Weezl and friends Phase 3 - sitting pretty with Kitty

maltesers_2

weezl74 wrote: »

no I don't disagree with this recommendation. I will look into a baked version of kitty's doughnuts as soon as is appropriate. As far as I uderstood the other cooking temperatures are not a problem.

I suppose I am easy to misquote:rotfl:The recommendation to which I was referring was

When you supplied the link to the veganheallthorg I was surprised to find yet another potential problem as the veganhealthorg had an issue with plant based ALA because of problems with eyesight.and recommended using DHA supplements and provided plenty of scholarly citations in journals to back it up. Apart from not recommending ALA for omaga 3 they also gave the following warning

i.e about canola

post#1618 you said

hiya maltesers, it's not that I didn't read the whole article, I did, I just am not seeing the need for vegans to supplement with DHA.

which I took to mean you disagreed with it,

The veganhealth recommendation was about not using ALA as a source of omega 3 and using supplements of DHA instead, ALA found in plant sources because of eyesight problems.

artybear

maltesers wrote: »

I


However. you did say previously that changing the CFR site would be difficult for youto do with integrity. So I suppose this means no change regardless.

I think I must speak up on behalf of weezl here. This is a totally unfair statement and one which may lead people to lose faith in her.

I have disagreed with Weezl on many many aspects of this project, some of them very minor technical things which some people would not even notice, some of them major nutritional aspects which would change the planners directly. And with all of these issues Weezl has only ever considered what is right for the people who would follow these planners completely, not once has she done something which is beneficial to her at the detriment to a planner follower and not once has she disregarded nutritional advice.

However so many people have so many things they wish a planner to achieve and Weezl has to attempt to rectify these into one homogeneous planner, this is not an easy thing to do.

I feel it is perfectly fine to challenge the nutritional value of a planner dependant on your own research, however to imply Weezl would not change a planner for her own ease is unfair and completely untrue.

Just my opinion.....of course:D

maltesers_2

artybear wrote: »

I think I must speak up on behalf of weezl here. This is a totally unfair statement and one which may lead people to lose faith in her.



I feel it is perfectly fine to challenge the nutritional value of a planner dependant on your own research, however to imply Weezl would not change a planner for her own ease is unfair and completely untrue.

Just my opinion.....of course:D

I did say
However. you did say previously that changing the CFR site would be difficult for youto do with integrity. So I suppose this means no change regardless.

But only because

In post 1608 Weezl said:

I have no problem with continuing to debate this with you, and I like your approach.:) Both of what you bring and the way you bring it. I am concerned about 2 things though, detractors of the project may see our debate as you thinking something which you don't, also you may be hoping to ellicit a change in the CFR site which would be difficult for me to do with integrity.

I am sorry if I misunderstood - but I didn't mean Weezl wouldn't change for her own ease. Throughout the project many things have changed. I thought she meant that as she had already done the nutritional research it would be difficult.

There is no doubt, however, that Veganhealthorg is recommending using DHA supplements rather than plant based ALA because of a risk to eyesight. The findings are relatively recent but so too is the use of rapeseed oil. They are ering on the side of caution and it is of course only a recommendation. I did not go out searching for this information Weezl gave me the link.

maltesers_2

On reflection it would be better if Weezl explains what she means by the highlighted statement.

I have no problem with continuing to debate this with you, and I like your approach.:) Both of what you bring and the way you bring it. I am concerned about 2 things though, detractors of the project may see our debate as you thinking something which you don't, also you may be hoping to ellicit a change in the CFR site which would be difficult for me to do with integrity.

weezl74

maltesers wrote: »

detractors of the project may see our debate as you thinking something which you don't, also you may be hoping to ellicit a change in the CFR site which would be difficult for me to do with integrity.

I'll do my best to give a summary of some of what I mean by the above Maltesers, but it would be impossible to put all the agonising down here in a post because it has been an 8 month process. So as long as people are happy that this is SOME of the issues involved with making a big change, I am happy to say them.

As far as I understand it, the remit of the project is, if you have very little money, what is the best way to spend it on food, where 'best' is about health and palatability for your family.

This aim is the single most received praise selling point of the project. People are saying, 'please do more of this, when we have very little money we need planners like these.'

We have also acknowledged earlier on, that if a family had £1000 a month to spend on food, they may well do so very differently from these meal planners.

The other key point to bear in mind is that each choice we make to add, or exclude ANY ingredient will also have a knock on effect, to the healthiness and palatability of the meal planners. If people wanted to remove the asda vegetable oil from the planners, there would need to be an alternative. This alternative would carry costs. If we swapped for lard, 16 packs would be needed to replace the oil. This would leave the planners with a very unhealthily high amount of saturated fat.

Likewise we cannot swap for olive oil (any type especially the much praised extra - virgin olive oil) as this too contains ALA. We also would not be able to cook with it since as a monounsaturated oil it will become toxic at lower temperatures than a PUFA.

So someone will say: 'ah ok, well lets just not have fats in the diet! Low fat is healthy!' But sadly, no, we can't make this choice either, since over half of the vitamins we need for health are found in fats. A low fat or fat free diet is likely deficient in the fat soluble vitamins, most notably vitamin E.

So that is just one illustration of what I mean about keeping the integrity of the project, and how a change would threaten that.

I am still reading articles to try to find out more and have more links being sent to me. If I find that any ingredient in the planners shouldn't be there then I will remove it. I am also considering buying a laboratory test for the vegetable oil to rule out the possibility of it's containing transfats, a friend on the PT is getting a quote for me. I hope the above are illustrations of being as rigorous and as careful as is possible.

pawnbroker_2

De-lurks….

I have followed this project from the beginning and have found the contents very useful. I have tried a number of the recipes and have even managed to entice my meat-eating husband to eat pasta! We also look forward to trying more and may even manage some meat-free ones.

Continued comments such as those made by Maltesers will de-motivate Weezle and the team, who have put a lot of time and effort into producing this very enjoyable and informative website.

No-one is under any obligation to slavishly follow the recipes, which can presumably be easily adapted to suit individual requirements.

Weezle and team please keep up the good work.

Looking forward to more recipes as they become available.

poohbear59

I know families who are on a very low budget and who have a lot of mouths to feed. The boys, who are friends of my boys, had sausage and chips EVERY day after school. Breakfast was a cup of tea and a digestive biscuit. Free school meals have helped those boys to have a healthier diet but now as young adults they were still eating sausage and chips every day as that was all that the parents could find affordable on their budget.

I know dozens of families where nothing is made from scratch and every meal is a ready meal. Their nutritional needs are not being fulfilled.

If weezl's planners help one family eat a healthier diet then she has done wonders. As it is the planners are helping many more than that.


I have heart disease in my family, I know all about trans fats ALA etc. I have had extensive training in nutrition, albeit a good few years ago, and I know that there are new findings all the time. As far as I am concerned the planners give a wholesome, healthy diet on a budget and that is what the aim of weezl and many others have been right from the beginning.

maltesers_2

weezl74 wrote: »

Likewise we cannot swap for olive oil (any type especially the much praised extra - virgin olive oil) as this too has a high content of ALA.


I

I didn't realise that - please do you have a linky.

weezl74

maltesers wrote: »

I didn't realise that - please do you have a linky.

whfoods are saying it is a source of ala, mccance are only giving it a value of 1/6th of vegetable oil. I am happy to change the word 'high' in my quote above now i've checked this. It is a source of ala, but not a high one.

i don't doubt you know more about it than i do Maltesers, I'm on a journey here.

eta have now changed the above quote

maltesers_2

weezl74 wrote: »

whfoods are saying it is a source of ala, mccance are only giving it a value of 1/6th of vegetable oil. I am happy to change the word 'high' in my quote above now i've checked this. It is a source of ala, but not a high one.

i don't doubt you know more about it than i do Maltesers, I'm on a journey here.

eta have now changed the above quote

The problem is highlighted by Veganhealth concerned the amount of ALA they still recommended a tiny amount (0.5) in the summary. The danger amount was under the amount they recommended to get enough omega 3.

Olive oil has been in use for thousands of years I think it would be safe to use don't you?

Speaking hypothetically - of course.