Eats



On 31/8/04 9:06 am, in article [email protected],
"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk>typed

>> If you're a whiz in the kitchen, you're aiming for a good mix of simple
>> (e.g. glucose) and complex (e.g. fructose) sugars combined with longer
>> chain carbohydrates (e.g. starch). Some fibre will help prevent
>> digestion problems (Although too much may make cycling interesting!). A
>> proportion of fat probably wouldn't go amiss either. My knowledge of the
>> science is too old and sketchy to recommend exact proportions.
>
> Ahh good, old-fashioned shortbread...
>
> 6oz sugar
> 8oz fat
> 10-12 oz flour
> egg to bind
>
> Squidge toether. Bake at mark 6 till golden brown.
>
> More fat than I'd like whilst cycling but fulfils your criteria.

My wife makes some wonderful stuff known as 'go-faster cake' which appears
to consist of the following:

crushed digestive biscuits
butter
raw unrefined sugar
raisins that have been soaked in brandy
chocolate
coffee

These (and possibly a few other things as well) are mixed together in a
warming pan till they are combined, then put into a tin and into the fridge.

It has an amazing effect on carbo deleted hill walkers/climbers and will
probably appear on the IOC banned list soon!

I must get her to make some more for the Dundee-Edinburgh-Dundee ride.

...d
 
David Martin <[email protected]> writes:

>My wife makes some wonderful stuff known as 'go-faster cake' which appears
>to consist of the following:

>crushed digestive biscuits
>butter
>raw unrefined sugar
>raisins that have been soaked in brandy
>chocolate
>coffee

>I must get her to make some more for the Dundee-Edinburgh-Dundee ride.

I think I'll have to join in that case!

Roos
 
"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mark South" <[email protected]>typed
>
>
> > > Mine's a diet fruit squash...
>
> > You had me with you all the way and then you recommend something
> > guaranteed to set off an asthma attack....
>
> Well, that's MINE and I don't have asthma!

Yeah, I was just noting that for many people the fruit squash isn't a good idea.
The rest of your list was totally good advice AFAICT.

> What do you LIKE? What does
> not upset your asthma/ulcer/budget/mother-in-law/cat/lawyer?

Can you think of anything that doesn't upset a mother-in-law???

> I don't like sugary drinks as:
> 1) They don't seem to quench my thirst well
> 2) They leave my mouth gooey, coat my teeth and may cause them to rot.
> 3) Leave a sticky mess if spilt
> 4) Attract insects

You are never going to get a job with the Coca-Cola Company if you talk like
that...

> If you LIKE it, there's always TAP water, which is OK if you're eating
> food with the minerals you need in it. Gallons of pure water with no
> food could present a problem though.

If water's plentiful, pouring it on yourself and drinking a small amount often
works better than drinking it all.

> The trick is to drink enough, not too much. This is much easier if you
> LIKE it...

I love water.

> PS. I also LIKE chocolate milk shake. I have found this very comforting
> and sustaining at the end of long rides. IIRC it does not attract VAT (I
> think bottled water does!) and so seems less of a rip-off...

Some places you can get iced coffee in cartons :)
--
Mark South, Super Genius: World Citizen, Net Denizen
 
"Mark South" <[email protected]>typed

> Can you think of anything that doesn't upset a mother-in-law???

How do I know? I've never met her ;-)

> > I don't like sugary drinks as:
> > 1) They don't seem to quench my thirst well
> > 2) They leave my mouth gooey, coat my teeth and may cause them to rot.
> > 3) Leave a sticky mess if spilt
> > 4) Attract insects

> You are never going to get a job with the Coca-Cola Company if you talk like
> that...

Dunno about that; there's always Dasani & Diet Coke...

> > If you LIKE it, there's always TAP water, which is OK if you're eating
> > food with the minerals you need in it. Gallons of pure water with no
> > food could present a problem though.

> If water's plentiful, pouring it on yourself and drinking a small
> amount often
> works better than drinking it all.

True. You can also apply it to a flannel or your T-shirt (I seldom got
on well with synthetic tops)

> > The trick is to drink enough, not too much. This is much easier if you
> > LIKE it...

> I love water.

> > PS. I also LIKE chocolate milk shake. I have found this very comforting
> > and sustaining at the end of long rides. IIRC it does not attract VAT (I
> > think bottled water does!) and so seems less of a rip-off...

