Bugs in starter
James
with the aim to give it a few refresh cycles before baking this weekend.
I fed it and let it sit for about 12 hours, and was very surprised when
I opened the jar to see some tiny fly-like creatures (kind of like fruit
flies) hovering around. At first, I thought that maybe these bugs
weren't actually in the jar but just hanging around outside, but after
another feed cycle, I definitely saw them fly out of the jar. I've
examined the starter very closely and there don't appear to be any bugs
actually in there so I'm confused as to where they could be coming from.
Could they be coming from the flour? I mix it into the starter pretty
well so I can't imagine that they're coming out of that. Has anyone else
ever experienced this?
james
Dick Adams
"James" <se...@fleston.ten> wrote in message news:426a...@funnel.arach.net.au...
> I opened the jar to see some tiny fly-like creatures (kind of like fruit
> flies) hovering around. ... Has anyone else ever experienced this?
Maybe they *are* fruit flies! R.f.s. group-googling can be useful here, too.
If you are really lucky, you could get some flour beetles from your flour.
But they are quite big, compared to fruit flies.
Joschi Kley
your starter produced while idling in the warmth.
Those flies put eggs into the fruit and probably into your Carl.
The only way to keep them away is to cover the starter really good.
Joschi
James
> Maybe they *are* fruit flies! R.f.s. group-googling can be useful here, too.
Who would have thought that this has been discussed here before. Amazing.
Looking back at the old posts, it wasn't clear to me whether the flies
have inhabited the starter or are just finding their way into it from
the outside. I keep my starter in an old jam jar but the lid doesn't fit
too well since there's quite a bit of old crusty starter around the rim.
Last night I mixed some starter with more flour and water in a mixing
bowl and covered it with cling film (in readiness for some billowy
loaves this evening). This morning, there were no flies evident in the
mixing bowl, but there were some in the jam jar. Perhaps it's time to
transplant my stock starter to a new jar with a better fitting lid.
james
Dick Adams
"James" <se...@fleston.ten> wrote in message
> Who would have thought that this has been discussed here before.
>Amazing.
Everything has been discussed before. Actually, there is nothing left
to talk about.
> there were some (fruit flies) in the jam jar. Perhaps it's time to
> transplant my stock starter to a new jar with a better fitting lid.
Relax. The little fuckers hardly eat anything at all.
--
Dick Adams
<firstname> dot <lastname> at bigfoot dot com
___________________
Sourdough FAQ guide at
http://www.nyx.net/~dgreenw/sourdoughfaqs.html
Will
> Everything has been discussed before. Actually, there is nothing left
> to talk about.
Well, certainly, the important issues like: Carl, fly away crusts, proofing,
Poilane, steam, stones and rockets... have been well ventilated.
But it's not over yet. There are a few of us who await the definitive DickA
post on Hamelperson <g>.
Will
Steve B
news:mailman.0.1114358361.6...@mail.otherwhen.com...
> But it's not over yet. There are a few of us who await the definitive
> DickA
> post on Hamelperson <g>.
Not being DickA, I run the risk of providing an unsolicited opinion. So be
it.
I have read many books on the art and science of bread baking but I find
"Bread, A Baker's Book of Techniques and Recipes" by Jeffrey Hamelman to be
head and shoulder's above most of them (which, in retrospect, isn't that
great of a feat). It is not merely a collection of recipes (although it
does contain an impressive number and variety of formulae for both naturally
leavened and commercially yeasted breads) but it also provides a clear and
concise treatise on the fundamental processes of bread baking. I've found
that the knowledge that I've gained by reading Hamelman's book has lead to a
dramatic improvement in the quality of all my home-baked breads. Hamelman's
book and "The Taste of Bread", by Raymond Calvel (Ronald Wirtz, translator
and James MacGuire, editor) are the only two bread books to which I refer on
a regular basis.
And, no, I am in no way associated with either the book or its author.
- Steve Brandt
Dick Adams
"Will" <willia...@charter.net> wrote in message news:mailman.0.1114358361.6...@mail.otherwhen.com...
> There are a few of us who await the definitive DickA post on Hamelperson...
Thank you for your trust and forbearance.
Once you have read and understood the book, there will be absolutely nothing
else to discuss, because you will know everything, about bread, anyway.
Of course you could advise the newbies, but the best advice would be for them
to get and read the book.
So, back to Roy: So, Roy, where were we?
--
DickA
Will
>
> "Will" <willia...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:mailman.0.1114358361.6...@mail.otherwhen.com...
>
>> There are a few of us who await the definitive DickA post on Hamelperson...
>
> Thank you for your trust and forbearance.
>
> Once you have read and understood the book, there will be absolutely nothing
> else to discuss, because you will know everything, about bread, anyway.
It is true that it is a remarkably competent book.
>
> Of course you could advise the newbies, but the best advice would be for them
> to get and read the book.
>
I suspect in 95% of the instances I see posted here, meaning RFS, that is a
true statement. But it's the fruit flies, rockets and bubbles that keep me
amused.
> So, back to Roy: So, Roy, where were we?
Roy,
When (if) you get through with Dick, I'd wouldn't mind a few thoughts about
oil(s) in bread baking. Most of my breads are now whole grain wheat and
spelt blends. I'd like to get a better rise and a less crumbly crumb. Flavor
is fine, don't want to mess with that. I suspect the crumbliness (when
slicing) is due to the spelt. The breads are well hydrated, running 68% on
average, well retarded and well proofed. I am considering adding lecithin or
perhaps palm or coconut oil. My salt is at the low end 1.0% to 1.2%. Perhaps
there is room to manipulate the action there.
Will
Kenneth
Hi Will,
PMJI, but I want to be sure that I know what you mean by
"crumbly." Do you mean that when you slice the bread, you
have pieces "falling off" leaving crumbs on the board?
If so, I would not attribute that to the spelt. I use lots
of spelt and don't have the problem with mine.
The crumb of my spelt breads is moist and rather "elastic"
in texture.
All the best,
--
Kenneth
If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
Mary Beth Goodman
"Steve B" <steve...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I have read many books on the art and science of bread baking but I find
> "Bread, A Baker's Book of Techniques and Recipes" by Jeffrey Hamelman to be
> head and shoulder's above most of them (which, in retrospect, isn't that
> great of a feat). It is not merely a collection of recipes (although it
> does contain an impressive number and variety of formulae for both naturally
> leavened and commercially yeasted breads) but it also provides a clear and
> concise treatise on the fundamental processes of bread baking. I've found
> that the knowledge that I've gained by reading Hamelman's book has lead to a
> dramatic improvement in the quality of all my home-baked breads. Hamelman's
> book and "The Taste of Bread", by Raymond Calvel (Ronald Wirtz, translator
> and James MacGuire, editor) are the only two bread books to which I refer on
> a regular basis.
I don't have a lot of books just on bread baking (although I've browsed
many) but I can heartily agree on this review. There's just SO much
info in this book that I'm finding I can incorporate some, go back,
figure out some more, incorporate that etc. the only thing I can fault
about the book is that I would have preferred photos of the processes to
photos of the finished product. The drawings are helpful though.
It's not the sort of book where you will want to make ALL the different
types of bread necessarily. I've decided to stick with a few and learn
the techniques and methods. That way I use the same formulae and can
judge better what is different from bake to bake. My regulars are the
Vermont Sourdough, the 40% rye and the pain au levain.
Although the book reminded me a lot of my organic chem days when I first
dipped into the pages (a little dense on first read), I'm now baking
bread on a regular basis and it just keeps getting better and better.
I'd love to get a chance to take a class with Mr. Hamelman someday but
in the meantime I feel he's in my kitchen guiding my bread making
regularly.
I'm getting good reviews from family and co-workers so I think it's time
well spent. And I don't buy bread anymore - I am making everything I
need for myself and to share.
--
Mary Beth
Orientation::Quilter
http://www.quiltr.com
http://www.fruitcakesociety.org
http://homepage.mac.com/mbgoodman/bread05/
Will
> Hi Will,
>
> PMJI, but I want to be sure that I know what you mean by
> "crumbly." Do you mean that when you slice the bread, you
> have pieces "falling off" leaving crumbs on the board?
Yes. Not big pieces. The loaf doesn't tear or want to fall apart. There's
just a bunch of tiny crumbs when I slice it.
>
> If so, I would not attribute that to the spelt. I use lots
> of spelt and don't have the problem with mine.
The reason I fingered the spelt is because I don't see this problem in my
straight wheat breads. My process for either 100% whole grain wheat or
wheat/spelt is the same. Incidentally, I don't see crumbs when I make your
Poilane formula either but then that has some white flour to bind things.
But in my 50/50 blends, the crumbs are annoying me.
This particular bag of spelt has a fairly substantial husk, so the bran
portion is heavier than what I am used to. I've compensated by presoaking
the flour, meaning a spelt autolyse, but that hasn't worked (so far).
This spelt has great flavor (as one might expect from Wisconsin's Hiawatha
Valley <g>) so I will buy from this mill again.
I figured I had three options: mill it more finely (I'd need a new mill),
add more salt (which I can test), or fool with an oil component. This option
occurred to me when Roy posted that oil will buffer the bran a few days
back. I think it's in the Bubbles thread.
>
> The crumb of my spelt breads is moist and rather "elastic"
> in texture.
Why don't you fire me off a formula offline (but for God's sake don't send
pictures. I can't deal with Bongard lust right after taxes <g>.) I'll
replicate it and see if the crumbs go away.
Will
Dusty Bleher
...
> Why don't you fire me off a formula offline (but for God's sake don't send
Although I'm on an Italian (Coccodrillo & Francesi) kick at the moment (no
spelt), I typically bake about half my breads with spelt as well. I too
thought the "spelt" were a bit more "crumby", so I'm eager to hear this as
well...
Dusty
...
Kenneth
<willia...@charter.net> wrote:
>> The crumb of my spelt breads is moist and rather "elastic"
>> in texture.
>
>Why don't you fire me off a formula offline (but for God's sake don't send
>pictures. I can't deal with Bongard lust right after taxes <g>.) I'll
>replicate it and see if the crumbs go away.
>
>Will
Hi Will,
'Sorry...
The breads I was describing have white flour in 'em. I did
not mean to convey with the above that they were 100% spelt.
Joschi Kley
flour prior to the baking for 3 weeks - this should strengthen the
gluten bonds...
Think about it.
I always use milled spelt and have a wonderful gluten development.
Joschi
Joschi Kley
flour for 3 weeks prior to the baking - this should strengthen the
gluten bonds...
Maybe that helps.
Seamaiden
(an R.D.) and another dietician friend of hers that coconut oil is THE
most saturated fat that exists. Even more saturated than lard! Eck..
I LOVE coconut, but must also watch my HDL/LDL/Triglyceride levels
carefully.
Oh! I forgot that I can also offer that in my non-sourdough
breadmaking, I have found that oil in the bread seems to make both a
finer crumb, and a more.. mmm.. "cake-y" texture (but not crumbly).
Softer, and keeps better, but does not have that chewiness I prefer.
Around here it does *not* last long, even though the majority of the
household are sourdough fans (even with peanut butter ew!). Much more
like a commercial bread.
Marina
Mike Avery
>I can only offer that, much to my dismay, I have learned from my mother
>(an R.D.) and another dietician friend of hers that coconut oil is THE
>most saturated fat that exists. Even more saturated than lard! Eck..
>I LOVE coconut, but must also watch my HDL/LDL/Triglyceride levels
>carefully.
>
Personally, I only use olive oil. A light olive oil if I don't want the
olive-y taste, a stronger one if I want the rich taste.
I keep hearing horror stories about canola oil (rape seed oil), and I'm
not that happy with other oils. So, olive it is. Maybe it's the
neo-luddite in me. I figure if people have been eating olive oil for
thousands of years, it's OK.
Mike
Seamaiden
heart attack. While my father's levels are in the low 100's, mine can
*easily* rise up over 200 (and that was first discovered around age
25). I plan on living a VERY long time. I also happen to LOVE the
taste of olive oil, but I just don't like it in my bread dough. I use
it to help clean out those arteries. There are other monounsaturated
fats that can do the same thing, but NONE taste as good.
What we do love around here is the Italian method of dipping into an
olive oil/balsamic mixture (even our stepdaughter, most finicky kid I
have ever seen, can't get enough of it).
I still love coconut - the flesh, the water, milk, pasteles made con
yucca y coconut milk oh lord... Buen provecho!
Mike Avery
>I rely on it for health reasons. My paternal grandfather died at 42 of
>heart attack. While my father's levels are in the low 100's, mine can
>*easily* rise up over 200 (and that was first discovered around age
>25). I plan on living a VERY long time. I also happen to LOVE the
>taste of olive oil, but I just don't like it in my bread dough.
>
Light olive oils are almost tasteless. I use them for health reasons
for everything I use oil for... except shortening, which is rare in any
case. Normally, my cholesterol is in the 130 range. Lately, I've been
using a press-pot to make coffee, and it's climbing. So, it's back to a
drip pot. (Oddly enough, unfiltered coffee seems to raise cholesterol,
even though it has none in it.)
>What we do love around here is the Italian method of dipping into an
>olive oil/balsamic mixture (even our stepdaughter, most finicky kid I
>have ever seen, can't get enough of it).
>
>
Heh, heh... some herbs and a grind of mixed peppers make it even better.
>I still love coconut - the flesh, the water, milk, pasteles made con
>yucca y coconut milk oh lord... Buen provecho!
>
I think coconut's OK, but never really got off to it. As I sometimes
say, "that's why Baskin Robbins makes 32 flavors".
Mike
Mike Stancliff
> Light olive oils are almost tasteless. I use them for health reasons
> for everything I use oil for... except shortening, which is rare in any
> case. Normally, my cholesterol is in the 130 range. Lately, I've been
> using a press-pot to make coffee, and it's climbing. So, it's back to a
> drip pot. (Oddly enough, unfiltered coffee seems to raise cholesterol,
> even though it has none in it.)
That's because there are two substances in coffee beans - cafestol and
kahweol - which can cause cholesterol levels to rise. These substances
are absorbed by paper filters, so filtered coffee does not raise
cholesterol levels as much as non-filtered (press-pot) coffee. And
apparently it doesn't make any difference if it's decaf. For a more
detailed article (with references) check out
http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/2004nl/040700pucoffee.htm
Fortunately (for me) I've never been tempted to put coffee in my bread.
But my bread does go so well with my coffee... :-)
Mike
Dusty Bleher
news:1114531839.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I can only offer that, much to my dismay, I have learned from my mother
> (an R.D.) and another dietician friend of hers that coconut oil is THE
> most saturated fat that exists. Even more saturated than lard! Eck..
fats have on the human organism.
> I LOVE coconut, but must also watch my HDL/LDL/Triglyceride levels
> carefully.
Seamaiden, if you'll do a bit of research, you'll find that this just ain't
so. There's only a superficial relationship between INGESTED fats & oils,
and serum cholesterol; with the worst culprit being (modern, factory
processed--not the old-fashioned stirred kind) HOMOGENIZED milk. Your liver
manufactures almost all of the lipids that contribute to arterial plaque.
And it does this using primarily using it's own favorite food/feedstock:
carbohydrates (cuz the process is the easiest to do).
It's one of those dietary myths that started in the '70's, gave rise to the
"low-fat" hysteria, and now just seems to have found a life of its own.
Yes. A "fat cell" contains "fat". But not a single atom of that comes from
the fats & oils you've eaten. It all comes from sugars (in it's various and
sundry chemical forms) and is "saved" there to become a convenient, portable
energy source. Carbohydrates can ONLY be used by the body for energy. You
can't grow so much as a single cell of bone, muscle, nerves, connective
tissue, or brains. ONLY fats & proteins can be used for body building and
repair--with the fatty acids being the primary "building material".
Before "modernization" most Eskimo's lived on 100% fats and meats--sans
carbs of any kind for most of the year. None were ever known to have had
any of the heart or circulatory diseases. Now, with ready access to
"modern" food, the obesity and disease among those peoples rivals any of the
other worst locals around the world. But hey! As just a stick-dumb
researcher, what could I possibly know. And as always, in medical matters,
YMMV...
Now, go out and enjoy a nice warm (albeit thin) slice of your fresh bread
with a good slathering of butter and a sprinkling of garlic chips...(:-o)!
Dusty
...
Dusty Bleher
news:mailman.10.1114534988.6...@mail.otherwhen.com...
...
> Light olive oils are almost tasteless. I use them for health reasons for
> everything I use oil for... except shortening, which is rare in any
> case. Normally, my cholesterol is in the 130 range. Lately, I've been
> using a press-pot to make coffee, and it's climbing. So, it's back to a
> drip pot. (Oddly enough, unfiltered coffee seems to raise cholesterol,
> even though it has none in it.)
The exact mechanism seems to have faded into a time-fed haze. But the short
version is that some of the alkaloids in the coffee mimic the effects of
insulin, and causes fat cells to release their load of sugars back into the
blood (it makes the body think you're hungry and running out of sustenance).
There the liver happily goes about churning out cholesterol from those
sugars. Sabotaged by your own organs...there ought'a be a law...
...
> Heh, heh... some herbs and a grind of mixed peppers make it even better.
Dipping warm, freshly torn SD into a mix of OO; crushed, fresh garlic; and a
dash of balsamic vinegar makes my day...
Later all,
Dusty
...
Dick Adams
"Dusty Bleher" <bake...@innerlodge.com> wrote in message news:116td5d...@corp.supernews.com...
> Before "modernization" most Eskimo's lived on 100% fats and meats--sans
> carbs of any kind for most of the year. None were ever known to have had
> any of the heart or circulatory diseases.
So, in the end, what do you suppose took 'em? Who would have known? And
how?
> Carbohydrates can ONLY be used by the body for energy ... ONLY fats
> & proteins can be used for body building and repair ...
It's been a long time, but it never seemed that simple to me. Where are you
getting your information? From Atkins maybe?
What do you suppose took him?
--
DickA
Roy
>kahweol - which can cause cholesterol levels to rise. These substances
>are absorbed by paper filters, so filtered coffee does not raise
>cholesterol levels as much as non-filtered (press-pot) coffee. And
>apparently it doesn't make any difference if it's decaf. For a more
>detailed article (with references) check out
>http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/2004nl/040700pucoffee.htm
>Fortunately (for me) I've never been tempted to put coffee in my
bread.
>But my bread does go so well with my coffee... :-)
Mike from the research paper only the Cafestrol is the culprit but the
kahweol was not.
There are more details here about that issue:
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/7
Roy
Dusty Bleher
"Dick Adams" <bad....@nonexist.com> wrote in message
news:DDDbe.132291$cg1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Dusty Bleher" <bake...@innerlodge.com> wrote in message
news:116td5d...@corp.supernews.com...
> Before "modernization" most Eskimo's lived on 100% fats and meats--sans
> carbs of any kind for most of the year. None were ever known to have had
> any of the heart or circulatory diseases.
So, in the end, what do you suppose took 'em? Who would have known? And
how?
[Old age? Their oral records backed up by disinterments and direct
examinations? Why? Finding that hard to believe? You don't have to.
Although there are not many left, they've been studying surviving folks as
recently as the late '70's... (IIRC)]
> Carbohydrates can ONLY be used by the body for energy ... ONLY fats
> & proteins can be used for body building and repair ...
It's been a long time, but it never seemed that simple to me. Where are you
[It is that simple, unless of course you wanna get into the details of
inter-mitochondrial processes via the citric/Krebs (TCA) cycle. For an
overview, you can download and peruse
http://chemistry.gsu.edu/glactone/PDB/Proteins/Krebs/Krebs.html for more
details. This drawing snips out a tiny bit of much larger Metabolic
Pathways picture below.]
getting your information? From Atkins maybe?
[Not likely. But if I was, would it of necessity be wrong? Carbs, in a
half-dozen different incantations as various type of sugars, can only be
used by the body as fuel. That has little or nothing to do with
genuflecting in the direction of Dr. Atkin's grave...and everything to do
with how the body uses fuel.
You can begin your own journey to enlightenment here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=stryer.section.4310. There
are zillions of references, some better than others. I thought I had a
close, succinct list, but can't seem to locate it at the moment. I guess
that with some 200,000 favorites I'm likely to have "misplaced" a few. On
top of which, many seem to be invalid now. Gimme a few moments...and I
should be able to find 'em.]
[In the interim
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/img/assets/4202/MetabolicPathways_6_17_04_.pdf,
while a bit busy, is an excellent albeit a bit simplistic resource for the
various pathways of the processes involved. I thought I had one bookmarked
that better isolated the citric and krebs cycles (the two most important),
but that too seems to have flown the coup <big sigh!>. Be aware that some
version of "CHIME" may be required for some of those links that I've
presented.
The citric cycle works pretty well inside of cellular mitochondria, but it's
at the root cause of us emitting CO2 (just don't let the GW nitwits hear you
say that) and converting fuel to energy. Here's a more schematic
reproduction: http://wine1.sb.fsu.edu/krebs/krebs.htm ]
What do you suppose took him?
[Old age. A fall. The press of years. Why? Have something else in mind
do you?]
[Later all,
Dusty]
--
DickA
Mike Stancliff
Cool... I am constantly astounded at the breadth of knowledge in this
group. The study you cited was published the week after the paper I
cited was published!
MIke
Dick Adams
"Dusty Bleher" <bake...@innerlodge.com> wrote in message news:116ua3s...@corp.supernews.com...
> ... For an overview, you can download and peruse:
> http://chemistry.gsu.edu/glactone/PDB/Proteins/Krebs/Krebs.html ...
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=stryer.section.4310 ...
> http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/img/assets/4202/MetabolicPathways_6_17_04_.pdf ...
> http://wine1.sb.fsu.edu/krebs/krebs.htm ...
Well, actually, I use a chart. When anything biochemical comes up,
I simply gesture in its direction, and say "there!"
http://www.expasy.org/cgi-bin/show%5Fthumbnails.pl
For years I tried to keep up to date on biochemistry by ordering,
every few years, an updated copy of _Harper's Review of Biochemistry_.
(Now it is called _Harper's Illustrated Biochemistry_). Of course, waving
at a long line of paperback books on a shelf does not convey so much
authority as the large wall chart, but I do not think that the chart is available
anymore.
> Carbs, in a half-dozen different incantations as various type
> of sugars, can only be used by the body as fuel.
I am glad to hear that bread cannot make you fat. (Biochemistrywise,
what is an "incantation"?)
> You can begin your own journey to enlightenment here ...
Too old to start all over again.
> > What do you suppose took (Atkins)?
> Old age. A fall. The press of years. Why? Have something else in mind
> do you?
Yeah, I'd guess vascular disease, in one way or another. I'd guess that also
for many of the ancient Eskimos, but possibly at 100+ years, and possibly
accelerated by being pushed out to sea on ice floes.
Sometimes, Dusty, you remind me a bit of Roy.
--
DickA
Seamaiden
different lipid levels in my blood? Look, if you're a doc, I'm in
need, we-all ain't a-got many o' them thar docters 'round here.
(J/K..! well, not about the lack of doctors, et al, up here.)
I think you've pulled more from my statements than was actually there.
Having family in the health industry, and frequently having such
discussions with them, means that I have done at least a bit of
research (all my life, honestly), do know *of* the latest/newest, etc.,
but don't buy into it til I get a better consensus. A LOT of research
is skewed (such as using only men in a given group to study an issue
that affects both the sexes), as are statistics. I feel many folks
don't examine closely what a given result is or - just as importantly -
*isn't* saying, nor do they examine the "hows" (How did they get
there?). I'm not saying this is what you do, but I do believe that
you've made some incorrect extrapolations based on my few statements.
Or (is it more likely that..) are you extrapolating something else from
my statement? Is it your assertion is that the carbohydrates I consume
are only *used* for fuel, and not *stored* as fuel (fat)? And are you
(as I understand you) asserting that I don't need to worry about
incorporating monounsaturated fats into my diet in order to lower
certain types of cholesterol (as well as no need for me to worry about
saturated fats)? I wonder why it's been working for all these years...
I do understand what you are saying about serum cholesterol, but I am
hesitant to throw all caution to the wind and say "BUTTER! BUTTER!
GIVE ME MORE LARD! SEND IN THE BACON!"
I figure that my ancestry is mainly Mediterranean, and on one side of
the family I have some "long life" genes, I incorporate into my diet
what they did, and include many more whole grains (as a result of other
research). I will not, however, incorporate more saturated fats
WITHOUT incorporating more monounsaturated fats. So far, thusly, I
manage, with my current "diet" (hateHATE that word!) to keep the
aforementioned in relatively good balance. However, no one can deny
that fats pack a whole LOTTA calories, and if I need to watch my
weight, which I do, then what sense does it make to add more calories
without adding nutrients? I'd rather take the calories in other forms,
along with fat, yes, I'm aware of the role fats play in our brainses,
nervous system, et al.
I think you would agree that there are actually a whole HOST of factors
that go into producing heart disease, cancer, and that plethora of
(relatively) new human health issues associated with "bad" and "good"
cholesterol levels, et al. Genetics plays no small part, for instance.
Then, of course, there's the issue of types of
carbohydrates/fats/proteins, whole vs. processed grains, etc.
I don't, however, think that anyone can accurately compare those
populations that have quite literally evolved to assimilate particular
dietary components (such as milk, particular types of carbohydrates,
or.. eck.. seal fat), extreme diets in some cases to be sure, to those
who have come from other backgrounds. I may be way off base, but it
just doesn't push water with me to think "Oh, if an ESKIMO can/should
do such-and-thus, so should I". Gross over-generalization to me.
In the meantime! Life post-fruit flies.. means less protein, eh? ;-)
Will
> In the meantime! Life post-fruit flies.. means less protein, eh? ;-)
Well, not exactly... I still have to add gluten to deal with my crummy spelt
problem.
Will
>
> _______________________________________________
> rec.food.sourdough mailing list
> rec.food....@mail.otherwhen.com
> http://www.otherwhen.com/mailman/listinfo/rec.food.sourdough
Dusty Bleher
...
Well, actually, I use a chart. When anything biochemical comes up,
I simply gesture in its direction, and say "there!"
http://www.expasy.org/cgi-bin/show%5Fthumbnails.pl
[Heh! Heh! Yep. That's the same thing I do. This link:
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/img/assets/4202/MetabolicPathways_6_17_04_.pdf
is the one I use, cuz it too gives me a chart. And makes following the
various processes easier. While I generally abhore .PDF files, at least I
can expand it so that I can read it.
Your chart looks interesting, so I'm going to give it a bit of study a bit
later. I've not yet been able to expand it (to where I can read it), but
hope to solve that little hurdle soon... Thanks for posting it.]
For years I tried to keep up to date on biochemistry by ordering,
every few years, an updated copy of _Harper's Review of Biochemistry_.
(Now it is called _Harper's Illustrated Biochemistry_). Of course, waving
at a long line of paperback books on a shelf does not convey so much
authority as the large wall chart, but I do not think that the chart is
available
anymore.
[Yep. Same one I use. I think the current release is the 26th edition. Oh
drat! I just tried my Harpers logon...and it bounced. Looks like I'm gonna
hafta cough up another $70 bux and sign up for another year. <big $igh!>]
> Carbs, in a half-dozen different incantations as various type
> of sugars, can only be used by the body as fuel.
I am glad to hear that bread cannot make you fat. (Biochemistrywise,
[Hu? Bread is almost all carbs. That's why I bake SD. Using SD and
carefully selecting the species and grind of the grains, one can reduce your
carbs/slice load by 50% or more. And no, I can't "prove" that--although I
did read it somewhere, once. I know how to do (and have done) calorimeter
measurements, but haven't yet figured out how to do a home-based carb
valuation. So far, it seems to take a lot of fancy equipment and even then
it's done indirectly, by a process of elimination. <another big sigh!>]
what is an "incantation"?)
[in·can·ta·tion (īn´kąn-tā¹shen) noun
1. Ritual recitation of verbal charms or spells to produce a magic
effect.
2. a. A formula used in ritual recitation; a verbal charm or spell. b. A
conventionalized utterance repeated without thought or aptness; a formula:
the pious incantations of the administration.]
[By that I meant all of the various forms of carbohydrates/sugars:
monosaccharides, glucose, fructose; disaccharides, sucrose, lactose;
polysaccharides; etc. ... There are many, and I don't now exactly how all
of them act/react.]
> You can begin your own journey to enlightenment here ...
Too old to start all over again.
[Hardly! One is never too old to follow an interesting path...]
> > What do you suppose took (Atkins)?
> Old age. A fall. The press of years. Why? Have something else in mind
> do you?
Yeah, I'd guess vascular disease, in one way or another. I'd guess that
also
for many of the ancient Eskimos, but possibly at 100+ years, and possibly
accelerated by being pushed out to sea on ice floes.
[Donno that there's any basis to that, except in minds of the anti-anti-carb
crowd. Best info sez that he died. And unless I miss my guess, we're all
gonna follow that path one day...I just intend to put it off as long as I
can...(:-o)!]
Sometimes, Dusty, you remind me a bit of Roy.
[Why thank you. I consider Roy a wise and level-headed guy. He brings a
lot of practical, real-world experience to this group, and I for one
appreciate it...]
L8r all,
Dusty
Dusty Bleher
"Seamaiden" <mach_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114616823.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I'll find that what "just ain't so", Dusty? That I have to watch these
> different lipid levels in my blood? Look, if you're a doc, I'm in
> need, we-all ain't a-got many o' them thar docters 'round here.
> (J/K..! well, not about the lack of doctors, et al, up here.)
Um, so sorry, "Seamaiden". I wasn't trying to convert or redirect you at
all. Just to expose you to a few new wrinkles in the dietary sciences.
And, as I said, you should always balance what you hear by what you know,
and what those you pay to know for you (doctors come to mind) think they
know.
> I think you've pulled more from my statements than was actually there.
Sorry. That wasn't intended. Since you've left nothing of the original
post for analysis, I'm at a loss as to what "statements" you feel I've
ravished in that manner.
> Having family in the health industry, and frequently having such
As do I.
> discussions with them, means that I have done at least a bit of
> research (all my life, honestly), do know *of* the latest/newest, etc.,
> but don't buy into it til I get a better consensus. A LOT of research
> is skewed (such as using only men in a given group to study an issue
> that affects both the sexes), as are statistics. I feel many folks
> don't examine closely what a given result is or - just as importantly -
> *isn't* saying, nor do they examine the "hows" (How did they get
> there?). I'm not saying this is what you do, but I do believe that
> you've made some incorrect extrapolations based on my few statements.
Then itemize them and challenge me to support them. Simply saying that I've
made incorrect extrapolations isn't exactly being very specific.
Given that I have medicos in the family as well, I'm neither intimidated nor
impressed by them. For years doctors have been telling us that we need to
eat less fat and more carbs. Don't take my word for anything, ask your "...
family in the health industry ..." member(s) to give you the title or a link
to any peer-reviewed document in any medical journal that supports that
position. I did. And got nada from them. As it turns out, these arbitrary
assessments that dietary fats are bad for you were just that, arbitrary.
The old "food pyramid" that the docs were always beating me over the head
with were made from the studies done right after WWII on military soldiers
and collegiate athletes. Why? Because they had a pool of healthy, active
folks whose diets and activities they could observe and accurately monitor.
And based upon their "study", we should all eat what they did, in order to
be like healthy young adults. Did it work? I donno. I'm not in the
service any more, nor am I an elite athlete (no matter what I may think)
Why don't you take a walk down the streets of your town and see for
yourself. Certainly you shouldn't take my word for it...
A reporter covering a senate hearing came up with the a misstatement of
something that was said. And spawned the "low-fat" movement. Keep walking
and looking at the folks on the side-walk. Since I don't know how old you
are, I can't say that you might reflect that nothing good has happened to
American waist lines in the last 30-years. I can. And none of it was good.
It wasn't until the late '80's that I got a chance to return to and visit
the land of my birth and family that I'd left more than 40 years earlier.
By that time I'd bought into the whole eat "low-fat" and "eat more carbs"
herd mentality. I was an accomplished, expert even, low-fat/high carbs
cook. I skied, mountain bike, kayaked, ran, and yet I continued to pack on
the pounds. Then I visited my long-unseen family in Europe. Guess what?
They all looked like I remembered looking: Fit and thin!
Yet they ate wonderful fatty sausages, salt, butter, eggs, pork-chops,
cream; all of the things we sheep had been drilled to avoid like the
plague--for our own "good", of course. I was aghast at what I was seeing
them eat. I left there knowing that they had one foot in their grave, and
were raising the other in order to jump in directly. Then a funny thing
happened. In my conversations (via fax in those days...(:-o)!) one of them
challenged me on my view that they were eating and living in an unhealthy
way. So, in order to "stick-it-to-him" I did the research to find out what
studies supported my LF/HC dietary adaptation. And surprise, surprise.
There ain't one! Not anywhere! And I have access to all of the major
medical research centers.
The body can get along perfectly well on an all-fat, meat, and protein diet.
The MDR (Minimum Daily Requirement) for carbs is ZERO. That's not true for
fats, oils, and proteins. Ever wonder why in this great country of ours, so
many of our young boys are being designated ADD/ADHT? Go to any country in
Europe. It's an unknown malady over there. So, is it the water? The
distance? Bloodlines? Turns out it's what the brain does when it doesn't
get enough Omega oils (fish & flax oil will do nicely). Gee, I wonder how
that came about, and why it's only over here that our young men suffer from
such a malady. Maybe the folks here can't put it together, but I don't need
to be beaten with the idiot stick too awfully many times before I "get it."
Usually once or twice is enough.
And I'd had enough. No more being a good little sheep. No more taking a
doctors word as gospel. I challenge every word they tell me, and make 'em
support them. Go ahead, for those of you on hypertensive control
medication, you're probably also told to restrict or eliminate salt from
your diet. And true enough, most Americans do consume too much salt. But
there's NO study that supports the salt(in "normal" quantities)=bad BP
results. Lots of opinion pieces, mind you. But nothing factual (at least
not when and where I was looking when I last went through that drill--always
be wary of false or incomplete statements, even mine).
> Or (is it more likely that..) are you extrapolating something else from
> my statement? Is it your assertion is that the carbohydrates I consume
> are only *used* for fuel, and not *stored* as fuel (fat)? And are you
No. That's not what I said. I am often guilty of too simply presenting
things. With my good friend "Dick A" I might be tempted to get into the
technical nitty-gritty of the details. But for just general consumption
here, in a relatively non-technical (in a human physiology sense) NG, I
intentionally kept it simple.
While it's more complex then I'm letting on, here's the simplistic version:
* All of the carbohydrates you eat (except the fibrous components) is
treated and used by the body as SUGAR. Potato, rice, bread, pasta, beans,
and so on...to the body chemistry it's just another form of SUGAR,
* These various sugars (and there are many) are used for fuel. Energy.
Motility. Working your muscles and making you go places and do things.
They do not participate in the building of the body. That's the province of
fatty acids, proteins, lipids and other such materials.
* Those sugars that aren't immediately used or stored in your liver and
muscles; are bound, with the help of a molecule of insulin, into a fat cell.
* The fats we've come to so loath, are what primarily builds and repairs
your body parts (again, with help from other components).
* These fats can not effectively be stored. They are used or eliminated.
* The various lipids and cholesterols in your blood are only influenced by
your diet in a minor manner. The vast majority of them are manufactured by
your own liver...from it's favorite feedstock, glucose (i.e. sugars as
described above)
It bears repeating, that the preceding statements are a simplistic overview
of how the body functions. In reality, our body is a marvelous and
exuberantly complex mechanism. There is a nearly incomprehensible variety
or alternates for most functions. So the statements are not all 100%
accurate 100% of the time. But they are the primary venues of how the body
operates. And well close and clear enough for discussion at our level.
> (as I understand you) asserting that I don't need to worry about
> incorporating monounsaturated fats into my diet in order to lower
> certain types of cholesterol (as well as no need for me to worry about
> saturated fats)? I wonder why it's been working for all these years...
I didn't say that and I don't know what does, is, or will "work" for you. I
said the body handles things in certain ways. That implies a working,
functioning, relatively "normal" carcass. I can't possibly divine for you
what you need to do today, in a corrective sense, for things you've imposed
upon your body over years passed.
Clearly if you're grossly over weight, sedentary, or a diabetic (as well as
a smorgasbord of other possibilities); then other rules apply. That's what
you use doctors for.
> I do understand what you are saying about serum cholesterol, but I am
> hesitant to throw all caution to the wind and say "BUTTER! BUTTER!
> GIVE ME MORE LARD! SEND IN THE BACON!"
You of course are charged to handle your case and condition as you will.
But as for me, I found that lard makes wonderful, fluffy, tasty biscuits,
butter fries a yummy egg, and bacon back on a BLT is so-o-o much better than
those stupid soy-based, artificially flavored bits of crap that we used to
eat. And on top of that, besides enjoying real food again, I've lost 35
lbs; my blood chemistry is near perfect (although I'm remiss in not having
it checked for a couple of years) and we're more active now than we were a
decade ago. But hey! Like I continue to say: YMMV!
> I figure that my ancestry is mainly Mediterranean, and on one side of
> the family I have some "long life" genes, I incorporate into my diet
Always a good thing! And probably more important that most anything else
being discussed here.
> what they did, and include many more whole grains (as a result of other
> research). I will not, however, incorporate more saturated fats
Same thing I did. And although "better", it's not yet "best."
> WITHOUT incorporating more monounsaturated fats. So far, thusly, I
> manage, with my current "diet" (hateHATE that word!) to keep the
I'm with ya on my distain for that word...(:-o)!
> aforementioned in relatively good balance. However, no one can deny
> that fats pack a whole LOTTA calories, and if I need to watch my
> weight, which I do, then what sense does it make to add more calories
That they do. Keep in mind that I'm not advocating lots of calories.
In its simplest form; weight = (calories_in - calories_out); applied over
time. You can't run amok and eat lots of high-calorie foods. But, you have
to be smart. Eating lots of high-cal carbs, is worse than lots of high-cal
fats (which, in round numbers, are all "high-cal"). Cuz the carbs are
turned to sugar and stored--an EASY thing to do, and the fats are either not
used (means they "slide" right on through....(:-o)!) or if digested, are
broken down and eliminated.
Here's another thing for you to think about. Since the advent of the
"low-fat" eating craze in this country, the number of bile and gall-bladder
related disease surgeries has skyrocketed (I wuz gonna dazzle you with the
numbers, but can't seem to locate my notes on that issue). Given that you
got a basic understanding of the function of that organ from your
high-school biology, what do you think is behind that? More carbs in
today's diet, or not enough fats?
> without adding nutrients? I'd rather take the calories in other forms,
> along with fat, yes, I'm aware of the role fats play in our brainses,
> nervous system, et al.
Good!
> I think you would agree that there are actually a whole HOST of factors
> that go into producing heart disease, cancer, and that plethora of
Oh absolutely! You'll get not argument from me on that...
> (relatively) new human health issues associated with "bad" and "good"
> cholesterol levels, et al. Genetics plays no small part, for instance.
> Then, of course, there's the issue of types of
> carbohydrates/fats/proteins, whole vs. processed grains, etc.
Actually, not much of an issue.
> I don't, however, think that anyone can accurately compare those
> populations that have quite literally evolved to assimilate particular
> dietary components (such as milk, particular types of carbohydrates,
> or.. eck.. seal fat), extreme diets in some cases to be sure, to those
> who have come from other backgrounds. I may be way off base, but it
> just doesn't push water with me to think "Oh, if an ESKIMO can/should
> do such-and-thus, so should I". Gross over-generalization to me.
You are (off-base). Here, it's a bit dated, but this link might shed some
light on things for you: http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm. This
article describes his living and eating with the Eskimos. He found that
with them and others, that ethnicity had nothing to do with their diet.
And, when you think about it, on an evolutionary scale, our species hasn't
had a chance to evolve to conform to our varied dietary considerations.
It's only been 8-10,000 years since we learned to pick wheat and make bread.
And I'd submit that this period is a nano-second when applied to the
millions of years that have conspired to evolve our dietary needs.
BTW, when I was in Norway (many years ago) I had the occasion to eat some
whale blubber. It's not all what you might think it looks, tastes, and
feels like. It was pretty good--then again, I was damned hungry at the time
as well...(:-o)!
>
> In the meantime! Life post-fruit flies.. means less protein, eh? ;-)
>
Actually, "Time files like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana..."
Later all,
Dusty
San Jose
Charles Perry
Dick Adams and others wrote a lot:
>
>
Holy crap! Not only is the thread straying well off topic, the
immoderator is egging them on.
very little irritates me as much as talk about organic and bio
chemistry. Those subjects seriously interferered with my
drinking in school. Not only did the need to study cut into
party time, I could not show up hung over for tests. All in all
it was just about as bad as that 7:00 AM math class.
About nutrition. Maybe 90 years ago, my mother took a college
semesters worth of nutrition. She boiled down the wisdom gained
from those studies to a single phrase; "variety and moderation."
Despite a lifetime of association with the food business, I have
yet to hear better advice. I have enough trouble with the
moderation part without worrying about the latest junk science
scare.
There doesn't seem to be a shortage of people offering advice
that always turns out to be on the order of , " if it tastes good
, don't eat it." Absent a serious medical problem, I say go with
your built in taster. It has been around a lot longer than the
"public interest" advisors. I suspect that many of them are just
trying to drum up lawsuit business.
If your sourdough starter does not draw fruit flies in the
summer, you are living in too sterile an environment or your
starter is no good.
Regards,
Charles
--
Charles Perry
Reply to: che...@aol.com
** A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand **
Dick Adams
"Charles Perry" <che...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message news:426FEAF5...@NOSPAM.com...
> Holy crap! Not only is the thread straying well off topic, the
> immoderator is egging them on.
The Immoderator -- are you having trouble finding your caps key?
I was simply applying the device of *argumentum ad adsurdum* in an
endeavor to counter a developing adverse trend. Unfortunately my evil
intent was repelled by a display of good naturedness. There is no way such
things can be anticipated.
> Absent a serious medical problem, I say go with
> your built in taster. It has been around a lot longer than the
> "public interest" advisors.
Do you refer to the Pyramid People?
--
DickA
Seamaiden
hijack this thread any further, as those fruity flies are pretty
interesting little fellers in their own right), I think part of the rub
lies in the fact that too many folks rely on DOCTORS and magazines to
tell them about nutrition. It seems we agree on that point, yeah? My
mother (the dietician, avec master's), brought my sisters and I up
listening to her tell our father (the doctor) not to EVER listen to
doctors about nutrition. They don't know "their asses from a hole in
the ground" (her words, now mine). Dusty, I'm sorry, but.. well.. what
you say is stuff I've heard before, for at least a few years now that I
think about it. Oh, I am not ashamed to admit my own age, either, I've
recently turned 41 (thusly, have been exposed to what I believe are my
fair share of "wrinkles"). If you would like to know a wee bit more
about me, you can look here:
http://www.wetwebmedia.com/WWMAdminSubWebIndex/wwmcrew.htm (Scroll down
to Marina)
The extrapolation(s) I think you erroneously made was assuming that I
am touting "low-fat". I am not/did not. I also wondered about your
assertion that *type* of fats having little/no effect(s).
>The body can get along perfectly well on an all-fat, meat, and protein
diet.
The MDR (Minimum Daily Requirement) for carbs is ZERO. That's not true
for
fats, oils, and proteins.
In my many conversations with my mother on the subject, this is an
erroneous statement, and in her opinion is downright *dangerous* to
make such a broad, sweeping statement. You are asserting that anyone
can be perfectly healthy eliminating entire food groups from their
diet. Also, am curious as to why you would cite MDR on one hand, while
clearly disavowing it on the other. The study you cited (re: WWII
soldiers) is a perfect example of the bias in studies I mentioned as
well. "For how long can the human body get along perfectly well on
such a diet?" is her first question. She feels, and I agree, that the
jury is still out, that this is too extreme.
I think it's silly for healthy people to have to look at a chart to
understand that "semester's worth" of nutritional wisdom - variety, and
MODERATION. Too simple. I also think it's silly that people can't
wrap their minds around NOT consuming too much of anything - FOOD.
I feel a "Foamy Rant" coming on...
http://scarysquirrel.home.comcast.net/fatkins1.html (WARNING! Bad
words ensue, Not Necessarily Safe For Work... depending on where you
work.)
Won't hijack any further, but would go so far as to say that I open new
tabs to reread what I'm responding to, and reiterate - no extreme is
good for our health (or really, in any other area I can think of). I
also have this "push/pull" relationship with thread hijackings. My
apologies for participating.. nay! Spurring the hijack, yes, it was
me. I didn't mean to, honestly, it's just that a couple of thoughts
popped into my head (I am ADD, yet never wanted for fatty foods,
especially fish, as a child), and off I went. Coconut vs. olive oil.
Sorry!
Marina (whose name *means* "seamaiden" in Latin/Greek)
Dick Adams
"Seamaiden" <mach_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1114699437.7...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> [ ... ]
> I am ADD ...
Is that the one where you cannot remember at the end what
you had in mind at the start?
That puts you in the majority, for r.f.s. posters.
Well, here is a little trick you may find helpful. Start with a line, annotated
with the ">" symbol, as above, from the referenced post, to which you intend
to give you attention. Then, if you forget where you are going, you can
always scroll up an take another look. That is also useful to the reader, who
may be trying to figure out what you are talking about.
It is also useful to give the news ID, as above, of the referenced post. Most
newsreader apps can be set to do that automatically. Clicking on the news ID
should bring back the referenced post, or can be used to find it in the Google
archive once it has decayed from your news server. So, if you have forgotten
everything altogether, you can start again from the beginning.
> Marina (whose name *means* "seamaiden" in Latin/Greek)
Actually, it is where they keep their yachts and sailboats, the ones who go shop
for 5 lbs of rustic flour in their SUVs.
--
Dick Adams
<firstname> dot <lastname> at bigfoot dot com
___________________
Sourdough FAQ guide at
http://www.nyx.net/~dgreenw/sourdoughfaqs.html
Don't miss
http://www.nyx.net/~dgreenw/newcomertips.html
Seamaiden
>Is that the one where you cannot remember at the end what you had in
mind at the start?
Heh, something like that, although for ME it manifests much more
significantly as having too much going through the head at one time,
rather.. mm.. "tangential" thought, you see. Free form, let it flow
kind of thing. It's also got to include that ability to hyperfocus.
When it comes to threads and responses, I almost always just open up a
new tab, works as well for me, without having to clutter everything.
Then again, this ability to hide/show quoted text is completely new to
me, too. LORD I love learning new things!
> > Marina (whose name *means* "seamaiden" in Latin/Greek)
>Actually, it is where they keep their yachts and sailboats, the ones
who go shop for 5 lbs of rustic flour in their SUVs.
O! What a *dry* (and wry.. or is that rye?) sense of humor. Thusly,
you would join those of the deserts who call me "BoatDock".
I really do need to get a better handle around this newsgroup thing, I
appreciate your tips. Except.. link (news ID) no worky, mate. Been
hitting those things for the past couple of days, so I'm assuming at
this point it's a matter of Google getting it archived, however that
happens?
Brian Mailman
>>> I am ADD ...<<
>
>>Is that the one where you cannot remember at the end what you had in
> mind at the start?
>
> Heh, something like that, although for ME it manifests much more
> significantly as having too much going through the head at one time,
> rather.. mm.. "tangential" thought, you see.
then usenet is a good medium for you. you can type up a message, and
then save it as a draft to look at later to trim out all the extraneous
material to focus your point. you can even edit a message several times
before hitting send.
b/
Dusty Bleher
"Seamaiden" <mach_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114699437.7...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Without having the time at the moment to go into greater detail (or
> hijack this thread any further, as those fruity flies are pretty
Don't worry about thread hijacking in this group. Conversations can and
often do range far afield. That is, after all, the beauty of groups like
this. Stick around a while, and you'll see that they're, for the most part,
a disciplined and considerate lot (except perhaps for myself...(:-o)!).
> interesting little fellers in their own right), I think part of the rub
> lies in the fact that too many folks rely on DOCTORS and magazines to
> tell them about nutrition. It seems we agree on that point, yeah? My
Absolutely! That's about as "spot-on" a statement as one can make.
> mother (the dietician, avec master's), brought my sisters and I up
> listening to her tell our father (the doctor) not to EVER listen to
> doctors about nutrition. They don't know "their asses from a hole in
> the ground" (her words, now mine). Dusty, I'm sorry, but.. well.. what
Heh. Heh. Heh. I've never met her, and already like your mother a lot!
> you say is stuff I've heard before, for at least a few years now that I
So then little that's discussed here should be new to you...?
> think about it. Oh, I am not ashamed to admit my own age, either, I've
> recently turned 41 (thusly, have been exposed to what I believe are my
> fair share of "wrinkles"). If you would like to know a wee bit more
Congratulations, milady.
...
> The extrapolation(s) I think you erroneously made was assuming that I
> am touting "low-fat". I am not/did not. I also wondered about your
Please let me take a moment to correct you. I. Did. Not. It seems that
it was you that made that "assumption." I was merely pointing out that
we've become indoctrinated by wrong (but correct seemingly logical)
assertions. The "low-fat" rage among them. I did not either say or assume
that of you.
> assertion that *type* of fats having little/no effect(s).
Since I'm on a roll, please allow me to correct you here as well. I did
*not* say that, you assumed that as well. I said that in general, fats and
oils aren't the villains they've been made out to be. There are indeed fats
that aren't good for you. Any of the hydrogenated fats come to mind. If
you are indeed as (gracefully) old as you say (and I'm assuming that to be
true), then I'm sure you can remember the advertising attack put on by the
margarine manufacturers about how much better they were for us than butter.
Some folks knew then that this was BS. But the general population drifted
towards margarine. It was, and continues to be, BS! Yet tons of that
poison continue to be manufactured daily...
>>The body can get along perfectly well on an all-fat, meat, and protein
> diet.
> The MDR (Minimum Daily Requirement) for carbs is ZERO. That's not true
> for
> fats, oils, and proteins.
>
> In my many conversations with my mother on the subject, this is an
> erroneous statement, and in her opinion is downright *dangerous* to
> make such a broad, sweeping statement.
While I agree with you about "broad, sweeping statement(s)", I regret to
have to be the one to inform you that your mother is sadly misinformed.
One of the great things about living in this country is that anyone can hold
and espouse an opinion--not matter how unfounded, incorrect, or even
blatently wrong it may be. I work diligently at not being at the mercy of
another's "opinion". If you have a fact or can prove something, than it's
not so much an opinion as it is a recitation of the facts. I have facts.
Your mother has dogma.
> You are asserting that anyone
> can be perfectly healthy eliminating entire food groups from their
I did no such thing. I asserted that the elimination of ONE particular food
group and the complete replacement of it with ANOTHER has been found in
actual practice to be of no harm to the human organism. I am not saying
that one can remove any particular food and replace it with any other and
arrive at that same conclusion (albeit that it may well be possible--but
since I don't specifically know that, I can't say that).
> diet. Also, am curious as to why you would cite MDR on one hand, while
> clearly disavowing it on the other. The study you cited (re: WWII
You've again arrived at yet another incorrect conclusion. In order to
remain above room temperature, the human body has any number MINIMUM
requirements. Among them: oxygen, water, and sustenance. That MDR's are
valid isn't in dispute. Just how much of what, can be quibbled over
endlessly--and will never, because of our individual variability, have a
clear winner. And there's really no need for one.
For example, if you shut off one's oxygen, he will die. So obviously
there's an MDR for oxygen. There can be no dispute about that. But, if you
throttle it until just before the organism dies, we can debate endlessly
about just what that amount would be.
> soldiers) is a perfect example of the bias in studies I mentioned as
Yep. It is indeed. Yet, few relying on it have ever questioned it's
veracity.
> well. "For how long can the human body get along perfectly well on
> such a diet?" is her first question. She feels, and I agree, that the
> jury is still out, that this is too extreme.
Fortunately, what one "feels" and whom one gets to agree with those
"feelings" isn't a reliable guideline for anything substantive--except,
perhaps, when evaluating toilet paper...(:-o)!
Look, I don't mean to come across as sounding mean or cross about what you
and your mom "think", I'm actually not (I'm actually amused). That you're
not as informed of the enormous scope of all possible dietary realities as
one might hope to be, isn't your fault. However, staying that way, in the
face of conclusive evidence to the contrary, would be your fault. Your
call.
There are several studies that support my assertion. But, for a less
clinical and more "personal" presentation, I gave you a link to the
first-hand account of an ordinary white European fellow that put himself
through just what I'd asserted, by living (which includes eating what they
ate) with Aleuts for many years. I noticed that you snipped that line from
your reply. That's too bad. It was an interesting and revealing read. It
was also factual. No "belief", "opinions", or "what you think" needed in
order to comprehend his words--unless of course the reader thinks that he
and several hundred thousand Aleuts are lying...but that would be a problem
of another dimension.
> I think it's silly for healthy people to have to look at a chart to
> understand that "semester's worth" of nutritional wisdom - variety, and
> MODERATION. Too simple. I also think it's silly that people can't
We agree completely!
> wrap their minds around NOT consuming too much of anything - FOOD.
> I feel a "Foamy Rant" coming on...
Perhaps... But not from me. I agree with everything you said in the
preceding paragraph.
> http://scarysquirrel.home.comcast.net/fatkins1.html (WARNING! Bad
> words ensue, Not Necessarily Safe For Work... depending on where you
> work.)
Cute, even funny if you're a sophomore. Tell me, Marina, do you and the
folks that you know get a feeling of smug superiority or righteous elitism
when you joyfully denigrate something of which you know absolutely nothing?
Would you have taken the time and effort to...let's say...find a little Java
skit to denigrate the "way of life" or "living standards" of Amazonian
aboriginals? Or would you simply waltz into their bailiwick and show them
how they should live in the jungle far from modern influence? While I
obviously can't be sure what you do or don't know how to do, my guess, just
off the top, is that within 24-hours you'd be dead...eaten by something that
found you satisfactory. And all of that smug superiority would have been
wasted...
And, FWIW; I *have* lived with aboriginals like that. It was part of my
training. And a mind-expanding adventure, the memory of which I'll cherish
to the last of my days. And given what I learned and what I know of today's
"modern woman" (I'm an expert--I live with several) I'd venture that you
wouldn't have returned... But hey! One never knows. Stranger things have
happened...
...
> Marina (whose name *means* "seamaiden" in Latin/Greek)
Pretty name. But I think "seamaiden" suits you best.
Look, I don't preach "low-carb" to others. I believe that it's your right
to choose what ever method you want to die. I mean by that, what is
"health" after all? It's simply choosing the longest possible path until
you die. I just found that after much study, we "civilized" Americans, eat
too many things that we shouldn't.
I don't eschew carbs, nor would I impose upon you and others what to eat. I
merely work to limit their intake for me. I'm in this baking newsgroup
because I love baking, and especially love sourdough. And when I found out
that SD made my bread lower in carbs, I kept at it. I still eat bread. I
just don't eat as much of it as I used to. And when I eat it, I eat SD,
only. I eat fruits, veggies, and other things, I just don't eat potatoes
(almost never), pasta's (very rarely), rice (less rarely), and legumes (on
occasion).
I don't care what you and others do or don't eat. But I do care and will
speak out when someone innocently (or ignorantly) makes a reference to
something I know to be wrong. I don't make a good sheep. Too bad that so
many folks these days do...
Later all,
Dusty
BTW; Marina, since you're a diver, if you ever get the chance, go to Andros
Island (Bh.). Ya gotta do: a "blue hole", and "a wall dive". It's an
experience of a lifetime. Also, FWIW; I'm the guy, as a HS kid in the
'50's, that first successfully bred fresh water Angle fish in the US. In
addition, I raised 'em until they were 12-13 inches from tip of the dorsal
fin to the tip of the pecs. And in the late '70's, I built the first
microprocessor powered water monitor for salt-water tanks...(:-o)! Ain't
the wet world interesting and fascinating? You never know who you're gonna
meet...(:-)!
Greg
> While it's more complex then I'm letting on, here's the simplistic version:
> * All of the carbohydrates you eat (except the fibrous components) is
> treated and used by the body as SUGAR. Potato, rice, bread, pasta, beans,
> and so on...to the body chemistry it's just another form of SUGAR,
>
> * These various sugars (and there are many) are used for fuel. Energy.
> Motility. Working your muscles and making you go places and do things.
> They do not participate in the building of the body. That's the province of
> fatty acids, proteins, lipids and other such materials.
>
> * Those sugars that aren't immediately used or stored in your liver and
> muscles; are bound, with the help of a molecule of insulin, into a fat cell.
>
> * The fats we've come to so loath, are what primarily builds and repairs
> your body parts (again, with help from other components).
>
> * These fats can not effectively be stored. They are used or eliminated.
>
> * The various lipids and cholesterols in your blood are only influenced by
> your diet in a minor manner. The vast majority of them are manufactured by
> your own liver...from it's favorite feedstock, glucose (i.e. sugars as
> described above)
This is interesting. Your argument seems to be, that because
carbohydrates supply only energy, and because in excess they are more
easily stored, it makes sense to obtain as much energy as possible
instead from foods (such as fats) that are beneficial more generally,
albeit without exceeding the required number of calories.
Where this would fall down is if typical sources of fat also contain
substances that may be harmful. (You described margarine as "poison",
and there are certainly claims elsewhere that components of natural fats
are unhealthy.) In that case, one would want to have as much fat as
necessary for other reasons, but no more [from such sources], so as to
minimise the intake of toxins. It would then make sense to remedy any
remaining energy defecit with "purer" carbohydrates.
Likewise, it would also fall down if typical sources of carbohydrate are
also significant sources of other important foodstuffs like proteins,
vitamins, minerals, etc., potentially even ones that are only needed in
trace amounts.
Of course, it may well be that in the "North American" diet the intake
of non-carbohydrates is so high that carbohydrates could be eliminated
without penalty (although the result might still be sub-optimal). But I
doubt that in the "South Italian" diet you could eliminate bread and
pasta and expect to survive on a few teaspoons of olive oil. I suppose
it would depend on the calories from vegetables, fruit, fish, meat and
dairy in that case. In poor times, without fish or meat or very much
dairy, bread and pasta was probably an essential source of protein at
the very least.
The general point is that the boundaries between "food groups" do not
coincide with the boundaries between foods actually found in nature.
I note in passing that the April 9-15 issue of New Scientist features an
interview on "the cancer-prevention diet", which should be "high in
starchy, unprocessed cereal foods" and "low in saturated fat (down to 30
per cent from 40 per cent)", although where a 1997 report is mentioned
it does say "starchy or protein-rich foods of plant origin (45 to 60 per
cent)" rather than just starchy. (The latter percentages are of total
energy; the former are not specified.)
Anyway, in view of your comment that excess fat has a tendency to "slide
right on through", it would be interesting to know what the typical
metabolized (as opposed to nominal, or measured during complete
combustion) calories/g is for different foods. It would presumably
depend on the eater's state, and therefore not be so easy to quote
meaningfully. Are quoted calorific values an example of what in the
education world I call "false target syndrome" (i.e. assessment based on
what is easy to measure rather than on what is actually important)?
Greg
--
To get my e-mail address, remove a dot and replace a dot with a dash.
Dusty Bleher
"Greg" <greg...@land.oftrees.net> wrote in message
news:CZxce.14046$BW6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
...
>> * The various lipids and cholesterols in your blood are only influenced
>> by your diet in a minor manner. The vast majority of them are
>> manufactured by your own liver...from it's favorite feedstock, glucose
>> (i.e. sugars as described above)
>
> This is interesting. Your argument seems to be, that because carbohydrates
> supply only energy, and because in excess they are more easily stored, it
> makes sense to obtain as much energy as possible instead from foods (such
> as fats) that are beneficial more generally, albeit without exceeding the
> required number of calories.
Mmmm...sorta, kinda. Carbs can't be used as building blocks, only as
energy--and that's not to say that they have no importance or value--only
that they have real limitations. Fats, on the other hand, can be converted
to ketones which can be used for energy (in place of carbs) as well. So
yes, eating fats would accomplish more. But yuk! The boredom and the
taste! While I like some fat on my chicken or steak, I still don't like
chewing on a mouthful of it. Icky!
> Where this would fall down is if typical sources of fat also contain
> substances that may be harmful. (You described margarine as "poison",
Okay. Using the word "poison" probably wasn't all that accurate or apropos.
I should have stopped at hydrogenated fats being bad for you.
Could you elucidate a bit on what would be "substances that may be harmful?"
> and there are certainly claims elsewhere that components of natural fats
"Claims" are a dime a dozen, and even cheaper on Usenet. I know of no
peer-reviewed studies that support your statement. But hey! I don't know
everything and I've not yet "read it all!" So I'm willing to read and take
into consideration anything one might find...
> are unhealthy.) In that case, one would want to have as much fat as
> necessary for other reasons, but no more [from such sources], so as to
> minimise the intake of toxins. It would then make sense to remedy any
> remaining energy defecit with "purer" carbohydrates.
An interesting conclusion...
> Likewise, it would also fall down if typical sources of carbohydrate are
> also significant sources of other important foodstuffs like proteins,
> vitamins, minerals, etc., potentially even ones that are only needed in
> trace amounts.
Oh absolutely. There are good reasons to consume some carbs. Albeit mostly
for the issues you mentioned: vitamins, minerals, and other trace nutrients.
Not to mention, eating only meats & fats would be boring (well, at least to
me).
As Marina correctly pointed out, everything in moderation--but that goes for
carbs as well. The carb-heavy diet we typically eat is not in the best
balance for the typical human. Given that man is an omnivore, he can eat
most anything. It's just that the myth of "you must have fruits, or grains,
and so on in your diet", is incorrect. As the Aleuts so clearly
demonstrate, one can survive quite well without them. But you can not
survive without fats and proteins.
> Of course, it may well be that in the "North American" diet the intake of
> non-carbohydrates is so high that carbohydrates could be eliminated
> without penalty (although the result might still be sub-optimal). But I
I don't get it. Are you suggesting that there's an evolutionary component
to the N.A. diet? If you are, that would be incorrect.
However, there is an evolutionary component to what's popularly known as a
"Paleolithic diet". Without removing ourselves from the mainstream of life
in America, we simply tilted our intake of carbs towards a more paleolithic
like diet. The pounds have been melting off...so we must be doing something
right... And I still enjoy some of my SD bread! (:-o)!
> doubt that in the "South Italian" diet you could eliminate bread and pasta
> and expect to survive on a few teaspoons of olive oil. I suppose
I think you're reading more into what I wrote than I'd intended. The
variety of "regional" diets are indeed that: regional. I don't think that
the average "South Italian" would be willing to forego his or her typical
foods in order to either prove or make a point. Nor should they. Besides,
in general, most Europeans are "normal" sized and not so commonly obese as
are so many of my countrymen.
> it would depend on the calories from vegetables, fruit, fish, meat and
> dairy in that case. In poor times, without fish or meat or very much
> dairy, bread and pasta was probably an essential source of protein at the
> very least.
Nobody was arguing that availability wasn't an issue. You eat what you can.
But we here have the option of eating less of some things. It's an option
we can employ. And the typical American eats too many carbs. Wa-a-ay too
many! There are many reasons for that: cheap, easy to store & transport,
easily flavored or "formatted" for effect, simple to make, etc...
Obviously, I bake, and I bake with sourdough. That means that I too eat
carbs. But I've scaled them back. Rather than a nice thick slice of my
Provender or Poilane, and a thin layer of sausage or some other meat on it,
now I eat a thin slice of bread with a thick layer of something on it.
Instead of cereal flakes for breakfast, I eat a hardboiled egg or a piece of
cheese. Instead of a steak, a salad, and a big, baked, butter or cottage
cheese drenched potato for dinner; I have a cauliflower instead. Hey! It's
been working for us. And while YMMV, the unsupported assertion that oils &
fats are bad, and that we eat too much meat is simply wrong.
> The general point is that the boundaries between "food groups" do not
> coincide with the boundaries between foods actually found in nature.
True enough. But I don't think we're discussing folks in a survival
nutrition mode here. That would be an animal of another color...
> I note in passing that the April 9-15 issue of New Scientist features an
> interview on "the cancer-prevention diet", which should be "high in
> starchy, unprocessed cereal foods" and "low in saturated fat (down to 30
> per cent from 40 per cent)", although where a 1997 report is mentioned it
> does say "starchy or protein-rich foods of plant origin (45 to 60 per
> cent)" rather than just starchy. (The latter percentages are of total
> energy; the former are not specified.)
Sounds like a regurgitation of the same dogma that we've been listening to
or reading about since the '60's. Anybody wanna point out any studies where
the obesity, cancer, or heart disease rate has plummeted since the advent of
that little fraud? Sadly enough--I've seen no such thing...
To me, it's a little like the difference between dumb and stupid. It's dumb
if you do (or don't do) something, and you don't get the result you
expected. That happens. But it's stupid if you do that same thing over and
over again, continue to get that same result, and expect to get something
else.
We've been hearing that same "eat low-fat and high-carb" mantra since the
'70's. Look around you. It doesn't seem to have been working. Perhaps
it's time to try something different...
> Anyway, in view of your comment that excess fat has a tendency to "slide
> right on through", it would be interesting to know what the typical
Yeah. It turns out that fats are pretty hard to prepare for transport
through the intestinal wall. And I'd suspect that each individuals ability
to do that would vary.
> metabolized (as opposed to nominal, or measured during complete
> combustion) calories/g is for different foods. It would presumably
It would indeed.
> depend on the eater's state, and therefore not be so easy to quote
> meaningfully. Are quoted calorific values an example of what in the
> education world I call "false target syndrome" (i.e. assessment based on
> what is easy to measure rather than on what is actually important)?
Yep.
The only points I was trying to make were that for too long we've been
laboring under the simply wrong "common wisdom" that fats and oils are bad
for you. Just as we've been laboring the "increase your carb consumption
for better health". Both are absolutely wrong! You need fats & oils, you
don't need carbs. Obviously too many of either aren't all that good for
you. So Marina's call to moderation is quite correct.
Now, back to getting ready to make a new loaf of my Provender SD for
tomorrow...(:-o)!
Later all,
Dusty
...
Dick Adams
"Dusty Bleher" <bake...@innerlodge.com> wrote in message news:1175gvs...@corp.supernews.com...
> ... You need fats & oils, you don't need carbs. ...
Hey Dusty, did'ja ever try tellin' that to a giraffe?
Dusty Bleher
[Hey Dicky, no. Did'ja ever try tellin' that to a polar bear?]
Dick Adams
"Dusty Bleher" <bake...@innerlodge.com> wrote in message news:1175p59...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > You need fats & oils, you don't need carbs. ...
> > Hey Dusty, did'ja ever try tellin' that to a giraffe?
> Hey Dicky, no. Did'ja ever try tellin' that to a polar bear?
Hey Dusty, don't stand to close to the bear ---
Hi dietary fats and oil could be you.
(A wise person recently wrote that converting persons over
60 years of age to fuel could solve most of the problems our
President might be thinking about.)
((Fuel for bears is not counted.))
--
Dicky
Dusty Bleher
Whew! Then I'm still safe! How 'bout U? (:-o)!
((Fuel for bears is not counted.))
Heh,heh,heh...
--
Dusty
...
Jonathan Kandell
But paradoxically I find adding crushed flax seeds (aka rape seeds)
gives off some oil into the bread which improves the texture and also
provides a subtle nutty flavor. Especially with the whole grain breads
like Will and I make.
Mike Avery wrote,
>>Personally, I only use olive oil. A light olive oil if I don't want
the olive-y taste, a stronger one if I want the rich taste. I keep
hearing horror stories about canola oil (rape seed oil), and I'm not
that happy with other oils.<<
Kenneth
<jkan...@sysmatrix.net> wrote:
>I find adding crushed flax seeds (aka rape seeds)
>gives off some oil into the bread which improves the texture and also
>provides a subtle nutty flavor.
Hi Jonathan,
When you write "aka" above, are you suggesting that flax
seed and rape seed are the same?
Thanks,
--
Kenneth
If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
Mike Avery
>I agree Mike that canola (aka rape seed) oil isn't terrific in bread.
>But paradoxically I find adding crushed flax seeds (aka rape seeds)
>gives off some oil into the bread which improves the texture and also
>provides a subtle nutty flavor. Especially with the whole grain breads
>like Will and I make.
>
Ahhh.. rape seed and flax seed are not at all the same, as far as I know.
A look at wikipedia says....
*Rapeseed* /Brassica napus/, also known as *Rape*, *Oilseed Rape*,
*Rapa*, *Rapaseed* and (one particular cultivar) *Canola*, is a bright
yellow flowering <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower> member of the
family Brassicaceae <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassicaceae>. The
name is derived through Old English
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English> from a term for turnip,
/rapum/. Some botanists include the closely related /Brassica
campestris/ within /B. napus/.
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Plantae
Division: Magnoliophyta
Class: Magnoliopsida
Order: Brassicales
Family: Brassicaceae
Genus: Brassica
Species: B. napus
Binomial name
Brassica napus
Common *flax* (also known as *linseed*) is a member of the /Linaceae/
family, which includes about 150 plant species widely distributed around
the world. Some of them are grown in domestic flower beds, as flax is
one of the few truly blue flowers. (Most "blue" flowers are really a
shade of purple.)
Under the dwindling Cronquist system
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronquist_system> of classifying the
flowering plants <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_plants>, flax
and related plants were placed in an order Linales
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linales&action=edit>. Modern
classifications place them in the order Malpighiales
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malpighiales>.
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Plantae
Division: Magnoliophyta
Class: Magnoliopsida
Order: Malpighiales
Family: Linaceae
Genus: Linum
Species: L. usitatissimum L.
Binomial name
Linum usitatissimum L.
Linnaeus, 17??
In all.... not at all the same thing.
Mike
Samartha Deva
> I agree Mike that canola (aka rape seed) oil isn't terrific in bread.
> But paradoxically I find adding crushed flax seeds (aka rape seeds)
> gives off some oil into the bread which improves the texture
Can't say that. Whenever I use flax seeds - wheather all whole (not your
situation) or 1/2 of it crushed (more your situation), the crumb
structure deteriorates more than without any seeds (non-brainer) or with
sunflower seeds. Don't know what exactly causes this, but my flax seed
bread is always denser. In the bread world, where more loft is better,
that's not an improvement. Compared to sunflower seeds (whole), it could
be the seed size and granularity i. e. more smaller particles do more
damage.
I am also not sure what you mean by "texture" - is it crumb, as in hole
size and shape or crumb density/elasticity what you see improved when
you cut off a slice. Or are you talking about the crust, where you see
maybe some differences?
> and also
> provides a subtle nutty flavor. Especially with the whole grain breads
> like Will and I make.
With whole grain breads, you have already a deterioration of "the ideal"
i. e. maximum possible loft per dough volume. What are the crushed seeds
doing good there under this aspect?
Also, it would be helpful to understand what you are talking about if
you mention how much you add - 1, 2, 5, 10 % seeds (mixed in the dough)
and what you using using - 100 % whole grain or a smaller percentage. My
guess and assumption would be that you use all-wheat (fine white and/or
whole).
Thank you in advance for elaborating.
Samartha
Jonathan Kandell
to all about the confusion. (Why do I feel like the Sourdough Swat
Team just crashed down my door?)
So it is not a mystery why I like flax seeds in my bread but not canola
oil. :-)
Sarmartha shouts,
>>I am also not sure what you mean by "texture" - is it crumb, as in
hole size and shape or crumb density/elasticity what you see improved
when you cut off a slice. Or are you talking about the crust, where you
see maybe some differences<<
I was answering Will's post, and he referred to his bread leaving
crumbs all over when sliced. The oil from the flax seems to bind stuff
better.
>>Whenever I use flax seeds - wheather all whole (not your situation)
or 1/2 of it crushed (more your situation), the crumb structure
deteriorates more than without any seeds (non-brainer) or with
sunflower seeds. Don't know what exactly causes this, but my flax seed
bread is always denser. In the bread world, where more loft is better,
that's not an improvement.<<
My experience is the opposite. My flax seed bread is not denser--but
since flax doesn't contain gluten one has got to make sure not to add
too much. I wonder why we have different results? Interesting.
>>With whole grain breads, you have already a deterioration of "the
ideal" i. e. maximum possible loft per dough volume. What are the
crushed seeds doing good there under this aspect?<<
That sure sounds like begging the question. Since when is "loft"
always better? Loft for loft's sake is not a virtue. If I wanted loft
I'd make a panettone.
Sam, you asked,
>>Also, it would be helpful to understand what you are talking about if
you mention how much you add - 1, 2, 5, 10 % seeds (mixed in the
dough) and what you using using - 100 % whole grain or a smaller
percentage. My guess and assumption would be that you use all-wheat
(fine white and/or whole).<<
100% whole wheat (Guisto's organic whole wheat bread flour). Baking for
me isn't rocket science, so forgive me if I can't provide all the
"specs". No rulers either; my bread doesn't need to "measure up."
Yes, you heard me right. Hello... Sam... you ok?... Here smell these
smelling salts... Sam? :-)
Dick Adams
"Dusty Bleher" <bake...@innerlodge.com> wrote in message news:1177giv...@corp.supernews.com...
> > (A wise person recently wrote that converting persons over
> > 60 years of age to fuel could solve most of the problems our
> > President might be thinking about.)
> Whew! Then I'm still safe! How 'bout U? (:-o)!
I am reasonably avoiding dietary fats, particularly those of animal
origin. No one is safe. For every one, one dies, usually with
vascular disease. Check back with me in ten years -- let me know
if you are still alive.
--
Dicky
Samartha Deva
[...]
> My experience is the opposite. My flax seed bread is not denser--but
> since flax doesn't contain gluten one has got to make sure not to add
> too much. I wonder why we have different results? Interesting.
In this context, I use 9 % flax seed on mixed grain wheat rye. Flax all
seed or 50 % crushed. Bread comes out denser in both cases,
consistently. Bread crumbs "all over" have never been an issue with or
without seeds.
Samartha
Dick Adams
Was I s'posed to be usin' some kinda oil?
I dint know. Nobody told me.
Seems to work OK without any.
--
Dicky
Dusty Bleher
...
> Whew! Then I'm still safe! How 'bout U? (:-o)!
I am reasonably avoiding dietary fats, particularly those of animal
[Donno why you'd want to do that...but that's just fine...]
origin. No one is safe. For every one, one dies, usually with
vascular disease. Check back with me in ten years -- let me know
if you are still alive.
[I will certainly endeavor to do so...try to be around...and we'll hoist a
few to celebrate...(:-o)!
Dusty]
--
Dicky
Jonathan Kandell
denser? I find with my desem loaf there is a moistness and slight
guminess to the crumb when I add flax which is similar to when one adds
oil--I'm guessing because some oil gets released when I partially grind
the seeds. Or it may be the "slime" quality one gets when flax seed
meets water. (Take for instance, Reinhart's "power bread" which has no
oil in it.) I am really curious why flax doesn't hurt my rise one iota
but does in your case. Facinating! I add mine at the beginning along
with the other ingredients, do you? I grind mine in a coffee grinder,
so it's a mix of chop. And why 9%? (I add about 1/2 c flax to dough
containing about 4 1/3 c whole wheat flour.) Speaking of flax, have
you tried Mestmacher's Linseed Bread (made with kernal rye, water,
flaxseed, sea salt and yeast)? Delicious!
Samartha wrote,
Samartha Deva
> How else does your bread change with added flax, other than being
> denser?
I would have to do a side to side comparison to _really_ find out more
than just "denser" apart from the obvious - taste, crumb, it could be
more "slimy" with the crushed seeds, they seem to have that quality.
> I find with my desem loaf there is a moistness and slight
> guminess to the crumb when I add flax which is similar to when one adds
> oil--I'm guessing because some oil gets released when I partially grind
> the seeds. Or it may be the "slime" quality one gets when flax seed
> meets water. (For instance, Reinhart's "power bread" which has no oil
> in it.) I am really curious why flax doesn't hurt my rise one iota but
> does in your case. Facinating! I add mine at the beginning along with
> the other ingredients, do you?
They go in at the end nowadays, before I put everything in at the
beginning; doesn't seem to make much of a difference with this type of
bread.
> I grind mine in a coffee grinder, so
> it's a mix of chop. And why 9%?
Well, why not? Gotta measure somehow. Does 1 cup of seeds, in a 3 lb
loaf sound better?
> Speaking of flax, have you tried
> Mestmacher's Linseed Bread (made with kernal rye, water, flaxseed, sea
> salt and yeast)? Delicious!
>
http://www.mestemacher.de/fwk.html
tried as in eating - I know the type. Too hard to get by where I live
and if not so, it would be probably expensive to live on.
Is that the type of bread you are making? If so, that's no surprise that
the seed makes no difference. That's the full grain
sprouting/scalding/soaking type.
Hey - just found out trick 323: how to get a pumpernickel which is stuck
in the pan out? Put it in the freezer for an hour, then pour hot water
on the back of the pan - plops right out.
Trick 321 was: How to prevent it from sticking in the first place: oil
the pan.
Trick 322 was: Ho to avoid pumpernickel dry out and cracking: Fill the
pan with water somewhere in the middle (12 hours) and keep a large
baking sheet on top of the heater elements on the bottom (electric oven)
full of water in the second half.
Note - I am talking stainless steel pans, the usual Teflon pans which
corrode.
Samartha
Jonathan Kandell
that the seed makes no >difference. That's the full grain sprouting/
>scalding/ soaking type.
No, I was talking about adding about 1/2 c of flax to a desem loaf.
Seamaiden
insulting. I apologize that my sense of humor has fallen so flat for
you. Here, in our house, we happen to love Foamy the Squirrel. Would
you have been happier (though maybe more confused) had I posted a link
to "Jiggly Butt" (which is, in my opinion, even funnier)? The
"Fatkins" one was actually sent to me by a friend who was on the
"Atkins" thing for a while. Then she quit when it (invariably) stopped
working.. Then I recently shared it again when I learned from
*another* friend that his co-worker developed Bell's Palsy after his
severe moderation of carbohydrates in all forms (that one left me
slack-jawed - <giggle>). (Ah, pre-emptively, we acknowledge nothing
published to draw such a correlation.) Then again, what do I, or
anyone else I know, know about such things, eh? };-)
You read my post as "smug superiority", I read it/intended it
differently. Oh well, I'm not here to argue much of anything, been
there, done that, spent it all for the most part, but have other places
I'll use for such. I *will* allow my mother that "smug superiority"
(she *is* far superior in my decidedly prejudiced opinion), having a
Master's and not only continuing her own education, but helping others
with the same. That means that, in my opinion and that of the ADA,
she's fairly 'up on the latest'. But see, she's earned that "smug
superiority".. though she probably wouldn't quite appreciate Foamy,
either.
Anyway, let's move on sans insults, the only thing I initially did was
make a comment (a correct one at that) re: the saturation of hydrogen
in the fats found in coconuts. Oh yes, apparently I also made
extrapolations (or assumptions) that were incorrect, therein lies the
rub I suppose. It seems that we are generally in agreement in many
instances, and so, I am happy to let it stand at that point, not being
in need of finding more folks with which to argue or debate any point.
I actually find your remarks on cool places to dive and breeding fish
to be *far* more intriguing! Shall I "Google" Dusty Bleher? Are you
published anywhere, perhaps? Would love to widen the aquatic net! I'm
finding one particular Dusty Bleher, involved in solar.. "stuff", and
what appears to be another of the same name asking about bird-banding.
And someone re: computer software risks to the public, et al.
Unfortunately, the assertion of being the first to breed *any*
Pterophyllum spp. (P. scalare, P. altum) comes under question here:
http://www.aquarticles.com/articles/breeding/Berdoulay_Angelfish_History.html
> The first successful breeders in the U.S.A. were from neighboring
Pennsylvania. > William Paullin and Franklin Barrett both achieved
the impossible in 1921 by > spawning and rearing about 100 fry.
