Steve Pope wrote:
> On Jun 9, 1:28 am, sf > wrote:
>
>> I'd never heard of Boca burgers before this thread.
>
> That is actually consistent with your experience that "soy" almost
> always means "soy sauce". These both mean you probably don't know
> many folks who are eating soy as a protein source. (At least,
> deliberately.)

When I was a kid, my dad brought home this HUGE bag of ham flavored TVP.
His hours had been cut drastically at work so there was little money for
food. We ate that crap for weeks in one form or another. When he finally
went back to work full time we rejoiced and threw that stuff out.

I hated it so badly that I now check all labels on prepared food and won't
eat anything with it in there. I do love burritoes. But if you get a
frozen one, chances are it is in there, unless perhaps you get the bean and
cheese one.

projectile vomit chick wrote:
> On Jun 9, 3:03 am, "Julie Bove" > wrote:
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 04:55:13 +0000 (UTC),
>>> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>>
>>>> I can't imagine any local (to sf) stores not having Boca Burgers.
>>>> I bought some today at Target. They are everywhere. (I do not
>>>> usually buy Boca, preferring Dr. Praeger's but Boca are
>>>> higher-protein and I've been trying to get more protein into my
>>>> diet lately.)
>>
>>> I'd never heard of Boca burgers before this thread. Google only
>>> listed local restaurants and their web site wasn't helpful at all.
>>
>> I just looked online at my local Safeway. They carry them. Are you
>> near a Safeway? I know there is one in SF. I've been there.
>
> I don't know why you're researching for her. LOL

I guess partly because I can't believe anyone could be that stupid!

On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 13:52:56 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>Landon wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 09:09:05 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I have seen recipes and for the most part they look like a pain
>>> to make. Plus many contain eggs and I can't have them any more due
>>> to an allergy. I have eaten the Sunshine burgers. I do like them.
>>> Haven't bought any in a long while. But these are the sorts of
>>> things I will keep onhand for those times when we need a quick meal.
>>>
>>> My daughter takes a lot of dance classes. Sometimes we need a meal
>>> after school and before class. Sometimes things crop up where I
>>> have to run out and do things unexpectedly. There really is no time
>>> to cook but daughter needs food for energy. If I have something
>>> like this in the freezer, we can have something to eat in a minute.
>>> Yeah I know I could make something like this from scratch and freeze
>>> it. But if it's inexpensive and I can buy it at my health food
>>> store just around the corner, then why not do that?
>>
>> They are a PITA to make. I make large batches and freeze them between
>> wax-paper in "two-to-a-baggie" method. Frozen on a cookie sheet, they
>> retain their shape perfectly and I can take them out, throw a couple
>> in the pan or on the grill and be eating in 20 minutes from git to go.
>>
>> If you know someone who makes things at the Health Food Store you
>> frequent, perhaps you could buy homemade ones from someone there. The
>> store I go to has several people who make a living doing just that for
>> others.
>>
>> Soy *is* good for you. It adds protein in place of meat protein. That
>> in itself makes it worth eating. It is, after all, just another bean.
>> Unlike other types of beans, it can be used in many more ways.
>
>Very much disagree. For me, soy caused a thyroid problem. I stopped the
>soy and the thyroid problem went away.

For *you* that is something that is unique to you, not to everyone. I
hope you understand that. Because it's not good for you doesn't negate
what I've said.

>> Don't believe all the nonsense about how bad soy is for you. Soy, like
>> everything else in life, must be used in moderation. Anything done in
>> excess or to the extreme will harm you.
>
>I do believe it because it has been proven, by ME!

And only to you and others like you. You are a minority of the
population that has this reaction. A very, very, very, very small
minority of the population.

Again, because of the rarity of that reaction, what I've said stands.

>>
>> Water, sex, medications, exercise, all will cause harm or even death
>> if done in excess or to the extreme. Soy is no different.
>
>Actually it is.

Actually, it is not. Nothing you've said proves any different. Show
your proof that it is different. You can't, because there is no proof.

More people are allergic to wheat than soy. Does that mean wheat is
bad for the general populace? Of course not.

>>
>> The testing that anti-soy folks like to flaunt is done with gross
>> exaggeration of amounts. The typical amount used for testing is FIVE
>> TIMES what a typical soy eater uses per/day.
>
>I was eating a lot of soy. Edamame, roasted soy nuts, Tiger's Milk bars,
>soy bacon and Bocca burgers. Not all of these things in a day but at least
>three times a week I was eating something with soy in it.

Since you have an allergy to soy, that amount may represent a gross
overage in the amount you should allow yourself.

>Now I only consume soybean oil (mostly from restaurant meals) and soy
>lecithin in medications and supplements. This amount doesn't seem to affect
>my thyroid.
>
>Also, daughter had a soy allergy. She had outgrown it but must limit the
>amount of soy she now eats lest the allergy come back.
>>
>> It's said that one gallon of water, spread over a 24 hour period, is
>> good for you each day. If you increased that amount to FIVE GALLONS
>> each day, it would cause your death.
>
>So?

So? What does "So?" mean? That the comparison of water to soy overage
used in the stupid tests is meaningless? No, again, of course it
doesn't. "So?" is not an argument, it's a meaningless question.

>> Does that mean that water is bad for you? No. It means that THAT MUCH
>> water is bad for you. It's the same with ALL the soy testing. The
>> amounts they use for testing are extreme and no one in their right
>> mind would eat that much soy in one day.
>
>This is all meaningless to me. I know soy caused my thyroid problems. I
>*know* it did. Google it and you'll see plenty of evidence.

I may know a thousand times what you do about soy and it's
relationship to health. The reasons for it to affect the Thyroid are
specific and do not apply to the general population unless specific
people have an intolerance to soy. For those who do not, it doesn't do
anything harmful to their thyroid. This is proven.

>> The average amounts of soy are determined by combining the amounts in
>> ALL of the items usually eaten, not just the beans themselves. One of
>> the popular and misleading arguments against soy is that "It's now in
>> so many things that you eat more than you think you do". Again, the
>> *average* amounts used in testing are determined by including ALL of
>> these sources. Then they multiply THAT amount FIVE TIMES and use that
>> to determine that it's bad for you.
>
>If you are eating fast food and processed food then you are probably
>consuming a lot.

Define "a lot". That's a pretty meaningless phrase when debating
reaction to a substance. The amounts of processed and fast foods eaten
by the average person are calculated into the testing. This is the
amount that the testers multiplied 500% to gain their harmful results.

>> Most of the testing done in that fashion is misinterpreted either by
>> ignorance or intent by the anti-soy people. When cornered on it, they
>> either stomp off in frustration or just admit that THEY don't like it
>> anyway! Not the type of argument I want to base my own eating on.
>
>Yeah, well... I don't really care about the testing. I do know what it did
>to me.

Now THAT is the best thing you've said. Since soy has shown to be a
specific problem to you, then YOU should stay away from it. That has
nothing to do with the rest of the people on the planet.

For them, soy isn't bad for them. It's more good than bad. Far more
good than eating the same quantity of protein in meat form.

What I've said is proven via testing. You first have to look past the
nonsense that the anti-soy people broadcast from their soap-boxes of
semantic twisting and innuendo. The facts are already proven. Those
facts show that the average person would have to eat five times what
average eaters of soy products do for it to cause harm.

Scare tactics from the anti-soy crowd are just that; Scare Tactics.
They have nothing to do with the truth.

On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 14:05:17 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

> I guess partly because I can't believe anyone could be that stupid!
>
So glad you two know all there is to know about premade frozen crap.

--

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

On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:38:54 -0500, Omelet >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Landon > wrote:
>
>> The testing that anti-soy folks like to flaunt is done with gross
>> exaggeration of amounts. The typical amount used for testing is FIVE
>> TIMES what a typical soy eater uses per/day.
>
>I found out the same thing about Aspartame... I know some people are
>sensitive to it (I don't think there is a single substance or food out
>there that SOMEbody does not have a sensitivity to!) but I like
>Aspartame and have gone back to using it.
>
>Splenda raises my glucose levels! That tells me that it being
>non-nutrative (calorie free) is an abject lie.
>
>I can't stand Stevia. Tastes like Sacharrin to me.
>
>There is a lot of testing out there that is badly done. The testers are
>using huge amounts of said substance that is unrealistic for most normal
>people that eat a widely varied diet.

I've seen testing on Aspartame where ridiculous amounts were used.
Like 5 thousand times the normal usage. I agree with you.

Splenda jacks my glucose levels just as much as regular cane sugar
does. Splenda, after all IS sugar.

I'm one of the lucky ones with Stevia. It tastes exactly like cane
sugar to me. I've watched new users of it who used WAY too much from
ignorance of it and were turned off on it because they said it was
disgustingly sweet. Well DUH! Crack me up.

Stevia has been used by South Americans for literally hundreds of
years with absolutely no evidence showing that is caused any harm to
their societies or any banning or halting of use for any reasons. It
didn't affect population levels and it hasn't shown any problems in
the artifacts examined.

My advice to new users of Stevia; use much less when you try it. It's
strength will surprise you. It is 30 times as sweet as cane sugar.
Even the packets should be used in lesser quantities.

