How to Fend Off Cravings?

Ignoramus23449 wrote:

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 11:21:49 -0700, Matthew Venhaus wrote:

Ignoramus23449 wrote:

[...]
22% body fat for a female is near perfect avd quite athletic, as far
as I know.

I don't mean to imply that a 22% bf is undesirable, but it's generally
not considered to be in the 'quite athletic' range.

You could go down a couple of percentage points, but, if I
remember right, periods could cease at about 18% b/c female bodies
think that they should have at least that much BF to bring a baby to
term. I could dig up some references if you are interested.

I was going to comment on the 22% bf *until* I noticed that HS
indicated that her measurement was PRE running and that it may have
changed since then.

At that tallish height and relatively low bodyweight, frankly, I'd
expect bf% to be a little less. In other words, I was wondering if
she had a bit of a 'skinny fat' situation going on and needed to focus
on adding some muscle mass.

I would be interested in those references. Many female athletes are well
below 18% and still have no problem conceiving and giving birth (Marion
Jones being one prominant example). Essential bodyfat is about 12% for most
women and 6% for most men. Those aren't numbers to aim for and you certainly
don't want to go below them.

Maybe different sources give different numbers, but here's what I found

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=9433044

[study]
So, going from 18% to 15.72% results in statistically significant
increase in amenorrhoea.

Female ballerinas don't generally eat (or train) like endurance or
strength athletes, or even most typical people, for that matter.
Primary focus is on performance (technical skill in movement) and very
trim appearance.

I can't specifically recall the particular study I read recently, but
overall body mass plays a major factor -- i.e. is lower bf% primarily
due to just a very low bodyweight or is it due to a muscular body
composition?

Overall nutrition; micronutrient intake, etc. also plays a role.

Did a quick google: oh, here's an article that Elzi wrote on the
subject:
http://www.thinkmuscle.com/articles/...rual-cycle.htm

"The rate of body mass loss may be more critical than the absolute
amount of body fat lost."

Many other interesting tidbits in the article as well.

"Matthew Venhaus" wrote:

Low weight does not an anorexic make.

I agree; anorexia is a specific disorder in and of itself, and the
sole diagnostic criteria is not bodyweight.

Also, there's so much individual difference in body type and overall
body composition; what is 'ideal' for one person may not be for
another.

"Matthew Venhaus" wrote:

Low weight does not an anorexic make.

I agree; anorexia is a specific disorder in and of itself, and the
sole diagnostic criteria is not bodyweight.

Also, there's so much individual difference in body type and overall
body composition; what is 'ideal' for one person may not be for
another.

"Phil M." wrote:

We I go out with my family we always split a meal at least 2 ways,
sometimes 3 ways.

I think that's usually plenty for most people to be eating, especially
if there's any bread/salad/soup included with the meal.

My husband and I have been known to split just a appetizer when eating
out, especially if we've decided to also have a couple of drinks with
the meal.

source.

But there can be little doubt about where Reeves stands. This is
the man who once wrote a quite sympathetic book about Joe
McCarthy (The Life and Times of Joe McCarthy). In his anthology
of essays on the foundation system (Foundations Under Fire) his
uncritical opening essay is by far the longest piece in the book.
A fierce critic like Fred Cook gets only three pages. In his
anthology of essays on McCarthy (McCarthyism), editor Reeves has
to label critics of the champion Red baiter as "liberals." Yet
when people like Bill Buckley or Brent Bozell take the floor, no
such label is necessary. In his latest book, The Empty Church,
Reeves unremittingly pillories liberals for weakening the main
Protestant churches in America. What is the cause of their
shrinking numbers? The liberalism of the sixties of course. One
long chapter is entitled "Stuck in the Sixties." This last book
was published four years after his Kennedy hatchet job, and was
sponsored by something called the Wisconsin Policy Research
Institute which sounds suspiciously like Horowitz's Center for
Popular Culture, which makes me wonder if Reeves followed an
established course of career advancement.

Reeves certainly did all he could to promote the Marilyn Monroe
tale. Of course, he had an advantage. By 1991, when A Question of
Character was published, the Marilyn Monroe thread of the

movement outlined above was in full bloom. As if by design, this
literature assimilated appendages from the other two threads: a
distinct anti-Kennedy flavor, and the idea that the Kennedys
ordered political assassinations. If one follows the pedigree of
this

When the two were in the CIA, there were few rivalries
more pronounced and few resentments more public than the one
between Bissell and Helms, who resented his boss because Bissell
kept him out of the loop on some operations. Helms, according to
Evan Thomas' The Very Best Men, was happy to see the Bay of Pigs
capsize because it meant Bissell would be out and that Helms
would move up ( p. 268). So, to most objective readers, if Helms
has now switched to endorsing Bissell, there must be some
extenuating circumstances involved. There are, and again, Davis
does not tell the reader about them. As the Inspector General's
report tells us, when Dulles and Bissell began cleaning out their
desks, a new team took over the Castro plots, namely Bill Harvey
and Ted Shackley. The man they reported to was Helms, the highest
link in the chain (Alleged Assassination Plots pp. 148-153). In
other words, the alchemy of John Davis with Bissell helps get
Helms off the hook for responsibility for the continuing
unauthorized plots. And Helms needs all the help he can get. When
John McCone (Kennedy's replacement CIA Director) expressly
forbade any assassination plots, Helms said he couldn't remember
the meeting (Ibid, p. 166). When evidence was advanced that, in
direct opposition to Bobby's wishes, Helms continued the Castro
plots and allowed an operative to use RFK's name in doing so,
Helms said he didn't remember doing that either (Ibid p. 174). On
the day that RFK met with CIA officials to make it clear there
would be no more unauthorized plots against Castro, Kennedy's
calendar reads as follows: "1:00-Richard Helms." Helms could not
recall the meet

he saw were a plaster figurine of Che Guevara, and
near it, a photo of John Kennedy.

