 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / WeightWatchers / September 2006calories?
Hi - i am totally lost when it comes to calories. Should i just google it and see what the "average woman" should intake or is there a formula for how many calories a day to eat? I am using Fitday to track what i eat but then i see all these numbers and it means nothing to me!! What should the Fat/Protien/Carbs ratio be? I need to lose weight, not maintain where I am. Thanks!! Forgot to mention i am doing Core on core I count the 35 wpa's and that is it, use the book to determine your portions, Lee > Forgot to mention i am doing Core > on core I count the 35 wpa's and that is it, use the book to determine > your > portions, Lee >> Forgot to mention i am doing Core Right on Lee. I am loving Core due to the lower amount of counting it requires. Much less stressful for me right now.  SignatureTanukiki (mom of 2 wonderful boys) Pre-baby #2 weight 239 (in 2004) Started WW 01/21/06 Reached 10% 03/18/06 205.4/179.4/150 --> currently about 186 (only doing prog half-a** b/w 04/05-08/12/06) -- Leader of the Cult of Worshippers of BiPolar Long-Haired Sexy Anime Guys with Swords I do prefer flex because of the "control" factor but because of all that is going on core is less stressful, and more healthy so I figure when I go back to flex I will be eating better and therefore will make up whatever I am not losing now, Lee > > on core I count the 35 wpa's and that is it, use the book to determine > > your [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Leader of the Cult of Worshippers of BiPolar Long-Haired Sexy Anime Guys > with Swords >I do prefer flex because of the "control" factor but because of all that is > going on core is less stressful, and more healthy so I figure when I go [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >> Tanukiki (mom of 2 wonderful boys) I agree with you 100%. That is what is great about WW though- the flexibility b/w the 2 plans. SignatureTanukiki (mom of 2 wonderful boys) Pre-baby #2 weight 239 (in 2004) Started WW 01/21/06 Reached 10% 03/18/06 205.4/179.4/150 --> currently about 186 (only doing prog half-a** b/w 04/05-08/12/06) -- Leader of the Cult of Worshippers of BiPolar Long-Haired Sexy Anime Guys with Swords truth is I am very careful about my wpa's so the reason I am not losing as well as some others on core is that I tend to not eat enough, odd but I know at least what I am eating is healthy, tomorrow is the ast day of my week and I have eaten 3 points of non core food, and on that day I earned 2 activity points, so as you can see, little activity but otherwise good food. Lee > >I do prefer flex because of the "control" factor but because of all that is > > going on core is less stressful, and more healthy so I figure when I go [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Leader of the Cult of Worshippers of BiPolar Long-Haired Sexy Anime Guys > with Swords > Hi - i am totally lost when it comes to calories. Should i just google it > and see what the "average woman" should intake or is there a formula for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks!! If you're not losing weight on what you're eating then start to drop calories. Try eating say 200c a day less and see what happens. LW Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs Today - 155 lbs Goal - 130 lbs Height: 5'6" Female. Age: 61 Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often. =================================== >> Hi - i am totally lost when it comes to calories. Should i just google it >> and see what the "average woman" should intake or is there a formula for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If you're not losing weight on what you're eating then start to drop > calories. Try eating say 200c a day less and see what happens. Thanks. Is that as technical as it gets? > LW > Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they don't do it very often. > =================================== >> If you're not losing weight on what you're eating then start to drop >> calories. Try eating say 200c a day less and see what happens. > > Thanks. > > Is that as technical as it gets? LOL!!! What else can you try? You can exercise more. ;o) LW Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs Today - 155 lbs Goal - 130 lbs Height: 5'6" Female. Age: 61 Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often. =================================== >>> If you're not losing weight on what you're eating then start to drop >>> calories. Try eating say 200c a day less and see what happens. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > LOL!!! What else can you try? You can exercise more. ;o) no, i mean i want to know if there is a science to it. with my heght, weight, level of activity, amount of excercise and age is there an amount of calories I should be eating. I'm sure athletes have a way to really know what they are doing with food. i would like to think of eating as fueling the machine that is me. we all know the ration of oil to gas to put in our lawn mower but our own nutrition is a mystery. I am a bit of a Vulcan in my logic but I would like to get specific here and feel like I really know what I am putting in. your method seems rather random. we already know "eat less, excercise more" works > "Lá~ká~ Wáná" <none@no-one.net> wrote in message >> LOL!!! What else can you try? You can exercise more. ;o) > no, i mean i want to know if there is a science to it. with my heght, > weight, level of activity, amount of excercise and age is there an amount > of calories I should be eating. I'm sure athletes have a way to really > know what they are doing with food. I don't think there's any formula we can go by since we're all so different and all live such different lifestyles. I consider myself moderately active. I cannot eat over 1200c a day or I will not lose weight. A more active or younger women may eat more and still lose. A man would be different again. Keep in mind that carbs FATTEN humans as well as animals so you may want to control your carb intake no matter how many calories a day you consume. > i would like to think of eating as fueling the machine that is me. we all > know the ration of oil to gas to put in our lawn mower but our own > nutrition is a mystery. The mystery can be unraveled by reading the many diet and weight loss websites out there. I am a bit of a Vulcan in my logic but I would like to get > specific here and feel like I really know what I am putting in. Why not start by removing all high carb and junk food from your menu? Start there. Move on the nutritious food. Eat a lot of low-carb veggies and LEAN meats. > your method seems rather random. we already know "eat less, excercise > more" works In the end - that's what it really comes down to. But first you would do well to have some idea of how many calories it takes *YOU* to lose weight, then stay under that amount = weight loss! The more you get out and walk the fater you will burn the fat. LW Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs Today - 155 lbs Goal - 130 lbs Height: 5'6" Female. Age: 61 Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often. =================================== >> "Lá~ká~ Wáná" <none@no-one.net> wrote in message >>> LOL!!! What else can you try? You can exercise more. ;o) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > well as animals so you may want to control your carb intake no matter how > many calories a day you consume. yes, this i know. i was happy to find out that WW figured it out too LOL that's why I finally came over to this side. >> i would like to think of eating as fueling the machine that is me. we all >> know the ration of oil to gas to put in our lawn mower but our own >> nutrition is a mystery. > > The mystery can be unraveled by reading the many diet and weight loss > websites out there. That's what i will be doing, this is very new type of thinking for me. > I am a bit of a Vulcan in my logic but I would like to get >> specific here and feel like I really know what I am putting in. > > Why not start by removing all high carb and junk food from your menu? > Start there. Move on the nutritious food. that's not the prob. i don't eat bread, will have moderate amounts of whole wheat pasta, my carbier foods are plain oatmeal, corn, carrots, onions and potatos, i eat loads of other veggies, i don't eat fast food and i tended to eat too much fatty meat vs lean meat (dark meat from poultry, lamb, beef) i eat pretty well so it's hard to tweak. cheese is out for now - i can't deal with low fat cheese >Eat a lot of low-carb veggies and LEAN meats. i am also eating alot of fruit, i've always had a sweet tooth and hopefully i won't be sabotaging myself with the fruit but i see it as a much better alternative to sugary treats (ice cream being the major problem here) >> your method seems rather random. we already know "eat less, excercise >> more" works [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > then stay under that amount = weight loss! The more you get out