K8memphis

We just baked one cheesecake with the crust and one cheesecake without crust. Then just stack 'em like layer cake. I freeze mine to stack. My job did not allow me to do this (freezing) so it is possible to stack them not frozen but you gotta' get it just right the first time. I recommend freezing first for best handling.

Coupla details to consider trying on the road to making magic pizza. In random order. 1. Skin fresh tomatoes by blanching them in boiling water for a minute or two then immersing them in ice water. Peel, slice, discard the juice & seeds. Use this in place of sauce. Slices are maybe 3/16's to 1/4 of an inch thick or so. This makes a perfect, unusual, easy to eat 'sauce'. 2. Grate some fresh onion into the water for the dough. This would be after the yeast is activated. Or if you are into simple, add some onion or garlic powder. 3. Brush the exposed crust with olive oil and sprinkle with a little random cheese, paprika, or seasoning. 4.. Cut a piece of garlic and rub it over the crust before putting on the toppings. 5. Bake the crust a bit before applying the toppings. 6. Use scamorze cheese with the mozzarella.

Oh wait. Nothing like reading what you said, Ghostrider. You said, not substantially different. Quitting the two substances, the lovely ice cream and the cigarettes was about the same effort to quit. By the way -Congratulations! Not easy!! And for me to this minute, even though I quit smoking over 30 years ago, I'd still love to go grab a smoke. In Heaven, I'm gonna slip outside the gate for a minute...

I would have agreed until I had to go look it up all scientific like. According to what I can find scientifically, (and have cited above) addiction has three components. The desire for an increase of the substance, the presence of withdrawal when it is removed and the propensity for relapse. Sugar, scientifically has all three. So while it may seem a mild addiction or dependency it can be literally defined as addictive. And then obviously, either your tobacco habit was stronger or you still are ingesting enough sugared items to satisfy yourself, or you were not sugar addicted. Miniscule yes, in that case one would expect some sugar for those exact reasons. So follow me for a minute. A savvy manufacturer will want to hold the raw cost of his product down to the nub in order to make more of a profit on it. So why is sugar being added seemingly willy nilly to odd and random products? I hope that that is common knowlege, these sugar additions and the billion pseudonyms that are being used. Two quotes of note from this web page. Dextrose is in almost everything. Sure sure small amounts, but why? Why would a manufacture take the time and money to put it in there? There's lots of stuff on the web about sugar addiction. Why is sugar added to so many products?

That was after only one key-word search (low carbohydrate diets). I agree with what Slkinsey has been posting. It is consistent to what I have learned via my bachelors & masters degrees in Dietetics. Just adding my two cents. ← What's more, this study does support what I am saying and what the diet doctor said because yes the blood sugar does go back to normal in non-diabetics. It goes haywire momentarily, shoots up, crashes down, and goes back to zero like a gyroscope for healthy ie. non-diabetic people. Damage as in the storage of fat and deposits into our arteries and the free radicals set loose and blablabla whatever all the other stuff is. But sure blood chemistry goes back to normal I said that early on. Being overweight or not is a separate issue to being a sugar junkie. Overweight and sugar addiction are not necessarily the same thing. This of course does not negate the damage done in the meantime not to mention the fact that the junkie got a fix. Unscientifically speaking and peering into the petri dish marked K8t you would see that I had normal weight most of my life. Weight is a separate issue. Sugar is so to uh huh addictive. Try to get off it. Think about it, it's in most every cupboard or counter in the industrialized world in it's white pristine crystalline oh how pure and innocent am I mode. Not to mention an additive in so much stuff it's silly. For example a store brand baker's spray pan coating?! wtf

sugar is not adictive but caffeen is! ← Yes it is. It's the 'other' white powder. And y'all made me go find this information so here it is again. Nobody has to believe it but that doesn't make it false. It's an unusual foreign thought. Try to be open and see for yourself. Addiction has three components, increase in use, withdrawal when removed and urge to relapse. Sugar hits all of these markers but some people are more comfortable with the term ‘sugar-dependant’ as opposed to ‘addiction.’ The following article makes the case that each of the three components to addiction exist in sugar. Found on Winkipedia but it quotes a Tufts study conducted at Princeton. Of note in the article: Is it any surprise that The Sugar Industry says sugar content of as much as 25% in our food is healthful or is ok but... This is a great article. Of note in this ^^^ article: So no there is not a lot of research. But again, one can easliy conduct their own experiment easily to determine the validity of this science. But do it cleanly eleminating all sugar and substances that immediately turn to sugar in order to experience the withdrawal. For example I found this on a 12 step program for sugar addiction. ←

