jsolomon

Church potlucks are a reasonable barometer of how a group views their food hygiene, and while I wouldn't argue that perhaps a church ought to nominate a food safety officer for assisting with potlucks, I don't think that a church potluck is necessarily any more dangerous than a picnic or a barbecue. Wate.com is trolling. They just want a sensational story on a slow day. Let's call a spade a spade. Edit to add: am I the only one who noticed that their examples of food poisoning are 13 and 14 years old? Trolls.

Gym sock soup? It's similar to stone soup, but this version is made to feed wrestlers who still must lose weight to wrestle at the weight class they intend to wrestle in.

Frankie Johnson's FireHouse Diner (with a blinky neon 'u' while everything else stays lit). But what would people go there to "eat"? Hooters has it's wings...

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln has a Culinology program. U of NE Lincoln It appears to be undergrad, but I think something could be done for a grad degree.

Suzy, you're absolutely right that a physician may not be the most knowledgeable person, and a pharmacist is certainly a good resource. Here are two reasons to ask your physician, though: your physician has the power to change your prescription, while your pharmacist doesn't; and, second, your physician does have the exposure to know WHERE to search for information--which is the same exposure a pharmacist has. A lot of education revolves around learning how to cast a question, and how to research information around it. Physicians must be good at this, or they wouldn't make it through med school. Fortunately, pharmacists have similar experiences, and it is their area of expertise. Edit to add: of course, I'm of the "Sin Boldly" party, as I wash down my missed dose of amoxicillin out-of-schedule with a beer.

I'm with Brooks. I fail to see a downside to this endeavor. Keep a pan under the bacon to save the drippin's, just in case. FYI, Jack, I asked in the Charcuterie thread what was the actual difference. I hadn't seen a response before I lost track of the thread.

Now you're catching on! New York Times on why science doesn't always make sense. The thing you're missing is that diet is a multi-body problem, which means that there are local maxima and minima, but there is never one solution. What works in one case, will not work in all cases. The thing that's important in pre-workout snacks and meals is the workout, not the snack or the meal. What's even stranger, is that you can train yourself toward eating, not eating, having a water-only fast, eating after, eating only chips, etc, etc, etc, and it will all work for you once you get past the initial lag phase of the training. We are amazingly tunable, metabolically speaking.

Yes, but a little bit of science can easily be debunked by a little bit of novel physiology. There are lots of people who will simply yak if they work out on a full stomach. There are a lot fewer people who can eat a 6 course meal and go run a half-marathon... or people who can stop in the middle of a metric marathon and drink 2 beers and continue on. Also, and here's the big thing: the science behind how to effectively fuel yourself is primarily a procrastination ploy and excuse-generator. We know the real way to physical fitness is hard work. But, we'd rather have a "quick" or an "easy" or a "secret" way. But, maintaining your weight, keeping it off, or gaining physical fitness is just like running a marathon: don't start too fast, and never, ever stop. Diet barely makes a difference to normal slugs like me, except in extreme cases (like race day on a marathon). It makes a lot of difference to Lance Armstrong. But, there are orders of magnitude difference in performance levels. And, yes, I have a good idea of it. I have wrestled (and dieted) for more than a decade. I have run marathons, fenced, ridden centuries, and currently work in a fermentation engineering lab where we optimize all sorts of diets for bacteria and yeast. After all of that experience, I can definitely tell you that diet is fairly well in the realm of diminishing returns for the work-a-day job/exerciser.

My wooden spoons which are completely unsuited for serving MUST ALWAYS reside with the serving spoons. Also, my spreading knife MUST ALWAYS reside in the silverware drawer, not with the rest of the slicing/boning/paring/chef's knives. Leaving the tea kettle or the cast iron skillet out isn't illogical. It isn't any less logical than always drinking your coffee from a black mug, or glass. It is a true way to happiness, wisdom, and domestic peace.

You must have a much larger television set than I do But, I must say, I am NEVER AGAIN cooking bacon sans shirt. Nope, not even for Stacy Kiebler. As for how much foam? Whipped cream r00lz even more than p0rq ph4t.

Apparently dogs are now forms of pure non-baryonic energy instead of being bags of chemicals working in (vaguely) close orchestration. The thing that I'm curious about is, do the dogs really get away from chemicals? They get away from some of the chemical traps for detecting, but grower still use pesticides to get rid of the mites, then, right?

