February 21st, 2008 by ThunderDragon
This is a, shall we say, “interesting” and “different” restaurant dish:
Archive for the 'Food' Category
The Death Of The Dining Room
January 30th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Dining rooms are dying out as more and more homeowners knock down walls to create bigger living areas, new research claims.
More than half a million dining rooms in British homes are likely to be demolished over the next 12 months…
[I]if the trend continues, the traditional home of the formal dining table and best cutlery could disappear completely by 2020. (The Telegraph)
More than half a million dining rooms in British homes are likely to be demolished over the next 12 months…
[I]if the trend continues, the traditional home of the formal dining table and best cutlery could disappear completely by 2020. (The Telegraph)
A little too much doom-mongering there, methinks.
That fewer people have dining rooms is hardly one of the signs of the apocalypse, heralding in the end of society as we know it. Besides, just because there isn’t a specific walled-in room called the “dining room” hardly precludes the end of sitting down at a table for dinner, after all.
We’ve always had an “open plan” living/dining room. The dining table and chairs are in one half, and the armchairs, sofa and TV is in the other. We still sit down for family meals, and do so every day, and have for as long as I can remember. I don’t know why people don’t - but it’s not down to knocking the wall to the dining room through.
Just that the dining room as a separated and segmented room is a dying breed really means little. It isn’t necessary to have a separate room just for eating in. And it certainly isn’t the serious problem that seems to be suggested.
January 26th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
To be honest, this probably says more about the quality of the staff than anything else…
Some staff in Greggs and Eat outlets in central London, when questioned by the Daily Telegraph, did not know what a calorie was, let alone how many were contained in one of their sandwiches. (The Telegraph)
So sandwiches have more calories than a Big Mac. Guess what I had for lunch, then.
January 17th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
The SuperCarrot is here!
Scientists in the US say they have created a genetically-engineered carrot that provides extra calcium.
They hope that adding the vegetable to a normal diet could help ward off conditions such as brittle bone disease and osteoporosis.
Someone eating the new carrot absorbs 41% more calcium than if they ate the old, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study suggests. (BBC)
They hope that adding the vegetable to a normal diet could help ward off conditions such as brittle bone disease and osteoporosis.
Someone eating the new carrot absorbs 41% more calcium than if they ate the old, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study suggests. (BBC)
What is the point of this? Why genetically-engineer just for the sake of it? Instead of making the food give people what they need, teach people what food to eat. Frankly, people should just be taught the right kinds of food to give them what the vitamins etc they need rather than using science to create food that will do so.
Halal Meat
November 6th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
The supermarket chain ASDA have decided to have a trial period of selling halal meat - meat from animals which have not been stunned before their throats cut - in a single store, causing animal rights groups to condemn them.
What I find amusing is that one of these groups is Vegetarians International Voice for Animals - who are presumably against the killing for meat of all animals in every way. And this decision has mean tthat they have had to come out pretty much in support of the other way of killing for meat.
When it comes down to it, people will buy and eat the food that they want to buy and eat - be it meat, halal meat, vegetaran alternatives, or anything else. If a supermarket stocks the meat, that won’t necessarilly mean that more animals are killed in that way. In fact, if a large supermarket did stock halal, it would give them a chance to reduce the inhumaness of the killing.
Source: The Telegraph
Drink Alcohol, Get Cancer
October 31st, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Well, that’s what they are saying. Along with eating red meat [so they want you be a vegetarian], any extra salt intake, and drinking sugary drinks [which presumably includes fruit smoothies?].
Frankly, it’s all a load of bollocks.
One report says “don’t do (a)”, another says “don’t do (b), but do do (a)” and yet another says “don’t do (c) but do do (b)”. It is pretty much all contradictory in one way or another. Just think of it this way - if you don’t die one way, you’ll die another.
But my problem is less with these studies and more with the way they are presented. They are always portrayed as incontrovertible fact - if you drink alcohol and eat red meat, then you will get cancer is the message they give out, whether or it is actually intended. But, really, none of these make a difference. You could follow the guidelines to the letter and yet still get cancer, or not bother at all about it and never get it.
