I'm confused. This "track food and nutrition" site I'm using has six entries for "sushi" in its database of known foods:
Sushi, NFS (I don't know what "NFS" stands for; it appears on a number of foods, and I think it must mean "no ____ stated", but I'm not sure quite what)
Sushi, no vegetables, no fish
Sushi, with vegetables, no fish
Sushi, with vegetables and fish
Sushi, with vegetables, rolled in seaweed
Sushi, with egg, no vegetables, no fish, rolled in seaweed
Sooo... when you take away egg, vegetables and fish, and it's not specified to have been wrapped in seaweed, aren't you down to just rice? What the heck is the point of that?
Sushi, NFS (I don't know what "NFS" stands for; it appears on a number of foods, and I think it must mean "no ____ stated", but I'm not sure quite what)
Sushi, no vegetables, no fish
Sushi, with vegetables, no fish
Sushi, with vegetables and fish
Sushi, with vegetables, rolled in seaweed
Sushi, with egg, no vegetables, no fish, rolled in seaweed
Sooo... when you take away egg, vegetables and fish, and it's not specified to have been wrapped in seaweed, aren't you down to just rice? What the heck is the point of that?
no subject
Date: Apr. 19th, 2004 04:19 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: Apr. 19th, 2004 04:44 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: Apr. 19th, 2004 04:51 pm (UTC)From:I noticed one piece of no vegetables no fish sushi is only 46 calories. That's a lot of calories for essentially nothing. :P
no subject
Date: Apr. 19th, 2004 05:02 pm (UTC)From:(http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/)), but yeah, I agree it's kind of weird in some places.
I'm guessing that must be the calories in just the rice? I really don't know.
no subject
Date: Apr. 19th, 2004 05:07 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: Apr. 19th, 2004 06:01 pm (UTC)From: