Re: The 20 worst foods in America
View Full Version : Re: The 20 worst foods in America
On 1 Dec 2007 17:06:11 -0000, louise453@yahoo.com (Louise) wrote:
>http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods
>
If a hamburger has all that fat in it at a fast foot place-how do
homemade burgers stack up?
one beef patty, tomatoes, 1/2 teaspoon mayo, dash of mustard. one
slice Velveeta cheese and two regular sized buns?
LV
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank."
---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones
--------------------------------------------
"A fanatic cannot change his mind and will not
change the subject."
---Winston Churchill
----------------------------------------------
In article <22u5l35gu0slguidfc64sr528b57rffjg8@4ax.com>, Lady Veteran wrote:
>On 1 Dec 2007 17:06:11 -0000, louise453@yahoo.com (Louise) wrote:
>
>>http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods
>>
>If a hamburger has all that fat in it at a fast foot place-how do
>homemade burgers stack up?
>
>one beef patty,
A 6 ounce precooked weight beef patty has 330 calories. A 1/4 pound one
has 220 calories.
>tomatoes,
Not much, a bit of sugars.
>1/2 teaspoon mayo,
That's little mayo as far as burgers with mayo go. I only see people
use at least half a tablespoon or none at all. But a mere half
teaspoon of mayo has 20 calories.
A Whopper has 160 of its 670 calories from mayo. 10 of those are from
carbs and 150 of those are from fat, but BK omits the mayo in their
bunless "Low Carb Whopper".
> dash of mustard.
Just a few calories.
> one slice Velveeta cheese
80 calories
>and two regular sized buns?
A burger bun has 150-170 calories, based on looking up nutritional info
on a couple of McD's burgers. Most are white bread, which has somewhere
around 55-60 calories per ounce if I remember well from back when I read a
couple of bread packages.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 01:12:52 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
>In article <22u5l35gu0slguidfc64sr528b57rffjg8@4ax.com>, Lady Veteran wrote:
>>On 1 Dec 2007 17:06:11 -0000, louise453@yahoo.com (Louise) wrote:
>>
>>>http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods
>>>
>>If a hamburger has all that fat in it at a fast foot place-how do
>>homemade burgers stack up?
>>
>>one beef patty,
>
> A 6 ounce precooked weight beef patty has 330 calories. A 1/4 pound one
>has 220 calories.
>
>>tomatoes,
>
> Not much, a bit of sugars.
>
>>1/2 teaspoon mayo,
>
> That's little mayo as far as burgers with mayo go. I only see people
>use at least half a tablespoon or none at all. But a mere half
>teaspoon of mayo has 20 calories.
>
> A Whopper has 160 of its 670 calories from mayo. 10 of those are from
>carbs and 150 of those are from fat, but BK omits the mayo in their
>bunless "Low Carb Whopper".
>
>> dash of mustard.
>
> Just a few calories.
>
>> one slice Velveeta cheese
>
> 80 calories
>
>>and two regular sized buns?
>
> A burger bun has 150-170 calories, based on looking up nutritional info
>on a couple of McD's burgers. Most are white bread, which has somewhere
>around 55-60 calories per ounce if I remember well from back when I read a
>couple of bread packages.
>
> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
so it seems that the condiments are the villain here? Yes, meat has a
high calorie content but those are primarily protein calories. Home
made most of the time uses a better cut of meat or ground chuck.
LV
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank."
---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones
--------------------------------------------
"A fanatic cannot change his mind and will not
change the subject."
---Winston Churchill
----------------------------------------------
Don Klipstein wrote:
> I see people eating more protein and less carb (or less non-protein
> calories in general while eating same high total calories) in an attempt
> to lose body fat generally failing. The 4 calories per gram "official
> figure" for protein is already discounted for the human body not oxidizing
> it completely.
I'm curious where you see this.
I've been a diabetic almost 2 decades now and have been low-carbing for
about a decade, during which time I've participated in many different
low-carb fora, both online and offline.
I've really never seen people eating more protein when they low-carb for
any length of time. Sometimes when they start, they go overboard for a
while, but it never lasts.
I know I don't eat more protein than before I began low-carbing myself.
