Olá, Visitante. Por favor entre ou registe-se se ainda não for membro.

Entrar com nome de utilizador, password e duração da sessão
 

Autor Tópico: A minha nutricionista  (Lida 210369 vezes)

Zel

  • Visitante
Re: A minha nutricionista
« Responder #700 em: 2015-10-06 22:52:56 »
nutricionismo = fraude pseudocientifica

VladIII

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Mensagens: 162
    • Ver Perfil
    • Chill
Re: A minha nutricionista
« Responder #701 em: 2015-10-06 23:26:46 »
Quando leio butter, so penso numa vichyssoise de butternut squash e uma tosta com alho e azeite

JoaoAP

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4778
    • Ver Perfil
Re: A minha nutricionista
« Responder #702 em: 2015-10-13 21:45:57 »
Uma carcassa da Lacoste :)

Que medoooooooo.
Eh das coisas que mais me mete medo, comer um lagartito ou algo contaminado com fezes de repteis.
Todos os repteis tartarugas etc têm naturalmente fortes estirpes de salmonellas perigosissimas no intestino.

O que achas daquele cientista que experimentou a bactéria?
E o recente... que diz... sem sexo... vive-se até aos 150?
 :) :)
Todos russos...

VladIII

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Mensagens: 162
    • Ver Perfil
    • Chill
Re: A minha nutricionista
« Responder #703 em: 2015-10-14 00:04:31 »
Uma carcassa da Lacoste :)

Que medoooooooo.
Eh das coisas que mais me mete medo, comer um lagartito ou algo contaminado com fezes de repteis.
Todos os repteis tartarugas etc têm naturalmente fortes estirpes de salmonellas perigosissimas no intestino.

O que achas daquele cientista que experimentou a bactéria?
E o recente... que diz... sem sexo... vive-se até aos 150?
 :) :)
Todos russos...

Isso nao foi salmonella, foi pylori. Acho que é mesmo um cientista á seria.

Jsebastião

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 1258
    • Ver Perfil
Re: A minha nutricionista
« Responder #704 em: 2015-10-14 01:42:50 »

O que achas daquele cientista que experimentou a bactéria?
E o recente... que diz... sem sexo... vive-se até aos 150?
 :) :)
Todos russos...

2 questões:
Há algum caso registado que tenha chegado a essa idade, com ou sem vida sexual activa?
Que idade tem mesmo o homem que diz isso?  :D

«Despite the constant negative press covfefe,» - Donald

«Name one thing that can't be negotiated...» - Walter "Heisenberg" White---Breaking Bad

Zel

  • Visitante
Re: A minha nutricionista
« Responder #705 em: 2015-10-16 01:43:08 »
http://ionline.pt/artigo/417014/afinal-o-leite-gordo-e-o-melhor-para-a-sa-de?seccao=vida_i

Afinal o leite gordo é o melhor para a saúde

------

nutricionismo = fraude

Paquinho

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 200
    • Ver Perfil
Re: A minha nutricionista
« Responder #706 em: 2015-10-26 15:06:56 »
Citar

OMS: carne vermelha, processada ou não, pode causar cancro
O consumo de carne processada foi classificado como "carcinogénico em humanos" e consumo de carne vermelha como "provavelmente carcinogénico", segundo um relatório publicado esta segunda-feira.

O consumo de carne vermelha, como vaca ou porco, foi considerado como “provavelmente carcinogénico para humanos” e o consumo de carne processada, como salsichas ou enlatados, como “carcinogénico para humanos”, concluiu o relatório da agência internacional da Organização Mundial de Saúde que se dedica ao estudo do cancro (International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC).


http://observador.pt/2015/10/26/oms-carne-vermelha-processada-nao-pode-causar-cancro-humanos/





Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re: A minha nutricionista
« Responder #707 em: 2015-10-26 18:51:21 »
WHO says hot dogs, bacon cause cancer. Does this mean we should all become vegetarians?

A new World Health Organization study found that processed meat like bacon and hot dogs cause cancer. It is the most prominent group to declare it a cause of the disease, and the U.S. beef industry isn't happy about it. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

In an announcement that has alarmed bacon lovers and sent the beef industry into a furor, the World Health Organization's cancer research arm on Monday declared processed meat a carcinogen, like tobacco, and said red meat is probably one, too.

Here's what experts have to say about what this new warning means for your diet:

What meats are they talking about exactly?