It's hard to get much better than Liqui-Nox... Liqui-Nox

Everyone has given great responses. Here is another take on what it boils down to that takes into account everything all these people have said. Grapefruit have been shown to have an effect on statin uptake and statin clearance (metabolism, too, I think). But, what your physician is trying to do is to CONTROL your statin levels to affect your cholesterol. But, when you eat grapefruit, you add another variable to the equation, so the same intake of statin now has a variable effect on your statin levels, and thus your cholesterol levels. This adds a second level of complexity. So, remove the grapefruit, remove the complexity. Granted, you could remove the statin, too, but that has other medical effects. Grapefruit are such an enjoyable part of my diet, that I would want to speak to my physician.

There's a lot of bad advice in books, from physicians, friends, nutrition experts, and fitness experts. The thing most people need to realize about pre-workout snacks and meals is that you shoud do some playing around to see what works for you. Some people like me, can just go and go and go without worrying about eating, not eating, eating large amounts, etc. Others can't. A book is great for getting some ideas, but the thing is, people still need to go out and find if things work for them. A lot of the advice that I've seen on this thread is vaguely valid because it really has worked for someone. Whether that's placebo effect, or otherwise, doesn't matter. As long as it gets the person through their workout, that's one step better than they were before. And that's the cold, hard truth about the fact.

That's not a diet; that's a death sentence! Even when I'm restricting my calories, it's a rare day to see me under 3000...

Flagging energy levels after work are usually caused by mild levels of dehydration. Try for several days to drink significantly more water at work and see how you tolerater exercise at the end of the day.

For the recommendations, I would steer you toward a piece or two of fresh fruit and a handful of GORP--yes, good olde raisins and peanuts. Protein, salt, simple yet low-glycemic sugars, and good for taking the edge off of hunger because it is a bulky food. For the large cream puff? Eah, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Although, if you're wanting to lose fat, I would suggest lower weight, more reps, and more sets.

Wow! Kudos for perseverence... but why not melt some chocolate chips in a double-boiler and make your own chocolate covered beans? I generally find 6 or 7 as good of a pick-me-up as a cuppa....

Eh? What was his justification for it not being practical? They build laboratory tabletops out of slate. The stuff would be awesome!

I have several answers to your question, but I've got to have some answers to questions first. What is your workout intended for? Is it weight-loss? Increasing fitness? Maintaining fitness? What is your general workout scheme? Different goals can benefit from different nutrition. Although generally, I would suggest simple, high water, low-glycemic, low protein, low bulk food before the workout. Then go for your protein, fat, and fiber after--to help rebuild. Then again, I've been known to fuel for long runs with beer. Your mileage may vary.

A couple quick web searches on iron toxicity lead me to seriously doubt that the small amount of iron you would get exposed to would cause any toxicity problems. Now, if you were talking piles of rust, there may be something different, but just a bit off of where 8 thin wires cross each other is probably more beneficial to your diet than detrimental. Happy eating!

jayhay, check out this post on beef roasts. If you've got your grill, I'd cook the sucker to 115 internal temperature on a low heat, pull from heat for 5 minutes and stoke the heat, then place back on to 125 internal temperature.

Umm... how 'bout calling up the fire department and asking if you can use their oven?

It's awfully rough to take the political environment out on the scientists. Just like any other group, they have to make their money according to the leading market indicators, and fortunately or not, most of the prion research money is doled out from federal coffers through the NIH or the NSF. We all know how political the budgeting process is in the US Congress. And, if Congress, Mike Johanns, Dr. Richard Carmona, or George Bush, decide that there is a need for research into prions, money will be opened up, researchers will hear about it, and apply for the money. Does this make their research political? Opportunistic, to be certain, but all grant applications are. For a historical perspective, when Dr.s Banting and Best suggested that diabetes was not an infectious disease, but a metabolic disease, they were openly laughed at. When insulin was shown to be a protein, and one with discrete structure, the skepticism was amazing. Both of those findings generated Nobel Prizes. Does this all mean that prions are going to pan out? No. But, it does show that even the most educated minds of the time have their predilections and prejudices. However, earnest science is inherently self-correcting. But, it's not instantaneous. Edit to correct Secretary of D^H^H^H^H^H^H^HAgriculture's name

FG, why are you so suspicious of scientists? Granted, there is a lot of high profile research going into BSE and the like, but there are also a lot of very dedicated, ethical, and moral scientists working on these questions. I'm much more worried about the quality of the reporting on the research than anything else. If the reporting were of higher quality, then the issues regarding the finding of BSE would not have caused near so much alarm.