Jump to content

admin

How many calories in a Jimmy John's Roast Beef and Provolone Sub?

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

admin -
Space Merchant -
4
95

Top Posters


Recommended Posts


Calories 807.3
Carbs 66.67 g
Fat 34.77 g
Saturated Fat 9.5 g
Cholesterol 108.4 mg
Fiber 0.89 g
Protein 51.67 g
Sodium 1781.28 mg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@admin Sometimes that isn't accurate, for it can be a little more or a little less of what is given to you.

On 5/11/2019 at 11:08 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I suspect that not eating Jimmy John's Roast Beef and Provolone Sub will not make you live longer ... it will just seem like an eternity.

Reasons why I prefer all things in line with longevity, which works very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Written by Lara Starr of www.theearthchild.co.za

      Some companies should be boycotted for various reasons. Jimmy John’s is ABSOLUTELY one of them. And no, this isn’t about many of the issues people are always talking about when it comes to working for Jimmy John’s either. Like the fact that they force their sick employees to work for fear of losing their jobs. And if they get fired or quit, they’re not allowed to work at any sandwich shop or restaurant within a 3 mile radius of a Jimmy John’s either.. Which is pretty infuriating to hear even if you’re not an ex employee sick of making slave wages. (Read about all that here).
      No. Today we’re talking about the owner, Jimmy John Liautaud himself, who is a complete f*cking a$$hole and psychopath who loves to spend your sandwich money on killing endangered animals in Africa.
      Heeeere’s Jimmy! Posing happily with the endangered bull elephant he just cowardly shot:

      Jimmy comes to South Africa (and sometimes Namibia or Botswana) quite frequently. When he does, he easily drops more than a quarter million dollars on a single trophy hunt.
      Like on this trip, when he butchered an EXTREMELY ENDANGERED female Black Rhino. She was the very last black rhino in the Mangetti National Park. Buying her just to kill her and take her horn (as a trophy) cost Jimmy over $350,000 dollars. He doesn’t seem to mind spending that much though does he? Just look how happy he is!

      Oh look. Here’s another elephant he killed for fun. Are you aware that poachers ALONE kill 94 elephants a day? That’s far more elephants dying before they can even reproduce. Between poachers and jerkoffs like this, Africa is losing its big game very quickly. It is highly likely that elephants and rhinos can (and probably will be) completely extinct in the wild within the next decade.

      So how does it work? Well, usually the animals are lured from a national park on to private property. Trophy hunters will leave out bait, play the sounds of other animals to lure them in, or a few other tactics to find their animal victims. Canned hunting is even worse. It is the ‘shooting fish in a barrel’ version of trophy hunting. The animals are often hand raised so they are tame and don’t run away. They leave food out for them one day, then some coward creeps up and shoots them with a high powered bow or rifle. Sometimes they don’t even have to creep. Sometimes they just shoot them from the back of a truck then go back to drinking their Gin & Tonic like it was just a bit of harmless fun.
      (I have no idea how people can consider this sickening practice a ‘sport’…)
      Part of the infuriating thing about this behavior is the fact that people like Jimmy have the audacity to call themselves ‘Conservationists’ and claim that their trophy hunts benefit conservation and local communities. REAL conservationists give their time and money WITHOUT insisting on killing something in return.
      Well, I live in South Africa. I spent more than a year living and working in The Kruger National Park. I know many rangers. I also know professional hunters. I know owners of big game farms, and I know the situation with Africa’s wildlife pretty damn well by now. This is why I can say with absolute confidence that Jimmy is absolutely full of crap when he claims that trophy hunting funds conservation, feeds starving villages or keeps the ecosystem in balance by keeping animal numbers down. Those are 100% lies perpetuated by the trophy hunting industry and they’re easily disproved.
      It is well known here that trophy hunting funds less than 2% of our conservation efforts in South Africa. Normal tourism (as in shooting animals with cameras only) raises over 15x more money for conservation than any form of trophy hunting in Africa does. Without brutally killing anything. Most people who do trophy or canned hunting like this, are only fattening the wallets of wealthy game farm owners who only care to protect their own animals from poachers coming on their property. This does nothing to protect animals in the ‘wild’ national parks where most endangered animals live.
      As for feeding locals, 9 times out of 10 the meat from a trophy hunt (especially if it’s a large animal) is left in the dirt for the scavengers because they cant be bothered to move the body or process it. Plus, the locals here don’t eat lions, rhinos or elephants anyway. They eat fish, chicken, pork and beef like most people around the world do.
      When it comes to animal numbers, I wont deny that there are some species that are breeding out of control. Impala and warthog are often culled for this reason. I know a guy that kills an impala every single day as part of his ranger job. You know why that is? BECAUSE HUNTERS HAVE KILLED MOST OF THEIR NATURAL PREDATORS. Then the prey become outnumbered, they eat up all the food before it has a chance to grow back and then all the animals starve. That’s why Rangers have to shoot so many of them to try to keep the ecosystem in balance. But that’s just it.. Nobody comes here to shoot an impala. They come here to shoot lions, leopards, elephants and other big 5 animals more than anything else, thus making the imbalance in the ecosystem even worse, not better.
      Ecosystems need to be better protected. Especially fragile ones that are so out of balance due to over hunting, poaching and habitat loss, like the African bush. A$$HOLES like Jimmy John are part of the problem, and so are you if they give him your money.
       