Have someone do a double blind test with you as the subject. Mix 6
numbered glasses of iced tea and put Stevia into 2 of them, Aspartame
in two and cane sugar in two. Have that person hold the card
identifying each numbered glass and a third person present the drinks.
When you come back into the room, tell them which two have the Stevia
in them.

Do the same test three times and the results will be all over the
place. Most dislike of Stevia is pre-judgment based misinformation
that the person has been told.

Double blind testing proves the results with no personal input or
prejudice possible.

Of course, IF you are one of the few people who can really taste the
difference without even knowing that you're drinking it, then that
also would prove that you are able to taste the difference without it
being a he-said-she-said result.

sf wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 14:05:17 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>> I guess partly because I can't believe anyone could be that stupid!
>>
> So glad you two know all there is to know about premade frozen crap.

I don't think either of us said that we did. But you claimed you had never
heard of a product that has been widely available and commonly advertised
for years.

Landon wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 13:52:56 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>> Landon wrote:
>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 09:09:05 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have seen recipes and for the most part they look like a pain
>>>> to make. Plus many contain eggs and I can't have them any more due
>>>> to an allergy. I have eaten the Sunshine burgers. I do like them.
>>>> Haven't bought any in a long while. But these are the sorts of
>>>> things I will keep onhand for those times when we need a quick
>>>> meal.
>>>>
>>>> My daughter takes a lot of dance classes. Sometimes we need a meal
>>>> after school and before class. Sometimes things crop up where I
>>>> have to run out and do things unexpectedly. There really is no
>>>> time to cook but daughter needs food for energy. If I have
>>>> something like this in the freezer, we can have something to eat
>>>> in a minute. Yeah I know I could make something like this from
>>>> scratch and freeze it. But if it's inexpensive and I can buy it
>>>> at my health food store just around the corner, then why not do
>>>> that?
>>>
>>> They are a PITA to make. I make large batches and freeze them
>>> between wax-paper in "two-to-a-baggie" method. Frozen on a cookie
>>> sheet, they retain their shape perfectly and I can take them out,
>>> throw a couple in the pan or on the grill and be eating in 20
>>> minutes from git to go.
>>>
>>> If you know someone who makes things at the Health Food Store you
>>> frequent, perhaps you could buy homemade ones from someone there.
>>> The store I go to has several people who make a living doing just
>>> that for others.
>>>
>>> Soy *is* good for you. It adds protein in place of meat protein.
>>> That in itself makes it worth eating. It is, after all, just
>>> another bean. Unlike other types of beans, it can be used in many
>>> more ways.
>>
>> Very much disagree. For me, soy caused a thyroid problem. I
>> stopped the soy and the thyroid problem went away.
>
> For *you* that is something that is unique to you, not to everyone. I
> hope you understand that. Because it's not good for you doesn't negate
> what I've said.

I certainly don't think it is unique to me. Ever been to the thyroid
newsgroup? And I still don't think it's good for you.
>
>>> Don't believe all the nonsense about how bad soy is for you. Soy,
>>> like everything else in life, must be used in moderation. Anything
>>> done in excess or to the extreme will harm you.
>>
>> I do believe it because it has been proven, by ME!
>
> And only to you and others like you. You are a minority of the
> population that has this reaction. A very, very, very, very small
> minority of the population.

Others like me. Oh yeah! All of us. All of the people like me. People
with thyroid problems. We are not a very, very, very, very small minority
of the population.
>
> Again, because of the rarity of that reaction, what I've said stands.

Then you stand incorrectly.
>>>
>>> Water, sex, medications, exercise, all will cause harm or even death
>>> if done in excess or to the extreme. Soy is no different.
>>
>> Actually it is.
>
> Actually, it is not. Nothing you've said proves any different. Show
> your proof that it is different. You can't, because there is no proof.

You can google it if you want. If you don't want to, I don't care. I'm not
here to prove anything to you. And even if I did posts cites you would find
some way to disprove them.
>
> More people are allergic to wheat than soy. Does that mean wheat is
> bad for the general populace? Of course not.

How do you know this? Soy allergy is getting more and more common. I do
hang out at food allergy forums. I don't know that wheat allergy is more
common than soy. I don't know that at all! In fact many people with wheat
allergies or who have celiac can not eat soy flour.
>
>>>
>>> The testing that anti-soy folks like to flaunt is done with gross
>>> exaggeration of amounts. The typical amount used for testing is FIVE
>>> TIMES what a typical soy eater uses per/day.
>>
>> I was eating a lot of soy. Edamame, roasted soy nuts, Tiger's Milk
>> bars, soy bacon and Bocca burgers. Not all of these things in a day
>> but at least three times a week I was eating something with soy in
>> it.
>
> Since you have an allergy to soy, that amount may represent a gross
> overage in the amount you should allow yourself.

