response 26 of 82:

Jun 10 02:39 UTC 2002

I believe that's left up to individual interpretation.  We're not 
quite that strict.  Again, Walter, the prohibition was made against 
tea-- and caffeine most likely is not the lone culprit.  Indeed, cola, 
Mt. Dew, etc., should probably be avoided, but that has been left to 
individual decision.

I suppose the jury's still out on chocolate, although it is not 
specifically prohibited at all, but I do know most people are eating 
Hershey's (cheap sweetener and fat indeed) or some like commercial 
chocolate, and not premium chocolate like I had at Zingerman's when I 
was here.

resp:24  I'm sorry, I didn't clarify.  The sentiment was purely my 
opinion-- I would believe that clinical obesity would likely be 
avoided if the Word of Wisdom was followed carefully.

Boy Scouts and new LDS missionaries at the Missionary Training Center 
(MTC) are encouraged to eat healthy and to exercise regularly, if that 
is a good reference point.

Misti, this is lumen, just in a new user ID.

response 28 of 82:

Jun 11 02:50 UTC 2002

What is 'radiantly' healthy?  All of us emit thermal radiation, are you hotter
than most?

The tannins in tea can be healthy in that they kill intestinal parasites, and
there are supposed to be other compounds in green tea (the unfermented type)
that are healthy (cancer reducing?).

response 30 of 82:

Jun 11 17:52 UTC 2002

Radiantly healthy refers to a different kind of radiance, Sindi.  I am, as a
matter of fact, better able to gnerate thermal radiation, but the radiance of
good health has nothing to do with that.

If you've never heard the phrase, I guess I can try to explain leter, when I';m
not at work and have time to think it through.

response 32 of 82:

Jun 13 16:03 UTC 2002

vibrant
  
SYLLABICATION: vi·brant 
PRONUNCIATION:  vbrnt 
ADJECTIVE: 1a. Pulsing or throbbing with energy or activity: the 
vibrant streets of a big city. b. Vigorous, lively, and vital: “a 
vibrant group that challenged the . . . system” (Philip Taubman).
2. Exhibiting or characterized by rapid, rhythmic movement back and 
forth or to and fro; vibrating. 
3. Produced as a result of vibration; resonant or resounding: vibrant 
voices.
4. Relatively high on the scale of brightness: a vibrant hue.  
OTHER FORMS: vibran·cy, vibrance —NOUN
vibrant·ly —ADVERB
 

response 34 of 82:

Jun 15 13:46 UTC 2002

SO is a vibrant color a lively (bright?) color?  I understand how streets with
lots of traffic can vibrate.

response 36 of 82:

Jun 17 18:21 UTC 2002

re #33 It is the one on Yahoo! I *think* they have an online version of 
the American Heritage Dictionary.


re#34 That's right, Sindi. The word 'vibrant' can mean a bright color. 
Perhaps at one time someone felt that bright colors made things *look* 
like they were vibrating. Who knows?

response 38 of 82:

Jun 20 14:13 UTC 2002

OK, put that way, I'd have to agree.  An concentration camp style diet will
indeed make most people thin (some it will kill before thin happens, but
they're already suffering from other health problems.)

Speaking of which, has anyone else been following the sotry about SouthWest
airlines charging double rates for people they consider fat?  Most alarming. 
The call is up to whoever is manning the ticket counter.

They claim it's for a second seat, but if you check your tickets carefully,
you'll note that you're paying not for a seat but for a trip ... that's why
they can cancel flights, bump passengers, change seats, etc. with impunity.

response 40 of 82:

Jun 20 18:07 UTC 2002

I'd certainly favor your airline, Lynne.  I do a fair amount of flying in the
course of a year, and having enough room to uncross my arms and stretch my legs
would be wonderful!  

response 42 of 82:

Jun 23 12:33 UTC 2002

Yes, the typical American diet makes most people fatter.  Many people
suffer the "freshman 10".  But the effect of avoiding refined foods and
animal products varies widely, that diet will *not* keep many people thin,
and i'd guess that many of the "very fat" wouldn't even lose weight by
switching to it. 

Interesting to call honey a refined food.  How about nuts?  The cream
anyone with a hammer & spoon can scrape out of many kinds of coconuts?
Corn meal?

response 44 of 82:

Jun 24 03:06 UTC 2002

I wouldn't call honey a refined food by a longshot.  If you want to 
call it refined due to the fact it is the product of bees digesting and 
vomiting flower nectar (gross, yes, but that's what it is), I can see 
that, but I wouldn't put in the same class as that food which is 
refined by humans.

Scientists are technically right: it is a matter of calories.  The 
averages are based on what the body needs alone, and how much activity 
the "average" person does.  The averages are different for men and for 
women.  The suggested amounts increase for people who are very 
physically active.  If your caloric intake exceeds your body's ability 
to burn that fuel for physical activity and body maintanence, your body 
will store those calories as fat.  You must decrease calories if you 
want to lose weight.  However, there are many ways of going about that.

It is true that retaining fiber in grains, fruits, and vegetables helps 
because the fiber is filling.  It's also where most of the nutrients 
are stored.  Peels, husks, and rinds are all examples.  Even so, you 
can still get fat by eating too much of that.  (How do you think herd 
animals get fat?  They get fat on grass, grains, and other stuff that 
isn't refined or animal product.)  The nutritional food pyramid seems 
to be a reasonable rule of thumb for a proper diet; not only does it 
suggest how much of each is good, but it gives proportions.

I will note indeed that you and Jim are very skinny, Sindi.  But I 
doubt all Americans necessarily want to be that thin, either.  I 
suppose we could debate the virtues of bodybuilding, but I doubt they 
or other athletes follow such a strict diet (I dunno, maybe they 
should).

At any rate, Americans do get far more protein than they need, and 
laying off the refined foods would be good.  Refined foods, however, 
have become a way of life.  They have better shelf life, they have more 
palatability (ease of chewing, taste, satiation, ease of digestion 
sometimes), and the food companies are always trying to find ways to 
process food for convenience (time, ease of preparation, etc., etc.)  
Not a very healthy way to live, but it's been found that Americans 
currently beat out the Japanese in the time they work; and in 
comparison with the rest of the busy life the majority leads (rat race, 
anyone?) I doubt many eat healthy.  Hard to do back in the day when 
workers slept under their desks, anyway.

I suppose this would be easier to do if more folks lived like you and 
Jim did, too.  But.. it's not unreasonable to make some dietary changes.

response 46 of 82:

Jun 24 06:37 UTC 2002

Whole grains have a longer shelf life than flour, but I was referring 
to white rice vs. brown rice.  The brown rice is more of a whole grain 
than white, but it won't keep as long.  I'm not really sure if this is 
true of other grains; perhaps rolled oats vs. ...I don't know... what's 
the equivalent?

White bread is rather tasteless, really, on its own.  I think it's best 
with garlic butter or used for french toast (with milk, eggs, and 
cinnamon).

From what source do you gather that excessive amounts of sugar make 
some people continue to feel hungry?  List and cite, please.

Yeah, I wasn't sure about domesticated animals.  It doesn't surprise me 
that high starch and protein is being included.  However, it's my 
understanding that animal meat has actually gotten much leaner in 
recent years; most cuts here in the US are much less marbled than say, 
Japan.  Chicken is much more readily available, but take your pick-- 
free-range or farm fed (lots of growth hormones).  There is beefalo, 
and Ellensburg, WA (Central WA area near where I live) is one area 
producing it.  They are cross-breeding bison with Angus cows to produce 
a leaner cut of beef.

Some folks go with game meat for a leaner cut.  Elk meat is the red 
choice, and is very lean.  Deer, I believe, is considered white.  It's 
expensive, though, because of the cost in properly dressing it.  You 
have to cut away membranes from the skin and meat or it tastes very 
gamey.

Anyway, the USDA nutrition guide lists a meat serving portion as the 
same size of a deck of cards, approximately, and 3-5 is the recommended 
daily allotment.  I doubt many people are even coming close to that.

response 48 of 82:

Jun 25 01:06 UTC 2002

(For what it's worth, the "lots of fat... that you cannot see" is called
marbling, and it's considered desirable in good meat.  It's not as if the
meat industry is pulling a fast one on their customers here -- they're
providing what the customers demand.  Well-marbled meat is generally moister
and more tender when cooked.

Of course, that doesn't really justify the feedlot system of raising cattle.
There's a lot of unnecessary cruelty involved, and you usually end up with
lots of antibiotics in your meat along with the fat.)

Look, sugar addiction is a real problem.  Low-fiber diets are a real problem.
Less refined sugar and less white flour is the best way to solve those
problems.  But that doesn't prove that natural foods are always better, or
that the refining process is the problem.  

Look at it this way.  White flour, a processed food, is less healthy than
whole wheat flour.  Wheat germ and wheat bran are also processed foods,
and they're (by some measures) healthier than whole wheat flour.
_Processing_ isn't the problem.  The problem is that we tend to process
foods by taking fiber and nutrients out and leaving the fat, starch and
sugar, rather than vice versa.  So I agree with keesan up until she says
that natural foods are better than "manufactured" ones, but then I start
disagreeing.