> The majority of the remaining DNA? Soy.
The headline got me sorta terrified, imagining what sort of repugnant, monstrous creature was being grinded and mixed into my Subway sandwich. Good to know at least it's just soy.
The headline got me sorta terrified, imagining what sort of repugnant, monstrous creature was being grinded and mixed into my Subway sandwich. Good to know at least it's just soy.
There has been some discussion regarding subway and carbs in the chicken, because their nutrition shows far fewer than some app trackers do. If it's 50%, that's a serious level of carbs, and makes Subway not an option.
I don't know what you're getting at.
If you order a salad and eat the greens, but not the dressing served on the side, you just wasted 90% of the calories. See the point?
Is your problem that I used calories as a way to measure the value of the food?
Should I have used price? That's not valid in my opinion. Wasting a spoonful of expensive caviar is not as bad as wasting 10 kg of rice. And I have no problem people wasting their money.
I just don't get your point. Is there a way to look at this situation (deliberately ordering something you know your gonna throw away to not inconvenient the staff) and not consider it wasteful?
PS: If your salad's calories is 90% from oil, you're using too much oil.
Yes.
> Is there a way to look at this situation (deliberately ordering something you know your gonna throw away to not inconvenient the staff) and not consider it wasteful?
Obviously, the OP who explained that they do it that way doesn't see it as wasteful. Neither do I.
The cost of a hamburger is about 1/3 cost of ingredients and 2/3 everything else, including labor to serve it to you. Of the ingredients, it's the beef, then the tomato, lettuce, etc, and the bun is basically free.
Most restaurants that serve hamburgers have an ordering system that is streamlined for the kind of burgers people order. By the way, a burger is a kind of sandwich and by definition includes the bun. Try ordering a burger with no bun at a McDonald's and see how much extra time it takes, and what kind of looks you get from the people serving you and the people in line behind you.
If you think that throwing away 100 calories and $0.05 worth of bread is wasteful, it's only because you're ignoring the time and energy of the people that are being saved.
I think nutritional waste is worse than wasting money, you obviously think the opposite. I also think it's worse to order something to throw it away deliberately.
I guess the old saying "agree to disagree" applies.
If you set a dollar bill on fire that's wasting money.
If you throw away a dollar's worth of rice, for no reason, that's about the same.
However, there are plenty of ways to donate the dollar and not so many ways to usefully donate the rice, so yes, wasting the money is worse, but that's not really what I am getting at here.
What we're talking about is whether you will inconvenience others to save some trivial amount of food. My position is that saving a hamburger bun is not worth making someone's day worse who works in a hamburger shop. The money is just one way of measuring it.
As I said, I don't care about wasting money. Do so as you wish.
>>> If you throw away a dollar's worth of rice, for no reason, that's about the same.
Yeah, economically speaking. But you are literally wasting more food in this case, and for no good reason other than people literally having to do their job.
>>> However, there are plenty of ways to donate the dollar and not so many ways to usefully donate the rice
You are not donating anything in this conversation! It's not like he's donating the bun to anyone. You are comparing wasting a bun vs wasting rice. It's still a waste, and one is worse than the other, for the same price. You don't feel that wasting 100g of kobe beef is less worse than wasting 100 kg of generic beef?
>>> My position is that saving a hamburger bun is not worth making someone's day worse who works in a hamburger shop.
They literally have to do less work.
Finally, what is your point?!?! That is ok to waste food intentionally? Seriously?! Even if it's a trivial amount in money, you realise it adds up, right? It's a real problem, and it's not a financial problem. Are you just being a contrarian for no good reason? Is "agree to disagree" not good enough for you?
My point? Instead of just applying a rule (wasting food is bad) you should holistically consider the results before judging someone else's choice.
(No, children are not starving because of you, no worries!)
I'm going to need to see a source on that.
Ancedotally, I do 50-100 and do just fine.
An ounce of tofu has about 0.5g of carbs. I don't think it's going to add more than a few grams for an entire sandwich.
Both net contents and serving size include metric measures.
"Food labels printed must show the net contents in both metric (grams, kilograms, milliliters, liters) and U.S. Customary System (ounces, pounds, fluid ounces) terms." [0]
"The serving size is expressed as a common household measure followed by the equivalent metric quantity in parenthesis." [1]
[0] https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocument...
[1] https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocument...
For example, I have two yogurts, one has 18g carbs per 170g serving, the other has 34 g per 227g serving. Quick, how much more carbs would I have if I ate the same amount?
It's a lot easier to tell if you know one is 6oz and the other is 8oz, or if the servings were designed in metric sizes (e.g. 150g and 200g).
"It was difficult to prove monetary damages, because everybody ate the evidence," said Thomas Zimmerman, who was co-lead attorney for the class. Zimmerman said the attorney fees are being split among 10 law firms.'
Feb. 29, 2016
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9dda14e5aeae4083aa331ebbd98af...
I was really surprised when I went to Australia and found tv's sold with centimeter diagonals.
Oz weights on steaks is not used outside North America though I'm quite sure.
A subway sandwich is terrible for you with its bread to filling ratio, and now we see their chicken salads may not be as healthy as we thought as well.
Maybe for some people. But we don't have the nutritional science to say this definitively, let alone universally.
Sincerely, a German.
(Seriously, if you can compact it easily to a third of the size, that's just wrong. And don't get me started on the strange interior.)
That said, I'd love to find a decent schwarzbrot near Belmont..
Still, essentially American bread is just bread, that is, made almost entirely just from flour, water, yeast, and salt. Maybe the main difference is that with machines the dough is kneaded a lot and, then, permitted to rise (have the yeast grow) a lot. Commonly can also get wheat bread that has some whole wheat flour and typically is not quite so soft on the inside.
One reason for white flour instead of whole wheat flour is that white flour keeps and whole wheat flour, with the wheat germ and its oil, will go rancid. IIRC early on, white flour was considered a luxury item because it was easier and cheaper just to grind whole wheat. Recently there are claims that whole wheat is better nutritionally, e.g., has more fiber, whatever the heck that is, is less of a shock to blood sugar, and has some nutrients missing from white flour.
made almost entirely just from flour, water, yeast, and salt
The wheat bread I eat I believe has some whole wheat flour in it.
Also lots of dough conditioners which are added for various reasons.
I know I've eaten commercial bread with enough lactylate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactylate) in it to give me some pretty awful gastrointestinal symptoms. My test wasn't blinded, but the effect was dramatic enough. At the moment I don't recall if it was Sodium stearoyl lactylate or Calcium stearoyl lactylate.
Fiber is simple, it's any carbohydrate that humans can't digest.
Contrary to graycat's ingredient list, sugar is a key ingredient of nearly every leavened bread recipe. About 40g/loaf is the typical amount (about three tablespoons). I would be very surprised if you could find a bread recipe that doesn't have about that much sugar, unless it is specifically trying to work around sugar.
Also, there are breads in the stores I shop that don't list sugar (or the various substitutes for sucrose) as an ingredient.
Pizza crust is a different recipe from the breads being discussed here. Sugar is not as necessary for the baking process as it is for soft bread.
> Also, there are breads in the stores I shop that don't list sugar (or the various substitutes for sucrose) as an ingredient.
I would like to see the brands. I have never seen a soft bread that did not contain sugar.
Also, the point stands that I make bread with minimal or no sugar in it. I just don't make it all that often.
As far as the bread in the stores, it's usually in the bakery section. I think Walmart's sourdough doesn't have much sugar in it, but they stock it in the bread aisle. Brand is Sam's choice. (does soft sourdough bread count in the soft bread category we are now discussing?).
> made almost entirely just from flour, water, yeast, and salt.
So my "almost entirely" was my qualification or safety valve! I didn't know just how much sugar, dough conditioner, etc.
I did know that the French bread I've had in the US claims loudly that ALL it has is "flour, water, yeast, and salt" so concluded that US white bread doesn't actually need a lot more. This list of 4 for French bread is also elsewhere in this thread.
So, thanks for the corrections on sugar, etc.!
How large is your loaf with 40g of sugar?
http://www.goodtoknow.co.uk/recipes/497085/paul-hollywood-s-...
https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/2738662/simple-white-cru...
18oz flour, 0.5oz butter, 1 tsp salt, 10fl.oz warm water + yeast
The biggest taste difference is if you forget the salt, and then varying the type of flour e,g. mixing in rye, spelt or other types and changing butter for olive oil, adding seeds etc.
Adding multiple tablespoons of sugar sounds quite disgusting; it has plenty of taste without. A warm freshly-baked loaf is just the best!
When fructose or glucose enter the digestive system, they are readily processed and enter the bloodstream as glucose. Here, cells take up as much glucose as they can, which can turn into a problem if decades-long oversaturation continues unabated. The only way cells can block glucose from entering is by becoming resistant to a key that unlocks the entryway, insulin. Thus, diabetes develops.
In any case, carbs can become extremely long chains, forming things such as chitin, the sturdy outer carapace of insects. If you ever failed to squash a cockroach, now you know why.
A type of these complex sugars aka polysaccharids is called "fiber". Again, this includes things such as cellulose, which you can see if you tear apart a piece of paper, or lignine, which are the strands seen when you break a branch off of a tree.
We can't fully digest this fiber, but there are herbivores and especially ruminants who can. For example, cows have a special digestive system consisting of several stomachs, where they chew some plants, digest them, chew them again, digest some more and so on.
Now for why that's important for humans. In our digestive system, the dietary fiber becomes partially digested, turning into a soft gel that travels down our 30-foot digestive tract and helps push things along. To date, the entirety of our medicine hasn't created a medication that cleans the digestive system with same efficiency as dietary fiber. Cats and dogs have a relatively simple digestive tract; they can live off of turned salami but we can't.
Also, dietary fiber swells up, giving you a feeling of fullness and slowing down the rate of absorption of sugars. You see, now the digestion actually has to work to extract food, which reduces the onslaught of sugar into the bloodstream.
The problem is that dietary fiber makes the food harder to cook, chew and digest. And boy, do food companies hate that. Dietary fiber reduces the throughput of customers. Why would a fast food company want you to eat a hamburger for 30 minutes? They want you chewing that badboy in 2 minutes, out the door and then back right away, since food without dietary fiber does not satiate. Do you see the situation?
Source: dietary writer
Though I haven't gotten the habit of writing regularly there.
An excellent reason to have as much muscle as possibile so all these delicious carbs go into making your muscles look nice and full. Mmmm I love carbs. I also hate it when people try and make carbs look evil, it's so necessary for me. My daily maintenance calories is 2700. Anything less than that and I'm losing weight. Without carbs I'd look flat and have to eat that all from solid food :(
Unless you have little muscle. Then you should probably avoid carbs.
In nature, carbs are never found isolated. They always come with dietary fiber and in varying degrees of complexity. But in processed food, carbs are artificially designed to be as simple as possible.
From bread and pastry to candy and fruit, the food we eat has been scientifically engineered to contain the lowest common denominator. Food companies see nothing wrong with this: they want every Fig Newton to be the exact same, but this ultimately means depriving us of variety of tastes and nutrients that naturally should exist in food. This hurts us in the long run tremendously.
Even the fruit we eat and which is arguably the source of healthiest carbs we can find has no resemblance to what is found in nature. Bananas are a fine example of this.
The variety of bananas commercially available in the world has been reduced to a single variety: Cavendish. From Ecuador to Estonia, you can walk into any store and find the exact same bananas, right down to shape, size and color.
If you open those bananas up and take a bite, you will notice they have no seeds. How do they reproduce then? They don't: they are sterile, genetically engineered clones of one another. There are enormous banana plantations all around the world, and they are all growing the exact same clone of the exact same plant.
Have you ever heard of a term "banana republic" and chuckled a bit? The term has a grave history, as it denotes a country where the banana cartel (such a thing does exist) established a puppet government and shifted the entire economy towards a single commodity: bananas. But, as it turns out, this is completely unsustainable in the long run.
The problem with growing genetic clones of any plant on a global scale is that an ecosystem is only as healthy as it is diverse. Once you create uniformity for the sake of marketability, the entire structure is vulnerable to a single agent of catastrophic failure. In this case, the culprit has a perfectly fitting ominous name: Fusarium oxysporum aka Tropical Race 4.
The description of this fungus reads like the description of the Terminator: it is indestructible, has no mercy and never stops. When this fungus that's been honing its banana-slaying skills for millennia reaches the sterile, cloned Cavendish plantations, the effect is utterly devastating. Every single plant gets infected, wilts and then the fungus lies in wait in the soil for decades, rendering it toxic to bananas. For now, the majority of banana plantations are safe while customers remain blissfully unaware of the entire fracas.
Now to consider carbs as a source of energy. Carbs are like rocket fuel for the body. But, if they are taken into the body but aren't actually used, they start causing problems.
I do want to point out the abundance of fat in the modern diet. It is needed in minute quantities in our diet, and yet we're swimming in it. Ideal diet for a bodybuilder or an athlete would have 50% carbs, 45% protein and 5% or less fat.
Yup, in a convenience store can see lots of evidence of the five main food groups -- sugar, fat, caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine! :-) Can see a lot of the first three at fast food restaurants! Or at a donut shop, 24 x 7, can see sugar, caffeine, and fat.
So, right: Late at night, a dozen glazed donuts and a gallon of strong coffee with a lot of sugar and real cream will keep one awake a few more hours!
That case of pig out gives a lot of instant energy that will likely pay for later: Get fat; develop some insulin immunity; raise blood pressure. So, the body pumps out too much insulin; the blood sugar is all burned off; and now the insulin has the blood sugar too low; the person feels weak or sleepy and returns for some more coffee and donuts!
Better to get off that addiction to fat, sugar, and caffeine. Maybe wheat bread is better for this than the usual US white bread.
Thanks for the clear definition, description, and use of fiber.
Gee, for all the insults I've done to my 30' feet of intestines over the years, I just got back the results of a blood test of my stool sample: "Normal". So, apparently so far I've avoided colon cancer! Supposedly the fiber and its actions can help avoid colon cancer.
Frustose and glucose are very different, one never gets converted to the other. All cells can and will take up and metabolize glucose, but only the liver can import and metabolize fructose. Metabolically, fructose does not behave like a carbohydrate, but like alcohol.
Insulin affects mostly fat, muscle and liver cells. They react by storing the excess glucose, which they do harmlessly. Excess glucose does not cause insulin tolerance; fructose seems to do that, thought I don't remember the whole mechanism.
Neither chitin nor lignin are carbohydrates, lignin isn't even chemically related. Even ruminants can't digest lignin, only a few funghi can do that.
At any rate, the bottom line is that frustose is a problem, glucose isn't, and lumping both under "carbs" confuses matters. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM for lots of details. (But don't take Dr. Lustig's words at face value---check other sources. Most of it is uncontroversial.)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3533803/
The main similarity with alcohol metabolism is the "in the liver" part.
Now, as soon as you mentioned "fructose" and "alcohol" in the same sentence, I thought about a Youtube video I watched a while back. In that video, an energetic professor had a rapid-fire exposition of how fructose is toxic and affects the liver like alcohol, how cholesterol indicates risk of heart disease and that people are in danger because they have no idea what they're eating or how it affects them.
I scroll down through your comment and see a familiar name "Dr. Lustig". Hey, that's the name of the guy in the video I watched! Isn't that a coincidence? Don't you find it disconcerting that we both use a singular source of information, simply because there is no other?
I'm not saying Dr. Lustig is lying; I actually trust what he's saying, I think he has good intentions but our knowledge of diet is so limited, he's like a guy looking through a pinhole and trying to convey to us the wondrous sights he sees.
Now, that brings me back to my original comment. I've been a professional writer for 4 years now. I quickly discovered what I call "Writer's dilemma". In theory, there is a perfect piece for every occasion, the only problem is it takes an infinite amount of time to write it. So, I have to decide on where to cut corners.
No matter what I write, someone will disagree with it. No matter how I write it, there will be those who don't understand what I said. In that case, I can only make a bona fide effort to convey the information while making a good story. But simply quoting someone else doesn't make a good story. In fact, it's called plagiarism and can result in my client's AdSense account getting suspended.
Also, chitin is a derivative of glucose. I checked that in 5 seconds on Wikipedia, it's the very first sentence. So, in trying to correct me, you also got at least one of your facts wrong. But I wrote a good story.
https://www.amazon.com/Mestemacher-Bread-Whole-17-6-Ounce-Pa...
It is incredibly dense, like a brick. A slice is more like a non-crunchy cracker. I like it because it doesn't seem like it ever goes stale. (Or maybe it does and the texture doesn't change?)
It is good but you would have to be an extreme German nationalist to enjoy it more than a good French baguette.
If you put it in a toaster it will still be good after 5 days. The time also depends on the flour - rye keeps longer than wheat, and things like a generous amount of sunflower seeds help.
Baguette is good too, but is only good for like half a day. And I feel better if I go for the darker bread most of the time.
As you say, I think you'd have to be a German to consider that typical bread. :P
[0] http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/featu...
[1] http://www.hambletonbakery.co.uk/range/ (not many local bakeries have websites, this is the best site I found)
http://www.subway.com/en-us/menunutrition/menu/product?Produ...
[1] https://bengreenfieldfitness.com/2011/08/the-hidden-dangers-...
It's also possible that almonds rejected from other uses (for cosmetic reasons, small fragments) might be less expensive than whole, high-grade consumer almonds.
What is unappealing about that? It's still meat, just finely ground. And if you're keen on not wasting meat, it's a great way to get the last bit of meat off a carcass.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanically_separated_meat
That still doesn't concern me. What would concern me is throwing away perfectly good meat simply because it's not feasible to remove it from the bones. What a waste that would be.
http://www.subway.com/~/media/usa/documents/nutrition/us_all...
Soy protein doesn't have carbs, though.
I also wonder where the DNA ends up when the soy protein is extracted. DNA is naturally bound to proteins, amnd I don't know if that bond is broken in the extraction process. If it isn't, the concentration of DNA in soy protein would be much higher than in soy beans, so there is a real possibility that 1% soy protein in the patty equates to 50% soy DNA in the whole DNA.
That also means the title overstates the case. It can only confidently make a statement about the fraction of chicken DNA, and adding the weasel word "may" to an unsound conclusion makes it unscientific in my opinion.
Do you have any more info on this? I was under the impression that giving chickens antibiotics was illegal and so feckless that it isn't even worth breaking the law for. I could be wrong as well, honestly.
This addresses concerns over antibiotics in the consumed product, but not the problems of antibiotic resistance promoted through use in animal feed, which really must stop.
https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm378100.h...
Marketing trust is out the window; if it doesn't explicitly say its 100% fresh whole-piece chicken, cooked today, it might as well be meatloaf or McDonald's "shakes"
IIRC, in the wild, chickens ate seeds, insects, and maybe more. They might have eaten a soy bean if they had found one. IIRC US soy beans were imported from Asia; so, maybe chickens and related birds in Asia ate soy beans.
He also fed his chickens anchovies: So, in Chile, they would catch tons of the little fish and sell them cooked in 55 gallon drums. He said that the anchovies were an astoundingly good growth factor. The faster can get the chickens to grow, the less number of days have to feed them just to stay alive; so rapid growth is important.
He never mentioned that he gave anti-biotics because he fed soy beans.
For the soy beans, he grew a lot of those himself.
Eventually the big margins went out of the chicken business. He was in northern Indiana where the winters can be just darned cold, e.g., -40 F and 50 MPH winds, and that was cold the day I was in it. So, in the US, raising chickens moved to the US South where there were warmer winters and longer growing seasons for more soy beans.
When I asked him about some of the issues in raising chickens I read in the news, his answer was fast: He asked "Did the whole chickens I bought have any fat?" I said "Yes". And then he said, "Then they had to have been healthy." First cut, he was probably right. He also knew what a sick chicken was: Each day he had to walk through his big chicken houses, gather up the birds that died during the night, and toss them into a big trench that he dug and covered over occasionally.
Or even better, 50% beef and 50% grass.
At least, that's what I learned when I took a course on ruminant nutrition and digestion when I was a graduate student at UC Davis.
Apparently, cattle digest cellulose fine, but the lignin in the wood interferes with their cellulose digestion. Treating the sawdust with nitric acid and heat breaks the cellulose-lignin bond and makes it more digestible. (Due to onerous government regulation of nitric acid, the farmer in question went on to develop an alternative method of sawdust processing which doesn't use it, but the article doesn't provide any details on that.)
Well, for human DNA in the hamburgers, sure, likely "more expensive than beef"! :-)
I'd even prefer it was some random (assuming clean) meat tissue than soy.