Egg beaters a pain to clean



"chef" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Ehh ! Excuse my ignorance ....but what is/ are egg beaters ?

It's a brand name for a whole egg substitute. If you'd looked for "egg beaters" on Google, it's the
first thing that comes up:

http://www.eggbeaters.com/index.jsp

The one problem I have with these, other than the sticking, is that you can only get them in
"scrambled" form. Scrambling is my least favourite way of doing an egg.

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003
 
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:21:33 -0000, "chef" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Ehh ! Excuse my ignorance ....but what is/ are egg beaters ? I thought immedeatly of balloon whisks
>but after reading a few of these postings I think that is wrong ......confused ... ttfn Andy

"Egg Beaters" is the brand name of vitamin-fortified and colored egg-whites that come in cartons.
Refrigerated.

When I saw the subject line, I first thought of a kitchen gadget with a hand crank. Then of the
similar 'beaters' for an electric mixer. Both were a pain to clean. :)
 
Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> Michel Boucher <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>>I have cooked some egg beaters (at low temperature) twice in two separate properly oiled metal
>>pans and both times, the bottom became coated with a residue from the egg beaters, drying right on
>>the pan surface as it was cooking.
>>
>>It took quite a long time to get the stuff off.
>>
>>So, those with more experience, do you use a non-stick pan with egg- beaters or do you just not
>>bother with them because they give the same result no matter what?
>
> Non-stick pan sprayed with Pam. It slides right off.

When I went through the "cholesterol is evil" phase after a heart attack in the 80's, I tried the
"no yolks, only whites" approach in a T-Fal pan with a few drops of oil and never had the
problem. I think it's safe to extrapolate from that to one of the newer non stick pans and a
squirt of pan release.

Or take it in a different direction. I've done them in a mike. Glass custard cup, sprayed with pan
release, about 1/4 cup eggbeater poured in. Nuked it on 50% power until done - less than a minute.
It doesn't stick to the cup; slides right out and fits a slice of bread very nicely. Slice of ham
underneath and another slice of cheese on top to replace all that cholesterol taken out because of
no yolks. Yum.

Pastorio
 
Frogleg <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>>> Why EggBeaters?
>>
>>Why not? I am testing various products at this point. I can usually get either 80% cholesterol
>>reduced eggs or egg whites only (I also do eat regular eggs once or twice a week...always have),
>>but that one time, the store I went to only had egg beaters. I have discovered this drawback to
>>cooking them. I am asking whether others have had this experience. Sheesh...between you and Katra,
>>I get no end of kvetching.
>
> Sheesh! Sorry to have prevailed upon your patience.

For some reason, I don't think you really mean it :)

> (Store had EggBeaters but no eggs?)

I didn't need eggs. I had eggs. I am trying out various egg substitutes.

> I didn't post in response to your original query, and only when you mentioned some health problem
> thought to suggest 'real' egg-whites as a thrifty alternative. Excuuuse me!

I'm at a loss to explain how this simple technical question has resulted in a big endian--little
endian debate of Inquisition proportions, especially as I don't recall asking for diet information.
I'm a big boy and quite capable of informing myself and as it happens I do use use egg whites when
appropriate.

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003
 
il Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:43:27 GMT, "Vox Humana" ha scritto:

> Dupont says that their non-stick coatings are dishwasher safe and I nearly always put mine in the
> dishwasher. I agree that a very thin coating of oil helps, but I don't like the non-stick sprays
> like PAM. The sprays seem to cause a sticky film in the long run.

Oh I'm very low-tech - a squirt or dribble from the oil bottle is what I mean by thin. :) . They
may also be dishwasher safe, but this is about assisting them to stay non-stick And nothing easier
to do than a qick swish with hot water and brush after using them. Not letting the food dry on the
pan helps heaps.

Cheers, Loki [ Brevity is the soul of wit. W.Shakespeare ]
 
John Gaughan wrote:

> Besides, there is little or no evidence for many things about dieting. Most of the diet "facts"
> are distorted and taken out of context -- even Atkins. Low fat, low carb, whatever, they all have
> their zealots who champion their cause.

Exactly. The key is, if your plan satisifies you at a level that reduces your calorie intake to
below maintenance, you lose weight. If your plan always leaves you hungry or craving things, it
ain't gonna work. I don't want to make it sound simplistic, because there's nothing at all simple
about losing weight.

The sad fact is, the vast majority of people who set out to lose weight will fail. That isn't
because of any lack of discipline or willpower, because by and large they are responsible people who
went to school, got jobs, maintain households, pay bills, all the other disciplined things that
people do.

Brian Rodenborn
 
Katra wrote:
> Prove it to yourself... Do some blood testing. Hope you can afford it, I get it for free as do my
> co-workers, but it's not worth going there again. :)

I get free blood testing too (active duty military, so it's not free, I just don't pay for it
myself ;-) )

I'm going to keep track of my triglyceride levels more frequently while I still can. My lipids are
good, HDL is good, but LDL is too high. My total cholesterol is 275, LDL is 6.something. I just
had more blood drawn this morning, I get to see the results next week... I'm looking forward to
better news.

The lab tech probably thought I was weird since I don't like having blood drawn. Not because of the
pain, but because I am personally attached to my blood -- it's mine! I said good-bye to the vials of
blood, with a sad, sad feeling in my heart...

There is something cool about watching my blood squirt into an empty vial.

> I cannot argue with that actually, but please do some research on carbohydrate metabolism. And
> regular excercize.

Diet and exercise are two sides of the same thing -- fitness. I always laugh at the people who diet
and diet but don't lose weight. I ask how much they exercise and I get a blank stare. Sigh. Well, I
can't live their lives for them, I'll just exercise for me.

--
John Gaughan
http://www.johngaughan.net/
[email protected]
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Your reply makes good sense. There is NO diet that a person can live on for any length of time and
> do so without sacrificing important vitamins and minerals plus enzymes etc.

What utter nonsense. "Diet" is what people eat. If you mean "dietary plan or program," that's
different in that it's a dietary structure dealing with other than normal conditions, like weight
loss or controlling blood sugar or avoiding gluten. Eating a few animals and a few plants pretty
much takes care of those vitamins and minerals. As for enzymes, really, go read about them since
it's relatively clear you don't know about them.

Dr. Walter Willett (Harvard Med School) says that there's no demonstrated need in human nutrition
for carbs. That's one of the reasons that the absurd food pyramid is in revision now. The
overemphasis on carbs has been rather convincingly shown to be wrong. Humans have no
demonstrated need for dairy.

Your obviously stunted knowledge about nutrition shows with lamentable clarity. Not everybody on
earth eats like you do or like the USDA says we should. The vast preponderance of humans eat very
differently.

Besides, Brian seems to be talking about comfort on the diet rather than any nutritive issues. He's
talking about motivation, not nutrition. His reference is about how long people can adhere to a
restricted diet rather than to any detrimental results.

> A balanced diet it the diet for a long life.

And what is a balanced diet? How much of what comprises it? Should the foods taken in each meal be
"balanced?" Each day? Each week?

> One can include a diet with or without meat

Really? Are there any long-term deleterious effects of not consuming animal protein? Any vitamin or
mineral deficiencies noted in strict vegetarians?

> but a diet that forgoes carbohydrates for a long period of time can cause problems with brain
> function.

Oh, good. Science with no backup. Perhaps a responsible citation that asserts this would be good.
It's simply wrong.

> Obviously this is true just read the responses of the Atkins Addicts. There cognitive abilities
> are gone.

Much as your reasoning and spelling abilities.

It would really be good if you offered some support for these pronouncements. For a change.

Bob

>> My opinion (and it's strictly that, an opinion) is that any eating plan that severely resticts a
>> class of food like carbs is doomed. Few people will be able to adopt it for any substantive
>> length. Note that I don't need a bunch of testimonials of the, "yer nuts I'm on it 20 years now
>> it works great" variety.
>>
>> Brian Rodenborn
 
John Gaughan wrote:

> Good point. But I look at it this way -- I don't severely limit my carbs, I just eat "better"
> carbs (whole grains and vegetables instead of refined grains, fructose syrup, starch, and sugar),
> and less than the USDA thinks I should eat.

I'm trying to do that myself to a certain extent. I love rice, and I know use a mixture 50/50 of
brown and white rice, which is a bit of pain to cook. I also really enjoy pasta, but haven't tried
any of the whole wheat varieties. I use 100% whole bread most of the time, and some of my morning
bagels are whole wheat, although most aren't.

> I think, as you suggest, that will power is a big part of it. There are quite a few people who
> cannot stick to a diet long term, or who cheat all the time. They only cheat themselves.

What people need to realize is that there is no magic. If you take in fewer calories than you burn,
you lose weight. You take in more, you gain.

The low-carb people with their pounds of bacon makes no more sense than the low-fat people who stuff
themselves with no-fat, sugar-laden products.

Brian Rodenborn
 
In article <[email protected]>, Bob <[email protected]>
wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Your reply makes good sense. There is NO diet that a person can live on for any length of time
> > and do so without sacrificing important vitamins and minerals plus enzymes etc.
>
> What utter nonsense. "Diet" is what people eat. If you mean "dietary plan or program," that's
> different in that it's a dietary structure dealing with other than normal conditions, like weight
> loss or controlling blood sugar or avoiding gluten. Eating a few animals and a few plants pretty
> much takes care of those vitamins and minerals. As for enzymes, really, go read about them since
> it's relatively clear you don't know about them.

Meat and fresh plant products (fruits and veggies) are far more dense in vitamins and minerals than
any starchy carbs. ;-) Grains, potatoes and even some fruits are almost pure calories...

Useful and needed only if you are trying to _gain_ weight.

Please note, I'm agreeing with you here, just adding my 2 cents. <G>

>
> Dr. Walter Willett (Harvard Med School) says that there's no demonstrated need in human nutrition
> for carbs. That's one of the reasons that the absurd food pyramid is in revision now. The
> overemphasis on carbs has been rather convincingly shown to be wrong. Humans have no
> demonstrated need for dairy.

No, we may not need dairy, but it's a heckuva convenient source for absorbable calcium, a real
problem for older women. Please state a source for dietary calcium that is equal. Bone meal is not
that great, and it's kinda gritty. ;-)

>
> Your obviously stunted knowledge about nutrition shows with lamentable clarity. Not everybody on
> earth eats like you do or like the USDA says we should. The vast preponderance of humans eat very
> differently.

The USDA is a govt. agency and wants to kill us off before we can collect our SSI... Or so say the
conspiracy buffs... That food pyramid that stresses heavy grains as carbs instead of using fresh
veggies is the reason for our fatter than ever society even tho' we are consuming less fat than any
time in history.

>
> Besides, Brian seems to be talking about comfort on the diet rather than any nutritive issues.
> He's talking about motivation, not nutrition. His reference is about how long people can adhere to
> a restricted diet rather than to any detrimental results.

Personally, I find Greenwich easier to stick with than any low fat rabbit diet. ;-) I like my meat.

>
> > A balanced diet it the diet for a long life.
>
> And what is a balanced diet? How much of what comprises it? Should the foods taken in each meal be
> "balanced?" Each day? Each week?

Subjective.

>
> > One can include a diet
> > with or without meat
>
> Really? Are there any long-term deleterious effects of not consuming animal protein? Any vitamin
> or mineral deficiencies noted in strict vegetarians?

Amino acid deficiencies. I've known many vegetarians with skin problems. Not true for all, but it's
more prevelant.

>
> > but a diet that forgoes carbohydrates for a long period of time can cause problems with brain
> > function.
>
> Oh, good. Science with no backup. Perhaps a responsible citation that asserts this would be good.
> It's simply wrong.

ROFL!!! The brain lives on glucose. The body is perfectly able to make glucouse out of dietary
protien. <G> Google gluconeogenesis please.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=gluconeogenesis&btnG=G oogle+Search

>
> > Obviously this
> > is true just read the responses of the Atkins Addicts. There cognitive abilities are gone.
>
> Much as your reasoning and spelling abilities.

<snicker>

>
> It would really be good if you offered some support for these pronouncements. For a change.
>
> Bob

Katra

> >> Brian Rodenborn
>

--
>,,<Cat's Haven Hobby Farm>,,<[email protected]>,,<
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&include=0&userid=katra
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Default User <[email protected]> wrote:

> John Gaughan wrote:
>
> > Good point. But I look at it this way -- I don't severely limit my carbs, I just eat "better"
> > carbs (whole grains and vegetables instead of refined grains, fructose syrup, starch, and
> > sugar), and less than the USDA thinks I should eat.
>
> I'm trying to do that myself to a certain extent. I love rice, and I know use a mixture 50/50 of
> brown and white rice, which is a bit of pain to cook.

Seriously. Try a pressure cooker... I've posted about that before. I mix them also and this
works SO well!

