Dr. Mosely had written an interesting article on the Full-Fat diet in Times, and its featured under press releases on this website, I realized that however that you need a paid subscription to Times to read the article, and used one got as a freebie from another newspaper subscription. I will copy the transcript of the article in next post (therefore making it a super-long post! Sorry!!). Contains a lot of logic for going off the “low-Fat” mindset, of which I am struggling with.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/health/article4135690.ece

The full-fat diet — why it’s not as unhealthy as you think
Michael Mosley
Last updated at 12:01AM, July 2 2014
I saw a study the other day that found that eating yoghurt would help you lose weight. Not surprising, because yoghurt is high in calcium and protein, which keeps you fuller for longer. What was surprising about this study, however, which involved following 8,516 men and women for more than two years, was that the yoghurt had to be full fat to work. Eating low-fat yoghurt didn’t make any difference.
Ever since I was a medical student, several decades ago, I have been convinced that fat is the enemy. Saturated fat, I’ve assured friends and family, will clog your arteries as surely as pouring lard down them. Because it is so energy-dense, eating fat will also, inevitably, mean you pile on the pounds.
Recently, however, I’ve changed my mind. Study after study has failed to find a convincing link between saturated fat and heart disease. As a nation we’re eating less fat but getting fatter. Research has shown that low-fat diets rarely work, that cholesterol is a poor predictor of heart disease and that eating the right kind of fat can be both good for the heart and for slimming. Instead attention has turned to sugar, with obesity experts last week urging people to cut back on fruit juice and sugary drinks.
So what’s going on? Well to understand the fear of fat we need to go back to 1957, the year I was born. It was then that the hugely influential American Heart Association decided to back a campaign aimed at reducing fat consumption. Out with the steak, butter and cheese; in with the pasta, rice and potatoes. Or at least that was the plan.
In that same year a British scientist named John Yudkin published a study that claimed that sugar, not fat, was the driver of heart disease. As he later wrote in his polemical book Pure, White and Deadly, there was only a modest link in international studies between fat consumption and heart disease. “A better relationship,” he wrote, “turned out to exist between sugar consumption and coronary mortality.” In fact, as he rather presciently pointed out, in the UK the best“fit” was between the number of television and radio sets being bought and deaths from heart attacks. Buying a TV in the 1950s was a sign of growing affluence, but it also pointed towards a lifestyle in which people would spend a lot more time sitting down.
Yudkin’s message about the dangers of sugar were rejected by the anti-fat lobby and he was, in the memorable phrase of one of his colleagues, “pushed under a bus”. A prominent UK scientist denounced his attack on sugar as “nothing more than scientific fraud” and “not only false and misleading but frankly mischievous”.
In 1972 a former cardiologist, Robert Atkins, began pushing a similar message about the dangers of sugar and carbohydrates in Dr Atkins’ Diet Revolution. When he died, hugely overweight and with signs of heart disease, there was considerable glee among the anti-fat lobby. His widow refused to allow an autopsy.
His modern equivalent, Pierre Dukan, hasn’t fared much better. Like Atkins, the Dukan diet is a protein-rich diet that minimises carbohydrates. This year Dukan was struck off the French medical register for, among other things, promoting his diet commercially.
In the Eighties, when the Atkins diet was at the height of its popularity, I first became concerned about my own diet. I was at medical school where, though we were taught a huge amount about a wide range of things, from anatomy to biochemistry, we learnt very little about nutrition. We were, however, assured that Atkins was spouting dangerous nonsense and were warned about the dangers of saturated fat.
I was slim and did a lot of exercise, but like many students I also ate quite a lot of saturated fat in the form of butter, burgers and salami. I have a family history of heart disease and strokes and my father was a recently diagnosed diabetic. It was plainly time to act.
Zealously I persuaded my overweight father to go on a low-fat diet (it didn’t work) and harangued my mother until she switched from eating butter to eating margarine (though I suspect she switched back when I wasn’t around). Beef was replaced by chicken. Coffee came with a dash of skimmed milk. Eggs were avoided. Yoghurt was always low-fat.
