"I love eating sweet corn" he said as he grinned from ear to ear.
I am human and I need to be loved - just like everybody else does
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
The post was edited 1 time, last by Wise Old Owl ().
WiseOldOwl wrote:
BB wrote --I have pondered these pouches many times. They are available at our Dollar Tree stores up here for .... wait for it... a dollar each. My concern has not been weight. I have been concerned about attracting critters. Is that an "unreasonable fear"?
As a former trapper, I am more concerned about the odors of oily meats then I am about mac-n-cheese and oatmeal. Again, it might be an unreasonable fear.
Well put those fears aside, Retort Packaging is at times more meat and somewhat lighter packing. But the taste is the key - my wife claims she cannot tell the difference - but a ol can vs retort? awesome for the retort. easy to work with and the plate is included and can be added too once its open packs of hot sauce or Mayo may can be added. Oil packed is great - it lasts longer unrefrigerated.
[IMG:http://higoodday.com/files/attach/images/8064/284/117/918059a3ce4677fc22995aa58c85ca3e.jpg]
TrafficJam wrote:
My next trail meal is going to be instant mashed potatos, gravy, chicken, and dehydrated cranberry sauce. There's something in canned/pre-cooked meat (except tuna) that tastes bad to me. Maybe a preservative? I hope the gravy will mask the taste of the chicken.
BirdBrain wrote:
2.6 oz of food in a 4.5 oz package. Are they suggesting the packing material weighs 1.9 oz? I love the idea. I really do. However, I am having a hard time with a food that only has 35 calories per oz, comes in heavy packaging, and I fear the oil smell. I am hearing you guys that the oil issue is exaggerated by me. Right now I carry 1.3 pounds of calorie dense foods per day and I don't go hungry. I know you guys are eating much tastier meals. I would love to join you. I am thinking about it. It is all about priorities and what is important to each hiker.
WiseOldOwl wrote:
last time I tried to eat the tuna it was drier than the Sahara - The Smoked Pink Salmon was mild and excellent.
Sorry BB - you need to try this at home with a spork.
hikerboy wrote:
i buy the larger size starkist packets of tuna, more meat, less packaging. i tried those tuna creations and theyre tasty, but i just add hellmans tartar sauce to a packet, and sometimes throw in a little cajun spice and cayenne, eat with a spoon right out of the packet. no muss, no fuss, the packet folds neatly into my garbage bag. the tartar sauce packs more calories in too. mmmmm....fat.
max.patch wrote:
i ate a lot of pistachio pudding on my thru. surprising good and really sets up well with just cold creek water.
BirdBrain wrote:
I am probably stating what everyone else on the planet has known all alone, but........
Notice a difference? Over double the calories per the same exact tuna weight and packaging. This is where everyone says, "well ya', everyone knows that". I knew oil would add calories, but did not realize how much.
WiseOldOwl wrote:
Before nutritionists? Wrap your head around this picture from the 60's
(...)
There isn't a fat guy in the damn room This is 1960's Nasa command. They ate meat, some polish sausage, steak etc. YES CALORIES my friend.
Yes there were some fat people in 1945 but they clearly were the minority.
Astro wrote:
AK, watch it there. You might be killing my justification to my wife that the reason I need to buy new hiking gear and go hiking the AT five weeks each summer is for my health.
AnotherKevin wrote:
Five weeks? I envy you professors sometimes.
AnotherKevin wrote:
Five weeks? I envy you professors sometimes.
BirdBrain wrote:
WiseOldOwl wrote:
BB wrote --I have pondered these pouches many times. They are available at our Dollar Tree stores up here for .... wait for it... a dollar each. My concern has not been weight. I have been concerned about attracting critters. Is that an "unreasonable fear"?
As a former trapper, I am more concerned about the odors of oily meats then I am about mac-n-cheese and oatmeal. Again, it might be an unreasonable fear.
Well put those fears aside, Retort Packaging is at times more meat and somewhat lighter packing. But the taste is the key - my wife claims she cannot tell the difference - but a ol can vs retort? awesome for the retort. easy to work with and the plate is included and can be added too once its open packs of hot sauce or Mayo may can be added. Oil packed is great - it lasts longer unrefrigerated.
[IMG:http://higoodday.com/files/attach/images/8064/284/117/918059a3ce4677fc22995aa58c85ca3e.jpg]
These are a very logical way to carry protein. I just need to get by my fear. I am afraid I will never get the oily smell off my hands and some creature will try to eat me in the night.
AnotherKevin wrote:
Astro wrote:
AK, watch it there. You might be killing my justification to my wife that the reason I need to buy new hiking gear and go hiking the AT five weeks each summer is for my health.
Would it help if I told you that hiking has cardiovascular and cognitive benefits entirely separate from any putative effect on body mass?
Five weeks? I envy you professors sometimes.
I know, you paid your dues as grad students, postdocs, and assistants. And you still got lucky or you would have failed a tenure review and cast aside into the world of the permanent adjunct. I went into industry after the PhD because I didn't want six more years of living like a grad student before I had any chance at a decent life. On the whole, it's not been that bad a tradeoff.
The post was edited 1 time, last by Wise Old Owl ().
AnotherKevin wrote:
WiseOldOwl wrote:
Before nutritionists? Wrap your head around this picture from the 60's
(...)
There isn't a fat guy in the damn room This is 1960's Nasa command. They ate meat, some polish sausage, steak etc. YES CALORIES my friend.
Yes there were some fat people in 1945 but they clearly were the minority.
There is something going on that nobody understands. The lifestyle of Americans hasn't changed that much in the last fifty years - in terms of what we eat, how much we exercise, and so on - certainly not enough to explain the fact that tremendous numbers of people now struggle to keep weight off. Yes, I know, it's thermodynamics - calories in minus calories out - but interventions based on that simplistic view have been ineffective. The body fights the change. Many of the metabolically obese simply cannot lose weight without their bodies going into a starvation response, with intolerable symptoms of hunger and fatigue. "Eat less and exercise more" is a platitude, but many simply cannot do it!
There was a time when infectious diseases such as tuberculosis were considered "lifestyle" diseases. Then the causes were discovered, effective interventions were developed, and we stopped blaming the victims. Many of us are old enough to remember when peptic ulcers were ascribed entirely to rich food and too much stress. It came as a shock to the doctors when it turned out that they were caused by bacteria, and it took quite a while for the medical profession to accept the evidence that antibiotics were effective and lifestyle interventions were not.
I predict similar discoveries with obesity. The global (not just American!) increase in obesity has many patterns consistent with an epidemic rather than a universal adoption of poor lifestyle choices. If it were merely the latter, surely all the shaming we do of the obese would be enough of a motivator for change!
This paper is quite a good summary of research along the lines that I mention. It certainly stresses that the symptoms are associated with many factors. I speculate that we are going to discover a single factor, perhaps not yet even suspected, that accounts for a great many of the cases. I further speculate that all the factors that the popular press trumpets are symptoms or incidental associations, not causes. (My guess? A family of viruses along the lines of Ad36 or RAV-7. But I'm just as likely to be wrong as anyone else.)