tim.tdj

20 minutes ago, studiot said:

In relation to your question, there are two principle vegetable polysaccarides cellulose and lignin.

Hi Studiot

Thank you very much for your reply.

So, am I correct that cellulose and lignin are outside of the four categories that I mentioned (Sugars, Fibers, Starches and Polyols)? Or do they perhaps count as fibers?

Is it possible that coconut flour contains any cellulose or lignin?

Thank you very much

Kind regards

Tim

21 minutes ago, CharonY said:

With regard to blood glucose, the EU definition of sugars are mono or di-saccharides but excluding polyols. So polysaccharides such as starch, as Studiot pointed out, would fall outside that category. I know that in some countries dietary are included into carbohydrate section (e.g. Canada/USA) and others it is not. I am not sure how it is in the EU, but since the labelling indicates a separate category it seems that all fibres are excluded from that group, although most chemically are carbohydrates.

Hi CharonY

Thank you very much for your reply.

I have read that starches can vary quite a lot in their Glycemic Index. I therefore suspect that it may be best when looking at the nutrient lists on British food packaging (where fiber is not treated as carbs) in order to calculate "net carbs" to count the total of the carbs listed unless there are polyols in the ingredients. It is easy to find lists of polyols on the Internet which give their GIs.

Can anyone here confirm to me that there do not exist any edible carbohydrates other than Sugars, Fibers, Starches and Polyols?

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Do you have reason to believe there is something nasty in it ?

Hi Studiot

Thank you very much for the new information you have provided.

No, I have no reason to think that there is anything nasty in it. I am just very interested to know what non-sugar carbohydrates are in the coconut flour. I am actually trying to estimate how much "net carbs" are in the coconut flour so that I can roughly predict what effect it will have on my blood glucose. Without a complete breakdown of the carbohydrates, this is not easy.

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

1 hour ago, studiot said:

 

In the UK they would have to tell you, though many EU and other foreign suppliers have been allowed to get away with inadequate food labelling in recent times.

 

If you are interested in what is in food and what sensible explanations of the terminology here are two books I recommend.

1) The current version of The Manual of Nutrition, published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO)

Lists official tables of contents/ingredients per 100g and per Kcal and provides a few pages of text explaining technical terms.

 

2) What Are you Eating ?  The food fact file     by Isabel Skypala

Again UK practice, but the tables are much more comprehensive and includes many branded products.

Isabella is a dietician and, as might be expected, offers more detailed advice in comparing.

Hi Studiot

Thank you very much indeed for your recommendations.

To clarify, do you mean that in the UK, they would have to tell you if the 11.1g consisted of anything other than starch?

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

45 minutes ago, studiot said:

I hope you noticed that the %ages do not add to 100% !

This is because suppliers in the UK are not required state explicitly the water content of foodstuffs.

Also the carbohydrate is often split into sugar and starch, with only one declared, so we have

Starch = Total carbs  27.2 - Sugars  = (27.2 -16.1 ) g

Your list also includes a lot of 'fibre'.
Now fibre covers a number of substances, some edible, some inedible.
Of that fibre most foods have fibre as "non starch polysaccharides" or NSPs.
NSPs are chemically also carbohydrates, some of which are edible (eg pectins) some are not (eg cellulose).

But some foods, and I think coconuts come into this category, have fibres material that are not strictly carbohydrates
So there is this category Fibre which crosses over with the Carbohydrates category.

So your lineup is

Fat              11.3
Sugars      16.1
Starch       11.1
Fibre           36.5
Protein      15.8
Minerals    02.6

Total           93.4

So the remaining 6.6% must be water.

You might like to compare this with standard bread flour which is kept to 14%

North Dakota State University has an analysis unit who might have also done coconut flour

https://www.ndsu.edu/faculty/simsek/wheat/flour.html

If you are interested  you might like to email them.

 

So  there are no 'missing' carbohydrates in your coconut flour, though some definitely are included under the fibre heading, not the carbohydrate heading.

Please also note that if you do  a web search to look for water content of foodstuff,
using 'moisture' is a better search word than 'water' as 'water' will return mostly recipe information of how much to add in cooking.

Hi Studiot

Thank you very much indeed for your very informative reply. I will check out the NDSU link you provided.

How sure are you that the 11.1g is all starch and nothing else?

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

53 minutes ago, studiot said:

I will try to find a fully explained example for you and also look at yours.

Meanwhile a photo or scan of the full data on the packet would be helpful please.

Edit

I also note my formula for carbohydrates got mangled

It should of course be (C.H2O)_n where is is usually counted as being greater than 4 and represents un unspecific multiple.

Sorry about that.

Hi Studiot

Thank you very much.

