking distance" in the sense that one can conveniently go to the store as needed. Who has an extra 40 minutes a couple of times a week to add to their shopping time? You're certainly not going to be buying in bulk if you're having to carry things on your back!

that's why they have these things on wheels... I remember going
shopping for some things 2 miles away... once a week or so. Our main
store though was only a mile or slightly more away.

i

Ignoramus29060 <ignoramus29060@nospam.29060.invalid> wrote: In article <ecsj31-bs7.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Who has an extra 40 minutes a couple of times a week to add to their shopping time? You're certainly not going to be buying in bulk if you're having to carry things on your back! that's why they have these things on wheels... I remember going shopping for some things 2 miles away... once a week or so. Our main store though was only a mile or slightly more away.

Pushing a shopping cart, you're definitely going to be doing closer to the
20 minute mile than the 15, and over that distance most people are just not
going to be able to push a heavy cart comfortably. So you're talking a 60+
minute round trip, not counting shopping time. That's really practical for
most people.

Now, there are a lot of people who have cars, and who don't have that
excuse. Then again, of those people with cars, a fair number of them are
working very hard to keep their income at levels where they AREN'T in the
"walking to the store because they don't have a car" boat.

"Marcus Ulpius Traianus" <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote in message
news:esbj31-tjl.ln1@mail.sfchat.org... Ignoramus8896 <ignoramus8896@nospam.8896.invalid> wrote: they can ride a bus then... big deal... I lived in Russia and few people had cars... they walked to stores. That assumes there are stores in walking distance.

That is a big assumption, too. I live a 15 minute *drive* from the nearest
grocery store - and a major part of this distance is along a heavily
traveled 2 lane road with no sidewalk, no shoulder, and a couple of blind
hills. It would be foolish to try to walk that distance.

This is a largely rural area - a sizeable percentage of the population lives
even farther out than I do. There are some sections of the county that are
a lot farther from a grocery store (and a pharmacy, and even a gas station)
than me.

trajan@sfchat.org (Marcus Ulpius Traianus) wrote in message news:<11bk31-4tt.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>... Ignoramus29060 <ignoramus29060@nospam.29060.invalid> wrote: In article <ecsj31-bs7.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Who has an extra 40 minutes a couple of times a week to add to their shopping time? You're certainly not going to be buying in bulk if you're having to carry things on your back! that's why they have these things on wheels... I remember going shopping for some things 2 miles away... once a week or so. Our main store though was only a mile or slightly more away. Pushing a shopping cart, you're definitely going to be doing closer to the 20 minute mile than the 15, and over that distance most people are just not going to be able to push a heavy cart comfortably. So you're talking a 60+ minute round trip, not counting shopping time. That's really practical for most people.

If there are a bunch of lights then probably closer to a 20 minute
mile. If it is a straight walk 15 or better is very doable. I walk
fairly fast no matter what. The only time I walk slow is if I'm going
down stairs and can not see my feet (basically whenever the chances of
falling is high) or if what I'm carrying is over 100lbs (pushing does
not matter).

Eric

"Eric Witte" <ewitte@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e738765.0309180425.1c075b95@posting.google.c om... trajan@sfchat.org (Marcus Ulpius Traianus) wrote in message
news:<11bk31-4tt.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>... Ignoramus29060 <ignoramus29060@nospam.29060.invalid> wrote: In article <ecsj31-bs7.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus
wrote: > Who has an extra 40 minutes a couple of times a week to add to their > shopping time? You're certainly not going to be buying in bulk if
you're > having to carry things on your back! that's why they have these things on wheels... I remember going shopping for some things 2 miles away... once a week or so. Our main store though was only a mile or slightly more away. Pushing a shopping cart, you're definitely going to be doing closer to
the 20 minute mile than the 15, and over that distance most people are just
not going to be able to push a heavy cart comfortably. So you're talking a
60+ minute round trip, not counting shopping time. That's really practical
for most people. If there are a bunch of lights then probably closer to a 20 minute mile. If it is a straight walk 15 or better is very doable. I walk fairly fast no matter what. The only time I walk slow is if I'm going down stairs and can not see my feet (basically whenever the chances of falling is high) or if what I'm carrying is over 100lbs (pushing does not matter). Eric

I'm assuming from your reference to lights that you are walking along a
sidewalk with streetlights. What if you live in an area with no lights and
no sidewalks and no shoulder on the road? Would you feel the same way?

