Lu Norton

Organic Foods

162 posts in this topic

For those who think that McDonald's is OK food, I have one question. What constitutes "healthy" food for you? 1900 calories for lunch, 50% from fat is "healthy"? (Big Mac: 50% fat calories, 103 mg cholesterol; chocolate shake: 28% fat calories, 70 mg cholesterol; fries: 47% fat calories. Total calories: 1900). There may be a few who go for coffee or a salad, but that fluff is hardly what supports the McDonald's name.

I think it is a matter of quantities, and intensity that make for the problem. The body can handle a certain amount of excess within a certain time frame. I liken it to a river which can handle some pollution, but not a whole city's waste. At some point the natural balancing (cleansing) mechanism is overwhelmed. People have died from an excess of carrot juice for example. A few hamburgers and fries a week should be no problem to a healthy person. Moderation is the key.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smaller-volume boutique farmers can grow them to vine-ripe condition, then handle them in smaller batches, more carefully, and deliver them to a farmer's market stall, or the fancy section of an upscale supermarket, in good condition and they will have much more flavor and juiciness.

LOL - I grew up on a farm where we did back-breaking work to raise all our vegetables, not to mention all the shelling, shucking and blanching involved to preserve them. As I was swearing to god, covered in dirt and sweat, that I would never work in a garden once I became an adult, I can honestly state that the word "boutique" never entered my mind.

If it says Libbys, Libbys, Libbys on the label, label, label, I will like it, like it, like it on the table, table, table - because I didn't have to do the work, work, work. Besides, the secret to tasty vegetables is BUTTER! B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could you may be referring to the claim that the vehicles and warehouses used for organic produce are fumigated like mad? Supposedly, reports had shown that a good deal of organic produce had vast amounts of bug-fighting chemicals on it at the point of sale. (I just want to make clear that, to my knowledge, this claim has never been substantiated, but I've also never heard it denied or rebuffed.)

No, that's the first I've heard of that. The articles I read were all about the quality of the organic food itself. IIRC, the dangers were from the fact that chemical pesticides and other modern farming practices are not used. I wish I could recall where I read it, but it was some years ago. For anyone thinking about "going organic," it's worth looking into, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL - I grew up on a farm where we did back-breaking work to raise all our vegetables, not to mention all the shelling, shucking and blanching involved to preserve them. As I was swearing to god, covered in dirt and sweat, that I would never work in a garden once I became an adult, I can honestly state that the word "boutique" never entered my mind.
:) See? Marketing... it's all Marketing. If only you had known you were a boutique farmer, ... Ok... how about "Niche Marketeer?" That has a such a nice Dumas flavor to it.
Besides, the secret to tasty vegetables is BUTTER! B)
Well, isn't that the secret to everything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes rely on that great philosopher Johnny Carson who said: "You've just got to have a truck-stop cheeseburger now and then." B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sometimes rely on that great philosopher Johnny Carson who said: "You've just got to have a truck-stop cheeseburger now and then." B)

Oo! With the meat cooked to be a little crusty, the bun buttered and slightly toasted so it's a bit crunchy around the edges, a gloppy combo of grease and melted cheese dripping off it when you pick it up! Oo! Oo!

Make mine a double!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For those who think that McDonald's is OK food, I have one question. What constitutes "healthy" food for you? 1900 calories for lunch, 50% from fat is "healthy"? (Big Mac: 50% fat calories, 103 mg cholesterol; chocolate shake: 28% fat calories, 70 mg cholesterol; fries: 47% fat calories. Total calories: 1900). There may be a few who go for coffee or a salad, but that fluff is hardly what supports the McDonald's name.

Then only eat a burger with water to drink. It will be 400-500 calories probably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For those who think that McDonald's is OK food, I have one question. What constitutes "healthy" food for you? 1900 calories for lunch, 50% from fat is "healthy"? (Big Mac: 50% fat calories, 103 mg cholesterol; chocolate shake: 28% fat calories, 70 mg cholesterol; fries: 47% fat calories. Total calories: 1900). There may be a few who go for coffee or a salad, but that fluff is hardly what supports the McDonald's name.

That's exactly right! I myself drop by to eat a salad, maybe a burger once in a while, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But fries, despite taste, are basically just solid cholesterol. It's absolutely horrible what was done to the American cuisine in these last 20 years, when healthy cooked food was displaced by 'cuisine' which has an almost literal ton of cholesterol, and will make your tongue feel good just before it kills you.