The manufacturer of the flour is called Lucy Bee. The following is copied and pasted from their website.

https://lucybee.com/products/organic-coconut-flour-500g
Ingredients
100% Organic Coconut Flour
Typical Values Per 100g
Energy (kj) 1757
Energy (kcal) 420
Fat 11.3g
of which Saturates 10.1g
Carbohydrate 27.2g
of which Sugars 16.1g
Fibre 36.5g
Protein 15.8g
Salt 0.3g
Iron 7.44mg
Potassium 2322mg

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

5 hours ago, studiot said:

The term 'Carbohydrates'  is strictly (c.H2O)₂ in Chemistry.

However this creates carbohydrate 'units' which form the basis or backbone of many bio-molecules.

These are therefore  part pure carbohydrate, part something else.

Sugars and so forth are pure carbohydrates, but the bio-molecules are not.

So the preparers of the food are giving you the % in terms of bio-molecules and in terms of those parts which are pure carbohydrate.

 

Hi Studiot

Thank you very much for your reply.

I am currently looking at a packet of coconut flour and in the nutrition list  (given per 100g), it says the following:

Carbohydrates 27.2g

of which sugars 16.1g

It is a British packet so the fiber is counted separately to the carbohydrates.

To be honest, I am not sure I fully understand what you are saying, Studiot, but I think you seem to be saying something which if applied to the coconut flour would say that there are 27g of carbohydrate molecules and that each molecule consists of a sugar molecule with something else bonded to it and that if that something else was stripped away from the sugar molecules, the sugar molecules alone would be 16.1g. Am I correct?

In the case of the coconut flour, what actually is the something else?

Thank you very much.

1 minute ago, chenbeier said:

Of course these are not healthy. I dont think in food toxic carbo hydrats added. I added this post to mention, which compounds fit to (CH2O)n.

Ok. Thank you very much.

1 hour ago, chenbeier said:

What about Formaldehyde CH2O, and its Polymers  Metaformaldehyd, 1,3,5-Trioxane and  Polymethylenoxide.

Hi Chenbeier

Thank you very much for your reply.

Aren't these toxic? I very much doubt they would be in food. Am I wrong?

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

Here is a partial list of carbohydrates to help in your research:

https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-carbohydrates.html

Hi Bufofrog

Thank you very much for your this information. It may help.

51 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

This is from wiki:

A carbohydrate is a biomolecule consisting of carbon (C), hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) atoms, usually with a hydrogen–oxygen atom ratio of 2:1 (as in water) and thus with the empirical formula C_m(H₂O)_n 

Labels will give the total carbohydrates in a container.  People seem most interested in sugar and fiber content so this broken out for the consumer on the label.  

Hi Bufofrog

Thank you very much for your reply. However, it does not fully answer my question. I would still very much like to know what carbohydrates do not fall under any of the four categories I mentioned in my original post. Does anyone here know?

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

Hi Everyone

Often, when I am looking at Nutrition Facts labels, I find that the totals given for the different types of carbohydrate listed in the carbohydrate section do not fully add up to the total of all carbohydrates. This suggest to me that there are one or more types of carbohydrate which never get listed. Can anyone here therefore tell me if there are any carbohydrates which do not fall under any of the following four categories:

Sugars, Fibers, Starches and Polyols.

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Is this a medical topic or a legal (political) one?

 

!

Moderator Note

A link to the story would be appropriate 

 

 

Hi Swansont

Thank you very much for your reply.

In answer to your first question, I suppose it is a mixture of both. It is medical in that I believe it merits a discussion about the different functionalities of sexualizing hormones versus puberty blockers.

So far as a link to the story is concerned, I saw it on this evening's news on TV. I will now try to find a link to a written article that mentions the male hormones and will then get back to you.

EDIT: I have found the following link to a recent news article about the case which mentions the male hormones:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/former-transgender-man-suing-gender-22800014

For more up-to-date news on the case, a search on Google for "Keira Bell" will give plenty of results.

EDIT 2: Another answer to your first question has just occurred to me. It is also medical in that I believe it merits a discussion about the complex psychology of the case which unfortunately, some people have over simplified.

Hi Everyone

In my Opinion, the verdict of the Keira Bell case is the result of a horribly confused situation. According to the BBC News, she was given both puberty blockers and male hormones. In my view, it was obviously very wrong to give her male hormones but I think it was entirely right to give her the puberty blockers because they are reversible. I think that this case has caused terrible unnecessary damage to the cause of gender dysphoric children who will probably now be forced to irreversibly develop in the way they do not want to develop. If I was the judge, I would have penalized the Tavistock Centre for giving Keira Bell the male hormones but I would have very clearly and emphatically stipulated that there should not be any restrictions placed on the use of puberty blockers.

What does everyone think?

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

Hi Everyone

I have read on some websites that the supplement Diindolylmethane lowers Estrogen and raises Testosterone and I have read on other websites that it does the exact opposite to this. What is the truth?

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim 

I have had an email conversation with an elderly person that i know and she has told me that she has already had Covid19 and that her symptoms were mild. She says that she has not had a proper test for Covid19 but her doctor diagnosed her with Covid19 based on  her symptoms. Could her doctor have got it wrong?

