infernooo

Just placed my order via Amazon - really looking forward to this, brilliant work Nathan!

Just placed my order via Amazon - really looking forward to this, brilliant work Nathan!

I would also imagine breaking the cell walls would expose many of the elements inside to oxidation... so unless it is consumed straight away, this could be considered a positive or a negative.

Brilliant post, thank you Pedro!

Thank you for the extensive reply! I shall definitely try out your suggestions and report back Keep up the great work in this section, you are a wealth of information and many of us greatly appreciate your contributions.

Some food for thought... note that I DID NOT cherry pick these, they are the most relevant studies I could find. Etiology of hypersensitivity reactions following Chinese or Indonesian meals]. Abstract Various authors have criticised or confirmed the relation between adverse reactions to Chinese food ('The Chinese Restaurant Syndrome') and the use of monosodium glutamate (Vetsin). In our experience the occurrence of urticaria, angioedema or anaphylaxis after meals in Chinese or Indonesian restaurants is more often due to IgE-mediated Type I food allergy, caused by consumption of shrimp, peanut or spices, in particular those of the parsley family (e.g. coriander). A detailed description of four such cases is presented. Monosodium L-glutamate: a double-blind study and review. Tarasoff L, Kelly MF. Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Business & Technology, University of Western Sydney, Campbelltown, NSW, Australia. Comment in: * Food Chem Toxicol. 1995 Jan;33(1):69-78. Abstract 71 healthy subjects were treated with placebos and monosodium L-glutamate (MSG) doses of 1.5, 3.0 and 3.15 g/person, which represented a body mass-adjusted dose range of 0.015-0.07 g/kg body weight before a standardized breakfast over 5 days. The study used a rigorous randomized double-blind crossover design that controlled for subjects who had MSG after-tastes. Capsules and specially formulated drinks were used as vehicles for placebo and MSG treatments. Subjects mostly had no responses to placebo (86%) and MSG (85%) treatments. Sensations, previously attributed to MSG, did not occur at a significantly higher rate than did those elicited by placebo treatment. A significant (P < 0.05) negative correlation between MSG dose and after-effects was found. The profound effect of food in negating the effects of large MSG doses was demonstrated. The common practice of extrapolating food-free experimental results to 'in use' situations was called into question. An exhaustive review of previous methodologies identified the strong taste of MSG as the factor invalidating most 'blind' and 'double-blind' claims by previous researchers. The present study led to the conclusion that 'Chinese Restaurant Syndrome' is an anecdote applied to a variety of postprandial illnesses; rigorous and realistic scientific evidence linking the syndrome to MSG could not be found. Glutamate. Its applications in food and contribution to health. Jinap S, Hajeb P. Center of Excellence for Food Safety Research, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia. jinap@food.upm.edu.my <jinap@food.upm.edu.my> Abstract This article reviews application of glutamate in food and its benefits and role as one of the common food ingredients used. Monosodium glutamate is one of the most abundant naturally occurring amino acids which frequently added as a flavor enhancer. It produced a unique taste that cannot be provided by other basic taste (saltiness, sourness, sweetness and bitterness), referred to as a fifth taste (umami). Glutamate serves some functions in the body as well, serving as an energy source for certain tissues and as a substrate for glutathione synthesis. Glutamate has the potential to enhance food intake in older individuals and dietary free glutamate evoked a visceral sensation from the stomach, intestine and portal vein. Small quantities of glutamate used in combination with a reduced amount of table salt during food preparation allow for far less salt to be used during and after cooking. Because glutamate is one of the most intensely studied food ingredients in the food supply and has been found safe, the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization placed it in the safest category for food additives. Despite a widespread belief that glutamate can elicit asthma, migraine headache and Chinese Restaurant Syndrome (CRS), there are no consistent clinical data to support this claim. In addition, findings from the literature indicate that there is no consistent evidence to suggest that individuals may be uniquely sensitive to glutamate. Monosodium glutamate 'allergy': menace or myth? Williams AN, Woessner KM. Division of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, Scripps Clinic, San Diego, CA 92130, USA. a.williams33@yahoo.com Abstract Monosodium glutamate (MSG) is a salt form of a non-essential amino acid commonly used as a food additive for its unique flavour enhancing qualities. Since the first description of the 'Monosodium glutamate symptom complex', originally described in 1968 as the 'Chinese restaurant syndrome', a number of anecdotal reports and small clinical studies of variable quality have attributed a variety of symptoms to the dietary ingestion of MSG. Descriptions of MSG-induced asthma, urticaria, angio-oedema, and rhinitis have prompted some to suggest that MSG should be an aetiologic consideration in patients presenting with these conditions. This review prevents a critical review of the available literature related to the possible role of MSG in the so-called 'Chinese restaurant syndrome' and in eliciting asthmatic bronchospasm, urticaria, angio-oedema, and rhinitis. Despite concerns raised by early reports, decades of research have failed to demonstrate a clear and consistent relationship between MSG ingestion and the development of these conditions. Reconsidering the effects of monosodium glutamate: a literature review. Freeman M. OhioHealth, Columbus, Ohio, USA. freeman.224@osu.edu Abstract PURPOSE: This article reviews the literature from the past 40 years of research related to monosodium glutamate (MSG) and its ability to trigger a migraine headache, induce an asthma exacerbation, or evoke a constellation of symptoms described as the "Chinese restaurant syndrome." DATA SOURCES: Literature retrieved by a search using PubMed, Medline, Lexis-Nexus, and Infotrac to review articles from the past 40 years. CONCLUSIONS: MSG has a widespread reputation for eliciting a variety of symptoms, ranging from headache to dry mouth to flushing. Since the first report of the so-called Chinese restaurant syndrome 40 years ago, clinical trials have failed to identify a consistent relationship between the consumption of MSG and the constellation of symptoms that comprise the syndrome. Furthermore, MSG has been described as a trigger for asthma and migraine headache exacerbations, but there are no consistent data to support this relationship. Although there have been reports of an MSG-sensitive subset of the population, this has not been demonstrated in placebo-controlled trials. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Despite a widespread belief that MSG can elicit a headache, among other symptoms, there are no consistent clinical data to support this claim. Findings from the literature indicate that there is no consistent evidence to suggest that individuals may be uniquely sensitive to MSG. Nurse practitioners should therefore concentrate their efforts on advising patients of the nutritional pitfalls of some Chinese restaurant meals and to seek more consistently documented etiologies for symptoms such as headache, xerostomia, or flushing. Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple-challenge evaluation of reported reactions to monosodium glutamate. Geha RS, Beiser A, Ren C, Patterson R, Greenberger PA, Grammer LC, Ditto AM, Harris KE, Shaughnessy MA, Yarnold PR, Corren J, Saxon A. Division of Immunology, Children Hospital and Department of Pediatrics, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA. Abstract BACKGROUND: The frequency of reactions reported to occur after the consumption of monosodium glutamate (MSG) is the subject of controversy. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a multicenter, multiphase, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with a crossover design to evaluate reactions reportedly caused by MSG. METHODS: In 3 of 4 protocols (A, B, and C), MSG was administered without food. A positive response was scored if the subject reported 2 or more symptoms from a list of 10 symptoms reported to occur after ingestion of MSG-containing foods within 2 hours. In protocol A 130 self-selected reportedly MSG-reactive volunteers were challenged with 5 g of MSG and with placebo on separate days (days 1 and 2). Of the 86 subjects who reacted to MSG, placebo, or both in protocol A, 69 completed protocol B to determine whether the response was consistent and dose dependent. To further examine the consistency and reproducibility of reactions to MSG, 12 of the 19 subjects who responded to 5 g of MSG but not to placebo in both protocols A and B were given, in protocol C, 2 challenges, each consisting of 5 g of MSG versus placebo. RESULTS: Of 130 subjects in protocol A, 50 (38. 5%) responded to MSG only, 17 (13.1%) responded to placebo only (P <. 05), and 19 (14.6%) responded to both. Challenge with increasing doses of MSG in protocol B was associated with increased response rates. Only half (n = 19) of 37 subjects who reacted to 5 g of MSG but not placebo in protocol A reacted similarly in protocol B, suggesting inconsistency in the response. Two of the 19 subjects responded in both challenges to MSG but not placebo in protocol C; however, their symptoms were not reproducible in protocols A through C. These 2 subjects were challenged in protocol D 3 times with placebo and 3 times with 5 g of MSG in the presence of food. Both responded to only one of the MSG challenges in protocol D. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that large doses of MSG given without food may elicit more symptoms than a placebo in individuals who believe that they react adversely to MSG. However, neither persistent nor serious effects from MSG ingestion are observed, and the responses were not consistent on retesting. Review of alleged reaction to monosodium glutamate and outcome of a multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled study. Geha RS, Beiser A, Ren C, Patterson R, Greenberger PA, Grammer LC, Ditto AM, Harris KE, Shaughnessy MA, Yarnold PR, Corren J, Saxon A. Division of Immunology, Children's Hospital and Department of Pediatrics, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA. Abstract Monosodium glutamate (MSG) has a long history of use in foods as a flavor enhancer. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration has classified MSG as generally recognized as safe (GRAS). Nevertheless, there is an ongoing debate exists concerning whether MSG causes any of the alleged reactions. A complex of symptoms after ingestion of a Chinese meal was first described in 1968. MSG was suggested to trigger these symptoms, which were referred to collectively as Chinese Restaurant Syndrome. Numerous reports, most of them anecdotal, were published after the original observation. Since then, clinical studies have been performed by many groups, with varying degrees of rigor in experimental design ranging from uncontrolled open challenges to double-blind, placebo controlled (DBPC) studies. Challenges in subjects who reported adverse reactions to MSG have included relatively few subjects and have failed to show significant reactions to MSG. Results of surveys and of clinical challenges with MSG in the general population reveal no evidence of untoward effects. We recently conducted a multicenter DBPC challenge study in 130 subjects (the largest to date) to analyze the response of subjects who report symptoms from ingesting MSG. The results suggest that large doses of MSG given without food may elicit more symptoms than a placebo in individuals who believe that they react adversely to MSG. However, the frequency of the responses was low and the responses reported were inconsistent and were not reproducible. The responses were not observed when MSG was given with food. The safety evaluation of monosodium glutamate. Walker R, Lupien JR. School of Biological Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 5XH, Surrey, UK and. Food and Nutrition Division, FAO, 00100 Roma, Italy. Abstract L-Glutamic acid and its ammonium, calcium, monosodium and potassium salts were evaluated by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1988. The Committee noted that intestinal and hepatic metabolism results in elevation of levels in systemic circulation only after extremely high doses given by gavage (>30mg/kg body weight). Ingestion of monosodium glutamate (MSG) was not associated with elevated levels in maternal milk, and glutamate did not readily pass the placental barrier. Human infants metabolized glutamate similarly to adults. Conventional toxicity studies using dietary administration of MSG in several species did not reveal any specific toxic or carcinogenic effects nor were there any adverse outcomes in reproduction and teratology studies. Attention was paid to central nervous system lesions produced in several species after parenteral administration of MSG or as a consequence of very high doses by gavage. Comparative studies indicated that the neonatal mouse was most sensitive to neuronal injury; older animals and other species (including primates) were less so. Blood levels of glutamate associated with lesions of the hypothalamus in the neonatal mouse were not approached in humans even after bolus doses of 10 g MSG in drinking water. Because human studies failed to confirm an involvement of MSG in "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome" or other idiosyncratic intolerance, the JECFA allocated an "acceptable daily intake (ADI) not specified" to glutamic acid and its salts. No additional risk to infants was indicated. The Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) of the European Commission reached a similar evaluation in 1991. The conclusions of a subsequent review by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) and the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) did not discount the existence of a sensitive subpopulation but otherwise concurred with the safety evaluation of JECFA and the SCF. The monosodium glutamate symptom complex: assessment in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study. Yang WH, Drouin MA, Herbert M, Mao Y, Karsh J. Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Abstract BACKGROUND: Considerable debate swirls about the validity of symptoms described by many people after ingestion of monosodium glutamate (MSG), and the question has remained unresolved largely because of a paucity of well-designed challenge studies. METHODS: We conducted oral challenge studies in self-identified MSG-sensitive subjects to determine whether they had a statistically significant difference in the incidence of their specific symptoms after ingestion of MSG compared with placebo. First, 5 gm MSG or placebo was administered in random sequence in a double-blind fashion. Subjects who reacted only to a single test agent then underwent rechallenge in random sequence in a double-blind fashion with placebo and 1.25, 2.5, and 5 gm MSG. A positive response to challenge was defined as the reproduction of > of 2 of the specific symptoms in a subject ascertained on prechallenge interview. RESULTS: Sixty-one subjects entered the study. On initial challenge, 18 (29.5%) responded to neither MSG nor placebo, 6 (9.8%) to both, 15 (24.6%) to placebo, and 22 (36.1%) to MSG (p = 0.324). Total and average severity of symptoms after ingestion of MSG (374 and 80) were greater than respective values after placebo ingestion (232 and 56; p = 0.026 and 0.018, respectively). Rechallenge revealed an apparent threshold dose for reactivity of 2.5 gm MSG. Headache (p < 0.023), muscle tightness (p < 0.004), numbness/tingling (p < 0.007), general weakness (p < 0.040), and flushing (p < 0.016) occurred more frequently after MSG than placebo ingestion. CONCLUSIONS: Oral challenge with MSG reproduced symptoms in alleged sensitive persons. The mechanism of the reaction remains unknown, but symptom characteristics do not support an IgE-mediated mechanism. According to Food and Drug Administration recommendations, the symptoms, originally called the Chinese restaurant syndrome, are better referred to as the MSG symptom complex. Monosodium L-glutamate: a double-blind study and review. Tarasoff L, Kelly MF. Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Business & Technology, University of Western Sydney, Campbelltown, NSW, Australia. Comment in: * Food Chem Toxicol. 1995 Jan;33(1):69-78. Abstract 71 healthy subjects were treated with placebos and monosodium L-glutamate (MSG) doses of 1.5, 3.0 and 3.15 g/person, which represented a body mass-adjusted dose range of 0.015-0.07 g/kg body weight before a standardized breakfast over 5 days. The study used a rigorous randomized double-blind crossover design that controlled for subjects who had MSG after-tastes. Capsules and specially formulated drinks were used as vehicles for placebo and MSG treatments. Subjects mostly had no responses to placebo (86%) and MSG (85%) treatments. Sensations, previously attributed to MSG, did not occur at a significantly higher rate than did those elicited by placebo treatment. A significant (P < 0.05) negative correlation between MSG dose and after-effects was found. The profound effect of food in negating the effects of large MSG doses was demonstrated. The common practice of extrapolating food-free experimental results to 'in use' situations was called into question. An exhaustive review of previous methodologies identified the strong taste of MSG as the factor invalidating most 'blind' and 'double-blind' claims by previous researchers. The present study led to the conclusion that 'Chinese Restaurant Syndrome' is an anecdote applied to a variety of postprandial illnesses; rigorous and realistic scientific evidence linking the syndrome to MSG could not be found. Does monosodium glutamate cause flushing (or merely "glutamania")? Wilkin JK. Abstract Monosodium glutamate is widely regarded as the provocative agent in the "Chinese restaurant syndrome," of which flushing is regarded as part of the reaction. Six subjects were monitored by laser Doppler velocimetry for changes in facial cutaneous blood flow during challenge with monosodium glutamate and its cyclization product, pyroglutamate. Additionally, records of patients challenged with monosodium glutamate in the laboratory were reviewed. No flushing was provoked among the twenty-four people tested, eighteen of whom gave a positive history of Chinese restaurant syndrome flushing. These results indicate that monosodium glutamate-provoked flushing, if it exists at all, must be rare. Monosodium glutamate and its cyclization product, pyroglutamate, may provoke edema and associated symptoms. The Chinese restaurant syndrome: an anecdote revisited. Kenney RA. Abstract The Chinese Restaurant Syndrome arose from an anecdote of discomfort experienced after eating Chinese cuisine. Monosodium glutamate has been implicated as the causative agent. Work over the past 17 years has consistently failed to reveal any objective sign accompanying the transient sensations that some individuals experience after the experimental ingestion of monosodium glutamate and it is questionable whether the term 'Chinese Restaurant Syndrome' has any validity. When some common food materials are used in the same experimental setting, similar symptoms can be produced in a limited number of people. Double-blind testing of individuals who identify themselves as suffering the 'syndrome' has failed to confirm the role of monosodium glutamate as the provocative agent.

