On Friday, June 13, 2014 4:16:41 PM UTC-7, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Drew Lawson wrote:

In article

Fran Farmer writes:

On 13/06/2014 12:48 AM, Drew Lawson wrote:

In article



He seems to believe that some recent (alleged) trend in growing

grapes is going to revolutionize crop yields.



I assume that he is ignorant of the factors that brought the

increases since WW2: industrial farming, ammonium nitrate and

monocrop megafarms (mostly crowing the "carbs" he rails against).



I'm not a great fan of the current state of food production, but I

recognize that it is a current necesity. Most current starvation

is caused by economic/political factors. Reverting the methods of

production would bring starvation caused by actual lack of food.



I too am not a fan of agribusiness as it supplies the big

supermarkets and I don't think that many gardeners who grow

vegetables for their own consumption would be.



I note your mention of WWII - I keep wondering why it is that there

would be any need for anyone to 'go Paleo' given the history of food

production and when populations in the first world were doing well

due to access to good food but still had not seen the leap in

numbers of those afflicted with the modern lifestyle diseases that

are so abundant these days.



I'll let those older than me do the stronger comparisons of current

lifestyles with those in the '40s. But even comparing with the

'60s, when there were already grumblings about sedentary lifestyles,

is pretty signifigant.



My memories of the late '60s, in US small cities and suburbs, have

far more people walking. Households often only had a single car,

and days were run accordngly. There was very little shuttling kids

here and there. Kids walked or rode their bikes.



And other details that seem minor probably had a lot of effect. I

don't recall elevators much, except in the taller or fancier

buildings. Anything 2 story just had stairs.



The first shopping mall I dealt with was in 1973. Freshly opened,

there was one escalator, and several sets of stairs. The only

stairs in my local mall now are more for show than anything else.

(They frame a central atrium.)



In my view, a lot of the trend toward obesity came in very small

steps like those. That along with more convenience. I can park

close to things now, so I walk less. Etc.



And, of course, cheaper bulk food helped drive our personal bulk.



I've been debating whith myself whether that would date to between

the wars of earlier. I suspect the timing would vary a bit

according to which nation was under discussion because I know that

WWII and it's rationing lead to better health amongst the general

population. There's some interesting stuff on that around the web -

or was last time I looked..



The reason I referenced WW2 is that it seems to be a standard turning

point, at least for US agriculture. All of the industrial build

up and advancement of the war got turned to post-war use. We took

improvements for tanks and made bigger tractors. The oil demand

of the war drove expanding the supply, and an eventual outcome was

expansion of the petrochemical industry.



I probably have some of that wrong, but that's my general impression.



I think you are on the right track. One of the turning points in Oz was

after WW2 when cars became cheap enough for nearly every family to own one.

People stopped walking and riding bikes. Kids used to be so proud when they

got their first bike now they wait for the car. If I went to visit my

cousins as a boy (say 1960) during school holidays we were not allowed in

the house during the day unless it was raining. We were expected to go out

and run about, play a ball sport, build a fortress, explore the

neighbourhood, ride billycarts. Then such a rule was not exceptional but

reasonable common sense, try imposing that rule today.

We were so poor we never HAD a car. Once in a while the neighbors took us somewhere. I get every form of motion sickness.(Even got it while hang-gliding in tandem with instructor. He said we're going down and I said NO NO NO He said "I've been thrown up on before and it's not going to happen again."
Holy tamale; I was just a tad queasy!!!)

Anyway, I often disgraced myself; didn't always get to the window of neighbor's car in time...

Back to playtime: We also went out to play and came home when it got dark. Nobody worried about kidnapping or molesters back then. Maybe they existed, but we never heard about them.

Sigh!

HB

On 13/06/2014 10:08 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Fran Farmer wrote:
On 13/06/2014 12:48 AM, Drew Lawson wrote:
In article
Fran Farmer writes:
On 12/06/2014 6:33 AM, Todd wrote:

Think of this, the California wine industry has almost
completely switched to organic techniques. The reason being
that the entire vineyard is consistent, one end to the other.
They no longer have one end that is more sour than the
other, etc.. And, they get a higher yield. Cheaper
too.

So basically, if we are to feed more people, this is an
idea that is coming. It is a matter of practicality, not
idealism.

That paragraph makes no sense.

He seems to believe that some recent (alleged) trend in growing
grapes is going to revolutionize crop yields.

I assume that he is ignorant of the factors that brought the
increases since WW2: industrial farming, ammonium nitrate and
monocrop megafarms (mostly crowing the "carbs" he rails against).

I'm not a great fan of the current state of food production, but I
recognize that it is a current necesity. Most current starvation
is caused by economic/political factors. Reverting the methods of
production would bring starvation caused by actual lack of food.

I too am not a fan of agribusiness as it supplies the big supermarkets
and I don't think that many gardeners who grow vegetables for their
own consumption would be.

I note your mention of WWII - I keep wondering why it is that there
would be any need for anyone to 'go Paleo' given the history of food
production and when populations in the first world were doing well due
to access to good food but still had not seen the leap in numbers of
those afflicted with the modern lifestyle diseases that are so
abundant these days.

I've been debating whith myself whether that would date to between the
wars of earlier. I suspect the timing would vary a bit according to
which nation was under discussion because I know that WWII and it's
rationing lead to better health amongst the general population.
There's some interesting stuff on that around the web - or was last
time I looked..

Part of the problem with zealots is there are no nuances, no details, no
shading, no compromises. You are either with them entirely or agin 'em.

Yep.

I don't think that a food system based on broad acre farming with big
inputs from fertiliser derived from fossil fuel is ideal in the long run
either.

Nope, not with increasingly limited resources. The way I see most
people driving I wonder if they've ever heard of 'peak oil' and what the
downstream consequences are stemmign form that.

And you too would be conscious of all those years of applications of
Super.......

However, the idea of quitting grains altogether for ideological
reasons is mad.

The biggest danger to this world is not diet, climate-change,
starvation, asteroid-strike, Murdock or Godlessness. Its Toddthink.

:-)) Conspiracy and paranoia can be great fun if it's done in jest but
when it's expounded in a serious way then, IMO, there should at least be
some sane or reasoned basis for it.

On 06/13/2014 04:27 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:
We were so poor we never HAD a car. Once in a while the neighbors took us somewhere. I get every form of motion sickness.(Even got it while hang-gliding in tandem with instructor. He said we're going down and I said NO NO NO He said "I've been thrown up on before and it's not going to happen again."
Holy tamale; I was just a tad queasy!!!)

Anyway, I often disgraced myself; didn't always get to the window of neighbor's car in time...

Back to playtime: We also went out to play and came home when it got dark. Nobody worried about kidnapping or molesters back then. Maybe they existed, but we never heard about them.

Sigh!

HB

ToddSpeak

Hi Higgs,

I bet boats drive you nuts!

Try taking a capsule of ginger powder before starting
said motion. Won't make you sleepy either. Safe
to drive with.

References:
http://queasytraveler.com/ginger.php

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...205-X/abstract

I can only get a hold of the abstract. I had the whole article
at one time. They want $36 for the full article now. And, well,
at $36, I don't like you that much! :-)

If I remember correctly, the Lancet research double
blinded ginger against over the counter anti-nausea
drugs (I believe it was Dramamine), then spun you
around and tried to make you vomit.

Here is a LONG WINDED (even worse than me) article on Ginger:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK92775/

If you scroll down to "7.6.3. Ginger as an Antinausea Agent",
it talks a lot about the double blinds, etc..

-T

If you read the LONG WINDED article, you will notice all the
"side benefits" (traditional herbal medicine), as opposed to
the "side effects" that you get by using controlled dosages
of poisons (drugs) that the allopaths use. Not that allopathic
drugs don't have their place, just they are a pretty poor
choice for long term use.

/ToddSpeak

On 13/06/2014 10:56 PM, Drew Lawson wrote:
In article
Fran Farmer writes:
On 13/06/2014 12:48 AM, Drew Lawson wrote:
In article

He seems to believe that some recent (alleged) trend in growing
grapes is going to revolutionize crop yields.

I assume that he is ignorant of the factors that brought the increases
since WW2: industrial farming, ammonium nitrate and monocrop
megafarms (mostly crowing the "carbs" he rails against).

I'm not a great fan of the current state of food production, but I
recognize that it is a current necesity. Most current starvation
is caused by economic/political factors. Reverting the methods of
production would bring starvation caused by actual lack of food.

I too am not a fan of agribusiness as it supplies the big supermarkets
and I don't think that many gardeners who grow vegetables for their own
consumption would be.

I note your mention of WWII - I keep wondering why it is that there
would be any need for anyone to 'go Paleo' given the history of food
production and when populations in the first world were doing well due
to access to good food but still had not seen the leap in numbers of
those afflicted with the modern lifestyle diseases that are so abundant
these days.

I'll let those older than me do the stronger comparisons of current
lifestyles with those in the '40s. But even comparing with the
'60s, when there were already grumblings about sedentary lifestyles,
is pretty signifigant.

You don't need to find people older than you to learn or find out about
those times - there is plenty of social history on the Net that will
tell you about the food, the clothes, the transport etc of most of the
decades of the 30th century.

Because I am interested in older crafts (spinning, weaving, knitting,
embroidery, garment sewing [on one of my geriatric sewing machines that
include treadle and hand crank]) and what is now a reasonably old
fashioned style of living (cooking from base ingredients, gardening,
home maintenance etc) we find the Net a wonderful resource where we can
find like minded people who have similar interests. My husband likes
geriatric European sports cars of the 1920s through to the early 1950s.

My memories of the late '60s, in US small cities and suburbs, have
far more people walking. Households often only had a single car,
and days were run accordngly. There was very little shuttling kids
here and there. Kids walked or rode their bikes.

I too recall those times. As a child it was a rare treat to travel to a
tiny town 10 miles away - these days relatives who live in the same area
would do that trip at least once a day.

And other details that seem minor probably had a lot of effect. I
don't recall elevators much, except in the taller or fancier
buildings. Anything 2 story just had stairs.

The first shopping mall I dealt with was in 1973. Freshly opened,
there was one escalator, and several sets of stairs. The only
stairs in my local mall now are more for show than anything else.
(They frame a central atrium.)

In my view, a lot of the trend toward obesity came in very small
steps like those. That along with more convenience. I can park
close to things now, so I walk less. Etc.

And, of course, cheaper bulk food helped drive our personal bulk.

Yep. but one of the other losses was the traditional homemaking skills
such as growing food and being able to cook from scratch. The need to
keep foods in good order on the shelves and in both the grocery store
and in homes for longer resulted in more additives and less 'as nature
intended it' products.


I've been debating whith myself whether that would date to between the
wars of earlier. I suspect the timing would vary a bit according to
which nation was under discussion because I know that WWII and it's
rationing lead to better health amongst the general population. There's
some interesting stuff on that around the web - or was last time I
looked..

The reason I referenced WW2 is that it seems to be a standard turning
point, at least for US agriculture. All of the industrial build
up and advancement of the war got turned to post-war use. We took
improvements for tanks and made bigger tractors. The oil demand
of the war drove expanding the supply, and an eventual outcome was
expansion of the petrochemical industry.

I probably have some of that wrong, but that's my general impression.

IIRC, post WWI was a starting point for the commercial availability of
canned food as opposed to made at home from scratch ingredients. After
the end of WWII came the really big changes to how food in the home
changed from, say, the 19th century. As you said, all those amazing
things needed because of war technology just got applied to the rest of
society from those great modern tractors in paddocks (fields) on through
the production chain and into leisure too.

On 13/06/2014 1:00 PM, Drew Lawson wrote:

David was correct. You aren't worth the bits to send replies.

:-)) A very reasonable conclusion in the circumstances.

On 06/13/2014 06:13 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 13/06/2014 1:00 PM, Drew Lawson wrote:

David was correct. You aren't worth the bits to send replies.

:-)) A very reasonable conclusion in the circumstances.


And you ran out of names to call those your don't
understand or don't agree with.

In article
Todd writes:
On 06/13/2014 06:03 PM, Todd wrote:

Have you noticed that you talk to yourself a lot?


--
Drew Lawson | Radioactive cats have
| 18 half-lives
|

In article
Todd writes:
On 06/13/2014 06:13 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 13/06/2014 1:00 PM, Drew Lawson wrote:

David was correct. You aren't worth the bits to send replies.

:-)) A very reasonable conclusion in the circumstances.


And you ran out of names to call those your don't
understand or don't agree with.

I'll just call you "Todd," but you might not appreciate the meaning
I attach to it.

--
|Drew Lawson | Mrs. Tweedy! |
| | The chickens are revolting! |

On 06/13/2014 08:27 PM, Drew Lawson wrote:
In article
Todd writes:
On 06/13/2014 06:03 PM, Todd wrote:

Have you noticed that you talk to yourself a lot?



And to you too.

On Friday, June 13, 2014 6:03:52 PM UTC-7, Todd wrote:
On 06/13/2014 04:27 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:

We were so poor we never HAD a car. Once in a while the neighbors took us somewhere. I get every form of motion sickness.(Even got it while hang-gliding in tandem with instructor. He said we're going down and I said NO NO NO He said "I've been thrown up on before and it's not going to happen again."

Holy tamale; I was just a tad queasy!!!)



Anyway, I often disgraced myself; didn't always get to the window of neighbor's car in time...



Back to playtime: We also went out to play and came home when it got dark. Nobody worried about kidnapping or molesters back then. Maybe they existed, but we never heard about them.



Sigh!



HB



ToddSpeak



Hi Higgs,



I bet boats drive you nuts!



Try taking a capsule of ginger powder before starting

said motion. Won't make you sleepy either. Safe

to drive with.



References:

http://queasytraveler.com/ginger.php



http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...205-X/abstract

[...more about ginger]

Thanks, Todd -- I've tried ginger, wrist bands, marezine (I don't take dramamine), & on & on.

Guess I'm just one of those folks who didn't get the standard issue semi-circular canals in the ear.

But in the context of my otherwise blinding perfection,'tis a small thang.g

HB

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:26:56 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"
wrote:

Todd wrote:
You are just frustrated because I am not agreeing with
your argument.


Just in case you are honestly puzzled about why you annoy the shit out of
most people it is because you never actually make a case for your opinions
but waffle on as if you have said something meaningful. You did this with
climate change and you started doing it with T2D. I called a halt in both
of these because you flatly refused to produce an argument or listen to one.

Then foolishly I tried again. My fault, I thought you deserved a chance,
that you might have learned something. I was wrong. Sorry everybody.

David, Not that you are doing much better.

Todd, log what you eat for a week and post it.

?-)

On 06/14/2014 06:53 PM, josephkk wrote:
Todd, log what you eat for a week and post it.

Hi Joesphkk,

That would be a major undertaking. I will if
you are hurt (T2 Diabetes) and you think it would
help you. Basically I consume between 30 and 60
grams of carbohydrates a day.

I also keep a list of the traditional medicines (Herbs)
I use and the double blinds, etc. to back them up,
if you need those.

I can also give you links to great Paleo cooking
groups. (I make my first successful Mousakka
from a posting two weeks ago.)

And I can also send you the Paleo food pyramid, so you
can see the types of food I eat.

-T

josephkk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:26:56 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"
wrote:

Todd wrote:
You are just frustrated because I am not agreeing with
your argument.


Just in case you are honestly puzzled about why you annoy the shit
out of most people it is because you never actually make a case for
your opinions but waffle on as if you have said something
meaningful. You did this with climate change and you started doing
it with T2D. I called a halt in both of these because you flatly
refused to produce an argument or listen to one.

Then foolishly I tried again. My fault, I thought you deserved a
chance, that you might have learned something. I was wrong. Sorry
everybody.

David, Not that you are doing much better.


In what way?

D

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 13:14:23 -0700, Todd wrote:

On 06/12/2014 07:27 AM, Drew Lawson wrote:
Sure, they could switch crops, but lacking a mandate why would they?
People like wheat. People will buy wheat. The farmers could switch
over to amaranth and probably get a good yield. And the market
will say, "What's this shit?" Then go to the next farmer and buy
wheat.

Hi Drew,

Excellent point. You are entirely correct.

I say let the market dictate what we buy. We
vote with our dollar for who we want to succeed.

Market?

As more and more of us get Diabetes, the demand
will shift. Your odds are now one out of six
you will get diabetes -- perhaps one out of three
in the near future.

Also, the diet industry has discovered that
carbs are what makes you fat. (You **** and
blow out excess keytones [fat]. They are use
or lose.)

Nonsense. All vertebrates store excess food as FAT (hydrocarbon chains).
Including intake of fats.

So, the market will eventually do its magic. There
will be a lot of kicking and screaming though.

There has to be a market for this to happen.

"Healthy carbs", my ass. You should see the crap
those scoundrel's at the American Diabetes Association
wants you to eat -- you'd be diabetic forever!

Carbs are so addictive that I know of one diabetic
man who killed himself rather than stop eating
them. He was eventually crippled to the point
were his wife had to give him his insulin
injections.

Ummm. They are in the business of selling insulin?

I know of another man who has lost both his legs, both
his kidneys (he is on the transplant list), has had
a major heart attack, is on oxygen, and who know what
else. He won't stop eating carbs.

OK so what else is there to eat? Fiber? Rocks? Meat? All have their
drawbacks.

Amaranth is still a grain by the way. Feed all the
the grain producing plants (the whole plant) to
cows. I will eat the cows.

I prefer grass fed thank you, it is their natural food.

I vote for good tasting produce and meat.

As long as freedom is allowed to prevail, the
market will provide what we demand. I see both
being around for a very long time. If you
are in the five out of six that won't get diabetes,
then by all means, have fun.

-T

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:48:01 +0000 (UTC), lid (Drew
Lawson) wrote:

In article
Fran Farmer writes:
On 12/06/2014 6:33 AM, Todd wrote:

Think of this, the California wine industry has almost
completely switched to organic techniques. The reason being
that the entire vineyard is consistent, one end to the other.
They no longer have one end that is more sour than the
other, etc.. And, they get a higher yield. Cheaper
too.

So basically, if we are to feed more people, this is an
idea that is coming. It is a matter of practicality, not
idealism.

That paragraph makes no sense.

He seems to believe that some recent (alleged) trend in growing
grapes is going to revolutionize crop yields.

I assume that he is ignorant of the factors that brought the increases
since WW2: industrial farming, ammonium nitrate and monocrop
megafarms (mostly crowing the "carbs" he rails against).

I'm not a great fan of the current state of food production, but I
recognize that it is a current necesity. Most current starvation
is caused by economic/political factors. Reverting the methods of
production would bring starvation caused by actual lack of food.

Yadda Yadda Yadda.

Check these links on food production and exports:

http://www.investopedia.com/financia...countries.aspx

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top...rters-map.html

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TX.VAL.FOOD.ZS.UN

Some of this surprised me.

?-)