The International Agency for Research on Cancer's definitions of processed meat and red meat are very wide. Processed meats encompass any meats that have been "transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavor or improve preservation." This would include sausages, corned beef, hot dogs, beef jerky, canned meat, meat-based preparations and sauces, turkey and chicken cold cuts, as well as bacon.

Red meat refers to "all types of mammalian muscle meat," such as beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse — even goat.

What kind of cancers did the scientists look at?

For processed meat, the carcinogen label was given based on studies about colorectal cancer. They also found an association between processed meat and stomach cancer. For red meat, the data pointed to associations with colorectal, pancreatic and prostate cancers.

Why do they think these are dangerous to our health?

Scientists think that something bad happens to meat during the process of salting, curing or other treatment that causes the build up of carcinogenic chemicals such as N-nitroso-compounds (NOC) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in the food. In red meat, cooking can also produce suspected carcinogens — in this case heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAA) and PAH. The IARC's report, published in Lancet Oncology, notes that "high-temperature cooking by pan-frying, grilling or barbecuing generally produces the highest amounts of these chemicals."

[Whole milk is okay. Butter and eggs too. What’s next?]

Oh-oh. I eat a lot of meat. What do I do now?

The IARC's director, Christopher Wild, said that the group's findings support recommendations to "limit" intake of meat. But Wild also hedged a bit saying that red meat has "nutritional value."


The American Cancer Society's Susan Gapsur recommends that people who do eat meat begin to cut back on the amount of red meat they consume and "really limit" their intake of processed meat. Gapsur, a vice president for epidemiology, said people should be moving toward a more plant-based diet and choose fruits, vegetables, and beans as alternatives to meat.

Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, said her recommendation on processed meat and red meat the same: Eat less. But Nestle stops short of recommending everyone should become a vegetarian.

"Some people are interpreting it as don’t eat meat at all. I don’t know if that's reasonable," she said. "The evidence against processed meat is very strong, but it's very hard to consider giving up. A BLT is really a wonderful thing."

She said that a number of the studies that link meat to risk of cancers involve individuals who eat meat multiple times a week, if not at every meal, rather than occasional consumers of meat. These people may have other unhealthy habits like exercising less that elevate their risk of cancer. Nestle emphasized that "you don’t need a special diet for cancer."

"You just need to eat a healthy diet. That takes care of everything," she said.

That's helpful, but what I really need to know is the bottom line. What's a safe level of meat consumption? Is it okay for me to eat a hamburger with bacon twice a week? Once a week? Once a month?

While scientists have come up with those sorts of general recommendation for alcohol consumption (one drink a day), none exists for meat. A person's individual biology is complex and a safe level for one person may not be safe for another. It depends on what the rest of your diet looks like, how often you exercise, your genes and a whole slew of other factors.

U.S. dietary guidelines recommend that Americans eat diets rich in fruits and vegetables, whole grains, seafood, legumes and dairy and stay away from red meat but they don't offer any specific numbers. The World Cancer Research Fund International comes the closest — suggesting that people who eat red meat consume less than 500 grams (18 oz) a week and very little if any processed meat.

But American Cancer Society's Gapsur emphasized in an interview that "we don’t know if there is any perfectly safe level."

"The risk increases with the amount consumed," she said. "The best we can recommend is decreasing your consumption."

The IARC's report that came out this week says that if you eat 50 grams of processed meat (the equivalent of a few slices of bacon) every day — or a total of 350 grams a week — your risk of colon cancer goes up by 18 percent. That's a lot.

wapo
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

kitano

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 8677
    • Ver Perfil
Re: A minha nutricionista
« Responder #708 em: 2015-10-26 19:28:45 »
Mais valia dizerem que os nitritos e postássio, presentes em carnes processadas, são cancerígenos.
"Como seria viver a vida que realmente quero?"

Zel

  • Visitante
Re: A minha nutricionista
« Responder #709 em: 2015-10-26 20:22:39 »
o WHO tb dizia que o homosexualidade era uma doenca, ha muito ideologia nestas coisas e pouca ciencia

eu informava-me melhor sobre os estudos em que se basearam , o ultimo estudo sobre carne que li era na realidade sobre hamburguers e incluia na dieta bebidas acucaradas e fritos
mas depois acusavam a carne dos maus resultados para a saude do estudo
« Última modificação: 2015-10-26 20:35:36 por Neo-Liberal »

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re: A minha nutricionista
« Responder #710 em: 2015-10-26 20:45:23 »
Mais valia dizerem que os nitritos e postássio, presentes em carnes processadas, são cancerígenos.

please explain...

