Bill Conrad's Blog - Posts Tagged "food"
It’s Difficult to Write About Food
Facebook is amazing. People who have never met can connect, share and learn from each other. We have reliable cars, airplanes, and ships that take us to every corner of the planet. We have made scientific advances beyond comprehension and entertainment that defies the imagination.
Yet there is room for improvement. It seems that we have not tackled the fundamental problems. War, poverty, hate, pollution, and people who drive slow in the fast lane. In this blog, I only wish to discuss one tiny aspect of our incredible existence that needs improvement.
Want to talk about it over lunch? Sure! It seems that our entire existence revolves around food. Three times a day, (plus snacks) we are driven to eat. We eat an endless variety of scrumptious edibles from the far corners of the world. Crab from Alaska, dates from the middle east, bread from the Midwest, kiwi from New Zealand, caviar from Russia, cheese from France and cod from the Atlantic. We turn this endless variety of food into incredible creations. Pizza, sushi, fondue, burgers, pretzels, string cheese, baba ganoush, snickerdoodle cookies, Twinkies and lasagna.
We have an insatiable drive to consume. This goes beyond survival and far into absurdity. We have entire sections of the bookstore, television channels, and streets all dedicated to food. To feed this desire, we consume vast quantities of land, waste countless tons of leftover food, go to cooking school for years and spend trillions of dollars.
Of course, my humble blog will not be able to address our drive to take this planet to the breaking point. The small topic I wanted to concentrate on is that food is very difficult to write about. Let’s take the most basic example. A person has a glass of pure water and they add one spoonful of sugar. How does it taste? Well, “sweet.” Alright, the person adds a second spoonful of sugar. “It tastes sweeter.” How much sweeter? Umm… That’s not an easy question to universally answer. Now add a spoonful of salt. How does that taste? Umm, sweet-salty, sort of? How does it look? “Umm... Cloudy?” How does it smell? “Umm... Bland?”
This simple thought experiment shows how difficult it is to write about flavor. While scientific descriptions give us the exact chemical makeup, scientific descriptions don’t help the reader. “The water contained 500 parts per million of sugar.” Does that taste “super sweet” or “kind of sweet?” We do have a sweetness scale. Yay. “The substance measured 1.0 on the sweetness scale.” Sounds bland. Better add more sugar. It turns out that pure sugar is 1.0 on the sweetness scale. I had to look this number up and this is the only time I have ever used the sweetness scale.
Let’s get more basic. Describe the taste of an apple. “The apple tastes sour and sweet.” Many foods fit that description. An orange, taffy, Coca-Cola or ice cream. In order for a reader to understand how an apple tastes, they must have eaten an apple in the past. That requires a lot of prerequisite tasting to describe basic foods.
Alright, a little more basic. Describe the difference between Budweiser beer and Coors beer. “Coors tastes more watery.” Is “watery” even a real word? Ok, what can I describe? I like a good amber ale when I eat a hamburger. Not helping.
Well, the reader will just have to use what knowledge they have to understand a food description. Alright. Last week, I made my personal favorite salmon on a cedar plank. It turned out really well. I started cooking by taking… Hold on. That was not the assignment. I am just supposed to describe the taste. Hmm. “The amazing salmon had a sweet rub on top with a smoky flavor that combined a hint of Rosemary. It came out perfectly cooked to a golden brown. The cedar–salmon smell filled the kitchen with an amazing aroma. I really enjoyed the taste and so did my family.” Based on this description, could a reader identify my meal in a blind taste test? No, there is not enough information. What is the difference between that meal and smoked tuna? Well, it tasted different. I keep using the word taste. This sounds like a preference and not a description. True…
While there are scientific terms, we do not have universally accepted food descriptions. We also do not have a universal background of flavors. For example, I suspect that about half the planet has never had a Granny Smith apple. They may have had apple juice or apple flavored food or a Red Delicious apple, but no actual Granny Smith apple. So how could I ever describe how a Granny Smith tastes? “It tastes apple-ee” Yum!
