If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
My Modified LC plan
I've been a LCer for almost 10 years. Lost 50 lbs, and gradually put
back 30 of it over the years. I won't blame the WOE as much as a few injuries and health issues that made me very sedentary. After all these years of various dieting, I've come to the conclusion that pretty much anything will work, if you stick to it. My problem was always quantity. When I did low fat, I thought I could eat all the bread and pasta I wanted but no butter. When I was strict low carb I thought I could eat all the fat and meat I wanted. Now I do modified low carb, and for the first time portion control. I still do not eat any sugar, but will eat some whole wheat, brown rice, and fruit. I started walking 3-4 miles almost every day, and have lost 20 lbs in 2 months doing this. Here's my biggest solution to the problem of preparing & cooking. I know many of you here are stay at home folks that think nothing of whipping up cauliflower potatoes, cheese cake, fresh veggies and various other goodies. Many of us work and have busy lives and find it too hard to take the time 7 days a week. I got the idea from flipping channels and a guy that cals himself The Diet Detective. He had an obese busy actor buy prepared meals at the supermarket. Taste test until he found things that he liked (yes some of them are awful), and then stocked his freezer with them. He used this on those nights when he was too challenged to cook and may have grabbed too much of something bad. I did this using lower carb, low sodium frozen meals. Works like a charm for me. -- "When you win, nothing hurts".... Joe Namath JK www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
My Modified LC plan
Congratulations on the weight loss, but I would like to add that many of us
work from home, and in the home as well. We also have busy lives, but sometimes you just have to decide what's more important and do it. You seem to have found your best solution for you, and I hope you continue to have success. Cheri "JKconey" wrote in message ... I've been a LCer for almost 10 years. Lost 50 lbs, and gradually put back 30 of it over the years. I won't blame the WOE as much as a few injuries and health issues that made me very sedentary. After all these years of various dieting, I've come to the conclusion that pretty much anything will work, if you stick to it. My problem was always quantity. When I did low fat, I thought I could eat all the bread and pasta I wanted but no butter. When I was strict low carb I thought I could eat all the fat and meat I wanted. Now I do modified low carb, and for the first time portion control. I still do not eat any sugar, but will eat some whole wheat, brown rice, and fruit. I started walking 3-4 miles almost every day, and have lost 20 lbs in 2 months doing this. Here's my biggest solution to the problem of preparing & cooking. I know many of you here are stay at home folks that think nothing of whipping up cauliflower potatoes, cheese cake, fresh veggies and various other goodies. Many of us work and have busy lives and find it too hard to take the time 7 days a week. I got the idea from flipping channels and a guy that cals himself The Diet Detective. He had an obese busy actor buy prepared meals at the supermarket. Taste test until he found things that he liked (yes some of them are awful), and then stocked his freezer with them. He used this on those nights when he was too challenged to cook and may have grabbed too much of something bad. I did this using lower carb, low sodium frozen meals. Works like a charm for me. -- "When you win, nothing hurts".... Joe Namath JK www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
My Modified LC plan
In article ,
"JKconey" wrote: I've been a LCer for almost 10 years. Lost 50 lbs, and gradually put back 30 of it over the years. I won't blame the WOE as much as a few injuries and health issues that made me very sedentary. After all these years of various dieting, I've come to the conclusion that pretty much anything will work, if you stick to it. My problem was always quantity. When I did low fat, I thought I could eat all the bread and pasta I wanted but no butter. When I was strict low carb I thought I could eat all the fat and meat I wanted. Now I do modified low carb, and for the first time portion control. I still do not eat any sugar, but will eat some whole wheat, brown rice, and fruit. I started walking 3-4 miles almost every day, and have lost 20 lbs in 2 months doing this. Here's my biggest solution to the problem of preparing & cooking. I know many of you here are stay at home folks that think nothing of whipping up cauliflower potatoes, cheese cake, fresh veggies and various other goodies. Many of us work and have busy lives and find it too hard to take the time 7 days a week. I got the idea from flipping channels and a guy that cals himself The Diet Detective. He had an obese busy actor buy prepared meals at the supermarket. Taste test until he found things that he liked (yes some of them are awful), and then stocked his freezer with them. He used this on those nights when he was too challenged to cook and may have grabbed too much of something bad. I did this using lower carb, low sodium frozen meals. Works like a charm for me. Bad idea, most processed foods lack the phytonutrients (mainly anti-oxidants) of real food. Processed foods are primarily made with GMO plants (corn fractions, and soy oil or cotton oil). You can avoid GMO products by buying "organic". GMO plants contain antibiotic markers that can lead to bacterial resistance to them, and they contain Cabbage Mosaic Virus which can, at least theoretically, turn on part of the 98% of your DNA which is dormant. This could be genes for web feet or a long dormant viruse. They certainly create exotic proteins, that can lead to allergies. The secret to good eating is "planed overs". Make a double or triple serving of something health, and then freeze individual portions. A couple of days of cooking real food could feed you through the week. Then of course there is raw veggies, with or without meat (avoiding CAFOs is a whole other problem). -- Racial injustice, war, urban blight, and environmental rape have a common denominator in our exploitative economic system.* ~Channing E. Phillips http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
My Modified LC plan
On Aug 14, 2:24*pm, Billy wrote:
In article , *"JKconey" wrote: * * I've been a LCer for almost 10 years. Lost 50 lbs, and gradually put back 30 of it over the years. *I won't blame the WOE as much as a few injuries and health issues that made me very sedentary. *After all these years of various dieting, I've come to the conclusion that pretty much anything will work, if you stick to it. My problem was always quantity. When I did low fat, I thought I could eat all the bread and pasta I wanted but no butter. When I was strict low carb I thought I could eat all the fat and meat I wanted. Now I do modified low carb, and for the first time portion control. I still do not eat any sugar, but will eat some whole wheat, brown rice, and fruit. *I started walking 3-4 miles almost every day, and have lost 20 lbs in 2 months doing this. * * *Here's my biggest solution to the problem of preparing & cooking. I know many of you here are stay at home folks that think nothing of whipping up cauliflower potatoes, cheese cake, fresh veggies and various other goodies. Many of us work and have busy lives and find it too hard to take the time 7 days a week. I got the idea from flipping channels and a guy that cals himself The Diet Detective. He had an obese busy actor buy prepared meals at the supermarket. Taste test until he found things that he liked (yes some of them are awful), and then stocked his freezer with them. He used this on those nights when he was too challenged to cook and may have grabbed too much of something bad. I did this using lower carb, low sodium frozen meals. Works like a charm for me. Bad idea, most processed foods lack the phytonutrients (mainly anti-oxidants) of real food. Processed foods are primarily made with GMO plants (corn fractions, and soy oil or cotton oil). You can avoid GMO products by buying "organic". GMO plants contain antibiotic markers that can lead to bacterial resistance to them, and they contain Cabbage Mosaic Virus which can, at least theoretically, turn on part of the 98% of your DNA which is dormant. This could be genes for web feet or a long dormant viruse. They certainly create exotic proteins, that can lead to allergies. A link please for a peer reviewed scientific study that showed GMO crops lead to allergies. Also, the issue of possible antibiotic resistance has been investigated many times, and AFAIK, every reputable peer reviewed study concluded that while a theoretical possibility, from a practical standpoint, it isn't an issue for a number of valid reasons. Organic products are fine if you want to buy them and can afford to pay 2X. In developed countries, many people can afford that option. But it's not the case in 3rd world countries, where GMO crops offer big advantages to feed hungry populations. Two of which are higher yields and less use of pesticides, which is good for the environment and cost. This issue is like so many others. You can focus on alleged bad aspects, that have little basis and blow them all out of proportion. Or you can look at the big picture, which offers many benefits and close to zero risk. Also, there have been a couple of recent studies that showed that organic produce had exactly the same nutritional content as the equivalent regular crop. They do have the advantage of not having chemicals used to produce them.. But I can only wonder, in this day where everyone is cutting corners on ethics, how much produce that is sold as organic actually has some chemical used on it at some point. To JK, I'd say if he chooses his store bought foods very carefully, there is no reason they can't be part of a LC plan. The problems are that there aren't that many LC choices and in general, the ones that are available don't taste very good, especially the frozen ones. The foods prepared in the store and sold non frozen, where available, can be good choices. Here, the local Shoprite has wood grilled chicken, shrimp, fish, vegetables, etc. And most supermarkets have roasted chickens available which are an excellent choice. The secret to good eating is "planed overs". Make a double or triple serving of something health, and then freeze individual portions. A couple of days of cooking real food could feed you through the week. For those that don't have time to cook everyday, consider buying a freezer, cooking a few times a month, and making enough to freeze so that you have it for future use. I do that with everything from cauliflower mashed to sauerbratten and red cabbage. Then of course there is raw veggies, with or without meat (avoiding CAFOs is a whole other problem). -- Racial injustice, war, urban blight, and environmental rape have a common denominator in our exploitative economic system.* ~Channing E. Phillips Spoken like a true commie, who ignores that this imperfect economic system, when given a chance, has lifted most of mankind from a hard existence to the greatest lifestyle the world has ever achieved. And that no one has ever come up with a better system. Do you always focus on the perceived negatives and overlook the positives? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
My Modified LC plan
In article
, wrote: On Aug 14, 2:24*pm, Billy wrote: In article , *"JKconey" wrote: * * I've been a LCer for almost 10 years. Lost 50 lbs, and gradually put back 30 of it over the years. *I won't blame the WOE as much as a few injuries and health issues that made me very sedentary. *After all these years of various dieting, I've come to the conclusion that pretty much anything will work, if you stick to it. My problem was always quantity. When I did low fat, I thought I could eat all the bread and pasta I wanted but no butter. When I was strict low carb I thought I could eat all the fat and meat I wanted. Now I do modified low carb, and for the first time portion control. I still do not eat any sugar, but will eat some whole wheat, brown rice, and fruit. *I started walking 3-4 miles almost every day, and have lost 20 lbs in 2 months doing this. * * *Here's my biggest solution to the problem of preparing & cooking. I know many of you here are stay at home folks that think nothing of whipping up cauliflower potatoes, cheese cake, fresh veggies and various other goodies. Many of us work and have busy lives and find it too hard to take the time 7 days a week. I got the idea from flipping channels and a guy that cals himself The Diet Detective. He had an obese busy actor buy prepared meals at the supermarket. Taste test until he found things that he liked (yes some of them are awful), and then stocked his freezer with them. He used this on those nights when he was too challenged to cook and may have grabbed too much of something bad. I did this using lower carb, low sodium frozen meals. Works like a charm for me. Bad idea, most processed foods lack the phytonutrients (mainly anti-oxidants) of real food. Processed foods are primarily made with GMO plants (corn fractions, and soy oil or cotton oil). You can avoid GMO products by buying "organic". GMO plants contain antibiotic markers that can lead to bacterial resistance to them, and they contain Cabbage Mosaic Virus which can, at least theoretically, turn on part of the 98% of your DNA which is dormant. This could be genes for web feet or a long dormant viruse. They certainly create exotic proteins, that can lead to allergies. A link please for a peer reviewed scientific study that showed GMO crops lead to allergies. Also, the issue of possible antibiotic resistance has been investigated many times, and AFAIK, every reputable peer reviewed study concluded that while a theoretical possibility, from a practical standpoint, it isn't an issue for a number of valid reasons. I would direct you to the book "Seeds of Deception" http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Deceptio...ly-Engineered/ dp/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250372822&sr=8-1 and the discussion there about the insertion of genes into eucaryotes and the roll of the antibiotic marker, Cabbage Mosaic Virus, and the spliceosome. Also see the work of rpd Pusztai. Organic products are fine if you want to buy them and can afford to pay 2X. In developed countries, many people can afford that option. But it's not the case in 3rd world countries, where GMO crops offer big advantages to feed hungry populations. Two of which are higher yields and less use of pesticides, which is good for the environment and cost. Exposed: the great GM crops myth http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...ed-the-great-g m-crops-myth-812179.html http://www.countercurrents.org/sharma210309.htm Actually the resistance to Roundup (whatever) allows the use of more pesticides. THe pesticides and herbicides in turn kill off the soil ecology exacerbating the loss of top soil. Turns out the less top soil you have, the more chemical fertilizers you have to use, so you end up having to use more and more chemferts as the topsoil disappears, while at the same time poisoning the water supply for people, and creating huge dead zones in the ocean where nothing can live. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology) So GMOs don't give higher yields (they usually allow longer shelf life and show less bruising, nothing to do with flavor or nutrition), and they are a disaster for the environment. This issue is like so many others. You can focus on alleged bad aspects, that have little basis and blow them all out of proportion. Or you can look at the big picture, which offers many benefits and close to zero risk. I would just like to choose my food, but the government won't allow the identifying of GMO foods. Your only chance to avoid them is to eat organic. You'll also get to avoid loading your body with more unnatural chemicals. http://www.foodnews.org/fulllist.php Also, there have been a couple of recent studies that showed that organic produce had exactly the same nutritional content as the equivalent regular crop. They do have the advantage of not having chemicals used to produce them.. But I can only wonder, in this day where everyone is cutting corners on ethics, how much produce that is sold as organic actually has some chemical used on it at some point. Commercially grown fruits and vegetables are less expensive, are prettier to look at, contain approximately 10-50% of the nutrients found in organic produce, are