      http://collectivelyconscious.net/articles/this-sickening-reason-is-why-you-should-never-buy-food-from-jimmy-johns-again/
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Infrared heat is — quite literally — the hottest new health craze in town. Gwyneth Paltrow Gooped about it. Oprah Dr. Oz–ed about it. And now there’s Higher Dose, an East Village spa specifically devoted to the cult of infrared-sauna-ing, located in the basement of a pricey herbatorium. Wander down any day of the week and you might catch Leonardo DiCaprio,Michelle Williams, Bijou Phillips, or a scrum of IMG fashion models sweating their sins away in Higher Dose’s personal state-of-the-art thermae. Twilight actress Casey LaBow and model Carolyn Murphy have also Instagrammed about it.
      “A lot of actors and models become addicted to our saunas because of how much better your skin looks and your energy improves right away,” says 31-year-old Higher Dose co-founder Katie Kaps, an ex–Wall Street financier who looks like a rocker version of Mira Sorvino. “It’s the perfect thing to do before a red-carpet strut. Or a hot date.” The much-touted benefits of infrared heat include weight loss, detox from “heavy metals” or “toxins,” increased serotonin levels, muscle-pain relief, and an incredibly smooth and luminous complexion.
      Dr. Frank Lipman is a big fan. The Manhattan-based Be Well founder and holistic doctor (Gwyneth Paltrow’s guru) claims that infrared heat penetrates the skin more deeply than regular heat, and that the resultant sweating is more profuse, enabling your body to excrete a higher percentage of toxins than with a conventional sauna. “The plentiful sweating you’ll do during a sauna session will register immediately on the scale as weight loss,” says Lipman. “Most of the weight loss will be ‘water weight,’ which will return when you re-hydrate. However, there is evidence that infrared saunas, because of their ability to penetrate the skin more deeply, increase metabolic rate and can help the body burn off anywhere from 200 to 600 calories in a half-hour session.”
      And how, as he proposes, do infrared saunas make you look younger? “They help improve skin tone and reduce signs of aging by stimulating better circulation, blood flow, and increased collagen production — all of which improve the look of your skin. The increased circulation, elimination of toxins, and flushing out of cellular debris enhance overall skin health, giving it a more radiant appearance, without a trip to Sephora!”
      Lipman also believes the saunas improve your state of mind, to an extent. “Although the influence on serotonin levels and endorphins isn’t a definite result,” he says, “spending time in an infrared sauna often results in an elevated and more relaxed mood.”
      “I fell in love with infrared saunas the first time I tried it,” says Kaps. “I felt like I had just run a marathon up a mountain! The buzz afterwards! Like I had purged out all my transgressions. And I’ve never found a better way to get my skin glowing.”
      “And the sweat!” says other co-founder Lauren Berlingeri. “So much sweat. I’m drenched every inch after each sauna. Infrared is the real-deal detox.Most ‘cleanses’ don’t actually pull toxins out of the body. Infrared pulls heavy metals, environmental pollutants, and radiation [from] deep within the body that [are] stored in your fat cells. That is why the sweat from our saunas is oily and not salty like typical workout sweat.” Normally, whenever I hear talk of pulling toxins out of my body, I know we’re in a world of make-believe. What is infrared really, and what do these saunas actuallydo?
      Infrared is a type of light that surrounds us but we can’t see. Its wavelength is longer than any shade of red light our eyes can make out. There are three kinds: hot near-infrared wavelengths (from heat like fire or your body), thermal mid-infrared wavelengths (used by the military for heat-seeking missiles), and not-hot far-infrared wavelengths (the ones used by remote controls). In 1800, Sir Frederick William Herschel was the first to discover infrared heat and infrared light (all heat gives off light, so it’s po-tay-to po-tah-to). The German astronomer came across the phenomenon while studying the temperature patterns of rainbows he created by shining sunlight through a glass prism. In the 20th century, NASA developed infrared technology. The astronauts use it to take photos of outer space to better detect clouds and heat. Pink Floyd used infrared photography on the infamous pyramid album cover for “Dark Side of the Moon.” Art conservationists use infrared to detect underlying layers of paint (how a portrait of a man was made invisible underneath Picasso’s “Woman Ironing” and “Blue Room”). A lot of devices use infrared technology, like remote controls and night-vision goggles, and it’s even used to incubate premature babies.
