enthusiast

Raymond Blanc has a delicious recipe for a red Pepper bavarois - essentially red pepper puree folded into cream and set with gelatine. very rich, very delicious. i can post more details if you're interested

quantity of water i read somewhere that the more water the better - since this would absorb more flavour. you then concentrate the flavour by reduction. is this right or just a myth? for someone with less than adequate ventilation too much stock reduction is a bore...

Mine's the Gaggia Gelateria - it was a present but it's about £260. it works brilliantly. the only small issue (which is just one of practice) is if the paddle stops (when its stiff) and you don't remove the ice cream the texture can get ruined. bowl is removable. its a doddle to clean. its not too nosiy. and it only takes c 5 mins to warm up (?!)

i got a machine a month ago. brilliant. and i'm keen to do things properly but so far i've just played around. successes strawberry - just strawberries + cream + sugar > blended gooseberry - i was making a fool, the consistency wasn't right (too much liquid), added some sugar, popped it in the machine. the best so far. mango sorbet - mango + water + sugar + vodka failures mango sorbet - exactly the same as above but it was hairy (any suggestions? would sieving have worked?) trying to be "healthy" by using half yogurt/ half cream. just didn't do it for me

big day at work tomorrow - so stop distracting me... "everything is chemicals" - is not really an argument is it? everything in computers is bits and bytes - doesn't mean every bite is tasty. my understanding of this is thin. in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. and of course progress is great. preservatives were essential, period, before fridges. now we have fridges we can drop the preservation that only preserved and keep the ones that enhanced the flavour - smoking or whatever. i love The Candidate analogy - and will definitely use it in something else. chip away and eventually the integrity is gone. the hawks in this argument - in the reductio ad absurdum form "everything is chemicals" - seem to end up arguing soemthing i don't believe they really believe in that all food is food and equally valid. perhaps it just come down to this: the sad point about capitalism is that everything is reduced to the profit motive. the quality of the food will be reduced along a utility curve until it maximises profit - how bad/cheap can we make it (compensated for by added chemicals - including sodium chloride) until too many stop buying it.

very interesting reply Dave. i slightly suspected that there was a certain amount of disingenuousness about the list and wanted to ask what it all meant. but i've never cooked breaded anything other than some rather good lobster cutlets and all i remember using was an egg wash and breadcrumbs and then shallow fried them in vegetable oil. nor do i find these comments entirley reassuirng: so i accept that the comment is overblown but i think the defintion of junk food may be somewhere along the lines of food which has been treated for commercial reasons (for preservation, presentation etc) unrelated to nutrition or taste. its a start anyway

what is junk food? perhaps its like asking when night becomes day: we know the difference between night and day but we can't say when one becomes the other. from the McDonalds lawsuit judgement: "For instance, Chicken McNuggets, rather than being merely chicken fried in a pan, are a McFrankenstein creation of various elements not utilized by the home cook. A Chicken McNugget is comprised of, in addition to chicken: water, salt, modified corn starch, sodium phosphates, chicken broth powder (chicken broth, salt and natural flavoring (chicken source)), seasoning (vegetable oil, extracts of rosemary, mono, di- and triglycerides, lecithin). Battered and breaded with water, enriched bleached wheat flour (niacin, iron, thiamine, mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), yellow corn flour, bleached wheat flour, modified corn starch, salt, leavening (baking soda, sodium acid pyrophosphate, sodium aluminum phosphate, monocalcium phosphate, calcium lactate), spices, wheat starch, dried whey, corn starch. Batter set in vegetable shortening. Cooked in partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, (may contain partially hydrogenated soybean oil and/or partially hydrogenated corn oil and/or partially hydrogenated canola oil and/or cottonseed oil and/or corn oil). TBHQ and citric acid added to help preserve freshness. Dimethylpolysiloxane added as an anti-foaming agent. In addition, Chicken McNuggets, while seemingly a healthier option than McDonalds hamburgers because they have “chicken” in their names, actually contain twice the fat per ounce as a hamburger. Schlosser, supra, at 140. It is at least a question of fact as to whether a reasonable consumer would know -- without recourse to the McDonalds' website -- that a Chicken McNugget contained so many ingredients other than chicken and provided twice the fat of a hamburger." it sort of shows what night is - dontcha think?

the causes of obesity is the consumption of more energy than is expended. the misinfo and ignorance stop people responding to the problem (if they want to) in a sensible rational and effective way. do thin people know more about food than fat people? no i doubt it very much. but i do know that until i looked into it i had no idea that it was the tartare sauce in my filet-o-fish that carried all the calories. i had no idea that the f-of was at least as calorific as the hamburger, i didn't realise that baskin robbins ice cream had the same calories per scoop as the lowfat yogurt with brownies. what am i to make of products such as Kraft Lite, Primula Light, philadelphia Light all of which have 10% fat or more. if you look at the repleaded mcDonalds case they list all the health claims that McD makes. some (most?) of what they say may be accurate but is intentionally misleading. You are exceptionally well informed. I am an ignorant but an ordinary consumer who would like to understand better what small adjustments i can make to my intake to lose a few pounds with the smallest possible sacrifice. the misinformation out there (eg "Light" products) is not helping me. I love this site and this debate - but i really must get back to work!

its the same argument as cigarettes - you don't control what people do, you give them enough information to ensure that the choices they make are as well informed as possible. what i wrote was that fast food is not THE cause of obesity it is one factor. there are even plenty of rapacious lawyers who think suing McDonalds is a bad way to go... as for the "health lobby" - it is a deliberately vague term because there is no organised group. there are just many different groups with different agendas and not all their motives are pure, or all their aims democratic/pro-capitlaist/anti-authoritarian. what i am trying to agrue is that away from the extremes there are many good reasons why society needs to tackle an issue that is a growing problem, that is highly complex and very emotive. in my view the option of doing nothing and insisting that everyone is free to make their own choices without recognising that those choices are actually made in a jungle of misinformation and ignorance, is not a good option.

i find it curious how often one's arguments are misrepresented in order to be knocked down. Fat Guy says: it is not that the "health lobby" thinks fat people are stupid or have no self control. nor do they wish to regualte or control what people want to eat. what they argue for is that people be given genuine/accurate information about what they are eating, in a way that is readily comprehensible. it is not a question of anyone being stupid - this is a highly complex subject with little even experts can agree on. what is clear is that overweight and obeisty is a growing global problem that needs to be addressed. and it has to be addressed at society level. i don't think it is fundamentally anti-capitalist (and certainly not anti- american) but the obvious simple solution - if you're using less energy you should consume less if you don't want to put on weight - is not something capitalist corporations want to hear. i'm also sorry to read that i am a victim of long term propaganda - i thought i had chanegd my mind becasue i spent some time researching and considering the issues before publishing reports on the subject. i think judge Sweet in the McDonalds case was also surprised by what he discovered listening to the arguments. it didn't mean he came down in favour of the plaintiffs but nor did he dismiss the case out of hand. but then maybe he too was a victim... nor does anyone seriously argue that fast food is the cause of obesity. some argue that the fast food industry - its growth, its practices and its marketing - are one factor in the rise of obesity. do sensible people believe everything they hear from lawyers with partisan interests? presumably not. in the same way press releases from corporations defending themselves need to be taken with a pinch of salt (and some extra mayo).

it would be interesting to know if anybody has changed their minds (over any point) in this debate. when i first started looking at this issue last year i was very much in the "sue Mcdonalds? its laughable " camp. after doing some research i found my opinions changed quite a bit and i became particulalry sceptical about the food industry's role in this issue and their typical (? predictable?) responses which attempt to lay blame elsewhere and try to junk the science against them. there is very little constructive debate on the topic and most people seem to dig in their heels rather aggressively and find cool headed rational argument difficult. confirmation bias is always difficult to avoid in any analysis - but i would be genuinely interested if anyone out there has either changed their minds about any of these complex issues or changed their habits through thinking mroe about it. i for one have almost completely stopped going to mcD or BK even for the occasional swift lunch. and i recommend reading the judgement on the first mcdonalds case which was rejected but gven leave to amend the claim.

just seen this thread and was inspired to set up an order with abel and cole

marginal. i am undeniably overweight and enjoy my food (and wine which is probably more significant) too much to do anything about it. but i'm stable so i'm not panicking now. and that's enough personal info! and i don't think any of this is particualrly anti-american (except i guess the fast food aspect of things). obesity is definitely a global issue. even in developing countries there are some worrying signs.