So did I become healthier? Well, no. Over the next few decades I put on about two stone, my body fat went up to a blobby 28 per cent, my cholesterol soared and I became a borderline diabetic.
In 2011, while making a documentary for the BBC, I had a body scan and discovered that my internal organs were coated with fat. I was, the consultant told me, a TOFI — thin outside, fat inside.
he trouble was that although I was eating less fat I was now eating far more carbohydrates. If I had switched to a sensible low-GI diet, eating lots more vegetables and grains, then undoubtedly I would have been better off. Instead I was doing what was advised at the time, which was to eat a lot more starchy foods such as pasta and potatoes.
What I hadn’t appreciated is the way these foods act on your body. Eating a boiled potato will push your blood glucose up almost as quickly as eating a tablespoon of sugar. Ironically, if you eat the potato with butter, the fat will slow absorption and the blood sugar peak will be slower and less extreme.
I also hadn’t appreciated that carbohydrates, particularly refined carbohydrates such as rice, potatoes and pasta, are less satiating than fat or protein. You eat them and then a few hours later you are hungry. So you eat some more.
The man who did more than most to convince America, then the rest of the world, then me, to travel the low-fat road, was a physiologist called Ancel Keys. In 1953 Keys published a paper called Atherosclerosis: A problem in newer public health. His paper included a graph comparing fat consumption and deaths from heart disease in men from six different countries. Men in the USA, who gota lot of their calories from fat, were far more likely to die from heart disease than men in Japan who ate little fat. The link seemed straightforward, clear and very compelling.
But Jacob Yerushalmy and Herman Hilleboe — a statistician and the New York State Commissioner of Health respectively — responded with a scathing critique, Fat in the diet and mortality from heart disease: A methodological note. In the measured language of science they tore into Keys, wondering, for example, why he had chosen to focus on just six countries when he had access to data from twenty-two countries. Or, as they put it, “since no information is given by Keys on how or why the six countries were selected, it is necessary to investigate the association between dietary fat and heart disease mortality in all countries for which information is available”.
In other words, it looked very much as if Keys had been cherry-picking his data. If you added in other countries such as France and Germany (countries with high rates of fat consumption but relatively modest rates of heart disease) the link became much weaker.
Yerushalmy and Hilleboe also posed the question: “How does fat (and by extension, animal food variables) relate to other causes of death?” Their answer was that although eating animal fat may lead to more heart disease, you are less likely to die of other things. They could find no link between eating animal fat and increased risk of overall death.
Despite what seems in hindsight to be valid criticisms, the “war on fat” picked up unstoppable momentum. Over the next few decades huge numbers of people cut their consumption of animal fats, like butter and cream. They didn’t, however, start eating lots more healthy stuff. Instead they gorged on sugary carbohydrates and vegetable oils.
Most of those vegetable oils were highly processed. To turn oil into margarine the manufacturers used a process called hydrogenation, which in turn led to the production of trans fats. Trans fats, until recently found in most shop-bought biscuits and cakes, are the Lord Voldemort of the fat world. They are being phased out.
Along with the demonisation of fat, cholesterol also took a beating. If it was common sense that eating fat would clog up your arteries, then it was also common sense that eating cholesterol would do the same. After all it was cholesterol in the arteries that was doing the clogging.
Foods rich in cholesterol, such as eggs, were shunned. Governments warned consumers to eat no more than one egg a week; restaurants pushed the merit of white-only omelettes and supermarkets were stacked to the rafters with foods that declared themselves “cholesterol-free”.
Along with the crowd I gave up eating eggs and tried to persuade the rest of my family to do likewise.
Along with the crowd I gave up eating eggs and tried to persuade the rest of my family to do likewise.
Yet it turned out that the effects of the cholesterol we eat on the cholesterol levels in our blood is relatively small. Even Ancel Keys had concluded in the Fifties that “the cholesterol content of human diets is unimportant in human atherosclerosis”.
It is a myth that has taken a very long time to die. The American Heart Association still issues dire warnings about the dangers of eating cholesterol. Yet a meta-analysis of 17 studies published in the British Medical Journal last year concluded that “higher consumption of eggs is not associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease or stroke”.
I now eat eggs most mornings. When scrambled, boiled, poached or in an omelette, they are a superb source of protein, rich in vitamins and minerals. There are about 90 calories in a boiled egg, half that of a small bowl of Frosties and a quarter that of a croissant with butter and jam. Unlike the cereal or the croissant, the protein in the eggs will keep you feeling fuller for longer.
Another persistent myth about cholesterol is that it is a powerful predictor of heart disease. I’ve recently had my bloods checked and my total cholesterol is higher than it should be, which of course is worrying. Or is it?
My father had a heart attack at about my age so I know I am at risk, but I also know that half the people who are admitted to hospital with signs of heart disease have normal cholesterol levels, while plenty of people with high cholesterol scores will never develop heart disease.
Cholesterol is essential to life. Made by your liver, it is transported in your arteries in a form called LDL (low-density lipoprotein). Excess amounts are carried back to your liver as HDL (high-density lipoprotein).
Broadly speaking you want low blood levels of LDL and high levels of HDL. The ratio of LDL to HDL is more important than your total cholesterol score. But that isn’t the end of the story, because even within LDL there are at least two subfractions: large fluffy particles that don’t seem to be too bad, and small, hard particles that are.
To add to the confusion there are also triglycerides, globules of fat that travel round in your blood and are also an important risk factor when it comes to heart disease.
Eating saturated fat raises LDL, but it also raises HDL. Triglycerides, on the other hand, are elevated by lack of exercise and eating too many calories, particularly simple, sugary carbohydrates.
My total cholesterol is high because my LDL levels are high, but also because my HDL levels are high. My triglycerides, on the other hand, are exceptionally low. So am I at risk of a heart attack? To find out I went to the Qrisk calculator (qrisk.org), a calculator used by GPs. According to this calculator I have an 8 per cent chance of having a heart attack or stroke in the next ten years, which is better than average for someone of my age, gender and ethnicity.
In the Fifties, just as Ancel Keys was launching his war on fat in America, Professor Hugh Sinclair at the University of Oxford was arguing that we were eating too little fat, or at least too little of the right type of fat. In the Forties Sinclair had travelled to northern Canada to study the Inuit and became intrigued by their high-fat diet and low rates of heart disease. He wondered whether omega-3 — an essential fatty acid found in oily fish — was protecting the Inuit from heart attacks. In 1956 he wrote a provocative letter to The Lancet, entitled Deficiency of essential fatty acids and atherosclerosis, etcetera. In it he argued, among other things, that heart disease was the result of consuming too little essential fatty acid (EFA), not too much.
This letter led to a storm of criticism and for the next 20 years he retreated from the mainstream. Eventually he decided to test his theory by putting himself on an Inuit diet, eating nothing but seal, oily fish, mollusks and crustaceans. Throughout his experiment, Sinclair measured his bleeding time, the time it took for his blood to clot, by cutting himself every week.
While making a series for the BBC on self-experimenters I decided to repeat his experiment. We tried to import seal from Canada but it got impounded by customs, so I ate fish. Sinclair stuck to his diet for three months; I managed a few weeks.
On his new diet Sinclair’s bleeding time increased from three minutes to a terrifying fifty. Mine doubled.
Sinclair had shown that eating fish oils reduces the tendency of platelets to stick together and thus the risk you’ll form clots, which can lead to heart attack or stroke. But there are significant risks to going as far as Sinclair did. Inuits on a traditional diet are prone to bleed to death after an injury. Sinclair bled into his joints.