Well, how about something more basic? Describe hunger. “I am hungry.” A little more… “I am super hungry.” Not helping. “I am famished.” “I am starving.” Wait, starvation is a condition, not a feeling. “I am ravenous.” Technically no. That is the condition of being hungry. That’s the limit of our descriptions. Humans spend 20% or more of their day on food and their entire drive to consume comes down to just two words? Apparently so.
Well, what can I describe with words? I can describe how the food looks, how to cook, how good it feels to eat and how satisfied the person is after they have eaten. Well, what about the smell? In that area we are a bit more evolved and have more descriptions. For example, a bad smell smells: reeking, foul, putrid, fishy, smoky, stinky… The list continues.
It is odd that such an important topic hasn’t been tackled. We should have a universally accepted flavor scale/terms and a universal hungry scale/terms. Then if asked, we could communicate our tastes better. For example: “Before lunch, I felt maltese. (Mildly hungry, but not too hungry) I had a quire (3/10 on the tasty scale) burger that was malarkey (10% overcooked) ratoon (6/10 salty. While perfect for French fries, not good for burgers) with a hint of gobble (sweet-fatty as opposed to sour-fatty) and the flavor was overall codswallop. (For burgers not that bad tasting, but could use improvement.)
Yet there is room for improvement. It seems that we have not tackled the fundamental problems. War, poverty, hate, pollution, and people who drive slow in the fast lane. In this blog, I only wish to discuss one tiny aspect of our incredible existence that needs improvement.
Want to talk about it over lunch? Sure! It seems that our entire existence revolves around food. Three times a day, (plus snacks) we are driven to eat. We eat an endless variety of scrumptious edibles from the far corners of the world. Crab from Alaska, dates from the middle east, bread from the Midwest, kiwi from New Zealand, caviar from Russia, cheese from France and cod from the Atlantic. We turn this endless variety of food into incredible creations. Pizza, sushi, fondue, burgers, pretzels, string cheese, baba ganoush, snickerdoodle cookies, Twinkies and lasagna.
We have an insatiable drive to consume. This goes beyond survival and far into absurdity. We have entire sections of the bookstore, television channels, and streets all dedicated to food. To feed this desire, we consume vast quantities of land, waste countless tons of leftover food, go to cooking school for years and spend trillions of dollars.
Of course, my humble blog will not be able to address our drive to take this planet to the breaking point. The small topic I wanted to concentrate on is that food is very difficult to write about. Let’s take the most basic example. A person has a glass of pure water and they add one spoonful of sugar. How does it taste? Well, “sweet.” Alright, the person adds a second spoonful of sugar. “It tastes sweeter.” How much sweeter? Umm… That’s not an easy question to universally answer. Now add a spoonful of salt. How does that taste? Umm, sweet-salty, sort of? How does it look? “Umm... Cloudy?” How does it smell? “Umm... Bland?”
This simple thought experiment shows how difficult it is to write about flavor. While scientific descriptions give us the exact chemical makeup, scientific descriptions don’t help the reader. “The water contained 500 parts per million of sugar.” Does that taste “super sweet” or “kind of sweet?” We do have a sweetness scale. Yay. “The substance measured 1.0 on the sweetness scale.” Sounds bland. Better add more sugar. It turns out that pure sugar is 1.0 on the sweetness scale. I had to look this number up and this is the only time I have ever used the sweetness scale.
Let’s get more basic. Describe the taste of an apple. “The apple tastes sour and sweet.” Many foods fit that description. An orange, taffy, Coca-Cola or ice cream. In order for a reader to understand how an apple tastes, they must have eaten an apple in the past. That requires a lot of prerequisite tasting to describe basic foods.
Alright, a little more basic. Describe the difference between Budweiser beer and Coors beer. “Coors tastes more watery.” Is “watery” even a real word? Ok, what can I describe? I like a good amber ale when I eat a hamburger. Not helping.