I DON'T have an allergy to soy. Do you have reading comprehension problems?
I said my daughter DID have an allergy to soy and has outgrown it. For me
it caused a thyroid problem.
>
>> Now I only consume soybean oil (mostly from restaurant meals) and soy
>> lecithin in medications and supplements. This amount doesn't seem
>> to affect my thyroid.
>>
>> Also, daughter had a soy allergy. She had outgrown it but must
>> limit the amount of soy she now eats lest the allergy come back.
>>>
>>> It's said that one gallon of water, spread over a 24 hour period, is
>>> good for you each day. If you increased that amount to FIVE GALLONS
>>> each day, it would cause your death.
>>
>> So?
>
> So? What does "So?" mean? That the comparison of water to soy overage
> used in the stupid tests is meaningless? No, again, of course it
> doesn't. "So?" is not an argument, it's a meaningless question.

What does what you said mean? Nothing really. Yours was a meaningless
statement. Apples and oranges.
>
>>> Does that mean that water is bad for you? No. It means that THAT
>>> MUCH water is bad for you. It's the same with ALL the soy testing.
>>> The amounts they use for testing are extreme and no one in their
>>> right mind would eat that much soy in one day.

We're not talking water here.
>>
>> This is all meaningless to me. I know soy caused my thyroid
>> problems. I *know* it did. Google it and you'll see plenty of
>> evidence.
>
> I may know a thousand times what you do about soy and it's
> relationship to health. The reasons for it to affect the Thyroid are
> specific and do not apply to the general population unless specific
> people have an intolerance to soy. For those who do not, it doesn't do
> anything harmful to their thyroid. This is proven.

You "may" know, but I don't think you do.
>
>>> The average amounts of soy are determined by combining the amounts
>>> in ALL of the items usually eaten, not just the beans themselves.
>>> One of the popular and misleading arguments against soy is that
>>> "It's now in so many things that you eat more than you think you
>>> do". Again, the *average* amounts used in testing are determined by
>>> including ALL of these sources. Then they multiply THAT amount FIVE
>>> TIMES and use that to determine that it's bad for you.
>>
>> If you are eating fast food and processed food then you are probably
>> consuming a lot.
>
> Define "a lot". That's a pretty meaningless phrase when debating
> reaction to a substance. The amounts of processed and fast foods eaten
> by the average person are calculated into the testing. This is the
> amount that the testers multiplied 500% to gain their harmful results.

I really don't know. I just know that soy is in many processed foods. And
I don't eat those things. However many people are consuming soy daily and
don't even know it because they don't bother to look at the ingredients in
their food.
>
>>> Most of the testing done in that fashion is misinterpreted either by
>>> ignorance or intent by the anti-soy people. When cornered on it,
>>> they either stomp off in frustration or just admit that THEY don't
>>> like it anyway! Not the type of argument I want to base my own
>>> eating on.
>>
>> Yeah, well... I don't really care about the testing. I do know
>> what it did to me.
>
> Now THAT is the best thing you've said. Since soy has shown to be a
> specific problem to you, then YOU should stay away from it. That has
> nothing to do with the rest of the people on the planet.

I am not alone in this. I do talk to other people.
>
> For them, soy isn't bad for them. It's more good than bad. Far more
> good than eating the same quantity of protein in meat form.

Oh really! I must disagree.
>
> What I've said is proven via testing. You first have to look past the
> nonsense that the anti-soy people broadcast from their soap-boxes of
> semantic twisting and innuendo. The facts are already proven. Those
> facts show that the average person would have to eat five times what
> average eaters of soy products do for it to cause harm.
>
It has not been proven via testing. One can claim pretty much anything via
testing. Testing is often skewed.

> Scare tactics from the anti-soy crowd are just that; Scare Tactics.
> They have nothing to do with the truth.

I don't know any anti-soy crowd.

your recipe for these please? Lee
"Landon" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 09:09:05 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>I have seen recipes and for the most part they look like a pain
>>to make. Plus many contain eggs and I can't have them any more due to an
>>allergy. I have eaten the Sunshine burgers. I do like them. Haven't
>>bought any in a long while. But these are the sorts of things I will keep
>>onhand for those times when we need a quick meal.
>>
>>My daughter takes a lot of dance classes. Sometimes we need a meal after
>>school and before class. Sometimes things crop up where I have to run out
>>and do things unexpectedly. There really is no time to cook but daughter
>>needs food for energy. If I have something like this in the freezer, we
>>can
>>have something to eat in a minute. Yeah I know I could make something
>>like
>>this from scratch and freeze it. But if it's inexpensive and I can buy it
>>at my health food store just around the corner, then why not do that?
>
> They are a PITA to make. I make large batches and freeze them between
> wax-paper in "two-to-a-baggie" method. Frozen on a cookie sheet, they
> retain their shape perfectly and I can take them out, throw a couple
> in the pan or on the grill and be eating in 20 minutes from git to go.
>
> If you know someone who makes things at the Health Food Store you
> frequent, perhaps you could buy homemade ones from someone there. The
> store I go to has several people who make a living doing just that for
> others.
>
> Soy *is* good for you. It adds protein in place of meat protein. That
> in itself makes it worth eating. It is, after all, just another bean.
> Unlike other types of beans, it can be used in many more ways.
>
> Don't believe all the nonsense about how bad soy is for you. Soy, like
> everything else in life, must be used in moderation. Anything done in
> excess or to the extreme will harm you.
>
> Water, sex, medications, exercise, all will cause harm or even death
> if done in excess or to the extreme. Soy is no different.
>
> The testing that anti-soy folks like to flaunt is done with gross
> exaggeration of amounts. The typical amount used for testing is FIVE
> TIMES what a typical soy eater uses per/day.
>
> It's said that one gallon of water, spread over a 24 hour period, is
> good for you each day. If you increased that amount to FIVE GALLONS
> each day, it would cause your death.
>
> Does that mean that water is bad for you? No. It means that THAT MUCH
> water is bad for you. It's the same with ALL the soy testing. The
> amounts they use for testing are extreme and no one in their right
> mind would eat that much soy in one day.
>
> The average amounts of soy are determined by combining the amounts in
> ALL of the items usually eaten, not just the beans themselves. One of
> the popular and misleading arguments against soy is that "It's now in
> so many things that you eat more than you think you do". Again, the
> *average* amounts used in testing are determined by including ALL of
> these sources. Then they multiply THAT amount FIVE TIMES and use that
> to determine that it's bad for you.
>
> Most of the testing done in that fashion is misinterpreted either by
> ignorance or intent by the anti-soy people. When cornered on it, they
> either stomp off in frustration or just admit that THEY don't like it
> anyway! Not the type of argument I want to base my own eating on.

splenda doesn't affect my bgl, aspartame, sp sends me to th ER with minimal
usage, one 12 oz can of soda throws me into a full blown migraine, stevia,
is not like sugar to me, but isn't totally umpleaseant either.

Lee
"Landon" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:38:54 -0500, Omelet >
> wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Landon > wrote:
>>
>>> The testing that anti-soy folks like to flaunt is done with gross
>>> exaggeration of amounts. The typical amount used for testing is FIVE
>>> TIMES what a typical soy eater uses per/day.
>>
>>I found out the same thing about Aspartame... I know some people are
>>sensitive to it (I don't think there is a single substance or food out
>>there that SOMEbody does not have a sensitivity to!) but I like
>>Aspartame and have gone back to using it.
>>
>>Splenda raises my glucose levels! That tells me that it being
>>non-nutrative (calorie free) is an abject lie.
>>
>>I can't stand Stevia. Tastes like Sacharrin to me.
>>
>>There is a lot of testing out there that is badly done. The testers are
>>using huge amounts of said substance that is unrealistic for most normal
>>people that eat a widely varied diet.
>
> I've seen testing on Aspartame where ridiculous amounts were used.
> Like 5 thousand times the normal usage. I agree with you.
>
> Splenda jacks my glucose levels just as much as regular cane sugar
> does. Splenda, after all IS sugar.
>
> I'm one of the lucky ones with Stevia. It tastes exactly like cane
> sugar to me. I've watched new users of it who used WAY too much from
> ignorance of it and were turned off on it because they said it was
> disgustingly sweet. Well DUH! Crack me up.
>
> Stevia has been used by South Americans for literally hundreds of
> years with absolutely no evidence showing that is caused any harm to
> their societies or any banning or halting of use for any reasons. It
> didn't affect population levels and it hasn't shown any problems in
> the artifacts examined.
>
> My advice to new users of Stevia; use much less when you try it. It's
> strength will surprise you. It is 30 times as sweet as cane sugar.
> Even the packets should be used in lesser quantities.
>
> Have someone do a double blind test with you as the subject. Mix 6
> numbered glasses of iced tea and put Stevia into 2 of them, Aspartame
> in two and cane sugar in two. Have that person hold the card
> identifying each numbered glass and a third person present the drinks.
> When you come back into the room, tell them which two have the Stevia
> in them.
>
> Do the same test three times and the results will be all over the
> place. Most dislike of Stevia is pre-judgment based misinformation
> that the person has been told.
>
> Double blind testing proves the results with no personal input or
> prejudice possible.
>
> Of course, IF you are one of the few people who can really taste the
> difference without even knowing that you're drinking it, then that
> also would prove that you are able to taste the difference without it
> being a he-said-she-said result.

