Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Pretty active day

with 3 comments

According to my Fitbit:

I also made a very nice batch of grub. I won’t describe the process, just list the ingredients:

1 fresh cipollini onion, including all the green part
1/2 red onion
freshly ground pepper
2 Tbsp smoked paprika
3 Tbsp minced garlic
3 Serrano peppers, sliced thin
2 carrots, diced
1 cup chopped celery
1 large green bell pepper, chopped
10 Indian eggplant, the size of a small egg, chopped
1 yellow crookneck squash, diced
3 Roma tomatoes diced
1 whole chicken breast, pretty good-sized (1.2 lb), skinless, cut into cubes
1 good-sized handful green beans, cut into 1″ pieces
2 lemons, diced (ends discarded, and diced with the skin)
2 Tbsp champagne vinegar (on hand, not special purchase)
1/2 cup Amontillado sherry
Black rice: I cooked 1 cup rice in 2 cups water earlier, added here as the starch
2 wads slivered dried tomatoes
2 Tbsp soy sauce
2 Tbsp Taste #5 umami paste (since soy sauce also adds umami, this should be intense)
2 Tbsp Dijon mustard
1 good-sized bunch of red kale, stems minced, leaves chopped small
1 good-sized bunch of collards (8 large leaves), stems minced, leaves chopped small
1 pint water

Update: That’s all I can remember now. If I think of other things, I’ll add them later to the list.

Note comment below on interesting finding in the diet. (I did have a link here, but you’ll see why I removed it.)

Written by Leisureguy

2 July 2012 at 7:49 pm

Posted in Fitness, Food, Grub

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I went to the blog at the link. It’s a good example of why it’s always best to go to the primary source. The poor bugger got his terms mixed up, and even mixed up the numbers. For example:

    “The very low-carbohydrate diet produced the smallest drop in calorie-burning: 100 calories less per day, vs. 300 and 400 less per day among people on the very-low-carb and low-GI diets, respectively.”

    He meant to say “low-fat diet” the second time around and the numbers should have been “400 and 300” respectively. The sentence should have read:

    “The very low-carbohydrate diet produced the smallest drop in calorie-burning: 100 calories less per day, vs. 400 and 300 less per day among people on the low-fat and low-GI diets, respectively.”

    So I went to the original research in JAMA, which I encourage everyone to do; I have a high mistrust that people will interpret research findings to support their personal philosophical and political agenda. It can be found here:

    This is a very small study to begin with. There was a huge dropout rate of almost a third of participants from the beginning. Not good, as it diminishes the study size and points to potential problems with the study design, e.g. the people remaining might be different physiologically from those who left.

    What is most troubling is that the researchers recommend the low-GI approach because it is most easily tolerated, despite the fact that it did almost as badly as the low-carb approach!! In fact, while the “mean” calories burned were pretty much as stated, the variations among individuals were huge.

    What does this all tell us? A very low-carb diet like Atkins appears to result in a lower drop in energy expenditure than either a low-fat or low GI diet. HOWEVER: They all result in decreased energy expenditure; a likely confirmation that the body/mind puts in place mechanisms to reduce energy consumption after weight loss. THAT is a big deal!

    Anyway, it’s very limited in terms of the conclusions and extrapolations you might make. A Paleo/Atkins approach is effective but not very sustainable; a low-GI approach is sustainable but sends you into energy conservation big-time, and low-fat is even worse.



    3 July 2012 at 5:11 am

  2. Excellent point. I’m killing the link in the post, noting the link in your comment.



    3 July 2012 at 6:31 am

  3. The problem of course is that we need good, competent bloggers and other writers to help people understand the research. Frankly, unless you have a strong scientific background at the post-graduate level, most research findings are very difficult to assess. The researchers themselves are usually no help, as they often have philosophical axes to grind and will subtly mislead the reader. That’s why we have peer-reviewed journals.

    But for the non-scientific, we rely on journalists and others, who in this day and age are largely pawns of the Corporations through their advertising dollar.



    3 July 2012 at 9:31 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: