Page 22 of 28

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 5:54 pm UTC
by Quizatzhaderac
gmalivuk wrote:Like I'm going to trust BBQ opinions from someone who can't spell "brisket".
Spellin it an eatin it's two different things. Taint never seen a restront what has y'all take a spellin test afore they'd let y'all eat.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 2:02 pm UTC
by Neil_Boekend
Aiwendil wrote:Plain water has an unpleasant taste.

The taste of plain tap water varies greatly by area. At my house it tastes slightly metalic. A couple of hundred km away it tastes of chlorine. Either taste can be to your disliking.
Also brands of bottled water have very different tastes. Often more so than the tap water.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2016 3:29 pm UTC
by karhell
Neil_Boekend wrote:Also brands of bottled water have very different tastes. Often more so than the tap water.

Indeed, some of the stuff can be downright nasty.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 10:04 pm UTC
by pogrmman
I'm not sure this is super controversial, but herbs improve almost everything -- even sweet dishes. I love sweet dishes that have herbs traditionally used for savory food, like thyme. The best dessert I've had was a pear filled pastry with a thyme caramel sauce.

The belt stretching from the Iberian Peninsula to the Indian Subcontinent has much of the world's best food.

Legumes have a poor texture. I like the taste, so I'll eat them despite the texture.

Going back a few posts, La Barbecue is the best barbecue place in the Austin area. Unfirtunately, now that this is pretty widely known you have to wait for ages there. When I first went there, the wait was only like 5 minutes at lunchtime. The last time I went there, I had to wait an hour and 20 minutes...

Turkey is the worst form of poultry. Duck is the best. Chicken is OK. I'll eat just about anything before I eat turkey.

Bacon should be super crispy. Not burned, but entirely crunchy throughout. I was amazed when I was cooking bacon for people that they said it was too crispy. It was just barely crispy enough to be acceptable IMO.

Most soda sucks. Way too sweet. Also, ketchup is too sweet, usually. Ketchup is nasty.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 10:46 pm UTC
by olliver
karhell wrote:
Neil_Boekend wrote:Also brands of bottled water have very different tastes. Often more so than the tap water.

Indeed, some of the stuff can be downright nasty.


And even shameless scams or gross novelties, re: Diamond water and BLK water. Water-filter team go!

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:28 pm UTC
by New User
Hi everyone, I'm here from PAstrychef's recruitment drive.

Here's my controversial opinion. A rebuttal to a claim in the description of this Food forum: Apparently, people like to eat.

Well, I don't actually like to eat. In recent years, I have kind of ignored this, because my eating habits have become a bit routine. But I remember a few years ago, it was common for me to describe my opinion by the words, "I dislike eating."

Of course, I get hungry just like everyone. I prefer tasty foods over disgusting foods. Like many people, I like to eat more than I like to prepare the food or to clean up the mess, but I grudgingly do those things because that's what it takes to get a decent (i.e. not disgusting) meal. Still, I'm under the impression that many people get some kind of pleasure from eating. I do not, with few exceptions (for example, I can get pleasure from eating sweets, but not all the time).

If I think about eating too much, I'll actually start to feel a little disgusted. I don't have a method for eating anything other than to put it into my mouth, chew (optional), and swallow. I mean, I don't typically savor my food, don't draw out the action to relish the experience any more than necessary to just get it into my belly. I typically eat my servings as quickly as possible, and when I start to slow is when I realize I've eaten enough, so I stop. I don't mind a conversation during a meal, but I don't think eating should be considered a social event. Dining at a restaurant typically stresses me, so I avoid that. Food as a tradition or as a ritual doesn't interest me, except maybe for holiday meals. And I'd be fine eating a ham or turkey any time of year, really.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 3:33 pm UTC
by PAstrychef
Interesting. What sorts of things/activities do you enjoy?

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 1:27 pm UTC
by New User
I don't know how to answer that.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:48 pm UTC
by pogrmman
That is interesting.

I may have met a few people like that in real life. I'm kind of the opposite. Eating is great for me. I love trying out different textures and flavors and things.

I've met some people who just stare at me blankly when I explain why I love trying different food and eating.