On Jun 9, 3:58*pm, "Storrmmee" > wrote:
> splenda doesn't affect my bgl, aspartame, sp sends me to th ER with minimal
> usage, one 12 oz can of soda throws me into a full blown migraine, stevia,
> is not like sugar to me, but isn't totally umpleaseant either.
>
> Lee"Landon" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:38:54 -0500, Omelet >
> > wrote:
>
> >>In article >,
> >> Landon > wrote:
>
> >>> The testing that anti-soy folks like to flaunt is done with gross
> >>> exaggeration of amounts. The typical amount used for testing is FIVE
> >>> TIMES what a typical soy eater uses per/day.
>
> >>I found out the same thing about Aspartame... *I know some people are
> >>sensitive to it (I don't think there is a single substance or food out
> >>there that SOMEbody does not have a sensitivity to!) but I like
> >>Aspartame and have gone back to using it.
>
> >>Splenda raises my glucose levels! *That tells me that it being
> >>non-nutrative (calorie free) is an abject lie.
>
> >>I can't stand Stevia. Tastes like Sacharrin to me.
>
> >>There is a lot of testing out there that is badly done. *The testers are
> >>using huge amounts of said substance that is unrealistic for most normal
> >>people that eat a widely varied diet.
>
> > I've seen testing on Aspartame where ridiculous amounts were used.
> > Like 5 thousand times the normal usage. I agree with you.
>
> > Splenda jacks my glucose levels just as much as regular cane sugar
> > does. Splenda, after all IS sugar.
>
> > I'm one of the lucky ones with Stevia. It tastes exactly like cane
> > sugar to me. I've watched new users of it who used WAY too much from
> > ignorance of it and were turned off on it because they said it was
> > disgustingly sweet. Well DUH! Crack me up.
>
> > Stevia has been used by South Americans for literally hundreds of
> > years with absolutely no evidence showing that is caused any harm to
> > their societies or any banning or halting of use for any reasons. It
> > didn't affect population levels and it hasn't shown any problems in
> > the artifacts examined.
>
> > My advice to new users of Stevia; use much less when you try it. It's
> > strength will surprise you. It is 30 times as sweet as cane sugar.
> > Even the packets should be used in lesser quantities.
>
> > Have someone do a double blind test with you as the subject. Mix 6
> > numbered glasses of iced tea and put Stevia into 2 of them, Aspartame
> > in two and cane sugar in two. Have that person hold the card
> > identifying each numbered glass and a third person present the drinks.
> > When you come back into the room, tell them which two have the Stevia
> > in them.
>
> > Do the same test three times and the results will be all over the
> > place. Most dislike of Stevia is pre-judgment based misinformation
> > that the person has been told.
>
> > Double blind testing proves the results with no personal input or
> > prejudice possible.
>
> > Of course, IF you are one of the few people who can really taste the
> > difference without even knowing that you're drinking it, then that
> > also would prove that you are able *to taste the difference without it
> > being a he-said-she-said result.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

different brands of Stevia have different tastes. I really like the
Stevia In The Raw brand, by the same folks that make
Sugar In The Raw. It doesn't have that licorice aftertaste.

On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 15:04:07 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

> But you claimed you had never
> heard of a product that has been widely available and commonly advertised
> for years.

Morning Star Farms, is advertised, not Boca.

--

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

On 09/06/2011 2:40 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> On Jun 9, 1:28 am, > wrote:
>
>> I'd never heard of Boca burgers before this thread.
>
> That is actually consistent with your experience that "soy" almost always
> means "soy sauce". These both mean you probably don't know many folks
> who are eating soy as a protein source. (At least, deliberately.)


It is hard to avoid soy these days. It is in just about everything in
one way or another.

Dave Smith > wrote:

>It is hard to avoid soy these days. It is in just about everything in
>one way or another.

It's not hard at all, if you delete processed foods from your diet.
Many options in restaurants are pretty certain to be free of soy also.

On the other hand, I deliberately bought some tatsoy at the market
yesterday. I had first though they were soy leaves, but upon googling
it seems they are probably not.

Steve

not sure about the dr. but in order to eat vegan on boca you must read the
label, some are vegan some are not, Lee
"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
> Omelet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>>
>>> I can't imagine any local (to sf) stores not having Boca Burgers.
>>> I bought some today at Target. They are everywhere. (I do not
>>> usually buy Boca, preferring Dr. Praeger's but Boca are
>>> higher-protein and I've been trying to get more protein into my diet
>>> lately.)
>>>
>>> Steve
>>
>> Are you a vegan??? I never realized that.
>
> I don't think Dr. Praegers is vegan! I believe it contains egg. As do
> Boca Burgers.
>

Storrmmee wrote:
> not sure about the dr. but in order to eat vegan on boca you must
> read the label, some are vegan some are not, Lee

That's true.

sf wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 15:04:07 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>> But you claimed you had never
>> heard of a product that has been widely available and commonly
>> advertised for years.
>
> Morning Star Farms, is advertised, not Boca.