I know what I bought at the grocery before and what I buy now - I do
not eat more protein.
My fat consumption has decreased also, as is typical on low-carb diets.
The Yudkin study is discussed by Dr. Mike Eades here:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/2007/09/11/is-a-calorie-always-a-calorie/
"Essentially, the subjects were asked to take between 10 and 20 oz milk
daily (about 300-600 ml), and as much meat, fish, eggs, cheese, butter,
margarine, cream and leafy vegetables as they wished. The amount of
carbohydrate in other food was listed in 'units' with each unit
consisting of 5 g carbohydrate; the subjects were told to limit these
foods to not more than 10 units (or 50 g) carbohydrate daily."
They found instructing folks this way resulted in them eating less carb
(216g reduced to 67g per day), about the same amount of protein (84g vs.
83g) and less fat (124g to only 105g per day).
Pretty much the most significant change in my diet is exchanging starchy
foods for more servings of vegetables. I've frankly never understood
why eating mashed cauliflower instead of mashed potatoes was considered
*controversial* - less carb, same amount of protein, less fat and more
veggies... what exactly is so *bad* about this?
--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/
In article <4754c6b4$0$2773$470ef3ce@news.pa.net>, Jackie Patti wrote:
>Don Klipstein wrote:
>
>> I see people eating more protein and less carb (or less non-protein
>> calories in general while eating same high total calories) in an attempt
>> to lose body fat generally failing. The 4 calories per gram "official
>> figure" for protein is already discounted for the human body not oxidizing
>> it completely.
>
>I'm curious where you see this.
>
>I've been a diabetic almost 2 decades now and have been low-carbing for
>about a decade, during which time I've participated in many different
>low-carb fora, both online and offline.
>
>I've really never seen people eating more protein when they low-carb for
>any length of time. Sometimes when they start, they go overboard for a
>while, but it never lasts.
>
>I know I don't eat more protein than before I began low-carbing myself.
> I know what I bought at the grocery before and what I buy now - I do
>not eat more protein.
I hear plenty of low carb advocates advocating increased protein
consumption.
>My fat consumption has decreased also, as is typical on low-carb diets.
My experience is that low-carbing coworkers increase consumption of fat
and protein.
If you decrease carb intake without increasing intake of fat or protein,
then you are decreasing your calorie intake.
>"Essentially, the subjects were asked to take between 10 and 20 oz milk
>daily (about 300-600 ml), and as much meat, fish, eggs, cheese, butter,
>margarine, cream and leafy vegetables as they wished. The amount of
>carbohydrate in other food was listed in 'units' with each unit
>consisting of 5 g carbohydrate; the subjects were told to limit these
>foods to not more than 10 units (or 50 g) carbohydrate daily."
>They found instructing folks this way resulted in them eating less carb
>(216g reduced to 67g per day), about the same amount of protein (84g vs.
>83g) and less fat (124g to only 105g per day).
My experience is that people limiting carbs so severely and eating as
much of the above low-carb stuff as they want tend to eat more fat and
more protein than before.
One who changes from 216g to 67g carbs, 84g to 83g protein and 124g to
105g fat per day changes daily calorie intake from 2316 to 1545.
My personal experience is that coworkers who go low-carb increase their
intake of protein and often increase their intake of fat and don't do much
to reduce their calorie intake due to following some belief that carb
calories are fattening and other calories are not. They tend to not lose
much weight as a result, then get skeptical of all diets and get more
fatalistic about getting in a good shape via diet. Also, while being less
physically active than most Americans were before 1965-1970 or so.
>Pretty much the most significant change in my diet is exchanging starchy
>foods for more servings of vegetables.
That will give weight loss, and most Americans eat to little of veggies
and too much of starchy foods (as well as excessive fat and protein).
> I've frankly never understood why eating mashed cauliflower instead of
> mashed potatoes was considered *controversial* - less carb,
4 grams or so per ounce of each vegetable product
> same amount of protein,
1 gram or fraction of a gram per ounce of vegetable product
> less fat
Potatoes and cauliflower both have negligible fat content. 1/4 pound
of each have maybe a gram of fat.
> and more veggies... what exactly is so *bad* about this?
The controversy comes in part from using examples of reduction of
calories to claim that carbs as opposed to calories in general being
fattening.
Potatoes have no more fat than cauliflower, and potatoes have 20
calories per ounce. If one is getting fat from potatoes, it's probably
from high calorie density fatty toppings or eating some serious bulkage of
potatoes (or both). But I don't mind cauliflower - I think most Americans
don't eat enough veggies.
Personally, I eat plenty of veggies - though mainly ones green, red,
orange or yellow in color rather than cauliflower.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Don Klipstein wrote:
>> I know I don't eat more protein than before I began low-carbing myself.
>> I know what I bought at the grocery before and what I buy now - I do
>> not eat more protein.
> I hear plenty of low carb advocates advocating increased protein
> consumption.
And you measured what they eat, right?
>> My fat consumption has decreased also, as is typical on low-carb diets.
>
> My experience is that low-carbing coworkers increase consumption of fat
> and protein.
And you measured what they eat, right?
So your experience trumps an actual study in which these things were
measured, eh?
>> "Essentially, the subjects were asked to take between 10 and 20 oz milk
>> daily (about 300-600 ml), and as much meat, fish, eggs, cheese, butter,
>> margarine, cream and leafy vegetables as they wished. The amount of
>> carbohydrate in other food was listed in 'units' with each unit
>> consisting of 5 g carbohydrate; the subjects were told to limit these
>> foods to not more than 10 units (or 50 g) carbohydrate daily."
>
>> They found instructing folks this way resulted in them eating less carb
>> (216g reduced to 67g per day), about the same amount of protein (84g vs.
>> 83g) and less fat (124g to only 105g per day).
>
> My experience is that people limiting carbs so severely and eating as
> much of the above low-carb stuff as they want tend to eat more fat and
> more protein than before.
By percentage, that is absolutely true; my diet is approximately 60-70%
of the calories from fat. If my body processed food by percentage, it
would matter.
But by amount, it's less fat than I ate on a high-carb diet with lots of
whole grains like quinoa and brown rice when I was trying to limit fat
as much as possible.
> One who changes from 216g to 67g carbs, 84g to 83g protein and 124g to
> 105g fat per day changes daily calorie intake from 2316 to 1545.
Yup. My calories average 1400-1600 per day and have for years now, so
the study didn't surprise me when I found it. People eating ad libitum
on low-carb spontaneously reduce calories; it's been shown again and
again.
My primary food intake is from nonstarchy vegetables, which contain lots
of water, fiber and micronutrients, but very few calories. Consumption
of a couple pounds per day of veggies does cut the calories quite a bit
since they contain largely noncaloric water.
> My personal experience is that coworkers who go low-carb increase their
> intake of protein and often increase their intake of fat and don't do much
> to reduce their calorie intake due to following some belief that carb
> calories are fattening and other calories are not. They tend to not lose
> much weight as a result, then get skeptical of all diets and get more
> fatalistic about getting in a good shape via diet. Also, while being less
> physically active than most Americans were before 1965-1970 or so.
Your personal experience is watching people eat, not measuring what
they're eating, and not doing it yourself. I don't think that trumps
either actual research or the personal experience of folks who've done it.
Throwing out the bun on a hamburger does not increase the calories in
the burger any. It just decreases your hunger since it limits insulin
spikes.
I've maintained a 50 lb loss for several years, so... your experience
not doing the diet is not very compelling to me in the face of my own
experience.
More importantly, I've maintained bg levels and thus reduced my chances
of suffering diabetic complications. Cause hey, I *could* eat lots of
carbs and wind up needing bits amputated, but that'd be a crappy way to
lose weight. YMMV.
>> Pretty much the most significant change in my diet is exchanging starchy
>> foods for more servings of vegetables.
>
> That will give weight loss, and most Americans eat to little of veggies
> and too much of starchy foods (as well as excessive fat and protein).
I agree that hardly anyone eats enough veggies; most Americans don't
even hit the lame-ass USDA recommendations.
> The controversy comes in part from using examples of reduction of
> calories to claim that carbs as opposed to calories in general being
> fattening.
Discussing calories *only* ignores the biochemical cycles involved and
the hormonal effects of diet.
