Nice People 12: Nice in Nice

zagubov

This has abeen a rough day for some and promising for others but here's a dodgy hug for those that need them

I didn't manage to catch that prog about the meat. Makes me think of that diet plan somebody linked to on here for how to feed a family of four on £20 per week or something. There was a version that had fresh fruit and the other had meat a few times.

I always assumed that in the future we'd be eating less meat anyway, but have always preferred fish. Except in curries, which if they were spiced enough could contain anything and I wouldn't complain.:D

I'd read that cooking generates toxic chemicals in most foods, so there are plenty of carcinogens and other nasties in chips as well as cooked meats.

chewmylegoff

We're all going to die of something and as far as I'm concerned that something might as well be eating too many bacon sandwiches....

Yorkie1

Nikkster wrote: »

reading the other part of your post, yorkie, there don't need to be any added chemicals... The act of cooking will change chemicals (by that I mean the naturally occurring ones, not anything exogenous like antibiotics or whatever else). Many if these changes will be harmless, some may not.

Thanks for explaining that :beer:

zagubov

Nikkster wrote: »

reading the other part of your post, yorkie, there don't need to be any added chemicals... The act of cooking will change chemicals (by that I mean the naturally occurring ones, not anything exogenous like antibiotics or whatever else). Many if these changes will be harmless, some may not.

I remember it was acrylamide that builds up and may be carcinogenic. Plus other stuff, PAHs that you get in smoke and smoked foods.

On the other hand there's stacks of food that I wouldn't touch unless it looked like the contents of an ashtray. And the strongest carcinogen they've ever discovered is in lettuce (don't worry there's practically none of it there).

More worried by microbes than chemicals, but that's just me.

PasturesNew

Lopper instructions for Lemonjelly:

*Deleted*

Stupid thing I used to upload them ..... looks like it wants paying to download them. Have to find/try another. Already on the 6th as I was trying to avoid signing up/in to simply do a share

Edit: Found another upload site, here are the 7 pages:

http://wikisend.com/download/637448/Page_00-FrontPage.jpg
http://wikisend.com/download/531316/Page_01.jpg
http://wikisend.com/download/596890/Page_02.jpg
http://wikisend.com/download/104088/Page_03.jpg
http://wikisend.com/download/803228/Page_04.jpg
http://wikisend.com/download/196324/Page_05.jpg
http://wikisend.com/download/371482/Page_06.jpg

neverdespairgirl

Tahlullah wrote: »

It is really sad that the population of the UK has not yet discovered North Wales. Or perhaps, it's a good thing. For the beauty and solitude you crave is the one thing that means it's economy is shot.

My parents spend about 10 days in north Wales last summer, after a few days exploring their joint childhood haunts in Wallasey, Birkenhead and Liverpool.

Both of them (like a lot of other Mersey-area families, I think) spent summer holidays in northern Wales as children, and my Dad also got dragged to see numerous cousins and so forth in and around Denbigh and Angelsey. His parents retired to Betws-y-Coed, picked as being close-ish to family but not too close!

Spirit wrote: »

*ungrateful post of the day*

An elderly neighbour has brought round a carrier bag full of ripe Victoria plums.

What on earth am I going to do with them? I am at work for the next two days and did not plan of a jam/chutney making day on Thurs.

Plums freeze very well. Then you can jam-ify them later, at your convenience, or make them into other yummies.

Nikkster wrote: »

Did I hear the weatherman say that there was a chance of frost in the countryside this week? Can I just check please... it is still August, right? :eek:

Ssssssh.

We are going on holiday on Friday. OH is suspicious enough about the whole concept of English seaside fun, without any help.......

Nikkster wrote: »

I don't suppose my catchphrase of 'it's my house so I'll do what I please' (or words along those lines) will help? (I can't take credit for that one though, was taught it by my mother )


Michaels - hope you are all ok after your interesting morning. Hopefully it was a one-off.

Seconded - hope it's just one of those random things and DD is fine.

Nik, or "he who pays the piper calls the tune", or "my roof, my rules".....?

neverdespairgirl

Yorkie1 wrote: »

Basically, the conclusion was that red meat in moderation (no more than x2 per week) would be OK if you didn't add in the processed meat more than a few times a year.

It didn't explore the sustainability side of things at all. That might be part 2 - next week, I think.

We all watched it too - well, Kermie didn't seem bothered, he's not that fond of bacon anyway. But Isaac was allowed to stay up and watch it too, as he's interested in that sort of thing.

It was a really good programme - and good in explaining complicated things without either going whoosh over the general head, or making it too simple. I didn't like the images, though, all that meat !!!!!! was a bit nauseating, the endless lumps of meat and rashers etc - yuck.

Sustainability was promised in part 2, I'm pretty sure.

As well as the nitrate, they pointed out that the masses of salt and sugar that goes into bacon, and the chemicals in the smoke, weren't that good for you either.

Scientific NPs, does the same apply to fish? Are smoked salmon / haddock etc worse for you than un-smoked stuff?

Nikkster wrote: »

The bacterial one was l-carnitine, and the processed meat one was nitrosamines and something else I think.

They might be completely wrong, I had the programme on in the background as I was dragging the word kicking and screaming onto my screen.

Sounds familiar. Plus the smoke, salt and sugar, I think?

zagubov

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

We all watched it too - well, Kermie didn't seem bothered, he's not that fond of bacon anyway. But Isaac was allowed to stay up and watch it too, as he's interested in that sort of thing.

It was a really good programme - and good in explaining complicated things without either going whoosh over the general head, or making it too simple. I didn't like the images, though, all that meat !!!!!! was a bit nauseating, the endless lumps of meat and rashers etc - yuck.

Sustainability was promised in part 2, I'm pretty sure.

As well as the nitrate, they pointed out that the masses of salt and sugar that goes into bacon, and the chemicals in the smoke, weren't that good for you either.

Scientific NPs, does the same apply to fish? Are smoked salmon / haddock etc worse for you than un-smoked stuff?




Sounds familiar. Plus the smoke, salt and sugar, I think?

Probably yes. Infinitesimally, though so it depends on how monotonously one guzzles them down.

My previous workplace were hosting a bunch of Finnish teachers and had to think of some local food that would be typical/characteristic/iconic of Britain. Kippers for breakfast was what they chose, and wisely too. But nobody has them that regularly (I think) - they're not addictive like ciggies. I'd recommend them to any visitor. I also suspect that eating smoked fish irregularly would be healthier than not eating it.

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

We're all going to die of something and as far as I'm concerned that something might as well be eating too many bacon sandwiches....

Speaking from recent experience, your health is a lot more valuable to you than a bacon sarnie.

It amazed me how many people smoke outside the cancer ward too. Amazing.

LydiaJ

Good morning NPs. Today I am 45.