      Still, I felt a little nervous about my first infrared-sauna experience. I booked a full hour in the sauna and feared it would be like the torturous hot box in Django Unchained. Infrared saunas are not as hot as regular saunas (about 150 degrees Fahrenheit instead of 212 degrees), but still sweltering. And even in regular temperatures I wasn’t sure if I was comfortable sitting alone for an hour in a small space.
      The first thing I noticed when I wandered downstairs to Higher Dose was the sleek Scandinavian witch vibe. The spare warehouselike basement space is juxtaposed with woodsy stump ottomans and ultramodern but naturalist black honeycomb asymmetrical benches. I was escorted to a private sauna room with giant tropical foliage murals on the walls, towels, lots of water, and a wooden seat covered in a towel inside a human-size glass box.
      Health-benefit hype true or false, the saunas are like personal meditationrooms. On the ceiling of each one is an LED chromatherapy light box that you can either manually change to any color you desire, or have automatically cycle through the spectrum. I liked the rainbow cycle best. I spent most sessions supine, staring into those colored lights and feeling not unlike I did a few years back on the floor of the Guggenheim soaking in theJames Turrell installation.
      Each sauna is also furnished with speakers and a little wooden box to plug in your phone or mp3 player and charge or play whatever jams you like without Siri telling you she’s overheated. I became obsessed with finding the perfect infrared-sauna album to warm up and chill out. Didi, the blue-haired tattooed pixie who escorted me to my room, told me she could only listen to binaural beats on her headphones to truly meditate in the sauna. But the saunas are the grooviest private spaces to truly focus on a great album, and I was dead-set on finding the record for the experience. I had the most success playing Brian Eno — both his classic ambient Music for Airports album and his latest release, The Ship, which ends with a super-slowed-down cover of Velvet’s “I’m Set Free.” It was the exact East Village hot-box out-of-body hour I needed.
      When I first left the sauna, I felt dazed, dizzy, and boiled, like a Louisiana crawdaddy. And, boy, was I oily, not salty at all. But after about five minutes, the initial post-sauna stupor wore off, and I felt unbelievably charged and clear-headed. My formerly sore back muscles felt painless and terrific, like I’d just spent an hour at yoga. And I truly did glow. I got lots of compliments that night.
      Barely a day later I found myself jonesing for another pass. I’ve tried the saunas another half-dozen times since my first session, and I’ll probably keep going. Even during the heat wave (#HeatDome), I keep craving a fix of that special invisible-light heat. Perhaps the saunas just provide a meditative escape from the grind of the city for me, or perhaps psychologically I need them to keep increasing my endorphins and serotonin levels.
      Bran Ferren, a former Disney Imagineering chief who developed the first infrared-suppressing sunglasses (Revo) and has served on government advisory boards for science and technology, is not so sure. “Infrared light is the majority of the spectral content of sunlight,” says Ferren. “It’s simply heat. So if being under a heat lamp makes you feel warm and cozy — great! The energy in the infrared spectrum heats you up. That’s it. If that relaxes you. Great! If it makes you sweat, great! However, all these claims of miraculous benefits are simply without scientific merit.”
      Some people just can’t see the light.
      http://nymag.com/thecut/swellness/2016/07/infrared-sauna-benefits.html
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      The federal government’s decision to update food labels last monthmarked a sea change for consumers: For the first time, beginning in 2018, nutrition labels will be required to list a breakdown of both the total sugars and the added sugars in packaged foods. But is sugar really that bad for you? And is the sugar added to foods really more harmful than the sugars found naturally in foods?
      We spoke with some top scientists who study sugar and its effects on metabolic health to help answer some common questions about sugar. Here’s what they had to say.
      Why are food labels being revised?
      The shift came after years of urging by many nutrition experts, who say that excess sugar is a primary cause of obesity and heart disease, the leading killer of Americans. Many in the food industry opposed the emphasis on added sugars, arguing that the focus should be on calories rather than sugar. They say that highlighting added sugar on labels is unscientific, and that the sugar that occurs naturally in foods like fruits and vegetables is essentially no different than the sugar commonly added to packaged foods. But scientists say it is not that simple.
