On 23/10/2017 09:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Some peoples bodies keep on working for yeaes, othersÂ* simply develop
chronic and massively disabling conditions.

Usually because they have over-indulged in tobacco, alcohol and
excessive red meat, while living a couch-potato lifestyle.

On Sunday, 22 October 2017 21:11:26 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
On 22/10/2017 14:58, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 22 October 2017 14:16:55 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:

In this case I have only recently become aware that The Natural
Philosopher, TabbyPurr and Tjoepstil are the one person.

Lol!

There is no excuse, since the same account can be on all his machines.

One then wonders why the need to use a number of names/accounts apart
from nefarious reasons.

One wonders why some folk believe the daftest of things.


NT, not to be confused with TNP.

Spelt with a silent CU unless I am missing something.

from the guy that behaves like a total idiot to his apprentices.

On 23/10/17 09:35, Huge wrote:
On 2017-10-23, GB wrote:
On 22/10/2017 22:46, Tjoepstil wrote:

old age is just the point were days are 100% not free of pain.

And at that point, you can (usually) choose to let the disability

You can be in pain without being disabled.


And you can be in pain and disabled as well.


--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
Spend too much time on the tube in London and you will get
TB (and maybe the antibiotic-resistant variety).

Must be an awful lot of people in London with TB, then. All the TFL tube
staff included?

--
*It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 23/10/17 14:14, pamela wrote:
On 09:42 23 Oct 2017, GB wrote:

On 23/10/2017 09:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/10/17 08:52, GB wrote:
On 22/10/2017 22:46, Tjoepstil wrote:

old age is just the point were days are 100% not free of
pain.

And at that point, you can (usually) choose to let the
disability overwhelm you or to try to stay active.

You try leading a walk with a heart that will let you get 50
yards before you need to wait for 5 minutes.

There are people who can't even walk that far, so try to hang on
to what you have.

In my experience, the people who
at least make an effort to stay active are much happier, but
that may be because happier people are mentally prepared to
make more effort.

No, its because people who are able to walk have at least
something left to live for.

There are chair-based exercise for people who can't walk.
Funnily enough, after yesterday's pretty atrocious weather, it's
sunny here this morning. So, getting outside, even if you can't
totter further than the gate can still be mood-enhancing.


Apart from the 84 year old leading the walk, there was another
man about the same age who was struggling a bit with the wind.
Even so, he made it. If he had given up, as a handful of the
younger people did, his ability to manage next time would be
reduced.


As I said. age has nothing to do with it.

You actually said the opposite: "I am chronically ill with a
disease called 'old age'". You then went on to define what you
meant by old age in terms of pain.

Some peoples bodies keep on
working for yeaes, others simply develop chronic and massively
disabling conditions.

I will be having 5th heart operation in a few weeks.

Fingers crossed for you, TNP.

I hope it allows me to walk more than 50 yards

Whatever specific heart problems TNP has, I hope his forthcoming
operation is success and he gets well soon.

Well **** you too pamela.

When you hget old, you dont get better.

You just stop getting worse, for a while.



--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 23/10/17 09:48, GB wrote:
On 23/10/2017 09:43, jim wrote:
Tim Streater Wrote in message:
In article , Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 22/10/2017 21:26, charles wrote:
in another newsgroup, we refer to our age by use of the Periodic
Table.

I'm Iridium

That's a good age. Product of two primes.


I think I am prime!

Yep.

--
"If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

On 23/10/17 14:15, Andrew wrote:
On 23/10/2017 09:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Some peoples bodies keep on working for yeaes, othersÂ* simply develop
chronic and massively disabling conditions.

Usually because they have over-indulged in tobacco, alcohol and
excessive red meat, while living a couch-potato lifestyle.

Well that is if course the bigotry of the young.

I think something like 60% of all cancers is 'just bad luck' according
to the latest statistics, and by far and away the biggest factor
affecting heart disease is genetic, followed by stress.

Which is why an ex GF's vegetarian uber fit outdoor farmer father, who
never smoked or drank, died of a heart attack at 66.

And why my bike riding health conscious ex business partner died of
prostate cancer, age 45.

Or why osteo arthritis affects some peole but not others. Smoking
actually reduces the risk of osteo arthritris, possibly because smokers
are less prone to be obese.

If you count the numver of articles that say moderate drinking is bad
and compare them with the ones that say moderate drinking is good, my
feeling is they are about equal.

And if I am obese, it is because I cant exercise more than lightly
because I have heart disease. Not the other way around.

And its not for want of motivation either, the combination of pills is
there to stop the heart doing what it can no longer do, and its
effective, if I tried to exercise harder I would simply collapse from
lack of oxygen.

If I stopped the pills, I would die of a heart attack instead, probably.


