[The following is an excerpt from my response to a personal email
over a month old to someone with whom I correspond on a semi-regular
basis and have known for many years - the writer was told later that
I would post this message here at MoreLife Yahoo and was sincerely
welcome to post any follow-ups desired - the response was positive.
The lines not preceeded by ">" are my original response.
**Kitty]


>I know that the two of you have and are continually putting alot of
>energy, thought and passion into what you are doing with the Self
>Soverengity program, as well as other projects. Not everyone you
>meet or talk with is going to have the same passion, interest, or
>desire that the two of you have. I have read over your documents on
>the MoreLife website and found the statement:

We never expected that our ideas would be accepted by everyone and
that even those who do would be as enthusiastic as we are.  But for
those people who are serious about liberty for themselves and loved
ones, we are hoping that, with time, as we make more of the Self-SIP
documentation available - and finalize after discussion online with
interested others resulting in improvements - more people will
realize that the world of government intervention is not a necessity
for an orderly society.  And that
[I failed to finish the sentence before sending. **Kitty]


>"However, we are not interested in diatribes or mere statements that
>this whole approach won't work or that some other approach is better
>unless a strong argument for your position is included."


>It sounds like unless I have a strong argument, you wish not to be
>bothered with what I might say.  What is considered 'strong'? I
>don't wish to 'argue' the points I do see weaknesses in the idea,
>the fesibility of it, the practical application of what may seem
>good written down. I do not attempt to come across as a slap you in
>the face with my ideas, I will say that since I have a fundemental
>difference in certain moral beliefs, this does have an effect on my
>view of the documents.

Diatribes are mere statements without reference to particular
points of disagreements with pointed reasons provided.

[What the writer here did not appear to understand is that the word "argument"
has more than one meaning. It can mean "heated, antagonistic, shouting match",
but its original meaning was and is merely a logical presentation of one's
reasons for taking a certain position or having a certain viewpoint, *rather*
than a mere statement of an opinion. Still, the point regarding "strong" was
well taken and we will remove that from the text.
The problem with the writer's comment was that s/he did not specify any of the:
"weaknesses in the idea, the fesibility of it, the practical application of what
may seem good written down" which s/he "saw" as problems. It is this sort of
"opinion" comment which we have stated is of no value to us, or to anyone else
for that matter. --Paul]


>In the following quote,
>
>"that whenever any human or group of humans, whether calling
>themselves a government or not, becomes destructive of my self-
>sovereignty, as a human my individual purposes allow, nay even
>require me to resist and to terminate this destruction by whatever
>means I decide, and, together with other adults of like mind, to
>mutually bind ourselves to a contractual relationship which shall
>seem to us most likely to effect our safety and our potential for
>happiness."
>
>I came to the same realization that the essence of the sentences was
>a sucession of the individual from the state. If such a sucession
>was to be carried out, how then would the individual pay for
>services? What currency would be used, how could he justify using
>state funded roads, schools, utilities? How would he travel, as
>using a state issued driver's license or federal issued passport is
>necessary in the existing situation.

Your questions are typical of many of what we expect people who do
not have much experience with libertarianism will ask.  This is
because most people are so ingrained with the idea of governments
that they truly can not imagine a free market approach.  And if you
read any of Paul's answers at MoreLife Yahoo over the past month
to some people already, you will find that it is a slow "withering"
of the state that is expected AND desired. Even a non-violent
revolution - a drastic quick change - is not desired by either of
us; what we are hoping for is an *evolution* - fairly slow as a
result of well-considered principled change of fundamental ideas.
Yes, the process is a slow secession from government.  It is akin to
the process that a child/teenager goes through in growing up and
separating himself from his parents - at least this is what should
happen.  Children should become independent reasoning adults not
just physically mature dependents.

This [following 2 paragraphs] is from the Introduction to the Social
Contract still in progress:

"In order to accomplish such a naturally ordered, maximally free,
minimally restrictive society of maximally happy and productive Self-
Sovereign Individuals, what is needed is a clear delineation of a
minimal social framework under which such a natural order will
occur. It is not enough to simply eliminate governments everywhere
and then let the free market take over as some anarchist
libertarians appear to think. Without such a framework (which I have
termed the "social meta-needs" of human relationships) to guide the
marketplace, I think that the result might well be chaos (at least
for quite a while) as all the critics of anarchist ideas contend,
and I, for one, am not prepared to take a chance. The major problem
here is that the level of size and complexity to which civilization
has grown without free market ordering institutions in place is
simply too large for these to emerge naturally in the timescale
needed to prevent chaos upon the immediate withdrawal of government
imposed order. That is why social chaos and the welcomed imposition
of some order by a strongman even at the cost of some loss of
freedom would almost inevitably happen. This can only be prevented
if a social order without government tyranny can be gradually
achieved. Only such graduallism without violence will be conducive
to the development of market institutions to provide the natural
social order required.

"Moreover, by providing such a minimally-restrictive compossible
framework it may be possible to unite all those desiring maximal
freedom behind one strategic practical approach, and to confound all
the critics at the same time. The rational anarchist cannot object
because he is completely free to have his competing protection,
defense, court and law agencies within this system. The minimal
governmentalist cannot object because there is a single overriding
set of rules and procedures to which all Self-Sovereign Individuals
must adhere - a kind of minimal government, if you will, but one
which in fact has *none* of the characteristics of a government,
because it is nothing more nor less than a voluntary contract! It is
our sincere hope that those in the various branches of the freedom
movement will seriously examine these documents and our plan for
achieving their implementation and will give us their questions,
comments, criticisms and suggestions for improvement so that we may
all together build something with which we are all satisified and
which will eventually achieve our common personal freedom goals. I
am convinced that if this can be done, there will be a time in the
not so distant future when people will look back and realize that
most of those working for freedom today were actually far too
limited in their ideas for the enlargement of possible choices which
could reasonably be attained."

Only where there are government monopolies - areas where the
government forbids or makes extremely difficult for any one to
compete - will a person in the interim justifiably use a government
run operation.  Gradually (I can't even estimate how long), services
and properties owned by governments will be sold (making it possible
to reduce government debts).  In a totally free society all property
is privately owned - there is no entity as government.  This is
difficult for many people to imagine, especially the first time it
is brought to their attention as a real possibility.

Your questions concerning applications are quite reasonable and
appropriate, and your use of quotations is exactly what is needed to
make any discussion meaningful.

[While Kitty answered above in very general terms, I will be more specific wrt
the particular points that her correspondent raised.

>If such a sucession was to be carried out,
>how then would the individual pay for services?

Anyone making a Declaration of Individual Sovereignty simply is not going to be
able to opt out of current society without either leaving the country (to
where?) or becoming a hermit in a cabin in some deep wilderness area (again
where?). Thus, he will continue to use the government service that he *must* use
in order to live. He cannot even purchase food or anything else without paying
hidden taxes so even if he can avoid many taxes he is not in any manner sponging
off others, especially when they (through support of the government) give him no
choice. So he will use private services (and pay for them) whenever he can but
will continue to use government services when and where he must.

> What currency would be used,

Currency is something which the market place can certainly provide. If you
examine the history of money, it has many times been done privately. The main
reasons the governments monopolize it is to give them the power of inflation.

> how could he justify using state funded roads, schools, utilities?

The Declarer would try not to use them to the best of his ability. Where he
cannot exist without doing so because no alternative exists, he is justified
because of the government distortion of the marketplace which makes it
impossible for private alternatives to arrise. In addition, as I stated above,
he is paying for them many times over in all the hidden taxes and government
burden costs of everything that he buys.

>How would he travel, as using a state issued driver's license

On the only roads that exist, of course. There are already people around who
drive without a license. They just make sure they are never stopped. Or if you
must, then you use one because you really have no choice.

>or federal issued passport is necessary in the existing situation.

Yes, it is truly unfortunate that one cannot travel between countries without
being a citizen of one of them. So if you continue to, do what you must. But
that does not mean that you like it, condone it, sanction it or in any manner
want it to continue! --Paul]


>Also, in regard to this statement:
>
>"Government actions prevent or restrict each adult from providing or
>using whatever services that he determines are in his best interest
>and which do not by themselves harm any other person such as: a.
>prostitution, b. pornography, c. abortion, d. cloning, e. sale of
>human organs, and f. all services which require certification and
>licensing. "
>
>I take serious difference. Several of the listed activites I find
>against what I believe in (moraly) so therefore don't condon them
>being unrestricted.

You are missing a very important part of liberty - that any time or
under any circumstances that one person is prohibited from doing
something that is not force or fraud, the groundwork is being laid
for others to be denied similar freedom of action.  Whatever a
person finds reprehensible he will, under a totally free society,
never be forced to support it. Allowing others to engage in an
action *between themselves* that they decide is of mutual benefit to
them, does not mean that others condone that action.  It only means
that their liberty is not being abridged.

[In fact, you are perfectly free (or should be) to be intolerant and socially 
unfriendly to any people who practice activities which you think are "immoral".
The whole point of liberty, however, is that if these activities do not "force"
you to do anything, then they must be "allowed" to take place. That is, you have
no entitlement to use force (or get others to use it) to stop them. --Paul]

In a free society, someone will never be required to support
anything - he will only trade a value of his own for a value that he
receives from someone else. (See MoreLife Value for Value page and
latest MoreLife Yahoo Post.) That is far from what is the case in
the very mixed societies that exist now - mixture of force and
freedom, with growing loss of the latter.


>In regard to services requiring certification and licensing, I know
>that in order for me to be a teacher, I had to pass the necessary
>certification process, also, in order for me to be a practicising
>nail technician I needed to pass a state borad and have a license. I
>have seen too many situations where unqualified technicians have
>caused serious harm to clients. These were unlicensed technicians,
>who had not met the standards required of the cosmotology board and
>practiced illegially.

The individual in a totally free society in which interactions are
by contract - the essence of the Self-Sovereign Individual Project -
individuals will be more responsible for their actions then they are
now.

[They will have learned to be so because they will bear the full brunt of the
responsibility for restituting their victims for any harm that they do. --Paul]

Private registration companies - ie. Better Business Bureau
and Consumers Union - would operate more plentifully and with more
ability to inform then they are currently where governments support
the status quo. And each adult individual will be able to choose
services and products based on his judgment of what is in his long-
range best interest - not be forcibly limited by the actions of a
government.  His choices will be greatly increased and his
opportunities for happiness.


>These quotes :
>
>" that as a self-sovereign individual, I no longer
>sanction, nor have any duty to obey the laws, regulations or agents
>of any governments, and that all power of government agencies over
>me, is and ought to be totally dissolved;
>
>          "It is important to note that the declarer is not saying
>that he definitely intends to break any laws and regulations. All
>that he is saying is that these laws and regulations have no moral
>validity and that he reserves to himself the freedom of choice to
>decide whether to obey them or not. Though I decided not to use the
>term, the declarer is, in effect, formally "seceding" from the
>state. All forms of voluntarily enjoined contractual service and
>servitude should be permitted. Only fraud, the non-contracted
>initiation of a violation, contracted initiation of violation to a
>party not involved in the contract, should invalidate a contract and
>require restitution for any harm actually done"
>
>This is where I see the word seced used by Paul. It does seem to say
>that the individual says, this is what is right for me....and so be
>it. It sounds as if there would be NO reason to have laws, set up by
>any government, as the individual would be his OWN regulator of law.
>So, if I felt that I could handle driving me car at a speed higher
>than what is posted, because of my extreme skills, I could? That
>would be putting myself and others at risk, not a safe idea to me.

The individual is ultimately and completely responsible for *all*
his actions in a totally free society. When people understand this -
especially when children are raised with the idea - you can be sure
that they will think carefully about the actions that they take.
This means that he will have to make restitution for the damages
that he causes. And if he, as a Self-Sovereign Individual (Freeman),
refuses to do so voluntarily and after a trial finds him culpable he
continues to refuse, he will lose his status as Freeman. This means
that he will be in a much reduced status in regard to all other
Freemen, since they will preferentially deal with each other (a
stated item in the Social Contract Paul is still honing as he writes
the annotated/explained version). But each and every action will
*not* have to be carefully considered each and every time once the
*principle* is completely understood and accepted. It is this
understanding of principles that is often an initial stumbling block
for many.  See the latest MoreLife Yahoo post.

[In addition, the writer had a contradiction in her thinking in the lines:

>So, if I felt that I could handle driving me car at a speed higher
>than what is posted, because of my extreme skills, I could? That
>would be putting myself and others at risk, not a safe idea to me.

Either the person *can* drive safely at higher speed or s/he cannot. If s/he
can, then by definition there is no higher risk involved. However, as Kitty said
the crux of the matter is being held fully responsible for one's actions. If
people learn as they grow up that they will be fully responsible for restitution
of all harm that they do, then they will learn to judge and minimize risk much
more effectively than they do now.
Furthermore, this example has another important method of solution which is not
much different than that of today. Someone will always own any road that you are
driving upon, and it is the entitlement of the owner to impose whatever rules
for use of his property that he wishes. When you drive on his road, you will do
so under a contractual arrangement with him which could impose fines or loss of
privilege to drive on his road. What these *cannot* impose is jail terms, unless
you also agree with that upfront. --Paul]

>So there you have some of my thoughts on the matters you have asked
>me about. As I said before, there obviously has been a tremendous
>think tank going on for the two of you over these matters.

I have to smile at that one ;>)  We do think of ourselves somewhat
in that vein, although neither of us has ever used the word, nor
thought of it.  We definitely enjoy thinking.  You may enjoy the
latest Kitty Reflects just uploaded.  Actually Paul likes the
problems he's having with the Social Contract writing much more than
I do - it's the mathematician in him.  Some make my head spin - they
are an order of magnitude more difficult than those you've asked
about with the DOII.  At least many of those have been written about
by other libertarians. The precise definitions needed in the Social
Contract are what is taking so much time, but then Paul has been an
expert for some time at writing contracts.  This is the ultimate
contract - but it is really a "meta-contract".

Your questions above are quite reasonable and I would have welcomed
you posting them at MoreLife Yahoo so that others could benefit from
our discussion. You are still welcome to do so and Paul and I will
answer them much as I've done here.  Our answers at MoreLife Yahoo
(as are most of the writings on MoreLife - I do much of the Personal
Section alone, though he does review some for typos and often makes
improving edits) are a joint effort. Here though, I've not asked him
to review anything for accuracy.

I am on a strict low-carb diet and in the past I have avoided fruit
instead emphasizing protein sources and vegetables. I'd like to
resume my fruit consumption and would like to make good choices.

Is accurate to say that fruits have nutrients such as certain
bioflavonoids which are not present in vegetables?

[Essentially yes. Many fruits contain large concentrations of beneficial
chemicals (only some of which are technically bioflavonoids) which are not
present significantly in many vegetables. --Paul]

[The definition of bioflavonoids can be found in the MoreLife Glossary -
<http://morelife.org/glossary/abc.html#bioflav>  **Kitty]


Also, is it better to consume fruits that have uniform coloring such
as berries, mangos etc. vs. fruits which have colorless interiors
such as apples, pears etc?

[Probably so. Most of the beneficial chemicals contribute to the color, but some
do not. However, the highest concentration of beneficial chemicals is usually in
the skins. Also apples, pears, oranges have more carbs per unit of beneficial
nutrient. --Paul]


I'm assuming that an apple would have less nutrient content than an
equivalent amount of berries (equivalent fructose content).

[Definitely! Altogether berries of various kinds are your best fruits for low
carb content and high beneficial chemical content. Valuable berries include:
blueberry, bilberry, strawberry, raspberry, blackberry, cranberry, gooseberry,
kiwi.  Grapes, black currants and prunes come next. --Paul]

[If the USDA Nutrient Database had more valuable parameters for fruits and
vegetable - and I was running low on things to do ;>)- I'd probably put together
a comparison chart for various fruits as I've done for nutrient dense fish
(<http://morelife.org/food/fish.html>). While the tables are more inclusive than
a couple of years ago, there are no proanthocyanidins and bioflavonoids which
are major contributors to the antioxidants in the fruits. What is needed is a
table of antioxidant types and concentrations for these types of foods. (If
anyone knows of one, let us know.)

For what it's worth, here's the link for blueberries at the USDA Nutrient
Database:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/measure.pl?09050xyz0900xyzBlueberries%2c%20\
rawxyzVaccinium%20spp. (remember to click on "unwrap lines" when viewing this
message in order to get the entire URL.) When comparing between different types
of fruit (or anything), choose 100 grams so as to always be comparing the same
quantity; however, I know that I don't eat that many blueberries which is about
3/4C. My typical serving at breakfast is 1/4-1/3C.

(I learned something Paul already knew while doing this - the total sugars in
100 g of raw apple and blueberries is 10.39 and 9.96, respectively. However,
apples have 2.07g of sucrose while blueberries have only 0.11. Sucrose is a
disaccharide composed of one molecule each of glucose and fructose which both
have the same molecular weight. After it splits apart in the body, the person
has now ingested from the same 100g a total of 6.94g (5.90 + 1/2 x 2.07) of
fructose with the raw apple but only 5.03g (4.97 + 1/2 x 0.11) from the
blueberries. This is important because fructose is more glycating than glucose
and therefore the blueberries are a better choice from this standpoint also.)

Here's also a thread from 2001 in LEF Forums contained some valuable information
on ORAC (oxygen radical absorbance capacity) 
<http://forum.lef.org/forum15/topic23907.html> The article quoted there can be
reached directly <http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990208.htm> and is
regarding studies done by the Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts
in Boston.

In addition, the subject of fruit and bioflavonoids has been raised in previous
posts at MoreLife Yahoo. A search in the Message section yields 3:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/messagesearch?query=fruit%20bioflavonoid 
**Kitty]


Thanks

--- alexh1001 <alexh1@...> wrote:
And kitty commented:

> .... This is important because
> fructose is more glycating than glucose and
> therefore the blueberries are a better choice from
> this standpoint also.)

There is another factor involved with fructose intake.
(I am going from memory, and expect Paul to correct or
amplify my remarks as he sees fit.)

The liver preferentially replenishes its glycogen
supply from fructose (which is why it's good for carb
replenishment after exercise) but the liver has only a
limited amount of the enzyme necessary for this
conversion; when it's exhausted, fructose is converted
directly to triglycerides and dumped into the
bloodstream.  These lipids are either burned, if one
is intensly exercising, or more likely, deposited as
fat, especially in your arteries but also throughout
the body.