Anyway, I guess we can discuss Fast Food in another thread. The point I was trying to make is that most people -- who don't drop by just for a salad like me, like Ray for a split combo, or Jordan for iced coffees -- folks who eat a regular expected portion of McDonalds cuisine, have their life expectancy drop dramatically. Stussy said that if non-organic food was that chemically infested, some lawyers would have already pinpointed it. No lawyers are managing to nail the McDonalds "cholesterol diet", and the best they can do is if someone burns themselves on the coffee. So it is unlikely that lawyers are the final arbiters of whether non-organic food is 'ok' or not.

I'm not a stickler, I mostly eat regular food as well, and maybe will buy some organic Beef Stroganoff simply because it tastes better. But I have been alerted in recent years to the fact that there's a lot of food out there that is simply very bad for me; in contrast with let's say 50s cuisine, where almost everything you'd eat was completely innocent. Or in Italy today, their 'fast food' is comprised of healthy grown and cooked food, which is made fast only because they serve it quickly; but it's prepared over a long period of time. Thus the Italians for instance are very fit people. They cook their pasta halfway, not completely white like we do, and so the carbohydrates don't explode into our body when we digest it. They call it Pasta A la Tempe. There's lots of healthy cuisine that we in the States have simply forgotten how to eat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, I guess we can discuss Fast Food in another thread. The point I was trying to make is that most people -- who don't drop by just for a salad like me, like Ray for a split combo, or Jordan for iced coffees -- folks who eat a regular expected portion of McDonalds cuisine, have their life expectancy drop dramatically. Stussy said that if non-organic food was that chemically infested, some lawyers would have already pinpointed it. No lawyers are managing to nail the McDonalds "cholesterol diet", and the best they can do is if someone burns themselves on the coffee. So it is unlikely that lawyers are the final arbiters of whether non-organic food is 'ok' or not.

I suggest you reread Stussy's actual point.

Frankly, if people aren't eating healthy it's not because healthy food isn't available. Anyone ever been to a supermarket? The problem is when people try to enjoy calorie and fat heavy foods as a routine. Would you have ice cream at every meal? Maybe we should sue Baskin-Robbins! B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Diet topics seem guaranteed to go off-topic almost immediately. I wonder why people love to talk about diet?... myself included: since an Objectivist recommended to me "Eat To Live" by Joel Fuhrman several years ago, I've been a fanatic healthy eater and insufferable proselytizer. So apologies in advance to whomever might engage me in foodtalk.

Now, back on topic: my impressions of organic food are that much of it is hogwash (sometimes literally. Yuck!) I've heard some claim that it tastes better, but I can't imagine why the method of fertilization, for example, could change the physiological makeup of a food... my guess is that organic food frequently tastes better for an indirect reason: more prone to spoilage, it is shipped less distance to the retail point of sale (also among the reasons it is more expensive).

A good source on this topic is MIchael Fumento, at www.fumento.com . Just search the site for "organic".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been alerted in recent years to the fact that there's a lot of food out there that is simply very bad for me

There's a lot of junk masquerading as science that is very bad for you. Need I remind that today's mainstream epistemology is, to put it mildly, not exactly Aristotelian? People take some statistics, discover some correlations, and go on without any further ado to state them as if they were instances of causation--and they are paid to do so from your tax money, too. I'd say it's bad enough that they are allowed to loot your wallet; don't let them fill your mind with their toxic fallacies as well!

50s cuisine, where almost everything you'd eat was completely innocent

Could you elaborate please? How did the 50s cuisine differ from today's foods? I'm curious as to what is the kind of food you consider "innocent."

Speaking of traditional foods, one traditional and still popular item of Hungarian cuisine is lard. It's an integral part of the traditional Hungarian breakfast, and plays the key role in lard-frying parties, which are more or less the Hungarian equivalent of barbecues. It has a whole lot of calories, 100% from fat, and I suppose it's pretty saturated too. My grandfather has been eating it for over 9 decades now and the only problems with his health are the ones related to the cold he was exposed to while in Soviet captivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of traditional foods, one traditional and still popular item of Hungarian cuisine is lard. It's an integral part of the traditional Hungarian breakfast, and plays the key role in lard-frying parties, which are more or less the Hungarian equivalent of barbecues. It has a whole lot of calories, 100% from fat, and I suppose it's pretty saturated too. My grandfather has been eating it for over 9 decades now and the only problems with his health are the ones related to the cold he was exposed to while in Soviet captivity.

