On 23 Jun 2008 16:47:01 GMT, Ken > wrote:

>"Chris Marksberry" > wrote in
:
>
>> Is this the recipe you are using?
>>
>> Hurst's HamBeens© Original 15 Bean Soup©
>>
>
>Yes. I usually use low fat turkey sausage but this tine I'm trying a
>smoked ham hock.
>
>Ken

the ham hock may be more trouble, but i'll bet you find it tastier.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:02:27 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\"" >
wrote:

>blake murphy >
: in rec.food.cooking
>
>
>> On 11 March 2003, Representatives Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) and Walter B.
>> Jones, Jr. (R-North Carolina) declared that all references to French
>> fries and French toast on the menus of the restaurants and snack bars
>> run by the House of Representatives would be removed. House cafeterias
>> were ordered to rename French fries "Freedom fries". This action was
>> carried out without a congressional vote, under the authority of Ney's
>> position as Chairman of the Committee on House Administration, which
>> oversees restaurant operations for the chamber. The simultaneous
>> renaming of French toast to "Freedom toast" attracted less attention.
>>
>> According to a statement released by Ney, this move was a symbolic
>> effort to express displeasure with France's "Continued refusal to
>> stand with their U.S. allies" (see Iraq disarmament crisis). The
>> statement further read: "This action today is a small but symbolic
>> effort to show the strong displeasure many on Capitol Hill have with
>> our so-called ally, France."
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> By July 2006, the House had changed the name of the two foods in all
>> of its restaurants back to "French fries" and "French toast".
>>
>> (more anti-french rubbish at:
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries> )
>>
>> one of the congressman behind this boneheaded move has since recanted:
>>
>> Jones is best known for leading the effort, along with GOP Rep. Bob
>> Ney to have french fries renamed "freedom fries" in House cafeteria
>> menus as a protest against French opposition to the 2003 invasion of
>> Iraq. Jones later modified his stance on the war to a considerable
>> extent. In 2005, he stated that he had come to believe that there had
>> been little reason to go to war, despite his earlier support, which
>> had been based upon selective intelligence supplied to Congress. He
>> said of his previous position on the fries, "I wish it had never
>> happened." In July 2006, the names were quietly changed back.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_B._Jones
>>
>> he is now a bush administration critic, at least in terms of the
>> glorious war for arab freedom in iraq.
>>
>> bob ney resigned from the house after pleading guilty to conspiracy to
>> defraud the government as part of the abramoff scandal and was
>> sentenced to thirty months in jail. his views on french fries are
>> currently unknown.
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Ney>
>
>Thanks Blake. That little re-cap is better than a martini at happy hour.
>
>Michael

the dick-headedness of republican congressmen is always entertaining.
thank god it's not in short supply. (too bad they actually make law,
though.)

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:05:17 -0500, "Gregory Morrow"
> wrote:

>
>Dimitri wrote:
>
>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > <yawn> Taking lessons from Sheldon? Was there something in your
>> > bean cite that said they don't contain starch?
>> >
>> > Beans are up to 50% starch depending on the variety (and the
>> > varieties used in bean soups are going to be the ones on the starchy
>> > side). They're about 50-75% carbohydrate to boot. And guess where
>> > those carbs come from? Mostly starch (then fiber and sugar).
>> >
>> > -sw
>>
>> I have come to the enlightened conclusion that you must have your head in
>a
>> biologically impossible place.
>>
>> If the guy wants to try a potato or 2 in his bean soup SO WHAT! There are
>> plenty of Bean soups that have potatoes. There are plenty of potatoes that
>> have different starch contents.
>>
>> Maybe he's a vegetarian.and needs the potato amino acid to complement the
>> amino acids in the legumes.
>>
>> Which in case you're too ignorant to understand is why I posted the
>> recipes - Too Starchy ? Too starchy for Who?
>>
>> There are MILLIONS of people who base their protein intake on STARCHY rice
>> and beans. DUH!
>>
>> You are hereby cordially invited to go pound sand!
>
>
>Lol...
>
>Steve is sorta like our newsgroup 'pet', we laff at his antics but
>sometimes - being the Bad Boy he is - he makes a "mess"...

