Re: Re: report on WAPF conference 2003

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>Did you click on the thumbnail? Click on it to get the larger version.

Yeah, I was talking about the larger version. 400x381 is plenty of

resolution for one or two people, or even a few, but not 11.

-

[Guest guest]

>Did you click on the thumbnail? Click on it to get the larger version.

>>>Yeah, I was talking about the larger version. 400x381 is plenty of

resolution for one or two people, or even a few, but not 11.

---->click on that one too and you'll get a larger version. I can see

everyone quite clearly in that third (largest) image. The problem is that

compresses it weirdly and causes pixelation regardless of the size.

I'm also wondering what rez you've got your monitor set to...? I have one

monitor at 800x600 (standard) and one at 1024xx768 (high). I can see the

photo just fine at both resolutions, as would the majority of web users

(since most have their settings at 800x600). If your monitor's set higher

than 1024, then everything would appear rather small.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

-

Just wanted to say I agree completely.

Also, I'm endlessly depressed by all the talk in the political arena of

prescription drug coverage. I wish someone would talk about making people

healthier and getting them off prescription drugs!

>Economics discussions might seem off-topic but I feel that economy is

>the morphogenic field for culture and food systems, and trying to change

>the American diet without focusing on economic transformation is like

>trying to reverse-engineer the car from an old hubcap. Anyway if there

>is interest I would love to see this become a part of our discussions

>here and more widely in the Foundation.

-

[Guest guest]

Mine came out on my comp. ok, but I'll have doubles at least and can make more

of my picture when I get it developed, so if anyone wants one...

Chris

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>click on that one too and you'll get a larger version.

Unless my browser's not working right, 400x381 is the biggest version there.

>If your monitor's set higher

>than 1024, then everything would appear rather small.

My monitor is set to 1280x1024, but I magnified the photo several times

over. I was exaggerating when I said I wouldn't recognize _any_ of the

people in the photo on the street, but each head gets about 45x50 pixels,

which just isn't much, especially for a photo not taken under studio

conditions.

Not that any of this is a big deal; I've no doubt spent way too much time

pestering you about it.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/8/03 7:54:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> ------>we should start passing out barf bags ;-) 's 38

Right on the money! I guessed 28 when I saw her!

and I just>

> turned 40. (oh where did the years all go?)

I had a better guess on you since you said you were " a few years " younger

than my mom, although I was still thinking 30s after that for some reason...

but if it makes you feel any better, I'll have you know my mom informed me

yesterday she's actually 44. I had no idea... lol... I think there's

something wrong with that.

> ----->no...no, not *chubby*, but more *WAPish*! LOL

lol... well you said your face was getting bigger but you think that's just

because you put on a few pounds lol... WAPish is good!

although i seem to be>

> losing weight now, and usually my face is one of the first parts to thin

> down :-( i have some photos from when i was in Germany at age 16/17. the

> food was so great there that I was heavier than i've ever been (all that

> starch!) - i was 140 lbs. at approx. 5'6 " - just a little hefty. but, when

> i

> look at my face - it was nicely WAPish in width, although my nostrils are

> relatively narrow. If only i could have that face at my current more normal

> weight! LOL

i'd like to have some wider nostrils, ear canals, bottom palate, and maybe if

it's not too much a larger bladder, healthier adrenals, etc, etc, etc. i

kind of wonder how healthy these " ideal " weights we have in our society are.

kind of off-topic more serious for a minute... my now ex-girlfriend , who's

right around 5' complained about her weight at 115, which she had gained 10

pounds to get to over the last year or so. but she looks much healthier to

me now, especially her breasts-- not making a distasteful sexual comment

here, just talking health-wise. she complains about her wide hips too, but i

doubt she'll be complaining when she has children and pops them out in less

time with less pain than the average woman. i myself am so glad that since

i've been working out i've started gaining *fat*. forget muscle, i started

working out to gain fat, because of a theory i had about rebalancing my

endocrine system. a woman in child-bearing years by my guess might need to

be a little more plump to be healthy than we consider " good-looking. " i

wonder.

> but thanks for your attempt at nauseating comments :-P LOL

>

always glad to be of service! :-)

Chris

>

>

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

I gained 7 or 8 pounds in a month of working out, and I didn't have to eat

starch or sugar-- I just had to eat 5-6000 calories a day!

