HK wrote:
John H. wrote:
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:30:00 -0800, "CalifBill"

wrote:

"BillP" wrote in message
news:nfi1j.4379$ch.3347@trnddc03...
"Don White" wrote in message
...

Yes...oven cooked is the only way we'd even consider cooking our
turkey.

I guess you've never had one slow cooked over lump charcoal and
apple wood.

Fried are nice a juicy and quick. We have done them that way on
camping trips. The oven roasted give you the drippings for excellent
gravy, and I also like to cook them in my offset firebox smoker for
8-9 hours with some alderwood for smoke. They are all good.

If you ever decide to try one on the grill or smoker, loogypicker and
I do
the same thing, and it works. Buy a cheap pack of turkey wings, put in a
cast iron pan, and roast at 350 in the oven for a couple hours. This will
provide a good base for gravy, and it can be done early.



Gosh, I put the whole turkey in a turkey bag in the oven at 350F for
three hours and it is done, wings, legs, breast, everything, and I don't
have to worry about a grill or a smoker outdoors. Is it the Army way to
make more work than need be out of a simple task? Did you have to call
in for a "surge"?

"Gosh", If you like the same old thing every year, keep it up! And
spare us the lame details.

-dk

HK wrote:



The best thing I can think of doing with a turkey fryer is to dump you
into it head first, and then feed what comes out to some inner city rats.


I'll bet your union buddies might disagree with you on that. Your
opinions are nothing more than lame opinions. Maybe everyone here
doesn't actually care what you "can think of doing". Have you
considered that, Krause?

-dk

Don White wrote:


The best thing I can think of doing with a turkey fryer is to dump you
into it head first, and then feed what comes out to some inner city rats.


What have you got against those rats?



Donnie,

You are a damn lemming. Read your posts and think very hard before you
press "send". Your predictable "responses" to Harry's posts are
pathetic and not funny to anyone but you.

-dk

wrote:

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:01:48 -0500, " JimH" ask wrote:
21 pound bird fully stuffed. Put it in at 9 a.m. and took it out at 3:45
p.m.
Convection oven cooked at 300F.
As usual, it turned out perfectly.
If you need help on how to oven cook a turkey, let me know. ;-)
If you put that bird in an oven bag it would have cooked in about 3
hours and you wouldn't have lost a drop of the moisture.
Put the drippings in a big gravy separator to split out the grease and
you have the makings for great gravy.
Btw it costs about 50 cents an hour to run an electric oven, assuming
about a 60% duty cycle
My God, some of you folks are absolutely anal about (of all things) cooking
a turkey.

Get a grip. There are more important things to deal with in life.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Like what, saying nasty mean spirited things and lies about people's
grandchildren, children, wives, etc?


Where did you come up with that? Too much sampling of your harvest?

-dk

HK wrote:
Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message


The best thing I can think of doing with a turkey fryer is to dump
you into it head first, and then feed what comes out to some inner
city rats.


What have you got against those rats?



You think PETA would complain if we fed them Reggie?

The circle jerk continues...

wrote:


How do you get the natural occuring fat out of the turkey, Mr. Health?
And why are you overweight?
Why is it that if *you* decide you don't like something, then it's
instantly a terrible thing, no one should do it, it's awful, it's
stupid, and on and on? Let's take boats for instance. You've stated
here many times in many threads over the years that went on for ever
about some mightly large cruising boats that you've claimed to own.
Now you state that you don't care anything about boating, just getting
to where the fish are, correct? Which is it?

I've never seen anyone get this worked up over posts in Usenet. He's
even attacking one of his few "friends" here now.

I'll bet we can expect another long hiatus from the gentleman farmer.

-dk

HK wrote:


I've never owned any "cruising" boats, per se, if by that you mean a
large, live-aboard, low powered boat used for extensive travel. I've
owned a few sailboats, including two that could be used for "real
cruising," but I never used them for that. Day cruising or perhaps a
short overnight, maybe, but not much longer than that.

Your statement about my feelings regarding boating are absurd. In the
Chesapeake Bay, just getting to where the fish are involves some
informal "cruising," albeit at a higher than typical cruising speed, and
we do engage in boating activities that do not involve fishing.




At least you finally admit to your lies. It takes a big man to do that
knowing the repercussions that will follow you for years.

-dk

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

Sorry, I don't deny science and I don't believe the turkey meat doesn't
absorb oil.


I'll betcha you consume more oil in a couple of pieces of pizza. If you
don't, it probably was a lousy pie anyway.

A little bit of oil won't hurt you. Keeps the joints in your typing fingers
lubricated.



Eisboch

There is evidence that ill effects of dietary fat have been
overemphasized.

