Guest guest Posted January 19, 2008 Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 Hi Dan, > how many minutes do you recommend for boiling and simmering eggs to get > the hard-boiled eggs? I guess it depends how they like them. In my experience, 10 minutes is fine, but maybe they like them cooked more than I do. > Now is this more healthier choice than scrambling them? I'm not sure. I think boiling is generally better than frying for most things, but there are a number of things to consider with the eggs, like how much avidin gets destroyed in the white, that make it unclear to me whether higher temp for shorter time or lower temp for longer time is better. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 I thought you were supposed to eat the yolks raw so boiling would destroy that. Are you talking about boiling then using extra eggs for raw yolks? I admit I didn't see the beginning of this thread so why are we boiling the eggs in the first place? On Jan 19, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Masterjohn wrote: > Hi Dan, > >> how many minutes do you recommend for boiling and simmering eggs to >> get >> the hard-boiled eggs? > > I guess it depends how they like them. In my experience, 10 minutes > is fine, but maybe they like them cooked more than I do. > >> Now is this more healthier choice than scrambling them? > > I'm not sure. I think boiling is generally better than frying for > most things, but there are a number of things to consider with the > eggs, like how much avidin gets destroyed in the white, that make it > unclear to me whether higher temp for shorter time or lower temp for > longer time is better. > > Chris Parashis artpages@... portfolio pages: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11468108@N08/ http://www.artpagesonline.com/EPportfolio/000portfolio.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 Hi Dan, > Last time, you had said the gold coco oil from TT should be ok, in > his case. Would you still say so,after these numbers? And I remember > you telling Eggs will only help to make the LDL bigger. so i am guess > eggs will be good for him. Those are fine -- it would be better to use the gold-label TT because it is much higher in polyphenols that appear to prevent LDL oxidation. > so, he has to figure a way to reduce the LDL and apob, and make them > bigger/fluffier, and also should try to minimize oxidizataion on the > existing LDL.. > > If he avoids PUFA right now, is that alone enough to help to avoid > any further oxidization. Avoiding PUFA is a good start, and relying on fresh, unrefined foods rich in antioxidants. Magnesium supplementation can lower LDL and total cholesterol and raise HDL, so this might be something he could try. If he has any thyroid issues, addressing them should help. Exercise and restriction of excess calories or excess carbs might help. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 Hi Dan, > His pattern is 'A'. So would it be right to conclude he has too much > LDL but it is not (all) bad LDL (pattern b or a/b), which may be a > relief. Well that is good. I was thinking the more the ApoB is elevated, the closer it is to A/B or B, but his ApoB seemed only a little elevated anyway. Of course, A, A/B and B are only three designations for what is a continuous spectrum, thus one could have better A and A that is less good. Anyway, the important thing is not the LDL but its vulnerability to oxidation. Pattern A has low vulnerability to oxidation, so it is not much of a worry. > > Elevated ApoB means there are a greater number of LDL particles (as > > well as other Apo-B containing particles such as IDL and VLDL). > weight- you are not talking about the body weight, are you? Anyways, > his body weight has come down to 120 (from the normal 155).. so > something is not going on right, but not able to pinpoint what exactly > it is.. (thyroid tests are ok).... I have recommended the magnesium > idea to him.. I don't see anything i what you quoted that says " weight, " but if I used it I was probably saying that they measure the weight of the LDL when they report it -- i.e. in milligrams per deciliter usually, and that what you really want to know is the particle size and number of particles, because more weight could mean bigger particles, which is good, or a greater number of smaller particles, which is bad. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 On 2/6/08, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote: > Hi Dan, > > > His pattern is 'A'. So would it be right to conclude he has too much > > LDL but it is not (all) bad LDL (pattern b or a/b), which may be a > > relief. > > Well that is good. I was thinking the more the ApoB is elevated, the > closer it is to A/B or B, but his ApoB seemed only a little elevated > anyway. Of course, A, A/B and B are only three designations for what > is a continuous spectrum, thus one could have better A and A that is > less good. Oh, I see why it worked out this way. The LDL-to-ApoB ratio would be what would indicate the particle size. So, the reason he had high ApoB but pattern A is because his LDL was more elevated than his ApoB was. If his ApoB was more elevated than his LDL, that would mean there were more particles (bad), whereas LDL being more elevated than ApoB would mean the particles are larger (good). Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.