Someone before mentioned they ate 3000 calories a day, and someone else

thought it sounded excessive. I think 3000 is normal for a semi-active,

moderate-height male, maybe excessive for a moderate-height or short female.

I think I ate about 3-4000 before and 4-5000 now on days I don't work out and

6000 on days I work out.

Thankfully Sondra (my ex-girlfriend) is not concerned enough with her weight

to do some horrible starvation diet or go back to being a vegetarian. She

feels a lot better now and can see better at night, and I think she values

that over her weight.

Chris

In a message dated 5/8/03 9:26:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> ----->oh, i agree with you about ideal weights. But in *my* case...for me to

> maintain the weight I had in Germany, I'd have to start eating massive

> quantities of starch and sugar, which is pretty much what i did there. I

> ate

> a chocolate bar *every* day, had bread with *every* meal, IIRC, and other

> starchy snacks often. Now, when I'm eating what I think is a more 'natural'

> diet for myself, my weight seems to hold between 120-130. i gained ten

> pounds this winter (up to 130). But last summer, i was *trying* to gain

> weight and it just wouldn't stay on, now matter how much I ate. So, i'm

> guessing this range is my 'natural' range when eating a more 'natural'

> traditional diet (and not a ton of starchy, sugary foods).

>

> i remember looking through fashion mags when i was a teen and the models

> were all pencil thin. we all thought that was beautiful (which is what they

> wanted us to think of course). my friend became anorexic, and i did a

> starvation diet for about a year at age 18, while working from dusk til

> dawn

> on a lobster boat. which is basically heavy lifting for 12 hours/day! i

> stopped menstruating for a year or so, and was hungry and irritable the

> whole time. now i look back and think how insane that was. and now i find

> thin to appear unhealthy, *unless* it is someone's natural physique. and i

> think i can usually tell. sometimes it gets really irritating to look at

> hollywood actresses and see a bunch of twigs with big puffy slug lips

> (looks

> like a slug was inserted just under the skin of their lips) and

> artificially

> swollen breasts. even a lot of the female newscasters seem to have the slug

> lips. what a mixed message - be skinny, but have a few select features be

> abnormally swollen. some of them look like caricatures.

>

> so, this is what a lot of young girls try to emulate :-( and when i look at

> women in primitive/traditional societies, they bear absolutely no

> resemblence to this modern american standard of feminine beauty.

>

>

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

>>>>i feel left out because i don't know anybody's age so can't make more

nauseating comments.

------>we should start passing out barf bags ;-) 's 38, and I just

turned 40. (oh where did the years all go?)

>>>>>and suze, i don't think your face looks chubby (which you claim to have

gained weight in?).

----->no...no, not *chubby*, but more *WAPish*! LOL although i seem to be

losing weight now, and usually my face is one of the first parts to thin

down :-( i have some photos from when i was in Germany at age 16/17. the

food was so great there that I was heavier than i've ever been (all that

starch!) - i was 140 lbs. at approx. 5'6 " - just a little hefty. but, when i

look at my face - it was nicely WAPish in width, although my nostrils are

relatively narrow. If only i could have that face at my current more normal

weight! LOL

but thanks for your attempt at nauseating comments :-P LOL

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>>>>>My monitor is set to 1280x1024,

----->OK, you've got your monitor set to a considerably higher resolution

than the vast majority of web users, and all things on the web will appear

significantly smaller to you than to most others, also depending on the

dimensions of your monitor. I think most websites are designed with the idea

that the majority of users will be viewing it in 800x600 rez. When i design

sites, I aim for the 800x600 crowd, but do consider the 1024x768 crowd as

well. but I don't give thought to the 1280x1024, as all the web stats i've

looked at indicate this is a miniscule portion of web users. Just thought

you might be interested to know that :-) On occassion I'll set my largest

monitor to 1280x1024, but everything appears so small that it hurts my eyes

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

although i seem to be>

> losing weight now, and usually my face is one of the first parts to thin

> down :-( i have some photos from when i was in Germany at age 16/17. the

> food was so great there that I was heavier than i've ever been (all that

> starch!) - i was 140 lbs. at approx. 5'6 " - just a little hefty. but, when

> i

> look at my face - it was nicely WAPish in width, although my nostrils are

> relatively narrow. If only i could have that face at my current more

normal

> weight! LOL

>>>>>i'd like to have some wider nostrils, ear canals, bottom palate, and

maybe if

it's not too much a larger bladder, healthier adrenals, etc, etc, etc.

