Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning an article on Farenheit 9/11

what didn't you like about Bowling for Colombine? America is gun crazy,
although Canada has plenty of guns but w/o the amount of violence, so its
not simply the # of guns. He points out how the media keeps people in a
state of fear and panic. Yup. He suggests that the corporate rape of the
lower middle class creates desperation & violence. Sounds about right to me.

Dante

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Lumma [mailto:clumma@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 11:32 PM
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: an article on Farenheit 9/11
>
>
> > > http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
> >
> > Whatever your opinion of Moore, Hitchens is worse. A review
> > from someone more sane and honest than him would be more
> > useful.
>
> I think the review should be judged by its content, not its
> author. Ditto the movie.
>
> I've never read anything else by Hitchens (that I know of),
> but I have seen Bowling, and everything Hitchens says
> about Moore is right on based on that experience.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <dante@...>

Hi Carl-

What I liked was the way that, while he suggests that things like the media
and big corporations are partly to blame, he leaves it open and does not get
dogmatic. It was like he was honestly searching for answers, rather than
starting with an agenda. Yes, he attacks Heston and the NRA but they are a
bunch of a-holes (I guess Moore as well, since he is a member!). Unless you
live in a wilderness area and are reliant on hunting for food, there is no
reason to have a gun. Only a moron would think that going into the woods and
blasting some beautiful deer is a "sport".

As for the tired arguments about having a gun for self-protection:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/?page=home

heres some other info:

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/issues/problem/

Dante

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl Lumma [mailto:clumma@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 11:58 PM
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: an article on Farenheit 9/11
>
>
> > what didn't you like about Bowling for Colombine?
>
> http://www.lumma.org/microwave/#2003.04.16
> http://www.lumma.org/microwave/#2003.03.12
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

🔗kraig grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> Yes, he attacks Heston and the NRA but they are a
> bunch of a-holes (I guess Moore as well, since he is
> a member!).

Do you really want to change this from a discussion about
Moore's merit as a film maker to one about gun control?

> Unless you live in a wilderness area and are reliant on
> hunting for food, there is no reason to have a gun.

There is no reason for who to have a gun?

How is hunting for food worse than raising animals in a
factory and buying it at the grocery store?

> Only a moron would think that going into the woods and
> blasting some beautiful deer is a "sport".

Only a moron would think he could decree what others may
or may not find sporting.

> As for the tired arguments about having a gun for
> self-protection:
>
> http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/?page=home

Sorry, I'm not interested in statistics. The success of
steak knives for self-protection probably wouldn't look very
good here, either... do you suggest banning them?

> heres some other info:
>
> http://www.jointogether.org/gv/issues/problem/

"In response to these tragic and unnecessary deaths..."

How do they know they were tragic and unnecessary?

If Moore didn't have an agenda, then why is his film almost
always liked by gun control advocates and almost always
disliked by gun owners? In fact, it's plain that when he's
interviewing Heston, Clark, going into the bank, etc. etc.,
he's doing so malevolently.

-Carl

🔗Dante Rosati <dante@...>

> Do you really want to change this from a discussion about
> Moore's merit as a film maker to one about gun control?

oh, why not.

> > Unless you live in a wilderness area and are reliant on
> > hunting for food, there is no reason to have a gun.
>
> There is no reason for who to have a gun?

anyone.

> How is hunting for food worse than raising animals in a
> factory and buying it at the grocery store?

its not. thats why I'm a vegetarian.

> > Only a moron would think that going into the woods and
> > blasting some beautiful deer is a "sport".
>
> Only a moron would think he could decree what others may
> or may not find sporting.

so if someone wants to hunt and shoot you, thats ok as long as he considers
it a "sport"?

> > As for the tired arguments about having a gun for
> > self-protection:
> >
> > http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/?page=home
>
> Sorry, I'm not interested in statistics.

Is that as in "dont confuse me with the facts"?

The success of
> steak knives for self-protection probably wouldn't look very
> good here, either... do you suggest banning them?

I'm sure cows would like the idea.

> > heres some other info:
> >
> > http://www.jointogether.org/gv/issues/problem/
>
> "In response to these tragic and unnecessary deaths..."
>
> How do they know they were tragic and unnecessary?

sometimes I wonder about you Carl.

> If Moore didn't have an agenda, then why is his film almost
> always liked by gun control advocates and almost always
> disliked by gun owners?

Gun control advocates tend to be intelligent people who care about the
welfare of their fellow humans. gun enthusiasts tend to be right-wing
neanderthals who drink way too much beer.

>In fact, it's plain that when he's
> interviewing Heston, Clark, going into the bank, etc. etc.,
> he's doing so malevolently.

Heston is a willing symbol for neanderthalism. the NRA is basically a
lobbying organization for the gun industry. Banks that give out guns to drum
up business are irresponsible. Exposing this kind of stuff for what it is is
not "malevolent", rather america's obsession with guns is what is
"malevolent", methinks.

Dante

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> > > Unless you live in a wilderness area and are reliant on
> > > hunting for food, there is no reason to have a gun.
> >
> > There is no reason for who to have a gun?
>
> anyone.

Problem is, guns aren't that hard to build. And guns are
really besides the point. What you mean to say is that you
want to premptively prevent any unhappy person from doing
damage to those around him. It's the same problem with
terrorists. The answer is probably to restrict access to
technologies which are extremely destructive and relatively
hard to procure. Unfortunately I don't think guns fall
into this category.

If there really wasn't a reason to have a gun, then people
wouldn't have them. But in our society there *is* a reason,
and that's what you should be thinking about if it concerns
you.

> > How is hunting for food worse than raising animals in
> > a factory and buying it at the grocery store?
>
> its not. thats why I'm a vegetarian.

Oh joy. Why is creating huge monocultures of plants, to
be bought at a grocery store, any better?

> > > Only a moron would think that going into the woods and
> > > blasting some beautiful deer is a "sport".
> >
> > Only a moron would think he could decree what others may
> > or may not find sporting.
>
> so if someone wants to hunt and shoot you, thats ok as
> long as he considers it a "sport"?

There is, in general, no protection from this.

Or... maybe I misunderstand the question. It's not ok, from
the point of view of human law, because his right to live
does not supercede mine. However either of our rights to
live supercede a deer's right, as far as human law is
concerned.

> > > As for the tired arguments about having a gun for
> > > self-protection:
> > >
> > > http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/?page=home
> >
> > Sorry, I'm not interested in statistics.
>
> Is that as in "dont confuse me with the facts"?

Not quite, Dante.

> > The success of
> > steak knives for self-protection probably wouldn't look
> > very good here, either... do you suggest banning them?
>
> I'm sure cows would like the idea.

What do cows value? They exist for eating, and other
demeaning purposes. You might have said deer, which
is slightly different. But still, humans are clearly
omnivorous. It's not too late to change that of course,
but you have no right to expect me to help you in that
effort.