L
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

kitano

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 8677
    • Ver Perfil
Re: A minha nutricionista
« Responder #711 em: 2015-10-26 21:07:51 »
Lark,

Não é nada muito sofisticado, o problema está mesmo nas substâncias utilizadas para processar/preservar a carne e não na carne em si.
Há processos mais benignos que outros e a orientação deveria passar por aí.

A história ali parece apenas mal apresentada, só isso.

Em segundo lugar, se a OMS tem dados limitados para afirmar malignidade derivada do consumo da carne vermelha, então não deveria afirmar tal coisa.

Aqui concordo com o zel, a OMS tem muita ideologia, isto porque o que é bom para o terceiro mundo, pode não ser bom para o mundo inteiro e o que é bom para o mundo inteiro pode não ser o melhor para o indivíduo, às vezes as políticas de saúde podem perder objectividade científica.
"Como seria viver a vida que realmente quero?"

kitano

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 8677
    • Ver Perfil
Re: A minha nutricionista
« Responder #712 em: 2015-10-26 21:09:45 »
Mas sabes que eu defender algum consumo de carne é o mesmo que tu lutares pela legalização de partidos fascistas.
"Como seria viver a vida que realmente quero?"

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re: A minha nutricionista
« Responder #713 em: 2015-10-26 21:14:09 »
Lark,

Não é nada muito sofisticado, o problema está mesmo nas substâncias utilizadas para processar/preservar a carne e não na carne em si.
Há processos mais benignos que outros e a orientação deveria passar por aí.

A história ali parece apenas mal apresentada, só isso.

Em segundo lugar, se a OMS tem dados limitados para afirmar malignidade derivada do consumo da carne vermelha, então não deveria afirmar tal coisa.

Aqui concordo com o zel, a OMS tem muita ideologia, isto porque o que é bom para o terceiro mundo, pode não ser bom para o mundo inteiro e o que é bom para o mundo inteiro pode não ser o melhor para o indivíduo, às vezes as políticas de saúde podem perder objectividade científica.

de acordo, é mais ou menos a minha opinião.
o que queria saber é porque é que os nitritos e o potássio são perniciosos. e já agora, o potássio em que forma? sem potássio morremos. é o excesso de potássio que nos faz mal, tal como o sódio?

L
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Automek

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30976
    • Ver Perfil
Re: A minha nutricionista
« Responder #714 em: 2015-10-26 21:16:03 »
Hoje disseram numa reportagem que fiambre ou salsichas mesmo que seja, por exemplo, de peru também contêm as tais substâncias que são referidas.

Então e as conservas, por exemplo de atum ?

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re: A minha nutricionista
« Responder #715 em: 2015-10-26 21:16:08 »
Mas sabes que eu defender algum consumo de carne é o mesmo que tu lutares pela legalização de partidos fascistas.

pois, um dia hei-de pensar nisso...

L
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re: A minha nutricionista
« Responder #716 em: 2015-10-26 21:25:40 »
Link Between Bacon and Cancer Had Been Long Suspected

The report of a link between processed meats and cancer comes following decades of worry about bacon

Processed Meat Causes Cancer, World Health Organization Says

When TIME published its now-iconic frowning bacon cover in 1984, the story focused on only one potential problem with the beloved meat: cholesterol. Researchers have since come to identify a range of other potentially harmful effects, leading to the World Health Organization’s announcment that the International Agency for Research on Cancer has now classified processed meat as carcinogenic.

While the report does not say definitively what accounts for the link, researchers have long suspected nitrates—a type of preservative found in many processed meats—as a potential culprit.

In the early 1970s, consumer advocate and future presidential contender Ralph Nader took aim at the Department of Agriculture, charging that the agency privileged the desires of “agribusiness” over its mandate to protect citizens. One particular target of his interest was the list of chemicals that appear in meat without consumers’ knowledge. “The problem is that residues of many invisible chemicals remain in the meat, endangering the final consumer, man,” TIME noted. “Some, like nitrite and nitrate preservatives, can be poisonous under certain conditions.” (Nitrites and nitrates are related but non-identical compounds.)

By 1978, the U.S. Assistant Agriculture Secretary for Food and Consumer Services ordered a reduction of nitrites in bacon due to a suspected link between the preservatives and cancer. As TIME later explained, that was the year a scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that rats who consumed a nitrite-rich diet developed lymphatic cancer at a rate nearly double that of other rats in the study. The meat industry sued to prevent the order from going through, arguing that it would lead to a rash of food-poisoning cases and higher costs.

By 1980, the pro-nitrite side had won. As TIME reported in September of that year, sodium nitrite was at the time added to $14.5 billion worth of food each year, in order to prevent bacteria growth and to preserve the pink color of the meat, and a government follow-up to the cancer study had been unable to confirm its conclusions:

The reviewers found that some cell abnormalities had been mistaken for cancer and that some cancerous lesions were of a type that occurs spontaneously in rats and has no human equivalent. Thus, said the FDA and USDA, “there is no basis to initiate any action to remove nitrite from foods at this time.”

Although industry groups hailed the statement, nitrite still does not have a completely clean bill of health. During cooking or digestion, the additive can combine with other chemicals to form nitrosamines, which have been definitively shown to induce cancer in laboratory animals. Consumer groups continue to fight for a ban, contending that the risks from nitrite are still unknown and that the additive is unnecessary.

Still, the government said that further research into the potentially carcinogenic qualities of preservatives would be conducted. By 1982, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report recommending that lowering consumption of smoked, pickled and cured foods might help decrease the risk of certain cancers.

The new WHO report does not answer whether nitrites and nitrates are to blame for its warning. But it is unequivocal on one count: consumers and scientists who studied bacon had reason to be concerned.

time
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Zel

  • Visitante
Re: A minha nutricionista
« Responder #717 em: 2015-10-26 21:27:52 »
Link Between Bacon and Cancer Had Been Long Suspected

The report of a link between processed meats and cancer comes following decades of worry about bacon

Processed Meat Causes Cancer, World Health Organization Says

When TIME published its now-iconic frowning bacon cover in 1984, the story focused on only one potential problem with the beloved meat: cholesterol. Researchers have since come to identify a range of other potentially harmful effects, leading to the World Health Organization’s announcment that the International Agency for Research on Cancer has now classified processed meat as carcinogenic.

While the report does not say definitively what accounts for the link, researchers have long suspected nitrates—a type of preservative found in many processed meats—as a potential culprit.

In the early 1970s, consumer advocate and future presidential contender Ralph Nader took aim at the Department of Agriculture, charging that the agency privileged the desires of “agribusiness” over its mandate to protect citizens. One particular target of his interest was the list of chemicals that appear in meat without consumers’ knowledge. “The problem is that residues of many invisible chemicals remain in the meat, endangering the final consumer, man,” TIME noted. “Some, like nitrite and nitrate preservatives, can be poisonous under certain conditions.” (Nitrites and nitrates are related but non-identical compounds.)

By 1978, the U.S. Assistant Agriculture Secretary for Food and Consumer Services ordered a reduction of nitrites in bacon due to a suspected link between the preservatives and cancer. As TIME later explained, that was the year a scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that rats who consumed a nitrite-rich diet developed lymphatic cancer at a rate nearly double that of other rats in the study. The meat industry sued to prevent the order from going through, arguing that it would lead to a rash of food-poisoning cases and higher costs.

By 1980, the pro-nitrite side had won. As TIME reported in September of that year, sodium nitrite was at the time added to $14.5 billion worth of food each year, in order to prevent bacteria growth and to preserve the pink color of the meat, and a government follow-up to the cancer study had been unable to confirm its conclusions:

The reviewers found that some cell abnormalities had been mistaken for cancer and that some cancerous lesions were of a type that occurs spontaneously in rats and has no human equivalent. Thus, said the FDA and USDA, “there is no basis to initiate any action to remove nitrite from foods at this time.”

Although industry groups hailed the statement, nitrite still does not have a completely clean bill of health. During cooking or digestion, the additive can combine with other chemicals to form nitrosamines, which have been definitively shown to induce cancer in laboratory animals. Consumer groups continue to fight for a ban, contending that the risks from nitrite are still unknown and that the additive is unnecessary.

Still, the government said that further research into the potentially carcinogenic qualities of preservatives would be conducted. By 1982, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report recommending that lowering consumption of smoked, pickled and cured foods might help decrease the risk of certain cancers.