> Some places you can get iced coffee in cartons :)

You might have to pay VAT on that...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.
 
"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mark South" <[email protected]>typed
>
> > Can you think of anything that doesn't upset a mother-in-law???
>
> How do I know? I've never met her ;-)

The mother-in-law of theoretical construction is a practical generality. They
are all the same.

> > > I don't like sugary drinks as:
> > > 1) They don't seem to quench my thirst well
> > > 2) They leave my mouth gooey, coat my teeth and may cause them to rot.
> > > 3) Leave a sticky mess if spilt
> > > 4) Attract insects
>
> > You are never going to get a job with the Coca-Cola Company if you talk like
> > that...
>
> Dunno about that; there's always Dasani & Diet Coke...

You'll still have to suspend your critical faculties and talk in expansive terms
about stuff that's basically ****.

> > > If you LIKE it, there's always TAP water, which is OK if you're eating
> > > food with the minerals you need in it. Gallons of pure water with no
> > > food could present a problem though.
>
> > If water's plentiful, pouring it on yourself and drinking a small
> > amount often works better than drinking it all.
>
> True. You can also apply it to a flannel or your T-shirt (I seldom got
> on well with synthetic tops)

Please post wet cotton T-shirt JPEGs :)

> > > The trick is to drink enough, not too much. This is much easier if you
> > > LIKE it...
>
> > I love water.
>
> > > PS. I also LIKE chocolate milk shake. I have found this very comforting
> > > and sustaining at the end of long rides. IIRC it does not attract VAT (I
> > > think bottled water does!) and so seems less of a rip-off...
>
> > Some places you can get iced coffee in cartons :)
>
> You might have to pay VAT on that...

Oh, it's worth it. It has all the virtues of chocolate, caffeine, and cold in
one convenient carton.[1]

[1] See? I could go into marketing :)
--
Mark South, Super Genius: World Citizen, Net Denizen
 
On 31/8/04 3:10 pm, in article [email protected], "Mark South"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Mark South" <[email protected]>typed
>>
>>> Can you think of anything that doesn't upset a mother-in-law???
>>
>> How do I know? I've never met her ;-)
>
> The mother-in-law of theoretical construction is a practical generality. They
> are all the same.

My mother-in-law is lovely. I find it very hard to upset her (not that I
try, but I don't have to try to not upset her).

...d
 
the.Mark wrote:

> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>>Velvet wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I recently saw chocolate (and yogurt) covered banana chips (dried).
>>>They looked like an excellent thing to snack on while out riding.
>>>Not managed to locate them at a decent price though (this was in a
>>>service station up the M1 somewhere).
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Chocolate covered coffee beans. Mmmmmmmmm.....
>>
>>Tony
>
>
> My Mum had a bowl of these sitting on a table a while ago. I kept nibbling
> on them while I was there. I couldn't get to sleep that night.

Yeah, they're wonderful. I gave myself the shakes and palpitations with
some of those once, and I'm a caffiene addict so normally am fairly
tolerant of coffee (and need to drink rather a lot to be kept awake etc)

--


Velvet
 
Velvet wrote:

> Yeah, they're wonderful. I gave myself the shakes and palpitations with
> some of those once, and I'm a caffiene addict so normally am fairly
> tolerant of coffee (and need to drink rather a lot to be kept awake etc)

Don't bother me, so in the spirit of recent suggestions, just send them
all to me for safe disposal! ;-)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Peter Clinch wrote:

> Velvet wrote:
>
>> Yeah, they're wonderful. I gave myself the shakes and palpitations
>> with some of those once, and I'm a caffiene addict so normally am
>> fairly tolerant of coffee (and need to drink rather a lot to be kept
>> awake etc)
>
>
> Don't bother me, so in the spirit of recent suggestions, just send them
> all to me for safe disposal! ;-)
>
> Pete.

NOOOOOOOO! :)

Further experiments are obviously very much needed, since it could have
been a reaction between choccoffee beans and A.N.Other foodstuff?

Obviously this will be an undertaking requiring many many beans, so all
donations of said beans will be gratefully received... ;-)

--


Velvet
 
"David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BD5A456D.1F154%[email protected]...
> On 31/8/04 3:10 pm, in article [email protected], "Mark South"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> "Mark South" <[email protected]>typed
> >>
> >>> Can you think of anything that doesn't upset a mother-in-law???
> >>
> >> How do I know? I've never met her ;-)
> >
> > The mother-in-law of theoretical construction is a practical generality.
They
> > are all the same.
>
> My mother-in-law is lovely. I find it very hard to upset her (not that I
> try, but I don't have to try to not upset her).

