Two many Fat Girls

Two many Fat Girls

Post by ultrajo.. » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 20:26:03

they give good head

Two many Fat Girls

Post by SwStudi » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:04:41

"Proctologically Violated??"

>           Is chicken "healthier" than meat?

ummmm... what exactly IS chicken, if not meat?

David (in Hamilton, ON)


Two many Fat Girls

Post by TenKMa » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:30:01


> That's because the cheapest foods are those with the most
> refined carbohydrates.

> > I also have done a fair amount of research into it
> > and am convinced.  I watch students eat top ramen and macaroni and
> > cheese which is amazingly inexpensive and a crappy diet if that is
> > exclusive meal.

Well, you said it much better than I did and you said what I was trying
to say.  It would be interesting to see how many people have ever been
really poor so that they have an understanding of the issues.  Now like
you said, choices can still be made, but those choices are really
limited when you are poor.

> Exactly.  Noodles, macaroni, donuts, pancake mix -- lots of
> refined carbs.


Two many Fat Girls

Post by Bob Becker » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 02:50:52

A Fish Story - Other Opinions

Medical, health and food safety experts advise reading past the headlines in
the new news about farmed salmon.

( officials and scientists have disputed the
conclusions of the recent study on farmed and wild salmon, published in
Science. Attached is a copy of some of those quotes.

The Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance and its members have been working
diligently and will continue to work for the elimination of contaminants
from farmed salmon and indeed the whole food chain. This is not a PCB issue
but rather one focused on turning consumers away from farmed salmon. If it
were a PCB issue then many other foods like meat, milk, poultry, etc. would
be drawn into the discussion. Experts world wide are commenting on the
benefits of farmed salmon and the misleading nature of this study.

Reading only the headlines or the first paragraph can be misleading and
nowhere is that more apparent than in the current debate about farmed salmon
and PCBs.

A new study that defines levels of PCBs has grabbed the headlines. Even
though the numbers are not new, they serve as a launching point for the
authors to give their opinions on farmed salmon consumption-Advice that is
out of tune with the facts as presented by a host of experts in medicine and
food safety, including some of the most widely experienced and respected
people in their fields.

Here is a sample of what they say in various published articles and

Officials at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Department of Fisheries &
Oceans & Food and Drug Administration disputed the study's recommendations.

"In Canada, the fish is safe," said Glenn McGregor, seafood inspector for
the CFIA. "Health Canada has been trying to promote fish as a healthy
alternative for protein, certainly not trying to restrict its intake."

As quoted in The Globe and Mail, January 9, 2004

"One thing that's very clear is that these amounts are well within CFIA
standards, which are internationally accepted standards," said Mark Burgham,
policy director of sustainable aquaculture for the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans.

As quoted in the Vancouver Province, January 9, 2004

"We certainly don't think there's a public health concern here," said Dr.
Terry Troxell, director of the agency's office of plant and dairy foods and
beverages. "Our advice to consumers is not to alter their consumption of
farmed or wild salmon."

As quoted in The New York Times, January 9, 2004

"We've looked at all the data and our advice to consumers is not to alter
their consumption of farmed or wild salmon," said Terry Troxell, director of
the FDA Centre for Food Safety and Nutrition.

"Salmon is an excellent source of Omega 3 fatty acids, vitamins and
proteins," he said. "These [contaminant] levels are extremely low and are
not of public health concern to us."

As quoted on ABC News, January 9, 2004

The Food and Drug Administration said the levels of pollutants found in
salmon are too low for serious concern. The agency urged Americans not to
let the new research, reported Thursday in the journal Science, frighten
them into a diet change.

As quoted by The Associated Press, January 9, 2004

Comments From Other Food and Health Experts

The study "will likely over-alarm people in this country," said Eric Rimm of
the Harvard School of Public Health, a specialist on nutrition and chronic
disease. "To alarm people away from fish because of some potential, at this
point undocumented, risk of long-term cancer-that does worry me."

