wrote:
>Mexican food without Lard - IMPOSSIBLE!

No. It's preferable according to my taste buds. All this talk of lard is making
me cringe because I just hate its taste and can't seem to feel any different
about it. I usually feel that way about butter too, except in pastry.

Orlando

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> Mexican food without Lard - IMPOSSIBLE!
>>
>
> No. It's preferable according to my taste buds. All this talk of lard is making
> me cringe because I just hate its taste and can't seem to feel any different
> about it. I usually feel that way about butter too, except in pastry.
>
> Orlando

That is too bad, it sounds like lard is not for you. At least you've
tried it. I like using lard when I make cinnamon rolls, pastry, fried
chicken. Nothing else can compare to using lard.


Becca

wrote:
>That is too bad, it sounds like lard is not for you. At least you've
>tried it. I like using lard when I make cinnamon rolls, pastry, fried
>chicken. Nothing else can compare to using lard.

I find that it gives everything an uncomfortably porky flavor. Butter is more
neutral in the sense that it's sort of milky. But, it's still not my ideal.

Orlando

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> That is too bad, it sounds like lard is not for you. At least you've
>> tried it. I like using lard when I make cinnamon rolls, pastry, fried
>> chicken. Nothing else can compare to using lard.
>>
>
> I find that it gives everything an uncomfortably porky flavor. Butter is more
> neutral in the sense that it's sort of milky. But, it's still not my ideal.
>
> Orlando
>

Not sure what you have tried, but I have been pleased with Armour. I
will watch out next time I make a pie crust and see if it has a porky
flavor.


Becca

Becca > writes:


> Not sure what you have tried, but I have been pleased with Armour.

The issue with Armour manteca (lard) is not its purity, which I'm sure
is fine, but the fact it's hydrogenated. This is "currently" a hot-button
issue with medical types and health nazis. Is it really all that bad?
Who knows. Perhaps 10 yrs from now it will be discovered it's better
for you than dark chocolate and red wine. :P

nb

In article >,
wrote:

> Becca > writes:
>
>
> > Not sure what you have tried, but I have been pleased with Armour.
>
> The issue with Armour manteca (lard) is not its purity, which I'm sure
> is fine, but the fact it's hydrogenated. This is "currently" a hot-button
> issue with medical types and health nazis. Is it really all that bad?
> Who knows. Perhaps 10 yrs from now it will be discovered it's better
> for you than dark chocolate and red wine. :P
>
> nb

And Coconut oil. <g>
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.


Subscribe:

wrote:
> Becca > writes:
>
>
>
>> Not sure what you have tried, but I have been pleased with Armour.
>>
>
> The issue with Armour manteca (lard) is not its purity, which I'm sure
> is fine, but the fact it's hydrogenated. This is "currently" a hot-button
> issue with medical types and health nazis. Is it really all that bad?
> Who knows. Perhaps 10 yrs from now it will be discovered it's better
> for you than dark chocolate and red wine. :P
>
> nb
>
Headlines, year 2019 "Oatbran, the silent killer!"


Becca

Becca > writes:


> Headlines, year 2019 "Oatbran, the silent killer!"

LOL...

"Is wheat grass juice behind the plague of two-headed babies?"

nb

wrote:
>
> Becca > writes:
>
> > Not sure what you have tried, but I have been pleased with Armour.
>
> The issue with Armour manteca (lard) is not its purity, which I'm sure
> is fine, but the fact it's hydrogenated. This is "currently" a hot-button
> issue with medical types and health nazis. Is it really all that bad?
> Who knows. Perhaps 10 yrs from now it will be discovered it's better
> for you than dark chocolate and red wine. :P

It also has mono- and diglycerides added. For frying
purposes, pure lard would be better.

Omelet wrote:
>
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
> > The issue with Armour manteca (lard) is not its purity, which I'm sure
> > is fine, but the fact it's hydrogenated. This is "currently" a hot-button
> > issue with medical types and health nazis. Is it really all that bad?
> > Who knows. Perhaps 10 yrs from now it will be discovered it's better
> > for you than dark chocolate and red wine. :P
>
> And Coconut oil. <g>

Not a chance. The scientific case against coconut oil
is bulletproof. It is artery-clogging poison. Much
worse than lard.

Only a few crackpots and pseudoscientists support the
use of coconut oil as food. They do it because you can
only make a name for yourself in the popular media
in the diet and nutrition field by opposing the conventional
wisdom. You don't get on Oprah by recommending eating
a healthful diet and getting plenty of exercise. You
get on Oprah by claiming something oddball, like your
protruding belly is caused by 10 or 20 pounds of
undigested, putrifying food clinging to the inside
of your colon, full of toxins and parasites.

Recommending coconut oil is just another scam for the
nutritional hucksters. They have a story which is easily
believed by laypeople lacking a scientific education.
They'd probably advocate smoking, too, but even laypeople
know that's bad for you. Coconut oil is safer for the
self-styled health gurus because the risk is not so well
known or self-evident. The masses are easily misled,
and this is just the latest form of quackery to be fed
to them.

Mark Thorson > writes:



> Not a chance. The scientific case against coconut oil
> is bulletproof. It is artery-clogging poison.

Define coconut oil.

nb

"Becca" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> Becca > writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Not sure what you have tried, but I have been pleased with Armour.
>>
>> The issue with Armour manteca (lard) is not its purity, which I'm sure
>> is fine, but the fact it's hydrogenated. This is "currently" a
>> hot-button
>> issue with medical types and health nazis. Is it really all that bad?
>> Who knows. Perhaps 10 yrs from now it will be discovered it's better
>> for you than dark chocolate and red wine. :P
>>
>> nb
> Headlines, year 2019 "Oatbran, the silent killer!"
>

I'm still laughing about "Tiny Merchants of Death."

Becca wrote:
> Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That is too bad, it sounds like lard is not for you. At least you've
>>> tried it. I like using lard when I make cinnamon rolls, pastry,
>>> fried chicken. Nothing else can compare to using lard.
>>
>> I find that it gives everything an uncomfortably porky flavor. Butter
>> is more neutral in the sense that it's sort of milky. But, it's still
>> not my ideal.
>>
>> Orlando
>>
>
> Not sure what you have tried, but I have been pleased with Armour. I
> will watch out next time I make a pie crust and see if it has a porky
> flavor.
>
> Becca

Speaking o' that... Some time ago, I realized that my favorite
(Chinese) egg tarts had crusts made with lard. Yes, you could
taste it. Every faint, but there.

--
Jean B.

Mark Thorson wrote:
> wrote:
>> Becca > writes:
>>
>>> Not sure what you have tried, but I have been pleased with Armour.
>> The issue with Armour manteca (lard) is not its purity, which I'm sure
>> is fine, but the fact it's hydrogenated. This is "currently" a hot-button
>> issue with medical types and health nazis. Is it really all that bad?
>> Who knows. Perhaps 10 yrs from now it will be discovered it's better
>> for you than dark chocolate and red wine. :P
>
> It also has mono- and diglycerides added. For frying
> purposes, pure lard would be better.

I refused to get the lard that is commonly available, precisely
because it was not just lard.

--
Jean B.

wrote:
>Speaking o' that... Some time ago, I realized that my favorite
>(Chinese) egg tarts had crusts made with lard. Yes, you could
>taste it. Every faint, but there.

That's one reason I now stay away from Chinese pastry; I can taste the lard too
much. perhaps, my taste buds have become more sensitive with age.

Orlando