Why is it that kids are moving into puberty earlier these days than
when lets say in the 1980's? I've heard this theory but cannot explain
it. Hence not even Pastor Dave can explain it, yet he thinks of
himself as some super genious...

Thanks,

John

From:	R. Steve Walz
Subject:	Re: The evolution of puberity
Date:	Mon, 27 Dec 2004 00:24:33 GMT

johnw_94020@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> > It is, but it is known to be mostly caused by improved nutrition,
> > and thus it is MORE true that puberty has actually been historically
> > delayed by poor nutrition.
> >
> > By the way, the "hormones in the food" notion was disproven, because
> > those are actually known to have the opposite effects.
>
> Well can you say that kids are eating better these days than in 1985?
-------------------------
Some are, some aren't. Most aren't and are consequently no different
in age of puberty. For whites there is literally no difference, by and
large.

> I'd say they are eating far worse, but I do not think 85 is a good
> comparison, I think 1955 would be a better comparison. The diet of
> kids in 2005 and in 1955 is so much different! I watch Back to the
> Future, and then I watch a 1955 film, and 1985 does not look that much
> different than today, despite all the technological garbage that has
> come into our society. For the most part kids are eating the same.
----------------------------
You're too young to even guess at this stuff.
Most privileged diets are the same then as now.

> > What is most interesting is that antiual cultures also seem to
> > "delay" the recognition of puberty by failing to recognize or to
> > sanction their children's own ual urges, literally pretending
> > that no one tillthey are fully adult physically can even HAVE ual
> > urges, when it is well-known that puberty and ual desire arises at
> > age 8 or 9, and not only after the secondary changes are complete
>
> > at 14 or 15.
>
> This is true. I remember studying it in Intro to Psychology. Sexual
> urges never came before the age of 8 in most cases.
---------------------------------
Yup.

> > In Victorian times this was the pretense, ignoring all ual signs
> > till they were absolutely unavoidable.
> > Steve
>
> Victorian times? I am lost....
> John
----------------------------------
Yup. As I said. Victorian period was 1880's to 1900.
Steve

From:	Bev A. Kupf
Subject:	Re: The evolution of puberity
Date:	Mon, 27 Dec 2004 00:46:43 GMT

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 00:24:33 GMT,
R. Steve Walz (rstevew@armory.com) wrote:
>> Victorian times? I am lost....
>> John
> ----------------------------------
> Yup. As I said. Victorian period was 1880's to 1900.

Minor correction - the Victorian era started much earlier (1837)
and ended in 1901.

Although "officially" beginning and ending with the reign of
Queen Victora, there are some who purport that the Victorian
era began with the Reform Act of 1832 (extension of franchise to
tenants and lessees, abolishment of rotten boroughs).

--
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

From:	johnw_94020 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: The evolution of puberity
Date:	25 Dec 2004 20:50:44 -0800

R. Steve Walz wrote:

> It is, but it is known to be mostly caused by improved nutrition,
> and thus it is MORE true that puberty has actually been historically
> delayed by poor nutrition.
>
> By the way, the "hormones in the food" notion was disproven, because
> those are actually known to have the opposite effects.

Well can you say that kids are eating better these days than in 1985?
I'd say they are eating far worse, but I do not think 85 is a good
comparison, I think 1955 would be a better comparison. The diet of
kids in 2005 and in 1955 is so much different! I watch Back to the
Future, and then I watch a 1955 film, and 1985 does not look that much
different than today, despite all the technological garbage that has
come into our society. For the most part kids are eating the same.

> What is most interesting is that antiual cultures also seem to
> "delay" the recognition of puberty by failing to recognize or to
> sanction their children's own ual urges, literally pretending
> that no one tillthey are fully adult physically can even HAVE ual
> urges, when it is well-known that puberty and ual desire arises at
> age 8 or 9, and not only after the secondary changes are complete

> at 14 or 15.

This is true. I remember studying it in Intro to Psychology. Sexual
urges never came before the age of 8 in most cases.

>
> In Victorian times this was the pretense, ignoring all ual signs
> till they were absolutely unavoidable.
> Steve

Victorian times? I am lost....