I recollect a figure of 50 grams as the maximum amount
of fructose the liver can quickly convert to glycogen,
and have no idea as to the rate of replenishment.  50
grams sounds like a lot, but a bottle of soda easily
exceeds that.

The US obesity epidemic seems to correlate closely
with the use of fructose as a sweetener; not that this
is the cause, but surely it'a contributing factor.

[Here is a review paper which summarizes some of this:

Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 Nov;76(5):911-22.
Fructose, weight gain, and the insulin resistance syndrome.
Elliott SS, Keim NL, Stern JS, Teff K, Havel PJ.
Department of Nutrition, University of California, Davis 95616, USA.

This review explores whether fructose consumption might be a contributing factor
to the development of obesity and the accompanying metabolic abnormalities
observed in the insulin resistance syndrome. The per capita disappearance data
for fructose from the combined consumption of sucrose and high-fructose corn
syrup have increased by 26%, from 64 g/d in 1970 to 81 g/d in 1997. Both plasma
insulin and leptin act in the central nervous system in the long-term regulation
of energy homeostasis. Because fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion
from pancreatic beta cells, the consumption of foods and beverages containing
fructose produces smaller postprandial insulin excursions than does consumption
of glucose-containing carbohydrate. Because leptin production is regulated by
insulin responses to meals, fructose consumption also reduces circulating leptin
concentrations. The combined effects of lowered circulating leptin and insulin
in individuals who consume diets that are high in dietary fructose could
therefore increase the likelihood of weight gain and its associated metabolic
sequelae. In addition, fructose, compared with glucose, is preferentially
metabolized to lipid in the liver. Fructose consumption induces insulin
resistance, impaired glucose tolerance, hyperinsulinemia,
hypertriacylglycerolemia, and hypertension in animal models. The data in humans
are less clear. Although there are existing data on the metabolic and endocrine
effects of dietary fructose that suggest that increased consumption of fructose
may be detrimental in terms of body weight and adiposity and the metabolic
indexes associated with the insulin resistance syndrome, much more research is
needed to fully understand the metabolic effect of dietary fructose in humans.

PMID: 12399260 --Paul]


What has this got to do with fruit?  In excess, it
isn't going to be good for you, aside from issues with
glycation.  How much is too much?  More than a handful
per meal?  The Morelife dictum to stick to berries,
and avoid bananas and apples, sounds helpful.

[In regard to Max's mention of bananas and apples, it occurs to me that the
tendency by most eaters of these (plus oranges) - often the only ones many
people eat - is because of their portability.  (I did a little searching for
some actual consumption statistics, but didn't find anything very helpful on
types of fruit.  But this CDC subpage was interesting for total number of fruit
and vegetable servings eaten daily - http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/5ADaySurveillance/
Unfortunately it is only for 3 years and the last was 2000. Somewhere there may
be better industry numbers but I didn't find them in my short search.)
As for "portability" of berries, Paul and I found that washed fresh strawberries
with green tops removed kept quite well in the cool box on our last drives
between Toronto and AZ. Blueberries and plums were also found to travel well in
the cool box after having been washed. The berries and plums were refreshing
snacks with nuts. (We also shared an apple with cheese enroute at sometime each
direction. We had a couple of plucomts too and needed to make use of plastic
bags for the extra ripe ones to catch the copious amount of juice.) While
keeping these types fruit cool is a necessity for freshness, it's a much easier
task these days with personal-size cool boxes and re-freezable "ice" packs.
These innovations make berries and other more perishable fruit (and vegetables)
easy to take to work and school by health-minded individuals. (As a result of
this "prompting", I'll be making an update in the next few days to the "Eating
on the Road" section of our Diet Regimen page regarding the fruit-portability -
<http://morelife.org/personal/health/dietregimen.html> Our health statistics
which were taken on Thursday will be uploaded at the same time.)

As for how much is too much?  There's probably a fairly specific answer if I
took enough time to research, but the best general "rule" that Paul and I follow
is to keep our calorie intake approximately at the 1400 and 1800 daily
(typically), respectively for me and Paul, with fruits and vegetables making up
about half of that.  The fruits eaten are generally those lower in glycation
contribution, but occasional higher ones (apples, and more rarely bananas and
citrus - grapefruit rather than oranges) are eaten for the pure enjoyment of
their flavor. Oh yes, we also have a lemon wedge with our dinner and I have them
with my tea. **Kitty]

[Kiwis are also excellent berry fruits which are quite portable. Just scrub and
wrap in a paper towel or place in a zip-lock bag and they can go anywhere for
the day. We eat them skins and all (except for one variety which we found were
too tough) so it is not necessary to prepare them. --Paul]

[The whole subject of the current obesity epidemic really gets me excited -
negatively! I look at all the overweight and downright *fat* individuals on the
streets of Toronto and in the small Arizona town where we spend some months each
year - and at gas/meal stops in between - and I am both amazed and horrified. 
The amazement comes primarily from the fact that the numbers are truly enormous
in comparison to what I remember - and study statistics are showing - from my
teen years 45 years ago. The overweight kids in my grammar and high school days
were in the small minority; now they are everywhere I turn. Heavy adults were
present "back then", but not to the enormous size that is becoming ever more
prevalent, nor at the often early ages either. (Many my age will remember when
the "fat lady/man" at the circus sideshow was the only really obese person they
ever saw.) Today, it isn't uncommon to see a man and woman - probably in their
early 30s - with a couple of kids tagging along (and/or being pushed in
strollers) and *all* carrying ~20% excess fat on their frames. Then there are
the numerous teenagers with bulges at the hips and waist that would only have
been seen in years past on women in their 30s (after having birthed at least 1
child) and men in their 40s who drank lots of beer.
Yes, it's an epidemic - but one that has been brought on by the individuals
themselves through lack of self-responsibility and, in the case of the children,
of literally nutritional abuse by their irresponsible parents.

The horror I experience at the reflection of what the large numbers of
overweight individuals means is based on the fact that these people are doing
themselves physical harm that their bodies may never be able to fully overcome
when (and if) they finally realize that the excess fat they are carrying around
is causing the increasing health problems they are experiencing. They are
literally stacking up the obstacles against themselves (and their overweight
children) for a healthy life of even currently average length.  The horror
continues when I expand this (as many writers have been doing recently) to the
monetary costs this translates into - not simply for the individual involved,
but under the nanny-state, for all taxpayers - even those who are thin and take
good care of their health.

The fundamental cure for this epidemic of obeisty is *self-responsibility* - if
the individual was the one financially responsible for his own health, I have no
doubt that there would be far less chronic overeating and minimal physical
exercising. Under the systems of state and employer supported/funded health care
there is no/little incentive for the individual of limited foresight to increase
his vision perspective on health; there is always a physician/clinic available
for a prescription to treat the problems. Why revise one's purchasing and eating
habits when the costs of not doing so are not borne solely by the individual
making those decisions? And don't so many doctors tell their patients (directly
or indirectly) that the health problems experienced are just "inevitable" and/or
"we're all going to die someday". Too few of these doctors put the
responsibility right where it belongs - on the person himself. Even having a
"pre-disposition" does not mean physical determination; it simply means that
without the right preventive measures, there is a greater likelihood that the
physical problem will occur.

The trend I see - if unchecked by a big dose of individual self-responsibility -
is a downward spiral physically for those individuals who are overweight at an
early age (a fact written about in health studies with increasing frequency the
past decade). The envisioned picture is actually multi-faceted in that there are
numerous individual spirals inside a larger spiral representing a society
strongly lacking in self-responsible individuals. Another layer of
downward-moving spirals occurs when considering the many separate "nanny-state"
societies on this planet - one gigantic downward "spiral" moving around the star
we call our sun. I increasingly wonder how the human race will ever physically
"get to the stars" if the present lack of individual self-responsibility
continues its present trajectory.

If I were a creator of fiction, the thoughts above could be a very interesting
backdrop for a struggle to change the societal momentum. But then, Paul and I
are trying to do that in fact with the Self-Sovereign Individual Project
<http://selfsip.org> with its mission: To provide the foundational ideas and the
ordering framework for a new society that will challenge responsible individuals
to reach a higher level of maturity in their interactions with each other.
**Kitty]

[Wow! This is one of the few subjects which causes Kitty to go off on a "rant".
But, of course, I heartily agree! --Paul]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "alexh1001" <alexh1@s...> wrote:

>[I learned something Paul already knew while doing this - the total
>sugars in 100 g of raw apple and blueberries is 10.39 and 9.96,
>respectively. However, apples have 2.07g of sucrose while blueberries
>have only 0.11. Sucrose is a disaccharide composed of one molecule
>each of glucose and fructose which both have the same molecular
>weight. After it splits apart in the body, the person has now
>ingested from the same 100g a total of 6.94g (5.90 + 1/2 x 2.07) of
>fructose with the raw apple but only 5.03g (4.97 + 1/2 x 0.11) from
>the blueberries. This is important because fructose is more glycating
>than glucose and therefore the blueberries are a better choice from
>this standpoint also. **Kitty]


*****While I would certainly not dispute the biochemical facts listed
above, I wonder if the 1.91 g fructose difference (per 100 g) between
an apple and blueberries is significant.

[Not in itself, of course, but these small differences in many foods and over
time can add up to something significant. BTW, roughly 85 grams of that per 100
g is water, so the 1.9 grams is almost 13% of the nutritive components. --Paul]

While it will clearly
produces a benefit from the point of view of glycation (and caloric
intake), my impression is that what is also important and should
always be taken into account is the advisability of consuming a
variety of different fruits (and vegetables; and grains, if one is so
disposed).

[Certainly! We always advise people to consume a great variety of both different
kinds of foods and different sources of specific nutrients. Part of the reason
for this is that both foods and supplements vary between "batches" in their
nutrient content. One should never "put all their eggs in one basket".

[A look at our Diet Regimen
<http://morelife.org/personal/health/dietregimen.html> makes it very clear that
our intake of foods is quite varied, though we do make chicken and salmon our
main "meat" purchases for their relative low cost, high nutritional benefit, and
ease of cooking methods. Grains also are used - but rarely wheat or rice - and
in small amounts compared to vegetables and fruits, and definitely compared to
the standard American diet (SAD) and the recommendations of the USDA Food
Pyramid. **Kitty]

Kitty and I do not eschew apples; we eat one or two a week. All that we are
saying is that apples, oranges and bananas should not be anyone's predominant
fruit, as they are with so many North American households. --Paul]

[When we do eat apples - I agree that one or two a week for the two of us is
typical - the one at a time that we share, cut in quarters or eighths, is either
spread with peanut butter or accompanied with cheese or nuts. Eating the two
together, moderates the rate at which the carbohydrates are absorbed by the
system and turned into blood glucose. It may not be of great significance with
simply the carb intake of half an apple, but it is a good habit to get into. In
addition, it does make the relatively small snack more filling taste-wise and
appetite-wise and therefore reduces the tendency to munch on something less
nutritionally valuable.  **Kitty]


This diversification will help to insure that one does
not expose oneself to an overload of toxins that reside in particular
food sources (or in the pesticides that used around them), and will
also benefit the person by allowing them to ingest a wider range of
different biochemical substances.

[I am not sure the first is true, but the second certainly is. --Paul]

[All our vegetables and fruit are scrubbed clean in plain water before consuming
raw or preparing for cooking as a simple method of removing surface contaminants
from handling and agricultural residues. While this abstract from last year
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=\
12083263&dopt=Abstract> (remember to "unwrap lines for full URL) is of a study
in Europe, it is likely typical for similar crops in North America, though
readers are encouraged to do their own research and not simply rely on watered
down popularized articles. The monitoring data from the study showed that
calculated dietary intakes of the crops examined (chards, onions, peppers,
bananas, lemons, and oranges) were much lower than the acceptable daily intakes
established by international agencies. (I'm not spending large amounts of time
on this research myself, but welcome links to other good scientific sources of
info - not simply popularized articles w/o direct references.) **Kitty]


In "defense" of apples, for example, I recall reading a report in the
NY Times sometime this past spring, that apples were found to contain
a substance that, similar to green tea, significantly improved the
immune system, and that the consumption of merely "an apple a day"
was sufficient to produce significant impact on the immune system.

[There is no question that apples are beneficial (although apple juice - without
the skins - is much less so). It is merely that berries are even more beneficial
and should be eaten in larger quantities than are apples. Citrus fruits also
have many beneficial biochemicals. We get some of them by our use of lemons (of
which I eat the whole peel in my smoothies). But once again, making orange juice
one's major source of fruit (as so many people do), especially with its large
sugar content and the lack of any beneficial bioflavonoids from the pulp, is a
very negative thing to do. --Paul]

[Regarding apples and antioxidants, this abstract
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=\
12537430&dopt=Abstract> from a published study in the January 2003 issue of the
Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry may be the source of the NYTimes article
to which you refer. Four apple varieties were used to determine if a valuable
source of antioxidants was being discarded in the commercial making of apple
products. The peels all had significantly higher total antioxidant activities
than the flesh + peel and flesh of the apple varieties examined.

Another abstract in the July issue of the same jounal
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=\
12848521&dopt=Abstract> provided some figures on elements with antioxidant
activity in teas from 45 samples.

Using only the numbers available in the abstracts - $25 is the price to download
a .pdf of each of these - it was determined that a mean of 215mg for the total
of the four main catechins is provided in each gram of green tea, while only
3.1mg of catechin equivalent is available in 1 gram of apple peel (in Idared,
the highest of those tested). Values of several common antioxidants were given
only for the peelings and then only for the Idared variety which had the highest
value of those tested.

Now to put a little bit of perspective on this, Paul and I (he took a short
break from his SelfSIP writing to "collaborate" a bit :), each pot of
green/black tea we make contains 6 grams of green tea (and 5g of black). Paul
will consume typically an entire pot himself in a day (almost all of it with
milk) while I drink much less, and not nearly as regularly as he does (mine is
almost exclusively with lemon). By that reckoning, Paul is consuming
6 x 215mg = 1290mg catechins daily, from the tea alone. I, on the other hand,
drink only about 1/4 that amount and therefore get ~323mg of catechins from the
same source.

How much of an apple is in the peel? The full study may provide that
information. However, I estimate by looking at the 1/2 apple that we currently
have in the refrigerator (Paul had the other half himself earlier today) that
depending on the thickness of the peel and how well it is "peeled" that the peel
weight is between 1 and 5% of the weight of the total apple w/o core. (While the
method of analysis is not described in the abstract, I am assuming that the
flesh, flesh+peel, and peel used were all fresh and not dried.) For 100 grams of
apple w/peel w/o core, then 1 to 5 grams will be apple peel.  The typical apple
we share yields about 75 grams apiece, when cored. From my reckoning of the peel
contribution, that would mean at most 3.75 grams of peel for each of us. If the
apples we eat here in Toronto (usually Empire or Fuji) have the same amount of
catechins in the peel, then we are getting at best approximately 10mg of
catechins from that source vs. 1290 and 323 mg respectively for Paul and me
daily from green tea alone.

My conclusions from the above:
Apples are a *much* lower source of catechins than green tea,
Increase my green/black tea drinking a bit,
Continue to eat 1/2 to 1 apple per week as a one of the many sources of
antioxidants - and other nutrients not discussed here.

Well, that's my food science for the day ;>) **Kitty]


Just my two cents. :-)

[And thanks for it! --Paul]

[My thanks too, Andy.  We always enjoy having posts from new readers, or those
who decide to contribute after reading awhile. **Kitty]

~ andy

Hello,

For anyone interested in newsfeeds and RSS (Rich Site Summary, an XML text
file with content updates to say it shortly and without precision),
Yahoogroups offer a little known service of RSS feeds for groups that have
an open archive (like MoreLife)
Details  in
http://feeds.archive.org/misc/yahoogroups/

For example the feed for Morelife will be
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/messages?rss=1&viscount=15
You do not need to be subscribed or a Yahoo ID

You could create a separate yahoo group for website updates only, sending
an email with the change description in the subject and link page in body.

RSS readers (just some examples)

For  Windows I recommend www.feedreader.com (freeware, GNU, I think it
requires Internet Explorer, but no extra .net or else components, 1 meg
aprox). Also, maybe more potent but still freeware www.amphetadesk.com .

Mozilla has http://www.newsmonster.org/ or http://www.aggreg8.net/

There is NetNewsWire for Mac.

If you are into RSS, reading Yahoogroups as RSS can be useful, if you are
not, maybe it does not make sense to install software for this purpose.

[I  checked out the http://soapclient.com/rss/rss.html link and looked at some
of the listed feeds, but I am having a little trouble
with understanding just what advantage using this RSS method of getting web
information has over using a regular browser with URL bookmarks. Perhaps you
could summarize the pros and cons of RSS for us or provide a link to someplace
which does that. --Paul]

You can still try it using web based RSS readers like www.soapclient.com
(and there are other)
Go to http://www.soapclient.com/rss/rss.html and enter the RSS File
Address, in this case:
http://www.soapclient.com/rss/rss.sri?uri=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife\
/messages?rss=1&viscount=15&requestname=RSSGet&B1=Get+News

Note: I have not tested this last link, but should work.

[The last link above did not work for us. However, when using the next-to-last
link and putting the 2nd link from way up above into the requested box, we do
see the RSS for MoreLife and this then is that URL directly:
<http://www.soapclient.com/rss/rss.sri?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgroups.yahoo.com%2Fgroup\
%2Fmorelife%2Fmessages%3Frss%3D1%26viscount%3D15&requestname=RSSGet&B1=Get+News>
Make sure to "unwrap lines" before clicking on it in order to have the entire
link active. It did work for me when viewing this message. **Kitty]


I enclose attached a 70% actual size screen capture of Feedreader.

Riso

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Remember that only text messages will show in Yahoo now, therefore the system
deleted the screen capture. **Kitty]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <endofthedream@y...> wrote:

Kitty & Paul ~

Thank you both for an incisive and eye-opening response!  I learned
MUCH and now plan on substantially increasing my quotidian
consumption of green (and black) tea.  Your research (the links you
provided) are wonderful and the science behind your comments seems
sound and balanced.  Wonderful!  Just two comments if you will...


>[Kitty and I do not eschew apples; we eat one or two a week. All
>that we are saying is that apples, oranges and bananas should not be
>anyone's predominant fruit, as they are with so many North American
>households. --Paul]


*****Yes, I agree with your perception of the "slim pickins" that
most North American households consume.  And it is not only valid in
regard to fruit but the entire diet, across the board.

Personally, I *like* apples quite a bit: their natural sweetness,
crunch, and "mouth-feeling" (plus, they really requiring substantial
chewing which prolongs the pleasure!...I eat and enjoy Bosc pears for
the same reason).

[We clearly have similar tastes in this respect. That is also why I enjoy and
eat the crunchier kinds of apples. Bosc pears also happen to be my favorite, but
I probably do not eat more than one every two months or so. --Paul]

[I too enjoy the crunchy apples; McIntosh were my favorites until joining up w/
Paul who introduced me to other varieties that are similarly tasty w/o the
tougher skin. I've never enjoyed the variety named "Delicious" since I found
them so often to be mealy; the Golden Delicious were less so, however. This
shouldn't annoy those Delicious apple lover readers, since preference in apples
is strongly a matter of taste. **Kitty]


As well I find that eating one apple a day is both satisfying and
*filling*.  So, while your presentation makes it clear that other
fruits contain higher concentrations of beneficial biochemicals, I
will continue to balance the 100-odd calories in my small daily apple
as part of an overall healthful diet.

[It is not a *bad* habit. I just think it is not as optimal as you could do
because it means that your intake of other fruit and vegetables must be less
than it could be in order to maintain your isocalorie consumption. --Paul]

[As Paul and I have said numerous times, a variety of foods - fruits in this
discussion - high in as many nutrients as possible is the best way to make
efficient use of the lower numbers of calories consumed daily by a wise person.
This may mean that the large numbers of different favorite healthy fruits may
need to be spread over the span of a week in order that a health conscious
person gets the nutritional advantages - and taste pleasures - of all of them
while not overconsuming calorie-wise at the same time. This is what we try to do
when we make our once or twice week purchases of fresh fruit. **Kitty]


>[When we do eat apples - I agree that one or two a week for the two
>of us is typical - the one at a time that we share, cut in quarters
>or eighths, is either spread with peanut butter or accompanied with
>cheese or nuts. Eating the two together, moderates the rate at which
>the carbohydrates are absorbed by the system and turned into blood
>glucose. It may not be of great significance with simply the carb
>intake of half an apple, but it is a good habit to get into. In
>addition, it does make the relatively small snack more filling taste-
>wise and appetite-wise and therefore reduces the tendency to munch on
>something less nutritionally valuable.  **Kitty]


*****I agree with the notion of balancing an insulin spike with
some "good" fats, but I am under the impression (or is a mis-
impression??) that apples are *very* low on the glycemic index (an
entire apple, let alone half of one).

Using the data presented in Brand-Miller's "The New Glucose
Revolution (2003 edition)," the mean of six studies of raw apples
places the GI value at 38.  With a carb content (per 100 gm) of 15,
the glucose load per 120 g serving is a mere 6.  Certainly there are
some lower-GI-valued fruits: e.g., strawberries, with a GI of 40,
contain only 3 g of carbs per 120 g serving and thus their glucose
load is a tiny "1" - much lower than the apples' 6.  But in my mind
(and we may simply disagree here), any concern over "which fruit is
to be preferred" is splitting hairs.

[If you look at the ORAC values you will find that this is not so.
Unfortunately, apples are not even listed in the table at:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990208.htm, but this is most likely because
they are low and only the highest foods are listed. Note that prunes are both
highest in ORAC and have a low GI. Kitty and I have at least 2 prunes every day.
Here is an abstract that does relate the ORAC values of several food groups
including apples:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1\
1999391&dopt=Abstract
--Paul]

[A good online source for Glycemic Index information, including the 2002 revised
International table - http://diabetes.about.com/library/mendosagi/ngilists.htm
**Kitty]


ALL fruit (and vegetables), being "natural" foods, are healthful

[I must take exception with this view of "natural". Everything is "natural" in
the sense that Nature has produced it. What is produced by man's help is no less
a part of Nature than is anything else and is no less or more likely to be
harmful on the face of it. In addition, the most toxic chemicals of all are
found in product of Nature with which man has had no connection whatever (eg.
amanita nerve toxin).
The only aspect of "natural" which may be correct is that it is often used as a
description of those products which are not man influenced (although all apples
certainly are) and/or which have been used without apparent harm by humans for
eons. But here it is the long-term, risk-free use which is being called
"natural"  and it would be better if this characteristic were described more
clearly for what it is. --Paul]


and, imho, should be eaten with
an over-arching concern for variety (thus presenting a wide diversity
of biochemical substances) as well as eating pleasure.  In other
words, spread the wealth around! :-)

[We are both in agreement with this. We even eat some things which are not very
nutritionally valuable but which we really enjoy. However, we eat only small
amounts and do so extremely rarely (such as sharing a really delicious hamburger
and french fries once every 3-4 months).
We do occassionally also buy ice cream (when Kitty has the need :-) I eat only
two or three spoons, once or twice per day, but Kitty is not satisfied with so
little at a time, so she usually gets most of it. Still a half gallon lasts at
least a week. Ever since I was a child when I used to eat only half a chocolate
at a time and save the other half for another day, I have been a person who
enjoys small amounts of things more often than larger amounts at one time.
Frankly, I think that others can train themselves to do this if they work at it.
The way to do this is to reduce the quantity a little at a time, so little that
the difference it not noticable. I have retrained many of my eating habits in
this fashion. --Paul]

[Those hamburgers we get are the best in our area of Toronto - Mel's on Bloor -
and are topped with sauteed mushrooms and swiss cheese, all on a Kaiser roll,
accompanied by great french fries (dipped in kechup sprinkled w/ vinegar),
pickle and coleslaw. They are simply delicious but I find they are even moreso
since we eat them so rarely. (Since this our main meal on those occasions, we
also split a fried tomato and cheese spinach salad - also very good.) We also
make our rare ice cream purchases those of the best quality so that our small
servings are really enjoyable - Blue Bunny while in AZ. I will say that I do
have to fight the urge to "pig out", but I can do it when and because I want to.
I may joke w/ Paul that the ice cream is "calling to me", but I know that it is
a matter of just saying "NO". And better yet, I say no most of the time in the
grocery store. There were years past when I let myself eat far more and more
often, simply because the pleasure of eating it was one of my main pleasures in
life. Eating - even those items that taste wonderful to me - has ceased to be
among the top 3 joys in my life; it's not even in the top 5, though still in the
top 10. It is the replacing of food as a primary source of high *pleasure* that
is essential for those who seriously want to attain/maintain excellent
health/vitality and long life. **Kitty]

Well, everyone, Paul has finally finished the draft of the Natural
Social Contract - the executable (signable) and annotated versions
have been uploaded this evening. <http://selfsip.org/solutions/>
While it seems to Paul that he's been working on this major work for
an extremely long time, it was really only in mid-June that he began
the actual writing of it. (Of course he's been thinking on many of these
concepts for more than 20 years.) In these 3 months, he has put in
many hundreds of hours on the numerous complex issues which the
Natural Social Contract covers, and these documents are still just
drafts - work in progress.

Please keep in mind that the Natural Social Contract is so large in
its scope, and necessarily so complex in detail, that no one should
expect to be able to fully understand all its nuances without
prolonged intensive study, deep analytical thought, and public
questioning of Paul. Do not let this deter anyone from reading it
(and the Declaration of Individual Independence), because we are
convinced that they provide the clearest, most consistent solution
to the problem of social order without compromise of individual
liberty which has ever been devised. This is not "ivory tower"
theorizing. It is eminently practical - based on the best scientific
knowledge of the nature of humans and reality, an essential element
that has been missing from most of the philosophical "solutions"
of the past.

As we have written in the index page of the Solutions Documents:

"Because we need them in order to hone these documents to a greater
state of truth and usefulness, we request and we welcome all
constructive comments concerning additions, deletions or other
alterations to these documents, both to their detail and to their
overall approach. However, as always this should be done with public
postings to Morelife Yahoo so that others can benefit from the
discussion."

Part of Paul's earlier annotations to the Natural Social Contract
(NSC) relating to self-responsibility has been removed and expanded
into its own essay - Self-Responsibility and Social Order.
<http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/> There are many more topics within
the NSC which deserve expansion into essays and some of these will
be done in the next several months.

Please make note of the Group Calendar
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/cal> which always has our
planned travel dates. Because we do not know what Internet access we
will have available while in the UK, we may not be available to
comment on and approve messages that are submitted after Sunday 9/14
until we return.

**Kitty

Alexh & all, this is quite interesting and a bit surprising to me.

>On 01:40 p.m. 05/09/03 -0700, Max Watt wrote:

>kitty commented:
>
> > .... This is important because
> > fructose is more glycating than glucose and
> > therefore the blueberries are a better choice from
> > this standpoint also.)
>
>There is another factor involved with fructose intake.
>(I am going from memory, and expect Paul to correct or
>amplify my remarks as he sees fit.)
>
>The liver preferentially replenishes its glycogen
>supply from fructose (which is why it's good for carb
>replenishment after exercise) but the liver has only a
>limited amount of the enzyme necessary for this
>conversion; when it's exhausted, fructose is converted
>directly to triglycerides and dumped into the
>bloodstream.  These lipids are either burned, if one
>is intensly exercising, or more likely, deposited as
>fat, especially in your arteries but also throughout
>the body.


This is bad news to me because I am eating more fruits than I see is good
and not the best kind of them.

What is surprising to me is the fact that I have not gained weight due to
my fruit eating habits. More I am still losing weight since I started
regular exercise a year ago (around 45 pounds total).

[Weight gain is always totally related to calorie intake versus calorie usage.
If you are not gaining weight, you must simply be eating fewer calories than you
are using. This is somewhat independent of whether the foods that provide those
calories have other beneficial or detrimental effects. When animals are placed
in severe caloric restriction, it does not appear to matter very much what form
their calorie input takes as long as they get adequate basic nutritional needs
of essential vitamins, fats, protein and minerals. However, for most humans who
are on much less severe calorie restriction the quality of the food intake can
matter more, and if optimized can have a beneficial effect appart from the
number of calories consumed. --Paul]


In my experience, exercising has the added benefit to make you desire more
healthy food, e-g- a salad instead of a pizza, in general less bad
carbohydrates cravings and more water intake too. So as a consequence and
to aid with the weight loss (BTW I learned that you do not have to obsess
with the scale, inches are important and mean fat. which I understand
weight less than muscle is being burnt) I replaced biscuits and other
starches with fruits.

[That was certainly a positive step since all fruit has higher benefits per gram
of pure calorie than do most starchy grains. More raw vegetables would have been
even better since they generally have an even better such ratio. --Paul]


For a period of time I was eating two or more small (I prefer small ones
because you eat the whole fruit and you do not have to cut it up and store
the rest which will oxidize) Granny Smith apples a day and raisins several
times a day (frequently together with sunflower seeds).

[The browning of fruit on storage can be prevented by rubbing a bit of vitamin C
powder or lemon juice on the cut surface. Also you will find that some varieties
of apples brown less than others which this is an indication that they contain
more antioxidants in their flesh. Although it may not look so good, the minimal
surface browning is rather insignificant with respect to any negative health
effects. --Paul]


Now I eating fewer apples (but bigger ones because I do not find small),
but still take many raisins, plums. Berries are more expensive and not so
available.

[Try eating more prunes which last and travel very well. But not too many in
bulk because they are very nutrient dense having little water content. --Paul]


>I recollect a figure of 50 grams as the maximum amount
>of fructose the liver can quickly convert to glycogen,
>and have no idea as to the rate of replenishment.  50
>grams sounds like a lot, but a bottle of soda easily
>exceeds that.


I do not drink sodas, only occasionally and I do not add sugar to coffee
(except sometimes when with milk) or tea.

[Same here. I eliminated sugar from all tea and coffee 25 years ago by slowly
weaning my self from it (cutting the amount a little at a time). --Paul]

[Keeping soda pop intake to rare occasions at most is definitely in your favor.
It amazes me how many overweight people I see buying sodas - take-out/carry-away
and in bulk at grocery stores. (I've wondered if these individuals think that if
they don't chew, there aren't any calories in what they swallow.) I found years
ago that soda pops of any type never quenched my thirst and consequently have
preferred ice water to anything else. I do enjoy tea w/ lemon and even milk now
and then. Coffee too when we eat out - if it's not heavily roasted and therefore
bitter. **Kitty]


>[Kiwis are also excellent berry fruits which are quite portable. Just
>scrub and wrap in a paper towel or place in a zip-lock bag and they can go
>anywhere for the day. We eat them skins and all (except for one variety
>which we found were too tough) so it is not necessary to prepare them. --Paul]

Eating kiwis with peel? ... the peel looks so bad. But I like to eat fruit
with peel, more, I find apples without peel lose too much taste and the
crunchy feeling.

Eating the peel sometimes make me question if I am eating residues too, but
from what I read the best you can do is to wash fruits and vegetables under
flowing water.

[We scrub the surfaces with a hard bristled brush under flowing water. There are
also vegetable and fruit washing solutions which you can buy which may even do a
better job, but I just can't be bothered and they may also have some taste
effects. --Paul]


Well, after reading this I bought some kiwis and I am eating them with the
peel!. Good and convenient :-)

[Good for you! It is always great to hear from people who are willing to try new
things and be open to changes in taste and viewpoint. Yes, I find that kiwi
skins are not tough (mostly not nearly as tough as, say, McIntosh apple skins),
they make preparing kiwis far simpler and quicker, and they add a little tart
flavor to the sweetness of the kiwi fruit. --Paul]

[This eating of kiwi skins was a new experience for me too after I joined Paul.
In fact, I was hesitant and at first put the peelings into the container for his
smoothie. Now there are no contributions of kiwi skins from me at all. **Kitty]


I see this post has many replies but I have to stop now.

Here is some info on antioxidant content in fruits:

http://www.klsdesign.com/anti-ox/allabout-topfoods.html
There is a PDF
http://www.klsdesign.com/anti-ox/topfoods-chart.pdf
We have grouped fruits and vegetables with established ORAC values into four
categories.


Riso

[Thanks Riso. It is a good table. However, there is one important thing that
people using such a table should remember. There are many other nutrient
benefits from many of the listed foods which are independent of their ORAC
values. This is also true of many of the "supplement substitutes" which are
provided in the table. Just remember that health and longevity is extremely
complex and many faceted and don't put all your emphasis on only one or two
components of foods and or supplements. --Paul]

[There is an apparent error where the author of the table refers to "Brussels"
and then "sprouts" separately, but both having the same ORAC value. This I'm
sure should be the "Brussel Sprouts" - the little cabbage-looking vegetable.
**Kitty]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <endofthedream@y...> wrote:

Continuing the dialogue...

> [I too enjoy the crunchy apples; McIntosh were my favorites until
> joining up w/ Paul who introduced me to other varieties that are
> similarly tasty w/o the tougher skin. I've never enjoyed the variety
> named "Delicious" since I found them so often to be mealy; the Golden
> Delicious were less so, however. This shouldn't annoy those Delicious
> apple lover readers, since preference in apples is strongly a matter
> of taste. **Kitty]

*****Interesting!  The red Delicious apples that I find in the NYC
Metropolitan area *are* crunchy, sweet, and juicy and only near the
end of the season (late spring/summer) do they become mealy.  I guess
it is that we are located so close to New York State where many of
the fall-winter apples come from?  (Just guessing here)

[I have always enjoyed Delicious apples and found them as you do. However, Kitty
seems to have had very bad luck with them. In addition, the ones that I have
found in AZ do not seem to be as crisp and juicy as I was used to. Also Kitty
likes apples with a bit of tart flavor better than pure sweet. We just tried and
New Zealand apple (called "SRI") and I found it crisp and sweet, very much like
a Delicious, but once again Kitty did not particularly like it, although she
certainly did not find it to be "mealy". --Paul]


> [It is not a *bad* habit. I just think it is not as optimal as you
> could do because it means that your intake of other fruit and
> vegetables must be less than it could be in order to maintain your
> isocalorie consumption. --Paul]

*****Yes, I appreciate this.  At the present time I am not on a full-
blown CRON diet; I am adjusting to the ON part of it and am thus not
limiting my calories (other than what "feels" correct...I really do
NOT like feeling "full" and bloated!).  Using a strict ON diet, but
eating as much as I like, I find that I am losing about 1 lb of body
weight (most of it is fat) every 7-10 days.  Since I eat something
nutritious and satisfying whenever the "urge" hits me, I never feel
hungry or deprived, and thus - in the four months I have been doing
strict ON - I have never felt a yearning to binge.  (E.g., my wife
and I have pizza on Saturday nights and I top it with WHATEVER I feel
like - usually fresh garlic and sausage; but I limit myself to
two "small" slices.  Thus: eating pleasure and no sense of
deprivation.)

[Excellent! This is precisely the approach which will lead to a relatively
painless changeover and easy long-term adherence. And 1 lb every 7-10 days is
plenty fast enough. As you get thinner, you will find that rate reducing and you
may have to practice the CR part more diligently to get down further.
Furthermore, it does appear more and more from all the research that at least
some feelings of hunger are necessary for the full CR benefits. --Paul]


> [If you look at the ORAC values you will find that this is not so. --Paul]

*****I'm not sure what you are saying "is not so."  That apples are
not, in fact, a low glycemic food?

[No. It was in reference to the last statement of the part that you have
omitted: "any concern over 'which fruit is to be preferred' is splitting hairs."
And the next part, that you have left in next below, was my justification for
*why* I think that I am not just splitting hairs. --Paul]

>[Unfortunately, apples are not even listed in the table at:
>http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990208.htm, but this is most
>likely because they are low and only the highest foods are listed.
>Note that prunes are both highest in ORAC and have a low GI. Kitty
>and I have at least 2 prunes every day. Here is an abstract that does
>relate the ORAC values of several food groups including apples:
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=\
11999391&dopt=Abstract--Paul]


> [A good online source for Glycemic Index information, including the
> 2002 revised International table -
> http://diabetes.about.com/library/mendosagi/ngilists.htm **Kitty]

*****Thank you for the reference!  I will make it one of
my "Favorites."  Are you suggesting, in the above, that the data
presented by Brand-Miller et al. (they who coined the term 'glycemic
index') in their most recent publication (2003) is faulty?  Or are
you pointing out that the there are lists which differ in where
apples are placed on the glycemic index?  (Of course, the GI is only
*one* factor that needs to be taken into account when consuming
nutrients.  E.g., a moderately high GI index food, packed full of
nutrient value, can be consumed simultaneously with a low GI food,
thus balancing off the glycemic load. All stuff that I am CERTAIN
you know!!)