> I also really enjoy pasta, but haven't tried any of the whole wheat varieties. I use 100% whole
> bread most of the time, and some of my morning bagels are whole wheat, although most aren't.

There are varieties now of low carb pasta on the market. I've not tried them yet, but I plan to.
I'll report on my findings. ;-)

>
> > I think, as you suggest, that will power is a big part of it. There are quite a few people who
> > cannot stick to a diet long term, or who cheat all the time. They only cheat themselves.
>
> What people need to realize is that there is no magic. If you take in fewer calories than you
> burn, you lose weight. You take in more, you gain.

True, but some calorie sources are less equal than others. The body has to work harder to get what
it needs from protien calories vs. carb calories. This is why low carbing works so well!

The body lives primarily on glucose so breaks everything down to that. It's a heckuva lot easier to
convert carbs over to glucose than protein... The process BURNS calories!

>
> The low-carb people with their pounds of bacon makes no more sense than the low-fat people who
> stuff themselves with no-fat, sugar-laden products.
>
>
>
> Brian Rodenborn

Uh uh luv, do your homework before making such a 'rong statement!!!

K. (who detests bacon)

--
>,,<Cat's Haven Hobby Farm>,,<[email protected]>,,<
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&include=0&userid=katra
 
MEow wrote:
> Sounds like The South Beach Diet which I've heard about. Is that what you follow?

I loosely follow Atkins. I hear the South Beach diet is heavy on fish, which I detest. When I say
"loosely" I mainly mean that I eat more vegetables. And Atkins is generally heavy on vegetables, to
the detrement of the diet's opponents. I eat salads with every meal, and vegetables in addition to
that even.

Right now I am taking a little break between holidays and my birthday
(25), but when I am strictly on the diet, I also take nutritional supplements.

--
John Gaughan
http://www.johngaughan.net/
[email protected]
 
Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Your obviously stunted knowledge about nutrition shows with lamentable clarity.

Yikes...any minute now, the knives will be drawn and blood will flow.

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003
 
Katra wrote:
> True, but some calorie sources are less equal than others.

Even before I read Atkins' book, this is something that was nagging me for years -- we're taught the
4/4/9 rule about calories, but does a gram of vegetable carbs equal a gram of refined sugar carbs?
Well, of course not! Out of the 9 calories in a gram of fat your body may only metabolize half of
them because it takes so long to break down certain fats (while some burn quickly). And with carbs,
the same is true, but vegetable carbs are much more healthy than sugar carbs.

Personally, ketosis makes sense. Carbs are my primary fuel, so limit them to less than I need to
burn fat instead -- and when I want equilibrium, eat only as many carbs as I need for fuel. Eating
more will only make me fat. I don't see why some people have such a hard time with that concept to
the point of turning red in the face arguing that I am slowly committing suicide.

> K. (who detests bacon)

Mmmm... bacon... I love bacon! :p

--
John Gaughan
http://www.johngaughan.net/
[email protected]
 
On 26 Jan 2004 21:16:34 GMT, [email protected] (Naomi Darvell) wrote:

>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Michel Boucher wrote:

>>So, those with more experience, do you use a non-stick pan with egg- beaters or do you just not
>>bother with them because they give the same result no matter what?
>
>I've noticed this problem a couple of times. I mixed them with ricotta for a frittatta once and
>ended up with something like linoleum on the bottom of the pan. There must be something about the
>composition of that product.

Strangely, the web site says Egg Beaters are "99%" eggs (whites). "The other 1% consists of vitamins
and other nutrients usually lost when the yolk is removed." They also market cartons of Egg Beaters
Egg Whites which are "99.5%" eggs and 0.5% "an ingredient that is added to make it easier for
whipping and baking."
 
In article <[email protected]>,
John Gaughan <[email protected]> wrote:

> Katra wrote:
> > True, but some calorie sources are less equal than others.
>
> Even before I read Atkins' book, this is something that was nagging me for years -- we're taught
> the 4/4/9 rule about calories, but does a gram of vegetable carbs equal a gram of refined sugar
> carbs? Well, of course not! Out of the 9 calories in a gram of fat your body may only metabolize
> half of them because it takes so long to break down certain fats (while some burn quickly). And
> with carbs, the same is true, but vegetable carbs are much more healthy than sugar carbs.
>
> Personally, ketosis makes sense. Carbs are my primary fuel, so limit them to less than I need to
> burn fat instead -- and when I want equilibrium, eat only as many carbs as I need for fuel. Eating
> more will only make me fat. I don't see why some people have such a hard time with that concept to
> the point of turning red in the face arguing that I am slowly committing suicide.
>
> > K. (who detests bacon)
>
> Mmmm... bacon... I love bacon! :p
>
> --
> John Gaughan http://www.johngaughan.net/ [email protected]
>

Well stated! ;-)

The only reason I've learned to hate bacon is because I've also been doing low sodium for about 10
years now... I've lost my taste for salt.

