Weezl and friends Phase 3 - sitting pretty with Kitty

nopot2pin

poohbear59 wrote: »

Yum! I had planned on a cannelloni for tonight as I have a packet that needs to be used very soon. I have spinach in the garden and cottage cheese in the fridge. It would make a change from the usual tomato based cannelloni. I have cooked all my pumpkin but I do have a squash.

DH has a sore mouth/tooth problem so I need something not too chewy.

I only started using cottage cheese in lasagne/cannelloni.... quite by mistake, as thats what I had in one time. So I used it. I couldn't taste the difference. Its much cheaper, and less fat

Sami_Bee

I'm not sure this makes any sense but here goes my rambling
Weezl - I was wondering if in the future there would be space for some sort of guide to spotting a bargain that fits in the planner or some alternative recipes.
I got 4 whole trouts yesterday for between 50-70p each and some smoked haddock fillets for the same, all were 75% off as almost OOD which is what set me thinking about this.
It would be a shame if Kitty and Shirl were missing out on a treat/extra variety type meal because they didn't know if they could fit it in the planner. so maybe something saying if you spot some whoops'ed meat for £x per kg or less buy it and use it in place of Y in recipes a,b and/or c.

weezl74

Sami_Bee wrote: »

I'm not sure this makes any sense but here goes my rambling
Weezl - I was wondering if in the future there would be space for some sort of guide to spotting a bargain that fits in the planner or some alternative recipes.
I got 4 whole trouts yesterday for between 50-70p each and some smoked haddock fillets for the same, all were 75% off as almost OOD which is what set me thinking about this.
It would be a shame if Kitty and Shirl were missing out on a treat/extra variety type meal because they didn't know if they could fit it in the planner. so maybe something saying if you spot some whoops'ed meat for £x per kg or less buy it and use it in place of Y in recipes a,b and/or c.

Sami i think this is a superb idea, thank you for thinking of it and for having spare brain space for CFR! :T:T:T yay!

the nearest we have so far got is to begin to widen our repetoire of 'fishing articles' (teach her to to fish, feed her for life) ie how to frugalise a recipe, how to prepare a balanced meal etc... all of which are listed on the 'getting started' tab.

Juliette suggested a lot of titles, and allegra has been co-ordinating those. (Both J and A have a writing background) So I'm guessing yours would be a title like 'Always stick to the shopping list! ... and other thrifty myths' where we suggest shirl takes the cfr list but sees things which are a better bargain she feels freed up to buy them?

Would that fit the bill?

And what else might the article contain?

queen_of_string

If I had ideas I wanted to contribute to such an article, would it be best to pm it to Allegra ?

Allegra

Can you pop them in dropbox, QOS ? That way they'll be easily accessible to whoever gets press-ganged into writing it regardless of whether I'm about at any given time

Lesley_Gaye

maltesers wrote: »

The simplest solution is to not make any health claims.

The site is superb and stunningly professional and the many testers have loved the recipes. Most people don't care it it is healthy or not and meets government guidelines - a true subsistence diet probably wouldn't be.

The cfr team have been discussing this issue at length and have come to the conclusion that we agree and that it is probably wisest not to make any ‘health claims’ based on the research that we have carried out ourselves. There is already a health disclaimer on the site saying, amongst other things, that the team building the site are not medical professionals and cannot offer medical advice.
As the amateurs that we are, we are in possession only of our personal research, provision of the figures that you asked for could be seen by users of the site as offering medical evidence which we are not qualified to give.
MSE itself has policies on offering views on health. We would like to be able to continue to talk about and test recipes here, so felt, on balance, it was better not to publish them.

maltesers_2

Lesley_Gaye wrote: »

As the amateurs that we are, we are in possession only of our personal research, provision of the figures that you asked for could be seen by users of the site as offering medical evidence which we are not qualified to give.
MSE itself has policies on offering views on health. We would like to be able to continue to talk about and test recipes here, so felt, on balance, it was better not to publish them.

It was Weezl who said

I have analysed the amount of ALA in both the planners now, and they are below the level which one of the studies based on the nurses study correlated with an increased risk of Age-related macular degeneration (1.44g/1.47g daily). The figures are available for those who would like them. There will also be an FAQ on the site addressing this shortly.


I said I didn't think this was possible given the sheer quantity of vegetable oil being used in the planners.

I suggested not making any nutrition claims as so many could be proved false.

However, a possible risk to eyesight has become a possibility and Weezl's only reaction has been to say she has checked the figures and it is OK and put me on ignore.

I'm sorry but I think it is slightly immoral not to thoroughly check out and deal with such an important issue. To knowingly ignore a potential health risk is not being true to nature of this project. The food is cheap is all that counts not that long term it might harm someone.

I would be perfectly happy if my rough and ready figures were proved wrong - Unlike some people I am quite willing to apologise and admit I was wrong. The figures could have been sent by pm so as not to compomise MSE. Weezl claimed she was calling in all sort of professionals to help so I assume they at least would know.

I used to be a quality assurance auditor and have heard all the excuses under the sun. Only those who really wanted to improve their systems would not go down that road,

I know I have been ostracized for daring to question Weezl's figures, and childishly/cowardly an AE has been created to have a go at me and praise Weezl. Weezl, of course, won't see this as I seem to be on ignore. I'm getting used to being ostracized as the health walkers and nordic pole walkers I walked with several times a week have not been near me since I was diagnosed with what I can only assume is a contagious cancer.

So I have developed a shell but I still put health as the main priority which it clearly isn't here.

NualaBuala

Maltesers, I am really shocked at what you say. I can only think there must be some misunderstanding. I am a regular lurker here and I followed the discussion and your last post completely misrepresents what Weezl has said and done. I have no axe to grind here at all ... I don't know you or Weezl. I love what she has doing and I also think it is great that you have wanted to make a contribution and that you care. The impression I have got is that the issues you raised were looked at carefully ... and it flagged the issue of making health claims. I think Weezl and Co dealt with the issue prudently. My own health is a bit rubbish right now and I'm afraid that I don't have the energy to say more.

Allegra

Oh maltesers Ouch.

maltesers wrote: »

It was Weezl who said

I have analysed the amount of ALA in both the planners now, and they are below the level which one of the studies based on the nurses study correlated with an increased risk of Age-related macular degeneration (1.44g/1.47g daily). The figures are available for those who would like them. There will also be an FAQ on the site addressing this shortly.


I said I didn't think this was possible given the sheer quantity of vegetable oil being used in the planners.

I suggested not making any nutrition claims as so many could be proved false.

And this has been done. That is all I have time to say at the moment (I am at work), but I will be happy to discuss this further when time permits

However, a possible risk to eyesight has become a possibility and Weezl's only reaction has been to say she has checked the figures and it is OK and put me on ignore.

Untrue. The possible implications of this are still under discussion, and no valid concern is likely to be dismissed without a lot of research and deliberation. Remember that while there is no CFR without Weezl, there is more to CFR than just Weezl, and anything that any member of the team is willing to put their name behind is ever going to be a result of a summarily executed one-person decision. It's just not the way this project ever worked or will ever work - if indeed, it does continue to work. This is by no means a given at this point in time

I would also like to add that the fact that your posts are not acknowledged and dealt with as soon as you feel they should be does not by any means mean that you have been put on ignore. I can see that the idea of being put on ignore when you are trying to raise what you feel is a valid concern would rile you - but if you look at the fact that your correspondent is a mother of two young children, also trying to offer support to numerous people testing out a planner in progress, as well as generally leading her life, perhaps the lack of what you consider a suitably speedy response will make a bit more sense ?

Plus, maltesers, I hope you will not take this personally, as it is certainly not intended to be, but have you also considered the fact that your single-minded tenacity might be considered a bit intimidating by someone in a fragile frame of mind ? It's hard to have a dialogue with someone who seems poised on the brink of biting your head off

I'm sorry but I think it is slightly immoral not to thoroughly check out and deal with such an important issue. To knowingly ignore a potential health risk is not being true to nature of this project. The food is cheap is all that counts not that long term it might harm someone.

This is not true at all. The issue is being dealt with and thorughly checked out. In the meantime, all health claims have been removed. What else can we do ? Depublish the site until we are hundred percent sure ? That is not a step that any of us felt necessary at this point in time. After all, Asda rapeseed oil does not carry a health warning at the side. The government and nhs websites do not carry a similar warning against the use of the same. No other website containing recipes using rapeseed oil does. And we are not forcing anyone to use rapeseed oil - anyone is free to substitute whichever ingredient they feel is best suited to their own particular needs, circumstances, and definitions of healthy.

I would be perfectly happy if my rough and ready figures were proved wrong - Unlike some people I am quite willing to apologise and admit I was wrong. The figures could have been sent by pm so as not to compomise MSE. Weezl claimed she was calling in all sort of professionals to help so I assume they at least would know.

That can be arranged once the figures have been confirmed

I used to be a quality assurance auditor and have heard all the excuses under the sun. Only those who really wanted to improve their systems would not go down that road,

I know I have been ostracized for daring to question Weezl's figures, and childishly/cowardly an AE has been created to have a go at me and praise Weezl. Weezl, of course, won't see this as I seem to be on ignore.

I'm sorry about putting this in such strong terms, but this is such an abject piece of nonsense. Why the hell would anyone want to do this ? We are all adults here, perfectly willing to praise Weezl, or indeed anyone else, under our own usernames, or indeed real names. Are people now not allowed to delurk and state their opinion if it disagrees with yours ?

I'm getting used to being ostracized as the health walkers and nordic pole walkers I walked with several times a week have not been near me since I was diagnosed with what I can only assume is a contagious cancer.

So I have developed a shell but I still put health as the main priority which it clearly isn't here.

Perhaps it's not the cancer they have trouble dealing with, but the anger. Just a possibility.....

maltesers_2

Allegra wrote: »

Oh maltesers Ouch.







Untrue. The possible implications of this are still under discussion, and no valid concern is likely to be dismissed without a lot of research and deliberation.





This is not true at all. The issue is being dealt with and thorughly checked out. In the meantime, all health claims have been removed. What else can we do ? Depublish the site until we are hundred percent sure ? That is not a step that any of us felt necessary at this point in time. After all, Asda rapeseed oil does not carry a health warning at the side. The government and nhs websites do not carry a similar warning against the use of the same. No other website containing recipes using rapeseed oil does. And we are not forcing anyone to use rapeseed oil - anyone is free to substitute whichever ingredient they feel is best suited to their own particular needs, circumstances, and definitions of healthy.



That can be arranged once the figures have been confirmed






...

Had someone said that to me in the first place, if necessary by PM, I would not have been so upset.

The impression I was left with that Weezl had checked the figures and they were OK which I struggled to reconcile with my own figures. This was my main concern. If Weezl said the figures were OK then nothing else would be done.

Obviously foods cannot all carry health warnings and the eyesight problem would be one of those typically used by the daily health scare.

Got to dash - having a tooth out in 5 minutes - only round the corner