and walk > the fater you will burn the fat. i will ive and learn i suppose. tracking will help. i havea morning and evening excercise routine and maybe after DS starts kindergarten next week i wi'' be able to get out walking with DD. thanks > LW > Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they don't do it very often. > =================================== > "Lá~ká~ Wáná" <none@no-one.net> wrote in message >> I don't think there's any formula we can go by since we're all so [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > yes, this i know. i was happy to find out that WW figured it out too LOL > that's why I finally came over to this side. I think everyone is figuring it out. :o) I myself was amazed to learn we don't even require carbs to live. Our body can produce it's own from protein. We get some in our low-carb veggies and fruit anyway. >> The mystery can be unraveled by reading the many diet and weight loss >> websites out there. > > That's what i will be doing, this is very new type of thinking for me. It was for me as well since I was never overweight until menopause and thyroid problems hit me at the same time. Talk about a double whammy. > that's not the prob. i don't eat bread, will have moderate amounts of > whole wheat pasta, my carbier foods are plain oatmeal, corn, carrots, > onions and potatos, i eat loads of other veggies, You can either cut out all these HIGH-carb foods mentioned above or limit them severely. I eat cucumbers, celery, mushrooms, cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, string and wax beans, spinach, shard, turnip greens and whatever LOW-carb veggie I find at the grocery store. i don't eat fast food and i tended to > eat too much fatty meat vs lean meat (dark meat from poultry, lamb, beef) > i eat pretty well so it's hard to tweak. cheese is out for now - i can't > deal with low fat cheese Dump the corn, pasta, oatmeal etc. These are all HIGH-carb foods that you don't need if you're looking to lose weight. >>Eat a lot of low-carb veggies and LEAN meats. > i am also eating alot of fruit, i've always had a sweet tooth and > hopefully i won't be sabotaging myself with the fruit but i see it as a > much better alternative to sugary treats (ice cream being the major > problem here) Fruit is high in sugars (carbs). I would limit fruit to once a day. >>> your method seems rather random. we already know "eat less, excercise >>> more" works >> In the end - that's what it really comes down to. But first you would >> do well to have some idea of how many calories it takes *YOU* to lose >> weight, then stay under that amount = weight loss! The more you get out >> and walk the fater you will burn the fat. > i will ive and learn i suppose. tracking will help. i havea morning and > evening excercise routine and maybe after DS starts kindergarten next week > i wi'' be able to get out walking with DD. Walk her to school if possible - then KEEP GOING!!! :o) Wal-Mart sells a pedometer for around $4 that's excellent and resets with the push of a button. When I started walking again after my accident I started with like 1/3 mile and worked up both in distance, grade and speed. LW Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs Today - 155 lbs Goal - 130 lbs Height: 5'6" Female. Age: 61 Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often. =================================== Complex carbs are wonderful and I'm not sure why you would advise against them...Maybe you can explain...GG >> "Lá~ká~ Wáná" <none@no-one.net> wrote in message >>> I don't think there's any formula we can go by since we're all so [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > they don't do it very often. > =================================== Or spare us, really. I have yet to hear how the body can produce the fiber and phytonutrients available in healthy whole grains. The carb itself is only part of the picture. Signaturethe volleyballchick > Complex carbs are wonderful and I'm not sure why you would advise against > them...Maybe you can explain...GG [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] >> they don't do it very often. >> =================================== > Or spare us, really. I have yet to hear how the body can produce the > fiber and phytonutrients available in healthy whole grains. Mankind has been on earth for several million years. Mankind has only been eating grains for the past 2000 years. Grains are not a necessary part of the human diet. Those following Atkins for many years are not dropping dead due to a lack of grain in their diets. The carb itself is > only part of the picture. >> Complex carbs are wonderful and I'm not sure why you would advise against [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] >>> they don't do it very often. >>> =================================== Folks also died much younger than they do today...Not sure about your assumptions but if it works for you that's all that matters...GG >> Or spare us, really. I have yet to hear how the body can produce the >> fiber and phytonutrients available in healthy whole grains. [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] >>>> they don't do it very often. >>>> =================================== > Folks also died much younger than they do today...Not sure about your > assumptions but if it works for you that's all that matters...GG What were you referring to? When you top post it's hard to know.......?!?!?! LW Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs Today - 155 lbs Goal - 130 lbs Height: 5'6" Female. Age: 61 Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often. =================================== >> Folks also died much younger than they do today...Not sure about your >> assumptions but if it works for you that's all that matters...GG > > What were you referring to? When you top post it's hard to > know.......?!?!?! it seemed that he was referring to early man. >>> Folks also died much younger than they do today...Not sure about your >>> assumptions but if it works for you that's all that matters...GG [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > it seemed that he was referring to early man. I'll pipe in with my two cents here also. Top posting as well as failure to not trim up the quotes is very annoying :( >>>> Folks also died much younger than they do today...Not sure about your >>>> assumptions but if it works for you that's all that matters...GG [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'll pipe in with my two cents here also. Top posting as well as failure > to not trim up the quotes is very annoying :( i didn't top post - i can't stand that either. this group doesn't seem to mind so i may have been more lax then usual though Yes, I think if it works for people then that's what they should do. Back in the hunter gatherer days they didn't eat grain fed and chemically processed meats like today so it's a silly argument to even imagine comparing the human beings of today with those of thousands of years ago since most intelligent people acknowledge a little thing called evolution. Studies show that diets that include whole grains contribute to health and well being - improving conditions like heart disease and diabetes. Eating whole grains is perfectly healthy for most people except those with allergies and conditions like celiac. These days we're lucky to be aware of the nutritional value of foods and not just worry about the energy value. Just because some of us advocate a well balanced and healthy diet that includes things like whole grains doesn't say Atkins is fatal. No one except one poster is saying anything like Atkins followers drop dead from their diet. Just another straw man exaggeration that makes conversations with her more than annoying. Signaturethe volleyballchick > Folks also died much younger than they do today...Not sure about your > assumptions but if it works for you that's all that matters...GG [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] >>>>> they don't do it very often. >>>>> =================================== > Yes, I think if it works for people then that's what they should do. Back > in the hunter gatherer days they didn't eat grain fed and chemically > processed meats like today so it's a silly argument .... The point was human's don't NEED grain in their diets. We don't even need to consume carbs as our body is capable of making it's own from protein. LW Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs Today - 155 lbs Goal - 130 lbs Height: 5'6" Female. Age: 61 Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often. =================================== > Mankind has been on earth for several million years. Mankind has only > been eating grains for the past 2000 years. Grains are not a necessary > part of the human diet. Those following Atkins for many years are not > dropping dead due to a lack of grain in their diets. Um. I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. If only beause the ancient Egyptians.. as far back as 3000BC.. were eating grain breads and brewing beer. I mean, they've found the residue in tombs. They know it was there. I can go look in my books if you want a specific example, altho given those books are in storage it'd take me quite a while to dig them out and figure out where best to pick exemplars. But really. They were. The Greeks had bread too. And while the American continents really aren't my forté, I'm pretty sure they were grinding corn and grains to make tortilla-like breads back in the same epoch. That's something that irritates me about people who freak out about genetically modified veggies these days: all they're doing is speeding up the selective breeding natives have been doing for thousands of years, it's nothing we suddenly need to fear. Bread isn't a modern invention. We started making it a really *really* long time ago. Really. -Tay >> Mankind has been on earth for several million years. Mankind has only >> been eating grains for the past 2000 years. Grains are not a necessary [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ancient Egyptians.. as far back as 3000BC.. were eating grain breads and > brewing beer. This may be true. But man was already living in cities and towns by then. Before that time we were simple hunters/gatherers. There are still societies that don't raise grains for food. > I mean, they've found the residue in tombs. They know it was there. I > can go look in my books if you want a specific example, altho given those > books are in storage it'd take me quite a while to dig them out and figure > out where best to pick exemplars. No, don't bother. You are probably correct. I'm going by a show I saw on PBS about ancient civilizations. They mentioned when man started to grow grains and make them a regular part of their diet. I remember they saying 2000 years. It could be 4000 years but that was only SOME societies, and only a moment in time since we've been here a few mil years. There are many jungle tribes that never had access to grains. The people of the far north (Eskimos and Inuits) had no grain. All I'm saying is grain is not necessary for humans to consume. > But really. They were. The Greeks had bread too. And while the American > continents really aren't my forté, I'm pretty sure they were grinding corn [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > selective breeding natives have been doing for thousands of years, it's > nothing we suddenly need to fear. That doesn't bother me either. As long as the turnip doesn't have 4 little feet and beady eyes - who cares? :o) > Bread isn't a modern invention. We started making it a really *really* > long time ago. Really. See above. Before man lived in villages and cities he didn't grow grains. As far as I know the Au aborigines didn't have access to grains either. I love bread but it certainly not a necessary part of a human's diet. LW Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs Today - 155 lbs Goal - 130 lbs Height: 5'6" Female. Age: 61 Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often. =================================== maize perhaps? Lee > > Mankind has been on earth for several million years. Mankind has only > > been eating grains for the past 2000 years. Grains are not a necessary [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > -Tay > maize perhaps? Lee Isn't maize corn? Usually when someone refers to grains they're thinking wheat, barley, oats etc. At least where I live they do. LW Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs Today - 154.5 lbs Goal - 130 lbs Height: 5'6" Female. Age: 61 Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often. =================================== > Complex carbs are wonderful and I'm not sure why you would advise against Because they can run 100c each. Having several pieces of fruit a day and easily add up to 300c a day. That's the same as breakfast or lunch. Fruit will still raise your insulin levels which encourages your body to store fat. I myself eat one apple, pear or small bananas a day. I limit my carbs. I've noticed in the past that the less carbs, any carbs that I eat, the faster I lose weight. I'm stuck at 155/156 now so will drop my carbs again......... LW Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs Today - 155 lbs Goal - 130 lbs Height: 5'6" Female. Age: 61 Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often. =================================== I see...Well my system seems to do very well...When I was on Atkins I was forced to drink Metamucil which I no longer need...As always YMMV...GG >> Complex carbs are wonderful and I'm not sure why you would advise against > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > they don't do it very often. > =================================== >I see...Well my system seems to do very well...When I was on Atkins I was >forced to drink Metamucil which I no longer need...As always YMMV...GG I heard that some people have bowel problems on Atkins. LW Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs Today - 155 lbs Goal - 130 lbs Height: 5'6" Female. Age: 61 Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often. =================================== >>I see...Well my system seems to do very well...When I was on Atkins I was >>forced to drink Metamucil which I no longer need...As always YMMV...GG > > I heard that some people have bowel problems on Atkins. from what i understood, during the first phase, "Induction", when carbs are most limited - usually a 2 week period - many people need to take some kind of fiber supplement to stay regular. After the first phase, a wider variety of foods are eaten and usually it's no longer a problem. > from what i understood, during the first phase, "Induction", when carbs > are most limited - usually a 2 week period - many people need to take some > kind of fiber supplement to stay regular. After the first phase, a wider > variety of foods are eaten and usually it's no longer a problem. I never did the 2 week induction so that wasn't a problem for me. I wanted to see if I'd lose weight anyway. I did. LW Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs Today - 155 lbs Goal - 130 lbs Height: 5'6" Female. Age: 61 Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often. =================================== >> from what i understood, during the first phase, "Induction", when carbs >> are most limited - usually a 2 week period - many people need to take [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I never did the 2 week induction so that wasn't a problem for me. I > wanted to see if I'd lose weight anyway. I did. 1st time i did induction, then when i was nursing DD i skipped it too 1 gram protein = 4 calories 1 gram carbohydrate = 4 calories 1 gram fat = 9 calories carbs are the same in caloric value as protein. Debbie >> Complex carbs are wonderful and I'm not sure why you would advise against > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > they don't do it very often. > =================================== >> "Lá~ká~ Wáná" <none@no-one.net> wrote in message >>> I don't think there's any formula we can go by since we're all so [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > It was for me as well since I was never overweight until menopause and > thyroid problems hit me at the same time. Talk about a double whammy. yikes >> that's not the prob. i don't eat bread, will have moderate amounts of >> whole wheat pasta, my carbier foods are plain oatmeal, corn, carrots, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Dump the corn, pasta, oatmeal etc. These are all HIGH-carb foods that you > don't need if you're looking to lose weight. i am not eating tons of these but i have added them to my diet (i was a long time Atkins dieter (since '97) and now I am here, on WW, and these foods are part of the Core plan. The plan says they can be eaten at one meal a day. I am hoping that by eating a more balanced diet that includes more fruit and some of these starchier veggies I will beat the "LC/binge/LC/binge" rollercoaster from hell that I have been on this past year (putting back on 18 lbs ). To my understanding (from LC land) you can't do Low Fat and Low Carb. >>>Eat a lot of low-carb veggies and LEAN meats. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Fruit is high in sugars (carbs). I would limit fruit to once a day. I find that i am able to control my sugar craving and not binge of bad food by eating fruit. It's only been a week but it's been a much healthier food week than i have had in months. It's allowed on Core and since I am new to the plan I will trust it and see what happens - if i don't lose weight this way I will cut back on the fruit and higher carb veggies. I've seen your name at asd-lc and you know the mantra over there, "Read the book" so I am going to go with the plan before I reinvent it. >>>> your method seems rather random. we already know "eat less, excercise >>>> more" works [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Walk her to school if possible - then KEEP GOING!!! :o) Wal-Mart sells > a pedometer for around $4 that's excellent i have to go there today anyway - maybe i will look for it, thanks >and resets with the push of a button. When I started walking again after >my accident I started with like 1/3 mile and worked up both in distance, >grade and speed. that's fantastic. i don't think i will be able to walk her to school but I may be able to get a walk in while they are both in school ( that will be only 2x a week but better than nothing) > LW > Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they don't do it very often. > =================================== I also was a Atkins dieter and I must admit at first it was very successful...But now with WW I can eat anything in moderation...I also do core...It's great to be able to enjoy oatmeal for breakfast maybe a grain or potato at dinner...Rather than low carb it is now smart carbs...Carbs are not evil...Really...GG >>> "Lá~ká~ Wáná" <none@no-one.net> wrote in message >>>> I don't think there's any formula we can go by since we're all so [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] >> they don't do it very often. >> =================================== >I also was a Atkins dieter and I must admit at first it was very >successful...But now with WW I can eat anything in moderation...I also do >core...It's great to be able to enjoy oatmeal for breakfast maybe a grain >or potato at dinner...Rather than low carb it is now smart carbs...Carbs >are not evil...Really...GG LC definitely worked for me. I quit smoking, caffiene and sugar together, lost 30 lbs and maintained for 2 years. I no longer had migraines, had my anxiety and panic under control too. Had kids, got fat, lost 40 lbs on LC, maintained for a while then found i was constantly battling myself. Cravings would lead to binging and i couldn't keep it going. So after a year of on-again-off-again LC/sugar binging and feeling awful about myself and regaining 18 lbs I've decided to try something different. Most carbs are not evil but I can't say the same for refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup. I think those may, in fact, be evil!! > LC definitely worked for me. I quit smoking, caffiene and sugar together, > lost 30 lbs and maintained for 2 years. I no longer had migraines, had my > anxiety and panic under control too. Had kids, got fat, lost 40 lbs on LC, > maintained for a while then found i was constantly battling myself. > Cravings would lead to binging and i couldn't keep it going. But Atkins and other low-carb diets do allow carbs to some extent. Perhaps you carried it to the extreme? You are allowed to add carbs until you either stop losing weigh, or if at Goal, you start to gain. For some people that can be 1/2 cup sweet peas or a cup of spaghetti. I don't think I could survive a no-carb or ultra-low-carb diet indefinitely. So after a year of > on-again-off-again LC/sugar binging and feeling awful about myself and > regaining 18 lbs I've decided to try something different. As long as it's working and you're losing weight - stick with it!!! :o) > Most carbs are not evil but I can't say the same for refined sugar and > high fructose corn syrup. I think those may, in fact, be evil!! They're empty BSugar raising calories. LW Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs Today - 155 lbs Goal - 130 lbs Height: 5'6" Female. Age: 61 Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often. =================================== >> LC definitely worked for me. I quit smoking, caffiene and sugar together, >> lost 30 lbs and maintained for 2 years. I no longer had migraines, had my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But Atkins and other low-carb diets do allow carbs to some extent. > Perhaps you carried it to the extreme? no, i know how it works over there and i was the town-crier for Atkins for many years LOL You are allowed to add carbs until you > either stop losing weigh, or if at Goal, you start to gain. For some > people that can be 1/2 cup sweet peas or a cup of spaghetti. I don't think > I could survive a no-carb or ultra-low-carb diet indefinitely. no, no one can. and i am not sur eif somehting changed in me after having my 2nd child but suddenly things became unbearable and i couldn't deal with that WOE anymore after 6 years > So after a year of >> on-again-off-again LC/sugar binging and feeling awful about myself and >> regaining 18 lbs I've decided to try something different. > > As long as it's working and you're losing weight - stick with it!!! :o) it's only abeen a week, i'm hoping for the best. i don't officially WI till wednesday and i officially started on tuesday but i have seen the scale go down 3 lbs :) >> Most carbs are not evil but I can't say the same for refined sugar and >> high fructose corn syrup. I think those may, in fact, be evil!! [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > they don't do it very often. > =================================== > no, no one can. and i am not sur eif somehting changed in me after having > my 2nd child but suddenly things became unbearable and i couldn't deal > with that WOE anymore after 6 years Then it was time for a change. :o) > it's only abeen a week, i'm hoping for the best. i don't officially WI > till wednesday and i officially started on tuesday but i have seen the > scale go down 3 lbs :) WOW!!! You're doing good. The most I lost was in the first two weeks, actually about 17 days of low carbing = 9 lbs. That had to be mostly fluid. Then 2 to 2 1/2 lbs a week, then it slowly dropped to 1 lb a week..... until weight loss stopped altogether in the 6th month. That was about the time of my accident. I stayed low-carbing and maintained for that year. But once back on my feet low-carbing alone no longer worked. So now it's walking and cutting calories. But even so, as you can see it's in fits and starts, not a nice gradual loss as I enjoyed before. LW Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs Today - 155 lbs Goal - 130 lbs Height: 5'6" Female. Age: 61 Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often. =================================== >I also was a Atkins dieter and I must admit at first it was very >successful...But now with WW I can eat anything in moderation...I also do >core...It's great to be able to enjoy oatmeal for breakfast maybe a grain >or potato at dinner...Rather than low carb it is now smart carbs...Carbs >are not evil...Really...GG They aren't evil. :o) I'm not doing Atkins. Just low-carbing it. Speaking for myself, if I add more carbs I will have to lower calories again and I'm at 1200c a day now. It's just not worth it for those like myself who lose better low-carbing. BTW, you can add more carby things on the Atkins diet after the first few weeks. Many people seem to think it's a no-carb diet. It isn't. LW Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs Today - 155 lbs Goal - 130 lbs Height: 5'6" Female. Age: 61 Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often. =================================== As I said I was on Atkins...I certainly understand the plan and was an advocate for more than a year...But for me it was not the route best taken...GG >>I also was a Atkins dieter and I must admit at first it was very >>successful...But now with WW I can eat anything in moderation...I also do [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > they don't do it very often. > =================================== >> It was for me as well since I was never overweight until menopause and >> thyroid problems hit me at the same time. Talk about a double whammy. > > yikes Yikes is right. I never had a weight problem until then. I had no idea how hard it was to lose weight. It was very hard to accept when I looked in the mirror. >> Dump the corn, pasta, oatmeal etc. These are all HIGH-carb foods that >> you don't need if you're looking to lose weight. > i am not eating tons of these but i have added them to my diet (i was a > long time Atkins dieter (since '97) and now I am here, on WW, and these > foods are part of the Core plan. As long as you can lose weight and eat them - have at it! If I added them to my diet I'd have to drop my daily caloric intake or lose nothing. I'd rather not have them. And yes, I love them as well as anyone else. Once I hit my goal weight I'll add them in small amounts. Very small amounts. The plan says they can be eaten at one meal a day. I > am hoping that by eating a more balanced diet that includes more fruit and > some of these starchier veggies I will beat the "LC/binge/LC/binge" Carbo bingeing was never a problem for me. I don't keep much high carb food in the house. Occasionally I'll have 1/3 cup of something like corn or canned Pinto beans. > rollercoaster from hell that I have been on this past year (putting back > on 18 lbs ). To my understanding (from LC land) you can't do Low Fat and > Low Carb. Sure you can. Just make sure the meat is all low fat such as baked chicken or turkey breast, or very lean baked pork loin, non-fatty fish, ultra lean steak etc. and a lot of low-carb veggies on the side. Include a salad if you like them with just a pinch of dressing. You do need some fat each day. A little oil or butter on the veggies would provide it. LW Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs Today - 155 lbs Goal - 130 lbs Height: 5'6" Female. Age: 61 Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often. =================================== I am not sure where you got your info about carbs not needed in your body as they can be converted from protein, but you talk to any Licensed Nutritionist and they will tell you the opposite, that carbs are one of the most important things for your body and that you need a balance of carbs protein and fat to be healthy. If you do not get enough carbs, it will start taking from the protein in your body, that being your muscles and your largest muscle in your body is your heart. So you are damaging your heart by not eat some carbs. You need to stick with healthy complex carbs and cut back or eliminate the simple carbs. Debbie >> "Lá~ká~ Wáná" <none@no-one.net> wrote in message >>> I don't think there's any formula we can go by since we're all so [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > they don't do it very often. > =================================== >I am not sure where you got your info about carbs not needed in your body >as they can be converted from protein, but you talk to any Licensed >Nutritionist and they will tell you the opposite, that carbs are one of the >most important things for your body and that you need a balance of carbs >protein and fat to be healthy. low carbers believe that nutritionists, doctors, the media, the grain and bread industries are all in cahoots to get americans fat and diabetic If you do not get enough carbs, it will > start taking from the protein in your body, that being your muscles and > your largest muscle in your body is your heart. So you are damaging your > heart by not eat some carbs. in defense of low carb dieting, you DO eat carbs in teh form of vegetables and fruit and eventually whole grains You need to stick with healthy complex carbs and cut > back or eliminate the simple carbs. > > Debbie >>I am not sure where you got your info about carbs not needed in your body >>as they can be converted from protein, but you talk to any Licensed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > low carbers believe that nutritionists, doctors, the media, the grain and > bread industries are all in cahoots to get americans fat and diabetic LOL!!! That's not necessarily true. Humans can survive nicely with no carbs in their diet at all as long as they get vitamin C from somewhere - the Eskimos get it from the organ meats of the animals/fish they eat. > If you do not get enough carbs, it will >> start taking from the protein in your body, that being your muscles and >> your largest muscle in your body is your heart. So you are damaging your >> heart by not eat some carbs. > in defense of low carb dieting, you DO eat carbs in teh form of vegetables > and fruit and eventually whole grains Most people think low-carbers are NO-carbers. There seems to be a lot of confusion as to exactly what low-carbers eat. > You need to stick with healthy complex carbs and cut >> back or eliminate the simple carbs. Even the simple carbs can be lived without. I mentioned that tribe in Africa in another post. They live on nothing but wild greens and the blood from their cattle. Why? Because nothing grows where they live but trees, scrub, grasses and weeds. They also some meat when they slaughter one of the heard. LW Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs Today - 154.5 lbs Goal - 130 lbs Height: 5'6" Female. Age: 61 Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often. =================================== LW, The indigenous people of the artic part of Canada are properly referred to as Inuit, not Eskimos. Please follow this link and read the first paragraph. http://collections.ic.gc.ca/arctic/inuit/people.htm Eddie Weight June05-359.0lbs Current Weight-286.8lbs Loss to date=72.2lbs Goal Weight-180.0lbs >>I am not sure where you got your info about carbs not needed in your body >>as they can be converted from protein, but you talk to any Licensed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > low carbers believe that nutritionists, doctors, the media, the grain and > bread industries are all in cahoots to get americans fat and diabetic LOL!!! That's not necessarily true. Humans can survive nicely with no carbs in their diet at all as long as they get vitamin C from somewhere - the Eskimos get it from the organ meats of the animals/fish they eat. > If you do not get enough carbs, it will >> start taking from the protein in your body, that being your muscles and >> your largest muscle in your body is your heart. So you are damaging your >> heart by not eat some carbs. > in defense of low carb dieting, you DO eat carbs in teh form of vegetables > and fruit and eventually whole grains Most people think low-carbers are NO-carbers. There seems to be a lot of confusion as to exactly what low-carbers eat. > You need to stick with healthy complex carbs and cut >> back or eliminate the simple carbs. Even the simple carbs can be lived without. I mentioned that tribe in Africa in another post. They live on nothing but wild greens and the blood from their cattle. Why? Because nothing grows where they live but trees, scrub, grasses and weeds. They also some meat when they slaughter one of the heard. LW Re-Start - 7/5/06 - 170lbs Today - 154.5 lbs Goal - 130 lbs Height: 5'6" Female. Age: 61 Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often. =================================== > LW, > > The indigenous people of the artic part of Canada are properly referred to > as Inuit, not Eskimos. Well, sure they are properly referred to as Inuit, that's the name they call themselves but if they were/are eaters of raw meat then they are properly referred to Eskimo by the other Native Americans who saw them as such. > Please follow this link and read the first paragraph. > http://collections.ic.gc.ca/arctic/inuit/people.htm >> LW, >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > properly referred to Eskimo by the other Native Americans who saw them as > such. Right, so unless the person using it is a Native American, the term "Eskimo" is incorrect. Signaturethe volleyballchick >>> LW, >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Right, so unless the person using it is a Native American, the term > "Eskimo" is incorrect. by that logic shouldn't we just call the Inuit "people" since that is the definition of the word and we are not Inuit? >>>> LW, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > by that logic shouldn't we just call the Inuit "people" since that is the > definition of the word and we are not Inuit? In a perfectly PC world, sure. But Inuit is what the aboriginals of the Arctic region prefer to be called thus it is fine to call them that. They do not prefer to be called Eskimos. It's like calling the aboriginals of the US "Indians." At one time it was acceptable among white people to do that though the people they were referring to never considered themselves to be mistakenly from India. So sure, call them Eskimos if you want to sound like an ignorant white person, just don't expect that because that's the way it was done for so long that it's acceptable to everyone. Signaturethe volleyballchick >>>>> The indigenous people of the artic part of Canada are properly referred >>>>> to >>>>> as Inuit, not Eskimos. That is false. They are Inuit Eskimos (as opposed to Yupik Eskimos), and technically can be referred to by either term. They prefer the more specific term Inuit. But Eskimo is in fact still correct... except that it is an all inclusive term which includes not just Inuit, but also Yupik (people, language, or culture). >>>> Well, sure they are properly referred to as Inuit, that's the name they >>>> call themselves but if they were/are eaters of raw meat then they are >>>> properly referred to Eskimo by the other Native Americans who saw them >>>> as such. That is a myth perpetuated by Westerners. The term Eskimo has nothing to do with raw meat, and would hardly be insulting even if it did. >>> Right, so unless the person using it is a Native American, the term >>> "Eskimo" is incorrect. The term Eskimo is correct *if* (but not only if) you are speaking English and want to reference *all* types of Eskimos rather than just one type. It still is not wrong when used to reference only a single type (Inuit or Yupik) but it just isn't as technically valid as using one of the more specific terms. >> by that logic shouldn't we just call the Inuit "people" since that is the >> definition of the word and we are not Inuit? > >In a perfectly PC world, sure. But Inuit is what the aboriginals of the >Arctic region prefer to be called thus it is fine to call them that. They Not all Inuit people, much less all Eskimos, want to be referenced with the term Inuit. Those in Greenland and Canada use Inuit. Those in Alaska use the term Inupiat. Of course all Eskimos in Siberia are Yupik, and like Yupik Eskimos in Alaska they do not want to be called Inuit either. >do not prefer to be called Eskimos. And just how do do *you* know this? Have you ever asked any Inuit? Do you know any Eskimos at all? >It's like calling the aboriginals of >the US "Indians." At one time it was acceptable among white people to do >that though the people they were referring to never considered themselves to >be mistakenly from India. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but lots of Indians prefer that term. And lots of them dislike it immensely. Just like everyone else, the have a variety of opinions on almost any subject... >So sure, call them Eskimos if you want to sound >like an ignorant white person, just don't expect that because that's the way >it was done for so long that it's acceptable to everyone. Maybe you need to learn more about the topic, eh? Quyanaqpak, Ap'a Flo SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > >do not prefer to be called Eskimos. > > And just how do do *you* know this? Have you ever asked any > Inuit? Do you know any Eskimos at all? Yes, actually I do. I also know Pacific Islanders, native Hawaiians and people from a number of indigenous groups. > >It's like calling the aboriginals of > >the US "Indians." At one time it was acceptable among white people to do [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > like everyone else, the have a variety of opinions on almost any > subject... RIght. Where I'm from, most dislike it immensely. I realize that different nations and tribes do things differently. I go by what passes locally/regionally with the tribes in the neck of the woods having been indoctrinated into it as part of their community. As with everything - life is a lot different in AK. > >So sure, call them Eskimos if you want to sound > >like an ignorant white person, just don't expect that because that's the way > >it was done for so long that it's acceptable to everyone. > > Maybe you need to learn more about the topic, eh? Of course I do, but then again so do you. I never claimed to be an expert. Giga-waabamin, -- the volleyballchick I can speak a bit in this area, I am part Cherokee and part apache, I am an American, I don't get offended if you can't figure it out and think I am from India, but I wouldn't let you housesit for me, Lee > > >do not prefer to be called Eskimos. > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > -- > the volleyballchick >> >do not prefer to be called Eskimos. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Yes, actually I do. I also know Pacific Islanders, native Hawaiians >and people from a number of indigenous groups. Then you probably should *ask* a few Eskimos about this, instead of imagining what they would say. (I have no idea what Hawaiians or Pacific Islanders or other indigenous groups have to do with it... they won't know any more than you do.) >> >It's like calling the aboriginals of >> >the US "Indians." At one time it was acceptable among white people to do [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >RIght. Where I'm from, most dislike it immensely. I realize that >different nations and tribes do things differently. Then do *not* make sweeping statements suggesting that one specific opinion would satisfy everyone. >I go by what >passes locally/regionally with the tribes in the neck of the woods >having been indoctrinated into it as part of their community. As with >everything - life is a lot different in AK. Life is a lot different in *many* parts of of the US. If you want to see an interesting discussion on the topic, use Google to research the threads for creating the soc.culture.native newsgroup at a dozen plus years ago. The original attempt failed over the issue of what to name it, because everyone was divided (and vehemently so) no matter what name was used. The eventually successful attempt worked because the vote to creat and the vote to name were separate. >> >So sure, call them Eskimos if you want to sound >> >like an ignorant white person, just don't expect that because that's the way [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Of course I do, but then again so do you. I never claimed to be an >expert. Then do *not* make statements like the one above. I personally know a few thousand Eskimos who would be very upset that you are saying they "sound like an ignorant White person". SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com Hi Floyd, In my opinion, the term Eskimo and your continued use of it shows your lack of respect for the people you are referring to If we take your logic, then perhaps the terms formerly used in the past regarding Afro-Americans should continue to be used? We all know the progression of reference and if some of those terms ( in particularly one that I won't mention) were used today, you would start a riot!!!! I think you show some respect and refer to them properly. They do not prefer to be called Eskimos, so why do you feel you have the right to continue to use the term? Eddie Weight June05-359.0lbs Current Weight-286.8lbs Loss to date=72.2lbs Goal Weight-180.0lbs "Nunya B." <nunyadayumbidnez@gmail.com> wrote: >"nanner" <nospam@nospam.nospam> wrote: >> "Nunya B." <nunyadayumbidnez@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>>> to >>>>> as Inuit, not Eskimos. That is false. They are Inuit Eskimos (as opposed to Yupik Eskimos), and technically can be referred to by either term. They prefer the more specific term Inuit. But Eskimo is in fact still correct... except that it is an all inclusive term which includes not just Inuit, but also Yupik (people, language, or culture). >>>> Well, sure they are properly referred to as Inuit, that's the name they >>>> call themselves but if they were/are eaters of raw meat then they are >>>> properly referred to Eskimo by the other Native Americans who saw them >>>> as such. That is a myth perpetuated by Westerners. The term Eskimo has nothing to do with raw meat, and would hardly be insulting even if it did. >>> Right, so unless the person using it is a Native American, the term >>> "Eskimo" is incorrect. The term Eskimo is correct *if* (but not only if) you are speaking English and want to reference *all* types of Eskimos rather than just one type. It still is not wrong when used to reference only a single type (Inuit or Yupik) but it just isn't as technically valid as using one of the more specific terms. >> by that logic shouldn't we just call the Inuit "people" since that is the >> definition of the word and we are not Inuit? > >In a perfectly PC world, sure. But Inuit is what the aboriginals of the >Arctic region prefer to be called thus it is fine to call them that. They Not all Inuit people, much less all Eskimos, want to be referenced with the term Inuit. Those in Greenland and Canada use Inuit. Those in Alaska use the term Inupiat. Of course all Eskimos in Siberia are Yupik, and like Yupik Eskimos in Alaska they do not want to be called Inuit either. >do not prefer to be called Eskimos. And just how do do *you* know this? Have you ever asked any Inuit? Do you know any Eskimos at all? >It's like calling the aboriginals of >the US "Indians." At one time it was acceptable among white people to do >that though the people they were referring to never considered themselves to >be mistakenly from India. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but lots of Indians prefer that term. And lots of them dislike it immensely. Just like everyone else, the have a variety of opinions on almost any subject... >So sure, call them Eskimos if you want to sound >like an ignorant white person, just don't expect that because that's the way >it was done for so long that it's acceptable to everyone. Maybe you need to learn more about the topic, eh? Quyanaqpak, Ap'a Flo -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >Hi Floyd, > >In my opinion, the term Eskimo and your continued use of it shows your lack >of respect for the people you are referring to Is your opinion of any significance? Is there some reason anyone should imagine that you have more knowledge about this topic than the average non-Inuit Canadian? I happen to be well aware that the average non-Inuit Canadian agrees with you... for a lot of usually very good reasons which I do appreciate; but alas, they have virtually all of their facts *wrong*. >If we take your logic, then perhaps the terms formerly used in the past >regarding Afro-Americans should continue to be used? That is wrong. You don't seem to know anything about the term Eskimo, much less about Inuit or other Eskimo people. >We all know the progression of reference and if some of those terms ( in >particularly one that I won't mention) were used today, you would start a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >prefer to be called Eskimos, so why do you feel you have the right to >continue to use the term? I've discussed this topic with Eskimos from Greenland and from Canada as well as with Alaskan Eskimos. (I should warn you that I've also discussed this with my immediate family: all of whom, with the exception of me, do happen to be very traditional Eskimos.) Let me provide you with a few facts. The etymology of the term "Eskimo" is plagued with a myth that it is an Indian word for "eaters of raw meat", as if that would be an insult. Of course nobody but a Westerner with a very hypocritical Eurocentric view would consider that insulting. Worse yet, that isn't what it means at all! There are two well documented possible derivations for "Eskimo". An anthropologist from Quebec, Jose Mailhot, did a definitive study quite some time back, and decided it probably came from words meaning "People who speak a different language". Mailhot, Jose, L'etymologie de *esquimau' revuew et corrigee. In: Etudes/Inuit/Studies 2(2): 59-69. Mailhot speaks fluent Cree. Her study has never been refuted. However, she publishes in French, and is almost unknown on the Internet or in the US. Another view comes from Ives Goddard at the Smithsonian Institute, who says it probably meant "snowshoe netter". Goddard of course is a linguist who studies Algonquian languages. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 5 (Arctic), p6. You can find more discussion at <http://linguistlist.org/issues/7/7-300.html> Another URL, which I hesitate to suggest because it contains some rather gross errors (read with caution), <http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxeskimo.html> The gist of that is you are simply *wrong* about any derivation of Eskimo being insulting. But the overall problem with your understanding is the idea that "Inuit" is a valid replacement term for "Eskimo" in the English language. It is *not*. Inuit is just one branch of what the term Eskimo covers. Whether applied to language, to culture, or to a people, there are two branches of Eskimo, and 1) Yupik Eskimos are not Inuit, plus 2) many "Inuit" Eskimos simply do *not* like to be called Inuit (they use the term Inupiat, which has a slightly different connotation than Inuit). I personally have never met an Eskimo who objected to being called in Eskimo in the correct context. I know some who will correct anyone who calls them personally an Inuit. In any English language discussion of "Eskimo" that includes both Yupik and Inuit, the *only* proper term that can be used is "Eskimo". There is no other all encompassing term in the English language. In fact most discussions do encompass all Eskimos, because they have a common ancestry (the Inuit variation is perhaps 1500-2000 years old, while Yupik is a continuum from Proto-Eskimo as it existed prior to that). For that reason virtually all academic work (linguistics, anthropology, etc.) necessarily continues to use the term Eskimo in all cases. It is precisely correct. http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/inuitoreskimo.html That said, in both Canada and Greenland it is true that all Eskimos are Inuit, and particularly in Canada they do use the term Inuit to reference themselves. They of course would prefer that everyone else also call them that. There is nothing unreasonable about that preference. It is also true that the term Eskimo has been used in Canada in a derogatory manner by non-Eskimos; and much for that reason has been officially deleted from the government's list of acceptable terminology. Hence, when in Canada or Greenland, it makes very good sense to use the term Inuit when discussing local people. But to claim that any of the above makes the term Eskimo a grossly insulting, or in any way inherently incorrect, term is simply a misunderstanding on *your* part. Here are a few other interesting URLs, though not directly discussing this topic (they do, however, use the term "Eskimo" quite properly): A comparison between Inuit and Yupik languages, http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/yupik_inuit.html Discussions of Inuit dialects and Yup'ik, http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/langs/i.html http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/langs/cy.html A fascinating discussion of Lower Kuskokwim River Yup'ik culture by a Yup'ik elder (who also happens to have a PhD in Anthropology), http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/HistoryCulture/kawagley.html SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com Great reply Floyd! I'm quite impressed with your reply, but this is the part that sticks out most.... ....."That said, in both Canada and Greenland it is true that all Eskimos are Inuit, and particularly in Canada they do use the term Inuit to reference themselves. They of course would prefer that everyone else also call them that. There is nothing unreasonable about that preference. It is also true that the term Eskimo has been used in Canada in a derogatory manner by non-Eskimos; and much for that reason has been officially deleted from the government's list of acceptable terminology. *****Hence, when in Canada or Greenland, it makes very good sense to use the term Inuit when discussing local people***** But to claim that any of the above makes the term Eskimo a grossly insulting, or in any way inherently incorrect, term is simply a misunderstanding on *your* part.........." <--------------OK, I give - I agree with you. But I think you missed my original posting where I clearly said to LW .... ......"The indigenous people of the artic part of Canada are properly referred to as Inuit, not Eskimos........" Then you popped in and went nutso on Nunya's posting........... You are obviously well educated on the subject, but you really should read and understand what you are responding to before you go off the deep-end with your replies.... That being said, I am truly impressed with your response and no offense was ever intended. Now, what do you have to say about weight-loss and WW ? LOL!!! Eddie Weight June05-359.0lbs Current Weight-286.8lbs Loss to date=72.2lbs Goal Weight-180.0lbs "Eddie-Type2" <eddies(-)drafting@cogeco.ca> wrote: >Hi Floyd, > >In my opinion, the term Eskimo and your continued use of it shows your lack >of respect for the people you are referring to Is your opinion of any significance? Is there some reason anyone should imagine that you have more knowledge about this topic than the average non-Inuit Canadian? I happen to be well aware that the average non-Inuit Canadian agrees with you... for a lot of usually very good reasons which I do appreciate; but alas, they have virtually all of their facts *wrong*. >If we take your logic, then perhaps the terms formerly used in the past >regarding Afro-Americans should continue to be used? That is wrong. You don't seem to know anything about the term Eskimo, much less about Inuit or other Eskimo people. >We all know the progression of reference and if some of those terms ( in >particularly one that I won't mention) were used today, you would start a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >prefer to be called Eskimos, so why do you feel you have the right to >continue to use the term? I've discussed this topic with Eskimos from Greenland and from Canada as well as with Alaskan Eskimos. (I should warn you that I've also discussed this with my immediate family: all of whom, with the exception of me, do happen to be very traditional Eskimos.) Let me provide you with a few facts. The etymology of the term "Eskimo" is plagued with a myth that it is an Indian word for "eaters of raw meat", as if that would be an insult. Of course nobody but a Westerner with a very hypocritical Eurocentric view would consider that insulting. Worse yet, that isn't what it means at all! There are two well documented possible derivations for "Eskimo". An anthropologist from Quebec, Jose Mailhot, did a definitive study quite some time back, and decided it probably came from words meaning "People who speak a different language". Mailhot, Jose, L'etymologie de *esquimau' revuew et corrigee. In: Etudes/Inuit/Studies 2(2): 59-69. Mailhot speaks fluent Cree. Her study has never been refuted. However, she publishes in French, and is almost unknown on the Internet or in the US. Another view comes from Ives Goddard at the Smithsonian Institute, who says it probably meant "snowshoe netter". Goddard of course is a linguist who studies Algonquian languages. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 5 (Arctic), p6. You can find more discussion at <http://linguistlist.org/issues/7/7-300.html> Another URL, which I hesitate to suggest because it contains some rather gross errors (read with caution), <http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxeskimo.html> The gist of that is you are simply *wrong* about any derivation of Eskimo being insulting. But the overall problem with your understanding is the idea that "Inuit" is a valid replacement term for "Eskimo" in the English language. It is *not*. Inuit is just one branch of what the term Eskimo covers. Whether applied to language, to culture, or to a people, there are two branches of Eskimo, and 1) Yupik Eskimos are not Inuit, plus 2) many "Inuit" Eskimos simply do *not* like to be called Inuit (they use the term Inupiat, which has a slightly different connotation than Inuit). I personally have never met an Eskimo who objected to being called in Eskimo in the correct context. I know some who will correct anyone who calls them personally an Inuit. In any English language discussion of "Eskimo" that includes both Yupik and Inuit, the *only* proper term that can be used is "Eskimo". There is no other all encompassing term in the English language. In fact most discussions do encompass all Eskimos, because they have a common ancestry (the Inuit variation is perhaps 1500-2000 years old, while Yupik is a continuum from Proto-Eskimo as it existed prior to that). For that reason virtually all academic work (linguistics, anthropology, etc.) necessarily continues to use the term Eskimo in all cases. It is precisely correct. http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/inuitoreskimo.html That said, in both Canada and Greenland it is true that all Eskimos are Inuit, and particularly in Canada they do use the term Inuit to reference themselves. They of course would prefer that everyone else also call them that. There is nothing unreasonable about that preference. It is also true that the term Eskimo has been used in Canada in a derogatory manner by non-Eskimos; and much for that reason has been officially deleted from the government's list of acceptable terminology. Hence, when in Canada or Greenland, it makes very good sense to use the term Inuit when discussing local people. But to claim that any of the above makes the term Eskimo a grossly insulting, or in any way inherently incorrect, term is simply a misunderstanding on *your* part. Here are a few other interesting URLs, though not directly discussing this topic (they do, however, use the term "Eskimo" quite properly): A comparison between Inuit and Yupik languages, http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/yupik_inuit.html Discussions of Inuit dialects and Yup'ik, http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/langs/i.html http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/langs/cy.html A fascinating discussion of Lower Kuskokwim River Yup'ik culture by a Yup'ik elder (who also happens to have a PhD in Anthropology), http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/HistoryCulture/kawagley.html -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >But I think you missed my original posting where I clearly said to LW .... > >......"The indigenous people of the artic part of Canada are properly >referred to >as Inuit, not Eskimos........" That is an inaccurate statement. It is perhaps best, when discussing *only* the Inuit of Canada to call them Inuit, it is never improper to call them Eskimos. >Then you popped in and went nutso on Nunya's posting........... Only if "nutso" means that I use words precisely. In fact Nunya made several slightly inflammatory and very inaccurate statements. I did object to those, and did make an attempt at being relatively brief in commenting. I do expect readers to be observant and notice that my signature does indicate where I live, which _should_ cause people to assume it best to ask for details rather than argue from ignorance and assumptions about anything I say that they question. But yes, obviously if anyone wants to argue the point I can and will come up with a great deal of documentation as well as point out that I do have sufficient personal expertise to make the statements that I do. >You are obviously well educated on the subject, but you really should read >and understand what you are responding to before you go off the deep-end >with your replies.... Apparently *you* didn't read it well. Trust me, I did. That was why I chose that article to respond to. *Your* reply was the one that went off the deep end... and left you somewhat in water over your head. >That being said, I am truly impressed with your response and no offense was >ever intended. I didn't assume an offense was ever meant. I don't see this as a topic that drives people to being offensive as such. However, Usenet is filled with offensive people. Not so oddly they usually are everywhere, and do comment of this type of thread. Very oddly though, there haven't been any here! We may well be adamantly disagreeing, but I don't see anyone being offensive. Are us "fat folks" easier to get along with, or what??? :-) >Now, what do you have to say about weight-loss and WW ? LOL!!! Oh, my... NO! I just went to the doc last week, and I've gained 10 pounds and my sugar levels were up to "borderline diabetic" again. I am in no mood to discuss *this* topic! I _love_ to eat, and had just decided that one particular meal (halibut with salad and rice) that I eat often would be better with double the amount of rice in it. Booom! That idea gets blown away... Grrrrrr... please, just now I really don't want to talk about WW. ;-) SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com Sorry to hear that your sugar levels are high. You had better take care of it and watch your carb intake. Discussing WW is what this group is all about so I'm a little surprised that you don't want to discuss this topic? I did say, "indigenous people of artic part of CANADA are referred to Inuit"......we are either not communicating properly or you keep missing that point? So where is my inaccurate statement? Take Care Floyd......it's really not worth arguing about....... Let's get back to discussing WW and weightloss - ok? Eddie Weight June05-359.0lbs Current Weight-286.8lbs Loss to date=72.2lbs Goal Weight-180.0lbs "Eddie-Type2" <eddies(-)drafting@cogeco.ca> wrote: >But I think you missed my original posting where I clearly said to LW .... > >......"The indigenous people of the artic part of Canada are properly >referred to >as Inuit, not Eskimos........" That is an inaccurate statement. It is perhaps best, when discussing *only* the Inuit of Canada to call them Inuit, it is never improper to call them Eskimos. >Then you popped in and went nutso on Nunya's posting........... Only if "nutso" means that I use words precisely. In fact Nunya made several slightly inflammatory and very inaccurate statements. I did object to those, and did make an attempt at being relatively brief in commenting. I do expect readers to be observant and notice that my signature does indicate where I live, which _should_ cause people to assume it best to ask for details rather than argue from ignorance and assumptions about anything I say that they question. But yes, obviously if anyone wants to argue the point I can and will come up with a great deal of documentation as well as point out that I do have sufficient personal expertise to make the statements that I do. >You are obviously well educated on the subject, but you really should read >and understand what you are responding to before you go off the deep-end >with your replies.... Apparently *you* didn't read it well. Trust me, I did. That was why I chose that article to respond to. *Your* reply was the one that went off the deep end... and left you somewhat in water over your head. >That being said, I am truly impressed with your response and no offense was >ever intended. I didn't assume an offense was ever meant. I don't see this as a topic that drives people to being offensive as such. However, Usenet is filled with offensive people. Not so oddly they usually are everywhere, and do comment of this type of thread. Very oddly though, there haven't been any here! We may well be adamantly disagreeing, but I don't see anyone being offensive. Are us "fat folks" easier to get along with, or what??? :-) >Now, what do you have to say about weight-loss and WW ? LOL!!! Oh, my... NO! I just went to the doc last week, and I've gained 10 pounds and my sugar levels were up to "borderline diabetic" again. I am in no mood to discuss *this* topic! I _love_ to eat, and had just decided that one particular meal (halibut with salad and rice) that I eat often would be better with double the amount of rice in it. Booom! That idea gets blown away... Grrrrrr... please, just now I really don't want to talk about WW. ;-) -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >I did say, "indigenous people of artic part of CANADA are referred to >Inuit"......we are either not communicating properly or you keep missing >that point? So where is my inaccurate statement? You are a bit casual about quoting. I havee no problem with the statement you quote above. But that was *not* what you said that I objected to, as should have been *very* clear from what I've been saying. >>But I think you missed my original posting where I clearly said to LW .... >> >>......"The indigenous people of the artic part of Canada are properly >>referred to as Inuit, not Eskimos........" ^^^^^^^^^^^ >That is an inaccurate statement. It is perhaps best, when >discussing *only* the Inuit of Canada to call them Inuit, it is >never improper to call them Eskimos. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ See the difference? It *is* significant. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com ok , you win......I'm tired....I need t |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message