ExtraMSG

I know product placement and getting items on the shelves matters, but it seems to be getting too much importance here. Few people in the overall scheme of things will purchase a gourmet BBQ sauce, soda, or pasta. They'll either buy what's on sale or cheapest or what they've seen the ads for. I'd be interested to know what percentage of gourmet/specialty items in a supermarket actually get purchased. It may show that supermarkets are actually doing quite a favor to these companies as it is and possibly their only real benefit from stocking them is in showing that they do have variety. I know. I'm being cynical.

What, not this one: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...bayphotohosting I went into Portland's George & Sons this weekend to drop off a knife to get sharpened and test them out. Looked through their collection of knives, which included the typical German ones, the Globals, and the Shuns, among others. But they also had a couple unique knives, entirely hand-made Japanese knives. The were very similar in style to these: http://worldknives.com/product.asp?produid=528&manuid=40 http://worldknives.com/product.asp?produid=527&manuid=40 The story I got was that the guy who made these had gone to a Washington (can't remember the city) knife show to sell his knives. He entered a custom knifemaker rope-cutting contest. He got second, whereas the guy who got first always got first. But the Japanese guy pointed out that his cuts were cleaner. Apparently, he makes his knives with "white steel" (if I remember right) as opposed to "blue steel". The Japanese chef's in town when they see his knives buy them up. They were about $100 each. The handles were custom made, as well. They seemed thick to me, but obviously hand-hammered. The guy's "signature" was etched into the side of the knives.

Maybe I could bring my laptop and watch Return of the King and see which takes long.

Let me put it this way: Ancient peoples emphasized finding and making foods that would balance the humors. Early modern peoples emphasized finding and making foods that would aid in digestion. Modern peoples emphasize finding and making foods that will be nutritious. Obviously none of these are mutually exclusive, but there's an emphasis as far as food's health benefits go. I think people still relate to the prior systems even if unconsciously in the modern era. eg, someone's who's phlegmy may avoid milk. Someone who's lactose intolerant may avoid milk. But it's an issue at the margins, not a central issue. And it certainly doesn't have the nuances of the systems in prior eras. But nutrition does. Think of all the crazy diets that get created in the name of different nutritional theories -- Atkin's, South Beach, Pritikin, grapefruit, liquid, raw, etc. You see this same sort of complexity in prior eras, but the emphasis is not nutrition as we understand it today -- vitamins, minerals, proteins, fats, calories, and so on. It's a concept of proper digestion or maintaining humoral balance. It's just conjecture of course. I'm certainly no expert. There are probably other systems of thought that create a relationship between food and health.

I was just doing some reading in regard to Pan's thread on the humors. In it they mentioned that the new understanding of the digestive system ultimately replaced the humors (of course) in Western culture. I was thinking that maybe this emphasis on digestion might be really an intermediary between the humors and nutrition. We do often think about vitamins, minerals, calories, etc. So nutrition has replaced digestion which had replaced the humors.

Maimonides is so big in general philosophy, he's almost certainly available. Avicenna is less likely. Meanwhile, here are some tertiary sources that may have some interesting overviews for people to look at: http://food.oregonstate.edu/ref/culture/humoral.html http://www.phytomedicine.com.au/files/articles/tcm_whm.pdf http://www.india.ndirect.co.uk/unani.htm http://www.indmedplants-kr.org/THE_UNANI_S..._OF_MEDICIN.HTM

Been googling. Here are some sources: Hippocrates: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/h/h7w/ Galen: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/g/g15nf/ Having a harder time with non-Greeks.

Farmer's markets are great for samples. Went to the Dallas farmer's market (which probably shouldn't have the word "farmer" in it, since I don't think there are many actual producers selling their stuff there) and they practically shove the samples down your throat. I think they work as timeshare sales people in Mexico in the off-season.

