|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 82 responses total. |
slynne
|
|
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
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 33 of 82:
|
Jun 13 19:27 UTC 2002 |
source?
|
keesan
|
|
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.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 35 of 82:
|
Jun 16 02:29 UTC 2002 |
resp:32 hey, I'd be interested to know which dictionary that's from,
please =)
|
slynne
|
|
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?
|
i
|
|
response 37 of 82:
|
Jun 20 00:32 UTC 2002 |
Re: #26/28/29
My impression is that whether an "observant Jew" eats pork depends on
whether he's Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed, etc. At one end of the
spectrum, literally adhering to the ancient rules is paramount, at the
other it's quaintly amusing. I don't think that eating a *healthy* diet
is considered a serious religious issue anywhere in the spectrum.
(Premium (in the sense of purity) chocolate costs *nothing* resembling
Zingerman's prices if you know where to buy. $4.50 will get you 16 oz.,
and trying eat a quarter of that will get you very seriously wired!)
I think it'd be cool if LDS updated its religious rules as new data came
in on old foods (and new bad-for-you foods were introduced or invented),
but it's probably idle to hope that any human religion would actually do
that.
The artistic meanings of radiant & vibrant, especially in reference to
health & color, have been around for as long as i can recall.
Re: #27
Sure there are diets that will guarantee that one will not be fat...but
sticking to one is considered a dangerous mental disorder. Last i heard,
people have about as much control over their thinness/fatness as they do
over their skin color. As with skin color, those born with the "right"
genes look down upon those born with less fashionable ones, and loads of
people spends loads of money & time trying to make themselves look "more
right".
|
mta
|
|
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.
|
slynne
|
|
response 39 of 82:
|
Jun 20 15:36 UTC 2002 |
I think a lot of airlines do that. I have heard they do anyway.
Basically, if they dont think you can fit into one of their seats, they
will charge you for two. *shrug*
The real problem is allowing the ticket counter person to make the
call. If I am going to have to pay double to fly on Southwest, that is
fine but I want to know in advance because I'll book on another airline.
If I had tons of money, I would start an airline that totally catered
to fat people. I think it could be success because the things I would
do would make the flight more comfortable for thin people too. I would
make the seats wider, add more leg room, make the aisle a little
bigger, make the bathrooms a little bigger, etc. I would have to charge
more because of that, of course, but I think a lot of people would find
the changes worth the extra expense. Look at the success of Midwest
Express.
|
mta
|
|
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!
|
keesan
|
|
response 41 of 82:
|
Jun 23 09:47 UTC 2002 |
People who want to pay more for airplane tickets can already do so by flying
first class.
Anyone eating a typical American diet, with lots of refined foods, is much
more likely to get fat no matter what their genetic makeup. I got fat
eating dorm food for three years and lost the weight once I started to cook
for myself. It is difficult to get fat if you don't eat any refined foods
or animal products. Refined foods include white flour, oil, honey, juice and
anything else low fiber and with parts removed.
|
i
|
|
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?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 43 of 82:
|
Jun 24 02:53 UTC 2002 |
"Refined" isn't really a good word for it. Fatty sugary foods with few
nutrients are rare in nature, and so most of them really are refined. I
think that's where we get the standard hippie assumption that more
"natural" foods are always better than less natural ones. But yeah, a
diet of honey, white potatoes and coconut milk won't do anyone much good,
and a (highly artificial) diet of enriched-flour bread, tempeh,
reconstituted frozen vegetables, skim milk and fruit juice from
concentrate will keep you pretty well nourished. So much for "nature" as
the only guiding principle behind what you eat.
|
jaklumen
|
|
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.
|
keesan
|
|
response 45 of 82:
|
Jun 24 03:34 UTC 2002 |
Whole grains have a lot longer shelf life than flour, whether it is refined
or not, as they are still alive. I find white bread pretty tasteless. If
you eat a lot of refined foods you have to eat more of them in order to get
enough vitamins and minerals, in addition to not feeling full. Also the high
sugar content makes some people continue to feel hungry. Food that has more
concentrated calories is more likely to make you feel fat because you can fit
more calories in at one eating. Experiments on rats showed that they got fat
when fed a diet high in sugar and fat.
Cows and pigs are fattened not by being fed their normal diets, but by being
fed a high-fat diet rich in things like corn and soybeans (often cooked
first). Wild herbivores are not fat, just the domesticated ones. Geese used
to be force fed to fatten them for the table, with bread.
|
jaklumen
|
|
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.
|
keesan
|
|
response 47 of 82:
|
Jun 24 18:34 UTC 2002 |
Jim says he cannot stop eating things that have sugar added to them. He has
no such problem with other foods. He also says he used to be fat and tried
all sorts of diets to lose weight which never worked. His five siblings are
all trying to lose weight and are relatively large, as was his mother. Jim
at one point decided to eat healthy and lost weight without attempting to.
Domestic animals were for thousands of years bred to be fat, because people
had no other sources of fat except a few things like olive oil, which was not
available in most places. Tallow and lard were used as cooking fats, for
lighting, to make soap, and in industry. It is only in the past few decades
that people are getting too much fat and are now trying to breed the same
animals to be leaner now. Soybeans are high in fat and are fed to animals
that would normally just eat grasses, to 'fatten them for market'. They eat
grass in the west and are then sent to feedlots to put on weight. They cannot
move around much so it is not muscle weight they are putting on. There is
lots of fat in meat that you cannot see, not just the part that looks white.