Well, the reader will just have to use what knowledge they have to understand a food description. Alright. Last week, I made my personal favorite salmon on a cedar plank. It turned out really well. I started cooking by taking… Hold on. That was not the assignment. I am just supposed to describe the taste. Hmm. “The amazing salmon had a sweet rub on top with a smoky flavor that combined a hint of Rosemary. It came out perfectly cooked to a golden brown. The cedar–salmon smell filled the kitchen with an amazing aroma. I really enjoyed the taste and so did my family.” Based on this description, could a reader identify my meal in a blind taste test? No, there is not enough information. What is the difference between that meal and smoked tuna? Well, it tasted different. I keep using the word taste. This sounds like a preference and not a description. True…
While there are scientific terms, we do not have universally accepted food descriptions. We also do not have a universal background of flavors. For example, I suspect that about half the planet has never had a Granny Smith apple. They may have had apple juice or apple flavored food or a Red Delicious apple, but no actual Granny Smith apple. So how could I ever describe how a Granny Smith tastes? “It tastes apple-ee” Yum!
Well, how about something more basic? Describe hunger. “I am hungry.” A little more… “I am super hungry.” Not helping. “I am famished.” “I am starving.” Wait, starvation is a condition, not a feeling. “I am ravenous.” Technically no. That is the condition of being hungry. That’s the limit of our descriptions. Humans spend 20% or more of their day on food and their entire drive to consume comes down to just two words? Apparently so.
Well, what can I describe with words? I can describe how the food looks, how to cook, how good it feels to eat and how satisfied the person is after they have eaten. Well, what about the smell? In that area we are a bit more evolved and have more descriptions. For example, a bad smell smells: reeking, foul, putrid, fishy, smoky, stinky… The list continues.
It is odd that such an important topic hasn’t been tackled. We should have a universally accepted flavor scale/terms and a universal hungry scale/terms. Then if asked, we could communicate our tastes better. For example: “Before lunch, I felt maltese. (Mildly hungry, but not too hungry) I had a quire (3/10 on the tasty scale) burger that was malarkey (10% overcooked) ratoon (6/10 salty. While perfect for French fries, not good for burgers) with a hint of gobble (sweet-fatty as opposed to sour-fatty) and the flavor was overall codswallop. (For burgers not that bad tasting, but could use improvement.)
The French Paradox
Every day, we humans add to our vast knowledge, experience, and abilities. For example, we can see a single atom with a microscope, use our cell phones to watch the latest music video or plan our day according to a super accurate weather forecast. We even know all about black holes. What are those? They are massive objects in space that scientists cannot see, but we know (somehow???) they have unusual properties.
I wanted to explore one aspect of modern life that has been thoroughly studied since the first caveman’s girlfriend said, “You’re fat. I’m going to find a tinner caveman to date.”
Today, we have food pyramids, diet books, calorie counters, phone dieting apps, smart scales, nutrition consultants, diet coaches, diet foods, Paleo diets, dash diets, gluten-free foods, intermittent fasting, vegetarian options, spin classes, w3atches that count how many steps we have taken, and fitness clubs. It is all right there. Follow plan X to have a fit, thin, and healthy life. GUARNTEED or your money back. Yay!
What is plan X? Eat low-fat foods, avoid carbohydrates, add vegetables, thoroughly chew your food, exercise daily, eat lots of vitamins, see your doctor, hire a fitness coach, avoid meat, and stay far away from gluten. Yes, plan X works 100% of the time! No exceptions.
Well, there is one tiny exception. By the known standards of modern medicine, having a French lifestyle and eating French food is a sure plan for a dreadful life and an early grave. What do the French eat? Cheese, wine, butter, sausage, fats, heavy sauces, and gluten-packed bread. Their lifestyle? They exercise, but not to excess.
Yet, the French population has above-average fitness, happiness, and lifespan levels. What is going on? Despite years of study, scientists, nutritionists, fitness experts, and doctors do not know. Well, it must be one of two things. Either our medical knowledge is wrong, or the entire population of France is fooling the medical experts.