I also get the impression that you are a relatively young, healthy male
(capable of walking fast and carrying 100 lbs). What if you are an older,
more frail lady? Or a person of any age who feels unsafe walking through
their neighborhood? Would you feel the same way?

> > If there are a bunch of lights then probably closer to a 20 minute mile. If it is a straight walk 15 or better is very doable. I walk fairly fast no matter what. The only time I walk slow is if I'm going down stairs and can not see my feet (basically whenever the chances of falling is high) or if what I'm carrying is over 100lbs (pushing does not matter). Eric I'm assuming from your reference to lights that you are walking along a sidewalk with streetlights. What if you live in an area with no lights and no sidewalks and no shoulder on the road? Would you feel the same way?

I'd probably not attempt it. It really annoys me when people use the
spaces set aside for driving for other purposes. I generally *try* to
think about other people and not do things to other people that upset
me. I know, really uncommon these days. Anyway its not only
dangerous for yourself but also everyone driving in the street. There
are reasons not to use things for purposes other than what they are
designed for.

Eric

"Eric Witte" <ewitte@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e738765.0309190431.245895cd@posting.google.c om... If there are a bunch of lights then probably closer to a 20 minute mile. If it is a straight walk 15 or better is very doable. I walk fairly fast no matter what. The only time I walk slow is if I'm going down stairs and can not see my feet (basically whenever the chances of falling is high) or if what I'm carrying is over 100lbs (pushing does not matter). Eric I'm assuming from your reference to lights that you are walking along a sidewalk with streetlights. What if you live in an area with no lights
and no sidewalks and no shoulder on the road? Would you feel the same way? I'd probably not attempt it. It really annoys me when people use the spaces set aside for driving for other purposes. I generally *try* to think about other people and not do things to other people that upset me. I know, really uncommon these days. Anyway its not only dangerous for yourself but also everyone driving in the street. There are reasons not to use things for purposes other than what they are designed for.

I agree with you. I asked because I've seen some posts recently that seemed
to indicate that just about anybody could walk to the store for their
groceries, etc and it bothered me - because a whole lot of people live in
areas where that just isn't a good idea. (Not to mention that a lot of
people aren't physically able).

In article <RsLab.675$iO.577@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, fairly_happy wrote: "Eric Witte" <ewitte@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3e738765.0309190431.245895cd@posting.google.c om... > If there are a bunch of lights then probably closer to a 20 minute > mile. If it is a straight walk 15 or better is very doable. I walk > fairly fast no matter what. The only time I walk slow is if I'm going > down stairs and can not see my feet (basically whenever the chances of > falling is high) or if what I'm carrying is over 100lbs (pushing does > not matter). > > Eric I'm assuming from your reference to lights that you are walking along a sidewalk with streetlights. What if you live in an area with no lights and no sidewalks and no shoulder on the road? Would you feel the same way? I'd probably not attempt it. It really annoys me when people use the spaces set aside for driving for other purposes. I generally *try* to think about other people and not do things to other people that upset me. I know, really uncommon these days. Anyway its not only dangerous for yourself but also everyone driving in the street. There are reasons not to use things for purposes other than what they are designed for. I agree with you. I asked because I've seen some posts recently that seemed to indicate that just about anybody could walk to the store for their groceries, etc and it bothered me - because a whole lot of people live in areas where that just isn't a good idea. (Not to mention that a lot of people aren't physically able).

people... how about applying this conversation to the great majority
of us who have extra $50 saved and who can walk or drive to
stores... let's forget the less relevant poor people and concentrate
on more common people like you and me... let's not talk about excuses
to eat crap that are not relevant to our lives...

i

"Ignoramus2551" <ignoramus2551@NOSPAM.2551.invalid> wrote in message
news:bkg0jo$ha0$2@pita.alt.net... In article <RsLab.675$iO.577@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, fairly_happy wrote: "Eric Witte" <ewitte@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3e738765.0309190431.245895cd@posting.google.c om... > > If there are a bunch of lights then probably closer to a 20 minute > > mile. If it is a straight walk 15 or better is very doable. I
walk > > fairly fast no matter what. The only time I walk slow is if I'm
going > > down stairs and can not see my feet (basically whenever the chances
of > > falling is high) or if what I'm carrying is over 100lbs (pushing
does > > not matter). > > > > Eric > > I'm assuming from your reference to lights that you are walking along
a > sidewalk with streetlights. What if you live in an area with no
lights and > no sidewalks and no shoulder on the road? Would you feel the same
way? I'd probably not attempt it. It really annoys me when people use the spaces set aside for driving for other purposes. I generally *try* to think about other people and not do things to other people that upset me. I know, really uncommon these days. Anyway its not only dangerous for yourself but also everyone driving in the street. There are reasons not to use things for purposes other than what they are designed for. I agree with you. I asked because I've seen some posts recently that
seemed to indicate that just about anybody could walk to the store for their groceries, etc and it bothered me - because a whole lot of people live
in areas where that just isn't a good idea. (Not to mention that a lot of people aren't physically able). people... how about applying this conversation to the great majority of us who have extra $50 saved and who can walk or drive to stores... let's forget the less relevant poor people and concentrate on more common people like you and me... let's not talk about excuses to eat crap that are not relevant to our lives...

Well, most of the time when I eat crap it is out of sheer fatigue - it is
too late and I'm too tired and hungry to start cooking anything good, so we
get sandwiches (not real bad crap, deli sandwiches or something of the
sort). Unfortunately, the too tired/too late/too busy part seems to have
become my normal life - but I can't see how to change it. I can't stop
going to work, can't stop taking care of the house, can't stop running the
errands, I suppose I could stop hanging out in newsgroups, but since I don't
watch TV I consider this to be my TV-equivalent recreation...

So how do other people manage to pull off nutritious meals every night? Do
you plan menus way ahead? Cook in bulk and freeze? (This doesn't seem to
work so well for me - stuff tends to get "not eaten" when I try that). It
doesn't help that we are a hard bunch to cook for - between allergies and
other dietary quirks, it is difficult to put together meals that we all
like....

fairly_happy wrote: "Eric Witte" <ewitte@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3e738765.0309190431.245895cd@posting.google.c om...> If there are a bunch of lights then probably closer to a 20 minute> mile. If it is a straight walk 15 or better is very doable. I walk> fairly fast no matter what. The only time I walk slow is if I'm going> down stairs and can not see my feet (basically whenever the chances of> falling is high) or if what I'm carrying is over 100lbs (pushing does> not matter).>> Eric I'm assuming from your reference to lights that you are walking along a sidewalk with streetlights. What if you live in an area with no lights and no sidewalks and no shoulder on the road? Would you feel the same way? I'd probably not attempt it. It really annoys me when people use the spaces set aside for driving for other purposes. I generally *try* to think about other people and not do things to other people that upset me. I know, really uncommon these days. Anyway its not only dangerous for yourself but also everyone driving in the street. There are reasons not to use things for purposes other than what they are designed for. I agree with you. I asked because I've seen some posts recently that seemed to indicate that just about anybody could walk to the store for their groceries, etc and it bothered me - because a whole lot of people live in areas where that just isn't a good idea. (Not to mention that a lot of people aren't physically able).

Yeah, but sometimes the reason they aren't physically able is that they don't
exercise enough, by doing these walks, or runs, or whatever.

