General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,677
Default Waffle House

On Feb 23, 11:46*am, Bryan > wrote:
> On Feb 23, 10:50*am, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Doug Freyburger wrote:
> > >>>Awareness of processed sugars as a prime
> > >>>contributor to metabolic syndrome

>
> > >> What's that? Is that the reason so many sheep run shrieking from HFCS

>
> > >That's because people have started to understand that at the level of
> > >several pounds *per year* sugar is beneficial but by the time it is used
> > >at the level of several pounds *per week* it's toxic.

>
> > >> but sigh in relief at a sack of sugar?

>
> > >Many people want the easy fix and have no interest in understanding
> > >principles. *Gram for gram HFCS is more problematic than cane sucrose,
> > >but the difference is tiny compared to the problem of using many times
> > >as much sugar as we should. *In the US the low price of HFCS leads to
> > >more of it being used and that completely overwhlems the gram for gram
> > >difference.

>
> > >Gram for gram, 10 grams of HFCS might have the same metabolic effect of
> > >10.1 grams of cane sucrose. *Dollar for dollar, 10 grams of sucrose
> > >costs what 15-20 grams of HFCS do, so more is used. *That's at least an
> > >order of magnitude of difference in relative contribution.

>
> > Thanks for the explanation. I still don't get why such horrors are
> > attributed to HFCS since, as you point out, it inflicts only a
> > slightly greater burden on metabolism. It's gotten to the point that
> > when mfrs. of processed foods replace HFCS with plain old sugar, they
> > put "No HFCS!" in big type on the package.

>
> That's totally a gimmick. *It may cost a penny or 3 or 4 more to use
> cane sugar in the whole package, but suckers fall for that "No HFCS"
> on the package. *Same with "Zero trans fat per serving." *That just
> means <0.5g per serving, and serving sizes can be a small fraction of
> what a person might eat. *The truly meaningful measures of carbs would
> be:
> 1. Glycemic index
> 2. Total grams of *digestible* carbohydrates
> 3. % of glucose/fructose/etc.
> and it'd be nice if they did the math and included:
> 4. Glycemic load
>
> Large food manufacturers know exactly what's in their products.
> Ingredients are standardized to ensure uniformity. *Just give
> consumers those numbers. *Change the rounding standard for trans fat
> so that any amount above 0.1g per serving is listed as 0.5g, and
> anything >0.5g is listed as 1g. *Change the language on the labels
> from "Zero trans fat per serving," to "No hydrogenated oils," for
> those products that qualify. *Nabisco, Sunshine, Pillsbury, Keebler,
> etc. know to within pretty tight tolerances--I'd happily accept a +/-
> 10% margin of error on the labels for fatty acid composition. *It'd
> sure be a start.
>
> --Bryan


Obsess! Obsess! Obsess!

Pedantic and pointless, except to your ego. :-( BORING!!!

John Kuthe...
  #82 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,116
Default Waffle House

On Feb 23, 12:07*pm, John Kuthe > wrote:
> On Feb 23, 11:46*am, Bryan > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 10:50*am, George M. Middius > wrote:

>
> > > Doug Freyburger wrote:
> > > >>>Awareness of processed sugars as a prime
> > > >>>contributor to metabolic syndrome

>
> > > >> What's that? Is that the reason so many sheep run shrieking from HFCS

>
> > > >That's because people have started to understand that at the level of
> > > >several pounds *per year* sugar is beneficial but by the time it is used
> > > >at the level of several pounds *per week* it's toxic.

>
> > > >> but sigh in relief at a sack of sugar?

>
> > > >Many people want the easy fix and have no interest in understanding
> > > >principles. *Gram for gram HFCS is more problematic than cane sucrose,
> > > >but the difference is tiny compared to the problem of using many times
> > > >as much sugar as we should. *In the US the low price of HFCS leads to
> > > >more of it being used and that completely overwhlems the gram for gram
> > > >difference.

>
> > > >Gram for gram, 10 grams of HFCS might have the same metabolic effect of
> > > >10.1 grams of cane sucrose. *Dollar for dollar, 10 grams of sucrose
> > > >costs what 15-20 grams of HFCS do, so more is used. *That's at least an
> > > >order of magnitude of difference in relative contribution.

>
> > > Thanks for the explanation. I still don't get why such horrors are
> > > attributed to HFCS since, as you point out, it inflicts only a
> > > slightly greater burden on metabolism. It's gotten to the point that
> > > when mfrs. of processed foods replace HFCS with plain old sugar, they
> > > put "No HFCS!" in big type on the package.

