On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 06:06:06 -0500, DSK wrote:

Gilligan wrote:
Large numbers of Fatties can only exist because of excessive government
regulation and socialism. Most of those fatties are on group health
insurance or government run health programs. The health risks of these
behemoths are pooled with non fatties. If the government would end medicare,
medicaid and undo the tax benefits of non qualifying group health insurance
programs and make the fatties pay for true risks and consequences of their
own health problems they would see the skinny real fast.

I doubt it. They would just whine louder. After all, they
truly don't believe it's their own fault.


We don't need to
raise taxes on fast food or regulate what people eat. We simply must do less
and let individuals do more for themselves.


How about letting individuals be less subjected to food
advertisements 24/7? How about lowering the tariff
protection on sugar, so it's a bit less profitable to push
the stuff into everything?



The American health care system is not the problem, for it is the best in
the history of the world. It is American health that is the problem which is
the result of lifestyle choices and the removal of responsibility.


It's also the result of the profit motive: large
corporations are making lots of money convincing Americans
to eat more, thus becoming larger corporally.

With all due respect, please elaborate on this. They advertise their
offerings, healthy or not, but, how do they convince Americans to eat
more? I believe the current thinking is that overeating is an
emotional response to something wrong or lacking in an individua'ls
life. And we all at one time or another probably qualify. Corporate
America responsible for that? Possibly, if they've convinced us that
our lives are empty without their product(s). It requires some
individual responsibility and discipline to avoid succumbing to that
folly.

Be back later, have to run, weather's right. Planning 6.3 today. Run
30-36 miles per week. A much better solution than more regulation. I
can, as you might expect, eat anything and don't gain any weight.
But, I naturally choose to avoid those things that are not good, or
more aptly, provide no room for them by choosing those that are good.
(Scotty, Spam doesn't qualify) I don't need the Government to tell me
what they are. After all, they gave you fifty years of fake butter
with trans fats as a better choice than the real thing. And had eggs
on the taboo list for many years.

Frank

DSK

Frank Boettcher wrote:



How about letting individuals be less subjected to food
I believe the current thinking is that overeating is an
emotional response to something wrong or lacking in an individua'ls
life. And we all at one time or another probably qualify. Corporate
America responsible for that? Possibly, if they've convinced us that
our lives are empty without their product(s). It requires some
individual responsibility and discipline to avoid succumbing to that
folly.

The middle aged, soon to be aged baby-boomers, were the resylts of
people who lived through the Depression who had lack of food and lack if
choice to live with...when I was a kid, we HAD to clean out plates (no
matter how much was put on them) and were often enjoined that there were
many who did not have food in the world...could never figure out how my
eating tuna casserole helped some starving person in China...I was all
for packing the stuff up and shipping it to Taiwan...

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:32:31 -0500, katy
wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:



How about letting individuals be less subjected to food
I believe the current thinking is that overeating is an
emotional response to something wrong or lacking in an individua'ls
life. And we all at one time or another probably qualify. Corporate
America responsible for that? Possibly, if they've convinced us that
our lives are empty without their product(s). It requires some
individual responsibility and discipline to avoid succumbing to that
folly.

The middle aged, soon to be aged baby-boomers, were the resylts of
people who lived through the Depression who had lack of food and lack if
choice to live with...when I was a kid, we HAD to clean out plates (no
matter how much was put on them) and were often enjoined that there were
many who did not have food in the world...could never figure out how my
eating tuna casserole helped some starving person in China...I was all
for packing the stuff up and shipping it to Taiwan...



My Grandmothers were both depression mothers who used the same tactics
on my parents. Fortunately, they had had enough of it and let us just
eat till we were full. Their contribution to nutrition was not being
well to do. In the late forties and fifties, when I was a kid, things
processed and emerging junk foods cost more than simple and live
foods. With six kids in the family they just didn't buy them so we
ate a healthy diet by default.

Today, everyone can afford junk food. That may be too bad.

What's wrong with Tuna Casserole? I like the stuff.

Frank

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:32:31 -0500, katy
wrote:


Frank Boettcher wrote:

How about letting individuals be less subjected to food

I believe the current thinking is that overeating is an

emotional response to something wrong or lacking in an individua'ls
life. And we all at one time or another probably qualify. Corporate
America responsible for that? Possibly, if they've convinced us that
our lives are empty without their product(s). It requires some
individual responsibility and discipline to avoid succumbing to that
folly.

