Seem to be about $150 or so more than non, at least at CharBroil. Worth
it or hype?
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

Kurt Ullman wrote:

Seem to be about $150 or so more than non, at least at CharBroil. Worth
it or hype?

Worth it. Look at the rotisserie in any kebab shop - IR burners. I have
a basic little $99 IR grill and it does a wonderful job for high heat
searing, putting out in the neighborhood of 1,200F which is otherwise
only attainable with charcoal and its attendant wait to start cooking.

On 6/11/2014 9:39 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
Seem to be about $150 or so more than non, at least at CharBroil. Worth
it or hype?


No personal experience. Others on the bbq and cooking newsgroups like
them though. If I had the option on my Weber Summit, I'd have bought it.

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 21:39:36 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

Seem to be about $150 or so more than non, at least at CharBroil. Worth
it or hype?

My LP gas grill rotisserie has it. Works great.

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 21:39:36 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

Seem to be about $150 or so more than non, at least at CharBroil. Worth
it or hype?

My LP gas grill rotisserie has it. Works great.

I am curious as to whether or not it is worth the extra $150. What does
the infrared do that "standard" ones don't.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 11:56:48 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 21:39:36 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

Seem to be about $150 or so more than non, at least at CharBroil. Worth
it or hype?

My LP gas grill rotisserie has it. Works great.

I am curious as to whether or not it is worth the extra $150. What does
the infrared do that "standard" ones don't.

Some reading here if you like.

http://home.howstuffworks.com/infrared-grill.htm

On 6/11/2014 9:39 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
Seem to be about $150 or so more than non, at least at CharBroil. Worth
it or hype?


I had steaks from my son's IR grill this week and steaks from my regular
gas grill. Can't say that they cooked any faster or tasted any better.

I don't grill that often and wouldn't spend the extra money anyway.

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 13:04:08 -0400, wrote:

On the grills I have seen and the one I have, it is just the back
burner behind the rotisserie that is IR
That is good because it does not catch fire like the burners in the
bottom do.
You can spin up a chicken and forget it for a couple hours. When you
get back it is great. I usually turn the IR down as low as I can get
it so the chicken cooks without burning the skin. It just gets brown
and crunchy.

My grill works the same way. Chicken is tender and moist, too.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 21:39:36 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

Seem to be about $150 or so more than non, at least at CharBroil. Worth
it or hype?

My LP gas grill rotisserie has it. Works great.

I am curious as to whether or not it is worth the extra $150. What does
the infrared do that "standard" ones don't.

Direct radiant energy and much higher temperatures than an ordinary gas
burner. An IR burner can produce similar results to a really hot
charcoal grill, something an ordinary gas grill can't even dream of.

On 6/12/2014 11:56 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:


I am curious as to whether or not it is worth the extra $150. What does
the infrared do that "standard" ones don't.


Heat, lots of it.

Check the spec though as some lower priced IR burners may not be a big
deal. Better quality IR burners give a much higher temperature than you
can get with a regular flame. The advantage to that is the ability to
sear a steak.

Some of the steak houses have burners in the 1600 degree range.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

I am curious as to whether or not it is worth the extra $150. What does
the infrared do that "standard" ones don't.

I bought one about 5 years ago when they first went off patent and starting
showing up on the private label grills at Lowes and Home Depot. I didn't find it
all that useful. They take a bit longer to light, the IR burnerl under the grill
rack gets dirty quite quickly and I never used the rotisery, so the IR burner on
the back never was used.

On 06/11/2014 09:39 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
Seem to be about $150 or so more than non, at least at CharBroil. Worth
it or hype?


The infrared feature chars the meat faster and charred meat is carcinogenic.

I know, nobody cares...until they are taking chemo treatments.

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 20:44:10 -0400, Elmer wrote:

The infrared feature chars the meat faster and charred meat is carcinogenic.


Exposure to the Sun can cause cancer. Should we stay indoors all the
time? I'm not paranoid of a little char on meat.

I know, nobody cares...until they are taking chemo treatments.

You're going to die anyway - of something.

Oren posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP


On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 20:44:10 -0400, Elmer wrote:

The infrared feature chars the meat faster and charred meat is carcinogenic.


Exposure to the Sun can cause cancer. Should we stay indoors all the
time? I'm not paranoid of a little char on meat.

I know, nobody cares...until they are taking chemo treatments.

You're going to die anyway - of something.

In Elmers case it will be of boredom.

