Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / June 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Why Some People Get Fat and Others Don't

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Doug Skrecky - 27 Jun 2005 17:34 GMT
[One thing that was not mentioned below was palatibility. In my experience
white rice has a high ability to satiate, while rice with tomato sauce has
a dramatically lower ability to satisfy. Same comments apply to plain
bread, versus the same bread with peanut butter and raspberry jam on
it. My own "genius" brother has been easily losing large amounts of weight
seemingly with no effort at all, apparently by adopting a reduced
palatibility diet, with the same basic foods, but with little or nothing
in the way of sauces, or other toppings on them.

boiled potato + butter pat + ketchup = obese
boiled potato = thin]
____________________________________________________

Why Some People Get Fat And Others Don't: Too Much Snacking And Too Little
Moving, Says Cornell Obesity Specialist
ITHACA, N.Y. -- The main reason some people get fat isn't because
of genetics or how much they eat, says a Cornell University obesity
researcher. It's because compared with thinner people they snack
more often during the day and move about a lot less.

The best way to slash the country's skyrocketing medical costs
associated with obesity is not through dieting but by persuading
people to exercise more, says David Levitsky, professor of
nutritional sciences at Cornell. He says that the government should
take a more aggressive role in ensuring that employers offer workers
more opportunities to stretch their legs and exercise and provide
more noncompetitive sports for children as well as after-school
programs in inner-city neighborhoods where children often can't play
outside safely.

"And forget dietin; it just doesn't work," Levitsky says.

The Cornell obesity expert made these points to a meeting of
nutrition professionals at a program on obesity, presented Jan. 21
at the Southern Tier Dietetic Association in Ithaca.

Levitsky's studies with former undergraduate students Lisa Jias and
Amy Lanou have shown that when people are not allowed snacks, they
still eat about as much at mealtime as when they do snack. And people
who skip a meal or don't snack do not compensate at the next meal by
eating more. That means that the less often you eat, the fewer
calories you consume, he explains.

America, he says, needs to slow the trend of adults and children
becoming fatter, and to achieve this he has several messages:

-- "The popular high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets are just
gimmicks," he says. They work temporarily because they are
comprised of fewer calories, but the weight comes right back
because the diets are nearly impossible to stay on indefinitely.
Such diets, on a long-term basis, could be linked to higher risks
of cancer, heart disease and kidney failure, he says.

-- "The ideal weight charts send the wrong message to consumers;
it's not your weight that counts but what goes into your weight."
In other words, what's much more important to health are
indicators such as blood pressure and cholesterol and healthful
lifestyle habits, such as a low-fat diet and plenty of exercise.
"Recent studies show that shorter mortality is more related to
inactivity than to body weight."

-- What you weigh matters to your life, though. Studies show that
obese people experience discrimination in jobs, housing, education,
dating and marriage.

-- The popular set-point theory -- that your body regulates your
appetite and body weight -- seems to be losing ground as new
research fails to support it.

-- Americans are getting fatter because they are consuming about
1,000 calories more each year than the previous year. That is less
than 10 calories a day. To burn off that extra energy, the average
person needs only to walk or clean house about 17 hours more a year,
power walk, bike or dance about eight hours more or engage in
vigorous exercise (walk uphill, play basketball or jump rope) about
three more hours a year.

-- The benefits of exercise include not only more calorie
expenditure, but also lower cholesterol levels, greater muscle mass
(which uses more calories for fuel than fat cells do), smaller fat
(adipose) cells and changes in brain chemistry that induce feelings
of well-being and a greater sense of control over one's life.

-- Levitsky's final advice on the best way to control weight is to
"move your body whenever possible while reducing calories from fat.
Eat only when you have to, which means at meals, and finally,
accept your body size. Be happy even if you think you're not thin.
The major problem with body size is on the outside -- from society
and the media -- not within you. Take back the control about food
and body size."
Ignoramus6767 - 27 Jun 2005 17:40 GMT
(quoting an article)
> -- "The popular high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets are just
> gimmicks," he says. They work temporarily because they are
> comprised of fewer calories, but the weight comes right back
> because the diets are nearly impossible to stay on indefinitely.
> Such diets, on a long-term basis, could be linked to higher risks
> of cancer, heart disease and kidney failure, he says.

I am curious, what is the source of opinion that low carb diets are
impossible to stay on indefinitely. What is eating tasty stuff like
meat, eggs, fish, nuts, vegs etc, so complicated?

i
Robibnikoff - 27 Jun 2005 19:37 GMT
> (quoting an article)
> > -- "The popular high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets are just
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> impossible to stay on indefinitely. What is eating tasty stuff like
> meat, eggs, fish, nuts, vegs etc, so complicated?

It's not complicated, but you get sick of it after awhile.  Bacon almost
every morning  sounds great until you actually do it - Then you get sick of
it (I can't even bear to smell it anymore).  And not everyone's body can
take that kind of a diet - Mine couldn't.

It's okay for some people, but not for everyone.
Signature

Robyn
164/155/130

Ignoramus6767 - 27 Jun 2005 19:49 GMT
> "Ignoramus6767" <ignoramus6767@NOSPAM.6767.invalid> wrote in message
>> (quoting an article)
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> It's okay for some people, but not for everyone.

It does not have to be bacon every morning...

What surprises me is that after almost a year of eating mostly meat
(counted by calorie), I am not actually "sick of it". I do not eat
bacon every morning though.

Signature

223/174.3/180

Robibnikoff - 27 Jun 2005 20:26 GMT
> > "Ignoramus6767" <ignoramus6767@NOSPAM.6767.invalid> wrote in message
> >> (quoting an article)
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> (counted by calorie), I am not actually "sick of it". I do not eat
> bacon every morning though.

Well, like I said, each to his/her own.  It didn't work for me, but I know
it does for a lot of people.  I just didn't like it after a while and find
going low fat and cutting out the majority of the meat (mainly red meat) is
working better for me.  I feel a lot better too.
Signature

Robyn
164/155/130

Socialists are Miserable Thieves - 27 Jun 2005 21:21 GMT
>Well, like I said, each to his/her own.  It didn't work for me, but I know
>it does for a lot of people.  I just didn't like it after a while and find
>going low fat and cutting out the majority of the meat (mainly red meat) is
>working better for me.  I feel a lot better too.

Your body *NEEDS* fat. Without it, you'll develop all kinds of chronic
diseases. Do yourself a favor and start eating foods rich in Omega-3
fatty acids. And don't forget to use plenty of olive oil in your
salads.

Signature

"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand

Robibnikoff - 28 Jun 2005 14:19 GMT
> >Well, like I said, each to his/her own.  It didn't work for me, but I know
> >it does for a lot of people.  I just didn't like it after a while and find
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> diseases. Do yourself a favor and start eating foods rich in Omega-3
> fatty acids

Already doing that - Taking the pills as recommended by my doctor.

. And don't forget to use plenty of olive oil in your
> salads.

I'll pass on that - Not overly fond of oily salads.
Signature

Robyn
164/154.5/130

Socialists are Miserable Thieves - 28 Jun 2005 14:36 GMT
>> >Well, like I said, each to his/her own.  It didn't work for me, but I
>know
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>I'll pass on that - Not overly fond of oily salads.

Well, make sure you are getting it, anyway:

http://www.lef.org/newshop/items/item00820.html

In any case, if you aren't getting around 30% of calories from fats,
you aren't working to live a healthy, long life.

Signature

"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand

Ignoramus20427 - 28 Jun 2005 14:44 GMT
>>> >Well, like I said, each to his/her own.  It didn't work for me, but I
>>know
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> In any case, if you aren't getting around 30% of calories from fats,
> you aren't working to live a healthy, long life.

There is no basis for such a sweeping statement. And, mind you, I do
not practice low fat eating myself.

Signature

223/174.3/180

Socialists are Miserable Thieves - 28 Jun 2005 15:04 GMT
>>>> >Well, like I said, each to his/her own.  It didn't work for me, but I
>>>know
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>There is no basis for such a sweeping statement. And, mind you, I do
>not practice low fat eating myself.

You mean, there is no basis for eating a balanced diet?

Signature

"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand

Ignoramus20427 - 28 Jun 2005 15:11 GMT
>>>>> >Well, like I said, each to his/her own.  It didn't work for me, but I
>>>>know
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> You mean, there is no basis for eating a balanced diet?

As someone who is not staying on a traditional "balanced diet", I
would be hard pressed to argue for it.

Signature

223/174.3/180

Socialists are Miserable Thieves - 28 Jun 2005 16:35 GMT
>>>>>> >Well, like I said, each to his/her own.  It didn't work for me, but I
>>>>>know
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>As someone who is not staying on a traditional "balanced diet", I
>would be hard pressed to argue for it.