It is now accepted that eating oily fish (but not fish oil capsules) reduces the risk of heart disease. Unfortunately, because of pollutants such as mercury, the benefits of eating fish (or seal) are less clear than in Sinclair’s day.
The campaign against fat was not exclusively because of fear that it would clog up arteries. Fat, it was widely assumed, is fattening. Gram for gram, fat contains more calories than either carbohydrates or protein. The easiest way to lose weight is obviously to cut down on fat.
Low-fat diets were created and endorsed enthusiastically by the medical profession. My father tried quite a few and lost weight on each. The trouble was he found them impossible to stick to. He was not alone. The success rate of low-fat diets, even ones that are closely supervised and where patients are highly motivated, has generally been poor.
A poignant example of this was the Look Ahead trial. More than 5,000 overweight diabetics were put on a low-fat diet and encouraged to do more exercise, with lots of expensive support. They got personal nutritionists, trainers, group support sessions, basically the best that money could buy. After almost ten years the study was stopped “for futility”. Despite years of support and refresher courses the patients had lost only a little more weight than a control group and there were no significant differences in heart attacks or strokes.
A study published last year into “primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a Mediterranean diet” produced similar results. In this study 7,500 men and women were randomly allocated to either a low-fat diet or a much higher-fat Mediterranean diet, where they ate at least three portions of fruit and vegetables a day, plus fish and legumes (peas, lentils, beans) at least three times a week. They were also encouraged to eat oily nuts, olive oil and have a glass of wine with their meal.
Not surprisingly people on the Med diet were far more likely to stick to their diet than those on the low-fat diet. Like the Look Ahead trial, this trial was stopped early, but this time because those on the high-fat Med diet were doing so much better than those on the low fat-diet, with a 30 per cent drop in heart attacks and strokes.
So where does that leave us? The message has changed over the years from “fats are bad for you” to “saturated fats are bad for you”. But even that claim is now being challenged. A study published this March in the Annals of Internal Medicine has really put the fat in the pan and made it sizzle.
It was a meta-analysis, pooling the results of 72 previous studies. Funded by the British Heart Foundation and carried out by researchers from, among others, the universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard, with the rather dry title Association of dietary, circulating and supplement fatty acids with coronary risk, the researchers said that although trans fats increase the risk of heart disease they could find no significant evidence that eating saturated fats does.
Although there were critics, NHS Choices described this as “an impressively detailed and extensive piece of research, which is likely to prompt further study”. I’m sure it will.
This isn’t a licence to start pouring cream down your throat, because even if saturated fats don’t directly harm the heart there’s no doubt that eating too many calories, whether it’s fat, protein or carbs, will.
What’s too many? According to NHS Choices it’s 2,500 calories a day for men and 2,000 for women. The US authorities recommend a more generous 2,700 calories and 2,200 respectively. The reality is that unless you are young and active it is going to be less than that. I’ve lost 20lb through intermittent fasting and I find that if I eat more than 2,200 calories I put on weight.
I have gone back to butter (interspersed with an olive-oil-based margarine; I’m hedging my bets), Greek yoghurt and semi-skimmed milk. I eat more fish, eggs and the occasional burger. I also eat a lot more vegetables (the fibre keeps you full). I’m not convinced that saturated fat is good for me, but nor do I now feel guilty when I eat it.
It is also time to apologise to my family for all the useless advice I’ve been giving them.
Dr Michael Mosley is the author of The Fast Diet, published by Short Books.
How many calories are there in full-fat foods?
Dairy
• Butter (100g) = 82.2g fat; 717 calories
• 2 medium eggs (uncooked, 100g)
= 11.2g fat; 143 calories
• Full-fat milk (whole average, 100g) = 3.9g fat; 66 calories
• Semi-skimmed milk
(average, 100g) = 1.7g fat; 50 calories
Cheese
• Cheddar (100g) = 34.9g fat; 410 calories
• Brie (outer rind removed, 100g) = 24.0g fat; 296 calories
• Mozzarella (fresh, 100g) = 20.3g fat; 275 calories
Fish
• Salmon (raw, 100g) = 11g fat; 208 calories
• Tuna (canned in brine, drained, 100g) = 0.6g fat; 113 calories