--
"If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 23/10/17 14:15, Andrew wrote:
On 23/10/2017 09:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Some peoples bodies keep on working for yeaes, others simply develop
chronic and massively disabling conditions.

Usually because they have over-indulged in tobacco, alcohol and
excessive red meat, while living a couch-potato lifestyle.

Well that is if course the bigotry of the young.

I think something like 60% of all cancers is 'just bad luck' according to
the latest statistics, and by far and away the biggest factor affecting
heart disease is genetic, followed by stress.

Which is why an ex GF's vegetarian uber fit outdoor farmer father, who
never smoked or drank, died of a heart attack at 66.

And why my bike riding health conscious ex business partner died of
prostate cancer, age 45.

Or why osteo arthritis affects some peole but not others. Smoking actually
reduces the risk of osteo arthritris, possibly because smokers are less
prone to be obese.

If you count the numver of articles that say moderate drinking is bad and
compare them with the ones that say moderate drinking is good, my feeling
is they are about equal.

That isnt how you decide whether moderate drinking is good.

And if I am obese, it is because I cant exercise more than lightly because
I have heart disease. Not the other way around.

But if you can't exercise, you are free to put fewer calories in your
mouth and not become obese because you consume more calories
than you burn.

And its not for want of motivation either, the combination of pills is
there to stop the heart doing what it can no longer do, and its effective,
if I tried to exercise harder I would simply collapse from lack of oxygen.

If I stopped the pills, I would die of a heart attack instead, probably.

On 23/10/2017 16:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/10/17 14:15, Andrew wrote:
On 23/10/2017 09:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Some peoples bodies keep on working for yeaes, others simply develop
chronic and massively disabling conditions.

Usually because they have over-indulged in tobacco, alcohol and
excessive red meat, while living a couch-potato lifestyle.

Or why osteo arthritis affects some peole but not others. Smoking
actually reduces the risk of osteo arthritris, possibly because smokers
are less prone to be obese.

The statistic to contemplate is that smokers are as likely to die from
something smoking-related as from all other causes.



If you count the numver of articles that say moderate drinking is bad
and compare them with the ones that say moderate drinking is good, my
feeling is they are about equal.

And if I am obese, it is because I cant exercise more than lightly
because I have heart disease. Not the other way around.


If you smoke and become obese, you are really stacking the odds against
yourself, unfortunately.

On the most basic level, if you have limited heart function you are
going to be a lot more mobile if you weigh 10 stone than 15.

On 23/10/2017 16:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/10/17 09:35, Huge wrote:
On 2017-10-23, GB wrote:
On 22/10/2017 22:46, Tjoepstil wrote:

old age is just the point were days are 100% not free of pain.

And at that point, you can (usually) choose to let the disability

You can be in pain without being disabled.


And you can be in pain and disabled as well.


I just meant that pain is a disability.

On 23/10/17 16:54, Jack Konstan wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 23/10/17 14:15, Andrew wrote:
On 23/10/2017 09:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Some peoples bodies keep on working for yeaes, othersÂ* simply
develop chronic and massively disabling conditions.

Usually because they have over-indulged in tobacco, alcohol and
excessive red meat, while living a couch-potato lifestyle.

Well that is if course the bigotry of the young.

I think something like 60% of all cancers is 'just bad luck' according
to the latest statistics, and by far and away the biggest factor
affecting heart disease is genetic, followed by stress.

Which is why an ex GF's vegetarian uber fit outdoor farmer father, who
never smoked or drank, died of a heart attack at 66.

And why my bike riding health conscious ex business partner died of
prostate cancer, age 45.

Or why osteo arthritis affects some peole but not others. Smoking
actually reduces the risk of osteo arthritris, possibly because
smokers are less prone to be obese.

If you count the numver of articles that say moderate drinking is bad
and compare them with the ones that say moderate drinking is good, my
feeling is they are about equal.

That isnt how you decide whether moderate drinking is good.

And if I am obese, it is because I cant exercise more than lightly
because I have heart disease.Â* Not the other way around.

But if you can't exercise, you are free to put fewer calories in your
mouth and not become obese because you consume more calories
than you burn.


You have no idea how difficult it is to put enough of what you *need* in
yur mouth (vitamins and minerals) without putting *more* than you need
of certain elements of it, if you are not burning calories.

It requires a complete rethink of everything you eat. And the advice you
are given is largely wrong. For me, the avoidance of all starch in
cereals, beer and even the humble potato is mandatory. And sugar is
simply not really in the diet. I have to worry about sugars in fruit
too. Dairyt us a bit of a nono too.


Yet people recommend 'whole grains' and 'yoghurt'

Fat is not problem, it seems. Fat doesn't make you fat. That was 'magic
thinking'. Carbohydrates make you fat. Starch sugar and alcohols.



