|
C-Euro posted:GBS X E/N: My fiancee is currently giving me the silent treatment because I told her not to eat dessert before dinner. Is there a scientific reason why your parents always told you to eat dinner first (other than "be more full so you eat less dessert") or am I just a grumpy grandpa? It's so that your rear end in a top hat kids don't eat a whole box of Oreos before dinner and then refuse to eat dinner, then get jaundice.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 21:02 |
|
|
I can't think of any medical reason to eat dessert in a particular order, but it just seems right to do it that way, you know? Like it's just nice to eat a bunch of food and then have something sweet at the end to finish it off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
Blood sugar stability, to a point, I suppose. Not that eating dessert first is a big deal for most people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:GBS X E/N: My fiancee is currently giving me the silent treatment because I told her not to eat dessert before dinner. Is there a scientific reason why your parents always told you to eat dinner first (other than "be more full so you eat less dessert") or am I just a grumpy grandpa? Possible Arguments: Dessert is generally much higher in sugar and fat than Real Food; eating yr ice cream and chocolate and brownies and sour gummy worms before dinner exhausts your brain's pleasure differentiation capacity. It's like smoking weed: The first joint always hits you hardest because the shift in consciousness from "not at all high" to "pretty high" is waaay more noticeable than the shift from "pretty high" to "higher". The difference is even more pronounced when the first joint is some dank-rear end sugar/fat/acid-laden brain-hackin' gangsta poo poo & the second one is a spliff with some mids, no red hairs in sight, maybe some cauliflower on the side. When you fill yourself up on Crumbly Kakes and creme brulee with olive oil powder and I don't know like some lambic espuma or whatever, the 20 minutes it takes your stomach to tell your brain "yo holmes I think I'm getting full" begin with nutritionless sugary poo poo, which makes you way less likely to finish yr veggies at the end of the meal, when you're starting to get full and want a cigarette.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
I dunno I don't do desert. Just gets in the way of digestifs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
so what you're telling me is to smoke the first joint before dessert. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Nutritionally you're right (per above) but you are also being rigid and conventional (traits I recognise in myself). As long as it's not a habit, so what? Let her.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
therattle posted:As long as it's not a habit, so what? Let her. See it kind of is, at least when we have particularly good dessert stuff lying around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:See it kind of is, at least when we have particularly good dessert stuff lying around. If you shame her into not snacking on that stuff she'll just binge on it when you aren't at home. I'm sure you do things she doesn't like also, I would just let it go. Alternatively make smaller batches of desserts or just never wash any of the baking stuff so it doesn't get used.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
My spouse reprimands me whenever I eat leftover cake for breakfast, which I really don't get. How come all other forms of sugary pastry ala donuts, muffins, scones etc. are acceptable breakfast food, yet the same principal ingredients arranged into frosted slices is somehow off-limits? If you can have Lucky Charms in the morning without anybody troubling you, then you can also have what is most assuredly a more nutritious, satisfying piece of cake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
Okay Bill Cosby Not like, because you're a rapist. Because of the cake thing. No rape implied.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
Sweets for breakfast are A Good Thing, dessert first is for fatties and stoners and ladies what be having the menses, shut up and ride wit it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:My spouse reprimands me whenever I eat leftover cake for breakfast, which I really don't get. How come all other forms of sugary pastry ala donuts, muffins, scones etc. are acceptable breakfast food, yet the same principal ingredients arranged into frosted slices is somehow off-limits? If you can have Lucky Charms in the morning without anybody troubling you, then you can also have what is most assuredly a more nutritious, satisfying piece of cake. While I don't want to stand between you and cake, I doubt that your cake is more nutritious than Lucky Charms. Breakfast cereal is sprayed with vitamins and stuff. Your cake probably isn't sprayed with anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
What if they eat a multivitamin with it? Is it part of a balanced breakfast then?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:My spouse reprimands me whenever I eat leftover cake for breakfast, which I really don't get. How come all other forms of sugary pastry ala donuts, muffins, scones etc. are acceptable breakfast food, yet the same principal ingredients arranged into frosted slices is somehow off-limits? If you can have Lucky Charms in the morning without anybody troubling you, then you can also have what is most assuredly a more nutritious, satisfying piece of cake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