I have to admit that I don't usually care much about digestion, though. Except in extreme cases, like I said, it plays no role in how I choose my dishes or courses. I just want what tastes good. If it ends up out of me in half an hour, that's fine, that just means I won't gain any weight. Really, I've never noticed a size difference when I've gone to bars in other countries.....oh, wait, you didn't mean bar stools.... Seriously, that's a good point. Traditionally, people were looking for more refined foods and more efficient ways to get the nutrients and calories from their foods. These days we're looking for as much fiber and as few calories as possible. We want things that can't be digested. The odd thing is that Indians, eg, always talk about how the spices help in digestion. I think this (both really) is one of those cases where the cultural norm is pushed in the name of health whether there's any truth to it or not. btw, Fisher's translation is indeed the one I'm reading.

Or any 3rd world country today where diarrhea is still a major killer. I wonder, then, if "digestion" plays an important role in 3rd world countries where food and water contamination is still very much an issue. Although, come to think of it, I do remember it being a part of several Iron Chef comments. I think it plays a much larger role in Asian discussions of food. Is it just the USA, then, where "digestion" really doesn't get any focus anymore. What bout Europe? What about Latin countries? I've never heard it discussed in Mexico.

I'm reading Brillat-Savarin's Physiology of Taste currently. As in lots of older writings on food, an emphasis is often put on digestion and what foods aid digestion and what foods are easily digested. It often seems to be at least as important as flavor. In Indian cookery, eg, too, there is often an emphasis put on things that aid digestion. However, I don't really see it as a part of modern American food dsicussions. It's all about flavor. And even in my own choices, I rarely consider digestion unless it's a really extreme case like wanting to avoid lactose because I'm lactose intolerant or avoiding an over-abundance of spicy foods for fear of "the ring of fire" or acid reflux. But in older discussions, it seems that pleasing the stomach is taken quite literally, whereas today we are first and foremost concerned with pleasing the tongue, and our method of pleasing the stomach is just to fill it up, something that would be contrary to the older ideas of encouraging proper digestion. It seems to say something, maybe, culturally and philosophically, about our relationship to food today.

I'm actually starting to see why the industry has been so worried about oversight. Every time they find a cow that shared the same pasture with the infected cow they decide to kill off the herd that currently shares the pasture with this cow. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/7729988.htm By virtue of six degrees of separation, how long until every damned cow is killed?

Well, I think that depends. eg. a lot of whole grain breads at the supermarket are hardly whole grain. It's like salting the top of a loaf of bread. So in that sense, you're correct. There's nothing guaranteed by eating whole grain breads. However, there are breads that are truly high in dietary fiber and with significantly lower net carbs. Even your standard whole grain vs white will have maybe 5 times the dietary fiber, cutting the net carbs to maybe 8 instead of 14. When your daily allowance is 20 or 30 grams of net carbs, that can make a difference. And when companies jump on the low-carb bandwagon they make sure they get low net-carb wraps and buns so they can claim only "11 net carbs" like Subway is currently doing. Since Atkin's and the like tell people to look at the nutritional data, "whole grain breads" is just a direction which they point people.

Whole Foods is really great with the samples, having covers for them and always providing trash and toothpicks. I never feel awkward eating their samples. The ones I avoid involve dipping. Who indeed knows where that's been and who had double dipped.

Ah, whole wheat and whole grain are a whole 'nother story. And this is not a comment on the results of these low-carb diets, I know they get people thinner... Do any of these diet books describe the actual difference between whole wheat bread and white bread? In any form you're likely to eat them, whole wheat and white bread are essentially the same - especially when it comes to carb content! Any commercial (or even edible) wheat bread is composed mostly of white flour with a little bit of whole wheat flour. No-white bread is available, but it tastes and feels like the squishy cinder of which running tracks are constructed. If the bread is noticeably yeast-risen, it contains flour that has had most of its germ removed. Otherwise, the gluten remains bound and insoluble. Any wheat flour that can be used on its own to make palatable bread has been processed to the point that both the gluten and nearly all of the carbs have been released and made available to your jigglin' nalgas. Go ahead and convert your lipids to toxic esters if you want, but take the time to find out how to do it right. Whole wheat and whole grain breads are certainly more nutritious and more delicious, but they are not low-carb, no matter what some snake-oil salesman in a lab coat tells you. I believe the emphasis is usually on two things: the glycemic index and dietary fiber. I believe whole grains have a lower glycemic index and higher dietary fiber. In Atkin's, eg, you take the total carbohydrates and subtract the dietary fiber to get the net carbs. These are what the Atkin's loyalist has to pay attention to. It makes sense. Whole grains can't be digested like processed grains. Traditionally, we wanted more processed grains because we could more bang (ie, calories) for the buck. But now we have too many bucks and it's too easy to get banged...er....calories.