often depleted in enzymes, and are contaminated with a variety of herbicides, pesticides and other agricultural chemicals. Journal of Applied Nutrition, Vol. 45, #1, 1993. http://www.rawfoodlife.com/Articles_...ommercial_food /organic_vs_commercial_food.htm When French researchers compared the differences in lycopene, vitamin C and polyphenol content of organic versus conventional tomatoes, they found that the organic tomatoes had somewhat higher levels of vitamin C and polyphenols, which was not surprising given that the tomatoes probably produce these to fend of pests. If they get no help from commercial pesticides, they will produce more of the natural variety. - Dr. Joseph Schwarcz chair of the ACCN Editorial Board, Schwarcz is one of North America's foremost educators and is the director of McGill University's Office for Science and Society, which is dedicated to demystifying science for the public, the media, and students. Schwarcz is also a professor in the chemistry department and teaches nutrition and alternative medicine in McGill's Medical School. http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache...edmedicalnetwo rk.com/researchdocs/Organic%2520vs%2520Comm%2520Foods.doc+%E2%80%A8%E2 %80 %A8COMMERCIAL+VS+ORGANIC+FOOD%E2%80%A8:+Mon.,+17+J an+2000&cd=1&hl=en&ct=c lnk&gl=us&client=safari To JK, I'd say if he chooses his store bought foods very carefully, there is no reason they can't be part of a LC plan. The problems are that there aren't that many LC choices and in general, the ones that are available don't taste very good, especially the frozen ones. The foods prepared in the store and sold non frozen, where available, can be good choices. Here, the local Shoprite has wood grilled chicken, shrimp, fish, vegetables, etc. And most supermarkets have roasted chickens available which are an excellent choice. As a rule, processed foods are more energy dense than fresh foods: they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace, which is why we call the foods that contain them junk. Drewnowski concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational economic strategy is to eat badly and get fat. This perverse state of affairs is not, as you might think, the inevitable result of the free market. Compared with a bunch of carrots, a package of Twinkies, to take one iconic processed foodlike substance as an example, is a highly complicated, high-tech piece of manufacture, involving no fewer than 39 ingredients, many themselves elaborately manufactured, as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots? For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill. This resolutely unglamorous and head-hurtingly complicated piece of legislation, which comes around roughly every five years and is about to do so again, sets the rules for the American food system indeed, to a considerable extent, for the worlds food system. Among other things, it determines which crops will be subsidized and which will not, and in the case of the carrot and the Twinkie, the farm bill as currently written offers a lot more support to the cake than to the root. Like most processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat three of the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of some $25 billion a year. (Rice and cotton are the others.) For the last several decades indeed, for about as long as the American waistline has been ballooning U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities, especially corn and soy. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/ma...ml?pagewanted= 1&ei=5090&en=e8328c69f0b3f4be&ex=1334894400&partne r=rssuserland&emc=rss The secret to good eating is "planed overs". Make a double or triple serving of something health, and then freeze individual portions. A couple of days of cooking real food could feed you through the week. For those that don't have time to cook everyday, consider buying a freezer, cooking a few times a month, and making enough to freeze so that you have it for future use. I do that with everything from cauliflower mashed to sauerbratten and red cabbage. Then of course there is raw veggies, with or without meat (avoiding CAFOs is a whole other problem). -- Racial injustice, war, urban blight, and environmental rape have a common denominator in our exploitative economic system.* ~Channing E. Phillips Spoken like a true commie, who ignores that this imperfect economic system, when given a chance, has lifted most of mankind from a hard existence to the greatest lifestyle the world has ever achieved. And that no one has ever come up with a better system. Do you always focus on the perceived negatives and overlook the positives? When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist. -Archbishop Helder Camara -- Racial injustice, war, urban blight, and environmental rape have a common denominator in our exploitative economic system.* ~Channing E. Phillips http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
My Modified LC plan
wrote in message ... On Aug 14, 2:24 pm, Billy wrote: In article , To JK, I'd say if he chooses his store bought foods very carefully, there is no reason they can't be part of a LC plan. The problems are that there aren't that many LC choices and in general, the ones that are available don't taste very good, especially the frozen ones. If you look around and audition various places and products, you can find decent tasting fairly LC frozen meals. Try Trader Joes, Kashi frozen entrees, etc etc. For those nit picking at this suggestion, (of course I'm familiar with posters that want to know the .001 percent of carbs in Splenda), this isn't a regular daily sustitute for home prepared food. It's just another available choice to keep us from going off the plan and/or overeating. My wife and I both work, and there are those nights when it's nice to just throw it in the microwave, and know I'm only eating 280 calories of something I'm never going to cook myself. All it takes is one or 2 nights out of 7, to make me fail. Now I have a security net. I still eat LC, but just not as crazy strict as I used to. I lost 20 lbs in 2 months, so it's working. -- "When you win, nothing hurts".... Joe Namath JK www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
My Modified LC plan
"JKconey" writes:
I've been a LCer for almost 10 years. Lost 50 lbs, and gradually put back 30 of it over the years. I won't blame the WOE as much as a few injuries and health issues that made me very sedentary. After all these years of various dieting, I've come to the conclusion that pretty much anything will work, if you stick to it. My problem was always quantity. When I did low fat, I thought I could eat all the bread and pasta I wanted but no butter. When I was strict low carb I thought I could eat all the fat and meat I wanted. Now I do modified low carb, and for the first time portion control. There seems to be a contradiction here. You say you lost 50 pounds on low-carb, and that you don't blame it for the weight you gained back. But then you say you've decided that portion control is the real answer. Why isn't the answer to simply redo what lost the 50 pounds the first time? If you lost 50 pounds while eating all the fat and meat you wanted, then it seems you *can* eat all the fat and meat you want. Saying "anything will work if you stick to it" doesn't make much sense. Will eating a gallon of ice cream every day work if I stick to it? If something fails, sticking to it will only make it fail longer. -- Aaron -- 285/241/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
My Modified LC plan
On Aug 15, 6:39*pm, Billy wrote:
A link please for a peer reviewed scientific study that showed GMO crops lead to allergies. * Also, the issue of possible antibiotic resistance has been investigated many times, and AFAIK, every reputable peer reviewed study concluded that while a theoretical possibility, from a practical standpoint, it isn't an issue for a number of valid reasons. I would direct you to the book "Seeds of Deception" http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Deceptio...ly-Engineered/ dp/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250372822&sr=8-1 and the discussion there about the insertion of genes into eucaryotes and the roll of the antibiotic marker, Cabbage Mosaic Virus, and the spliceosome. The link doesn't work. And surely you understand the difference between books and peer reviewed studies. Just because someone writes a book, doesn't establish anything. As an example, I can find you books that say cholesterol is a significant risk factor in CHS and others that say it matters not a wit. Also see the work of Árpád Pusztai. I took a look at it and it appears to be one study that he did that wasn't even focused on GMO, but that happened to notice effects on rats from GMO potatoes. The study was surrounded by controversy and Pusztai apparently was fired from the institute. That's one study, compared to how many that have found no effects? Organic products are fine if you want to buy them and can afford to pay 2X. * In developed countries, many people can afford that option. * But it's not the case in 3rd world countries, where GMO crops offer big advantages to feed hungry populations. * *Two of which are higher yields and less use of pesticides, which is good for the environment and cost. Exposed: the great GM crops mythhttp://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-gre... m-crops-myth-812179.htmlhttp://www.countercurrents.org/sharma210309.htm Actually the resistance to Roundup (whatever) allows the use of more pesticides. Besides Roundup, GMO crops have been developed to be specifically resistant to both insects and disease. That means farmers use LESS chemicals because the crop is naturally resistant to insect and disease. So, it's not true that in the case of all, or even most GMO it leads to the use of more chemicals and in the specific case of pesticides, it clearly leads to LESS being used. Again, you are only looking at the negatives, because of obvious bias. As far as Roundup, yes in that case it allows the crops to then be sprayed with Roundup to kill weeds. But the question becomes how much more yield do you then get, what would the farmer use to treat the weeds if Roundup could not be used, etc. Here's what the UN, which is clearly no mouthpiece for US business interests has to say about GMO http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo7.htm Potential benefits for the environment More food from less land: Improved productivity from GMOs might mean that farmers in the next century won't have to bring so much marginal land into cultivation. GMOs might reduce the environmental impact of food production and industrial processes: Genetically engineered resistance to pests and diseases could greatly reduce the chemicals needed for crop protection, and it is already happening. Farmers are growing maize, cotton and potatoes that no longer have to be sprayed with the bacterial insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis - because they produce its insecticidal agent themselves THe pesticides and herbicides in turn kill off the soil ecology exacerbating the loss of top soil. Turns out the less top soil you have, the more chemical fertilizers you have to use, so you end up having to use more and more chemferts as the topsoil disappears, while at the same time poisoning the water supply for people, and creating huge dead zones in the ocean where nothing can live. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology) If we did not have those pesticides, herbicides, etc available, food would cost a lot more and a lot more people in the world would be starving. This more balanced view is expressed by the UN, as opposed to the shrill voices on the extremes. So GMOs don't give higher yields (they usually allow longer shelf life and show less bruising, nothing to do with flavor or nutrition), and they are a disaster for the environment. If that were true, then you don't have to worry. Because farmers would not pay more for GMO seed and use it if it did not produce higher yields. So, obviously it does work. This issue is like so many others. * You can focus on alleged bad aspects, that have little basis and blow them all out of proportion. Or you can look at the big picture, which offers many benefits and close to zero risk. I would just like to choose my food, but the government won't allow the identifying of GMO foods. Your only chance to avoid them is to eat organic. You'll also get to avoid loading your body with more unnatural chemicals.http://www.foodnews.org/fulllist.php Also, there have been a couple of recent studies that showed that organic produce had exactly the same nutritional content as the equivalent regular crop. * They do have the advantage of not having chemicals used to produce them.. * But I can only wonder, in this day where everyone is cutting corners on ethics, how much produce that is sold as organic actually has some chemical used on it at some point. Commercially grown fruits and vegetables are less expensive, are prettier to look at, contain approximately 10-50% of the nutrients found in organic produce, are often depleted in enzymes, and are contaminated with a variety of herbicides, pesticides and other agricultural chemicals. According to you. Now let's take a look at what some very credible institutions have to say: Mayo Clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/org...SECTIONGROUP=2 Nutrition. No conclusive evidence shows that organic food is more nutritious than is conventionally grown food. And the USDA — even though it certifies organic food — doesn't claim that these products are safer or more nutritious. http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/08/0...ial-uk-agency/ The Food Standards Agency in the UK has declared that, “… there are no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally produced food.” In a comprehensive study, researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine examined more than 50,000 studies on the nutritional value of foods going back to 1958. Of these, 55 met the criteria of the project. Dr Alan Dangour, the principal author, commented on the marginal differences found during the studies, “A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist … but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0807082954.htm ScienceDaily (Aug. 9, 2008) — New research in the latest issue of the Society of Chemical Industry’s (SCI) Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture shows there is no evidence to support the argument that organic food is better than food grown with the use of pesticides and chemicals. Dr Bügel says: ‘No systematic differences between cultivation systems representing organic and conventional production methods were found across the five crops so the study does not support the belief that organically grown foodstuffs generally contain more major and trace elements than conventionally grown foodstuffs.’ Journal of Applied Nutrition, Vol. 45, #1, 1993. http://www.rawfoodlife.com/Articles_...vs_commercial_... Another link that doesn't work. When French researchers compared the differences in lycopene, vitamin C and polyphenol content of organic versus conventional tomatoes, they found that the organic tomatoes had somewhat higher levels of vitamin C and polyphenols, which was not surprising given that the tomatoes probably produce these to fend of pests. *If they get no help from commercial pesticides, they will produce more of the natural variety. Were these identical tomatoes grown two different ways or did they just go out and buy some similar organic and non-organic? If it's the latter it clearly has no validity. And at best they say "somewhat higher levels of C and polyphenols, not exactly a ringing endorsement. There are plenty of these studies where one trial they find some minor differences between organic and non-organic and then next study they find no statistical difference . Again, it comes down to balance. Here's a good example where a Rutgers food scientist discusses how frequently these studies are taken out of context, only the ones showing some difference are cited, etc. http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsI...ews_detail.asp - Dr. Joseph Schwarcz chair of the ACCN Editorial Board, To JK, I'd say if he chooses his store bought foods very carefully, there is no reason they can't be part of a LC plan. * The problems are that there aren't that many LC choices and in general, the ones that are available don't taste very good, especially the frozen ones. The foods prepared in the store and sold non frozen, where available, can be good choices. * Here, the local Shoprite has wood grilled chicken, shrimp, fish, vegetables, etc. * And most supermarkets have roasted chickens available which are an excellent choice. As a rule, processed foods are more ³energy dense² than fresh foods: they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace, So now you're arguing in a LC newsgroup that fat is bad too? I don't think JK's intent was to buy prepared foods that are loaded with sugar. As others have pointed out, there are some prepared food choices in most supermarkets that are fine for LC. Examples, which I already cited are roasted chickens, grilled shrimp, chicken, fish, vegs, all of which are available at my local supermarket. which is why we call the foods that contain them ³junk.² Drewnowski concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational economic strategy is to eat badly ‹ and get fat. No surprise there. And your solution is what? Apread FUD by telling them that non-organic is unsafe? HAve them eat organic food which costs 2X more than the regular version and 3-4X the cost of junk food? This perverse state of affairs is not, as you might think, the inevitable result of the free market. Compared with a bunch of carrots, a package of Twinkies, to take one iconic processed foodlike substance as an example, is a highly complicated, high-tech piece of manufacture, involving no fewer than 39 ingredients, many themselves elaborately manufactured, as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots? For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill. This resolutely unglamorous and head-hurtingly complicated piece of legislation, which comes around roughly every five years and is about to do so again, sets the rules for the American food system ‹ indeed, to a considerable extent, for the world¹s food system. Among other things, it determines which crops will be subsidized and which will not, and in the case of the carrot and the Twinkie, the farm bill as currently written offers a lot more support to the cake than to the root. Like most processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat ‹ three of the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of some $25 billion a year. (Rice and cotton are the others.) For the last several decades ‹ indeed, for about as long as the American waistline has been ballooning ‹ U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities, especially corn and soy. Again, you need some sense of balance. I agree that farm subsidies have the effect of somewhat lowering prices of grains and soybeans. However, the effect on the price of products like twinkies isn't huge. For proof you need only look at actual grain prices. For example, wheat which is a principal ingredient of those twinkies, tripled in price from 2004 to 2008. That tripling dwarfed any effect of government subsidies, yet those twinkies were still relatively modest in cost and obviously any impact on sales was very small. And the recent "overproduction" of corn and soy was targeted by the govt not for food, but to generate ethanol and biodiesel for energy usage. In the process the cost of all the grains, soybeans, corn, etc went up about 3X. So, if price of these crops were as significant in determining what people eat, then we should have seen a big shift over to your roots. Yet, we did not. People are just paying 2x for the same bag of Doritos. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
My Modified LC plan
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
My Modified LC plan
In article
, wrote: On Aug 15, 6:39*pm, Billy wrote: A link please for a peer reviewed scientific study that showed GMO crops lead to allergies. * Also, the issue of possible antibiotic resistance has been investigated many times, and AFAIK, every reputable peer reviewed study concluded that while a theoretical possibility, from a practical standpoint, it isn't an issue for a number of valid reasons. I would direct you to the book "Seeds of Deception" http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Deceptio...ly-Engineered/ dp/0972966587/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250372822&sr=8-1 and the discussion there about the insertion of genes into eucaryotes and the roll of the antibiotic marker, Cabbage Mosaic Virus, and the spliceosome. The link doesn't work. The link works fine. The problem must lie elsewhere, hmmmm. And surely you understand the difference between books and peer reviewed studies. Just because someone writes a book, doesn't establish anything. As an example, I can find you books that say cholesterol is a significant risk factor in CHS and others that say it matters not a wit. I didn't agree to let you be the judge of the material. I'm telling you of some of the materials that have lead me to my conclusions. Let me also mention Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health by Gary Taubes http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-...ce/dp/14000334 62/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250449966&sr=1-1 which explores the history of cholesterol and heart disease. Also see the work of Árpád Pusztai. I took a look at it and it appears to be one study that he did that wasn't even focused on GMO, but that happened to notice effects on rats from GMO potatoes. The study was surrounded by controversy and Pusztai apparently was fired from the institute. You are such a hack. I have very little interest in trying carrying on a conversation with someone who has no interest in hearing. "In February 1999, 30 international scientists from 13 countries published a memo supporting Pusztai. On February 19 the Royal Society, which is at the "forefront of defending GM technology" and does not normally conduct peer reviews, publicly announced a peer review committee would review his work and on May 18 the board issued the results at a press conference condemning Pusztai. The same day the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee also attacked Pusztai. Behind the scenes coordination was partly revealed by a memo showing that the government had set up a Biotechnology Presentation Group which used both findings to publicly support GM in Parliament only three days later. The Royal Society had also set up a "rebuttal unit" headed by Rebecca Bowden to push a pro-biotech line and counter opposing scientists and environmental groups. Dr Bowden confirmed the groups role was to coordinate biotech policy but denied it was a spin doctoring operation.[6] Pusztai experiment was eventually published. Because of the controversial nature of his research the 1999 data paper, co-authored by Dr Stanley Ewen, was seen by six reviewers - three times the usual number. Five gave it the green light to be published in The Lancet, the only reviewer arguing against publication was Prof John Pickett of the government funded Institute of Arable Crops Research. After consulting with the Royal Society, Pickett broke the protocols of peer review by publicly attacked the Lancet for agreeing to publish the paper.[9] The paper - which used data held by Dr Ewen and so was not subject to James veto on Pusztai's work - showed that rats fed on potatoes genetically modified with the snowdrop lectin had unusual changes to their gut tissue when compared with rats fed on non modified potatoes. [10][11] It has been criticised on the grounds that the unmodified potatoes were not a fair control diet.[12] Three days after accepting the paper for publication and announcing it was also considering publishing a second research paper by another team of scientists who had looked at the same GM protein used in Dr Pusztai's potatoes and found that it binds to human white blood cells, The Lancets editor, Richard Horton, received a "very aggressive" phone call from Sir Peter Lachmann, the Secretary of The Royal Society and President of the Academy of Medical Sciences,[13] calling him "immoral" and threatening him that if he published the paper it would have implications for his personal position as editor. Lachmann admits making the call but denies that what he said was a threat and claims the call was to "discuss his (Hortons) error of judgment" in publishing the paper.[14][15] Following publication, co author Dr Stanley Ewen, claims he found his career options "blocked at a very high level" and retired. The potatoes were subsequently destroyed, along with all details of their modification and Cambridge Agricultural Genetics subsequently ceased business.[6]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Árpád_Pusztai That's one study, compared to how many that have found no effects? Who can afford the money for studies? As with science articles, science research usually pleases the funder. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/...al.pmed.004000 5 Organic products are fine if you want to buy them and can afford to pay 2X. * In developed countries, many people can afford that option. * But it's not the case in 3rd world countries, where GMO crops offer big advantages to feed hungry populations. * *Two of which are higher yields and less use of pesticides, which is good for the environment and cost. Exposed: the great GM crops mythhttp://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-gre... m-crops-myth-812179.htmlhttp://www.countercurrents.org/sharma210309.htm Actually the resistance to Roundup (whatever) allows the use of more pesticides. Besides Roundup, GMO crops have been developed to be specifically resistant to both insects and disease. That means farmers use LESS chemicals because the crop is naturally resistant to insect and disease. This means that more people are eating the toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis, and in greater quantities. The ban of Starlink corn was due to its obvious allergenic properties. What damage is caused by less obvious allergies? Why are we the guinea pigs? Even the breeders of Starling concede that resistance will eventually develop to Bacillus thuringiensis toxins by crop pests. At present, the best we can do is to slow down this development. So, it's not true that in the case of all, or even most GMO it leads to the use of more chemicals and in the specific case of pesticides, it clearly leads to LESS being used. Again, you are only looking at the negatives, because of obvious bias. As far as Roundup, yes in that case it allows the crops to then be sprayed with Roundup to kill weeds. But the question becomes how much more yield do you then get, what would the farmer use to treat the weeds if Roundup could not be used, etc. Here's what the UN, which is clearly no mouthpiece for US business interests has to say about GMO http://www.fao.org/english/newsroom/focus/2003/gmo7.htm Potential benefits for the environment For god's sake, this was written by a reoprter. Potential "IF" More food from less land: Improved productivity from GMOs might mean that farmers in the next century won't have to bring so much marginal land into cultivation. Already gave you one study where it is shown the GMO crops don't produce larger crops. Golden Rice has been a complete failure as the the amount of vitamin "A" in it is insignificant. GMOs might reduce the environmental impact of food production and industrial processes: Genetically engineered resistance to pests and diseases could greatly reduce the chemicals needed for crop protection, and it is already happening. Farmers are growing maize, cotton and potatoes that no longer have to be sprayed with the bacterial insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis - because they produce its insecticidal agent themselves And if the problems of ingesting Bacillus thuringiensis toxins weren't enough you continue to over look the dangers that have been enumerated for any GMO crop. Some GMOs may turn out to be benign, but in the mean time we are guinea pigs. THe pesticides and herbicides in turn kill off the soil ecology exacerbating the loss of top soil. Turns out the less top soil you have, the more chemical fertilizers you have to use, so you end up having to use more and more chemferts as the topsoil disappears, while at the same time poisoning the water supply for people, and creating huge dead zones in the ocean where nothing can live. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology) If we did not have those pesticides, herbicides, etc available, food would cost a lot more and a lot more people in the world would be starving. This more balanced view is expressed by the UN, as opposed to the shrill voices on the extremes. The point is, that with out topsoil, there won't be agriculture. So GMOs don't give higher yields (they usually allow longer shelf life and show less bruising, nothing to do with flavor or nutrition), and they are a disaster for the environment. If that were true, then you don't have to worry. Because farmers would not pay more for GMO seed and use it if it did not produce higher yields. So, obviously it does work. Farmers are just figuring this out. Farmers are like the rest of us and are susceptible t advertising. This isn't an argument. It's speculation. This issue is like so many others. * You can focus on alleged bad aspects, that have little basis and blow them all out of proportion. Or you can look at the big picture, which offers many benefits and close to zero risk. I would just like to choose my food, but the government won't allow the identifying of GMO foods. Your only chance to avoid them is to eat organic. You'll also get to avoid loading your body with more unnatural chemicals.http://www.foodnews.org/fulllist.php Also, there have been a couple of recent studies that showed that organic produce had exactly the same nutritional content as the equivalent regular crop. * They do have the advantage of not having chemicals used to produce them.. * But I can only wonder, in this day where everyone is cutting corners on ethics, how much produce that is sold as organic actually has some chemical used on it at some point. Commercially grown fruits and vegetables are less expensive, are prettier to look at, contain approximately 10-50% of the nutrients found in organic produce, are often depleted in enzymes, and are contaminated with a variety of herbicides, pesticides and other agricultural chemicals. According to you. Now let's take a look at what some very credible institutions have to say: Mayo Clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/org...SECTIONGROUP=2 I have no idea why the Mayo Clinic would be a show place for this kind of misinformation. However the toxic load of agricultural and industrial chemicals that each of us is carrying in our tissues is real and not imaginary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_burden http://www.chemicalbodyburden.org/ http://www.ewg.org/featured/15 http://www.ewg.org/node/15952 Nutrition. No conclusive evidence shows that organic food is more nutritious than is conventionally grown food. And the USDA — even though it certifies organic food — doesn't claim that these products are safer or more nutritious. The USDA is to promote agricultural sales, and is controlled by factory farmers. "The "real environment," personified by Combest, is a self-perpetuating cycle of money, votes and political power that has made agriculture one of Washington's most entrenched special interests, even as the number of farmers has dwindled to about 1 percent of the population. On the inside, it's a wheel of fortune for everybody involved, including farmers, lobbyists and farm-state congressmen. Taxpayers pick up the tab: a record $23 billion in farm subsidies last year. For critics, subsidies are a costly anachronism in a country that long ago moved from its agrarian base. Critics also contend the system encourages unhealthy eating. Corn subsidies lower costs of grain-fed meat and sweeteners used in soft drinks. Consumers generally pay full cost for fruits and vegetables, most of which are not subsidized." http://www.floridafarmers.org/news/articles/Farmlobby'spowerhasdeeproots. htm and a little off topic but still of interest. http://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/200...tion/usda-sees -the-light-on-e-coli-o157h7-and-meat/ http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/08/0...-you-says-infl uential-uk-agency/ The Food Standards Agency in the UK has declared that, “… there are no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally produced food.” In a comprehensive study, researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine examined more than 50,000 studies on the nutritional value of foods going back to 1958. Of these, 55 met the criteria of the project. Dr Alan Dangour, the principal author, commented on the marginal differences found during the studies, “A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist … but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance. Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0807082954.htm ScienceDaily (Aug. 9, 2008) — New research in the latest issue of the Society of Chemical Industry’s (SCI) Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture shows there is no evidence to support the argument that organic food is better than food grown with the use of pesticides and chemicals. Dr Bügel says: ‘No systematic differences between cultivation systems representing organic and conventional production methods were found across the five crops so the study does not support the belief that organically grown foodstuffs generally contain more major and trace elements than conventionally grown foodstuffs.’ Journal of Applied Nutrition, Vol. 45, #1, 1993. http://www.rawfoodlife.com/Articles_...vs_commercial_... Another link that doesn't work. http://www.rawfoodlife.com/Articles_...commercial_foo d/organic_vs_commercial_food.htm Doesn't or you are incompetent? It works. and another for good measure. Try not to **** them up. http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs...55301750164244 When French researchers compared the differences in lycopene, vitamin C and polyphenol content of organic versus conventional tomatoes, they found that the organic tomatoes had somewhat higher levels of vitamin C and polyphenols, which was not surprising given that the tomatoes probably produce these to fend of pests. *If they get no help from commercial pesticides, they will produce more of the natural variety. Were these identical tomatoes grown two different ways or did they just go out and buy some similar organic and non-organic? If it's the latter it clearly has no validity. And at best they say "somewhat higher levels of C and polyphenols, not exactly a ringing endorsement. There are plenty of these studies where one trial they find some minor differences between organic and non-organic and then next study they find no statistical difference . Again, it comes down to balance. Here's a good example where a Rutgers food scientist discusses how frequently these studies are taken out of context, only the ones showing some difference are cited, etc. http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsI...ews_detail.asp - Dr. Joseph Schwarcz chair of the ACCN Editorial Board, To JK, I'd say if he chooses his store bought foods very carefully, there is no reason they can't be part of a LC plan. * The problems are that there aren't that many LC choices and in general, the ones that are available don't taste very good, especially the frozen ones. The foods prepared in the store and sold non frozen, where available, can be good choices. * Here, the local Shoprite has wood grilled chicken, shrimp, fish, vegetables, etc. * And most supermarkets have roasted chickens available which are an excellent choice. As a rule, processed foods are more ©¯energy dense©˜ than fresh foods: they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace, So now you're arguing in a LC newsgroup that fat is bad too? Canola, safflower, and soy are high in omega-6 fatty acids. I still like butter and olive oil. However we come back to GMOs. GMO corn fractions are used extensively in processed foods. baking powder Not to be confused with baking soda (bicarbonate of soda, sodium bicarbonate), baking powder is a mixture of chemical leavening agents with starch. The starch in every common baking powder is corn starch, but Hain Featherweight baking powder uses potato starch. I've only found it in "health" or "whole food" markets. caramel Caramel is cooked sugar, often used for flavoring or coloring. You'll find it in soft drinks, especially colas, and in dark breads. You can make caramel from cane or beet sugar, but commercial food producers often use corn syrup. Jolt Cola was an exception, but no longer: they've switched from cane sugar to corn syrup. confectioner's sugar Confectioner's sugar is ordinary table sugar, reduced to a fine powder. To keep the powder from caking, manufacturers commonly add corn starch to it. Domino Sugar tells me their 10x confectioner's sugar is about 2% cornstarch. A rec.food.cooking contributor gave 4% as a typical fraction, but another correspondent claims it can run as high as 30%. Trader Joe's Organic Powdered Sugar is made with tapioca starch instead. It's not available year-round, unfortunately, but only through the winter holiday season. corn-anything Any food or ingredient with corn in its name is certain to be a problem, including whole corn, corn flour, cornstarch, corn gluten, corn syrup, corn meal, corn oil, and popcorn. The only exception that I know of is corned beef, so-called because it's cured with coarse salt that resembles kernels of corn. But processed meats often contain dextrose, food starch, or corn syrup, so don't assume that corned beef is corn-free. In cooking, you can usually substitute arrowroot powder for cornstarch. dextrin, maltodextrin Dextrin and maltodextrin are thickening agents, often made from corn starch. You'll find them in sauces, dressings, and ice cream. dextrose (glucose), fructose Dextrose (also known as glucose or "corn sugar") and fructose ("fruit sugar") are simple sugars that are often made from corn. Dextrose is used in a variety of foods, including cookies, ice cream and sports drinks such as Gatorade. It also shows up in prepared foods that are supposed to come out crispy, such as french fries, fish sticks, and potato puffs. It's common in intravenous solutions, which could be quite dangerous. Fructose is usually seen in the form of high fructose corn syrup, but makes an occasional appearance on its own. excipients Excipients are substances used to bind the contents of a pill or tablet. My dictionary mentions honey, syrup, and gum arabic, but corn starch is also a possibility. golden syrup Golden syrup is a sugar syrup, sometimes a mixture of molasses and corn syrup, also known as treacle. I've found it in cookies and candy, mostly in Canada. Tate & Lyle's Golden Syrup is purely from cane sugar, however. glucona delta lactone Glucona delta lactone ("GDL") is a recently-appearing additive in cured meats. Its appearance in this list is provisional, as all I really know of its origin is that it's made by Archer Daniels Midland, a world-wide giant in the manufacture of corn products. invert sugar or invert syrup Invert syrup is enzymatically treated bulk corn sugars, used because it's not so thick as corn syrup. I've noticed it in cookies, but don't know where else it might turn up. malt, malt syrup, malt extract Malt is germinated grain, often barley. But it can be any grain: corn and rice are also common. They're much cheaper than barley, and so unspecified malt is probably not barley. Malt appears in alcoholic beverages, soft drinks, chocolate, and breakfast cereals, among other places. mono- and di-glycerides Mono- and di-glycerides are often found in sauces, dressings, and ice cream, where they modify (improve?) the texture of the finished product. Glycerides are made from both animal and vegetable fats or oils, corn included. Vegetable mono- and di-glycerides are sometimes labelled as such, but I've never seen animal glycerides so marked. monosodium glutamate or MSG MSG is a "flavor enhancer" used in many packaged foods, particularly prepared meals and instant soups. Chinese food is a major source of added MSG: reactions to it are sometimes called "Chinese restaurant syndrome". Alert Reader Beverly noticed that the MSG in Accent flavor enhancer is described on the container as "drawn from corn". I'm told that this is commonly true of MSG in US-made foods, but not in imported oriental products. The MSG Myth site also describes corn as a source of MSG. sorbitol Sorbitol is a sweet substance (but not a sugar) that occurs naturally in a number of fruits and berries. It's produced commercially by the breakdown of dextrose. It's used as a sugar substitute for diabetics, in the manufacture of vitamin C, and in some candies. Readers tell me it also appears in oral hygiene products such as toothpaste and mouthwash. starch, food starch, modified food starch Added starch in foods can come from any of several sources, but corn seems to be the most common. Unless the type of starch is specified, it's likely that corn starch is present. sucrose Sucrose usually means cane sugar, but Craig Gelfand has spotted an English candy whose ingredients included "sucrose (from corn)". treacle Treacle is a mixture of molasses and corn syrup, also known as golden syrup. vanilla extract The major brands of real vanilla extract all have corn syrup in them. (I haven't checked imitation vanilla flavorings.) There are vanilla extracts without corn syrup; a local brand is Scotts of Acton, MA. vegetable-anything Unless you know exactly what the vegetables are, you should be suspicious of any ingredient with vegetable in the name, including vegetable oil, vegetable broth, vegetable protein, vegetable shortening, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, and vegetable mono- and di-glycerides. xanthan gum Xanthan gum is a common thickener, the fermentation product of the bacterium Xanthomonas Campestris. X. Campestris can be grown in various media, including bulk corn sugars. Some brands of Xanthan gum claim to be corn-free; I don't know what growth medium they use. Because Xanthan gum is very cheap, its applications are still growing. You'll often find it in salad dressings, mayonnaise, and fast-food "milk shakes". I've also seen it in cream cheese and I'm told it's in Egg Beaters egg substitute. zein My dictionary tells me that zein is "a soft, yellow powder obtained from corn, used chiefly in the manufacture of textile fibers, plastics, and paper coatings" or "a man - made fiber produced from this protein". A helpful netizen tells me that zein is the usual encapsulant for time-release medications. http://www.vishniac.com/ephraim/corn-bother.html -------- All these products my not be tainted with GMO detritus (antibacterial markers, Cabbage Mosaic Virus, and odd allergens produced from spliceosomes encountering unrecognized proteins from injected genes), but I prefer not to take the chance. Same thing goes for soy products, canola oil, and cotton seed oil. In any event all these products are highly refined. Take white bread. In milling white flour, some 26 nutrients are removed and 6 are replaced. Because of these 6 nutrients, it is called "enriched". I don't think JK's intent was to buy prepared foods that are loaded with sugar. As others have pointed out, there are some prepared food choices in most supermarkets that are fine for LC. Examples, which I already cited are roasted chickens, (injected with water, salt, high fructose corn syrup, and spices. Possibly leading to contamination.) grilled shrimp, shrimp farms cause incredible environmental destruction. chicken, Poor *******s, life is **** (so crowded in cages that beaks are cut off to prevent cosmetic damage, which would hurt sales, antibiotics, tranquilizers, ect.) and then they die a horrible death. fish (PBDE, PCB, methylmercury, dioxin [need to select fish carefully]) vegs, all of which are available at my local supermarket. which is why we call the foods that contain them ©¯junk.©˜ Drewnowski concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational economic strategy is to eat badly ¶Z and get fat. No surprise there. And your solution is what? Apread FUD by telling Are you still writing in English? them that non-organic is unsafe? HAve them eat organic food which costs 2X more than the regular version and 3-4X the cost of junk food? I usually pay a surcharge of 50% for organic (I don't always buy organic [depending on the product], and sometimes the price is the same), and the full price of junk food should include eventual medical intervention. This perverse state of affairs is not, as you might think, the inevitable result of the free market. Compared with a bunch of carrots, a package of Twinkies, to take one iconic processed foodlike substance as an example, is a highly complicated, high-tech piece of manufacture, involving no fewer than 39 ingredients, many themselves elaborately manufactured, as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots? For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill. This resolutely unglamorous and head-hurtingly complicated piece of legislation, which comes around roughly every five years and is about to do so again, sets the rules for the American food system ¶Z indeed, to a considerable extent, for the world©ˆs food system. Among other things, it determines which crops will be subsidized and which will not, and in the case of the carrot and the Twinkie, the farm bill as currently written offers a lot more support to the cake than to the root. Like most processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat ¶Z three of the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of some $25 billion a year. (Rice and cotton are the others.) For the last several decades ¶Z indeed, for about as long as the American waistline has been ballooning ¶Z U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities, especially corn and soy. Again, you need some sense of balance. I agree that farm subsidies have the effect of somewhat lowering prices of grains and soybeans. However, the effect on the price of products like twinkies isn't huge. For proof you need only look at actual grain prices. For example, wheat which is a principal ingredient of those twinkies, tripled in price from 2004 to 2008. American subsidized crops are still pushing Mexican farmers and workers off their fields. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1228-07.htm That tripling dwarfed any A CONVERSATION WITH- MARION NESTLE Q. You say the food industry produces 3,800 calories a day for every person in the United States, up from 3,300 calories a day in the 1970's. How does this amount compare with the number of calories we need? A. The usual figures are 2,200 calories a day for women and 2,500 for men. Of course, we know that people are eating more than that, because we know they are gaining weight. Are people less active? Definitely. But they're also eating more. Q. How does the food industry promote overeating? A. Just by promoting eating. By spending $10 billion a year in direct media advertising. That is so much more than is spent on health and nutrition education, you can't even put them in the same stratosphere. The campaign for fruits and vegetables spends about $2 million a year on public education. The food industry spends another $20 billion a year in indirect marketing, which would include things like the McDonald's Mealtime Set and soft-drink makers' putting their logos on school scoreboards. These practices are so acceptable that people think drinking soft drinks all the time is normal. You're being told in a thousand ways, every time you set foot in a restaurant, to eat more. Their job is to sell you food, to sell you drinks, to sell you appetizers and desserts. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...FF93AA25751C0A 9649C8B63 effect of government subsidies, yet those twinkies were still relatively modest in cost and obviously any impact on sales was very small. You can have mine. And the recent "overproduction" of corn and soy was targeted by the govt not for food, but to generate ethanol and biodiesel for energy usage. In the process the cost of all the grains, soybeans, corn, etc went up about 3X. So, if price of these crops were as significant in determining what people eat, then we should have seen a big shift over to your roots. Yet, we did not. People are just paying 2x for the same bag of Doritos. Ain't it wonderful what $10B in advertising can do, but it has nothing to do with the healthiness of eating them. Junk Food --- Illness -- Racial injustice, war, urban blight, and environmental rape have a common denominator in our exploitative economic system.* ~Channing E. Phillips http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Idiot Proof Diet (modified) progress: | Mal | General Discussion | 1 | August 22nd, 2007 10:26 PM |
modified food starch - so, is it healthy? | oregonchick | General Discussion | 2 | January 25th, 2006 12:46 AM |
PSMF-Protein Sparing Modified Fast question!?! | Mack | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 29 | February 23rd, 2004 03:39 AM |
Modified Atkins, and still maiintaining | Rich R | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | January 21st, 2004 02:46 AM |
Lemon Squares (my modified version) & Liquid Splenda | Saffire | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 43 | November 11th, 2003 02:21 AM |