On 9/16/2015 10:44 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 9/16/2015 7:12 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 2:22:33 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

I've known a few people who've taken the "early exit". It's easy to see
the affect their departure has on those left behind. But, it also
suggests the pain they must have been in to take that option.

As I'm not qualified to help any of those survivors "heal", I'd be
equally
unqualified at "fixing" whatever problem the "victim" may have had --
assuming he/she was willing to make that problem *visible* to me!

Me and my siblings inherited depression from our mother and had to
learn how
to beat it. I spent some time on the phone with a friend a while back who
was going through a very rough patch in his life and had descended into a
deep depression. He owns his own business and his knees were as torn
up as
mine making it difficult for him to work and his wife had experience a
heart
attack and she was unable to work. On top of that, he was being
hounded by
creditors. I spent the time to explain the way I beat depression. I
told him
to get mad at the depression monster(no pun) and tell that SOB it wasn't
going to beat him, to be stubborn, fight it at every turn and don't
give up.
When I called him later to check up on him, he told me that the
strategy had
worked and he was climbing out of that well I'd warned him not to get

What if it hadn't? What if he heard your words and decided he didn't have
"that" in him? And, as a result, hastened his decision? How do you
*know* your "treatment" will present an improvement/cure and not
precipitate the very event you are trying to avoid?

trapped in. You don't have to be a psychologist with a fancy diploma
hanging
on the wall, all you have to be is a human being who's willing to lend an
ear and be a friend. I've lost too many friends to suicide because I
had no
idea how much pain they were in and I wish I could have gotten them some
help or at least talked to them about what was troubling them so much
that
they thought suicide was the only way out. I'm not going to stand by
and do
nothing because I never want to see it happen again. 8-(

SWMBO had a friend she kept in contact with (after moving ~1500 miles).
The few times that *I* answered her calls, I'd invariably grumble to
myself "drunk, again!" as I'd hear her partially slurred speech (her
friend was a HEAVY drinker; a bottle of wine with each meal was *nothing*
to her!).

Years later, when she was Dx'd with ALS, I was angry with myself -- NOT
for thinking her a drunk (she *was* a drunk!) but, rather, for not
picking up on the fact that she might NOT have been "drunk" during each
of those phone calls; the speech problem may have been an early consequence
of the ALS manifesting in her motor skills. Surely, *I* should have been
able to spot this FOR her, right?

After quite a while of beating myself up over this, I finally realized:
hey, I'm not there. I'm not her doctor. I'm not one of the friends
that she interacts with on a weekly basis IN PERSON (to see whether
or not she is drinking while her speech is impaired). In short, *I*
was not QUALIFIED to make that Dx. If I want to be angry, I should
be angry that her close, nearby friends hadn't picked up on this aspect
of her behavior and suggested she look into it! I'm not responsible
for *her* health and well-being.

Had I made the obvious comment: "I see you've been drinking again..."
it would have either been met with an *honest* denial (assuming she truly
was stone cold sober and the slurring was a sign of "something else" --
ALS)
*or* a denial that was (or that I would consider) to be a lie because
she didn't want to admit (to herself?) that she had a drinking problem
("Hey, it's Friday evening! So I decided to have a couple of glasses
of wine... at least I'm not out DRIVING! Give me a break!!")

People are responsible for their own welfare and actions. Close
friends/family
can try to influence their actions, in that regard. But, its still up
to the individual to "get themselves fixed". Pulling that "jumper" off
the ledge doesn't mean he won't try again tomorrow -- after verifying that
you are NOT nearby to "interfere"!

I think if someone wants to do themselves in they won't do it where
anyone is around to stop them.

--
Maggie

On 9/16/2015 6:03 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 9/16/2015 6:34 PM, Muggles wrote:

Smoking wreaks, literally.


wreak
[reek]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

verb (used with object)
1.
to inflict or execute (punishment, vengeance, etc.):
They wreaked havoc on the enemy.
2.
to carry out the promptings of (one's rage, ill humor, will, desire,
etc.), as on a victim or object:
He wreaked his anger on the office staff.




hmmm Don't you think cigarette smoke/smoking wreaks havoc?

--
Maggie

On 9/16/2015 4:03 PM, Muggles wrote:

[attrs snipped]

Also note, N. American doctors prescribe more drugs than any other in
the world.

I suspect you'll find that Americans *want* "pills" over other, less
expensive (but more *committed*) treatments. E.g., you don't need a pill
to lose weight -- you just have to *burn* more calories than you
*consume*! Ah, but that means you can't have second helpings of that
meal that tastes *so* good (because it has lots of sugar and fat!).

You can bring modest hyperlipidemia under control with diet and
exercise -- instead of resorting to drugs.

You can control much type 2 diabetes (esp "pre-diabetes") with exercise,
weight loss and diet -- instead of resorting to drugs.

I just had a check up this morning and my Dr. told me that while my A1C
was great that my bs was slightly elevated and that I was definitely
diabetic (type 2) and he wanted me to take the metformin even though my
bs is doing good just by diet and exercise. I was told years ago that I
didn't have a choice about becoming a diabetic because of family history
of type 1 diabetes. They said eventually that my pancreas would stop
functioning properly because of that family history. I'm just on the
this side |-- of being a diabetic. Prior to that I was hypoglycemic
for probably 20 years. I used to have low blood sugar episodes where
I'd be just short of blacking out, but now that I've crossed over to the
diabetic side that rarely ever happens.

I think medical science changes far more rapidly than many MD's
track. Like any vocation, there are many that sit on their laurels
and don't bother tracking the current state of the art.

My grandmother was insulin dependent and her bs would get between
300-400 at times.

Not sure why Dr.s want people to take meds when they can control the
type 2 with diet and exercise.

Because they are realists: they know it is much more likely that
a given patient will take a *pill* than exercise, modify diet,
lifestyle, etc.

[I'm deliberately ignoring any financial incentives they may have from
drug companies!]

I routinely ask my MD (annual physicals) what things I should do to
"improve" (not even trying to "optimize"!) my state of health.

On one occasion many years ago, he spouted the "exercise three times
a week" mantra -- three 30 minute sessions. I told him that I walk
regularly.

"Yeah, but how long do you spend?"
"56 minutes on each trip"
"How far?"
"3.8 miles"
"How often?"
"5 days per week, about 19 miles"
"Yeah, but how *fast* do you walk?"
"almost exactly 4 miles per hour" (most folks' average pace is *3* MPH!)

A moment of silence. Then:

"Well, it would be better if you could do *20* miles!"

I damn near laughed in his face: "A minute ago, you were
hoping I would exercise 90 (3 x 30) minutes per week. Now, I've
told you I'm doing almost four times that -- and at a vigorous
level! Yet, you're not happy with that but want me to squeeze
yet another mile into my schedule..."

I.e., he was *so* expecting me to say that I *don't* exercise
that he was initially just hoping to get 30 minutes, thrice
weekly! The idea of asking/telling me to put in 5 or more
hours each week was just WAY too much for him to expect! OTOH,
seeing that I was willing to make that big of a commitment, he
figured he could try to push for 5 hours and 15 minutes (the
added time required for that 20th mile)

A friend has weight, diet, heart, stroke, etc. problems. He's
outfitted one of the bedrooms in his home with a bunch of
exercise equipment. His wife *dusts* it periodically as it
sees no *use*. But, he probably figures he's made an
*attempt* by spending the money for the stuff...

On 9/16/2015 4:03 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 9/16/2015 6:34 PM, Muggles wrote:

Smoking wreaks, literally.

wreak
[reek]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

verb (used with object)
1.
to inflict or execute (punishment, vengeance, etc.):
They wreaked havoc on the enemy.
2.
to carry out the promptings of (one's rage, ill humor, will, desire, etc.), as
on a victim or object:
He wreaked his anger on the office staff.

I think we all understood her intent to be "reeked".

On 9/16/2015 6:22 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 9/16/2015 4:03 PM, Muggles wrote:

[attrs snipped]

[...]
My grandmother was insulin dependent and her bs would get between
300-400 at times.

Not sure why Dr.s want people to take meds when they can control the
type 2 with diet and exercise.

Because they are realists: they know it is much more likely that
a given patient will take a *pill* than exercise, modify diet,
lifestyle, etc.

[I'm deliberately ignoring any financial incentives they may have from
drug companies!]

I routinely ask my MD (annual physicals) what things I should do to
"improve" (not even trying to "optimize"!) my state of health.

On one occasion many years ago, he spouted the "exercise three times
a week" mantra -- three 30 minute sessions. I told him that I walk
regularly.

"Yeah, but how long do you spend?"
"56 minutes on each trip"
"How far?"
"3.8 miles"
"How often?"
"5 days per week, about 19 miles"
"Yeah, but how *fast* do you walk?"
"almost exactly 4 miles per hour" (most folks' average pace is *3* MPH!)

A moment of silence. Then:

"Well, it would be better if you could do *20* miles!"

I damn near laughed in his face: "A minute ago, you were
hoping I would exercise 90 (3 x 30) minutes per week. Now, I've
told you I'm doing almost four times that -- and at a vigorous
level! Yet, you're not happy with that but want me to squeeze
yet another mile into my schedule..."

I.e., he was *so* expecting me to say that I *don't* exercise
that he was initially just hoping to get 30 minutes, thrice
weekly! The idea of asking/telling me to put in 5 or more
hours each week was just WAY too much for him to expect! OTOH,
seeing that I was willing to make that big of a commitment, he
figured he could try to push for 5 hours and 15 minutes (the
added time required for that 20th mile)

A friend has weight, diet, heart, stroke, etc. problems. He's
outfitted one of the bedrooms in his home with a bunch of
exercise equipment. His wife *dusts* it periodically as it
sees no *use*. But, he probably figures he's made an
*attempt* by spending the money for the stuff...

One thing my Dr told me today was that I was doing great as far as
exercise, weight loss, and diet, and to just keep doing what I'm doing.
He wanted me to take the meds as a preventative and to help shave a few
numbers off of my bs readings. shrugs Not sure what more I can do! LOL

--
Maggie

On 9/16/2015 7:03 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 9/16/2015 2:16 AM, Don Y wrote:
Also note, N. American doctors prescribe more drugs than any other in
the world.

I suspect you'll find that Americans *want* "pills" over other, less
expensive (but more *committed*) treatments. E.g., you don't need a pill
to lose weight -- you just have to *burn* more calories than you
*consume*! Ah, but that means you can't have second helpings of that
meal that tastes *so* good (because it has lots of sugar and fat!).

You can bring modest hyperlipidemia under control with diet and
exercise -- instead of resorting to drugs.

You can control much type 2 diabetes (esp "pre-diabetes") with exercise,
weight loss and diet -- instead of resorting to drugs.

I just had a check up this morning and my Dr. told me that while my A1C
was great that my bs was slightly elevated and that I was definitely
diabetic (type 2) and he wanted me to take the metformin even though my
bs is doing good just by diet and exercise. I was told years ago that I
didn't have a choice about becoming a diabetic because of family history
of type 1 diabetes. They said eventually that my pancreas would stop
functioning properly because of that family history. I'm just on the
this side |-- of being a diabetic. Prior to that I was hypoglycemic
for probably 20 years. I used to have low blood sugar episodes where
I'd be just short of blacking out, but now that I've crossed over to the
diabetic side that rarely ever happens.

My grandmother was insulin dependent and her bs would get between
300-400 at times.

Not sure why Dr.s want people to take meds when they can control the
type 2 with diet and exercise.

You can bring moderate hypertension under control with diet, exercise
and stress reduction techniques -- instead of resorting to drugs.

But, no one wants to "do the heavy lifting" to bring about these
changes. "Can't you just GIVE ME A PILL?"

The other problem with many of these maladies is that their *real*
consequences (heart attack, stroke, blindness, etc.) happen down
the road. In essence, you're dealing with a control system that
has enormous *lag* -- the patient's "control actions" (or lack
thereof!) don't manifest in the "output" for DECADES!!

[People have a tough time losing weight because weight control is
also a system with lots of lag; yet that lag is on the order of
days or weeks (before you see results from your changed diet),
not *years*!]

I have the same problem with dentists,
and fluoride. Every conversation, they
push fluoride. Even when I explain the
experiences I've had.


-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 9/16/2015 7:03 PM, Muggles wrote:
Not sure why Dr.s want people to take meds when they can control the
type 2 with diet and exercise.


Drug company kickback$.

On 9/16/2015 7:03 PM, Muggles wrote:

Not sure why Dr.s want people to take meds when they can control the
type 2 with diet and exercise.


1) herd mentality
2) kick backs and propaganda from big pharm
3) keeps you coming back for prescriptions
and treatment

If the Doc tells you how to cure your self,
he loses the continuing income. I had this
problem with (several) podiatrists. I finally
looked on the computer, in my early days, and
found out the doctors were making it worse, and
presumably earning more of my money by that.


-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 9/16/2015 7:21 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 9/16/2015 6:03 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 9/16/2015 6:34 PM, Muggles wrote:

Smoking wreaks, literally.


wreak
[reek]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

verb (used with object)
1.
to inflict or execute (punishment, vengeance, etc.):
They wreaked havoc on the enemy.
2.
to carry out the promptings of (one's rage, ill humor, will, desire,
etc.), as on a victim or object:
He wreaked his anger on the office staff.




hmmm Don't you think cigarette smoke/smoking wreaks havoc?


Hmm. Don't you think I'm agreeing with you?

Remember that I've been wearing hearing aids for
40 plus years, due to being the child of smokers.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 9/16/2015 7:27 PM, Muggles wrote:
One thing my Dr told me today was that I was doing great as far as
exercise, weight loss, and diet, and to just keep doing what I'm doing.
He wanted me to take the meds as a preventative and to help shave a few
numbers off of my bs readings. shrugs Not sure what more I can do! LOL


You and Uncle Monster, the finest BS
on this usenet list.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 9/16/2015 6:28 PM, Muggles wrote:
My parents second hand smoke causes me numerous illnesses, including,
asthma and hearing loss. I asked them many times to stop smoking, but
they'd just say it was their "damn life". It wasn't just their life.
Then ended up killing themselves due to smoking, but they also inflicted
disease and health problems onto me.

This cardiologist and his videos saved my life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeyKvCkxp2o

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 6:03:41 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 9/16/2015 2:16 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 9/15/2015 9:39 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Don Y wrote:
On 9/15/2015 3:38 PM, bob haller wrote:

Watching someone smoke themselves to death is, to me, a big shrug.

As stupid as smoking seems to me, I agree. Obviously there are
benefits
to smoking - it calms, energizes, suppresses appetite. Maybe
more. And
who is anyone to say a informed adult cannot make the choice to add
some
enjoyment to his good years at the expense of reducing the number
of his
bad years?

Helps the finances of the Social Security and Medicare programs, too.

the costs to try and save smokers lives is astronmical///////

anyone who smokes shouldnt be covered by health insurance for smoking
releated illnesses.....

What about folks who drink? Are overweight? Don't exercise? Don't
eat right? Don't get the proper amount of sleep? Use recreational
drugs? Consume too much caffeine? Work long hours? etc. Each of
these have associated costs. Where do you draw the line?

require the tobacco companies to pay for their ill health..

In *theory*, the individual pays the cost for their "bad habits"
(along with genetic issues). In *reality*, we subsidize bad behaviors
(just like we subsidize bad policies).

Should insurers rate folks *individually*? I.e., assess *your*
particular
"expected costs" and set the premium based on that? Stop grouping
folks into broad classes to distribute the risk?

and smoking around any child should be proscuted as what it really is,
child
abuse

What about folks with "tempers"? Alcoholics? Addicts (of any sort)?
People who are psychologically "unfit"?

It's relatively easy to come up with a list that just grows -- each
addition
"making sense" (to someone).

N.B. I am not taking a stand on any of these issues. Rather, pointing
out how easily this sort of thinking can get out of hand.

I have a buddy who believes healthcare should be "free". Of course,
that
means we all pay for each other. Should I, then, be able to *prevent*
him from indulging in the habits that he has (smoking, poor sleeping
habits, diet, etc.) on the grounds that *I* am paying for *his*
healthcare?

I always wonder why healthcare should be provided to people who don't
care of
themselves. Our system should pay more attention to preventive
medicine than treatment oriented medicine.

One of the goals of the ACA was to incentivize providers to shift resources
to preventative measures: free physicals, free health maintenance tests,
free flu shots, etc.

It should start from training medical student.

I think the problem lies with the *consumer* more than the supplier.
People expect to be able to "get fixed" without being "inconvenienced"
(by lifestyle changes, etc.). The consumers end up "training" the
providers to adopt *their* preferences.

SWMBO had a cholesterol problem some years back. MD was ready to
Rx a statin to bring it under control. Instead, she opted to
tackle it with diet and exercise. THAT NIGHT we changed her diet.
Four weeks later, the doctor was *flabbergasted* at the change in
her blood chemistry! No meds, no side-effects from those meds, etc.
And, a healthier lifestyle as an inherent part of the bargain.

How many folks will discipline themselves thusly? Esp if the
other option is "take one of these each day"?

How many times does an MD need to see patients NOT doing the right
things -- and, having to resort to drugs -- before he stops even
*offering* that suggestion as a remedy?

Also note, N. American doctors prescribe more drugs than any other in
the world.

I suspect you'll find that Americans *want* "pills" over other, less
expensive (but more *committed*) treatments. E.g., you don't need a pill
to lose weight -- you just have to *burn* more calories than you
*consume*! Ah, but that means you can't have second helpings of that
meal that tastes *so* good (because it has lots of sugar and fat!).

You can bring modest hyperlipidemia under control with diet and
exercise -- instead of resorting to drugs.

You can control much type 2 diabetes (esp "pre-diabetes") with exercise,
weight loss and diet -- instead of resorting to drugs.

I just had a check up this morning and my Dr. told me that while my A1C
was great that my bs was slightly elevated and that I was definitely
diabetic (type 2) and he wanted me to take the metformin even though my
bs is doing good just by diet and exercise. I was told years ago that I
didn't have a choice about becoming a diabetic because of family history
of type 1 diabetes. They said eventually that my pancreas would stop
functioning properly because of that family history. I'm just on the
this side |-- of being a diabetic. Prior to that I was hypoglycemic
for probably 20 years. I used to have low blood sugar episodes where
I'd be just short of blacking out, but now that I've crossed over to the
diabetic side that rarely ever happens.

My grandmother was insulin dependent and her bs would get between
300-400 at times.

Not sure why Dr.s want people to take meds when they can control the
type 2 with diet and exercise.

You can bring moderate hypertension under control with diet, exercise
and stress reduction techniques -- instead of resorting to drugs.

But, no one wants to "do the heavy lifting" to bring about these
changes. "Can't you just GIVE ME A PILL?"

The other problem with many of these maladies is that their *real*
consequences (heart attack, stroke, blindness, etc.) happen down
the road. In essence, you're dealing with a control system that
has enormous *lag* -- the patient's "control actions" (or lack
thereof!) don't manifest in the "output" for DECADES!!

[People have a tough time losing weight because weight control is
also a system with lots of lag; yet that lag is on the order of
days or weeks (before you see results from your changed diet),
not *years*!]

--
Maggie

I have a horrible congenital disability, I'm genetically funny looking. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Goofy Monster

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 7:27:09 PM UTC-5, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 9/16/2015 7:27 PM, Muggles wrote:
One thing my Dr told me today was that I was doing great as far as
exercise, weight loss, and diet, and to just keep doing what I'm doing.
He wanted me to take the meds as a preventative and to help shave a few
numbers off of my bs readings. shrugs Not sure what more I can do! LOL


You and Uncle Monster, the finest BS
on this usenet list.
-
.

Why thank you Chris, you poopy head. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle BS Monster

On 09/16/2015 07:03 PM, Muggles wrote:

Not sure why Dr.s want people to take meds when they can control the
type 2 with diet and exercise.

