Maybe dieting for long periods of time is healthier in some ways than stable weight...

This was the first article in Science News this week. Very interesting
article, and it may well be that regular dieting and weight loss is
not such a bad thing -- it might even be better in some ways than
maintaining a stable weight.

Very interesting descriptions and the follow-ups will be intriguing.

Yours,

Caleb

************************************************** ****
from: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070310/fob1.asp

Week of March 10, 2007; Vol. 171, No. 10 , p. 147
Living Long on Less? Mouse and human cells respond to slim diets

Patrick L. Barry

Scientists have known since the 1930s that mice and other animals live
30 to 50 percent longer when placed on a diet that's low in calories
yet nutritionally complete. The unanswered question has been whether
calorie restriction has the same life-extending effect on people.

Direct proof of a payoff for human longevity would take decades. But
scientists have now shown that people on a calorie-restricted diet
experience many of the cellular changes reported in mouse studies.

"The experimental results [in mice] mirror the results we found," says
Anthony E. Civitarese of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in
Baton Rouge, La. Whether those changes would extend a person's life
remains uncertain, he notes.

As people get older, energy-converting organelles called mitochondria
decrease in number and generate greater amounts of harmful by-products
called free radicals. Many scientists hypothesize that DNA damage from
these by-products can cause chronic diseases of old age such as
cancer.

Civitarese and his colleagues randomly assigned 36 overweight people
to one of three groups. The first group was instructed to follow a
diet with 25 percent fewer calories than the individuals' initial
energy expenditures. Each participant in the second group followed a
diet with 12.5 percent fewer calories than he or she had initially
expended, while exercising to burn another 12.5 percent. Both diets
contained adequate nutrition. People in the third group ate a weight-
maintenance diet, the researchers report in the March PLoS Medicine.

During the 6-month study, participants in both calorie-restricted
groups showed a 20 to 35 percent increase in the number of
mitochondria in their muscle cells and a 60 percent decrease in DNA
damage. The mitochondria appeared to become more youthful and
efficient.

People in the calorie-restricted groups also showed increased activity
of several genes related to mitochondrial function. Scientists have
long considered one of these genes, SIRT1, to be crucial for animals'
responses to calorie restriction.

"Not only is it a good study, but it's the only kind that we can do"
practically, comments David Sinclair of Harvard Medical School in
Boston. Several companies, including one cofounded by Sinclair, are
developing drugs to activate SIRT1.

"It's exciting to see SIRT1 in the middle of this," says Leonard
Guarente of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a cofounder of
a competing company. However, he says that interpretation of the
results of the Baton Rouge study is limited because the participants
were overweight, a condition that can accelerate tissue aging.

The researchers enrolled overweight people in part because they would
be motivated to follow a strict diet, Civitarese says. His team is
planning a test that will focus on people of normal body weight and
last 2 years.

"Caleb" <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> This was the first article in Science News this week. Very interesting
> article, and it may well be that regular dieting and weight loss is
> not such a bad thing -- it might even be better in some ways than
> maintaining a stable weight.

With a misrepresentation like your subject line, no wonder you
are called a troll and blown off by many. The permanent lifelong
calorie restriction shown cause longer lifespans in mice and many
other types of animals is absolutely NOT related to your history
of yoyo dieting. It *does* result in a stable weight for the simple
reason that it never ends until the subject animal dies.

You find a way to stay low calorie unendlingly for the rest of your
life without a pattern of yoyoing and you may well accure the same
benefits as the mice.

And just for fun, check out the level of caloric restriction imposed
on those mice. Is it a level that triggers rapid loss or slow loss?
Oh right. It's a level that triggers slow loss.

What I found interesting - If the mice are put on low calorie after
they are adults, it still seems to work.

On Mar 16, 8:57 am, "Doug Freyburger" <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Caleb" <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> > This was the first article in Science News this week. Very interesting
> > article, and it may well be that regular dieting and weight loss is
> > not such a bad thing -- it might even be better in some ways than
> > maintaining a stable weight.
>
> With a misrepresentation like your subject line, no wonder you
> are called a troll and blown off by many. The permanent lifelong
> calorie restriction shown cause longer lifespans in mice and many
> other types of animals is absolutely NOT related to your history
> of yoyo dieting. It *does* result in a stable weight for the simple
> reason that it never ends until the subject animal dies.
>
> You find a way to stay low calorie unendlingly for the rest of your
> life without a pattern of yoyoing and you may well accure the same
> benefits as the mice.
>
> And just for fun, check out the level of caloric restriction imposed
> on those mice. Is it a level that triggers rapid loss or slow loss?
> Oh right. It's a level that triggers slow loss.
>
> What I found interesting - If the mice are put on low calorie after
> they are adults, it still seems to work.


Doug --

There are many questions that spring from this research. Bottom line
-- we just don't know.

Mark Mattson, PhD, neuroscientist, said that eating every other day
appears to convey to mice and rats a resistance to the effects of head
injuries, alzheimers like events, etc. He is engaged in human studies
now.

These two lines of research suggest that calorie restriction (and
certainly not eating to maintenance multiple times in the course of a
day) may be more healthy than three squareas a day, 5 lighter meals a
day, etc. Further there is something in actually going for longer
periods of time without eating that may be health-inducing.

Overall such research helps remind people that just because some
people "know" certain things, that doesn't make them true.

The article also notes that overweight is a condition that can
accelerate tissue aging. So clearly I dunno the final outcome.

I guess you're quibbling with the word "maybe" in the header of this
post. Seems to me to be a reasonable qualifier for the speculation.

I'm sure not advocating weight fluctuations in people but neither do I
think they are necessarily worse than cancer, etc. And clearly this
current research suggests that there may be some advantages to periods
of losing weight. People on this list have often bemoaned loss of
muscle, increased lassitude, etc., but this is a very interesting
byproduct of this weight loss process.

Within the evolutionary framework, perhaps organisms have been favored
that accomodate intermittent food sources, that would be able to eat a
lot and then shut down their bodies for a while to allow them to
improve aspects of their functioning. Certainly this is compatible
with the findings of Mattson and also the more recent findings I cited
above. Also this is compatible with the real world. 4000 years ago
food was a pretty iffy thing, and it remains so in many portions of
the world today. If stable weight were a requirement for longevity,
the human race would have died out long ago.

Am I claiming that these are strong effects? No, not at all and
certainly not at this point. But they certainly question the basis of
continuous eating.

The above research suggests that this is another reason to lose weight
through calorie restriction (be it lowered calorie, Atkins, Zone,
etc., etc.).

But I think we should remember Hamlet's words to Horatio: "There are
many things between heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your
philosophy."

Yours,

Caleb

On Mar 16, 9:45 am, "Caleb" <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:

<Snip>

> But I think we should remember Hamlet's words to Horatio: "There are
> many things between heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your
> philosophy."
>
> Yours,
>
> Caleb

Oops! I omitted a word ("more") and found Hamlet's words on the
Internet:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt
of in your philosophy."

Yours,

Caleb

Muscle loss and other "bad effects" of weight loss are discussed here as a
result of abnormally fast weight loss... not as a result of weight loss in
itself..


"Caleb" <calebb@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:1174063525.030230.206700@l77g2000hsb.googlegr oups.com...
> On Mar 16, 8:57 am, "Doug Freyburger" <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Caleb" <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This was the first article in Science News this week. Very interesting
>> > article, and it may well be that regular dieting and weight loss is
>> > not such a bad thing -- it might even be better in some ways than
>> > maintaining a stable weight.
>>
>> With a misrepresentation like your subject line, no wonder you
>> are called a troll and blown off by many. The permanent lifelong
>> calorie restriction shown cause longer lifespans in mice and many
>> other types of animals is absolutely NOT related to your history
>> of yoyo dieting. It *does* result in a stable weight for the simple
>> reason that it never ends until the subject animal dies.
>>
>> You find a way to stay low calorie unendlingly for the rest of your
>> life without a pattern of yoyoing and you may well accure the same
>> benefits as the mice.
>>
>> And just for fun, check out the level of caloric restriction imposed
>> on those mice. Is it a level that triggers rapid loss or slow loss?
>> Oh right. It's a level that triggers slow loss.
>>
>> What I found interesting - If the mice are put on low calorie after
>> they are adults, it still seems to work.
>
>
> Doug --
>
> There are many questions that spring from this research. Bottom line
> -- we just don't know.
>
> Mark Mattson, PhD, neuroscientist, said that eating every other day
> appears to convey to mice and rats a resistance to the effects of head
> injuries, alzheimers like events, etc. He is engaged in human studies
> now.
>
> These two lines of research suggest that calorie restriction (and
> certainly not eating to maintenance multiple times in the course of a
> day) may be more healthy than three squareas a day, 5 lighter meals a
> day, etc. Further there is something in actually going for longer
> periods of time without eating that may be health-inducing.
>
> Overall such research helps remind people that just because some
> people "know" certain things, that doesn't make them true.
>
> The article also notes that overweight is a condition that can
> accelerate tissue aging. So clearly I dunno the final outcome.
>
> I guess you're quibbling with the word "maybe" in the header of this
> post. Seems to me to be a reasonable qualifier for the speculation.
>
> I'm sure not advocating weight fluctuations in people but neither do I
> think they are necessarily worse than cancer, etc. And clearly this
> current research suggests that there may be some advantages to periods
> of losing weight. People on this list have often bemoaned loss of
> muscle, increased lassitude, etc., but this is a very interesting
> byproduct of this weight loss process.
>
> Within the evolutionary framework, perhaps organisms have been favored
> that accomodate intermittent food sources, that would be able to eat a
> lot and then shut down their bodies for a while to allow them to
> improve aspects of their functioning. Certainly this is compatible
> with the findings of Mattson and also the more recent findings I cited
> above. Also this is compatible with the real world. 4000 years ago
> food was a pretty iffy thing, and it remains so in many portions of
> the world today. If stable weight were a requirement for longevity,
> the human race would have died out long ago.
>
> Am I claiming that these are strong effects? No, not at all and
> certainly not at this point. But they certainly question the basis of
> continuous eating.
>
> The above research suggests that this is another reason to lose weight
> through calorie restriction (be it lowered calorie, Atkins, Zone,
> etc., etc.).
>
> But I think we should remember Hamlet's words to Horatio: "There are
> many things between heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your
> philosophy."
>
> Yours,
>
> Caleb
>

