He did say, “So I implore anyone who knows their way around a kitchen and is tired of sub par excuses for food, or anyone who wants to learn a little bit about cooking to post in response to this thread.”
If that’s not you, then I don’t think he’s trying to get into your business.
There are a lot of people who believe that Splenda is just as bad for you as aspartame. It’s a fake sweetener, there’s no way that it is “good” for you.
Here are some links:
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/01/01-18-05tdc/01-18-05dscihealth-04.asp
I don’t understand what “supposed to” means in this context. Is this some kind of creationism?
I take mac & cheese, and add extra sharp cheddar and butter. How do I know whether this is how I’m “supposed to” eat?
With mayonnaise and ketchup dressing! Mmmmm.
Which, if you’d browse around for a while, you’d discover isn’t saying much – since aspartame isn’t bad for you, either (none of the myriad things claimed by nutcase websites about aspartame have manifested during actual testing).
Which leads to four questions:
(1) If it’s sweet, and it is made from sugar (sucrose), how is it a “fake” sweetener? Sucrose is itself a processed food.
(2) Accepting for the sake of argument that it is a “fake” sweetener, how does “fake” make it “not good for you”?
(3) Is sugar “good” for you?
(4) If something is not “good” for you, does that necessarily mean it is “bad” for you?
This is the key, here. The words “organic” and “whole-grain” are rapidly becoming meaningless marketing terms slapped onto processed foods that are really not any different than their non-organic, partial-grained alternatives. When I saw “whole-grain” slapped on boxes of cheerios and cap’n crunch or whatever, I knew we were in trouble. Although I’m sure it is tasty, I sincerely doubt the organic Kraft dinner is any better - from a health perspective - than the cheaper kind.
Basically, if it comes in a box, I cast strong doubts on the validity of any health claims. I read somewhere that if a food needs to tell you it is healthy, it probably isn’t.
The only way to be sure you’re getting the best foods is to avoid any packaged foods as much as possible. In a practical, busy, urban world this is not the easiest thing to do, but it is a good goal to keep in mind. Moderation, variety, balance, portion control - all of that.
[American Attitude] The generic version of mac-n-Cheese costs about 60 cents* to prepare. When I can make pasta and mornay sauce for less then that, I will. But until then, I will be feasting on the imitation-blue-box, thank you very much.[/AA]
*A pound of vegetable oil spread costs about a dollar, and I can’t taste a difference between that and butter in my mac-n-cheese.
How do you feel about the stuff labeled “organic” at the supermarket? Is it really any better than the other stuff?
And don’t forget Spam!
Only just noticed this thread - I hope it’s OK to resurrect it, as I do have feelings on the topic.
Yeah, I agree with the thrust of what the OP is saying - I think we do need to get more acquainted with ingredients and the creation of simple, wholesome food - and I try to reflect this ethic in the recipes I use, create and recommend.
…however…
We do need to realise that cooking is processing. A knee-jerk hatred of ‘processed’ foods isn’t helpful. Bread is a processed food. Cheese - even the handmade stinky farmhouse stuff, is a processed food. Pickle is a processed food. Butter is a processed food - so my ploughman’s lunch - which most people would think of as wholesome, simple fare - is made mostly from processed foods. Clearly a bit more finesse is required.
Also, it’s easy to get carried along by fashionable/popular opinions - case in point: A couple of UK supermarket chains announced they would start selling sausages for two pence each (i.e. a pack of 8 sausages for 16 pence). Reaction from foodies over this included comments like “Ugh! I wouldn’t feed that to my dog” and “I expect they’re mostly sawdust”. This is little more than elitism and snobbery.
I bought and tested a pack of the sausages in question and two points were apparent:
-They’re not specially made to be dirt cheap - this is a loss-leader promotion, not a manufacturing cost reduction - the same product has been on sale at a higher (although still budget) price for a long time previously.
-OK, they’re not particularly special, but neither are they utterly horrible.
http://www.atomicshrimp.com/st/content/tuppenny_sausages
Which brings me on to…
So what? What useful information does this provide? I use either product for baking and spreading - not farming maggots. If you’re going to construct an argument against something, make it a useful one FFS! - not some bullshit hyperbole like this, - it’s no better than the one about margarine being ‘one molecule away from plastic’.
So yes, wholesome food that is not needlessly over-processed - great - with you 100% on that…
…but can I also then ask for arguments and statements about food that aren’t just regurgitated, predigested nonsense?