>
> > That's totally a gimmick. *It may cost a penny or 3 or 4 more to use
> > cane sugar in the whole package, but suckers fall for that "No HFCS"
> > on the package. *Same with "Zero trans fat per serving." *That just
> > means <0.5g per serving, and serving sizes can be a small fraction of
> > what a person might eat. *The truly meaningful measures of carbs would
> > be:
> > 1. Glycemic index
> > 2. Total grams of *digestible* carbohydrates
> > 3. % of glucose/fructose/etc.
> > and it'd be nice if they did the math and included:
> > 4. Glycemic load

>
> > Large food manufacturers know exactly what's in their products.
> > Ingredients are standardized to ensure uniformity. *Just give
> > consumers those numbers. *Change the rounding standard for trans fat
> > so that any amount above 0.1g per serving is listed as 0.5g, and
> > anything >0.5g is listed as 1g. *Change the language on the labels
> > from "Zero trans fat per serving," to "No hydrogenated oils," for
> > those products that qualify. *Nabisco, Sunshine, Pillsbury, Keebler,
> > etc. know to within pretty tight tolerances--I'd happily accept a +/-
> > 10% margin of error on the labels for fatty acid composition. *It'd
> > sure be a start.

>
> > --Bryan

>
> Obsess! Obsess! Obsess!
>
> Pedantic and pointless, except to your ego. :-( BORING!!!


Go fry some donuts in oil you don't care to know the components of.
Some people care about human physiology., and like to accrue more
knowledge. Others feel smug in their ignorance.
>
> John Kuthe...


--Bryan
  #83 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,976
Default Waffle House

Andy wrote:

>> Thanks for the explanation. I still don't get why such horrors are
>> attributed to HFCS since, as you point out, it inflicts only a
>> slightly greater burden on metabolism. It's gotten to the point that
>> when mfrs. of processed foods replace HFCS with plain old sugar, they
>> put "No HFCS!" in big type on the package.

>
>
>Aside from the cost of HFCS being cheaper than sugar, there's something
>more sinister about HFCS.
>
>HFCS is a genetically modified sugar. Why?
>
>I know I'm explaining this in unscientific terms...
>
>A message in the brain is sent to a receptor somewhere else in the brain
>that triggers an "I feel full" alert.
>
>The genetic engineers modified a gene in corn syrup that blocks the
>message from being sent (or arriving?). In this way, people will,
>essentially, overeat.
>
>This is what attracted wide spread and rapid adoption of HFCS in
>processed foods.
>
>With the "I'm full" message blocked, consumers will go through products
>faster, causing them to spend more money faster for more of the HFCS
>products.
>
>That's why HFCS can be found in products that don't really need sugar in
>them.
>
>Not only is HFCS cheaper to use. Great sums of money is spent on HFCS
>with the full sinister greed that greater sums of money can be leeched
>faster out of consumer wallets.


Genetic engineering? I don't know... sounds like an urban myth.


  #84 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,116
Default Waffle House

On Feb 23, 2:25*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Andy wrote:
> >> Thanks for the explanation. I still don't get why such horrors are
> >> attributed to HFCS since, as you point out, it inflicts only a
> >> slightly greater burden on metabolism. It's gotten to the point that
> >> when mfrs. of processed foods replace HFCS with plain old sugar, they
> >> put "No HFCS!" in big type on the package.

>
> >Aside from the cost of HFCS being cheaper than sugar, there's something
> >more sinister about HFCS.

>
> >HFCS is a genetically modified sugar. Why?

>
> >I know I'm explaining this in unscientific terms...

>
> >A message in the brain is sent to a receptor somewhere else in the brain
> >that triggers an "I feel full" alert.

>
> >The genetic engineers modified a gene in corn syrup that blocks the
> >message from being sent (or arriving?). In this way, people will,
> >essentially, overeat.

>
> >This is what attracted wide spread and rapid adoption of HFCS in
> >processed foods.

>
> >With the "I'm full" message blocked, consumers will go through products
> >faster, causing them to spend more money faster for more of the HFCS
> >products.

>
> >That's why HFCS can be found in products that don't really need sugar in
> >them.

>
> >Not only is HFCS cheaper to use. Great sums of money is spent on HFCS
> >with the full sinister greed that greater sums of money can be leeched
> >faster out of consumer wallets.

>
> Genetic engineering? I don't know... sounds like an urban myth.


It is. Andy is an idiot. A grown man drinking Gatorade.

--Bryan
  #85 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,415
Default Waffle House

George M. Middius wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>>Gram for gram, 10 grams of HFCS might have the same metabolic effect of
>>10.1 grams of cane sucrose. Dollar for dollar, 10 grams of sucrose
>>costs what 15-20 grams of HFCS do, so more is used. That's at least an
>>order of magnitude of difference in relative contribution.

>
> Thanks for the explanation. I still don't get why such horrors are
> attributed to HFCS since, as you point out, it inflicts only a
> slightly greater burden on metabolism.


At the time many US food processors switched from cane sugar to HFCS the
current obesity epidemic had just started. Folks want a single culprit
that does not mean sweets become rare.

> It's gotten to the point that
> when mfrs. of processed foods replace HFCS with plain old sugar, they
> put "No HFCS!" in big type on the package.


As opposed to the old "No fat!" hype on the labels. People are finally
wising up to the fact that means "Sugar added".


  #86 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,677
Default Waffle House

On Feb 23, 2:56*pm, Bryan > wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2:25*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Andy wrote:
> > >> Thanks for the explanation. I still don't get why such horrors are
> > >> attributed to HFCS since, as you point out, it inflicts only a
> > >> slightly greater burden on metabolism. It's gotten to the point that
> > >> when mfrs. of processed foods replace HFCS with plain old sugar, they
> > >> put "No HFCS!" in big type on the package.

>
> > >Aside from the cost of HFCS being cheaper than sugar, there's something
> > >more sinister about HFCS.

>
> > >HFCS is a genetically modified sugar. Why?

>
> > >I know I'm explaining this in unscientific terms...

>
> > >A message in the brain is sent to a receptor somewhere else in the brain
> > >that triggers an "I feel full" alert.

>
> > >The genetic engineers modified a gene in corn syrup that blocks the
> > >message from being sent (or arriving?). In this way, people will,
> > >essentially, overeat.

>
> > >This is what attracted wide spread and rapid adoption of HFCS in
> > >processed foods.

>
> > >With the "I'm full" message blocked, consumers will go through products
> > >faster, causing them to spend more money faster for more of the HFCS
> > >products.

>
> > >That's why HFCS can be found in products that don't really need sugar in
> > >them.

>
> > >Not only is HFCS cheaper to use. Great sums of money is spent on HFCS
> > >with the full sinister greed that greater sums of money can be leeched
> > >faster out of consumer wallets.

>
> > Genetic engineering? I don't know... sounds like an urban myth.

>
> It is. *Andy is an idiot. *A grown man drinking Gatorade.
>
> --Bryan


Beats a grown man drinking the olive oil in which fish was fried!

John Kuthe...
  #87 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,116
Default Waffle House

On Feb 23, 3:24*pm, John Kuthe > wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2:56*pm, Bryan > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 2:25*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:

>
> > > Andy wrote:
> > > >> Thanks for the explanation. I still don't get why such horrors are
> > > >> attributed to HFCS since, as you point out, it inflicts only a
> > > >> slightly greater burden on metabolism. It's gotten to the point that
> > > >> when mfrs. of processed foods replace HFCS with plain old sugar, they
> > > >> put "No HFCS!" in big type on the package.

>
> > > >Aside from the cost of HFCS being cheaper than sugar, there's something
> > > >more sinister about HFCS.

>
> > > >HFCS is a genetically modified sugar. Why?

>
> > > >I know I'm explaining this in unscientific terms...

>
> > > >A message in the brain is sent to a receptor somewhere else in the brain
> > > >that triggers an "I feel full" alert.

>
> > > >The genetic engineers modified a gene in corn syrup that blocks the
> > > >message from being sent (or arriving?). In this way, people will,
> > > >essentially, overeat.

>
> > > >This is what attracted wide spread and rapid adoption of HFCS in
> > > >processed foods.

>
> > > >With the "I'm full" message blocked, consumers will go through products
> > > >faster, causing them to spend more money faster for more of the HFCS
> > > >products.

>
> > > >That's why HFCS can be found in products that don't really need sugar in
> > > >them.

>
> > > >Not only is HFCS cheaper to use. Great sums of money is spent on HFCS
> > > >with the full sinister greed that greater sums of money can be leeched
> > > >faster out of consumer wallets.