> > > heres some other info:
> > >
> > > http://www.jointogether.org/gv/issues/problem/
> >
> > "In response to these tragic and unnecessary deaths..."
> >
> > How do they know they were tragic and unnecessary?
>
> sometimes I wonder about you Carl.

I'm touched.

> > If Moore didn't have an agenda, then why is his film
> > almost always liked by gun control advocates and almost
> > always disliked by gun owners?
>
> Gun control advocates tend to be intelligent people who
> care about the welfare of their fellow humans.

More facts?

> gun enthusiasts tend to be right-wing
> neanderthals who drink way too much beer.

That may be true...

> > In fact, it's plain that when he's
> > interviewing Heston, Clark, going into the bank, etc. etc.,
> > he's doing so malevolently.
>
> Heston is a willing symbol for neanderthalism.

Maybe so, but we were discussing Moore's agenda (or lack
thereof).

> the NRA is basically a lobbying organization for the
> gun industry.

Usually a lobbying organization for an industry is directly
and exclusively financially dependent on that industry: not
so with the NRA.

> Banks that give out guns to drum up business are
> irresponsible.

Moreso than their customers?

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> Problem is, guns aren't that hard to build. And guns are
> really besides the point. What you mean to say is that you
> want to premptively prevent any unhappy person from doing
> damage to those around him. It's the same problem with
> terrorists. The answer is probably to restrict access to
> technologies which are extremely destructive and relatively
> hard to procure. Unfortunately I don't think guns fall
> into this category.

It's really a curve, of course, and where you place guns on
it is irrelevant. If happiness remains at current levels
and technology increases a its present rate, we're in trouble.

Control tactics are no help, unless they themselves make
people happier. While the absence of guns may make some
happier, the means to this are significant -- as is often
pointed out, gun control as we know it is enforced with guns.

Full disclosure: I am a gun-owner (I inherited them), though
the weapons I own are not located in the state where I live.
I have not fired them in years, and aside from a handful of
rabbit-hunting trips in my teens, I have never used them for
anything other than the practice of marksmanship. Which, I
will add, I found highly enjoyable and even healthful.
Though I think archery is better than shooting in this dept.

> > > http://www.jointogether.org/gv/issues/problem/
> >
> > "In response to these tragic and unnecessary deaths..."
> >
> > How do they know they were tragic and unnecessary?

The point is, that they are making a value judgement about
murder, which is the last thing you want to have to do
when setting policy. Remember: Satanists have rights too.

Satanists are also a good failing case for unchecked
democracy.

-Carl

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <dante@...>

> If there really wasn't a reason to have a gun, then people
> wouldn't have them. But in our society there *is* a reason,
> and that's what you should be thinking about if it concerns
> you.

I dont follow. Theres reasons why people >want< to own guns, most of which
probably fall under the "penis extension" rubric. Then there are >excuses<
to justify it, like protecting your home against marauding Hittites, the
"sport" of blasting Bambi, or the constitutional "right to bear arms",
presumably so you can hole up in a compound when surrounded by the ATF.

> > > How is hunting for food worse than raising animals in
> > > a factory and buying it at the grocery store?
> >
> > its not. thats why I'm a vegetarian.
>
> Oh joy. Why is creating huge monocultures of plants, to
> be bought at a grocery store, any better?

Plants generally dont scream when you use electric prods on them or hang
them upside-down and slit their throats.

> > so if someone wants to hunt and shoot you, thats ok as
> > long as he considers it a "sport"?
>
> There is, in general, no protection from this.
>
> Or... maybe I misunderstand the question. It's not ok, from
> the point of view of human law, because his right to live
> does not supercede mine. However either of our rights to
> live supercede a deer's right, as far as human law is
> concerned.

yes "human" law certainly leaves alot to be desired.

> > > The success of
> > > steak knives for self-protection probably wouldn't look
> > > very good here, either... do you suggest banning them?
> >
> > I'm sure cows would like the idea.
>
> What do cows value? They exist for eating, and other
> demeaning purposes.

eh?

> > the NRA is basically a lobbying organization for the
> > gun industry.
>
> Usually a lobbying organization for an industry is directly
> and exclusively financially dependent on that industry: not
> so with the NRA.

from this page:

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/issues/problem/history/nra/

The organization's ties with the gun industry are long-standing. Author
Robert J. Spitzer notes that the link is pragmatic as well as ideological.
"Gun advocacy on the part of the NRA helps generate and sustain a market for
the firearms industry's products . . . and both manufacturers and the NRA
embrace and extol the gun culture for emotive, symbolic, and patriotic
reasons," Spitzer writes.4

The result: A cozy relationship that has spawned perks such as:

ï¿½ Commissions for gun dealers who sign up NRA members.

ï¿½ Discounts on firearms purchases for NRA members.

ï¿½ $7.5 million generated in ad revenues for the NRA in 1990 from gun
industry advertising in NRA publications.

An even more critical payoff for the gun industry has been its ability to
skirt tightened restrictions on its actions in the political arena for many
years largely as a result of the NRA's work on that front. In fact, Spitzer
notes, it was not until 1989 that the gun industry even had to hire its own
lobbyist.5

🔗monz <monz@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:

> > How is hunting for food worse than raising animals in a
> > factory and buying it at the grocery store?
>
> its not. thats why I'm a vegetarian.

in fact, if one chooses to eat meat, hunting for it
is *far* preferable to buying it in a grocery store.

the factory-raised animals which have been slaughtered
and put on sale in the grocery store almost invariably
have been overfed, pumped full of antibiotics and steroids,
possibly been fed members of their own kind (cf Mad Cow),
and live too close to one another (which breeds disease
easily, hence the antibiotics). all of this makes this
meat unhealthy for human ingestion.

much better to go out and kill a free-living animal
yourself ... at least you get good healthy meat.

-monz

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> > Oh joy. Why is creating huge monocultures of plants, to
> > be bought at a grocery store, any better?
>
> Plants generally dont scream when you use electric prods
> on them or hang them upside-down and slit their throats.

I should think they experience their share of the
demoralization of being farmed, the pain of being killed.
The land also feels the pain of factory farming.

Hunting can be noble and even sacred, as can farming.

> > > > The success of
> > > > steak knives for self-protection probably wouldn't look
> > > > very good here, either... do you suggest banning them?
> > >
> > > I'm sure cows would like the idea.
> >
> > What do cows value? They exist for eating, and other
> > demeaning purposes.
>
> eh?

Milking, etc. etc.

> > > the NRA is basically a lobbying organization for the
> > > gun industry.
> >
> > Usually a lobbying organization for an industry is directly
> > and exclusively financially dependent on that industry: not
> > so with the NRA.
>
> The organization's ties with the gun industry are
> long-standing.

I didn't say there weren't ties. Nor would I deny that
marketing can foster demand. But let's not blame the industry
for the demand. Just as the media can not be solely
responsible for people's fear.

-Carl

🔗Dante Rosati <dante@...>

> > Plants generally dont scream when you use electric prods
> > on them or hang them upside-down and slit their throats.
>
> I should think they experience their share of the
> demoralization of being farmed, the pain of being killed.
> The land also feels the pain of factory farming.

are you speaking metaphorically or metaphysically?

