Pink Slime WAS Dog Food

More evidence that the New Media makes a difference.

Hey folks,

For years, McDonald's and others, stretched their Profits, by stretching their Products, by adding what has become known as Pink Slime. They did this under the Radar. No one knew about it until the New Media starting talking about it. Then, reluctantly, for whatever reason, the Mainstream Media started talking about it. Now McDonald's have stopped using it.

Then we learned from the New Media, that Kiddies were going to School and having their Lunches, Turkey on Wheat, thrown out because it did not meet Federal Guidelines. In their place? Chicken Nuggets. Now commonsense told us all that this is patently absurd. Chicken Nuggets healthier than a Turkey on Wheat Bread? But then we learned that guess what? Schools are using Pink Slime as well.

Like with McDonald's, now the Mainstream Media is reporting on the Pink Slime in Schools. Like McDonald's, Schools are coming under fire for using it. Now, Schools have a choice. According to ABC News - 'Pink Slime' Will Be a Choice for Schools By Ben Forer | ABC News – 10 hrs ago

ABC News has the learned that on Thursday the U.S. Department of Agriculture will announce that starting this fall, schools will be able to choose whether or not they buy hamburger that contains lean finely textured beef known as " pink slime."

The announcement comes one week after ABC News reported on the beef filler commonly known as "pink slime," which is found in 70 percent of the ground beef sold at supermarkets.

"It kind of looks like play dough," said Kit Foshee, who, until 2001, was a corporate quality assurance manager at Beef Products Inc., the company that makes "pink slime." "It's pink and frozen, it's not what the typical person would consider meat."

It's NOT Meat.

Foshee said that he was fired by BPI after complaining about the process used to make the filler, and the company's claims about it. Since then, he has spoken out against the product.

J. Patrick Boyle, president of the American Meat Institute, defended the practice as a way to safely use what otherwise would be wasted.

It SHOULD be wasted. It's GARBAGE!! You know why they came up with this. Profit. That's it. It is MEANT to be thrown away.

"BLBT (Boneless Lean Beef Trimmings) is a sustainable product because it recovers lean meat that would otherwise be wasted," he said in a statement.

However, the substance, critics said, is more like gelatin than meat, and before BPI found a way to use it by disinfecting the trimmings with ammonia, it was sold only to dog food or cooking oil suppliers.

{Laughing} Wait!!! They turn Dog Food into People Food. By using Ammonia? {Laughing} So Turkey Sandwich BAD. Dog food? OK. They should be forced to label,,Oh wait. They do not want to do this. I wonder why.

But Boyle said, "The beef trimmings that are used to make BLBT are absolutely edible" and Janet Riley, senior vice president of public affairs for AMI, said there was no reason to label beef that contains "pink slime."

"What are you asking me to put on the label, its beef, it's on the label, it's a beef product, it's says beef so we are declaring … it's beef," she said.

NO IT'S Not. You do not want to put it on the label because you KNOW no one will ever BUY IT! You Twit. You are using a process that originally reserved for Dog Food. You really think anyone will buy this. You see folks, another reason I'm glad I do not eat Beef any more.

The low-grade trimmings come from the parts of the cow most susceptible to contamination, often close to the hide, which is highly exposed to fecal matter. But because the treatment of the trimmings - simmering them in low heat, separating fat and tissue using a centrifuge and spraying them with ammonia gas to kill germs - the United States Department of Agriculture says it's safe to eat.

ABC News traveled across the country to the meat section of grocery stores to see if it's in the ground beef they sell. At most stores it was impossible to tell for sure whether the beef contained the filler. At one store there was no way to tell from the labels, and the butchers did not know the answer.

There is only one way to know for certain that "pink slime" is not in your beef: If your meat is stamped USDA Organic, it's pure meat with no filler.

Otherwise, you can't know from the packaging because "pink slime" does not have to appear on the label. And the USDA is giving no indication it will force meat packers to lift the veil of secrecy any time soon.

Do what you want folks. As for me and mine, we will stay Dog Food Free. Well, unless we get a Dog.
Peter

School Lunches Meet Fed Guidelines with Pink Slime?

