Title:
Trader Joe's - Apple Cranberry Bran Muffins
|
| Serving Size
1 muffin (2oz) |
|
|
| Amount per serving |
| Calories
80 |
Calories from Fat
10 |
|
|
Description:
High fiber low calorie muffin.
So I admit, these "muffins" do somewhat resemble dung. But they are a nugget of fiber: only 80 cals for 13g of fiber! I find best way to eat them is with a cup of tea/coffee at hand (to restore moisture to the mouth immediately between bites). And to concentrate on the coconutty taste/texture they seem to have...imagine you're eating a rare macaroon. I refrigerate mine, and they seem to last a long time. But, keep them wrapped up or in their packaging, or they will dry out...and when they're dry they're scary!
last edit by
powerfrau,
9/24/2006 6:22:31 PM
Tags:
Breakfast Food
High Fiber
Trader Joe's
Comments:
Go ahead and keep deleting my information. I have requested Peertrainer Customer service to roll-back the entries in which you are deleting information because you are not adding value by deleting information.
We need to know the WW point calculator information so that if there is ever changes to the nutritional information or even the WW program the points can be re-calculated.
Right now from a WW perspective all entries without WW points are not complete for their program.
blozzom,
9/24/2006 3:49:57 PM
Janet - I find it especially petty of you to go through all the foods that I specifically entered here and add superficial information to them just so you can attach your name to my descriptions.
The information you are adding is completely superficial in the sense that it is already on the entry.
I have already included calories, fibre (true fibre from the latest packaging not what you happen to find on your outdated WW sources, such as "dwlz", or whatever else you use to make your uninformative mass entries, where, according to you, chicken has no protein), and carbs in the tables, as you well know.
Since you are *tagging* everything with WW points why don't you just do that with a "WW fiber" tag whatever that is (I neither know, nor care), because it certainly does not correspond to real fiber. It would only confuse the rest of us to have 2 different fiber numbers to deal with.
I think the real point is that your megalomania cannot leave space for other people's entries on the calorie wiki. Why must every single entry, even if it's someone else's personal recipe, with pictures they took themselves, or someone else's description, have your name attached to it, when all you've done is copy 3 numbers that were already in the nutritional chart into the description, and add a third that is possibly inaccurate (given your history) and certainly confusing?
Your argument above, that you need the points information so that if the WW program ever changes you can change the numbers (!!!), does not even make sense. If these things keep changing, what's the point in writing them on here?
powerfrau,
9/24/2006 4:02:37 PM
You should not be commenting on how useful or unuseful the WW information I am adding is unless you are an actual Weight Watcher and know how the program works.
As for my name being added to everything - that is how the calorie wiki works when something is edited.
blozzom,
9/24/2006 4:05:08 PM
powerfrau- what is your problem- this is great info for those of us who do ww.
enbody,
9/24/2006 4:27:48 PM
Janet, you are adding:
-Fat (already in the nutritional chart)
-Calories (already in the nutritional chart)
-WW points (already in the tag)
Fiber (already in the nutritional chart - OR, in accordance with WW, if the fiber is greater than 4 you write 4. Not only is this generally inaccurate information to add, but I would have thought the rule is easy enough for WW people to remember? Or how would they ever live in the real world?)
That is why the information you are adding is completely superficial.
You are merely doing it to change the authorship.
I noticed you were doing this on Friday too, making superficial changes to change the authorship: changing how I had written the title of a previous food. I thought this behaviour was extremely selfish and uncommunal, and I did not appreciate your bossiness in deciding which format to choose - for example, I have entered a fair number of Trader Joe's Foods in a particular format, but I didn't dream of going through everyone else's Trader Joe's entries and forcing them to conform to my own style.
It's a shame, I actually liked looking up a food on the wiki and having an idea of
which PT member it was that recommended or described this food - not having
everyone's name overwritten by "Blozzom" because she repeated four numbers that were already there, in the description.
In fact, I liked having different descriptions with different things emphasized - the idea that we have to have everything must be stamped by the "Blozzom-police" is stifling.
powerfrau,
9/24/2006 5:03:43 PM
I've got to say, i totally and completely agree with everything p'frau said. Hear hear!
sluttony,
9/24/2006 9:46:32 PM
Well you guys are barking up the wrong tree.
You don't like the author being over written when an edit is made complain to Peertrainer!
From a WW perspective any entry in here without points is considered incomplete to them for their journaling purposes. Of course they can always use their WW points calculator but maybe they don't have one handy - why should they be discriminated against here? Because that's what Powerfrau appears to think. Entries are ok in her book if they have complete nutritional information. They aren't complete for the WW person without the points info.
I am providing a service by adding WW points. No it's not necessarily important information to non-WW but the same goes to say that Vitamin C or Iron is important to succeeding on their program.
Non-WW should just shut the hrm up! Ignore the WW information if it doesn't apply to you!
blozzom,
9/24/2006 9:51:43 PM
powerfrau is right. powerfrau, I don't know you but IMHO, ww points should not overwrite an authorship.
laura99,
9/25/2006 11:10:08 AM
That's fine that everyone feels that way. I agree especially when it comes to personal recipes - the original author should be shown somewhere - right now it gets overwritten by ANY edit by ANYONE - so lets not have a "roast Blozzom" because of a programming issue!!!
blozzom,
9/25/2006 11:13:20 AM
This is fun! I for one, will be contacting Peertrainer Customer Service to have them restore my self-esteem.
uesgal,
9/25/2006 2:32:51 PM
Question:
I've never used the calorie wiki, but if you want to keep ownership to the original post....could you not just type in your username at the bottom of the recipe? That way, we know who to contact if we want additional information about the recipe. Any edits wouldn't change the original information ... or would it?
vancan,
9/26/2006 12:48:28 AM
Vancan - Yes that would work. Just put your name at the top or bottom of anything that you'd like to claim ownership to so your name isn't overwritten by any edits. Of course you still run the risk that someone comes in after you and puts their own name over yours to claim authorship as I have been accused of doing by others here who appear to not understand how the wiki works!!
blozzom,
9/26/2006 9:51:26 AM
The whole idea of a wiki is that the community owns the data and content, not an individual. Now if a person wants credit for something, they should put their name in like Vancan wisely suggests. People should also feel free to add as much data, links and tags as possible, like blozzom is doing. Not all data is useful to all people, but the more data in a description, the greater the odds that the description will provide value to someone.
slc2006,
9/26/2006 10:00:05 AM
Come now, Blozzom, you cut and paste scores and scores of recipes from Martha Stewart's site without even crediting her in your description. The idea that you "agree especially when it comes to personal recipes - the original author should be shown somewhere" is laughable: you clearly have very little regard for intellectual property.
powerfrau,
9/26/2006 11:06:57 AM
Well powerfrau, as you said in this thread.....
http://www.peertrainer.com/LoungeCommunityThread.aspx?ForumID=1&ThreadID=29193
"And the fact that it's a wiki means I can go back and add elaborate descriptions later as I see fit. "
blozzom,
9/26/2006 11:31:38 AM
"Advantage Blozzom"
uesgal,
9/26/2006 12:49:14 PM