I can relate somewhat to this. My grandmother, who was born in 1879 and died only in 1977 at 98, was an old-fashioned, Southern cook . . and eater. Fatback (lard), slab bacon and ham-hocks were her flavoring elements of choice, especially for vegetables such as collards, dandelions, kale, chard, string beans, etc., which were also salt-water-soaked and cooked for days on end. Whatever little nutritional value remained in them, they were the best-tasting vegetables I have ever eaten. In addition, bacon grease was her sauté fat of choice, although she never used that term (eggs done sunny-side up in bacon grease are not to be equaled in my view except, perhaps, by those done in duck fat). And lard was the fattening agent for all her pastries and pie crusts (Summer always makes me reminisce: my Grandma always had a freshly baked cobbler or pie waiting at this time of year!), and I have eaten nothing so flaky and tender since. Her abundant tables were laid with fried chicken and chicken-fried steaks and pork chops (fried in Peanut oil, no less), chicken and dumplings, made-from-scratch flapjacks and pancakes and, one of my favorite breakfast things, homemade scrapple fried in . . . you got it . . bacon grease, and served with warm maple syrup. And so much more!! My grandmother remained strong as an ox until just a few months before her death.

And . . . I'm still here, healthily, to tell of it. Fancy that!

I'm with Ratatouille's Anton Ego: I don't enjoy food. I LOVE it! I am a dedicated foodie, and have eaten all over the world from the extraordinary Auberge de L'Ill (perhaps the best restaurant of my experience) to the diviest, no-name joint in a Marrakech back alley. But very few of the wonderful things I've eaten since my grandmother was alive and cooking have surpassed the things that come out of her kitchen.

Were some of my Grandmother's ingredients "organic"? You betcha -- more often than not, the fruit for her pies came right off the non-pesticided trees and vines on our property; the eggs straight from the chicken (courtesy of a woman we called the Egg Lady, who dropped by several times a week from her local farm); vegetables often came from our own victory garden, local farm stands or the aforementioned Egg Lady's place; and most of the meats and poultry (still clucking when they arrived at the house!) came from small, local farms as well (I still recall plucking feathers out of freshly-killed chickens over the lighted burner of the kitchen stove).

But I suspect that many of today's "organic food" folks would run for the hills rather than sit down to dinner at Grandma's table. Pity. They'll never know what they missed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could you elaborate please? How did the 50s cuisine differ from today's foods? I'm curious as to what is the kind of food you consider "innocent."

I'm not an expert, though I've been trying to find out precisely for the same reasons as your question. The fact that we used to be a lot slimmer and thinner than we are, and a lot of Europe still is to this day, and there must be some causative fact behind that. I know that the introduction of KFC into a daily meal routine in the 70s perverted the normalcy of proper human diet, since it's delicious, and plainly atrocious in its dietic aspects. Nowadays KFC has found the old frying insufficient, so they double-deep-fry (double-krispy) their chicken if you ask them, for a doubly-quick dose of cholesterol blockage and heart-attacks at 39.

Anyway to get back to my topic, I don't know a lot of 50s diet details (but I know the statistics, so something must've been there). First off, I think they were much more physically fit, and apt to do physical exercises than we are. Second fact, let me admit that I think they did use bacon ("eggs and bacon" stereotype breakfast), so strike that against my point. But on the other hand, I am almost certain that they consumed wheat bread in enormous proportions, while we use mainly white bread now, and it is much worse biologically/chemically-wise. It contains grain particles that have been grinded into sheer powder, while wheat bread contains less-ground grain. As a result, this white bread powder is transformed into energy immediately, from the simple physics of there being more surface area for the digestive juices to work on. This produces an energy rush, and then a down, just like sugar; and since we can't take advantage of so much energy instantly, it's stored into fat. Wheat bread, with less-ground particles, takes considerably more to digest. The input of energy is even and gradual keeping you more energetic throughout the day, and letting you work off the incoming energy before it ends up being stored away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. . . I don't know a lot of 50s diet details (but I know the statistics, so something must've been there). First off, I think they were much more physically fit, and apt to do physical exercises than we are. Second fact, let me admit that I think they did use bacon ("eggs and bacon" stereotype breakfast), so strike that against my point. But on the other hand, I am almost certain that they consumed wheat bread in enormous proportions