John

From:	R. Steve Walz
Subject:	Re: The evolution of puberity
Date:	Mon, 27 Dec 2004 03:50:13 GMT

johnw_94020@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > I'd say they are eating far worse, but I do not think 85 is a good
> > > comparison, I think 1955 would be a better comparison. The diet of
> > > kids in 2005 and in 1955 is so much different! I watch Back to the
> > > Future, and then I watch a 1955 film, and 1985 does not look that
> much
> > > different than today, despite all the technological garbage that
> has
> > > come into our society. For the most part kids are eating the same.
> > ----------------------------
> > You're too young to even guess at this stuff.
> > Most privileged diets are the same then as now.
>
> Define privileged diets.. Are you trying to say that the youth diet is
> no different know than in 1955? Were you alive in 1955?
---------------------
You don't pay attention very well around here, do ya boy?
I'm 54. I was born in 1950, you figure it out, this was NOT
that long ago! I know it must seem to you that junk-food was
invented yesterday, but it wasn't, we had the same crap. The
little it has changed is in variety and in packaging.

> > > Victorian times? I am lost....
> > > John
> > ----------------------------------
> > Yup. As I said. Victorian period was 1880's to 1900.
> > Steve
>
> A better healthier period no doubt.
> John
-------------------------
Shit no. Murder and crimes against persons were ten times today's,
and people were most ALL even MORE ignorant than YOU are. People
died a lot more, you can't even fathom it.

The way that shit-minded authoritarians like you treated people
back then caused a monstrous prevalence of psychopathology.
Steve

From:	dragonlady
Subject:	Re: The evolution of puberity
Date:	Mon, 27 Dec 2004 18:27:56 GMT

In article <41CF8843.2532@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

> > Define privileged diets.. Are you trying to say that the youth diet is
> > no different know than in 1955? Were you alive in 1955?
> ---------------------
> You don't pay attention very well around here, do ya boy?
> I'm 54. I was born in 1950, you figure it out, this was NOT
> that long ago! I know it must seem to you that junk-food was
> invented yesterday, but it wasn't, we had the same crap. The
> little it has changed is in variety and in packaging.

I'm only two years younger than you, and, while it's true that most of
the junk food was available, the difference *I* see is that (at least
where I was) those foods were not considered staples: they were NOT
constantly available. We would only have potato chips and pop in the
house for special parties, for example, and a stop at McD's or A&W was a
major big deal, and happened only rarely. And NONE of that stuff was
available at school: our lunches were never delivered by a local pizza
place, and we didn't have coin-op machines making it easy to get junk
food while at school. When we packed lunches, they never included
little "snack packs" of potato chips or cookies, and we were still
expected to buy milk at school to drink.

Actually, while junk food does seem to be more readily available, and
packaged differently to make it easier to throw in packed lunches, the
stats I've been reading indicate that the standard American diet is LESS
fat than it was in the 50's, and people are doing MORE recreational
physical activity. However, there is considerably less incidental
physical activity -- jobs, for example, are more sedentary, and few kids
walk or ride bikes to school or friends houses. And the diet tends to
be higher in carbohydrates (which makes sense -- you only have 3 kinds
of calories (fat, protein and carbs), so going lower fat means higher in
SOMETHING else; I'm not sure if we're eating more protein, as well --
none of the stuff I've read has addressed that.)
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

From:	R. Steve Walz
Subject:	Re: The evolution of puberity
Date:	Wed, 29 Dec 2004 00:32:44 GMT

dragonlady wrote:
>
> In article <41CF8843.2532@armory.com>,
> "R. Steve Walz" wrote:
>
> > > Define privileged diets.. Are you trying to say that the youth diet is
> > > no different know than in 1955? Were you alive in 1955?
> > ---------------------
> > You don't pay attention very well around here, do ya boy?
> > I'm 54. I was born in 1950, you figure it out, this was NOT
> > that long ago! I know it must seem to you that junk-food was
> > invented yesterday, but it wasn't, we had the same crap. The
> > little it has changed is in variety and in packaging.
>
> I'm only two years younger than you, and, while it's true that most of
> the junk food was available, the difference *I* see is that (at least
> where I was) those foods were not considered staples: they were NOT
> constantly available. We would only have potato chips and pop in the
> house for special parties, for example, and a stop at McD's or A&W was a
> major big deal, and happened only rarely. And NONE of that stuff was
> available at school: our lunches were never delivered by a local pizza
> place, and we didn't have coin-op machines making it easy to get junk
> food while at school. When we packed lunches, they never included
> little "snack packs" of potato chips or cookies, and we were still
> expected to buy milk at school to drink.
---------------------------------
We got this stuff at school in "the student annex" next to the cafeteria
if you didn't like the slop. The scandals over nutrition
didn't happen till we were both out of school.