> Hunting can be noble and even sacred, as can farming.

Agreed. However, I doubt most of the drunken "sport" of hunting these days
qualifies.

> > > What do cows value? They exist for eating, and other
> > > demeaning purposes.
> >
> > eh?
>
> Milking, etc. etc.

Sentient beings seem to value a state free from pain, suffering and violent
death, cows included I'm sure.

> > The organization's ties with the gun industry are
> > long-standing.
>
> I didn't say there weren't ties. Nor would I deny that
> marketing can foster demand. But let's not blame the industry
> for the demand. Just as the media can not be solely
> responsible for people's fear.

the NRA actively >promotes< and glamorizes gun ownership. The media promotes
and instills fear. The tobacco companies promote tobacco addiction and
alcohol manufactuers promote consumption- two of the most destructive drugs
the world has ever seen. I believe there is a moral dimension to what you
are marketing, business is not just business. Assault weapons are not
generally used for "sacred hunting". please.

Dante

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> > > Plants generally dont scream when you use electric prods
> > > on them or hang them upside-down and slit their throats.
> >
> > I should think they experience their share of the
> > demoralization of being farmed, the pain of being killed.
> > The land also feels the pain of factory farming.
>
> are you speaking metaphorically or metaphysically?

Perhaps both.

> > Hunting can be noble and even sacred, as can farming.
>
> Agreed. However, I doubt most of the drunken "sport" of
> hunting these days qualifies.

Agreed.

> > > The organization's ties with the gun industry are
> > > long-standing.
> >
> > I didn't say there weren't ties. Nor would I deny that
> > marketing can foster demand. But let's not blame the industry
> > for the demand. Just as the media can not be solely
> > responsible for people's fear.
>
> the NRA actively >promotes< and glamorizes gun ownership.

True enough.

> The media promotes and instills fear. The tobacco companies
> promote tobacco addiction and alcohol manufactuers promote
> consumption- two of the most destructive drugs the world has
> ever seen.

So would you support alcohol prohibition?

> I believe there is a moral dimension to what you
> are marketing, business is not just business. Assault
> weapons are not generally used for "sacred hunting".
> please.

I support licensing and education for gun owners, increased
taxes on guns and ammo. And assault weapon bans, waiting
periods and background checks, depending on how implemented.
But I also think that owning and carrying guns should be
the right of citizens in an open society. But none of this
has to do with the fact that I thought Moore's movie sucked!

-Carl

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> So would you support alcohol prohibition?

In moderation, it seems to be good for you. This makes it a health
food, along with coffee, tea, chocolate and Cheez-Whiz. Of course, for
the true health benefits to accrue, you probably need at least five
cups a day of coffee, five more of green tea, and don't forget some
black tea also. Alcohol is different in that moderation seems to be
what is needed. Of course, if you drink too much you can take aspirin,
also loaded with health benefits of various kinds, not merely
cardiovascular ones.

Alas, tobacco seems to be purely malign, unless you want to use it to
poison insects.

> > I believe there is a moral dimension to what you
> > are marketing, business is not just business. Assault
> > weapons are not generally used for "sacred hunting".
> > please.
>
> I support licensing and education for gun owners, increased
> taxes on guns and ammo.

Good. Guns have no known health benefits.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <dante@...>

🔗kraig grady <kraiggrady@...>

He has changed that is all. I bet he still hates Kissinger. His rant on
Mother teresa was based on fact which is why they flew him to the vatican to
testify against her sainthood. for every celebrity staying at her place, she
would throw out one of the homeless to make room for them

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> > I liked Hitchens take on it, even if it opposes my own biases. At
> least he
> > point out some contradictions in the film as he sees it. Hard to believe
> > he moved so much to the right
>
> He still admires Leon Trotsky, but now he admires Margaret Thatcher
> also. Meanwhile he despises Mother Teresa, Bill Clinton, Ronald
> Reagan, and Winston Churchill. What the common thread is, if any, I
> don't know.
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗monz <monz@...>

🔗kraig grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> > or the constitutional "right to bear arms", presumably
> > so you can hole up in a compound when surrounded by the ATF.
>
> Or any of the other 3 letter groups in our government. the
> possibility of an armed resistance is not something to
> throw away.

I agree. But even if 'resistence is futile' against today's
TLAs, guns represent power. They're grandfathered in our
society and taking them away seems fishy. This technology
is almost 2000 years old. And cultures like Canada, as Moore
points out, and Norman Rockwell America (despite its other
problems) show that gun density does not necessarily mean
horrible murders.

Arguments like 'what reason do you have' don't float with me.
What reason do I have for having a book on the chemistry of
psychoactive drugs? Where does it stop?

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> > >> Just as the media can not be solely
> > >> responsible for people's fear.
> > >
> > > OK only 99% of it
> >
> > Why do you think they do it?
>
> to offer relief by spending

As I have said, I do not buy this retroactive
creation of intent. But it does raise an
interesting point: if an organization gives
rise to seemingly intelligent behavior, what
does it matter if the intent cannot be traced
to human individuals? (Apparently William
Gibson flirted with the notion of corporations
as AI in his book Neuromancer.)

Well for one thing you can't target individuals.
You remove them and the same thing happens again.
But perhaps the structure can be targeted...

Of course then it is your own intent you've got
to worry about. But here I think the notion of
a minimal set of laws (as I described in a post
here during the Sault controversy) is ass-covering.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> > much better to go out and kill a free-living animal
> > yourself ... at least you get good healthy meat.
>
> depends what river they are drinkin from

I'm no great fan of beef, but when I buy it I usually
get grass-fed, free-range, New Zealand beef. I can
tell you that the pastures of New Zealand are more
comfortable for cows than my studio apartment is for
humans.

My Dad takes one Antelope a year, when he can get
it, in Montana. In my experience, one bite of that
is more energizing than all the farm-raised meat you
can eat. It lasts him and my Mom quite a while, and
the trout he catches fill in the gaps.

[Though Montana has many contaminated streams --
mercury and arsenic from mining. They would put it
in the water to get gold and silver to precipitate
out! The irony being that two of the most precious
metals are obtained by two of the most toxic.]

He also carries a revolver, as there are lots of
Mountain lion around his property, which take
neighborhood dogs on a regular basis. And given his
skill with it I can tell you that you don't want to
be the one breaking into his house.

Yet the area he lives is not a wilderness; it's only
a few miles from the State capital.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> > So would you support alcohol prohibition?
>
> In moderation, it seems to be good for you. This makes it
> a health food, along with coffee, tea, chocolate and
> Cheez-Whiz. Of course, for the true health benefits to
> accrue, you probably need at least five cups a day of
> coffee, five more of green tea, and don't forget some
> black tea also. Alcohol is different in that moderation
> seems to be what is needed. Of course, if you drink too
> much you can take aspirin, also loaded with health
> benefits of various kinds, not merely cardiovascular
> ones.
>
> Alas, tobacco seems to be purely malign, unless you want
> to use it to poison insects.
>
> > > I believe there is a moral dimension to what you
> > > are marketing, business is not just business. Assault
> > > weapons are not generally used for "sacred hunting".
> > > please.
> >
> > I support licensing and education for gun owners,
> > increased taxes on guns and ammo.
>
> Good. Guns have no known health benefits.