Uh . . . not quite. Although I grew up in the 1960s, things weren't much different vis-a-vis what was typically available on store shelves in the 1950s. I can say that I never, ever saw anything resembling WHEAT bread, whole or otherwise (let alone 7-Grain or the artisanal Italian, peasant, etc., loaves we see in stores today). I recall only two types of bread growing up: Wonder Bread and Sunbeam Bread -- both VERY white loaves. That was it. As a matter of fact, I also don't recall seeing what we came to think of as "fancy" pre-packaged breads (Arnolds, Pepperidge Farms, etc.) on store shelves, at least not until the late 1970s or early 1980s in my part of the country (Pennsylvania, Delaware).

Incidentally, all the above is also true for brown rice . . . in the 1960s, who ever heard of that? Rice was all about perfect whiteness then, not to mention boil-in-bag convenience (think, Uncle Ben's).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have mentioned this before, but I will mention it again.

In a 25 year international study on longevity and diet it was found that there was no direct link to the eating of certain foods and a long life. The one and only variable that all the people in the study had in common was the totality of daily calories, they all ate 20% less than the average. All of the people in the study were around 100 years of age or older and all of them thought their "special diet" was the key ingredient for longevity, they were wrong. The Italians, ate tons of pastries. The French drank wine out their ears. The Japanese ate a lot of rice and fish. Eskimos ate a lot of highly fattening fish. Bostonians ate a lot of beef and potatoes. Americans in general ate a lot of hamburgers and french fries.

As humans we need fat (and cholesterol), carbohydrates and protein, so do not skip out on any of them. As humans, we also cannot keep taking anyone of the macro-nutrients in in large quantities for long periods of time or it will lead to negative consequences.

Around 30 years ago, Coke (yes, the soft drink company) took a national survey to find out what was the most desired meal. The answer they were given the most, hamburgers and french fries. Twenty-five years later Coke held another national survey and asked the same question. Even after 25 years of "healthy eating" campaigns, the most desired meal was hamburgers and french fries. People are going to eat what ever they choose and in rational proportions they can still enjoy a long prosperous life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. . . I don't know a lot of 50s diet details (but I know the statistics, so something must've been there). First off, I think they were much more physically fit, and apt to do physical exercises than we are. Second fact, let me admit that I think they did use bacon ("eggs and bacon" stereotype breakfast), so strike that against my point. But on the other hand, I am almost certain that they consumed wheat bread in enormous proportions

Uh . . . not quite. Although I grew up in the 1960s, things weren't much different vis-a-vis what was typically available on store shelves in the 1950s. I can say that I never, ever saw anything resembling WHEAT bread, whole or otherwise (let alone 7-Grain or the artisanal Italian, peasant, etc., loaves we see in stores today). I recall only two types of bread growing up: Wonder Bread and Sunbeam Bread -- both VERY white loaves. That was it. As a matter of fact, I also don't recall seeing what we came to think of as "fancy" pre-packaged breads (Arnolds, Pepperidge Farms, etc.) on store shelves, at least not until the late 1970s or early 1980s in my part of the country (Pennsylvania, Delaware).

Incidentally, all the above is also true for brown rice . . . in the 1960s, who ever heard of that? Rice was all about perfect whiteness then, not to mention boil-in-bag convenience (think, Uncle Ben's).

These are my exact memories, too. Also, I don't remember any 2% or fat-free milk, or fat-free anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
--------------

People are going to eat what ever they choose and in rational proportions they can still enjoy a long prosperous life.

Considering that 50% of the population is overweight or obese, and that billions of dollars are spent on counteracting the health effects of one's eating habits, what do you consider "rational proportions" and who is following them? That a few reach 100 years of age is of little consequence to the majority who don't get that far.

