Do you know how to cook eggs in healthy ways. For adults, boiling is the best cooking method, but it's unfavorable to cook for a long time; 5-7 minutes is enough. Remember to take time in eating; otherwise, it will affect egg digestion and nutrition absorbing. Different from adults, steamed eggs and egg soups suit children, for such cooking ways make protein easy to absorb for kids. Besides, fried eggs are likely to be harmful to health . If an egg is fried with burning scorches on its edges, the white part may become low molecular amino acids which can form toxic chemicals at high temperatures.　

emmy007 wrote:

> Do you know how to cook eggs in healthy ways

Scrambled - put the eggs into a frying pan that's already got a generous
amount of oil, keep the heat medium-low or so, and after the eggs have
been in only a bit, add a lot of grated cheese - sharp cheddar and
smoked gouda are the current favorites here.

Don't know if it's healthy but it sure tastes good.

-S-

In article >,
emmy007 > wrote:

> Do you know how to cook eggs in healthy ways.

No clue. It doesn't matter *how* I cook them, the eggs are never
healthy. I've never gotten a chicken out of one yet. I suspect the
cooking kills them.

:-)

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

You're the same spammer that posted as lilyqianweiku.
What happened? Was that account shut down?

I don't know what preceded this; probably some folks I've added to the
blocked senders' list. BUT, I do know how to cook healthy eggs. At least
somewhat. We do everything we can to hold off on cholesterol but we do a
Sunday Morning very special breakfast.
I use two whole eggs, 4 egg whites. I add something such as a bit of
minced green onions and a hefty splat of Tabasco and some freshly ground
pepper. They are gently scrambled in our only spoonful of butter for the
week. How to make this look 'as good as'? I add a few drops of food
coloring so they don't look anemic. Maybe not as wonderful as real
scrambled eggs or a fine cigar on the deck of the Titanic. Polly

Polly Esther wrote:
> I don't know what preceded this; probably some folks I've added to the
> blocked senders' list. BUT, I do know how to cook healthy eggs. At
> least somewhat. We do everything we can to hold off on cholesterol
> but we do a Sunday Morning very special breakfast.
> I use two whole eggs, 4 egg whites. I add something such as a bit
> of minced green onions and a hefty splat of Tabasco and some freshly
> ground pepper. They are gently scrambled in our only spoonful of
> butter for the week. How to make this look 'as good as'? I add a
> few drops of food coloring so they don't look anemic. Maybe not as
> wonderful as real scrambled eggs or a fine cigar on the deck of the
> Titanic. Polly

My understanding of recent research is that there is very little, if
any, connection between dietary cholesterol and the level in one's
blood.

-S-

"Steve Freides" <> wrote > My understanding of recent research is that there
is very little, if
> any, connection between dietary cholesterol and the level in one's blood.
>
> -S-
>I know, Steve. I know. But - we've been through the by-pass trauma (
>twelve years ago) and being very careful about dietary cholesterol may /
>may not have made the difference. Polly

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 00:54:57 -0500, "Polly Esther"
> wrote:

>
> "Steve Freides" <> wrote > My understanding of recent research is that there
> is very little, if
> > any, connection between dietary cholesterol and the level in one's blood.
> >
> > -S-
> >I know, Steve. I know. But - we've been through the by-pass trauma (
> >twelve years ago) and being very careful about dietary cholesterol may /
> >may not have made the difference. Polly

"Very little" evidence becomes "enough to be cautious" about when
you're actually playing with your spouse's life instead of making it
an academic exercise.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Apr 1, 9:56*pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:

First, pluck, singe, and draw your spammer. Rinse the body cavity and
blot dry before salting and peppering. Insert as many bulbs of garlic
as the cavity will hold, then coat skin with peanut oil. Place on rack
in roasting pan in 325F oven, twenty minutes per pound.

"sf" <wrote >
> "Very little" evidence becomes "enough to be cautious" about when
> you're actually playing with your spouse's life instead of making it
> an academic exercise.
>
<< Way to go, sf! I couldn't have said it better myself. I don't think I
could have even said it as well. Polly

On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 08:12:54 -0500, "Polly Esther"
> wrote:

>
> "sf" <wrote >
> > "Very little" evidence becomes "enough to be cautious" about when
> > you're actually playing with your spouse's life instead of making it
> > an academic exercise.
> >
> << Way to go, sf! I couldn't have said it better myself. I don't think I
> could have even said it as well. Polly

It's personal for me too, Polly.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

sf wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 00:54:57 -0500, "Polly Esther"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Steve Freides" <> wrote > My understanding of recent research is
>> that there is very little, if
>>> any, connection between dietary cholesterol and the level in one's
>>> blood.
>>>
>>> -S-
>>> I know, Steve. I know. But - we've been through the by-pass
>>> trauma ( twelve years ago) and being very careful about dietary
>>> cholesterol may / may not have made the difference. Polly
>
> "Very little" evidence becomes "enough to be cautious" about when
> you're actually playing with your spouse's life instead of making it
> an academic exercise.