You also are probably not aware that swelling and bloating are classic
signs of a heart that isn't working hard enough to pump fluids around
the body properly.




--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 23/10/17 16:54, Jack Konstan wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 23/10/17 14:15, Andrew wrote:
On 23/10/2017 09:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Some peoples bodies keep on working for yeaes, others simply develop
chronic and massively disabling conditions.

Usually because they have over-indulged in tobacco, alcohol and
excessive red meat, while living a couch-potato lifestyle.

Well that is if course the bigotry of the young.

I think something like 60% of all cancers is 'just bad luck' according
to the latest statistics, and by far and away the biggest factor
affecting heart disease is genetic, followed by stress.

Which is why an ex GF's vegetarian uber fit outdoor farmer father, who
never smoked or drank, died of a heart attack at 66.

And why my bike riding health conscious ex business partner died of
prostate cancer, age 45.

Or why osteo arthritis affects some peole but not others. Smoking
actually reduces the risk of osteo arthritris, possibly because smokers
are less prone to be obese.

If you count the numver of articles that say moderate drinking is bad
and compare them with the ones that say moderate drinking is good, my
feeling is they are about equal.

That isnt how you decide whether moderate drinking is good.

And if I am obese, it is because I cant exercise more than lightly
because I have heart disease. Not the other way around.

But if you can't exercise, you are free to put fewer calories in your
mouth and not become obese because you consume more calories
than you burn.


You have no idea how difficult it is to put enough of what you *need* in
yur mouth (vitamins and minerals) without putting *more* than you need of
certain elements of it, if you are not burning calories.

It is easy to take what vitamins and minerals you need in pill form without
any calories from the pills at all.

It requires a complete rethink of everything you eat.

Just less of what you normally eat if you are already eating sensibly.

And the advice you
are given is largely wrong. For me, the avoidance of all starch in
cereals, beer and even the humble potato is mandatory. And sugar is simply
not really in the diet. I have to worry about sugars in fruit too. Dairyt
us a bit of a nono too.

Still easy to only put as many calories in your mouth as you burn.

Yet people recommend 'whole grains' and 'yoghurt'

Fat is not problem, it seems. Fat doesn't make you fat. That was 'magic
thinking'. Carbohydrates make you fat. Starch sugar and alcohols.



You also are probably not aware that swelling and bloating are classic
signs of a heart that isn't working hard enough to pump fluids around the
body properly.

I am actually, but that isnt obesity.

On 23/10/2017 17:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You have no idea how difficult it is to put enough of what you *need* in
yur mouth (vitamins and minerals)

I take one Boots Multivitamin every day, and that covers most of it.
They cost around 2p each.


without putting *more* than you need
of certain elements of it, if you are not burning calories.

It requires a complete rethink of everything you eat. And the advice you
are given is largely wrong. For me, the avoidance of all starch in
cereals, beer and even the humble potato is mandatory. And sugar is
simply not really in the diet. I have to worry about sugars in fruit
too. Dairyt us a bit of a nono too.


Yet people recommend 'whole grains' and 'yoghurt'

Fat is not problem, it seems. Fat doesn't make you fat. That was 'magic
thinking'. Carbohydrates make you fat. Starch sugar and alcohols.

Try keeping a detailed food diary and weighing out portions.
MyFitnessPal has an online version.

On Monday, 23 October 2017 17:44:32 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 23/10/2017 17:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You have no idea how difficult it is to put enough of what you *need* in
yur mouth (vitamins and minerals)

I take one Boots Multivitamin every day, and that covers most of it.
They cost around 2p each.

it's a start but they far from cover most of it

without putting *more* than you need
of certain elements of it, if you are not burning calories.

It requires a complete rethink of everything you eat. And the advice you
are given is largely wrong. For me, the avoidance of all starch in
cereals, beer and even the humble potato is mandatory. And sugar is
simply not really in the diet. I have to worry about sugars in fruit
too. Dairyt us a bit of a nono too.


Yet people recommend 'whole grains' and 'yoghurt'

Fat is not problem, it seems. Fat doesn't make you fat. That was 'magic
thinking'. Carbohydrates make you fat. Starch sugar and alcohols.

Try keeping a detailed food diary and weighing out portions.
MyFitnessPal has an online version.

I can certainly eat more calories now that I eat more fat & less starch than before.


NT

"Tjoepstil" wrote in message
news
On 22/10/17 20:39, michael adams wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news


I am chronically ill with a disease called 'old age'

And so unlike everybody else.

As a matter of interest how old were you again, at the time of the
Windscale Fire ?

about 7 I think

It's none of my business of course; only you did say how old you were
at the time, during our previous discussion of your claim to have heard
news of the fire on the radio.