10 minutes ago, zapatos said:

We can also achieve herd immunity with a vaccine. And there is a very good chance the problem will ebb and flow, so we may be (almost) business as usual in a few months (till the next flow).

Hi Zapatos

Thank you very much for your reply.

They are saying that a vaccine for Covid19 is still a year away which I think is too long for the economy. I hope you are right about it ebbing and flowing so that restrictions can be lifted when it first ebbs. I then very much hope that the next flow will be much smaller than the first. Is it possible that artificial intelligence could massively speed up the progress towards a vaccine?

19 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think herd immunity is the endgame but politically it's a bit of an insensitive/unethical strategy because of the likely unnecessary fatalities entailed in going all out on this approach... it needs to happen in a more graduated way, hence the increasing social distancing, with as minimal serious casualties as possible.

Hi StringJunky

Thank you very much for your reply.

I think that I agree that it needs to be graduated to some extent in order not to overload the hospitals but there does need to be some infection between non-vulnerable people in order to achieve herd immunity. However, the longer it takes, the worse it is for the economy and therefore the greater is the risk of a dystopian collapse of civilised society as we know it.

EDIT: Please note that I posted this message as the first in a new thread I created. However, soon afterwards, a moderator merged it with this thread.

Hi Everyone

To begin with, some people in the UK Government were saying that we need to achieve "herd immunity" in order to eradicate Covid19. However, recently, they have gone off the idea and are increasing the restrictions somewhat. However, I personally can't actually see how Covid19 will ever be eradicated without herd immunity. My reasoning is as follows:

Let's say, as a result of really tight restrictions, we get to a situation whereby we believe we have eradicated Covid19. We then, as a result of believing we have eradicated it, lift all of the restrictions. As a result of the restrictions, most of the population will still not be immune to Covid19. If we truly have eradicated Covid19 then this is not a problem.  But what if we are mistaken and there is still a small amount of Covid19 left? As soon as this hits the general population (who mostly are still not immune) it will cause a new surge in infections.

What do you all think?

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

Hi Everyone

If you are asked to assign the colours red, yellow and Blue (listed in no particular order) to the shapes triangle, square and circle (listed in no particular order), then which colour do you assign to which shape?

You may at this point wish to pause reading this post while you consider your own personal answer to this question.

I personally, strongly believe that there is no "correct" answer to this question and it is purely subjective. However, the teachers at the Bauhaus believed that the following correlations are the correct correlations:

Triangle = Yellow

Square = Red

Circle = Blue

My personal answer (which I came up with before knowing the "correct" Bauhaus answer) is as follows:

Triangle = Red (sharpest shape, sharpest colour)

Circle = Yellow (like the Sun)

Square = Blue (boring shape, boring colour)

Would the fact that my answer is different to the Bauhaus answer make me a bad Bauhaus student?

Does anyone here know of any neurological,  psychological or any other scientific reasons why the Bauhaus answer is the "correct" answer?

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

Hi everyone.

If the entire Amazon rainforest burns down, will we all find it noticeably harder to breath? Will it be like we are all at a higher altitude?

Hi Phi

Thank you very much for your reply.

Correct me if I am wrong but what you generally seem to be saying is that salt has a tendency to dehydrate you. Am I correct?

Is it perhaps the case that there are some circumstances when salt dehydrates you and other circumstances when salt aids hydration?

39 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I don't know about salt making you pee more. Can you link to the article you read? Popular science writers are notorious for trying to punch up dry subjects with excessive "moisture". 

Hi Phi

Thank you very much for your reply.

Unfortunately, I can't find the original article I read but I have just found another one which says something similar. It basically states that as a result of osmosis, extra salt in your blood sucks water out of your cells. The other article went on to say that you pee out the water that has been sucked out of your cells. You can see the article I have just found here:

https://sciencing.com/drinking-salt-water-dehydrate-you-6454208.html

Hi Everyone

There is something which confuses me.

I have read that if you add salt to water, it helps with hydration.

I have also read that adding salt to water makes you pee more. Wouldn't this cause dehydration?

How can both of these statements be true? I would be very grateful to anyone who can remove my confusion about the relationship between salt and hydration.

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

8 minutes ago, koti said:

RAID is useful when uptime is the most important factor so database servers, online stores and similar services which require five nine high availability. RAID should not be used as a backup so unless youre running Amazon from your home you really don’t need it. Unless you want to play around and test things that is  

What if i want to be as close to 100% as i can get that none of my data will be corrupted? Surely If I just backup to one other drive, I am still a bit vulnerable?

2 minutes ago, koti said:

If its for home use I would skip on RAID alltogether use ext and just buy good quality drives. If you want to keep safe just use a backup system of some sort and enrcyption, RAID's are kind of useless in home environment these days.  

Hi Koti

Thank you very much.

Why do you think that RAIDs are useless in home environments?