You can bring moderate hypertension under control with diet, exercise
and stress reduction techniques -- instead of resorting to drugs.

But, no one wants to "do the heavy lifting" to bring about these
changes. "Can't you just GIVE ME A PILL?"

Have you seen the amount of advertising material with which the drug
companies bombard the medical practitioners? And then there are the TV
ads that motivate the patients to ask for meds to solve their problems.
(There are, I have read, only two countries in the world that permit TV
advertising of prescription-only meds: the USA and New Zealand).

A TV program a few years ago included an interview with an American now
living in the Netherlands, partly because of the better health-care
system. Among other things, her health-insurance company runs gyms and
offers premium reductions depending on how many times she goes to the gym.

Perce

On 9/16/2015 4:27 PM, Muggles wrote:

A friend has weight, diet, heart, stroke, etc. problems. He's
outfitted one of the bedrooms in his home with a bunch of
exercise equipment. His wife *dusts* it periodically as it
sees no *use*. But, he probably figures he's made an
*attempt* by spending the money for the stuff...

One thing my Dr told me today was that I was doing great as far as
exercise, weight loss, and diet, and to just keep doing what I'm doing.
He wanted me to take the meds as a preventative and to help shave a few
numbers off of my bs readings. shrugs Not sure what more I can do! LOL

A1c reflects your "historical" AVERAGE blood sugar levels (weighted over
the past ~3 months). Your "glucose" reading in your CBC reflects your
sugar level at the time of the test (presumably fasting). If your seeing
"above average" results on a spot check -- when your body should be in a
state that does not EXPECT high sugar levels (e.g., 90 minutes after
eating tends to be a high) -- then the MD has to wonder what the A1c
number is NOT showing.

Also, doctors are *always* looking for "better". Witness my "19 miles"
exchange with my MD upthread (?). Look at the new standards for
systolic blood pressure. There seems to be an obsession with driving
every number as low as possible -- *until*they start discovering that
there may be problems on the low side, as well! (A BP of 0/0 is
definitely not conducive to long term health! : )

Lastly, I think doctors also fear complacency. It's too easy for folks
to convince themselves that they are doing "well" or "good enough" and
then start slowly "slacking off".

In the US, it's not uncommon for people to gain 10 pounds in a decade.
This doesn't sound like much. OTOH, it's not "just a little". In
the grand scheme of things, a pound per year translates into a caloric
imbalance (more coming *in* than being burned) of ~1 *lifesaver* each
day! Surely, we should be able to live without that *tiny* bit of
extra calories?? Yet, we don't. It's a slice of bread per week! :

On 9/16/2015 7:20 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 9/16/2015 7:03 PM, Muggles wrote:

Not sure why Dr.s want people to take meds when they can control the
type 2 with diet and exercise.


1) herd mentality
2) kick backs and propaganda from big pharm
3) keeps you coming back for prescriptions
and treatment

If the Doc tells you how to cure your self,
he loses the continuing income. I had this
problem with (several) podiatrists. I finally
looked on the computer, in my early days, and
found out the doctors were making it worse, and
presumably earning more of my money by that.



What sort of foot problem? Did you fix it yourself?


--
Maggie

On 9/16/2015 7:24 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 9/16/2015 7:21 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 9/16/2015 6:03 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 9/16/2015 6:34 PM, Muggles wrote:

Smoking wreaks, literally.


wreak
[reek]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

verb (used with object)
1.
to inflict or execute (punishment, vengeance, etc.):
They wreaked havoc on the enemy.
2.
to carry out the promptings of (one's rage, ill humor, will, desire,
etc.), as on a victim or object:
He wreaked his anger on the office staff.




hmmm Don't you think cigarette smoke/smoking wreaks havoc?


Hmm. Don't you think I'm agreeing with you?

Remember that I've been wearing hearing aids for
40 plus years, due to being the child of smokers.


I don't remember you posting about hearing aids, but maybe you did.
Seems like I read someone posted about it.

How much hearing loss do you have?

--
Maggie

On 9/16/2015 7:32 PM, NoSpamForMe wrote:
On 9/16/2015 6:28 PM, Muggles wrote:
My parents second hand smoke causes me numerous illnesses, including,
asthma and hearing loss. I asked them many times to stop smoking, but
they'd just say it was their "damn life". It wasn't just their life.
Then ended up killing themselves due to smoking, but they also inflicted
disease and health problems onto me.

This cardiologist and his videos saved my life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeyKvCkxp2o

So you don't eat grains?

--
Maggie

On 9/16/2015 7:36 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:


I have a horrible congenital disability, I'm genetically funny looking. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Goofy Monster


awe prove it! HA!

--
Maggie

On 9/16/2015 8:09 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 9/16/2015 4:27 PM, Muggles wrote:

A friend has weight, diet, heart, stroke, etc. problems. He's
outfitted one of the bedrooms in his home with a bunch of
exercise equipment. His wife *dusts* it periodically as it
sees no *use*. But, he probably figures he's made an
*attempt* by spending the money for the stuff...

One thing my Dr told me today was that I was doing great as far as
exercise, weight loss, and diet, and to just keep doing what I'm doing.
He wanted me to take the meds as a preventative and to help shave a few
numbers off of my bs readings. shrugs Not sure what more I can do! LOL

A1c reflects your "historical" AVERAGE blood sugar levels (weighted over
the past ~3 months). Your "glucose" reading in your CBC reflects your
sugar level at the time of the test (presumably fasting). If your seeing
"above average" results on a spot check -- when your body should be in a
state that does not EXPECT high sugar levels (e.g., 90 minutes after
eating tends to be a high) -- then the MD has to wonder what the A1c
number is NOT showing.

Also, doctors are *always* looking for "better". Witness my "19 miles"
exchange with my MD upthread (?). Look at the new standards for
systolic blood pressure. There seems to be an obsession with driving
every number as low as possible -- *until*they start discovering that
there may be problems on the low side, as well! (A BP of 0/0 is
definitely not conducive to long term health! : )

Lastly, I think doctors also fear complacency. It's too easy for folks
to convince themselves that they are doing "well" or "good enough" and
then start slowly "slacking off".

