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.

I'm female, don't have the books and probably won't be purchasing them. I feel like I'm not "serious" enough about cooking. For me cooking is a lifestyle, not a hobby. One that I spend a good deal of time on and enjoy a whole whole lot, but it kind of is integrated casually into my day. I've given this question a lot of thought and have also posted some rather unpopular musings on the MC thread. I'm fascinated by the topic and would love to get my hands on someone else's books just for fun. But for some reason, this method of cooking just isn't for me. I'm not sure if any of this has to do with gender, but I do think maggie might be on to something here. Of course the tom-boyish nerdy girls here are going to speak up in their own defense. But I do think men - IN GENERAL - are more mechanically inclined. And since the techniques seem to have more to do with gadgets, instrumentation and precision than other cookbooks, maybe MC appeals more to men? Maybe, maybe not. And it could also be that more of the women on here are just too busy running busy households to devote so much attention and mental rigor to MC?

Absolutely true, but for clarification, I (and assume the others) was talking about Old vs New World style. Sure there are wines being made in CA in the old world style, and wines in Italy made in a new world style. And the lines are getting fuzzy, whcih may or may not be a good thing. And I don't think anyone was dissin' new world (except maybe for the presumptions in Fat Guy's orignal post); it's just a matter of preference and what one is use to drinking. I love Chateau Musar; I would consider this to be old world in style, that is, not greatly extracted, fruit-forward and/or having a prominant oak element.

I rarely go for big New World wines, except for an occasional glass sipped by the fireplace. Even with a steak, the "biggest" I'll go is a well-crafted Super Tuscan. I think the liking of big vs subtle is an aqcuired taste; people are either in the New World camp or Old World camp and it's difficult to easily transition from one to the other.

Little Fish is back in operation in their new digs at 6th and Fitzwater. Although ambiance is a little better than at the old place, it is still small, maybe 30 seats max. But the same opportunity to view the theater of the open kitchen from every table exists. I’ve been four times since their reopening and am in agreement with the assessment of others here, based on their former spot.- consistently good, occasionally great. This past Sunday was great. (It’s still relatively easy to get in on their Sunday 5-course tasting for a staggering $33; I called on Thursday and was able to secure a reservation for four, albeit for the later (8:00pm) of the two seatings.) Following are my humble impressions: The first course was a salad of crisply fried mussels over wilted baby swiss chard in a delicate lemon sabayon. Nice contrast of textures. Then came a hiramasa crudo with shiso, topped with a dollop of slightly sweet rhubarb sorbet and surrounded by a very light lime emulsion. Bracingly refreshing and delicious. The third course, a seared scallop atop a medley of diced ramps, fingerling potatoes and shaved truffles, was bold and earthy, although the garlickiness of the ramps was a bit overpowering. The execution of the fourth course more than salvaged the fact that mahi mahi fish isn’t among my favorites, the fish was served over English peas and shitakes, seasoned with small chunks of thick bacon. Dessert was a warm, chewy black pepper biscuit, the pleasing burn from the pepper cooled by a small scoop of strawberry sorbet and a sauce of pureed fresh mint. The entire meal evoked the freshness of the new spring season. And still BYO of course, which I like because there’s no problem sharing with my underage kids. We had two appropriately versatile wines: a muscadet and a dolcetto. I like these fixed course tasting nights, especially at a small place; I find the unique dinner-party vibe, with everyone being served the same thing at the same time, so fun.

"...the open-mindedness of the eater..." Has nothing to do with open-mindedness. I've tried foam, more than once. And I'll continue to eat foamed sauces if served, although I tend to shy away. I'm just not a fan. Not liking something, even if it's due to appearance and texture more than taste, is not the same as being close-minded.

Vacationed in Barcelona last summer, went to the Boqueria market every day, sometimes twice. Thank you so much for sharing; your thread has me crying - can't wait to "experience" ElBulli!

This. I first encountered foam a few years ago (the spit kind) before I had a clue as to what it was or what the chef's intention was in using it. All's I could think of was "ewwww...". That response was definitely a product of me 1. encountering something I'd never seen, felt, tasted before combined with 2. Not really being blown away enough to counteract that initial visceral reaction. I could entertain the possibility that if I had grown up on the spit-like type of foam and was presented with whipped cream, that I would have had the same reaction. However, on top of the "ewww''' reaction, I began to hear all about this fabulous new style of cooking, that all of the important, trendy high-end restaurants are doing...and then to see the very same foam thatI had detested. One can imagine two possible reactions to this scenario. The first from those who embrace novelty, innovation and love to follow trends, always looking for something new and different. Those might say..."well, maybe I was too hasty on judgeing the foam thing", and then go on to become huge fans. The opposite reaction is from those who stubbornly resist "going along with fashion", individualists...who would say "yuck! these sheeple have no clue what's good; they just like what the "in" folks tell them to like.Goddamnit - I'll never like foam!" Me? I kind of fall into the latter, but can be easily convinced with enough exposure. So yeah, I've had quite a bit since that initial try, I'm still not a big fan. But if the trend ceases to be a trend and becomes integrated into mainstream fine dining, I am wide open to the possibility that it will grow on me and I'll come to love it. So for me, I guess time will tell.

Today's article in our Philly Inquirer: http://www.philly.com/philly/restaurants/20110407_The_2_438-page_cookbook.html A brief nod to our discussion here on eGullet - "One writer on eGullet suggested that sous vide's digital temperature control takes the soul out of cooking." Gee...I wonder who might that have been?

Walt Staib - City Tavern

I suppose we'll have our answer after you have a decent amount of experience using the scale. After a year, let us know if you had to adjust and how often.