I think you should make bread. I'm not sure why but it seems like the thing to do. Kneading gets out frustration, it is cheap to make, and you control ingredients. Plus it is yummy.

(Reply) (Thread)

I ought. I love bread. I have a tendency to stop by the grocery on my way home and grab a loaf. And I eat it in one sitting. It's good stuff.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Finally, someone with a love of carbohydrates! In this Atkins-obsessed world, there are so few people who agree with me that bread is a wonderful thing. I keep on hearing how fat isn't bad for you anymore, it's the carbs. ::boggles::

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Fat isn't necessarily bad, either: you gotta eat some of that. But yeah, Atkins is just. . . idiotic. No offense to anyone on it :)

But the Atkins craze is nearly over. The bump in sales the meat industry enjoyed for a few months is long over, and people have gone back to their previous eating habits, for the most part.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Hey, what about freezer meals? I have never encountered a non-lean Cuisine freezer-meal that wasn't impossibly full of calories, protein, and all sorts of things that can really keep you going. I imagine the sodium content is also beastly, but you never know. I'd assume they are somewhat inexpensive comapred to if you tried to assemble the ingredients yourself.

Also, do you like Nutella? I've never met anyone who doesn't, but then again, you are kind of odd. Peanut-butter's cheaper, and if not that, almond butter's got lots of calories too.. or... uh... damn, I don't really know what's good to look for.

Maybe you should ask Jim, I bet GNC has stuff to help add calories, etc, to your diet and keep you nourished.

(Reply) (Thread)

Not sure how much looking around you've done, but they make a million things in Low Sodium variants these days. I generally only eat low sodium potato chips, and don't even really notice the difference. Do they have any of those "alternative yet still mega huge" grocery stores in Columbus? Like an equivalent of our Jungle Jim's or Trader Joe's? Bound to be all sorts of interesting low sodium items there.

If you're into bread, I highly recommend whole grain wheat bread. Tastes good, is good for you, and actually feels a little heavier on the stomach per unit mass.

(Reply) (Thread)

Sounds like I need to make lasagna and have you over for dinner.

(Reply) (Thread)

I realized recently that part of the problem is this damned calorie-reduction kick that the world is on. How on earth do people who need high calorie diets manage in this world?

stuff ourselves until we feel like we're going to puke.

actually, it's really really EASY to find high-calorie stuff. the problem is, most of it isn't all that healthy *shrug*

just once i'd like to find an entire aisle dedicated to healthy high-cal stuff, maybe on the opposite side of the store from the 3 aisles of various lo-cal products...

(Reply) (Thread)

Hmph. Like whole milk, tomato soup and grilled cheese sandwiches on a cold, damp NYE is NOT a reasonable meal?

*Double-Hmph*

(Reply) (Thread)

Hey, now. I just didn't eat my fill. . . Wouldn't have been polite, nor useful. There have been a number of meals when I've been able to ask for more, but haven't, based on numerous polite conventions. I worry a lot about those, and generally live by, "Never take more than two helpings of anything."

*grins* Of course, with grilled cheese, what is a helping? I think I had three sandwiches.

However, that meal was probably the most filling between late November and the other night, for sure. Thank you for it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

If more of y'all high-metabolism folks would take more than your "fair share" when eating with us low-metabolism folks, the world might be a healthier place. The adage I always used to use when teaching applies here: The quickest, easiest, simplest way to treat people unfairly is to treat them all the same.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Hmm. . . Treating people the same as unfair. Interesting.

I fail to comprehend it. (I just sat staring at the statement for about ten minutes. . . it's beyond me, I think. . . at least, today.)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

It's not that difficult: different people have different needs. To treat them all the same would be advantageous to some and leave others standing out in the cold.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

While it is true that people have different needs, I'm not sure that it can be automatically assumed that to treat person X and Y exactly the same is necessarily unfair.

In the end, though, it can only be situational when it might be unfair to treat people equally. To treat a special needs kid exactly the same as an honours student is, perhaps, unfair. But then, the end goal, I hope, is the same: in that they are equal. The teacher would, I presume, want both students (at worst) to acheive their best, and (at best) hope that the students can achieve the same level of success. Setting lower expectations on the special needs child is, perhaps, more unfair than expecting them to live to higher ones than they are likely to attain. But then you have to agrue which is more valuable: the potential of attaining that level, or making it so that they don't get frustrated and never attain even half that level because of it.

But even there, I don't see the way you treat people as a limited good. Instead of looking at it as if treatment can only be done "so much" to person X and "so much" to person Y, why not say that you're treating them the same by meeting both their needs equally? In that way, you still treat them equally, but you do different things.

The honours student requires less of your time, so you don't give it to them. You're not taking away if they don't need it, and it may actually be a huge benefit. And the special needs kid needs more, so you're not treating him differently, really, you're just adjusting to his strengths and weaknesses. It's not like there's only so much "treatment" to go around.

In this case, you treat them the same by playing to both their strengths. You aren't treating them differently by doing different things, honestly. Of course, perhaps where we put "treatment" is at issue. I place treatment generally at the end-result. Perhaps to you, it is more about the process.

Then again, I can't help but think that if we start treating people differently based on various criteria, that we will always treat them differently. We've managed to outlaw gay marriage in Ohio, for instance, where if we treated gay people equally, they would enjoy that "right" (I'm unconvinced marriage is a "right", but I'm certainly convinced that a difference in plumbing is grounds for unequal treatment).

But back to food, which was the original bit: I ate what I needed to get through the work I was doing, nothing more. I drank milk that might have been wasted (and I did drink all the milk I could, but milk does not a full stomach make). To eat more or less than I did would have been, in my eyes, dishonest and possibly a violation of hospitality, which I viewed as far more important than moderation at the time (I don't eat much before 3 PM). I wasn't there to eat my fill. . . you'd invited me there to work. The food was a side-benefit, similar to the experience gained, which was more valuable to me than the food, actually. I ate what I needed to get the job done, and certainly about what the job was worth, money-wise.

It is not a refelction on your hospitality that I left without completely filling my stomach. . . your hospitality was quite good. It is a reflection on my own that I appear to have offended you by not eating more. My appologies.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

You didn't offend me! :)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Well, that's good :)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)