In the US, it's not uncommon for people to gain 10 pounds in a decade.
This doesn't sound like much. OTOH, it's not "just a little". In
the grand scheme of things, a pound per year translates into a caloric
imbalance (more coming *in* than being burned) of ~1 *lifesaver* each
day! Surely, we should be able to live without that *tiny* bit of
extra calories?? Yet, we don't. It's a slice of bread per week! :

Over the last 10 years I've quit eating potatoes and bread and other
such carbs not because it's bad for me, but because I just didn't want
it any more. Don't get me wrong, I still like the occasional baked
potato, but I've opted for baked sweet potatoes, instead. Once in a
while I'll even allow myself some bread if it's a whole grain. It just
doesn't taste good to me any more. No sugar in tea if I have tea, and I
mostly drink water along with some fruit juice. It does have natural
sugars in it, but I don't think natural sugars are nearly as bad as the
status quo wants us to believe. The same goes for choosing real butter
over fake margarine. I suppose I could eliminate more stuff from my
diet, but I have to eat something! It seems about everything there is TO
eat that someone somewhere is going to find a reason that it's bad for you.

--
Maggie

On 9/16/2015 5:50 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 9/16/2015 3:34 PM, Muggles wrote:

I have a buddy who believes healthcare should be "free". Of course,
that
means we all pay for each other. Should I, then, be able to *prevent*
him from indulging in the habits that he has (smoking, poor sleeping
habits, diet, etc.) on the grounds that *I* am paying for *his*
healthcare?

Good question.

The rabbit hole is *very* deep! Once you head down it, you can quickly
lose sight of your goal!

Just because it's a deep subject doesn't mean all the possible scenarios
are good reason to do nothing or say nothing. Don't you agree?

--
Maggie

On 9/16/2015 9:33 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 9/16/2015 5:50 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 9/16/2015 3:34 PM, Muggles wrote:

I have a buddy who believes healthcare should be "free". Of course,
that
means we all pay for each other. Should I, then, be able to *prevent*
him from indulging in the habits that he has (smoking, poor sleeping
habits, diet, etc.) on the grounds that *I* am paying for *his*
healthcare?

Good question.

The rabbit hole is *very* deep! Once you head down it, you can quickly
lose sight of your goal!

Just because it's a deep subject doesn't mean all the possible scenarios
are good reason to do nothing or say nothing. Don't you agree?

Sure! The problem becomes one of consistency: how do you rationalize
THIS but not THAT?

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:08 -0700, Don Y
wrote:
Just because it's a deep subject doesn't mean all
the possible scenarios are good reason to do
nothing or say nothing. Don't you agree?


Sure! The problem becomes one of consistency:
how do you rationalize THIS but not THAT?


It's an argument any one of us could easily bring up. I could argue
your points just as easily as my own. As far as cigarette smoking
goes, I think it's been established that it causes disease, so that
would be grounds for a legitimate complaint against it's use. It
doesn't fall into the same categories that you've been arguing as far
as I can tell.

--
Maggie

On 9/16/2015 10:54 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:08 -0700, Don Y wrote:
Just because it's a deep subject doesn't mean all
the possible scenarios are good reason to do
nothing or say nothing. Don't you agree?

Sure! The problem becomes one of consistency: how do you rationalize THIS
but not THAT?

It's an argument any one of us could easily bring up. I could argue your
points just as easily as my own. As far as cigarette smoking goes, I think
it's been established that it causes disease, so that would be grounds for a
legitimate complaint against it's use. It doesn't fall into the same categories
that you've been arguing as far as I can tell.

Does the emotional/psychological environment that a child is raised in
affect his/her "mental health" down the road? Behavior patterns?

Do the "examples" that parents place in front of their kids through
their "formative years" effectively *teach* bad or destructive
behaviors/habits? Do parents with eating disorders effectively impose
those disorders on their kids? Effectively leading their kids to have
the same sorts of health problems later in life? Does promiscuous
behavior lead to kids adopting similar lifestyle risks?

[kids are an easy example because they represent a population that
typically are not independant actors -- they are effectively captive to
the influences of their parents while "growing up"]

On 9/17/2015 12:12 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 9/16/2015 7:20 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
If the Doc tells you how to cure your self,
he loses the continuing income. I had this
problem with (several) podiatrists. I finally
looked on the computer, in my early days, and
found out the doctors were making it worse, and
presumably earning more of my money by that.



What sort of foot problem? Did you fix it yourself?


For no good reason, I was trimming the corners of my toes
back too far. (Common wisdom was to cut the big toe straight
across, which made no sense.) The big toes, the nail tends
to curl, and that puts pressure on the nail beds. Very
painful. The real answer is to quit trimming back so much.
The doctor solution is to cut the side off the toe nail. I
spent a lot of money on doctor visits, at $45 to $125 per
visit. And also had the "phenol treatment" to kill off the
roots which was $254 per toe nail. The phenol treatment
didn't work, both sides of both big toes came back. But
they grew in different directions. Now, I have to use
cuticle trimmers to cut the far back corner of the toe
nails that grow wrong. At odd moments of the week, one
or more corners of the big toes will hurt for a few
minutes, just to remind me.

It's not fixed. it's a continuing problem, likely for the
rest of my life. In large part, my ignorance. And in large
part, the podiatrists who never once told me any thing
about toe nail trimming. I learned about the sides and
nails curling by reading the internet, in my dial up days.

I've considered malpractice suit, but I'd expect them to
come to court and provide falsified records about all the
times they tried to counsel me.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 9/17/2015 12:13 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 9/16/2015 7:24 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Hmm. Don't you think I'm agreeing with you?

Remember that I've been wearing hearing aids for
40 plus years, due to being the child of smokers.


I don't remember you posting about hearing aids, but maybe you did.
Seems like I read someone posted about it.

How much hearing loss do you have?


I don't have the percent number, but it's about
-50 dB. When I don't have my hearing aids in, I
can hear the computer speaker if I hold it an
inch from my ear. I can hear low notes like the
garbage truck going down the road. I am aware that
people are talking, but not sure what they are
saying. It's frustrating.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 9/16/2015 9:31 PM, Muggles wrote:

In the US, it's not uncommon for people to gain 10 pounds in a decade.
This doesn't sound like much. OTOH, it's not "just a little". In
the grand scheme of things, a pound per year translates into a caloric
imbalance (more coming *in* than being burned) of ~1 *lifesaver* each
day! Surely, we should be able to live without that *tiny* bit of
extra calories?? Yet, we don't. It's a slice of bread per week! :

Over the last 10 years I've quit eating potatoes and bread and other
such carbs not because it's bad for me, but because I just didn't want
it any more. Don't get me wrong, I still like the occasional baked
potato, but I've opted for baked sweet potatoes, instead.

I think potatoes and white rice are frowned upon as they are starches
(simple sugars) and *rush* sugar into the bloodstream. Instead, the
emphasis is on high glycemic index foods -- so the body has to "work"
to digest them (i.e., make their calories available).

Once in a
while I'll even allow myself some bread if it's a whole grain. It just
doesn't taste good to me any more.

I find bread to be highly addictive! When I'm trying to watch my
weight, bread is the first thing I try to get out of my diet.