About 14 years or so ago, I did a low-fat diet for a year. I was hungry
*all* the time, don't know how I lasted a year, it was just sheer
willpower. I became progressively weaker until I could barely get to
work and spent nearly all the rest of the time in bed by the end of the
year. And at the end of the year, I'd gained weight.
Then I bought a bg meter and learned to eat low-carb. I have never been
hungry on low-carb - over a decade with hardly any "willpower" needed to
do it. Without much fast-acting carb in my diet, my bg doesn't rise and
I don't feel that painful type of hunger that wakes you from a dead sleep.
Both weight loss and maintenance works *practically* on low-carb in a
way it doesn't on just lowering isocalorically.
And as we've seen, when scientists actually *measure* what people eat on
low-carb, protein intake does not rise and fat intake decreases.
> Potatoes have no more fat than cauliflower, and potatoes have 20
> calories per ounce. If one is getting fat from potatoes, it's probably
> from high calorie density fatty toppings or eating some serious bulkage of
> potatoes (or both). But I don't mind cauliflower - I think most Americans
> don't eat enough veggies.
I don't know how *you* make mashed potatoes, but I've never really made
them without at least milk and butter myself, but they're much better
with sour cream and chives. I do the same with mashed cauliflower.
They're similar veggies generally, in being very bland, boring foods
with little taste appeal until doctored up somehow. They fit in the
diet the same way, which is why I used them as examples as mashed
cauliflower easily replaces mashed potatoes.
The significant difference is that potatoes contain a lot of starch (21g
carb in 100g potato) whereas cauliflower doesn't (4g per 100g
cauliflower); about one tenth of the potato carbs are fiber whereas half
of cauliflower's are.
Based on bg measurements I've made with Sweetarts (nearly pure glucose),
the potato would raise my bg about 60 mg/dL and the cauliflower about 6
mg/dL.
The spike from potato contributes to insulin resistance and thus the
glucose is less likely to enter cells to be used for energy and more
likely to be converted to triglycerides and stored in adipose. Thus the
potato is more likely to result in fatigue, rebound hunger and fat gain.
All this from half a medium sixed potato.
And yes, the cauliflower only has about a quarter of the calories of the
potato.
This isn't even getting into the micronutrient differences. Cauliflower
has significant amounts of vitamins C, K, B6 and folate in 100 gram
serving; potatoes have a quarter of the vitamin C and a bit more B6 and
if you eat the skin, a good dose of potassium and otherwise, nearly no
nutrition.
It's a good example to discuss largely because neither has much
phytochemical content and can therefore be easily looked up in the USDA
database (which doesn't contain phytochemicals yet, though there is a
flavanoid databse separate from the main nutrition database).
> Personally, I eat plenty of veggies - though mainly ones green, red,
> orange or yellow in color rather than cauliflower.
I eat around 2 lbs of vegetables daily, and like you, focus mostly on
the darkest, deepest colors to maximize micronutrient content and
especially phytochemicals. I eat even more in the summer when the fresh
stuff is more available; tastes much better to me.
Still mashed cauliflower replaces mashed potatoes in a practical sense
that a stirfry of mixed bell peppers doesn't, which is why I used it as
an example. Plus it's a common substitution that many low-carb folks
make.
Other practical examples in *my* diet include replacing noodles with
stirfried shredded cabbage and pasta with stirfried shredded zucchini.
This is pretty specific to me though; everyone does low-carb differently.
Practically speaking, vegetables crowd out nearly all simple sugars
(with the exception of low-sugar fruits) and starches in my diet.
I don't see any possible downside to this.
--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/
"Jackie Patti" <jpatti@ccil.org> wrote
>
> I agree that hardly anyone eats enough veggies; most Americans don't even
> hit the lame-ass USDA recommendations.
I eat a *lot* more fruits and veggies on low-carb than I ever did before, by
percentage, weight, or any way you could count it. I *never* made it a
habit, on a low-cal diet or on no diet, to eat veggies every day. Following
a low-carb diet, as I understand it, and as low-carb dieting works for me,
there is no choice. Either you eat a lot of fruits and veggies in order to
get your carbs, or the diet fails. YMMV. -- Mike
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