Maybe I did not know how to use the stevia. It was awful. Does he use it in tea or coffee? I could see that it could hide better in an already flavorful savory dish. But you might like to peruse the book Sugar Blues by William Dufty that I mentioned earlier. Paperback, seven bucks, I just picked up a copy at Bookstar recently. It's quite an adventure in the history and effects of sugar. If anything I said was shocking, William Dufty, a fellow addict, a hundred times more shocking. He goes back in time and traces the history of sugar. Here's a cool quote from Andy Warhol at the beginning of Chapter Three. Have you read Angela's Ashes by Frank McCourt? A memoir of his childhood describing cruel unrelenting poverty where sugar was a constant staple in their diet. Sugar and bread and tea. Interesting.

You are welcome. I always said I was referring to refined white sugar and it's many guises and pseudonyms, not natural fruit sugar. A balance of carbs are needed to stay within the correct blood chemistry range to aid brain function. The wrong amount will cloud and confuse brain function. Withdrawal? Umm, I don't get withdrawal if I eat starch (if I can be an unscientific just in general example). What I get from the wrong kind of starch is craving for more. It's a trigger. So I will then eat too much of the wrong thing and crave sugar. And conversely, when I'm on the right carbs and have eliminated white sugar I do not have cravings. So many areas are positively influenced by this corrected eating. But still yet I want to eat the other way. I'm a rat in a little cage. Not as content to look better and feel better while eating right as to happily relapse into satisfying my sugar dependency (which according to the study I could find can be described as an addiction, milder than a nicotine addiction nonetheless an addiction). Now naturally occuring sugars within fruits & stuff (of which white sugar is not) are not triggers. I can eat fruit and veggies, it's not every type of sugar, just the refined stuff that's added to products and cookies and cake and pastry and doughnuts and pepsi and coke and chocolate and candy and marshmallows and candy corn and spearmint leaf candy and bread and you get the picture. drool drool. Not to mention the stuff that turns to straight up sugar in your system when you eat it like 100% fruit juice, the rice cakes mentioned earlier dried fruit, stuff like that. And I ran across an article that explained all the new names for added sweetener including the evaporated cane syrup I mentioned earlier. For me, as a person with this 'dependency' I should avoid all such products. sniff Stevia is horrible oh my god! I'd rather drink black coffee than try that stuff again. But y'know the trigger thing? If I eat a spoonful of (no-sugar added) peanut butter or a tablespoon of walnuts, the peanut butter will be a trigger (because of the carbs I guess) and I start craving. The walnuts do not act as a trigger because it is a different type of protein? Now I'm guessing on that science. I just know it's true of me. Walnuts are safe. Peanuts, peanut butter is risky, not a good choice for moi. Lots of people have this. It often stems from alcoholic heritage among other things. But I have gone through detox and lost weight and etc. So I can watch me in the petri dish and it's actually fascinating. How much much much what we eat affects so much much much. And medical science for the ages has ignored this. A couple other unscientific advantages to me being 'good'-- prettier complexion, clearer vision, clearer thinking, no hot flashes. No kidding either. So while it is an extreme word choice to say white sugar white flour is poison when you see the positive results possible for the sugar-dependent when they avoid it, well, you decide how good a choice of words it is, unscientifically of course.

Some ideas for you. You decide when to deliver the cake and it's generally two hours before the wedding if the reception immediately follows. OR generally two hours before the reception. I mean unless there's some extenuating circumstance. Like it's in a home and no one will be there or something. I give a soft delivery time so no one stresses out especially me. Delivering cakes can be stressful enough without factoring in an exact delivery appointment time. You want enough wiggle room to be able to make possible repairs etc. Forgot the topper, forgot the plateau, the bride was only kidding about chocolate icing (hahaha yeah that's real funny!) I always get the phone numbers of mob and who is decorating the reception and when they will be there. Get groom's phone # too. I like to get the florist's phone number and other available vendors. I make sure that the cake table is decorated first. That if it's a 7PM wedding, the cake table must be ready for set up by 5. I get names & numbers of whosoever is in charge of the tables and when they will be there. Sometimes, decorating is done the day before and the place can be locked until the wedding guests start arriving for the reception. Always take a picture at the venue. Go buy a disposable camera if you need to. This is your irrefutable 'receipt' that the cake was positioned thus and thus in the room and it was not leaning and blablabla. If you take checks for deposits on equipment, cash them. Checking accounts close and people move when they get married. Whatever you do, do not undercut the local wedding cake sellers prices. That's not nice. Now the deal about dessert size portion or traditional size portion is up to you also. I have been to functions where they milked 50 servings out of a 25 serving cake. If someone wants to serve a larger serving than the traditional size, then they order more servings. If someone has Aunt Louise's twin 15 year old girl's cutting their cake they need extra servings. Who cuts the cake is very important in determining the servings. Boxes are our friend. Keep the cake out of the sunlight during delivery so nothing fades/melts on the way. Make your boxes and any other peripherals well in advance of the event. The less you have to do last minute the better. Plan where each box will go in the vehicle. Get some of that nubbly shelf liner to put under cakes and under the boxes so they don't slide in transit. For a first cake like this, I would do everything at least one day ahead of when I normally would have done it. I can advise that handily because I sure wish I had backed everything up a full day when I did do my first cakes You'll do great.

