Mjx

I really don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying that only thin people run? Or that no fat people exercise? That's simply not true. No, that's not what I'm saying. I've seen the analogy drawn using Lance Armstrong as an example. He is someone who can eat whatever he wants--I believe a large bowl of fettucini in the mornings--yet does not gain any fat. An the reason is not that he's thin because he rides his bike, but that he rides his bike because he is thin. The hormones regulating his fat tissue do not want to store those calories as fat; his body wants to burn the excess glucose that's floating around as fuel. Fat people can exercise all they want. Though I probably wouldn't recommend it if they are trying to lose weight. We've all heard of the idea of "working up an appetite". That's a substantially incorrect generalization, as anyone who's seen retired athletes knows. I've seen it in myself: When I'm active (read: the equivalent of two or more hours of intensive exercise, or walking 2x60 blocks, with 10+ hours of doing deep tissue work in between), I can eat three times a day, maybe even five. The rest of the time, I'm asking for trouble if I eat more than one modest meal a day. I'm generally a bit fluffy about the middle when I find my activity level stepped up; it doesn't last long. And, when my busy season begins I'm generally quite fit, because I build fast, and muscle tend to burn calories, but the weight piles on quickly, too, if I don't abruptly shift my eating pattern. And, the first things to be aggressively cut are the carbs, since they function almost exclusively as fuel, and if I spend ten hours a day at the computer, I'm just not burning much, the caloric demand is low. The protein, fat, and various vitamins and minerals (supplemented), are in demand by the body, even when if you're barely moving. In practical terms, the real problems are that, a) people are pretty much indoctrinated in a mythology of food, and b) most of us like to eat. With regard to the first point, most people seem to have very inaccurate ideas of how often/much healthy but more or less sedentary adult humans need to eat. When I tell people I only eat once a day, they tend to be disturbed, and say things like 'You can't do that, it's unhealthy'. If I ask Why, they can't answer. It's 'just bad for you'. But it isn't: I get a reasonable number of calories per day, given my activity level. As for liking to eat, if we try to ignore or fight our enjoyment of food, we will either eat too much, or make ourselves miserable (often both, with the result that we end up fat and unhappy). Here again, instead of wallowing in lousy replacements or a sea of measurements, it's simpler to simply decide to only eat between, say, 18.00 and 21.00, and eat what one likes. This is untrue. In the 1950′s twenty overweight DuPont executives ate a high-calorie, low-carbohydrate diet and averaged a loss of 2 pounds per week without reported hunger between meals. Several experiments confirm that caloric intake does not inhibit weight loss if carbohydrate intake is low. My recollection of this study is that although what was on their plates made for a relatively high calories count for someone attempting to lose weight, the study participants were seldom able to eat all that was on their plates. Some couldn't even come close. I don't have any immediate access to the original study, however; anyone else able to get their hands on it?

Hm... well, regardless of his reasons, if what he's willing to eat is restricted, that's what you have to work with. You may need to find a different area in which to fuss over him, since at the moment, at least, food doesn't sound like it's on the 'fun/pleasure platform' for him, and he'll probably just feel a bit bad if you're trying really hard, and he can't truly appreciate your efforts. This is essentially the strategy that my sister-in-law takes, because my brother is the most restricted, picky eater I know. For ideas (even just starting points), you might look into cuisines that run to a lot of meatless options (e.g. Indian; you can always adjust the spices, if he doesn't go for that sort of thing), since even recipes that feature meat are often easily turned into vegetarian options.

Have him make as much of his own food as possible, it will be much more relaxing for you both, and more successful. I'm speaking as both a picky/restricted eater, and someone who's fed even pickier/more restricted eaters than myself. Most of the picky eaters I know aren't easily bored, by the way, and will eat the the same things again and again without any problem. Just ask him to name a bunch of things he does eat, and have the ingredients available for those dishes. What does he normally eat for breakfast? Isn't toast with whatever he puts on it an option? I don't handle wheat particularly well, so if I even eat breakfast, I'll grab a couple of slices of Wasa (the 100% rye ones). Does he eat chocolate? Unless he's ill, I wouldn't worry about fattening him up.

I've always thought of it as smoked, but apparently, that is not necessarily a given: http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/gammon.

I don't actually have a preference – I've heard solid arguments for both approaches – although I stagger the ordinary drinking glasses we have, so they fit together more neatly (i.e. alternating right side up and upside down; the glasses flare towards the top). I do make sure that the shelves with the dishes, cups, and glasses on them are kept very, very clean, though.

Ham I'm guessing that the word has some connection to 'jamón'.

Sugar. I don't use sugar substitutes (unless there's a diabetic involved), even when it's a question of 'just' taste. Even when it comes to coffee, which I usually take very sweet, I'll have it black, rather than with an artificial sweetener.

