Two many Fat Girls

Two many Fat Girls

Post by DrLit » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 13:40:44



Many frozen types

Quote:
> weren't labelled, so I'm assuming were probably pink or one of the other
> low quality. If you look at nutrient tables, you'll see there are
> different levels of nutrients in the different ones, with the kings and
> reds being the earlier season fish and higher in nutrients (not sure if
> this is coincidence or cause/effect). Locally, kings, reds, and silvers
> are the prized species.

Are "silvers" the same as silverbrite? We get those here in Maryland in late
summer/early fall, very cheap ($1.99/lb at some sorts). I'll buy as many
frozen fillets as I can fit in the freezer. It's funny--snobby folks won't
buy the wild pacific salmon because it's cheaper and it's not as pink as the
farmed atlantic, but the farmed salmon is only pink 'cause they add stuff to
make it pink.
 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Dot » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 14:15:19

Quote:



> Many frozen types

>>weren't labelled, so I'm assuming were probably pink or one of the other
>>low quality. If you look at nutrient tables, you'll see there are
>>different levels of nutrients in the different ones, with the kings and
>>reds being the earlier season fish and higher in nutrients (not sure if
>>this is coincidence or cause/effect). Locally, kings, reds, and silvers
>>are the prized species.

> Are "silvers" the same as silverbrite?

Doesn't look that way. I had to look it up since I had never heard the
term before.
"The name SILVERBRITE SALMON may be used for fresh or frozen CHUM or
KETA that have a bright appearance. It is recommended that the name CHUM
or KETA appear in close proximity."
from
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/fispoi/fishlist/cancommentp...
http://www.bigy.com/content/seaf/pdct/salmon_keta.php

 >We get those here in Maryland in late

Quote:
> summer/early fall, very cheap ($1.99/lb at some sorts).

I don't think we ever get salmon that cheap around here - unless we buy
it out of back of a van or equivalent ;)

What's kind of interesting with some of the pricing on the smoked or
canned stuff is that king is the best, then sockeye (red) not too far
behind, but silver seems to be less pricey. Also the nutrients are
probably between the king/sockeye and the chum/pink, etc. But as far as
what people like to catch and eat around here, it's probably much closer
to the sockeye than to the chum. Chum is also sometimes called dog
salmon because it's so abundant it's used as a main stable and feeding
sled dog teams in the villages. Oh, yea, and the closer to the ocean,
the better.

For areas near the ocean kings run in June, reds in early July. Silvers
are later, probably late July and August. Chum (dog) and pink (humpback)
are late season also.

If you think Alaska is full of wide open spaces for fishing, take a look
at combat fishing:
http://www.tobinphoto.com/photos/141_fishing.htm

I'll buy as many

Quote:
> frozen fillets as I can fit in the freezer. It's funny--snobby folks won't
> buy the wild pacific salmon because it's cheaper and it's not as pink as the
> farmed atlantic, but the farmed salmon is only pink 'cause they add stuff to
> make it pink.

yep. Salmon up here is anything but cheap (at least what I looked at
today), except for canned pink - although I'm probably out in field when
it's fresh.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Steve Junipe » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 14:36:18

    Hmmm. I've always thought that neither rice nor beans provided complete
protein, but that together they do and my nutrition pamphlet here agrees.
Not so???
    And I also thought that consuming protein after a hard ride was
important to rebuild damaged muscle tissue - that carbs were important to
consume before or during a ride for energy. Both the Armstrong/Carmichael
Performance Program book and the Friel training book seem to say the same
thing.
--

Steve Juniper
                        "Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere."


On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:04:31 -0500, "Proctologically Violated??"

Quote:

>         TenKMan is essentially correct.  It turns out that almost all
>vegetables/fruits are significantly more expensive than meat, PER CALORIE.
>Asparagus, per calorie, is thru the roof.  There are only a few vegetables
>that are substantially cheaper than meat, per calorie: potatoes, corn,
rice,
>and some beans.  Do the math.
>          Now the question is, of the "cheap foods", which are the best?
>Clearly more information leads to better/more economical choices, but
still,
>"good quality" food is by no means cheap. Goddamm salmon costs a fortune.
>          But rice is likely the saving grace.  Unbeknownst to most people,
>it is in fact a complete protein, just not as dense as meat--which is in
>fact a very, very good thing, the opinion of bodybuilding 'roidheads
>notwithstanding.  Also, there are some studies floating around suggesting
>the protein in rice has some extra benefits, altho they slip my mind.

Two problems with rice:  (1) very little protein or fiber content,
even though what little protein it has may be complete (2) high
glycemic index of most types of rice.

Quote:
>          Is chicken "healthier" than meat?  Maybe.  But more important
than
>the type of meat is the *cut* of the meat.  Most meats, chosen properly,
can
>be quite lean.  Just have to choose yer hormone.
>          Excess protein, IMO, is more of a villian than fat.  And not just
>my opinion, but of knowledgeable biochemists/physiologists/epidemiologists.

And worst of all is excessive intake of rapidly digestible (high GI)
carbs, like white bread and potatoes.  These are only useful
immediately after strenous exercise.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
>Fat is an easier target, tho.
>----------------------------
>Mr. P.V.'d
>formerly Droll Troll



>> >Actually not true even at home.  Try making a nice salad with romaine
>> >lettuce, spinach, carrots, and tomatoes.  Then eat fish once a week and
>> >maybe pasta and grilled chicken ***s.  It is more expensive to eat
>> >healthy than cheap and fatty.

>> What of that group is expensive? Chicken ***s are not at the
>> expensive end of the meats and there are a lot of fish that are
>> relatively cheap. If you aren't buying prepared foods or precut meats
>> designed to look pretty int the package and overcharge as a result,
>> healthy eating is no more expensive than 'regular' eating.

>> And the more expensive 'steak' fish are by and large the least
>> healthy. Hate that, because I love tuna steak and wish it would count
>> for something...

>> Picking through the few healthy fast food items is also no more
>> expensive - it just often isn't what you expect without a score card.
>> Know some people that buy the fully loaded McDonalds filet sandwiches
>> and think they are eating healthy.

>> Curtis L. Russell
>> Odenton, MD (USA)
>> Just someone on two wheels...


 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Doug Frees » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:48:38

Quote:

> I couldn't help but think of this thread this morning when we finished
> our cross-training group.

Kind of prodded some introspection for me. I host a Saturday morning
run during the winter months that, surprise, emphasizes hills and
more hills plus distance(10-20+).  There are bout 18 people on the
mailing list( weekly post to tell time, place, etc.) for the weekly
run and I usually average 6-8. The initial list was small and has
grown significantly over the years and mostly women.  I will not let
them come if they can't pass muster(pace, desire and ability). Our
running club hosts open runs for those that want something less
strenuous. These are people that want to take their game up a notch
or maintain a quality base. The list is 50/50 male to female.

The reason for the shaggy dog intro - about 70% of those that show
each week are women. I'd like to think it's all my charm and
intellectual prowess but that's only partially true. ;)  Some would
run alone if left to their demise either on the roads or indoors on
a treadmill but nothing as hard as we do. I'd like  conclude we are
all ***s and gather to read Marquis DeSade books but only
partially true. I think the primary reason is safety - safety in
numbers. Not quite the same as women always going to the bathroom in
pairs but not far either. Being able stay in a safety zone is
important.

I'm not suggesting that we have problems and in fact they are very
few. The typical, horn honks, "yo cute ass" comments from cars but
nothing much worse. I opt for the rural runs to get away from city
and cars and to find a few ups to prod the pulse. There are rednecks
around. The usual tell tale one eye in the forehead, six fingers on
each hand and the goat in the passenger seat of the pickup and gun
rack make you at least take notice.