It's that international Jungian consciousness, however bottled
up, ambiguous, uncertain, that must be dislodged. In a sense,
this near-maniacal effort, and all the money and effort involved
in it, is a compliment that proves the opposite of the position
being advanced. This kind of defamation effort is reserved only
for the most dangerous foes of the status quo, e.g. a Huey Long
or a Thomas Jefferson. In a weird sort of way, it almost makes
one feel for the other side. It must be tough to be a security
guard of the mind, trying to control any ghosts rising from the
ashes. Which, of course, is why Hersh has to hide his real
feelings about his subject. That's the kind of threat the
Kennedys posed to the elite: JFK was never in the CFR (Imperial
Brain Trust p. 247); Bobby Kennedy hated the Rockefellers (Thy
Will be Done pp. 538-542). For those sins, and encouraging others
to follow them, they must suffer the fate of the Undead. And
Marilyn Monroe must be thrown into that half-world with them. At
the hands of Bob Loomis' pal, that "liberal" crusader Sy Hersh.

As Anson says, he must just want the money.


Current events, most notably a past issue of Vanity Fair, and the
upcoming release of Sy Hersh's new book, extend an issue that I
have dealt with in a talk I have done several times around the
country in the last two years. It is entitled "The Two
Assassinations of John Kennedy." I call it that because there has
been an ongoing campaign of character assassination ever since
Kennedy was killed.

In the talk to da

he saw were a plaster figurine of Che Guevara, and
near it, a photo of John Kennedy.

It's that international Jungian consciousness, however bottled
up, ambiguous, uncertain, that must be dislodged. In a sense,
this near-maniacal effort, and all the money and effort involved
in it, is a compliment that proves the opposite of the position
being advanced. This kind of defamation effort is reserved only
for the most dangerous foes of the status quo, e.g. a Huey Long
or a Thomas Jefferson. In a weird sort of way, it almost makes
one feel for the other side. It must be tough to be a security
guard of the mind, trying to control any ghosts rising from the
ashes. Which, of course, is why Hersh has to hide his real
feelings about his subject. That's the kind of threat the
Kennedys posed to the elite: JFK was never in the CFR (Imperial
Brain Trust p. 247); Bobby Kennedy hated the Rockefellers (Thy
Will be Done pp. 538-542). For those sins, and encouraging others
to follow them, they must suffer the fate of the Undead. And
Marilyn Monroe must be thrown into that half-world with them. At
the hands of Bob Loomis' pal, that "liberal" crusader Sy Hersh.

As Anson says, he must just want the money.


Current events, most notably a past issue of Vanity Fair, and the
upcoming release of Sy Hersh's new book, extend an issue that I
have dealt with in a talk I have done several times around the
country in the last two years. It is entitled "The Two
Assassinations of John Kennedy." I call it that because there has
been an ongoing campaign of character assassination ever since
Kennedy was killed.

In the talk to da

Junior's death and who now uses sex as a release
from his own vacuity. It deserves to be quoted at length:
The whole thing with him was pursuit. I think he was
secretly disappointed when a woman gave in. It meant that
the low esteem in which he held women was once again
validated....I was one of the few he could really talk
to....During one of these conversations I once asked him why
he was doing it-why he was acting like his father...why he
was taking a chance on getting caught in a scandal.... He
took awhile to formulate an answer. Finally he shrugged and
said, "I don't know, really, I guess I just can't help it."
He had this sad expression on his face. He looked like a
little boy about to cry (p. 214)

Pretty strong stuff. What else could the authors ask for but
young Jack confessing to their charge? But perhaps a little too
perfect? After contemplating the words, I thought to myself that
JFK was never this open to his girlfriends. Perhaps maybe Inga
Arvad, who he wanted to marry, but very few others. So I flipped
back to see who the source was. The footnote read "Authors'
interview with Priscilla McMillan." I then remembered that, by
this time, Priscilla had been classified by the CIA as a "witting
collaborator." I also recalled that years later, Priscilla
changed her "Platonic" relationship with JFK for the National
Enquirer. She was now saying that young Jack had actually made a
pass at her.

With this in mind, it is instructive to note that in Destructive
Generation, Collier reveals that in 1979 he started lecturing for
the United States Information Agency (p. 275). The USIA has a
long, involved association with the CIA and actually disseminated
propaganda for the Warren Commission. The date of Collier's wor

Does
this mean the government pushed her in 1977? In 1988? On both
occasions?
In retrospect, the recurring intervals of Exner's appearances are
suggestive. Although the Post surfaced her in 1975, her book did
not come out until two years later, on the fifteenth anniversary
of Kennedy's assassination. The 1988 People version - boosted by
two Times stories previewing its release - seems done to get the
jump on other stories for the 25th anniversary (as we shall see,
Ron Rosenbaum filled this role for the 20th anniversary). The
latest edition, with Exner aware of the JFK Act, was done at the
beginning of what was originally to be the last year of the
Review Board. Smith wrote the piece before the extra year was
granted by Congress. Smith's friendliness with Hersh, seems to
further this. For according to the ARRB's original timetable, the
Vanity Fair piece would arrive at the beginning of its last year
and Hersh's attack book in October, right when the Review Board
was originally set to shut down. This would make a nice pincers
movement with which to smother the Board's serious and
blockbuster work amid sexy smears about abortions and Marilyn
Monroe (Hersh).

In historical perspective, the Times and Safire, and the Post and
Ben Bradlee (who, as we shall see, also embraced Exner) opened
the flood gates to all kinds of National Enquirer type stories
about JFK's private life. Rumors about Monroe, numerous
secretaries, these all started t