Seriously? You have to ask..

Hey folks,

You all know the story. I posted it here. OPNTalk - Chick Nuggets Healthier Than Turkey or Salami on Wheat. This is where the kid went to School and had her lunch thrown out because it doesn't meet Federal Guidelines. Then as a substitute, she is given Chicken Nuggets.

So the Agent order her to get Chicken Nuggets. Breaded and processed garbage. At a COST to the Parent by the way.

This is just a misunderstanding folks. No big deal. Do not worry about it. The media got it all wrong. Really?

Then we learned that this was NOT a one time event. There was another incident.

So we were lead to believe that the School System, having to meet or exceed Federal Guidelines, must be serving nothing but the most Healthy Food they can produce. Right? Well, according to, {Laughing} I know I know. But according to the, I'm having a bit of a hard time saying this straight. Hey, A broken clock is right twice a day. According to the
Huffington Post - Pink Slime For School Lunch: Government Buying 7 Million Pounds Of Ammonia-Treated Meat For Meals

Pink slime -- that ammonia-treated meat in a bright Pepto-bismol shade -- may have been rejected by fast food joints like McDonald's, Taco Bell and Burger King, but is being brought in by the tons for the nation's school lunch program.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is purchasing 7 million pounds of the "slime" for school lunches, The Daily reports. Officially termed "Lean Beef Trimmings," the product is a ground-up combination of beef scraps, cow connective tissues and other beef trimmings that are treated with ammonium hydroxide to kill pathogens like salmonella and E. coli. It's then blended into traditional meat products like ground beef and hamburger patties.

"We originally called it soylent pink," microbiologist Carl Custer, who worked at the Food Safety Inspection Service for 35 years, told The Daily. "We looked at the product and we objected to it because it used connective tissues instead of muscle. It was simply not nutritionally equivalent [to ground beef]. My main objection was that it was not meat."

SO? They are not even serving REAL Meat. That Chicken Nugget that they seem to be hell bent on feeding Kids? Well, that ain't Chicken.

Custer and microbiologist Gerald Zernstein concluded in a study that the trimmings are a "high risk product," but Zernstein tells The Daily that "scientists in D.C. were pressured to approve this stuff with minimal safety approval" under President George H.W. Bush's administration. The USDA asserts that its ground beef purchases "meet the highest standard for food safety."

Great. Our kids are being FORCED to eat a "high risk product."

Controversy surrounding "pink slime" stems from various safety concerns, particularly dangers associated with ammonium hydroxide, which can both be harmful to eat and has potential to turn into ammonium nitrate -- a common component in homemade bombs, according to MSNBC. It's also used in household cleaners and fertilizers.

In 2009, The New York Times reported that despite the added ammonia, tests of Lean Beef Trimmings of schools across the country revealed dozens of instances of E. coli and salmonella pathogens.

Between 2005 and 2009, E. coli was found three times and salmonella 48 times, according to the Times, including two contaminated batches of 27,000 pounds of meat.

A public outcry against the "slime" is led perhaps most prominently by celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, who had also successfully waged war against flavored milk in Los Angeles schools and continues a crusade for healthier school lunches.

News of the USDA's plan to bring 7 million pounds of "pink slime" to school cafeterias nationwide comes just weeks after the government announced new guidelines to ensure students are given healthier options for school meals.

Yeah right when they started throwing away kiddies HOMEMADE Lunches and giving them this Crap.

The new standards call for more whole grains and produce as well as less sodium and fat in school meals. While the measures mark a step forward from previous years, they still compromise amid push-back from Congress to keep pizza and french fries on the menu -- counting both the tomato paste on pizza and the potatoes that make fries as vegetables.

{Laughing} Salt bad. Fat bad. Pink Slime GOOD?

Still, some schools -- like several in California -- have taken the matter into their own hands, and have found ways to profit from those efforts. Umpteen school districts have taken part in a decade-long initiative, supported by a philanthropic organization, that provides schools with equipments and chefs who teach cafeteria workers to cook from scratch and produce fresh meals.

A recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed that more than a third of high school students were eating vegetables less than once a day -- "considerably below" recommended levels of intake for a healthy lifestyle that supports weight management and could reduce risks for chronic diseases and some cancers.

Who is paying for all this? Great idea, but can we really afford it? Anyway, there you go. Homemade Lunch BAD. Pink Slime, good. According to the Federal Government I guess. Right?
Peter

Sources:
Huffington Post - Pink Slime For School Lunch: Government Buying 7 Million Pounds Of Ammonia-Treated Meat For Meals

Chick Nuggets Healthier Than Turkey or Salami on Wheat

So says the Food Police.

Hey folks,

What is in a Chicken Nugget? Do you know? You may not want to look it up. Here is a tip for ya. It ain't healthy. Remember that story we just did about the Chicken Nugget Diet? Trust me folks, if you like Chicken Nuggets, or you are eating Breakfast, wait until you are really ready to know before you check it out. What's in Chicken Nuggets?

Now lets talk Turkey. White meat, carved, or in this case most likely sliced, on Wheat Bread, with Cheese. A Banana. Juice. Which do you think may be healthier? Nope. Not according to Federal Guidelines. I guess.

You've heard the story by now.

“The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.”

So the Agent order her to get Chicken Nuggets. Breaded and processed garbage. At a COST to the Parent by the way.

This is just a misunderstanding folks. No big deal. Do not worry about it. The media got it all wrong. Really? According to The Blaze - Exclusive: 2nd N.C. Mother Says Daughter’s School Lunch Replaced for Not Being Healthy Enough Posted on February 17, 2012 at 12:31pm by Madeleine Morgenstern

North Carolina officials have said there was a misunderstanding when a preschooler’s homemade lunch was sent home for not meeting certain nutritional requirements, but now a second mother from the same school has come forward exclusively to The Blaze to say the same thing happened to her daughter.

Diane Zambrano says her 4-year-old daughter, Jazlyn, is in the same West Hoke Elementary School class as the little girl whose lunch gained national attention earlier this week. When Zambrano picked Jazlyn up from school late last month, she was told by Jazlyn’s teacher that the lunch she had packed that day did not meet the necessary guidelines and that Jazlyn had been sent to the cafeteria.

The lunch Zambrano packed for her daughter? A cheese and salami sandwich on a wheat bun with apple juice. The lunch she got in the cafeteria? Chicken nuggets, a sweet potato, bread and milk.

{Sigh} You know, if this ever happens with Josh or Eli, the OPNTalk Blog may have to take a bit of a hiatus. I will be looking for someone to bail me out of Jail most likely. Can you imagine this. You want your Kiddies to eat healthier. You take the time and the money to buy stuff to make for your Kid's Lunch. They come home with a Bill for $1.50 for Chicken Nuggets because the School did not like what you sent? They would have to pry me off the Ceiling.

“She never eats breakfast or lunch at the school,” Zambrano said of her daughter during an interview with The Blaze. “We always wake up early and make her lunch.”

It happens “every so often”

That day, Zambrano said she picked Jazlyn up from school and asked if she ate her lunch.

“She’s not picky about food but you have to be on top of her,” she explained.

When Jazlyn said she didn’t eat what her mother had made her, Zambrano went to her teacher and demanded to know what happened. She said the teacher told her an official had come through that day to inspect students’ lunches and that those who were lacking certain food groups were sent to the cafeteria. After she received her cafeteria food, the teacher told Zambrano, Jazlyn was told to put her homemade lunch back in her lunchbox and set it on the floor.

Zambrano said the teacher told her it was not the first time student lunches have been inspected, and that officials come “every so often.”

Part of a regular program?

The policing of children’s food at West Hoke has been portrayed as an isolated incident, but a curious memo Jazlyn brought home to her mother seems to point to something more.

The memo Jazlyn brought from the school outlines the necessary nutritional requirements students’ homemade lunches must contain: two servings of fruit or vegetables, one serving of dairy, one serving of grain and one serving of meat or meat substitute. Included with the memo was a separate sheet, this one a bill for the cafeteria food Jazlyn was served.