There are objective standards of what constitutes healthy food. The fact that a small portion of unhealthy food doesn't instantly kill the eater, doesn't mean that the food is healthy. Of course, one can enjoy burgers and fries once in a while, but let's not pretend that the food is healthy. Other than taste and convenience, what nutrients are there in burgers and fries that fulfill the requirements of living a healthy life? Which primate species has a diet like the modern American diet and lives a healthy life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
--------------

People are going to eat what ever they choose and in rational proportions they can still enjoy a long prosperous life.

Considering that 50% of the population is overweight or obese, and that billions of dollars are spent on counteracting the health effects of one's eating habits, what do you consider "rational proportions" and who is following them? That a few reach 100 years of age is of little consequence to the majority who don't get that far.

There are objective standards of what constitutes healthy food. The fact that a small portion of unhealthy food doesn't instantly kill the eater, doesn't mean that the food is healthy. Of course, one can enjoy burgers and fries once in a while, but let's not pretend that the food is healthy. Other than taste and convenience, what nutrients are there in burgers and fries that fulfill the requirements of living a healthy life? Which primate species has a diet like the modern American diet and lives a healthy life?

From what I remember, a survey found respectable food value in a Big Mac, although I'm not going to search the source for this. So, why the fat epidemic then? Fat has been blamed, along with sugar. Recently I heard a research doctor being interviewed on radio on a medical program. He sounded convincing in blaming -- wait for it -- Fructose of all things. Turns out that Fructose can only be metabalized by the liver. Because food manufacturers have found that fructose in their foods adds to flavour and sales, they have included it in much of what they produce. Apparently the liver finds this as difficult to deal with as alchohol, and the end result is fat storage. Here is some information on this:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/86/4/895

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Recently I heard a research doctor being interviewed on radio on a medical program. He sounded convincing in blaming -- wait for it -- Fructose of all things. Turns out that Fructose can only be metabalized by the liver. Because food manufacturers have found that fructose in their foods adds to flavour and sales, they have included it in much of what they produce. Apparently the liver finds this as difficult to deal with as alchohol, and the end result is fat storage. Here is some information on this:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/86/4/895

The article above has some interesting information, especially in the issue of 'compartmentalization,' that is, where in the body fructose is metabolized, but it's not the best for understanding how high intake of fructose can be bad for your health.

Buried in that article are two factors that account for the problem: [1] (not stated this way) fructose bypasses the first 2 steps of the glycolysis pathway, coming in after fructose-1,6-di-phosphate and going straight into the triacylglyceride pathway (it gets broken in half), where it's used to build the backbone/"coathanger" for long-chain fatty acid storage. When it skips those first steps, it bypasses the control point that signals insulin release to metabolize the sugar, so insulin isn't increased, but [2] ghrelin is. that means that your body has received a big slug of sugar, but it not only doesn't register it and kill the sugar craving, but the ghrelin increase boosts your sugar craving for yet more sugar. A nutritionist I was listening to a while back mentioned that it would be impossible for a human being to drink a whole Big Gulp made with cane sugar, because the imbiber would become nauseous from all that sugar. But, with fructose, kids regularly drink down the whole thing. In fact, a Big Gulp is larger than a normal human bladder, so there's usually an intervening bathroom trip to scarf it down.

It's the high intake, the lack of feedback telling you 'enough already', and the ghrelin rise that are the really bad perfect storm that is HFCS. And the trip down the triacylglyceride ('triglycerides' for short; the more familiar term) pathway to store more saturated fat. And that last is probably what accounts for the rise in LDL, since you're increasing the backbone for fat storage relative to the available fat, allowing smaller globules of fat ("low-density" lipoproteins), but that I'm not sure about.

fructose + saturated fat (especially trans-fats) is what you get from the Big Mac/Soft Drink bomb.

Everything in moderation, yes, but I haven't had a soft drink in years and I don't miss them. Without the soft drink, even with the nutritionally vacuous bun, a Big Mac ain't so bad. With it, it's a recipe for fatness. As a kid, with a high metabolism and an active life, I ate junk food and didn't gain a pound for years. But, around mid-40's, the metabolism dropped and junk food started making me sick. Others mileage may differ. I think the best rule of thumb is to listen to your body, pay attention to how you feel, eat slow enough to allow your body time to react to the food. I'm not big on diets. But HFCS is bad enough for you that I look to avoid it when I'm reading labels, especially for dry cereals and juice drinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
--------------

People are going to eat what ever they choose and in rational proportions they can still enjoy a long prosperous life.