--
Tekkie

On 6/12/2014 5:44 PM, Elmer wrote:
On 06/11/2014 09:39 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
Seem to be about $150 or so more than non, at least at CharBroil. Worth
it or hype?


The infrared feature chars the meat faster and charred meat is
carcinogenic.

I know, nobody cares...until they are taking chemo treatments.

My bet the cancer is from all the hormones the cow was fed, the plastic
packaging, the plastic film, the sanitizers and disinfectants, or any
one of fifty other things.

Elmer, you need to hide in the closet and have your meals prepared and
sent in through a straw. If charred meat causes cancer, we are all
doomed, except the vegans, and they will die from lack of protein, which
will cause their muscle tissue to waste away.

Vegan - Old Indian word for poor hunter.

Steve

On 06/15/2014 08:37 PM, SteveB wrote:
On 6/12/2014 5:44 PM, Elmer wrote:
On 06/11/2014 09:39 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
Seem to be about $150 or so more than non, at least at CharBroil. Worth
it or hype?


The infrared feature chars the meat faster and charred meat is
carcinogenic.

I know, nobody cares...until they are taking chemo treatments.

My bet the cancer is from all the hormones the cow was fed, the plastic packaging, the plastic film, the sanitizers and disinfectants, or any one of fifty other things.

Elmer, you need to hide in the closet and have your meals prepared and sent in through a straw. If charred meat causes cancer, we are all doomed, except the vegans, and they will die from lack of protein, which will cause their muscle tissue to waste away.

Vegan - Old Indian word for poor hunter.

Steve


According to the God-fearing Republicans over at Fox News (and Republicans don't lie) :

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/0...-cause-cancer/

On 6/12/2014 7:44 PM, Elmer wrote:
On 06/11/2014 09:39 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
Seem to be about $150 or so more than non, at least at CharBroil.
Worth
it or hype?


The infrared feature chars the meat faster and charred meat is
carcinogenic.

I know, nobody cares...until they are taking chemo treatments.

Studies suggest eat well done/charred meats can lead to a 60% increase
in the chance of developing pancreatic cancer.

There's a 1.5% lifetime risk of pancreatic cancer for persons in the
US, so eating charred meats could increase that risk to about 2.5%.

In other words, it would still be highly unlikely that one would
develop pancreatic cancer.

I'll take those odds.

In article ,
Moe DeLoughan wrote:

On 6/12/2014 7:44 PM, Elmer wrote:
On 06/11/2014 09:39 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
Seem to be about $150 or so more than non, at least at CharBroil.
Worth
it or hype?


The infrared feature chars the meat faster and charred meat is
carcinogenic.

I know, nobody cares...until they are taking chemo treatments.

Studies suggest eat well done/charred meats can lead to a 60% increase
in the chance of developing pancreatic cancer.

There's a 1.5% lifetime risk of pancreatic cancer for persons in the
US, so eating charred meats could increase that risk to about 2.5%.

In other words, it would still be highly unlikely that one would
develop pancreatic cancer.

I'll take those odds.

Americans don't have a good grasp of the difference between absolute
and relative risk. Absolute risk is risk stated without any context. For
example, you have a 50 percentchance of flipping a coin and getting
heads, or a one in a hundred chance of getting lung cancer if you have
never smoked.
The relative risk is a comparison between different risk levels. For
example, your relative risk for lung cancer is (approximately) 10 if you
have every smoked, compared to a nonsmoker. This means you are 10 times
as likely to get lung cancer. If the risk is about one percent for a
nonsmoker, this translates to about 10 percent for a person who has
smoked (it is even higher for heavy smokers).
Americans seem to have an aversion to putting things in context.
Thus the headlines about something doubling the chances something might
happen w/o indicating in many cases that the actual chance something
will happen just went from infinitesimally small to just slightly less
infinitesimally small.
A couple of years ago after my annual physical, I told my wife that
based on my cholesterol and other measures, the AHA heart attack risk
calculator said that my chances of having a heart attack in the next 10
years doubled from last year. They had gone from a 2% chance to a 4%
chance. So the absolute risk doubled but the relative risk was
essentially the same.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 17:37:04 -0700, SteveB wrote:

Elmer, you need to hide in the closet and have your meals prepared and
sent in through a straw. If charred meat causes cancer, we are all
doomed, except the vegans, and they will die from lack of protein, which
will cause their muscle tissue to waste away.

Vegan - Old Indian word for poor hunter.


