Patrick S

You can find lots of recipes, recommendations, pictures and commentary on this thread.

Tonight I'm nibbling on Manjari feves, and having a few spoonfuls of a banana/avacado/citrus sauce I made to accompany something I'm making tomorrow. To be honest I've never been very fond of avacado, so I'm surprised that I like this sauce.

As for myself, I didn't try the frosting. I did try the CI bundt cake a while back too, but as I recall I used all dark brown sugar and a very bitter chocolate and ended up thinking it wasn't sweet enough for me (I might have used unsweetened by accident). I'll try it again at some point.

Just to clarify: honey and raw sugar are definitely not the same nutritionally. Raw sugar is mainly sucrose which is a molecule made up of one glucose and one fructose molecule. Raw sugar (white sugar) is absorbed by the body through the process of osmosis. Honey on the other hand is about 1.3% sucrose, 31% Dextrose, 38% levulose, 7% maltose and about 1.5% higher sugars. ← Just to clarify a bit, dextrose and levulose are different names for glucose and fructose, respectively, the same monosaccharides that make up table sugar.

What's more remarkable is that there seems to be a decline in concern about nutrition. This page discusses survey data from the Food Marketing Institute and NDP Group showing that the percentage of people who say they try to limit their calories actually declined significantly during the 90's. In the NDP Group's 1998 survey, only 29% of the respondants said they limit snacking, down from 41% in 1990.

To throw in my own anecdote -- I noticed no change in perception relating to taste or flavor. The only perceptual change I noticed was an enhanced ability to smell tobacco smoke, but the change seems to have been for tobacco smoke only -- I didnt notice any changes in sensitivity to other smells. Toasted said " I want to eat and cook all the time. It keeps me busy! I'm also turning into a wino so look forward to drunken posts coming soon!" This is exactly the same experience I had.

More money means more food options, sure, but for the vast majority of people there are plenty of low-cost healthy food options. As the USDA/ERS report I cited earlier pointed out, the average person in or near poverty can purchase all their recommended fruit and vegetables with only 16% of their food dollar. And in any event, if the problem we are trying to address is obesity (rather than nutritional deficiency), its not even 100% necessary to change the types of foods you buy eat -- whatever you choose to eat, just eat less of it. It never costs more to eat less. And while gym memberships and (some) exercise classes cost money, there are a million forms of exercise that cost nothing at all, and don't even require you to leave the house.

Karen, I don't have a recipe, but FWIW Barbara Tropp helped develop P.F. Chang's menu, so there's a good chance that you might find a good approximation in one of her cookbooks.

Looks great! How'd you like it?

Caroline, I think Jackal means a baked custard tart. In fact, I was going to recommend a caramel custard tart, but you specified that you want something that doesn't need refrigeration. A custard tart I think would be fine without refrigeration for several hours at least, but I don't know how long I'd push it.

More time-consuming than opening a Little Debbie, sure, but it doesnt have to be very time consuming and it certainly does not HAVE to be very difficult. I feel for anyone who is so pressed for time that they can't steam some broccoli, pour a bowl of generic Cheerios or open a can of mixed fruit!

I had the same experience trying to make cupcakes, Alan. The recipe didnt seem to work well as a cupcake.

When it comes to Nutella, I'm going to get every last microgram out of the jar. Otherwise, I'm not too obsessive.

You've got it right -- since the filling is cooked before going into the shell, there's no reason you can't make the tarts any size you want.