The memo, dated Jan. 27 with the subject line “RE: Healthy Lunches,” was signed by school principal Jackie Samuels and said, while “we welcome students to bring lunches from home … it must be a nutritious, balanced meal with the above requirements. Students, who do not bring a healthy lunch, will be offered the missing portions which may result in a fee from the cafeteria.”

Zambrano, who’s volunteered at the school in the past, said she was never told about any such nutritional requirements before her daughter’s lunch was replaced.

“That‘s not really the school’s responsibility,” she said, adding she’s extremely health-conscious and doesn’t feed her daughter junk food or let her drink soda — or even eat the tater tots or other fried foods often served in the cafeteria.

“They give the choice of pizza and hot donuts…none of that is healthy,” Zambrano said.

According to the program requirements for North Carolina’s pre-kindergarten program, schools “must provide breakfast and/or snacks and lunch meeting USDA requirements during the regular school day.”

The partial or full cost of meals, the requirements state, “may be charged when families do not qualify for free/reduced price meals. 
When children bring their own food for meals and snacks to the center, if the food does not meet the specified nutritional requirements, the center must provide additional food necessary to meet those requirements.”

The school’s reaction

Reached Friday morning, a representative from the Hoke County School Superintendent‘s office denied knowing anything about what happened with Jazlyn’s lunch and said they had no record of a complaint. Reached again, a different representative said they had “no information at this time” about the situation. A West Hoke Elementary official similarly denied any knowledge and referred all questions to the school district.

Principal Samuels previously told the Carolina Journal he “didn’t know anything about” parents being charged for cafeteria meals after the first preschooler’s mother — who has not been identified — came forward.

Bob Barnes, assistant superintendent of curriculum and instruction, told the McClatchy News Service Thursday that the first preschooler to make headlines just misunderstood her teacher when she thought she was told to ditch her homemade lunch for one from the cafeteria: the cafeteria items were only meant to supplement the food groups missing from the homemade lunch.

“We are not the lunch bag police,” Barnes told McClatchy. “We would never put a child in any type of embarrassing situation. But we are responsible to see that every child gets a nutritious meal.”

No you are NOT responsible to override the Parents choice of meal. Yes. I get if you are making the Lunches, you must follow guidelines. Still, calling Chicken Nuggets Nutritious is a bit of a stretch, but I get that. However, if a Parent CHOOSES to send in a Lunch, you are NOT to interfere with that Parent Child Relationship. You have NO Authority to do so.

Barnes confirmed there was an agent from Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Child Development and Early Education at the school Jan. 30 who examined six student lunches and determined one did not make the nutritional cut — presumably the first little girl whose story made news.

Zambrano said she‘s not positive which day Jazlyn’s lunch was inspected, whether it was Jan. 27 — the date the memo was issued — or Jan. 30. Either way, one of two conclusions seem plausible: more than one student’s lunch was changed, or an official inspected student lunches on more than one occasion — which Zambrano said Jazlyn’s teacher told her had been the case.

In a statement to The Blaze, the Division of Child Development and Early Education said it is investigating what happened but flatly denied any of its employees or contractors “instructed any child to replace or remove any meal items.” The division issued a similar statement to McClatchy even after Barnes said it was one of their agents who examined the lunches.

“It is not DHHS’ policy to inspect, go through or question any child about food items brought from home. The facts we have gathered confirm that no DHHS employee or contractor did this,” the statement said.

Edited by Jonathon M. Seidl.

So I guess in Today's Health and Science Segment we learn that Chicken Nuggets are HEALTHIER than White meat Turkey on Wheat. I guess we learn that, just like with everything else, the Government thinks it knows better than US. As for "The facts we have gathered confirm that no DHHS employee or contractor did this,” there appears to be several Kids and Parents that would disagree.

This is a no brainer folks. Chicken Nuggets are NOT the most Healthy choice for Lunch, Dinner, whatever. Parents the which to keep their kids away from Breaded Processed Garbage have a RIGHT to do so. What say you? Do the search. Check out Chicken Nuggets. You decide.
Peter

Sources:
The Blaze - Exclusive: 2nd N.C. Mother Says Daughter’s School Lunch Replaced for Not Being Healthy Enough

Chocolate Cake For Breakfast?

