Archive through December 14, 2004 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Lateral Puzzles » Solved Lateral Thinking Puzzles » Solved Puzzles - Jan 2005 » {Nimue] Fairy Godmother: A Thanksgiving Puzzle » Archive through December 14, 2004 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Nimue)
Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 10:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ok, we've established that the wish of "Eat all of the [chocolate, lima beans, armadillo parts,
whatever] you want without gaining weight came true with regard to the "eat all you want" part
but not the "without gaining weight" part, right? yes

And that there was some other factor which prevented the "eat all you want" part of it which has
now been obviated by some ingestible substance? yes

The other (non-weight-gain) factor has to do with a person's physical reaction to this other
substance? yes Is it a more-or-less universal reaction (i. e. it effects most everybody)? yes

Chocolate is yopishly involved--something commonly found in prepared chocolate or chocolate
candy? yes Sugar? no Milk? yope

By Ryan Davies (Onemundanesoul) on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 08:30 pm:


Was the other part of the wish being able to eat as much as you want without getting full? no
Being able to eat whatever you want? yes Never having indigestion (or related ailments)? no Did it
directly involve a negative effect of eating? yes Overeating? yes Is it related to drinking in any way? Do you mean booze? If so,I think not
Hannah Kinghern (Kdoc)
Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 9:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

cream relevant?
somehow you can now eat all the cream you want?
Tim A. Dowd (Bodo)
Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 9:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi, Hannah!

Cholesterol relevant?
Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Nimue)
Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 7:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Hannah Kinghern (Kdoc) on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 09:16 pm:


cream relevant? yes
somehow you can now eat all the cream you want? yes

By Tim A. Dowd (Bodo) on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 09:26 pm:


Hi, Hannah!

Cholesterol relevant? yes!! This is close enough for me to declare a
****** SPOILER**************
A prime candidate for what lots of people, definitely including me, would ask of a fairy godmother is, as Hannah recognized early on, to be able to eat whatever they want without gaining weight. No, we don't have that yet. But why don't people want to gain weight? For 2 reasons--they want to look good & they want to be healthy. Well, there's still no magic pill to make fat people beautiful.But anti-chlorestertol drugs ("statins") will let you pig out on cakes, pie, candy, etc., & still have very low chloresterol. It's like magic!! Would you believe that some people disapprove of these drugs because they "neutralize bad health habits"?? That reminds me of H.L. Mencken's definition of a puritan--the man who can't bear the thought that someone, somewhere, may be enjoying himself. Sorry the puzzle was so easy, but I thought it would be appropriate for Thanksgiving, & I'm about to post a much harder puzzle at the bottom of the page.
Johanna (Buzzard)
Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 8:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I must say that I disagree with the notion that the only enjoyable foods are those that are fattening and bad for your cholesterol level, and that in order for someone to "enjoy himself" he needs to "pig out" on such foods. I know lots of people who like food very much and also have very healthy eating habits, and also lots of people who eat a lot of junk food but don't seem to derive much pleasure from doing so.

I don't know enough about the effectiveness, side effects, and overall cost of stati drugs to say that I either approve or disapprove of them, but I do not like the idea of taking them myself, and I hope I never have to.

I will now step off the soapbox and redeem myself by asking some questions on your other puzzles. :)
Hannah Kinghern (Kdoc)
Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 8:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Nice puzzle Felicia Nimue - although I must say that I can't believe it is as good for you to take any medication as it is to eat a well balanced diet (with treats included of course!) :)

And Hi Tim :) Long time no see!
Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Nimue)
Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 10:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

By Johanna (Buzzard) on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 08:16 pm:


I must say that I disagree with the notion that the only enjoyable foods are those that are fattening
and bad for your cholesterol level, and that in order for someone to "enjoy himself" he needs to "pig
out" on such foods. I know lots of people who like food very much and also have very healthy eating
habits, and also lots of people who eat a lot of junk food but don't seem to derive much pleasure from
doing so. Of course I don't think everyone's tastes in food are the same. But most people seem to like chocolate layer cake a hell of a lot more than spinach. Even for a glutton like me, food isn't the only source of pleasure; so of course I realize you can enjoy yourself without pigging out. But periodic pigging out makes my life a lot more enjoyable.

I don't know enough about the effectiveness, side effects, and overall cost of stati drugs to say that I
either approve or disapprove of them, but I do not like the idea of taking them myself, and I hope I
never have to. In case you're curious, I once was fat but now I'm thin (& the similarity in phrasing to "Amazing Grace" is deliberate because lots of small-minded people see it that way). So on most days I now have to enjoy myself in some way other than eating, but every two weeks, I take a day off my healthful diet & eat whatever I want.You bet I take Lipitor. I've had no side effects & it gets my cholesterol level a lot lower than 100% healthy eating ever did.

I will now step off the soapbox and redeem myself by asking some questions on your other puzzles. Well, I'm hardly in a position to criticize anyonr for being on a soapbox!!


By Hannah Kinghern (Kdoc) on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 08:35 pm:


Nice puzzle Felicia Nimue - although I must say that I can't believe it is as good for you to take
any medication as it is to eat a well balanced diet (with treats included of course!) I'd be interested in the evidence for this, because my impression is that very few people can get their cholesterol levels as low by healthy eating as by statins.

