Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Can of Baked beans - profound question

2»

Comments

  • #52
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    Just opened a tin of Heinz beans with sausages.
    Somehow putting sausages in there ruins both the sausages and the beans.


  • #53
    lazeedaisy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,337 ✭✭✭lazeedaisy


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    Just opened a tin of Heinz beans with sausages.

    This is what the hubby turns to for comfort food, :rolleyes:


  • #54
    ardle1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,521 ✭✭✭ardle1


    masculinist wrote: »
    But the thread is not about individual beans. That would be as absurd as promoting the Iron content of the can itself :D ... [Beans high in Iron because of the can in small print :D ]

    The figures I quoted were read directly off 2 cans ...

    Your probably right, it's 'bean' a while since I done my thesis on the bean......:D


  • #55
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Gavin Blue Shoelace wrote: »
    Beans ruin every dinner. That disgusting tomato sauce just gets everywhere :(

    You need to squeeze that sauce shít out, I use the lid for this purpose. The delicious beans, freezing cold from the fridge may then be eaten direct from the tin as nature intended. Combine with a can of beer for a perfect tv dinner.:D


  • #56
    caolfx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 161 ✭✭caolfx


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    Just opened a tin of Heinz beans with sausages.

    Meat like that from a can is just wrong. Wrong! Wrong I tell ya!


  • #57
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,489 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Open up a tin of cassoulet and eat beans the way God intended.


  • #58
    Valetta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,611 ✭✭✭Valetta


    masculinist wrote: »
    I have 2 cans of Baked Beans in Tomato sauce here. One is Heinz and the other is Batchelors
    When you look at the ingredients to where it says : Carbs: of which sugars:

    Heinz has : Sugars 5g per 100g or 5% which compares to protein of 4.7%
    Batchelors has 4.9 g per 100g or 4.9% which compares to protein of 4%

    So the sugars are higher than the proteins in both cases.

    OP- If the All-Ireland hurling final replay ends with the score:

    Kilkenny 8-9 Tipperary 6-10

    One would be inclined to say that there was a very high number of goals in the match, whereas the number of points was quite low.
    This despite the fact that there was more points than goals scored.

    Now do you understand in the context of the can of beans?


  • #59
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Sigh.

    You dont compare sugar content with protein content, they are completely separate.
    .....
    you should feel bad.

    Eh no I shouldn't feel bad..... are you a 'thread shamer' ? :D

    All I did was compare claims using the words ''high in'' and ''low in'' despite the % relationship being totally the other way around. The substance claimed to be a ''high'' component was actually less of a % than the substance claimed to be a ''low'' component.


  • #60
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    Valetta wrote: »
    OP- If the All-Ireland hurling final replay ends with the score:

    Kilkenny 8-9 Tipperary 6-10

    One would be inclined to say that there was a very high number of goals in the match, whereas the number of points was quite low.
    This despite the fact that there was more points than goals scored.

    Now do you understand in the context of the can of beans?

    mind=blown


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Tiddlypeeps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


    Valetta wrote: »
    OP- If the All-Ireland hurling final replay ends with the score:

    Kilkenny 8-9 Tipperary 6-10

    One would be inclined to say that there was a very high number of goals in the match, whereas the number of points was quite low.
    This despite the fact that there was more points than goals scored.

    Now do you understand in the context of the can of beans?

    That example only works because their are typically a low number of goals and a high number of points in a game.

    Where is the comparison for a tin of beans? Raw beans and pulses in general have a much higher protein percentage, it's the sugary sauce that pushes the ratio out.


  • #62
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    We're bean deceived!


  • #63
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,253 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    masculinist wrote: »
    Eh no I shouldn't feel bad..... are you a 'thread shamer' ? :D

    All I did was compare claims using the words ''high in'' and ''low in'' despite the % relationship being totally the other way around. The substance claimed to be a ''high'' component was actually less of a % than the substance claimed to be a ''low'' component.


    High in one thing and low in another thing...these things are unrelated.

    If I had 3 legs and 9 fingers my body would be high in legs and low in fingers.
    Tiddlypeeps wrote: »
    That example only works because their are typically a low number of goals and a high number of points in a game.

    Where is the comparison for a tin of beans? Raw beans and pulses in general have a much higher protein percentage, it's the sugary sauce that pushes the ratio out.
    Gee, do you think that, perhaps, now stick with me as this might be crazy, a can of beans normally has "less" protein and "more" sugar than this particular can?


  • #64
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    GreeBo wrote: »
    High in one thing and low in another thing...these things are unrelated.

    If I had 3 legs and 9 fingers my body would be high in legs and low in fingers.