That's really unfortunate wording. Me, I would do the 1 cup chiffonade and keep the rest on standby if I thought it needed it. It seems to me it's a pure judgement call unless you can contact the author.

Alright, here we go. Addiction has three components, increase in use, withdrawal when removed and urge to relapse. Sugar hits all of these markers but some people are more comfortable with the term ‘sugar-dependant’ as opposed to ‘addiction.’ The following article makes the case that each of the three components to addiction exist in sugar. Found on Winkipedia but it quotes a Tufts study conducted at Princeton. Of note in the article: Is it any surprise that The Sugar Industry says sugar content of as much as 25% in our food is healthful or is ok but... This is a great article. Of note in this ^^^ article: So no there is not a lot of research. But again, one can easliy conduct their own experiment easily to determine the validity of this science. But do it cleanly eleminating all sugar and substances that immediately turn to sugar in order to experience the withdrawal. For example I found this on a 12 step program for sugar addiction.

Our bodies are mostly all alike. You don't notice any withdrawal from not eating pastry because you have satisfied that those sugar blues in some other myriad way. If someone goes sugar free on a clean diet, no fruit juice, no wine, no sugar, no sweeteners no added sweeteners, no fruit, you will experience withdrawal. Maybe I can point you to a past petri dish episode. For example, if we find ourselves in the hospital for some reason or another on a restricted diet, we crave sugar. Try it. You will have withdrawal. I think the heroin comparison is extreme, but nonetheless sugar is an addicting detrimental anti-nutritious ingredient. Oh my yes!

To be fair, the comparison I made is that water contributes to nutrition, water is nutritional for us. Sugar is not nutritional. Here's another self petri dish idea that is easy peasy to open the eyes of anyone open to discussion of the potential hazards of sugar ingestion. It helps to be over 25 years of age, like I said this damage is accomplished over lots of time. But eat a slice of iced layer cake for a midnight snack. First thing in the morning, check your bloated little mug in the mirror. Times that times all the other slices and all the other organs... This information about the dangers of sucrose has been common knowledge in the health food world forever. Maybe I can find some stuff...I'll try. It's just not a popular concept at all is it, that sugar is bad for us. Sugar as a commodity is huge business! Huge. Reading that link you posted about how they jar and sterilize the baby food and the sugar carmelizes in the heated jar makes my skin crawl.

No specific citation seems to be given. Has anyone read the article obliquely referenced in the story in the Guardian? ← Well hmm. Seems to be something in print there with a lot of support for exactly what I have been saying. The increases in sugar consumption cited alone are extremely noteworthy. Not super scientifical, lots of opinions though. Puts the big red A for addiction out there, it is of course. Try to give up drinking colas, test it. I sincerely do not want any legislation. Awareness and education would help I think. But boy that article is packed with beaucoups of great stuff! And please forego the notion that this is a new concept. Sugar being damaging has been around for decades. This article says sugar overuse is on the rise. Far too many labels say "flavoring". Thank you for posting that, Michael!

Water is nutritional for us. Refined white sugar is not nutritional. Do you think? I don't think it is. Does anyone think it is? It makes things taste great. I'm a sugar artist, a baker, an addict. Now old enough to say I cannot eat it like I used to and maintain my weight and health. Which is not an unheard of situation unique to me. Are the kids hiding in the pantry to eat stolen green beans or stolen cookies? Are they sneaking apples or chocolate bars? One piece of chocolate can have the sugar of 5 apples and not a drop of fiber. I can eat a lot of chocolate. I can only eat so many rounds of five apples at a time. That's not rocket science either. I like the word poison because I think we need to stop and think about sugar as a random occassional treat. Not as a common thread running through a majority of our foods and peppering our days. It's mortally frustrating.

And as luck would have it, yes, they were made with peanut butter from the bad 2111 salmonella scare batch. No one has gotten sick thank goodness. What a rip! All her hard work!! Wow.