Whether or not they intend it, it is how it is reported and how people interpret it. I am extremely sceptical about all of these types of reports, especially since it has been revealed that the recommended alcohol limit was just a guess. The “findings” from these reports are of no use to the general public, especially announced like this.
The best way to live a healthy life is to take everything in moderation - except moderation itself, of course.
Organic Fruit & Veg
October 28th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Organic fruit and veg is now “officially” better for you because they have
as much as 40% more antioxidants [than non-organic veg], which scientists believe can cut the risk of cancer and heart disease, Britain’s biggest killers. They also had higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc.
Yes, it might be better for you but, really, is organic possible in the long-term? To start with it has significantly lower yields, and thus takes up far more space and labour for the amount of food it produces. As the human race continues to expand, will it ever be possible to simply provide enough space for organic produce to be farmed to feed us all? Unlikely.
Also, with the extra cost of buying organic produce it simply isn’t financially possible for many - if not most - to do it. Especially since the profit supermarkets make on organic produce - as much as 25% on some products. Having all fruit and veg as organic is impossible, physically as well as economically. “Standard” fruit and veg can give us all the vitamins and minerals we need - I for one have never knowingly eaten organic fruit and veg - so why pay extra?
Organic may be “better” but is it really better? I don’t think so.
Source: The Times
October 23rd, 2007 by ThunderDragon
Want it, take it, have eat it?
Trying to cut out all thoughts of your favourite, fattening food may actually make you eat more, claims research.
Women who tried to stop thinking about chocolate ate 50% more than those who were encouraged to talk about their cravings.
This “rebound” effect could also apply to smokers…
Women who had tried to suppress their cravings ate [more than those who didn't]…
Men did not show the same effect, with the group told to talk about the snack eating more. (BBC)
Women who tried to stop thinking about chocolate ate 50% more than those who were encouraged to talk about their cravings.
This “rebound” effect could also apply to smokers…
Women who had tried to suppress their cravings ate [more than those who didn't]…
Men did not show the same effect, with the group told to talk about the snack eating more. (BBC)
But this suggests that self control doesn’t matter - which is utter rubbish. What it does suggest is that cravings shouldn’t be ignored entirely, which is just common sense. Don’t ignore it, but don’t give in to it either.
Not Their Fault They’re Fat?!
October 17th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
How on earth did they reach this conclusion?
Individuals can no longer be held responsible for obesity so government must act to stop Britain “sleepwalking” into a crisis, a report has concluded.
The largest ever UK study into obesity, backed by government and compiled by 250 experts, said excess weight was now the norm in our “obesogenic” society.
Dramatic and comprehensive action was required to stop the majority of us becoming obese by 2050, they said.
But the authors admitted proof that any anti-obesity policy works “was scant”. (BBC)
The largest ever UK study into obesity, backed by government and compiled by 250 experts, said excess weight was now the norm in our “obesogenic” society.
Dramatic and comprehensive action was required to stop the majority of us becoming obese by 2050, they said.
But the authors admitted proof that any anti-obesity policy works “was scant”. (BBC)
So they want more government control over us, now extending into our eating and exercise habits - despite admitting that they have absolutely no clue how to do it?
Saying that the individual is not to blame for their own obesity is like saying that it’s not waters fault it’s wet. Only they can decide what they eat and how much they exercise. Yes there are some genetic signposts that make some more prone to obesity that others, but that is simply not a good enough excuse.
Likewise, you can’t blame society. Just because lots of people are fat doesn’t mean that it is why one particular person is. Being obese is, rightly, regarded as being a bad thing. How many obese celebrities are there?! In that world, it’s the opposite which is the problem. Society does not deem your weight, size or body-fat content. Only the individual can through eating and exercising appropriately.
The only person to blame for obesity is the tub of lard themselves. They either eat too much, the wrong stuff, or don’t exercise enough. No-one force-feeds them fast food. No-one ties them to the couch. The only person who is to blem for their condition is themselves - and to suggest otherwise is utterly wrong.
Also, even if it wasn’t the individuals fault for their obesity, it still wouldn’t be the job of Nanny State to come in and “take action”. Espiecally when they have absolutely no idea what they could possibly do anyway - bar banning all bad food and enforcing exercise.
Sources: BBC, The Telegraph
