slkinsey

Right here baby!

The 310 calorie Mission 12-inch "chili-herb wrap" weighs in at 104 grams, or 3.67 ounces. That's about 84.5 calories per ounce. The 170 calorie Thomas's Sahara wraps weigh only 59 grams, or 2.08 ounces. That's about 81.7 valories per ounce. No idea on size, but they've got to be considerably smaller.

It would be typical for a large wrap -- the bread product itself -- to have 170 calories. A slice of standard commercial bread is usually around 80 calories. Mission is a common brand in NYC supermarkets. Their 12-inch wrap tortilla has between 310 and 330 calories, depending on what kind it is. Their "reduced carb" 12-inch tortilla is 270 calories. Their 12-inch "stretched style" flour tortilla is 240 calories. I was shocked at how caloric they were compared to bread. Now, there's some question in my mind as to whether it's reasable to compare the caloric value of a 12-inch wrap with two slices of bread. A wrap isn't usually substituting for something that small. You could never fit the amount of filling between two slices of rye bread that you can fit into a 12-inch wrap. Really, we should be comparing them to "hero" rolls.

Yes, I would say that all national cuisines need to be contiguous or relatively contiguous (e.g., mainland Italy and Sicily -- which, I should point out, has many absolutely unique features that distinguish it from mainland Italian cooking and culture). Unless it's the case of an outlying and relatively isolated "colony" that is heavily culturally invested in maintaining strong cultural ties to the "mother country" -- as was the case with the (failed) Norse colony in Greenland that continued to raise and eat cattle instead of fish. The food in your hypothetical North African Italian colony might atart out as "Italian cooking" -- but after a hundred years or so, it wouldn't be "Italian cooking" any more than Brazilian food is "Portugese cooking." This is becoming less and less so as the "world becomes smaller" due the effects of mass media, rapid transportation, the internet, etc. Lines between different cuisines are increasingly blurred and we are headed towards a great sameness. Even upstart regional American cooking is becoming less distinctive as mediocre white clam chowder and pulled pork are available coast to coast. But most, if not all national/regional cuisines grew up around contiguous peoples. I'm not sure what non-restaurant, pre-20C "cuisine" exists that did not arise from a contiguous people (and, per other discussions, although one can make the argument that they represent their own distinct category of "cuisine," I don't think things like "haute restaurant" or "general menu" are "cuisines" the same way that French cuisine and Indian cuisine are). You still haven't answered my question about Cajun cooking (there is no such thing as "Cajun-Creole food" -- Cajun and Creole cooking historically come from distinctly different populations with different influences and histories, and they are quite different). Anyway... this is all getting pretty far afield from the thread subject, and probably not interestingly so.

"French haute cuisine" is a separate category unto itself. I don't believe it is appropriate to extend this concept to other kinds of cooking. Indeed, I would argue that much of what we think of as "French haute cuisine" is hardly French at all. And yes, I would argue that Daniel does not make "authentic French food" under this idea of "authentic." What's so French about this menu? Yuzu marinated tai snapper with shiso cream, shaved crudités and lemon balm oil is French? Daniel, and other haute cuisine restaurants, make "haute cuisine food," with "haute cuisine" being a restaurant concept that was born in France (where restaurant culture itself was born) but has for a long time not necessarily been tied to France, French culture or French people. It can be tied to France, French culture and French people, but it's not required. I also think you're stretching the points I made to absurdity. There's a difference between someone in Thailand using ketchup in making a sauce for what is otherwise a straightforward Thai noodle dish (which is what I assume is happening) and someone in an American Thai restaurant making "Southern fried chicken pad thai." You gave an example of something that was clearly not within the broad culinary tradition of Thai cooking, so I clarified. Your example would be like saying: England has a lot of restaurants making cheap carry-out curry, therefore curry should be considered "authentic English food." Maybe some day 100 years from now, this will be true. But the fact is that, right now, English people do not consider curry to be within the broad tradition of English cooking. And that's the bar. I also didn't say that everyone in Thailand had to consider the dish "authentic Thai cuisine" to use ketchup. First of all, this is not consistent with the usage of "authentic" as I have proposed if for this situation (it is more in line with my usage of "traditional"). But more to the point is the question as to how the ketchup is used, and whether it is incorporated into the food in a way that is more-or-less consistent with the Thai culinary tradition. Of course there will be people in Thailand who argue for or against using it. But at some point there is a preponderance of usage of the ingredient by Thai people in a way that is more-or-less consistent with the Thai culinary tradition, and a Thai restaurant located outside of Thailand attempting to give customers an "authentic Thai cooking experience" (not the same as a "traditional Thai experience" or perhaps an "authentic traditional Thai experience) would want to include this ingredient usage. I mean, what ties Thai cooking together if not Thai culture and, well, Thailand?! You're right that you're in the minority in considering Italian-American cooking to be a regional Italian cuisine with America being a region. Looking at it that way, the whole idea of what allows certain culinary traditions to hang together completely breaks down. There are any number of things in Italian-American cooking that are simply not recognizable to Italians as "Italian food." I'd say this idea fails on that basis alone. I also don't understand how you can make the argument that Italian-American cooking is a "regional Italian cuisine" and not use the same logic to argue that Cajun cooking is a "regional French cuisine"? Or would you argue that Cajun cooking is a "regional French cuisine"?