OTOH, it's such an "easy" way to get some calories into your body
(vs. actually making a *meal*) that there is always the temptation to
just grab a few slices with butter, or slobber some Bolognese
sauce on a run and have a 20 second meal...

No sugar in tea if I have tea, and I
mostly drink water along with some fruit juice.

I drink (hot) tea exclusively -- in a 16 oz "mug". No coffee. No soda.
Very little "water". A box of 100 tea bags lasts me about 2 weeks.
Fruit juice is too sweet for me (exceptions being pineapple or
pomegranate -- which tend to be "self limiting" due to the
intensities of their flavors!).

I used to use honey as sweetener for my tea but was spending a *lot*
of money on 6 lb containers of honey every month or so ("sugar" just
doesn't taste right in tea). I can stomach Stevia if I use a fair
bit of fresh lemon juice in the tea. Or, agave nectar if I want to
avoid the lemon juice.

It does have natural
sugars in it, but I don't think natural sugars are nearly as bad as the
status quo wants us to believe. The same goes for choosing real butter
over fake margarine.

I use a *lot* of butter! And whole milk. And heavy cream. And cream cheese.
And sour cream. But, mainly in my baking. The only thing that uses margarine
are pizzelles; butter just doesn't work in that Rx.

I suppose I could eliminate more stuff from my
diet, but I have to eat something! It seems about everything there is TO
eat that someone somewhere is going to find a reason that it's bad for you.

There's a joke about The Cardiologist's Diet: If it tastes good, spit it out!
To some extent, this is correct. Our bodies obsess over fat and sugar.
Especially if we can get both at the same time!

I buy a lot of butter, sugar, flour -- esp this time of year (e.g., 50 pounds
of flour just for "holiday baking"). The consolation is that almost *all*
of this stuff gets given away -- let *other* folks suffer the ill effects
of these things, not me! : And, strangely enough, they are GLAD to
do so! ;-)

On 9/17/2015 1:08 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 9/16/2015 10:54 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:08 -0700, Don Y
wrote:
Just because it's a deep subject doesn't mean all
the possible scenarios are good reason to do
nothing or say nothing. Don't you agree?

Sure! The problem becomes one of consistency: how do you rationalize
THIS
but not THAT?

It's an argument any one of us could easily bring up. I could argue your
points just as easily as my own. As far as cigarette smoking goes, I
think
it's been established that it causes disease, so that would be grounds
for a
legitimate complaint against it's use. It doesn't fall into the same
categories
that you've been arguing as far as I can tell.

Does the emotional/psychological environment that a child is raised in
affect his/her "mental health" down the road? Behavior patterns?

It does affect the child, but the child also has a choice how they will
respond.

Do the "examples" that parents place in front of their kids through
their "formative years" effectively *teach* bad or destructive
behaviors/habits?

It can and often does. Again, the result is based on choice.

Do parents with eating disorders effectively impose
those disorders on their kids? Effectively leading their kids to have
the same sorts of health problems later in life? Does promiscuous
behavior lead to kids adopting similar lifestyle risks?

Not necessarily. Everything after the point of influence is a choice.

Inhaling cigarette smoke of parents isn't a choice for kids. It's
forced on them to inhale because of living in proximity of the adults
who smoke. The result of inhaled second hand smoke causes physical
illness and disease. Everything you listed thus far involves an element
of choice by the kids who are exposed vs. no choice in being exposed to
a dangerous carcinogen.

[kids are an easy example because they represent a population that
typically are not independant actors -- they are effectively captive to
the influences of their parents while "growing up"]

Being "influenced" by parents or others still allows for individual
choice. Being exposed to second hand smoke removes all choice.

--
Maggie

On 9/17/2015 6:44 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 9/17/2015 12:13 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 9/16/2015 7:24 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Hmm. Don't you think I'm agreeing with you?

Remember that I've been wearing hearing aids for
40 plus years, due to being the child of smokers.


I don't remember you posting about hearing aids, but maybe you did.
Seems like I read someone posted about it.

How much hearing loss do you have?


I don't have the percent number, but it's about
-50 dB. When I don't have my hearing aids in, I
can hear the computer speaker if I hold it an
inch from my ear. I can hear low notes like the
garbage truck going down the road. I am aware that
people are talking, but not sure what they are
saying. It's frustrating.


I can't hear an equal amount of low and high tones and most of the
beginnings of words w/o the h.aids. When I have them in they are turned
up fairly loud and everything is loud including background noise
(motors, wind, air moving) Everything is jumbled together like one
gigantic mishmash of sound and I have to pick out the voices. I hear
sounds that I've never heard before and don't know what they are or
where they're coming from and have to ask someone what it is.
It's all frustrating.

--
Maggie

On 9/17/2015 7:13 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 9/16/2015 9:31 PM, Muggles wrote:

In the US, it's not uncommon for people to gain 10 pounds in a decade.
This doesn't sound like much. OTOH, it's not "just a little". In
the grand scheme of things, a pound per year translates into a caloric
imbalance (more coming *in* than being burned) of ~1 *lifesaver* each
day! Surely, we should be able to live without that *tiny* bit of
extra calories?? Yet, we don't. It's a slice of bread per week! :

Over the last 10 years I've quit eating potatoes and bread and other
such carbs not because it's bad for me, but because I just didn't want
it any more. Don't get me wrong, I still like the occasional baked
potato, but I've opted for baked sweet potatoes, instead.

I think potatoes and white rice are frowned upon as they are starches
(simple sugars) and *rush* sugar into the bloodstream. Instead, the
emphasis is on high glycemic index foods -- so the body has to "work"
to digest them (i.e., make their calories available).

It's not necessarily bad to eat those things if you combine other more
complex foods at the same time so there isn't a sugar rush in the
bloodstream.

Once in a
while I'll even allow myself some bread if it's a whole grain. It just
doesn't taste good to me any more.

I find bread to be highly addictive! When I'm trying to watch my
weight, bread is the first thing I try to get out of my diet.

OTOH, it's such an "easy" way to get some calories into your body
(vs. actually making a *meal*) that there is always the temptation to
just grab a few slices with butter, or slobber some Bolognese
sauce on a run and have a 20 second meal...

I'd be more likely to grab a Boost or whole grain raisin bagel, no butter.

No sugar in tea if I have tea, and I
mostly drink water along with some fruit juice.

I drink (hot) tea exclusively -- in a 16 oz "mug". No coffee. No soda.
Very little "water". A box of 100 tea bags lasts me about 2 weeks.
Fruit juice is too sweet for me (exceptions being pineapple or
pomegranate -- which tend to be "self limiting" due to the
intensities of their flavors!).

I used to use honey as sweetener for my tea but was spending a *lot*
of money on 6 lb containers of honey every month or so ("sugar" just
doesn't taste right in tea). I can stomach Stevia if I use a fair
bit of fresh lemon juice in the tea. Or, agave nectar if I want to
avoid the lemon juice.