[The GI is overrated by many people. The most important factor in eating is
total calorie intake. The second most important factor is the ratio of
pro-health and longevity nutrients to total carbs. And third or lower is the GI
of the foods. In fact, the GI really only has much effect when you eat a large
number of calories of a high GI food without eating other low GI foods with it
(or supplements or drugs that inhibit quick glucose breakdown and intake).
Because of the latter (which is the way I have almost always eaten - making sure
to eat low GI food with any that are high GI) I generally do not pay that much
attention to GI per se. I pay much more attention to the first two factors
listed above. --Paul]


> ALL fruit (and vegetables), being "natural" foods, are healthful

> [I must take exception with this view of "natural". Everything
> is "natural" in the sense that Nature has produced it. What is
> produced by man's help is no less a part of Nature than is anything
> else and is no less or more likely to be harmful on the face of it.
> In addition, the most toxic chemicals of all are found in product of
> Nature with which man has had no connection whatever (eg. amanita
> nerve toxin). The only aspect of "natural" which may be correct is
> that it is often used as a description of those products which are
> not man influenced (although all apples certainly are) and/or which
> have been used without apparent harm by humans for eons. But here it
> is the long-term, risk-free use which is being called "natural"  and
> it would be better if this characteristic were described more clearly
> for what it is. --Paul]

*****I stand corrected.  It was an ... unfortunate ... choice of
words and my application of that term, in that context, was sloppy.
I will be more assiduous in the future. :-)

[I only jumped on it because there is a very insidious trend in the thinking of
many people to denigrate man and to elevate nature - to see man as an evil
destroyer of a reality which for some unknown reason belongs to all other
lifeforms more than it belongs to man. Instead, humans should be viewed as the
most complex and capable form of life that is known to have been produced by
nature. Humans are the best that nature has produced in being able to mold
reality to their individual purposes of promoting their individual lifetime
happiness. --Paul]


> [We are both in agreement with this. We even eat some things which
> are not very nutritionally valuable but which we really enjoy.
> However, we eat only small amounts and do so extremely rarely (such
> as sharing a really delicious hamburger and french fries once every 3-
> 4 months).  Ever since I was a child when I used to eat only half a
> chocolate at a time and save the other half for another day, I have
> been a person who enjoys small amounts of things more often than
> larger amounts at one time. Frankly, I think that others can train
> themselves to do this if they work at it. The way to do this is to
> reduce the quantity a little at a time, so little that the difference
> it not noticable. I have retrained many of my eating habits in this
> fashion. --Paul]

*****I am in concert with you on this.  One of my "indulgences" (once
or twice a week at most) is to have 1 serving (no more, no less) of
some very high quality bittersweet chocolate.

[I eat some (just a little) bittersweet every day with half and half green and
black tea. Chocolate has excellent nutrient concentrations and if you keep the
sugar part to a minimum it is actually quite good for you. --Paul]


The "old me" use to
chow down on the stuff, "inhaling" half of the bar (or more!) before
I realized what I was up to.  Since beginning ON I discovered the
immense pleasure of taking a small piece and sucking on it, letting
it slowly dissolve in my mouth.  Doing this, 1 serving lasts me
almost 10 minutes; chewing on the chocolate, as I did before, would
have me consuming 2 (or more) servings in less than 5 minutes - half
the time.  So, in using this method, I get MORE pleasure for a LONGER
length of time.  It just required a "rewiring" of how I consumed that
particular food.

[Absolutely. The same method (sucking and keeping in the mouth intead of chewing
and swallowing works for many good tastes. I use it for ice cream also. --Paul]

[I'm doing better at this also - holding and savoring - than in years past.
That's one of the ways I've been able to reduce the quantity of what I eat.
**Kitty]


In fact, I have reconditioned my eating habits across the board, via
ON applications: very little pasta and bread (and then, only organic
whole wheat or Kamut)

[Try quinoa (high protein) as a rice substitute, 100% whole rye bread - it is
actually quite beneficial in small quantities, Spelt bread, and Amaranth and oat
grains as hot cereals. --Paul]


and substantially more vegetables and fruits
along with some chicken and salmon a few times a week.  Furthermore,
I have altered the amount of food that I consume by simply ceasing to
eat when I feel "satisfied" (even if the food tastes delicious, and
the tastebuds are encouraging me to "eat more! eat more!" I simply
put down the utensil...I think Roy Walford refers to this
as "rational self-restraint").

["Rational self-restraint" is a much more general term which applies to all
kinds of activities. Basically it separates hedonism ("Eat, drink and be merry")
from rational long-range widest-thinking self-interest. --Paul]


If there is food left over (and there
often is), I pack it up and have it either between meals (if I feel
the physical desire), or save it for a later-in-the-day snack.  This
technique seems to be cutting my caloric intake naturally and, as I
stated above, "effortless."  I do not go around ever feeling hungry
or deprived.

[Yes. I have learned to do the same thing. I had to untrain myself from my
plate-cleaning training received from my mother. Luckily the food quality she
served was pretty good and I have never had any tendency to become overweight.
160 lbs is the highest weight I ever got to. --Paul]

[Like many (?most), I too had a mother who considered cleaning one's plate an
absolute necessity. ("Think of those starving children in Africa." Or sometimes
it was China.)

[ :-) being a little older, right at the end of WWII, mine was: "Think of the
starving Europeans". --Paul]

I too for many years acted on this "principle" though I also used the maxim
"Don't take more than you can eat", which was only of partial help. For probably
5 or 6 years now, I've just eaten fairly slowly, and put whatever was still on
my plate when I was no longer hungry into a left-over container for another
meal. Paul and I do this quite often now. 4 full chicken legs is always 3+ meals
(I only eat either the drumstick or the thigh, but never both) and Paul
sometimes is full before completing an entire leg. We had hot chicken open-faced
sandwhiches last night using the meat from 2 left over drumsticks with the
juices from the original single pan multi-meal. (The whole grain 100% rye
lightly toasted gave a very nice flavor, better then the squishy white bread of
my "far" past.) Generous serving of caulifower and broccoli completed the meal;
I got to gnaw on the chicken bones - my favorite ;>). **Kitty]


You state that you feel that others can adopt something like your
reduced-food eating pattern if they "work at," and that, I think, is
the "crunch" of the matter.  I don't know what makes the "average
individual" change, although change (as my case demonstrates), surely
does happen.  Certainly the change entails some kind of motivation.
For me, the motivation was a brush with cancer/chemotheraphy and the
profound recognition that my old eating habits were not supporting my
health.  I was, in a sense, "scared straight." ;-)  But this may not
be a strong enough motivation for others as I know of people who
suffered heart attacks who then went back to smoking again!!

[All acts of any kind require "motivation". Change of habits simply requires one
to be convinced that the end result justifies the work of getting there. People
who suffer heart attacks or other major health problems and go right on with the
same habits are either not convinced that a change is likely to help or they do
not really care sufficiently about living in a functionally sound state. A major
part of the reason for the first is because of this principle which is so
rampant in our society that everything is either preordained to happen or that
it happens because of the whim of the universe. IOW, that a human is quite
incapable of acting in any way which will have a major effect on how his life
will unfold, and is thus not really responsible for anything which does happen.
--Paul]


On a personal note: I *clearly* remember the two days during which I
could literally *feel* my internal, mental wiring shift from "old
dietary mindset" to the newly-practiced one.  At the end of my
successful chemotheraphy (during which I gained 14 lbs!! eating
everything under the sun...clearly nausea was NOT a side effect of my
particular chemo! Hahaha!!!!), my oncologist sat me down and
discussed my weight gain and related diet.  She had told me to "honor
my body" during chemo, that I should eat whatever and whenever I felt
like it.  But once that treatment was done, she clearly delineated
for me the dangers of being overfat as well as risks involved in
consuming the amount of sugary snacks that I was in the habit of
eating.

I have eaten in this manner for 25 years, and have been able to keep
most of the weight off by exercising vigorously.

[I am to conclude from this that you had your "brush with cancer" in your 20s?
Would you mind telling us what kind of cancer it was. --Paul]


The doc pointed out
that while I might not be gaining weight, I was putting a lot
of "unhealthful" substances in my body, and that they could (and
likely would) cause much damage in the long run (cancer, diabetes,
heart problems, etc.)  I argued with her for about 30 minutes (my
wife took her side also...they "double-teamed me! Hahaha!!!) and I
was literaly *depressed* when I left her office that day.

Over the following two days there was a feeling of sadness, loss,
almost a "mourning" present throughout my mental states.  It wasn't a
nice experience, and yet I didn't run from it.  I
simply...observed...what I was "going through."  And, at the same
time, there was a sense that I couldn't fight it either; a feeling
that "I" was not in control of this mental...shift.  It
felt...inevitable.

[Basically, this is the recognition of stark, naked reality - that one has to
live and act according to one's nature and the nature of reality. No one is
outside of reality even though he may sometimes think in his mind that he is
standing outside of it and merely observing. --Paul]


After two-to-three days of abstinence from my old
diet -- I had, in effect -- without any conscious decision, adopted
an ON diet just by not eating the junk food that had graced my palate
previously...the sense of depression (a feeling akin to missing a
dear friend who has left you)...lifted, on its own (just as
it "arrived," on its own.)  And from then on, I had no "issues" with
not eating junk food.

The interesting thing is, having undergone this "rewiring," I find
that I really have NO interest in 90% of the junk I used to consume.

[In essense, you reprogrammed your emotional evaluations to be consistent with
your conscious rational thought. Everyone would benefit from the effort to do
this. They would then be able to rely on their emotions to be ancillary "tools
of cognition" instead of having constant conflicts between emotions and
conscious thought. --Paul]


In many ways my palate, my digestive system, my whole "being" prefers
the taste of fruits (when a sweet is desired) along with unprocessed
grains and, of course, lots of veggies with lots of varied seasonings
(mild curry is one of my favorites currently).  So there is no sense
of "missing" my old eating habits.  No sense of being "deprived."
And, when I do get a hankering for some ice cream, for example, well,
I go out and have *one* scoop (I never bring it home!).  One serving:
that's it!

I've found, interestingly enough, that the actual consumption of
the "forbidden food" often isn't as "wonderful" as the imagining of
it is.  Oh, I surely enjoy it (I am not a curmudgeon!), but there
seems to be a "gap" between the thought of the pleasure ("Oh...it
will be SOOOO wonderful!") and the actual experience of it ("Mmm...it
was nice.").  This may have something to do with Kitty's observations
below regarding food as a "high pleasure" of life.

[Except that "curmudgeon" (a bad-tempered, difficult, cantankerous person) does
not seem to be the right word for what you trying to explain. --Paul]


> [<snip> There were years past when I let myself eat far more and more
> often, simply because the pleasure of eating it was one of my main
> pleasures in life. Eating - even those items that taste wonderful to
> me - has ceased to be among the top 3 joys in my life; it's not even
> in the top 5, though still in the top 10. It is the replacing of food
> as a primary source of high *pleasure* that is essential for those
> who seriously want to attain/maintain excellent health/vitality and
> long life. **Kitty]

*****For me, eating is still a *major* pleasure (it better be, given
the time I put into buying and preparing my meals!), but that
pleasure is now clearly moderated by a concern for the consumption of
heathful foods as well as a postprandial state of "mild" satiation
rather than my previous, usual state of feeling "very full" (if not
stuffed!).  I am not conscious of the ranking of the pleasures I
experience in life, but eating good, high quality food, in moderate
quantities, is certainly a prominant one.  Given this understanding
it seems to me (using myself as the "model"), that one can still find
immense pleasure in food (maybe even make it a high *pleasure* in
life), and yet still attain/maintain excellent health/vitality and
long life.  What is essential, in my mind, are the particular
*choices* of food that one makes.

[This preoccupation with food seems to be typical for those who are newly into
calorie restriction. While it may be necessary at first in order to learn how to
get optimal nutrition from a sparse diet, I would hope that in time you find
more important things to spend your thoughts on and gain your highest pleasures
from. While Kitty and I do spent a fair amount of time shopping and preparing
food, it has always been far below our mentally productive endeavors in pleasure
generataion. In summary, we eat for the purpose of gaining the health and
longevity to do all the other things which we love. The joy of eating is merely
one of many, many such things we like to do and far from the highest. --Paul]

~andy

On 09:51 p.m. 08/09/03 -0300, Riso wrote:
>Hello,
>
>For anyone interested in newsfeeds and RSS (Rich Site Summary, an XML text
>file with content updates to say it shortly and without precision),
>Yahoogroups offer a little known service of RSS feeds for groups that have
>an open archive (like MoreLife)
>Details  in
>http://feeds.archive.org/misc/yahoogroups/
>
>For example the feed for Morelife will be
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/messages?rss=1&viscount=15
>You do not need to be subscribed or a Yahoo ID
>
>You could create a separate yahoo group for website updates only, sending
>an email with the change description in the subject and link page in body.
>
>RSS readers (just some examples)
>
>For  Windows I recommend www.feedreader.com (freeware, GNU, I think it
>requires Internet Explorer, but no extra .net or else components, 1 meg
>aprox). Also, maybe more potent but still freeware www.amphetadesk.com .
>
>Mozilla has http://www.newsmonster.org/ or http://www.aggreg8.net/
>
>There is NetNewsWire for Mac.
>
>If you are into RSS, reading Yahoogroups as RSS can be useful, if you are
>not, maybe it does not make sense to install software for this purpose.
>
>[I  checked out the http://soapclient.com/rss/rss.html link and looked at
>some of the listed feeds, but I am having a little trouble
>with understanding just what advantage using this RSS method of getting
>web information has over using a regular browser with URL bookmarks.
>Perhaps you could summarize the pros and cons of RSS for us or provide a
>link to someplace which does that. --Paul]


For reading just one page as this group it does not make a difference, but
for people that uses a RSS reader to read news and blogs sites it can be
useful to add the yahoogroups feed.

As with everything in computing, everyone has different preferences.

From
http://www.llrx.com/features/rssforlibrarians.htm

"Using RSS, users can have content from web sites delivered to (and
constantly updated) via a news aggregator, a piece of software freely
available via the web (or purchased for more options), specifically
tailored to receive these types of feeds.

[Ok, I now see the advantage. It is more like using a newsgroup reader and
subscribing to different newsgroups which you want to be automatically available
when you invoke your newsgroup reader. As opposed to having to go to
groups.google and go to each one separately. Or it is like having the posts to
this list delivered as email instead of needing to read them at the Yahoo group
site. --Paul]


Other types of files that can be
read by aggregators include XML and RDF. The point of this article is not
to describe how RSS feeds work or the technology behind them, but to
describe a practical tool for the "non-techie librarian" (NTL) to easily
set up an aggregator and start receiving feeds. For an introduction to RSS,
see Webreference on RSS
(http://www.webreference.com/authoring/languages/xml/rss/). "

RSS resources
http://www.lisfeeds.com/resources.html

Feedster offers a search service  and you can use the search queries as a
feed that will give results in RSS feeds, e.g.:
Feedster RSS Search Results for life extension
http://www.feedster.com/rss.php?sort=date&ie=UTF-8&limit=15&q=life+extension
Feedster RSS Search Results for morelife
http://www.feedster.com/rss.php?sort=date&ie=UTF-8&limit=15&q=morelife

There are two mentions:
   Feed: End the War on Freedom
   Title: (no title)
   Paul Wakfer at Strike the Root - A Critique of the Declaration of
Independence - a point-by-point refutation of the collectivist language in
the Declaration of Independence. Mr. Wakfer titled his corrected version
the Declaration of Individual...

   Feed: Longevity Meme News Commentary
   Title: MoreLife On Supplements


There is a RSS to email free service for IMAP enabled mail clients
http://rss.blogstreet.com/asp-rssbin/auth_rss

Blogstreet.com also produces a RSS feed for weblogs (and I think also for
websites with dated links).

Riso

[Thanks for bringing to our attention the detail of these additional methods of
gaining information on the Internet. That is what the Internet is all about -
increasing the speed and fluidity of information procurement and analysis.
--Paul]

[The message I'm posting here is a reply I received 9/7 by email in
response to my "obesity rant" at the end of the original post. I
wrote the individual that all comments/responses on this more philosophical
issue would be made here at MoreLife Yahoo after Paul and I had uploaded the
Natural Social Contract on which we were feverishly working at the time. To all
of this he was agreeable. Because the email to me was in html, the emphasis of
underlining, italics and bold have been replaced with ** only. **Kitty]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Max Watt <maxwatt2002@y...> wrote:
> --- alexh1001 <alexh1@s...> wrote:
> And kitty commented:
<snip>

> [The whole subject of the current obesity epidemic really gets me
> excited - negatively! ...<snip>
----------------

Well, as I alluded to above, here I'm addressing "philosophical"
issues that you raised in one of the posts.  If you feel that this
should be placed on site, feel free to place my comments there - you
have my permission to do so.  You will discover that my position is
so *radically* different from yours that I hesitate to make
it "public" before first broaching it with you.  (I did, in fact,
send a much-less-challenging post to the site earlier today
[strictly on food issues], so you can see that I am not merely a
lurker, but am willing to be involved also.)

What I'd like to respond to are some comments you made regarding the
epidemic of overfat (and overweight!) people that you have observed
over the past few years.  You comments were...