Yes it is! I've seen many a magazine ad for it.

Steve Pope wrote:
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>> It is hard to avoid soy these days. It is in just about everything in
>> one way or another.
>
> It's not hard at all, if you delete processed foods from your diet.
> Many options in restaurants are pretty certain to be free of soy also.
>
> On the other hand, I deliberately bought some tatsoy at the market
> yesterday. I had first though they were soy leaves, but upon googling
> it seems they are probably not.

Soybean oil is frequently used in restaurants for frying and it's even in
salad dressing.

Omelet > wrote:

>Broken Humerus? Damn. I'd hate to have to live one handed for any
>length of time!

One adapts, as it turns out.

>To date, I've never broken a bone. I'm 49.

Other than fingers or toes, this is my first fracture. (Age 55).
Prior to age 50, I had zero fractures. That I know of. There's
one or two odd twitches that make me believe an occult fracture
or two may have occured at a very young age.

I should get my final imaging and be cleared on June 27, if the
film shows good bone healing. That will be the two-month point.

Steve

Julie Bove > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> It's not hard at all, if you delete processed foods from your diet.
>> Many options in restaurants are pretty certain to be free of soy also.

>Soybean oil is frequently used in restaurants for frying and it's even in
>salad dressing.

Correct... those are not among the options.

Pizza, on the other hand, should not have soy in it. Er, if you're
in the European Union anyway and it meets spec. In the U.S. .. who
knows.

Steve
>

both are commomnly advertised, in circulars, including coupons and sale ads,
on tv, and on websites concerned with eating, Lee


"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 15:04:07 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>> But you claimed you had never
>> heard of a product that has been widely available and commonly advertised
>> for years.
>
> Morning Star Farms, is advertised, not Boca.
>
> --
>
> Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

Steve Pope wrote:
> Julie Bove > wrote:
>
>> Steve Pope wrote:
>
>>> It's not hard at all, if you delete processed foods from your diet.
>>> Many options in restaurants are pretty certain to be free of soy
>>> also.
>
>> Soybean oil is frequently used in restaurants for frying and it's
>> even in salad dressing.
>
> Correct... those are not among the options.
>
> Pizza, on the other hand, should not have soy in it. Er, if you're
> in the European Union anyway and it meets spec. In the U.S. .. who
> knows.

There could well by soybean oil and/or soy flour in pizza here. And we can
get pizza with soy cheese although not too many places serve it. And they
do tell you what it is.

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> "Julie Bove" > wrote:
>
>>> Don't believe all the nonsense about how bad soy is for you. Soy,
>>> like everything else in life, must be used in moderation. Anything
>>> done in excess or to the extreme will harm you.
>>
>> I do believe it because it has been proven, by ME!
>
> Carful hon', you are a statistic of ONE. While I'm sure that it has
> exacerbated a thyroid issue for you does not mean it'll do it to
> everyone. :-) It's like any other food allergy or sensitivity... It
> may or may not apply to everyone.

I have been on the thyroid newsgroup and pleny of people have problems with
soy. It has nothing to do with an allergy or sensitivity.

Omelet > wrote:

[ Broken Humerus ]

>Was it your primary arm (lefty or righty)?

My left and primary arm.

>Have you been falling a lot lately? I've developed bad balance issues I
>need to work on. Been hurting myself more over the past couple of years
>by falls.

I don't think I have had more falls, but they seem more likely
to result in a fracture, presumably due to bone strength
not holding up as I get older.

>> I should get my final imaging and be cleared on June 27, if the
>> film shows good bone healing. That will be the two-month point.
>
>Sending good vibes your way!

Thanks, I appreciated that muchly.

Steve

On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 23:41:22 -0500, Omelet >
wrote:

>I have to wonder if simply drying and powdering the leaves, one could
>make their own sweetner. Refiners tend to do wierd stuff to food.

Yes, you can. I know several people who do just that. One uses a
dehydrator to dry the leaves and then processes them to a powder.

He then uses the powder directly into foods.

If you do it this way, remember that it is about 30 times as strong as
cane sugar. A tiny bit goes a LONG way.

You can also boil the leaves in plain water. Then press and remove the
leaves. Finally, reduce the water to a smaller amount that you find
easy to work with. Put it into a dropper bottle and keep it in the
fridge.

Landon > wrote:

>When someone is laying in a bed with a fractured leg, it's easy, in
>their pain, to think that ALL people should watch every thing they do
>to prevent breaking their leg and suffering like they are. The fact
>remains that very few people break their legs.