I guess some people just don't like doing it. It seems bizarre to me, but I get it. There are lots of things I don't like.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 10:11 pm UTC
by natraj
i also don't enjoy eating much. i mean, i also certainly prefer tasty food to not-tasty food since eating is necessary but i'd be genuinely okay with just doing away with the whole eating aspect of life altogether.

i really enjoy cooking though so it is nice to always live with lots of other people who can help eat the things i cook.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2016 1:43 am UTC
by poxic
I've grown into an awkward relationship with food. Allergic to a bunch, non-allergically react badly to a bunch more, and medically restricted from yet more due to a long-term condition. I was a picky eater as a kid when I didn't need to be. Then I was all "try everything once" after teenhood was over. Now I'm picky as shit again and it annoys me. I walk past 95% of what's in a grocery store and agonise over choosing from the remaining 5%.

So yeah, I'd be happiest if I could take two pills in the morning that had everything I need.

As long as I could still have coffee. And ice cream once in a while, as long as it's good enough to be worth the pain. Also chocolate. Y'know, the fun stuff.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 11:49 am UTC
by Rhombic
Coffee from Starbucks, Costa, Caffe Nero (and pretty much any other chain) and in the UK, Germany, Scandinavia, US+Canada (except in those two or three places with proper coffee) is appallingly terrible. No lame excuse for a beverage that kind of smells like proper coffee and then its taste is just like boiling the powdered remains of a dead Egyptian mummy.
Belgium is kind of OK-ish.
As for France... the south makes it the best, while the northern and central areas tend to be alright. Of course, Portugal, Italy, Spain etc. nail it. Ffs it's supposed to have some sort of complex body to it!

on the other hand... Southern Europe barely drinks any proper beer. Macro lagers are all there is, pretty much. So avoid discussing coffee and beer with people from certain geographical areas unless they are connoisseurs or you just don't care that much.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 12:52 pm UTC
by Zohar
Wow, it must have taken you a long time to drink coffee at every single cafe in Europe and North America.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 1:34 pm UTC
by Rhombic
Zohar wrote:Wow, it must have taken you a long time to drink coffee at every single cafe in Europe and North America.

Enough to know what the standard is. And I did mention that places that prepare quality coffee (or serve quality beer) can probably be found everywhere, despite it not being the standard.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 1:17 pm UTC
by PAstrychef
I think most coffee is appalling, but I took that to mean I just don't like coffee very much, not that most coffee is terrible.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 2:30 pm UTC
by bigglesworth
Which coffee do you like?

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:42 am UTC
by sardia
I think McDonald's nuggets are a good source of post exercise food.

Off topic: I requested fresh chicken nuggets and fries at McDonald's except it took so long that my fries got stale waiting for nuggets. :( #firstworldproblems

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 7:31 am UTC
by Red Hal
Strawberries: best eaten with a drizzle of balsamic vinegar and some freshly-milled black pepper. No sugar or cream.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 7:24 am UTC
by Bakemaster
Strawberries are best eaten with your hand in a field, fool

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:48 pm UTC
by sardia
Extra Virgin olive oil is a scam. I'm talking about the real shit, not the fake stuff. Freshly harvested, properly stored and pressed, it's not worth it. I taste some pungent (aka peppery finish) other than that it's no big deal. I might buy another bottle after the 2017 California fall harvest, but only for the nutritional value. I can't think of another reason to buy or use fresh oil instead of the cheap bottled mixed olive oil.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:14 pm UTC
by Liri
The single-origin, extra virgin stuff makes a difference when you aren't cooking with it. Drizzled on a Greek salad with huge slabs of feta, for instance. In places like Crete, they drink it straight, even.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 4:37 pm UTC
by Quercus
Liri wrote:The single-origin, extra virgin stuff makes a difference when you aren't cooking with it. Drizzled on a Greek salad with huge slabs of feta, for instance. In places like Crete, they drink it straight, even.


Agreed. I have a cheapo "cooking grade" and a higher grade olive oil for drizzling, dipping etc.

It works the other way round too - i don't like the higher grade stuff for cooking because the flavour is too strong

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 4:38 pm UTC
by ahammel
Quercus wrote:It works the other way round too - i don't like the higher grade stuff for cooking because the flavour is too strong

I've heard the good stuff burns more easily.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2017 7:33 pm UTC
by Quercus
ahammel wrote:
Quercus wrote:It works the other way round too - i don't like the higher grade stuff for cooking because the flavour is too strong

I've heard the good stuff burns more easily.


