From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) writes:
> > But you don't need to eat a lot of steak.
> If you're poor, you don't eat any. Protein in general is expensive.
> Carbohydrates are cheap.
Steak is relatively more expensive than staple forms of protein
like say corn/wheat and beans.
#begin quote
100 grams of hard red winter wheat[clarification needed] contain
about 12.6 grams of protein, 1.5 grams of total fat, 71 grams of
carbohydrate (by difference), 12.2 grams of dietary fiber, and 3.2
mg of iron (17% of the daily requirement); the same weight of hard
red spring wheat contains about 15.4 grams of protein, 1.9 grams of
total fat, 68 grams of carbohydrate (by difference), 12.2 grams of
dietary fiber, and 3.6 mg of iron (20% of the daily
#end quote
#begin quote
Beans are a major source of dietary protein in Kenya, Malawi,
Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.[9]
#end quote

> > No one is forcing them to eat a lot of that.
> They have to eat something, and it has to be cheap and quick to eat.
Because they are on the run? Do you know how long it takes to cook
up some vegetables? I would say 10 minutes including chopping them

> > Cooking a balanced meal is probably going to take twenty minutes
> > out of your TV time.
> It takes far more than twenty minutes to cook a proper balanced meal.
Oh bullshit.

> And
> having time to cook doesn't mean that one has the money for the proper
> ingredients.
It doesn't mean you do by definition, but if you get food stamps,
maybe you could use that government aid for staples and not TV

> There are other factors at work, too. Poor people have more pressing things
> to worry about than proper nutrition.
Like no health insurance?

"Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually
From: Earl Evleth on
On 31/01/10 13:58, in article 4B657E80.739F26B8(a), "Bill Bonde
{Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
<tribuyltinafpant(a)> wrote:

> There's no doubt that there are people on this earth who are baring
> making it food wise. Some are starving. But the issue was first
> world "poor" who often have cell phones, high speed internet, seven
> Showtimes, three HBOs and drive cars around rather than walking or
> riding a bike. My assumption is that they would give those things
> up if they were actually starving, and since they are often
> overweight, the argument that they are starving is silly.

You should try and document your blather!

Not everybody in a 3rd world country is poor.
The statistical mean income could well be $2-$4
for a country and you'd still have 10% very well off.

For instance "30 Jun 2009 In general, per capita income in Ghana is below
$400," That is below $2 per working day. Yet, in the country you see
expensive houses and people driving around in expensive cars.
Those rich people are being served by the low wage masses. Those
rich have cell phones, internet etc, I know because we have been
in their homes. But the people out on the streets, at each corner
trying to sell you things cheaply do not have these things.

You have to understand and not be so blind.

From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on

Mxsmanic wrote:
> John Rennie writes:
> > I'm surprised at that. Generally in the western world anyway
> > food has become cheaper and cheaper
> Not in the past few years. The trend is going the other way.
Food is so cheap, that farmers can't even afford to make more of
it, so government provide price supports. You know what price
supports are? They are the government making food cost more. Making
your food into ethanol seems like a bit of that.

"Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on

Donna Evleth wrote:
> > From: "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> > <tribuyltinafpant(a)>
> > Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> > those who come after us.
> > Newsgroups:,alt.activism.death-penalty
> > Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:58:10 +0000
> > Subject: Re: Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
> >
> >
> >
> > John Rennie wrote:
> >>
> >> Mxsmanic wrote:
> >>> Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) writes:
> >>>
> >>>> While this is certainly possible, there are new views that this is
> >>>> in fact indicative of problems that modern man has with running,
> >>>> not problems with humans running in general.
> >>>
> >>> Given the stress that jogging puts on the knees, it is surprising that human
> >>> beings tolerate it so well.
> >>>
> >>>> Filthy buses, smog filled air, few trees, concrete as far as the
> >>>> eye can see, that's the city. People who live in the suburbs might
> >>>> have plenty of clean air, birds, trees, grass, wild animals
> >>>> wandering about, that sort of thing.
> >>>
> >>> It depends on whether you prefer people or things.
> >>
> >> Bill is definitely a 'thing's man.
> >>
> > I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean although I'll assume it's
> > yet another insult. I'm not materialist in the sense of being
> > greedy, if that's what you mean by 'things'. And I'm not
> > uninterested in conversation, although I want the conversation to
> > be about issues and not gossip. I know people who are worried
> > endlessly about who is dating who and that sort of thing. It seems
> > juvenile out of a 16 year old much less an adult.
> >
> > Regarding the city being where the people are, I've noticed that
> > people give progressively less attention to each other as they get
> > closer to the big city. Acknowledging everyone who comes by may be
> > the norm in a rural setting. Water, water, everywhere, no one
> > really talks to anyone.
> This is what you've noticed? I live in the big city, and I see people
> talking to each other all the time.
You can't be serious. They are on their phones talking to someone.
They aren't saying high to passers-by. That's what happens in the
rural setting.