I have found many variations of this master sauce, and would be extremely interested in your version of a master sauce recipe ala Indian-restaurant-style-dishes v. gautam if you would be so kind!

By Robert Wolke: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A25891-2001Apr17 The thread in question:

Just another datapoint to add to the wealth of experimental knowledge. Disclaimer: Descriptions are subjective, cuts of meat used can and will result in varying degrees of similarity to my results. BOTH WERE COOKED AT 55.7c (132.26F) Chuck steak purchased from Coles supermarket each piece approximately 1.2cm thick (0.5"), 10cm x 6cm (4" x 2.4") length x width (grain running width ways, i.e. 2.4" long), 90 grams (3 ounces): 24 hours - Rare texture, after first bite, "blood" (I know it's not blood, but it is shorter than saying "protein saturated water from the meat" or "a combination of the water in the muscle & pigment from the muscle cells") started coming to the bitten surface. Some parts soft and very tender and I would consider perfect, however other parts of the steak were still noticably chewy from connective tissue. Definitely needs longer for most parts. Fat is soft but not rendered. 48 hours - Rare texture, more fluid loss than after 24 hours, but still very juicy. Perfect texture in terms of doneness, no offensive chewiness. Fat soft but not rendered, melts nicely in the mouth. Thinking it may be nice seared in a pan to try and melt some of the marbling? Hard to balance melting fat with overcooking the piece. One piece developed off flavours... but I ate it anyways. 72 hours - TBD Tomorrow Night Veal spare ribs (cut into separate ribs, appearance similar to pork spare ribs with cartilage at the thick end running width-ways) purchased from Joes Meat Market (average butcher, meat quality perhaps in between supermarket cheapest and medium grade butcher), approximately 1cm thick at thin end (0.4"), 3cm thick at thick end (1.2"), 13cm x 3cm (5.11" x 1.2") length x width, 200g (7 ounce): 24 hours - Rare texture, some parts deeper in closer to the bone soft in almost a mushy way. Membrane still completely inedible (chewy as a rubber band), some parts perfect texture, others too chewy (as above with chuck steak). Definitely needs longer even though it is "tender" veal. Bone still very hard, cartilage still very hard. Fat softened but not rendered. 48 hours - Rare texture, strange eating a rib from the bone that is rare/medrare as fat is mushy (warm but not rendered) and meat is VERY soft. Membrane still quite tough, but parts of connective tissue edible. Bone has softened significantly, however upon biting into it, has quite a strong "bloody" taste with noticable amounts of "blood" leeching out. Cartilage still very firm. 72 hours - TBD Tomorrow Night

Just another datapoint to add to the wealth of experimental knowledge. Disclaimer: Descriptions are subjective, cuts of meat used can and will result in varying degrees of similarity to my results. BOTH WERE COOKED AT 55.7c (132.26F) Chuck steak purchased from Coles supermarket each piece approximately 1.2cm thick (0.5"), 10cm x 6cm (4" x 2.4") length x width (grain running width ways, i.e. 2.4" long), 90 grams (3 ounces): 24 hours - Rare texture, after first bite, "blood" (I know it's not blood, but it is shorter than saying "protein saturated water from the meat" or "a combination of the water in the muscle & pigment from the muscle cells") started coming to the bitten surface. Some parts soft and very tender and I would consider perfect, however other parts of the steak were still noticably chewy from connective tissue. Definitely needs longer for most parts. Fat is soft but not rendered. 48 hours - TBD Tonight 72 hours - TBD Tomorrow Night Veal spare ribs (cut into separate ribs, appearance similar to pork spare ribs with cartilage at the thick end running width-ways) purchased from Joes Meat Market (average butcher, meat quality perhaps in between supermarket cheapest and medium grade butcher), approximately 1cm thick at thin end (0.4"), 3cm thick at thick end (1.2"), 13cm x 3cm (5.11" x 1.2") length x width, 200g (7 ounce): 24 hours - Rare texture, some parts deeper in closer to the bone soft in almost a mushy way. Membrane still completely inedible (chewy as a rubber band), some parts perfect texture, others too chewy (as above with chuck steak). Definitely needs longer even though it is "tender" veal. Bone still very hard, cartilage still very hard. Fat softened but not rendered. 48 hours - TBD Tonight 72 hours - TBD Tomorrow Night

