On Feb 04, 2006, at 12:45 pm, Everyone @ As If Productions wrote:

> They think "It's BAD for me but it feels good," so they try to  
> limit their intake to as low a number as they can live with while  
> still mooing happily in their pens.

Haha - I will have to remember that one.  It's a good description  
though.  People like diets that don't rock the boat.  I've heard "Oh  
this is a good diet - it's really balanced.  You eat one thirds each  
of protein carbs and fat".  I wonder if their idea of a nice brew is  
one third tea, one third milk, and one third sugar.


> In fact, thanks to TV commercials claiming sugar-water (like  
> Gatorade) and candy bars (like Snickers) are "good sources of quick  
> energy," I'd wager that the average "civilized" person believes  
> sugar is the lesser of two evils compared to fat.

Actually I was in the other office at work and I saw a girl eating  
"energy tablets".  I asked her what was in them, and said it was  
probably all sugar.  She looked really shocked and said "they better  
not be!"  The name (Dextro-aid or something) should have been the  
giveaway.  And yes, they were 82% sugar (dextrose funnily enough).   
Not that she stopped eating them of course.  But at least she knows.


> I think a reframing is in order.  The word "fat" has too many  
> meanings.  We should start calling them "Lipid Fuels".  Ask your  
> mum: "Have you had your lipid fuels today?"

I can just see the reaction: "so do you think I should replace all  
the fat in my diet with lipids?"