      So, is added sugar different from the naturally occurring sugar in food?
      It depends. Most sugars are essentially combinations of two molecules, glucose and fructose, in different ratios. The sugar in a fresh apple, for instance, is generally the same as the table sugar that might be added to homemade apple pie. Both are known technically as sucrose, and they are broken down in the intestine into glucose and fructose. Glucose can be metabolized by any cell in the body. But fructose is handled almost exclusively by the liver.
      “Once you get to that point, the liver doesn’t know whether it came from fruit or not,” said Kimber Stanhope, a researcher at the University of California, Davis, who studies the effects of sugar on health. Dr. Stanhope noted that while the liver may not know whether the fructose came from an apple or a soft drink, the way the liver processes that fructose could possibly be affected by some of the beneficial components in fruit. In contrast to soda, fruit contains fiber, vitamins, minerals and numerous other bioactive components. “We don’t know if and how these components may counteract the negative effects of fructose overload in the liver,” she said.
      The type of sugar that is often added to processed foods is high-fructose corn syrup, which is the food industry’s favored sweetener for everything from soft drinks to breads, sauces, snacks and salad dressings. Made commercially from cornstarch, high-fructose corn syrup is generally much cheaper than regular sugar. It contains the same components as table sugar – glucose and fructose – but in slightly different proportions.
      What about “natural” sweeteners?
      Food companies like to market agave nectar, beet sugar, evaporated cane juice and many other “natural” sweeteners as healthier alternatives to high-fructose corn syrup. But whatever their source, they are all very similar. To suggest one is healthier than another is a stretch, experts say. In fact, last month, the F.D.A. urged food companies to stop using the term evaporated cane juice because it is “false or misleading” and “does not reveal that the ingredient’s basic nature and characterizing properties are those of a sugar.”
      Is high-fructose corn syrup worse than regular sugar? How is it different?
      High-fructose corn syrup and regular sugar are so similar that most experts say their effects on the body are essentially the same.
      The main difference is that the variety of high-fructose corn syrup used in soft drinks tends to have more fructose. In one 2014 study, researchers analyzed more than a dozen popular soft drinks and found that many sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup – including Pepsi, Sprite, Mountain Dew, Coca-Cola and Arizona Iced Tea – contained roughly 40 percent glucose and 60 percent fructose. Regular sugar contains equal parts glucose and fructose.
      Why doesn’t the F.D.A. require that added sugars be listed in teaspoons rather than grams?
      When the new food labels go into effect, the daily recommended limit for added sugars will be 50 grams, or roughly 12 teaspoons, daily. (One teaspoon of sugar is 4.2 grams.) But the new food labels will list the amount of added sugars solely in grams.
      Many nutrition advocates have urged the F.D.A. to require that food labels list added sugars in both teaspoons and grams on food labels, arguing that Americans often underestimate the actual amount of sugar in a product when it’s expressed in grams alone.
      But the F.D.A. ultimately sided with the food industry, which opposed the teaspoon proposal.
      “It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a manufacturer to determine the volume contribution that each ingredient provides toward the added sugars declaration,” the agency said. “For example, a cookie made with white chocolate chips and dried fruit would have added sugars in the form of sugar in the batter as well as in the white chocolate chips and the dried fruit.” The F.D.A. also said that requiring both grams and teaspoons would “cause clutter and make the labels more difficult to read.”
      But Michael Jacobson, the president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group that had petitioned the F.D.A. to require the teaspoon measurement, said the agency was under enormous pressure from the food industry, “which knows that consumers would be far more concerned about a product labeled 10 teaspoons than 42 grams.”
      So what’s the issue with added sugars?
      It mainly comes down to the way they’re packaged.