All that statement tells us is that your MiL also reads URC :)
--
Mark South, Super Genius: World Citizen, Net Denizen
 
Helen Deborah Vecht [email protected] opined the following...
> Ahh good, old-fashioned shortbread...
>
> 6oz sugar
> 8oz fat
> 10-12 oz flour
> egg to bind
>
> Squidge toether. Bake at mark 6 till golden brown.
>
>
> More fat than I'd like whilst cycling but fulfils your criteria.

Almost. I'd rate flapjacks a little higher due to the fibre content
which will slow the rate of absorbtion.

> Actually, the long-distance cyclist is fairly carbo depleted after a few
> hours' cycling, which is why *any* carbohydrate tends to do the trick...

True. I'd still recommend a mixture since it will reduce the frequency
with which you have to eat and reduce the likelyhood of a sudden blood-
sugar drop. The recipe sounds good though!

Jon
 
Jon Senior wrote:

> James Annan [email protected] opined the following...
>
>>So what do you recommend (and on whose authority)?
>
> A mixture of short-chain and long-chain carbohydrates such as that found
> in most unrefined foods, fruits or (for certain) energy bars. The
> authority on which I would recommend such a thing is that of my mother's
> doctor (And that of the Diabetic Association) and my university
> professor of Biochemistry who taught us all about metabolism, starvation
> and insulin response.
>
> If you're a whiz in the kitchen, you're aiming for a good mix of simple
> (e.g. glucose) and complex (e.g. fructose) sugars combined with longer
> chain carbohydrates (e.g. starch).

So can you ask your mother's doctor or your university professor how the
high glycaemic index of bread and potatoes (complex starch) can be an
improvement on sucrose with its medium glycaemic index?

> I'd personally steer clear of simple refined
> sugars (Such as those in most sweets) unless you are about to slip into
> a coma through lack of blood sugar!

In what way is sucrose worse than baked beans, crisps or pasta (all
similar glycaemic index)?

Jame
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
 
James Annan [email protected] opined the following...
> So can you ask your mother's doctor or your university professor how the
> high glycaemic index of bread and potatoes (complex starch) can be an
> improvement on sucrose with its medium glycaemic index?

I can answer those myself... and I hope you could too. Ignoring the
validity of their research for the minute (I am naturally cynical of an
organisation that claims to be scientific, but is promoting their GI
weight-loss recipe book!):

White bread contains little or no fibre (Which you may recall I included
in my advice) and is near enough pure starch. Which you then treat with
yeast (An organism which merrily digests starch) and cook (Further
breaking the starch).

The potatoes that are listed in the GI website's database are potato
dumblings (Gnocchi) and have been processed to hell and back before
cooking.

Brown bread (Pumpernickel because their DB is somewhat incomplete!) has
a far lower GI than white bread. Long grain rice is lower than white
rice.

> > I'd personally steer clear of simple refined
> > sugars (Such as those in most sweets) unless you are about to slip into
> > a coma through lack of blood sugar!
>
> In what way is sucrose worse than baked beans

Which include a sweet, sugar based tomato sauce.

> crisps

Often flavoured with sugar based flavourings and consisting of heavily
processed starch.

> or pasta

Also consisting of heavily processed starch.

> (all
> similar glycaemic index)?

Which brings me on to the next point. I've read through the GI website
and their claims as to what they measure, but they don't really offer
enough detail. They appear to measure the speed at which blood sugar
levels rise. This is not the problem though. The problem is the speed at
which they then fall afterwards. Simple sugars produce a rapid rise to a
peak and then an equally rapid fall until the body manages to reattain
balance. Complex carbs (In a natural form) produce a slower (but still
fast) rise, followed by a steady fall.

The GI organisation does not appear to evaluate this rate of fall post
absorbtion. Their database of various foods is not only missing
significant sections it also shows inconsistancy (Glucose, varying
quantities, vastly differing response, fructose shows the same) and the
data it does have doesn't offer anything new (A highly fibrous food is
harder to digest and thus has a lower GI than a heavily processed and
fibreless one).

You're a scientist are you not? I find it mildly disturbing that you
take this stuff to heart without questioning it all. Or are you privy to
more information than the GI will provide to us passersby?