Oh, I'm sorry. You're trying to be clever and amusing. I thought maybe this was a real discussion. Carry on.

I'm not so sure a pure geographic definition of authenticity makes sense, especially not when you're talking about cultures where not just a few people but millions are living in the diaspora. When you have a diasporic people, you get diasporic cooking. I don't think anyone would (or could) argue that Italian-American cooking is "authentic Italian cooking." Rather, it is "authentic Italian-American cooking" or, if you like "authentic diasporic Italian (in America) cooking." There are people with names like Max Levy making things like sashimi with truffles in on Cape Cod, but that still doesn't make it "New England food." I think you still have to look at the culture of origin and see what the people there think. I think you would find that the sashimi with truffles prepared by Max Levy in Shanghai would not be considered "Shanghaiese food" by Shanghaiese people. However, over time, these things may change the tradition of what is considered "Shanghaiese cooking." That's a different story. Clearly there comes a point where the disasporic food evolves in a direction so that it is not reasonably within that geography-based tradition. Take, for example, Cajun cooking. What is this? Well, if you boil it down to its bones, it's extremely old-fashioned French provincial cooking with too much chili pepper and some local ingredients. It is not "authentic French provincial cooking." And the fact is, of course, that French provincial cooking has moved on from where it was in the 17th century when the Acadians left France for the New World -- and that is the true "authentic French Provincial cooking." Now, it's possible -- if highly unlikely -- that a chili pepper craze could have swept through regional France at some time and produced "authentic French Provincial cooking" that is very similar to Cajun cooking. But it didn't and so that's that.

Dr. Teeth, I don't buy wraps. I make them. I know what goes inside them, and there's no bland filler in mine. What you may get from a caterer (loaded with mayonnaise, etc.) or in an airport sandwich shop is another story -- in which case I agree that they're often the Devil's spawn.

WRT "authentic" and "traditional" it seems to me that there is an easy way to look at this if it is an American restaurant serving non-American food. "Authentic" has to do with the extent to which the food duplicates what is currently being done in the cuisine's culture of origin. If Thai people in Thailand are using ketchup, then it would be "authentic" to do so in a restaurant here. If Japanese restaurants tend to feature one dish or style of food only, then to feature many dishes or styles of food would be "inauthentic." Whether this is good or bad on either count is a matter of opinion. "Authentic" doesn't necessarily equal "good" nor does "inauthentic" necessarily equal "bad." There can also be different ways to consider the "authenticity" of what a restaurant is doing and serving. General Tso's Chicken is "inauthentic" if one is using Chinese-in-China cooking as the measuring stick. However, as Steven points out, it can be considered "authentic" on the basis of being Chinese-in-America cooking. Similar things could be said about much of Italian-American cooking. Part of looking at it this way is understanding that "authentic" changes with the times. The Thai cooking that is happening in Thailand is always going to be "authentic" on this basis. When Thai people began using ketchup with any frequency, it immediately became "authentic." "Traditional," on the other hand, moves a lot more slowly than "authentic" -- although it, too, evolves. "Traditional" in this context could be taken to mean "what has historically been done." So, looking at the introduction of .e.g., chili peppers into Asian cooking, tomatoes into Italian cooking, potatoes into Eastern European cooking... when they first began to be used, they were not "traditional." But, after a couple hundred years of use the tradition had changed and they became "traditional." Looking at it this way, using ketchup in Thai cooking would be "authentic" but not yet "traditional." Maybe 50 or 100 years from now, it will be "traditional."

Daniel, what Steven is talking about is a use of large flour tortillas as a bread replacement. Imagine a ham sandwich with mustard, Swiss cheese and lettuce on rye bread. Now, take away the rye bread and roll up everything else in an extra-large "spinach flavored" tortilla. That is a "wrap." The essence of "wrapness" is that the tortilla serves as a replacement for bread in an otherwise quotidian American sandwich. If the food is something that would ordinarily be served wrapped up in a tortilla (e.g., anything taco-like) then it would not be called a "wrap." I don't prefer wraps, and I wouldn't necessarily buy one if I were going to buy a sandwich for lunch. But I do eat them with some regularity. This is for a few reasons. First, I can get very high quality extra-large flour tortillas at Fairway. If I had to make do with those flabby, faux-flavored Mission brand flour tortillas, I don't think I could do it. Second, they are a good choice for weight control versus bread, although one wrap often has more calories than two slices of bread. This is because, if you're me, you'd like to fill up the sandwich as much as possible with low-calorie ingredients (lettuce, arrugula, sprouts, onions, peppers, mushrooms, cucumbers, tomatoes, etc.) and use a small amount of high calorie foods like meats and cheeses primarily for flavoring. This way I can get the stomach-filling satisfaction of eating a big sandwich with a relatively small number of calories. Logistically, it's simply impossible to get that amount of vegetables between two slices of rye bread. Third, I find that wraps are better than bread when I'm packing a lunch. If a sandwich is going to be living in the refrigerator wrapped in wax paper and stuck inside a paper bag or reusable plastic container for 5 hours before I eat it, bread will inevitably become unappetizingly soggy (especially if, per the above, it contains a lot of vegetables). Wraps, in my experience, end up in much better shape when lunchtime comes around. Now... if weight-control is not a consideration, if I'm ordering a protein-focused sandwich at a deli to be consumed within the next 20 minutes, and if I'm basing my decision 100% on what will taste best... of course I'm choosing bread over a wrap. But if I did that I wouldn't be saving around 40 bucks a week on lunch money and I would be a lot fatter than I already am.

I've never seen soda or any other nonalcoholic mixers for sale in a NYC liquor store. For that matter, you can't even buy beer in a NYC liquor store.

Flatiron Lounge recently had a nice Apry drink on their menu called the "Slope" (presumably after Park Slope). It's similar to the Red Hook, only substituting Apry for the maraschino. The Red Hook is 2 rye and half each of Punt e Mes and maraschino. Since Apry is not as assertive as maraschino, you'll want to play with the ratios a bit to find out what works best. Another cool cocktail for Apry is the Golden Dawn (equal parts Calvados, gin, Cointreau, Apry -- shake, strain, dribble in a little grenadine). Apry would also be good as the sweet component of a Julep (I've been making gin juleps with St. Germain elderflower liqueur, but that's for another thread).

There are a couple of issues here. Issue #1 is whether or not those products are on some distributor's list for your state or not. It's possible that they are on some distributor's list and simply not actually stocked by the distributor in the state. It's also possible that it is stocked by the distributor in the state, and your liquor store doesn't stock it himself. The last one is the best case scenario, because you can get your liquor store to special-order some for you. The other situations are a little trickier. It's not clear that you, as an individual consumer can do much of anything. To make an example: Despite the fact that most of the top bars in NYC were asking for Laird's bonded, and despite the fact that there was built-in demand for the product such that the distributor would know it was going to move a certain reasonable volume of Laird's bonded in NYC, and despite the fact that Laird's bonded was on the list for NY, it still took over a year plus a number of phone calls from Laird's to the NY distributor before any of it came into the distributor's NY inventory.

Wrt measures for the Vesper, this is something we've discussed before over in the Vesper thread. The original formula is "...Three measures of Gordon's, one of vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet. Shake it very well until it's ice-cold, then add a large thin slice of lemon-peel." Erik, you pointed out that the "bar measure" in England was, at the time of Casino Royale, 1/6th gill. That elicited the following post from me: Dave's right to substitute Tanqueray for Gordon's, because the latter has come down in proof considerably since the time of Casino Royale.

Interestingly, while the first stufy Paul links to says: "Results of surveys and of clinical challenges with MSG in the general population reveal no evidence of untoward effects." It also says: "... large doses of MSG given without food may elicit more symptoms than a placebo in individuals who believe that they react adversely to MSG." This suggests the possibility of a purely psychosomatic response in some people who are convinced they are "allergic to MSQ" (after all, umami can be tasted).