I was looking at the Whole Foods classes today and realized they're cooking and lifestyle classes including ones like this: Thanks for the great report on your class. I really need to be doing this as well.

I think I'd be sick if I had to eat that quickly! I much prefer a leisurely pace to my dining. Meals at Lumiere and Tojo's in Vancouver and Mistral in Seattle easily topped the 3 hour mark and I loved it. I'm with you LEdlund. A few days before I left DC I had a four course meal at the bar at Nectar that lasted from 7 o'clock to 11:30. It was great talking to the staff and fellow patrons before during and after each course. It was really much more like a good dinner party with interesting guests than a standard restaurant experience. I love that kind of dining. The key is that it should be suited to the customer, imo. With Herbfarm, there appears to be no choice or option. I can see how some would want to take longer. That's fine. I'm not saying my way is the right way. Just that it's unfortunate for me if I ever want to go to Herbfarm that I'll need to bring a book or take a nap.

I have some acquaitances who go on a weeklong trip to Richmond/Vancouver regularly just for Chinese/Dim Sum. They recently made a guide that I got a copy of. Some of them are rated, so I thought I'd just list the 3 and 4 stars in alphabetical order: Fortune Restaurant 650 W 41st Ave, Vanc. **** Imperial Chinese Seafood 355 Burrand St., Vanc. *** Kingford Seafood Restaurant 200-5890 No. 3 Road, Richmond **** Kirin Seafood http://www.kirinrestaurant.com 200-7900 Westminister Hwy, Richmond **** Richmond Mandarin Restaurant (formerly President Chinese Seafood) 2200 President Plaza, 8181 Cambie St, Richmond *** Shanghai Chinese Bistro 1124 Alberni St, Vanc. *** Shiang Garden Seafood Restaurant Unit 2200 Empire Ctr, 4540 No. 3 Road, Richmond **** They have 34 Dim Sum restaurants on their list, but there are some they haven't been to yet. Hope this helps.

I don't drink. That may be the big difference. I've done a lot of these haute cuisine dinners with the same people, who also don't drink. San Francisco was really the first place I've eaten multi-course tasting menus that had restaurants which consistently dragged out the meal. The exception on my last trip was French Laundry which seemed to really pay attention to us. With the Herbfarm, it seems that there's no choice but for everyone to go at the same slow pace.

We had a group of 5 of us at Trotter's when I went and I don't think the meal went that much longer than 2 hours (once we got in; they made us wait 20 minutes or more, which was annoying). Little Washington was the same. 15 course menu at Lola in Dallas and me and a friend only took maybe an hour and a half. French Laundry was the only place in the Bay Area where they seemed to time the courses for us, rather than for them. We did the 9 course or whatever there and it was well under 2 hours. Some places try to meet the timing of their customers, some just impose their timing on the customers. I prefer the former. I don't say Herbfarm is a bad restaurant because of it. I just say that I'm less likely to enjoy my time there or want to go.

By that definition Beans, the talk about the Food Network's new lineup is certainly snobbery. One thing to consider: snobbery is not necessarily bad. Snobbery in moderation may be a good thing. It's good to have values, to distinguish between qualities of things, but that does create a certain level of snobbery. (Snob often has negative connotations, but strictly speaking it doesn't have to be so.) Like I've said before, the only snob I can't stand is the one who won't give something a try. It's one thing to be a snob based on experience and to treat others opinions with respect. It's another to be a snob merely based on prejudices and to treat others like crap for disagreeing with you. I think most eGulleters fall into the first category of snobs (including myself, I hope) with occasional falls from grace into the second category.