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:HUMab.9529$UN4.8393@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net... fairly_happy wrote: "Eric Witte" <ewitte@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3e738765.0309190431.245895cd@posting.google.c om...>> If there are a bunch of lights then probably closer to a 20 minute>> mile. If it is a straight walk 15 or better is very doable. I walk>> fairly fast no matter what. The only time I walk slow is if I'm
going>> down stairs and can not see my feet (basically whenever the chances
of>> falling is high) or if what I'm carrying is over 100lbs (pushing does>> not matter).>>>> Eric>> I'm assuming from your reference to lights that you are walking along
a> sidewalk with streetlights. What if you live in an area with no
lights and> no sidewalks and no shoulder on the road? Would you feel the same
way? I'd probably not attempt it. It really annoys me when people use the spaces set aside for driving for other purposes. I generally *try* to think about other people and not do things to other people that upset me. I know, really uncommon these days. Anyway its not only dangerous for yourself but also everyone driving in the street. There are reasons not to use things for purposes other than what they are designed for. I agree with you. I asked because I've seen some posts recently that
seemed to indicate that just about anybody could walk to the store for their groceries, etc and it bothered me - because a whole lot of people live
in areas where that just isn't a good idea. (Not to mention that a lot of people aren't physically able). Yeah, but sometimes the reason they aren't physically able is that they
don't exercise enough, by doing these walks, or runs, or whatever.

Actually, I was thinking about older folks. I was talking to a guy today -
70ish, has had a problematic hip replacement. Still gets out and works in
his yard, but really shouldn't try carrying a sack of groceries any long
distances.

In article <uMLab.678$iO.43@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, fairly_happy
wrote:
Well, most of the time when I eat crap it is out of sheer fatigue - it is too late and I'm too tired and hungry to start cooking anything good, so we get sandwiches (not real bad crap, deli

I do not think that sandwiches are that evil...
sandwiches or something of the sort). Unfortunately, the too tired/too late/too busy part seems to have become my normal life - but I can't see how to change it. I can't stop going to work, can't stop taking care of the house, can't stop running the errands, I suppose I could stop hanging out in newsgroups, but since I don't watch TV I consider this to be my TV-equivalent recreation... So how do other people manage to pull off nutritious meals every night? Do you plan menus way ahead? Cook in bulk and freeze? (This doesn't seem to work so well for me - stuff tends to get "not eaten" when I try that). It doesn't help that we are a hard bunch to cook for - between allergies and other dietary quirks, it is difficult to put together meals that we all like....

some thoughts... baking bread is easy... cooked food can easily spend
a week in the fridge without spoiling... lots of foods take little
time to make... eating raw vegetables is easy also (peppers,
cauliflower, nuts etc etc etc)... so is making a simple
tomato/cucumber salad... rice cookers save a ton of time and
are cheap... if you actually try to work towards easy cooking, it
becomes less and less difficult.

i

In article <HUMab.9529$UN4.8393@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, Bill in Co wrote: Yeah, but sometimes the reason they aren't physically able is that they don't exercise enough, by doing these walks, or runs, or whatever.

An unusually (for you) good point.

i

In article <bkghgg$6a9$5@pita.alt.net>, Ignoramus2551 wrote: In article <uMLab.678$iO.43@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, fairly_happy wrote: Well, most of the time when I eat crap it is out of sheer fatigue - it is too late and I'm too tired and hungry to start cooking anything good, so we get sandwiches (not real bad crap, deli I do not think that sandwiches are that evil... sandwiches or something of the sort). Unfortunately, the too tired/too late/too busy part seems to have become my normal life - but I can't see how to change it. I can't stop going to work, can't stop taking care of the house, can't stop running the errands, I suppose I could stop hanging out in newsgroups, but since I don't watch TV I consider this to be my TV-equivalent recreation... So how do other people manage to pull off nutritious meals every night? Do you plan menus way ahead? Cook in bulk and freeze? (This doesn't seem to work so well for me - stuff tends to get "not eaten" when I try that). It doesn't help that we are a hard bunch to cook for - between allergies and other dietary quirks, it is difficult to put together meals that we all like.... some thoughts... baking bread is easy... cooked food can easily spend a week in the fridge without spoiling... lots of foods take little time to make... eating raw vegetables is easy also (peppers, cauliflower, nuts etc etc etc)... so is making a simple tomato/cucumber salad... rice cookers save a ton of time and are cheap... if you actually try to work towards easy cooking, it becomes less and less difficult.