my point about diets was that there are diets and diets. any new regime that involves radically changing what you eat to all fat and no carbs, or wheatgrass sorbet or cat food or whatever, is, i think we all agree, pointless and possibly bad for you. going on a diet that simply means paying more attention to what you eat, not indulging your every whim whenever it strikes you, leaving some food on your plate occassioanly. seems to me wholly sensible. but then i come from a welsh puritannical background. And, FWIW, my doctor always tells me to take more exercise rather than go on a diet. needless to say i don't!

i agree, very interesting series. It doesn't conform to my views and i think there are as many holes in her arguments as there are on the other side. the arguments - as they tend to on both sides - are very selctive of the scientific "evidence". and whereas the author is highly dismissive of the "its obvious" arguments of the "helath lobby", she is not above using them herself when it suits her case. i think the biggest (and strangest) suggestion is that the advocates for doing something about the obesity problem are in favour of "dieting". I think, to the extent that any consensus is possible on this diverse subject, the key is always moderation. or appropriate consumption. i don't think any sane person would expect a crash diet to be good in any way whatsoever. but gradually changing your eating habits to eliminate obvious over consumption, shifting to more "healthy" foodstuffs can only be beneficial. and, hey, lets take a more eGullet view of things, wouldn't it be wonderful if instead of mcDonalds (and all its variants) on every street corner, there were fast food joints serving fresh oysters, slow braised lamb chucks, grilled fish etc all at prices benefitting from mass production/consumption.

so why do people get so upset about lawyers suing McDonalds? quite clearly they're never going to win and it will cost them a lot of money. unless of course when the arguments are presented in court US adults take a different view than when presented with a question from Gallup

fish and chips on Brighton Pier

i'm very glad that i'm not alone on this one...

yes, i guess it did play towards my prejudices. but when you're right, it's not always easy to see what adding more wrong-headed arguments adds to the debate! one obvious difference between France and the USA is that in France McDonalds advertised that you shouldn't eat there more than once a week. I'm not sure i believe the guilt v pleasure argument - the meat of that argument is more in the - "healthier" foods such as reduced-fat cheese - eating styles. where else but in the USA would a company advertise a snack product that you can eat "between snacks"? my personal spin on this - with evidence particularly from ice-cream and chocolate - is that if you eat low quality (junk) food it is fundamentally unsatisfying; whereas if you eat good, high quality food, a little is enough. it is like panning for gold - the lower the richness of the seam the more you have to process to get your fix... but i can't prove it

i thought this article in today's NY Times was excellent - balanced and unhysterical - and quoting some research which i hadn't seen before. does it go some way to answering fat Guy's pointed, punchy and neat point: is the point that the portions are bigger (bad for fat, good for value) but maybe not as big as they are made to look (good marketing, good for profits)? thus customers buy the bigger sizes, seduced by the value, and eat more and get fatter. maybe if portion sizes were even bigger custoemrs would buy one between two and eat less!! .

i was making gooseberry fool the other day. got the thickness all wrong (too much fruit puree to whipped cream?) so i just put it into the ice cream maker with a touch of extra sugar. definitely the best ice cream i've made - fantastic. consistency of product is an issue though. i made some mango sorbet with a dash of vodka. the vodka seemed to keep to keep it from freezing absolutely solid - it was excellent. i made some more. not only did it freeze solid but, having defrosted a little, it was hairy!

can't do meringues

have any of you read John Lanchester: The Debt to Pleasure? It begins with the words: this is an unconventional cookbook. and is in fact a novel - difficult to describe but highly recommended. it is littered throughout with recipes and thoughts on food. In one recipe the narrator tells you to use something (can't rmmeber what - the vegetable water perhaps?) that you're bound to have discarded if you haven't read the whole recipe through first. this is a long winded way of saying - read the whole recipe through before starting. small tip: add soem bicarb to green vegetables - helps them keep their colour

well thin slow stream is even worse. that's exactly what stops it coagulating (?). if you keep streaming before the oil is incorporated your oil bill will rise.

making mayonaise (or hollandaise) so many books tell you to add the oil (butter) one drop at a time to begin with. this is completely wrong. yes add in small quantities at a time but the important thing is that the quantum added is completley incorporated before you add some more. you can do it in much more than drops - just not continuously. this has saved me umpteen upsets and only goes wrong when i get overconfident...