|
|
|
|
gmggg
Mar 22, 2011, 7:36 PM
Post #451 of 509
(4982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099
|
jt512 wrote: gmggg wrote: jt512 wrote: gmggg wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: gmggg wrote: jt512 wrote: Like I said up-thread, I haven't had butter in my home for two decades. I can't think of anything you can do with butter that you can't do with either olive oil or canola oil, and you'll be healthier by doing it. Jay You may know a lot about nutrition but you seem to know nothing about food. There is a difference between ingesting calories and eating a meal. I do accept your health concerns completely. But I can think of a dozen things that you can't do with a butter substitute - not to mention the dishes that don't yield equivalent results with oils and/or shortening. he was actually responding to me earlier in the thread, but as an aside, I recently learned that you can't do risotto without butter. I don't know if it can be done, and I was concerned when I saw her putting butter in the pot, but I admit that it was damn good. Not the greatest example of something that would be impossible without butter. But it damn sure wouldn't taste the same or have the same consistency. For something that is impossible without butter try glazed carrots. but what's wrong with using olive oil instead? Yes, they'll taste different. So what? Get used to the taste of healthy food. The fact is that if you want to eat a healthy diet, there are certain things you have to do differently. If most people substituted vegetables oils for the animal fats in their diet they would see an almost immediate significant reduction in their blood cholesterol level, with attendant reduction in heart disease risk. Jay My point exactly! While I admittedly don't know the specific chemistry of why not you can't use olive/vegetable oil for a glaze because the sugar does not combine sufficiently to produce an even coating. While you can fake the effect with cornstarch, arrow root, taro, or any emulsifier it's not the same as the creamy full-coating glaze you get with butter. So you need to use butter instead of olive oil, because you need to use sugar, too. I guess, then, you've made my point as well. Jay
I'm not talking about a healthy diet. I agree with you on limiting or eliminating certain foods. I just took exception to the statement that oils could replicate butter. I also don't appreciate fake soy lunch meats, tofurky, margarine, vegan cheese, or any other food that is trying to emulate something else.
As I said up-thread I grew up as a vegan. Most of my meals still are vegan. You can make great delicious food with those dietary limitations. There's no reason to do a shitty job faking something when you can do a good job making something new.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 22, 2011, 7:42 PM
Post #452 of 509
(4972 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
gmggg wrote: I forgot to remind you that I agree completely about the claims you are making re:health. I'm just of the mind that moderation is sufficient. If that assumption is wrong in some way I would be genuinely interested to hear it. I imagine that moderation can mean a lot of different things biologically. So maybe it's a silly thing to talk about from any sort of scientific or verifiable standpoint.
There are some health of effects of diet, such as blood cholesterol levels, that are easy to quantify. There is generally a dose–response relation between the ratio of animal fats to plant oils in the diet and the ratio of LDL-to-HDL-cholesterol, which predicts heart disease risk, in the blood. So you can, in a sense, quantify the effects of a diet of "moderation," compared with a terrible diet or an excellent one. Different people have different tolerance levels for putatively heart-unhealthy foods. You can actually experiment on yourself, since blood cholesterol levels adjust to a change in diet in 2 to 3 weeks: have your cholesterol checked to get a baseline, change your diet, and have your cholesterol checked again a few weeks later.
In reply to: Can "healthy eating" be achieved with out the wholesale sacrifice of superfluous foods such as alcohol, butter, bacon, et. al.
First of all, alcohol in moderation is healthy. There is a consistent body of evidence showing that moderate drinkers live longer than both heavy drinkers and abstainers, and there are plausible biological hypotheses to explain this observation.
Secondly, bacon is to cancers of the digestive tract as cigarettes are to cancer of the lung. There is a growing body evidence showing a dose-response relation between the amount of bacon (and other processed meats) consumed and the incidence of digestive tract cancers. Is there a level of consumption below which there is no increased risk of cancer? Is there a level of cigarette smoking below which there is no increased risk of cancer? I don't know the answer to either question, and, personally, I don't need to know. The research findings are enough for me to avoid any intake of either substance.
With respect to butter, that's the kind of question that can be at least partially answered by doing a pre–post check of your cholesterol levels, as per my first paragraph.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Mar 23, 2011, 6:31 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
gmggg
Mar 22, 2011, 7:55 PM
Post #453 of 509
(4959 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099
|
jt512 wrote: gmggg wrote: I forgot to remind you that I agree completely about the claims you are making re:health. I'm just of the mind that moderation is sufficient. If that assumption is wrong in some way I would be genuinely interested to hear it. I imagine that moderation can mean a lot of different things biologically. So maybe it's a silly thing to talk about from any sort of scientific or verifiable standpoint. There are some health of effects of diet, such as blood cholesterol levels, that are easy to quantify. There is generally a dose–response relation between the ratio of animal fats to plant oils in the diet and the ratio of LDL-to-HDl-cholesterol, which predicts heart disease risk, in the blood. So you can, in a sense, quantify the effects of a diet of "moderation," compared with terrible and excellent diets. Different people have different tolerance levels for putatively heart-unhealthy foods. You can actually experiment on yourself, since blood cholesterol levels adjust to a change in diet in 2 to 3 weeks. Have your cholesterol checked to get a baseline, change your diet, and have your cholesterol checked again. In reply to: Can "healthy eating" be achieved with out the wholesale sacrifice of superfluous foods such as alcohol, butter, bacon, et. al. First of all, alcohol in moderation is healthy. There is a consistent body of evidence showing that moderate drinkers live longer than both heavy drinkers abstainers, and there are plausible biological hypotheses for this finding. Secondly, bacon is to cancers of the digestive tract as cigarettes are to cancer of the lung. There is a growing body evidence showing a dose-response relation between the amount of bacon (and other processed meats) consumed and the incidence of digestive tract cancers. Is there a level of consumption below which there is no increased risk of cancer? Is there a level of cigarette smoking below which there is no increased risk of cancer? I don't know the answer to either question, and, personally, I don't need to know. With respect to butter, that's the kind of question that can be at least partially answered by doing a pre-post check of your cholesterol levels, as per my first paragraph. Jay
Good info!
As for processed meats is there any research into what exactly is carcinogenic? Is it only the preservatives used; nitrites, salt and the like? Or is there some other mechanism that is still being debated - alá red meat and colon cancer?
Of course, I'm merely looking for an excuse to continue eating processed meats that are nitrite-free and feel OK about it.
|
|
|
|
|
justroberto
Mar 22, 2011, 8:11 PM
Post #454 of 509
(4945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876
|
jt512 wrote: Secondly, bacon is to cancers of the digestive tract as cigarettes are to cancer of the lung.
Fantastic. Today marks the day I start frying 20 pieces of bacon every day and carefully arranging them in a small cardboard box, which I'll carry around in the breast pocket of my shirt everywhere I go. Whenever I get stressed out, I'll politely excuse myself, wander outside, and gnaw on one for five or ten minutes.
I rather like this idea.
|
|
|
|
|
saint_john
Mar 22, 2011, 8:20 PM
Post #455 of 509
(4937 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2010
Posts: 494
|
justroberto wrote: jt512 wrote: Secondly, bacon is to cancers of the digestive tract as cigarettes are to cancer of the lung. Fantastic. Today marks the day I start frying 20 pieces of bacon every day and carefully arranging them in a small cardboard box, which I'll carry around in the breast pocket of my shirt everywhere I go. Whenever I get stressed out, I'll politely excuse myself, wander outside, and gnaw on one for five or ten minutes. I rather like this idea.
your post is funny but many, many, many people use food just like they use cigarettes,
|
|
|
|
|
pyrosis
Mar 22, 2011, 8:31 PM
Post #456 of 509
(4929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 150
|
Jay,
What are your thoughts on serum triglyceride levels as a marker of coronary artery disease risk?