I hate it when they cut my hair too short to put up in one rubber band or clippy thing. And what is that deal about cutting one row of hair real real friggin short underneath the rest of it. So you have to basically tape the bottom layer to keep it out of the soup or whatever. grr

Yes! In fact... wait for it... waaaaaaait for it... burning more calories than you consume is the only scientifically-proven way to reduce excess adipose tissue. As I mentioned above, not all weight loss is the same. Loss of "water weight" through a low carb diet is not meaningful weight loss. Let us imagine the following: Take two identical twins at the same weight, and with the same exercise habits. Put them on calorie deficit diets that have equal caloric value. Both diets have the same amount of fiber, vitamins, etc. The difference is that one twin gets 50% of his calories from carbohydrates, including simple sugars, and the other twin gets only 5% of his calories from carbohydrates, with no simple sugars. At the end of the trial, the twins will have lost approximately the same amount of body fat. The low-carb, no-sugar twin may be several pounds lighter because of the water weight-shedding effect of a diet that contains insufficient carbohydrates. There is no scientific evidence of which I am aware that this is the case with respect to any kind of real-world diet (no one is suggesting a diet of 100% fructose) and a fair amount of evidence that it is not the case. Again, no one is suggesting that people don't overconsume sugar, or that overconsumption of sugar doesn't have negative consequences. So does overconsumption of fat, overconsumption of protein, overconsumption of salt, and indeed, overconsumption of water. That doesn't make fat, protein, salt and water poisons, and it doesn't make sugar a poison either. Similarly, just because reduction in consumption of certain foods may be recommended when one is sick (although I am not aware of any scientifically-supported recommendations to eliminate sugar from the diet when one is sick) does not make that food "harmful" in normal circumstances. For example, someone with the flu might be advised to lay off the red wine. And yet, we know that red wine in amounts of a glass or so per day is actually beneficial. Again, this is a common American misunderstanding, the idea that "if a lot of something is bad for you, then it's a 'poision' and you shouldn't have any of it." This is simply not true. Cigarettes are a "poison." A lot of cigarette smoke is bad for you, and even a little of it is bad for you as well. Alcohol is a poison, too. A lot of it is bad for you. But, interestingly enough, a little alcohol is actually good for you. Who knew? There is no evidence that sigar is a poison or that a reasonable amount of refined sugar in the diet is terrible for the human body. No one is suggesting that Americans don't have too much refined sugar in their diet. Indeed, I say above that "convincing and well-supported arguments may be made (and have been made) to the effect that overconsumption of mono- and disaccharides has had a negative epidemiological health consequence." It's not clear from this that you have a firm understanding of "refined." There is very little difference between the sugar content of, e.g., unrefined honey and high fructose corn syrup. As for the spicy heat example, there certainly are plenty of places in the world where the "craving" for spice is every bit as real as the "craving" for sweet, salt, etc. No, actually it does not agree with you. That sentence only says "this is what people are saying these days" (and, again, I would add that no one is recommending a high-sucrose diet). This is just cherry picking a sentence out of context to make it seem like the study supports one viewpoint when in fact it supports the opposite. The key sentence to read in that abstract is: "In this study, a high-sucrose intake as part of an eucaloric, weight-maintaining diet had no detrimental effect on insulin sensitivity, glycemic profiles, or measures of vascular compliance in healthy nondiabetic subjects." Another way of wording this would be: "The basic premise behind the South Beach Diet and other insulin-based diets is horsecrap unless you are diabetic." Peer-reviewed science is peer-reviewed science. Discounting the results of a study because of the source of its funding, or on any basis other than the soundness of its science, is a primary tactic of fringe quackery. Look... if you want to believe Agatston and Perricone, and the scare tactics and rhetoric of their big-money diet books instead of common sense and mainstream science, be my guest. But saying that sucrose and white bread flour are poisons that ruin our blood chemistry again and again and again still doesn't make it so. ← With respect, your permission was not a factor for me. Quoting studies does not negate my regained health neither do they make refined white flour products and refined sugar products wholesome nutrition. What scare tactics? Who was scared? I agree with you that caloric intake is key. However for example 1500 calories of a rotation of sweet pies will certainly ruin your system and weight loss may occur eventually but the right kind of 1500 calories will facilitate a great weight loss without the additional loss of health. Healthy 33 year olds generally don't need to loose weight. Try that Belfast study on a bunch of boomers or children. How long was the study conducted? That's a very good scientific particle of information. Who funded the study has everything to do with common sense. Are you kidding? Shoot, it has only been in the last few decades that medical science has even sneered at what we eat to be thought to be the base of any ailment or cure. So that is the side you are on apparently. I'm not big science girl. I could run to studies but I really don't care to. I'm into surviving and I'm happy that these things have worked for me. Sugar is a poison to me and lots of people. My evidence is clear. I'm not swayed at all. That horsecrap worked for me and I'm not diabetic.