The middle aged, soon to be aged baby-boomers, were the resylts of
people who lived through the Depression who had lack of food and lack if
choice to live with...when I was a kid, we HAD to clean out plates (no
matter how much was put on them) and were often enjoined that there were
many who did not have food in the world...could never figure out how my
eating tuna casserole helped some starving person in China...I was all
for packing the stuff up and shipping it to Taiwan...



My Grandmothers were both depression mothers who used the same tactics
on my parents. Fortunately, they had had enough of it and let us just
eat till we were full. Their contribution to nutrition was not being
well to do. In the late forties and fifties, when I was a kid, things
processed and emerging junk foods cost more than simple and live
foods. With six kids in the family they just didn't buy them so we
ate a healthy diet by default.

Today, everyone can afford junk food. That may be too bad.

What's wrong with Tuna Casserole? I like the stuff.

Frank

You haven't had my Mom's....her goulash was bad, too....we ate a ot oif
what we planted in the garden and then put up each simmer and what my
Dad caught fishing and hunting...my maternal gramma supplied eggs and
chickens...even though we were no longer farmers in any sense of the
word, my Dad never got over being a farmer...

Bill's 2ond. wife made one the dogs wouldn't eat...turned
out she didn't cook the noodles first!

Seahag

"katy" wrote in message
...
Frank Boettcher wrote:
...could never figure out how my
eating tuna casserole helped some starving person in
China...I was all for packing the stuff up and shipping
it to Taiwan...


What's wrong with Tuna Casserole? I like the stuff.

Frank

You haven't had my Mom's....her goulash was bad, too....we
ate a ot oif what we planted in the garden and then put up
each simmer and what my Dad caught fishing and
hunting...my maternal gramma supplied eggs and
chickens...even though we were no longer farmers in any
sense of the word, my Dad never got over being a farmer...

Seahag wrote:
Bill's 2ond. wife made one the dogs wouldn't eat...turned
out she didn't cook the noodles first!

Seahag

"katy" wrote in message
...

Frank Boettcher wrote:

..could never figure out how my

eating tuna casserole helped some starving person in
China...I was all for packing the stuff up and shipping
it to Taiwan...


What's wrong with Tuna Casserole? I like the stuff.

Frank

You haven't had my Mom's....her goulash was bad, too....we
ate a ot oif what we planted in the garden and then put up
each simmer and what my Dad caught fishing and
hunting...my maternal gramma supplied eggs and
chickens...even though we were no longer farmers in any
sense of the word, my Dad never got over being a farmer...



hahahahaha...that's REALLY dimbulb....

"katy" wrote:
Seahag wrote:
Bill's 2ond. wife made one the dogs wouldn't eat...turned
out she didn't cook the noodles first!
hahahahaha...that's REALLY dimbulb....

Yeah, her covered roast chicken was a close second. Had
that sort of puffed blanched greasy skin with no seasoning
thing going on. Mind you, his mother invented the food
'deflavorizer'.

S

It's also the result of the profit motive: large
corporations are making lots of money convincing Americans
to eat more, thus becoming larger corporally.


Frank Boettcher wrote:
With all due respect, please elaborate on this. They advertise their
offerings, healthy or not, but, how do they convince Americans to eat
more?

???

This is like saying "Yes boats are bouyant and they float,
but how do they stay on top of the water?"

Statistically speaking, advertising works. Spend a bazillion
advertising on the Super Bowl, increase sales two bazillion.
Galbraith spoke quite a bit about this.

Plus, as you observe, it's not totally a question of eating
more, but what you eat and what activites you pursue.


... I believe the current thinking is that overeating is an
emotional response to something wrong or lacking in an individua'ls
life. And we all at one time or another probably qualify.

Sure. I would be better for losing a few pounds myself.

Hunger is basic drive, I don't think people must have a
screw loose to over eat. OTOH to stuff oneself with all
sorts of unhealthy things can best be explained by social
norms... it's what everybody else is doing...


... Corporate
America responsible for that? Possibly, if they've convinced us that
our lives are empty without their product(s). It requires some
individual responsibility and discipline to avoid succumbing to that
folly.


Agreed. And it used to be a common value, everybody "just
knew" that advertising was mostly lies, or at best
exaggerations. Nowadays people get offended if you question
advertised claims of products they like.



Be back later, have to run, weather's right. Planning 6.3 today. Run
30-36 miles per week. A much better solution than more regulation.

If your feet & knees can take it, yes it is.