you can cook more than rice in rice cookers. Anything that absorbs
water cooks well. For example barley or buckwheat. (add raisins and
butter to barley for taste).

i

Ignoramus2551 wrote: In article <HUMab.9529$UN4.8393@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, Bill in Co wrote: Yeah, but sometimes the reason they aren't physically able is that they
don't exercise enough, by doing these walks, or runs, or whatever. An unusually (for you) good point. i

Nah, you've just been out to lunch too long. Welcome back to the real world.

> > Yeah, but sometimes the reason they aren't physically able is that they don't exercise enough, by doing these walks, or runs, or whatever. Actually, I was thinking about older folks. I was talking to a guy today - 70ish, has had a problematic hip replacement. Still gets out and works in his yard, but really shouldn't try carrying a sack of groceries any long distances.

Lack of effort and poor nutrition do eventually catch up with you. If
your avoiding carrying things at say 40 IMO chances are more likely
you physically can not much sooner. There are people in their 90's
that can probably do more than I can. The number of things that are
avoidable given effort are much greater than things that would happen.
I doubt very seriously someone who spent a great deal of time
weightlifting would have problems with weak bones as they get older.
AFAIK the only people that can not keep in good shape are those with
major physical defects/illness or serious injuries. For instance
there is not really that much someone like Christopher Reeves can do
to improve upon his situation. Maybe somethings, but he will never be
even near the health he was.

Eric

"Eric Witte" <ewitte@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e738765.0309240641.6f2112e@posting.google.co m... Yeah, but sometimes the reason they aren't physically able is that
they don't exercise enough, by doing these walks, or runs, or whatever. Actually, I was thinking about older folks. I was talking to a guy
today - 70ish, has had a problematic hip replacement. Still gets out and works
in his yard, but really shouldn't try carrying a sack of groceries any long distances. Lack of effort and poor nutrition do eventually catch up with you. If your avoiding carrying things at say 40 IMO chances are more likely you physically can not much sooner. There are people in their 90's that can probably do more than I can. The number of things that are avoidable given effort are much greater than things that would happen. I doubt very seriously someone who spent a great deal of time weightlifting would have problems with weak bones as they get older. AFAIK the only people that can not keep in good shape are those with major physical defects/illness or serious injuries. For instance there is not really that much someone like Christopher Reeves can do to improve upon his situation. Maybe somethings, but he will never be even near the health he was. Eric

I think that in general you are right - which is why I recently started a
much better exercise program myself. I hope that I'll be much better off in
the future for having made the effort today. No guarantees, though - the
70ish guy with the hip replacement I mentioned had been a serious athlete in
his youth, stayed active all his life, but actually had a congenital problem
that caused premature wear and ultimately led to the hip replacement. On
the other hand, had he not been in reasonably good shape he might be even
worse off today...

> I think that in general you are right - which is why I recently started a much better exercise program myself. I hope that I'll be much better off in the future for having made the effort today. No guarantees, though - the 70ish guy with the hip replacement I mentioned had been a serious athlete in his youth, stayed active all his life, but actually had a congenital problem that caused premature wear and ultimately led to the hip replacement. On the other hand, had he not been in reasonably good shape he might be even worse off today...

That might be considered a "physical defect." You never know. There
are people in top shape (Bruce Le) that just die all of a sudden at a
fairly young age. Although running might actually make things worse
on the hips. The possiblity for tons of friction is great. The best
excercise to strengthen bones is strength training. Unless you do it
wrong and break something :)

Eric