Is the problem really that black and white? This exception is not a rounding error, oversight, or optical illusion. The nation of Frace does not follow the accepted medical guidelines, yet paradoxically, they are mentally and physically healthy. As further proof, I have been to France and witnessed their happy attitudes, fit bodies, and eating habits.
Well, what does this mean? Should we throw away our diet books, exclusively eat French food and adopt a French lifestyle to improve our health? That is where things get interesting. In 1991, Serge Renaud, a scientist from Bordeaux University, presented a paper that coined the phrase. Since 1991, many studies have defended traditional medicine while attempting to debunk the French Paradox. It seems that the medical establishment is working hard to come out on top of this debate. They feel the French Paradox is an illusion.
Yet… As I have stated, I have been to France and seen their healthy people. So, what do I think is going on? Of course, my opinion differs from that of professionals, scientists, and diet coaches. I live in California, and we are known for our excellent wine and cheese. I have also purchased French wines and cheeses in California. To me, they taste no different. However, the food in France was vastly different.
Every evening, we made a ritual of going to a liquor store to purchase a bottle of wine (chosen only by the label decorations), to the cheese store to buy a selection, and to the bakery to purchase a baguette. This was a heavenly experience, and the food disappeared quickly. During the day, we went to the local restaurants, and while the portion sizes were small, the food was tasty. Wine with dinner? It was less expensive than soda. We walked around Paris and went to the museums for the rest of the day.
France has a reputation for mean people, but I never encountered one. They were all friendly and had a relaxed lifestyle. Yet there was more to them. It was as if they had figured out something that the rest of the world had missed. Their take on life was more evolved, open-minded, and centered.
Our trip ended with us feeling great and a little thinner. I recommend you go to France and experience their exceptional food and culture. Yet, I have not explained my theory. In engineering, there is what we call an onion problem. The idea is that multiple interacting issues are causing a failure, and the engineer must isolate each one. I think the French Paradox is this exact type of issue.
Why is the wine, cheese, and bread better in France? California law and shopping preference require preservatives to maintain shelf life and save us from something… Preservatives adversely affect flavor and hinder our health. France does not have high preservative levels, so the food tastes better and is healthier.
My theory is that people like good-tasting and healthy food. When our bodies get quality food, they do not have to gorge on junk food. I rarely saw them eating fast/junk food as we traveled.
The second part of my theory is that a positive attitude affects fitness, health, and diet. A nervous person is more likely to eat and have poor health. In France, they let things slide. Plus, a small amount of red wine calms nerves.
Also, the attitude of a nation is not a trait that comes from diet, exercise, psychology, or medical books. Therefore, the pleasant French outlook is big to study, categorize, or appreciate. French paradox is an extensive interconnecting set of parameters that cannot be categorized or replicated outside their borders.
Yet, there is a big problem with my explanation. The French population has low cholesterol levels. Cheese, bread, butter, and heavy sauces contribute to high cholesterol. So, what is going on? Is it the wine? Maybe, but probably not. So, please ignore my entire theory.
And this is my point. Even with all the information available, I do not know what is happening, nor does everybody else. I use the French Paradox to remind myself that I do not know everything. The paradox rattles around in my bonkers mind to keep me grounded, asking questions and acting less arrogant. But… I wish thinking about the French Paradox could help eliminate my gut.
You’re the best -Bill
April 04, 2024
I wanted to explore one aspect of modern life that has been thoroughly studied since the first caveman’s girlfriend said, “You’re fat. I’m going to find a tinner caveman to date.”
Today, we have food pyramids, diet books, calorie counters, phone dieting apps, smart scales, nutrition consultants, diet coaches, diet foods, Paleo diets, dash diets, gluten-free foods, intermittent fasting, vegetarian options, spin classes, w3atches that count how many steps we have taken, and fitness clubs. It is all right there. Follow plan X to have a fit, thin, and healthy life. GUARNTEED or your money back. Yay!
What is plan X? Eat low-fat foods, avoid carbohydrates, add vegetables, thoroughly chew your food, exercise daily, eat lots of vitamins, see your doctor, hire a fitness coach, avoid meat, and stay far away from gluten. Yes, plan X works 100% of the time! No exceptions.