and if you were a little smarter, you could be our house plant.

blake

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> Dimitri > wrote:
cordially invited to go pound sand!
>
> So, Dimitri - You're trying to weasel out of your claim that beans
> are not a starch?
>
> I understand. I'm sorry if you don't like my opinion that a potato
> and bean soup would be too starchy.
>
> If you want to argue that you don't like my opinion, then you can
> just say that and shut the **** up. But if you want to claim that
> beans are not a significant source of starch, then I'm going to call
> you on it.
>
> -sw

I am not weasling out of anything there is more to "starch" than meats the
eye or stomach.


Beans Are a Good Source of Resistant Starch

Resistant Wheat StarchLifeSource Foods. Greatly reduces net carb values in
food.www.netrition.com
The BMW Hydrogen 7A Car that Runs on Hydrogen and Emits Only Water. Learn
More.www.bmwusa.com
Window & Door InstallDo You Need New Windows & Doors? Call Today For A Free
Estimate!www.SouthernHomeService.com
Low Carb Diet Ads
Starch Resistant IP Maltodextrin Potato Flakes Modified Food Starch


What is resistant starch?

As we have already learned, starch that we eat is digested at different
rates. The starch in potatoes, cereals, and baked goods digests very
rapidly. Other starchy foods, such as beans, barley, or long grained brown
rice, are digested more slowly, and cause a much slower and lower blood
sugar rise. Resistant starch actually goes all the way through the small
intestine without being digested at all. In this way, it is more like fiber,
and in some cases is classified and labeled as fiber.

NEXT


George C. Fahey Jr. led the study that found legumes - beans, peas and
lentils - pack a powerful punch as a cancer-preventative.

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- Legumes often fall far below popular grains and
moisture-laden fruits and vegetables on the list of foods Americans eat to
try to meet the American Dietetic Association-recommended 25 to 35 grams of
dietary fiber per day.
University of Illinois researchers, however, say many legumes (beans,
lentils and peas) should be on more plates.
In the February issue of the Journal of Nutrition, UI animal scientists fill
a knowledge gap in the ADAÕs 1997 position paper on dietary fiber. Legumes,
they report, contain substantially higher percentages of resistant starch
than do cereal grains, flours and grain-based food products.
Resistant starch does not digest easily. It goes past the stomach and small
intestine before settling in the colon. There, bacteria attack it just as
they do a dietary fiber, producing butyrate -- a short-chained fatty acid
desirable for its cancer-preventing qualities.
The study provides the first database of the percentages of starch and fiber
in common food and feed ingredients. The researchers also determined how and
where in vitro digestion occurred by studying digestion in the lower part of
the small intestine in a dog model representative of the human digestive
tract.
"The nice thing about legumes is that they have a great deal of dietary
fiber plus the resistant starch," said George C. Fahey Jr., who led the
study. "You always think of legumes for their protein, as you should. With
their protein, fiber and resistant starch, these foodstuffs offer good
nutrition. Until now, we never knew legumes had so much of their starch in
the form of resistant starch."
Of the 29 food and feed ingredients studied, the legumes (seven varieties)
contained substantially higher percentages of both dietary fiber and
resistant starch. Black beans, for instance, contain the highest amount of
total dietary fiber (43 percent), and 63 percent of their total starch
content is resistant starch that makes it to the colon.
Cereal grains, especially barley and corn, followed legumes in their
percentages of resistant starch that reach the colon, but like all
non-legumes tested they dropped significantly in fiber content. Heavily
processed flours and grain-based products dropped off most dramatically in
their resistant starch content with a range of just under 2 percent in rice
to 15 percent in rolled oats reaching the colon.
"Flours don't have much resistant starch, because they are processed so
much," Fahey said. "A lot of grain-based foods also don't have very much
resistant starch. If we eat grain-based materials that are not heavily
processed and legumes, which we usually eat after minimal cooking, we get a
lot of resistant starch and a lot of fiber as colonic foods."
The Illinois Council on Food and Agricultural Research funded the work.
Co-authors of the paper with Fahey are Neal R. Merchen, a professor of
animal sciences; Christine M. Grieshop and Avinash R. Patil, both
postdoctoral researchers; and graduate students Geoff E. Bednar and Sean M.
Murray.
Percentages of Key Components
Identified in Illinois Study