You heard of eating Dessert first. Right?

Hey folks,

I love food. You all know that. I eat whatever I want. Everything in Moderation of course. Not to mention that I am also a firm believer and partaker in the ELMM Diet. {Eat Less, Move More} So knowing all that, if you are like me, you LOVE Dessert.

When talking about Dessert, there are many Schools of thought. One of my favorites? You heard of eating Dessert first. Right? That way you always have room. Well, there is a new Study out there that says you should REALLY eat it first. For Breakfast. Yup. For Breakfast. AND according to the Study, it will help you lose weight. I repeat, Chocolate Cake for BREAKFAST, to help you lose weight. Not kidding folks.

According to the UK Telegraph - Chocolate cake breakfast could help you lose weight Friday 10 February 2012 Eating chocolate cake as part of a full breakfast can help you lose weight, say scientists.

It sounds too good to be true but new research says having dessert - along with the traditional fry up - burns off the pounds.

Morning is the best time to consume sweets because that's when the body's metabolism is most active - and we have the rest of the day to work off the calories, a new study shows.

Eating cookies or chocolate as part of breakfast that includes proteins and carbs also helps stem the craving for sweets later.

Hey maybe Bill Cosby was right?

Researchers split 193 clinically obese, non-diabetic adults into two groups who consumed either a low-carb diet that included a 300-calorie breakfast or a balanced 600-calorie breakfast that included a chocolate cake dessert.

Halfway through the 32-week study both groups had lost an average of 33 lbs per person. But in the second half of the study the low-carb group regained an average of 22 lbs per person - while the dessert gorgers lost another 15 lbs each.

At the end those who had consumed a 600 calorie breakfast had lost an average of 40 lbs more per person than their peers.

40 pounds? That's not insignificant. Who knew?

Although both groups consumed the same daily total calories - the men 1600 calories per day and the women 1400 - "the participants in the low-carbohydrate diet group had less satisfaction and felt that they were not full," said Professor Daniela Jakubowicz.

Their cravings for sugars and carbohydrates were more intense and eventually caused them to cheat on the diet plan.

This also suggests that the dessert group will be more successful at keeping the weight off, said the researchers whose findings are published in journal Steroids.

Prof Jakubowicz said: "But the group that consumed a bigger breakfast, including dessert, experienced few if any cravings for these foods later in the day."

Prof Jakubowicz, of Tel Aviv University, said attempting to avoid sweets entirely can create a psychological addiction to these same foods in the long-term.

A meal in the morning provides energy for the day's tasks, aids in brain functioning and kick-starts the body's metabolism, making it crucial for weight loss and maintenance.

And breakfast is the meal that most successfully regulates ghrelin, the hormone that increases hunger, said Prof Jakubowicz.

While the level of ghrelin rises before every meal, it is suppressed most effectively at breakfast time.

Basing their study on this fact, the researchers hoped to determine whether meal time and composition impacted weight loss in the short and long term, said Prof Jakubowicz, or if it was a simple matter of calorie count.

She said one of the biggest challenges that people face is keeping weight off in the long-term. Ingesting a higher proportion of our daily calories at breakfast makes sense.

It's not only good for body function but it also alleviates cravings. Highly restrictive diets that forbid desserts and carbohydrates are initially effective but often cause dieters to stray from their food plans as a result of withdrawal-like symptoms. They wind up regaining much of the weight they lost during the diet proper.

Ultimately this shows a diet must be realistic to be adopted as part of a new lifestyle. Curbing cravings is better than deprivation for weight loss success, said Prof Jakubowicz.

You know, I will admit something. All through this Article I was waiting to see the "BUT" or "HOWEVER" with another expert calling this Study Flawed or that eating Sweets are bad for you in general. ETC. Yet. Nothing. Just eating Cake and Sweets in the Morning may actually be GOOD for you. Now this is a Study I can believe in. (Smile)
Peter

Sources:
UK Telegraph - Chocolate cake breakfast could help you lose weight

Chicken Nugget Diet

This one hits close to Home.

Hey folks,

This one goes out to all the Parents out there. Are your kids Picky Eaters? My 6 year old Son Joshua is. He likes three things. Pizza, Fish, Chicken Nuggets. Trying to get him to eat anything else is quite the chore.

Well in today's Health and Science Segment, I want to tell you a story of a Girl named Stacey Irvine. Stacey, like many other kids, is a VERY Picky Eater. What is her Diet? Chicken Nuggets. That's it. Well, perhaps some Fries. She even says flat out she "can't eat anything else." So? What do you get from a Diet of nothing but Chicken Nuggets? If you are like, now 17 year old Stacey, you get Hospitalized.

According to Take Part - Child Abuse? 17-Year-Old Drops After Eating Only Chicken Nuggets Since Age 2 Sarah Fuss posted on Feb 3, 2012

Stacey Irvine looks surprisingly well for a 17-year-old who's eaten only chicken nuggets since she was 2. But when she recently went to the hospital after passing out from struggling to breathe, doctors told her that she absolutely had to eat more healthily.

"She's been told in no uncertain terms that she will die if she carries on like this, but Stacey says she can't eat anything else," her mom, Evonne, told U.K.'s Daily Mail. "It breaks my heart to see her eating those damned nuggets. I am at my wit's end. I'm praying she can be helped before it's too late."

Stacey claims never to have tasted fruits or vegetables, but admits to sometimes eating fries and toast. "McDonald's chicken nuggets are my favorite," said Stacey. "I share 20 with my boyfriend, with [fries]." She also enjoys nuggets from KFC and the supermarket.

Evonne says her two younger children eat normally, and that she's tried depriving Stacey of food to force her to expand her repertoire.

My other Son Eli, will eat ANYTHING. Sweet, Sour, Spicy, anything we are eating, he wants to try it. We have found ONE thing he does not like. Green Beans.

In the hospital, Stacey was injected with much-needed vitamins and doctors found that she suffered from anaemia and inflamed veins on her tongue due to her obsessive diet.

It's hard to imagine that in the 15 years since Stacey tasted her first nugget at McDonald's, her mom has been unable to influence her to eat the minimal level of nutrients necessary to sustain a human being. Do you think this level of leniency qualifies as abuse? How have you gotten your kids to expand beyond their comfort foods?

Now the Author of this Piece, Sarah Fuss, seems to think that this IS Child Abuse and the Mother should be, what? Held accountable? So I did what I do not do all that often. I checked out the Comments. This one is great.. According to someone named Randy Scott posted on Feb 3, 2012

If her mother has tried everything she can to get her to eat other foods how can it be abuse? Also, if her mother has to force feed her, at what point would people start calling THAT abuse? You can't have everything, and you can't save everybody.

I tend to agree with him on this. But it also brought to mind THIS. Remember this?

"Never force feed, bribe, or plead with your child to eat. Guilt doesn't work either. Saying, "There are thousands of starving children in the world, and you should be grateful to have something to eat," is just not going to register with a young child. Force feeding is really a form of abuse. Stop and think of someone doing that to you. Bribing only teaches a child how to be manipulative. For example, "If you eat all your supper, I'll take you to the movie." If you're not careful, your child could be demanding a new car before too long! Pleading is just downright humiliating for the parent, and for the child, quite amusing as she sees how much control she has over her parents. All of these behaviours teach a child that there are always conditions attached to food, and eating becomes a very negative experience for her."

Yup. In the world of Psychobabble, "Force feeding is really a form of abuse." That's right Mom. Telling your kid to eat healthier food could be considered Child Abuse. So what is a Mom to do? If your kid is Obese, or someone deems him / her that, they can now come and take them right out of the house. If you allow your kid to only eat Chicken Nuggets, and they collapse, you are accused of Child Abuse. We won't even get into the Spanking thing. If you ask them what they want, what do you think they will say? They'll tell you what they want. SO?