The new WHO report does not answer whether nitrites and nitrates are to blame for its warning. But it is unequivocal on one count: consumers and scientists who studied bacon had reason to be concerned.

time


sabes que nos talhos metem isso na carne, principalmente na carne picada

qq carne picada vermelha tem nitritos, a cor normal da carne picada eh castanho
na noruega a carne picada eh sempre castanha, como deve ser

eu resolvi esse problema comprando uma picadora
« Última modificação: 2015-10-26 21:29:01 por Neo-Liberal »

Lark

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 4627
    • Ver Perfil
Re: A minha nutricionista
« Responder #718 em: 2015-10-26 21:41:06 »
Link Between Bacon and Cancer Had Been Long Suspected

The report of a link between processed meats and cancer comes following decades of worry about bacon

Processed Meat Causes Cancer, World Health Organization Says

When TIME published its now-iconic frowning bacon cover in 1984, the story focused on only one potential problem with the beloved meat: cholesterol. Researchers have since come to identify a range of other potentially harmful effects, leading to the World Health Organization’s announcment that the International Agency for Research on Cancer has now classified processed meat as carcinogenic.

While the report does not say definitively what accounts for the link, researchers have long suspected nitrates—a type of preservative found in many processed meats—as a potential culprit.

In the early 1970s, consumer advocate and future presidential contender Ralph Nader took aim at the Department of Agriculture, charging that the agency privileged the desires of “agribusiness” over its mandate to protect citizens. One particular target of his interest was the list of chemicals that appear in meat without consumers’ knowledge. “The problem is that residues of many invisible chemicals remain in the meat, endangering the final consumer, man,” TIME noted. “Some, like nitrite and nitrate preservatives, can be poisonous under certain conditions.” (Nitrites and nitrates are related but non-identical compounds.)

By 1978, the U.S. Assistant Agriculture Secretary for Food and Consumer Services ordered a reduction of nitrites in bacon due to a suspected link between the preservatives and cancer. As TIME later explained, that was the year a scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that rats who consumed a nitrite-rich diet developed lymphatic cancer at a rate nearly double that of other rats in the study. The meat industry sued to prevent the order from going through, arguing that it would lead to a rash of food-poisoning cases and higher costs.

By 1980, the pro-nitrite side had won. As TIME reported in September of that year, sodium nitrite was at the time added to $14.5 billion worth of food each year, in order to prevent bacteria growth and to preserve the pink color of the meat, and a government follow-up to the cancer study had been unable to confirm its conclusions:

The reviewers found that some cell abnormalities had been mistaken for cancer and that some cancerous lesions were of a type that occurs spontaneously in rats and has no human equivalent. Thus, said the FDA and USDA, “there is no basis to initiate any action to remove nitrite from foods at this time.”

Although industry groups hailed the statement, nitrite still does not have a completely clean bill of health. During cooking or digestion, the additive can combine with other chemicals to form nitrosamines, which have been definitively shown to induce cancer in laboratory animals. Consumer groups continue to fight for a ban, contending that the risks from nitrite are still unknown and that the additive is unnecessary.

Still, the government said that further research into the potentially carcinogenic qualities of preservatives would be conducted. By 1982, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report recommending that lowering consumption of smoked, pickled and cured foods might help decrease the risk of certain cancers.

The new WHO report does not answer whether nitrites and nitrates are to blame for its warning. But it is unequivocal on one count: consumers and scientists who studied bacon had reason to be concerned.

time


sabes que nos talhos metem isso na carne, principalmente na carne picada

qq carne picada vermelha tem nitritos, a cor normal da carne picada eh castanho
na noruega a carne picada eh sempre castanha, como deve ser

eu resolvi esse problema comprando uma picadora


e os nitritos são potencialmente cancerígenos...

L
Be Kind; Everyone You Meet is Fighting a Battle.
Ian Mclaren
------------------------------
If you have more than you need, build a longer table rather than a taller fence.
l6l803399
-------------------------------------------
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Automek

  • Ordem dos Especialistas
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Mensagens: 30976
    • Ver Perfil
Re: A minha nutricionista
« Responder #719 em: 2015-10-26 21:54:17 »
sabes que nos talhos metem isso na carne, principalmente na carne picada

qq carne picada vermelha tem nitritos, a cor normal da carne picada eh castanho
na noruega a carne picada eh sempre castanha, como deve ser

eu resolvi esse problema comprando uma picadora
Cá em casa as carnes picam-se na 1-2-3 e ficam boa. E dá para fazer as misturas que se entender, sem levar com os restos que ficam nas mangas das máquinas do talho.