What kind of diet are you doing?

Signature

"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand

Ignoramus20427 - 28 Jun 2005 16:37 GMT
>>>>>>> >Well, like I said, each to his/her own.  It didn't work for me, but I
>>>>>>know
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> What kind of diet are you doing?

I am doing a high fat, low carb diet that's called "paleo diet". It
has been almost a year since I adopted it.

Signature

223/174.3/180

Socialists are Miserable Thieves - 28 Jun 2005 16:48 GMT
>>>>>>>> >Well, like I said, each to his/her own.  It didn't work for me, but I
>>>>>>>know
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>I am doing a high fat, low carb diet that's called "paleo diet". It
>has been almost a year since I adopted it.

Is it strict low carb or just low glycemic?

Signature

"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand

Ignoramus20427 - 28 Jun 2005 17:02 GMT
>>>>>>>>> >Well, like I said, each to his/her own.  It didn't work for me, but I
>>>>>>>>know
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>
> Is it strict low carb or just low glycemic?

It is relatively strict low carb. I do not believe that glycemic index
is a useful concept. A good critique of GI can be found here:

  http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gi.pdf

Signature

223/174.3/180

Socialists are Miserable Thieves - 28 Jun 2005 17:38 GMT
>>>> What kind of diet are you doing?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>   http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/gi.pdf

That study is from 2002. Here's something from 2005 (same journal,
btw):

"No difference in body weight decrease between a low-glycemic-index
and a high-glycemic-index diet but reduced LDL cholesterol after 10-wk
ad libitum intake of the low-glycemic-index diet"

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/80/2/337

By the way, it appears that glycemic load is the parameter to pay
attention to, as shown here:

"Physiological Validation of the Concept of Glycemic Load in Lean
Young Adults"

http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/133/9/2728?ijkey=c3285ceb04e542e2f
f255ba11eee3613dda34933&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha


Signature

"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand

Ignoramus20427 - 28 Jun 2005 17:59 GMT
>>>>> What kind of diet are you doing?
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/80/2/337

That's an interesting study, but it does not really disprove the one I
mentioned. GI is not a practically useful concept. It is next to
impossible to measure, or predict what GI would be of any particular
food.

> By the way, it appears that glycemic load is the parameter to pay
> attention to, as shown here:
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/133/9/2728?ijkey=c3285ceb04e542e2f
f255ba11eee3613dda34933&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Glycemic load is a concept rather similar to straight carb
counting. The only difference is that, according to it, you can afford
slightly more of carbs from some foods as opposed to others. For
instance, you could afford a 100 grams of sugar or the equivalent 83
grams of white bread, etc. (sugar is lower GI than white bread, 83
vs. 100, see http://www.diabetes.ca/Section_About/glycemic.asp).

I consider GI and GL to be phoney baloney and a distraction. Similar
to bullshit that "we are constantly dehydrated" and so on. The
concepts of GI and GL are financially beneficial to certain businesses
and thus attract a good amount of funding, but if you dig deeply
enough, you find relatively little validity behind GI.

Signature

223/174.3/180

Matthew - 28 Jun 2005 15:19 GMT
SMT <root@localhost.> wrote in message
news:q4m2c1parqqjmsn3k83q3sjjocf7acb7p8@4ax.com...

> >> In any case, if you aren't getting around 30% of calories from fats,
> >> you aren't working to live a healthy, long life.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> >
> You mean, there is no basis for eating a balanced diet?

You have an odd definition of balanced.

In case you missed it, the OP is taking an EFA supplement recommended
by a medical professional who has thoroughly evaluated her.

Matthew
Socialists are Miserable Thieves - 28 Jun 2005 16:40 GMT
>SMT <root@localhost.> wrote in message
>news:q4m2c1parqqjmsn3k83q3sjjocf7acb7p8@4ax.com...
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>In case you missed it, the OP is taking an EFA supplement recommended
>by a medical professional who has thoroughly evaluated her.

I'm not going to apologize for my distrust in medical professionals.
In any case, how do you know the medical professional has thoroughly
evaluated her? Do you know the results of the tests?