Considering that 50% of the population is overweight or obese, and that billions of dollars are spent on counteracting the health effects of one's eating habits, what do you consider "rational proportions" and who is following them? That a few reach 100 years of age is of little consequence to the majority who don't get that far.

There are objective standards of what constitutes healthy food. The fact that a small portion of unhealthy food doesn't instantly kill the eater, doesn't mean that the food is healthy. Of course, one can enjoy burgers and fries once in a while, but let's not pretend that the food is healthy. Other than taste and convenience, what nutrients are there in burgers and fries that fulfill the requirements of living a healthy life? Which primate species has a diet like the modern American diet and lives a healthy life?

Can you then define what those objective standards might be? We have gotten to this point because our ancestors were very good at storing energy (from any form of food) and those that were not good at storing energy did not have many progeny. The facts are that man is omnivorous which means we can eat almost anything and our body will turn it into what we need at that time. And if you take in to much of anything it will be stored as fat.

Your statements remind me of the people that read Ayn Rand's books and then say, no one can be like that, she portrays a false reality. When she gave them the greatest example through her own life.

I keep stating to people that a person can eat, drink and be merry and they almost always reply, Bulls__t, when I am a walking talking example of what I state. My clients that apply my ideas are also walking examples of my ideas. I have taken a man that weighed over 400 pounds and was a diabetic and after 2 years with me he weighed 225 pounds and will be diabetic free in November for 5 years, he eats, drinks and is merry. I have taken a 280 pound woman and helped her reduce her weight to 130 pounds and she eats, drinks and is merry. I have taken a 215 pound 64 year old woman and reduced her weight (while also increasing her total muscle and bone mineral density to that of a 40 year old), to 167 pounds in 8 months. I have taken a 65 year old gentleman that weighed 230 pounds, was taken blood pressure medicine and was on the verge of being diabetic and reduced his weight to 175 pounds. He has also lowered his total cholesterol level to 170 from 220 when he began with me, his medical doctor is amazed. He also accomplished this while eating, drinking and being merry according the the principles I taught him. Now are you going to tell me BS. Please, I have been hearing that for years and I am sure you will not be the last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
----------------

I keep stating to people that a person can eat, drink and be merry and they almost always reply, Bulls__t, when I am a walking talking example of what I state. My clients that apply my ideas are also walking examples of my ideas. I have taken a man that weighed over 400 pounds and was a diabetic and after 2 years with me he weighed 225 pounds and will be diabetic free in November for 5 years, he eats, drinks and is merry. I have taken a 280 pound woman and helped her reduce her weight to 130 pounds and she eats, drinks and is merry. I have taken a 215 pound 64 year old woman and reduced her weight (while also increasing her total muscle and bone mineral density to that of a 40 year old), to 167 pounds in 8 months. I have taken a 65 year old gentleman that weighed 230 pounds, was taken blood pressure medicine and was on the verge of being diabetic and reduced his weight to 175 pounds. He has also lowered his total cholesterol level to 170 from 220 when he began with me, his medical doctor is amazed. He also accomplished this while eating, drinking and being merry according the the principles I taught him. Now are you going to tell me BS. Please, I have been hearing that for years and I am sure you will not be the last.

Have any books or articles to recommend about your plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have any books or articles to recommend about your plan?

No, I do not. But, if you type Progressive Exercise in the search engine here on THE FORUM you can read my ideas. Or you can take a rational chance and give me a call at my office or send me an email or what ever it takes.

One thing I have noticed by reading many history books and biographies on independent thinkers/great people, they are almost always ridiculed for their ideas until long after their deaths. I am not saying that I am great, just that my ideas are radical and I expect a long fight ahead. For over 8 years now I have been changing minds out of my small little 300 square foot office and I intend on continuing for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering that 50% of the population is overweight or obese,

By what standard? Remember, as I posted elsewhere, that not very long ago the government declared by fiat that approximately twice as many people were obese as previously. That is, the day before Congress passed whatever bill that was, millions of people were by government definition not obese, then the day after they were obese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another perspective on organic food: Some people, like my girlfriend, are allergic to some non-organic, American fruit and vegetables. If she eats, say, apples from outside the U.S., there isn't a problem.

It took me quite a while to get used to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites