Page 16 of 67

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 07 Mar 2014, 09:07
by Tizer
Lots of food products have extra sugar in them for the simple reason that most consumers buy the one that tastes sweetest, so manufacturers and supermarkets compete for who can get the most sugar in a product - and then justify it with the claim that "we're only giving the customer what he/she wants". I heard someone on the radio mention a muffin that contains 9 teaspoons of sugar - I find that hard to believe, or else they're extremely large muffins (which I suppose might be possible in these times of jumbo food portions).

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 07 Mar 2014, 09:34
by hartley353
Plenty of muffins round our way with a dollop of icing on top, and having sugary pieces baked into them.

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 08 Mar 2014, 06:04
by Stanley
It's all down to those pesky food processors chasing greater market share.....

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 18 Mar 2014, 06:46
by Stanley
Have a look at this LINK for the latest research on saturated fats. I suspect Tiz will be as angry as I feel because I can't understand why this subject is still being debated. In the early 1980s one of the main pre-occupations of the food processing industry was lengthening shelf life of foods containing fat. At the same time, some research was published (since discredited) that stated that saturated fats were bad for you and caused heart disease. The processors jumped on this as a 'scientific' reason to swap saturated fats for modified vegetable fats because they were cheaper and had a longer shelf life. Large advertising budgets ensured that saturated fats were demonised and cholesterol, an essential component of mother's milk and eggs became poison.
In 1988 the US Surgeon General's office initiated a research project to examine the preconceived idea that Dietary fat played a major role in the elevation of blood cholesterol and the development of heart disease. In June 1999, after spending $17million the project was abandoned as the link couldn't be proved. Other research flagged up the dangers of modified vegetable fats in general and hydrogenated oils in particular. Anecdotal evidence linked the rise in obesity to the increased use of vegetable oils.
How much evidence do we need? The bottom line is that saturated fats pose no danger as long as excessive amounts aren't consumed and enough exercise is taken to burn off any excess. They satisfy you better and so you stop eating sooner. They taste better and are a totally natural food eaten by humans since the dawn of time. Of course it isn't as simple as this, there a many more factors that bear on health but in the case of saturated versus other fats, what has happened is one of the biggest public health disasters in history, fuelled solely by the food processors chasing profit and longer shelf life.
If you want to be healthy, avoid modified fats, use butter, eat eggs and enjoy good roast meats. Cook for yourself starting with natural ingredients!
Yes, I am angry.... How long do we keep swallowing what the advertising tells us? Read the research and find reliable evidence. Two good books for you: 'Know What To Eat' by Booth and Bilton. 'Queen of Fats' by Susan Allport.

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 19 Mar 2014, 04:16
by Stanley
Another good LINK to an article in the NY Times.

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 26 Mar 2014, 10:27
by Tizer
I'm glad to see this latest critical examination of the old claims that saturated fat causes heart disease and hope that it will prompt further studies. We tend to forget that the original claims arose many decades ago at a time when our diet, health, wealth and lifestyles were very different from now. The majority of people ate poor quality food and had a very unbalanced diet, and most of them also smoked. They ate lots of fried food and re-used the frying fats so many times that the fat became oxidised and toxic. They didn't eat so much fresh food, not much vegetables (except for those boiled to oblivion) and little salad. In other words, people were then dangerously exposed to toxic oxidation products and ingested minuscule amounts of natural antioxidants. The people who were the subjects of nutritional studies had often lived their lives in smoggy towns too. The results of scientific studies at that time were used by health educators and the like to build up a story that saturated fats were the culprit and that the problem could be solved simply by replacing them with polyunsaturated oils. It also suited the commercial interests to see simple food commodities like milk, butter, cream, lard etc that a consumer could, in theory at least, buy from a farmer be replaced by branded products made and packaged in their big factories.

On a different topic, several times on this thread we've discussed cold-pressed rapeseed oil as an alternative to extra-virgin olive oil. A friend tells me that sales of such premium rapeseed oil is rising in supermarkets and mentioned a product called `Farrington’s Mellow Yellow' made by Farrington Oils Ltd at Bottom Farm, Hargrave, Northamptonshire.
http://www.farrington-oils.co.uk/
One of the web pages shows where you can buy the oil, in several supermarkets and from farm shops around the country, also online from the company. In the independent shops it lists: Delicious Deli & Cafe, 11 Park View, Gisburn, Clitheroe BB7 4HA, Tel: 01200 445213.

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 27 Mar 2014, 05:24
by Stanley
I've looked at several of these fashionable replacements for unfiltered extra virgin olive oil but have decided to stick to the expensive olive oil. I don't use all that much. Mind you, the Cathedral of Choice has stopped selling Il Casolare oil. I may have to go online.....

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 28 Mar 2014, 09:15
by Bruff
Which outlet is the Cathedral of Choice? Is it the Coop in Barlick? That is my extra virgin oil of choice and I've never seen it in the Hoylake branch - mind you, it's smaller than Barlick's, much smaller. Lovely is olive oil - we go through loads of it. But all fats have their place - I wouldn't roast my tayties to with a traditional roast in olive oil.

On this, The Guardian had a Top 10 cooking tips article the other day by the journalist who has spent each week the last few years writing the 'How to make the perfect xxxx [insert dish of choice]. Quite a good series as she looked at say Jamie Oliver's, Nigel Slater's, that Locatelli chap's, Delia's etc etc recipe for say Bolognese, made them, tasted them, critiqued and then came up with a final recipe.

Anyroads, one of the tips, completely new to me, was when making roasters, pop the peelings in with the tayties when you parboil them then pick out and discard before you roast in the usual way. It apparently 'makes all the difference'. We'll see, as I'll do this the next time.

Some readers offered tips - one that stuck was to store tins of baked beans upside down but open normal way up. Apparently, you'll never have to scrape the remnants out with a spoon again. Not sure I could do this - my wife thinks it's hilarious to turn all the tins the wrong way up and watch me turn them over again. I'm a bit OCD on these things, me.

Richard Broughton

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 28 Mar 2014, 09:21
by David Whipp
Richard, what about opening them at the bottom?

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 28 Mar 2014, 10:04
by Stanley
Ah, funnily enough I have the same theory as Richard with baked beans. I always shake the tin as well before opening. The 'open at the other end. theory fails when they are either ring-pull opening or the modern tins which are only crimped at one end, my tin opener doesn't work with out a crimp to bite on.
Richard, until recently the Co-op in Barlick (AKA the cathedral of choice) stocked Il Casolare but it has vanished off the shelf. Lovely oil and you can tell it is natural because it has sediment and varies in colour. The last one I got was very dark and had a lovely taste. Definitely the best 'ordinary' olive oil I have ever found.
On a gloomy note, I have almost finished the 16 litres of Lea and Perrins Worcester Sauce that Tripps put me on to on the Approved Foods site. I am using it very sparingly and have an alert posted on the AF site.
Well done Dame Sally Davis (LINK) for her warning about sugar and the fact that obesity is now being accepted. I saw a figure the other day that sid 77% of parents of obese children didn't recognise that they were so. I also heard another lady saying that it is impossible to feed children to much if they are eating natural foods that are home cooked, they eat till they are full and then stop. With crisps, colas and processed foods they are not satisfied and overeat. Dead right! I wonder if some sense is at last creeping into the debate?

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 28 Mar 2014, 10:59
by David Whipp
Stanley wrote:I also heard another lady saying that it is impossible to feed children to much if they are eating natural foods that are home cooked, they eat till they are full and then stop. With crisps, colas and processed foods they are not satisfied and overeat.
She can come and deal with my 15 year old.

Yesterday, I made a veggie sausage casserole with rice; Tom said he'd eaten late at dinner time and wasn't hungry. Later on he went out and bought something at the co-op.

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 28 Mar 2014, 11:59
by Bruff
I always have Lea and Perrins in, but I'm a Henderson's Relish chap myself. Have two bottles at the moment, but am in Sheffield on Sunday so will pick up two more.

I have a Henderson's Relish T-Shirt - it's in the colours and says 'Strong and Northern'.

Richard Broughton

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 29 Mar 2014, 05:13
by Stanley
I think I was infected by my dad who called Lea and Perrins 'Old and Bold'. One good thing is that the drought is cutting down on use so who knows, I might even be weaned off it!
I suspect there may be something mildly addictive about these sauces which are all based on fish. The Romans had a fish sauce called Garum which they imported into The Isles at great expense from home because they were addicted to it. It has an ancient and honourable history!

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 30 Mar 2014, 06:39
by Stanley
Image

It struck me this morning that there are perhaps two main sorts of people in the world. The ones who love fat bacon and the ones who are repelled by it. I saw this dry-cured middle at Kath's yesterday and couldn't resist it. If you think this is fat you should have seen the bacon we cured from my own pigs at Hey Farm! We killed at about 30 score (600lbs) and one of them kept us going for a fair while. The older it got the better it tasted! Compare that with what they call 'bacon' in the Cathedral of Choice. As far as I am concerned the hard fat on good bacon is white meat.

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 30 Mar 2014, 12:22
by Pluggy
You won't need any butter on the bread with that Stanley. :)

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 30 Mar 2014, 16:09
by hartley353
There was a time when the bread for a bacon butty didn't need butter, you could dip it in the fat from the frying pan. long time since I had bacon where the fat would melt and give me a dip.

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 31 Mar 2014, 04:41
by Stanley
Pluggy, I never put butter on me butties. Plenty of dip in my frying pan and no froth, a sign of good dry-cured bacon.

Image

A Lump of two shear sat on a bed of onion, garlic and other goodies slowly warming up from frozen on the stove. It will take hours for it to cook and it won't need any attention. I love this way of cooking, so easy and all the nutrients preserved in the pot, no waste at all. The older I get the more I realise how much there is to be said for old-fashioned cooking on a stove like this. Contrast this with the infamous processed ready meal, is it any wonder so many people are badly nourished! And of course this is cheap grub. Forget not having time to cook, it took only five minutes to get it ready and I could go out for the day and leave it with complete confidence.

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 01 Apr 2014, 05:34
by Stanley
Image

The two shear after 7 hours slow cooking.

See this LINK for the latest research on 'Five a day'. One conclusion the researchers came to was that fresh fruit and veg was more effective than frozen or canned. That figures! I know Maz worries about me and me veg but here's the worktop in the kitchen Maz, it won't take me long to work my way through this lot on top of the veg I use....

Image

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 01 Apr 2014, 06:24
by LizG
Stanley wrote:
The two shear after 7 hours slow cooking.
Looks delicious. Everyone round to Stanley's house for dinner. Are they beautiful parsnips I spy? Yummmm

Just saw in another post that they are indeed parsnips.

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 01 Apr 2014, 07:18
by hartley353
Funny how many people hate parsnips, I am on the same side as Stanley on this one, love them!

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 01 Apr 2014, 07:29
by Stanley
Liz. I suspect that if you were to suggest to someone that parsnip butties were favourite for tea I think that most would turn their noses up at it. Veggies cooked like this, very slowly with meat, they take on even more flavour. Carrots do the same. Have you ever tried deep-frying carrots? They make super tasty chips! Deep frying has a bad name I know, people are frightened of the fat, but if done properly they absorb very little fat and take on the flavour. That's one of the reasons why commercial fries are made so small, so that they will absorb more fat. Wedges are good in this respect.
Update on the meat. I poured the gravy off last night and popped it into the fridge so fat lifted off this morning and put in the deep fryer. Meat cut up this morning and three nice slices lifted out for a meat butty at dinnertime. I had some potatoes about me person so they have been cut small and popped in with the meat. Back on the stove and by tonight it will all be merged together into a nourishing stew!

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 02 Apr 2014, 09:19
by plaques
We are constantly being told that the obesity epidemic will soon bring the NHS to its knees. Even a sugar tax has been proposed to cut the calories being consumed. My thoughts are that those leading the country should be setting an example. ie: MP's. Since the government seems to be in favor of league tables it may be enlightening to list all those MP's who are above the recommended body mass index for normal weight. The next stage could be that after a suitable period, say one year, those above this level would contribute a similar percentage of their income to a suitable charity. Will this ever happen? Fat chance!

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 02 Apr 2014, 10:43
by hartley353
This morning I made bubble and squeak for breakfast, I was going to make this on Monday but found we had no lard. this is one of those meals it is impossible to cook with cooking oil, it just ends up a sloppy mess. Using lard enables me to get higher pan temperatures, that allow a crust to form and stop the absorbtion of to much fat. With a nice plateful I made two sandwiches, the food of the gods they called ambrosia was probably Bubble and squeak.

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 03 Apr 2014, 04:46
by Stanley
P. Snap! Very similar thoughts were going through my mind as I watched Eric Pickles commenting on affairs in Tower Hamlets. I hadn't got as far as the BMI competition, my mind always goes where angels fear to tread.... If you dig deep enough and long enough you learn some esoteric facts. One of them is the fact that once you reach a certain level of obesity you can't reach your bottom to clean it. (I know, I have peculiar thought processes!) The first I came across was while I was doing the LTP, there was a fire chief in Barlick who got his wife to clean him, always in front of the fire. Then I came across Henry VIII and his Gentlemen of the Stool. Bowers has a reference to Maxwell (The Bouncing Czech) having the same problem. So, every time I see an obese person I wonder.... Very handy for cutting egregious and obese politicians down to size!
(I think this can fairly be described as going off piste. Apologies!)

Re: WE ARE WHAT WE EAT

Posted: 15 Apr 2014, 06:55
by Stanley
See this LINK for a report on the latest thinking on salt intake which includes counter-arguments about the value of the data. Good balanced article I thought.