• Cod (raw, 100g) = 0.7g fat; 82 calories
Meat and poultry
• Lamb (shoulder, raw, 100g) = 20.2g fat; 248 calories
• Steak (raw, 100g) = 10.1g fat; 174 calories
• Chicken (raw light meat, 100g) = 1.1g fat; 106 calories
Nuts
• Brazil nuts (100g) = 68.2g fat; 687 calories
• Cashew nuts (roasted and salted, 100g) = 50.9g fat; 612 calories
• Peanuts (plain, 100g) = 46g fat; 592 calories

More information at bda.uk.com

Wow Lotus thanks for the article. Long read but well worth it folks. Makes you think & question. sj XX
I think I do similar to MM in that I eat butter but not the totally natural one. I have the next step down which has some oil mixed in (Western Star Soft Spreadable), just cos mmm…..it’s spreadable. And I’m hedging my bets a bit too! But it has way less ingredients than margarine. And I avoid trans fats in anything if I can.
Topic of the week perhaps for us??!!

I’m glad the subject of skim/processed Vs full cream/ etc came up, so ta, suejen, CG.

I was trying to ignore the subject, since I get on my soapbox too much I reckon. But I do think it’s getting important to take a long look at the way food of all kinds has been bastardized in the name of ‘presentation’, preservation, propagation and piss ant political economics! (soap box looming!)or call it hard earned experience. From a commercial farmer who got divorced rather than let her kids eat the produce! Bah! and I wish I’d done it sooner! A nurse is a nurse is a nurse! Three out of four still alive is not good enough! and who knows what mouthful of what did it?

Take dumping poison on fruit and veg to prevent any blemish. Or genetic changing entirely, from seed mutation, for anything to perfect colour, shape and enhanced, commercial, shelf life etc, etc.
Add to that the ‘tailoring to fads of the moment’,(and even 5:2 is that, so who ya gunna believe??)but common sense has to draw the line on the obvious, huh? Like half baked ‘scientific breakthroughs’ which later get discovered as completely erroneous, if not truly detrimental. Consider the ddt levels found in powdered baby formulas a few decades back – yet it’s still happening).

Weigh it up: Fresh, organic, natural Vs processed, longlife, genetically modified – AND THERE YOU HAVE IT. SKIM, SLIM, LOW, NON OR OTHERWISE TAMPERED WITH IS NOTHING MORE OR LESS THAN UNNATURAL, UN HEALTHY AND FFF****D!!.
Yet we all eat it, defend it and otherwise justify it to keep the convenience and variety factor of our lifestyle. (imagine giving up the luxury of watching telly while one ping of a microwave is all it takes to prepare our precooked, preserved ‘perfectly balanced’ tee vee dinner! It’s all bullshit and we know it. We are what we eat and we are mutating to cancer with every mouthful of the crap we swallow. Physically and metaphysically.

Truth: We (or any other animal)don’t need milk beyond infant stage. Aboriginals are dying from it’s effects (plus ‘added’ sugars to anything) now because they never had cows , or milked Kangaroos in this country.

But it won’t actually harm us more than any of the other foreign foods we adopt if it is in it’s fresh and natural state. So staying as close to that as possible is one’s best shot for survival in the synthetic period of human evolution.

Not to worry, we will evolve past all this ignorance and confusion, as history proves we always do. It’s just a matter of whose descendants will be among the survivors to reach Nirvana (chuckle) That’s the land of MILK AND HONEY, folks. So, bugga me, I rest my case. (hopefully it means we can have real sugar and full cream in our nectar without getting fat!)

Did that generate enough discussion for ya, CG? … you stirrer, you…. I’m experimenting with growing sprouts and microgreens to fix livers ATM. So the whole thing was on cue. xxx the gypsy

So my post crossed all of yours and it looks like I’ve been preaching to the converted! Thanks for the article, Lotus. Great read. and it increases my faith in Dr Mosley’s 5:2. He’s refreshingly honest and constructively critical where it matters. I will get the book one day. Meanwhile, the proff is in the…um… well…not eating… I reckon.

getting the fasting wafties, so for your own protection, I’m off back to the gardening!

Ah, But…. just caught your crossed post CG and love your graphic descriptives! Agree, humans are the only species who purposely stuff up their ideal diet. It’s all about free will, mate. Reckon we are supposed to figure out the ‘harmony’ thing and choose it over the ‘easy’ way and all them evil, yummy, debble, debble, temptations……

And I can relate to your childhood diet of good country tucker cooked on an open fire or wood stove (made a great barbeque for Kangaroo steaks!) we used to pick mushrooms in the cow paddocks and cook with lashings of butter and fresh cream for our deserts. And no one was fat til civilization brought refrigeration and shops to the outback!