Steve,

Corn is what food eats.

On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:12:54 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Moe DeLoughan wrote:

On 6/12/2014 7:44 PM, Elmer wrote:
On 06/11/2014 09:39 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
Seem to be about $150 or so more than non, at least at CharBroil.
Worth
it or hype?


The infrared feature chars the meat faster and charred meat is
carcinogenic.

I know, nobody cares...until they are taking chemo treatments.

Studies suggest eat well done/charred meats can lead to a 60% increase
in the chance of developing pancreatic cancer.

There's a 1.5% lifetime risk of pancreatic cancer for persons in the
US, so eating charred meats could increase that risk to about 2.5%.

In other words, it would still be highly unlikely that one would
develop pancreatic cancer.

I'll take those odds.

Americans don't have a good grasp of the difference between absolute
and relative risk. Absolute risk is risk stated without any context. For
example, you have a 50 percentchance of flipping a coin and getting
heads, or a one in a hundred chance of getting lung cancer if you have
never smoked.
The relative risk is a comparison between different risk levels. For
example, your relative risk for lung cancer is (approximately) 10 if you
have every smoked, compared to a nonsmoker. This means you are 10 times
as likely to get lung cancer. If the risk is about one percent for a
nonsmoker, this translates to about 10 percent for a person who has
smoked (it is even higher for heavy smokers).
Americans seem to have an aversion to putting things in context.
Thus the headlines about something doubling the chances something might
happen w/o indicating in many cases that the actual chance something
will happen just went from infinitesimally small to just slightly less
infinitesimally small.
A couple of years ago after my annual physical, I told my wife that
based on my cholesterol and other measures, the AHA heart attack risk
calculator said that my chances of having a heart attack in the next 10
years doubled from last year. They had gone from a 2% chance to a 4%
chance. So the absolute risk doubled but the relative risk was
essentially the same.

Kurt,

Did you decide to spend the $150 or not?

In article ,
Oren wrote:


Did you decide to spend the $150 or not?

Nah. A couple friends of mine and the guy I talked to at Lowes noted
the junk that used to get on the burners now gets on the infrared
panels. They said it tends to rust out of the infrared panels over a
couple years and you have to replace them. Seemed sorta dumb to pay $150
bucks more get to something I would have to replace for around $60 every
couple years for marginally better meat.
K
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

SteveB posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP

Vegan - Old Indian word for poor hunter.


HAAAAAAAAAAAA A good one!

--
Tekkie

On 06/15/2014 08:37 PM, SteveB wrote:
Vegan - Old Indian word for poor hunter.

The only hunting carnivores do today is hunt for a handicap spot at Walmart and then hunt for an obesecycle to ride while in the store.

On 6/17/2014 3:30 AM, Carnivore wrote:
On 06/15/2014 08:37 PM, SteveB wrote:
Vegan - Old Indian word for poor hunter.

The only hunting carnivores do today is hunt for a handicap spot at
Walmart and then hunt for an obesecycle to ride while in the store.

Actually, I'm acquainted with a number of fat vegetarians, and even a
couple of fat vegans. They may not eat animal products, but it doesn't
stop them from eating a lot of fattening junk. I have self-proclaimed
vegetarian friends I sarcastically refer to as "3C Vegetarians" - they
only eat chocolate, chips, and cheese. They won't eat vegetables, even
though they call themselves vegetarians.

A picky eater isn't equivalent to a healthy eater. And as in the case
of my friends, some of them just give their pickiness or eating
disorder a trendy name. They have a problem with food, but instead of
admitting it, they they lecture everyone else about the supposed evils
of eating animals.

On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:45:55 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Oren wrote:


Did you decide to spend the $150 or not?

Nah. A couple friends of mine and the guy I talked to at Lowes noted
the junk that used to get on the burners now gets on the infrared
panels. They said it tends to rust out of the infrared panels over a
couple years and you have to replace them. Seemed sorta dumb to pay $150
bucks more get to something I would have to replace for around $60 every
couple years for marginally better meat.
K

Makes sense to me. My gas grill has a single burner on the back -
above the grates. So far no problem, but it is seldom used.

Oren wrote:

My gas grill has a single burner on the back -
above the grates. So far no problem, but it is seldom used.

Same here. That burner is intended for rotisserie cooking. While it may look
good in the store, who roasts a chicken these days when you can buy one for $5
at Costco?

On 6/17/2014 8:17 PM, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:
Oren wrote:

My gas grill has a single burner on the back -
above the grates. So far no problem, but it is seldom used.

Same here. That burner is intended for rotisserie cooking. While it may look
good in the store, who roasts a chicken these days when you can buy one for $5
at Costco?


It does more than just chicken. Pork roast, beef roast and anything
else you can get on a spit.

The chickens I do are better than the stuff you buy at supermarkets too.
They have not been locked in a plastic coffin for hours and have not
been injected with water and salt.

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:36:37 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 6/17/2014 8:17 PM, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:
Oren wrote:

My gas grill has a single burner on the back -
above the grates. So far no problem, but it is seldom used.

Same here. That burner is intended for rotisserie cooking. While it may look
good in the store, who roasts a chicken these days when you can buy one for $5
at Costco?


It does more than just chicken. Pork roast, beef roast and anything
else you can get on a spit.

The chickens I do are better than the stuff you buy at supermarkets too.
They have not been locked in a plastic coffin for hours and have not
been injected with water and salt.

You can also buy a rotisserie grill basket for other things: fish,
vegetables, kabobs and smaller food items.

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:17:34 -0600, Arthur Conan Doyle
wrote:

Oren wrote:

My gas grill has a single burner on the back -
above the grates. So far no problem, but it is seldom used.

Same here. That burner is intended for rotisserie cooking. While it may look
good in the store, who roasts a chicken these days when you can buy one for $5
at Costco?

Well, you do pay an annual membership so the $5 chicken will cost more
than you think. I made sum dang good southern fired chicken recently.

http://oi60.tinypic.com/b52kaw.jpg

On 6/16/2014 2:02 AM, Ketogenic wrote:
On 06/15/2014 08:37 PM, SteveB wrote:
On 6/12/2014 5:44 PM, Elmer wrote:
On 06/11/2014 09:39 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
Seem to be about $150 or so more than non, at least at CharBroil.
Worth
it or hype?


The infrared feature chars the meat faster and charred meat is
carcinogenic.

I know, nobody cares...until they are taking chemo treatments.

My bet the cancer is from all the hormones the cow was fed, the
plastic packaging, the plastic film, the sanitizers and disinfectants,
or any one of fifty other things.

Elmer, you need to hide in the closet and have your meals prepared and
sent in through a straw. If charred meat causes cancer, we are all
doomed, except the vegans, and they will die from lack of protein,
which will cause their muscle tissue to waste away.

Vegan - Old Indian word for poor hunter.

Steve


According to the God-fearing Republicans over at Fox News (and
Republicans don't lie) :

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/0...-cause-cancer/



I see the words,"so far, it is unsure ..............." So,to err on the
side of good, let's just run around willy nilly chicken little until the
facts come in, like we do on every other thing. I think if eating
charred meat were bad, we'd be extinct by now, or have incredibly higher
cancer rates. But then, when you talk on a cell phone, and eat burnt
meat, your chances must soar meteorically, as everyone knows now that
talking with a cell phone next to your ear causes cancer.

Those who are most afraid of life are those afraid to live it. Everyone
dies from something. Spend your time on living things, and not things
that are rumored to kill you. Next week, it will be canned peaches.

Sheesh.

Steve

On 6/16/2014 6:36 PM, Tekkie® wrote:
SteveB posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP

Vegan - Old Indian word for poor hunter.


HAAAAAAAAAAAA A good one!

Eating meat is one of the main reason 97% of us are here today. So that
some can practice such things as homosexuality, which produces no
offspring, and liberalism, which produces nothing. If our ancestors
were alive today, they would kill us with heavy rocks and sharp sticks
for being such boobs.

Steve

On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:28:01 -0700, SteveB wrote:

According to the God-fearing Republicans over at Fox News (and
Republicans don't lie) :

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/0...-cause-cancer/



I see the words,"so far, it is unsure ..............." So,to err on the
side of good, let's just run around willy nilly chicken little until the
facts come in, like we do on every other thing. I think if eating
charred meat were bad, we'd be extinct by now, or have incredibly higher
cancer rates. But then, when you talk on a cell phone, and eat burnt
meat, your chances must soar meteorically, as everyone knows now that
talking with a cell phone next to your ear causes cancer.

Those who are most afraid of life are those afraid to live it. Everyone
dies from something. Spend your time on living things, and not things
that are rumored to kill you. Next week, it will be canned peaches.

Sheesh.

