Bread?

Quoted message said:

Since you are using a mix perhaps you could tell us what ingredients are in the
mix. You previously stated that you added no sugar but I suspect there is some
sugar in the mix. If it contains sprouted grains of any kind, it would contain
sugar from the grains which is produced by the sprouting/malting process.

Flour from rye and wheat, linseeds, sunflower seedskernels, oat
kernel, gluten, vegetabile fats, dried sour dough (of rye), salt, malt
flour (surely contain some maltose, but not sucrose (sugar), total
sugar kinds (maltose and higher oligosaccharides), but is also source
of alpha-amylase), emulgator E472e and flour preparation helpers
(alpha amylase and ascorbic acid).

Rye flour (rough flour) 40.7%
Total carbohydrates 45 g /100 g dry flour, pr 100 g bread 32 g.

Sugar kinds 2.7 g (as maltose and higher di- and oligosaccharides from
malt flour. (Not used in home production of bread)

No sprouts at all. The seeds mentioned are whole seeds. Good to chew
on.

An ad for a Norwegian bakery:
http://www.martin-nordby.no/getfile.php/127477.761/Brosjyren+Varier+med+br%F8d.pdf

Theese are some of the breads people in Oslo may buy :-)

And here are some in Copenhagen:
http://www.hoyers.dk/hoyers.asp?websidefolder=71

Search for "brød" in www.google.com and you may possibly many pages,
also on recipes.

Perhaps order some kg of different grain flours from Norway to test
the recipes for yourself ?? (If customs allow, which I doubt, it may
threaten US industry)

On 25 Mar 2006 15:40:12 -0800, "Ron Peterson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Alf Christophersen said:

To be considered an ad for selling even more fructose. Fructose is far
more dangerous than laymen believe. That ad is ment for laymen.

15% more fructose (not directly controlled if allowed to leak out of
liver and is 10 time more reactive towards NH3-groups on protein
amino acid side chains, allowing for fructosylation/glycation of
receptors etc. making these possibly a target for immune system
recognition as alien proteins that should be destroyed) and then 15%
less glucose (regulated by insuline)

Fructose may also be dangerous in fructose-intolerant persons.

Alf Christophersen said:

On 25 Mar 2006 15:40:12 -0800, "Ron Peterson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

How much more dangerous is HFC-55 than sucrose?

Quoted message said:

15% more fructose (not directly controlled if allowed to leak out of
liver and is 10 time more reactive towards NH3-groups on protein
amino acid side chains, allowing for fructosylation/glycation of
receptors etc. making these possibly a target for immune system
recognition as alien proteins that should be destroyed) and then 15%
less glucose (regulated by insuline)

I had thought that since fructose is sweeter than sugar, less would be
used. Unfortunately, I found out that more HFCS is used now than sugar
was used prior to HFCS in a can of Coke.

--
Ron

On 26 Mar 2006 16:34:03 -0800, Ron Peterson wrote in
<news:[email hidden]> on
sci.med.nutrition :

Quoted message said:

I had thought that since fructose is sweeter than sugar, less would be
used. Unfortunately, I found out that more HFCS is used now than sugar
was used prior to HFCS in a can of Coke.

There is simply too much added sugar everywhere. Be it sucrose or
fructose, too much is too much.

Enrico C said:

There is simply too much added sugar everywhere. Be it sucrose or
fructose, too much is too much.

And the more sugar industry earn (and can provide more money for the
favorite president in next election campaign, the president that is
most easy to buy for the money that people pay to damage and ruin
completely their health which in turn taxpayers has to pay, etc. etc.
I wonder who benefits most of this, Mr. President, sugar industry or
lawyers who get money everywhere, both when suing UN when they try to
stop sugar pushing, when people being ill try to sue sugar industry
etc etc

Why don't you all who are concerned about overuse of any sugar in US
start a riot against sugar industry and their pushers in the corridors
of the Parliament, trying to get most representatives to vote for
their case, that it's completely ok to poison all people and make it
illegal to declare sugar content in food so no one should be concerned
about downhill side effects of Coke etc.

Alf Christophersen said:

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:31:28 +0200, Enrico C
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is simply too much added sugar everywhere. Be it sucrose or
fructose, too much is too much.

Quoted message said:

And the more sugar industry earn (and can provide more money for the
favorite president in next election campaign, the president that is
most easy to buy for the money that people pay to damage and ruin
completely their health which in turn taxpayers has to pay, etc. etc.
I wonder who benefits most of this, Mr. President, sugar industry or
lawyers who get money everywhere, both when suing UN when they try to
stop sugar pushing, when people being ill try to sue sugar industry
etc etc

Part of the problem is the idea that domestic sugar production is
essential for the national defense of the US. The beet sugar growers
are mostly responsible for that because cane sugar can be produced at a
much lower cost in the tropics and sub-tropics. As a result, their are
quotas on sugar importation especially designed to exclude Cuba.

Quoted message said:

Why don't you all who are concerned about overuse of any sugar in US
start a riot against sugar industry and their pushers in the corridors
of the Parliament, trying to get most representatives to vote for
their case, that it's completely ok to poison all people and make it
illegal to declare sugar content in food so no one should be concerned
about downhill side effects of Coke etc.

There are other issues that take priority over cutting sugar use.
Hopefully, a sugar substitute will be developed and proven to be safe.

--
Ron

On 27 Mar 2006 09:42:36 -0800, Ron Peterson wrote in
<news:[email hidden]> on
sci.med.nutrition :

Quoted message said:

Hopefully, a sugar substitute will be developed and proven to be safe.

Just use less sugar. It's *that* easy.

--
Enrico C

* cut the ending "cut-togli.invalid" string when replying by email *

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 23:10:49 +0200, Enrico C <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On 27 Mar 2006 09:42:36 -0800, Ron Peterson wrote in
<news:[email hidden]> on
sci.med.nutrition :

Quoted message said:

Hopefully, a sugar substitute will be developed and proven to be safe.

Just use less sugar. It's *that* easy.

When I was a child, we always put sugar on our cereal. One day we were out of
sugar and had to eat the cereal without sugar. It was so tasty without sugar
that I never put sugar on my cereal again. Try it - you might like it.

I don't buy the sugary cereals - ever.

Ora