-rick-

----

By JOHN TIERNEY
Published: October 9, 2007
In 1988, the surgeon general, C. Everett Koop, proclaimed
ice cream to a be public-health menace right up there with
cigarettes. Alluding to his office’s famous 1964 report on
the perils of smoking, Dr. Koop announced that the American
diet was a problem of “comparable” magnitude, chiefly
because of the high-fat foods that were causing coronary
heart disease and other deadly ailments.
He introduced his report with these words: “The depth of the
science base underlying its findings is even more impressive
than that for tobacco and health in 1964.”
That was a ludicrous statement, as Gary Taubes demonstrates
in his new book meticulously debunking diet myths, “Good
Calories, Bad Calories” (Knopf, 2007). The notion that fatty
foods shorten your life began as a hypothesis based on
dubious assumptions and data; when scientists tried to
confirm it they failed repeatedly. The evidence against
Häagen-Dazs was nothing like the evidence against Marlboros.
It may seem bizarre that a surgeon general could go so
wrong. After all, wasn’t it his job to express the
scientific consensus? But that was the problem. Dr. Koop was
expressing the consensus. He, like the architects of the
federal “food pyramid” telling Americans what to eat, went
wrong by listening to everyone else. He was caught in what
social scientists call a cascade.
We like to think that people improve their judgment by
putting their minds together, and sometimes they do. The
studio audience at “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” usually
votes for the right answer. But suppose, instead of the
audience members voting silently in unison, they voted out
loud one after another. And suppose the first person gets it
wrong.
If the second person isn’t sure of the answer, he’s liable
to go along with the first person’s guess. By then, even if
the third person suspects another answer is right, she’s
more liable to go along just because she assumes the first
two together know more than she does. Thus begins an
“informational cascade” as one person after another assumes
that the rest can’t all be wrong.
Because of this effect, groups are surprisingly prone to
reach mistaken conclusions even when most of the people
started out knowing better, according to the economists
Sushil Bikhchandani, David Hirshleifer and Ivo Welch. If,
say, 60 percent of a group’s members have been given
information pointing them to the right answer (while the
rest have information pointing to the wrong answer), there
is still about a one-in-three chance that the group will
cascade to a mistaken consensus.
Cascades are especially common in medicine as doctors take
their cues from others, leading them to overdiagnose some
faddish ailments (called bandwagon diseases) and
overprescribe certain treatments (like the tonsillectomies
once popular for children). Unable to keep up with the
volume of research, doctors look for guidance from an expert
— or at least someone who sounds confident.
In the case of fatty foods, that confident voice belonged to
Ancel Keys, a prominent diet researcher a half-century ago
(the K-rations in World War II were said to be named after
him). He became convinced in the 1950s that Americans were
suffering from a new epidemic of heart disease because they
were eating more fat than their ancestors.
There were two glaring problems with this theory, as Mr.
Taubes, a correspondent for Science magazine, explains in
his book. First, it wasn’t clear that traditional diets were
especially lean. Nineteenth-century Americans consumed huge
amounts of meat; the percentage of fat in the diet of
ancient hunter-gatherers, according to the best estimate
today, was as high or higher than the ratio in the modern
Western diet.
Second, there wasn’t really a new epidemic of heart disease.
Yes, more cases were being reported, but not because people
were in worse health. It was mainly because they were living
longer and were more likely to see a doctor who diagnosed
the symptoms.
To bolster his theory, Dr. Keys in 1953 compared diets and
heart disease rates in the United States, Japan and four
other countries. Sure enough, more fat correlated with more
disease (America topped the list). But critics at the time
noted that if Dr. Keys had analyzed all 22 countries for
which data were available, he would not have found a
correlation. (And, as Mr. Taubes notes, no one would have
puzzled over the so-called French Paradox of foie-gras
connoisseurs with healthy hearts.)