> Actually, while junk food does seem to be more readily available, and
> packaged differently to make it easier to throw in packed lunches, the
> stats I've been reading indicate that the standard American diet is LESS
> fat than it was in the 50's, and people are doing MORE recreational
> physical activity.
------------
Yup, jogging was not yet in fashion.

> However, there is considerably less incidental
> physical activity -- jobs, for example, are more sedentary, and few kids
> walk or ride bikes to school or friends houses. And the diet tends to
> be higher in carbohydrates (which makes sense -- you only have 3 kinds
> of calories (fat, protein and carbs), so going lower fat means higher in
> SOMETHING else; I'm not sure if we're eating more protein, as well --
> none of the stuff I've read has addressed that.)
---------------
Uhuh.
Steve

From:	man_in_black529 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: The evolution of puberity
Date:	1 Jan 2005 21:07:25 -0800

Agreed, dragonlady. This is in turn the result of the
television news being turned into a ratings machine rather
than a charity. That's why you see the term "skeptic" used
so derisively on mainstream media, as in "Skeptics say there
is no evidence Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass
destruction, but we have fuzzy air photos which could just
as easily be any type of factory." So here are some facts to
put all fears to rest:

*Terrorists do NOT have weapons of mass destruction. And
they certainly don't have smallpox any more than they have
packs of rampaging T-rexes.
*Most child molesters know the parents. You know that quiet
brother you have? If he's straight, keep him away from your
children; he fits the profile of a child molester perfectly.
*Ritual satanic abuse is just the projections of a few
doddering old fools who swear by Freud. The techniques used
to glean said abuses aren't recommended by any psychological
association on the planet.
*Teens have the lowest seroprevalence rate of any age group.
(For those younger, it's from vertical transmission.) Of
course, they have as much risk of pregnancy as anyone else
having .
*As the probability of contracting a disease approaches one,
the amount of mainstream media coverage approaches zero.
*I've been on the corner Florence and Normandie many times.
Nothing's ever happened. I've never seen anything happen to
anyone else. Even at night.

From:	johnw_94020 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: The evolution of puberity
Date:	26 Dec 2004 18:30:39 -0800

> > I'd say they are eating far worse, but I do not think 85 is a good
> > comparison, I think 1955 would be a better comparison. The diet of
> > kids in 2005 and in 1955 is so much different! I watch Back to the
> > Future, and then I watch a 1955 film, and 1985 does not look that
much
> > different than today, despite all the technological garbage that
has
> > come into our society. For the most part kids are eating the same.
> ----------------------------
> You're too young to even guess at this stuff.
> Most privileged diets are the same then as now.
>

Define privileged diets.. Are you trying to say that the youth diet is
no different know than in 1955? Were you alive in 1955?

> > Victorian times? I am lost....
> > John
> ----------------------------------
> Yup. As I said. Victorian period was 1880's to 1900.
> Steve

A better healthier period no doubt.

John

From:	johnw_94020 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: The evolution of puberity
Date:	27 Dec 2004 14:31:43 -0800

dragonlady wrote:

> > I'm only two years younger than you, and, while it's true that most
of
> the junk food was available, the difference *I* see is that (at least

> where I was) those foods were not considered staples: they were NOT
> constantly available. We would only have potato chips and pop in
the
> house for special parties, for example, and a stop at McD's or A&W
was a
> major big deal, and happened only rarely. And NONE of that stuff was

> available at school: our lunches were never delivered by a local
pizza
> place, and we didn't have coin-op machines making it easy to get junk

> food while at school. When we packed lunches, they never included
> little "snack packs" of potato chips or cookies, and we were still
> expected to buy milk at school to drink.
>
> Actually, while junk food does seem to be more readily available, and

> packaged differently to make it easier to throw in packed lunches,
the
> stats I've been reading indicate that the standard American diet is
LESS
> fat than it was in the 50's, and people are doing MORE recreational
> physical activity. However, there is considerably less incidental
> physical activity -- jobs, for example, are more sedentary, and few
kids
> walk or ride bikes to school or friends houses. And the diet tends
to
> be higher in carbohydrates (which makes sense -- you only have 3
kinds
> of calories (fat, protein and carbs), so going lower fat means higher
in
> SOMETHING else; I'm not sure if we're eating more protein, as well
--
> none of the stuff I've read has addressed that.)'