I didnt claim that.I reported it as a fact.

quote

It says something for how Britain's nuclear establishment worked
from the start that when Windscale No1 Pile caught fire in October
1957, it was hushed up so well that even with 11 tons of uranium
ablaze for three days, the reactor close to collapse and radioactive
material spreading across the Lake District, the people who worked
there were expected to keep quiet and carry on making plutonium for
the bomb.
This was Britain's worst-ever nuclear accident, but no one was
evacuated, no iodine pills
were distributed, work went on and most people were not even told
about the fire. But, thanks to Sellafield Stories, a book of interviews
with nearly 100 people who worked there

Union leader and ex-Commando Cyril McManus says he thought the fire
might mean the workers got a day off; Wally Eldred, the scientist
who went on to be head of laboratories at BNFL, says he was told to
"carry on as normal"; and chemist Marjorie Higham says she
paid no attention. "Things did go wrong so you just didn't take
any notice. The less you know about it the less you can tell anyone
else."

quote

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...clear-accident

So that while as a 5/6/7/8/9 year old you claim categorically
that you heard news of the Sellafield fire being announced on the
BBC News on the radio, over 50 years later people who actually
worked at Sellafield have all decided to lie about what actually
happened in interviews being conducted for a book.


you expect people to be as big liars as you are.

That should be very easy for you to prove.

Unlike 99.9% of the claims you make on here.

Just point to one instance of my lying.

I cant be bothered to lie

Dear me. What you now seem to be claiming is that throughout your whole
life you've never encountered situations - as a result of coming across
concrete evidence - in the form of dated letters, documents, photographs
recollections by trustworthy 3rd parties etc where its apparent that your
memory must have been "playing tricks" on you ?

Years ago this might have been the cause of worry but research into
long term memory suggests that memory recall is a creative process
basically memories are re-written every time and that associated
memories separated by time can be conflated without the subject
being aware of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory...l_manipulation

In other words its quite possible to make "honest mistakes"
where long term memories are concerned.

Now while this can be fairly trivial in the context of a
UseNet debate even if it does cause some people to jump
out if their prams, the implications for the criminal justice
system especially for those accused in historical cases
are far from trivial. As are the implications of a lot of
such research.



I'm not trying to catch you out, only compare your notion of "old age"
as against that of other posters to the group possibly, who unlike me,
have actually stated how old they are.

Because if my memory serves me right, you're still a bit of a youngster.

old age is just the point were days are 100% not free of pain.

So you're not going to answer by giving your age, in other words.


can happen at 40, or 90

quote

Arthritis and children
Arthritis is often associated with older people, but it can also affect
children. In the UK, about 15,000 children and young people are affected
by arthritis.
Most types of childhood arthritis are known as juvenile idiopathic arthritis
(JIA). JIA causes pain and inflammation in one or more joints for at least
six weeks.

/quote

https://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Arthri...roduction.aspx


michael adams


"Used by the [...[Government in the form proposed, the referendum
is a tactical device to get over a split in their own party, and
any constitutional consequences are, therefore, of only
secondary importance in the Government's eyes."

Margaret Thatcher HoC debate 1975

....

On 23/10/17 19:38, michael adams wrote:
"Tjoepstil" wrote in message
news
On 22/10/17 20:39, michael adams wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news

I am chronically ill with a disease called 'old age'

And so unlike everybody else.

As a matter of interest how old were you again, at the time of the
Windscale Fire ?

about 7 I think

It's none of my business of course; only you did say how old you were
at the time, during our previous discussion of your claim to have heard
news of the fire on the radio.


I didnt claim that.I reported it as a fact.

quote

It says something for how Britain's nuclear establishment worked
from the start that when Windscale No1 Pile caught fire in October
1957, it was hushed up so well that even with 11 tons of uranium
ablaze for three days, the reactor close to collapse and radioactive
material spreading across the Lake District, the people who worked
there were expected to keep quiet and carry on making plutonium for
the bomb.
This was Britain's worst-ever nuclear accident, but no one was
evacuated, no iodine pills
were distributed, work went on and most people were not even told
about the fire. But, thanks to Sellafield Stories, a book of interviews
with nearly 100 people who worked there

Union leader and ex-Commando Cyril McManus says he thought the fire
might mean the workers got a day off; Wally Eldred, the scientist
who went on to be head of laboratories at BNFL, says he was told to
"carry on as normal"; and chemist Marjorie Higham says she
paid no attention. "Things did go wrong so you just didn't take
any notice. The less you know about it the less you can tell anyone
else."

quote

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...clear-accident

So that while as a 5/6/7/8/9 year old you claim categorically
that you heard news of the Sellafield fire being announced on the
BBC News on the radio, over 50 years later people who actually
worked at Sellafield have all decided to lie about what actually
happened in interviews being conducted for a book.


you expect people to be as big liars as you are.