And Hi Tim Long time no see!
Johanna (Buzzard)
Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 4:58 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

As I said, I really don't know very much about this, but I vaguely recall reading some time ago that there was some doubt as to whether lowering one's cholesterol by statin drugs lowered the risk of heart disease and stroke as much as lowering one's cholesterol by healthy eating. And high cholesterol is only one of many diet-related ailments.
Damien Sullivan (Docd)
Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 7:58 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Johanna, there is no doubt about the effectiveness in reducing coronary artery disease by reducing serum cholesterol by "statins" (more correctly HMG Co-A reductase inhibitors). The correlation is almost linear.
Optimising a poor diet can probably achieve reductions in LDL-cholesterol by 15% on average. (Incidentally a very poor diet contributes less to one's cholesterol than you think- genetics play a much greater part). Using statins (sometimes in combination with other hypolipidaemic agents) can normalise almost anyone's cholesterol if you use a high enough dose.
This is a little unfortunate in one respect, because lifestyle measures (diet, exercise) are very important in preventing Type 2 diabetes- I suspect there is as big an epidemic of this in North America as there is in Australia
Johanna (Buzzard)
Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 1:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Thank you Damien - I stand corrected.

I am curious, though - when you talk about "optimising a poor diet", how is the "optimal" diet defined?
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 1:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Beer and curry, of course. All other diets are a complete waste of time.
Johanna (Buzzard)
Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 2:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Then perhaps they neglected to mention the beer and curry included in this study. (I know it's a pro-vegetarian website, but this is the best write-up of the study I could find, and it's also been reported in lots of other places, including cbsnews.com.) It's more than a year old, though - has anything changed since then?
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 3:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

It is of course in the interests of both the pharmaceuticals industry and the diet industry to suppress the truth about beer and curry in favour of their own brands of snake oil. But for bad science, non-scicence, and utter non-sense, I will take one dietician over half a dozen creationists any day of the week. :)
Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Nimue)
Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 8:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

For people who favor "natural" over "artificial" ways of lowering one's cholesterol, I wonder in what other areas you favor the "natural" way? Natural vs. pain-free anesthestized childbirth? Natural vs. pain- free dentistry with Novacine? Fanning with your hand vs. air conditioning? Horses & buggies over cars? Quill pens over computers? I don't mean to be flippant, but I think technology is our main compensation for not getting to live in Malory's world. Why not take advantage of it??
Johanna (Buzzard)
Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 8:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I guess you're asking me, even though I'm not sure what I said to make you believe that I favor naturalness over artificialness as a general principle. I was just pointing out that (unless there's something wrong with the study I linked to) it's simply not true that dietary changes are not an effective way to lower one's cholesterol. And that for me, myself, personally, I would rather not take a lot of drugs unless I really have to. Whether you choose otherwise is not my concern.

I think that technology in general can be a wonderfully good thing, but history is full of examples of technological advances that have had negative consequences that people didn't realize until a lot of damage had already been done. And so I think that, in general, it's in our best interest to be a lot more cautious than we're currently being.
Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Nimue)
Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 9:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Buzzard--I wasn't assuming anything; I was asking in what other areas you favored naturalnress.To each his own--I would rather not restrict my diet any more than I have to. And although, like Sam Cooke, I don't know much about history, I suspect that history also has many examples of how people have suffered through lack of technology, for ecxample in the pre-antibiotic age.
Johanna (Buzzard)
Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 9:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

It's funny you should mention antibiotics, because the overuse and misuse of antibiotics (thereby creating antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria) is an excellent example of a technotogy that has had unexpected negative consequences. Does that mean that antibiotics are bad and that we're better off without them? No, of course not. It means that we should be careful, and not use them if we don't have to.

I think that favoring naturalness for the sake of naturalness and favoring technology for the sake of technology are both silly, actually. Whether and how a particular technology should be used should depend on the balance of the positive and negative effects of that particular technology, not merely the fact that it's a technological advance. I have a computer, for example, because I need it for my job. I do not have a cell phone, a car, or an air conditioner, because I do not think I need these things, and I think it would be silly to get them just for the sake of having them.
Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Nimue)
Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 10:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

No one I know of has an air conditioner, car, or cell phone just for the sake of having one; people generally get air conditioners in order to be comfortable in hot weather & get cars & cell phones for similarly practical reasons.Don't you live in Chicago? I've been there in the summer, & I would have a practical reason not to want to go through a Chicago symmer withotr air conditioning.
Johanna (Buzzard)
Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 10:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I do live in Chicago, and will continue to do so for another six days and fifteen hours. It does get somewhat hot here in the summer, but I've always found that regular old (electric) fans work just fine. That's just me. I'm not saying nobody should use air conditioners.

I guess "just for the sake of having one" was poorly worded, but I do know lots of people who get air conditioners and cars and cell phones and all sorts of other things without really giving much serious thought as to whether the comfort and convenience they gain by having these things is really worth the monetary expense, the use of energy and resources (and thus the damage to the environment), and in many cases the added inconvenience, like having to worry about car maintenance and repairs and such.
Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Nimue)
Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 1:23 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I think people are the most important part of the environment & the importance of their comfort can hardly be exaggerated.No doubt many people fail to think carefully brfore buying things, but many other people fail to think carefully before forgoing things. Environmentalist & "simple living" sloganeering can be as seductive as advertising sloganeering. Critical thinking seems to be in short supply everyewhere--except on the Lateral Puzzles Forum, of course.
David Burn (Woubit)
Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 1:58 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

There has been plenty of thinking going on recently :) But an anonymous German expressed my views perfectly when he wrote:

Alkohol und Nikotin
Rafft die halbe Menschheit hin.
Ohne Alkohol und Rauch
Stirbt die andere Hälfte auch.
Johanna (Buzzard)
Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 3:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Of course the comfort of people is important. One of the main goals of environmentalism is to ensure that future generations of people can be as comfortable as we are.