How does that last one support MSG sensitivity? It says:

Right. Mine too... only I'm talking about a $25 PTFE coated pan I've had for around 5 years, not a $100 one.

Also for clarification: I assume that when John says "more than a half-ounce of maraschino" we're speaking of a standard "cocktailian sized" 3-ounce drink.

Yea, I'm with you on that one (not that I have too many drinks with more than a half-ounce of maraschino). Although sometimes I might be tempted to just dial back the Luxardo a little bit to balance the drink. On the other hand, Maraska maraschino is a very good-quality product, albeit less assertive and funky than Luxardo maraschino, so there's no reason not to use it -- especially if dialing back the Luxardo means that you have to add sweetness from another source (e.g., simple) to balance against a sour component. I guess one might compare the difference to, say, the difference between Wild Turkey and Maker's Mark. Both are high quality, distinctive products, but Wild Turkey is much more assertive. Different drinks would lend themselves to different choices between these two. Stock, on the other hand, compares to an okay-quality blended whiskey. Yea, there are a few cocktails where the blended whiskey might be just the thing you need. But I wouldn't choose to stock just the blended whiskey because it was "easier-mixing." If I could only choose one and was wanted one that was broadly compatible in a wide variety of cocktails, I guess I'd probably choose Maker's. This same reasoning might lead me to stock Maraska as my only maraschino, but never Stock. Edited to add: Don, I'm with you in thinking that Luxardo is THE maraschino (although fwiw, I have an extremely knowledgable friend that makes the same argument in favor of Maraska). I probably go through 4 bottles of Luxardo for every 1 of Maraska.

I have a hard time putting too much credence in things that originate from truthinlabeling.org, which I have perused and much of which smacks of quackery.

That is interesting, and I have in the past speculated that some of the issues certain people have with MSG might have to do with contaminants in the industrial process. However, it should be pointed out that this would only apply to actual MSG, and not to things like hydrolyzed protein, autolyzed yeast, etc.

takadi, your "refined glutamates" idea doesn't work. There is no chemical difference between the glutamate from powdered MSG and the glutamate from aged cheese and the glutamate from kombu (etc, etc, etc.). It is entirely possible that, for some people, foods high in glutamates trigger migranes or have other health effects. But these people should have the same problem from eating a big hunk of parmesan cheese that they have from eating a handfull of Doritos that they have from eating a cup of Chinese soup.

Gingerol is a relative of capsaicin. Heat, oxidation and and degradation over time transform gingerol into the compound zingerone. Zingerone is not present in fresh ginger and it's an aromatic flavor compound that isn't spicy-hot like gingerol. Gingerol seems to degrade fairly rapidly in a sugar-syrup solution (perhaps due to oxidation?). I've had some bottled ginger beers that have kept s good bite for quite some time in the bottle, but I have to assume that some special handling, processing or treating makes this possible. Experience says that ginger-infused simple syrup doesn't have much bite after a few days.

Personally, I think Stock maraschino is pretty lame. I'm not even sure it's real maraschino. Now... that said, the real thing (Luxardo or Maraska) can be a bit funky and strong for inexperienced palates. So, for those people, Stock has its place. As for that the person said at M&H... Well, let's just say that they have to make hard decisions as to what they will stock, because they just don't have room for 3 different brands of maraschino. Last time I was there, they also weren't stocking Lillet -- I guess there just weren't enough orders for Lillet cocktails to justify taking up the space with a bottle. So, I guess if they want an easy-mixing brand of maraschino that will be acceptable to the largest number of customers, Stock is a logical choice. And, let's be honest, Milk & Honey isn't getting the same percentage of die-hard cocktail geeks they were getting 3-4 years ago. It's too well-known now, and there are too many other games in town. You or I might be disappointed if an Aviation didn't have that Luxardo funk, but the average M&H customer might be put off by the funk. All that said, it's disappointing to me to hear that a leading cocktail bar in New York City is using Stock instead of Luxardo because, supposedly, Luxardo is "too difficult to balance in cocktails." That's like choosing Stock triple sec over Cointreau because Cointreau is "too difficult to balance in cocktails." I don't think there can be any argument that Luxardo isn't a superior product, and if it's intensity of flavor and funk makes it a little more "difficult to balance" -- well, that's why we're paying 15 bucks a cocktail at M&H: to have people with the expertise to balance the best, most distinctive spirits in a cocktail.

Um... There is no need to tip 20% at Per Se. It is "service included."