Please post the websites of these stats that you are reading, or cite
your printed sources.

I'd bet that jobs are not as physical as in the 50's. There are far
more computer dweebs than inn those days. Hence there were no personal
computers in those days. I cant say that about 85, but most definately
in 55!

Yes junk food is more available than in 55. Even though I was not
alive in these days, I know some of the culture for the time. Junk
food is more available than it was in 1989 when I was in the fifth
grade. Jobs are less physical than in those days, thats for sure.
Personnel computers were knew then.

John

> --
> Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you
care

From:	dragonlady
Subject:	Re: The evolution of puberity
Date:	Tue, 28 Dec 2004 01:32:05 GMT

In article <1104186703.117333.253540@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
johnw_94020@yahoo.com wrote:

> dragonlady wrote:

> the
> > stats I've been reading indicate that the standard American diet is
> LESS
> > fat than it was in the 50's, and people are doing MORE recreational
> > physical activity. However, there is considerably less incidental
> > physical activity -- jobs, for example, are more sedentary, and few
> kids
> > walk or ride bikes to school or friends houses. And the diet tends
> to
> > be higher in carbohydrates (which makes sense -- you only have 3
> kinds
> > of calories (fat, protein and carbs), so going lower fat means higher
> in
> > SOMETHING else; I'm not sure if we're eating more protein, as well
> --
> > none of the stuff I've read has addressed that.)'
>
> Please post the websites of these stats that you are reading, or cite
> your printed sources.
>

Can't cite all of them without going into lots too much work. Some has
been on the research into low-carb diets, but not stuff funded by people
who already support low-carb diets.

I tend to read from a wide range of texts. I don't think any of this
came on-line -- most likely from newspapers and magazines that I've
read. Everything I've read on the subject in the last couple of years
has said that, in spite of our assumptions and "what everybody knows",
fat consumption has actually declined -- though I have NOT read that
calorie consumption has declined. The surprise has been that the lower
% of fat in our diets has NOT resulted in less obesity; fat consumption
is going down, obesity is going up.

However, one source I can put my hands on quickly is from the November
2004 issue of Analog, in a science fact article titled, "Fat Mice,
Eating Machines and Biochemical Treason," by Richard A. Lovett, Ph.D.
It's too long an article to post (to say nothing of a violation of
copyright!) and I have no idea if it's on line. However, one paragraph
reads, in part:

"[A]ctually, U.S. fat consumption has been delining. Recreational
exercise has also been moving in a healthy direction. "More people than
ever before are selecting exercise as a leisure activity," says
Christine Bruhn, director of the Center for Consumer Research at the
University of Californiam Davis. In 1976, for example, 25,000 Americans
ran marathons. By 1990, the numer had risen to 260,000; in 2000 it
exceded 450,000."

The article has citations too numerous for me to list. I think you'd
have to find a copy of the magazine if you want to read the entire
article, which is mostly about current research in wieght management.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

From:	Dan Abel
Subject:	Re: The evolution of puberity
Date:	Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:25:37 -0800

In article <1104186703.117333.253540@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
johnw_94020@yahoo.com wrote:

> dragonlady wrote:
>
> > > I'm only two years younger than you, and, while it's true that most
> of
> > the junk food was available, the difference *I* see is that (at least
>
> > where I was) those foods were not considered staples: they were NOT

> I'd bet that jobs are not as physical as in the 50's. There are far
> more computer dweebs than inn those days. Hence there were no personal
> computers in those days. I cant say that about 85, but most definately
> in 55!

Personal computers have not replaced physical labor. Back in those days,
huge numbers of people operated very inefficient adding machines and
typewriters.

> Personnel computers were knew then.