>
> > > Genetic engineering? I don't know... sounds like an urban myth.

>
> > It is. *Andy is an idiot. *A grown man drinking Gatorade.

>
> > --Bryan

>
> Beats a grown man drinking the olive oil in which fish was fried!


If fish flavored with olive oil is good, why would olive oil flavored
with fish not be?
>
> John Kuthe...


--Bryan
  #88 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,677
Default Waffle House

On Feb 23, 3:38*pm, Bryan > wrote:
> On Feb 23, 3:24*pm, John Kuthe > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 2:56*pm, Bryan > wrote:

>
> > > On Feb 23, 2:25*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:

>
> > > > Andy wrote:
> > > > >> Thanks for the explanation. I still don't get why such horrors are
> > > > >> attributed to HFCS since, as you point out, it inflicts only a
> > > > >> slightly greater burden on metabolism. It's gotten to the point that
> > > > >> when mfrs. of processed foods replace HFCS with plain old sugar, they
> > > > >> put "No HFCS!" in big type on the package.

>
> > > > >Aside from the cost of HFCS being cheaper than sugar, there's something
> > > > >more sinister about HFCS.

>
> > > > >HFCS is a genetically modified sugar. Why?

>
> > > > >I know I'm explaining this in unscientific terms...

>
> > > > >A message in the brain is sent to a receptor somewhere else in the brain
> > > > >that triggers an "I feel full" alert.

>
> > > > >The genetic engineers modified a gene in corn syrup that blocks the
> > > > >message from being sent (or arriving?). In this way, people will,
> > > > >essentially, overeat.

>
> > > > >This is what attracted wide spread and rapid adoption of HFCS in
> > > > >processed foods.

>
> > > > >With the "I'm full" message blocked, consumers will go through products
> > > > >faster, causing them to spend more money faster for more of the HFCS
> > > > >products.

>
> > > > >That's why HFCS can be found in products that don't really need sugar in
> > > > >them.

>
> > > > >Not only is HFCS cheaper to use. Great sums of money is spent on HFCS
> > > > >with the full sinister greed that greater sums of money can be leeched
> > > > >faster out of consumer wallets.

>
> > > > Genetic engineering? I don't know... sounds like an urban myth.

>
> > > It is. *Andy is an idiot. *A grown man drinking Gatorade.

>
> > > --Bryan

>
> > Beats a grown man drinking the olive oil in which fish was fried!

>
> If fish flavored with olive oil is good, why would olive oil flavored
> with fish not be?
>
>


It's a childish thing to do, just as you implied drinking Gatorade is.
Just like eating two jars of pickles.

John Kuthe...
  #89 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 200
Default Waffle House

George M. Middius > writes:

> Andy wrote:
>
>>> Thanks for the explanation. I still don't get why such horrors are
>>> attributed to HFCS since, as you point out, it inflicts only a
>>> slightly greater burden on metabolism. It's gotten to the point that
>>> when mfrs. of processed foods replace HFCS with plain old sugar, they
>>> put "No HFCS!" in big type on the package.

>>
>>
>>Aside from the cost of HFCS being cheaper than sugar, there's something
>>more sinister about HFCS.
>>
>>HFCS is a genetically modified sugar. Why?
>>
>>I know I'm explaining this in unscientific terms...
>>
>>A message in the brain is sent to a receptor somewhere else in the brain
>>that triggers an "I feel full" alert.
>>
>>The genetic engineers modified a gene in corn syrup that blocks the
>>message from being sent (or arriving?). In this way, people will,
>>essentially, overeat.
>>
>>This is what attracted wide spread and rapid adoption of HFCS in
>>processed foods.
>>
>>With the "I'm full" message blocked, consumers will go through products
>>faster, causing them to spend more money faster for more of the HFCS
>>products.
>>
>>That's why HFCS can be found in products that don't really need sugar in
>>them.
>>
>>Not only is HFCS cheaper to use. Great sums of money is spent on HFCS
>>with the full sinister greed that greater sums of money can be leeched
>>faster out of consumer wallets.

>
> Genetic engineering? I don't know... sounds like an urban myth.


Doesn't it just?

