| Cookaholics Bulletin Board https://cookaholics.org/ |
|
| Wow https://cookaholics.org/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1219 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | crystal [ Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | Wow |
Normally, I look through these things and I think..."well, how can anyone think that wouldn't be bad for you?" A couple ofthese surprised me. |
|
| Author: | crystal [ Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wow |
Pardon, iPad glitch or user error |
|
| Author: | gardnercook [ Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wow |
Thankfully, science has a found a way to counteract all of it....I love my Lipitor! But I have cut way down on the fat in my daily food intake....moderation is my favorite word. ilene |
|
| Author: | TheFuzzy [ Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wow |
Yeah. I'd read about the take-out salad dressings a while ago; the other thing is that those McD/Subway/Starbucks dressings have a ton of corn syrup, which makes them very caloric. There was a time where a McD's salad actually had more calories than a cheeseburger, if you used the whole dressing packet. I'm also wondering about the saturated fat on the banana chips. What are they being fried in? I have a bag of plantain chips in the pantry, and while they have a lot of fat, none of it is saturated. I think the math with the turkey is off, though. There's no way a 16lbs turkey has only 11g of fat. |
|
| Author: | crystal [ Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wow |
Fuzzy, You are probably right; my jaw dropped at the turkey. |
|
| Author: | TheFuzzy [ Sun Feb 27, 2011 4:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wow |
Crystal, My guess is that they mixed up the stats for a single serving with the stats for a whole turkey. Yes, they did. According to the University of Illinois, the stats they give are for a 3.5 oz serving of turkey: http://urbanext.illinois.edu/turkey/nutrition.cfm Which means that a whole roast turkey of 16lbs, assuming around 8lbs meat & skin, would have a 400grams of saturated fat ... not 11. Given that kind of glaring error, I'm thinking that the rest of that article's stats aren't trustworthy either. It's your usual inflammatory food "reporting", and part of the reason Americans have poor nutrition in the first place. We're constantly being lied to by the media about what's in our food, so pretty soon we don't trust anybody's food recommendations. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|