- trivia -

AP.JPG​

If you’re struggling to lose weight, could refrigerating your carbs help?​

By J.M. HIRSCH / Updated 8:39 AM GMT-5, February 26, 2026

Online influencers claim the secret to low-calorie rice, pasta and potatoes may be as simple as chilling out.
Are they right? Not quite. But
a small yet solid body of science does suggest that chilling these carbohydrate-rich foods after cooking them still could help people slim down.

For several years, wellness and nutrition influencers have promoted a process called retrogradation, urging people to cook, chill, then reheat carbohydrate-rich foods. They say doing so can cut the calories.
Retrogradation is real, but it isn’t quite that simple.

Two kinds of starch​

Most of the carbohydrates in these foods — as well as most of the calories — come from starch, of which there are two types:
- hard-to-digest amylose and
- easily digested amylopectin.
The latter is processed quickly and spikes blood sugar.
The former is processed slowly and moderates blood sugar.
Most raw carbohydrates (think uncooked potatoes) are made mostly of the hard-to-digest starch (also called resistant starch), but
cooking converts it into the easily digested one. This is why diabetics need to be mindful when eating starchy foods.
Here’s where the influencers get excited.

Chilling those cooked foods triggers “retrogradation,” a process that converts easily digested starch back into resistant starch, making it harder to digest even if the food is then reheated.

Much more, including dietary / blood sugar information @ https://apnews.com/article/carbs-chilling-losing-weight-0ce52cda1e2e5882b6154427e0e2b186

J.M. Hirsch is a food and travel journalist, and the former food editor for The Associated Press.
 
Shiftless2 said:
"became ... " #122
Click to expand...

de·mon·ize (dēmə-nīz′)
To represent as evil or diabolic: wartime propaganda that demonizes the enemy.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.

"From the mouths of babes", many young children would call it "lying". Do we need a more accurate characterization than that?
 
? ?
Does U.S. citizenship expire?
If not, why do U.S. passports? ... There's a weekend head- scratcher for you.
 
sear said:
If not, why do U.S. passports? ... There's a weekend head- scratcher for you.
Click to expand...
Don't know for sure but, at a guess, it's because of the picture - If you've met a high school buddy after 40 years you'd understand.

I remember when I worked in a very multinational office we'd laugh because some of my colleagues had driver's licenses and the picture was the one that was taken when they first got their license (i.e., that of their 16 year old selves). And they were in their late 50's and early 60's. No idea how you could use those licenses as positive ID today.
 
Shiftless2 said:
"Don't know for sure but, at a guess, it's because of the picture - " S2 #126
Click to expand...
- fine -

BUT !

A U.S. passport is not $free.
The citizen must apply for, and pay for one.

Presumably there's an authentication process, to verify the applicant is legitimately entitled.

There would be no reason to duplicate that authentication for a renewal. A less $burdensome authentication process should suffice (insure no outstanding arrest warrants, etc).

Does a passport renewal / update cost $less than the original?
"A government exists when it has a reasonable monopoly on the legitimate use of violence." George Will
Click to expand...
 
And Rob Roy was way better than Braveheart too.

&, I get it. The Republicans warn against the danger to children posed by the gays, & then the Republicans themselves manifest the danger they falsely warn of.
 
S2 #131
1774956883979-png.4502

and
slavery01.JPG
hmmm
Seems like we have a potential solution in sight.

Let's think it through.
Before such government programs as "food stamps" currently known as SNAP / EBT,
the church ministered to the poor.

However well intended, by government elbowing the church aside,
the separation of church / state is breached.

Neither approach is ideal.
Either approach has its drawbacks and advantages.

But do we sully Constitutional purity by continuing to support this intrusion into former church charitable good works?
 
Shiftless2 said:
#132 (y)
Click to expand...
🤯
- surprise -

I did not imagine this reaction.

My #132 is not intended as an endorsement of religion.
Nor is it intended as a condemnation of deliberate institutional address of the radical gradient in wealth distribution.

But #132 was inspired by an anecdote recounted to me in the previous millennium by a churchman that described providing church assistance to a troubled family.
It was a long and complicated conversation in paragraph form, but to mention a few highlights:
- the churchman explained, when there's church money involved, strings are attached. The churchman was willing to provide money for food for family, but then went so far as to look into the kitchen refrigerator to verify the church money had been spent on nutrition, not beer.
The church can do that.
Our government (thank god?) can not.

I'm not wild about poverty, and CERTAINLY do not relish the idea of any child going to bed hungry.

Long term it might be useful to insure that anyone that wants work can find it, even if it means picking up litter from the public square, entry level employment enough to keep the citizen alive until earning promotion up & out.
Until then, starvation is not a solution.

If we can afford Pentagon boat / city / airports:
proxy-image


we can also afford this:
proxy-image
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top