Have you seen the number of fat professors in my University's Food Science department? Education isn't the issue, it's initiative. We want a quick fix. But, we fail to see that we got fat over a significant period of time, and it will probably take a similar period to get well. But, we lack the initiative to do anything about it, and we lack the self-awareness to notice we're getting a little doughy before we're busting the axles on our SUV's. ← Right you are, jsolomon. Yanno, I think it's kind of condescending to say that poor, uneducated people eat junk all day long and should be the main target of our nutritional education efforts. There are plenty of fat people in my town -- one woman sits on the committee to change the food program at the school, and she must go about 300 (and her kids as well). She's educated, wealthy, has a strong community and family network, and fat. And making decisions for others -- good ones, too. Just not for herself. ← But it's kind of rational to note that obesity is correlated with poverty and low education and focus on the poor and uneducated, isn't it? There are probably poor people living in affluent neighborhoods, and aflluent people living in poor areas, but if you can only fund one job training center, which zip code should it go into? Interesting article here, linking obesity with food prices, which I pass along with no comment other than "there are many factors, blah blah, blah... A bunch of links on this site. Note that some have found a link between obesity and federal nutrition programs. ← I would posit that obesity is currently linked and correlated with hundreds of issues--with hundreds of links to come. Someone --anyone--with an agenda can find some statistics or can initiate a study to come up with just about anything. The big hole in the argument presented in the link you provided is that there are too many thin people in "poor" neighborhoods that he can't explain away with his shoddy theory. The fact is--obesity is the result of behavior. A person takes in more calories than they burn off. Show me a person of any race, creed, economic status, "zip code", social status, anything you want to consider--who takes in more calories than they burn off and I will show you a candidate for obesity. (medical anomalies, genetics etc excluded of course). Inner city kids who spend a few hours on basketball courts can load up on MacDonalds and be thin. (I know this personally because I was an inner city kid). I also lived in Little Italy in the Bronx--want easily accessible fresh healthy food--it is literally within minutes of thousands of "poor" people. I would say that a large number of residents were obese. (my best friend was nicknamed "fat" Tommy). If we want to wallow in these side arguments (ie--statistics show poor people are more likely to be fat ergo money is a key factor in obesity....) we will never begin to solve the problem. There is risk involved in most everything we do--habits good or bad are reinforced by many things. We had an idea an inkling that cigarette smoking was possibly bad for us back in Mark Twain's time. Cigarette smoking--only recently-- has been in decline after years of education--coupled with the fact that it is pretty clear one can get some pretty bad diseases from smoking--and the fact that many people have personal experience--they either got a disease or know someone who has from smoking--watching uncle Fred die slowly from emphysema can be a powerful motivator. Obesity is just recently being linked to health problems--diabetes etc. It is all about understanding risk and reward. One doesn't have to eat whole grains and sprouts with wheatgrass juice to avoid obesity. One just needs to have a reasonably balanced diet and exercise. (Note reasonable is a key here). Yes--availability of a variety of good quality food products in all neighborhoods is an important issue. I also suggest that it is at best a minor factor (maybe even a red herring of sorts) distracting everyone from getting to the real causes. ← The old "anybody can find a link" argument is old, dull and incorrect. There is a significant correlation between obesity and income, and another between income and education. ← Yes there is a signficant association between income and obesity, but the association appears to be becoming much more weak as higher income persons get heavier. 30 years ago there was a huge difference in obesity rates between higher and lower income, but today the gap has shrunk dramatically and income is now actually a fairly weak predictor of obesity. According to a CBS article on the subject: Between 1971-1974, the distribution of overweight/obese by income was as follows: * Less than $25,000: 22.5 percent obese * $25,000-$40,000: 16.1 percent obese * $40,000-$60,000: 14.5 percent obese * More than $60,000: 9.7 percent obese By 2001-2002, the distribution was as follows: * Less than $25,000: 32.5 percent obese * $25,000-$40,000: 31.3 percent obese * $40,000-$60,000: 30.3 percent obese * More than $60,000: 26.8 percent obese During the 30 years interval, the growth in obesity rates by income level was: * Less than $25,000: increase of 144 percent * $25,000-$40,000: increase of 194 percent * $40,000-$60,000: increase of 209 percent * More than $60,000: increase of 276 percent

The Winn-Dixie where I used to shop always seemed to have only one check lane open, so invariably you ended up waiting in line for a good while with a dozen other people. You coldn't help but notice what was in other people's baskets, and notice the disproportionate amount of stuff like that. The store actually had a fine selection of fruits and veggiess, but you could tell by the dust on the cans that alot of that stuff wasn't restocked very frequently.

Thinking about that a little more -- though I doubt that it matters whether you wash with triclosan soap or regular suds, I could see how that triclosan stuff that you rub on but don't wash off might be superior. Since you don't wash it off, it could stay on your hands and inhibit the buildup of new germs, whereas the hands washed with soap could start accumulating new germs immediately.

Actually, the study did find a difference, but it was terribly small. Something on the order of 99.99% killed by soap vs 99.995% killed by antibacterial soap (soap with triclosan, others weren't tested, to my knowledge). ← Well, a difference of 5/100,000% is what I would call "no difference."

I kinda sympathize, but not much. If this women thought her only choices were moldy grapes or . . . cookies, its no wonder her daughter is overweight, and it sounds like she needs some training on how to shop. Eating healthy doesn't have to be any more expensive than eating unhealthy. Even if the produce is garbage there are plenty of other choices. ← For instance...? ← For instance, canned fruits and vegetables, frozen fruits and vegetables, dried fruits, generic cereals (the healthier varieties), and so on. I would be very surprised if the store referred to in the story above -- the one with the produce section-- did not also have a canned fruit and vegetable aisle. Maybe it didnt, but I doubt it. Weird. Why are you equating fresh with "healthy"? I may prefer fresh to canned or frozen, but nutritionally canned and frozen goods are usually perfectly adequate. Certainly I would rather have fresh salmon than canned tuna fish on wheat, or fresh strawberries to canned pears, but certainly the tuna fish and the pears are passable. I'm glad you agree, because that was my whole point! I didn't think it was controversial. Again, I would certainly prefer fresh meats to frozen or canned, but I don't necessarily equate fresh with healthy. Maybe I just need to get out and see more of the country. As I said, I've lived a lot of places in my region, including very low incomes areas, and I never was prohibitively far from a grocery that had a reasonable selection of fruits and vegetables, and reasonably healthy snacks, even though they might have been dwarfed by 300 varieties of chips, cookies, Little Debbies, and candy.

I wanted to add my recommendation of El Rey white chocolate. I don't know if there are different varieties by El Rey, but the bar I tried was called Carenero Superior. I like it just as well as, maybe even more than, the Lindt. FWIW, Chocosphere sells the El Rey for $19.35 per kilo.

I think either finish would work well. You can pour any ganache on the cake while its warm, the question is how firm to you want it to become at room temperature. If you want a softer, more glaze-like glaze, I would use about 1C cream to 8ozs chocolate (you can still add butter or liquer too).

Have you seen the number of fat professors in my University's Food Science department? Education isn't the issue, it's initiative. ← I would think that both education and motivation are essential, though you are obviously right that education alone is not sufficient. After all, millions of people continue to smoke even though the health risks are widely understood.

I kinda sympathize, but not much. If this women thought her only choices were moldy grapes or . . . cookies, its no wonder her daughter is overweight, and it sounds like she needs some training on how to shop. Eating healthy doesn't have to be any more expensive than eating unhealthy. Even if the produce is garbage there are plenty of other choices. ← Wow, is that an oversimplified answer! How are you supposed to reach that good, healthful food if you don't have transportation, or you're working two jobs? Just because the woman was in New York City, that doesn't mean the stores in her neighborhood have affordable, healthful food. And have you tried shopping for a family by bus? ← I don't think my answer was oversimplified at all. I think the real oversimplication is pretending that you have to buy cookies for your obese daughter because the grapes are moldy. I lived for many years on minimum wage, and therefore know from my own experience that you can find reasonably affordable healthy food in just about any grocery. ← I agree with most of the above posts. For low-income people in inner city neighborhoods, it's not as simple as "there are more choices than grapes." ← Sure. Pointing out that there are more choices than grapes and cookies is not a solution for obesity, it's a common-sense response to someone who, like the person Amylou described, says she consistently buys cookies for her obese daughter because the grapes are moldy.

In other words, it would appear that by and large fruits and vegetables are not prohibitively expensive, even for those with low income, they simply are infrequently chosen. In fact, according to another ERS report, Low-Income Households’ Expenditures on Fruits and Vegetables, in any given week, 19% of low-income homes (as defined above) spend nothing on fruits and vegetables, which is almost twice the rate (10%) for homes with >130% poverty line income. The same report also points out "Interestingly, the largest positive influence on fruit and vegetable expenditures was a college-educated head of household, regardless of income level." ← I lived in "Little Italy" in the Bronx for years. A poor neighborhood statistically. This is a veritable paradise for fine high quality fresh foods all within a few minutes walking distance--there were (and are) many obese people walking around children and adults. ← Sure, absolutely. My point wasn't that eating fruits and vegetables will prevent you from getting fat, only that nutritious fruits and vegetables are not necessarily prohibitively expensive for people with lower incomes, which is what the story about the woman buying the cookies instead of fruit for her obese daughter seemed to be implying.

You're right on the money, John. I was wondering how "prohibitively" expensive fruits and vegetables are compared to cookies, so I checked out USDA's Economic Reseach Service analyses on this subject. According to their 2004 report How Much Do Americans Pay for Fruits and Vegetables?, even low income households (defined as income 130% or less the "poverty line") can meet their recommended intake of fruit and vegetables by spending only 16% of their average food budget. In other words, it would appear that by and large fruits and vegetables are not prohibitively expensive, even for those with low income, they simply are infrequently chosen. In fact, according to another ERS report, Low-Income Households’ Expenditures on Fruits and Vegetables, in any given week, 19% of low-income homes (as defined above) spend nothing on fruits and vegetables, which is almost twice the rate (10%) for homes with >130% poverty line income. The same report also points out "Interestingly, the largest positive influence on fruit and vegetable expenditures was a college-educated head of household, regardless of income level."