Personal computers were not new, they didn't exist at all. Computers were
generally huge and very expensive machines. I learned how to program on
an IBM 1130. It was the size of a desk, but had a line printer, card
punch and card reader attached, each larger than a washing machine. It
was on lease, and the institution was charged US$14.00 per hour when it
was turned on. This was in 1967, when minimum wage was about a tenth of
that.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
dabel@sonic.net

From:	man_in_black529 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: The evolution of puberity
Date:	29 Dec 2004 14:35:25 -0800

dragonlady wrote:
> I'm only two years younger than you, and, while it's true that most
of
> the junk food was available, the difference *I* see is that (at least

> where I was) those foods were not considered staples: they were NOT
> constantly available. We would only have potato chips and pop in
the
> house for special parties, for example, and a stop at McD's or A&W
was a
> major big deal, and happened only rarely. And NONE of that stuff was

> available at school: our lunches were never delivered by a local
pizza
> place, and we didn't have coin-op machines making it easy to get junk

> food while at school.

You can blame privatization for that. I mean, I'm not in
favor of Big Government, but no one has ever explained to me
just how outsourcing government functions to people with a
profit motive will make it more efficient. It was part of my
essay "The Politics of Perpetual Motion". (The comparison
was between American ideas of resources as infinite and the
classic pipe dream.)

> When we packed lunches, they never included
> little "snack packs" of potato chips or cookies, and we were still
> expected to buy milk at school to drink.

It depends. In my case, I was lactose-intolerant.

> Actually, while junk food does seem to be more readily available, and

> packaged differently to make it easier to throw in packed lunches,
the
> stats I've been reading indicate that the standard American diet is
LESS
> fat than it was in the 50's, and people are doing MORE recreational
> physical activity. However, there is considerably less incidental
> physical activity -- jobs, for example, are more sedentary, and few
kids
> walk or ride bikes to school or friends houses.

Too true. I have no idea why either, for that second part at
least; more people live in the city, and it's pretty hard to
drive in LA.

> And the diet tends to
> be higher in carbohydrates (which makes sense -- you only have 3
kinds
> of calories (fat, protein and carbs), so going lower fat means higher
in
> SOMETHING else; I'm not sure if we're eating more protein, as well
--
> none of the stuff I've read has addressed that.)

Well, the problem is excess calories. First, your body has
a certain minimum caloric intake, plus whatever you burn
from exercise. You can go below this and take reserves from
your fat cells, but doing so for long is dangerous.

I'd say carbs have definitely increased. The thing is,
everyone was convinced fat was the only problem, or that
there was some majik difference between natural sugars and
added sugar.

From:	dragonlady
Subject:	Re: The evolution of puberity
Date:	Thu, 30 Dec 2004 00:14:05 GMT

In article <1104359725.158193.58950@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
man_in_black529@yahoo.com wrote:

> Well, the problem is excess calories. First, your body has
> a certain minimum caloric intake, plus whatever you burn
> from exercise. You can go below this and take reserves from
> your fat cells, but doing so for long is dangerous.

Unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple -- I wish it were. It sounds
logical, but the research into weight management these days indicates
that there is much more complex stuff going on. Some people can cut
down to less than 1000 calories a day and get plenty of exercise, and
STILL gain weight depending upon exactly what they eat. Others seem to
be able to eat WELL over what is considered optimal, get very little
exercise, and STILL not gain weight. And, much to the astonishment of
the folks doing the research, at least in the short run (6 month trials)
the composition of the diet DID matter: with exactly the same calorie
count, those on low carb diets lost more weight than those on low fat
diets. Even when the calorie count on the low carb diet was increased
to 300 calories a day MORE than those on the low fat diet, they still
lost more weight.

I know it flies in the face of "what everybody knows", but this wasn't
fly-by-night pseudo-science, this was Harvard.

>
> I'd say carbs have definitely increased. The thing is,
> everyone was convinced fat was the only problem, or that
> there was some majik difference between natural sugars and
> added sugar.

It turns out that there is a difference in the glycemic index of various
carbohydrates, with the refined products (sugar, flour, corn syrup) and
some simple sugars having a higher glycemic index than whole fruits, and
stuff like leafy greens being really low that index. For most people,
it may not matter much -- but for many others, it does. The wide and
fast swings in insulin levels that happen in some folks when eating
foods with a high glycemic index have an effect on the body chemistry
that makes it much easier to gain weight on the same diet.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

From:	Dan Abel
Subject:	Re: The evolution of puberity
Date:	Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:51:41 -0800

In article ,
dragonlady wrote:

> In article <1104359725.158193.58950@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> man_in_black529@yahoo.com wrote:

