I'd never heard of this before. The escolar is a fish
prized for its richness (compared to foie gras),
but can cause severe diarrhea is eaten in more than
a small amount.

http://www.seafoodbusiness.com/archi...04/product.asp

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag... 0C0A96F958260

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> I'd never heard of this before. The escolar is a fish
> prized for its richness (compared to foie gras),
> but can cause severe diarrhea is eaten in more than
> a small amount.
>
> http://www.seafoodbusiness.com/archi...04/product.asp
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag... 0C0A96F958260

I don't intend to examine the URLs but, addressing the subject,
what's fat-free about escolar? "Rich" is another word for
fatness anyway. Escolar has got the most oil of any mackarel or
(possibly any fish.) It is banned from commerce in Japan for
precisely that reason: the laxative effect of the oil. I can
vouch for the runs because I still remember the effect of two
small pieces, said to be "white tuna", in a sashimi platter two
years ago. By the way, it's consumption is discouraged in the US
but it is not banned and I hate to say it but it was delicious.
I don't intend to try again.




--
Jim Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

James Silverton wrote:
>
> I don't intend to examine the URLs but, addressing the subject,
> what's fat-free about escolar? "Rich" is another word for
> fatness anyway. Escolar has got the most oil of any mackarel or
> (possibly any fish.) It is banned from commerce in Japan for
> precisely that reason: the laxative effect of the oil. I can
> vouch for the runs because I still remember the effect of two
> small pieces, said to be "white tuna", in a sashimi platter two
> years ago. By the way, it's consumption is discouraged in the US
> but it is not banned and I hate to say it but it was delicious.
> I don't intend to try again.

If you'd read the articles, you'd know the answer.
It is both rich and nutritionally almost fat-free,
for a somewhat odd reason not unrelated to the
laxative effect.

Mark wrote on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:44:50 -0700:

MT> James Silverton wrote:
??>>
??>> I don't intend to examine the URLs but, addressing the
??>> subject, what's fat-free about escolar? "Rich" is another
??>> word for fatness anyway. Escolar has got the most oil of
??>> any mackarel or (possibly any fish.) It is banned from
??>> commerce in Japan for precisely that reason: the laxative
effect
??>> of the oil. I can vouch for the runs because I still
??>> remember the effect of two small pieces, said to be "white
??>> tuna", in a sashimi platter two years ago. By the way,
??>> it's consumption is discouraged in the US but it is not
??>> banned and I hate to say it but it was delicious. I don't
??>> intend to try again.

I have no intention of reading silly URLs to find out the
convoluted logic of something like that. It ought to banned in
the US too!


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

James Silverton wrote:
> "Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'd never heard of this before. The escolar is a fish
>> prized for its richness (compared to foie gras),
>> but can cause severe diarrhea is eaten in more than
>> a small amount.
>>
>> http://www.seafoodbusiness.com/archi...04/product.asp
>>
>> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag... 0C0A96F958260
>>
>
> I don't intend to examine the URLs but, addressing the subject, what's
> fat-free about escolar? "Rich" is another word for fatness anyway.
> Escolar has got the most oil of any mackarel or (possibly any fish.) It
> is banned from commerce in Japan for precisely that reason: the laxative
> effect of the oil. I can vouch for the runs because I still remember the
> effect of two small pieces, said to be "white tuna", in a sashimi
> platter two years ago. By the way, it's consumption is discouraged in
> the US but it is not banned and I hate to say it but it was delicious. I
> don't intend to try again.
>
>


The particular oil it contains is nondigestible (that's the problem.)
Therefore it has no calories.

"James Silverton" > wrote in message
news:KRORi.15381$fm1.1975@trnddc01...
> Mark wrote on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:44:50 -0700:
>
> MT> James Silverton wrote:
> ??>>
> ??>> I don't intend to examine the URLs but, addressing the
> ??>> subject, what's fat-free about escolar? "Rich" is another
> ??>> word for fatness anyway. Escolar has got the most oil of
> ??>> any mackarel or (possibly any fish.) It is banned from
> ??>> commerce in Japan for precisely that reason: the laxative effect
> ??>> of the oil. I can vouch for the runs because I still
> ??>> remember the effect of two small pieces, said to be "white
> ??>> tuna", in a sashimi platter two years ago. By the way,
> ??>> it's consumption is discouraged in the US but it is not
> ??>> banned and I hate to say it but it was delicious. I don't
> ??>> intend to try again.
>
> I have no intention of reading silly URLs to find out the convoluted logic
> of something like that. It ought to banned in the US too!


Convoluted logic? The article explains where the taste comes from. It's not
a sales pitch for the fish.

With logic like yours...

Never mind.