> The whole subject of the current obesity epidemic really gets me
> excited - negatively! I look at all the overweight and downright
> *fat* individuals on the streets of Toronto and in the small
> Arizona town where we spend some months each year

<snip>

>The fundamental cure for this epidemic of obeisty is *self-
>responsibility* - if the individual was the one financially
>responsible for his own health, I have no doubt that there would be
>far less chronic overeating and minimal physical exercising. Under
>the systems of state and employer supported/funded health care there
>is no/little incentive for the individual of limited foresight to
>increase his vision perspective on health; there is always a
>physician/clinic available for a prescription to treat the problems.
>Why revise one's purchasing and eating habits when the costs of not
>doing so are not borne solely by the individual making those
>decisions? And don't so many doctors tell their patients (directly
>or indirectly) that the health problems experienced are
>just "inevitable" and/or "we're all going to die someday". Too few
>of these doctors put the responsibility right where it belongs - on
>the person himself. Even having a "pre-disposition" does not mean
>physical determination; it simply means that without the right
>preventive measures, there is a greater likelihood that the physical
> problem will occur.
>
>The trend I see - if unchecked by a big dose of individual self-
>responsibility - is a downward spiral physically for those
>individuals who are overweight at an early age (a fact written about
>in health studies with increasing frequency the past decade). The
>envisioned picture is actually multi-faceted in that there are
>numerous individual spirals inside a larger spiral representing a
>society strongly lacking in self-responsible individuals. <snip> **Kitty]


I certainly don't disagree with your observations about the state of
most people's health, their eating/exercise habits, and what that
bodes for their future (and the country's as a whole).

Where I depart from your position is in regard to "self-
responsibility."  This is distinct from your political views, which
I am neither disputing nor challenging.  If I weren't apolitical I
might very well be a libertarian. :-)

[Actually, since "politics" (the study and guidance of the rules of
relationships between individuals in society) is a necessary part of the
behavior of everyone who interfaces with other humans and its principles are
derived from more basic philosophic notions (in metaphysics, epistomology and
ethics) which everyone has whether they think they do or not, you are being
political every time you talk about human interfaces whether or not you think
that you are. However, it is true that *primary* self-responsiblity, to the
extent that it does not involve others is not a political idea. --Paul]


What I am focusing on is the issue of "self-responsibility," and I
want to suggest that **individual's don't have any choice in how they
eat, exercise (or "decide" anything else for that matter!)**.  This is
probably inflammatory and the very notion may seem nonsensical to
you.  That's fine.  But let me put it into context.  What I am
pointing to has to do with "choice" across-the-board: *all* choices
that we make...none of them are truly "free."  But for the moment
let's look at merely the "eating choices."

[The first problem with your statement is that you have not made it clear
whether you mean *all* individuals "don't have any choice" or only some of them.
I will assume the latter, since I know that *I* am free to choose within the
bound of the actions which my nature allows me to do, and from what you have
stated about your changes in eating habits, it appears that you also are free to
choose at least to a similar degree. --Paul]


To put that into context, I will quote Roy Walford in Beyond the 120
Year Diet (pp. 16-17), "...you do have to change your attitude
towards, and your built-in social programming about, food.  But you
**didn't write your own attitudes or programs anyway**.  [emphasis
added]  **They have been written into you** [emphasis added] by the
experiences of childhood and a lifelong daily barrage of slick
advertising, which tires to make you believe that you are somehow
deprived if you are no eating junk food, or that it's deliciously
decadent and chic to be dining on the precursors of arteriosclerotic
plaques...this notion of dire deprivation is simply a prejudice."

What I am focusing on in the above quote is that our attitudes,
beliefs, positions, about food/exercise are a form of
social/societal *conditioning*.  Madison Avenue & Big Business bombard
our psyches all the time.  Mommy and daddy, previously conditioned
from *their* upbringing, support and nuture and enrich the
conditioning of their offspring, until...at the age of "maturity,"
the offspring no longer have the "freedom" to think "outside the
box."  Nearly everywhere we turn we are assaulted (I can't think of
a more apt term) by advertisements and messages to "buy this," "eat
this," "yummy," "delicious," "fast and easy," etc.  It literally is
a *programming*.

[Your use of the word "assault" for "advertisements and messages" is completely
distortional of the meaning of the word. The difference between the use of
physical force and the use of speech is like night and day. Assault is by
definition something that you cannot avoid and which physically damages you.
Words and images of advertising are things which you can turn off or not look at
and which even when you do sense them your mind has the capability of ignoring
any effects. The term "assault" is not only not "apt", it is in essense the same
kind of destructive propaganda that you are accusing others of using.

What you are missing is that every human individual begins by imitating and
programming himself from the world around him. What you are saying is quite true
for small children, but it should be far less true for older children if they
are are raised to question, be skeptical and think independently, and by the
time they are adults, it should no longer be true at all. To the extent that it
is not true, such individuals are not really adults. Yes, it is true tnat many
parents, all governments, media and commercial advertising appear to be working
very hard to actually prevent people from becoming mature thinking, independent
adults, but many get there in spite of it (I am happy to see). As those who
continue to break free from their "in a box" thinking and inconsistent emotional
programming prove, it can be done. All that one needs to do is to begin to stop
evading, to *see* through the illogic and obfuscation, and to begin to think! I
did it. Kitty did it. You did it (in one area). And so can anyone else if they
really want and decide to. --Paul]


Some people evidently *do* escape it.  But their numbers are few and
far between.  I saw an interview today on CBS Sunday Morning with an
MD from Duke Medical School, a doctor/professor who was warning the
public about the many serious consequences of consuming lots of
caffeine (he was not concerned with the one-cup-a-day habit).  He
was quite articulate and very clear about the variety of health
risks involved in injesting 3-4 (or more) cups of joe a day, but,
and this is the curious thing, the man was *easily* 60-80 pounds
overweight.  I'm not saying he had a "few pounds" to lose; he wasn't
merely a bit chubby.  He was, plain and simple, FAT (not what I'd
call obese, but clearly *significantly* overweight).  I wondered: how
can someone who is acutely aware of the health risks of caffeine be
oblivious to the health risks of carrying *that* much extra fat/weight
on his person?  Questioned, in a purely objective manner, I suspect
he would acknowledge that being overfat is NOT healthy (the health
of the "average person" is one of his major concerns, he mentioned
in the interview).  But then, how does he explain his being so
overweight?  Why doesn't he change his lifestyle enough to lose the
weight that is putting his life at risk?  Denial?  In a sense, yes.
I would suggest that the doctor can do nothing else, he is "trapped"
into being "who he is."

[This depends in what manner you mean by: "can do nothing else". Since losing
weight is certainly one of the *possible actions* which are allowed and
available to him in reality, you must mean something else. My answer is that he
does not do it for some or all of the following reasons:
1) he likes to eat more than he likes to live and enjoy other pleasures. This
means that his emotional evaluation (likely based on faulty analysis or
information) is that his total lifetime happiness will be decreased if he does
what is necessary to lose weight.
2) in spite of the fact that his intellect consciously knows that being
overweight is unhealthy and life shortening, his emotions still do not accept
that. Most people are in this category where their emotions are *not* consistent
with their conscious rational thought.
3) he had grown up with the knowledge that he will be taken care of by his
colleagues, medical insurance or society in one manner or other whatever he does
or does not do. He has likely never had to fully take care of himself out in the
stark naked uncompromissing world of reality and thinks that he can "have his
cake and eat it too".
What I do know is that the man makes a poor example to his students as a doctor
and a University Professor. If I were his department head I would dismiss him
from his position until he learns to practice what he preaches. He needs to be
made to understand that the most important aspect to getting any message across
is to be an example of what you are saying. I also consider that the programme
producer should be censured for having him on the program and that such an
appearance on that program would stop me from watching it again. I have no use
whatever for that kind of fraudulent duplicity. --Paul]


For me, not making such a decision (to lose weight) is simply the
result of the innate conditioning-in-the-moment to which every
individual is subject.  We all are "brainwashed" or "programmed"
or "conditioned."  It's not a matter of freedom of thought so much
as freedom from thought.  Thought, the past tense of thinking, is
memory.  And memory is the conditioning to which we are all exposed
(although we each are conditioned in very individual ways).

[Please quit using this collective "we"! "we" are *not* all so conditioned! I am
not, and Kitty is not, and so are most others on this group and many elsewhere
not so unable to think independently. If you will stop your use of collective
nouns and pronouns in your thinking and writing, you will find that your
thinking and analysis of issues will get much clearer. For the insidious nature
of the use of "we", see my essay at: http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/we.html

Thought is not memory or conditioning. Thought is the logical analysis of
information that one has taken into one's brain. The analysis is based on the
certainty with which each piece of information is considered as being factual.
And the purpose of the analysis is to make a decision about how one should act
to achieve a purpose. The aspect which essentially distinguishes a fully mature
human from most other lifeforms which currently exist is his ability to
substitute his evolutionarily programmed procreative purpose with a new primary
purpose - to maximize his lifetime happiness. This is all defined and explained
much more fully in the annotated version of my Natural Social Contract
(http://selfsip.org/solutions/socialcontract_annotated.html) which I suggest
that you read ("apolitical" or not!).
Humans are not like Pavlov's dogs. (Actually even most dogs are not like
Pavlov's dogs :) All humans are free to think or not to think. This is their
fundamental choice. Unfortunately, some of them choose never to think. Yes,
others are partly to blame for this, but the major responsibility is that of the
individual himself. If you do not place that responsibility with him, then to
that extent you are maintaining that he is not human! - he does not display the
essential attributes which make him human.

Furthermore, if there is no such thing as true responsibility then the bad
parents, the advertisers, Madison Avenue, big business, big government - none of
them are responsible either. We are all automatons and everything is determined;
so we may as well quit talking and just sit back and let it all happen. After
all it is going to do so anyway, so why fight it or worrry about it. --Paul]


Thus, where I take issue with your comments above is in regard
to "self-responsibility."  It is clear to me that people
make "choices" in all areas of their lives (including what they
injest).  But these choices are not "free."

[The last sentence is self-contradictory. A choice implies the ability to do one
thing or another. If a person is not free to choose from two alternatives, then
by definition he cannot be said to make a choice. By trying to have it both ways
you are again being inconsistent and essentially spouting meaningless verbiage.
--Paul]


We are all at the beck-
and-call of our innate conditioning-in-the-moment.

[As infants and small children, yes, individuals are this last. But it is up to
each human to grow up and break free of it - to gain his essential human mode of
behavior. --Paul]


You may assert that people do change.  And I would certainly agree!

[Then you agree that individuals *can* change and thus are *free* to change. So
why do you keep on saying that they can't? How inconsistent can you get? Just
which exact individuals are free and which are not? --Paul]


In fact, I would add that our innate conditioning-in-the-moment
changes moment to moment.

[There is no such existent "our" which can be conditioned or not. As for change,
yes, everything changes moment by moment. However, there is also a short-term
permanence and stability associated with the changes. Again see my essay at:
http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/we.html for details. --Paul]


Each moment we are consciously awake we
are "assaulted" by input from all our senses.

[Words and images are not *assault* and there is no "we" entity which has
anything done to it at all! Such a statement is essentially meaningless. --Paul]


And this input alters our conditioning.  Your conditioning
won't be the same after reading this email.

[No. My *information* will not be the same - that it quite different. I cannot
eradicate the information which I take in (although I can ignore and not make
use of it and in time I can even forget it) just as I cannot unring a bell. It
is an event which has happened and will have effects. However, my mind has a
major amount of control over the effects it will have therein. --Paul]


Most of the changes to conditioning are minor and
subtle.  But sometimes they can be severe and significant.  E.g.,
someone coming off of a near-fatal heart attack may adopt a
stringent, rigorous new life-style of eating healthfully and
exercising wisely.  And then others, in the same situation, won't.
Why the difference?  It is all the result of how the individual's
brain reacts to the sensory input and its interaction with the
innate conditioning-in-the-moment.

[Which is not by whim, but is based on the hierarchy of values of things in
reality which are in your brain. All your emotions and decisions are based on
those things which you value even though you may not consciously know it. That
is why it is so important for each of us to make sure that his fundamental
values are consistent with his conscious reasoned thinking. Again, humans are
not Pavlovian dogs! --Paul]


And what I'm suggesting is that we have NO control over that.  It
happens.  It changes.  Sometimes for the better, sometimes not.

[Just the whim of the universe, right? What utter nonsense. Speak for yourself.
If you do think that way then there is no validity to the very argument that you
are making in this message, since you are not in control and have no basis
whatever to make any decision of whether it is valid or not. If that were true,
then you'd be an automaton, merely spouting conditioned words over which you
have no control at all; and I may as well quit typing now.  --Paul]


It is simply not a matter of having (or not having) a "strong will,"
since possessing that attribute is also a function of one's innate
conditioning-in-the-moment.  If it is present in a particular
individual, then adopting what Walford refers to as "rational self-
restraint" will happen.  If a "strong will" is absent, the changes
won't occur (and those of us viewing the person will conclude that
he/she "lacked the will power" to change).

[Now you are *really* getting inconsistent. First, you say it is not a matter of
having a "strong will" and then you say: "if a 'strong will' is absent the
changes won't occur". You can't have it both ways.

And how do you think the ability to change gets to be "present in a particular
individual"?  He learns to act that way from fully facing reality. If he has
been "looked after" all his life, then he has never learned to do it. This is
why over-blown benevolence and coddling of children can be so devasting to the
development of a mature independent mind. --Paul]


That may be so, they may, in fact, lack that will power.  But I
don't see it as their "fault," nor do I blame them nor do I hold
them "responsible."

[There is a vast difference between "fault" and "responsibility". If you run
into my car with yours, it may not be your fault but you are the effective cause
and you should be responsible for restitution of my damages. Certainly *I* am an
innocent party in the affair. Again see my annotated Social Contract for details
(http://selfsip.org/solutions/socialcontract_annotated.html) --Paul]


Responsibility assumes that choices are
made "freely," and, from what I have observed, both within myself
and from "outer" examination of how people behave, I have come to
the conclusion that nearly all human behavior is "robotic" (there
are brief, rare exceptions).  People's actions arise from their
thoughts and their thoughts have been programmed into their minds.
This is not freedom, but it apparently is how we humans "operate."
Humanity appears to be subjected to the "first law" of psychology
(as I call it): we are all "victims" of our innate conditioning-in-
the-moment.

[This is again philosophical nonsense. One can only be a victim of a violation
of one's liberty or to one's property. It is even inconsistent with your own
argument since if one is truly not free then one can never be a victim at all
since one has no freedom (let alone liberty - political freedom) to violate.

I don't disagree that *some* entities which appear to be human do operate like
that. However, to the extent that they do they are not actually human. I, for
one, want nothing to do with them. Frankly, I am only concerned about those
entities who show the essential characteristics of a human being or exhibit some
potential to do so. --Paul]


If you are interested in exploring this further, I would be pleased
to elaborate more fully.  If you feel this is something which should
be addressed in the open forum (or you wish to respond to it there
rather than directly with me), feel free to post what I've written
along with your response.  Or, we can just continue this dialogue
there, privately.  Or, you may find the position so repugnant that
you do not wish to attend to it at all.   Any of these options is
fine with me.

[Mostly I find it a great pity that a person who appears to be as intelligent as
you are can be so completely and utterly confused. --Paul]


In closing, I am reminded of when I met with several psychologists
and philosophers (I teach at a college in New Jersey and have access
to these folks on a daily basis);

[Even more than for you, I have pity for your poor students, if the confusion
displayed here is evident in your teaching. --Paul]


we hashed this about for several
hours.  At first many were resistant to it.  Eventually they all had
to agree that it "made sense," but I remember one of the of the
psychologists saying that although she agreed with where the
arguments led, to the notion that there really isn't any "free
will," that all decisions/choices arise out of conditioned belief
systems already in place before the moment of choice/decision
occurs, that the notion of life without free will was "unbearable"
to her and thus, despite the apparent "evidence," she still chose
to "believe that humans have free will."   And that, I would assert,
is a result of her conditioning! :-)))

[Actually, the problem of the existence of "free will" (which you raised here at
the end for the first time) is really quite different from the problem of social
conditioning which you raised earlier. Free will can only be seen as a property
of complex systems which emerges when they reach sufficient conscious mental
complexity. It is, thus, not that different to the notion of the attribute of
"chairness" which is said to be possessed by certain forms and structures of
matter. I will be addressing the subject of free will at length sometime in one
of my essays on http://selfsip.org  However, for now I address myself to the
many people who know that humans have free will and/or are not concerned about
the issue. The rest are of little concern to me, since if they don't have free
will they cannot know anything anyway and their opinions, since they did not
choose, them are really not *their's* anyway. --Paul]

Thanks for taking the time to read this.  I look forward to your
response, if and when it occurs, as well as wherever it appears!  Be
well. :-)

Warmly ~
Andy

[As Paul stated his complete agreement with what I wrote in my "rant" on
obesity, I agree totally with what he has written above. For those who do not
know from comments we have made here and elsewhere on MoreLife, one of us will
start and often write most of a particular portion of the website. (In the case
of SelfSIP and the technical sections of MoreLife, that is Paul.) However, the
other will always review and edit - with concurrence for items that are more
than simply corrections of typos - before anything is uploaded. Therefore many
of Paul's words above contain my phrasings. However, he is much more astute at
picking out inconsistencies at first reading of philosophical writing than I am,
and so he was the appropriate one of us to begin the comments to this message. 
**Kitty]

Regarding ORAC, etc., here's some interesting info on cranberries recently
posted to the CRsupport group:

There is a fabulous berry out there that few people consume.
Here are some snippits of extracts from Medline.


Liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometric determination of
inhibition of human cytochrome P450 isozymes by resveratrol and
resveratrol-3-sulfate.
Yu C, Shin YG, Kosmeder JW, Pezzuto JM, van Breemen RB.
Department of Medicinal Chemistry and Pharmacognosy, University of
Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.

PMID: 12569440

trans-Resveratrol, a phenolic phytoalexin occurring in grapes, wine,
peanuts, and cranberries, has been reported to both have
anticarcinogenic, antioxidative, phytoestrogenic, and
cardioprotective activities���

(comment:  perhaps we can get many of the benefits of drinking red
wine from eating cranberries, due to their trans-resveratrol content)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
J Agric Food Chem. 2003 Jan 15;51(2):502-9.
Oxygen radical absorbing capacity of phenolics in blueberries,
cranberries, chokeberries, and lingonberries.
Zheng W, Wang SY.
Fruit Laboratory, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center,
Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Beltsville, MD 20705, USA.

