Honkman

Your comment reminded me of people who still don't believe in global warming (because science is "complicated" and "always wrong") or people who don't want to here anything which they don't like and just brush over it with general disparaging comments which don't actual add anything to the topic. There are obviously many useless studies on food which try to link many things but at the same time just saying every study is useless similarly is pointless. In this case it is not even a study but a meta analysis which takes a statistical look at a number of fairly established studies and tries to find possible correlation/risk analysis. Nowhere in the article are the authors suggesting that you should avoid any food completely (and if your doctor is doing it, it might be a good time to consider changing to a better qualified one) but they are just describing statistical possibilities of certain food having an impact on the likelihood to get cancer.

There is a statistical value for every age of a male of female on the likelihood to get certain types of cancers, e.g. a 45 year old woman in Germany has a 0.3% probability to get cancer in the next 10 years. If she would eat 100 g processed meat per day (and it doesn't matter if she eats it 100g/day or 200g/ every other day, it is the addition over a certain time period) than she has a 36% higher probability than somebody in the same age who eats no processed meat and an overall probability of 0.4% to get cancer in the next 10 years

Here is our take on quark and how to make it http://twofoodiesonejourney.blogspot.com/2010/10/homemade-quark-staple-in-german-cuisine.html?m=0

According to his Twitter account they are working on it and it is expected in 2016

Welcome to California

That just states that they grind their beef themselves but says nothing about the source of the beef. But it is well known that the main source for In'n'Out beef is from Harris Ranch the largest producer of CAFO beef in California (which also provides beef to McD and others). Harris Ranch area along I-5 is also known as Cowschwitz and was one of the reasons Pollan started to write Omnivores Dillema

This post responded to a comment in a discussion of MacDonald's sirloin burgers, and has been moved here, where it is relevant. The only thing which makes an In'N'Out remotely edible is their animal style sauce. They get their beef from the "normal" sources where McD and other fast food restaurant also get it.

If you want to try it at C&C better hurry up - C&C will close next Tuesday and will be remodeled to be opened next year

Will the publisher support you (financially) to set up some kind of book tour (perhaps with one dish showcasing your approach)

I agree that you can become very interesting for publishers for a second cookbook if you can show that you can sell a significant number of books through self publishing in a certain amount of time. The question is how confident are you for example that you are able to sell 3000 books in 1-2 years which means you have to sell about 30-60 books a week. And don't forget that there might be a lot of additional work for you if people order it online and you have to ship it etc. I think it is a doable path forward but you have to have some reasonable indication about realistic numbers of books you might be able to sell and be willing to commit significant amount of work in addition to run a restaurant

I don't think it is a good idea for an established chef to rely on any kind of blog especially to potentially to publish a cookbook. You would dilute your message and be more recognized as a blogger than as a chef (and I don't think that is a path gfron wants to go). It is obvious that getting a publisher deal is complicated but at the same time I also think that self publishing can be damaging depending what your plans are for the future. If you just want to publish just this one book and you are confident that there will never be a second or third one self publishing is fine but if you consider ever publishing more than just this one self publishing might eliminate/complicate the chances to get a publisher in the future. I think you have to see yourself as a "brand" and consider your future goals (and not just cookbook goals) and how today's decisions might have an impact on your overall goals (one might argue some people could see self publishing as desparate. In addition, self publishing is often associated with low quality products)

That's a pretty common starting point for publishers today. They expect a lot from you upfront and it is the job of a good agent to negotiate a better deal. My mother has experienced the same when she published an own (political/historical) book. The publisher can offer you a lot of contacts and good distribution you won't get with self publishing.

I looked in SciFinder and other databases and couldn't find a well designed study (a lot of underpowered, badly designed ones are obviously available). So I am waiting for your suggestions. There is a lot of research (actually the large majority) done which has no conflict of interest (are you working in the science field ?). The only interest many researchers have is getting their next grant which often have much higher hurdles of acceptance/referees than most peer-reviewed journals. In addition, this conflict of interest is that one of the key authors founded a company selling these meals/additives. So it is a valid question if they would have come to the same conclusion/or even published these results at all even that wouldn't have been the case. And I am not looking at the title of any newspaper but at their actual manuscript (and the papers they have published like their mouse study about fasting and cancer drugs) and "taking a step back" is absolutely the wrong way as you are trying to extrapolate meaningful "conclusion" out of a badly design study which should didn't produce anything that would indicate if fasting has any negative or positive effect. (I don't know if you have Modenist Cuisine but in the first book is a short chapter which addresses some similar concerns)

But is there any data on correctly organized clinical studies which clearly show the effect of fastening on human health. Just because there are many papers published over a long time doesn't mran there are any studies available which have meaningful results. Food and diets are particukar known have very little relevant data but a lot of "research" Also just looking for a minute about the journal I found this criticism on handling complains about an other paper in the same journal and its questionable clinical data (and its interpretation) http://www.biolayne.com/news/protein-metabolism-experts-respond-to-recent-anti-protein-claims/ I review manuscripts for other (not food related) scientific journals and I am very surprised that this paper was allowed to be published with this significant conflict of interest by one of the authors

Another "scientist" who is trying to get grants with useless small studies which have no power to produce any meaningful results. There is a reason why small clinical P1/2 studies often produce "interesting" result which ultimately have no value once repeated in a meaningful P3 study with enough participants to actually have statistical significance. The authors published these result based on pseudoscience to get most likely more grants but not so really develop quality science. In addition one of the authors is cofounder of a company making such kind of "diet foods" which should be readon enough not to publish such paper

At least here in San Diego all WF shops are really good in supporting small local farmers with opportunities to sell their produce in store (organic and non-organic (some of the farmers can't pay the money for the organic certification but wirk within the rules). Farmer's Markets are great (and it is important to build telationships to your farmers) but it is also good for them to have other ways to sell their stuff.

But aren't daily meals eaten together some of the best times with family/friends. I can't imagine eaten my meals separate from my family

Might be a NYC thing but at least here in California WF employees are a by far more friendly, interested and knowledgable about food, cooking etc. than nearly any other supermarket employee (the exception are sometimes very small, specialized mom'n'pop shops)

T2C - normally I would agree about not being to pedantic to always provide the highest quality ingredients and we tell our daughter not to spit out food when she doesn't like it (which happens very rarely and mostly when Indian food is way too hot for her) but Hershey was one of the rare occasion where i broke my own rule when i tried it for the first time. I think Hershey is absolutely disgusting and has nothing to do with chocolate and it is one of the rare occasion where not having chocolate is better than having this crap. And just because he never tried high-end chocolate doesn't mean we have to give him the absolute lowest quality (and I might be wrong but it is hard to imagine that no other chocolate would be "save" enough for him)

Why should you expose kids to the lowest quality ? Kids are not stuck behind filters but often exposed to bad quality. If you expose them early on to good quality ingredients they will choose and appreciate higher quality ingredients and good food in general

Sherry Yard has a nice Forbidden Rice Pudding in one of her cookobooks - here is a varation but it is easy to play around with different falvors and fruits to the basic recipe http://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1013017-forbidden-rice-pudding-with-blueberries

Seems to be an old article - the book will be now about ~1000 pages and the second book is already planned for next year.

This issue is often discussed regarding foodblogs and their use of recipes (from books or other sources) - writing down the ingredients is no problem, everything else you shouldn't just repeat what is already published.

This new tool would be much more interesting if cheap sous vide application wouldn't already exists. Everything else with this new tool is just of little use.