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> James Silverton wrote:
>> "Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I'd never heard of this before. The escolar is a fish
>>> prized for its richness (compared to foie gras),
>>> but can cause severe diarrhea is eaten in more than
>>> a small amount.
>>>
>>> http://www.seafoodbusiness.com/archi...04/product.asp
>>>
>>> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag... 0C0A96F958260
>
> The particular oil it contains is nondigestible (that's the
> problem.) Therefore it has no calories.

Because of my sad experience with escolar, I feel strongly about
it and hence, I'll admit, the rather intemperate response for
which I apologise. I wish the OP had indicated that there was a
paradox but I have had to suffer listening to a number of people
implying that I and the majority of Japanese are imagining
things. Possibly, I could be guilty of envy of those who can eat
the stuff with impunity.



--
Jim Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

James Silverton wrote:
>
> I wish the OP had indicated that there was a
> paradox but I have had to suffer listening to a number of people
> implying that I and the majority of Japanese are imagining
> things.

Oh, right. Blame me, even though you were too lazy
to actually look at the relevant articles. Sheesh!

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:17:54 -0700, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>> I wish the OP had indicated that there was a
>> paradox but I have had to suffer listening to a number of people
>> implying that I and the majority of Japanese are imagining
>> things.
>
>Oh, right. Blame me, even though you were too lazy
>to actually look at the relevant articles. Sheesh!

He apologized for his comment, or did you miss that part of his last
post? Talk about "Sheesh"... Sheesh!

--
Zilbandy

Zilbandy wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:17:54 -0700, Mark Thorson >
> wrote:
>
> >> I wish the OP had indicated that there was a
> >> paradox but I have had to suffer listening to a number of people
> >> implying that I and the majority of Japanese are imagining
> >> things.
> >
> >Oh, right. Blame me, even though you were too lazy
> >to actually look at the relevant articles. Sheesh!
>
> He apologized for his comment, or did you miss that part of his last
> post? Talk about "Sheesh"... Sheesh!

He did not apologize for the comment that I quoted,
blaming me for what he could have learned if he
merely looked at one of the articles I linked to.

And before he tries to defend himself by wrapping
himself in the Japanese flag, I'd suggest he seek
the opinion of the Japanese people, who if they
could reply as one, would probably say this just
confirms their theory that all round-eyes are
stupid and lazy.

Zilbandy wrote on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:29:20 -0700:

??>>> I wish the OP had indicated that there was a
??>>> paradox but I have had to suffer listening to a number of
??>>> people implying that I and the majority of Japanese are
??>>> imagining things.
??>>
??>> Oh, right. Blame me, even though you were too lazy
??>> to actually look at the relevant articles. Sheesh!

Z> He apologized for his comment, or did you miss that part of
Z> his last post? Talk about "Sheesh"... Sheesh!

So a person is "lazy" if he does not go to some site that the OP
likes but gives no indication of why it will be of interest! I
don't think the OP is worthy of interest either! Plonk!

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

zxcvbob wrote:
> James Silverton wrote:
>> "Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I'd never heard of this before. The escolar is a fish
>>> prized for its richness (compared to foie gras),
>>> but can cause severe diarrhea is eaten in more than
>>> a small amount.
>>>
>>> http://www.seafoodbusiness.com/archi...04/product.asp
>>>
>>> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag... 0C0A96F958260
>>>
>>
>> I don't intend to examine the URLs but, addressing the subject, what's
>> fat-free about escolar? "Rich" is another word for fatness anyway.
>> Escolar has got the most oil of any mackarel or (possibly any fish.)
>> It is banned from commerce in Japan for precisely that reason: the
>> laxative effect of the oil. I can vouch for the runs because I still
>> remember the effect of two small pieces, said to be "white tuna", in a
>> sashimi platter two years ago. By the way, it's consumption is
>> discouraged in the US but it is not banned and I hate to say it but it
>> was delicious. I don't intend to try again.
>>
>>
>
>
> The particular oil it contains is nondigestible (that's the problem.)
> Therefore it has no calories.

Ah, so that's it! A bit of word-play on "fat-free!"
The fish is by no means fat-free! Its flesh contains a lot of
fat/oil/waxy esters (18-21%), which makes it "rich", but the fats cannot
be digested, and so consuming it produces much the same results as would
consuming mineral oil (also "fat-free")! Thanks for explaining it.

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:54:41 GMT, "James Silverton"
> wrote:

> ??>> Oh, right. Blame me, even though you were too lazy
> ??>> to actually look at the relevant articles. Sheesh!
>
> Z> He apologized for his comment, or did you miss that part of
> Z> his last post? Talk about "Sheesh"... Sheesh!
>
>So a person is "lazy" if he does not go to some site that the OP
>likes but gives no indication of why it will be of interest! I
>don't think the OP is worthy of interest either! Plonk!

Yeah, I hear you. It appears that HE was lazy as well by not
paraphrasing the relative part of the link he quoted. I didn't go to
the link either.

--
Zilbandy