The evidence that dietary fat correlates with heart disease
“does not stand up to critical examination,” the American
Heart Association concluded in 1957. But three years later
the association changed position — not because of new data,
Mr. Taubes writes, but because Dr. Keys and an ally were on
the committee issuing the new report. It asserted that “the
best scientific evidence of the time” warranted a lower-fat
diet for people at high risk of heart disease.
The association’s report was big news and put Dr. Keys, who
died in 2004, on the cover of Time magazine. The magazine
devoted four pages to the topic — and just one paragraph
noting that Dr. Keys’s diet advice was “still questioned by
some researchers.” That set the tone for decades of news
media coverage. Journalists and their audiences were looking
for clear guidance, not scientific ambiguity.
After the fat-is-bad theory became popular wisdom, the
cascade accelerated in the 1970s when a committee led by
Senator George McGovern issued a report advising Americans
to lower their risk of heart disease by eating less fat.
“McGovern’s staff were virtually unaware of the existence of
any scientific controversy,” Mr. Taubes writes, and the
committee’s report was written by a nonscientist “relying
almost exclusively on a single Harvard nutritionist, Mark
Hegsted.”
That report impressed another nonscientist, Carol Tucker
Foreman, an assistant agriculture secretary, who hired Dr.
Hegsted to draw up a set of national dietary guidelines. The
Department of Agriculture’s advice against eating too much
fat was issued in 1980 and would later be incorporated in
its “food pyramid.”
Meanwhile, there still wasn’t good evidence to warrant
recommending a low-fat diet for all Americans, as the
National Academy of Sciences noted in a report shortly after
the U.S.D.A. guidelines were issued. But the report’s
authors were promptly excoriated on Capitol Hill and in the
news media for denying a danger that had already been
proclaimed by the American Heart Association, the McGovern
committee and the U.S.D.A.
The scientists, despite their impressive credentials, were
accused of bias because some of them had done research
financed by the food industry. And so the informational
cascade morphed into what the economist Timur Kuran calls a
reputational cascade, in which it becomes a career risk for
dissidents to question the popular wisdom.
With skeptical scientists ostracized, the public debate and
research agenda became dominated by the fat-is-bad school.
Later the National Institutes of Health would hold a
“consensus conference” that concluded there was “no doubt”
that low-fat diets “will afford significant protection
against coronary heart disease” for every American over the
age of 2. The American Cancer Society and the surgeon
general recommended a low-fat diet to prevent cancer.
But when the theories were tested in clinical trials, the
evidence kept turning up negative. As Mr. Taubes notes, the
most rigorous meta-analysis of the clinical trials of
low-fat diets, published in 2001 by the Cochrane
Collaboration, concluded that they had no significant effect
on mortality.
Mr. Taubes argues that the low-fat recommendations, besides
being unjustified, may well have harmed Americans by
encouraging them to switch to carbohydrates, which he
believes cause obesity and disease. He acknowledges that
that hypothesis is unproved, and that the low-carb diet fad
could turn out to be another mistaken cascade. The problem,
he says, is that the low-carb hypothesis hasn’t been
seriously studied because it couldn’t be reconciled with the
low-fat dogma.
Mr. Taubes told me he especially admired the iconoclasm of
Dr. Edward H. Ahrens Jr., a lipids researcher who spoke out
against the McGovern committee’s report. Mr. McGovern
subsequently asked him at a hearing to reconcile his
skepticism with a survey showing that the low-fat
recommendations were endorsed by 92 percent of “the world’s
leading doctors.”
“Senator McGovern, I recognize the disadvantage of being in
the minority,” Dr. Ahrens replied. Then he pointed out that
most of the doctors in the survey were relying on secondhand
knowledge because they didn’t work in this field themselves.
“This is a matter,” he continued, “of such enormous social,
economic and medical importance that it must be evaluated
with our eyes completely open. Thus I would hate to see this
issue settled by anything that smacks of a Gallup poll.” Or
a cascade.

On Nov 24, 8:52 pm, Dan wrote:
Don White wrote:

The best thing I can think of doing with a turkey fryer is to dump you
into it head first, and then feed what comes out to some inner city rats.

What have you got against those rats?

Donnie,

You are a damn lemming. Read your posts and think very hard before you
press "send". Your predictable "responses" to Harry's posts are
pathetic and not funny to anyone but you.

-dk

Since you guys are fighting so nice, I will step in here. I saw an
A**state insurance commercial today and they refered to fried turkeys
burning down houses. The interesting part was the part where the
narator said "Thousands fried turkeys last year... and 15 of them
managed to burn down their houses". Not the horrific numbers the
detractors prepared me for

On Nov 25, 7:24 am, wrote:
On Nov 24, 8:52 pm, Dan wrote:

Don White wrote:

The best thing I can think of doing with a turkey fryer is to dump you
into it head first, and then feed what comes out to some inner city rats.

What have you got against those rats?

Donnie,

You are a damn lemming. Read your posts and think very hard before you
press "send". Your predictable "responses" to Harry's posts are
pathetic and not funny to anyone but you.

-dk

Since you guys are fighting so nice, I will step in here. I saw an
A**state insurance commercial today and they refered to fried turkeys
burning down houses. The interesting part was the part where the
narator said "Thousands fried turkeys last year... and 15 of them
managed to burn down their houses". Not the horrific numbers the
detractors prepared me for

And there's a simple fix for that, don't fry the damned thing near
your house!