Degustatory diversity

[Lootman]

there are schools of thought on this with regard to digestion rather than taste.

some nutritionists say that protein and carbohydrate must be eaten separately, because they need different stomach acid/alkaline conditions.

some also say that its ok to eat the protein (meat) first , then the rest . the theory is the stomach purse strings itself into two parts , with suitable environments in both .

I recall reading something that suggested the opposite, that you eat veggies first and then the protein. I had wondered if that informed the American practice of having a salad first and then the main course. The first time I ate out there, they brought out a salad and I just left it there. Eventually the waiter came over and told me that they were holding off bringing out my main course because I hadn't finished my salad. To me it was a side dish but for them it was a starter.

I do what the OP described in a couple of cases. With a burger and fries I will eat the fries before starting on the burger. And with bacon and eggs I will eat the egg(s) first before starting on the bacon. No idea why.

[tea42]

I live my daughter and son in law who are in theur 40s. We often eat together. Son in Law fancies himself as a bit of a chef. Gordon and Jamie are his gurus. Trouble is they cook everything to death which results in mush or some sort of sauce usually with chillies in it. Everything cooked from scratch. Whilst some of the stuff is ok it gets boring. Baked Sweet Potatoes are mush. Sweet peppers get the flavour destroyed.
Personally I like food with minimal cooking. Spuds where you can taste the potato, parsnips where you can taste the parsnip, fish zapped in the microwave where you can taste its flavour, carrots, purple sprouted, mange tout lightly steamed and retaining the flavour. The French who slather everything in sauces would have a fit! I do a mean Paella, mushroom risotto to die for, moules et frites when the fish van arrives.
Latest discovery is Swaadish curries, 6 varieties of sauces from 4 Gugerati sisters in Goring on Thames. Available online, not cheap but knock the dreadful gloop delivered in your average so called Indian Restaurant for six!. Hope I am allowed to post a link......
https://www.swaadish.com/store/buy-all-six-and-save/

[Leothebear]

I always eat carrots first - get them out of the way. Filthy orange things.

I agree when they're boiled. Roasted they have ten times the flavour.

[stevensfo]

So yes, it makes perfect sense to eat protein and carbs separately.

Maybe in separate meals, but not in the way described in the OP. Within minutes it'll all be churned together in the stomach.

Scott.

Yes. Sorry if I wasn't clear. There is also discussion about when is the best time for each one, with the consensus being carbs in the day, for energy, then protein in the evening so the body can rebuild while we sleep.

Not sure about the best time for beer and crisps. 10am?

Steve

[bungeejumper]

I've heard of this continental habit - indeed, I was once invited to a French family's meal which consisted of ten separate courses, each featuring just one food. But it struck me as weird then, and it still seems weird now. (Helluva lot of crockery, too. )

The foods on my plate are chosen to complement each other, and it seems unnatural to separate them out. If I were to go to a concert, would I want to hear the strings first, then the tympani, then the trumpets?

BJ

[tjh290633]

I recall reading something that suggested the opposite, that you eat veggies first and then the protein. I had wondered if that informed the American practice of having a salad first and then the main course. The first time I ate out there, they brought out a salad and I just left it there. Eventually the waiter came over and told me that they were holding off bringing out my main course because I hadn't finished my salad. To me it was a side dish but for them it was a starter.

The same thought crossed my mind. Vegetables seem to be a stranger to most of the American cuisine, although my first lunch in West Virginia did come wirh Lima Beans. No salad in that diner.

TJH

[Lootman]

I recall reading something that suggested the opposite, that you eat veggies first and then the protein. I had wondered if that informed the American practice of having a salad first and then the main course. The first time I ate out there, they brought out a salad and I just left it there. Eventually the waiter came over and told me that they were holding off bringing out my main course because I hadn't finished my salad. To me it was a side dish but for them it was a starter.

The same thought crossed my mind. Vegetables seem to be a stranger to most of the American cuisine, although my first lunch in West Virginia did come with Lima Beans. No salad in that diner.

Yes, the South (which WV is, just about) is less about salad and more about the ubiquitous "meat and three", which correlates more to the familiar UK concept of meat and vegetables. Except that the "three" are typically chosen from things like collard greens, sweet potato fries, glazed yams, fried okra and grits. If you got lima beans (butter beans to us) then you were doing well.

And yes, in the rest of the US it is usually protein and carbs, with a token salad thrown in. Food has a decidedly yellow/orange hue. And the people can be very, very fat

[gryffron]

DYK: Some people outside Yorkshire even serve their Yorkshire Pud on the SAME PLATE as the meat course.

Heathens!

Gryff

[Rhyd6]

What happens when the people who like to eat everything separately have a stew/casserole? Do they pick out the bits of carrot, then swede, then onion etc? Just curious.

R6

[sg31]

DYK: Some people outside Yorkshire even serve their Yorkshire Pud on the SAME PLATE as the meat course.

Heathens!

Gryff

As a fellow Yorkshireman I also find that strange. Sadly younger Yorkshire people seem to be getting into the same disgusting habit.

[Rhyd6]

Even more disgusting is the trend for filling large yorkshire puddings with something that is supposed to be a roast dinner! Ugh!!

R6

[Mike4]

DYK: Some people outside Yorkshire even serve their Yorkshire Pud on the SAME PLATE as the meat course.

Heathens!

Gryff

I call a poisson rouge.

It make no difference which plate the pud is on, regarding whether you mix it up in your mouth with the other constituents comprising the meal.

So do these strange Yorkshire people eat their pud sequentially or concurrently with their roast beef?

[gryffron]

It make no difference which plate the pud is on, regarding whether you mix it up in your mouth with the other constituents comprising the meal.
So do these strange Yorkshire people eat their pud sequentially or concurrently with their roast beef?

[Cries softly in sad disbelief]

The Yorkshire pud course traditionally precedes the meat course.

To fill you up. It saves money. Pud is cheap and roast beef is expensive. Ow much!

Gryff

[AleisterCrowley]

Even more disgusting is the trend for filling large Yorkshire puddings with something that is supposed to be a roast dinner! Ugh!!

R6

That works really well actually: stops the gravy running off the plate
I like Yorkshire puds with chicken too - is that wrong? Not that I care.

[Mike4]

It make no difference which plate the pud is on, regarding whether you mix it up in your mouth with the other constituents comprising the meal.
So do these strange Yorkshire people eat their pud sequentially or concurrently with their roast beef?

[Cries softly in sad disbelief]

The Yorkshire pud course traditionally precedes the meat course.

To fill you up. It saves money. Pud is cheap and roast beef is expensive. Ow much!

Gryff

How bizarre.

What possible difference does it make to whether it fills you up if you eat the pudding first then the meat, or both at the same time?

[stevensfo]

It make no difference which plate the pud is on, regarding whether you mix it up in your mouth with the other constituents comprising the meal.
So do these strange Yorkshire people eat their pud sequentially or concurrently with their roast beef?

[Cries softly in sad disbelief]

The Yorkshire pud course traditionally precedes the meat course.

To fill you up. It saves money. Pud is cheap and roast beef is expensive. Ow much!

Gryff

How bizarre.

What possible difference does it make to whether it fills you up if you eat the pudding first then the meat, or both at the same time?

Just guessing here, but I imagine that in thrifty Yorkshire families, they'd fill the kids up with the Yorkshire pudding, then feign annoyance when the kids moaned that they were full.

By the way, I noticed the comments about beef being traditionally expensive, but I remember my Grandmother telling me how beef used to be quite cheap and it was chicken that was considered a delicacy. Any truth in this?

Steve

[tjh290633]

By the way, I noticed the comments about beef being traditionally expensive, but I remember my Grandmother telling me how beef used to be quite cheap and it was chicken that was considered a delicacy. Any truth in this?

Steve

The only time we saw chicken was at Christmas. Wartime menu was usually Roast Beef on Sunday, Cold Beef with bubble and squeak on Monday (washing day), Rissoles on Tuesday made from what was left of the beef, Pork Chops on Wednesday, Liver or stuffed heart on Thursday, Sausages on Friday and egg and chips on Saturday. If somebody had killed a pig or a lamb, things might vary, with rolled stuffed breast of lamb or other cuts.

In those days only pullets were kept, as they provided the eggs. You just needed one cockerel, the rest were drowned on hatching. A few were kept for the Christmas market.

TJH

[Mike4]

By the way, I noticed the comments about beef being traditionally expensive, but I remember my Grandmother telling me how beef used to be quite cheap and it was chicken that was considered a delicacy. Any truth in this?

Steve

Good point that half-crossed my mind too. As a child in the early 60s my mother used to say the same. Beef was all we could afford and chicken was for special occasions like Christmas (substitute turkey).

Mind you, have ever heard a Yorkshireman say anything was cheap or good value? Whatever the price they say "expensive". I'm surprised they don't moan and whine about the price of Yorkshire pudding too!

[Rhyd6]

During the war we always had an illicit pig in a sty well away from the farmhouse. In those days nobody noticed if the odd gun went off at night as everyone assumed it was the Home Guard on manouveres. Pork was always on the menu at Christmas.

R6

[stevensfo]

By the way, I noticed the comments about beef being traditionally expensive, but I remember my Grandmother telling me how beef used to be quite cheap and it was chicken that was considered a delicacy. Any truth in this?

Steve

The only time we saw chicken was at Christmas. Wartime menu was usually Roast Beef on Sunday, Cold Beef with bubble and squeak on Monday (washing day), Rissoles on Tuesday made from what was left of the beef, Pork Chops on Wednesday, Liver or stuffed heart on Thursday, Sausages on Friday and egg and chips on Saturday. If somebody had killed a pig or a lamb, things might vary, with rolled stuffed breast of lamb or other cuts.

In those days only pullets were kept, as they provided the eggs. You just needed one cockerel, the rest were drowned on hatching. A few were kept for the Christmas market.

TJH

So there weren't many vegetarians in those days, I guess?

I'm 59 and remember the Sunday Roast beef and possibly the arrival of cheaper chicken. The reason is that I'm sure in the 70s, my mother started to do all sort of weird and wonderful recipes with chicken - Chicken Kiev, Chicken Maryland and some with breadcrumbs, but as a child and teenager, I just eat what was put in front of me. One did not argue with parents in those days. The thing I hated most was liver which was just fried, but had to be eaten because it was apparently good for children. Decades later, my wife introduced me to chicken liver, cooked with plenty of onions and spices. Much nicer!

Steve