Well, there is one tiny exception. By the known standards of modern medicine, having a French lifestyle and eating French food is a sure plan for a dreadful life and an early grave. What do the French eat? Cheese, wine, butter, sausage, fats, heavy sauces, and gluten-packed bread. Their lifestyle? They exercise, but not to excess.
Yet, the French population has above-average fitness, happiness, and lifespan levels. What is going on? Despite years of study, scientists, nutritionists, fitness experts, and doctors do not know. Well, it must be one of two things. Either our medical knowledge is wrong, or the entire population of France is fooling the medical experts.
Is the problem really that black and white? This exception is not a rounding error, oversight, or optical illusion. The nation of Frace does not follow the accepted medical guidelines, yet paradoxically, they are mentally and physically healthy. As further proof, I have been to France and witnessed their happy attitudes, fit bodies, and eating habits.
Well, what does this mean? Should we throw away our diet books, exclusively eat French food and adopt a French lifestyle to improve our health? That is where things get interesting. In 1991, Serge Renaud, a scientist from Bordeaux University, presented a paper that coined the phrase. Since 1991, many studies have defended traditional medicine while attempting to debunk the French Paradox. It seems that the medical establishment is working hard to come out on top of this debate. They feel the French Paradox is an illusion.
Yet… As I have stated, I have been to France and seen their healthy people. So, what do I think is going on? Of course, my opinion differs from that of professionals, scientists, and diet coaches. I live in California, and we are known for our excellent wine and cheese. I have also purchased French wines and cheeses in California. To me, they taste no different. However, the food in France was vastly different.
Every evening, we made a ritual of going to a liquor store to purchase a bottle of wine (chosen only by the label decorations), to the cheese store to buy a selection, and to the bakery to purchase a baguette. This was a heavenly experience, and the food disappeared quickly. During the day, we went to the local restaurants, and while the portion sizes were small, the food was tasty. Wine with dinner? It was less expensive than soda. We walked around Paris and went to the museums for the rest of the day.
France has a reputation for mean people, but I never encountered one. They were all friendly and had a relaxed lifestyle. Yet there was more to them. It was as if they had figured out something that the rest of the world had missed. Their take on life was more evolved, open-minded, and centered.
Our trip ended with us feeling great and a little thinner. I recommend you go to France and experience their exceptional food and culture. Yet, I have not explained my theory. In engineering, there is what we call an onion problem. The idea is that multiple interacting issues are causing a failure, and the engineer must isolate each one. I think the French Paradox is this exact type of issue.
Why is the wine, cheese, and bread better in France? California law and shopping preference require preservatives to maintain shelf life and save us from something… Preservatives adversely affect flavor and hinder our health. France does not have high preservative levels, so the food tastes better and is healthier.
My theory is that people like good-tasting and healthy food. When our bodies get quality food, they do not have to gorge on junk food. I rarely saw them eating fast/junk food as we traveled.
The second part of my theory is that a positive attitude affects fitness, health, and diet. A nervous person is more likely to eat and have poor health. In France, they let things slide. Plus, a small amount of red wine calms nerves.
Also, the attitude of a nation is not a trait that comes from diet, exercise, psychology, or medical books. Therefore, the pleasant French outlook is big to study, categorize, or appreciate. French paradox is an extensive interconnecting set of parameters that cannot be categorized or replicated outside their borders.
Yet, there is a big problem with my explanation. The French population has low cholesterol levels. Cheese, bread, butter, and heavy sauces contribute to high cholesterol. So, what is going on? Is it the wine? Maybe, but probably not. So, please ignore my entire theory.
And this is my point. Even with all the information available, I do not know what is happening, nor does everybody else. I use the French Paradox to remind myself that I do not know everything. The paradox rattles around in my bonkers mind to keep me grounded, asking questions and acting less arrogant. But… I wish thinking about the French Paradox could help eliminate my gut.
You’re the best -Bill
April 04, 2024
