Does/Did Judge Nap have cancer???

I think it's just been one heck of a lifestyle change.
He doesnt look very healthy tho...

thread derail >_>

Speaking of jolly, I haven't seen the Judge laugh or even smile much lately. Part of the fun of watching him on Freedom Watch was that he had such an ebullient, "light up a room" type personality, and always had that contagious grin. Now that he's lost weight, he seems very dour and serious all the time, and doesn't crack me up anymore.

This has happened to a lot of big, funny guys I've liked in the past. I call it the Will Sasso Effect.
Yea, I meant to mention that. It just didnt seem like him at all.
 
Last edited:
When you lose weight, it almost always makes you look older. And when you have grey hair already, it makes the effect that much worse. I think he may have compensated by moving his hair slightly darker after he lost the weight so that he didn't look as old as it could've made him look.

That and some people just look better carrying some weight on them, the Judge fits into this category IMO. Fred Thompason does too.
 
When you lose weight, it almost always makes you look older. And when you have grey hair already, it makes the effect that much worse. I think he may have compensated by moving his hair slightly darker after he lost the weight so that he didn't look as old as it could've made him look.

That and some people just look better carrying some weight on them, the Judge fits into this category IMO. Fred Thompason does too.

Slightly darker? His hair hasn't been anywhere near that color in at least 10 years.

For what it's worth, I lost over 50 pounds and I look much younger. Granted, I'm 6'4" and still in my 20s.
 
When you lose weight, it almost always makes you look older. And when you have grey hair already, it makes the effect that much worse. I think he may have compensated by moving his hair slightly darker after he lost the weight so that he didn't look as old as it could've made him look.

That and some people just look better carrying some weight on them, the Judge fits into this category IMO. Fred Thompason does too.

This is true because all those wrinkles that the fat was hiding become more visible after you lose weight. Still it is better to lose weight despite appearing more wrinkly and older in the face. The rest of his body however has a more youthful look and I am sure he feels much better after losing all that weight.
 
our ancestors sure were eating meat at every meal :rolleyes:

Washed down with wine from a natural wine spring.

* * *

The Paleo/Primal thing is just poorly named. It has very little to do with what hunter/gatherer societies would eat and more to do with what people currently perceive to be good for you. No grains (even though grains were part of diets, often ground down and mixed with animal fats and berries to create travel food), but wine (which of course occurs naturally?) is okay. No dairy (because no one ever milked an animal prior to domestication) but meat is beyond okay (cooked, selective meat, and most Paleo/Primal folks eat a whole lot more of it than our ancestors would see in a week at one sitting). Veggies are great, but again it's our modern version of it, and has no real relation to what was prized by those societies.
 
Washed down with wine from a natural wine spring.

* * *

The Paleo/Primal thing is just poorly named. It has very little to do with what hunter/gatherer societies would eat and more to do with what people currently perceive to be good for you. No grains (even though grains were part of diets, often ground down and mixed with animal fats and berries to create travel food), but wine (which of course occurs naturally?) is okay. No dairy (because no one ever milked an animal prior to domestication) but meat is beyond okay (cooked, selective meat, and most Paleo/Primal folks eat a whole lot more of it than our ancestors would see in a week at one sitting). Veggies are great, but again it's our modern version of it, and has no real relation to what was prized by those societies.


The apples fall down out of my trees... roll into buckets, I dump the buckets in my press... juice flows out the bottom... left alone at room temperature for a few weeks w/ naturally occuring yeasts... even without adding a thing... 95% of the time =


natural wine spring

:)



(of course I prefer the flavor consistency of potassium metabisulfite and Lavin 1118 yeast... but sure as hell I get wine either way)


You should see the bears and deer this time of year. :toady:
 
Last edited:
Washed down with wine from a natural wine spring.

* * *

The Paleo/Primal thing is just poorly named. It has very little to do with what hunter/gatherer societies would eat and more to do with what people currently perceive to be good for you. No grains (even though grains were part of diets, often ground down and mixed with animal fats and berries to create travel food), but wine (which of course occurs naturally?) is okay. No dairy (because no one ever milked an animal prior to domestication) but meat is beyond okay (cooked, selective meat, and most Paleo/Primal folks eat a whole lot more of it than our ancestors would see in a week at one sitting). Veggies are great, but again it's our modern version of it, and has no real relation to what was prized by those societies.

I think activity is 90% of it. I know some farmers in the midwest who are all 6'4'' to 6'5'' tanks of guys, eat all sorts of grains/biscuits/buns/wheat products, and are in great shape. I think it's mostly because they're extremely active from sun-up to sundown.

Compare that to someone who wakes up, drives to work, sits at a desk all day, and drives home. You could have almost nil real physical activity. Multiply that by a few weeks/months/years, and that's probably why half of America is so unhealthy.

All the grains/wheats/carbs are your active fuel, and if you aren't active in any real sense, it probably makes one sick.
 
I think activity is 90% of it. I know some farmers in the midwest who are all 6'4'' to 6'5'' tanks of guys, eat all sorts of grains/biscuits/buns/wheat products, and are in great shape. I think it's mostly because they're extremely active from sun-up to sundown.

Compare that to someone who wakes up, drives to work, sits at a desk all day, and drives home. You could have almost nil real physical activity. Multiply that by a few weeks/months/years, and that's probably why half of America is so unhealthy.

All the grains/wheats/carbs are your active fuel, and if you aren't active in any real sense, it probably makes one sick.

Strange that our "advanced society" doesn't sound so good when you put it that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkr
Strange that our "advanced society" doesn't sound so good when you put it that way.

Hah, no kidding. It's too bad it had to be Michelle Obama to be the person spearheading the govt's "Let's Move" plan (60 minutes of activity a day), because it'd probably do most of us a world of good to actually do 60 minutes of activity daily.
 
Hah, no kidding. It's too bad it had to be Michelle Obama to be the person spearheading the govt's "Let's Move" plan (60 minutes of activity a day), because it'd probably do most of us a world of good to actually do 60 minutes of activity daily.

Everybody knows that already. Thats why gym memberships exist. But while farmers get their exercise while they work, a lot of city folks find that exercising is just more work. One more thing on that never-ending to-do list.
 
Hah, no kidding. It's too bad it had to be Michelle Obama to be the person spearheading the govt's "Let's Move" plan (60 minutes of activity a day), because it'd probably do most of us a world of good to actually do 60 minutes of activity daily.

I would much rather a non-sedentary occupation...but it doesn't pay.
 
Back
Top