That should be very easy for you to prove.

Unlike 99.9% of the claims you make on here.

Just point to one instance of my lying.

I cant be bothered to lie

Dear me. What you now seem to be claiming is that throughout your whole
life you've never encountered situations - as a result of coming across
concrete evidence - in the form of dated letters, documents, photographs
recollections by trustworthy 3rd parties etc where its apparent that your
memory must have been "playing tricks" on you ?

Years ago this might have been the cause of worry but research into
long term memory suggests that memory recall is a creative process
basically memories are re-written every time and that associated
memories separated by time can be conflated without the subject
being aware of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory...l_manipulation

In other words its quite possible to make "honest mistakes"
where long term memories are concerned.

Now while this can be fairly trivial in the context of a
UseNet debate even if it does cause some people to jump
out if their prams, the implications for the criminal justice
system especially for those accused in historical cases
are far from trivial. As are the implications of a lot of
such research.



I'm not trying to catch you out, only compare your notion of "old age"
as against that of other posters to the group possibly, who unlike me,
have actually stated how old they are.

Because if my memory serves me right, you're still a bit of a youngster.

old age is just the point were days are 100% not free of pain.

So you're not going to answer by giving your age, in other words.


can happen at 40, or 90

quote

Arthritis and children
Arthritis is often associated with older people, but it can also affect
children. In the UK, about 15,000 children and young people are affected
by arthritis.
Most types of childhood arthritis are known as juvenile idiopathic arthritis
(JIA). JIA causes pain and inflammation in one or more joints for at least
six weeks.

/quote

https://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Arthri...roduction.aspx


michael adams


"Used by the [...[Government in the form proposed, the referendum
is a tactical device to get over a split in their own party, and
any constitutional consequences are, therefore, of only
secondary importance in the Government's eyes."

Margaret Thatcher HoC debate 1975

...




This article shows I am telling the truth


http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/3181342.stm

And you are lying.oh and by the way, if you applied as much diligence to
listening to me as you do to pretending that I am lying, and you are
not, you could work out how old I am

Of course lying about 'cover ups' at windscale sells books...


But I am sick of justifying myself to yet another mentally ill person
*plonk*

On Monday, 23 October 2017 20:07:22 UTC+1, Tjoepstil wrote:
On 23/10/17 19:38, michael adams wrote:

But I am sick of justifying myself to yet another mentally ill person
*plonk*

+1. We seem to have had an influx of idiots lately.

wrote in message
...
On Monday, 23 October 2017 17:44:32 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 23/10/2017 17:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You have no idea how difficult it is to put enough of what you *need*
in
yur mouth (vitamins and minerals)

I take one Boots Multivitamin every day, and that covers most of it.
They cost around 2p each.

it's a start but they far from cover most of it

In fact most get all the vitamins and minerals they need in
the food the consume and dont need any supplements at all.

without putting *more* than you need
of certain elements of it, if you are not burning calories.

It requires a complete rethink of everything you eat. And the advice
you
are given is largely wrong. For me, the avoidance of all starch in
cereals, beer and even the humble potato is mandatory. And sugar is
simply not really in the diet. I have to worry about sugars in fruit
too. Dairyt us a bit of a nono too.


Yet people recommend 'whole grains' and 'yoghurt'

Fat is not problem, it seems. Fat doesn't make you fat. That was 'magic
thinking'. Carbohydrates make you fat. Starch sugar and alcohols.

Try keeping a detailed food diary and weighing out portions.
MyFitnessPal has an online version.

I can certainly eat more calories now that I eat more fat & less starch
than before.

On 23/10/2017 15:58, wrote:
On Sunday, 22 October 2017 21:11:26 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
On 22/10/2017 14:58, tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 22 October 2017 14:16:55 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:

In this case I have only recently become aware that The Natural
Philosopher, TabbyPurr and Tjoepstil are the one person.

Lol!

There is no excuse, since the same account can be on all his machines.

One then wonders why the need to use a number of names/accounts apart
from nefarious reasons.

One wonders why some folk believe the daftest of things.


NT, not to be confused with TNP.

Spelt with a silent CU unless I am missing something.

from the guy that behaves like a total idiot to his apprentices.

That bunch of NTs.



--
Adam

On 23/10/2017 22:08, Rod Speed wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Monday, 23 October 2017 17:44:32 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 23/10/2017 17:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You have no idea how difficult it is to put enough of what you
*need* in
yur mouth (vitamins and minerals)

I take one Boots Multivitamin every day, and that covers most of it.
They cost around 2p each.

it's a start but they far from cover most of it

In fact most get all the vitamins and minerals they need in
the food the consume and dont need any supplements at all.

