Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / June 2005
Why Some People Get Fat and Others Don't
|
|
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
|
|
|