That's also true, but for anything that's getting hotter than e.g. sweating onions I prefer another oil anyway - the smoke point of any olive oil apart from the really processed stuff (at which point you might as well go for generic vegetable oil and save some money) is too low for my liking. For high temperatures I prefer either coconut oil or cold-pressed rapeseed (canola) oil, depending on the flavour I want, or just generic vegetable oil (which in the UK is mostly rapeseed, but not cold-pressed) if I really need a totally neutral flavour.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:59 am UTC
by sardia
Liri wrote:The single-origin, extra virgin stuff makes a difference when you aren't cooking with it. Drizzled on a Greek salad with huge slabs of feta, for instance. In places like Crete, they drink it straight, even.

I'm talking about the real stuff with no alterations. No heating, or seasonings. You pour oil into a cup, slurp it up to taste. I'm saying even the best real stuff in "places like Crete" is a waste. You're telling me you can tell the difference between 10$ EVOO oil and $40 oil from Crete in a triangle double blind test?

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:28 am UTC
by New User
Sorry to jump in here where I don't really have an opinion on olive oil directly, but it appears to be one of those subtle bouquet kinda deals. Some people can notice very subtle differences in coffee blends. I cannot, probably because I don't have much experience with drinking coffee. It's all the same to me. Or, maybe I'll notice a difference, but I can't imagine how such a small difference can justify a price hike of 300 percent. However, I can probably tell the difference in a blended whisky and a single-barrel whisky in a blind taste test easily.

Coffee, whisky, wine, and tea are some of those products that I often hear terms applied such as "single-origin" or "aged" or "blended". These terms imply to me that there are some experienced consumers who can notice the subtle differences in these varieties, and all those different brands or blends or brews or whatever are aimed at those experienced consumers with very peculiar tastes. This olive oil discussion seems to be the same kind of thing. So, I conclude that some people care about and can notice subtle differences in olive oil, and other people cannot notice or don't care to notice, or cannot justify the difference in price for a subtle difference in flavor.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:52 am UTC
by Quercus
New User wrote:Sorry to jump in here where I don't really have an opinion on olive oil directly, but it appears to be one of those subtle bouquet kinda deals. Some people can notice very subtle differences in coffee blends. I cannot, probably because I don't have much experience with drinking coffee. It's all the same to me. Or, maybe I'll notice a difference, but I can't imagine how such a small difference can justify a price hike of 300 percent. However, I can probably tell the difference in a blended whisky and a single-barrel whisky in a blind taste test easily.

Coffee, whisky, wine, and tea are some of those products that I often hear terms applied such as "single-origin" or "aged" or "blended". These terms imply to me that there are some experienced consumers who can notice the subtle differences in these varieties, and all those different brands or blends or brews or whatever are aimed at those experienced consumers with very peculiar tastes. This olive oil discussion seems to be the same kind of thing. So, I conclude that some people care about and can notice subtle differences in olive oil, and other people cannot notice or don't care to notice, or cannot justify the difference in price for a subtle difference in flavor.

I think that's about right. I can notice such differences in whisky, wine, tea and olive oil (though not so much coffee). I can't definitively say that this isn't placebo as I haven't done blind taste tests, but I think it's unlikely as I do notice a lot of differences in situations where I don't know the brand/grade used (e.g. cafes and restaurants). I've also occasionally found cheaper stuff that punches way above its weight, or expensive stuff which isn't very good at all, which implies it's not just a price-based placebo.

It's often worth the difference in price for me, mainly because if I'm limited by cost I'd still often prefer to consume 1/3 of the amount of the "good stuff" that costs 3x more. The benefits of even higher priced stuff quite rapidly tails off for me though - £50 is about the maximum I'll spend on a bottle of whisky, £20 on wine, £15 on a packet of loose leaf tea or a bottle of olive oil. I've tried more expensive stuff (mostly on someone else's dollar), and it's a bit nicer but nowhere near enough to justify the price. The difference between a blended whiskey and a single malt (of a style I like), or generic olive oil and single-origin extra virgin oil is like night and day to me though.

I have some sensory processing issues (currently getting these assessed professionally), which include a very intense experience of certain sensations. I wonder if this has anything to do with my experiences here.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 12:06 pm UTC
by AngrySquirrel
I can usually tell the difference, I just don't necessarily find the expensive version to taste better.

To add detail.

I can taste the difference between "proper" olive oil and cheapo olive oil, I just find the cheap version tastes better (to the extent that olive oil tastes good at all, I much prefer neutral oils for cooking as olive isn't a taste I particularly enjoy).