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
Mar 22, 2011, 8:42 PM
Post #457 of 509
(4919 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
epoch wrote: enigma wrote: Before the Ice Age humans didn't eat meat, and we ate mostly a vegetarian diet, afterwards we ate meat, when vegetation wasn't readily available.
Climbers who generally are dirtbagging often don't include perishable foods in their diet as well. Personally I have known quite a few vegan climbers who are excellent.
In addition monkeys and apes are excellent climbers and exist on vegetarian diet unless there is survival need for them to eat meat.
So Climbers who eat meat vs vegetarian who has more endurance and climbs better? Or it doesn't matter?We're still debating crap that is irrelevant to the OP, which IMO was a useless troll post anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Mar 22, 2011, 9:10 PM
Post #458 of 509
(4906 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
epoch wrote: enigma wrote: Before the Ice Age humans didn't eat meat, and we ate mostly a vegetarian diet, afterwards we ate meat, when vegetation wasn't readily available.
Climbers who generally are dirtbagging often don't include perishable foods in their diet as well. Personally I have known quite a few vegan climbers who are excellent.
In addition monkeys and apes are excellent climbers and exist on vegetarian diet unless there is survival need for them to eat meat.
So Climbers who eat meat vs vegetarian who has more endurance and climbs better? Or it doesn't matter?We're still debating crap that is irrelevant to the OP, which IMO was a useless troll post anyway.
Well why don't you go thru the entire thread and clip out all of the off OP topic posts?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 22, 2011, 9:33 PM
Post #459 of 509
(4892 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
gmggg wrote: As for processed meats is there any research into what exactly is carcinogenic? Is it only the preservatives used; nitrites, salt and the like? Or is there some other mechanism that is still being debated - alá red meat and colon cancer?
The best answer I can give you is probably to quote from the discussion section of the National Cancer Institute's study on "Meat Intake and Mortality," which found dose–response relations between intakes of red meat and processed meat and death rates for all causes, cardiovascular disease, and all cancers in a huge epidemiologic cohort (> 500,000 subjects followed for 10 years):
There are various mechanisms by which meat may be related to mortality. In relation to cancer, meat is a source of several multisite carcinogens, including heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are both formed during high-temperature cooking of meat, as well as N-nitroso compounds [formed from nitrate and nitrite preservatives]. Furthermore, meat is a major source of saturated fat, which has been positively associated with breast and colorectal cancer. ą
Unfortunately, the definition of red meat used in this study included processed red meat, so it is difficult to quantify the risk from unprocessed red meat from their paper. However, except for nitrate and nitrite preservatives, processed and unprocessed red meats contain a similar profile of potential carcinogens, which suggests that they may have similar effects on risk of developing cancer.
Jay
ą Sinha R et al. Meat Intake and Mortality: A Prospective Study of Over Half a Million People. Arch Intern Med. 2009(6):562–571.
(This post was edited by jt512 on Mar 23, 2011, 6:31 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 22, 2011, 9:48 PM
Post #460 of 509
(4880 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
pyrosis wrote: Jay, What are your thoughts on serum triglyceride levels as a marker of coronary artery disease risk?
Serum triglycerides (TG) are a marker for heart disease risk, but TG is highly negatively correlated with HDL-cholesterol, and therefore provides little additional information about risk after LDL- and HDL-cholesterol levels are taken into account.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Mar 23, 2011, 9:26 PM
Post #461 of 509
(4822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
jt512 wrote: gmggg wrote: jt512 wrote: Like I said up-thread, I haven't had butter in my home for two decades. I can't think of anything you can do with butter that you can't do with either olive oil or canola oil, and you'll be healthier by doing it. Jay You may know a lot about nutrition but you seem to know nothing about food. There is a difference between ingesting calories and eating a meal. I do accept your health concerns completely. But I can think of a dozen things that you can't do with a butter substitute - not to mention the dishes that don't yield equivalent results with oils and/or shortening. I have not consumed a single homemade meal in like 30 years that contained butter. It has been literally that long since there has been a stick of butter in my home. How many of those dozen things that supposedly require butter are healthy foods? The only mentions so far are croissants an pie crust, not exactly big in the healthy food department. Jay
For delicious flavor try Sesame Oil. its great on vegetables or in soup.
You can use a non-stick no calorie spray first if you are watching your calories then put sesame oil on the vegetables once its cooked.
Tahini is also a good addition if you mix it with soy sauce for meals. If you want it spicy then you can add in some chili powder in sauce form or indian spices are great too.
Saint John- I doubt you can get a croissant without butter. They are good. 
Maybe you can have it on your birthday just for a splurge.
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Mar 24, 2011, 2:28 AM
Post #462 of 509
(4791 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
jt512 wrote: gmggg wrote: I forgot to remind you that I agree completely about the claims you are making re:health. I'm just of the mind that moderation is sufficient. If that assumption is wrong in some way I would be genuinely interested to hear it. I imagine that moderation can mean a lot of different things biologically. So maybe it's a silly thing to talk about from any sort of scientific or verifiable standpoint. There are some health of effects of diet, such as blood cholesterol levels, that are easy to quantify. There is generally a dose–response relation between the ratio of animal fats to plant oils in the diet and the ratio of LDL-to-HDL-cholesterol, which predicts heart disease risk, in the blood. So you can, in a sense, quantify the effects of a diet of "moderation," compared with a terrible diet or an excellent one. Different people have different tolerance levels for putatively heart-unhealthy foods. You can actually experiment on yourself, since blood cholesterol levels adjust to a change in diet in 2 to 3 weeks: have your cholesterol checked to get a baseline, change your diet, and have your cholesterol checked again a few weeks later. In reply to: Can "healthy eating" be achieved with out the wholesale sacrifice of superfluous foods such as alcohol, butter, bacon, et. al. First of all, alcohol in moderation is healthy. There is a consistent body of evidence showing that moderate drinkers live longer than both heavy drinkers and abstainers, and there are plausible biological hypotheses to explain this observation. Secondly, bacon is to cancers of the digestive tract as cigarettes are to cancer of the lung. There is a growing body evidence showing a dose-response relation between the amount of bacon (and other processed meats) consumed and the incidence of digestive tract cancers. Is there a level of consumption below which there is no increased risk of cancer? Is there a level of cigarette smoking below which there is no increased risk of cancer? I don't know the answer to either question, and, personally, I don't need to know. The research findings are enough for me to avoid any intake of either substance. With respect to butter, that's the kind of question that can be at least partially answered by doing a pre–post check of your cholesterol levels, as per my first paragraph. Jay
In reference to alcohol in moderation, how much? types?
Are you speaking about red wine?
Since many wines contain sulfiates is it better to find wines that are natural,
since their seems to be a correlation between these additives and headaches?
Thanks in advance for any research studies that may be helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 24, 2011, 6:51 AM
Post #463 of 509
(4774 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
enigma wrote: In reference to alcohol in moderation, how much? types?
Any type. The equivalent of two glasses of wine per day.
In reply to: Are you speaking about red wine?
There is evidence that red wine is superior to other alcoholic drinks, but benefits have been shown for alcoholic drinks in general. Apparently, there is a benefit for ethanol per se.
In reply to: Since many wines contain sulfiates is it better to find wines that are natural . . .
I'm not aware of any evidence for detrimental health effects of sulfates in wine, but it's not a subject I've actively looked into. If there are detrimental effects, then the evidence clearly shows that they are outweighed by the beneficial effects of the wine. We also can't rule out that the benefits of wine consumption are, in part, actually due to the sulfates.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Mar 24, 2011, 6:52 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Mar 24, 2011, 11:24 AM
Post #464 of 509
(4745 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
jt512 wrote: enigma wrote: In reference to alcohol in moderation, how much? types? Any type. The equivalent of two glasses of wine per day. In reply to: Are you speaking about red wine? There is evidence that red wine is superior to other alcoholic drinks, but benefits have been shown for alcoholic drinks in general. Apparently, there is a benefit for ethanol per se.
Woo! (cracks open a Four Loko for breakfast)
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Mar 24, 2011, 12:50 PM
Post #465 of 509
(4733 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
csproul wrote: spikeddem wrote: gmggg wrote: saint_john wrote: i'll be the devil's advocate and say that croissants are also not possible without butter. Well, unfortunately supermarkets across the country have proved you wrong. Although their results are inferior to a true croissant. Something that is impossible without butter would be a pate ŕ choux. Or a butter stick sandwich. A truly fine delicacy once enjoyed in my younger days. I once knew a person (really...it wasn't me) who was really really baked and thought it would be tasty to eat butter covered in maple syrup. It was (allegedly) just like eating pancakes, without all that annoying filler.
Heh... so he consumed around 1000 calories or so and then proceeded to still be hungry?
Reminds me of a time we were backcountry climbing in Aus and a friend of mine bet my other friend that he couldn't eat the 500g block of sharp chedder cheese we had with us in five minutes, because the first friend said he was so hungry he could eat the back end of a lactating cow. I was kinda hoping he wouldn't take the bet since it was our only cheese.
Anyway, he says "That's easy, give it here!", grabs the cheese and takes a HUGE chunk of a bite out of it... almost a quarter of the block at once. I figured, oh well, there goes the cheese. So he chewed and chewed and chewed like a MoFo for ages... beads of sweat formed on his forehead and his face started to go red. He tried talking... sounded something like "Vooo Faffed Foo Veee Kfidding Mee! Vis Fucks!"
Three minutes were up and he still hadn't finished chewing the first bite. By the time five minutes were up he had just swallowed the last of the first bite and we were rolling on the ground laughing our asses off. Wasn't a good bet to take.
|
|
|
|
|
airscape
Mar 24, 2011, 12:57 PM
Post #466 of 509
(4725 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2001
Posts: 4240
|
kachoong wrote: csproul wrote: spikeddem wrote: gmggg wrote: saint_john wrote: i'll be the devil's advocate and say that croissants are also not possible without butter. Well, unfortunately supermarkets across the country have proved you wrong. Although their results are inferior to a true croissant. Something that is impossible without butter would be a pate ŕ choux. Or a butter stick sandwich. A truly fine delicacy once enjoyed in my younger days. I once knew a person (really...it wasn't me) who was really really baked and thought it would be tasty to eat butter covered in maple syrup. It was (allegedly) just like eating pancakes, without all that annoying filler. Heh... so he consumed around 1000 calories or so and then proceeded to still be hungry? Reminds me of a time we were backcountry climbing in Aus and a friend of mine bet my other friend that he couldn't eat the 500g block of sharp chedder cheese we had with us in five minutes, because the first friend said he was so hungry he could eat the back end of a lactating cow. I was kinda hoping he wouldn't take the bet since it was our only cheese. Anyway, he says "That's easy, give it here!", grabs the cheese and takes a HUGE chunk of a bite out of it... almost a quarter of the block at once. I figured, oh well, there goes the cheese. So he chewed and chewed and chewed like a MoFo for ages... beads of sweat formed on his forehead and his face started to go red. He tried talking... sounded something like "Vooo Faffed Foo Veee Kfidding Mee! Vis Fucks!" Three minutes were up and he still hadn't finished chewing the first bite. By the time five minutes were up he had just swallowed the last of the first bite and we were rolling on the ground laughing our asses off. Wasn't a good bet to take.
heh!
Why does a bite out of a chunk of cheese taste different than if you eat a slice of the same cheese?
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Mar 24, 2011, 1:05 PM
Post #467 of 509
(4720 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
justroberto wrote: jt512 wrote: Secondly, bacon is to cancers of the digestive tract as cigarettes are to cancer of the lung. Fantastic. Today marks the day I start frying 20 pieces of bacon every day and carefully arranging them in a small cardboard box, which I'll carry around in the breast pocket of my shirt everywhere I go. Whenever I get stressed out, I'll politely excuse myself, wander outside, and gnaw on one for five or ten minutes. I rather like this idea.
That's awesome!
I hate it when people wave those cuts of bacon around in my face... even worse when you see someone in a car with one, the windows are up and there's a child in the backseat.
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Mar 24, 2011, 1:08 PM
Post #468 of 509
(4718 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
airscape wrote: kachoong wrote: csproul wrote: spikeddem wrote: gmggg wrote: saint_john wrote: i'll be the devil's advocate and say that croissants are also not possible without butter. Well, unfortunately supermarkets across the country have proved you wrong. Although their results are inferior to a true croissant. Something that is impossible without butter would be a pate ŕ choux. Or a butter stick sandwich. A truly fine delicacy once enjoyed in my younger days. I once knew a person (really...it wasn't me) who was really really baked and thought it would be tasty to eat butter covered in maple syrup. It was (allegedly) just like eating pancakes, without all that annoying filler. Heh... so he consumed around 1000 calories or so and then proceeded to still be hungry? Reminds me of a time we were backcountry climbing in Aus and a friend of mine bet my other friend that he couldn't eat the 500g block of sharp chedder cheese we had with us in five minutes, because the first friend said he was so hungry he could eat the back end of a lactating cow. I was kinda hoping he wouldn't take the bet since it was our only cheese. Anyway, he says "That's easy, give it here!", grabs the cheese and takes a HUGE chunk of a bite out of it... almost a quarter of the block at once. I figured, oh well, there goes the cheese. So he chewed and chewed and chewed like a MoFo for ages... beads of sweat formed on his forehead and his face started to go red. He tried talking... sounded something like "Vooo Faffed Foo Veee Kfidding Mee! Vis Fucks!" Three minutes were up and he still hadn't finished chewing the first bite. By the time five minutes were up he had just swallowed the last of the first bite and we were rolling on the ground laughing our asses off. Wasn't a good bet to take. heh! Why does a bite out of a chunk of cheese taste different than if you eat a slice of the same cheese?
Something we wondered while he was wearing his jaw out. I'm sure if he had done a slice at a time he'd have finished the block. His mistake was clear.
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Mar 24, 2011, 10:15 PM
Post #469 of 509
(4663 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
jt512 wrote: enigma wrote: In reference to alcohol in moderation, how much? types? Any type. The equivalent of two glasses of wine per day. In reply to: Are you speaking about red wine? There is evidence that red wine is superior to other alcoholic drinks, but benefits have been shown for alcoholic drinks in general. Apparently, there is a benefit for ethanol per se. In reply to: Since many wines contain sulfiates is it better to find wines that are natural . . . I'm not aware of any evidence for detrimental health effects of sulfates in wine, but it's not a subject I've actively looked into. If there are detrimental effects, then the evidence clearly shows that they are outweighed by the beneficial effects of the wine. We also can't rule out that the benefits of wine consumption are, in part, actually due to the sulfates. Jay
Are you speaking in reference to the resveratrol in red wine?
According to the articles I've seen you would need quite a bit for it to be beneficial in regard to heart disease.
How much would help in regard to the heart disease connection?
Why is alcohol in moderation good for you?
(This post was edited by enigma on Mar 24, 2011, 10:17 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 24, 2011, 11:24 PM
Post #470 of 509
(4645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
enigma wrote: jt512 wrote: enigma wrote: In reference to alcohol in moderation, how much? types? Any type. The equivalent of two glasses of wine per day. In reply to: Are you speaking about red wine? There is evidence that red wine is superior to other alcoholic drinks, but benefits have been shown for alcoholic drinks in general. Apparently, there is a benefit for ethanol per se. In reply to: Since many wines contain sulfiates is it better to find wines that are natural . . . I'm not aware of any evidence for detrimental health effects of sulfates in wine, but it's not a subject I've actively looked into. If there are detrimental effects, then the evidence clearly shows that they are outweighed by the beneficial effects of the wine. We also can't rule out that the benefits of wine consumption are, in part, actually due to the sulfates. Jay Are you speaking in reference to the resveratrol in red wine?
Not specifically, no.
In reply to: Why is alcohol in moderation good for you?
For one thing, because it increases serum HDL-cholesterol, so it's protective against heart disease. There may be other factors as well. It's not completely understood.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dr_feelgood
Mar 28, 2011, 3:14 PM
Post #471 of 509
(4556 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 26060
|
camhead wrote: jt512 wrote: enigma wrote: In reference to alcohol in moderation, how much? types? Any type. The equivalent of two glasses of wine per day. In reply to: Are you speaking about red wine? There is evidence that red wine is superior to other alcoholic drinks, but benefits have been shown for alcoholic drinks in general. Apparently, there is a benefit for ethanol per se. Woo! (cracks open a Four Loko for breakfast)
Charles Bronson wept because nature had been vindicated.
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Apr 6, 2011, 4:26 AM
Post #472 of 509
(4506 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
dr_feelgood wrote: camhead wrote: jt512 wrote: enigma wrote: In reference to alcohol in moderation, how much? types? Any type. The equivalent of two glasses of wine per day. In reply to: Are you speaking about red wine? There is evidence that red wine is superior to other alcoholic drinks, but benefits have been shown for alcoholic drinks in general. Apparently, there is a benefit for ethanol per se. Woo! (cracks open a Four Loko for breakfast) Charles Bronson wept because nature had been vindicated.
I went back to eggs , however only one kind that seem good w omega ,organic brown types but they are 4.00 a dozen.
=====================================
Oh, be extra careful of fish, its pretty much all tainted with radiation levels millions of times above the regulatory limit. Its from gushing water into Pacific ocean-CNN news 4/5/2011
=====================================
My new recipe to share, 2 cups of unsweetened organic soy milk , 1/2 cup steel oats, 1/2 cup applesauce, 1 teaspoon pumpkin pie spice.
Simmer low heat until thickened add more oats if not thick enough.
Delicious for breakfast.
Top off with raisins.shredded almonds etc.
=====================================
Make sure you have your Charles Bronson drinks at the end of the night. For health reasons.
I saw someone buying Arrogant Bastard Ale today
(This post was edited by enigma on Apr 6, 2011, 6:07 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
hafilax
Apr 6, 2011, 11:19 PM
Post #473 of 509
(4473 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2007
Posts: 3025
|
You wouldn't eat blinky?
Maybe you should invest in a Geiger counter although I hear their hot items on ebay right now along with iodine. Nothing like a little paranoia profiteering.
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Apr 6, 2011, 11:35 PM
Post #474 of 509
(4468 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
hafilax wrote: You wouldn't eat blinky? [image]http://backseatblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Blinky.gif[/image] Maybe you should invest in a Geiger counter although I hear their hot items on ebay right now along with iodine. Nothing like a little paranoia profiteering.
Pacific Coast filled with radiation. Fish used in japanese restaurants from Chile now.
Or, Farmed fish with dioxins and hormones.
Best bet would be wild fish from the atlantic ocean, Canada, Alaska, Eastern Coast of U.S.
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
Apr 7, 2011, 3:18 AM
Post #475 of 509
(4574 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
jt512 wrote: enigma wrote: In reference to alcohol in moderation, how much? types? Any type. The equivalent of two glasses of wine per day.
Just to make it clear, this is NUANCED, and depends on your gender.
Males: equivalent of 1-2 glasses of wine per day.
Women: equivalent of 1 glass of wine per day AND ONLY IF THEY CONCURRENTLY HAVE @ LEAST 400microg of folate.
All the studies I've seen showed negative effects for women consuming >1 glass per day, and for any amount without proper folate (NOT related to potential for pregnancy).
|
|
|
|
|
|