The second reason and maybe of equal importance to safety is feeding
the competitive spirits. Women are very honest in public and will
admit they want to finish higher in their age groups. About 4 years
ago one such female that used to snag and occasional third place
award suddenly one year started finishing first by a minute or more
in a 5k and 2-3 minutes in 10k's. They asked her how she made such
progress. Then my phone rang off the hook for the others.

Yesterdays run was a 9 mile loop with about 1,700" of up with an
optional show early and do it twice. Five showed for the double and
  three were women. Another three showed for the single and two were
women.

While most will say it's the companionship of like minded crazies,
the girls(Please no PC spankings for the term girl, it's my age not
disrespect) leave their mace at home.  Their SOs at least for this
run, like the numbers and their race times are dropping.
Fox/chicken. :)

Working out in gyms besides warm in the winter is also a
comfort/safe zone.

I can't address the "fat girl" side cuz the girls I run with are
all, well, have runners bodies. Place those bodies in lycra
tights...well you get the picture, at least I do. :)

--
Doug Freese
"Caveat Lector"

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Doug Frees » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 22:07:26

Quote:

> Two problems with rice:  (1) very little protein or fiber content,
> even though what little protein it has may be complete

There are many varieties of rice with minute rice being basic junk
filler, that are just fine. Whole grain brown, basmati, etc. are
good.  Some cultures eat a shit pile of whole grain rice plus some
fish and vegetables and are very lean and healthy.

(2) high

Quote:
> glycemic index of most types of rice.

Please, let's not monsterize the GI notion. This is overused and
abused thanks to Atkins.

Quote:
> And worst of all is excessive intake of rapidly digestible (high GI)
> carbs, like white bread and potatoes.  These are only useful
> immediately after strenous exercise.

And unless you are insulin sensitive things like rice and potatoes
are fine all the time.  White bread is a poor choice but better than
a snickers Bar.

--
Doug Freese
"Caveat Lector"

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Doug Frees » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 22:19:49

Quote:

>     Hmmm. I've always thought that neither rice nor beans provided complete
> protein, but that together they do and my nutrition pamphlet here agrees.
> Not so???

They do and in fact one could live healthy on only a balanced
variety of beans. But beans and rice are a very health balance. Good
recover food.

Quote:
>     And I also thought that consuming protein after a hard ride was
> important to rebuild damaged muscle tissue - that carbs were important to
> consume before or during a ride for energy. Both the Armstrong/Carmichael
> Performance Program book and the Friel training book seem to say the same
> thing.

This is not and either or case but both. For muscle recover you need
  primarily carbs and within 15 minutes of finishing. This does mean
no protein. Lots of papers out there on recovery specifically carbs.

--
Doug Freese
"Caveat Lector"

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Phil M » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 23:03:37



Quote:
> The usual tell tale one eye in the forehead, six fingers on
> each hand and the goat in the passenger seat of the pickup and gun
> rack

Hey, that's me. Well, except for the six fingers. Eeew, gross!
Do you want your goat back? He's a hankerin' for another long run.

   -Phil

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Phil M » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 23:26:01



Quote:
>>     And I also thought that consuming protein after a hard ride was
>> important to rebuild damaged muscle tissue - that carbs were
>> important to consume before or during a ride for energy. Both the
>> Armstrong/Carmichael Performance Program book and the Friel training
>> book seem to say the same thing.

> This is not and either or case but both. For muscle recover you need
>   primarily carbs and within 15 minutes of finishing. This does mean
> no protein. Lots of papers out there on recovery specifically carbs.

Did you mean to say "This does *not* mean no protein"? The way I understand
it is to pile on the carbs shortly after a hard workout along with adequate
fluids. Then follow that some time later with additional protein.

   -Phil

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Doug Frees » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 23:52:06

Quote:

> Do you want your goat back? He's a hankerin' for another long run.

If I can find the ower I'm looking for an arranged marriage and have
  some 'kids.' You rednecks understand high top boots. Naaaaaaah...

--
Doug Freese
"Caveat Lector"