Signature

"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand

Robibnikoff - 28 Jun 2005 16:56 GMT
snip
> >In case you missed it, the OP is taking an EFA supplement recommended
> >by a medical professional who has thoroughly evaluated her.
>
> I'm not going to apologize for my distrust in medical professionals.
> In any case, how do you know the medical professional has thoroughly
> evaluated her? Do you know the results of the tests?

Ahem, sorry for starting up a controversy, but my medical professional DID
thoroughly evaluate me, bloodwork, etc.

Look, your diet works for you.  I did something similar and it didn't.  My
body couldn't deal with the high fat content and since I've been doing a
more low-fat diet, I've lost weight and feel MUCH better.  That's all I need
to know.

Carry on ;)
Signature

Robyn
164/154.5/130

Socialists are Miserable Thieves - 28 Jun 2005 17:15 GMT
>snip
>> >In case you missed it, the OP is taking an EFA supplement recommended
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>Ahem, sorry for starting up a controversy, but my medical professional DID
>thoroughly evaluate me, bloodwork, etc.

Excuse my skepticism but could you tells what that thoroughly
evaluation entailed? For example, do you know what your CRP and
fibrinogen levels are? Your homosysteine levels? Your DHEA-S,
estrogen, testosterone levels? TSH? Cortisol? Progesterone? IGF-1?
Lipoprotein-a?

>Look, your diet works for you.  I did something similar and it didn't.  My
>body couldn't deal with the high fat content and since I've been doing a
>more low-fat diet, I've lost weight and feel MUCH better.  That's all I need
>to know.

This thread has been showing up on sci.life-extension. It is from a
life extension perspective that I'm looking at what you're you saying.

By the way, here's a book I recommend:

"The Life Extension Revolution : The New Science of Growing Older
Without Aging" by Philipo Lee Miller, MD
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553803530/

Signature

"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand

Annie Benson Lennaman - 29 Jun 2005 07:36 GMT
> This thread has been showing up on sci.life-extension. It is from a
> life extension perspective that I'm looking at what you're you saying.

  Interesting point.  I think it's true that people from different
newsgroups with different charters might very well have different
perspectives on various topics that are cross posted.  I do have a
question though, if you don't mind.  From the perspective of someone
from sci.life-extension, what do you think would be more conductive to
someone who is significantly overweight living as long as is possible
for them; eating according the principles you've espoused in this thread
and staying at their current weight, or not following the dietary
guidelines you suggest but losing weight and getting down to what most
people seem to consider to be normal weight?  I would think you might
answer that the best case scenario would be to eat in the manner as you
suggest and also to lose weight, but what about the case where a person
could do only one or the other?  

Signature

Annie

258/225/140

Started February/07/05

Socialists are Miserable Thieves - 29 Jun 2005 14:30 GMT
>> This thread has been showing up on sci.life-extension. It is from a
>> life extension perspective that I'm looking at what you're you saying.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>weight, but what about the case where a person could do only one or
>the other?  

Anyone that follows an anti-aging lifestyle ends up being fit.
Basically, it's impossible to be overweight and live a long, healthy
life. For those trying to maximize lifespan at all costs (something
I'm not willing to do), Calorie Restriction is the way to go. Calorie
Restriction (and variants) appears to be the only sure fire method to
extend not only average lifespan but also maximal lifespan. Here's an
overview of what Calorie Restriction is:
http://www.optimal.org/peter/cron.htm

So, in essence, if you want to extend your life as much as possible,
you have to be fit. However, being fit is just a necessary condition,
not a sufficient one. You have to do a lot more things. Once again,
I'm going to recommend this book because it provides valuable
information for those who want to live a *healthy* and *productive*
long life:

"The Life Extension Revolution: The New Science of Growing Older
Without Aging" by Philip Lee Miller, M.D.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553803530/

Signature

"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand

Annie Benson Lennaman - 28 Jun 2005 19:10 GMT
> Look, your diet works for you.  I did something similar and it didn't.  My
> body couldn't deal with the high fat content and since I've been doing a
> more low-fat diet, I've lost weight and feel MUCH better.  That's all I need
> to know.

  I think that's very sensible, Robyn.  One thing that I've noticed is
that when some people have success with some sort of specialized diet,
they become almost fanatical and try hard to recruit people to join them
in it.  I have no doubt that they mean the best; after all, it _did_
work for them.  I just think that it is easy to lose sight of fact that
in dieting, there is no One True Way.  For example, even though I was
desperate to lose weight I never had any urge to try low carb dieting,
even though several of my friends where having good results with it.  I
just knew I could never do it for any sort of time.  The only thing I
would lose would be my will to live.  Yet I've had low carbers get
almost mad at me for not being willing to join them in their new
passion.  

