| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 384.1 | more of the same | HECTOR::RICHARDSON | | Wed Oct 22 1986 10:38 | 113 |
| Aha, there was more information to be had! That was only the final page of
the nutrition information. So, here's the rest of it. It says that the
information is based on Standard Tables of Food Composition in Japan,
fourth rvised edition, 1982, Resources Council, Science and Technology Center,
Government of Japan.
food: calories: protein: fats: carbohydrates: sodium:
GRAINS
rice, wetland paddy
brown, unpolished 351 398 7.4 8.4 3.0 3.4 71.8 81.4 2 2.3
white, polished 356 404 6.8 7.7 1.3 1.5 75.5 85.6 2 2.3
wheat flour
soft, 1st grade (cake flour) 368 417 8.0 9.1 1.7 1.9 75.7 85.8 2 2.3
medium, 1st grade 368 417 9.0 10.2 1.8 2.0 74.6 84.6 2 2.3
(all-purpose)
hard, 1st grade (bread flour)366 415 11.7 13.3 1.8 2.0 71.4 81.0 2 2.3
wheat noodles, raw
uncooked 280 318 6.8 7.7 1.3 1.5 57.0 64.6 600 680
boiled 101 115 2.5 2.8 0.5 0.6 20.3 23.0 45 51
wheat noodles, dried
uncooked 358 406 8.9 10.1 1.8 2.0 72.3 82.0 1200 1361
boiled 93 105 2.4 2.7 0.5 0.6 18.6 21.2 120 136
wheat noodled, dried, special varieties
uncooked 363 412 9.7 11.0 1.9 2.2 72.4 82.1 1200 1361
boiled 128 145 3.4 3.9 0.7 0.8 25.4 28.8 120 136
buckwheat noodles, raw
uncooked 274 311 9.8 11.1 1.9 2.2 54.2 61.5 1 1.1
boiled 132 150 4.8 5.4 1.0 1.1 25.8 29.3 2 2.3
buckwheat noodles, dried
uncooked 360 408 13.6 15.4 2.6 2.9 70.2 79.6 2 2.3
boiled 116 132 4.5 5.1 0.9 1.0 22.3 25.3 2 2.3
POTATOES AND STARCHES
sweet potatoes, raw 123 139 1.2 1.4 0.2 0.2 28.7 32.5 13 14.7
potatoes, white, raw 77 87 2.0 2.3 0.2 0.2 16.8 19.1 2 2.3
taro, raw 60 68 2.6 2.9 0.2 0.2 12.3 13.9 1 1.1
potato starch 330 374 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 81.6 92.5 2 2.3
"devil's tongue" root starch
block form ? ? 0.1 0.1 ? ? 2.2 2.5 10 11
noodle form ? ? 0.2 0.2 ? ? 2.9 3.3 10 11
mung bean starch noodles 345 391 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 84.6 95.9 16 18
SUGARS AND SWEETENERS:
white sugar 384 435 ? ? ? ? 99.2 112.5 2 2.3
FATS AND OILS:
vegetable oil (average) 921 1044 ? ? 100.0 113.4 ? ? ? ?