I’m not sure I understand this. If my kid is going to eat Cheerios, isn’t it a good thing that I can buy her Cheerios made with whole grain?* Let’s assume the alternative isn’t steel cut oats, but an off-label “O” cereal not made with whole grain.
Cheerios is just a really bad example to pick - it has the same amount of fat and fiber as an equal caloric amount of oatmeal, and just 1 gram more sugar and 1 gram less protein. Cheerios is much higher than oatmeal in Vitamins A and C and calcium and iron. And it’s portable!
Cap’n Crunch, I’ll give you. That stuff is dessert food, not breakfast food. Still, if they’d up the fiber content (it’s **not **available “made with whole grain”), it’d be a better choice than it is now. And, in reality, it already has less calories, less sugar and more fiber than lowfat fruity yogurt.
Seems to me this is akin to Mangetout’s “eww, cheap sausages” example. Not every product made by a large corporation is rat poison.
*And yes, they are, and yes, the fiber content is higher to reflect that and yes, my kid poops better when we use “made with whole grain” stuff…I prefer “100% Whole Grain”, but “made with” is better than “enriched white flour”.
BTW, love your username! 
The ‘whole grain’ thing on cereals is in some cases just a marketing thing though - the TV advertisements I’ve seen - although they’re careful not to say it outright - want you to take away the impression that they’re made with lots of whole grain, but in some cases, the ‘whole grain’ ingredient comes second, third, or who-knows-which place - after refined grain flours, maybe after sugar and other ingredients.
For example Golden Nuggets - ingredients:
Good lord, that’s some crappy cereal!
Yep, I’m not arguing that “whole grain” necessarily means healthy, just that “whole grain” means healthier than the product’s not-whole-grain counterpart. That is, if it didn’t have even a little whole grain, it’d be a catastrophe, not just a nightmare. 
The information on the front of the box is *all *marketing - from “whole grain” to “delicious”. The *nutritional *information is on the side or back of the box.
Actually, it’s quite nice (although not as nice as it was in its first incarnation, back in the 70s/80s).
Actually, it looks not all that dissimilar to Cap’n Crunch - which you’ve already discussed, so it looks like we’re in full agreement anyway.
My mom pretty much cooked from cans and boxes, so I did likewise for most of my adult life, especially during the lean times. It’s only recently that I’ve begun to cook from recipes and use ingredients, thanks to my husband. He’s also taken me to a better class of restaurants than I’d ever been to, so my ideas about food have changed a lot. I’ve also read Fast Food Nation and Omnivore’s Dilemma.
However, Kraft Macaroni and Cheese is still one of my favorite foods. I only get a chance to eat it maybe once a year and I could polish off the whole box myself. Nom nom nom nom nom…
You’re right. I got confuddled with the 100g nutritional info and the single serving with milk nutritional info and thought 100g was 1 serving! Durn British labelling!
'Though I suppose if everything had 100g info, it’d be easier to compare across serving sizes. I think maybe our pasta does that here, but not yet our breakfast cereal. We usually have 1 serving (1 ounce/29g for all cereals, whether that’s 3/4 cup or 1 cup) info and 1 serving with lowfat milk info.
Ugh, that sounds horrible! Might as well eat Bachelor Chow.
I bet it’s that crappy instant coffee, with Sweet’N’Low and powdered creamer.
I’ve gotten less uppity about this issue over time, however, I still have some issues.
People who claim the don’t have “time” to cook really typically mean they don’t have it as a priority. None of these people ever used to cook when they had time. They just had a different excuse then. There are people with two full time jobs and kids and errands and houses to run who cook every night. Because food and health are important to them. When food isn’t important and 7:00pm rolls around, you say, “fuck it, let’s pop in the TV dinner and I won’t miss my shows at 8:00.” They say, “let’s cook, and too bad if we miss our shows.”
People who complain about their health and/or appearance and who continue to eat shitty foods need to shut the fuck up until they’ve revamped their diet for at least a year. Yes, I know unhealthy people who cook well with real, good ingredients. I don’t know anyone who is otherwise healthy and in shape that eats a lot of frozen foods, and fast foods.
No one I know who eats healthy does it by eating products that advertise “lite” or “whole grain” or “high in omega 3 fatty acids”. You don’t print “low fat” on a carrot. You print it on your shitty box of cookies that are simply a little less shitty in one area than your regular box of cookies.