Read the table here; www.news.uiuc.edu/scitips/01/02legume.html

This is the reason both Weight Watchers and the Atkinspeople use Fiber as an
offset within their diet plans.

blake murphy > wrote in
:

> On 23 Jun 2008 16:47:01 GMT, Ken > wrote:
>
>>"Chris Marksberry" > wrote in
m:
>>
>>> Is this the recipe you are using?
>>>
>>> Hurst's HamBeens© Original 15 Bean Soup©
>>>
>>
>>Yes. I usually use low fat turkey sausage but this tine I'm trying a
>>smoked ham hock.
>>
>>Ken
>
> the ham hock may be more trouble, but i'll bet you find it tastier.
>
> your pal,
> blake
>

You're right. Much better.

Since the election here went against it, I left out the potatoes.

Ken


--
"When you choose the lesser of two evils, always
remember that it is still an evil." - Max Lerner

Dimitri > wrote:

> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dimitri > wrote:
> cordially invited to go pound sand!
>>
>> So, Dimitri - You're trying to weasel out of your claim that beans
>> are not a starch?
>>
>> I understand. I'm sorry if you don't like my opinion that a potato
>> and bean soup would be too starchy.
>>
>> If you want to argue that you don't like my opinion, then you can
>> just say that and shut the **** up. But if you want to claim that
>> beans are not a significant source of starch, then I'm going to call
>> you on it.
>>
>> -sw
>
> I am not weasling out of anything there is...

[snip another 70 lines of trying to weasel]

Yes, you are.

-sw

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> Dimitri > wrote:
>
>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dimitri > wrote:
>> cordially invited to go pound sand!
>>>
>>> So, Dimitri - You're trying to weasel out of your claim that beans
>>> are not a starch?
>>>
>>> I understand. I'm sorry if you don't like my opinion that a potato
>>> and bean soup would be too starchy.
>>>
>>> If you want to argue that you don't like my opinion, then you can
>>> just say that and shut the **** up. But if you want to claim that
>>> beans are not a significant source of starch, then I'm going to call
>>> you on it.
>>>
>>> -sw
>>
>> I am not weasling out of anything there is...
>
> [snip another 70 lines of trying to weasel]
>
> Yes, you are.
>
> -sw

Once again you are invited to perform a biologically impossible act.

--
Old Scoundrel

(AKA Dimitri)

On 24 Jun 2008 16:48:34 GMT, Ken > wrote:

>blake murphy > wrote in
:
>
>> On 23 Jun 2008 16:47:01 GMT, Ken > wrote:
>>
>>>"Chris Marksberry" > wrote in
om:
>>>
>>>> Is this the recipe you are using?
>>>>
>>>> Hurst's HamBeens© Original 15 Bean Soup©
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes. I usually use low fat turkey sausage but this tine I'm trying a
>>>smoked ham hock.
>>>
>>>Ken
>>
>> the ham hock may be more trouble, but i'll bet you find it tastier.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>>
>
>You're right. Much better.
>
>Since the election here went against it, I left out the potatoes.
>
>Ken

you can slip it in next time and just not tell anybody.

your pal,
blake

On Jun 25, 10:08*am, "Dimitri" > wrote:
>
> Once again you are invited to perform a biologically impossible act.
>
He can't do that because his head's already up there. -aem