> > Well, the problem is excess calories. First, your body has

> Unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple -- I wish it were. It sounds
> logical, but the research into weight management these days indicates
> that there is much more complex stuff going on. Some people can cut
> down to less than 1000 calories a day and get plenty of exercise, and
> STILL gain weight depending upon exactly what they eat. Others seem to
> be able to eat WELL over what is considered optimal, get very little
> exercise, and STILL not gain weight. And, much to the astonishment of
> the folks doing the research, at least in the short run (6 month trials)
> the composition of the diet DID matter: with exactly the same calorie
> count, those on low carb diets lost more weight than those on low fat
> diets. Even when the calorie count on the low carb diet was increased
> to 300 calories a day MORE than those on the low fat diet, they still
> lost more weight.

Some people make things too simple, some make them too complicated.
Others just plain cheat.

I worked with a woman some years ago. She gave up counting calories
because she gained weight on a strict 700 calorie per day diet! However,
I almost never saw this woman without some sort of snack in front of her.
I'm 100% certain that these snacks "didn't count" in the 700 calories
because they weren't substantial.

I worked with another woman (the one who always went pee right before
seeing the doctor to get weighed, because that was an easy and painless
way to lose a pound) who told me a story about visiting her father and
stepmother. The stepmother was very obese, but had no idea why. She was
observed standing in front of the fridge stuffing her face all day long.
At dinner time, she took a large serving of food and then sat down,
explaining that she was eating a lot for dinner because she hadn't eaten a
thing all day! I guess the calories you consume when standing don't
count?

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
dabel@sonic.net

From:	Dan Abel
Subject:	Re: The evolution of puberity
Date:	Fri, 31 Dec 2004 10:53:20 -0800

In article ,
dabel@sonic.net (Dan Abel) wrote:

> In article ,
> dragonlady wrote:

> > Unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple -- I wish it were. It sounds
> > logical, but the research into weight management these days indicates

> Some people make things too simple, some make them too complicated.
> Others just plain cheat.

I realize that it isn't usually considered polite to respond to your own
post, but upon rereading what I wrote, it appears that I have criticized
dragonlady, which was not my intention. I'm diabetic, and I've been
jerked around for 35 years by nutrition and medical experts, all very
well-meaning. The problem is that once you absorb their advice, within a
few years they have completely changed it. After so many times, I no
longer believe much of what I read and am told about nutrition and diet.
Perhaps there's something to the low carb thing, but after being told a
few years back by a registered dietician, as part of a diabetes management
class, that the food pyramid was the way to go, which is based on a whole
lot of carbs, and then told by the same dietician a few years later, also
as part of a diabetes management class, that we needed to cut carbs, I'm a
little skeptical, especially since this dietician had nothing else to
recommend. It was still low fat and low protein, but now low carbs also.
So what are we supposed to eat, grass?

:-(

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
dabel@sonic.net

From:	R. Steve Walz
Subject:	Re: The evolution of puberity
Date:	Sun, 02 Jan 2005 02:43:18 GMT

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> In article ,
> dabel@sonic.net (Dan Abel) wrote:
>
> > In article ,
> > dragonlady wrote:
>
> > > Unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple -- I wish it were. It sounds
> > > logical, but the research into weight management these days indicates
>
> > Some people make things too simple, some make them too complicated.
> > Others just plain cheat.
>
> I realize that it isn't usually considered polite to respond to your own
> post, but upon rereading what I wrote, it appears that I have criticized
> dragonlady, which was not my intention. I'm diabetic, and I've been
> jerked around for 35 years by nutrition and medical experts, all very
> well-meaning. The problem is that once you absorb their advice, within a
> few years they have completely changed it. After so many times, I no
> longer believe much of what I read and am told about nutrition and diet.
> Perhaps there's something to the low carb thing, but after being told a
> few years back by a registered dietician, as part of a diabetes management
> class, that the food pyramid was the way to go, which is based on a whole
> lot of carbs, and then told by the same dietician a few years later, also
> as part of a diabetes management class, that we needed to cut carbs, I'm a
> little skeptical, especially since this dietician had nothing else to
> recommend. It was still low fat and low protein, but now low carbs also.
> So what are we supposed to eat, grass?
>
> :-(
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Sonoma State University
> AIS
> dabel@sonic.net
-----------------
Well, teachers used to tell you the world was flat and the Catholic
church was right, and now they don't. So do you now distrust all
teachers? WELL GOOD!!!