  I advise that you stick to what you know is working for you.  That's
what I am doing, and I don't regret it at all.

Signature

Annie

258/225/140

Started February/07/05

Ignoramus20427 - 28 Jun 2005 19:15 GMT
>    I think that's very sensible, Robyn.  One thing that I've noticed is
> that when some people have success with some sort of specialized diet,
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> almost mad at me for not being willing to join them in their new
> passion.  

Annie, I am curious how long were those fanatical people able to
actually stay on their diets. My suspicion is that fanaticism is a
surrogate for true commitment (which should arise out of rational
considerations). Therefore, I am curious in your friends' experiences
as data points.

Signature

223/174.3/180

Annie Benson Lennaman - 29 Jun 2005 07:43 GMT
> Annie, I am curious how long were those fanatical people able to
> actually stay on their diets. My suspicion is that fanaticism is a
> surrogate for true commitment (which should arise out of rational
> considerations). Therefore, I am curious in your friends' experiences
> as data points.

  There were three people in particular that I was thinking of when I
made my post.  It was a couple of years ago, but as I remember it they
did rather well on the diet for the first three months or so, then had
moderate success, then less so after about six months.  A year later
only one was still low carbing, and had maintained some weight loss,
though had not hit their goal.  At that point I switched jobs, so I
don't really know how it turned out for them.  

  I happen to share your belief.  I'm not trying to convert anyone to
my way of eating even though it is working for me, and I did give it
alot of thought and went with what seemed logical to me.    

Signature

Annie

258/225/140

Started February/07/05

Ignoramus4093 - 29 Jun 2005 19:02 GMT
>> Annie, I am curious how long were those fanatical people able to
>> actually stay on their diets. My suspicion is that fanaticism is a
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> though had not hit their goal.  At that point I switched jobs, so I
> don't really know how it turned out for them.  

Thank you.

>    I happen to share your belief.  I'm not trying to convert anyone to
> my way of eating even though it is working for me, and I did give it
> alot of thought and went with what seemed logical to me.    

Makes full sense.

Signature

223/174.3/180

Robibnikoff - 28 Jun 2005 19:31 GMT
> > Look, your diet works for you.  I did something similar and it didn't.  My
> > body couldn't deal with the high fat content and since I've been doing a
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> almost mad at me for not being willing to join them in their new
> passion.

<Chuckle> I know what you mean.  I tried the low carb thing for quite a
while and it did work, initially.  As what happened in this diet, I lost a
little over 9 pounds right off the bat.  Then it came off more slowly and
finally not at all.  As frustrating as that was, I just wasn't feeling that
great.  Not mention, I was tired of craving the occasional carb and then
feeling guilty when I gave in.  Now, I'm more focused on eating healthy
without going too nuts in any direction, whether it's low carb, low fat,
etc.  As I've stated before, I feel great and am not feeling deprived.  Of
course, I've only been dieting a little over three weeks, so maybe it's too
soon for that.  Anyhoo, each to his/her own and everything in moderation,
even moderation itself.

>    I advise that you stick to what you know is working for you.  That's
> what I am doing, and I don't regret it at all.

Exactly!  Thanks :)
Signature

Robyn
164/154.5/130

Mike McWilliams - 28 Jun 2005 20:45 GMT
The true reason why some people get fat and others don't is that some
people don't exercise more and eat less.

Diets are for people who think shortcuts work. A healthy diet where you
don't consistently take in more calories than you expend is as essential
as regular exercise.

Anyone who feeds you any other line than exercise more and eat less is
taking advantage of you.
Doug Freyburger - 29 Jun 2005 20:52 GMT
> You mean, there is no basis for eating a balanced diet?

There is no basis that any one person's idea of a balanced
diet actually is, and there is basis that diets widely
thought to be balanced actaully work great.  The conclusion
to draw is that there are balanced nutrient requirements
and any system that delivers them is fine.

There are low tech societies that eat almost exclusively
meat pulled from the oceans under the ice.  There are low
tech societies that eat almost exclusively home grown
root veggies.  Neither is widely viewed as balanced yet
the people in said societies are quite healthy and live
to be old.

Add in the fact that individuals vary widely, and any one
notion of a balanced diet ends up being nonsense for some.

What is balanced for one person will not be what is
balanced for the next person.  Balanced needs to be a
process to discover for yourself not any one size fits
all system.

I read this in alt.support.diet, so balance isn't always
even the goal.  Balance causes retaining weight or retaining
previous loss.  Bad or excellent depending on which one ;^).
any system that triggers loss is realistically unbalanced.
Sometimes a controlled amount of unbalance is the goal.
Unbalance to lose, balance to keep it off.
Robibnikoff - 28 Jun 2005 14:47 GMT
> >> >Well, like I said, each to his/her own.  It didn't work for me, but I
> >know
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> In any case, if you aren't getting around 30% of calories from fats,
> you aren't working to live a healthy, long life.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that I was going totally "fat free", just
cutting down.  Like maybe a piece of reduced-fat cheese instead of a
high-fat one.  That sorta thing.  But thanks for the advice :)
Signature

Robyn
164/154.5/130

Matthew - 28 Jun 2005 15:12 GMT
SMT <root@localhost.> wrote in message
news:nck2c1dhgutr2sfpm611kupr6485ai5os0@4ax.com...

> Well, make sure you are getting it, anyway:
>
> http://www.lef.org/newshop/items/item00820.html

Or if you aren't as fanatical as the lef folks, you can get fish oil
capsules from your nearest discount retailer for under $0.05 per
capsule. And flax seed oil isn't that much more expensive.

Matthew
Ignoramus20427 - 28 Jun 2005 15:12 GMT
> SMT <root@localhost.> wrote in message
> news:nck2c1dhgutr2sfpm611kupr6485ai5os0@4ax.com...
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Matthew

you could also buy cod liver oil for $10 per 0.5 liter bottle.

Signature

223/174.3/180

Robibnikoff - 28 Jun 2005 16:03 GMT
> SMT <root@localhost.> wrote in message
> news:nck2c1dhgutr2sfpm611kupr6485ai5os0@4ax.com...
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> capsules from your nearest discount retailer for under $0.05 per
> capsule. And flax seed oil isn't that much more expensive.

That's exactly what I'm doing.  I got a huge bottle of fish oil capsules.
Signature

Robyn
164/154.5/130

Socialists are Miserable Thieves - 28 Jun 2005 16:44 GMT
>> SMT <root@localhost.> wrote in message
>> news:nck2c1dhgutr2sfpm611kupr6485ai5os0@4ax.com...
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>That's exactly what I'm doing.  I got a huge bottle of fish oil capsules.

How do you know they aren't contaminated and have the EPA/DHA as
stated on the label?

Signature

"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand

Robibnikoff - 28 Jun 2005 16:57 GMT
> >> SMT <root@localhost.> wrote in message
> >> news:nck2c1dhgutr2sfpm611kupr6485ai5os0@4ax.com...
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> How do you know they aren't contaminated and have the EPA/DHA as
> stated on the label?

Whatever, dude.  You're taking this way too seriously.  You have a problem
with the bottle of fish oil capsules I purchased two weeks ago? Don't worry
about it - You're not taking them.
Signature

Robyn
164/154.5/130

Socialists are Miserable Thieves - 28 Jun 2005 17:18 GMT
>> >> SMT <root@localhost.> wrote in message
>> >> news:nck2c1dhgutr2sfpm611kupr6485ai5os0@4ax.com...
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>Whatever, dude.  You're taking this way too seriously.

People on this newsgroup, sci.life-extension, usually do. It's a "sci"
newsgroup after all.

>You have a problem with the bottle of fish oil capsules I purchased two
>weeks ago? Don't worry about it - You're not taking them.

Why are you posting this in a public forum if you don't care for
feedback from the public?

Signature

"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand

Socialists are Miserable Thieves - 28 Jun 2005 16:43 GMT
>SMT <root@localhost.> wrote in message
>news:nck2c1dhgutr2sfpm611kupr6485ai5os0@4ax.com...
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>capsules from your nearest discount retailer for under $0.05 per
>capsule. And flax seed oil isn't that much more expensive.

I value three things in LEF that the discount retailer doesn't offer:

1. assurance of quality

2. the strenght to fight the Government/FDA when necessary

3. research

Signature

"A society that robs an individual of the product of his
effort... is... a mob held together by institutionalized
gang rule." -- Ayn Rand

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.