angevin

Buttered Popcorn flavored jelly beans. Taste like a combination of dirty feet and ass.

^ a Mano in New Orleans

Slaughtering live lobsters. Quickly and efficiently with the knife tip severing the head in two.

The best I've ever had were at Sagami, a sushi place in Collingswood, NJ. Simple and unadorned, light and crispy and loaded with flavor. They were a special, so yes, only in season. You'd have to check and see if they have 'em.

Gobs of butter, a generous slather of strawberry jam and lots of real maple syrup. I rarely eat pancakes, but when I have the rare craving, I like lotsa SWEET. For crepes, I do it up similar to Christine: a ladle of melted butter, a squeeze of lemon juice and sugar.

Don't lose too much weight, Fat Guy: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090623133523.htm "The study examined the relationship between body mass index and death among 11,326 adults in Canada over a 12-year period. (BMI uses height and weight to estimate body fat.) Researchers found that underweight people had the highest risk of dying, and the extremely obese had the second highest risk. Overweight people had a lower risk of dying than those of normal weight." It sounds like you're doing everything right. If you're relatively healthy and you feel good, the weight you are is probably right.

"Me, my wife, and the waiter? Sorry, but that ain't happening." Aw...you're no fun.

^ Amen! And this from Paul Campos in The Obesity Myth: "From the perspective of a profit-maximising medical and pharmaceutical industry, the ideal disease would be one that never killed those who suffered from it, that could not be treated effectively, and that doctors and their patients would nevertheless insist on treating anyway. Luckily for it, the American health care industry has discovered (or rather invented) just such a disease. It is called "obesity". Basically, obesity research in America is funded by the diet and drug industry - that is, the economic actors who have the most to gain from the conclusion that being fat is a disease that requires aggressive treatment. Many researchers have direct financial relationships with the companies whose products they are evaluating."

And I do agree that Americans have been getting fatter, but I also know that the definition for "obese" has been changing, people who were in the normal range in 1960 ago are now overweight and those who were overweight are now considered obese. Obesity is now defined in relation to health risk wheras in the past it was defined in relation to the norm. Some stats: •The average weight for a 10 year-old-boy in 1963 was 74.2 pounds; by 2002 the average weight was nearly 85 pounds. •The average weight for a 10-year-old girl in 1963 was 77.4 pounds; by 2002 the average weight was nearly 88 pounds. •A 15-year-old boy weighed 135.5 pounds on average in 1966; by 2002 the average weight of a boy that age increased to 150.3 pounds. •A 15-year-old girl weighed 124.2 pounds on average in 1966; by 2002 the average weight for a girl that age was 134.4 pounds. According to the report, average heights for children increased as well over the past four decades. For example: •The average height of a 10-year-old boy in 1963 was 55.2 inches; by 2002 the average height of a 10-year-old boy had increased to 55.7 inches. •The average height of a 10-year-old girl in 1963 was about 55.5 inches; by 2002 the average height of a 10-year-old girl had increased to 56.4 inches. •In 1966, the average height of a 15-year-old boy was 67.5 inches or almost 5'7½"; by 2002 the average height of a 15-year-old boy was 68.4 or almost 5'8½". •In 1996, the average height of a 15-year-old girl was 63.9 inches; by 2002 the average height of a 15-year-old girl had not changed significantly (63.8 inches). So weight has increased in kids, but not as dramatically as the media makes it out to be. And part of that weight increase can be offset by increases in height. And BTW, average life expectancy in 1960 was 67 years. Today it's 77 years. Much ado about nothing IMO.

Obviously it does have an effect and is excellent for health, but I don't think it's the exercise that's the key point here (It's much easier to cut calories through diet than through exercise). Do you not think one of the main factors is that people eat at McDonalds and other fast food places (and eat the equiavalent at home) a lot more regularly these days? Whereas in the past it was more of a treat? I agree that MD's use to be a treat and now it's a regular occurrance. And I agree that portion sizes have increased dramatically. But I still maintain that the nutritional makeup of the food itself isn't all that bad for you. I agree that cutting calories is a more effective means to losing weight than what we today consider "exercise". Exercise that consists of maybe a half hour on a treadmill three times a week. But when I sold my car I lost 10 pounds with no other changes. All of that walking adds up. When I sat down and figured it out, I realized I was logging in between 20 and 30 miles of brisk walking per week. Every week. Consistently. And when kids are playing outside rather than sitting in front of the computer? It was a similar scenario. In the summer I remember heading out the door in the morning and hearing mom yell "be home by 5 for dinner!". My day was filled with hours at the pool, street games, swings, basketball...That has a HUGE impact on calories burned and no adult exercise routine could compare.

It’s not MD’s food that’s making our kids fat. It’s the misbalance of the calories-in/calories-out equation. There’s nothing nutritionally wrong with the food served at McDonald’s. Nothing wrong with an occasional cheeseburger and fries. If one has a breakfast of fresh fruit and yogurt, a lunch of falafel and salad and then a cheeseburger for dinner, I would consider that day’s intake to be pretty well-balanced. (And really, should all restaurants offer all things? Should Dunkin’ Donuts offer broiled fish?) I have a nutrition background and a lot of interest in this topic. Over the years, I’ve come to the conclusion that regarding human physiology, there are WAY too many variables involved when deciding what one should and shouldn’t eat. But I do believe that a diet high in refined carbs and too little fat will contribute to the tendency to overeat; and there’s more and more evidence that saturated fat isn’t the boogie man we’ve made it out to be. So MD's for lunch, IMO, is a much better choice than Dunkin' Donuts for breakfast. Yet MD's is the one continuously getting beat up. I would argu that the typical public school lunch, with its emphasis on highly processed foods and stuff like fat-free yogurt made with HFCS, is just as bad, if not worse. MD’s has been around since the 60’s, with little change in their offerings. Kids today are fatter because they aren’t nearly as active as they use to be.

I think that, unfortunately, it well may be just you. It's not. There are others out there who are pretty busy househusbands. My wife, for example, hasn't prepared a meal unless I'm out of town in years. It's been my experience that there are a great many more husbands that do some, or even all, of the cooking than there are that do "all the housework." I'm not saying it doesn't happen (it clearly does), but I do think that's still pretty rare. I was going to make a similar comment, but I feel like I'd already gotten myself in enough trouble. Those of us here on eGullet consider cooking "fun", a hobby. When I was married and when kvetching with my married friends, it seemed husbands did the chores they enjoyed, while women were left to do everything else. Again, when young children are involved, the "everything else" can be pretty massive.

Hmmm, I just looked back to her post. What exactly inspired you to use the word "nerdy" from her post? Is it that she's an engineer? Likes video games? Or enjoys science fiction? Oops! You're right - no "nerdy" in her post. I can only suppose that it was the tone of her post that put that idea in my head. Funny how the brain works. The "tom-boyish" thing was in reference to her mentioning that she's use "to being in the boys club", but I'll admit, the "nerdy" thing was a product of assumptions sprung from my own feeble mind. Double apologies.

Tom-boyish nerdy girls? Didn't think I was one of those. Guess I better get rid of all my designer purses and shoes.... Really? Maybe it's just me, but my husband does all the housework. The only thing I do is cook, because it's something I enjoy. Mental rigor? You mean I have to think???? I know my post was full of stereotypes; there are always many exceptions. Things are getting better but research has shown that, especially if there are kids involved, woman do the majority of the household stuff, even when both are working. I was just speculating on an answer to the question posed. And the "nerdy" reference was used in reacting to abadoozy's language in her post. I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone and apologize if I did.

I like your hypothesis; I rarely bake because I find following recipes to be tedious and not much fun.