    Gee, do you think that, perhaps, now stick with me as this might be crazy, a can of beans normally has "less" protein and "more" sugar than this particular can?

    Your missing finger analogy works fine for my argument as well as yours...
    Beans are naturally low in sugar so you cant exactly add sugar to beans and then claim them to be low in sugar , can you ? compared to how beans occur naturally they will be high in sugar, sort of like having an additional finger :)


  • #65
    131spanner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭131spanner


    2 tins for 58c in Lidl, 15 fish fingers for €1.35.

    2 nights worth of dinner for under €2, a beautiful thing. God bless you Lidl.


  • #66
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    131spanner wrote: »
    2 tins for 58c in Lidl, 15 fish fingers for €1.35.

    2 nights worth of dinner for under €2, a beautiful thing. God bless you Lidl.

    is that all you eat over 2 days ?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    rawn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,093 ✭✭✭rawn


    The Gordon Ramsay recipe for baked beans is amazing.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-2425044/Food-special-Home-baked-beans-potato-cakes.html

    The tinned ones are overly sweet. Blegh.


  • #68
    COYVB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,660 ✭✭✭COYVB


    thread has inspired me to have a tin of beans


  • #69
    GreeBo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,253 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    masculinist wrote: »
    Your missing finger analogy works fine for my argument as well as yours...
    Beans are naturally low in sugar so you cant exactly add sugar to beans and then claim them to be low in sugar , can you ? compared to how beans occur naturally they will be high in sugar, sort of like having an additional finger :)

    It's normal to add sugar to beans though...I'm really not sure you getting this.


  • #70
    131spanner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭131spanner


    masculinist wrote: »
    is that all you eat over 2 days ?

    Worth of dinners I said, a tin of beans and 7 fish fingers is filling!

    Not the healthiest of dinners, of course, but for a lowly student... :D


  • #71
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    GreeBo wrote: »
    It's normal to add sugar to beans though...I'm really not sure you getting this.

    ''Beans are low in sugars (and thats being generous to the mix of carbs) until someone adds sugar in which case they become a high in sugar product'' is my argument. Normality or abnormality has nothing to do with whether it is high or low in sugar. It doesn't make any sense to tie conventions concerning normality to this. That sort of thinking basically means they can continue to call it low in sugar even if the marketing Dept had pulled off the task of convincing everyone that a Kilo of sugar added per can was ''normal.'' (Adding any sugar artificially would automatically make me view it as being high in sugar but thats' just my opinion.)


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    delw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,655 ✭✭✭delw


    Is it not the bean that has the protein? If so wash the sauce off them & there's all your protein

    Just sayin


  • #73
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    delw wrote: »
    Is it not the bean that has the protein? If so wash the sauce off them & there's all your protein

    Just sayin

    Of course thats where the protein is but who can resist the Tomato sauce !!!!!!!


  • #74
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,382 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    Brennans bread advertise their white slice pan as being a source of protein.

    They seem to have pre-empted complaints and so point out the regulation which allows them to just about legally make this claim.

    http://www.brennansbread.ie/family-pan/


    Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on food

    Source of Protein

    A claim that a food is a source of protein, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where at least 12% of the energy value of the food is provided by protein.

    The calculation below uses the protein conversion factor of 4 kcal/g to determine the amount of the energy from protein in the product:

    % energy from protein =


    Grams of protein per 100g of product x Conversion factor for protein x 100

    Total Energy per 100g 1



    Brennans Family Pan grams of protein per 100g is 8.7g

    Brennans Family Pan calories per 100g is 219kcals

    Brennans Family Pan % energy from protein:


    8.7g x 4kcal/g x 100 = 15.89%

    219kcals 1

    Therefore meets outlined criteria above.

    Low Fat

    A claim that a food is low in fat, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product contains no more than 3g of fat per 100g for solids or 1.5g fat per 100ml for liquids (1.8g of fat per 100ml for semi-skimmed milk).

    Brennans Family Pan contains 1.4g of fat per 100g of product, therefore meeting the criteria for the claim above.


  • #75
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    I saw that and actually thought that ''bodybuilder'' bread advert was weird. They should be careful that on the ground the consumer will probably slag the advert when he sees it with people who are around him. Same thing with protein milk ... better protein but doesnt seem like a lot more ...

    My personal hate however is reserved for the McDonalds ad which is pure propaganda against Avocados and other amazing foods.... How is that one legal ? In a time when people are discussing a ''junk food tax'' and blaming fast food for so many health issues (instead of the choices individuals make), does McDonalds really have any self awareness of what it just did with that advert ?


