221–230 of 252 posts
Does 50% chicken DNA means it's proportionally made of 50% chicken? I would be very surprised if DNA concentration was in any way proportional to actual volume or weight concentration, especially if you compare plant DNA to animal DNA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Carbs are like Lego blocks. The singular blocks are called "sugars" and include things such as fructose (fruit sugar) and blood sugar. 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…
This is almost right, but still manages to be dangerously wrong. 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 g…
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3533803/
The main similarity with alcohol metabolism is the "in the liver" part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To give American grocery store sliced white bread some texture, just toast it! 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…
Most American bread is made using https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorleywood_bread_process which produces the blandness that we know and hate
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Carbs are like Lego blocks. The singular blocks are called "sugars" and include things such as fructose (fruit sugar) and blood sugar. 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…
This is almost right, but still manages to be dangerously wrong. 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 g…
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.
> 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.
Not good for low-carb/keto eaters. Soy has carbs, chicken doesn't. 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously, what bread besides Irish soda bread can you not easily compact to a third it's size?
The German bread that he is talking about is probably this: 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 ba…
As you say, I think you'd have to be a German to consider that typical bread. :P
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most American bread is made using https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorleywood_bread_process which produces the blandness that we know and hate
It's made in a very industrial way, but it seems it is not made using that process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
mechanically separate meat is a paste-like meat product produced by forcing pureed or ground beef, pork, turkey or chicken, under high pressure through a sieve or similar device to separate the bone from the edible meat tissue .[1] 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.wiki…
they feed whole chicken carcasses through grinders and strain out the bone/feather/etc fragments.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who on a low carb / keto died eats a sandwich ?
I will often order a hamburger and leave the bun aside. The bun is just filler. I've done the same with other kinds of sandwiches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like you have a point in there somewhere. Would you like to share it?
His point is that though they may be "needlessly slaughtered", they would not have been born if not for that purpose. My personal extension of this is that if you believe that the well-being of the chicken is all that matters, and if you believe that the chicken was better off never having lived, then you should avoid meat. However, if the chicken is better off for having lived, you should eat meat.
These chickens often live in squalor and die of disease or physical trauma. It is better for these chickens to have never lived.
However, if you would like to raise pet chickens in decent conditions, and you just so happen to eat a few of the eggs they produce naturally with no coercion, then it is all good for these chickens to be alive