"Very little evidence" means you may be worsing your overall health by
not eating enough dietary fat. Please do not oversimplify the argument
to view those who eat dietary fat, including eggs, as being somehow
carefree - I am not. I make it a point to eat certain kinds of fat
precisely because they're good for me, good for my health, good for my
heart, and not because I happen to like the taste of a spoonful of
coconut oil in the morning.

If you or anyone else wishes to rest easy because you're following what
you think is the conservative course of action, "very little evidence"
should become "enough evidence with which to delude yourself." Read,
read, and read some more, and then undertake a careful experiment with
your own body - have blood work done, then alter your diet to include
healthy fats (and zero trans fats, partially and fully hydrogenated
oils, etc.) for a few months, then have bloodwork done again. See how
you feel, and see what your doctor says. Please post your results here
when you do.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 12:13:21 -0400, "Steve Freides" >
wrote:

> sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 00:54:57 -0500, "Polly Esther"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Steve Freides" <> wrote > My understanding of recent research is
> >> that there is very little, if
> >>> any, connection between dietary cholesterol and the level in one's
> >>> blood.
> >>>
> >>> -S-
> >>> I know, Steve. I know. But - we've been through the by-pass
> >>> trauma ( twelve years ago) and being very careful about dietary
> >>> cholesterol may / may not have made the difference. Polly
> >
> > "Very little" evidence becomes "enough to be cautious" about when
> > you're actually playing with your spouse's life instead of making it
> > an academic exercise.
>
> "Very little evidence" means you may be worsing your overall health by
> not eating enough dietary fat. Please do not oversimplify the argument
> to view those who eat dietary fat, including eggs, as being somehow
> carefree - I am not. I make it a point to eat certain kinds of fat
> precisely because they're good for me, good for my health, good for my
> heart, and not because I happen to like the taste of a spoonful of
> coconut oil in the morning.
>
> If you or anyone else wishes to rest easy because you're following what
> you think is the conservative course of action, "very little evidence"
> should become "enough evidence with which to delude yourself." Read,
> read, and read some more, and then undertake a careful experiment with
> your own body - have blood work done, then alter your diet to include
> healthy fats (and zero trans fats, partially and fully hydrogenated
> oils, etc.) for a few months, then have bloodwork done again. See how
> you feel, and see what your doctor says. Please post your results here
> when you do.
>

I don't know why you took that to mean *no* fat. Just because you and
others have gone overboard on no fat diets doesn't mean everyone does
crazy things like that. People eat far more than their recommended
daily allowance and that's a fact; otherwise there wouldn't be so many
morbidly obese people walking around (and posting to rfc). I am
talking about limiting saturated fats to the 20 or so mg that a
healthy diet allows and not going over it. If you want to waste part
of your saturated fat intake on a gratuitous spoonful or coconut oil
or translate what I said into some crazy no fat diet, knock yourself
out.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

sf wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 12:13:21 -0400, "Steve Freides" >
> wrote:
>
>> sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 00:54:57 -0500, "Polly Esther"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Steve Freides" <> wrote > My understanding of recent research is
>>>> that there is very little, if
>>>>> any, connection between dietary cholesterol and the level in one's
>>>>> blood.
>>>>>
>>>>> -S-
>>>>> I know, Steve. I know. But - we've been through the by-pass
>>>>> trauma ( twelve years ago) and being very careful about dietary
>>>>> cholesterol may / may not have made the difference. Polly
>>>
>>> "Very little" evidence becomes "enough to be cautious" about when
>>> you're actually playing with your spouse's life instead of making it
>>> an academic exercise.
>>
>> "Very little evidence" means you may be worsing your overall health
>> by not eating enough dietary fat. Please do not oversimplify the
>> argument to view those who eat dietary fat, including eggs, as being
>> somehow carefree - I am not. I make it a point to eat certain kinds
>> of fat precisely because they're good for me, good for my health,
>> good for my heart, and not because I happen to like the taste of a
>> spoonful of coconut oil in the morning.
>>
>> If you or anyone else wishes to rest easy because you're following
>> what you think is the conservative course of action, "very little
>> evidence" should become "enough evidence with which to delude
>> yourself." Read, read, and read some more, and then undertake a
>> careful experiment with your own body - have blood work done, then
>> alter your diet to include healthy fats (and zero trans fats,
>> partially and fully hydrogenated oils, etc.) for a few months, then
>> have bloodwork done again. See how you feel, and see what your
>> doctor says. Please post your results here when you do.
>>
>
> I don't know why you took that to mean *no* fat. Just because you and
> others have gone overboard on no fat diets doesn't mean everyone does
> crazy things like that.

I have not gone overboard, I don't diet ...

> People eat far more than their recommended
> daily allowance and that's a fact; otherwise there wouldn't be so many
> morbidly obese people walking around (and posting to rfc).

.... I'm not obese, I don't have a weight problem.

> I am
> talking about limiting saturated fats to the 20 or so mg that a
> healthy diet allows and not going over it. If you want to waste part
> of your saturated fat intake on a gratuitous spoonful or coconut oil
> or translate what I said into some crazy no fat diet, knock yourself
> out.

Your choice of words suggests a lack of information. Again, please read
on this subject.

Saturated fat is far from monolithic. There are good saturated fats and
bad saturated fats, and the goods one ought to be encouraged, not
limited, because we don't get enough of them in a typical Western diet.
You sound like you're blindly following your own, questionable
interpretation of an already questionable dietary guideline. What
you're suggesting as moderate is an immoderate limitation on foods that
help improve health in measurable ways like improving cholesterol
profiles.

I've got nothing new to add - the Internet is full of good information
on this topic. The last word is yours if you wish it.

-S-

In article >,
"Steve Freides" > wrote:

> sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 00:54:57 -0500, "Polly Esther"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Steve Freides" <> wrote > My understanding of recent research is
> >> that there is very little, if
> >>> any, connection between dietary cholesterol and the level in one's
> >>> blood.
> >>>
> >>> -S-
> >>> I know, Steve. I know. But - we've been through the by-pass
> >>> trauma ( twelve years ago) and being very careful about dietary
> >>> cholesterol may / may not have made the difference. Polly
> >
> > "Very little" evidence becomes "enough to be cautious" about when
> > you're actually playing with your spouse's life instead of making it
> > an academic exercise.
>
> "Very little evidence" means you may be worsing your overall health by
> not eating enough dietary fat.

Standard recommendation for normal people (those not on drastic diets)
is to keep total fat calories at 30%, and 10% of total calories for
saturated fats.

> and not because I happen to like the taste of a spoonful of
> coconut oil in the morning.

I like the taste, and consume it in moderate quantities. However, it is
a saturated fat, and it is recommended to limit consumption of saturated
fats, as they are linked to heart attacks and strokes.

There is lots of information on the internet about the health benefits
of coconut oil. I haven't seen one yet that I trust or believe. There
are many saturated fats. They are all grouped together into the
category of "saturated fats". They are all different, but that doesn't
mean that they are better or worse.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:29:03 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

> Standard recommendation for normal people (those not on drastic diets)
> is to keep total fat calories at 30%, and 10% of total calories for
> saturated fats.

The standard recommendation for total daily *saturated* fat is 20g.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:29:03 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > Standard recommendation for normal people (those not on drastic diets)
> > is to keep total fat calories at 30%, and 10% of total calories for
> > saturated fats.
>
> The standard recommendation for total daily *saturated* fat is 20g.

And if you do the math, that's about the same.

Standard diet is 2000-2200 calories. 10% is 200-220 calories. Fat is 9
cal/g. So that's 22-24g.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:25:20 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:29:03 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
> >
> > > Standard recommendation for normal people (those not on drastic diets)
> > > is to keep total fat calories at 30%, and 10% of total calories for
> > > saturated fats.
> >
> > The standard recommendation for total daily *saturated* fat is 20g.
>
> And if you do the math, that's about the same.
>
> Standard diet is 2000-2200 calories. 10% is 200-220 calories. Fat is 9
> cal/g. So that's 22-24g.

So, you're allowing yourself more immediately. <shrug>

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:25:20 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > sf > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:29:03 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Standard recommendation for normal people (those not on drastic diets)
> > > > is to keep total fat calories at 30%, and 10% of total calories for
> > > > saturated fats.
> > >
> > > The standard recommendation for total daily *saturated* fat is 20g.
> >
> > And if you do the math, that's about the same.
> >
> > Standard diet is 2000-2200 calories. 10% is 200-220 calories. Fat is 9
> > cal/g. So that's 22-24g.
>
> So, you're allowing yourself more immediately. <shrug>

These things are always somewhat approximate. Do you think a 98 pound
weakling should eat the same amount as a 240 pound wrestler who trains
several hours a day? 20g might be a lot for the first, but the second
might have trouble keeping it down to that unless they were vegan.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 17:11:24 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:25:20 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > sf > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:29:03 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Standard recommendation for normal people (those not on drastic diets)
> > > > > is to keep total fat calories at 30%, and 10% of total calories for
> > > > > saturated fats.
> > > >
> > > > The standard recommendation for total daily *saturated* fat is 20g.
> > >
> > > And if you do the math, that's about the same.
> > >
> > > Standard diet is 2000-2200 calories. 10% is 200-220 calories. Fat is 9
> > > cal/g. So that's 22-24g.
> >
> > So, you're allowing yourself more immediately. <shrug>
>
> These things are always somewhat approximate. Do you think a 98 pound
> weakling should eat the same amount as a 240 pound wrestler who trains
> several hours a day? 20g might be a lot for the first, but the second
> might have trouble keeping it down to that unless they were vegan.

You don't need to bring in exceptions to cloud the issue. I'm saying
normal people need to limit saturated fat grams. Since you're being
as obtuse as Doug, I'm done with this. I'm not on a crusade and your
heart health doesn't matter to me in the least, but don't try to tell
me that the amount of ingested saturated fats doesn't matter in the
aspect of heart health.

sf
killing thread, I'm done

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.