... I
can, as you might expect, eat anything and don't gain any weight.
But, I naturally choose to avoid those things that are not good, or
more aptly, provide no room for them by choosing those that are good.
(Scotty, Spam doesn't qualify)

You just haven't had it when it's cooked right.



... I don't need the Government to tell me
what they are.

Well, nobody should, but the American parent has abdicated
to the TV and nobody can make a profit by telling you what's
healthy. Kind of the same way nobody ever lobbies Congress
to spend *less* money on any given issue.


... After all, they gave you fifty years of fake butter
with trans fats as a better choice than the real thing. And had eggs
on the taboo list for many years.


And you know what? They didn't fool me with that, not for
one minute.

DSK

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:51:31 -0500, DSK wrote:

It's also the result of the profit motive: large
corporations are making lots of money convincing Americans
to eat more, thus becoming larger corporally.


Frank Boettcher wrote:
With all due respect, please elaborate on this. They advertise their
offerings, healthy or not, but, how do they convince Americans to eat
more?

???

This is like saying "Yes boats are bouyant and they float,
but how do they stay on top of the water?"

Not a good analogy. Advertising your wares as a choice among others
does not cause an individual to buy and use"too" much of that
particular commodity just because it is advertised.

Statistically speaking, advertising works. Spend a bazillion
advertising on the Super Bowl, increase sales two bazillion.
Galbraith spoke quite a bit about this.

Plus, as you observe, it's not totally a question of eating
more, but what you eat and what activites you pursue.


... I believe the current thinking is that overeating is an
emotional response to something wrong or lacking in an individua'ls
life. And we all at one time or another probably qualify.

Sure. I would be better for losing a few pounds myself.

Hunger is basic drive, I don't think people must have a
screw loose to over eat. OTOH to stuff oneself with all
sorts of unhealthy things can best be explained by social
norms... it's what everybody else is doing...


... Corporate
America responsible for that? Possibly, if they've convinced us that
our lives are empty without their product(s). It requires some
individual responsibility and discipline to avoid succumbing to that
folly.


Agreed. And it used to be a common value, everybody "just
knew" that advertising was mostly lies, or at best
exaggerations. Nowadays people get offended if you question
advertised claims of products they like.

Not me. I don't believe any of them.



Be back later, have to run, weather's right. Planning 6.3 today. Run
30-36 miles per week. A much better solution than more regulation.

If your feet & knees can take it, yes it is.

I'm back. Went 7 because I felt good. That's how I do it. set a
target mileage and then increase or decrease it based on how I feel.

Lot's of recent studies that dispel the old myth that runners end up
with deteriorating joints. Many more recent studies indicate that
running strengthens the tendons and muscles around a joint offering it
protection from deterioration and the onset of arthritic conditions.
At worst the scale tips to nuetral on joints and with the other health
benefits......



... I
can, as you might expect, eat anything and don't gain any weight.
But, I naturally choose to avoid those things that are not good, or
more aptly, provide no room for them by choosing those that are good.
(Scotty, Spam doesn't qualify)

You just haven't had it when it's cooked right.



... I don't need the Government to tell me
what they are.

Well, nobody should, but the American parent has abdicated
to the TV and nobody can make a profit by telling you what's
healthy. Kind of the same way nobody ever lobbies Congress
to spend *less* money on any given issue.


... After all, they gave you fifty years of fake butter
with trans fats as a better choice than the real thing. And had eggs
on the taboo list for many years.


And you know what? They didn't fool me with that, not for
one minute.

DSK

Frank Boettcher wrote:
... Advertising your wares as a choice among others
does not cause an individual to buy and use"too" much of that
particular commodity just because it is advertised.


Sure. Who the heck does that? Advertises their product "as a
choice among others" that is. And a given advertisement may
or may not work on any given individual.

However, if you truly believe that the millions of dollars
Anheuser-Busch Corp spends on advertising has nothing to do
with the hundreds of millions of dollars that large numbers
of people spend on Budweiser, then you need to take a good
look at the world around you.




Lot's of recent studies that dispel the old myth that runners end up
with deteriorating joints. Many more recent studies indicate that
running strengthens the tendons and muscles around a joint offering it
protection from deterioration and the onset of arthritic conditions.
At worst the scale tips to nuetral on joints and with the other health
benefits......


Maybe yes, maybe no. Personally, I know a lot of runners...
some my age, and some younger... who are suffering badly
from deteriorating feet & knees. Maybe it's a coincidence.
Are you taking glucosamine?

DSK