      Naturally occurring sugar is almost always found in foods that contain fiber, which slows the rate at which the sugar is digested and absorbed. (One exception to that rule is honey, which has no fiber.) Fiber also limits the amount of sugar you can consume in one sitting.
      A medium apple contains about 19 grams of sugar and four grams of fiber, or roughly 20 percent of a day’s worth of fiber. Not many people would eat three apples at one time. But plenty of children and adults can drink a 16-ounce bottle of Pepsi, which has 55 grams of added sugar – roughly the amount in three medium apples – and no fiber. Fiber not only limits how much you can eat, but how quickly sugar leaves the intestine and reaches the liver, Dr. Stanhope said.
      “You can’t easily eat that much sugar from fruit,” she said. “But nobody has any problem consuming a very high level of sugar from a beverage or from brownies and cookies.”
      Why is it a problem to have too much sugar?
      Many nutrition experts say that sugar in moderation is fine for most people. But in excess it can lead to metabolic problems beyond its effects on weight gain. The reason, studies suggest, is fructose. Any fructose you eat is sent straight to your liver, which specializes in turning it into droplets of fat called triglycerides.
      “When you ingest fructose, almost all of it is metabolized by the liver, and the liver is very good at taking that fructose and converting it to fat,” said Dr. Mark Herman, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard. Studies show a predictable response when people are asked to drink a sugary beverage: A rapid spike in the amount of triglycerides circulating in their bloodstreams. This also leads to a reduction in HDL cholesterol, the so-called good kind.
      Over time, this combination – higher triglycerides and lower HDL – is one major reason sugar promotes heart disease, said Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a cardiologist and adviser to the United Kingdom’s national obesity forum. This sequence of events may even overshadow the effects of LDL cholesterol, the so-called bad kind.
      “What many people don’t realize is that it’s triglycerides and HDL that are more predictive of cardiovascular disease than LDL cholesterol,” Dr. Malhotra said. “I’m not saying LDL isn’t important. But if there is a hierarchy, triglycerides and HDL are more important than LDL.”
      Dr. Malhotra said that when people reduce their sugar intake, “their overall cholesterol profile improves.”
      “I see this in so many of my patients,” he added. “The effects are rapid.”
      How much sugar is too much?
      One of the largest studies of added sugar consumption, which was led by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that adults who got more than 15 percent of their daily calories from added sugar had a higher risk of cardiovascular disease. For the average adult, that translates to about 300 calories, or 18 teaspoons of added sugar, daily. That may sound like a lot, but it’s actually quite easy to take in that much, or even more, without realizing it. A single 12-ounce can of Coca-Cola, for example, has almost 10 teaspoons of sugar; it can add up quickly.
      The study found that most adults got more than 10 percent of their daily calories from added sugar, and that for 10 percent of people, more than 25 percent of their calories came from added sugar. The biggest sources for adults were soft drinks, fruit juices, desserts and candy.
      While those might seem like obvious junk foods, Dr. Malhotra said, about half of the sugar Americans consume is “hidden” in less obvious places like salad dressings, bread, low-fat yogurt and ketchup. In fact, of the 600,000 food items for sale in America, about 80 percent contain added sugar.
      Everyone’s tolerance for sugar is different. Studies show, for example, that people who are already obese may be more susceptible to metabolic harm from sugar than others. But Dr. Malhotra said that he generally advises people to follow the World Health Organization’s guidelines, which recommend that adults and children consume no more than about six teaspoons daily of added sugar.
      “Could I tell you the exact limit where sugar starts to definitely impact cardiovascular health?” he said. “That’s difficult. But I think if people stick within the W.H.O. limits, then their risk is reduced.”
      Source: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/is-sugar-really-bad-for-you-it-depends/?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fhealth&action=click&contentCollection=health&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=1
  • Forum Statistics

    61,562
    Total Topics
    113,481
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,486
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Notawelder
    Newest Member
    Notawelder
    Joined




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.