The antioxidant activity of phenolics in fruits of blueberry,
cranberry, wild chokeberry, and lingonberry was determined in this
study. The phenolic constituents and contents among the different
berries varied considerably. Anthocyanins were found to be the main
components in all these berries. Chlorogenic acid in blueberry,
quercetin glycosides in cranberry and lingonberry, and caffeic acid
and its derivative in chokeberry were also present in relatively high
concentrations. Chlorogenic acid, peonidin 3-galactoside, cyanidin 3-
galactoside, and cyanidin 3-galactoside were the most important
antioxidants in blueberry, cranberry, wild chokeberry, and
lingonberry, respectively..��.. Phenolics such as quercetin and
cyaniding��.. had highly effective radical scavenging structures in
blueberries, cranberries, chokeberries, and lingonberries
PMID: 12517117


J Agric Food Chem. 2002 Dec 4;50(25):7449-54.
Antioxidant and antiproliferative activities of common fruits.
Sun J, Chu YF, Wu X, Liu RH.
Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
14853-7201, USA.

Consumption of fruits and vegetables has been associated with reduced
risk of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and cancer.
Phytochemicals, especially phenolics, in fruits and vegetables are
suggested to be the major bioactive compounds for the health
benefits. However, the phenolic contents and their antioxidant
activities in fruits and vegetables were underestimated in the
literature, because bound phenolics were not included. This study was
designed to investigate the profiles of total phenolics, including
both soluble free and bound forms in common fruits...... Cranberry
had the highest total phenolic content, followed by apple, red grape,
strawberry, pineapple, banana, peach, lemon, orange, pear, and
grapefruit. Total antioxidant activity was measured .... Cranberry
had the highest total antioxidant activity, followed by apple, red
grape, strawberry, peach, lemon, pear, banana, orange, grapefruit,
and pineapple. Antiproliferation activities were also studied in
vitro using HepG(2) human liver-cancer cells, and cranberry showed
the highest inhibitory effect..... followed by lemon, apple,
strawberry, red grape, banana, grapefruit, and peach..
PMID: 12452674


J Agric Food Chem. 2002 Oct 9;50(21):5844-9.
Antioxidant activities and antitumor screening of extracts from
cranberry fruit (Vaccinium macrocarpon).
Yan X, Murphy BT, Hammond GB, Vinson JA, Neto CC.
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Massachusetts-
Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, Massachusetts 02747, USA.

Polyphenolic compounds in cranberries have been investigated to
determine their role in protection against cardiovascular disease and
some cancers. Extracts of whole fruit were assayed for radical-
scavenging activity and tumor growth inhibition using seven tumor
cell lines���..  Radical-scavenging activity was greatest in an
extract composed primarily of flavonol glycosides. Seven flavonol
glycosides were isolated and purified from whole fruit for further
evaluation; the anthocyanin cyanidin 3-galactoside was also purified
for comparison with the flavonoids...... These compounds were
evaluated for ......radical-scavenging activity and ability to
inhibit low-density lipoprotein oxidation in vitro. Most of the
flavonol glycosides showed antioxidant activity comparable or
superior to that of vitamin E; cyanidin 3-galactoside showed activity
superior to that of the flavonoids as well as vitamin E or Trolox in
both antioxidant assays.
PMID: 12358448


Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2002;42(3 Suppl):301-16.
Cranberry flavonoids, atherosclerosis and cardiovascular health.
Reed J.
Department of Animal Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 53706, USA.

Atherosclerosis is the deposition of plaques containing cholesterol
and lipids in arterial walls. Atherosclerosis causes cardiovascular
disease that lead to heart attacks and stroke. Mortality from these
diseases is the leading cause of death in the U.S. Atherogenisis
starts with the uptake of oxidized LDL by endothelial macrophages,
the accumulation of foam cells in the intima of the artery and the
formation of fatty streaks. Research indicates that consumption of
flavonoids in foods and beverages may decrease the risk of
atherosclerosis. In vitro and in vivo experiments with flavonoids
demonstrate that flavonoids are dietary antioxidants and inhibit LDL
oxidation, inhibit platelet aggregation and adhesion, inhibit enzymes
involved in lipid and lipoprotein metabolism that affect the immune
response to oxidized LDL and their uptake by endothelial macrophages,
may induce endothelium-dependent vassorelaxation, and may increase
reverse cholesterol transport and decrease total and LDL cholesterol.
Cranberries contain both hydroxycinnamic acids and flavonoids. The
cranberry flavonoids belong to three groups: anthocyanins, flavonols,
and proanthocyanidins. This article reviews the literature on the
effects of flavonoids on atherosclerosis with an emphasis on the
potential effects of the flavonols and proanthocyanidins in
cranberries.
PMID: 12058989


Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2002;42(3 Suppl):279-84.

Inhibition of Helicobacter pylori adhesion to human gastric mucus by
a high-molecular-weight constituent of cranberry juice.
Burger O, Weiss E, Sharon N, Tabak M, Neeman I, Ofek I.
Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel.

A high-molecular-weight constituent of cranberry juice has been found
to inhibit the sialyllactose specific adhesion of Helicobacter pylori
strains to immobilized human mucus, erythrocytes, and cultured
gastric epithelial cells. Different isolates of H. pylori differ in
their affinity to the cranberry juice constituent. Cranberry juice
may also inhibit adhesion of bacteria to the stomach in vivo, and may
prove useful for the prevention of stomach ulcer that is caused by H.
pylori.
PMID: 12058986


J Agric Food Chem. 2001 Nov;49(11):5315-21.
Phenol antioxidant quantity and quality in foods: fruits.
Vinson JA, Su X, Zubik L, Bose P.
Department of Chemistry, University of Scranton, Scranton,
Pennsylvania 18510-4626, USA. vinson@...

The free and bound phenols have been measured in 20 fruits commonly
consumed in the American diet. Phenols were measured colorimetrically
using the Folin-Ciocalteu reagent with catechin as the standard after
correction for ascorbic acid contribution. On a fresh weight basis,
cranberry had the highest total phenols, and was distantly followed
by red grape. Free and total phenol quality in the fruits was
analyzed by using the inhibition of lower density lipoprotein
oxidation promoted by cupric ion. Ascorbate had only a minor
contribution to the antioxidants in fruits with the exception of
melon, nectarine, orange, white grape, and strawberry. The fruit
extracts' antioxidant quality was better than the vitamin
antioxidants and most pure phenols, suggesting synergism among the
antioxidants in the mixture. Using our assay, fruits had
significantly better quantity and quality of phenol antioxidants than
vegetables. Fruits, specifically apples and cranberries, have phenol
antioxidants that can enrich lower density lipoproteins and protect
them from oxidation����.
PMID: 11714322

[Thanks, these show that apples apparently have a lot of beneficial phenols, if
not anthocyanins  and proanthocyanidins like berries do.
I have eaten cranberries often for many years. I eat them every day raw in my
smoothie, Kitty takes cranberry extract and uses them in fruit tea, and we make
an excellent cranberry sauce using no sugar but only raisins for sweetening.
--Paul]

On 03:21 p.m. 10/09/03 -0300, Riso wrote:
>Eating the peel sometimes make me question if I am eating residues too, but
>from what I read the best you can do is to wash fruits and vegetables under
>flowing water.
>
>[We scrub the surfaces with a hard bristled brush under flowing water.
>There are also vegetable and fruit washing solutions which you can buy
>which may even do a better job, but I just can't be bothered and they may
>also have some taste effects. --Paul]

Thanks for the comments.

You are right Paul. Also, washing solutions seems not to make a big difference.

Don�t waste your time searching because I already did sometime ago and came
out with the same conclusion.

This is a good page:
Washing Fruits and Vegetables

By Ann Zander, Colorado State University
Cooperative Extension, Boulder County
June 30, 2000
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/columncc/cc000630.html


"Wait until just before preparation to wash or immerse your produce in
clean drinking water. When appropriate, scrub with a brush. Experts at the
University of California-Berkeley report that this removes nearly all
Insects and dirt, as well as bacteria and some pesticide residues. Special
soaps or washes are not needed and could be harmful to you depending on
their ingredients. Read the label! "


I also searched about how to clean eggs. It seems trying to clean them
under pressured water or with a brush increase the risk of bacteria
entering the egg.

[Thanks, Riso, on the above items re. produce washing. I was curious about the
risk of bacteria entry from egg cleaning under pressure or with brush but could
not find anything at PubMed specifically about that; please send the link. I did
find a few study references on hatcheries that showed significantly less
salmonella contamination when disinfecting of equipment and cleaning of eggs was
properly carried out.
Personally, I've made it a practice for years to always open the carton of eggs
before purchasing and physically move each one to be sure that none are cracked.
While we only eat cooked eggs, not buying any eggs that are cracked also reduces
the risk of bacterial contamination. **Kitty]

Good trip to UK!.

[Thanks. The IABG Conference has such a busy schedule
<http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/iabg10/Program.htm> that it doesn't look like we'll
get in any dancing at Cambridge - full days and early evenings starting right
off on Friday after registration is complete at 1pm and dinner is at 8:20pm each
night! You can be assured that we'll eat a full lunch and nibble at a supper
that late at night when breakfast is at 7:30am. No one consulted us on the
eating arrangements ;>) The rest of the stay in the Blackburn area NW of
Manchester should be a lot less rushed. **Kitty]

Riso

[While I announced several days ago that only posts received by Sunday night
9/14 would be posted before we leave for UK, this one and the one that follows
required only short comments and therefore are being "sent through". **Kitty]

Riso Wrote:

> <snip>

>> [We scrub the surfaces with a hard bristled brush under flowing water.
>> There are also vegetable and fruit washing solutions which you can buy
>> which may even do a better job, but I just can't be bothered and they
>> may also have some taste effects. --Paul]


> Well, after reading this I bought some kiwis and I am eating them with
> the peel!. Good and convenient :-)

> [Good for you! It is always great to hear from people who are willing to
> try new things and be open to changes in taste and viewpoint. Yes, I
> find that kiwi skins are not tough (mostly not nearly as tough as, say,
> McIntosh apple skins), they make preparing kiwis far simpler and
> quicker, and they add a little tart flavor to the sweetness of the kiwi
> fruit. --Paul]

> [This eating of kiwi skins was a new experience for me too after I
> joined Paul. In fact, I was hesitant and at first put the peelings into
> the container for his smoothie. Now there are no contributions of kiwi
> skins from me at all. **Kitty]

Micky: I'll try that with kiwi. Recently I have managed to accustom
myself to eating oranges (once or twice a week) with the peel as well,
mostly for its limonene contents.

[I have always found the peel of oranges much too bitter, but I always made sure
that I got lots of white matter with both oranges and grapefruit. As I said, I
now get whole lemon peels and white in my smoothie, left over from dinner
squeezings and tea makings. My smoothie contains a lot of food residue such as
green strawberry tops, apple cores (if I have a blender which will sufficiently
grind them) and the entire residue from making fruit tea. We waste very little
around here. --Paul]

[While I really like tart fruits, I too find the actual rind of citrus bitter.
But I get all the pulp out of the occasional orange and grapefruit, and squeeze
plenty of it out of lemons into my tea and over many types of vegetables.
**Kitty]

Greetings Tom and Kitty from the incipient/progressing but bungling
fascist state:

[Yup. If you haven't seen it, read
"The United States: A Model Fascist State" by Girard Newkirk
at: http://www.mediamonitors.net/girardnewkirk12.html

BTW, with your background and views, you should find my latest work interesting
http://selfsip.org/solutions/socialcontract_annotated.html --Paul]


I just saw the following new study and wondered what your take on it
might be:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1\
2969875&dopt=Abstract.

The suggestion is that the effects of CR are may be principally due
to reduced insulin levels. If so, doesn't that argue that, in
addition to lowering caloric intake, a low-carb diet (the lower the
better, consistent with adequate nutrient intake) might achieve the
same effect? Obviously one can to some extent do both, but possibly
it may be just as importsant to reduce carbohydrate intake in
general?

[I think you are quite right and I have been saying essentially that for some
time now. The experimental result is very important and totally consistent with
much other research and theory. It also lends support to the life extending
potential of metformin, chromium, vanadium, alpha lipoic acid and many other
chemicals which increase insulin sensitivity and thus lower totally insulin
production. Still you are right, the simplest method of all would be to cut out
all foods that are composed of carbs with little other nutrition and at the same
time to cut calories. I am personally heartened by this result because even
though I have a hard time getting my fasting blood glucose levels below the 90s,
my last test for it did show that my fasting insulin level was very low (5.6
with a range of 6-27). --Paul]

Regards,
Steve Boshkov

[This message also reached the queue after Sunday night - just this morning in
fact while we are in the midst of packing and running errands before our trip to
the UK (shown on group Calendar for at least the past 6 wks). Deathist Lurker
Girl - that name says quite a lot in our opinion - has requested that her
message (a rant as she acknowledges) be left intact w/o any breaks by us for
comments. While we don't like to do this with messages that have substance, in
this case we don't think that her rant will influence anyone to make any wrong
decisions before its issues are addressed if it is left in its entirety until we
have the time to respond in our usual manner - comments interspered as in a
conversation - either while we are in the UK (if there is opportunity) or when
we return. Since DLG plans to unsubscribe after this posting, she won't be
around to read our comments - but the rest of you can stay tuned for reality
based reasoning, that which is necessary for human beings to to maximize the
accumulation of their happiness over their lifetime. **Kitty]

[Actually, DLG has already unsubscribed - less than 10 hours from the time her
message below appeared! I think this say something important about her character
and is likely related to the reason why her weight reduction attempts have
failed. She needs instant gratification and has not matured enough to learn
patience and long-term thought and action.  More later. --Paul]

[We may need to leave other messages in the queue since we don't know what
opportunities we will have to review/comment and post while away - and we have
no more time to do any now. Have patience ;>) **Kitty]


The jumping-off point for my rant...?

  >The fundamental cure for this epidemic of obeisty is *self-
  >responsibility* - if the individual was the one financially
  >responsible for his own health, I have no doubt that there would be
  >far less chronic overeating and minimal physical exercising. Under
  >the systems of state and employer supported/funded health care there
  >is no/little incentive for the individual of limited foresight to
  >increase his vision perspective on health; there is always a
  >physician/clinic available for a prescription to treat the problems.
  >Why revise one's purchasing and eating habits when the costs of not
  >doing so are not borne solely by the individual making those
  >decisions? And don't so many doctors tell their patients (directly
  >or indirectly) that the health problems experienced are
  >just "inevitable" and/or "we're all going to die someday". Too few
  >of these doctors put the responsibility right where it belongs - on
  >the person himself. Even having a "pre-disposition" does not mean
  >physical determination; it simply means that without the right
  >preventive measures, there is a greater likelihood that the physical
  > problem will occur.
  >
  >The trend I see - if unchecked by a big dose of individual self-
  >responsibility - is a downward spiral physically for those
  >individuals who are overweight at an early age (a fact written about
  >in health studies with increasing frequency the past decade). The
  >envisioned picture is actually multi-faceted in that there are
  >numerous individual spirals inside a larger spiral representing a
  >society strongly lacking in self-responsible individuals. <snip> **Kitty]


Let's start with the circumstances under which I joined this mailing
list.  Although I am not a cryonicist, I am a longtime subscriber to
Cryonet because the concept of cryonics (as well as the colorful cast of
characters who populate the list) is fascinating to me.

Kitty posted some comments to the Cryonet list in reference to one of its
members, James Swayze, who is a quadriplegic.  According to Kitty's
political beliefs, members of our society should not be "forced" (via
taxation) to provide assistance to James just because he is paralyzed and
unable to work (and I believe Kitty disagreed with that assessment, as
well).  Furthermore, I got the impression that it was Kitty's opinion that
James' injury was his own "fault" because there was
horseplay/alcohol/imprudence/whatever involved at the time of his injury
and that confirmed even more that for James to willingly accept "unearned"
aid from others was tantamount to "stealing" from those hardworking
individuals.

I have corresponded with Kitty in the past and have always been a supporter
of hers and Paul's, and of this "morelife" project.  Much like cryonics, it
isn't exactly what I'm into, but I have to respect people who have a
vision, set goals, and then work diligently toward achieving them.

I subscribed to this list in order to respond to the issues with regard to
James.  In order to save anyone from having to noodle about in the
archives, I will reiterate here that I disagree strongly with Kitty's views
in this matter.  Human beings are human beings.  Accidents happen.  Yes,
there is always an increased chance of their happening when a person acts
"foolishly."  However, I have yet to meet a person who never did anything
dangerous, impulsive, or ill-advised in his or her entire lifetime.  Most
of us, however, "luck out" and do not suffer such catastrophic or
long-lasting harm from a single action as did James.

So, now we come to my personal ox (pun intended!) being gored.  I'm not a
quadriplegic, but I *am* fat.

Again, Kitty's (and Paul's) attitude seems to be, "You're
fat?  Why?  What's the matter with you?  You can think, can't you?  You can
read.  You're an intelligent person.  You know what kinds of health
complications obesity causes.  Why don't you take some personal
responsibility and fix your problem?  Right now!  *snaps
fingers*  What?  Huh?  You say you *can't*?  You say you've *tried*?  Do or
not do!  There is no 'try'!  Oh, look, I'm channeling Yoda now!  But
seriously- the reason why you're fat is that drowning yourself in a gooey
vat of Twinkie cream filling is *obviously* more important to you than
being a responsible, upright, contributing member of society!  You disgust
me!  Oh, and one more thing- when I find you lying on your back in the
street, blue in the face and gasping like a fish in the bottom of a
trawler, as you have your well-deserved MI, I am so *not* going to imperil
my manicure dialing 911 for you.  You should have thought of this, Missy,
before you let your Bally's membership lapse twelve years ago.  Bye-eeeee."

Although I have not lived as long as Paul or Kitty, I have been around the
block a few times, and I've learned a few things.  One of those things is
that every human being has at least one major weakness.  For some it may be
food.  For some, alcohol or drugs.  For some, risk-taking behavior.