Honestly, Gene, this is one of the lamest arguments I've
ever seen you make. We're to judge the lawfulness of
something upon whether you happen to've caught a lame
press release about some alleged health benefits on the
news? Anything can be healthful, including shooting.
It practically saved my friend's (who was on the Junior
Olympic shooting team) life.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗kraig grady <kraiggrady@...>

Carl Lumma wrote:

>
>
> I agree. But even if 'resistence is futile' against today's
> TLAs, guns represent power.

Like art, which is more often than not, futile.
The ultimate resistance though is futile acts
the other side has then not won

> They're grandfathered in our
> society and taking them away seems fishy. This technology
> is almost 2000 years old. And cultures like Canada, as Moore
> points out, and Norman Rockwell America (despite its other
> problems) show that gun density does not necessarily mean
> horrible murders.

>
>
> Arguments like 'what reason do you have' don't float with me.
> What reason do I have for having a book on the chemistry of
> psychoactive drugs?

Agreed on this one. Hillman points out that the disadvantage to peace is
that the populace is micro-lawed to death where not a single individual
can possibly survive. of course at this point we are getting both. this
and war!

> Where does it stop?

not until they control every waking moment of you life

>
>
> -Carl
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

🔗kraig grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > > > I support licensing and education for gun owners,
> > > > > increased taxes on guns and ammo.
> > > >
> > > > Good. Guns have no known health benefits.
> > >
> > > Honestly, Gene, this is one of the lamest arguments I've
> > > ever seen you make.
> >
> > It's not an argument, it's a joke. Lighen up.
>
> Rats; now I feel salty. Though I did chuckle at
> the Cheese-Whiz bit.

My comments on Cheez-Whiz, like the rest of my foodlike substances
remarks, are based on actual studies. The highly prestigious Science
magazine mentioned Cheez-Whiz by name when discussing the discovery of
a new anti-colon-cancer agent found in massive quantities in
Cheez-Whiz, though also present in grilled hamburger and chedder
cheese; this was sometime back in the 80's. I mentally collect things
like this, because I am amused by the fact that the results
(cheeseburgers?) go against what you hear about what foods and drinks
are healthy, and have a Sleeper flavor about them. One of my favorites
was the mayonnaise study, which tried to determine how harmful
mayonnaise was to the heart. The people who ate mayonnaise in this
study turned out to do better in terms of cardiovascular health than
the people who didn't. When you have that grilled cheeseburger, be
sure to add the mayo. Your heart will thank you.

The bit about coffee, again, is no joke. There seems to be a strong
relationship between heavy coffee intake and failure to develop type
II diabetes; given that numerous attempts to show caffine is
associated with health problems have not panned out, I'm claiming
coffee as a health food. "The evidence is quite strong that regular
coffee is protective against diabetes," said one of the researchers,
Dr. Frank Hu of the Harvard School of Public Health.

While attempts to link coffee with an increased risk of pancreatic
cancer have flopped, the studies showing it may help prevent colon
cancer seem to have a solider basis; as with Cheez-Whiz, a specific
agent with apparent anti-cancer properties has been identified in coffee.

"Until human studies are done, no one knows exactly how much coffee is
needed to have a protective effect against colon cancer," study
co-leader Thomas Hofman, professor and head of the Institute for Food
Chemistry at the University of Munster, says in a prepared statement.

"However, our studies suggest that drinking coffee may offer some
protection, especially if it's strong," Hofman says.

He notes that espresso-type coffee contains about two to three times
more of the anticancer compound than a medium roast coffee.

I'd go on about tea, but by now the health properties of tea have
recieved a lot of attention and I don't think I need to. Anyway,
coffee gets people's goat better; they just can't believe it.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> Rats; now I feel salty. Though I did chuckle at
> the Cheese-Whiz bit.

I can't take Cheez Whiz because it is far too salty. Below is a table
showing food sources for CLA, not including Cheez Whiz. As I recall
from Science, the reason Cheez Whiz was so high in CLA (by far the
best source they found) was because the processing concentrated it.
I'd like to know if other kinds of processed cheese work the same way.
Where's a table showing the CLA content of Easy Cheese, Velveeta or
queso dip? Is Kraft asleep at the wheel?

High natural sources, from this chart, look to be beef, pork, chedder,
mozzarella, parmesan, butter, and sour cream. They don't mention
Reddi-Whip, which could well be another health food if someone would
just give it a chance.

CLA Content of Various Foods
(using gas chromatography)
Food Number of Total CLA c-9, t-11 isomer
samples (mg/g fat) (%)
MEATS & SEAFOOD
Beef, ground 4 3.8 [pm] 0.11 84
Beef, ground round 4 4.3 [pm] 0.13 85
Chicken 2 0.9 [pm] 0.02 84
Pork 2 0.6 [pm] 0.6 82
Salmon 4 0.3 [pm] 0.05 not detectable
CHEESE
American processed 3 5.0 [pm] 0.13 93
Cheddar, sharp 3 3.6 [pm] 0.18 93
Cheez [Whiz.sup.TM] 4 5.0 [pm] 0.07 92
Cottage 3 4.5 [pm] 0.13 83
Cream 3 3.8 [pm] 0.08 88
Mozzarella 4 4.9 [pm] 0.20 95
Parmesan 4 3.0 [pm] 0.21 90
OTHER DAIRY
Butter 4 4.7 [pm] 0.36 88
Milk, condensed 3 7.0 [pm] 0.29 82
Milk, whole 3 5.5 [pm] 0.30 92
Sour cream 3 4.6 [pm] 0.46 90
Yogurt, low-fat 4 4.4 [pm] 0.21 86
Yogurt, nonfat 2 1.7 [pm] 0.10 83
OILS & FATS
Beef tallow 2 2.6 [pm] 0.01 84
Canola 2 0.5 [pm] 0.07 44 (42 [*])
Olive 2 0.2 [pm] 0.01 47 (40 [*])
(*.)% of CLA that is isomer c-12, t-10
Source: Chin, S.F., et al., Journal of Food Composition and Analysis,
1992.
Note: New studies using silver-ion HPLC (high-performance liquid
chromatography), which has improved separation capabilities, show slightly
lower amounts of the c-9, t-11 isomer.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗monz <monz@...>

🔗Dante Rosati <dante@...>

gandhi did better w/ no gun.

Dante

> -----Original Message-----
> From: monz [mailto:monz@...]
> Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 2:57 AM
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: an article on Farenheit 9/11
>
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
> > > > > or the constitutional "right to bear arms", presumably
> > > > > so you can hole up in a compound when surrounded by the
> > > > > ATF.
> > > >
> > > > Or any of the other 3 letter groups in our government. the
> > > > possibility of an armed resistance is not something to
> > > > throw away.
> > >
> > > I agree. But even if 'resistence is futile' against today's
> > > TLAs, guns represent power.
> >
> > In fact, we're in the midst of a demonstration of how effective
> > privately-owned weaponry can be, in Iraq.
> >
> > -Carl
>
>
>
> the American Revolution was another great example of that.
>
>
>
> -monz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

🔗kraig grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

>>> It's not an argument, it's a joke. Lighen up.
>>
>>Rats; now I feel salty. Though I did chuckle at
>>the Cheese-Whiz bit.
>
>My comments on Cheez-Whiz, like the rest of my foodlike
>substances remarks, are based on actual studies. The highly
>prestigious Science magazine mentioned Cheez-Whiz by name
>hen discussing the discovery of a new anti-colon-cancer
>agent found in massive quantities in Cheez-Whiz, though
>also present in grilled hamburger and chedder cheese;

Wild. Of course, Cheez-Whiz is bad for you for other
reasons. And it tastes like ass.

>this was sometime back in the 80's. I mentally collect
>things like this, because I am amused by the fact that
>the results (cheeseburgers?) go against what you hear
>about what foods and drinks are healthy,

So do I, probably in part because my parents made
pharmaceuticals for a living. Of course all common foods
contain thousands of unstudied compounds, all of which
affect people with different conditions in different
ways.

> The bit about coffee, again, is no joke. There seems to
> be a strong relationship between heavy coffee intake and
> failure to develop type II diabetes;

I don't know how strong it is, but yes I've heard that,
and type II diabetes runs in my family. However, again,
coffee is bad for you for other reasons.

Of course the most important factor in type II diabetes
is how much you shock your insulin system over your lifetime,
by eating refined sugar and wheat treats. But what the hell,
we'll do it anyway and then look for a magic bullet...

> given that numerous attempts to show caffine is associated
> with health problems have not panned out,

Caffiene is contraindicated for people who are sensitive to
its effects, like me. Doesn't stop me from drinking it,
though.

> I'm claiming coffee as a health food.

Coffee is not a health food. It wrecks havoc on digestion,
and caffiene is systemic, active in cells all over the body.
It's effects aren't remotely understood. Recommending a
powerful drug like caffiene as healthy is not a good idea.

-Carl

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> Wild. Of course, Cheez-Whiz is bad for you for other
> reasons. And it tastes like ass.

Cheez-Whiz has way too much salt in it, but I don't know anything else
bad for you about it.

> I don't know how strong it is, but yes I've heard that,
> and type II diabetes runs in my family. However, again,
> coffee is bad for you for other reasons.

Where's the evidence for this claim? This is exactly what I object
to--health rumor promoted as fact. Heavy coffee use can induce
insomnia in some people, of course, but attempts to link it to heart
disease or cancer have lead to the embarassing result that it possible
it actually promotes healty hearts and is an anti-cancer agent.

> Of course the most important factor in type II diabetes
> is how much you shock your insulin system over your lifetime,
> by eating refined sugar and wheat treats. But what the hell,
> we'll do it anyway and then look for a magic bullet...

Obesity is a major factor.

> > given that numerous attempts to show caffine is associated
> > with health problems have not panned out,
>
> Caffiene is contraindicated for people who are sensitive to
> its effects, like me. Doesn't stop me from drinking it,
> though.
>
> > I'm claiming coffee as a health food.
>
> Coffee is not a health food. It wrecks havoc on digestion,
> and caffiene is systemic, active in cells all over the body.
> It's effects aren't remotely understood. Recommending a
> powerful drug like caffiene as healthy is not a good idea.

I was talking about coffee. The bottom line are the mortality studies,
and coffee seems, contrary to what you would think, to be good for you
in terms of not dying. Some studies have suggested health problems,
but there always seem to be contradicting studies, and the American
Heart Association does not claim coffee is harmful to the heart.
Doctors occasionally recommend cutting out coffee for people with
irritable bowel syndrome, but they do the same for milk, wheat etc in
a quest for what in particular you might not well tolerate.

Caffine is a drug, but one that does not normally lead to serious
health problems. It also has the distinction of being the only drug
which routinely improves performance on various kinds of tests, such
as driving, a claim other stimulants for some reason cannot make. In
fact, I think it is the only drug of any kind which is likely to boost
your score on a driving or IQ test. On the down side, it is mildly
habit forming and has an effect on your sympathetic nervous system, so
apply your deoderant. People who rarely drink coffee and then take a
heavy dose of double expresso can get a small rise in blood pressure,
but regular coffee drinkers do not. The effect also occurs using
decaf, so it is *not* a result of caffine intake.

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> > Wild. Of course, Cheez-Whiz is bad for you for other
> > reasons. And it tastes like ass.
>
> Cheez-Whiz has way too much salt in it, but I don't know
> anything else bad for you about it.

Anything with as much calories and as little nutrition
is bad for you. It's loaded with saturated fat. And I
wonder what the glycemic index is?

> > I don't know how strong it is, but yes I've heard that,
> > and type II diabetes runs in my family. However, again,
> > coffee is bad for you for other reasons.
>
> Where's the evidence for this claim?

I don't if there is any, but a suspension of charred
carbon compounds containing a highly addictive stimulant
is not likely to be healthy. I've read that it contains
several known carcinogens (though I don't know how much
stock I place in that report, which circulated around
1995-96).

This doesn't mean it can't be used as a medicine. But
not all medicines are health foods.

> This is exactly what I object to--health rumor promoted
> as fact.

Statistical studies aren't convincing either, because
of the possibility of hidden correlations.

> > Of course the most important factor in type II diabetes
> > is how much you shock your insulin system over your
> > lifetime, by eating refined sugar and wheat treats.
> > But what the hell, we'll do it anyway and then look for
> > a magic bullet...
>
> Obesity is a major factor.

As in my Dad's case. So far, I've been lucky here.

> I was talking about coffee. The bottom line are the
> mortality studies, and coffee seems, contrary to what
> you would think, to be good for you in terms of not
> dying.

I'm never particularly moved by such evidence. What
if there's a gene which makes pople less likely to die
but more likely to drink coffee? What if very few
subjects practiced the obscure and hard-to-follow XYZ
diet, which is even better for mortality but excludes
coffee?

> Caffine is a drug, but one that does not normally lead
> to serious health problems. It also has the distinction
> of being the only drug which routinely improves
> performance on various kinds of tests, such as driving,
> a claim other stimulants for some reason cannot make.

By the way, there's a bloody "e" in caffeine, but I think
I've been putting it in the wrong place.

Nicotine is better in the test-improving department. But
any amphetemine improves performance if you're tired.

In my experience coffee may improve performance for the
thirty minutes or so in which it's active (if you can
avoid the jitters), but it degrades performance thereafter
and redosing just seems to make it worse.

I can get a longer, smoother buzz on tea, perhaps due
to the presence of theobromine and/or theanine.