I agree with that. However, it's hard to be sure without extensive
testing, so it's a simple precaution to spend just over a fiver a year
taking a supplement. The worst that happens, it's a fiver literally peed
down the drain.

In practice, many people in the UK are a bit short of vitamin D,
especially in winter. I've also heard of a shortage of selenium in the
typical diet.

"GB" wrote in message
news
On 23/10/2017 22:08, Rod Speed wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Monday, 23 October 2017 17:44:32 UTC+1, GB wrote:
On 23/10/2017 17:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You have no idea how difficult it is to put enough of what you
*need* in
yur mouth (vitamins and minerals)

I take one Boots Multivitamin every day, and that covers most of it.
They cost around 2p each.

it's a start but they far from cover most of it

In fact most get all the vitamins and minerals they need in
the food they consume and dont need any supplements at all.

I agree with that. However, it's hard to be sure without extensive
testing,

Nope. The extensive testing has been done and its only with utterly
bizarre 'diets' like nothing but beer and packets of crisps that dont now.

so it's a simple precaution to spend just over a fiver a year taking a
supplement. The worst that happens, it's a fiver literally peed down the
drain.

Sure.

In practice, many people in the UK are a bit short of vitamin D,
especially in winter.

But its far from clear that vitamin D in the
pill form you are taking is any real use at all.

I've also heard of a shortage of selenium in the typical diet.

But it isnt something that produces any
significant effects if your diet is lacking in that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selenium#Deficiency

In article ,
GB wrote:
You have no idea how difficult it is to put enough of what you *need* in
yur mouth (vitamins and minerals)

I take one Boots Multivitamin every day, and that covers most of it.
They cost around 2p each.

Better to get them from a balanced diet. And you don't need to stuff your
face to get that. Just smaller portions if you have a weight problem.

--
*A backward poet writes inverse.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 23/10/2017 22:25, GB wrote:
On 23/10/2017 22:08, Rod Speed wrote:

In fact most get all the vitamins and minerals they need in
the food the consume and dont need any supplements at all.

I agree with that. However, it's hard to be sure without extensive
testing, so it's a simple precaution to spend just over a fiver a year
taking a supplement. The worst that happens, it's a fiver literally peed
down the drain.

In practice, many people in the UK are a bit short of vitamin D,
especially in winter. I've also heard of a shortage of selenium in the
typical diet.

Chew on some old rectifiers.

What about molybdenum? Apparently that's a dietary requirement for some
enzyme or other. It's in butter beans. But not everyone eats butter beans.

Unless you're a qualified dietitian, just eat a varied diet without any
faddy exclusions like no meat, no eggs or dairy, no gluten ...

--
Max Demian

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:23:47 +0100, Max Demian
wrote:

snip

In practice, many people in the UK are a bit short of vitamin D,
especially in winter. I've also heard of a shortage of selenium in the
typical diet.

Chew on some old rectifiers.

;-)

What about molybdenum? Apparently that's a dietary requirement for some
enzyme or other. It's in butter beans. But not everyone eats butter beans.

It's funny how many people have an issue with so many foods and for
all sorts of reasons.

Now I can understand the one re taste because as a kid (and like many)
the 'taste' of say Brussel sprouts was both strong, overpowering and
disgusting. I have later found that a (small?) percentage of the
population are 'Super tasters':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertaster

I had a strong reaction towards some of the foods on that list but
most are now tolerable, except olives that are still disgusting. I
also find the bitter aftertaste in most 'diet' drinks / sweeteners
unpleasant.

Then you have those who don't like the 'texture' of some foods, like
the Mrs doesn't like the 'shell / skin' in most pulses (but will
generally eat them). Daughter and step daughter don't like the 'bits'
in things like yogurts or fruit drinks and step daughter doesn't like
things like rice pudding for the same reason. I actually enjoy the
bits. ;-)

I'm pretty ok with all that but don't really like the taste of most
marrows (pumpkin, squash, courgette, aubergine etc so could never be a
hippy / veggie). ;-)

Now the funny thing is when people say 'Oh, all you need to do is fry
them whatever you say you don't like the taste of in butter and
garlic, pretty well defeating the taste issue by making them taste of
something else (namely, garlic). ;-)

Lastly you have the people who have 'gone off' something because they
had a bad experience with some once, possibly even when they were
young. The closest I can get to that is finding a 'tube' in liver. I
can still eat liver now but if I find a tube, I pretty well go off the
entire meal.

Unless you're a qualified dietitian, just eat a varied diet without any
faddy exclusions like no meat, no eggs or dairy, no gluten ...

I'm not sure how much of this (especially when it comes to things
people appear allergic to) is down to 'fads' or that because of the
levels of pollution we all live in now, our antibodies (along with a
less healthy / active lifestyle in general) are being overloaded.