Gee, do you really have trouble figuring out WHAT to believe??

The latest Truth is almost surely better, just because it is born
out of the failure of the OLD "truth"!!

Have more faith in the future than in the past!!
Steve

From:	dragonlady
Subject:	Re: The evolution of puberity
Date:	Fri, 31 Dec 2004 19:38:46 GMT

In article ,
dabel@sonic.net (Dan Abel) wrote:

> In article ,
> dabel@sonic.net (Dan Abel) wrote:
>
> > In article ,
> > dragonlady wrote:
>
> > > Unfortunately, it isn't quite that simple -- I wish it were. It sounds
> > > logical, but the research into weight management these days indicates
>
> > Some people make things too simple, some make them too complicated.
> > Others just plain cheat.
>
> I realize that it isn't usually considered polite to respond to your own
> post, but upon rereading what I wrote, it appears that I have criticized
> dragonlady, which was not my intention. I'm diabetic, and I've been
> jerked around for 35 years by nutrition and medical experts, all very
> well-meaning. The problem is that once you absorb their advice, within a
> few years they have completely changed it. After so many times, I no
> longer believe much of what I read and am told about nutrition and diet.
> Perhaps there's something to the low carb thing, but after being told a
> few years back by a registered dietician, as part of a diabetes management
> class, that the food pyramid was the way to go, which is based on a whole
> lot of carbs, and then told by the same dietician a few years later, also
> as part of a diabetes management class, that we needed to cut carbs, I'm a
> little skeptical, especially since this dietician had nothing else to
> recommend. It was still low fat and low protein, but now low carbs also.
> So what are we supposed to eat, grass?
>

For what it's worth, since starting the low carb way of eating a year
ago, not only have DH and I both lost weight, but his diabetes is under
control: he's been able to stop taking the Metformin, and his HBA1C is
now 5.8. (Note that he is still considerably overweight -- in the
morbidly obese category -- and hasn't lost enough to account for the new
blood sugar.)

I know -- one data point isn't proof of anything. However, this seems
to be a pretty common experience for diabetics who follow Dr. Atkin's
plan. Plus I find it a pretty easy and enjoyable way to eat, which I
could NOT say for low fat or low calorie plans. My doctor would prefer
that I lower the fat and calorie count, as well -- but one of the things
I LIKE about this is that the food is not boring! And at some point,
you gotta eat.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

From:	Dan Abel
Subject:	Re: The evolution of puberity
Date:	Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:12:11 -0800

In article ,
dragonlady wrote:

> In article ,
> dabel@sonic.net (Dan Abel) wrote:

> > lot of carbs, and then told by the same dietician a few years later, also
> > as part of a diabetes management class, that we needed to cut carbs, I'm a
> > little skeptical, especially since this dietician had nothing else to
> > recommend. It was still low fat and low protein, but now low carbs also.
> > So what are we supposed to eat, grass?
> >
>
> For what it's worth, since starting the low carb way of eating a year
> ago, not only have DH and I both lost weight, but his diabetes is under
> control: he's been able to stop taking the Metformin, and his HBA1C is
> now 5.8. (Note that he is still considerably overweight -- in the
> morbidly obese category -- and hasn't lost enough to account for the new
> blood sugar.)

That's truly amazing! Congrats! I have certainly heard a lot of success
stories, but I'm going to wait and see what happens longer term. One
thing that is certainly true, is that different things work differently
for different people. I've also gotten off the Metformin (thank goodness)
and my HBA1C is doing well (as is my cholesterol). However, my diet has
not changed. I went from walking an hour a day to three hours a day. I
lost 15 pounds over about a year. If I can keep this up (which isn't easy
this time of year with the short days and bad weather), then I'll be doing
well.

> I LIKE about this is that the food is not boring! And at some point,
> you gotta eat.

I certainly found that cutting my total food intake hurt more than it
helped, mainly because I couldn't succeed at it.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
dabel@sonic.net

From:	dragonlady
Subject:	Re: The evolution of puberity
Date:	Thu, 30 Dec 2004 00:01:50 GMT

In article <1104359725.158193.58950@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
man_in_black529@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> > Actually, while junk food does seem to be more readily available, and
>
> > packaged differently to make it easier to throw in packed lunches,
> the
> > stats I've been reading indicate that the standard American diet is
> LESS
> > fat than it was in the 50's, and people are doing MORE recreational
> > physical activity. However, there is considerably less incidental
> > physical activity -- jobs, for example, are more sedentary, and few
> kids
> > walk or ride bikes to school or friends houses.
>
> Too true. I have no idea why either, for that second part at
> least; more people live in the city, and it's pretty hard to
> drive in LA.