> In fact, I think it is the only drug of any kind which
> is likely to boost your score on a driving or IQ test.

Nicotine.

> On the down side, it is mildly habit forming

Mildly? Something like 90% of Americans have a caffeine
habit (I'm pulling that out of the air). It causes
headaches when you don't have it. And I think it's
involved in a lot of sore backs (muscle tension).

Want something healthy to drink? Try chamomile tea.

> The effect also occurs using
> decaf, so it is *not* a result of caffine intake.

Of course decaf typically contains 30-50% the caffeine of
regular caf.

"I'll have a half double-decaffeinated half-caf, with a
twist of lemon."

-Carl

🔗monz <monz@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
> > I don't know how strong it is, but yes I've heard that,
> > and type II diabetes runs in my family. However, again,
> > coffee is bad for you for other reasons.
>
> Where's the evidence for this claim? This is exactly what
> I object to--health rumor promoted as fact. Heavy coffee use
> can induce insomnia in some people, of course, but attempts
> to link it to heart disease or cancer have lead to the
> embarassing result that it possible it actually promotes
> healty hearts and is an anti-cancer agent.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > I'm claiming coffee as a health food.
> >
> > Coffee is not a health food. It wrecks havoc on digestion,
> > and caffiene is systemic, active in cells all over the body.
> > It's effects aren't remotely understood. Recommending a
> > powerful drug like caffiene as healthy is not a good idea.
>
> I was talking about coffee. The bottom line are the
> mortality studies, and coffee seems, contrary to what you
> would think, to be good for you in terms of not dying.
> Some studies have suggested health problems, but there
> always seem to be contradicting studies, and the American
> Heart Association does not claim coffee is harmful to the
> heart. Doctors occasionally recommend cutting out coffee
> for people with irritable bowel syndrome, but they do the
> same for milk, wheat etc in a quest for what in particular
> you might not well tolerate.
>
> Caffine is a drug, but one that does not normally lead to
> serious health problems. It also has the distinction of
> being the only drug which routinely improves performance
> on various kinds of tests, such as driving, a claim other
> stimulants for some reason cannot make. In fact, I think
> it is the only drug of any kind which is likely to boost
> your score on a driving or IQ test. On the down side, it
> is mildly habit forming and has an effect on your sympathetic
> nervous system, so apply your deoderant. People who rarely
> drink coffee and then take a heavy dose of double expresso
> can get a small rise in blood pressure, but regular coffee
> drinkers do not. The effect also occurs using decaf, so it
> is *not* a result of caffine intake.

"midly habit forming"?! i've periodically stopped drinking
coffee, and found it to be one of the hardest food habits
to break, accompanied by terrible withdrawal symptoms like
headache, fatigue, etc. ... and then i eventually (a year
later or so) start drinking it again and get hooked again
almost immediately.

also, it's always been my understanding that drinking
coffee greatly depletes vitamin reserves in the body.
i just read this again recently on several webpages,
and can attest to it from my own experience, at least
with regard to vitamin-C levels in my own body. this
serious depletion of vitamin-C in turn would lead to
reduced ability of my body's immune system to fight
off invaders, which in turn would lead to illness if
i didn't take such large supplements of vitamin-C
(which i've been doing daily for decades now).

AFAIK, it's not the caffeine which does this, but other
by-product ingredients in the prepared coffee.

-monz

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

> "midly habit forming"?! i've periodically stopped drinking
> coffee, and found it to be one of the hardest food habits
> to break, accompanied by terrible withdrawal symptoms like
> headache, fatigue, etc. ... and then i eventually (a year
> later or so) start drinking it again and get hooked again
> almost immediately.

Geez. All that happens with me is that I don't perk up in the morning
for 2 or 3 days.

> also, it's always been my understanding that drinking
> coffee greatly depletes vitamin reserves in the body.

Don't just quote folk wisdom, tell me about a scientifc study.

> i just read this again recently on several webpages...

I googled a little and found nothing about coffee, though quite a bit
about tobacco.

> and can attest to it from my own experience, at least
> with regard to vitamin-C levels in my own body.

You measure the vitamin C in your body??

this
> serious depletion of vitamin-C in turn would lead to
> reduced ability of my body's immune system to fight
> off invaders, which in turn would lead to illness if
> i didn't take such large supplements of vitamin-C
> (which i've been doing daily for decades now).
>
> AFAIK, it's not the caffeine which does this, but other
> by-product ingredients in the prepared coffee.

I really don't think stuff "everyone knows", which you and Carl seem
to be relying on, trumps actual science. Where's the beef? Can you
cite something to back these claims up?

🔗kraig grady <kraiggrady@...>

I was my (mis) understanding that it was the herbicides used that made it
so bad. As many are used as on tobacco which i believe is over 40. So i
stick to organic as much as possible

mono wrote:

>
>
> also, it's always been my understanding that drinking
> coffee greatly depletes vitamin reserves in the body.
> i just read this again recently on several webpages,
> and can attest to it from my own experience, at least
> with regard to vitamin-C levels in my own body. this
> serious depletion of vitamin-C in turn would lead to
> reduced ability of my body's immune system to fight
> off invaders, which in turn would lead to illness if
> i didn't take such large supplements of vitamin-C
> (which i've been doing daily for decades now).
>
> AFAIK, it's not the caffeine which does this, but other
> by-product ingredients in the prepared coffee.
>
> -monz
>
>
>
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > Cheez-Whiz has way too much salt in it, but I don't know
> > anything else bad for you about it.
>
> Anything with as much calories and as little nutrition
> is bad for you. It's loaded with saturated fat. And I
> wonder what the glycemic index is?

Spoken like a true dietary dittohead. The high fat content is
intimately connected to the high CLA content; presumably of more
significance would be a ratio between saturated fat and CLA. The idea
that fat (small amounts of which are an essential nutrient) is all bad
and saturated fat the worst has caused a lot of problems; people don't
get enough CLA or Omega 3; and now, even though we know trans fats are
not good, we are stuck with them. People used to scarf that stuff down
and think it was healthy! People on allegedly super-healthy diets
often turn up with serious health consequences, so look before you leap.

Anyway, it appears that aside from being a good source of CLA Cheez
Whiz is an excellent source for potassium (sometimes in severe
shortage in people's diet, which can be dangerous) and a good one for
calcium. It still seems to me, looking at this, that by far the worst
problem is too much salt.

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-001-02s004h.html

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-001-02s004g.html

> > > I don't know how strong it is, but yes I've heard that,
> > > and type II diabetes runs in my family. However, again,
> > > coffee is bad for you for other reasons.
> >
> > Where's the evidence for this claim?
>
> I don't if there is any...

Enough said. You can stop there.

but a suspension of charred
> carbon compounds containing a highly addictive stimulant
> is not likely to be healthy. I've read that it contains
> several known carcinogens (though I don't know how much
> stock I place in that report, which circulated around
> 1995-96).

It's apparently junk.

> > I was talking about coffee. The bottom line are the
> > mortality studies, and coffee seems, contrary to what
> > you would think, to be good for you in terms of not
> > dying.
>
> I'm never particularly moved by such evidence. What
> if there's a gene which makes pople less likely to die
> but more likely to drink coffee? What if very few
> subjects practiced the obscure and hard-to-follow XYZ
> diet, which is even better for mortality but excludes
> coffee?

Usually it is epidemiology in various populations which give the clue.
There are populations, such as my coffee-crazed Swedish ancestors, who
drink a lot of coffee, etc etc. What looks to be higher or lower in
such populations? Then, armed with a clue, you can start doing
studies. While it may not impress you, simply making up your facts
based on what seems reasonable hardly makes sense. Yes, no one can
figure out why in hell coffee seems to help with diabetes--the
guessing would have gone the other way. But facts trump guesswork.

> Nicotine is better in the test-improving department. But
> any amphetemine improves performance if you're tired.

Citation? I doubt nicotine is going to work with non-nicotine users;
the stuff makes me sick and that is a common reaction to it.

> > In fact, I think it is the only drug of any kind which
> > is likely to boost your score on a driving or IQ test.
>
> Nicotine.

Evidence?

> > On the down side, it is mildly habit forming
>
> Mildly? Something like 90% of Americans have a caffeine
> habit (I'm pulling that out of the air). It causes
> headaches when you don't have it.

I've heard that, but it doesn't always--not with me, for example.

> Of course decaf typically contains 30-50% the caffeine of
> regular caf.

Citation?

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> > > Cheez-Whiz has way too much salt in it, but I don't know
> > > anything else bad for you about it.
> >
> > Anything with as much calories and as little nutrition
> > is bad for you. It's loaded with saturated fat. And I
> > wonder what the glycemic index is?
>
> Spoken like a true dietary dittohead. The high fat content is
> intimately connected to the high CLA content;

Is CLA saturated?

Don't tell me CLA makes Whiz healthy. Take a CLA supplement
if you think it's good for you.

> people don't
> get enough CLA

Oh no? What are you basing that on?

> or Omega 3;

I take fish oil and hemp oil, so I get plenty of Omega 3
and 6.

> and now, even though we know trans fats are
> not good, we are stuck with them.

There are no trans fats in my diet.

> > > > I don't know how strong it is, but yes I've heard that,
> > > > and type II diabetes runs in my family. However, again,
> > > > coffee is bad for you for other reasons.
> > >
> > > Where's the evidence for this claim?
> >
> > I don't if there is any...
>
> Enough said. You can stop there.

Whatever dude. The nutritional "science" you quote is a
bunch of garbage. Unless you have a model you're lost.

> > Nicotine is better in the test-improving department. But
> > any amphetemine improves performance if you're tired.
>
> Citation? I doubt nicotine is going to work with non-nicotine
> users; the stuff makes me sick and that is a common reaction
> to it.

Me too, but I've seen half a dozen well-run studies in the
last 10 years. I don't and won't have time to provide
citations, sorry.

> > > On the down side, it is mildly habit forming
> >
> > Mildly? Something like 90% of Americans have a caffeine
> > habit (I'm pulling that out of the air). It causes
> > headaches when you don't have it.
>
> I've heard that, but it doesn't always--not with me, for
> example.

Then drink away.

> > Of course decaf typically contains 30-50% the caffeine of
> > regular caf.
>
> Citation?

I leave this for you to verify. The most common decaffeination
method is "natural effervescence". Which means they brew it
once before they package it. As a rough estimate, each brewing
removes about half the caffiene in the grounds.

There's no known way to remove caffeine from coffee
without ruining it. There's GMO coffee caffeine expression
turned off, and I heard through a friend that a naturally
caffiene-free plant was recently found growing wild in
Ethiopia.

-Carl

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > > Cheez-Whiz has way too much salt in it, but I don't know
> > > > anything else bad for you about it.
> > >
> > > Anything with as much calories and as little nutrition
> > > is bad for you. It's loaded with saturated fat. And I
> > > wonder what the glycemic index is?
> >
> > Spoken like a true dietary dittohead. The high fat content is
> > intimately connected to the high CLA content;
>
> Is CLA saturated?

CLA is a fatty acid, and those are nutritionally important. Dietary
sources of CLA--meat and dairy--are associated to animal fat.
Attemping to avoid all such fat may well be counterproductive; the
situation does not lend itself to your "my mind is made up, don't
confuse me with the facts" reductionism. Here's the scoop from Lipid
World:

http://www.lipidworld.com/content/2/1/6

The abstract is worth pondering:

In spite of the considerable amount of experimental, clinical and
epidemiological research about the consumption of red meat, total
fats, saturated/unsaturated fatty acids and cholesterol with regard to
the risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC), the issue remains
controversial. The general belief is a reduction of red meat intake,
and subsequent nutritional advice usually strongly recommends this.
Paradoxically, beef together with whole milk and dairy derivatives,
are almost the only sources for conjugated linoleic acid (CLAs)
family. Furthermore CLAs are the only natural fatty acids accepted by
the National Academy of Sciences of USA as exhibiting consistent
antitumor properties at levels as low as 0.25 1.0 per cent of total
fats. Beside CLA, other polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) belonging
to the essential fatty acid (EFA) n-3 family, whose main source are
fish and seafood, are generally believed to be antipromoters for
several cancers. The purpose of this work is to critically analyze the
epidemiological and experimental evidence by tentatively assuming that
the reciprocal proportions of saturated fats (SA) plus cholesterol
(CH) versus CLAs levels in fatty or lean beef may play an antagonistic
role underlying the contradictory effects reported for red meats
consumption and CRC risk. Recent results about meat intake and risk
for CRC in Argentina have shown an unexpected dual behaviour related
to the type of meats. Fatty meat derivatives, such as cold cuts and
sausages, mainly prepared from fatty beef (up to 37% fat) were
associated with higher risk, whereas high consumption of lean beef (<
15% fat) behaved as a protective dietary habit. CLA is located in the
interstitial, non-visible, fat evenly distributed along muscle fibres
as well as in subcutaneous depots. Visible fat may be easily discarded
during the meal, whereas interstitial fats will be eaten. The
remaining intramuscular fat in lean meats range from 25 to 50 g/Kg
(2.5 to 5%). The proportion of CLA/SA+CH for lean beef eaters is 0.09
and the fatty mets 0.007 (g/100 g). As a consequence, the beneficial
effects of minor amounts of CLA may be relatively enhanced in lean
meat compared to fatty meat sub-products which contain a substantial
amount of saturated fatty acids and cholesterol, as in cold cuts and
cow viscera.

> Don't tell me CLA makes Whiz healthy.

I didn't tell you that. You, on the other hand, told the world it was
devoid of nutritional value, which is dead wrong.

> > and now, even though we know trans fats are
> > not good, we are stuck with them.
>
> There are no trans fats in my diet.

Har har har. They are everywhere; I imagine you eat them along with
the rest of us.