Also typical anti-science kookery.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
  #90 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,396
Default Waffle House

On Feb 23, 1:59*pm, John Kuthe > wrote:
> On Feb 23, 3:38*pm, Bryan > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 3:24*pm, John Kuthe > wrote:

>
> > > On Feb 23, 2:56*pm, Bryan > wrote:

>
> > > > On Feb 23, 2:25*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:

>
> > > > > Andy wrote:
> > > > > >> Thanks for the explanation. I still don't get why such horrors are
> > > > > >> attributed to HFCS since, as you point out, it inflicts only a
> > > > > >> slightly greater burden on metabolism. It's gotten to the point that
> > > > > >> when mfrs. of processed foods replace HFCS with plain old sugar, they
> > > > > >> put "No HFCS!" in big type on the package.

>
> > > > > >Aside from the cost of HFCS being cheaper than sugar, there's something
> > > > > >more sinister about HFCS.

>
> > > > > >HFCS is a genetically modified sugar. Why?

>
> > > > > >I know I'm explaining this in unscientific terms...

>
> > > > > >A message in the brain is sent to a receptor somewhere else in the brain
> > > > > >that triggers an "I feel full" alert.

>
> > > > > >The genetic engineers modified a gene in corn syrup that blocks the
> > > > > >message from being sent (or arriving?). In this way, people will,
> > > > > >essentially, overeat.

>
> > > > > >This is what attracted wide spread and rapid adoption of HFCS in
> > > > > >processed foods.

>
> > > > > >With the "I'm full" message blocked, consumers will go through products
> > > > > >faster, causing them to spend more money faster for more of the HFCS
> > > > > >products.

>
> > > > > >That's why HFCS can be found in products that don't really need sugar in
> > > > > >them.

>
> > > > > >Not only is HFCS cheaper to use. Great sums of money is spent on HFCS
> > > > > >with the full sinister greed that greater sums of money can be leeched
> > > > > >faster out of consumer wallets.

>
> > > > > Genetic engineering? I don't know... sounds like an urban myth.

>
> > > > It is. *Andy is an idiot. *A grown man drinking Gatorade.

>
> > > > --Bryan

>
> > > Beats a grown man drinking the olive oil in which fish was fried!

>
> > If fish flavored with olive oil is good, why would olive oil flavored
> > with fish not be?

>
> It's a childish thing to do, just as you implied drinking Gatorade is.
> Just like eating two jars of pickles.
>


Consuming the oil in which fish is fried should help capture the
omega-3s and other healthful fat-soluble ingredients that leached out
of the fish during frying.


  #91 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,716
Default Waffle House

On 2/17/2012 10:48 AM, Tara wrote:
> I needed to brace myself before heading out to a giant kids
> consignment sale. So, I took myself to Waffle House for brunch. I
> ordered a pecan waffle, grits, and scattered smothered, and topped
> hash browns (covered with onions and chili). I managed to eat
> about half of this. If loving Waffle House is wrong, I don't want to
> be right.
>
> Tara


My daughter's boyfriend brought a big baggie of small waffles from the
restaurant that he works. It was small yet thick waffles that looked
kind of goofy. These were the kind that you get from a buffet line. My
guess it's from Sunday brunch and it's been sitting on our counter for 3
days or so. I popped one into my toaster and boy were they good! You'd
think they would be all gross by now but they're pretty much all that
waffles should be. When I go home, I'm gonna eat another. Foods that you
like and don't have to prepare yourself are the best kinds of foods. :-)
  #92 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,425
Default Waffle House

On Sunday, February 19, 2012 10:54:55 PM UTC-10, wrote:
>
> A lot of hotels offer a hot breakfast with a waffle maker, and it
> rotates. You pour the pre-measured batter in, rotate the grill, and
> the time starts automatically. Some of them will do two waffles at a
> time. So, after you rotate it, you can open it on the other side and
> add another cup of batter. They are pretty good. They also sell the
> rotating waffle makers in stores now. We got one for my mom for
> Christmas as she loves getting the waffles at the hotels.


I've used one of those hotel waffle makers in one of those breakfast nook type deals. The waffle iron was pretty cool but the batter sucked. As a matter of fact, the whole breakfast sucked. Oh well, waddaya expect for free? :-)
  #93 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,116
Default Waffle House

On Feb 23, 6:37*pm, spamtrap1888 > wrote:
> On Feb 23, 1:59*pm, John Kuthe > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 3:38*pm, Bryan > wrote:

>
> > > On Feb 23, 3:24*pm, John Kuthe > wrote:

>
> > > > On Feb 23, 2:56*pm, Bryan > wrote:

>
> > > > > On Feb 23, 2:25*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:

>
> > > > > > Andy wrote:
> > > > > > >> Thanks for the explanation. I still don't get why such horrors are
> > > > > > >> attributed to HFCS since, as you point out, it inflicts only a
> > > > > > >> slightly greater burden on metabolism. It's gotten to the point that
> > > > > > >> when mfrs. of processed foods replace HFCS with plain old sugar, they
> > > > > > >> put "No HFCS!" in big type on the package.

>
> > > > > > >Aside from the cost of HFCS being cheaper than sugar, there's something
> > > > > > >more sinister about HFCS.

>
> > > > > > >HFCS is a genetically modified sugar. Why?

>
> > > > > > >I know I'm explaining this in unscientific terms...

>
> > > > > > >A message in the brain is sent to a receptor somewhere else in the brain
> > > > > > >that triggers an "I feel full" alert.

>
> > > > > > >The genetic engineers modified a gene in corn syrup that blocks the
> > > > > > >message from being sent (or arriving?). In this way, people will,
> > > > > > >essentially, overeat.

>
> > > > > > >This is what attracted wide spread and rapid adoption of HFCS in
> > > > > > >processed foods.

>
> > > > > > >With the "I'm full" message blocked, consumers will go through products
> > > > > > >faster, causing them to spend more money faster for more of the HFCS
> > > > > > >products.

>
> > > > > > >That's why HFCS can be found in products that don't really need sugar in
> > > > > > >them.

>
> > > > > > >Not only is HFCS cheaper to use. Great sums of money is spent on HFCS
> > > > > > >with the full sinister greed that greater sums of money can be leeched
> > > > > > >faster out of consumer wallets.

>
> > > > > > Genetic engineering? I don't know... sounds like an urban myth.

>
> > > > > It is. *Andy is an idiot. *A grown man drinking Gatorade.

>
> > > > > --Bryan

>
> > > > Beats a grown man drinking the olive oil in which fish was fried!

>
> > > If fish flavored with olive oil is good, why would olive oil flavored
> > > with fish not be?

>
> > It's a childish thing to do, just as you implied drinking Gatorade is.
> > Just like eating two jars of pickles.

>
> Consuming the oil in which fish is fried should help capture the
> omega-3s and other healthful fat-soluble ingredients that leached out
> of the fish during frying.


That would be the case if I were frying Omega-3 rich fish, but it'd
more likely be cheap tilapia. I take 3 fish oils most days (Fri-
Tues). That works out to 4.5g/week, which is adequate for someone who
doesn't consume a lot of Omega-6.

--Bryan
  #94 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,545
Default Waffle House

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Doug Freyburger wrote:


> >Many people want the easy fix and have no interest in understanding
> >principles. Gram for gram HFCS is more problematic than cane sucrose,
> >but the difference is tiny compared to the problem of using many times
> >as much sugar as we should. In the US the low price of HFCS leads to
> >more of it being used and that completely overwhlems the gram for gram
> >difference.
> >
> >Gram for gram, 10 grams of HFCS might have the same metabolic effect of
> >10.1 grams of cane sucrose. Dollar for dollar, 10 grams of sucrose
> >costs what 15-20 grams of HFCS do, so more is used. That's at least an
> >order of magnitude of difference in relative contribution.

>
> Thanks for the explanation. I still don't get why such horrors are
> attributed to HFCS since, as you point out, it inflicts only a
> slightly greater burden on metabolism. It's gotten to the point that
> when mfrs. of processed foods replace HFCS with plain old sugar, they
> put "No HFCS!" in big type on the package.


And, in fact, some might argue that HFCS produces a lesser burden on
metabolism for some people, since it doesn't spike blood sugar as much.

And then there's the other question, what kind of HFCS is in different
products? It is commonly known that HFCS-55 (55% fructose) is primarily
used for beverages, and HFCS-42 (42% fructose) is used for "beverages,
processed foods, cereals and baked goods", but I've never seen a food
nutrition label that shows which HFCS is in a particular product:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hfcs

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Valentine's Day at Waffle House Tara General Cooking 1 14-02-2014 08:21 PM
Our Groundhog Eats Waffle House Tara General Cooking 9 03-02-2014 08:21 PM
Valentine's Day at Waffle House Tara General Cooking 29 16-02-2013 01:45 AM
Only stupid people eat at Waffle House?? PL[_5_] General Cooking 0 23-07-2010 07:32 AM
REC: Waffle House Waffles Wayne Boatwright[_4_] General Cooking 5 21-02-2009 08:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"