But we are learning from each other and we are getting healthier. That’s a win. And on you. Stir away. My pea and ham soup has the pork fat included. Tastes sooo good! I’ll just go eat some dandelion weed to balance it! xx

Thinking about all of that now CG/Lotus/SJ/Gypsy – it is all tooooooo much for a Monday haha!

I hate reading the labels, I give to my OH and ask – how many CALS? Well this week I am going back to real cheese, none of this lite stuff!! 🙂

Hi Jgogo! Welcome to the thread! I am afraid – no answers from me, only a couple of questions for you 🙂 Other wiser posters will give you answers I am sure…

1. Are you keeping a food diary or recording what you eat in an Calorie App ( like My fitness Pal or similar)? I ask because sometimes we think we have eaten sensibly, or even Low-Fat ( read posts above!), and it turns out the food is actually higher in calories or carbs. So we may have eaten well, but above out TDEE (total Daily Energy Expenditure)
2. On that, the next question, could you review your carbohydrate amount and reduce if possible? Sometimes that works for swift weight loss.
3. Sometimes exercise increases weight temporarily (or keeps it steady), while our body builds muscles. Which is a great thing to happen, but its annoying when scales don’t move…
4. So, taking it from the point- have you measured yourself? Sometimes our weight is the same but we lose inches (or millimeters on some weeks) or our dresses feel loser. All are good indicators of moving in the right direction 🙂

All the very best for your journey 🙂

Ha! The thread is truly silent! I think we have all had a brain freeze set in Fit 😉
I had a large sandwich today for breakfast – a croque Monsieur… Almost sickening to eat so much after so many months, oh well, another dish I have gone off I think 🙂

Hi All,

Lots of good info!

My personal credo is, if I can’t (technically) grow/make it in my own garden/kitchen, then I probably shouldn’t eat it. I’m a terrible gardener, hence the ‘technically’ clause! Haha. But I can and do make bread/cheese/bacon/pate etc, processed in a very basic kitchen. We do partake in the convenience of buying these item too, but the point for me is, I could make it. So the processing is more basic than, say, margarine, canola oil, white sugar – which gives it a pass for consumption for us. Mind you sugar occurs naturally, cut a sugar cane, and catch the juice, let it evaporate out, voila sugar! Raw sugar, honey, maple syrup all get the tick in our house.

Our fruit and veg come from a local greengrocer, and we usually stick to local, seasonal stuff – it’s cheaper. And it sounds a little bonkers perhaps, but if my fresh foods barely last the week in the fridge before perishing, I take that as a good sign. It seems to me that it is picked riper (nutritionally superior), and is less likely to be messed with to last for months in storage.

Re whole milk, if you get unhomogenised, you can have creamy coffee on a NFD, and naturally occurring skim milk on Fast Day!

So I guess I feel like I have always eaten the right things, just a bit too much of them. That’s why 5:2 makes so much sense to me. It’s the missing piece of the puzzle for me I think. And the scale is still hanging out in plateau town over here, but, I guess it doesn’t matter so much.

Thanks everyone for the reading material, I love looking in.

Happy Tuesday!
MoonGal

You are right MG, with the easy availability of cheaper (if not better quality) food, we are all eating more that our grandparents. Apparently the meal frequency, that is, the number of times we put food in our mouths has gone up in the last 50 years. Undoubtedly we eat more, even if it is “healthier”.

Hi team, welcome Jgogo. I think Lotus has answered your questions. Feel free to ask anytime as one of us is sure to come up wiht the answer.
Fitto. Statins are controversial in Australia. I know quite a few people have stopped taking them due to adverse side affects. I don’t wish to alarm you but a friend of mine stopped because she was convinced they were causing muscle wastage. Did Michael not cover this topic in the article that Lotus posted for us?
Moongal, just one thing about sugar. Just because something occurs in nature and is perceived as natural does not make it safe. Curare is a drug that causes paralysis and is fatal is found in plants. This allies to many foods from plant sources. I try and eliminate sugar as much as possible. I think artificial sweeteners are also iffy. CG yes I agree. As kids we had very few treats. Lollies and the occasional coca cola on Saturdays. We had dripping on our bread and it was yummy. But my dad died of coronary heart disease. It could have been hereditary. As a kid I do not remember any of the kids in our school being overweight. Neither were my parents or rellies. Mac Donald’s, KFC etc ect have not enriched our lives. Only their profits.