Occasionally, I'll drop a green tea tea bag into my water and let it
flavor the water.

It does have natural
sugars in it, but I don't think natural sugars are nearly as bad as the
status quo wants us to believe. The same goes for choosing real butter
over fake margarine.

I use a *lot* of butter! And whole milk. And heavy cream. And cream
cheese.
And sour cream. But, mainly in my baking. The only thing that uses
margarine
are pizzelles; butter just doesn't work in that Rx.

Butter is the only way to go when I make my home made scalloped potatoes.

I suppose I could eliminate more stuff from my
diet, but I have to eat something! It seems about everything there is TO
eat that someone somewhere is going to find a reason that it's bad for
you.

There's a joke about The Cardiologist's Diet: If it tastes good, spit
it out!
To some extent, this is correct. Our bodies obsess over fat and sugar.
Especially if we can get both at the same time!

I buy a lot of butter, sugar, flour -- esp this time of year (e.g., 50
pounds
of flour just for "holiday baking"). The consolation is that almost *all*
of this stuff gets given away -- let *other* folks suffer the ill effects
of these things, not me! : And, strangely enough, they are GLAD to
do so! ;-)

I can only allow myself the occasional nibble of such tasty tidbits!

--
Maggie

On 9/17/2015 6:42 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 9/17/2015 12:12 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 9/16/2015 7:20 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
If the Doc tells you how to cure your self,
he loses the continuing income. I had this
problem with (several) podiatrists. I finally
looked on the computer, in my early days, and
found out the doctors were making it worse, and
presumably earning more of my money by that.



What sort of foot problem? Did you fix it yourself?


For no good reason, I was trimming the corners of my toes
back too far. (Common wisdom was to cut the big toe straight
across, which made no sense.) The big toes, the nail tends
to curl, and that puts pressure on the nail beds. Very
painful. The real answer is to quit trimming back so much.
The doctor solution is to cut the side off the toe nail. I
spent a lot of money on doctor visits, at $45 to $125 per
visit. And also had the "phenol treatment" to kill off the
roots which was $254 per toe nail. The phenol treatment
didn't work, both sides of both big toes came back. But
they grew in different directions. Now, I have to use
cuticle trimmers to cut the far back corner of the toe
nails that grow wrong. At odd moments of the week, one
or more corners of the big toes will hurt for a few
minutes, just to remind me.

It's not fixed. it's a continuing problem, likely for the
rest of my life. In large part, my ignorance. And in large
part, the podiatrists who never once told me any thing
about toe nail trimming. I learned about the sides and
nails curling by reading the internet, in my dial up days.

I've considered malpractice suit, but I'd expect them to
come to court and provide falsified records about all the
times they tried to counsel me.


OUCH! Those ingrown nails do hurt a lot!

--
Maggie

On 9/17/2015 11:48 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 9/17/2015 1:08 AM, Don Y wrote:
[kids are an easy example because they represent a population that
typically are not independant actors -- they are effectively captive to
the influences of their parents while "growing up"]

Being "influenced" by parents or others still allows for individual
choice. Being exposed to second hand smoke removes all choice.


Most children cannot survive 18 years without breathing.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 9/17/2015 2:42 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/17/2015 12:31 AM, Muggles wrote:


Over the last 10 years I've quit eating potatoes and bread and other
such carbs not because it's bad for me, but because I just didn't want
it any more. Don't get me wrong, I still like the occasional baked
potato, but I've opted for baked sweet potatoes, instead.

Good for you. I've been wanting to drop 15 to 20 pounds for a long time,
but just can't give up either of those for very long. Never met a carb I
didn't like.


There's a diet that works for some people called the Carbohydrate
Addicts diet. It doesn't do much for me since I'm not a carb addict
(physically), but it works for my husband. The bare bones of it is you
eat low carb for 2 meals a day, and your third meal you can eat anything
you want as long as it's within an hours time. There's a book by the
same title. It's totally not fair how quick my husband can lose weight
and eat anything he wants for dinner! It might be worth a look see for
you? He also looses weight quickly on a juice diet, too.

--
Maggie

On 9/17/2015 1:11 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 9/17/2015 11:48 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 9/17/2015 1:08 AM, Don Y wrote:
[kids are an easy example because they represent a population that
typically are not independant actors -- they are effectively captive to
the influences of their parents while "growing up"]

Being "influenced" by parents or others still allows for individual
choice. Being exposed to second hand smoke removes all choice.


Most children cannot survive 18 years without breathing.


I think it's because they never quit talking.

--
Maggie

On 9/17/2015 12:31 AM, Muggles wrote:


Over the last 10 years I've quit eating potatoes and bread and other
such carbs not because it's bad for me, but because I just didn't want
it any more. Don't get me wrong, I still like the occasional baked
potato, but I've opted for baked sweet potatoes, instead.

Good for you. I've been wanting to drop 15 to 20 pounds for a long time,
but just can't give up either of those for very long. Never met a carb I
didn't like.

noname posted for all of us...



From cradle to grave, a cigarette smoker is the cheapest to insure. Cancer and chemo therapy is relatively cheap.
They die early and never collect their Social Security and often lose the value of their retirement annuity.

It's the carbohydrate/sugar/boozers that cost the most. Their biggest expense is often caused by type 3 diabetes and a stroke, followed by years
in a nursing home. Now that's expensive!

Type 3 diabetes?

--
Tekkie

On 9/17/2015 9:23 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 9/17/2015 7:13 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 9/16/2015 9:31 PM, Muggles wrote:

I think potatoes and white rice are frowned upon as they are starches
(simple sugars) and *rush* sugar into the bloodstream. Instead, the
emphasis is on high glycemic index foods -- so the body has to "work"
to digest them (i.e., make their calories available).

It's not necessarily bad to eat those things if you combine other more
complex foods at the same time so there isn't a sugar rush in the
bloodstream.

Yes. Offset the simple sugars with fats and proteins. But, just
"mixing" doesn't eliminate the potential "problem"/rush. E.g., a
meat serving on a large bed of white rice is still "lots of white
rice" -- despite the protein present!

Once in a
while I'll even allow myself some bread if it's a whole grain. It just
doesn't taste good to me any more.

I find bread to be highly addictive! When I'm trying to watch my
weight, bread is the first thing I try to get out of my diet.

OTOH, it's such an "easy" way to get some calories into your body
(vs. actually making a *meal*) that there is always the temptation to
just grab a few slices with butter, or slobber some Bolognese
sauce on a run and have a 20 second meal...

I'd be more likely to grab a Boost or whole grain raisin bagel, no butter.

I like butter. Thankfully, don't appear to have any cholesterol problems
so I don't sweat eating it.