Lifetime prevalance of femur fracture is one-in-six. That's more
than "very few people".

But you're right about soy, the fraction of people who *might* want
to avoid it is much lower than the one-third or so of the public
who may want to avoid sodium, or the one-third who may want to avoid
sugars. Also, unless one is inconsistent about when one takes one's thyroid
meds, the standard process of blood tests / med adjustment should
take care of the influence on diet on dose effects.

Steve

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:22:09 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

>Lifetime prevalance of femur fracture is one-in-six.

No kiddin? I'd love to read the data you gained that info from. Do you
still have the stats?

1 in 6.....Holy Crap!

My cat tries to trip me all the time. He looks like a sweet little guy
and has a perpetual grin, but I think he might be trying to add me to
the stats on femur fractures!

I think I saw his head spin all the way around once...

On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 11:36:16 -0700 (PDT), projectile vomit chick
> wrote:

> On Jun 9, 10:50*am, sf > wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 01:04:01 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > It's not a regional brand. *They've been around for YEARS! *I bought them
> > > all the when I was in the bay area.
> >
> > Like I said before, I don't buy that kind of stuff so I wouldn't know.
>
> Then why do you keep carrying on about it?

You and certain other lame brains are the ones "carrying on". I said
I looked at the internet and didn't see any grocery stores listed,
just restaurants and that I'd never heard of it before this thread,
*You* and your fellow reading incompetents tried to make a Federal
case out of it, so STFU.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"Landon" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 15:14:17 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Well, this has turned into nothing more than a shouting match, so I'll
> leave you to your opinion and I'll retain mine.
>
> I see no point in you and I discussing it any further.
>
> I believe you to be very misinformed. You believe the same of me.
>
> Oh well. That's life.

Yep.

thing is it is genetic to some degree but i am not sure how, nobody else in
my family has an issue with sweetenrs i do, sister and brothers, have a
rule"if its sweet eat it" no matter how it got sweet... oldest brother is
idiabetic, so he does avoid sugr but even splenda doesn't spike him, he has
other issues, not related to this thread... on the other hand all of us in
the family love asparagus, from raw to mush, except sister who, i swear can
walk into a public restroom and tell if the previous occupant has eaten
asparagus, she can't abide it, smell taste anything, she can barely cut it
for my mom to cook...

but still i am convinced there is something to ethinic/genetic eating. Lee
"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> In article >,
> "Storrmmee" > wrote:
>
>> splenda doesn't affect my bgl, aspartame, sp sends me to th ER with
>> minimal
>> usage, one 12 oz can of soda throws me into a full blown migraine,
>> stevia,
>> is not like sugar to me, but isn't totally umpleaseant either.
>>
>> Lee
>
> Yeah, I recall you saying that. I used to just purchase sugar free
> cool-aid (I really do drink a LOT of that stuff) until they started
> adding Asulfame K to it. Can't stand that crap!
>
> I now purchase unsweetened cool-aid and add 1 packet of Aspartame per
> cup and since I make it up 1 gallon at a time, I use 16 packets. That
> lasts me 1 and 1/2 to 2 days.
>
> I have no bad reactions to Aspartame and have been using it for about 25
> years now.
>
> I am sorry you react to it but I understand. :-)
>
> While I am sensitive to wheat (causes GI upset) the only food I've ever
> had a real allergic reaction to (facial hives) was woodear mushrooms.
> Those are common in asian soups so most people would only run into that
> if they ate at buffets a lot. I found it out when I bought some and
> tried to use them in soup.
>
> I quit quite sometime back judging foods by how they affect ME as
> everyone seems to be different and have their own set of issues. :-)
>
> I'm beginning to be curious tho' if some food sensitivities might be
> genetic by race or blood type. I'm mixed racially but considered
> caucasian and I'm A positive. There are books out there about setting
> up diets around blood types.
>
> I think they are BS as they'd have me eating a high carb diet and I'd be
> larger than my poor baby sister now if I ate that way!
> --
> Peace, Om
> Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
>
> "Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have
> come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
> -- Mark Twain

On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 23:52:45 -0500 in rec.food.cooking, Omelet
> wrote,
> There are books out there about setting up diets around blood types.
>
>I think they are BS as they'd have me eating a high carb diet

They are BS.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:44:38 -0400 in rec.food.cooking, Landon
> wrote,
>On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:22:09 +0000 (UTC),
>(Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>>Lifetime prevalance of femur fracture is one-in-six.
>
>No kiddin? I'd love to read the data you gained that info from. Do you
>still have the stats?
>
>1 in 6.....Holy Crap!

It sounds really high, but that has to include old people with
osteoporosis with hip fractures, and then it doesn't sound so high.
Not what you usually call a "broken leg".