I have attended various Diabetic Education and nutritionist sessions, with very well-intentioned and highly qualified people telling us how to never, ever skip meals (esp. breakfast) and be sure to eat small, frequent meals (how small is small? not sure of that one). Result, the stomach, a trained beast if there was ever one, expected to be filled every couple of hours. Because the small healthy meals ( celery sticks, apple etc) were not always available or yummy enough, I would eat whatever was available at the moment, because hunger was the prevailing feeling. I am not blaming the medicos who have been looking after me, or the body of thought behind it. Just very glad that I have found an alternative!
MG- Very wise of you with shared plates. It does not force anyone to finish their plates, and at the same time, actually learn about how much to eat to fill.

Sorry CG wasn’t suggesting you were a goon! Meant good. But……..anyone remember the Goons? My OH loved them & did such good imitations of them. sj

Hmmm, (chuckling with satisfaction) as I enjoy reading the discourse going on between young, able minds. Perhaps CG, you should be feeling rewarded for getting them into the circle of light that’s really glowing now. With so many bright sparks flaring strong.
Bravo, Lotus and Moongal! Keep it up girls, you’re going great guns! To question the standards set by a past generation is the job. It’s called ‘progress’! The object is to build on the basics, discard the fallacies – And the holy grail of all grandmothers is to achieve a cumulative effect! As apposed to everyone having to start from scratch and only getting one lifetime to figure it out. Only to have all that effort lost in the gap of ages.

I have so enjoyed throwing my two bob’s worth in and being in the debate. It’s revolutionary to have a voice beyond the wrinkles!

Which brings me to the actual point. I think I feel younger than I did a year ago. Is that Alziemic? Or has anybody noticed that no one on this thread actually comes across as ‘old’ in the accepted sense? We are sharing a common goal on an integrative level that’s quite rare, I think. It may be the illusion of the flesh that creates barriers between folk and factions of society (ie) age, size (or shape?) appearance, ethnicity, etc. Never having been on a ‘faceless forum’ before, I’m finding it quite rejuvenating.

Just thought I’d share that random observation on a Tuesday morn. Pension day. The rum worked on the arthritis, or it might be the muscles getting hardier? It is misting fine rain, optimal for weeding (and bending!) best I get on with it. Flowers make me happy. Cheers! gyps

CG you’ve inspired me…well actually you can share it with my OH! He just commented that I hadn’t got into making winter soups yet, & then I see what you did with a cauli (sounds yum) – and lo and behold I have one sitting in my fridge that I haven’t used yet. So that’s next on today’s list. And so agree with you on the interesting people, wonderful friends & getting educated to boot! Boy and all for free on a forum.

Gyps I very much agree with you that the bond between us here seems to have no age barriers & that it’s quite rare. And it surely is quite rejuvenating to have a voice beyond the wrinkles!! Gosh you have such a poetic turn of phrase Gyps…you make everything sound *&$#@! marvellous, just with your words.

So…off to finish my chicken & pumpkin paninis for lunch (very small rolls compared to the past) & then my CG soup. What spices did you use CG out of interest? suejen XX

Awe Gee, suejen, it IS @#!!*)! wunnerful! A poet is only as good as wots inspired them!

Just think how I could wax lyrical over a Sav on the poop deck with you skinny mob! must be off! have to get in shape for some sort of bathers! I have not forgotten the leprechaun’s looming prognosis, but he’s doing fine on my lack of sympathy and doesn’t look crook so doesn’t get it til he is. fortunately, by now, he knows the drill. And it’s his turn to barbeque the fillet steak. In butter. Decadent. Live! the alternative is Phooey! xx

Cor, blimey Gyps! What a surprise that must have been!

Oh and they charge through the roof 🙁 xxx