I haven't had a good bagel since leaving New England many many years back.
The stuff they sell in delis and grocers are just "air pudding". I'd
rather have a *donut* if those are the only bagel choices!

I used to use honey as sweetener for my tea but was spending a *lot*
of money on 6 lb containers of honey every month or so ("sugar" just
doesn't taste right in tea). I can stomach Stevia if I use a fair
bit of fresh lemon juice in the tea. Or, agave nectar if I want to
avoid the lemon juice.

Occasionally, I'll drop a green tea tea bag into my water and let it
flavor the water.

It's relatively common, here, to throw a lemon or lime wedge into
a glass of water.

I like tea because of the warm, soothing feeling. Honey just amplifies
that sensation.

It does have natural
sugars in it, but I don't think natural sugars are nearly as bad as the
status quo wants us to believe. The same goes for choosing real butter
over fake margarine.

I use a *lot* of butter! And whole milk. And heavy cream. And cream cheese.
And sour cream. But, mainly in my baking. The only thing that uses margarine
are pizzelles; butter just doesn't work in that Rx.

Butter is the only way to go when I make my home made scalloped potatoes.

I don't use butter *in* my cooking (notable exception being baked stuffed
shrimp). It is only used in baked goods. But, used liberally, there!
It's amusing to note how many folks will *taste* the fact that there is
butter present in a Rx: "Mmmm... real butter!" I always wonder what the
hell they normally eat that *doesn't* have that taste?!

I buy a lot of butter, sugar, flour -- esp this time of year (e.g., 50 pounds
of flour just for "holiday baking"). The consolation is that almost *all*
of this stuff gets given away -- let *other* folks suffer the ill effects
of these things, not me! : And, strangely enough, they are GLAD to
do so! ;-)

I can only allow myself the occasional nibble of such tasty tidbits!

Aside from eating the "rejects" (e.g., a pizzelle that is burnt or badly
shaped), I don't eat sweets (not counting ice cream). I *make* but
don't *consume*.

Always amusing to bring a plate of cookies to a party and have the hostess
turn around and offer me one: "No, I don't eat that crap!" :
Lately, folks have gotten wise and now *hide* the goodies that I
bring and put out "store bought" stuff "for their guests" -- keeping
*my* goodies for themselves (after the guests leave).

On 9/17/2015 3:53 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 9/17/2015 9:23 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 9/17/2015 7:13 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 9/16/2015 9:31 PM, Muggles wrote:

I think potatoes and white rice are frowned upon as they are starches
(simple sugars) and *rush* sugar into the bloodstream. Instead, the
emphasis is on high glycemic index foods -- so the body has to "work"
to digest them (i.e., make their calories available).

It's not necessarily bad to eat those things if you combine other more
complex foods at the same time so there isn't a sugar rush in the
bloodstream.

Yes. Offset the simple sugars with fats and proteins. But, just
"mixing" doesn't eliminate the potential "problem"/rush. E.g., a
meat serving on a large bed of white rice is still "lots of white
rice" -- despite the protein present!

I've heard that if you add some beans to the white rice that it makes a
complete protein, but again, even if it's rice and meat served together
you usually get a veggie to go with it.

[...]
I'd be more likely to grab a Boost or whole grain raisin bagel, no
butter.

I like butter. Thankfully, don't appear to have any cholesterol problems
so I don't sweat eating it.

Me either, but I don't eat it often.

I haven't had a good bagel since leaving New England many many years back.
The stuff they sell in delis and grocers are just "air pudding". I'd
rather have a *donut* if those are the only bagel choices!

We have some good bagels here at Whole Foods.

I used to use honey as sweetener for my tea but was spending a *lot*
of money on 6 lb containers of honey every month or so ("sugar" just
doesn't taste right in tea). I can stomach Stevia if I use a fair
bit of fresh lemon juice in the tea. Or, agave nectar if I want to
avoid the lemon juice.

Occasionally, I'll drop a green tea tea bag into my water and let it
flavor the water.


It's relatively common, here, to throw a lemon or lime wedge into
a glass of water.

I like tea because of the warm, soothing feeling. Honey just amplifies
that sensation.

I'm not so much a warm tea drinker, but if I'm cold a small cup of
coffee will do.

[...]

Butter is the only way to go when I make my home made scalloped potatoes.

I don't use butter *in* my cooking (notable exception being baked stuffed
shrimp). It is only used in baked goods. But, used liberally, there!
It's amusing to note how many folks will *taste* the fact that there is
butter present in a Rx: "Mmmm... real butter!" I always wonder what the
hell they normally eat that *doesn't* have that taste?!

Probably stuff made with margarine! yuk.

I buy a lot of butter, sugar, flour -- esp this time of year (e.g.,
50 pounds
of flour just for "holiday baking"). The consolation is that almost
*all*
of this stuff gets given away -- let *other* folks suffer the ill
effects
of these things, not me! : And, strangely enough, they are GLAD to
do so! ;-)

I can only allow myself the occasional nibble of such tasty tidbits!


Aside from eating the "rejects" (e.g., a pizzelle that is burnt or badly
shaped), I don't eat sweets (not counting ice cream). I *make* but
don't *consume*.

Always amusing to bring a plate of cookies to a party and have the hostess
turn around and offer me one: "No, I don't eat that crap!" :
Lately, folks have gotten wise and now *hide* the goodies that I
bring and put out "store bought" stuff "for their guests" -- keeping
*my* goodies for themselves (after the guests leave).

Sounds like a good idea! lol

--
Maggie

On 9/17/2015 3:37 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 9/17/2015 2:42 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/17/2015 12:31 AM, Muggles wrote:


Over the last 10 years I've quit eating potatoes and bread and other
such carbs not because it's bad for me, but because I just didn't want
it any more. Don't get me wrong, I still like the occasional baked
potato, but I've opted for baked sweet potatoes, instead.

Good for you. I've been wanting to drop 15 to 20 pounds for a long time,
but just can't give up either of those for very long. Never met a carb I
didn't like.


There's a diet that works for some people called the Carbohydrate
Addicts diet. It doesn't do much for me since I'm not a carb addict
(physically), but it works for my husband. The bare bones of it is you
eat low carb for 2 meals a day, and your third meal you can eat anything
you want as long as it's within an hours time. There's a book by the
same title. It's totally not fair how quick my husband can lose weight
and eat anything he wants for dinner! It might be worth a look see for
you? He also looses weight quickly on a juice diet, too.


Thanks, I'll have to check it out.

On 9/17/2015 4:53 PM, Don Y wrote:

I like butter. Thankfully, don't appear to have any cholesterol problems
so I don't sweat eating it.

No such thing as a "butter substitute". Give me the real thing or nothing.