Looks really tasty (and I like the presence of two flavours that always seem very characteristically Danish)! How did you make the licorice powder?

Is this the same Aldi we have in the EU?! The 'wake' descriptor makes that seem probable (although the ones here are also apparently legally required to have a small collection of drunks in their parking lots at all times), but the selection of canned goods that one finds on their shelves in Denmark is of a uniform badness, suitable only for putting into the coffin of the deceased whose wake this is, if those left behind are taking a pessimistic view of his or her afterlife destination: They seem most appropriate to an eternity spent in hell.

Well happy new year and congratulations on the house, and those are some lovely gifts! But the cubed egg thing... WOW. Poirot would squeal

Ombre Rosse (Parma) and Frascati (SF) are two that spring to mind. There are several others, too, but... I love their unknown-to-outsiders status

http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?/topic/120762-obscene-sandwich/page__p__1626759__hl__obscene__fromsearch__1#entry1626759

Wonderful sandwiches?

Heck, find a diplomatic but unambiguous way to tell everyone else to make their own food, and take a break. When I'm fried, my boyfriend fends for himself... he sometimes even makes fantastic pizza!

I take a look at what unfamiliar cultures do at the current time of year, especially in tropical and subtropical climates. I look at the colours, the combinations of ingredients that recur frequently/seem unique to the cuisine; I annoy people in the forums here with my questions about this sort of thing. I make a list of the ingredients that particularly stand out, for any reason. I make an agreement with myself to cook at least X number of things in a given timeframe, using my new ingredient/technique set, and go on a hunting and gathering mission. Where I am now, this tends to yield meagre results, so I tend to have long lists for when I go back to NYC. Or, live on almonds, grapefruit, and coffee for a bunch of weeks, until I start fantasizing about real food.

These would be books unavailable on amazon, apparently, and it's the sister who's going to do the the schlepping, so it's another story (I can testify to this, having recently done the mule thing, and brought two cast iron pans – no, I'm not kidding – from NYC to Denmark)

I was just there. You assume incorrectly. (Although I wouldn't know which designer brands use sweatshop labor. I assume the answer is probably "all of them.") nikkib's comment was intended as irony. We already did all this, elsewhere, and this has nothing to do with someone making a dumb choice; let's not turn this guy into a martyr for a cause.

I don't care for yeast breads that have a cakey texture, either, they always suggest that something went wrong; a more resilient texture is what seems right for brioche. It also shouldn't be too sweet: I've had some that had been really oversweetened.

Because his customers go to his shop, not his home, for meat? All he's doing is fulfilling a demand for a product which is perfectly legal, but is chosen as an easy target for animal rights terrorists. It's good to see someone standing up and being unrepentant. It's just a shame he'll probably lose his business over it. Great points nikkib, but we all know that foie gras is the most evil product on the market, and must be stopped at all costs. One could go into the whole foie gras thing again, or argue one way or the other, regarding Selfridges hypocrisy, but what this particular incident is really about is someone gambling, and losing. O' Shea's arrangement with Selfridge's was to not sell foie gras; he did that off his own bat, he took his chances. So he gambled, and lost. The only grownup way to handle this sort of thing is to be philosophical; boohooing, pouting, and going all defensive are just embarrassing and babyish.

Well, it's stupid, if nothing else. How did think he would not get caught? And if he could set up this sort of network, why not do it from his home, or something, rather than from a large shop that may not actually care about animal rights, but does like to make the profitable pretense of it?

I'd be interested in hearing about the final decision (I have some doubts as to whether most kids would greet poached pears with much enthusiasm)!

The problem is probably sorted by now, but the issue of Cook's Illustrated that reached me yesterday suggested using sugar, which purportedly 'act like porous sponges to absorb some of the odor molecules' (January & Februar 2012, p. 17). The procedure calls for wetting the hands with warm water, then rubbing them for a minute with a tablespoon of sugar.

I like chocolate with muscat, and don't think it's a mistake, although large amount of glutinous, gloppy chocolate (e.g. chocolate cream cake) wouldn't seem like a great match. My pick would be a selection of things that make for small, concentrated (flavour/texturally) bites, biscotti and panforte/some chocolates (recently, I've been going a bit amok with Peter Beyer's ale truffles, and also the ones with saffron and... rum? I think it's rum) or excellent quality dried/candied fruit in a thin layer of not-too-sweet dark chocolate would be good.

I'm thinking that a really heavy cream might push the dessert into the too-rich zone.

Not eating for most of the day was difficult at first, but it became fairly easy after about two weeks, and it's the only form of dieting I can pull off (I find life rough enough without treating food as units and penalties). I'll sometimes pop a dextrose tablet, or grab a slice of Wasa. I'm a bit leary about the daily weighing thing. Bizarrely, my own weight hasn't budged in months, although there's no question that the spare tire I had in the spring is now gone, and my abs are all visible, and very 'displayable' again.