As quoted by The Associated Press, January 9, 2004

Eric Rimm of the Harvard School of Public Health in Cambridge, Mass., points
out numbers alone may suggest farmed salmon's benefits still outweigh any
risk. One in two Americans die every year from cardiovascular disease, while
the risk of developing cancer from contaminants remains uncertain and

As quoted by Los Angeles Times, January 9, 2004

PCB's have not been proved to cause cancer in people, and industry workers
who were exposed to higher levels did not have a higher cancer rate, said
Dr. Michael Gallo of the Cancer Institute at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical

As quoted in The New York Times, January 9, 2004

Echoing many of the criticisms held by other researchers in the fields of
nutrition and toxicology, Mike Gallo of Rutgers University told Intrafish
yesterday that while the study was comprehensive in its approach, its
conclusions were faulty.

"PCBs are in all salmon. The difference between 5 ppb [parts per billion]
and 30 ppb is meaningless. If you use the EPA's mathematical model...there
is no difference," Gallo said, referring to the differing PCB levels that
the study's authors found in wild and farmed salmon.

Gallo, who said he helped to craft the EPA's cancer risk assessment model
used by the authors, remarked that it was inappropriate for the scientists
to discount the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's guidance on contaminants
in fish. The FDA has never issued a public health advisory on farmed salmon
and yesterday reiterated its position that the product is safe to several
news outlets.

"As a professor of public health, I would never tell anyone to limit their
intake of salmon," Gallo said.

As quoted on Intrafish, January 9, 2004

"No one is really sure how important these interactions are in the real
world," said Dr. Mark E. Hahn, a toxicologist at the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution who has spent 20 years working on PCB's and
dioxins, with no industry support.

But, Dr. Hahn said, if someone decides not to eat farmed salmon, then what?
"What risk are you substituting?" he asked. "What else are you going to

"I love salmon, and I eat it a couple of times a month," he said.

He read the Science paper carefully, he said, and "I'm not going to change
my eating habits."

As quoted in The New York Times, January 9, 2004

Phil Guzelian, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Head, Section of Medical
Toxicology, University of Colorado Health Sciences Centre, says the report
is largely a confirmation of previously accumulated knowledge regarding
trace amounts of chlorinated chemicals detectable in fish, in this case, in
salmon. The data show quite convincingly, as has been known for some time,
that regardless of whether the salmon are farm bred or caught wild, the
amounts of these chemicals are small indeed, being about 100 times lower
than the safe amounts recommended by the US FDA's health-based risk

In view of the lack of an evidence-based determination that these
chlorinated chemicals at such low doses are toxic to humans at all, the
Hites et al. 2003 report provides reassurance to the public to consider,
without misgivings, the reported health benefits of including salmon in the

"The nutritional benefits of salmon are pretty amazing," said Charles
Santerre, a professor of food and nutrition at Purdue University in West
Lafayette, Ind., "I strongly believe that all the data we have today
suggests that everyone should be eating more farmed salmon."

As quoted on ABC News, January 9, 2004

Charles Santerre, a food toxicologist at Purdue University, called the study
flawed because it failed to take into account the nutritional benefits of
eating salmon. He said any slightly elevated risk of cancer pales in
comparison with the advantages of consuming salmon rich with omega-3 fatty
acids, which help prevent heart attacks.

Even an increase in farmed salmon consumption, he said, is a worthwhile
trade-off in the fight against heart disease, American's No. 1 killer. "I
would calculate 6,000 people getting cancer over their lifetime, that's an
approximation, versus potentially saving the lives of 100,000 individuals
every year."

Furthermore, Santerre said, the levels of contaminants detected in the study
show salmon to be perfectly safe, as is recognized by the FDA.

As quoted in The Los Angeles Times, January 9, 2004


> > Salmon's not good for you either unless it's wild.

> Yeah, I read recently that the farm-raised salmon is fed a lot of ***
> fish that's loaded with PCBs. Does anyone have more info on this topic?


Two many Fat Girls

Post by Mike Kruge » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 02:57:29


> That's because the cheapest foods are those with the most
> refined carbohydrates.