Whilst we generally eat 'ok' (I do most of the cooking), we also (like
others here) take a daily multivitamin and a cod liver oil capsules on
the grounds they probably don't do any harm.

We can't keep biscuits, crisps, cakes or sweets in the house or we eat
them, but will have some now and again as a treat (often when out or
when given as a present). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 24/10/2017 12:17, T i m wrote:

We can't keep biscuits, crisps, cakes or sweets in the house or we eat
them

All good diets start at the point of shopping!

Curiously, I agree with everything people have said - both those pro and
anti taking supplements. I nevertheless take them for the reason you
gave, Tim, ie they almost certainly won't do me any harm (except for a
really tiny dent in my wallet) and they will top up any deficiencies in
my diet.

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 12:44:58 +0100, GB
wrote:

On 24/10/2017 12:17, T i m wrote:

We can't keep biscuits, crisps, cakes or sweets in the house or we eat
them

All good diets start at the point of shopping!

Yeah. ;-)

We are going shopping in a mo and it will generally just be a top up
on the staples plus anything that comes up reduced that I think would
make a component in a reasonably healthy meal, and then get any other
bits required to compliment that.

We dug the electric pressure cooker out the other day and I did a
(Quorn) 'Sausage casserole' (veggie daughter) that seemed to be liked
and turned into several portions, included being served to visitors.
;-)

It probably takes longer to prep the veg than it takes to cook and
eat!

Curiously, I agree with everything people have said - both those pro and
anti taking supplements. I nevertheless take them for the reason you
gave, Tim, ie they almost certainly won't do me any harm (except for a
really tiny dent in my wallet) and they will top up any deficiencies in
my diet.

Yup, that's the idea.

I'm currently on Lansoprazole (ulcer treatment) and I'm not sure how
anything that reduces stomach acid might impact on general digestion /
nutrient absorption?

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
Huge wrote:
All you need to know about diet/nutrition in 7 words;

"Eat well. Mostly vegetables. Not too much."

Life would be very miserable without some decent fruit and a good yoghurt
etc for a sweet.

--
*Rehab is for quitters

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
GB wrote:
Curiously, I agree with everything people have said - both those pro and
anti taking supplements. I nevertheless take them for the reason you
gave, Tim, ie they almost certainly won't do me any harm (except for a
really tiny dent in my wallet) and they will top up any deficiencies in
my diet.

Odd there are such a vast choice of dietary suppliments if just one cheap
pill could provide all.

--
*Some days you're the dog, some days the hydrant.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
All you need to know about diet/nutrition in 7 words;

"Eat well. Mostly vegetables. Not too much."

Life would be very miserable without some decent fruit and a good yoghurt
etc for a sweet.

of course, after Brexit, we'll have to stop eating yoghurt - it's a nasty
foreign invention.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
All you need to know about diet/nutrition in 7 words;

"Eat well. Mostly vegetables. Not too much."

Life would be very miserable without some decent fruit and a good
yoghurt etc for a sweet.

of course, after Brexit, we'll have to stop eating yoghurt - it's a nasty
foreign invention.

Quite - we haven't got the climate to rear yogs. It'll be back to junket.

--
*When it rains, why don't sheep shrink? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

wrote in message
...
On Monday, 23 October 2017 20:07:22 UTC+1, Tjoepstil wrote:
On 23/10/17 19:38, michael adams wrote:

But I am sick of justifying myself to yet another mentally ill person
*plonk*

+1. We seem to have had an influx of idiots lately.

Your mate, both of them, has explained his general attitude and
behaviour as a result of his having a heart condition. He's asked
to be excused games, in other words.

So I wonder what's written on your note to the teacher ?

Unfortunately as a heart condition has already been taken,
that leaves you with cancer, galloping cock rot, or
total paralysis between the ears.

I'd go for the latter if I were you, as it sounds much the
most convincing in your case.


michael adams

....

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 14:08:45 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
GB wrote:
Curiously, I agree with everything people have said - both those pro and
anti taking supplements. I nevertheless take them for the reason you
gave, Tim, ie they almost certainly won't do me any harm (except for a
really tiny dent in my wallet) and they will top up any deficiencies in
my diet.

Odd there are such a vast choice of dietary suppliments if just one cheap
pill could provide all.

It's not black and white though is it.

For 'most people' who may not be getting all their general mineral and
vitamins then a general purpose 'Multi-vitamin may just help cover
those holes.

If you are known to be lacking in something (say iron) then you would
take something that was iron only or had a greater percentage of iron.

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 15:08 24 Oct 2017, charles wrote:

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
All you need to know about diet/nutrition in 7 words;

"Eat well. Mostly vegetables. Not too much."

