Weezl and friends Phase 3 - sitting pretty with Kitty

aless02

maltesers wrote: »

It was Weezl who said

I have analysed the amount of ALA in both the planners now, and they are below the level which one of the studies based on the nurses study correlated with an increased risk of Age-related macular degeneration (1.44g/1.47g daily). The figures are available for those who would like them. There will also be an FAQ on the site addressing this shortly.


I said I didn't think this was possible given the sheer quantity of vegetable oil being used in the planners.

I suggested not making any nutrition claims as so many could be proved false.

However, a possible risk to eyesight has become a possibility and Weezl's only reaction has been to say she has checked the figures and it is OK and put me on ignore.

This isn't true at all. If you emailed a website or a company, you wouldn't expect a response within hours, would you? Just from reading, Weezl has been more than responsive to your questions and at times she hasn't been able to give an immediate response, she has kindly said that there might be a delay. This is NOT the same thing as ignoring you and I think you expect her to, unfairly, be at your beck & call!

I'm sorry but I think it is slightly immoral not to thoroughly check out and deal with such an important issue. To knowingly ignore a potential health risk is not being true to nature of this project. The food is cheap is all that counts not that long term it might harm someone.

Do you actually know how much time and effort went into analysing the nutrition of the planners before they were published? It's not as if this stuff was thrown together cack-handedly. While you may feel that ALA figures are important, it still remains a fact that there's no official government health recommendations - the guidelines of which Weezl's website aims to follow.

I would be perfectly happy if my rough and ready figures were proved wrong - Unlike some people I am quite willing to apologise and admit I was wrong. The figures could have been sent by pm so as not to compomise MSE. Weezl claimed she was calling in all sort of professionals to help so I assume they at least would know.

I'm sorry, but your attitude is infuriating here. Weezl has never claimed to be 'calling in professionals'. She has said that she, as a LAYPERSON, has been doing a little research and does her best as a LAYPERSON to meet nutritional guidelines.

I used to be a quality assurance auditor and have heard all the excuses under the sun. Only those who really wanted to improve their systems would not go down that road,

I know I have been ostracized for daring to question Weezl's figures, and childishly/cowardly an AE has been created to have a go at me and praise Weezl. Weezl, of course, won't see this as I seem to be on ignore. I'm getting used to being ostracized as the health walkers and nordic pole walkers I walked with several times a week have not been near me since I was diagnosed with what I can only assume is a contagious cancer.

So I have developed a shell but I still put health as the main priority which it clearly isn't here.

Health is a priority for the project. However, as LAYPEOPLE and NON-EXPERTS, there's only so far the project can go on health. We try best to follow government guidelines and I don't think any more should be expected. When a famous name offers up a meal planner for a week (Good Housekeeping, BBC Good Food, etc), do you see them publishing things levels of ALA and how much magnesium people are getting? So why the double standard, especially considering these companies have PAID, PROFESSIONAL nutritionists on staff!

I take great offense at your calling Weezl dishonest and cowardly. She has been nothing but helpful and self-sacrificing, pouring her every effort (not even pausing when she was 40 weeks pregnant or had a newborn child!!) into this project and all you can do is throw your bitter viewpoints back in her face. You made a valid point about health claims, which the team took on board and actioned quickly. Therefore, I fail to see why you keep debating the issue. You have offered nothing else constructive to the project. CFR is absolutely open to questions and criticisms, but Weezl and others have more than responded to the points you raise and many people have stated that further posts on the issue are unwelcome.

I have tried to be as nice and diplomatic as possible with this post - and other people are free to respond - but that diplomacy is hiding a real anger at the upset you have caused, maltesers, because I don't think you realise how much your words have hurt both Weezl and the team who have also invested a lot of time and effort into making this a really great and worthwhile project designed to help millions of people in financial strife.

SusanC_2

As far as I can tell from mysupermarket, Tesco appear to have 3 for 2 on flour, nuts and dried fruit until 23rd November. I haven't actually checked the prices of the CFR ingredients but the offer may make some of them cheaper at Tesco at the moment.

maltesers_2

aless02 wrote: »

This isn't true at all. If you emailed a website or a company, you wouldn't expect a response within hours, would you?

Weezl offered the figures on 28 October - I said yes please, Only today did I find out there will be no figures.

Do you actually know how much time and effort went into analysing the nutrition of the planners before they were published? It's not as if this stuff was thrown together cack-handedly. While you may feel that ALA figures are important, it still remains a fact that there's no official government health recommendations - the guidelines of which Weezl's website aims to follow.

I have been following this from the beginning and know people use recipecal and USDA database etc. I am aware there are no official RDAs for omega 3 but that before the changes were made CFR did make some claims about it.