Jim's former co-worker was very fat. One day Jim ran into him and did not
recognize him. The guy said he had not gone on a diet, he had just stopped
eating meat. Other people report losing weight if they stop drinking soda
pop - another source of calories without vitamins, minerals, or fiber.
Not eating in restaurants or buying prepared foods might help people to lose
weight - they have to cook something before they can eat. I include bread
as a prepared food, along with milk and cheese and other things that do not
need cooking apart from fruits and some vegetables.
|
orinoco
|
|
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.
|
keesan
|
|
response 49 of 82:
|
Jun 25 01:34 UTC 2002 |
I don't recall using the words natural or manufactured. I did say that if
you have to prepare foods before eating them you are less likely to eat as
much or as often. We don't eat all whole foods - squash skin is not very
palatable, nor are lettuce roots or oat husks. But what we do eat has a lot
more vitamins and minerals than Coca Cola or fried chicken and we don't need
to eat as much of it to feel full, and it takes longer to digest.
Most vegetables and fruits need to be processed in some way - removing the
seeds, or cooking. Candy bars do not need further processing and they mess
up your insulin levels and can make you hungrier instead of the opposite.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 50 of 82:
|
Jun 25 09:23 UTC 2002 |
I agree that carbonated drinks, including soda pop, are a real bane to
a good diet. Most people don't understand that carbonation *alone* is
a real problem. A friend of mine did research on a project that showed
even diet pop is a problem: because your body must process carbonation
first, as it is CO2 and would interfere with reoxygenation. Your
metabolism slows down as your body processes the carbon dioxide. So..
diet pop can still make you fat.
Daniel is right. It is hard to make meat moist and tender if there
isn't much marbling. Thus consumers demand it. Much of
food "processing" also has to do with palatibility, too.
I think you both breezed RIGHT past my point. If you're working hard
to grow your own food, cook it and prepare it yourself, chances are,
yes, you'll probably be eating healthier and probably won't be as fat.
Restaurants and *convenience* foods cater to those who are concerned
with time or don't want to do the work themselves. Capiche? Oh, by
the way, by restaurants, that would imply much more so for "fast food."
Hey, do we have a gardening conference?
|
glenda
|
|
response 51 of 82:
|
Jun 25 10:55 UTC 2002 |
Yes, we have a gardening conference.
|
keesan
|
|
response 52 of 82:
|
Jun 25 15:51 UTC 2002 |
If you want meat to be moist, you can boil it. The fatty cuts are designed
for roasting or broiling and I doubt it is actually moisture in them but
melted fat, unless all that fat keeps the water from getting out as fast when
cooked.
From a nutrition book: 3 oz lean meat has as little as 9 g fat, 3 oz lean
hamburg 16 g fat, regular hamburg 17.8 g fat, roast beef up to 26 g fat.
One cup cooked (8 oz raw?) brown rice 1.2 g fat, one cup white rice .2 g fat.
Carbohydrate and protein are 4 calories per gram, fat is 9 cal/g.
One 3 oz serving of lean hamburger is 230 calories of which 9x16 = 144 cal
are fat, or more than half fat. Lowfat cottage cheese is 2.3 g fat (22 cal
fat) and total calories 164, or about 15% calories from fat. Brown rice is
232 calories per cooked cup of which 1.2x9 = 11 cal is fat, or about 5% of
calories from fat. White rice even less. Lentils are about 5% of calories
from fat. Fruits and vegetables 5% or less. Granola is 35% fat because of
all the added oil. Peanuts 78% so we add nuts to our stir fries. Coconut
milk - do you mean the sweet watery liquid in the coconut, which I suspect
is mostly water, or the opaque white stuff which is squeezed out and is
probably mostly oil?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 53 of 82:
|
Jun 26 00:24 UTC 2002 |
> "If you want meat to be moist, you can boil it"
Well, if that's what you mean by moist, you can make meat as moist as you
want just by hosing it down for a while. "Moist and juicy," as applied to
food, refers more to its texture and feel in your mouth than to it's
actual water content.
Re #49: Okay, I agree with that.
Re #50: Odd, I agree with that too.
|
keesan
|
|
response 54 of 82:
|
Jun 26 00:55 UTC 2002 |
What you are feeling is the melted fat. Dry bread does not have fat smeared
on it, but the water content is no different from buttered bread.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 55 of 82:
|
Jun 26 11:02 UTC 2002 |
Of course. Fat is soft and tastes great. It really satiates and
satisfies. And some people are just going to love it, no matter what.
And as long as sweet, salty, sour and bitter comprise taste beyond
smell, people are going to enjoy foods that may not be good for
them. "Rabbit food," "barks & twigs," and "real food" are going to be
uttered by dieters forever.
Keep saving the world, tho ;>
|
keesan
|
|
response 56 of 82:
|
Jun 26 14:27 UTC 2002 |
Sweet foods are good for you if you are short on calories, same for salt if
you need that, it is just that Americans have too much food available of the
type that would be good for them if they were starving but is not if they are
already eating plenty. Bitter foods are not good for anyone unless they are
eating them as medicines.
|