At least my Son likes Pizza and Fish. We've recently started to add more Fish to his diet. I don't know, Stacey Irvine looks pretty healthy to me. But then again, I wasn't there. Is it possible that there was / is something else going on with her? Child Abuse, I think not. Good for her? I think not. But in a year she will be an Adult, and she will eat whatever she wants. Just like me.
Peter

Sources:
Take Part - Child Abuse? 17-Year-Old Drops After Eating Only Chicken Nuggets Since Age 2

Fried Food Not A Direct Cause Of Heart Risk

Well, who knew?

Hey folks,

Most of you know I try to eat more healthy than I use to. You know I pay attention to Health News that is out there, and I bring it to you. We have talked about how this study shows you that this or that is bad for you today, tomorrow? Well, then it's not only OK, but it may even be good for you. Then again, with some of these studies, one has to wonder WHY they even did them in the first place. They go on and on for Pages and at the end they say things like, "We are not sure." Or, "Study does not prove or disprove original belief."

So I have told you many times, everything in moderation. If you are gaining wait, the best Diet in the World, works every time it is tried, on every one. The ELMM Diet. Eat Less Move More.

Then you get stuff like this. {Smile} There is no direct correlation between the amount of fried food people eat and their risk of Heart Disease? According to The Slide Show - Fried food not a direct cause of heart risk, new research finds By Eric Pfeiffer The Sideshow

A new study has found that there is no direct correlation between the amount of fried food people eat and their risk of heart disease. Instead, the research found that long-term heart risk depended more on what kind of oil was used in the cooking process — olive oil and sunflower oil are considered the healthiest.

The study, published in the British Medical Journal, studied the eating and cooking habits of 40,000 people in Spain for nearly 15 years. The Mediterranean diet favored by most individuals in the study leans heavily on fried foods, particularly fried fish, but also the healthier olive and sunflower oils for the frying.

So as long as I Fry the Oreo in Sunflower Oil, it's all OK? Just kidding folks...

The Telegraph reports that study participants were then broken into four different groups, based on how often they ate fried foods. Over the course of the study there were 606 medical cases linked to heart disease, but those results were fairly evenly split between the four subsets. More from the study:

"In a Mediterranean country where olive and sunflower oils are the most commonly used fats for frying, and where large amounts of fried foods are consumed both at and away from home, no association was observed between fried food consumption and the risk of coronary heart disease or death."

Professor Michael Leitzmann from Germany's University of Regensburg said in the study that two similar research projects found comparable results showing no direct correlation between fried foods and heart disease.

"Taken together, the myth that frying food is generally bad for the heart is not supported by available evidence," Leitzmann wrote."However, this does not mean that frequent meals of fish and chips will have no health consequences," noting that the fried foods have higher calorie counts and are linked to obesity and high blood pressure.

Well, of course. If you eat an insane amount of anything, it will have a negative effect on you. If you eat Fast Food, say once in a while, a month, or even once a week, it's OK. Eat it Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner, yeah, you may have an issue.

Now, before you throw caution to the wind and sign a Jumbaco petition, bear in mind that not only do those fatty foods contain more sodium and calories, most Americans use less healthy oils to fry their foods. And even more damaging, re-used cooking oils reportedly contain higher levels of saturated fats, which are linked to poor heart health.

Well, is this NOT why they are posting the Study. Use healthier Oil?

As Victoria Taylor, senior heart health dietitian at the British Heart Foundation, told the Telegraph, "We currently recommend swapping saturated fats like butter, lard or palm oil for unsaturated fats as a way of keeping your cholesterol down and this study gives further cause to make that switch...Regardless of the cooking methods used, consuming foods with high fat content means a high calorie intake. This can lead to weight gain and obesity, which is a risk factor for heart disease.

{Laughing} so even though this Study says Fried Food does not cause Heart Disease, the Author must not like the findings, has to add this? "Regardless of the cooking methods used, consuming foods with high fat content means a high calorie intake. This can lead to weight gain and obesity, which is a risk factor for heart disease."{Laughing} Moderation folks, moderation. And healthier cooking Oil. It's all good..
Peter

Sources:
The Slide Show - Fried food not a direct cause of heart risk, new research finds