----->LOL! oh me too. that larger bladder would really come in handy. <G>

>>>>i kind of wonder how healthy these " ideal " weights we have in our

society are.

kind of off-topic more serious for a minute... my now ex-girlfriend , who's

right around 5' complained about her weight at 115, which she had gained 10

pounds to get to over the last year or so. but she looks much healthier to

me now, especially her breasts-- not making a distasteful sexual comment

here, just talking health-wise. she complains about her wide hips too, but

i

doubt she'll be complaining when she has children and pops them out in less

time with less pain than the average woman.

----->oh, i agree with you about ideal weights. But in *my* case...for me to

maintain the weight I had in Germany, I'd have to start eating massive

quantities of starch and sugar, which is pretty much what i did there. I ate

a chocolate bar *every* day, had bread with *every* meal, IIRC, and other

starchy snacks often. Now, when I'm eating what I think is a more 'natural'

diet for myself, my weight seems to hold between 120-130. i gained ten

pounds this winter (up to 130). But last summer, i was *trying* to gain

weight and it just wouldn't stay on, now matter how much I ate. So, i'm

guessing this range is my 'natural' range when eating a more 'natural'

traditional diet (and not a ton of starchy, sugary foods).

i remember looking through fashion mags when i was a teen and the models

were all pencil thin. we all thought that was beautiful (which is what they

wanted us to think of course). my friend became anorexic, and i did a

starvation diet for about a year at age 18, while working from dusk til dawn

on a lobster boat. which is basically heavy lifting for 12 hours/day! i

stopped menstruating for a year or so, and was hungry and irritable the

whole time. now i look back and think how insane that was. and now i find

thin to appear unhealthy, *unless* it is someone's natural physique. and i

think i can usually tell. sometimes it gets really irritating to look at

hollywood actresses and see a bunch of twigs with big puffy slug lips (looks

like a slug was inserted just under the skin of their lips) and artificially

swollen breasts. even a lot of the female newscasters seem to have the slug

lips. what a mixed message - be skinny, but have a few select features be

abnormally swollen. some of them look like caricatures.

so, this is what a lot of young girls try to emulate :-( and when i look at

women in primitive/traditional societies, they bear absolutely no

resemblence to this modern american standard of feminine beauty.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>>>>and i did a starvation diet for about a year at age 18, while working

from dusk til dawn on a lobster boat.

----->that's not clear...i worked on the boat for about *4 months* during my

starvation year - not the *whole* year.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Dennis,

The current Wise Traditions mentions Tufts Nutrition Navigator as a possible

reason why the porn-filtering software that public schools in the US bars

both westonaprice.org and realmilk.com!

I read the message board from The International Network of Cholesterol

Skeptics a while back and one of the docs suggested a contest to see who's

cholesterol was the highest, adding " mine's 300! "

These foods cause a raise in cholesterol and a lowering of cholesterol in

some and others. I wouldn't bother checking it except for amusement. The

Masai eat nothing but meat blood and milk and average in the 120s for total

cholesterol, and they're fine, while an American of European descent would

probably be plagued by depression, anxiety disorders, etc, etc, if their

cholesterol was that low. My opinion is that what's " normal " is up to

individual genetics and impossible to determine an appropriate range, and

cholesterol levels should therefore be ignored, especially in the absence of

other problems.

Chris

In a message dated 5/9/03 7:54:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

dkemnitz2000@... writes:

> ---I was informed by the Veteran's Administration Doc yesterday my

> cholesterol is high at 235 mg/dL. HDL was 46 mg/dL and LDL direct

> KC,EK was 160 mg/dl. The Doc immediately says, " I'm going to put you

> on something....your liver is good...I'll give you ZOCOR. " I told him

> I didn't want it and further told him I wanted to talk with the

> nutritionist. The dietician informed me butter, lard, coconut oil

> and fatty meats cause high cholesterol. And further, she recommends

> canola and soy oil. Then I told her about WAPF. And she looked us up

> on nutritionnavigator.tufts.....It gave WAPF a poor score on research

> technique or research used or something like that. Anyone know what

> number is high cholesterol in WAPF land? Any of you ever heard of

> nutritionnavigator? They apparently determine who the quacks are.

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

>The current Wise Traditions mentions Tufts Nutrition Navigator as a possible

>reason why the porn-filtering software that public schools in the US bars

>both westonaprice.org and realmilk.com!

There seems to be a movement on to gain more government control

over the Internet. There is a move in Congress to move the Internet lines

from the phone company to the multi-media companies, which would

consolidate the providers. It is kind of scary. One of the tenets of PNAC

is to " gain control of the Internet commons. " I'm not sure what can be

done about it (the Internet started as a Navy project!) but the Internet

has grown to be a powerful political force. It is likely the freedom of

the Internet that helped bring down the Soviet Union (all those folks

could read something besides the gov't propaganda).

Interesting that they would filter out realmilk and WAPF though.

Personally I'm rebelling against the " big corporate " economy by

buying as little as possible from them!

Heidi S

[Guest guest]

-

Thanks! Any idea what the pricing is likely to be?

>Yep - they audio and video taped the talks. The contact # is: (610) 923

>9287 for video/dvd, (845)679-6885 for audio. We hope to make them

>available at some point as well....

-

[Guest guest]

>No, not likely. " Those folks " got access to the Internet (and still

>in much less numbers than in the USA) only quite recently... well

>after the Soviet Union became an " ex " . Gorbachev started the process

>that allowed people to go to other countries and publish their stuff

>more openly.

>

>Roman

??? I'll have to look it up, I guess. I was reading about it about the

time the Berlin wall fell, but I don't remember where.

Heidi S

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/9/03 10:52:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

dkemnitz2000@... writes:

> --- I'm glad you mentioned the Masai diet. That reminded me I

> need to point out I'm not eating a strict NT diet. Perhaps I can use

> this as a motivator to eliminate more of those processed carbs. Dennis

>

In that case, Dennis, fructose is the number one precursor to cholesterol.

High LDL cholesterol can be bad depending on why it's there. If you do eat a

lot of processed carbs they might be responsible for the cholesterol.

Chris

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

>>>>These foods cause a raise in cholesterol and a lowering of cholesterol

in

some and others. I wouldn't bother checking it except for amusement.

--------->i just wanted to add, that Schwarzbein, the Ottobonis (cholesterol

skeptics) and I think Ravnskov mention that *dietary* cholesterol only

minimally impacts *plasma* cholesterol - raising it only a few percentage

points at most. BUT, Schwarzbein states that excess dietary *carbohydrates*

can really impact plasma cholesterol levels, because, among other things,

the liver converts excess carbs into cholesterol. haven't you mentioned more

than once that you eat quite a bit of carbs? (although there are other

things that can increase cholesterol levels, too.)

....bingo! i just read your follow-up email to chris stating you eat too many

refined carbs...

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Chris-

Is there any solid, mainstream documentation of this? My girlfriend is

extremely worried about her " high " cholesterol (down to 230 from 260 last

time it was checked, though she sorta kinda gave up on the diet her idiotic

VA doctors told her to follow so it's probably back up again) and she eats

and especially drinks lots of things sweetened with fructose (like Vitamin

Water and Pepsi). She seems willing to consider trying to replace some of

the sugar with ultra-lean or nonfat protein, which is better than nothing,

but maybe this would give her a nudge.

>fructose is the number one precursor to cholesterol.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/10/03 11:38:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Is there any solid, mainstream documentation of this? My girlfriend is

> extremely worried about her " high " cholesterol (down to 230 from 260 last

> time it was checked, though she sorta kinda gave up on the diet her idiotic

>

> VA doctors told her to follow so it's probably back up again) and she eats

> and especially drinks lots of things sweetened with fructose (like Vitamin

> Water and Pepsi). She seems willing to consider trying to replace some of

> the sugar with ultra-lean or nonfat protein, which is better than nothing,

> but maybe this would give her a nudge.

Came from somewhere associated with THINCS... don't have a reference

unfortunately. Maybe someone else does. I vaguely remember someone

explaining the biochemical pathway at the conference but it was tangential to

the lecture so I didn't take it down. Sorry.

Chris

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

>Chris-

>

>Is there any solid, mainstream documentation of this?  My girlfriend is

>extremely worried about her " high " cholesterol (down to 230 from 260 last

>time it was checked, though she sorta kinda gave up on the diet her idiotic

>VA doctors told her to follow so it's probably back up again) and she eats

>and especially drinks lots of things sweetened with fructose (like Vitamin

>Water and Pepsi).  She seems willing to consider trying to replace some of

>the sugar with ultra-lean or nonfat protein, which is better than nothing,

>but maybe this would give her a nudge.

>

>>fructose is the number one precursor to cholesterol.

>-

Fran Mc Cullough in The Good Fat Cookbook says high fructose corn syrup

increases triglycerides. Don't understand all the processes to cholesterol but

do know this is bad blood fat.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

---I was informed by the Veteran's Administration Doc yesterday my

cholesterol is high at 235 mg/dL. HDL was 46 mg/dL and LDL direct

KC,EK was 160 mg/dl. The Doc immediately says, " I'm going to put you

on something....

>>>Yeah this is a high level and depending on your age somthing to be

worried

about.

---------------->no, no, no, no, no!! LOL Please read The Cholesterol Myths

before buying the notion that a) 235 is something to worry about and that

cholesterol levels really have anything to to with CHD.

(http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm)

>>>>So I went to get a 3D CAT scan which shows a computerized 3D image of

the

heart and arteries and the amount of plaque build-up. I showed %0 plaque

build-up so I was good to go no problems. Theres nothing like physically

seeing clean arteries for peace of mind.

------>this is odd, because i've read, and one of the speakers at the

conference mentioned, that *everyone* has *some* plaque, even babies. not

sure if it's true and also not sure if that would be true of *WAP's

primitives*.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/10/03 1:21:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> ------>this is odd, because i've read, and one of the speakers at the

> conference mentioned, that *everyone* has *some* plaque, even babies. not

> sure if it's true and also not sure if that would be true of *WAP's

> primitives*.

Have no idea if this is true or not, but on a similar note, I just listened

to a tape by some PhD guy that Wayne gave me, and he said that arterial

plaque occurs as the body's response to heal damaged epithelial lining (or

something, probably wrong adjective, i forget). He then went on to say *but*

it puts in cholesterol and all this bad stuff. The point of his speech was

that we should prevent plaque not by limiting what plaque is made of, but by

supplying the nutrients necessary to prevent the damage that plaque fixes.

This helped me understand why smokers have more heart attacks-- because it is

abrasive against the blood vessels and requires plaque to fix them.

This puts plaque in a whole new light for me. Plaque is not bad, it's *good*

because it prevents you from dying right then and there (though it may cause

you to die later in life). It's just that something broken and then fixed is

never as good as something never broken.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>>>This is what they had to say about WAPF:

----->and this is probably one of the *kinder* reviews the WAPF has received

from a mainstream nutrition org. LOL!

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

>>>> Is there any solid, mainstream documentation of this? My girlfriend is

> extremely worried about her " high " cholesterol (down to 230 from 260 last

> time it was checked, though she sorta kinda gave up on the diet her

idiotic

>

> VA doctors told her to follow so it's probably back up again) and she eats

> and especially drinks lots of things sweetened with fructose (like Vitamin

> Water and Pepsi). She seems willing to consider trying to replace some of

> the sugar with ultra-lean or nonfat protein, which is better than nothing,

> but maybe this would give her a nudge.

---->,

In " The Modern Nutritional Diseases and How to Prevent Them " the Ottobonis

discuss this. They have a diagram on p. 86 showing how fructose is

metabolized to cholesterol and body fat. They also mention a study in which

dietary fructose in healthy subjects was associated with a high level of

plasma triglycerides.

As an interesting aside in regards to heart disease, the Ottobonis write:

" Recent reports confirm that diets high in refined carbohydrates (high

glycemic indices) contribute to an increased risk of coronary heart disease.

In one such report, for example, a study of more than 75,000 women over a

10-year period found that the glycemic load of the diet increased the risk

of coronary heart disease, independent of any known coronary heart disease

risk factors (8). " (p.88)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Chris-

Not even necessarily that. After all, don't broken limbs generally heal to

be stronger than they were before at the site of the break? I think it's

just that the modern, agriculturalized and refined diet keeps on breaking

and breaking and breaking the same things over and over again until the

whole system collapses.

>It's just that something broken and then fixed is

>never as good as something never broken.

-