We have almost never lived where it would have been safe for our kids to
ride their bikes to school, or to walk until they were at least 12 or
so. The streets have had heavy traffic with no (or totally inadequate)
bike lanes, and the walk has been too far (like more than 3 miles, which
I don't think is appropriate for a younger child) or on heavily
trafficked streets with no sidewalks. There has also been a HUGE
increase in the "stranger-danger" fears. While my parents would allow
me to bike (country roads) for a mile or two to visit a friend after I
was about 8 (and I think they were pretty mainstream), when we lived in
Massachusetts I had freinds who thought I was crazy for allowing my 10
yo to walk to school -- less than half a mile away, on good roads with
great sidewalks, and a crossing guard at the only place she'd have to
cross a major street. They felt I was taking horrible risks with her
safety. Of course, some of these same parents were pretty scandalized
that I'd let my kids wait for the school bus by themselves by the time
they were in kindergarten, or not meet it every day. We were NOT in a
high crime area -- but these days parents who tell their kids to "go
outside and play" are likely to find that there are few other kids
ALLOWED to just hang out in the neighborhood to play with whoever
happens to be around -- the increased fear has lead to children who get
far less incidental exercise.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

From:	Bev A. Kupf
Subject:	Re: The evolution of puberity
Date:	Sat, 25 Dec 2004 04:51:32 GMT

On 24 Dec 2004 19:41:16 -0800,
johnw_94020@yahoo.com (johnw_94020@yahoo.com) wrote:
> Why is it that kids are moving into puberty earlier these days than
> when lets say in the 1980's? I've heard this theory but cannot explain
> it.

_If_ its true, it could be for all sorts of reasons, including better
nutritional status -- there's a fairly good correlation between
nourishment and the age at menarche.

But I don't know if your general statement that puberty is reached
at an earlier age today than in the 1980's is true.

> Hence not even Pastor Dave can explain it, yet he thinks of
> himself as some super genious...

Wrong newsgroup. And you're in no position to be snide about
anyone else.

--
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer

From:	R. Steve Walz
Subject:	Re: The evolution of puberity
Date:	Sun, 26 Dec 2004 00:19:48 GMT

Bev A. Kupf wrote:
>
> On 24 Dec 2004 19:41:16 -0800,
> johnw_94020@yahoo.com (johnw_94020@yahoo.com) wrote:
> > Why is it that kids are moving into puberty earlier these days than
> > when lets say in the 1980's? I've heard this theory but cannot explain
> > it.
>
> _If_ its true, it could be for all sorts of reasons, including better
> nutritional status -- there's a fairly good correlation between
> nourishment and the age at menarche.
>
> But I don't know if your general statement that puberty is reached
> at an earlier age today than in the 1980's is true.
-----------------------------
It is, but it is known to be mostly caused by improved nutrition,
and thus it is MORE true that puberty has actually been historically
delayed by poor nutrition.

By the way, the "hormones in the food" notion was disproven, because
those are actually known to have the opposite effects.

What is most interesting is that antiual cultures also seem to
"delay" the recognition of puberty by failing to recognize or to
sanction their children's own ual urges, literally pretending
that no one tillthey are fully adult physically can even HAVE ual
urges, when it is well-known that puberty and ual desire arises at
age 8 or 9, and not only after the secondary changes are complete
at 14 or 15.

In Victorian times this was the pretense, ignoring all ual signs
till they were absolutely unavoidable.
Steve

From:	johnw_94020 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: The evolution of puberity
Date:	28 Dec 2004 16:38:09 -0800

<that.>>

Yeah but cost has gone way over demand. People may make more on minium
wage today, but things cost so much more than they did in 67. For
example gas is $2.00 a gallon here and that is cheap...

Take college loans for example. $20K a year is considered about
average, but this was not so in 67. But people make allot more than
they did in 67, yet so many students graduate with a buttload of loan
debt, something that was rare in 67!

John