I can taste the difference between most types of whisky, but which one I prefer depends mostly on my mood.

For coffee I can taste the difference between different types, but I can't particularly tell if one is better than the other. What matters to me the most with the taste of coffee is the difference between fresh-brewed and stuff that's been standing for a while.

What I can't taste the difference between is different types of pilsners. They mostly taste like bitter water to me.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:59 pm UTC
by Liri
Whether one can tell the difference blinded kinda doesn't matter at a certain point - we're talking food, and if you enjoy one food item more than another, it doesn't really matter why.

That said, I'd give myself a healthy chance at being able to.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:51 pm UTC
by pogrmman
I can definitely taste the differences between different coffees. In a blinded tasting, I can usually pick out the general growing region, and sometimes the specific country.

Olive oil does have differences to my palate (although I've only tasted a few different origins), but I find coffee's differences are much stronger than olive oil. Maybe I just haven't tried enough olive oil to notice the differences in a stronger manner.

What matters is that you drink or eat what you like.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 4:23 pm UTC
by sardia
pogrmman wrote:I can definitely taste the differences between different coffees. In a blinded tasting, I can usually pick out the general growing region, and sometimes the specific country.

Olive oil does have differences to my palate (although I've only tasted a few different origins), but I find coffee's differences are much stronger than olive oil. Maybe I just haven't tried enough olive oil to notice the differences in a stronger manner.

What matters is that you drink or eat what you like.

Couple issues here. Lots of people rave about how good the real olive oil is. I wanted that feeling, and I'm mad I didn't get it.
Second, I wanted the nutritional value of fresh olive oil.

Last, most olive oil (80%) destined for America is rancid. Americans prefer rancid oil because it's less bitter. Think about that when you say "as long as they enjoy it". Remember Upton's The Jungle? Those old meat factories had plenty of people eat crap.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:53 pm UTC
by Quizatzhaderac
What do you mean by rancid? Usually that word means having a particular smell, and I've never opened a bottle of olive oil the smelled like rotting meat.

Do you mean it has a high content of dangerous bacteria or something?

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:17 pm UTC
by ahammel
Quizatzhaderac wrote:What do you mean by rancid? Usually that word means having a particular smell, and I've never opened a bottle of olive oil the smelled like rotting meat.
Wikipedia tells me that 'rancidification' is the process of the decomposition of fats (like olive oil, for instance).

More info on olive oil rancidity.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:58 pm UTC
by Quizatzhaderac
Okay, so basically any change from "completely fresh" qualifies as rancidification, with the lay sense being the extremely rancid in the technical sense.

Then in that case Sardia's comparison to The Jungle is ridiculous, and we're back to "If you prefer it, whatever".

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Wed May 24, 2017 8:27 am UTC
by AngrySquirrel
Adding spice to food after it's cooked, does not work. It doesn't taste right. Spice needs to be cooked into the food, not put on like a lid afterwards.

I'd rather eat non-spicy food than add spice afterwards.

It's like baking brownies, but instead of putting sugar in the batter you sprinkle it on top after cooking. Just not okay.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Fri May 26, 2017 3:13 am UTC
by pogrmman
AngrySquirrel wrote:Adding spice to food after it's cooked, does not work. It doesn't taste right. Spice needs to be cooked into the food, not put on like a lid afterwards.

I'd rather eat non-spicy food than add spice afterwards.

It's like baking brownies, but instead of putting sugar in the batter you sprinkle it on top after cooking. Just not okay.


I agree with this. This isn't really controversial at all. Spices are different from condiments, though they both serve their own purposes.

Sometimes, some hot sauce or other condiment can be excellent. But you are right -- spices should be applied before cooking.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:18 pm UTC
by Bakemaster
It depends on the spice. It also depends what you consider a "spice."

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:30 pm UTC
by commodorejohn
Avocados: the most pointless "food" on Planet Earth. Empty, tasteless filler glop that looks like it should be served to inmates at a maximum-security prison in Alpha Centauri.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:50 am UTC
by Wednesday
I was about to say something about you not having experienced really good avocados because most people aren't in CA - but.....damn. Sorry you hate happiness.

Re: Controversial opinions about food

Posted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:57 am UTC
by Moo
Garlic and onions are both hardly ever worth the added prep effort