  • #76
    Ronan|Raven
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,147 ✭✭✭Ronan|Raven


    :o:o:o:o:o
    masculinist wrote: »
    If the protein in a can of baked beans is much less than 5% and the sugar added to a can is 5% then how can they market themselves as ''high in protein'' and ''low in sugar'' ?

    How does any of that make sense when the reality is their notable feature is being high in carbs instead ? A fact conveniently ignored ?


  • #77
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    Ronan|Raven wrote: »
    what a load of rubbish over a can of beans. try the real world!


    Apologies but being new here may I ask if I allowed to ask this poster if he is mental ? The correct response to rubbish is to ignore it. The correct response to a topic which interests you is to contribute towards it.


  • #78
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    masculinist wrote: »
    The correct response to rubbish is to ignore it.

    Ignore rubbish? Why?


  • #79
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    catallus wrote: »
    Ignore rubbish? Why?

    what a load of pedantic rubbish over a can of beans thread . try the real world!


  • #80
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    Are you saying the beans aren't real?

    Because I have my suspicions too.

    We must speak of this further.


  • #81
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    catallus wrote: »
    Are you saying the beans aren't real?

    Because I have my suspicions too.

    We must speak of this further.

    I can upload pictures of the cans in question which are now serving out a considerable period of solitary confinement in my kitchen cupboard !


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Tail Docker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,954 ✭✭✭Tail Docker


    Lapin wrote: »
    Might as well make this worth our while.

    There are 11 spoonfulls of sugar in a can of cider.



    How many cans of cider do I need to drink each day to meet my recommended daily allowance (30 gms) of sugar ?

    3. Assuming gms stands for "Great Massive Spoonfuls"


  • #83
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    Yes yes yes, it is all very well to see the beans, to hold the beans, but the salient question here is: what are the beans, categorically?

    Do they exist as they are? Or are they as you see them, as you perceive them?

    Can one truly perceive the bean(s)? And if so is it at the cost of knowing something other than the beans?


  • #84
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    catallus wrote: »
    Yes yes yes, it is all very well to see the beans, to hold the beans, but the salient question here is: what are the beans, categorically?

    Do they exist as they are? Or are they as you see them, as you perceive them?

    Can one truly perceive the bean(s)? And if so is it at the cost of knowing something other than the beans?

    It's not the beans which make a can. It's the space between the beans which actually defines the beans.


  • #85
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    masculinist wrote: »
    It's not the beans which make a can.

    I can't, in good conscience, subscribe to this heretical proposition.

    How on earth can the can be with no beans?

    No. The can and the beans are one, and are at one, at that.


  • #86
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    catallus wrote: »
    I can't, in good conscience, subscribe to this heretical proposition.

    How on earth can the can be with no beans?

    No. The can and the beans are one, and are at one, at that.

    The space inside a can of beans if removed would result in a singularity which would bean apocalypse.

    If there was no space between the individual beans though then what would you have on your hands ? It would not be a can of beans. Perhaps it would be a block of bean protein/curd but not a can of individual beans as we know them.


  • #87
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    I am presuming that the space between the individual beans (if they do, in fact, exist at all) is filled with tomato sauce?

    That goes without saying, I would have thought?


  • #88
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    catallus wrote: »
    I am presuming that the space between the individual beans (if they do, in fact, exist at all) is filled with tomato sauce?

    That goes without saying, I would have thought?

    but the space between the atoms of both sauce and beans is larger than the actual space taken up by the protons,neutrons and electrons...


  • #89
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    This is a common misconception. The atoms are space. There is nothing (or nothingness, if you want to get all Heideggerian about it) between the atoms, but only space between what the atoms constitute.


  • #90
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    catallus wrote: »
    This is a common misconception. The atoms are space. There is nothing (or nothingness, if you want to get all Heideggerian about it) between the atoms, but only space between what the atoms constitute.

    but without the space between them actually makes them what they are


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    catallus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭catallus


    masculinist wrote: »
    but without the space between them actually makes them what they are

    It's that type of materialist relativism that has us in this bloody mess, can't you see???? :mad:


  • #92
    Fat Christy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,866 ✭✭✭Fat Christy


    Blasphemy!

    I love beans!! I usually lick all the sauce off them before I chew on them. Nom!!


  • #93
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    Fat Christy wrote: »
    Blasphemy!

    I love beans!! I usually lick all the sauce off them before I chew on them. Nom!!

    Do you have photos by any chance ?


  • #94
    Fat Christy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,866 ✭✭✭Fat Christy


    masculinist wrote: »
    Do you have photos by any chance ?

    You'll have to pay if you want photos!


Advertisement