It's funny how a person (who is thin and physically fit) who dies young as
a rock-climber - or a race car driver- or a skydiver, is often canonized as
a "daring hero."  However, a fat person who has a heart attack?  Just a
poor dumb cow with no sense of responsibility.  Weren't *all* of these
people taking unnecessary chances with their lives?  Haven't you ever heard
an interview with one of these stunt performers where s/he talks about how
many serious injuries s/he has suffered and then says, "But I can't imagine
ever *not* doing this?"  Is such a person not clearly "addicted" to his or
her brand of risky behavior just as much as the alcoholic is to alcohol or
the obese person to food?

So, why is one of these people an "adventurer" and the other an object of
disdain?

I believe eating healthily and exercising come fairly easy to Kitty and
Paul.  This is not to say they haven't had *some* difficulty (just as I did
when quitting smoking ten years ago).  I applaud their personal
achievements and their willingness to share- via their website and mailing
list- what they've learned through research and personal experience.

While I really don't consider myself a "life extensionist" and certainly
not an "immortalist," I am interested in learning how best to overcome my
personal problems with regard to overeating.  Weight control has been for
me, as it is for millions of people, a lifelong struggle.  I know for a
fact that controlling my weight (for me) isn't easy.  Other things, like
quitting tobacco, which many people find extremely difficult, have not been
very challenging for me.  The take-home lesson here is that one cannot take
one's own experiences and extrapolate them to include every other person.

I do want to come to a point where I am happy with my body form and shape
and my level of fitness.  I want to feel I am always in control of what I
eat, how much, and when.  I want to be able to make self-improvement plans
and to follow them flawlessly, without "backsliding."

However, I am not there yet.

What will help me get there?  My own desire and effort,
definitely.  Support and compassion from other people, especially those who
have overcome the same problem I have?  Maybe.

One thing I'm quite sure of is that an air of contempt and accusations of
"moral" inferiority will not help me in my quest.  Ten or more years ago, I
might have been emotionally devastated by this type of judgment; but now
that I am older and wiser, I can just shake my head ruefully and wish that
things were otherwise.

I am not morally deficient.  Not now, and not if I were to have a heart
attack tomorrow and be put on a ventilator at taxpayers' expense.  I am a
good person.  I work.  I contribute to society both monetarily and through
social activism. I am a human being.  I have flaws.  You do too.  Yours are
just less readily visible.

One last request- I would appreciate it if you would print this letter in
its entirety, without chopping it up and interspersing your
comments.  Please place your comments, if any, at the beginning or end of
my letter.  I have always had a difficult time reading posts to this list
because the commenting method you use breaks the continuity of the original
author's writing.

After this, I will be unsubscribing.  I wish Kitty and Paul and everyone
else who desires "more life," a very long and very fulfilling life which
meets or exceeds their every expectation.


DLG

> Riso Wrote:
>
> > <snip>

and Paul amplified:

> >> [We scrub the surfaces with a hard bristled brush
> under flowing water.
> >> There are also vegetable and fruit washing
> solutions which you can buy
> >> which may even do a better job, but I just can't
> be bothered and they
> >> may also have some taste effects. --Paul]
>

There have been studies showing this is as effective a
method as there is of removing impurities from fruits
and vegetables.  Oil based insecticides are removed by
immersion, and soap may even cause fat soluble
insecticides to bind to the skin.  Some insecticides
are absorbed by fruits and vegetables, and are inside
the cells.  Washing won't help.  The amounts are low,
probably too low to cause problems, but who knows?
Excessive nitrogen from fertilizer is more of a
problem.  This is the largest uncontrolled experiment

Organic vegetables have fewer insectide residues, and
are grown without fertilizers.   But IMO, even
non-organic fruits and vegetables are better than the
standard Amerian diet.

[We're about to close down now and pack up my Notebook for our trip; but Paul
had some time earlier to make some comments. (We were just so much more
efficient this time in getting ready ;>) **Kitty]

On 10:03 p.m. 14/09/03 -0300, Riso wrote:


>-skip-
>[Thanks, Riso, on the above items re. produce washing. I was curious about
>the risk of bacteria entry from egg cleaning under pressure or with brush
>but could not find anything at PubMed specifically about that; please send
>the link. I did find a few study references on hatcheries that showed
>significantly less salmonella contamination when disinfecting of equipment
>and cleaning of eggs was properly carried out.
>Personally, I've made it a practice for years to always open the carton of
>eggs before purchasing and physically move each one to be sure that none
>are cracked. While we only eat cooked eggs, not buying any eggs that are
>cracked also reduces the risk of bacterial contamination. **Kitty]


I did the search long ago and I lost the URLs, I could not find the files
in my HD. It was not from Pubmed which in this case can be not so useful.

When I search the web and do not want to get the commercial websites I use
Google with the string: keywords site:.edu

In this case:
http://www.google.com/search?q=clean+eggs+site:.edu

  From the results:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/pubs/washing.htm
Does Washing Food Promote Food Safety?
Washing Eggs

Do not wash eggs before storing or using them. Washing is a routine part of
commercial egg processing and the eggs do not need to be washed again.
Federal regulations outline procedures and cleansers that may be used.
"Bloom", the natural coating on just-laid eggs that helps prevent bacteria
from permeating the shell, is removed by the washing process and is
replaced by a light coating of edible mineral oil which restores
protection. Extra handling of the eggs, such as washing, could increase the
risk of cross-contamination, especially if the shell becomes cracked.


Very detailed with an egg diagram
http://www.umaine.edu/livestock/Publications/TipsForEggSafety.htm
Tips for Egg Safety from Farm to Table



and Health Canada has some info too
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/iyh/food/salmonella.html
Salmonella Prevention

  From what you said I understand that there is always the possibility of
some salmonella on eggs. I thought that eggs from healthy birds from
inspected farms would not have salmonella.

Here are the conclusions I made some time ago when I was looking for
information on eggs, but I do not have the source at hand nor were them all
very science based. If I found anything more I will let you know.

*do not wash eggs under pressured water or brush, more, it seems that
washing is no goo at all.

*the best way to eat eggs is soft boiled. Through this method you put the
egg intact into boiling water so it kills bacteria in the shell and you
cook the white so you inactivate an enzyme (from the site below, not a
scientific source: Avidine in raw egg-white de-activates vitamin B8
(biotine)) that interferes with absorption of other nutrients leaving the
yolk semi raw which keeps the phospholipids in good form.

*some people consider eating raw yolks is safe.
http://www.21.waisays.com/egg-yolk.htm
For eating the raw yolk yo break the egg and take the yolk with your
fingers and brake the membrane to take out the yolk content. I tried this
once and it is possible, if the egg is good.

*there is a hype among body builders to eat lots of raw egg whites. I do
not see the need to eat them raw (although someplace I read that heat
degrades proteins, but eggs still are good if you do not heat them too much).

[Proteins are "degraded" when they are digested. The idea that heat less than
boiling temperature "damages" them is nonsense. However, one should not eat many
raw egg-whites unless one takes extra biotin as the source above stated. --Paul]


I used to eat eggs soft boiled, but now for convenience I cook them in a
Teflon coated pan. I add a bit of olive or soy oil and cook until the white
turns opaque white and try to leave the yolk fluid. Sometimes I cook one
whole egg and one or more whites. I do not know how much egg yolk can
increase cholesterol or how many eggs it is safe to take per day. I think
one or two is OK.  After cooking I add cayenne and sometimes a bit of  raw
olive oil for taste. Separating the white from the yolk is not easy if you
do not want the egg content to get too much  in touch  with the shell.

Riso

[I mostly eat eggs soft and hard boiled. I cook them together.
The following works for large size eggs
Bring to boil immersed in lots of water.
Turn off element immediately.
After 2 1/2 minutes remove eggs to be eaten soft and cool under cold water.
After 6 minutes remove rest of eggs and cool in cold water, allow to cool and
dry and place in refrigerator.
Removing the hard boiled eggs from the water as soon as they are cooked (and not
over cooked) prevents the yolk from going gray.

Less often, I do them in a teflon pan as you describe above and sometimes I make
omlettes with them. Always using low temperatures.

The cholesterol in eggs is only harmful for those very few people who have a
genetic problem with food cholesterol. For all the rest of us, it is the
cholesterol that our body's make which matters, not that which we ingest.
23 year ago I used to each 2 eggs every day and my cholesterol was still only
152. --Paul]

[Thanks, Riso, for the interesting links re. cleaning of eggs and other measures
to prevent contamination-caused illnesses - the farm to table link was
especially interesting by making known all the measures a responsible egg farmer
takes with his product. **Kitty]

To all Morelife Yahoo readers, subscribers and supporters:

Kitty has suffered another episode of mania because of a great deal of
stress including lack of sleep preceeding and during our UK trip with
a very intense and stimulating conference which contained insufficient
rest breaks. Since we had nothing in England to treat her, I had to
cut our trip short and bring her back early. Since her last episode
was 3 years before we met, I had only heard a little about them and
had never witnessed any such behavior with Kitty or anyone else. It
has been hard on me to understand what is going on, to adjust to it,
and to get help for it when she is not in the US where her doctors
are. This is compounded by the fact that the chemicals which would
help are either outlawed completely or are prescription only, such as
GHB which would be good for mania since it is an inhibitory
neurotransmitter. I could not even get my GP to prescribe a simple
sleeping medication. He was basically afraid of the case and required
us to see a psychiatrist for any prescription. She is now back on
lithium carbonate, but the sleeping medication (clonazepam which also
increases GABA and GHB in the brain) has still not allowed her to
sleep well. We see the psychiatrist again tomorrow to get a change of
medication. Dalmane which she has in AZ should allow better sleep, IMO.

In any case, to get to the main point of this message, most of my time
must now be spent on looking after Kitty and merely existing and
keeping healthy. Thus, for the present time I regret to inform you
that I will have to suspend the operation of the Morelife Yahoo group.
I will be able to post a few of the messages which are in the queue
now and require little or no comments, but anything more will not be
done until she is recovered. Unfortunately, I cannot tell you when
that will be.

I will send another message when things get better and certainly when
we are starting up again.

Thanks for your understanding,

--Paul

--- Deathist Lurker Girl <nephthys@...>
wrote:

...rant deleted...

It has been shown that some viruses can damage the
body's weight-control mechanism.  (...by destroying
brown fat cells or damaging their ability to burn
fat.)  There are obese people who eat under 2000
calories a day, and still become morbidly obese,
through no fault of their own.  I doubt that very many
obese people are in this class; the condition seems to
always lead to morbid obesity (50, 60% body fat, well
over 250 pounds weight.  Certainly not DLG?

Still, when something is not a persons's fault, issues
of personal responsibility don't seem to apply in
quite the same way.

[What you are missing is the difference between "fault" and "responsibility".
They are not the same. --Paul]

what is the best way to increase hemoglobin levels to above 15?
I noticed on Paul's lab results, that his hemoglobin levels were
above 15. I am trying to get my levels up, and have tried many
supplements, but to no avail. Any ideas?

[I really don't have time to research this right now. Certainly a high protein
diet with adequate iron will help as will good general health and exercise.
--Paul]

Thanks for the confirmation. I just happened to see this at the Lew
Rockwell site: http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi25.html I
don't know if this is more generally available. It look like it may
be a good idea after all to have a glass of red wine a day (and
invest in a wine saver device to remove the oxygen).

[This news has been all over the place. The only reservation that I have is that
I don't agree that any amount of alcohol is overall beneficial longevity-wise.
Alcohol has many toxic effects even in small amounts and the ways in which it
benefits a person can all be obtained by other means. --Paul]

It turns out there is more information. Here's a sample:
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/0308/24-antiaging.html
http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/community/news2003/083103_health_2003.shtml
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/08/25/in_lab_seeking_secret_of_y\
outh/

I guess it's only yeast, and probably fruit flies and worms, not
humans. But it's still intriquing.

Alberta Egg Producers Board


Egg Quality and Grades
Types of Eggs
Handling and Storing Eggs
Cooking and Baking with Eggs
Food and Egg Allergies
Nutrition/Health

http://www.eggs.ab.ca/about/index.htm


Riso

Hello,

I found this article interesting. As Paul has studied Dr Packer  articles,
maybe this one has something new, I did not see it mentioned here before.
No need to comment.


Date Posted: Thu, January 17 2002, 13:04:11 PST
In reply to: Berkson BM. 's message, "A conservative triple antioxidant
approach" on Thu, January 17 2002, 6:26:46 PST

Lipoic Acid Against AIDS: Newly discovered mechanism of antioxidant protection

Interview With Dr. Lester Packer
Interviewed By Richard A. Passwater Ph.D.

... This month, we will review the exciting new area of research that
reveals how antioxidants affect our health by influencing gene expression. ...

...We will use Dr. Packer's exciting new research on stopping human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) replication as a paradigm....

http://www.voy.com/17059/190.html

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030925/03

I saw the pictures of the snake on your porch.  I think
it is a western coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum).  See
  http://www.herpo.com/trans-pecos/snakes/mflagel.html

I'm no herpetologist, but I've worked a little bit with
herpelogists and a nature center.

I was actually looking for a source of ALT-711.  Any info
would be helpful.  I would like to start taking it.  I've
tired of waiting for it to come onto the market.

[This last has been privately replied to. --Paul]

Brady Reed
Houston, TX

Hi Kitty,

After lurking on your group for weeks I'd like to take the time to
agree with you on this one.  While a tiny percentage of people may
have so many genetic strikes against them that weight loss is
impossible, most overweight people choose by their action to remain
obese.

I'm a podiatrist and review the medications of all new patients.
Many people over 50 are on an astonishly large number of medications
nearly always for the same few things (GERD AKA reflux, heart
conditions, hypertention, diabetes and arthritis being tops).  I
mention to most of these patients that lifestyle changes could get
them off most, if not all, of these medications within 3 to 6 months
and generally watch their eyes glaze over within seconds of me
mentioning this.

The family doctors are partially to blame for this state of
affairs.  I have asked thousands of diabetic patients if they were
referred to a dietician prior to being placed on diabetic
medications and only a handful have told me they were.

Then again in defense of these doctors let me add that patients are
so helpless that I can understand the doctors just writing
prescriptions.  I had a middle aged patient a few weeks ago who was
6'5" and 545 pounds.  He told me he had done "everything" to lose
weight and when I mentioned I would be happy to e-mail him
information he might find useful he told me he had never used e-mail
and never even been on the net.  Imagine - the greatest source of
information in human history freely available at nearly every
library in the country and his idea of "everything" did not include
making use of this resource.  His concept of "everything", like so
many people's, was to spend years running from doctor to doctor
looking for a miracle weight control medication.  When he got so
heavy he could not work his usual job he simply applied for
disability rather than taking this as a wake-up call to get serious
about weight loss.  I find this patient typical of overweight people.

Toni

[Thanks so much for coming out of "lurk" mode to send this. I have read it to
Kitty, but am not sure how much she got from it in her current state. It is nice
to have independent confirmation of what we have seen and heard about from many
sources. Particularly, I too know of people who are simply being left behind
because they have not embraced the Internet. Generally, these are older people
who are too set in their old ways. But astonishingly some are highly intelligent
and educated people who still don't get it. With the current low cost of
computers and Internet connections, there is certainly no excuse with respect to
cost. In fact, similar to the six-gun of 150 years ago, the Internet has become
"the great equalizer", but in this case, of opportunity for learning and gaining
happiness in this world. Of course, this is only for those who choose to use it
for that purpose instead of mere play, socializing, predation or
destructiveness. --Paul]

[This posted with thanks, but without comment because of the lack of time in our
current situation. --Paul]

--- Deathist Lurker Girl <nephthys@...> wrote:
> [This message also reached the queue after Sunday night - just this morning in
> fact while we are in the midst of packing and running errands before our trip
to
> the UK (shown on group Calendar for at least the past 6 wks). Deathist Lurker
Girl
> - that name says quite a lot in our opinion - has requested that her message
(a
> rant as she acknowledges) be left intact w/o any breaks by us for comments.
While
> we don't like to do this with messages that have substance, in this case we
don't
> think that her rant will influence anyone to make any wrong decisions before
its
> issues are addressed if it is left in its entirety until we have the time to
> respond in our usual manner - comments interspered as in a conversation -
either
> while we are in the UK (if there is opportunity) or when we return. Since DLG
> plans to unsubscribe after this posting, she won't be around to read our
comments
> - but the rest of you can stay tuned for reality based reasoning, that which
is
> necessary for human beings to to maximize the accumulation of their happiness
over
> their lifetime. **Kitty]
>
> [Actually, DLG has already unsubscribed - less than 10 hours from the time her
> message below appeared! I think this say something important about her
character
> and is likely related to the reason why her weight reduction attempts have
failed.
> She needs instant gratification and has not matured enough to learn patience
and
> long-term thought and action.  More later. --Paul]
>
> [We may need to leave other messages in the queue since we don't know what
> opportunities we will have to review/comment and post while away - and we have
no
> more time to do any now. Have patience ;>) **Kitty]
>
>
> The jumping-off point for my rant...?
>
>  >The fundamental cure for this epidemic of obeisty is *self-
>  >responsibility* - if the individual was the one financially
>  >responsible for his own health, I have no doubt that there would be
>  >far less chronic overeating and minimal physical exercising. Under
>  >the systems of state and employer supported/funded health care there
>  >is no/little incentive for the individual of limited foresight to
>  >increase his vision perspective on health; there is always a
>  >physician/clinic available for a prescription to treat the problems.
>  >Why revise one's purchasing and eating habits when the costs of not
>  >doing so are not borne solely by the individual making those
>  >decisions? And don't so many doctors tell their patients (directly
>  >or indirectly) that the health problems experienced are
>  >just "inevitable" and/or "we're all going to die someday". Too few
>  >of these doctors put the responsibility right where it belongs - on
>  >the person himself. Even having a "pre-disposition" does not mean
>  >physical determination; it simply means that without the right
>  >preventive measures, there is a greater likelihood that the physical
>  > problem will occur.
>  >
>  >The trend I see - if unchecked by a big dose of individual self-
>  >responsibility - is a downward spiral physically for those
>  >individuals who are overweight at an early age (a fact written about
>  >in health studies with increasing frequency the past decade). The
>  >envisioned picture is actually multi-faceted in that there are
>  >numerous individual spirals inside a larger spiral representing a
>  >society strongly lacking in self-responsible individuals. <snip> **Kitty]
>
>
> Let's start with the circumstances under which I joined this mailing
> list.  Although I am not a cryonicist, I am a longtime subscriber to
> Cryonet because the concept of cryonics (as well as the colorful cast of
> characters who populate the list) is fascinating to me.

