Food snob?



In article <[email protected]>,
Rhonda Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:


> Iceberg lettuce has very little nutritional value, but the same is not
> true for darker green lettuces or spinach or other leafy greens.


We hashed this out on another thread. Iceberg lettuce does in fact have
a lot of nutritional value. All other lettuces have more, sometimes
significantly more. Still, iceberg lettuce is not a nutritional
wasteland.

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

--
Dan Abel
[email protected]
Petaluma, California, USA
 
Dan Abel wrote:

> > Iceberg lettuce has very little nutritional value, but the same is not
> > true for darker green lettuces or spinach or other leafy greens.
>
> We hashed this out on another thread. Iceberg lettuce does in fact have
> a lot of nutritional value. All other lettuces have more, sometimes
> significantly more. Still, iceberg lettuce is not a nutritional
> wasteland.
>
> http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

Not a wasteland, but there is not a lot of food value to it. First of all,
it is almost all water, almost 96%. A serving of it will provide 6% of the
recommended daily allowance of Vitamin A , 3% of the RDA for Vtamin C, 1%
of the RDA for calcium and iron. It contains some other vitamins and
minerals. There is very little energy in it, but it is a decent source of
fibre.
 
Dan Abel <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Rhonda Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Iceberg lettuce has very little nutritional value, but the same is
>> not true for darker green lettuces or spinach or other leafy greens.
>
>
> We hashed this out on another thread. Iceberg lettuce does in fact
> have a lot of nutritional value. All other lettuces have more,
> sometimes significantly more. Still, iceberg lettuce is not a
> nutritional wasteland.

Perhaps I should have worded it differently - iceberg lettuce has very
little nutritional value compared to other leafy greens.
>
> http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/
>

I looked at this and also did a little more research. Iceberg does have
more nutritional value than I (and many others) had believed, although I
don't know if I'd call it "a lot" compared to other vegies I eat. I do
enjoy iceberg for the crunch. However, in terms of nutritional bang for
my bite <g> I think I'd still choose other greens.

Certainly, though, if someone would eat no other greens then it would be
far better that they be eating iceberg lettuce than no greens at all.

--
Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia
 
Nancy Young wrote:
> "Peter A" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>> says...
>
>>> I'm arguing for a sense of balance. There are several posters that
>>> are of
>>> the opinion that their taxes will drop dramatically if only welfare
>>> programs
>>> were eliminated or if welfare waste was eliminated.
>
>
> I haven't noticed anyone saying they thought their taxes would
> go down, guess I missed that. I see people saying that the money
> should go towards nutritional food, not Twinkies. I also see that
> some people who really need the help are not able to get it despite
> a long history of working hard, where other people seem to know
> how to work the system.
>
> Apparently if you're single, you are SOL if you need some help buying
> food, for instance. Along those lines, I think that's where a lot of
> the disgruntlement comes into play.
>
> Only someone really optimistic would think that their taxes would go
> down if welfare was eliminated, and I don't think anyone here said
> one word that welfare should be.
>
> nancy

I think the real point when taxes were mentioned was not that taxes would go
down. The point is food stamps are funded by our tax dollars. So yeah, why
should someone use them to buy twinkies and soda? The taxpayers should have
some say. And don't give me that whine about "then the kids couldn't have
any treats". Not so. There are plenty of necessary items (like toilet
paper) and unnecessary items (like beer) that aren't covered by food stamps.
If recipients can come up with money to by toilet paper, beer, etc. they can
surely buy a box of twinkies without using food stamps.

Jill
 
Janet Bostwick wrote:
> "Peter A" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>> says...
>>>> This is a false dichotomy. It isn't an either/or proposition.
>>>> You do not simply ignore waste in one area, because it occurs in
>>>> another.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Ranee
>>> I'm arguing for a sense of balance. There are several posters that
>>> are of
>>> the opinion that their taxes will drop dramatically if only welfare
>>> programs
>>> were eliminated or if welfare waste was eliminated. If you are
>>> going to scrutinize welfare waste and vote(you should) how you
>>> think your welfare money should be spent, you should also
>>> scrutinize other areas of government
>>> waste and vote to correct that as well. *****ing about individual
>>> examples
>>> of welfare waste is an easy thing to do. Paying attention to what
>>> is going
>>> on in local, state and federal government and participating to make
>>> changes
>>> that work is harder.
>>> Janet
>>>
>>
>> I agree 100%. If you are against government waste then you should
>> rail against the worst waste, which is certainly not in welfare
>> programs. Some people are really against welfare, but because that
>> sounds mean they convince themselves that they are really against
>> "waste."
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Aitken
> It's interesting to read the comments about how an individual doesn't
> qualify for a particular welfare program that would help them to
> survive or better themselves, yet the same individual wants to screw
> down benefits to others -- never realizing that the more you restrict
> the welfare programs the less is available to help people like them
> in marginal circumstances. Janet

If the individual already doesn't qualify it won't hurt them one bit if the
regulations are tightened to prevent abuse of the system by others. The
individual still isn't going to qualify.

Jill
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > > Iceberg lettuce has very little nutritional value, but the same is not
> > > true for darker green lettuces or spinach or other leafy greens.
> >
> > We hashed this out on another thread. Iceberg lettuce does in fact have
> > a lot of nutritional value. All other lettuces have more, sometimes
> > significantly more. Still, iceberg lettuce is not a nutritional
> > wasteland.
> >
> > http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/
>
> Not a wasteland, but there is not a lot of food value to it. First of all,
> it is almost all water, almost 96%.


Unlike romaine, which has almost no water in it. Romaine has a little
tiny bit less than 95% water, which of course is far less than 96%.

:-(


> A serving of it will provide 6% of the
> recommended daily allowance of Vitamin A , 3% of the RDA for Vtamin C, 1%
> of the RDA for calcium and iron. It contains some other vitamins and
> minerals. There is very little energy in it, but it is a decent source of
> fibre.

It doesn't do too well with the vitamins.

--
Dan Abel
[email protected]
Petaluma, California, USA
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Rhonda Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dan Abel <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Rhonda Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Iceberg lettuce has very little nutritional value, but the same is
> >> not true for darker green lettuces or spinach or other leafy greens.
> >
> >
> > We hashed this out on another thread. Iceberg lettuce does in fact
> > have a lot of nutritional value. All other lettuces have more,
> > sometimes significantly more. Still, iceberg lettuce is not a
> > nutritional wasteland.
>
> Perhaps I should have worded it differently - iceberg lettuce has very
> little nutritional value compared to other leafy greens.
> >
> > http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/
> >
>
> I looked at this and also did a little more research. Iceberg does have
> more nutritional value than I (and many others) had believed, although I
> don't know if I'd call it "a lot" compared to other vegies I eat. I do
> enjoy iceberg for the crunch. However, in terms of nutritional bang for
> my bite <g> I think I'd still choose other greens.


Iceberg lettuce doesn't fare well when compared to other lettuces or
veggies, nutritionally. I just don't like seeing "very little nutrional
value", because that isn't true, especially when compared to junk food.

Once in a while I prefer the texture of iceberg for certain purposes.

--
Dan Abel
[email protected]
Petaluma, California, USA
 
Meghan Noecker wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:57:45 -0500, Dave Smith
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Meghan Noecker wrote:
>>
>>> Minimum wage is NOT going to fix the problem.
>>>
>>> First of all, minimum wage is for starter jobs. Everybody has to
>>> start somewhere. They are not meant to be lifetime jobs.
>>
> Most of the businesses complaining are those that hire starting
> employees, hence the minimum wage. And the cost to the company is
> higher than the wage. For example, the employer pays a fee for health
> coverage (if they offer it). That fee is based on the wage, so that
> also goes up when the minimum wage goes up.
>
Ahem. You don't know a damned thing about group health insurance. The
insurance premiums are *not* based on employee wages. It's called "spread
of risk". Premiums for group health are determined based on the number of
lives to be covered, not on what they earn. The premiums do not increase if
their wages go up. The premiums are also based on the level of risk of the
business.

Ask me how I know. I'm a licensed health insurance agent and worked for
years in the business in one form or another. If you have a company of 30
people, the spread of risk (to the insurance company) is lower than if you
insure a group of 5 people. Chances are 1 out of five are going to have a
major health problem. On the other hand, 1 out of thirty, better odds.

Jill
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Janet Bostwick" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm arguing for a sense of balance. There are several posters that are of
> the opinion that their taxes will drop dramatically if only welfare programs
> were eliminated or if welfare waste was eliminated. If you are going to
> scrutinize welfare waste and vote(you should) how you think your welfare
> money should be spent, you should also scrutinize other areas of government
> waste and vote to correct that as well. *****ing about individual examples
> of welfare waste is an easy thing to do. Paying attention to what is going
> on in local, state and federal government and participating to make changes
> that work is harder.

I don't think anyone suggested that taxes would be lower, nor that
welfare be eliminated, nor that other examples of waste should be
tolerated. It wasn't relevant to the discussion to bring in other
examples of government waste. Governments waste money. I just wish
that there were ways to at least eliminate abuse from being part of the
system.

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Nancy Young" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I haven't noticed anyone saying they thought their taxes would
> go down, guess I missed that. I see people saying that the money
> should go towards nutritional food, not Twinkies. I also see that
> some people who really need the help are not able to get it despite
> a long history of working hard, where other people seem to know
> how to work the system.

Exactly.

> Apparently if you're single, you are SOL if you need some help buying
> food, for instance. Along those lines, I think that's where a lot of the
> disgruntlement comes into play.

If you are single with kids, you can make a killing, especially since
it is so easy not to report income from a live in.

> Only someone really optimistic would think that their taxes would go
> down if welfare was eliminated, and I don't think anyone here said
> one word that welfare should be.

I don't think anyone did, but I may have missed it.

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back