How Many Grams of Protein Are in an Eight-Ounce Top Sirloin? | Healthy Eating | SF Gate

“Protein in Top Sirloin

Eight ounces of broiled, top sirloin steak with the excess fat trimmed off contains about 69 grams of protein. The Institute of Medicine reports that protein RDAs, which are minimum protein requirements, are 56 grams for men, 46 grams for women and 71 grams of protein daily during pregnancy and lactation. Top sirloin steak is also an excellent source of iron, zinc and vitamin B-12.

Considerations

Although you can exceed your daily protein needs by eating an 8-ounce portion of top sirloin, it’s generally best to eat smaller portions of protein-rich foods throughout the day instead of all in one meal. A review published in a 2011 edition of the “Journal of Sports Sciences” reports that spreading out protein intake among three to four meals each day can help maximize muscle synthesis in athletes. In addition, your body can only use up to 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight per day, according to Brown University, and your body excretes excess protein.”

Source: How Many Grams of Protein Are in an Eight-Ounce Top Sirloin? | Healthy Eating | SF Gate

Advertisements

The Case for a Breakfast Feast – The New York Times

“Dr. Kahleova says the take-home message is like the old proverb, to eat “breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a pauper.” ”

Great article. I will give up dinner, tomorrow.

Here is a cogent comment by one who obviously agrees with the piece, but has little interest in a big breakfast.

EMS

NYC 22 hours ago

The message should be: eat one big meal and one medium meal during the day, depending on when you feel most hungry, and always eat a light dinner. Many traditional cultures, from Europe to Asia to Latin America, including people in the Blue Zones, eat medium breakfasts, large lunches, and small dinners, and they don’t snack. The key is to let your body rejuvenate while you’re sleeping; don’t make it digest food during this crucial period.

Strawberries | EWG’s 2017 Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce

I love my beautiful, inexpensive strawberries on granola, but this research means I have to forgo the daily poisoning.

Pesticides + Poison Gases = Cheap, Year-Round StrawberriesBy Bill Walker, Investigations Editor, and Sonya Lunder, Senior Analyst

“Americans eat nearly eight pounds of fresh strawberries a year – and with them, dozens of pesticides, including chemicals that have been linked to cancer and reproductive damage, or that are banned in Europe.

Strawberries tested by scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2014 and 2015 contained an average of 7.7 different pesticides per sample, compared to 2.3 pesticides per sample for all other produce, according to a new EWG analysis.What’s worse, strawberry growers use jaw-dropping volumes of poisonous gases – some developed for chemical warfare but now banned by the Geneva Conventions – to sterilize their fields before planting, killing every pest, weed and other living thing in the soil.

For these reasons, strawberries are again on the top of the Dirty Dozen™ list for 2017. USDA tests found that strawberries were the fresh produce items most likely to be contaminated with pesticide residues, even after they are picked, rinsed in the field and washed before eating.

If you want to avoid pesticides and don’t want strawberries grown in soil injected with nerve gases, EWG advises that you always buy organically grown berries. We make the same recommendation for other Dirty Dozen™ foods.”

Source: Strawberries | EWG’s 2017 Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce

Dr. David Katz- Preventive Medicine: The politics of prevention

“Those of you who read this column routinely can reliably predict my vote, so no need for me to say what it will be. There are reasons, however, directly related to my purview here — preventive medicine — to say why it will be what it will be.

Prevention covers a broad clinical expanse, encompassing disease treatment as well as primary prevention, the work of keeping disease at bay. It also extends to health promotion, those efforts directed at helping people become and remain healthy in the first place.

Success across this expanse depends on two systems, only one of which is even close to fully functional in our culture. Those two systems are disease care and health care. The election has obvious and profound implications for both.”

Source: Dr. David Katz, Preventive Medicine: The politics of prevention

Dr. David Katz: Preventive Medicine: Dietitians and the power of unity

“While there is plenty of room for variation among the prioritized particulars any one of us might favor, the basic theme of eating well for longevity, vitality, and the sake of the planet is simply not negotiable. Experts know that, and can both help the public know it, and distinguish expertise from impersonations of it- by reaffirming it every chance we get.

I meet very few, if any, dietitians who don’t agree with the proposition that diets and health would improve (in the U.S. and other developed countries) with more vegetables, fruits, whole grains, beans, lentils, nuts and seeds and water in the place of almost any other beverage almost all the time. Over the years, however, I have met many who tended to talk much more about some narrowly bounded, personal priority — than the expanse of common ground we share.”

Source: Dr. David Katz: Preventive Medicine: Dietitians and the power of unity

The Shady History of Big Sugar – The New York Times

“Charlottesville, Va. — On Monday, an article in JAMA Internal Medicine reported that in the 1960s, the sugar industry paid Harvard scientists to publish a study blaming fat and cholesterol for coronary heart disease while largely exculpating sugar. This study, published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, helped set the agenda for decades of public health policy designed to steer Americans into low-fat foods, which increased carbohydrate consumption and exacerbated our obesity epidemic.This revelation rightly reminds us to view industry-funded nutrition science with skepticism and to continue to demand transparency in scientific research. But ending Big Sugar’s hold on the American diet will require a broader understanding of the various ways in which the industry, for 150 years, has shaped government policy in order to fuel our sugar addiction.

Today’s sugar industry is a product of the 19th century, when the key federal sugar policy was not a dietary guideline but a tariff on sugar imports. In the decades after the Civil War, Americans’ per capita consumption of sugar more than doubled, from 32 pounds in 1870 to 80 pounds in 1910. As a result, the government got hooked on sugar, too: By 1880, sugar accounted for a sixth of the federal budget.”

Source: The Shady History of Big Sugar – The New York Times

This article is important. The comments are helpful, such as:
Wendy Fleet Mountain View CA September 17, 2016

“Having fought (and lost) to get sugar in teaspoons on the new Nutrition Label, I have a keen sense of the power of FIC aka Food Industrial Complex. The Label COULD say 28g/7t, and you would then know at a glance that your adorable tiny strawberry yogurt has 7 teaspoons of sugar in it — an absurd & appalling amount YOU would never add yourself. Or that your Big Gulp has 23 teaspoons of sugar in One Drink you drink in 10 minutes. Or that your Fab Healthy Coconut Pomegranate Kiwi Healthy Healthy has 8 teaspoons of sugar in that single healthy healthy drink.

They would change ANYthing on that Label as long as they did not have to clarify/expose sugar. NO one in America gets grams at a glance, so they guzzle in peace — until they fall over dead or into a long grim illness. [Yes yes, I know a subset of seldom-shopping nerds does grok grams, but out of 300 people I asked, one person knew that there are 4 grams to 1 teaspoon.] The ‘Health’ Industry is entirely complicit. Sugar is the Unholy Grail.”

Flag
186Recommended

Why not get those heart-stopping trans fats off the shelves now? NYTIMES.COM|BY MARK BITTMAN

Mark Bittman: The good news is that — finally — the Food and Drug Administration is banning food containing trans fats, although really only sort of, and really only after overwhelming evidence (and more than one lawsuit) made their dangers impossible to ignore. And in typical pro-industry fashion, the F.D.A. is not only allowing companies three years to get trans fats out of most foods, but will consider manufacturers’ petitions to keep them in.”

Why not get those heart-stopping trans fats off the shelves now?
NYTIMES.COM|BY MARK BITTMAN