I'm sorry, but your attitude is infuriating here. Weezl has never claimed to be 'calling in professionals'. She has said that she, as a LAYPERSON, has been doing a little research and does her best as a LAYPERSON to meet nutritional guidelines.

Sorry, perhaps I should have said consulted = Weezl said #1619
I have today emailed a GP a cardiac surgeon and a dietician. I have also pulled the lancet and several nutrition journals.


Health is a priority for the project. However, as LAYPEOPLE and NON-EXPERTS, there's only so far the project can go on health. We try best to follow government guidelines and I don't think any more should be expected. When a famous name offers up a meal planner for a week (Good Housekeeping, BBC Good Food, etc), do you see them publishing things levels of ALA and how much magnesium people are getting? So why the double standard, especially considering these companies have PAID, PROFESSIONAL nutritionists on staff!

There is no double standard - I have never seen any of them make nutritional claims. I have never mentioned any comparison with any other meal planner. CFR did claim until recently to meet ALL government guidlines. The ALA problem has only just emerged and I would have thought it might be of interest to veggies and vegans.

I take great offense at your calling Weezl dishonest and cowardly.

I take great offense at you saying I have.

She has been nothing but helpful and self-sacrificing, pouring her every effort (not even pausing when she was 40 weeks pregnant or had a newborn child!!) into this project and all you can do is throw your bitter viewpoints back in her face. You made a valid point about health claims, which the team took on board and actioned quickly. Therefore, I fail to see why you keep debating the issue. You have offered nothing else constructive to the project.

I have tried.

CFR is absolutely open to questions and criticisms, but Weezl and others have more than responded to the points you raise and many people have stated that further posts on the issue are unwelcome.


I have tried to be as nice and diplomatic as possible with this post - and other people are free to respond - but that diplomacy is hiding a real anger at the upset you have caused, maltesers, because I don't think you realise how much your words have hurt both Weezl and the team who have also invested a lot of time and effort into making this a really great and worthwhile project designed to help millions of people in financial strife.

I was upset today when an official statement was made by an official spokesperson stating no figures would be published.

As the amateurs that we are, we are in possession only of our personal research, provision of the figures that you asked for could be seen by users of the site as offering medical evidence which we are not qualified to give.
MSE itself has policies on offering views on health. We would like to be able to continue to talk about and test recipes here, so felt, on balance, it was better not to publish them.

There was no indication that the issue was continuing to be dealt with as later mentioned by Allegra.

VenusFlytrap_2

Sorry Maltesers but I second this:

aless02 wrote: »

I take great offense at your calling Weezl dishonest and cowardly. She has been nothing but helpful and self-sacrificing, pouring her every effort (not even pausing when she was 40 weeks pregnant or had a newborn child!!) into this project and all you can do is throw your bitter viewpoints back in her face. You made a valid point about health claims, which the team took on board and actioned quickly. Therefore, I fail to see why you keep debating the issue. You have offered nothing else constructive to the project. CFR is absolutely open to questions and criticisms, but Weezl and others have more than responded to the points you raise and many people have stated that further posts on the issue are unwelcome.

Whatever you might try to argue now, think most readers of this thread will see you've been treated very reasonably by Weezl and the team since you raised your concern, even though the manner in which you've done this hasn't been very nice, to say the least. In return you have been very unreasonable and your latest posts are especially so. I'm sure everyone here has sympathy with you for the trials you are going through with your health, but you have behaved appallingly over this and can't expect that to just be ignored, especially when you are still persisting with this and not letting it rest. The more you post, the less it looks like you actually care about the issues you've raised, more like you just want to argue for the sake of it. As already stated, your concerns have been considered and acted upon so please, do the decent thing and drop this now.

maltesers_2

Actually, I'm trying to defend myself.

Everyone is telling me the concerns have been acted upon. The only issue I have continued to ask about was the ALA risk to eyesight, The CFR site has been altered and I know I mentioned making health claims in response to Vitamindee but that does not solve the possible problem if there is one. It is a mathematical thing not a health claim one.

If there is a problem perhaps we could all try and solve it rather than pretend it might not be there and it is only there because I put it there. I'm obviously sorry I found out about ALA - it has really made my life so much better.

Allegra

maltesers wrote: »

Actually, I'm trying to defend myself.

Everyone is telling me the concerns have been acted upon. The only issue I have continued to ask about was the ALA risk to eyesight, The CFR site has been altered and I know I mentioned making health claims in response to Vitamindee but that does not solve the possible problem if there is one. It is a mathematical thing not a health claim one.

If there is a problem perhaps we could all try and solve it rather than pretend it might not be there and it is only there because I put it there. I'm obviously sorry I found out about ALA - it has really made my life so much better.

We just feel a lot of anger coming from you, maltesers, and are not really sure what you are after now anymore, or how we are making you angry.

A potential health risk has been identified, and we are trying to find out if it applies to CFR. If we find that it does, then we'll try and think how to handle it. We all feel that this is really the only thing we can do - yet you are still really, really unhappy with us.

I can see a couple of things now that might be at the root of this - firstly, the fact that Weezl said she checked the figures and they were okay, but has never published them. Thing is, after she said that, you came back with your own calculations (and were very forceful with them) - which were very different to ours - and now we do not dare settle on definitive ones until they have been checked, double checked, triple checked, and so on. But tbh, no one's heart is really in this, so it might take a while. There is a small possibility that the final figures might be slightly over the risk threshold, in which case we need to think what, if anything, to do about it. You mentioned the daily health scare - will we need to go through this for every single ingredient on the plan, every time someone publishes results of a study that tells you brocolli could kill (true in my case, actualy) ?

I just don't think we can do this. I have lost the will to live here, and I can only guess how Weezl feels. All we tried is to help people in dire straits pull themselves out of a hole without significant risks to their health. Turns out this does not appear to be possible. So what the hell do we do ? Time to throw in the towel ? We are trying not to do this. We have removed all the health claims whilst still trying to support the healthiness of the planners to the best of our knowledge and satisfaction.


What the hell have we done wrong ? All of us have put in time, effort, and Weezl also money, into this - a charitable - project. Yet instead of a desired result, we seem to have inspired anger and bile. Why ?

Allegra

maltesers wrote: »

Actually, I'm trying to defend myself.

And you are not under attack, hun. The CFR is. By you.

Again, why ? What are you hoping to achieve ? Once we have the figures - if we decide to carry on sailing on this doomed ship, that is - and PM them to you, as we really should quit trying to bend MSE rules as the site in general has been good to us and there is no need to abuse that - what then ? What do you want us to do to make you happy and stop attacking us ? Please ?

maltesers_2

I know the only possible outcome that people want is for me never to darken these threads again. I think that has been made clear. Over and over again.

I am unhappy when people accuse me of things I have not said and others second them. Am I not allowed to defend myself?

As far as I am aware no one has done anything wrong and I have not accused anyone of anything. This ALA thing is an unhappy result of a link I was given to veganhealth. I have already mentioned my figures were very approximate but planner 1 looks iffy. Perhaps the oil could be split with some other oil or fat to reduce the ALA content.

I will never attempt to help with or offer any nutritional research again.

I am just so relieved that you, Allegra, have mentioned that the ALA problem, if there is one, will get sorted. Because believe it or not I too was concerned for the many poor people who would eventually rely on the plans.

I have not attacked CFR in fact I have praised it and Weezl and the web site on several occasions. I would cheerfully recommend it to anyone who was in dire financial straights.

shanks77

We are not asking you to leave the thread Malteser just that we cant fulfull your request right this second. As mentioned before we are checking our figure carefully and RL takes up a lot of everyones time so this is not going to be done overnight infact i would not want to put a time frame on it BUT it is being checked.
You previously had some good comments regarding testing and we would still like to hear how you enjoyed the meals and what if any tweaks you made to meals as we all like to experiment with dishes. xx

Allegra

maltesers wrote: »

I know the only possible outcome that people want is for me never to darken these threads again. I think that has been made clear. Over and over again.

I am unhappy when people accuse me of things I have not said and others second them. Am I not allowed to defend myself?

As far as I am aware no one has done anything wrong and I have not accused anyone of anything. This ALA thing is an unhappy result of a link I was given to veganhealth. I have already mentioned my figures were very approximate but planner 1 looks iffy. Perhaps the oil could be split with some other oil or fat to reduce the ALA content.

I will never attempt to help with or offer any nutritional research again.

I am just so relieved that you, Allegra, have mentioned that the ALA problem, if there is one, will get sorted. Because believe it or not I too was concerned for the many poor people who would eventually rely on the plans.

I have not attacked CFR in fact I have praised it and Weezl and the web site on several occasions. I would cheerfully recommend it to anyone who was in dire financial straights.

Sorry, hun - I should have said "it seems as though" - it's heartening to hear that there is no intent

No one has said go away - refusing and ignoring challenges to conventional wisdom is not the CFR way. Just drop -what appears to us as - the pestering, is all I'll PM you the goddamn figures myself, and will liaise with you until the issue has been addressed to your satisfaction if the figures are something you feel is not best supported withing a planner such as this that people may have to rely on.

But thread wise, can we just go back to recipe testing and frolicking little lambs ? (I got me a shotgun) No offence intended to any of our vegetarian friends