Why am I starting to cry already?
>
> Kitty posted some comments to the Cryonet list in reference to one of its
> members, James Swayze, who is a quadriplegic.  According to Kitty's
> political beliefs, members of our society should not be "forced" (via
> taxation) to provide assistance to James just because he is paralyzed and
> unable to work (and I believe Kitty disagreed with that assessment, as
> well).  Furthermore, I got the impression that it was Kitty's opinion that
> James' injury was his own "fault" because there was
> horseplay/alcohol/imprudence/whatever involved at the time of his injury
> and that confirmed even more that for James to willingly accept "unearned"
> aid from others was tantamount to "stealing" from those hardworking
> individuals.

Thank Reality I am not a quadriplegic, but I have suffered severe injuries as a
partial result of drinking. I freely acknowledged my responsibility for my own
injury (hit by a boat propeller while swimming, intoxicated, in the Hudson
River,
leaving me a damaged urethra, bladder, and associated sexual dysfunction), but
refused to seek compensation from the boat operator (who could have been drunk
also,
but was never identified). Of course, having no insurance, I became another
recipient of the seemingly infinite largesse of the state (SSI for several
years),
as well as private charity, after I had exhausted my own meager resources. In
the
social welfare state one is forced to rely on an immoral system, unless one has
had
the foresight and good fortune to not need to, or doesn't wish to.

> I have corresponded with Kitty in the past and have always been a supporter
> of hers and Paul's, and of this "morelife" project.  Much like cryonics, it
> isn't exactly what I'm into, but I have to respect people who have a
> vision, set goals, and then work diligently toward achieving them.

Knowing nothing of the morelife project, I read and was profoundly impressed by
Paul's "critiques of revered documents" at striketheroot.com, when they first
appeared there. Wanting more, I subscribed, and read the archives, including
your
exchange, nephthys.
>
> I subscribed to this list in order to respond to the issues with regard to
> James.  In order to save anyone from having to noodle about in the
> archives, I will reiterate here that I disagree strongly with Kitty's views
> in this matter.  Human beings are human beings.  Accidents happen.  Yes,
> there is always an increased chance of their happening when a person acts
> "foolishly."  However, I have yet to meet a person who never did anything
> dangerous, impulsive, or ill-advised in his or her entire lifetime.  Most
> of us, however, "luck out" and do not suffer such catastrophic or
> long-lasting harm from a single action as did James.

I'm becoming increasingly aware of how lucky it is to "luck out".


> So, now we come to my personal ox (pun intended!) being gored.  I'm not a
> quadriplegic, but I *am* fat.
>
> Again, Kitty's (and Paul's) attitude seems to be, "You're
> fat?  Why?  What's the matter with you?  You can think, can't you?  You can
> read.  You're an intelligent person.  You know what kinds of health
> complications obesity causes.  Why don't you take some personal
> responsibility and fix your problem?  Right now!  *snaps
> fingers*  What?  Huh?  You say you *can't*?  You say you've *tried*?  Do or
> not do!  There is no 'try'!  Oh, look, I'm channeling Yoda now!  But
> seriously- the reason why you're fat is that drowning yourself in a gooey
> vat of Twinkie cream filling is *obviously* more important to you than
> being a responsible, upright, contributing member of society!  You disgust
> me!  Oh, and one more thing- when I find you lying on your back in the
> street, blue in the face and gasping like a fish in the bottom of a
> trawler, as you have your well-deserved MI, I am so *not* going to imperil
> my manicure dialing 911 for you.  You should have thought of this, Missy,
> before you let your Bally's membership lapse twelve years ago.  Bye-eeeee."

Have you asked Paul and Kitty? My impression is that, much as they rightly
disapprove of the state, on an individual basis they would do the best they
could,
even if it meant dialing 911.

> Although I have not lived as long as Paul or Kitty, I have been around the
> block a few times, and I've learned a few things.  One of those things is
> that every human being has at least one major weakness.  For some it may be
> food.  For some, alcohol or drugs.  For some, risk-taking behavior.

Risk-taking behavior wouldn't be that unless the risk--the personal
responsibility--was real.
>
> It's funny how a person (who is thin and physically fit) who dies young as
> a rock-climber - or a race car driver- or a skydiver, is often canonized as
> a "daring hero."  However, a fat person who has a heart attack?  Just a
> poor dumb cow with no sense of responsibility.  Weren't *all* of these
> people taking unnecessary chances with their lives?  Haven't you ever heard
> an interview with one of these stunt performers where s/he talks about how
> many serious injuries s/he has suffered and then says, "But I can't imagine
> ever *not* doing this?"  Is such a person not clearly "addicted" to his or
> her brand of risky behavior just as much as the alcoholic is to alcohol or
> the obese person to food?

Yes, it would seem so.
>
> So, why is one of these people an "adventurer" and the other an object of
> disdain?

To whom?  Assuming you're still talking about Paul and Kitty, I find no evidence
for
this. (I could be wrong,  but Paul and Kitty will speak for themselves.)

> I believe eating healthily and exercising come fairly easy to Kitty and
> Paul.  This is not to say they haven't had *some* difficulty (just as I did
> when quitting smoking ten years ago).  I applaud their personal
> achievements and their willingness to share- via their website and mailing
> list- what they've learned through research and personal experience.
>
> While I really don't consider myself a "life extensionist" and certainly
> not an "immortalist," I am interested in learning how best to overcome my
> personal problems with regard to overeating.  Weight control has been for
> me, as it is for millions of people, a lifelong struggle.  I know for a
> fact that controlling my weight (for me) isn't easy.  Other things, like
> quitting tobacco, which many people find extremely difficult, have not been
> very challenging for me.  The take-home lesson here is that one cannot take
> one's own experiences and extrapolate them to include every other person.

On one level you can, on another level you can't. Who said it would be easy?
>
> I do want to come to a point where I am happy with my body form and shape
> and my level of fitness.  I want to feel I am always in control of what I
> eat, how much, and when.  I want to be able to make self-improvement plans
> and to follow them flawlessly, without "backsliding."
>
> However, I am not there yet.

As a still active alcoholic, still able to indulge myself with occasional
breaks, I
am not there yet either.
>
> What will help me get there?  My own desire and effort,
> definitely.  Support and compassion from other people, especially those who
> have overcome the same problem I have?  Maybe.

You've tried Overeaters Anonymous?
>
> One thing I'm quite sure of is that an air of contempt and accusations of
> "moral" inferiority will not help me in my quest.  Ten or more years ago, I
> might have been emotionally devastated by this type of judgment; but now
> that I am older and wiser, I can just shake my head ruefully and wish that
> things were otherwise.
>
> I am not morally deficient.  Not now, and not if I were to have a heart
> attack tomorrow and be put on a ventilator at taxpayers' expense.  I am a
> good person.  I work.  I contribute to society both monetarily and through
> social activism. I am a human being.  I have flaws.  You do too.  Yours are
> just less readily visible.

Yes, and the system we have agreed to, more or less, has grear flaws. As I read
the
Wakfers, tho, they are hoping, realistically,  for gradual change, flaw
reduction,
knowing how addicted we all are. They and you and I are as "dependent" on the
state
for some information, (as in a recent link to the University of Maine, for
example)
as anyone might be to 911.

> One last request- I would appreciate it if you would print this letter in
> its entirety, without chopping it up and interspersing your
> comments.  Please place your comments, if any, at the beginning or end of
> my letter.  I have always had a difficult time reading posts to this list
> because the commenting method you use breaks the continuity of the original
> author's writing.

There are times when I would agree with you, as in relatively brief replies from
friends. But I find the Wakfers' interspersings very effective and just as
friendly
for my purposes.
>
> After this, I will be unsubscribing.  I wish Kitty and Paul and everyone
> else who desires "more life," a very long and very fulfilling life which
> meets or exceeds their every expectation.

Thanks, and the same to you.

Lar
>
>
> DLG

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Deathist Lurker Girl <nephthys@d...> wrote:
> [This message also reached the queue after Sunday night - just this morning in
fact >while we are in the midst of packing and running errands before our trip
to the UK >(shown on group Calendar for at least the past 6 wks). Deathist
Lurker Girl - that name >says quite a lot in our opinion - has requested that
her message (a rant as she >acknowledges) be left intact w/o any breaks by us
for comments. While we don't like to >do this with messages that have substance,
in this case we don't think that her rant will >influence anyone to make any
wrong decisions before its issues are addressed if it is left >in its entirety
until we have the time to respond in our usual manner - comments >interspered as
in a conversation - either while we are in the UK (if there is opportunity) >or
when we return. Since DLG plans to unsubscribe after this posting, she won't be
>around to read our comments - but the rest of you can stay tuned for reality
based >reasoning, that which is necessary for human beings to to maximize the
accumulation of >their happiness over their lifetime. **Kitty]
>
> [Actually, DLG has already unsubscribed - less than 10 hours from the time her
>message below appeared! I think this say something important about her
character and >is likely related to the reason why her weight reduction attempts
have failed. She needs >Instant gratification and has not matured enough to
learn patience and long-term thought >and action.  More later. --Paul]
>
>
> The jumping-off point for my rant...?
>
>  >The fundamental cure for this epidemic of obeisty is *self-
>  >responsibility* - if the individual was the one financially
>  >responsible for his own health, I have no doubt that there would be
>  >far less chronic overeating and minimal physical exercising. Under
>  >the systems of state and employer supported/funded health care there
>  >is no/little incentive for the individual of limited foresight to
>  >increase his vision perspective on health; there is always a
>  >physician/clinic available for a prescription to treat the problems.
>  >Why revise one's purchasing and eating habits when the costs of not
>  >doing so are not borne solely by the individual making those
>  >decisions? And don't so many doctors tell their patients (directly
>  >or indirectly) that the health problems experienced are
>  >just "inevitable" and/or "we're all going to die someday". Too few
>  >of these doctors put the responsibility right where it belongs - on
>  >the person himself. Even having a "pre-disposition" does not mean
>  >physical determination; it simply means that without the right
>  >preventive measures, there is a greater likelihood that the physical
>  > problem will occur.
>  >
>  >The trend I see - if unchecked by a big dose of individual self-
>  >responsibility - is a downward spiral physically for those
>  >individuals who are overweight at an early age (a fact written about
>  >in health studies with increasing frequency the past decade). The
>  >envisioned picture is actually multi-faceted in that there are
>  >numerous individual spirals inside a larger spiral representing a
>  >society strongly lacking in self-responsible individuals. <snip> **Kitty]
>
>
> Let's start with the circumstances under which I joined this mailing
> list.  Although I am not a cryonicist, I am a longtime subscriber to
> Cryonet because the concept of cryonics (as well as the colorful cast of
> characters who populate the list) is fascinating to me.

[It seems rather odd to me that a person would be attracted to and fascinated by
something (cryonics and life extension, in this case) which bears no interest
for application to herself. My analysis of such a person is that she really
wants to avoid death and disability, but is too scared to meet the challenge and
the large risk of failure entailed by embracing it. --Paul]

> Kitty posted some comments to the Cryonet list in reference to one of its
> members, James Swayze, who is a quadriplegic.  According to Kitty's
> political beliefs, members of our society should not be "forced" (via
> taxation) to provide assistance to James just because he is paralyzed and
> unable to work (and I believe Kitty disagreed with that assessment, as
> well).  Furthermore, I got the impression that it was Kitty's opinion that
> James' injury was his own "fault" because there was
> horseplay/alcohol/imprudence/whatever involved at the time of his injury
> and that confirmed even more that for James to willingly accept "unearned"
> aid from others was tantamount to "stealing" from those hardworking
> individuals.
>
> I have corresponded with Kitty in the past and have always been a supporter
> of hers and Paul's, and of this "morelife" project.  Much like cryonics, it
> isn't exactly what I'm into, but I have to respect people who have a
> vision, set goals, and then work diligently toward achieving them.

[I find it difficult to understand how anyone cannot be "into" more life in
quantity and quality. What is she into? - a short life of agony? If so, perhaps
she should emigrate to the Sudan. --Paul]

> I subscribed to this list in order to respond to the issues with regard to
> James.  In order to save anyone from having to noodle about in the
> archives, I will reiterate here that I disagree strongly with Kitty's views
> in this matter.  Human beings are human beings.  Accidents happen.

[Being human does not imply stupidity, inefficacy, helplessness and
irrationality - a mere pawn of reality's whim. No, being human means
intentionally, creatively and purposefully working to modify one's environment
to increase one's integrated lifetime happiness. Accidents are human failures at
protection of one's happiness state. Learning from previous accidents and
modifying one's behavior and environment to inhibit their future occurrence is
the essence of being human.  Each accident is essentially and ultimately
preventable. While their variety and non forecastability  means that in total
accidents can never be completely avoided, any particular type that is known and
understand can be fully prevented. --Paul]

> Yes,
> there is always an increased chance of their happening when a person acts
> "foolishly."

[Here DGL shows confusion about the meaning of "foolish" and of "accident". The
very essence of a foolish act is that it risks loss of happiness (or its inverse
- gain of pain). If such risk is realized it therefore cannot logically be said
to be an *accident* since a true accident is something which has no cause at all
and occurs by pure chance. Thus, DLG (and many others) misunderstand the meaning
of *risk*. In reality, all that a person can ever do is either increase or
decrease his risk of any particular future occurrence. Thus correctly analyzed,
there are no such things as accidents at all - in the sense of something for
which a human bears no responsibility whatsoever. This is an extension of the
same analysis as that which I made in my essay "Self-Responsibility and Social
Order" --Paul]


> However, I have yet to meet a person who never did anything
> dangerous, impulsive, or ill-advised in his or her entire lifetime.

[This is true. Each human begins as an uninformed, unthinking individual who
needs to be nurtured and protected by parents, allowed to make errors and to
learn from the consequences, and to naturally grow into a mature adult who will
continue to learn and make fewer and fewer such happiness reducing mistakes as
he grows older. To the extent that any individual does not learn that mechanism
and the purpose he has not been properly reared by his/her parents and/or is not
yet an adult human. Unfortunately current cradle to grave socialist/altruist
societies support and foster this behavior so that far too many of the world's
humans are currently in this grown up but non-adult status. --Paul]

> Most
> of us, however, "luck out" and do not suffer such catastrophic or
> long-lasting harm from a single action as did James.

[Not quite. For some people the negative consequences of risk are not realized.
But for many, many the risk was kept very minimal or non-existent because they
chose not to take the action which generated that risk. In each case, the person
was still responsible for what happened. --Paul]

> So, now we come to my personal ox (pun intended!) being gored.  I'm not a
> quadriplegic, but I *am* fat.
>
> Again, Kitty's (and Paul's) attitude seems to be, "You're
> fat?  Why?  What's the matter with you?  You can think, can't you?  You can
> read.  You're an intelligent person.  You know what kinds of health
> complications obesity causes.  Why don't you take some personal
> responsibility and fix your problem?  Right now!  *snaps
> fingers*  What?  Huh?  You say you *can't*?  You say you've *tried*?  Do or
> not do!  There is no 'try'!  Oh, look, I'm channeling Yoda now!  But
> seriously- the reason why you're fat is that drowning yourself in a gooey
> vat of Twinkie cream filling is *obviously* more important to you than
> being a responsible, upright, contributing member of society!  You disgust
> me!  Oh, and one more thing- when I find you lying on your back in the
> street, blue in the face and gasping like a fish in the bottom of a
> trawler, as you have your well-deserved MI, I am so *not* going to imperil
> my manicure dialing 911 for you.  You should have thought of this, Missy,
> before you let your Bally's membership lapse twelve years ago.  Bye-eeeee."
>
> Although I have not lived as long as Paul or Kitty, I have been around the
> block a few times, and I've learned a few things.  One of those things is
> that every human being has at least one major weakness.  For some it may be
> food.  For some, alcohol or drugs.  For some, risk-taking behavior.

[DLG writes as if such human "weaknesses" are fixed and impossible to change.
Humans all begin with no information about the world and little indication of
what is the best way to achieve happiness apart from that supplied by instincts.
However, being human means learning about reality and constantly striving to
make the best possible decisions to gain happiness over the long haul. Any bad
habits which one has acquired are a result of not making the best such
decisions. Once it is known and understood that these actions are not in one's
long-range best interest, then it is simply a matter of doing the necessary
research and experimentation to find out how to rid one's self of the bad habit
(weakness) and replaced it by something more useful to one's long range purpose.
--Paul]

> It's funny how a person (who is thin and physically fit) who dies young as
> a rock-climber - or a race car driver- or a skydiver, is often canonized as
> a "daring hero."

[Neither Kitty nor I consider such people as any kind of "hero". In fact, we
both consider them to be quite irrational and idiotic for taking such risks.
Those who do consider them "heros" are mere fame worshippers who do not have the
courage to do anything and achieve anything for themselves.

Final note: This was as far as I got in reply. Kitty needs to comment also but
has no ability to do so at the moment. We will get back to this subject when we
are able to resume activity on the group. --Paul]



>  However, a fat person who has a heart attack?  Just a
> poor dumb cow with no sense of responsibility.  Weren't *all* of these
> people taking unnecessary chances with their lives?  Haven't you ever heard
> an interview with one of these stunt performers where s/he talks about how
> many serious injuries s/he has suffered and then says, "But I can't imagine
> ever *not* doing this?"  Is such a person not clearly "addicted" to his or
> her brand of risky behavior just as much as the alcoholic is to alcohol or
> the obese person to food?
>
> So, why is one of these people an "adventurer" and the other an object of
> disdain?

[snip]

Max Watt :
>It has been shown that some viruses can damage the
>body's weight-control mechanism.  (...by destroying
>brown fat cells or damaging their ability to burn
>fat.)

[Micky: has it been shown in adult humans, or rats?]

>There are obese people who eat under 2000
>calories a day, and still become morbidly obese,
>through no fault of their own.

[Micky: but it *IS* their fault (and responsibility). If they have less brown
fat cells (which I doubt, because adult humans have very little of it, if any),
this means that they expend less calories, which means they need less calories,
yet they ingest more calories than they expend. It's like if someone was 4 feet
tall and complain that she gains weight on a 2000 calorie diet.]

Micky.