margarine 759 861 0.3 0.3 82.1 93.1 0.5 0.6 800 907
butter, salted 745 845 0.6 0.7 81.0 91.9 0.2 0.2 750 851
NUTS AND SEEDS:
ginkgo nuts
raw 172 195 4.7 5.3 1.7 1.9 34.5 39.1 1 1.1
boiled 165 187 4.3 4.9 1.3 1.5 34.0 38.6 3 3.4
sesame seeds
dried 578 655 19.8 22.5 51.9 58.9 15.3 17.4 2 2.3
roasted 599 679 20.3 23.0 54.2 61.5 15.3 17.4 2 2.3
BEANS:
soybeans, whole, dried 417 473 35.3 40.0 19.0 21.5 23.7 26.9 1 1.1
bean curd
cotton-strained 77 87 6.8 7.7 5.0 5.7 0.8 0.9 3 3.4
silk-strained 58 66 5.0 5.7 3.3 3.7 1.7 1.9 4 4.5
grilled 88 100 7.8 8.8 5.7 6.5 1.0 1.1 4 4.5
bean curd, thin, deep-fried 388 440 18.6 21.1 33.1 37.5 2.8 3.2 10 11.3
fermented soybean paste
rice malt-soybean paste, 217 246 9.7 11.0 3.0 3.4 36.7 41.6 2400 2722
sweet
rice malt-soybean paste, 186 211 13.1 14.9 5.5 6.2 19.1 21.7 5100 5783
dark yellow
barley malt-soybean paste 198 225 9.7 11.0 4.3 4.9 28.3 32.1 4200 4763
soybean malt-soybean paste 217 246 17.2 19.5 10.5 11.9 11.3 12.8 4300 4876
FISH AND SHELLFISH:
sardines, raw 213 242 19.2 21.8 13.8 15.6 0.5 0.6 360 408
bonito, raw 129 146 25.8 29.3 2.0 2.3 0.4 0.5 44 50
salmon, raw 167 189 20.7 23.5 8.4 9.5 0.1 0.1 95 108
mackerel, raw 239 271 19.8 22.5 16.5 18.7 0.1 0.1 80 91
sea bream, red, raw 112 127 19.0 21.5 3.4 3.9 ? ? 70 79
codfish, raw 70 79 15.7 17.8 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 130 147
yellowtail, raw 257 291 21.4 24.3 17.6 20.0 0.3 0.3 32 36
tuna, blue-black, raw
lean meat 133 151 28.3 32.1 1.4 1.6 0.1 0.1 50 57
oily meat 322 365 21.4 24.3 24.6 27.9 0.1 0.1 43 49
hard-shelled clams, raw 49 56 8.3 9.4 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4 400 454
clams, raw 60 68 10.4 11.8 0.9 1.0 1.9 2.2 500 567
scallops, raw 77 87 13.8 15.6 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.0 250 284
squid, raw 76 86 15.6 17.7 1.0 1.1 0.1 0.1 200 227
prawns, tiger, raw (shrimp) 93 105 20.5 23.2 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 140 159
crab, raw 82 93 18.8 21.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 260 295
octopus, raw 76 86 16.4 18.6 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.1 280 318
fish paste cakes, block form, 98 111 12.0 13.6 0.9 1.0 9.7 11.0 1000 1134
steamed
fish paste cakes, block form, 126 143 12.2 13.8 2.1 2.4 13.5 15.3 1000 1134
grilled
MEATS:
beef, fat attached
chuck 184 209 19.0 21.5 10.9 12.4 0.3 0.3 60 68
chuck loin 238 270 18.5 21.0 16.9 19.2 0.2 0.2 55 62
rib loin 262 297 18.2 20.6 19.6 22.2 0.3 0.3 50 57
sirloin 236 268 18.5 21.0 16.6 18.8 0.3 0.3 50 57
flank, plate 260 295 17.8 20.2 19.6 22.2 0.2 0.2 50 57
inside round 148 168 21.2 24.0 6.1 6.9 0.3 0.3 60 68
outside round 155 176 21.2 24.0 6.8 7.7 0.3 0.3 44 50
rump 203 230 18.6 21.1 13.0 14.7 0.5 0.6 47 53
fillet 155 176 21.4 24.3 6.7 7.6 0.3 0.3 50 57
chicken (meat with fat attached)
wing, broiler 221 251 17.2 19.5 15.8 18.0 0.0 0.0 80 91
breast, broiler 203 230 20.6 23.4 12.3 13.9 0.2 0.2 30 34
thigh, broiler 211 239 17.3 19.6 14.6 16.6 0.1 0.1 45 51
breast fillet, broiler 105 119 23.7 26.9 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.1 30 34
|
| 384.2 | Nutrition labelling, truth in | CSOA1::WIEGMANN | | Mon Jul 24 1989 19:56 | 21 |
| This question concerns nutrition labelling on food packages -
does anyone know if/how accurate this info is? Does the USDA or
Ralph Nader or Consumer Reports do any checking on this? Are there
any watchdog consumer groups out there who do?
Also, does the government publish any comprehensive lists? What
I'm running into is one chart that lists, e.g., calories and sat-fat
calories but not total fat calories, another that lists calories and
percent of fat (but doesn't specify what it is the percentage of-weight
or total calories). Another example is pita bread - one list shows
white flour pita only, another shows 4 inch whole wheat, so if I
have a 6 inch whole wheat, it's a guess!
Reading labels and calling companies asking for this info has suddenly
become much more important now that we're all so cholesterol-conscious,
so I thought I'd throw this out for discussion.
Any input?
Terry
|
| 384.3 | "The Composition of Foods" | HOONOO::PESENTI | JP | Tue Jul 25 1989 09:05 | 21 |
| I've found that there just isn't anything that's going to give you all the
info you want to know. I assume the labelling on packages is accurate as far
as what they tell you. It's what they don't tell you that worries me. I
guess that's why Mass. is trying to get the mineral content listed on bottled
water. (I understand the FDA considers up to 3 maggots per pound of mushrooms
to be acceptable! Gross!)
The government does publish a document called "The Composition of Foods" that
gives a pretty comprehensive listing of foods and their caloric, fatty, fiber,
vitamin and mineral breakdown. Of course the listings are per pound and per
100 g. edible portion. They are pretty extensive, listing things in the
shell, out of the shell, cooked, raw, boiled, fried, and so on. BUT, this is
only a guideline. It deals largely with generic foods, not specific brands.
Also, it lacks the yuppie foods we now take for granted (what? no listing for
papaya-nectar-sun-dried-tomato-and-capers salad dressing?)
There are other books that deal more with brands, but they always seem to
leave out the specific brand you want to find out about. So, if you want to
determine calories and such down to a gnat's wing, this is not the publication
for you. But if you want to get a feel for what's good, bad, and better then
what else, "The Composition of Foods" is excellent.
|
| 384.4 | | VIA::GLANTZ | Mike, DTN 381-1253 | Tue Jul 25 1989 09:44 | 28 |
| I tend to agree with JP. A couple of years ago (I think), Consumer
Reports had an article on food labeling and, as JP said, the
information they present is accurate, but it doesn't always tell you
what you'd like to know. For example, they list carbohydrate
information, but don't tell you how much sugar is in the food. And a
colleague pointed out to me that cookie manufacturers have taken to
using several different kinds of sugar so that "sugar" doesn't appear
as the first ingredient. Also, when a package says "chocolate" or
"chocolate flavor" or whatever, you don't really have any idea how
much real chocolate, if any, there is.
I would prefer a labeling system a bit closer to what the European
Community uses, where the percentage of the main advertised
ingredients (e.g., chocolate, nuts, real fruit) is listed. For
example, if you buy Cocoa Puffs, it must say on the label what
percentage of chocolate is in the cereal (it's not too much). Also, as
JP mentioned, bottled water must have a mineral and bacteria analysis
on the label. It doesn't help me to know that my bottled water
contains "no cholesterol".
The US food industry would probably strongly oppose such labeling
requirements even though it would cost them next to nothing (they
already have to know this information, anyway), because it would make
brand differentiation based on advertising meaningless. In plainer
language, it would be much harder to fool the consumer. They'd
actually have to put better ingredients in the product to win
customers. So in that way, it could hurt profits, and, yes, I guess
that could cost them some money.
|
| 384.5 | | VMSSG::GRIME | | Tue Jul 25 1989 12:26 | 29 |
| Ingredients are listed in order of predominance in the product. If you
are concerned mainly with fat, you should watch for such things on the
label as: vegetable fat, lard, animal fat, shortening, oil, butter,
margarine, cream, etc.... Also be careful with items that contain
mayo, dressings, coconut, olives, cheese, nuts and meats, because
these carry fat into foods as well. (it doesn't get easy, does it!)
If you really need to limit fat when cooking at home, try to substitute
low-fat ingredients in recipes that won't affect the finished product.
(for instance, peanut butter, strong cheese, and sesame oil are mostly
equal in calories, but they have strong flavors so you can use a lot
less) Use wine or lemon juice instead of butter; low-fat yogurt
instead of sour cream. Replace cream with evaporated nonfat milk.
You may also try cutting the amount of meat in half and replace the
bulk with pasta, grains, legumes, etc.
There are a lot of tricks out there, you will just have to learn to
alter your needs as you see fit.
A good book you may want to try is titled "Nutrition, Concepts and
Controversies", Fourth edition. The author's are Hamilton, Whitney and
Sizer. West Publishing Company. This is the text used by UNH and it
iis a terrific reference book which includes RDAs, conversion factors,
as well as a Food Composition Table that lists your basic foods broken
down to weight, energy, protein, carbo., fiber, fat, cholesterol,
vitamins, minerals, etc.... The chart even does food comparisons of
such places as Burger King, Taco Bell, Arby's and Kentucky Fried
Chicken....
Hope this helps,
Cheryl
|
| 384.6 | | DEMING::TEASDALE | | Tue Jul 25 1989 13:33 | 25 |
| Thanks for bringing up one of my pet peeves. Facts and truth may
not always be the same.
There are a couple of types of misleading labeling that are common
right now. One is to state that just about any foodstuff is "natural"
just because it has no five-syllable chemicals in it. Sugary items
are often touted as being natural, as if that means they are good
for you. Just because something grows on the planet doesn't mean
you should eat a lot of it.
The other misrepresentation is in "cholesterol free" foods. If
a food contains no animal fats it may be labelled this way. Read
the label carefully! It probably contains coconut, palm kernel
and/or cottonseed oils, at least partially hydrogenated (read
indigestible). People with high cholesterol are advised to eliminate
these oils from their diets--why shouldn't the rest of us. I prefer
to wear my cotton rather than eat it.
It's a lot of work to eat well--but it's worth it. While you're
at it, compare the ingredients on butter and margarines. Animal
fats may not be more harmful in the long run than chemical colors
and preservatives, if you don't have to worry about every bit of
cholesterol.
|
| 384.7 | Nancy Drew, step aside... | CSOA1::WIEGMANN | | Wed Jul 26 1989 18:22 | 16 |
| Thanks for the replies - I'm off to the library/used book stores!
I have started calling companies and asking them to send me nutrition
information; surprisingly, I have gotten friendly, quick responses
so far.
I also read that when a label says "may contain one or more of the
following..." assume the worst, that the company would have purchased
whatever fat was cheap that day, so one box of Cheez-its may actually
be made of unsaturated vegetable oil, and another one lard, but
that by wording it as above, they're covered.
In school, I did a paper on the labelling of alcoholic beverages
- that was interesting to find out what beechwood aging really means!
TW
|
| 384.8 | Get that Red Jalopy out.... | BOOKIE::AITEL | Everyone's entitled to my opinion. | Thu Jul 27 1989 11:16 | 4 |
| Ok, now you've got me curious. What *does* beechwood aging mean?
I thought it was aging in a beechwood cask of some sort....
--L
|
| 384.9 | not to be confused with the sawdust in bread... | CSOA1::WIEGMANN | | Thu Jul 27 1989 13:55 | 12 |
| Beechwood aging sounds picturesque, doesn't it? But from what I
remember they add beech scraps to the vats of beer then strain it
before bottling. I think they said the wood could be anything from
chunks of clean pristine wood to pieces of bark to sawdust, as long
as it was beech and not, say, poplar or maple. They also didn't
get specific about just how long this "aging" takes - like other
regulations, I guess as long as some amount of time passes (2 minutes?)
it can be considered aged.
Anybody out there have any brewery experience?
Terry
|
| 384.10 | Complex and Simple Carbo breakdown | BOOKIE::FARINA | | Mon Jul 31 1989 19:22 | 26 |
| Someone mentioned that carbohydrate information isn't broken down
into sugars and complex. FYI, many boxes of cereal *do* break it
down this way, so you know exactly how many grams come from sugars
and how many come from complex carbohydrates, and, further, what
skim milk adds in terms of sugar carbohydrates. I tend to eat mostly
Kellogs cereals, so I don't know what General Foods, Nabisco, Post,
Quaker, Ralston, and whoever-else-makes-cereal are doing.
I bought some cereal called Oatios recently. It seemed to truly
be "all natural." There was no added sugar, no preservatives, no
flavor, no texture...We had to throw the junk out! I liked the idea,
and since it was made by a Massachusetts company, I thought supporting
the (relatively) local economy by buying this cereal would be an
especially "good do-bee" thing to do, I picked it up. When we couldn't
gag it down, I decided to try making oat bran muffins out of if,
a la the All-Bran box (you know, soak the cereal in the milk for
five minutes to soften it). Well, when it hadn't softened in 24
hours, we threw it out. I tried pulverizing it in the food processor,
and the texture of the resulting muffins (which always looked uncooked,
by the way) was awful!
So beware, truly all natural doesn't necessarily mean it's good!
If you can't eat it, it isn't worth any money, let alone the extra
money they charge for it!
Susan
|
| 384.11 | | VIA::GLANTZ | Mike, DTN 381-1253 | Tue Aug 01 1989 10:17 | 20 |
| You're right about carbohydrate info being on cereal boxes, but it's
not on stuff like cookies and cakes. And if you look at the
ingredients on a box of cookies, it reads something like "flour,
sugar, invert sugar, dextrose, maltose, vegetable shortening ...". If
you don't happen to know that dextrose and maltose are sugars, then
you wouldn't realize that the sugars actually make up half the weight
of the product.
You're also right about stuff that's "truly natural" often (but not
always) being inedible. When you see the word "natural" on a product,
a quick look at the ingredients usually reveals stuff like "natural
flavorings", which are derived from "real" foods, but processed to
such a degree that they're totally indistinguishable from the same
chemicals synthesized in a laboratory. The point is: EVERYTHING is
ultimately derived from something natural, and EVERYTHING you buy in a
store is processed to some degree. What's the criterion for how much
processing you can get away with and still call something "natural"?
There doesn't seem to be any consistency on this (there are certainly
very few, if any, laws), and manufacturers can get away with just
about anything.
|
| 384.12 | nutrition | DSTEG1::HUGHES | | Tue Aug 07 1990 17:24 | 22 |
| I looked for a notesfile on Nutrition and didn't find anything. This
seems like a good place to try. I know there is lots of information
about nutrition spread throughout this file but there isn't a keyword.
I'm looking for ways to add protein to my diet. One of the stumbling
blocks is that I try to stay away from foods that may contain molds.
Foods like dried fruit and nuts, although you don't really see the
mold it's still there. I also do not eat sugar and only occasionally
eat fruit.
My toughest problem is adding protein at breakfeast and snacks. I do
eat eggs (hard boiled, cooked well and no added fat) but I get
concerned about all the cholestrol and fat. I know I can just eat the
egg white which has most of the protein, it's the yolk that has the
high fat content. What's the scoop on eggs? I heard they have less
cholesterol that originally thought.
I'd like to stay away from peanut butter, eat moderate amounts
meat, and moderate amounts of fats in my diet. Am I asking for too
much?
Anybody have any good ideas on how to add protein to my diet ?
|
| 384.13 | | VALKYR::RUST | | Tue Aug 07 1990 18:11 | 7 |
| I can't offer any specific advice, but you might check out these
conferences for additional info:
Holistic Health & New Age Topics HYDRA::HOLISTIC
Vegetarian Interests SAFRON::VEGETARIANISM
-b
|
| 384.14 | Legume + Grain = Complete protein | NITMOI::PESENTI | Only messages can be dragged | Wed Aug 08 1990 07:41 | 20 |
| Try adding legumes, like peas, beans, or lentils, to cooked whole grains, like
rice, oats, whole wheat (bread, even).
The incomplete proteins in these foods complement each other to provide you
with complete proteins. Protein pasta accomplishes this by mixing soy and
wheat flours.
Another great way of adding protein while minimizing fat is fish. And instead
of cooking whole eggs, try eggbeaters. They are almost completely egg white,
and cook up just lilke scrambled eggs. They virtually eleiminate the fat and
cholesterol. Sautee them in a bit of olive oil flavored with garlic, top with
some cooked curried lentils, fold in half, and stick it in a half round of
whole wheat pita bread.
Another dish is brown rice with peas. Cook up the rice and add a bag
of frozen peas (run it under hot tap water to thaw) to it at the end.
Make your own refried beans (without the lard) and roll some up in whole wheat
tortillas for bean burritos.
|
| 384.15 | try this book | SMURF::HAECK | Debby Haeck | Wed Aug 08 1990 09:13 | 5 |
| There is a book called "Diet for a Small Planet". I bought this for my
roomate in college (many, many moons ago) when she decided to become a
vegetarian. I believe it is still in print. It contains a good
description of the amino acids which make up a complete protein and how
to combine various foods to make a complete protein.
|
| 384.16 | Simple food, the best way | DUGGAN::MAHONEY | | Wed Aug 08 1990 10:11 | 26 |
| Oh my! with all that culinary investigation is no fun to be fed! I'd be
even afraid to open my mouth! My own personal believe of a good
nutrition is to eat well balanced meals without abusing any type of
foods but at the same time, our bodies need a wide amount of different
foods to run right, I mean that the body needs a certain amount of
protein, vitamin, FAT, carbohidrates, fruit, sugar to keep balance and
keep our organs running smothly (meaning gall blader, pancreas, liver,
etc.)
I would not deprive myself from any of the above food groups... but
again, MODERATION is the key of success. We tend to overeat, and the
simmplest way of knowing that is... when we gain weight it means our
bodies get more food than it needs, so the surplus is stored under our
skin in the form of fat... and when that happens the most sensible
thing to do is...to cut down in the amount, not in the group category.
When there is a sickness present, is a different story. There are
certain foods that have to be avoided altogether and the doctor is the
person responsible to supply the adecuate diet, but I am assuming that
we are talking about normal healthy bodies, with normal healthy
requirements...
Fish a a very good source of protein, white fish preferably, lentils
and beans are excellent too, soy beans and its derivate, tofu, can be
prepared in a thousand ways and is mild and easy to digest... nuts are
excellent too but in moderation (they are high in fat besides protein)
There are many foods that provide proteins...
|
| 384.17 | SELECT::FLEX | REORG::AITEL | Never eat a barracuda over 3 lbs. | Wed Aug 08 1990 12:04 | 5 |
| Try SELECT::FLEX - the weight training/bodybuilding conference.
There is a LOT of information on protein and nutrition in there.
-Louise (one of the moderators)
|
| 384.18 | Loose change | DOCTP::FARINA | | Wed Aug 08 1990 13:52 | 25 |
| .0, is there a medical reason why you are trying to add protein to your
diet? I ask because the vast majority of Americans (I don't know about
Europeans) eat far more protein than their bodies actually require.
Women only need 4 or 5 ounces of protein a day, men 5 or 6 (unless
there are specific medical reasons why more is needed). Four ounces of
fish isn't that much! One egg counts as one ounce of protein. A
restaurant serving of prime rib is two days worth of protein for most
men! Of course, most American men don't believe this at all. They've
been taught that they "need" all that excess protein.
If there are medical reasons why you need to increase your protein
intake, why not ask your doctor? The book recommended is a good idea,
since it teaches you to balance your amino acids to get a complete
protein (two tablespoons of peanut butter on *whole wheat* bread is a
complete protein, BTW).
As for eggs and cholesterol, there has been some evidence that there is
now less cholesterol in eggs (due to the way chickens are fed?), so the
limit has been raised to four eggs by some doctors. Most, I think, are
sticking with the three a week rule for now. Also, if you have no
history of cholesterol problems, and the rest of your diet is as
cautious as it appears to be, you really don't have to worry about
eating the quota of eggs.
Susan
|
| 384.19 | protein isn't as important as it used to be | TYGON::WILDE | Ask yourself..am I a happy cow? | Wed Aug 08 1990 17:49 | 26 |
| re: -1
additional news on the nutritional front in recent months:
there is a disturbing connection between over-consumption of protein in
the american diet and some cancers. If I remember the articles I've read,
the cancers involve the intestines, liver, and breast. It is doubtful you
are receiving inadequate protein if you eat any meat or fish in a given
week. If you eat pasta (made from grains), rice, or beans you are definitely
getting enough protein in your diet for a healthy adult.
It is considered much healthier to concentrate on whole grains and legumes,
fresh fruits, and fresh vegetables in a varied, balanced diet. Down-play
the "standardized" protein sources - meat, fish, poultry - and you should
be healthy. Some publications you might reference:
IN HEALTH magazine - all the latest health/nutrition research news
as well as living/lifestyle articles.
PREVENTION magazine - it is much less the "vegetarian cult" magazine
it seemed to be 20 years ago. This magazine
covers research from all over the world as well
as offering recipes, etc.
Try your local book stores/magazine racks for both. they make interesting
reading.
|
| 384.20 | protein for breakfast | AKOV13::SCHOFIELD | | Fri Oct 05 1990 16:09 | 9 |
| I eat a bagel (oat bran, pumpernickle, etc.) split, toasted with Lite
and Lively cottage cheese on top. Sprinkle nutmeg and cinnamon on top.
It's very tasty, even if you don't like Cottage Cheese (which I don't
really).
Cottage Cheese is considered a protein as far as the Diet Workshop goes
and they're pretty good about the food they let you eat.
beth
|
| 384.21 | It's a hit in my house | UPBEAT::JFERGUSON | Leading Lady | Fri Oct 05 1990 16:55 | 5 |
| My kids make a similar breakfast...toast topped with a mixture of
cottage cheese and applesauce, sprinkled with cinnamon. Quick and
easy.
Judy
|