Oh my.
Marina
Dusty Bleher
> Ah.. Dusty, here we were, going along so well, then you have to become
> insulting. I apologize that my sense of humor has fallen so flat for
If that was humor, please forgive me as that aspect of it didn't translate
to me.
...
> "Atkins" thing for a while. Then she quit when it (invariably) stopped
"Invariably"? Donno that there's anything 'inevitable' about that. Some
folks stop doing things and blame any number of events as the cause.
Drinkers fall off of AA; smokers light 'em up; and some of the "porkers"
living amongst us don't cease bending their elbows.
> working.. Then I recently shared it again when I learned from
> *another* friend that his co-worker developed Bell's Palsy after his
> severe moderation of carbohydrates in all forms (that one left me
I'd sure love to see/hear more about that. Got any references? Cuz that
would seem unlikely.
In the event that such an outcome is inevitable (that would be bad JuJu), I
wonder how those numbers would compare to folks that develop diabetes,
heart-disease, arteriosclerosis, and so on from constant over-indulgence
exasperated by sugars...? (:-o)!
> slack-jawed - <giggle>). (Ah, pre-emptively, we acknowledge nothing
> published to draw such a correlation.) Then again, what do I, or
Oh. Okay. Got it. We can throw that out as if it were fact...and then
scurry behind the blinds... Yes. I do seem to be getting the drift here...
...
> You read my post as "smug superiority", I read it/intended it
> differently. Oh well, I'm not here to argue much of anything, been
Sorry. That wasn't quite it. As I'd mentioned previously, I didn't "get"
the humor aspect of your little ditty, so, failing that, it came across as
"smug superiority". Please forgive me my lack of understanding...
...
> Anyway, let's move on sans insults, the only thing I initially did was
> make a comment (a correct one at that) re: the saturation of hydrogen
> in the fats found in coconuts. Oh yes, apparently I also made
You are, of course, welcome to make any comment or cling to any belief you
like. I certainly have no intention of disabusing you of any of them. But
surely, from one so opinionated and knowledgeable, you could bestow upon
this ignorant one just a teensy-tiny bit of "evidence" that supports such a
contention. Science, and all knowledge for that matter, is built upon
levels of understanding. I'm apparently deficient in this matter, and would
dearly love to understand the "how" or "what" behind my errors in
comprehension. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I was wrong...(:-o)!
And believe me, getting it right (by being corrected, even having my nose
rubbed in "it" as necessary) is more important to me than clinging to
unsupportable beliefs.
...
> rub I suppose. It seems that we are generally in agreement in many
Indeed we are, milady.
...
> I actually find your remarks on cool places to dive and breeding fish
> to be *far* more intriguing! Shall I "Google" Dusty Bleher? Are you
As you wish...
> published anywhere, perhaps? Would love to widen the aquatic net! I'm
Yes. But not in the circles you'd traverse or under the name(s) you know
(just highly niche oriented technical arenas--nothing "fun" to
read...(:-o)!).
> finding one particular Dusty Bleher, involved in solar.. "stuff", and
Yep. That would be one of my endeavors. Been doing research, designing and
building experimental devices, and debunking misinformed eco-nitwits in that
arena for a couple of decades at least. See? Baking sourdough bread isn't
the only thing I do...(:-o)!
> what appears to be another of the same name asking about bird-banding.
> And someone re: computer software risks to the public, et al.
> Unfortunately, the assertion of being the first to breed *any*
> Pterophyllum spp. (P. scalare, P. altum) comes under question here:
> http://www.aquarticles.com/articles/breeding/Berdoulay_Angelfish_History.html
>
>> The first successful breeders in the U.S.A. were from neighboring
> Pennsylvania. > William Paullin and Franklin Barrett both achieved
> the impossible in 1921 by > spawning and rearing about 100 fry.
Yep. So I've just read. Thank you for this in situ readjustment of my
"understanding" of that event.
You caught me erroneously promulgating what I was told by a fish
breeder/seller in Hamburg, New York, in the late '50's/early '60's. The
books and material I had access to were probably printed in the 30's or 40's
and made no mention of a successful breeding of my silver angles anywhere in
the world--only failures. Now I've been updated, and I thank you for that.
See? I am correctable...(:-)! R U?
Gotta go. Got sails to repair, a bilge pump diaphragm to replace, a
halyard/cable splice to finish, a couple of websites to update, and get a
report on an IBIS toolbar hijacker to write to my gang of super 'puter
sleuths...
Dusty
HUTCHNDI
"Jonathan Kandell" <jkan...@sysmatrix.net> wrote in message
news:1114884278.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I agree Mike that canola (aka rape seed) oil isn't terrific in bread.
> But paradoxically I find adding crushed flax seeds (aka rape seeds)
> gives off some oil into the bread which improves the texture and also
> provides a subtle nutty flavor. >
Wait a second here. You mean that Flax seeds are really rape seeds, and
canola oil comes from rape seeds? All this good stuff I have been reading
about Flax seed oil being so good for the heart and stuff, and all I need is
to eat more canola oil instead of trying to put all this flaxmeal and seeds
in my bread? Am I reading this right, or is my noobie sticking out?
hutchndi
Will Waller
On Friday, May 6, 2005, at 11:06 AM, HUTCHNDI wrote:
>
> Wait a second here. You mean that Flax seeds are really rape seeds, and
> canola oil comes from rape seeds? All this good stuff I have been
> reading
> about Flax seed oil being so good for the heart and stuff, and all I
> need is
> to eat more canola oil instead of trying to put all this flaxmeal and
> seeds
> in my bread? Am I reading this right, or is my noobie sticking out?
>
> hutchndi
H.
Flax seeds are flax seeds, they make flax oil or if you mill them, a
good meal with high omega 3 content. Rape seeds are different. They
make canola oil, an industry name not an agricultural one. Canola oil
usually chemically refined and has a high omega 6 content.
Depending on whose research you believe (Dusty's or Seamaiden's <g>
just kidding) one is quite good for you: flax. The other isn't: canola.
My own test is pretty simple:
1) if the shelf life is longer than my life... not good
or
2) if I put it outside and the insects and animals avoid it... not good.
Canola oil fails both tests. Perhaps I should qualify that. Canola oil
that is readily available in the grocery store and has the American
Heart Assn. plug fails both tests.
Will
Mike Avery
To quote an earlier message...
As Will commented, Canola fails both of his tests. My further test is,
"have people been eating this for centuries, or longer, with no harm
done to them?" Canola fails that test too.
Mike
Dick Adams
Flour contains a bit of oil, maybe 1%.
That is enough, probably too much.
Cod-liver oil is good for you, but not
recommended for bread.
Mike Avery
>For bread, the best oil is no oil.
>
Kinda depends on the bread you're making. If you are making a lean
bread with no oil in it, then, yes, no oil is best.
However, there are many breads, even sourdough breads, that are helped
by having oil in them.
Mike
Kenneth
<mav...@mail.otherwhen.com> wrote:
>However, there are many breads, even sourdough breads, that are helped
>by having oil in them.
>
>Mike
Hi Mike,
Of course you are right...
One of the things that I love about baking is that from such
incredibly simple ingredients I can make breads of
remarkable variety.
With a bit of flour, water, salt, oil, (and culture) I can
go from the Poilâne-type loaves to fougasses, and those are
about as far apart on my bread-type scale as I can imagine.
All the best,
Charles Perry
Mike Avery wrote:
>
> Kinda depends on the bread you're making. If you are making a lean
> bread with no oil in it, then, yes, no oil is best.
>
Well, if you are going to put fats in your bread, use real
butter. It tastes good. Of course, you can make a good case for
the great taste of lard also.
Regards,
Charles
--
Charles Perry
Reply to: che...@aol.com
** A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand **
Dick Adams
"Mike Avery" <mav...@mail.otherwhen.com> wrote in message news:mailman.18.1115422192.7...@mail.otherwhen.com...
> there are many breads, even sourdough breads, that are helped
> by having oil in them.
Well, yeah, I guess ...
Helped not to rise very well.
I keep forgetting that not everyone cares if their bread rises.
--
Dicky
Mike Avery
I keep forgetting some people are slow learners, too attached to their
pre-conceived notions to realize that there is life beyond their delusions.
http://www.colohi.com/pics/FLAXSEED.JPG
http://www.colohi.com/pics/rosemaryolive.jpg
http://www.colohi.com/pics/honeywheat.jpg
http://www.colohi.com/pics/gunnyriverbread.jpg
All but the last are sourdough. All have oil in them. All are well
risen. We later went to a wider pan and cut the riser somewhat.
A bit of oil improves that taste and keeping qualities of bread.
I suspect that oil is like sugar. A little is OK, too much and you
impact your rise.
Mike
Kenneth
<mav...@mail.otherwhen.com> wrote:
>A bit of oil improves that taste and keeping qualities of bread.
Hi Mike,
I have been surprised that the notion of "styles" (from the
brewing world) has not caught on in the baking world.
Just as there are many different brews, there are many
different breads.
Of course, "a bit of oil" improves the taste of some breads:
I had mentioned the fougasses I bake frequently. They are
rich with olive oil and would certainly suffer were it left
out.
But for other breads, the use of oil would prevent them from
being at their best, because it would prevent them from
being good examples of their "style." I guess that rather
than saying that removing the oil from my fougasse formula
would change the result to something other than a
fougasse... It might taste great, or not, but it would no
longer be a good example of the "style."
Kenneth
<use...@SPAMLESSsoleassociates.com> wrote:
>I guess that rather
>than saying that removing the oil from my fougasse formula
>would change the result to something other than a
>fougasse...
Ooops...
That should have been:
I guess that rather than saying that removing the oil from
my fougasse formula would cause it to "suffer" I should have
said that it would change the result to something other than
a fougasse...
All the best,
Dick Adams
"Mike Avery" <mav...@mail.otherwhen.com> wrote in message news:mailman.0.1115478335.3...@mail.otherwhen.com...
> http://www.colohi.com/pics/FLAXSEED.JPG
> http://www.colohi.com/pics/rosemaryolive.jpg
> http://www.colohi.com/pics/honeywheat.jpg
> http://www.colohi.com/pics/gunnyriverbread.jpg
>
> All but the last are sourdough. All have oil in them.
Yes, oils are everywhere.
It is just a matter of time before oil is demonstrated
in the atmosphere of Titan. Please see:
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/hydrocarbons%5Ftitan%5Fatmosphere.html
You have to be very careful when it comes to flaxseed
oil because it is real iffy stuff, and it is easy to go wrong
with it. Here are the facts:
http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/flax.htm
Best advice, I think, is to forget all about it. But I guess ol' Dusty
will have something to say.
--
Dicky
Will Waller
On Saturday, May 7, 2005, at 10:35 AM, Dick Adams wrote:
>
> You have to be very careful when it comes to flaxseed
> oil because it is real iffy stuff, and it is easy to go wrong
> with it. Here are the facts:
>
> http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/flax.htm
>
> Best advice, I think, is to forget all about it. But I guess ol' Dusty
> will have something to say.
>
> --
> Dicky
>
I dunno Dick. Seems pretty simple to me. You take your cod liver oil in
the morning, have a little fresh flax meal with your oaties, use whole
milk and eat your cheese with naturally leavened bread. Then you go
down to the cellar and do 30 minutes on the old Nordic Track before
running to the office... or the drugstore on senior's day.
Dusty will probably have something to say. Let's hope so.
Will
Dusty Bleher
news:mailman.2.1115483947.3...@mail.otherwhen.com...
> On Saturday, May 7, 2005, at 10:35 AM, Dick Adams wrote:
>>
>> You have to be very careful when it comes to flaxseed
>> oil because it is real iffy stuff, and it is easy to go wrong
A few years ago, competent nutritionists were recommending flaxseed oil as a
source of omega-3's. As data came back on that, it was found that folks
were getting burned by "bad oil". Some got nailed by "snake-oil" sellers
that provided a shoddy (or fraudulent) product; and others, who got good
products, got nailed by the fragile nature of that kind of oil. So the
short version is: you're probably best served by avoiding flaxseed oil.
OTOH; the beneficial properties of whole (milled) flax seed has been getting
a lot of attention lately. A double-blind postprandial test of a group of
women found that those eating flax seeds exhibited markedly lower rates of
glycemic response in their blood glucose levels.
[Journal of Human Nutrition & Dietetics, Nov. 2000; 13: 363-371]
In general, the addition of ground flax seeds to the diet is a good thing.
All, that is, except for diabetics. It seems that elevated insulin levels
cause the delta-six desaturase enzyme reactions to be severely inhibited.
And that's not good because it's that enzyme that's responsible for
converting the ALA (alpha-linolenic acid) in the flax into longer chain fats
such as EPA and DHA--a couple of very necessary fatty acids (EFA's:
Essential Fatty Acids).
[Can't find my reference, damn it!]
And, except for type-1 diabetics, guess what's the leading suspected cause
of diabetes? Over consumption of sugars (in any form, esp. carbohydrates)!
It also seems that because flaxseeds contain a form of lignan (a
phytoestrogen) it lowers the level of cancer-related circulating estrogens
such as estrone sulfate and estradiol. This has the effect of significantly
reducing the risk of estrogen induced cancers in women.
[Annual mtg. of the American Chemical Society, Aug. 29, 2001]
While there are quite a few anecdotal reports of marvelous prostrate and
other maladies being overcome through the use of flaxseed.. However; one
should ALWAYS keep in mind the self-serving nature of such reports, and not
automatically assume that they form the basis for a peer-reviewed study.
They. Do. Not! Do not automatically replace a physicians care for
treatment of an on-going malady, for eating a hand full of seeds...
However--and the jury's not in yet on this, there are some credible reports
floating around of excellent progress using fresh flax seeds (milled, of
course) in the general diet. So all-in-all, unless you're a confirmed
diabetic, you can't really go wrong with flax seeds. And despite some of
the incoherent, dogma oriented babblings often heard these days to the
contrary; fats and oils are a very, very necessary part of your diet. Do
not eliminate them, as seems to be such 'knee-jerk' vogue today.
That having been said, I should point out, however, that not all fats are
created equal. Basically, there are four kinds of fats: monounsaturated
fats, polyunsaturated fats, saturated fats, and what's known as
"trans-fats"; or manufactured fats.
Monounsaturated fats; from Olive, Avocado, Peanut and other plant oils are
liquid at room temps but will harden if refrigerated.
Polyunsaturated fats; from safflower, sunflower, corn or soybean, and fish.
This oil too is liquid at room temps, but will NOT harden in the
refrigerator.
Saturated fats; mostly from animal products. Suet and lard come to mind, as
well as whole-milk. Can also be found in coconut and other related oils.
Trans-fats; these are made from polyunsaturated fats that have been
"hydrogenated" in order to make them solid at room temps. This has a lot of
"benefits", to the food industry. NONE for your body!
The "mono" & "poly" fats are the good guys. Have at 'em! And for an adult,
the saturated fats should be kept lowish. However, you should avoid
"trans-fats" like the plague, as they are probably the worst thing you can
ingest. But the problem is not so much that it raises serum cholesterol
levels and so on...the problem is that EFA's are used to build just about
EVERYTHING in your body! That means that every cell in you will have some
of these fats incorporated in their makeup. And the fats used in that way
DO NOT behave like the good fats you should be eating--nor do the cells in
almost all ways. While the jury is still out, more and more evidence is
pointing to the use of hydrogenated fats in our diets as the root cause for
many of the malady's that we're afflicted with today. The only good news is
that your body seems to replace all of its cells about every couple of years
or so...so you can turn things around...if you're not already too badly
screwed up (it's really, really hard to turn around MI heart damage or
arteriosclerosis by diet alone--no matter how "good").
At the turn of the last century, heart-disease was relatively unknown.
Today, it's the leading cause of early death, combined, for both sexes. And
two of the most widely implicated sources are trans-fats and excessive
carbohydrate consumption. And that is why I counsel:
1) Lower your carb intake. And if you must partake, take them from fresh
fruits and vegetables, and whole grains (in moderate amounts). And get more
benefit by "processing" those flours made of whole grains with our sourdough
critters. They really, really help.
2) Get your fats from natural sources. Use olive oil when possible. This
is for fresh usage. For cooking I used to promote Canola oil. However,
I've found some disturbing implications in the processing used to
manufacture it. I now use safflower oil (you could use sunflower as well)
for cooking applications where higher heat is demanded than OO can handle.
You could also use coconut oil or lard. By a very long shot those are
better for you than any amount of trans-fat--no matter how small.
3) Take a long, hard look at what's euphemistically known as the
"Paleo-diet". You don't need to go all the way back to eating muddy tubers
and snails, just "clean-up-your-act", and use a bit of thought before you
reflexively reach for the corn-chips, doughnuts, breakfast cereal, potatoes,
noodles, piles of rice, and so on... You can, at virtually no extra cost,
put your food consumption program back to something that's a bit more
reasonable. Or not...your carcass, your call...
>> --
>> Dicky
>>
>
> I dunno Dick. Seems pretty simple to me. You take your cod liver oil in
> the morning, have a little fresh flax meal with your oaties, use whole
> milk and eat your cheese with naturally leavened bread. Then you go down
> to the cellar and do 30 minutes on the old Nordic Track before running to
> the office... or the drugstore on senior's day.
Sounds like you have a pretty good grip on things, Will.
> Dusty will probably have something to say. Let's hope so.
Nah. Ya think? (:-o)!
>
> Will
>
>
Sorry for making this so long...
Dusty
Gonorio Dineri
> However, there are many breads, even sourdough breads, that are helped
> by having oil in them.
>
> Mike
>
>
How?
Gonorio Dineri
@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/flax.htm
I wonder why the author of the above "research" chose to ignore the massive
empirical research of nutritional luminaries like Dr. Johanna Budwig.
She conclusively and repeatedly demonstrated that degenerative diseases
like cancer, diabetes, and certain cardiovascular problems can be reversed
by including flax oil (not fish oil) and cottage cheese (oh, okay, also a
little champagne) in the daily diet.
The biggest problems with flax oil come from letting it get rancid (so it
must be refrigerated or kept in the freezer).
The author did make a good point: balance is important.
Gonorio Dineri
@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> For bread, the best oil is no oil.
>
> Flour contains a bit of oil, maybe 1%.
>
> That is enough, probably too much.
>
Why?
Gonorio Dineri
news:117saql...@corp.supernews.com:
> In general, the addition of ground flax seeds to the diet is a good
> thing. All, that is, except for diabetics. It seems that elevated
> insulin levels cause the delta-six desaturase enzyme reactions to be
> severely inhibited. And that's not good because it's that enzyme
> that's responsible for converting the ALA (alpha-linolenic acid) in
> the flax into longer chain fats such as EPA and DHA--a couple of very
> necessary fatty acids (EFA's: Essential Fatty Acids).
> [Can't find my reference, damn it!]
> And, except for type-1 diabetics, guess what's the leading suspected
> cause of diabetes? Over consumption of sugars (in any form, esp.
> carbohydrates)!
Maybe you can't find your reference because you tossed it out, Dusty.
Johanna Budwig's research demonstrated that diabetes can be reversed by
including flax oil and cottage cheese in the diet.
For a little data on the, check out http://cancure.org, the site for the
Cancure Cure Foundation, founded by noted researcher and Americanist
author G. Edward Griffin. He summarized Budwig's findings as follows:
"Budwig diet/flax seed oil: The Flax seed (Linseed) oil diet was
originally proposed by Dr. Johanna Budwig, a German biochemist and expert
on fats and oils in 1951. Her simple formula of two tablespoons of
flaxseed oil to a quarter cup of low fat cottage cheese (or other foods
containing sulfur) helps increase metabolism, boosts the immune systems,
reduces cholesterol levels, and helps inhibit cancer-cell growth."
More details are given at http://www.cancure.org/budwig_diet.htm. In
particular, he noted:
"Dr. Budwig found that the blood of seriously ill cancer patients was
deficient in certain important essential ingredients which included
substances called phosphatides and lipoproteins, while the blood of a
healthy person always contains sufficient quantities of these essential
ingredients.
"She found that when these natural ingredients where replaced over
approximately a three month period, tumors gradually receded, weakness
and anemia disappeared and life energy was restored. Symptoms of cancer,
liver dysfunction and **__diabetes__** were alleviated."
Note my emphasis on diabetes in the above text.
> While there are quite a few anecdotal reports of marvelous prostrate
> and other maladies being overcome through the use of flaxseed..
> However; one should ALWAYS keep in mind the self-serving nature of
> such reports, and not automatically assume that they form the basis
> for a peer-reviewed study. They. Do. Not! Do not automatically
> replace a physicians care for treatment of an on-going malady, for
> eating a hand full of seeds...
Apparently, you have not read Dr. Joe Wallace's book "Dead Doctors Don't
Lie." In a study of obituaries collected over several months, he found
that the average lifespan of medical doctors was 58 years. He suggested
that might be a result of following their own advice. The reason is that
medical doctors specialize in pharmaceuticals and surgery. They typcally
take one course in nutrition during their medical education. They
therefore don't usually know diddly squat about nutrition as a means of
preventing and healing disease. We shouldn't wonder why. They have a
vested interest in being ignorant on that subject, don't they.
In my opinion you'll have much better luck getting good advice on
longevity from a topless dancer or water salesman than from a medical
doctor.
> However--and the jury's not in yet on this, there are some credible
> reports floating around of excellent progress using fresh flax seeds
> (milled, of course) in the general diet. So all-in-all, unless you're
> a confirmed diabetic, you can't really go wrong with flax seeds. And
> despite some of the incoherent, dogma oriented babblings often heard
> these days to the contrary; fats and oils are a very, very necessary
> part of your diet. Do not eliminate them, as seems to be such
> 'knee-jerk' vogue today.
That's sage advice, IMO.
>
> Sorry for making this so long...
>
>
> Dusty
>
I'm not sorry. Members of this group do not suffer from too much
grandness in technical explanations as what, how, and why things work.
We are all more or less ignorant about body chemistry, and I know I am
not the only one who craves to know the truth.
Thanks for taking your time to explain about fats.
What I want to know now is how a couple of tablespoons of olive oil in a
blob of bread dough function in the dough to contribute to or prevent it
from rising, tasting good, keeping long, or staying fresh.
Gonorio
Roy
a
>blob of bread dough function in the dough to contribute to or prevent
it
>from rising, tasting good, keeping long, or staying fresh.
Any fat or oil added to the dough acts a shortening....or ..making the
bite short<g>.
Dusty Bleher
news:Xns96517B6B33D0...@65.32.5.121...
...
> Maybe you can't find your reference because you tossed it out, Dusty.
it amongst some 375,000 links. Sometimes when I catalog something, what
seemed self-evident at that time, becomes seriously "drain-bamaged" upon
recall...(:-o)!
> Johanna Budwig's research demonstrated that diabetes can be reversed by
Well, let's separate the issues and clarify that just a bit. First, I'd be
damned impressed if she could do something about T1 diabetes. I don't think
so! But I'd be pleased if you could show me in error on this.
Now, T2 and related variants can indeed be prevented and/or even corrected.
But that's less a function of eating some miracle material, as it is in diet
and consumption control. Which for diabetics (all types) is: reduce your
carb (i.e. sugar) intake. To be true, some forms of adult-onset diabetes do
not revert. But that's usually due to having beaten their 'Isles of
Langerhans' in their poor pancreas into submission from years and years of
"sugar-cycling".
> including flax oil and cottage cheese in the diet.
Well, let's just say that she did a lot of research and that she certainly
uncovered many interesting things. But "demonstration" is something one
does in a laboratory. And it's usually done by SOMEONE ELSE that tries to
prove (or not) your theory with double-blind protection mechanisms in place.
AFAICT; none have been done to test her hypothesis'. If I am in error, I
would be most interested and very grateful to you in helping me learn more
about that.
> For a little data on the, check out http://cancure.org, the site for the
> Cancure Cure Foundation, founded by noted researcher and Americanist
> author G. Edward Griffin. He summarized Budwig's findings as follows:
Yeah. Yeah. I've visited 100's if not 1000's of these kinds of sites. If
you're into speculation, opinions, mutual commiseration, and conspiracy
theories, then such sites are a goldmine for you. I seek information, not
support.
For instance, they--as do many other, similar sites--highly promote
"Laetrile" (aka "B17" (Psssst! Just 'tween us girls, there ain't such a
thing)) as the cure-all and end-all for cancer. Yet all of the formal
studies of which I'm aware, showed WITHOUT EXCEPTION that the claims made on
behalf of Laetrile were without foundation. Again, show me some
double-blind peer-reviewed study that disputes that, and I'll step up and
eat as much crow as necessary to convince you that I regret my error...
Unfortunately, that doesn't keep 100's of websites and support organizations
from springing up, and purporting that they and only they were able to
thwart the will of the eeeevvviiiiil "medical-bureaucracy" and can give you
a life-saving drug. It just ain't so!
But, as always, you're more than welcome to believe whatever floats your
boat. Just don't expect to pass it off, within my ken, as if it were fact.
Because absent some reliable method of evaluating that, it's not "fact"
until it's proven. No matter how many conspiracy theories or the shrill
braying of adherents are used to bolster the believability of such a
notion...
As an aside, I am NOT against the use of such substances--even if their
claims are unproven. I believe that a free person should be allowed to use
and prove (or disprove and die) anything they like. Especially those in a
terminal condition.
...
>> While there are quite a few anecdotal reports of marvelous prostrate
>> and other maladies being overcome through the use of flaxseed...
...
> Apparently, you have not read Dr. Joe Wallace's book "Dead Doctors Don't
> Lie." In a study of obituaries collected over several months, he found
> that the average lifespan of medical doctors was 58 years. He suggested
An interesting but unrelated non-sequitur. One could just as well write a
book about how everybody that's died in an automobile crash ate carrots at
some point before they died...and find that as a contributory cause. The
point of books like that isn't to further the general base of knowledge,
it's to sell books to the easily duped!
...
> In my opinion you'll have much better luck getting good advice on
> longevity from a topless dancer or water salesman than from a medical
> doctor.
I'm certainly grateful that you _correctly_ prefaced your statement with "In
my opinion...".
>> However--and the jury's not in yet on this, there are some credible
>> reports floating around of excellent progress using fresh flax seeds
>> (milled, of course) in the general diet. So all-in-all, unless you're
>> a confirmed diabetic, you can't really go wrong with flax seeds. And
>> despite some of the incoherent, dogma oriented babblings often heard
>> these days to the contrary; fats and oils are a very, very necessary
>> part of your diet. Do not eliminate them, as seems to be such
>> 'knee-jerk' vogue today.
>
> That's sage advice, IMO.
Thank you. I endeavor to always do that. I just want to make sure that the
point of my remark wasn't to NOT use Flax. The point was to not use Flax
OIL, because it's too fragile and short-lived to be certain of getting the
results you want. I recommend Flax seeds. Because in them, the oil is well
kept and protected from natural enzymatic destruction.
Besides, I'm always for using things that have no downside. Whether Flax
works as hoped for or not, it can't hurt--there are no
contraindications--you to take them. Which is why I do...
>> Sorry for making this so long...
...
> I'm not sorry. Members of this group do not suffer from too much
> grandness in technical explanations as what, how, and why things work.
> We are all more or less ignorant about body chemistry, and I know I am
> not the only one who craves to know the truth.
Certainly true--as do I. But one must always keep in mind the difference
between "facts" and "information", and the difference between "knowledge"
and "wisdom".
> Thanks for taking your time to explain about fats.
Hey! I do my best to stamp out miss/disinformation as best I can. And the
unfounded rap that fats and oils have taken in our generation is truly sad.
> What I want to know now is how a couple of tablespoons of olive oil in a
> blob of bread dough function in the dough to contribute to or prevent it
> from rising, tasting good, keeping long, or staying fresh.
Nice segue into SD, Gonorio! Maybe one of the "pro's" like Mike or Roy will
jump in and help us out, here.
From my admittedly small arena of experience in that field, I found that the
oil doesn't so much keep it from rising, as it does to slow the rise. At
least that's how it seems to affect my bread. However, truth be told, I
only use oil in my SD pizza crust. And there it seems to very well...
Later all,
Dusty
Gonorio Dineri
news:117vru0...@corp.supernews.com:
> "Gonorio Dineri" <gon...@dineri.it> wrote in message
> news:Xns96517B6B33D0...@65.32.5.121...
>> Johanna Budwig's research demonstrated that diabetes can be reversed
>> by
> Well, let's separate the issues and clarify that just a bit. First,
> I'd be damned impressed if she could do something about T1 diabetes.
> I don't think so! But I'd be pleased if you could show me in error on
> this.
I agree. Some kinds of damage cannot be repaired. The pancreas can be
damaged by parasites or poisoned to the point that cancer develops and
displaces the pancreas tissue, causing the organ to fail in its function.
I cannot imagine anybody sane making a claim to the contrary.
Type 2 Diabetes often responds well to an increase in chromium and
vanadium in the diet.
>
>> including flax oil and cottage cheese in the diet.
> Well, let's just say that she did a lot of research and that she
> certainly uncovered many interesting things. But "demonstration" is
> something one does in a laboratory. And it's usually done by SOMEONE
> ELSE that tries to prove (or not) your theory with double-blind
> protection mechanisms in place. AFAICT; none have been done to test
> her hypothesis'. If I am in error, I would be most interested and
> very grateful to you in helping me learn more about that.
Surely you must know by now that nobody pays for a double blind study on
FOOD! There's no payback to the investors, so forget your hopes for that
kind of corroboration. On the other hand, you do not need an expensive
lab study to prove that eating half a pound of sand every day will kill
you.
Budwig's lab was her Black Forest clinic. And because it was a clinic,
you will say her evidence is anecdotal. I believe it is rock-solid.
Other researchers and medical doctors.have loudly acclaimed her
accomplishments. She was nominated for the Nobel Prize seven times.
Her nominators did not pay for double blind studies, of course. They
just applied the formula and raved about the good results. Your science-
craving skepticism will fare best by reading her history and what she had
to say about how and why flax oil is so good for the body.
But get this: she did not develop her famous flax oil / cottage cheese
diet in a vacuum. She had the help of two Nobel Laureates:
Dr. Otto Warburg (Nobel prize 1931) and Dr. Albert Szent-Gyorgyi (Nobel
prize 1937).
* "Dr Otto Warburg, twice Nobel laureate was able to prove that
cancer cannot grow in an high oxygen environment. He states: ´Cancer,
above all diseases, has countless secondary causes, but there is only one
prime cause: the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of normal
oxygen respiration of body cells by anaerobic respiration.´ His research
revealed that when a cell is denied 60% of its normal requirement of
oxygen, it switches to a fermentation mechanism and grows out of
control."
http://www.internethealthlibrary.com/Therapies/OxygenTherapy.htm
* "Dr. Szent-Gyorgy won the Nobel Prize in 1937 for discovering that
essential fatty acids combined with sulphur-rich proteins (such as those
found in diary products) increases oxygenation of the body."
http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/cancer-prevention-
measures.htm
Dr. Budwig developed a diet to combine these two discoveries into one
simple treatment plan - flaxseed oil and cottage cheese. She claimed to
have cured thousands of cancer patients with those as the basis of the
diet.
Here are some more "informative" links to check out.
http://www.applepublishing.com/index.cfm?crcy=USD&book=288
http://www.applepublishing.com/index.cfm?book=375
http://educate-yourself.org/fc/dukestudyignorsbudwigwork15aug01.shtml
http://www.whale.to/c/willner.html
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/budwig_protocol.html
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/budwig_protocol.html#cancerandfats
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/budwig_protocol_x.html#Linseed_and_
fatty_acids
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/guidesandbooks2.html#excerptflaxoil
Just Google Budwig and you'll stay busy for a while.
> Yeah. Yeah. I've visited 100's if not 1000's of these kinds of
> sites. If you're into speculation, opinions, mutual commiseration,
> and conspiracy theories, then such sites are a goldmine for you. I
> seek information, not support.
Are you a truth-seeker, or just a skeptic? If you go to Yahoo's
cancercure or cancercured groups and search the archives, you'll find
several testimonies by people who attribute their cures to the use of the
Budwig diet. Do you need to be sledge-hammered with evidence before the
idea that the Budwig discoveries are real and beneficial penetrates your
gray matter (no, I'm not talking about your underwear)?
>
> For instance, they--as do many other, similar sites--highly promote
> "Laetrile" (aka "B17" (Psssst! Just 'tween us girls, there ain't such
> a thing)) as the cure-all and end-all for cancer. Yet all of the
> formal studies of which I'm aware, showed WITHOUT EXCEPTION that the
> claims made on behalf of Laetrile were without foundation. Again,
> show me some double-blind peer-reviewed study that disputes that, and
> I'll step up and eat as much crow as necessary to convince you that I
> regret my error...
>
I think you should read G. Edward Griffin's book *World Without Cancer*
for a full disclosure on the history and benefit of amygdalin in
preventing and treating cancer. Yes, there is a vitamin B17, and yes, it
does prevent and cure cancer when administered properly.
> Unfortunately, that doesn't keep 100's of websites and support
> organizations from springing up, and purporting that they and only
> they were able to thwart the will of the eeeevvviiiiil
> "medical-bureaucracy" and can give you a life-saving drug. It just
> ain't so!
Yes, it is so. You can stick your head in the sand (fingers in ears, say
"La-La-La-La...La"), but that does not prevent the horrible truth from
being true. People only make web sites extolling the virtues of various
alternative therapies because there is a lot of anecdotal evidence (the
common person's "science") that they work,
>
> But, as always, you're more than welcome to believe whatever floats
> your boat. Just don't expect to pass it off, within my ken, as if it
> were fact. Because absent some reliable method of evaluating that,
> it's not "fact" until it's proven. No matter how many conspiracy
> theories or the shrill braying of adherents are used to bolster the
> believability of such a notion...
>
> As an aside, I am NOT against the use of such substances--even if
> their claims are unproven. I believe that a free person should be
> allowed to use and prove (or disprove and die) anything they like.
> Especially those in a terminal condition.
I know you're not against things that work, even if not supported by what
you consider to be solid science. If you ever get cancer, you'll turn to
them. Or, you'll die prematurely
And by the way, you might want to curb your rampant skeptcism because it
could ruin your chances of success when you want to heal your own
illness. Ever heard of the Bakster Effect? Clive Bakster, a renowned
polygraph specialist, conclusively proved that the researcher's pre-
conceived notions about the outcome of an experiment can affect the
nature of the outcome. A little web spelunking might turn on that light
for you.
> An interesting but unrelated non-sequitur. One could just as well
> write a book about how everybody that's died in an automobile crash
> ate carrots at some point before they died...and find that as a
> contributory cause. The point of books like that isn't to further the
> general base of knowledge, it's to sell books to the easily duped!
>
The title Dead Doctors Don't Lie was intended irony, but you needn't rush
to condemn the research. If the average age of doctors was 58 when they
died, then that was the average age. What will you make of it? Their
money killed them? Their patients? Stress of the job? Lifestyle?
Diet? Maybe it was their daily refusal to swallow sufficient nutritional
supplements such as copper, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin C, and
electrolytes. Aside from wars, murders, and accidents, I think bad diet
and lifestyle is what leads to the premature death of most people.
OBTW, the comment was a sequitur response to your remark about getting a
doctor's advice. Your education should have made you aware that medical
doctors are not specialists in nutrition or longevity, and so their
advice on related subjects cannot be trusted.
> ...
>> In my opinion you'll have much better luck getting good advice on
>> longevity from a topless dancer or water salesman than from a medical
>> doctor.
> I'm certainly grateful that you _correctly_ prefaced your statement
> with "In my opinion...".
I'd love to see credible evidence that my opinion is wrong. Here's an
axiom for you to chew on:
"The advice of one who profits by solving a problem is not reliable in
preventing the problem."
> I just want to make sure
> that the point of my remark wasn't to NOT use Flax. The point was to
> not use Flax OIL, because it's too fragile and short-lived to be
> certain of getting the results you want. I recommend Flax seeds.
> Because in them, the oil is well kept and protected from natural
> enzymatic destruction.
>
Bravo
> ... one must always keep in mind the
> difference between "facts" and "information", and the difference
> between "knowledge" and "wisdom".
>
And the difference between "fact" and "truth."
>
>> What I want to know now is how a couple of tablespoons of olive oil
>> in a blob of bread dough function in the dough to contribute to or
>> prevent it from rising, tasting good, keeping long, or staying fresh.
> Nice segue into SD, Gonorio! Maybe one of the "pro's" like Mike or
> Roy will jump in and help us out, here.
>
> From my admittedly small arena of experience in that field, I found
> that the oil doesn't so much keep it from rising, as it does to slow
> the rise. At least that's how it seems to affect my bread. However,
> truth be told, I only use oil in my SD pizza crust. And there it
> seems to very well...
>
Ahh, yes, back to the REAL topic, Sourdough. So, Dusty, what would
happen to your SD pizza crust if you didn't put oil in the dough?
Dusty Bleher
...
>>> Johanna Budwig's research demonstrated that diabetes can be reversed
>>> by
>> Well, let's separate the issues and clarify that just a bit. First,
>> I'd be damned impressed if she could do something about T1 diabetes.
>> I don't think so! But I'd be pleased if you could show me in error on
>> this.
>
> I agree. Some kinds of damage cannot be repaired. The pancreas can be
> damaged by parasites or poisoned to the point that cancer develops and
> displaces the pancreas tissue, causing the organ to fail in its function.
> I cannot imagine anybody sane making a claim to the contrary.
>
> Type 2 Diabetes often responds well to an increase in chromium and
> vanadium in the diet.
Yes. I seem to have run across that before. However, those micronutrients
won't do squat without a serious decrease in sugar intake. Because it's the
sugars, after all, that are at the root of the problem.
...
> Surely you must know by now that nobody pays for a double blind study on
> FOOD! There's no payback to the investors, so forget your hopes for that
Sadly, too true.
> kind of corroboration. On the other hand, you do not need an expensive
> lab study to prove that eating half a pound of sand every day will kill
> you.
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to set up a study and verify it
yourself...(:-o)!
> Budwig's lab was her Black Forest clinic. And because it was a clinic,
> you will say her evidence is anecdotal. I believe it is rock-solid.
Yes, I'm sure you do. Then again, many years ago I went to one of those
"spiritual revival and healing" sessions with a lady friend with whom I was
trying to curry favor. I saw lots of folks throw away crutches, and go
through convulsions as bits of "bloody tissue" were apparently taken from
them...and the accolades and _money_ just kept on rolling in.
The funny part--I learned later--was that the guy running it died of cancer
at the ripe old age of 48 or so (IIRC).
> Other researchers and medical doctors.have loudly acclaimed her
> accomplishments. She was nominated for the Nobel Prize seven times.
So was Yassir Arafat. Whoop-dee-doo!
...
> Dr. Budwig developed a diet to combine these two discoveries into one
> simple treatment plan - flaxseed oil and cottage cheese. She claimed to
> have cured thousands of cancer patients with those as the basis of the
> diet.
>
>
> Here are some more "informative" links to check out.
>
> http://www.applepublishing.com/index.cfm?crcy=USD&book=288
Nothing but anecdotal, self-serving opinions. The site exists in order to
collect money. And when it's the money you're after, most folks doin' it
find that it's harder to get folks to contribute when the only stories your
post are ones where the treatment doesn't work and the sufferer dies...
> http://www.applepublishing.com/index.cfm?book=375
A "buy my book" site. Now that should make it really objective, huh?
> http://educate-yourself.org/fc/dukestudyignorsbudwigwork15aug01.shtml
Another opinion based, conspiracy bound re-hash of another's work (Dr.
Budwig's).
> http://www.whale.to/c/willner.html
A self-promoting "buy my book" by a whack-job PhD. None of the treatments
he portends to support have ever demonstrated the slightest inkling of the
advances he implies with their use.
* "Laetrile" has never been shown to provide any anti-cancer properties
(at least not on the cancers upon which they were tested)
* "Chelation therapy" is a method for reducing the levels of heavy metals
in
the blood. The only other use I've ever seen it put to was lightening
the wallets
of easily led old folks. There is NO therapeutic value to this.
* "Ozone therapy" is less than even "smoke & mirrors". It's pointless!
* "Pulsed Magnetic therapy" is even more pointless.
* "714X, Glyoxide, Proteolytic enzymes, rectal Coffee instillation, and
Colonic cleansing" are all modern versions of good old-fashioned snake
oil.
But hey! No doubt he finds enough "there's one born every minute" to keep
him living in the style to which he's become accustomed...
> http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/budwig_protocol.html
Another link to the Budwig site you previously cited. I guess that by
repetition it becomes more valid...?
> http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/budwig_protocol.html#cancerandfats
Another link to a section of the Budwig site previously listed. Still after
affirmation by repetition, huh?
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/budwig_protocol_x.html#Linseed_and_
> fatty_acids
Same thing.
> http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/guidesandbooks2.html#excerptflaxoil
And again. So, from reading the preceding, I guess I'm supposed to be
overwhelmed by the sheer "weight" of the "evidence?"
> Just Google Budwig and you'll stay busy for a while.
BTDT; more than a decade ago...
>> Yeah. Yeah. I've visited 100's if not 1000's of these kinds of
>> sites. If you're into speculation, opinions, mutual commiseration,
>> and conspiracy theories, then such sites are a goldmine for you. I
>> seek information, not support.
>
> Are you a truth-seeker, or just a skeptic? If you go to Yahoo's
I am a dyed-in-the-wool, confirmed, absolute skeptic of anything that can't
be proven. I am also a "truth-seeker". But I seem to have stricter
standards of what constitutes truth of not. Certainly anecdotal
recollections can't form the basis for standards. Cuz if they did, they you
just missed meeting Elvis...
...
>> For instance, they--as do many other, similar sites--highly promote
>> "Laetrile" (aka "B17" (Psssst! Just 'tween us girls, there ain't such
>> a thing)) as the cure-all and end-all for cancer. Yet all of the
>> formal studies of which I'm aware, showed WITHOUT EXCEPTION that the
>> claims made on behalf of Laetrile were without foundation. Again,
>> show me some double-blind peer-reviewed study that disputes that, and
>> I'll step up and eat as much crow as necessary to convince you that I
>> regret my error...
>>
>
> I think you should read G. Edward Griffin's book *World Without Cancer*
I have.
> for a full disclosure on the history and benefit of amygdalin in
> preventing and treating cancer. Yes, there is a vitamin B17, and yes, it
Then it should be easy for you to point me to a medical reference book that
details that "fact."
With nearly zero effort I can find you folks that tout "vitamin O" as the
cure-all and end-all for many maladies. Do you know what's in it? Sterile
saline solution. Simply sticking a label on the cap doesn't make it so...
> does prevent and cure cancer when administered properly.
The FDA did several studies on it that would seem to contradict your version
of the results...
>> Unfortunately, that doesn't keep 100's of websites and support
>> organizations from springing up, and purporting that they and only
>> they were able to thwart the will of the eeeevvviiiiil
>> "medical-bureaucracy" and can give you a life-saving drug. It just
>> ain't so!
>
> Yes, it is so. You can stick your head in the sand (fingers in ears, say
> "La-La-La-La...La"), but that does not prevent the horrible truth from
> being true. People only make web sites extolling the virtues of various
> alternative therapies because there is a lot of anecdotal evidence (the
> common person's "science") that they work,
I believe that your convictions run both ways. Perhaps, and I say that
guardedly, it is you that has your fingers in your ears...
...
> I know you're not against things that work, even if not supported by what
> you consider to be solid science. If you ever get cancer, you'll turn to
If you like, for less than $1,000, from any of several thousand websites, I
can get you the plans for a "zero point" engine. It never needs fuel!
Considering that the price of my gas yesterday was $2.69/gal, you shouldn't
have any problem selling those by the thousands. 'sfunny, I don't see
anyone selling them at a profit...I wonder why...?
...
> And by the way, you might want to curb your rampant skeptcism because it
Not a chance. I'm skeptical of anything that's never been proven. Even of
the "proof" is only to myself. There are upwards of 3/4's of a million
folks in oenological care at the moment. Most suffering from cancer and
related maladies. Why don't you wander into any such facility, get a show
of hands for volunteers, and give 'em your best Laetrile treatment. Trust
me. If even 1 got up, cured, and walked out of there...folks with wads of
cash would be beating each other to death to get to your door. It's been
tried...and nobody's up and walked out, yet. And getting hundreds of folks
to say so, doesn't seem to be working on most rational folks...
...
> electrolytes. Aside from wars, murders, and accidents, I think bad diet
> and lifestyle is what leads to the premature death of most people.
Now here we completely agree.
> OBTW, the comment was a sequitur response to your remark about getting a
> doctor's advice. Your education should have made you aware that medical
> doctors are not specialists in nutrition or longevity, and so their
> advice on related subjects cannot be trusted.
Yep. Here as well, we completely agree.
Okay, let's both go and get our prostrates checked. I'll go to my MD, you
go to your stripper or water salesman. Then let's compare notes and see if
we can come up with an appropriate course of action...
...
> I'd love to see credible evidence that my opinion is wrong. Here's an
Donno how to prove a negative. Perhaps I just need to assert more
repetition? In any event, you've clearly asserted that it was your opinion.
And I think you know that old saw about opinions and how every one has
one...(:-o)!
...
> "The advice of one who profits by solving a problem is not reliable in
> preventing the problem."
Donno 'bout that. Let me drop one of my flight instructors a note, and I'll
get back to ya...
...
> And the difference between "fact" and "truth."
Ah yes! An interesting distinction. One that I would say has been aptly
developed in the preceding texts.
...
> Ahh, yes, back to the REAL topic, Sourdough. So, Dusty, what would
> happen to your SD pizza crust if you didn't put oil in the dough?
Good question. And I'm ashamed to admit that this is something I don't know
(yet). My guess is that the dough will come out dryer, fluffier, and not as
interesting "al dente". Also probably not as relaxed and more difficult to
shape...
Maybe I'll give it a shot later this week... It's just that I'm loath to
ruin, on purpose, a crust that usually gets rave reviews...
Thanks for the nudge. Besides, enquiring minds want to know,
dontchjaknow...
Later all,
Dusty
Dave Bell
> "Gonorio Dineri" <gon...@dineri.it> wrote in message
> news:Xns96527A116378...@65.32.5.121...
> ...
> > And by the way, you might want to curb your rampant skeptcism because it
> Not a chance. I'm skeptical of anything that's never been proven. Even of
> the "proof" is only to myself. There are upwards of 3/4's of a million
> folks in oenological care at the moment.
> Later all,
> Dusty
"oenological care" - now *there's* a therapy I can get behind!
Think I'll heaad for home and a nice Cab, myself...
Dave
Dusty Bleher
news:Pine.NEB.4.58.05...@shell2.bayarea.net...
Got careless and the darn spellchecker didn't figure out what I
meant...(:-o)! Kinda lets you know where my spellchecker's "head" is at,
huh?
I've often said that I needed a "DWIM" instruction in this darn computer.
What is that? It's, "Do What I Mean!"
At any rate, I'm more than happy to join you in a nice Cab. A '98 "Bobby
Davi" Wildwood Canyon should be drinkable, don't ya think?
Later all,
Dusty
>
>
> Dave
ellen wickberg
seed oil can be a problem for human beings.
Ellen
ellen wickberg
quantities.
Ellen
Will
True. It is not water soluble and must be chemically refined out of the
base rapeseed oil. This is basically what I said above. It is also
probably why it has an industry name.
The NYT had an interesting story yesterday on low oil diets being found
to inhibit breast cancers. Nowhere did they discuss what kind of oils
are problematic. This type of reporting is disturbing. I suspect if you
asked the average consumer whether lard or corn oil would be more
harmful to consume, 98% of them would say lard. And they would be wrong.
Will
dug88
personally, i add a tablespoon of evoo, extra virgin olive oil to the batter
stage.
wheat germ goes into most of my bread because of the taste, but it contains
a fair amount of natural oils.
the answer why is the taste.
okay if i make a mistake and get a very dark colour, i will admit i have
been known to rub butter on the first use loaf, and the rest get a lard rub,
if they go into the freezer.