20 potatos a day for 60 days!!
Aussie
http://www.20potatoesaday.com/index.html
In the end he says he lost 9.5 kilograms, his cholesterol level went from 214
to 147, and his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/washington-man-completes-60-
day-potato-challenge/story-e6frfku0-1225963611024#ixzz16nmIJnLy
--
Peter Lucas
Hobart
Tasmania
The act of feeding someone is an act of beauty,
whether it's a full Sunday roast or a jam sandwich,
but only when done with love.
Dan Abel
Aussie <Aus...@home.upstairs.in.brissie.aus> wrote:
> He did it, he finished his 'diet'.
>
> http://www.20potatoesaday.com/index.html
>
>
>
> In the end he says he lost 9.5 kilograms, his cholesterol level went from 214
> to 147, and his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.
One pretty good counterexample to the claim that diets high in carbs
cause weight gain, high cholesterol and diabetes.
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
da...@sonic.net
Sqwertz
> In article <Xns9E4147D5FEE22P...@61.9.134.55>,
> Aussie <Aus...@home.upstairs.in.brissie.aus> wrote:
>
>> He did it, he finished his 'diet'.
>>
>> http://www.20potatoesaday.com/index.html
>>
>> In the end he says he lost 9.5 kilograms, his cholesterol level went from 214
>> to 147, and his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.
>
> One pretty good counterexample to the claim that diets high in carbs
> cause weight gain, high cholesterol and diabetes.
But how do you eat 20lbs of potatoes without butter and salt? And
sour cream, chives, bacon bits, cream, etc...
Not just in America, either.
-sw
Brooklyn1
wrote:
I wonder how many pounds of potatoes go into making one pound of
commercial (Lays, etc.) potato chips, I'd guess close to five pounds.
Julie Bove
"Sqwertz" <sqw...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
news:1cmjhrbow57ul$.dlg@sqwertz.org...
I sometimes get a baked potato in a restaurant. I do put salt on it and
also pepper. It is actually good this way. Better of course with butter or
margarine, but sometimes I can't have those. Daughter eats hers with
ketchup...but...yuck!
Dan Abel
Sqwertz <sqw...@cluemail.compost> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:28:49 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns9E4147D5FEE22P...@61.9.134.55>,
> > Aussie <Aus...@home.upstairs.in.brissie.aus> wrote:
> >
> >> He did it, he finished his 'diet'.
> >>
> >> http://www.20potatoesaday.com/index.html
> >>
> >> In the end he says he lost 9.5 kilograms, his cholesterol level went from
> >> 214
> >> to 147, and his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.
> >
> > One pretty good counterexample to the claim that diets high in carbs
> > cause weight gain, high cholesterol and diabetes.
>
> But how do you eat 20lbs of potatoes without butter and salt?
No, 20 potatoes, not 20 pounds. They weighed 5.3 oz each on average.
And he could have seasonings. No butter, but some oil.
Sqwertz
Well, butter is oil.
Thanks for the correction. I don't click PeterLinks but he did say
that in the subject.
-sw
A Moose In Love
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:58:59 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:
> > Sqwertz <sqwe...@cluemail.compost> wrote:
>
> >> But how do you eat 20lbs of potatoes without butter and salt?
>
> > No, 20 potatoes, not 20 pounds. They weighed 5.3 oz each on average.
> > And he could have seasonings. No butter, but some oil.
>
> Well, butter is oil.
>
> Thanks for the correction. I don't click PeterLinks but he did say
> that in the subject.
>
> -sw
Chopped onions and a tad olive oil.
sf
> No, 20 potatoes, not 20 pounds. They weighed 5.3 oz each on average.
> And he could have seasonings. No butter, but some oil.
I can't imagine eating 20 potatoes a day even if they had everything
on them. I love potatoes, but two would be my limit and certainly not
every day.
--
Never trust a dog to watch your food.
Julie Bove
"sf" <s...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:tahbf65tcak1lp5nm...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:58:59 -0800, Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> No, 20 potatoes, not 20 pounds. They weighed 5.3 oz each on average.
>> And he could have seasonings. No butter, but some oil.
>
> I can't imagine eating 20 potatoes a day even if they had everything
> on them. I love potatoes, but two would be my limit and certainly not
> every day.
I can eat three or four if they're small. And I love potatoes!
Doug Freyburger
>
> One pretty good counterexample to the claim that diets high in carbs
> cause weight gain, high cholesterol and diabetes.
Low fat diets work for some people. To claim otherwise is irrational.
Low fat diets cause problems for some people. To claim otherwise is to
follow USDA advice, uhm I mean irrational.
Eating almost nothing but potatoes would eventually cause malnutrition.
It's true of almost any other food as well.
Nunya Bidnits
Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article <Xns9E4147D5FEE22P...@61.9.134.55>,
> Aussie <Aus...@home.upstairs.in.brissie.aus> wrote:
>
>> He did it, he finished his 'diet'.
>>
>> http://www.20potatoesaday.com/index.html
>>
>>
>>
>> In the end he says he lost 9.5 kilograms, his cholesterol level went
>> from 214 to 147, and his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.
>
> One pretty good counterexample to the claim that diets high in carbs
> cause weight gain, high cholesterol and diabetes.
Not at all. That's just anecdotal conjecture based on a single individual
with an obvious agenda. It's a classic example of disinformation.
He stopped eating a whole lot of stuff. You have to factor that in when
trying to assign a cause to the *alleged* changes in his bloodwork. It's not
just the potatoes, and what he did eat, but more importantly, it's also what
he *didn't* eat. The notion that potatoes are the cause of changes in his
bloodwork is the result of intentionally confounded data by virtue of
wholesale omissions of relevant information and baseline testing.
It's a decent stab at a publicity stunt on behalf of Washington potatoes
though, I'll give him that.
MartyB
Ranee at Arabian Knits
sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:58:59 -0800, Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > No, 20 potatoes, not 20 pounds. They weighed 5.3 oz each on average.
> > And he could have seasonings. No butter, but some oil.
>
> I can't imagine eating 20 potatoes a day even if they had everything
> on them. I love potatoes, but two would be my limit and certainly not
> every day.
If the potatoes were the size Dan said, I could probably eat five a
day. Were other vegetables allowed, or just potatoes? What was the
point of this?
Regards,
Ranee @ Arabian Knits
"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13
Dan Abel
"Nunya Bidnits" <nunyab...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
> Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > In article <Xns9E4147D5FEE22P...@61.9.134.55>,
> > Aussie <Aus...@home.upstairs.in.brissie.aus> wrote:
> >
> >> He did it, he finished his 'diet'.
> >>
> >> http://www.20potatoesaday.com/index.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In the end he says he lost 9.5 kilograms, his cholesterol level went
> >> from 214 to 147, and his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.
> >
> > One pretty good counterexample to the claim that diets high in carbs
> > cause weight gain, high cholesterol and diabetes.
>
> Not at all. That's just anecdotal conjecture based on a single individual
> with an obvious agenda. It's a classic example of disinformation.
I completely disagree. This is a classic example of a particular type
of information. It's not very useful, true, but it is a single data
point. It's a counterclaim, not a claim. It's not an anecdotal
conjecture, it's an anecdotal counterexample.
> He stopped eating a whole lot of stuff. You have to factor that in when
> trying to assign a cause to the *alleged* changes in his bloodwork. It's not
> just the potatoes, and what he did eat, but more importantly, it's also what
> he *didn't* eat. The notion that potatoes are the cause of changes in his
> bloodwork is the result of intentionally confounded data by virtue of
> wholesale omissions of relevant information and baseline testing.
In fact, a more likely conjecture is that he last a lot of weight (20
pounds in two months) because he was sick of a diet consisting solely of
potatoes, and that the lowering of blood cholesterol and blood sugar was
probably due to that loss of weight.
> It's a decent stab at a publicity stunt on behalf of Washington potatoes
> though, I'll give him that.
Yup. And maybe that's a good thing. Some people whine about how a
single potato totally wrecks their day's diet. Here's a guy who ate 20
every day, for two months, without gaining weight, increasing his
cholesterol or increasing his blood sugar.
Aussie
news:dabel-A45779....@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au:
>
> Yup. And maybe that's a good thing. Some people whine about how a
> single potato totally wrecks their day's diet. Here's a guy who ate 20
> every day, for two months, without gaining weight, increasing his
> cholesterol or increasing his blood sugar.
>
http://www.20potatoesaday.com/20_potatoes_a_day_002.htm
Diet Facts
"A person my height and weight needs to consume 2200 calories a day just to
maintain my weight. An average potato (5.3 oz) contains 110 calories. I'll
need to eat 20 potatoes a day to maintatin my weight. Below is an example of
the nutrients I'll be getting from my 20 potatoes a day..."
Vitamin C 942%
Vitamin B6 423%
Potassium 345%
Dietary Fiber 252%
Maganese 220%
Magnesium 165%
Phosphorus 164%
Copper 155%
Thiamin 153%
Niacin 151%
Iron 124%
Protein 116%
Folate 115%
Pantothenic Acid 85%
Vitamin K 68%
Zinc 55%
Ribofalvin 54%
Calcium 34%
Selenium 12%
Vitamin E 1%
Vitamin A 1%
Nunya Bidnits
Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article <id64jv$gg0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Nunya Bidnits" <nunyab...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> In article <Xns9E4147D5FEE22P...@61.9.134.55>,
>>> Aussie <Aus...@home.upstairs.in.brissie.aus> wrote:
>>>
>>>> He did it, he finished his 'diet'.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.20potatoesaday.com/index.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the end he says he lost 9.5 kilograms, his cholesterol level
>>>> went from 214 to 147, and his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.
>>>
>>> One pretty good counterexample to the claim that diets high in carbs
>>> cause weight gain, high cholesterol and diabetes.
>>
>> Not at all. That's just anecdotal conjecture based on a single
>> individual with an obvious agenda. It's a classic example of
>> disinformation.
>
> I completely disagree. This is a classic example of a particular type
> of information. It's not very useful, true, but it is a single data
> point. It's a counterclaim, not a claim. It's not an anecdotal
> conjecture, it's an anecdotal counterexample.
>
And useless as far as drawing any sound conclusions, regarless of how you
define it.
>> He stopped eating a whole lot of stuff. You have to factor that in
>> when trying to assign a cause to the *alleged* changes in his
>> bloodwork. It's not just the potatoes, and what he did eat, but more
>> importantly, it's also what he *didn't* eat. The notion that
>> potatoes are the cause of changes in his bloodwork is the result of
>> intentionally confounded data by virtue of wholesale omissions of
>> relevant information and baseline testing.
>
> In fact, a more likely conjecture is that he last a lot of weight (20
> pounds in two months) because he was sick of a diet consisting solely
> of potatoes, and that the lowering of blood cholesterol and blood
> sugar was probably due to that loss of weight.
>
That's another potential theory which makes a lot more sense than his
suggested conclusion.
>> It's a decent stab at a publicity stunt on behalf of Washington
>> potatoes though, I'll give him that.
>
> Yup. And maybe that's a good thing. Some people whine about how a
> single potato totally wrecks their day's diet. Here's a guy who ate
> 20 every day, for two months, without gaining weight, increasing his
> cholesterol or increasing his blood sugar.
And as noted, he didn't eat anything else, therefore probably bypassing many
important nutrients as well as other sources of carbs and fat. A single
potato can indeed wreck your daily diet if you need to limit carbs, as many
people do. A single potato with all the stuff people dress it with can do
plenty of damage to a diet, but in that case they have probably misplaced
the blame that should fall upon the added butter, sour cream, bacon bits,
etc. A potato can't do it by itself. ,
However a single potato can wreck any diet if it's the extra serving food
the person should not have eaten to maintain their ideal intake of
carbs/calories. Any time it's a matter of too high an intake of calories and
fat, you can erroneously conclude that it is any one of the foods eaten,
when in fact it is the accumulation of foods that makes the difference. I
think you're talking about an issue of self control, not some undiscovered
wonderful properties of potatoes.
And BTW, there's no cholesterol in potatoes, so the only remarkable number
would be if it did *not* go down.
I still view this as nothing but a publicity stunt, but I'll give you
"anectdotal counterexample" as opposed to "disinformation", noting that
functionally they are no different in this case. There is very little
science involved, and the conclusions can be figured to be wrong, as well as
skewed by an advance agenda, with the application of a little comomon
sense.
Don't mistake any of this for me knocking potatoes. I love the damn things!
MartyB
Nunya Bidnits
Absolutely not. Almost the entire thing is used to make potato chips. Where
do you figure the other four pounds are going, into the atmosphere? If that
was the case we would have potato air pollution. ;-)
If you've ever made home made potato chips you would know that the waste is
extremely minimal.
The question should be how much of the weight of the bag of chips is made up
of oil, which has nothing to do with the efficiency of the use of potatoes.
MartyB
--
-
Nunya Bidnits
sf <s...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:58:59 -0800, Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> No, 20 potatoes, not 20 pounds. They weighed 5.3 oz each on average.
>> And he could have seasonings. No butter, but some oil.
>
> I can't imagine eating 20 potatoes a day even if they had everything
> on them. I love potatoes, but two would be my limit and certainly not
> every day.
Yeah, but the guy who made the claims is a representative of some Washington
state potato producers association. So at least he had a reason for
torturing hiimself. If it was me, I'd be expecting a substantial bonus in
return for making such a bizarre sacrifice.
MartyB
Nunya Bidnits
Ranee at Arabian Knits <arabia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If the potatoes were the size Dan said, I could probably eat five a
> day. Were other vegetables allowed, or just potatoes? What was the
> point of this?
>
If I was inclined to be unkind, I'd say the point of it was to sell snake
oil.
MartyB
Sqwertz
> I wonder how many pounds of potatoes go into making one pound of
> commercial (Lays, etc.) potato chips, I'd guess close to five pounds.
I suspect the moisture content is taken up by oil saturation. I
would say there's no more than 15-20% loss by weight.
-sw
Dan Abel
"Nunya Bidnits" <nunyab...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
> > I wonder how many pounds of potatoes go into making one pound of
> > commercial (Lays, etc.) potato chips, I'd guess close to five pounds.
>
> Absolutely not. Almost the entire thing is used to make potato chips. Where
> do you figure the other four pounds are going, into the atmosphere? If that
> was the case we would have potato air pollution. ;-)
>
> If you've ever made home made potato chips you would know that the waste is
> extremely minimal.
You're joking, right? I've not only eaten potato chips, but I've made
them. They shrink something unbelievable.
From:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/
Potatoes are 83% water.
Potato chips are 2% water.
So, if you take 5 pounds of raw potatoes and make chips, you will lose
almost all the water, which would leave one pound of chips. That
doesn't quite work out, because there's a lot of fat in the chips (36%).
Still, that's close enough.
Dan Abel
<arabianknits-9658...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Ranee at Arabian Knits <arabia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:58:59 -0800, Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> > > No, 20 potatoes, not 20 pounds. They weighed 5.3 oz each on average.
> If the potatoes were the size Dan said, I could probably eat five a
> day. Were other vegetables allowed, or just potatoes?
Just potatoes. And five wouldn't be enough for you (by my calculation).
If Mariam is totally breast fed, you would need to eat nine just to
supply enough calories for her. And since you are active, you would
need something less than 20 to supply *your* calorie needs. That's one
of the lessons of this exercise, that potatoes are not really that high
in calories. From the web site:
http://www.20potatoesaday.com/20_potatoes_a_day_002.htm
"A person my height and weight needs to consume 2200 calories a day just
to maintain my weight. An average potato (5.3 oz) contains 110 calories.
I'll need to eat 20 potatoes a day to maintatin my weight.A person my
height and weight needs to consume 2200 calories a day just to maintain
my weight. An average potato (5.3 oz) contains 110 calories. I'll need
to eat 20 potatoes a day to maintatin my weight."
> What was the
> point of this?
To put Moses Lake on the map (the whole thing took place in Moses Lake).
The guy who did this is the Executive Director of the Washington State
Potato Commission.
Julie Bove
"Dan Abel" <da...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dabel-5FF131....@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
I've made them in the oven before. One potato makes a lot of chips!
Ranée at Arabian Knits
<dabel-2C01B6....@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article
> <arabianknits-9658...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Ranee at Arabian Knits <arabia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:58:59 -0800, Dan Abel <da...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > No, 20 potatoes, not 20 pounds. They weighed 5.3 oz each on average.
>
> > If the potatoes were the size Dan said, I could probably eat five a
> > day. Were other vegetables allowed, or just potatoes?
>
> Just potatoes. And five wouldn't be enough for you (by my calculation).
> If Mariam is totally breast fed, you would need to eat nine just to
> supply enough calories for her. And since you are active, you would
> need something less than 20 to supply *your* calorie needs.
Oh, I'm sure I'd need more than five for calories, etc. I just don't
think I could eat more than five a day. They are really filling.
According to the calculations, I'd need to eat 15 each day to meet my
caloric needs.
Don Wiss
>He did it, he finished his 'diet'.
>
>http://www.20potatoesaday.com/index.html
>
>In the end he says he lost 9.5 kilograms, his cholesterol level went from 214
>to 147, and his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.
Now the fellow doing this was very biased. There are better before and
after markers that could have been measured. Most importantly CRP and
homocysteine. And only the total cholesterol number is shown. No doubt his
good HDL went down, and the composition of the LDL shifted more to bad
small dense from good large bouyant.
If you want to show that a potato only diet is healthy, it is easy to fudge
the results.
Don <http://paleofood.com/kitchen-equipment.htm> (e-mail at page bottom).
Aussie
news:a69ff695j49d035gh...@4ax.com:
And unless you do it and come up with a different set of figures to back up
your suppositions, all you're doing is blowing hot air.
Brooklyn1
You can't make potato chips in the oven... you may be calling them
chips but they are not nearly the same as the kind sold by Lays,
etal.... potato chips are deep fried, about 10% is lost in peeling,
then 80% of the remaining 90% does indeed evaporate into the
atmosphere as water vapor.... it takes roughly five pounds of potatoes
to produce one pound of chips, that's the main reason why they are
relatively expensive. If one really liked potato chips it wouldn't be
very difficult to consume twenty 6 1/2 ounce spuds a day. That would
be like 8 pounds of potatoes, or about 1 1/2 pounds of potato chips.
Most folks, those who are honest, who buy a 12 ounce bag of chips not
only finish it that day but they would say that they finish it at one
sitting, and then wish there were more. The stupidmarket where I shop
often has 2fers on chips, I buy them 2-3 times a year, I can easily
finish a 12 ounce bag of ruffles in one sitting. I hide the 2nd bag
from myself in a closet (only out of sight), but before 2-3 days pass
I've consumed that bag too. That said whenever I prepare potato salad
I use the entire five pound bag, same whenever I make mashed potatoes,
and most potato dishes. By the time they're peeled, eyed, and bad
parts pared away there isn't an enormous amount left from a five pound
bag of spuds... 5 lbs of spuds makes like 2 qts of potato salad... at
the deli a pound of potato salad fills a 1 pint container. It would
eventually get boring but it's not all that difficult to consume 20
potatoes (8 pounds) a day... you need to think cooked potatoes, not
raw. Next you prepare five pounds for mashed potatoes weigh them
after paring, then after cooked and drained, you'll be shocked at how
much/little remains.
Sqwertz
Bullshit. As usual.
You just speculated that the yield is 20%, an now here you are
claiming it's fact. Is that how the Katz Fact Bin works?
Depending on specific gravity of the potato (uh-oh, don't tell Kent
were discussing gravity) Oil retention makes up 30-47% of the
potato chip weight. Potato dry matter makes up another 15-24% of
the yield by weight.
Therefore the yield is 45% to 71%. IOW, About 3.5 pounds of typical
chip-making potatoes make 2 pounds of potato chips. That's a far
cry from 5:1, which you stated as fact.
So now you know. You're welcome.
-sw
Sources:
INFLUENCE OF POTATO SPECIFIC GRAVITY ON YIELD AND
OIL CONTENT OF CHIPS
Edward C. Lulai and Paul H. Orr 1
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r4j1076636777712/
-sw
Dan Abel
Sqwertz <sqw...@cluemail.compost> wrote:
[snipped bullshit, although it's partly correct]
> Bullshit. As usual.
>
> You just speculated that the yield is 20%, an now here you are
> claiming it's fact. Is that how the Katz Fact Bin works?
>
> Depending on specific gravity of the potato (uh-oh, don't tell Kent
> were discussing gravity) Oil retention makes up 30-47% of the
> potato chip weight. Potato dry matter makes up another 15-24% of
> the yield by weight.
>
> Therefore the yield is 45% to 71%. IOW, About 3.5 pounds of typical
> chip-making potatoes make 2 pounds of potato chips. That's a far
> cry from 5:1, which you stated as fact.
Look at my numbers above. Also look at my cite.
It may not be 5:1, but it's certainly not the 1:1 that Marty seemed to
be claiming.
Brooklyn1
wrote:
What I know without any equivocation whatsoever is that your reading
comprehension is below the 3rd grade level, dwarf.... you even flunked
out of McD's burger flipping school for the mentally challenged, your
only employment ever... you transposed the pictograph register buttons
one too many times.
Julie Bove
"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
news:76eff6h1en5336j3i...@4ax.com...
There used to be a restaurant in Seattle that had oven baked chips on their
menu. Don't know if they are still there or not of if they are, if they
still offer them. They used huge Russet potatoes and the chips were thick.
These are what I made at home.
Sqwertz
Sucks to actually learn something new, eh?
And it took little 'ol sqwertz to do it for you. Need your diaper
changed? Call Andy.
Brooklyn1
<juli...@frontier.com> wrote:
I often make those crisp and puffy delights at home but no way do I
consider those oven roasted potatoes chips. However even those don't
result in very much from a five pound bag of spuds, I'd consider the
results 4 servings... they are less oily and salty than commercial
potato chips, most folks can really put them away.
Nunya Bidnits
She just said she did, dumbass.
Nunya Bidnits
I didn't give any numbers, ratios, or claim zero loss. So I forgot about the
water weight, BFD. You're now grossly exaggerating my post.
When I said the waste was minimal, the fact is you still end up with a hell
of a lot to eat out of one potato. From the standpoint of perception rather
than measurement, there doesn't seem to be much waste when you get so much
from so little. To some extent water is replaced with fat. But for the most
part, if you're not talking about water, and rather talking about the part
of the potato which has food and nutritional value, there is indeed very
little loss. Screw the numbers. I know what I get out of one thinly sliced
potato in the fryer.
MartyB
Julie Bove
"Nunya Bidnits" <nunyab...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote in message
news:idmbvj$st4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Heh! Lays makes baked potato chips too.
Dan Abel
"Julie Bove" <juli...@frontier.com> wrote:
> "Nunya Bidnits" <nunyab...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote in message
> news:idmbvj$st4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >
[snipped]
Some people like them. My personal preference is to skip them. I try
to eat fewer of the regular ones, and less often. Sometimes I even
succeed!
Brooklyn1
Some pinheads call Pringles potato chips.
Sqwertz
I don't get it. I was talking to Sheldon. He was the one claiming
it took 5lbs of potatoes to make 1 pound of chips. You said they
were 80% waste water, which is fine. But you never said it was
5:1. And I don't think I ever even saw Marty's post, but he was a
lot closer than anyone.
Also look at MY cites, which are scientifically proven potato-chip
making facts, not just a simple water content for some unknown
potato in the NAL database. My cite was for potato making chips
taking into account density/gravity.
IOW: I wasn't talking to you, so don't get all defensive! :-)
-sw
Nunya Bidnits
I mash 'em up in some cottage cheese...yum!
Julie Bove
I like corn chips. Can live without potato chips. Once in a while they're
okay.
Julie Bove
"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
Now oddly, I like those. I like them to the point of being addictive. But
do I think they taste like potato chips? No.
Dan Abel
Sqwertz <sqw...@cluemail.compost> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 10:22:45 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > In article <v2fdmptxq8m$.d...@sqwertz.org>,
> > Sqwertz <sqw...@cluemail.compost> wrote:
> >
> >>>>"Dan Abel" <da...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:dabel-5FF131....@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
> >>>>> In article <id6ece$r22$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >>>>> "Nunya Bidnits" <nunyab...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
> I don't get it. I was talking to Sheldon.
Well, that was a mistake, wasn't it?
:-)
> 5:1. And I don't think I ever even saw Marty's post, but he was a
> lot closer than anyone.
> IOW: I wasn't talking to you, so don't get all defensive! :-)
I'm going to let this one go. Marty and I had a "misunderstanding". I
think we're all on the same page, and there's really nothing to quibble
about. Potato chips just taste damn good, and that's all there is to it.
Paco
"Dan Abel" <da...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dabel-2A7991....@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
Damn pacifist! Go all Andy on him!
Sqwertz
> In article <idmfit$c99$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Julie Bove" <juli...@frontier.com> wrote:
>
>> "Nunya Bidnits" <nunyab...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:idmbvj$st4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
> [snipped]
>
>>>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 19:35:08 -0800, "Julie Bove"
>>>> <juli...@frontier.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> I've made them in the oven before. One potato makes a lot of chips!
>>>>
>>>> You can't make potato chips in the oven...
>>>
>>> She just said she did, dumbass.
>>
>> Heh! Lays makes baked potato chips too.
>
> Some people like them. My personal preference is to skip them. I try
> to eat fewer of the regular ones, and less often.
But when Zapp's go on sale for $1.25/6oz bag (which is pretty
often), they're hard to put down - especially the Voodoo Chips. I
only buy chips on sale. And this is chip sale season.
You don't get Zapp's there so you're safe. Lay's Kettle Chips
aren't bad but they only have two flavors, and not for $3.69/bag
(who they kidding?). Kettle Brand chips are pretty good, but never
discounted deep enough.
-sw
Sqwertz
> Now oddly, I like those. I like them to the point of being addictive. But
> do I think they taste like potato chips? No.
I think baked lays taste like Pringles.
-sw
Sqwertz
> "Dan Abel" <da...@sonic.net> wrote
>
>> Some people like them. My personal preference is to skip them. I try
>> to eat fewer of the regular ones, and less often. Sometimes I even
>> succeed!
>
> I like corn chips. Can live without potato chips. Once in a while they're
> okay.
Pork rinds have less fat than all of the above. And Zero Carbs.
-sw
Brooklyn1
>In article <u3pqrf9h2vn7$.d...@sqwertz.org>,
> Sqwertz <sqw...@cluemail.compost> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 10:22:45 -0800, Dan Abel wrote:
>>
>> > In article <v2fdmptxq8m$.d...@sqwertz.org>,
>> > Sqwertz <sqw...@cluemail.compost> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>"Dan Abel" <da...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> >>>>news:dabel-5FF131....@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
>> >>>>> In article <id6ece$r22$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> >>>>> "Nunya Bidnits" <nunyab...@eternal-september.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I don't get it. I was talking to Sheldon.
>
>Well, that was a mistake, wasn't it?
>
>:-)
>
>> 5:1. And I don't think I ever even saw Marty's post, but he was a
>> lot closer than anyone.
>
>> IOW: I wasn't talking to you, so don't get all defensive! :-)
Typical low IQ texass newbie still hasn't figured out that anything
posted to usenet is tawkin' to the whole fucking woild... what a dumb
POS shit you are, dwarf... you and your sock nunya nonutz, etal. Yoose
phoney sock motherfuckers don't exist to me.
JosefMiller
In the end he says he lost 9.5 kilograms, his cholesterol level went
from 214 to 147, and his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.
--
JosefMiller
Sqwertz
>>In article <u3pqrf9h2vn7$.d...@sqwertz.org>,
>> Sqwertz <sqw...@cluemail.compost> wrote:
>
> Typical low IQ texass newbie still hasn't figured out that anything
> posted to usenet is tawkin' to the whole fucking woild.
I'm fine with that, but when you direct a post at one specific
person telling them their full of shit (me talking to you), I don't
expect somebody else to think I was talking to them.
>.. what a dumb
> POS shit you are, dwarf... you and your sock nunya nonutz, etal. Yoose
> phoney sock motherfuckers don't exist to me.
Yep. I am Marty's sock puppet. I hope nobody from AFF-F finds
out!
-sw
Doug Freyburger
>
> Pork rinds have less fat than all of the above. And Zero Carbs.
Some folks like chicarones some don't. I have found them quite variable
in quality. Are there brands that are consistantly puffy, crunchy and
mild flavored?
blake murphy
most of sheldon's sock knowledge is derived from jacking off into them.
your pal,
blake
Sqwertz
Most of them are. There's two different kinds - with and without
skin. The without are just pork fat pieces rendered of most of
their fat with only the solids left behind. These are always mild
and fluffy (not taking into account any seasonings).
The ones with skin can vary wildly, even within the same package.
Most require some jaw action, and some require teeth made of
diamonds. The hardest one you can buy commercially (possibly the
hardest food on the planet) are Tom's Pork Skin Strips:
http://toms-snacks.com/our-snacks/pork-skins/red-pepper-cracklin-strips/
(The actual contents pictured are not what are depicted).
Avoid those. They are 4x harder than corn nuts. The rest of the
lineup are pretty good and consistent, though.
-sw
Brooklyn1
Look who the fuck is talking hosiery... you legless-worthless dumb
bitch... you're one of Jargon Scott's legless dogs.
"Jargon constantly tries to explain the benefits of owning legless
dogs, such as: they never run away, you never have to walk them,
they're safe around children, etc."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sifl_and_Olly_Show
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .
Paco
"Sqwertz" <sqw...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
news:1xeacd74...@sqwertz.org...
HA! I knew it!
Sqwertz
> "Sqwertz" <sqw...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
> news:1xeacd74...@sqwertz.org...
>
>> Yep. I am Marty's sock puppet. I hope nobody from AFF-F finds
>> out!
>
> HA! I knew it!
I dare you to prove it.
That would be quite a feat, though. "Steve" (whoever he is),
socking sqwertz who's socking Marty complaining about sqwertz
socking Jerry, who's really Paco.
The mind boggles.
-sw
David Harmon
Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote,
>Some folks like chicarones some don't. I have found them quite variable
>in quality. Are there brands that are consistantly puffy, crunchy and
>mild flavored?
Stay away from Baconetts if you want mild flavor.
Doug Freyburger
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> Some folks like chicarones some don't. I have found them quite variable
>> in quality. Are there brands that are consistantly puffy, crunchy and
>> mild flavored?
>
> Most of them are. There's two different kinds - with and without
> skin. The without are just pork fat pieces rendered of most of
> their fat with only the solids left behind. These are always mild
> and fluffy (not taking into account any seasonings).
Two posters have now posted ones to avoid.
I've found that the least variable fried pork skins are the ones with
the heavy chemical flavoring. Red chemical dust on good crunchy mild
skins. A strange experience.
blake murphy
this calls for dna tests all around.
your pal,
blake
Sqwertz
And make sure you have a glass of water handy. They have a
tendency to stick in your throat and choke you if your mouth is too
dry.
-sw
Goomba
I had drinks recently at this really nice bar in Charleston where one of
the bar snacks available were "beer & cheddar pork rinds". Never being a
pork rind eater we ordered them to try. Nooooooot bad at all! Of course
they were freshly made and still warm which helps. They went so well
with the drinks and the drinks were wonderfully well prepared and tasty.
(I was drinking gin & tonics)
It was interesting that this very trendy place had some unusual (good!)
snacks-
http://www.mccradysrestaurant.com/pilotFiles/menusDocs/files/11.19.10Bar%20Snack.pdf
Brooklyn1
wrote:
Idiots are discussing eating shit... for the real deal roast a fresh
ham.
Nunya Bidnits
I'm one of Sqwertz's socks?
Geeze, tweaker, you really need to lay off the powder.
-sw
Nunya Bidnits
Funny, but I am Steve's sockpuppet, not the other way around. Don't be taken
in by the propaganda.
It's the sock Borg. Resistance is futile.
MartyB
--
-
Nunya Bidnits
Beer and cheddar pork rinds, freshly made? That's fascinating. I know you
can get powdered cheese. But powdered beer? How is this possible?
I make flavored potato chips sometimes, but I detest the commercial
"chemical dust". All it takes is a good combination of finely ground salts
and seasonings of your choice. I'd love to know how they pull that off a
beer and cheddar flavor. Sounds like it would be good on potato chips too.
MartyB in KC.
--
-
Paco
"Sqwertz" <sqw...@cluemail.compost> wrote in message
news:xb0derg...@sqwertz.org...
I'm so confused! Who am I? Why am I here? Andy, is this what it's like to
be you?
Paco
"blake murphy" <blakepm...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:10zlddefp2txe$.1oey7yu3sneb0$.dlg@40tude.net...
Are you sure you really want to know?
Sqwertz
I'm not sure how a restaurant could make these reliably.
Commercial ones are made in pressurized (or were they vacuum?) deep
fryers and take quite a while to cook and all that fat to render
out. And the smell is not pretty at all.
There is a microwavable version these, but I haven't seen them on
the shelf for a long time. They were made by Lawrys, IIRC.
sw
Sqwertz
> Idiots are discussing eating shit... for the real deal roast a fresh
> ham.
Says the guy who eats canned chopped ham.
-sw
Wayne Boatwright
Freeze dried beer, powdered?
--
~~ If there's a nit to pick, some nitwit will pick it. ~~
~~ A mind is a terrible thing to lose. ~~
**********************************************************
Wayne Boatwright
blake murphy
i'm working on an r.f.c. genealogy.
your pal,
blake
Paco
"blake murphy" <blakepm...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:r5gn75tczsuk$.g30c9vj97zzw$.dlg@40tude.net...
"Our family tree's got no branches, but the roots all interlock..."
Handy Gandy
> He did it, he finished his 'diet'.
>
> http://www.20potatoesaday.com/index.html
>
>
>
> In the end he says he lost 9.5 kilograms, his cholesterol level went
> from 214 to 147, and his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.
>
>
Interesting but glucose ( by which I presume he meant blood glucose )
would not be a good measurement because blood glucose varies widely over
a period of time. The ten point drop could easily be seen if he measured
the first time 15 minutes after a meal and the second time 3 hours after
a meal.
A better quantity to measure would have been his A1C (30~45 day average
ofhis blood glucose ) or fructosamine levels ( 14 day average ).
Dan Abel
Handy Gandy <handig...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That's why serious blood glucose tests are almost always done fasting.
As he had a lipid panel done at exactly the same time, that just
confirms it in my mind. My experience, which is not necessarily that
broad, is that cholesterol tests are always done fasting. The fact that
his glucose tests have the note that "normal" is 70-99 also confirms
that it is fasting. My personal guess is that his drop in fasting blood
sugar was probably mostly due to his 20 pound weight loss (as well as
his lipids).
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
da...@sonic.net
Steve Pope
> Handy Gandy <handig...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:03:36 +0000, Aussie wrote:
>>> his glucose dropped from 104 to 94.
>> Interesting but glucose ( by which I presume he meant blood glucose )
>> would not be a good measurement because blood glucose varies widely over
>> a period of time. The ten point drop could easily be seen if he measured
>> the first time 15 minutes after a meal and the second time 3 hours after
>> a meal.
>> A better quantity to measure would have been his A1C (30~45 day average
>> ofhis blood glucose ) or fructosamine levels ( 14 day average ).
>That's why serious blood glucose tests are almost always done fasting.
>As he had a lipid panel done at exactly the same time, that just
>confirms it in my mind. My experience, which is not necessarily that
>broad, is that cholesterol tests are always done fasting. The fact that
>his glucose tests have the note that "normal" is 70-99 also confirms
>that it is fasting.
I agree. He must have been talking about fasting glucose. But I note the
last time this came up there was no agreement in the group on this point.
Tangentially, I just had my fist HbA1C reading and it was 5.5%. This is
on the high side but not quite prediabetes. My doctor says nothing
to worry about. But I think it's a hint that I need some lifestyle
improvements (fortunately, there is room to make a few of those).
Steve