Steve,

You made my day. Glad to see you in good spirits. I think you just
poked the guy's eye out, I hope he doesn't die. I almost had a little
char on my homemade egg rolls last night...

(tears in my eyes)

On Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:13:44 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:28:01 -0700, SteveB wrote:



According to the God-fearing Republicans over at Fox News (and

Republicans don't lie) :



http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/0...-cause-cancer/







I see the words,"so far, it is unsure ..............." So,to err on the

side of good, let's just run around willy nilly chicken little until the

facts come in, like we do on every other thing. I think if eating

charred meat were bad, we'd be extinct by now, or have incredibly higher

cancer rates. But then, when you talk on a cell phone, and eat burnt

meat, your chances must soar meteorically, as everyone knows now that

talking with a cell phone next to your ear causes cancer.



Those who are most afraid of life are those afraid to live it. Everyone

dies from something. Spend your time on living things, and not things

that are rumored to kill you. Next week, it will be canned peaches.



Sheesh.



Steve,



You made my day. Glad to see you in good spirits. I think you just

poked the guy's eye out, I hope he doesn't die. I almost had a little

char on my homemade egg rolls last night...



(tears in my eyes)

I went over the the American Heat Assoc and used the heart attack risk
calculator. I'd done it years ago, but Kurt brought it up and got me
thinking about it again. Like Kurt said, it puts things into perspective.
You can put actual numbers in for blood pressure, weight, height,
cholesterol numbers, and see what happens. The interesting part is
someone at ideal weight for their height, 120/80 BP,
cholesterol at the recommended low levels, my age, has 6% chance of having
a heart attack in the next ten years. Change it to overweight, 149/110, cholesterol way above recommended, and you get an 8% chance. And the
overweight part can be just one pound over ideal or up to about 35 pounds
over.

So, fix all those things and you go from 8% to 6%. As Kurt pointed out,
the media would report that as your risk of hear attack is 33% greater,
if you don't fix it,
but given the risk goes from 6% to just 8%, is it worth it?
Even more interesting and profoundly
dumb in my opinion is that at the end they show you things that you
could change, ie BP, cholesterol, stop smoking. Nothing there at all for
WEIGHT. IMO, that whole thing is a farce. Because it does ask you if
you have diabetes and that raises the risk of a heart attack tremendously,
How do you get diabetes? By being significantly overweight, yet since
they have no mention of it in the things you can change, apparently the
AHA has given up on obesity. And by the results of the calculator being
35 pounds overweight only increases your risk slightly.

On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:32:10 -0700, SteveB wrote:

Vegan - Old Indian word for poor hunter.


HAAAAAAAAAAAA A good one!

Eating meat is one of the main reason 97% of us are here today. So that
some can practice such things as homosexuality, which produces no
offspring, and liberalism, which produces nothing. If our ancestors
were alive today, they would kill us with heavy rocks and sharp sticks
for being such boobs.

Steve

Back then you could yell FIRE!

They used AR-15 Assault Rocks. Cut off the horns, wipe its ass and put
it on a plate. It was before soccer.

On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:12:54 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

AHA has given up on obesity. And by the results of the calculator being
35 pounds overweight only increases your risk slightly.

I'm carrying some poundage.

On 6/19/2014 10:12 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:13:44 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:28:01 -0700, SteveB wrote:



According to the God-fearing Republicans over at Fox News (and

Republicans don't lie) :



http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/0...-cause-cancer/







I see the words,"so far, it is unsure ..............." So,to err on the

side of good, let's just run around willy nilly chicken little until the

facts come in, like we do on every other thing. I think if eating

charred meat were bad, we'd be extinct by now, or have incredibly higher

cancer rates. But then, when you talk on a cell phone, and eat burnt

meat, your chances must soar meteorically, as everyone knows now that

talking with a cell phone next to your ear causes cancer.



Those who are most afraid of life are those afraid to live it. Everyone

dies from something. Spend your time on living things, and not things

that are rumored to kill you. Next week, it will be canned peaches.



Sheesh.



Steve,



You made my day. Glad to see you in good spirits. I think you just

poked the guy's eye out, I hope he doesn't die. I almost had a little

char on my homemade egg rolls last night...