Nope. Probably the most accurate would be something like "intersubjective". We share cultures, biology, experiences, history, and a language to share all of this with. Food is not purely subjective. It's a mistake to think of it as such. I'm a relativist, not a solipsist. btw, I did note the "for me", but thought it referred to your method of judging not your judgment. They're just generalizations. I purposely said to avoid regional cuisines. These are really anachronisms, I think, though. People talk of globalization, but at the same time there's a nationalization going on in America as well. We share more as a community now, including our food, than ever before. And in many respects these traditional regional cuisines are becoming lost crafts and secondary cuisines to the national cuisine comprised largely of fast food. Yeah, but you're here as an active member of this website discussing the merits of authentic Thai food. You're not the mean, median, or mode. I can appreciate both styles. I've never been to Vong but from what I've seen of it, I imagine I'd really like it. We have some lower level places out here that fuse NW ingredients with Thai dishes. And often it works. There's a yellow curry at a place that uses granny smith apples that's just awesome. It's not like any curry I'd find somewhere else maybe, but its flavors would probably be acceptable to many people who've never had Thai. Also with places that are actively trying to be haute fusion like Vong seems to be, I think there are other advantages (I bet you don't get rubbery meats, eg). My problem isn't that I think that places like it are better or worse than more authentic places, but rather than many of the mediocre ones all start to taste the same. Somehow, eg, Nuevo Latino or Latin fusion came to mean essentially spicy sweet and sour sauce on everything -- chiles and honey. I think it's more a case of crappy places giving the whole thing a bad name. You could do the same with Korean-Chinese, Tex-Mex, etc. But it's not like there isn't bad Chinese food in China or bad Mexican food in Mexico.

That's way too loaded, Pan. It's so contextual. If you just mean "to me", then sure, fine, okay. But taste is largely a matter of custom. We become accustomed to flavors and combinations of flavors and over time train ourselves to like them, usually. Some people, like myself, are intrigued more than others by strange flavors. But many, maybe most, people feel assaulted by strange flavors. And unless they have real pressure on them will not train their palate. My hypothesis is that the reason American food, not the regional varieties, but general American food is so bland or gains its flavor from the basics (sweet, sour, salty, msg, fatty/creamy -- avoiding bitter) is because these are our natural inclinations. Biologically, bitter was a warning method. The others were cues to what was good for us. American food is either non-offensive (ie, bland) or strongly flavored with the basics (eg, junk foods). Americans are wealthy. We can afford to eat whatever we want and as much of it as we want. We're like porn addicts without a conscience dowloading gigs and gigs of naked women masturbating all day. But instead, it's junk food, burgers, soda, pasta, cream sauces, cheese, sweets, chocolate, etc. I think fusion often takes what is unfamiliar and would normally be seen as an assault on the palate and makes it palatable to people who grew up on the food I describe above. Sweetened and blended wines would probably be a similar example. Maybe pale beers. Or Mexican-American food, Thai food in America, or Indian food in England and America. I don't know that it's so clearly worse, though, than the original, just different. A lot of people love chicken Tikka Masala, peanut sauce on their pad thai, and nachos.

I'm sure if some people spoke up you could get some really good other recs, too. eg, I rarely eat Italian, sushi, breakfast, burgers, Chinese, pho, burritos, or other types of food that lots of other eat regularly.

I was tempted to do a similar post. I'm not much of a sushi fan either, but in the last year the number of sushi places in my neighborhood -- Cascade Park area of Vancouver -- has exploded. There may be 8 or more places serving sushi within a mile of me. Has anyone tried these? I think I need to do a sushi survey of the best places in Portland and then go hit a bunch of these places just to know. They seem to be mostly populated by Asians. What are the litmus tests for sushi?