I'll go so far as to purchase a 1 lb. package of sausage and add 1 lb. of fresh ground pork and 1
lb. of (lean) ground turkey or sirloin to that, then re-make 8 oz. patties and freeze them. Cuts the
salt down to
1/3 of the original and makes rilly good sausage, at least to me and papasan.

K.

--
>,,<Cat's Haven Hobby Farm>,,<[email protected]>,,<
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&include=0&userid=katra
 
Katra wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Default User <[email protected]> wrote:

> > I'm trying to do that myself to a certain extent. I love rice, and I know use a mixture 50/50 of
> > brown and white rice, which is a bit of pain to cook.
>
> Seriously. Try a pressure cooker... I've posted about that before. I mix them also and this works
> SO well!

That's interesting, I've never heard that. Normally brown takes twice as long to cook. The way I do
it now is to put the brown in with all the water and salt, start it, set the time for half the time.
Then add the white and get it back to the boil and let it finish.

> True, but some calorie sources are less equal than others. The body has to work harder to get what
> it needs from protien calories vs. carb calories. This is why low carbing works so well!

That fact that the body is readily able to utilize carbs doesn't mean that somehow calories derived
from fats or proteins are "better".

> Uh uh luv, do your homework before making such a 'rong statement!!!

I've done plenty. Nutrition in general is a tricky business, and those who think there are simple
answers are probably wrong. That's why there are so many studies with information that changes so
frequently.

Brian Rodenborn
 
Michel Boucher wrote:
> Bob <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>>Your obviously stunted knowledge about nutrition shows with lamentable clarity.
>
> Yikes...any minute now, the knives will be drawn and blood will flow.

<LOL> I thought they had already been drawn...

Would you care for a, um, steak for dinner?

Bob
 
While frolicking around in rec.food.cooking, John Gaughan of Posted
via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com said:

>I loosely follow Atkins. I hear the South Beach diet is heavy on fish, which I detest. When I say
>"loosely" I mainly mean that I eat more vegetables. And Atkins is generally heavy on vegetables, to
>the detrement of the diet's opponents. I eat salads with every meal, and vegetables in addition to
>that even.

I've considered giving the South Beach diet a try, as I imagine that it's compatible with my current
diet of vegetables (including legumes, and such), fish and eggs. I like the fact that you, after the
first two weeks, can include bread and such. Any diet requiring me to give up bread entirely would
be doomed to fail, but cutting those thing out for two weeks is something I can do, if it helps.
Hell; I've tried a diet of only raw vegetable (including nuts and such) for two weeks because
someone challenged me, and because I was curious to see what would happen.

However, when I read a sample diet on their site, I found that there was a lot of low-fat dairy
products, but I'm lactose intolerant and I don't want to have to take pills every day to be able to
follow a diet. I don't know if you can have a dairy-free version of the diet.

Well, I'll try to study it some more and see...
>
>Right now I am taking a little break between holidays and my birthday
>(25), but when I am strictly on the diet, I also take nutritional supplements.

If you're not getting the nutrients you need through your diet, there's something wrong with it,
IMO. That's also why I stopped being vegan by adding eggs and fish to my diet: I don't want to risk
my health for a principle.
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18 ICQ# 251532856 Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-
bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN "Endless fun for drunken ex-pats. And more socially acceptable than dwarf-
tossing." August West (Sheddie)
 
Katra wrote:
> The only reason I've learned to hate bacon is because I've also been doing low sodium for about 10
> years now... I've lost my taste for salt.

I try hard to cut sodium out of my diet. It is so easy to get what I need from food, but then so
many foods add extra salt. I wish I could get NO sodium bacon. Even the low sodium bacon still has
way too much.

--
John Gaughan
http://www.johngaughan.net/
[email protected]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back