(tears in my eyes)

I went over the the American Heat Assoc and used the heart attack risk
calculator. I'd done it years ago, but Kurt brought it up and got me
thinking about it again. Like Kurt said, it puts things into perspective.
You can put actual numbers in for blood pressure, weight, height,
cholesterol numbers, and see what happens. The interesting part is
someone at ideal weight for their height, 120/80 BP,
cholesterol at the recommended low levels, my age, has 6% chance of having
a heart attack in the next ten years. Change it to overweight, 149/110, cholesterol way above recommended, and you get an 8% chance. And the
overweight part can be just one pound over ideal or up to about 35 pounds
over.

That whole statement and study can be thrown into the bin because it has
no category for hereditary, and family history. Yes, what is stated
above might be somewhat true, but in the group where heart trouble runs
in the family, the %'s are through the roof.



So, fix all those things and you go from 8% to 6%. As Kurt pointed out,
the media would report that as your risk of hear attack is 33% greater,
if you don't fix it,
but given the risk goes from 6% to just 8%, is it worth it?
Even more interesting and profoundly
dumb in my opinion is that at the end they show you things that you
could change, ie BP, cholesterol, stop smoking. Nothing there at all for
WEIGHT. IMO, that whole thing is a farce. Because it does ask you if
you have diabetes and that raises the risk of a heart attack tremendously,
How do you get diabetes? By being significantly overweight, yet since
they have no mention of it in the things you can change, apparently the
AHA has given up on obesity. And by the results of the calculator being
35 pounds overweight only increases your risk slightly.



As our press has proven time and time and time again, you can find
statistics to support ANY conclusion.

Steve

Oren writes:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:17:34 -0600, Arthur Conan Doyle
wrote:

Oren wrote:

My gas grill has a single burner on the back -
above the grates. So far no problem, but it is seldom used.

Same here. That burner is intended for rotisserie cooking. While it may look
good in the store, who roasts a chicken these days when you can buy one for $5
at Costco?

Well, you do pay an annual membership so the $5 chicken will cost more
than you think. I made sum dang good southern fired chicken recently.

If you can't save the $55/year membership fee in four or less visits,
you're not doing something right. If you spend $100/week at costco,
you should get an executive membership for $110/year and get it your $110 back
at the end of the year (2% rebate on all purchases). One big
purchase (e.g. a TV) will save you more than $55.

The rotisserie chickens at costco aren't injected (no more than any
uncooked chicken you buy at any store) and they seldom sit under IR
for very long - they sell very well.

trader_4 writes:
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:13:44 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:28:01 -0700, SteveB wrote:


I went over the the American Heat Assoc and used the heart attack risk
calculator. I'd done it years ago, but Kurt brought it up and got me
thinking about it again. Like Kurt said, it puts things into perspective.
You can put actual numbers in for blood pressure, weight, height,
cholesterol numbers, and see what happens. The interesting part is
someone at ideal weight for their height, 120/80 BP,
cholesterol at the recommended low levels, my age, has 6% chance of having
a heart attack in the next ten years. Change it to overweight, 149/110, cholesterol way above recommended, and you get an 8% chance. And the
overweight part can be just one pound over ideal or up to about 35 pounds
over.

The part you (and the web site) leave out, is the most important part.

The important part is genetic. A family with a history of heart disease pretty
much means that that 6% or 8% you cite get bumped to 20% or 30% or more.

Don't rely on a website, get a medical opinion. always.

In article ,
(Scott Lurndal) wrote:

trader_4 writes:
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:13:44 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:28:01 -0700, SteveB wrote:


I went over the the American Heat Assoc and used the heart attack risk
calculator. I'd done it years ago, but Kurt brought it up and got me
thinking about it again. Like Kurt said, it puts things into perspective.
You can put actual numbers in for blood pressure, weight, height,
cholesterol numbers, and see what happens. The interesting part is
someone at ideal weight for their height, 120/80 BP,
cholesterol at the recommended low levels, my age, has 6% chance of having
a heart attack in the next ten years. Change it to overweight, 149/110,
cholesterol way above recommended, and you get an 8% chance. And the
overweight part can be just one pound over ideal or up to about 35 pounds
over.

The part you (and the web site) leave out, is the most important part.

The important part is genetic. A family with a history of heart disease
pretty
much means that that 6% or 8% you cite get bumped to 20% or 30% or more.

Don't rely on a website, get a medical opinion. always.

The AHA site, anyway, includes questions about family history. Since I
don't have one, I don't know right off how that would impact.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On 06/19/2014 01:12 PM, trader_4 wrote:
I went over the the American Heat Assoc and used the heart attack risk
calculator.

Use the one at American Furnace Assoc as it's more accurate.