Life would be very miserable without some decent fruit and a
good yoghurt etc for a sweet.

of course, after Brexit, we'll have to stop eating yoghurt -
it's a nasty foreign invention.

We'll have to get rid of duvets and go back to blankets.

I thought they came from Norway

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
GB wrote:
Curiously, I agree with everything people have said - both those pro and
anti taking supplements. I nevertheless take them for the reason you
gave, Tim, ie they almost certainly won't do me any harm (except for a
really tiny dent in my wallet) and they will top up any deficiencies in
my diet.

Odd there are such a vast choice of dietary suppliments if just one cheap
pill could provide all.

Much the same could be said of almost all products which are subject
to marketing and advertsing.

Quite possibly most people needs could be adequately met by
cheaper* model cars, vaccuum cleaners, TV's, toasters, almost
any type of consumer goods in fact.

Its the job of marketing and advertising to persuade people
to buy the more expensive** goods which they don't really
need. Bogus health benefits, even if only alluded to are
an advertisers dream



michael adams

* Cheaper while not necessarily compromising durability/
** The more expensive model adds maybe 1% to manufacturing
costs, 2% to advertising costs, and 10% to the ticket price

....

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
On 23/10/2017 22:25, GB wrote:
On 23/10/2017 22:08, Rod Speed wrote:

In fact most get all the vitamins and minerals they need in
the food the consume and dont need any supplements at all.

I agree with that. However, it's hard to be sure without extensive
testing, so it's a simple precaution to spend just over a fiver a year
taking a supplement. The worst that happens, it's a fiver literally peed
down the drain.

In practice, many people in the UK are a bit short of vitamin D,
especially in winter. I've also heard of a shortage of selenium in the
typical diet.

Chew on some old rectifiers.

What about molybdenum? Apparently that's a dietary requirement for some
enzyme or other. It's in butter beans. But not everyone eats butter beans.

But most get enough of it in the food they eat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molybd...and_deficiency

Unless you're a qualified dietitian, just eat a varied diet without any
faddy exclusions like no meat, no eggs or dairy, no gluten ...

"Dave Plowman (News)" Wrote in message:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
Spend too much time on the tube in London and you will get
TB (and maybe the antibiotic-resistant variety).

Must be an awful lot of people in London with TB, then. All the TFL tube
staff included?


TBFL.....

--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:34:21 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Monday, 23 October 2017 20:07:22 UTC+1, Tjoepstil wrote:
On 23/10/17 19:38, michael adams wrote:

But I am sick of justifying myself to yet another mentally ill person
*plonk*

+1. We seem to have had an influx of idiots lately.

Your mate, both of them, has explained his general attitude and
behaviour as a result of his having a heart condition. He's asked
to be excused games, in other words.

So I wonder what's written on your note to the teacher ?

Unfortunately as a heart condition has already been taken,
that leaves you with cancer, galloping cock rot, or
total paralysis between the ears.

I'd go for the latter if I were you, as it sounds much the
most convincing in your case.


michael adams

...

well at least you managed a little mild humour among your senseless drivel

wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 24 October 2017 17:34:21 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
tabbypurr wrote in message
...
On Monday, 23 October 2017 20:07:22 UTC+1, Tjoepstil wrote:
On 23/10/17 19:38, michael adams wrote:

But I am sick of justifying myself to yet another mentally ill person
*plonk*

+1. We seem to have had an influx of idiots lately.

Your mate, both of them, has explained his general attitude and
behaviour as a result of his having a heart condition. He's asked
to be excused games, in other words.

So I wonder what's written on your note to the teacher ?

Unfortunately as a heart condition has already been taken,
that leaves you with cancer, galloping cock rot, or
total paralysis between the ears.

I'd go for the latter if I were you, as it sounds much the
most convincing in your case.


michael adams

...

well at least you managed a little mild humour among your senseless drivel
You think so?
It's about as sensible as Daves ********.
Roll on Liebour.

In article . com,
bm wrote:
well at least you managed a little mild humour among your senseless
drivel
You think so?
It's about as sensible as Daves ********.

Suppose I should be honoured you think about me so often you need to
mention me in every thread you reply to.

I's suggest you get out more and find a proper boyfriend.

--
*This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for extra security *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
bm wrote:
well at least you managed a little mild humour among your senseless
drivel
You think so?
It's about as sensible as Daves ********.

Suppose I should be honoured you think about me so often you need to
mention me in every thread you reply to.

I's suggest you get out more and find a proper boyfriend.

I'd suggest you open your eyes and see the bleedin obvious in front of you.
Forget party politics (as do I), the EU is ****ed.
I'd vote for someone who has a clue, Labour do not.
You seem to be almost the only awkwardite amongst us.