Healthy vs. "Tasty"
Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 5:31 pm
Please be patient while we upgrade this board!
https://everydaysystems.com/bb/
It's true. Brian Wansink did a study on this at a kids' summer camp. When they gave the food more appealing names, the kids ate more of it, and said they liked it better, even though the food itself was not changed.
Huh. I didn't know my sister had a food blog. The cooking she describes is so similar to what I suffered through as a kid, she must be my sister.Who Me? wrote:I kinda loved that there was a related article entitled, "I love you Mom, but you suck at cooking vegetables."
http://summertomato.com/i-love-you-mom- ... egetables/
Embryonic tadpoles.oolala53 wrote:What are the dark "spots" at the bottom of the glasses?
Blueberries or grapes, perhaps?oolala53 wrote:No, really.
oolala53 wrote:When I was about five, I said i didn't like tapioca pudding. Yet, for some reason I started calling it Chicken ala King, and then I would eat it. Didn't matter that it had no chicken in it or that I had never tasted Chicken ala King! go figure.
Know that the reason that corporate chefs (at chain restaurants and the makers of processed foods) don't do this is money, pure and simple. Putting more salt, fat, or sugar into food is often a cheaper way than cooking it properly to make it taste better. Or perhaps it allows it to be cooked by someone with less skill (who therefore doesn't get paid as much). You don't need to worry about profit margins when you cook for yourself or your family or friends.wosnes wrote:Healthy and tasty should be, and can be, synonymous. Salt, Fat and Sugar: Why Eating Tasty Food Can Solve America's Food Problem.
I think the best way to make food tasty is to learn to cook it properly. It's not that difficult.
The high use of processed foods came well after WWII. I have some recipes of my mother's from the post-WWII era, and while they use processed foods, it's nothing like now.Nicest of the Damned wrote:Know that the reason that corporate chefs (at chain restaurants and the makers of processed foods) don't do this is money, pure and simple. Putting more salt, fat, or sugar into food is often a cheaper way than cooking it properly to make it taste better. Or perhaps it allows it to be cooked by someone with less skill (who therefore doesn't get paid as much). You don't need to worry about profit margins when you cook for yourself or your family or friends.wosnes wrote:Healthy and tasty should be, and can be, synonymous. Salt, Fat and Sugar: Why Eating Tasty Food Can Solve America's Food Problem.
I think the best way to make food tasty is to learn to cook it properly. It's not that difficult.
Another reason for foods to have a lot of salt, fat, or sugar is prestige. If those ingredients are expensive, you can show off how rich you are by making food with a lot of them. Again, that's something you don't need to do.
A third reason might be a reaction to previous scarcity of fat, salt, or sugar, such as during wartime. I wonder if the popularity of processed foods and desserts in the US in the late twentieth century isn't a reaction to rationing during WWII. Most of us have seen firsthand the tendency to go crazy eating something if we are allowed to have it, or to have it in unlimited quantities, after a time of not being allowed to have it.