Read their website. And make sure you have a good pinch of salt to hand
(Although not too much as that might be bad for your heart! ;-))

Jon
 
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> James Annan [email protected] opined the following...
> > So can you ask your mother's doctor or your university professor how the
> > high glycaemic index of bread and potatoes (complex starch) can be an
> > improvement on sucrose with its medium glycaemic index?
>
> I can answer those myself... and I hope you could too. Ignoring the
> validity of their research for the minute (I am naturally cynical of an
> organisation that claims to be scientific, but is promoting their GI
> weight-loss recipe book!):

WTF is this about? I mentioned no "organisation", and the info I
quoted is available from a number of apparently trustworthy and
independent sources including www.diabetes.org.uk and www.bupa.co.uk.
I do not believe that it is in the slightest bit controversial, and
challenge you to find any reputable source that disputes any of it.

> White bread contains little or no fibre (Which you may recall I included
> in my advice) and is near enough pure starch.

So what? If "pure starch" isn't a complex carbohydrate, then what the
hell is? Wholegrain bread also has a high GI. Sucrose is medium.

> The potatoes that are listed in the GI website's database are potato
> dumblings (Gnocchi) and have been processed to hell and back before
> cooking.

Nice straw man, but baked potatoes have a high GI. Sucrose is medium.

> Brown bread (Pumpernickel because their DB is somewhat incomplete!) has
> a far lower GI than white bread.

If your advice is that a hungry cyclist should stuff their gut with
pumpernickel bread in the hope of some energy gain 2 hours down the
road then I consider that very poor advice indeed. A much more
sensible alternative would be to eat a few jelly babies now, and then
a few more after an hour or two. Anyone with any experience of hard
long-distance cycling will confirm that stuffing down enough food is
an important part of the plan, and the sooner it is digested and out
of the way of the next mouthful, the better. Performance may not be so
important for the leisure cyclist, but it is still worth understanding
what will do most to aid performance.

> > In what way is sucrose worse than baked beans
>
> Which include a sweet, sugar based tomato sauce.

And yet are still suggested by diabetes.org.uk as a topping for a
baked potato in order to _lower_ the GI!

>
> > crisps
>
> Often flavoured with sugar based flavourings and consisting of heavily
> processed starch.
>
> > or pasta
>
> Also consisting of heavily processed starch.

Pretty impressive straw-clutching there. There are plenty more
"complex carbohydrate" examples with higher GI than sucrose. How about
chips, or a boiled parsnip? Not that you or anyone else has actually
demonstrated that high GI food is bad for a hungry cyclist. If
anything, the truth is the precise opposite of what you claim: bread
and potatoes may be better foodstuffs because the energy is made
available MORE RAPIDLY than for some sugar-based snacks.

> I've read through the GI website
> and their claims as to what they measure, but they don't really offer
> enough detail. They appear to measure the speed at which blood sugar
> levels rise. This is not the problem though. The problem is the speed at
> which they then fall afterward.

Definition of the Glycaemic Index

The GI of a food is defined as the size of the area under the blood
glucose graph after eating a portion of the food in question which
will supply 50g of carbohydrate, divided by the size of the area under
the blood glucose graph caused by eating 50g of glucose.

> Simple sugars produce a rapid rise to a
> peak and then an equally rapid fall until the body manages to reattain
> balance. Complex carbs (In a natural form) produce a slower (but still
> fast) rise, followed by a steady fall.

What is your basis for this claim? How does it fool the GI
calculation? Are you asserting that GI is not a useful measure, and if
so, have you a better one (that diabetes.org.uk has apparently not
heard of)?

> You're a scientist are you not? I find it mildly disturbing that you
> take this stuff to heart without questioning it all.

I question a lot of things, which is why I looked into the apparent
conflict between GI and the commonly-stated but apparently naive
advice of "sugar bad, complex carbs good". When you parrotted out the
same old saw, I questioned whether you had any basis for it, and it
seems again that it is just a misunderstood 3rd-hand old wives' tale
with little basis in fact. I find it mildly disturbing that you go off
on some tangential rant about a conspiracy theory concerining some
unspecified website, when I question the basis for your unfounded
claims.

Regular consumption of high-GI snacks is undoubtedly the best strategy
for a long-distance cyclist/runner. That may indeed include some
"complex carbohydrates", but for precisely the opposite reasons to the
ones you claim.

James
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back