> > I also have done a fair amount of research into it
> > and am convinced.  I watch students eat top ramen and macaroni and
> > cheese which is amazingly inexpensive and a crappy diet if that is the
> > exclusive meal.

> Exactly.  Noodles, macaroni, donuts, pancake mix -- lots of
> refined carbs.

> Oatmeal is a nice, cheap base (although it's probably GMO) to which
> to add fresh or canned fruit and yogurt.

That's a nice post, Tom.
It's a good reminder that there are cheap carb's that aren't over-refined
simple carbs (generally white flour based). Oatmeal is a fine example: it's
mostly more complex carbohydrates that take longer to digest (i.e. different
glycemic index) and include some useful fiber (aka oat bran).

In the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that I worked for the
Quaker Oats Company in the early 1980's.


Two many Fat Girls

Post by MJuri » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 04:33:04


>>>Maybe it's all the cheese and brats Wisconsin's putting out, Then the
>>>corn from Iowa.

>>I can tell you what it is, I think.  Out here, there's a bit of the
>>vegetarianism/health food bug, which infects even meat-eaters like me, so we
>>mix our diets well.  And there's a bit more of the exercise bug -- you've
>>seen so many aerobics studios, martial arts studios, and fitness clubs.  And
>>the Midwest "steak and potatoes" diet is not our everyday meal -- it might be
>>meal for every 2 or 3 weeks.  My folks are Indiana farm-bred people, and yet
>>have experimented (in the past) with vegetarianism and fasting.  California
>>welcomes kooks like me without making us feel like the freaks we probably

>Probably more of a cultural and social thing.  Yes, the people in Wisconsin,
>Minnesota and such are, uh, call them "supersized."  But, every year one
>magazine (Men's Health?) does a contest about the fattest place in America.
>The proverbial winner?   Houston, and usually half of their top ten is from
>Texas.  OTOH, one of the fittest places is.....Seattle.

>More about Seattle.  My in-laws are in the San Juan Islands northwest of
>Seattle.  I've been both places a lot, and I know that there are a lot of fit,
>attractive women right in the Seattle area (I'm not too inclined to look at the
>men :(  But, if you get into the outlining areas in Washington State far enough
>from Seattle that people don't go to Seattle socially, the people let
>themselves go, just like those in, say, Wisconsin.  Note, places like Anacortes
>and Friday Harbor have health clubs, and even the President of USATF (Bill Roe)
>is from this area, but the people there don't have any pressure and they don't

>The same cultural issue was the case in Boston (where I went to grad school),
>and it's even more true here in South Orange County, CA.  There's a lot of
>social pressure on the women here to be in "bikini shape."  So my health club
>is about 70% women.  The number of women who are out there 3-5 days a week on
>treadmills, stairmaster, and spinning classes?  A whole bunch.  Same thing with
>my running club: There was actually a President's Comment entitled, "We've got
>too many babes."  But, an equivalent test of male fitness would be doing
>multiple sets on the bench at 225-plus: NFL teams test draft choices by how
>many reps at 225 they can do.  So how many guys in the gym do I see doing sets
>at 225+?  About 4 or 5, including me.  Two of us are over 50 (and we're both
>married, he's a power lifter, I'm a sprinter), and one is a personal trainer in
>the gym.  Because the men don't seem to have the same social pressure to be in
>great shape (to go dating).  Most of the young guys seem to be too weak to lift
>a wet noodle.  The OP complaining about fat girls might want to think about

>"Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!"  --US Olympic Track Coach
>Brooks Johnson

        I think we have ALOT of fat guys here too. Just seems that
most of them are a bit more concerned about showing it off. Seems the
"stigma" of being fat has stuck with the guys but seems to be wearing
off of the girls.
        I also think you hit the nail on the head that social
pressures of being in "bikini shape" are much more present on the
coasts and in the southern portion of the states than in the middle
here. We spend 1/4 of the year bundled in so many cloths you couldn't
tell a super model from a super size, another half is spent in enough
cloths to keep all but the extremely overweight indistinguishable from
an anorexic and only about a 1/4 of the year is warm enough to wear
anything truly "reveling". On top of that we don't have nearly the
amount of places to go that one would normally wear a bikini or skin



Two many Fat Girls

Post by Don Kirkma » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:07:13

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Doug Freese wrote in article


>> It is not only a failure of parents, but even more so of the schools.
>You hit one of the nails on the head Kerry!!!! The coke, Pepsi,
>chips and shit foods are firmly implanted in the schools and the
>schools make money to offset the budget. This takes the finger point
>to an even higher level, to our government's lip service to
>education and Bubba Bush's "no kid left behind,"  is political
>Schools are the place to break this cycle and we treat schools like
>a necessary evil.
>> The importance of physical education has been consistently played down
>> over the years, and such physical education as has been promoted is
>> largely organized around competitive sports.  Almost entirely lacking
>> has been cultivation of fitness pursuits and healthy lifestyle habits,
>> especially diet and exercise.  The dividends of our failure to
>> incorporate this instruction in the curriculum of every child is
>> plainly evident in our population.
>> IMO, physical education ranks with english and math as the most
>And so does music, debate etc. Those courses that get sliced so we
>can get to Mars or build bigger, better, best bombs. I'm far from
>liberal but I think we have a ***ed up sense of priorities. Giving
>every one a few bucks back only buys votes and creates a deficit
>bigger than Ronnie and daddy Bush. If you're going  to steal from
>Social Security at least put it into education. Ok, rant over.....
>for a minute or so.
>> fundamental of subjects and should be required of all students.  But I
>> somehow doubt we shall ever see the day when this is implemented by
>> our schools.  So for the forseeable future, the best I can say is...
>> get used to seeing the fat.  It will be everywhere you look...
>We will continue to produce fatter, unhealthier, and dumber kids
>and then wonder why other countries kick our technological ass. Of
>course arms is always the exception. :(

And to spread the blame let's not forgot all the voters in all the
states who have consistently wanted their taxes cut in the past few
decades, with no concept of a healthy, well educated, mutually
supportive population living in a nation with a modern infrastructure.


Two many Fat Girls

Post by Dot » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 12:15:50

Something I forgot to mention about the study only comparing wild
Pacific with farmed Atlantic: at least one web site indicated that wild
Atlantic may have the same contaminants as the farmed ones because they
may be feeding on the same contaminated materials that pass through the
North Sea, that is not related to what's being fed them. Similarly
farmed Pacific salmon may not have as many contaminants as Atlantic.
Some pages did indicate the farmers were trying to clean up the feed,
which I would take as an acknowledgement that it could be better.

Also, there's 2 standards for allowable contaminants. EPA standards
relate to the environmental conditions. If exceeded, then they recommend
you shouldn't eat xxx fish from yyy location more than zzz time / month
or whatever.  This is a much lower limit than the FDA allowance, which
is for human consumption. I didn't look into it far enough to verify,
but it's very  probable that at least one of those limits (possibly
both) is pulled from thin air and not on any studies (extrapolating from
experience in another field). The Science study used EPA limits (the
more stringent), not FDA.

Shopping summary:

You guys either may have nothing to worry about or have to do your own
homework. Just about everything in our grocery store was Alaskan salmon
- duh!  The only thing not labeled was the small tuna-fish sized cans.
The larger cans, frozen salmon, and smoked salmon were all Alaskan - and
the frozen and smoked salmon both had Alaska-grown/made logos on them
(must meet certain requirements to display Alaska grown or made logos).
Things that are king (coho) or red (sockeye) seem to be labelled as such
- premium quality. Some pink was also identified. Many frozen types
weren't labelled, so I'm assuming were probably pink or one of the other
low quality. If you look at nutrient tables, you'll see there are
different levels of nutrients in the different ones, with the kings and
reds being the earlier season fish and higher in nutrients (not sure if
this is coincidence or cause/effect). Locally, kings, reds, and silvers
are the prized species.


"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope


Two many Fat Girls

Post by Dot » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 12:17:58


> The same cultural issue was the case in Boston (where I went to grad school),
> and it's even more true here in South Orange County, CA.  There's a lot of
> social pressure on the women here to be in "bikini shape."  So my health club
> is about 70% women.  The number of women who are out there 3-5 days a week on
> treadmills, stairmaster, and spinning classes?  A whole bunch.  Same thing with
> my running club:

I couldn't help but think of this thread this morning when we finished
our cross-training group. It's people wanting to be better runners and
is about 3/4 women - some very competitive, some just fun runners. When
we finish up about 9am, their regular members start filtering in to use
the equipment. I've only seen men come in at that time, and the ones
this morning were particularly, well, super-sized ;)

Another perspective on the pct of women working out: Could it be that
the women tend to workout indoors while men workout outdoors - at least
in your case? Or women workout in groups, men as loners? Or women are
working hard at being better runners or whatever and the guys are
mushing or mountain climbing or repairing house or watching tv? ;) Same
observation, different interpretation. When I'm out running or mt biking
on trails or road, I really am more likely to run into women than men
around here, although it's about even on the mountain. Don't know if
it's different in the big city or not.

Snowshoe club a couple weeks ago was about half and half, but led by a
woman (who BTW won the Resurrection Pass 50 during the summer -
outright). Temperatures were about -20F or so.

I have no idea why there's only a women's running team (used to have
some minimal speed or distance requirements but doesn't anymore) out
where I live - no men's team/club or coed.

And I don't think it has anything to do with bikinis here ;)


"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope


Two many Fat Girls

Post by Radioactive Ma » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:00:16

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:04:31 -0500, "Proctologically Violated??"


>         TenKMan is essentially correct.  It turns out that almost all
>vegetables/fruits are significantly more expensive than meat, PER CALORIE.
>Asparagus, per calorie, is thru the roof.  There are only a few vegetables
>that are substantially cheaper than meat, per calorie: potatoes, corn, rice,
>and some beans.  Do the math.
>          Now the question is, of the "cheap foods", which are the best?
>Clearly more information leads to better/more economical choices, but still,
>"good quality" food is by no means cheap. Goddamm salmon costs a fortune.
>          But rice is likely the saving grace.  Unbeknownst to most people,
>it is in fact a complete protein, just not as dense as meat--which is in
>fact a very, very good thing, the opinion of bodybuilding 'roidheads
>notwithstanding.  Also, there are some studies floating around suggesting
>the protein in rice has some extra benefits, altho they slip my mind.

Two problems with rice:  (1) very little protein or fiber content,
even though what little protein it has may be complete (2) high
glycemic index of most types of rice.

>          Is chicken "healthier" than meat?  Maybe.  But more important than
>the type of meat is the *cut* of the meat.  Most meats, chosen properly, can
>be quite lean.  Just have to choose yer hormone.
>          Excess protein, IMO, is more of a villian than fat.  And not just
>my opinion, but of knowledgeable biochemists/physiologists/epidemiologists.

And worst of all is excessive intake of rapidly digestible (high GI)
carbs, like white bread and potatoes.  These are only useful
immediately after strenous exercise.
>Fat is an easier target, tho.
>Mr. P.V.'d
>formerly Droll Troll

>> >Actually not true even at home.  Try making a nice salad with romaine
>> >lettuce, spinach, carrots, and tomatoes.  Then eat fish once a week and
>> >maybe pasta and grilled chicken ***s.  It is more expensive to eat
>> >healthy than cheap and fatty.

>> What of that group is expensive? Chicken ***s are not at the
>> expensive end of the meats and there are a lot of fish that are
>> relatively cheap. If you aren't buying prepared foods or precut meats
>> designed to look pretty int the package and overcharge as a result,
>> healthy eating is no more expensive than 'regular' eating.

>> And the more expensive 'steak' fish are by and large the least
>> healthy. Hate that, because I love tuna steak and wish it would count
>> for something...

>> Picking through the few healthy fast food items is also no more
>> expensive - it just often isn't what you expect without a score card.
>> Know some people that buy the fully loaded McDonalds filet sandwiches
>> and think they are eating healthy.

>> Curtis L. Russell
>> Odenton, MD (USA)
>> Just someone on two wheels...