> Mothers stand in front of the schools
> chatting with one another while waiting to pick up their children.
They know each other!

> Neighbors stop and chat on the street. Dog owners always talk to each other
> as they walk their dogs. And those are just the ones I can think of off the
> top of my head.
> >
> > I've noticed that cyclists or joggers tend to acknowledge someone
> > passing them almost universally, when they are also biking or
> > running. People out for a walk often ignore others. When
> > backpacking, I've noticed that the rules change, day hikers tend to
> > have the big city ways and just go on by without saying anything.
> > I've commented on returning to civilization that we're now within
> > the range of day hikers because the people are behaving
> > differently.
> Cyclists do not acknowledge others here in my city. They are a bunch of
> scofflaws. They habitually ride on the sidewalk,
They just want to stay alive. It's also legal, depending on where
you are, to ride on the "sidewalk".

> come up behind the
> pedestrians without warning.
I've noticed that it's difficult to provide a warning when they are
looking the other way, taking up the entire path.

> Often they are also riding on the wrong side
> of the street.
They may wish to see the cars that are perhaps going to suddenly
veer their way. I ride on the side that I conclude makes the most
sense in the context.

> (A friend who lives in NY says it is the same there.) If
> you remonstrate with them - talk to them - they get all huffy.
You are telling them they are wrong for riding in a manner that is
probably legal.

> As to
> runners, I meet them in the park all the time. They go faster than walkers,
> they expect you to get out of their way. You have to be pretty spry
> yourself to do so. Walking in the park is not for little old folks with
> canes.
I guess not.

"Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually
From: Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) on

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) writes:
> >
> > #begin quote
> > The work tracked 500 older runners for more than 20 years,
> > comparing them to a similar group of non-runners. All were in their
> > 50s at the start of the study.
> >
> > Nineteen years into the study, 34% of the non-runners had died
> > compared to only 15% of the runners.
> >
> > Both groups became more disabled with age, but for the runners the
> > onset of disability started later - an average of 16 years later.
> >
> > The health gap between the runners and non-runners continued to
> > widen even as the subjects entered their ninth decade of life.
> >
> > If you had to pick one thing to make people healthier as they age,
> > it would be aerobic exercise
> > Lead author Professor James Fries
> >
> > Running not only appeared to slow the rate of heart and artery
> > related deaths, but was also associated with fewer early deaths
> > from cancer, neurological disease, infections and other causes.
> >
> > And there was no evidence that runners were more likely to suffer
> > osteoarthritis or need total knee replacements than non-runners -
> > something scientists have feared.
> > #end quote
> And they didn't bother to control for hundreds of other variables. Correlation
> is not causation.
They found no evidence that runners were more likely to have
injuries in those areas that people claim they are more likely to
be hurt in. I've heard this before and from other studies. The
problem is if you hurt your knee, let's say playing a sport, and
that damage gets worse over time. A normal knee can take running.
It's the stress that is important for the bones. This is why
running (or backpacking I suspect) are important. Cyclists have
feathery bones. They want to be lighter so they can win the race.
When they crash, they break bones more readily. Remarkably, Lance
Armstrong has taken up running marathons, which means his bones are
likely stronger and heavier, and he's still doing the Tour.

> > But:
> >
> >
> > #begin quote
> > Moderately overweight elderly people may live longer than those of
> > normal weight, an Australian study suggests.
> >
> > But being very overweight or being underweight shortened lives.
> > ...
> > The team tracked the number of deaths over 10 years among
> > volunteers who were aged 70 - 75 at the start of the study.
> >
> > It found that those with a BMI which classed them as overweight not
> > only had the lowest overall risk of dying, they also had the lowest
> > risk of dying from specific diseases: cardiovascular disease,
> > cancer and chronic respiratory disease.
> > #end quote
> That's what happens when you don't control for other variables, which is
> pretty much impossible for studies on human beings because of ethical
> concerns.
> It's hard to exercise and stay fat at the same time, and it's even harder to
> understand how they could both be simultaneously beneficial.
It's well known that people who aren't too skinny tend to live
longer. One obvious reason might be that when you get ill, you are
more likely to survive if your body actually has energy stores to
fall back on. If you are too skinny, you have to continue eating
and if that part of you isn't metabolizing correctly, the body will
have to start using muscle and other parts of your that are you. If
you have some fat, that can be used first. Yes, this is
complicated, but it isn't utterly opaque.

"Gonna take a sedimental journey", what Old Man River actually