On Mar 16, 1:15 pm, "Willow Herself"
<willowki...@somethingkikeseamountains.net> wrote:
> Muscle loss and other "bad effects" of weight loss are discussed here as a
> result of abnormally fast weight loss... not as a result of weight loss in
> itself..
>
> "Caleb" <cal...@teleport.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174063525.030230.206700@l77g2000hsb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > On Mar 16, 8:57 am, "Doug Freyburger" <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "Caleb" <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >> > This was the first article in Science News this week. Very interesting
> >> > article, and it may well be that regular dieting and weight loss is
> >> > not such a bad thing -- it might even be better in some ways than
> >> > maintaining a stable weight.
>
> >> With a misrepresentation like your subject line, no wonder you
> >> are called a troll and blown off by many. The permanent lifelong
> >> calorie restriction shown cause longer lifespans in mice and many
> >> other types of animals is absolutely NOT related to your history
> >> of yoyo dieting. It *does* result in a stable weight for the simple
> >> reason that it never ends until the subject animal dies.
>
> >> You find a way to stay low calorie unendlingly for the rest of your
> >> life without a pattern of yoyoing and you may well accure the same
> >> benefits as the mice.
>
> >> And just for fun, check out the level of caloric restriction imposed
> >> on those mice. Is it a level that triggers rapid loss or slow loss?
> >> Oh right. It's a level that triggers slow loss.
>
> >> What I found interesting - If the mice are put on low calorie after
> >> they are adults, it still seems to work.
>
> > Doug --
>
> > There are many questions that spring from this research. Bottom line
> > -- we just don't know.
>
> > Mark Mattson, PhD, neuroscientist, said that eating every other day
> > appears to convey to mice and rats a resistance to the effects of head
> > injuries, alzheimers like events, etc. He is engaged in human studies
> > now.
>
> > These two lines of research suggest that calorie restriction (and
> > certainly not eating to maintenance multiple times in the course of a
> > day) may be more healthy than three squareas a day, 5 lighter meals a
> > day, etc. Further there is something in actually going for longer
> > periods of time without eating that may be health-inducing.
>
> > Overall such research helps remind people that just because some
> > people "know" certain things, that doesn't make them true.
>
> > The article also notes that overweight is a condition that can
> > accelerate tissue aging. So clearly I dunno the final outcome.
>
> > I guess you're quibbling with the word "maybe" in the header of this
> > post. Seems to me to be a reasonable qualifier for the speculation.
>
> > I'm sure not advocating weight fluctuations in people but neither do I
> > think they are necessarily worse than cancer, etc. And clearly this
> > current research suggests that there may be some advantages to periods
> > of losing weight. People on this list have often bemoaned loss of
> > muscle, increased lassitude, etc., but this is a very interesting
> > byproduct of this weight loss process.
>
> > Within the evolutionary framework, perhaps organisms have been favored
> > that accomodate intermittent food sources, that would be able to eat a
> > lot and then shut down their bodies for a while to allow them to
> > improve aspects of their functioning. Certainly this is compatible
> > with the findings of Mattson and also the more recent findings I cited
> > above. Also this is compatible with the real world. 4000 years ago
> > food was a pretty iffy thing, and it remains so in many portions of
> > the world today. If stable weight were a requirement for longevity,
> > the human race would have died out long ago.
>
> > Am I claiming that these are strong effects? No, not at all and
> > certainly not at this point. But they certainly question the basis of
> > continuous eating.
>
> > The above research suggests that this is another reason to lose weight
> > through calorie restriction (be it lowered calorie, Atkins, Zone,
> > etc., etc.).
>
> > But I think we should remember Hamlet's words to Horatio: "There are
> > many things between heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your
> > philosophy."
>
> > Yours,
>
> > Caleb


Willow --

Thanks for the clarification!

I guess this article also supports the proposition that if one is
overweight, one should lose the weight, rather than than maintaining
it. That is, there seems to be a positive effect of an important type
in restricting one's calories. Whether or not weight gain has a
greater negative impact on the cellular activity than weight loss has
a positive effect is not clear. I'd really like to see animal research
results on these topics, as well as human research.

Many football players put on and lose a lot of weight each year -- 30
to 40 pound yearly fluctuations are not that uncommon among the big
players, I believe. It would be interesting to replicate this research
on them.

Yours,

Caleb

On Mar 16, 12:09 am, "Caleb" <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
> This was the first article in Science News this week. Very interesting
> article, and it may well be that regular dieting and weight loss is
> not such a bad thing -- it might even be better in some ways than
> maintaining a stable weight.
>
> Very interesting descriptions and the follow-ups will be intriguing.
>
> Yours,
>
> Caleb
>
> ************************************************** ****
> from:http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070310/fob1.asp
>
> Week of March 10, 2007; Vol. 171, No. 10 , p. 147
> Living Long on Less? Mouse and human cells respond to slim diets
>
> Patrick L. Barry
>
> Scientists have known since the 1930s that mice and other animals live
> 30 to 50 percent longer when placed on a diet that's low in calories
> yet nutritionally complete. The unanswered question has been whether
> calorie restriction has the same life-extending effect on people.
>
> Direct proof of a payoff for human longevity would take decades. But
> scientists have now shown that people on a calorie-restricted diet
> experience many of the cellular changes reported in mouse studies.
>
> "The experimental results [in mice] mirror the results we found," says
> Anthony E. Civitarese of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in
> Baton Rouge, La. Whether those changes would extend a person's life
> remains uncertain, he notes.
>
> As people get older, energy-converting organelles called mitochondria
> decrease in number and generate greater amounts of harmful by-products
> called free radicals. Many scientists hypothesize that DNA damage from
> these by-products can cause chronic diseases of old age such as
> cancer.
>
> Civitarese and his colleagues randomly assigned 36 overweight people
> to one of three groups. The first group was instructed to follow a
> diet with 25 percent fewer calories than the individuals' initial
> energy expenditures. Each participant in the second group followed a
> diet with 12.5 percent fewer calories than he or she had initially
> expended, while exercising to burn another 12.5 percent. Both diets
> contained adequate nutrition. People in the third group ate a weight-
> maintenance diet, the researchers report in the March PLoS Medicine.
>
> During the 6-month study, participants in both calorie-restricted
> groups showed a 20 to 35 percent increase in the number of
> mitochondria in their muscle cells and a 60 percent decrease in DNA
> damage. The mitochondria appeared to become more youthful and
> efficient.
>
> People in the calorie-restricted groups also showed increased activity
> of several genes related to mitochondrial function. Scientists have
> long considered one of these genes, SIRT1, to be crucial for animals'
> responses to calorie restriction.
>
> "Not only is it a good study, but it's the only kind that we can do"
> practically, comments David Sinclair of Harvard Medical School in
> Boston. Several companies, including one cofounded by Sinclair, are
> developing drugs to activate SIRT1.
>
> "It's exciting to see SIRT1 in the middle of this," says Leonard
> Guarente of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a cofounder of
> a competing company. However, he says that interpretation of the
> results of the Baton Rouge study is limited because the participants
> were overweight, a condition that can accelerate tissue aging.
>
> The researchers enrolled overweight people in part because they would
> be motivated to follow a strict diet, Civitarese says. His team is
> planning a test that will focus on people of normal body weight and
> last 2 years.

Too much of a good thing, might not be good overall however. The mice
in question living longer is one thing, but the kind of restriction
they use for mice can result in decreased development, including
smaller BRAIN size. That is not one trade off most people would chose
for living longer. Probably, a restrictive diet is ok for adults
though as long as you are within the healthy medical weight range for
your height. Some of us even feel it might be best to be near the
bottom of that range, but like you say we won't know the answer to
that until after many years of study. dkw

On Mar 18, 10:50 am, "dkw12...@yahoo.com" <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 12:09 am, "Caleb" <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > This was the first article in Science News this week. Very interesting
> > article, and it may well be that regular dieting and weight loss is
> > not such a bad thing -- it might even be better in some ways than
> > maintaining a stable weight.
>
> > Very interesting descriptions and the follow-ups will be intriguing.
>
> > Yours,
>
> > Caleb
>
> > ************************************************** ****
> > from:http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070310/fob1.asp
>
> > Week of March 10, 2007; Vol. 171, No. 10 , p. 147
> > Living Long on Less? Mouse and human cells respond to slim diets
>
> > Patrick L. Barry
>
> > Scientists have known since the 1930s that mice and other animals live
> > 30 to 50 percent longer when placed on a diet that's low in calories
> > yet nutritionally complete. The unanswered question has been whether
> > calorie restriction has the same life-extending effect on people.
>
> > Direct proof of a payoff for human longevity would take decades. But
> > scientists have now shown that people on a calorie-restricted diet
> > experience many of the cellular changes reported in mouse studies.
>
> > "The experimental results [in mice] mirror the results we found," says
> > Anthony E. Civitarese of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in
> > Baton Rouge, La. Whether those changes would extend a person's life
> > remains uncertain, he notes.
>
> > As people get older, energy-converting organelles called mitochondria
> > decrease in number and generate greater amounts of harmful by-products
> > called free radicals. Many scientists hypothesize that DNA damage from
> > these by-products can cause chronic diseases of old age such as
> > cancer.
>
> > Civitarese and his colleagues randomly assigned 36 overweight people
> > to one of three groups. The first group was instructed to follow a
> > diet with 25 percent fewer calories than the individuals' initial
> > energy expenditures. Each participant in the second group followed a
> > diet with 12.5 percent fewer calories than he or she had initially
> > expended, while exercising to burn another 12.5 percent. Both diets
> > contained adequate nutrition. People in the third group ate a weight-
> > maintenance diet, the researchers report in the March PLoS Medicine.
>
> > During the 6-month study, participants in both calorie-restricted
> > groups showed a 20 to 35 percent increase in the number of
> > mitochondria in their muscle cells and a 60 percent decrease in DNA
> > damage. The mitochondria appeared to become more youthful and
> > efficient.
>
> > People in the calorie-restricted groups also showed increased activity
> > of several genes related to mitochondrial function. Scientists have
> > long considered one of these genes, SIRT1, to be crucial for animals'
> > responses to calorie restriction.
>
> > "Not only is it a good study, but it's the only kind that we can do"
> > practically, comments David Sinclair of Harvard Medical School in
> > Boston. Several companies, including one cofounded by Sinclair, are
> > developing drugs to activate SIRT1.
>
> > "It's exciting to see SIRT1 in the middle of this," says Leonard
> > Guarente of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a cofounder of
> > a competing company. However, he says that interpretation of the
> > results of the Baton Rouge study is limited because the participants
> > were overweight, a condition that can accelerate tissue aging.
>
> > The researchers enrolled overweight people in part because they would
> > be motivated to follow a strict diet, Civitarese says. His team is
> > planning a test that will focus on people of normal body weight and
> > last 2 years.
>
> Too much of a good thing, might not be good overall however. The mice
> in question living longer is one thing, but the kind of restriction
> they use for mice can result in decreased development, including
> smaller BRAIN size. That is not one trade off most people would chose
> for living longer. Probably, a restrictive diet is ok for adults
> though as long as you are within the healthy medical weight range for
> your height. Some of us even feel it might be best to be near the
> bottom of that range, but like you say we won't know the answer to
> that until after many years of study. dkw

DKW --

Good observations!

It's amazing what we don't know -- or what we know that just ain't so.

Yours,

Caleb

Caleb <calebb@teleport.com> wrote:

> Caleb

Why haven't you gone away?

On Mar 20, 8:49 am, dhrr...@ohatzhapu.bet (The Queen of Cans and Jars)
wrote:
> Caleb <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > Caleb
>
> Why haven't you gone away?

Because people keep feeding him. How many days of his hundred are left?

"The Historian" <neil.thehistorian@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174403733.868268.157060@n76g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> On Mar 20, 8:49 am, dhrr...@ohatzhapu.bet (The Queen of Cans and Jars)
> wrote:
>> Caleb <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> > Caleb
>>
>> Why haven't you gone away?
>
> Because people keep feeding him. How many days of his hundred are left?
>
Maybe he's just entertaining...
Will~

Willow Herself <willowkinda@somethingkikeseamountains.net> wrote:

> "The Historian" <neil.thehistorian@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 20, 8:49 am, dhrr...@ohatzhapu.bet:
> >> Caleb <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >> > Caleb
> >>
> >> Why haven't you gone away?
> >
> > Because people keep feeding him. How many days of his hundred are left?
> >
> Maybe he's just entertaining...

Yeah, entertaining like getting hit in the chest with an ice hammer.

I think I'll pass.

"The Historian" <neil.thehistorian@gmail.com> writes:

> Because people keep feeding him. How many days of his hundred are left?

Looks like he started posting on Feb 1. Then again, he said it's day
43 on Feb 12, so by that count day 100 is, uhh, April 10?

On Mar 21, 12:24 am, dhrr...@ohatzhapu.bet (The Queen of Cans and
Jars) wrote:
> Willow Herself <willowki...@somethingkikeseamountains.net> wrote:
> > "The Historian" <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 20, 8:49 am, dhrr...@ohatzhapu.bet:
> > >> Caleb <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > >> > Caleb
>
> > >> Why haven't you gone away?
>
> > > Because people keep feeding him. How many days of his hundred are left?
>
> > Maybe he's just entertaining...
>
> Yeah, entertaining like getting hit in the chest with an ice hammer.

Hmm, interesting comparison. I personally think arguing with "Caleb"
is like wrestling a pig. All you have to show for it is dirt and
frustration, and the pig enjoys himself.

> I think I'll pass.

Me too.

On Mar 21, 5:15 am, Anssi Saari <a...@sci.fi> wrote:
> "The Historian" <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Because people keep feeding him. How many days of his hundred are left?
>
> Looks like he started posting on Feb 1. Then again, he said it's day
> 43 on Feb 12, so by that count day 100 is, uhh, April 10?

If so, we could be Caleb free by April 11!

The Historian <neil.thehistorian@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 21, 12:24 am, dhrr...@ohatzhapu.bet:
> > Willow Herself <willowki...@somethingkikeseamountains.net> wrote:
> > > "The Historian" <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 20, 8:49 am, dhrr...@ohatzhapu.bet:
> > > >> Caleb <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > > >> > Caleb
> >
> > > >> Why haven't you gone away?
> >
> > > > Because people keep feeding him. How many days of his hundred are left?
> >
> > > Maybe he's just entertaining...
> >
> > Yeah, entertaining like getting hit in the chest with an ice hammer.
>
> Hmm, interesting comparison. I personally think arguing with "Caleb"
> is like wrestling a pig. All you have to show for it is dirt and
> frustration, and the pig enjoys himself.

Eh. Pigs are likeable, and tasty in egg sandwiches. Caleb is just a
waste of time.

> > I think I'll pass.
>
> Me too.

On that, dear friend, we are agreed one hundred percent.

"The Queen of Cans and Jars" <dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet> wrote in message
news:1hvabcp.1tb3fpjixkk0eN%dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet. ..
> Willow Herself <willowkinda@somethingkikeseamountains.net> wrote:
>
>> "The Historian" <neil.thehistorian@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Mar 20, 8:49 am, dhrr...@ohatzhapu.bet:
>> >> Caleb <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >> > Caleb
>> >>
>> >> Why haven't you gone away?
>> >
>> > Because people keep feeding him. How many days of his hundred are left?
>> >
>> Maybe he's just entertaining...
>
> Yeah, entertaining like getting hit in the chest with an ice hammer.
>
> I think I'll pass.

Why don't you? as always nobody's forcing you to read..
Will~

Willow Herself <willowkinda@somethingkikeseamountains.net> wrote:

> "The Queen of Cans and Jars" <dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet> wrote:
> > Willow Herself <willowkinda@somethingkikeseamountains.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "The Historian" <neil.thehistorian@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Mar 20, 8:49 am, dhrr...@ohatzhapu.bet:
> >> >> Caleb <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Caleb
> >> >>
> >> >> Why haven't you gone away?
> >> >
> >> > Because people keep feeding him. How many days of his hundred are left?
> >> >
> >> Maybe he's just entertaining...
> >
> > Yeah, entertaining like getting hit in the chest with an ice hammer.
> >
> > I think I'll pass.
>
> Why don't you? as always nobody's forcing you to read..

And no one's forcing me to not post my opinion, either. See how that
works?

"The Queen of Cans and Jars" <dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet> wrote in message
news:1hvbf9e.mzp6p8lnset8N%dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet.. .
> Willow Herself <willowkinda@somethingkikeseamountains.net> wrote:
>
>> "The Queen of Cans and Jars" <dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet> wrote:
>> > Willow Herself <willowkinda@somethingkikeseamountains.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "The Historian" <neil.thehistorian@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Mar 20, 8:49 am, dhrr...@ohatzhapu.bet:
>> >> >> Caleb <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > Caleb
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why haven't you gone away?
>> >> >
>> >> > Because people keep feeding him. How many days of his hundred are
>> >> > left?
>> >> >
>> >> Maybe he's just entertaining...
>> >
>> > Yeah, entertaining like getting hit in the chest with an ice hammer.
>> >
>> > I think I'll pass.
>>
>> Why don't you? as always nobody's forcing you to read..
>
> And no one's forcing me to not post my opinion, either. See how that
> works?

Never said you couldn't did I?
Will~

On 21 Mar 2007 04:35:02 -0700, in alt.support.diet, "The Historian"
<neil.thehistorian@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Hmm, interesting comparison. I personally think arguing with "Caleb"
>is like wrestling a pig. All you have to show for it is dirt and
>frustration, and the pig enjoys himself.
>
>> I think I'll pass.
>
>Me too.


That is just too funny....

Willow Herself <willowkinda@somethingkikeseamountains.net> wrote:

> "The Queen of Cans and Jars" <dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet> wrote:
> > Willow Herself <willowkinda@somethingkikeseamountains.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "The Queen of Cans and Jars" <dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet> wrote:
> >> > Willow Herself <willowkinda@somethingkikeseamountains.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "The Historian" <neil.thehistorian@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Mar 20, 8:49 am, dhrr...@ohatzhapu.bet:
> >> >> >> Caleb <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Caleb
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why haven't you gone away?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Because people keep feeding him. How many days of his hundred are
> >> >> > left?
> >> >> >
> >> >> Maybe he's just entertaining...
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, entertaining like getting hit in the chest with an ice hammer.
> >> >
> >> > I think I'll pass.
> >>
> >> Why don't you? as always nobody's forcing you to read..
> >
> > And no one's forcing me to not post my opinion, either. See how that
> > works?
>
> Never said you couldn't did I?

Blah blah blah.

"The Queen of Cans and Jars" <dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet> wrote in message
news:1hvbvb7.f065jp1hqva02N%dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet. ..
> Willow Herself <willowkinda@somethingkikeseamountains.net> wrote:
>
>> "The Queen of Cans and Jars" <dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet> wrote:
>> > Willow Herself <willowkinda@somethingkikeseamountains.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "The Queen of Cans and Jars" <dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet> wrote:
>> >> > Willow Herself <willowkinda@somethingkikeseamountains.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "The Historian" <neil.thehistorian@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Mar 20, 8:49 am, dhrr...@ohatzhapu.bet:
>> >> >> >> Caleb <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > Caleb
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Why haven't you gone away?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Because people keep feeding him. How many days of his hundred are
>> >> >> > left?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Maybe he's just entertaining...
>> >> >
>> >> > Yeah, entertaining like getting hit in the chest with an ice hammer.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think I'll pass.
>> >>
>> >> Why don't you? as always nobody's forcing you to read..
>> >
>> > And no one's forcing me to not post my opinion, either. See how that
>> > works?
>>
>> Never said you couldn't did I?
>
> Blah blah blah.

LOL

I'm ever impressed by the energy you put into being a pain...

Such talent wasted...
Will~

Willow Herself <willowkinda@somethingkikeseamountains.net> wrote:

> I'm ever impressed by the energy you put into being a pain...
>
> Such talent wasted...

Yeah, 'cause typing "blah blah blah" took so much energy.

"The Historian" <neil.thehistorian@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174476988.159843.215390@n76g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> On Mar 21, 5:15 am, Anssi Saari <a...@sci.fi> wrote:
>> "The Historian" <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > Because people keep feeding him. How many days of his hundred are left?
>>
>> Looks like he started posting on Feb 1. Then again, he said it's day
>> 43 on Feb 12, so by that count day 100 is, uhh, April 10?
>
> If so, we could be Caleb free by April 11!
>

Considering he has NEVER made it thru the entire 100 days and posted every
day of them... I'd say we will be rid of him by April 1 or sooner.