Please open it and take a photo for us!

Hi folks, First of all, let me preface this post with this: "Yes I know taste is completely subjective, and many people will enjoy things others dislike and vice-versa." This is about your personal experiences and preferences. So, with that out of the way, I thought it would be interesting to hear some experiences of ingredient combinations that do not work together. Whether that means a total failure or just something that rubs you the wrong way. I know molecular gastronomy deals a lot with flavour combinations and suggests many "strange" combinations and informs us as to why others work. This topic is on personal experience, not on purely theoretical issues. I will get it kick started: * Yogurt and chocolate (e.g. yogurt and cocoa) * Yogurt and balsamic (besides 12 year+ aged and thick) * Creamy, sour sauces with worcestershire sauce (e.g. buttermilk or sour cream) * Lamb and sweet sauces (besides mint sauce) - e.g. the typical smokey bbq sauce just does not do it for me on lamb * Lamb and strong fishy flavours - e.g. lamb sauced or braised with thai/vietnamese fish sauce (not true for all red meat, e.g. beef works well, e.g. grilled thai beef salad with hot/sour/salty/sweet palm sugar/fish sauce/chilli/lime juice dressing) * Livers with an overly sweet sauce Lets hear them!

Hi Nathan, I just wanted to shoot you a quick thank you for the extensive replies thus far on the "stalling" of internal temperatures of meat, it has been extremely interesting to read and I appreciate the time you have taken to experiment and explain!

nathanm: I posted your findings and theories on one of the big smoking forums (http://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90123), and one of the replies was this: Any thoughts?

Thanks for the replies, I would be very interested to see what Nathanm has to say (perhaps Douglas as well if he gets the chance!)

No-one? ;-) It does contain some misinformation and some offhand comments, but later in the discussion they do get more in depth and post some interesting finds from research:

To those who are big on food science during meat cookery, I thought the following discussion on why internal temperatures stall during smoking / low and slow barbecuing was quite interesting... anyone have any thoughts or words to add? Criticisms? http://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90123

You can mix it with sugar (or sweetener of your choice), salt and water to make a low fat peanut butter!

Anyone experience the problem of the jaccard flattening the meat like a schnitzel? Do you just reform/squash it back into shape? Also how many times do you guys jaccard the meat? I think I go overboard (multiple times on each side in both directions - i.e. from top to bottom of the steak, then left to right, then flip and do top to bottom, then left to right).

Here is a great post discussing this very topic: http://www.seriouseats.com/2009/12/how-to-have-juicy-meats-steaks-the-food-lab-the-importance-of-resting-grilling.html

Thank you Prawncrackers I will be giving it a go ASAP!

Any chance you have a recipe for this please? :-) looks wonderful!

I saw a couple of posts regarding this upthread, but has anyone else noticed that when you SV beef for 72 hours @ ~132F with no other flavourings, it gets quite an odd smell/taste?

No, it can definitely be done not using a pressure cooker, especially if it is "only" 4kg per brisket. If you have the equipment, smoke it - the results will be magnitudes better than a pressure cooked brisket and far more impressive to the diners. The source of my post above: http://tvwbb.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1780069052/m/6360093154?r=190102983#190102983 (more info here: http://tvwbb.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1780069052/m/6930045465)

Anyone see an issue using one of these with Propylene (as opposed to Butane or Propane) ? http://www.bernzomatic.com/products/product-detail.aspx?xmid=6957