SubG posted:If it makes you feel better I can give you poo poo for eating Lucky Charms. That poo poo is nasty. I'm sure a cake made with good flour, butter and eggs is more nutritious than some manufactured heavily-processed breakfast cereal. I agree.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:GBS X E/N: My fiancee is currently giving me the silent treatment because I told her not to eat dessert before dinner. Is there a scientific reason why your parents always told you to eat dinner first (other than "be more full so you eat less dessert") or am I just a grumpy grandpa? Honestly, if she's a grown rear end adult, she can eat her dessert whenever she pleases. I've been with Wrought before to places where I can have the dessert, and I'll start with that, because I want to make sure I have room for it. The only ones who try to make the food combining thing serious are Mercola and his ilk. Not that it automatically means it's quackery just because it came from him, but I have yet to see a dietician or nutritionist try to argue that eating sweets or cakes makes a difference when you eat it. If someone's having a sensible portion (whatever that means for that person), it really doesn't matter when it's eaten. If they're having it to the exclusion of everything else, there's cause for concern, if that's your child. Otherwise, let it go, grandpa.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Heading to Denver this week. Any good places to eat there?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
SubG posted:If it makes you feel better I can give you poo poo for eating Lucky Charms. That poo poo is nasty. The point is, I don't eat Lucky Charms. I eat nutritious, fulfilling, happiness-inducing cake.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
dino. posted:Honestly, if she's a grown rear end adult, she can eat her dessert whenever she pleases. I've been with Wrought before to places where I can have the dessert, and I'll start with that, because I want to make sure I have room for it. The only ones who try to make the food combining thing serious are Mercola and his ilk. Not that it automatically means it's quackery just because it came from him, but I have yet to see a dietician or nutritionist try to argue that eating sweets or cakes makes a difference when you eat it. Oh god I was just going to post about that meal! That was so much fun! Remember the old Asian guy who was totally blown away that we were adventurous enough to eat dessert FIRST?! It was perfect because we both ate our fill and not much more- after dessert we settled on dumplings and some moderately portioned noodles (I think you had a rice dish?) that ended up being just right. Sugar tends to make me hungry, so I overeat or eat too soon again when sugar is at the end of the meal. I mean, it was a big meal, but nothing crazy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Hawkgirl posted:Heading to Denver this week. Any good places to eat there? Where are you coming from and what are you looking for?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Wroughtirony posted:Oh god I was just going to post about that meal! That was so much fun! Remember the old Asian guy who was totally blown away that we were adventurous enough to eat dessert FIRST?! Noodles in soup form for me. But yeah, it was perfect. And then we went and et more food at that diner place. Holy cow that was so fun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
dino. posted:Noodles in soup form for me. But yeah, it was perfect. And then we went and et more food at that diner place. Holy cow that was so fun. "that diner place" being the joint I used to be the GM of!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:GBS X E/N: My fiancee is currently giving me the silent treatment because I told her not to eat dessert before dinner. Is there a scientific reason why your parents always told you to eat dinner first (other than "be more full so you eat less dessert") or am I just a grumpy grandpa? Silent treatment is childish, manipulative and insane- sever
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Hawkgirl posted:Heading to Denver this week. Any good places to eat there? Off the top of my head, good places to check out include: Bistro Vendome Linger The populist Trillium Root Down These places may or will require a reservation and some fill up quick. If you want cheap and delicious, head over to federal blvd. There are plenty of great taqueria's and Vietnamese places. Aery and Hauki can probably chime in with more suggestions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Edit: oops, I hosed up. Apparently we're really staying in Boulder, with some excursions to Denver. So if you have any Boulder recs I'll take those too! We're also heading to Cheyenne because we have some family there. Somehow I feel like that's not much of a foodie place though. Hauki posted:Where are you coming from and what are you looking for? Coming from Southern California, and...I like food. I'll try just about anything. Maybe like one night at a fancy restaurant and otherwise just looking for good food to eat. copen posted:Off the top of my head, good places to check out include: Thanks! I'm going to check those places out. I appreciate it! Hawkperson fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Jun 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Hawkgirl posted:Edit: oops, I hosed up. Apparently we're really staying in Boulder, with some excursions to Denver. So if you have any Boulder recs I'll take those too! Don't really have many boulder recs, except places not to go. I always end up disappointed with whatever we've gone out of our way to try there. The Kitchen's been pretty decent & reliable, but I've only been to their Denver location(s). My favourite place in Denver currently is probably Acorn, which has the benefit of having other cool poo poo in the same building worth checking out. Root Down, Linger, Trillium are all worth checking out potentially. Work & Class has been good the last couple times although somewhat of a pain to get a table. I keep hearing great things about To the Wind, as dumb as the name is. Have not been there personally yet. Other random places we like around Denver: Osteria Marco, Uncle, Bones, Rioja, Steuben's, Freshcraft, Curtis Park Deli, Marco's Coal Fired Pizza, Pinche Tacos (their brunch tacos are pretty good), Euclid Hall has decent bar food, beers and drinks, but I dunno if I'd eat dinner there. Queen of Sheba for Ethiopian although expect to be there a while. Also their signage is poo poo, so make sure you know the exact address/intersection or something. Caveat: there are probably dozens of ethiopian restaurants just on that stretch of Colfax and I've only been to like four so far. And yeah, lots of mexican, chinese, vietnamese and thai along federal at various points. I can be more specific, but coming from southern california I imagine you have all of those in ample supply.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
alright, this never stops bothering me irl. I think I've asked this question in here before several years back, but don't think I ever got a satisfactory answer if you're heating a liquid at a rolling boil in a pot with moderately high walls, will the liquid evaporate less quickly than if you have it heated to just below the boil point? I know the liquid itself won't evaporate any less quickly, but I mean in a less technical sense of evaporation - like taking into consideration condensation on the pot walls, airflow, et cetera. I ask because when I have something going at full boil, I see the liquid's vapors do almost like a curling movement from the outside of the pot back down and in towards the center of the pot - almost like some strange force of convection is sucking the vapor right back towards the water surface. If I turn down the heat so the liquid isn't boiling so hard, the vapor from the pot just rises straight up like you'd expect. someone smarter than me explain plz  #paging subG
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
You are welcome. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3726131
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
If we're still talking Denver, a friend of mine is the chef at WaterCourse. I haven't made it down to try yet, but she won some competition last year with her vegetarian fare. If anyone's been, I'd love to know what you thought.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
I LOVE YOU, HAPPY HAT. PLEASE MARRY ME AND BEAR MY CHILDREN.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
mindphlux posted:if you're heating a liquid at a rolling boil in a pot with moderately high walls, will the liquid evaporate less quickly than if you have it heated to just below the boil point? Net water loss---so evaporation plus boiling minus condensation---will depend more on the geometry (and to a lesser extent the composition) of the vessel. But I wouldn't really expect those to be markedly different for sub-boil evaporation and a rolling boil in the same vessel. I guess you could get the opposite impression because you usually have greater losses due to simmering compared to boiling because things you simmer you usually simmer a gently caress of a lot longer than you boil things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 09:10
|
|
|
The vessel I used has a tulip formed side - I used the 2 1/2 l vessel to ensure that there was plenty of space for the steam to condensate, and for the steam to fold in on itself - I may have pumped in too much power for true steam-folding to happen, however - the result is very clear - a difference in evaporation of 108 grams in 2 minutes is actually quite a lot. I would surmise that the rationale behind the mindphlux hypothesis of reduction speed is that when you have a rolling boil, you will get a much larger level of turbulence, than with a simmer, due to the distortion of the surface of the water being that much greater. This means that you will have a more solid pylon of steam raising from a simmering vessel than from a rolling boil, where the air above the vessel is more chaotic, also due to the fact that more steam is being pressed up and out of the vessel. This observance will then lead to mindphlux thinking that nice and orderly is more efficient than chaotic and fast, which is a reflection of a german mentality inherent in him (observe that he has german words under his avatar). So I guess it is a cultural thing we're discussing here. I used an italian stove for the test, which may be considered a flaw.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
55555 Happy Hat posted:I would surmise that the rationale behind the mindphlux hypothesis of reduction speed is that when you have a rolling boil, you will get a much larger level of turbulence, than with a simmer, due to the distortion of the surface of the water being that much greater. This means that you will have a more solid pylon of steam raising from a simmering vessel than from a rolling boil, where the air above the vessel is more chaotic, also due to the fact that more steam is being pressed up and out of the vessel. ORDNUNG MUß SEIN
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
So, ICSA Bread had four entries, and only 76 votes on the winner? Is the overall traffic to GWS way down or something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Squashy Nipples posted:So, ICSA Bread had four entries, and only 76 votes on the winner? Everyone is too busy being GBS-lite now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Plus baking bread terrifies people for whatever reason.
Mercedes Colomar fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Jun 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
I think my apartment is toxic. Dough don't rise.
sweat poteto fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Jun 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
sweat poteto posted:I think my apartment is toxic. Dough don't rise. Dead yeast? Water too hot? Water too chlorinated? Too much salt? That's all I got.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 21:02 |
|
|
Beats me. I did a series of tests to try to figure it out. Tried three different yeasts. Warm and cold water. Purified bottled water. Nada. Bread comes out edible - just - but it just doesn't rise properly. I can make pizzas and indian style flat breads but a good loaf isn't happening :/
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 20:44
|
|