I would never conclude anything based on one example/article--that's the popular media's job! I was only trying to illustrate that research into this topic has been done. There were more articles on the subject, but I don't have the time to do a meta analysis right now. I understand that you have a personal experience, and that is great, but science isn't based on personal experiences (too many variables). ← I was asked how did I arrive at calling sugar poison. How about this, alcohol is clearly not a poison. To an alcoholic it is a poison. Ever the more so to their families it is a biting poison. Poison meaning something real bad for us that we are drawn to consume, addicting. Sugar is that poison for me and for many others. I would be representing the boomers who's lifelong consumption of sugar has caught up with them and those who stayed smart and stayed off it knowing in the first place how bad it is. I was just at the store buying salmon and tilapia. As to which pieces I wanted I said to the clerk, just pick out the ones you would like eat. I said, "Do you eat fish?" She said tilapia yes salmon no. I said I've learned to like it. The clerk looked at me and said, "What do you have that you gotta buy fish now?" We talked and laughed. She's got bad cholesterol and can't eat this and that and this and that. I said, "Yeah, it's too bad we can't eat what we want now because we waited too long to eat the way we knew we should have all along." That's all I mean. It's a poison. There was a dang tractor beam of Star Trek proportion pulling me to the cookie counter. Sugar has been an addiction for me. It is very difficult to avoid it. I believe I also quoted Gloria Swanson's saying that in the book, Sugar Blues by William Dufty 1975. I am coming at this from the point of view that for example, some people think that cookies made from shortening as opposed to butter are not 'wholesome'. Whereas I believe that cookies made from sugar need nut meats in them or whole oats at least to balance out that sugar so it does not gut punch your system. Stuff like that.

This is a frestretcher

That was after only one key-word search (low carbohydrate diets). I agree with what Slkinsey has been posting. It is consistent to what I have learned via my bachelors & masters degrees in Dietetics. Just adding my two cents. ← I boldened that line ^^^ above. This agrees with me. Umm, 4 weeks and 6 weeks while great for this study are not long enough time frames to bring the detriment I am referencing. (Not to mention personally experiencing.) How long did the study continue overall? And as I said before, I am not a medical science guru. So from this are you saying that long term over consumption of sugar is not harmful? Hey, one can jump in their own petri dish. Drink two Cokes a day for a week. Then stop and go sugar free for 24 hours. Then make your own determination as to whether that's not an uncomfortable "heavy craving" in your gut. Do it for a year and then stop. Three decades, four. That's an addiction. Physical and emotional et al. ← Also of extreme interest is, who funded this experiment in Belfast Ireland the undisputed mission control of all things nutritional.

That was after only one key-word search (low carbohydrate diets). I agree with what Slkinsey has been posting. It is consistent to what I have learned via my bachelors & masters degrees in Dietetics. Just adding my two cents. ← I boldened that line ^^^ above. This agrees with me. Umm, 4 weeks and 6 weeks while great for this study are not long enough time frames to bring the detriment I am referencing. (Not to mention personally experiencing.) How long did the study continue overall? And as I said before, I am not a medical science guru. So from this are you saying that long term over consumption of sugar is not harmful? Hey, one can jump in their own petri dish. Drink two Cokes a day for a week. Then stop and go sugar free for 24 hours. Then make your own determination as to whether that's not an uncomfortable "heavy craving" in your gut. Do it for a year and then stop. Three decades, four. That's an addiction. Physical and emotional et al.

I agree with everything you say actually especially this last. I think the awareness of the wide spread use of added sugar in items on the store shelves coupled with the realization/education of how refined sugar acts on our organs over time would be whole heartedly embracing the golden rule. Heads Up! Hold high the hopefully sugar-free vindaloo!!! I mean just by starting to read ingredient labels then avoid the added sugar and hfcs products is a great great start. Everything in moderation and sugar consumption is out of control in our world. We need more sugar free choices in items that should not be sugared.

If I was this guy's friend, I would have taken his pulse already and known to take his ungracious behavior with an upended salt shaker. To say it nicely, he's being silly. As a customer service pro, and if I worked for the restaurent, I would recommend that he contact the BBB and complain. If he did it, that would open the door so I could also document my good actions for all time and eternity.

Which is exactly why it is so damn scary.