On Mar 22, 7:39 pm, "LFM" <nothank...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "The Historian" <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174476988.159843.215390@n76g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > On Mar 21, 5:15 am, Anssi Saari <a...@sci.fi> wrote:
> >> "The Historian" <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> > Because people keep feeding him. How many days of his hundred are left?
>
> >> Looks like he started posting on Feb 1. Then again, he said it's day
> >> 43 on Feb 12, so by that count day 100 is, uhh, April 10?
>
> > If so, we could be Caleb free by April 11!
>
> Considering he has NEVER made it thru the entire 100 days and posted every
> day of them... I'd say we will be rid of him by April 1 or sooner.

Could be correct! But I doubt it.

And by the way, you are very wrong in what you said. Perhaps
intentionally...

Yours truly,

Caleb

Caleb <calebb@teleport.com> wrote:

> And by the way, you are very wrong in what you said.

Just like you're very wrong about so many things you say.

Don't you have a group all set up for your silly shenanigans? Can't you
just hang out there?

On Mar 23, 1:46 pm, dhrr...@ohatzhapu.bet (The Queen of Cans and Jars)
wrote:
> Caleb <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > And by the way, you are very wrong in what you said.
>
> Just like you're very wrong about so many things you say.
>
> Don't you have a group all set up for your silly shenanigans? Can't you
> just hang out there?

Hi 'The Queen of Cans'

I would just like to say that i came across your comments, not just
about my advice but EVERY single topic you have had an input with, and
found them very negative.

You seem to make it your job each day to dis what someone else says.
Including this comment here. I find it sad that you have so much
negative energy and if you need any life coaching please contact me.
This is not me trying to be patronising but I see your nasty comments
and wonder why you just attack people. I believe it is right to have
your own opinion but your comments are not an opinion or constructive
just plain disrespect and nasty. A little less judgement and a bit
more compassion goes a long way and having a positive mind attracts
more positive energy so stay happy and keep smiling

Honestly, if i can help with anything please get in touch

Love and light

On 24 Mar 2007 15:05:51 -0700, "info@sananda.co.uk"
<info@sananda.co.uk> wrote:

>Hi 'The Queen of Cans'
>
>I would just like to say that i came across your comments, not just
>about my advice but EVERY single topic you have had an input with, and
>found them very negative.
>
>You seem to make it your job each day to dis what someone else says.
>Including this comment here. I find it sad that you have so much
>negative energy and if you need any life coaching please contact me.
>This is not me trying to be patronising but I see your nasty comments
>and wonder why you just attack people. I believe it is right to have
>your own opinion but your comments are not an opinion or constructive
>just plain disrespect and nasty. A little less judgement and a bit
>more compassion goes a long way and having a positive mind attracts
>more positive energy so stay happy and keep smiling
>
>Honestly, if i can help with anything please get in touch

Go drink some of the aloe vera juice you're trying to sell, and leave
the people in the newsgroup alone.

Jo Anne

info@sananda.co.uk <info@sananda.co.uk> wrote:

> I would just like to say that i came across your comments, not just about
> my advice but EVERY single topic you have had an input with, and found
> them very negative.

Boo hoo.

<info@sananda.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1174773951.516573.65940@l75g2000hse.googlegro ups.com...
> On Mar 23, 1:46 pm, dhrr...@ohatzhapu.bet (The Queen of Cans and Jars)
> wrote:
>> Caleb <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> > And by the way, you are very wrong in what you said.
>>
>> Just like you're very wrong about so many things you say.
>>
>> Don't you have a group all set up for your silly shenanigans? Can't you
>> just hang out there?
>
> Hi 'The Queen of Cans'
>
> I would just like to say that i came across your comments, not just
> about my advice but EVERY single topic you have had an input with, and
> found them very negative.
>
> You seem to make it your job each day to dis what someone else says.
> Including this comment here. I find it sad that you have so much
> negative energy and if you need any life coaching please contact me.
> This is not me trying to be patronising but I see your nasty comments
> and wonder why you just attack people. I believe it is right to have
> your own opinion but your comments are not an opinion or constructive
> just plain disrespect and nasty. A little less judgement and a bit
> more compassion goes a long way and having a positive mind attracts
> more positive energy so stay happy and keep smiling
>
> Honestly, if i can help with anything please get in touch
>
> Love and light

Gee - I've been a member of this group for about 10 years, and as far as I
can ever reca