> > > > > I don't know how strong it is, but yes I've heard that,
> > > > > and type II diabetes runs in my family. However, again,
> > > > > coffee is bad for you for other reasons.
> > > >
> > > > Where's the evidence for this claim?
> > >
> > > I don't if there is any...
> >
> > Enough said. You can stop there.
>
> Whatever dude. The nutritional "science" you quote is a
> bunch of garbage. Unless you have a model you're lost.

Sure. Real scientists publishing in reputable journals are idiots; you
should ask your local health kook for the real scoop.

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> > Is CLA saturated?
>
> CLA is a fatty acid, and those are nutritionally important.

No duh. I just bought a supplement -- all the benefits
of CLA without the negetive drawbacks of Cheez-Whiz.

> Dietary
> sources of CLA--meat and dairy--are associated to animal fat.

A serving of the supplement I just bought claims to provide
750mg of CLA "from 1 gram of safflower oil". Is safflower
oil really 75% CLA?

> Attemping to avoid all such fat may well be counterproductive;
> the situation does not lend itself to your "my mind is made
> up, don't confuse me with the facts" reductionism.
//
> In spite of the considerable amount of experimental, ...

Excuse me, but I didn't say saturated fat was bad, or red meat.
I said empty calories are bad, which is true.

Interestingly, though Omega fatty acids are anticancer, they
also slow the formation of the barrier that organs build
around tumors, and it turns out that this is much more
significant than the anticancer effect. Systemic Omega
fatty acids are contraindicated once you've got a tumor.

> > Don't tell me CLA makes Whiz healthy.
>
> I didn't tell you that. You, on the other hand, told the
> world it was devoid of nutritional value, which is dead
> wrong.

I said no such thing.

> > > and now, even though we know trans fats are
> > > not good, we are stuck with them.
> >
> > There are no trans fats in my diet.
>
> Har har har. They are everywhere;

Where?

> > Whatever dude. The nutritional "science" you quote is a
> > bunch of garbage. Unless you have a model you're lost.
>
> Sure. Real scientists publishing in reputable journals are
>idiots; you should ask your local health kook for the real
>scoop.

Not hardly. The science is fine, but not anywhere near
being able to make nutritional recommendations -- they've
penetrated about .0001% of the data necessary for that.

The most complete study of diet and health, according
to Discover magazine, was recently completed via Harvard.
The head of that study came back with:

() Maximize nutrition / calorie.
() Cut out foods with a high glycemic index.

My assertion is that Cheez-Whiz fails miserably on both
counts, and is therefore unhealthy.

In the meantime, your appetite and palette are your best
guides to nutrition, if you respect them. Adding weird
and unusual things to your diet based on currently-
available statistical studies is not a good idea. Possibly
exceptions being vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and
other well-studied and widely-occurring nutrients.

If you're drawn to coffee and cheez-whiz and you're healthy,
great. They don't work for me, sorry.

-Carl

🔗monz <monz@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > also, it's always been my understanding that drinking
> > coffee greatly depletes vitamin reserves in the body.
>
> <snip>
>
> > and can attest to it from my own experience, at least
> > with regard to vitamin-C levels in my own body.
>
> You measure the vitamin C in your body??

not precisely with a measuring device ... but in a
less precise way, yes, i do. i don't want to
gross out readers here, so i'll email you privately
if you really care.

>
> this
> > serious depletion of vitamin-C in turn would lead to
> > reduced ability of my body's immune system to fight
> > off invaders, which in turn would lead to illness if
> > i didn't take such large supplements of vitamin-C
> > (which i've been doing daily for decades now).
> >
> > AFAIK, it's not the caffeine which does this, but other
> > by-product ingredients in the prepared coffee.
>
> I really don't think stuff "everyone knows", which you
> and Carl seem to be relying on, trumps actual science.
> Where's the beef? Can you cite something to back these
> claims up?

nothing other than what i did cite in my original post,
which is what i emphasized there: observing my own body
and how it reacts to the ingestion of coffee, or to the
lack of it once i've reacquired the habit of drinking
it daily.

i've been a power vitamin-C taker for a couple of
decades now, and when my C levels are low, believe me,
i know it. if i suddenly decrease (or worse, stop)
my intake of C for a few days, i'll be ready to bet
all the money i have that i'm about to get very sick.
happens every time ... usually when i'm on a long
trip and the C supply i bring with me runs out.

-monz

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> A serving of the supplement I just bought claims to provide
> 750mg of CLA "from 1 gram of safflower oil". Is safflower
> oil really 75% CLA?

'Fraid not; they mean they manufactured it from safflower oil.

> Excuse me, but I didn't say saturated fat was bad, or red meat.
> I said empty calories are bad, which is true.

"Empty calories" is rhetoric for the most part. I suppose sucrose
would qualify.

> > > There are no trans fats in my diet.
> >
> > Har har har. They are everywhere;
>
> Where?

Very common in baked goods such as crakers and cookies, for instance,
but it's hard to tell because mostly it still isn't listed. Starting
in 2006, you'll find it listed with the rest of the nutritional info.

> In the meantime, your appetite and palette are your best
> guides to nutrition, if you respect them. Adding weird
> and unusual things to your diet based on currently-
> available statistical studies is not a good idea.

I wasn't recommending people add Cheez Whiz to the diet, but I don't
think it counts as being either weird or unusual. Unless you are on a
low-salt diet there is no reason to panic and run for the door, or
scream about "empty calories", if someone serves you a home-cooked
meal with Cheez Whiz in the ingredients.

> If you're drawn to coffee and cheez-whiz and you're healthy,
> great. They don't work for me, sorry.

I don't eat Cheez Whiz, too salty for my taste. I don't know what you
mean by Cheez Whiz and coffee not "working" for you; I presume you
probably respond in a fairly typical manner to both.

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> > Excuse me, but I didn't say saturated fat was bad, or red
> > meat. I said empty calories are bad, which is true.
>
> "Empty calories" is rhetoric for the most part. I suppose
> sucrose would qualify.

No, your average packaged food produc has a far smaller
variety of nutritious things, and far less of them, than
fruits, vegetables, and meats.

> > > > There are no trans fats in my diet.
> > >
> > > Har har har. They are everywhere;
> >
> > Where?
>
> Very common in baked goods such as crakers and cookies, for
> instance,

Sorry, don't eat 'em.

> Starting in 2006, you'll find it listed with the rest of the
> nutritional info.

Good to know.

> or scream about "empty calories", if someone serves you a
> home-cooked meal with Cheez Whiz in the ingredients.

I'm not suggesting this. Though someone doing calorie
restriction, for example, wouldn't touch cheez whiz with a
9-foot pole.

> I don't know what you mean by Cheez Whiz and coffee not
> "working" for you; I presume you probably respond in a
> fairly typical manner to both.

I don't know what typical would be. Everybody tolerates
and metabolizes foods differently. For example, if you
go without eating dairy products for a while (I eat yogurt
most days) it can upset your system, unless you happen to
be of a specific race of Europeans for whom lactase
expression is stuck on. And even within them there is a
good deal of variation. Just one very well known and
extreme example.

-Carl