You've Been Served

This was apparently served to a woman in a noodle stall in Singapore.

Cornflakes of America

Honestly, the things people will buy on ebay is ludicrous.  The chap who tried to sell his life.  And now someone who will probably pay $2350 for a glass of milk with a milk skin the shape of Miami.

Two sisters from Virgina claimed they were "biting our nails all the way up to the finish, seeing what would happen" on Friday night as they watched the ebay counter tick away.  

What happened was that they laughed all the way to the bank.

Someone had just paid US$1,350 for a cornflake from the two shysters, I mean sisters.

The winner (sic) was one Monty Kerr, from Austin, Texas.  The acquisition of flakey dimensions was not made in a moment of early morning haze but a strategic decision to add to his traveling museum of pop culture and Americana.  

Kerr said of his latest investment, "We thought this was a fantastic one."

According to CNN, Kerr owns TriviaMania.com and declares that he will likely send someone to collect the flake by hand to avoid damage.  Let's hope the courier does not get hungry and decide to have cornflakes for snacks.

Kerr's half-baked flakey obsession has manifested before when he purchased a cornflake billed as the world's largest but sadly, it flaked out on him by crumbling into three during the delivery.  I guess Kerr was not into the three-for-one deal. 

By the way, the two McIntire sisters, aged 23 and 15, are planning to use their milked money for a family  vacation.  Most likely not to Illinois.

I would just like to point out to Kerr that a traveling museum of Americana in America itself is a little ironic.  Bit like bringing coals to Newcastle, ain't it?

Playing with Your Food

Food art.  Brilliant.

Sweet N Low-Down

Here's the latest low-down on artificial sweeteners. It's not working.

Two posts in a day about weight-loss. No, I am not obsessed. True, I did put on a little bit of weight in the last two weeks from the non-stop feasting but only in one area.

I actually read about this a couple of days ago but decided to post the article as a continuation on a theme today.

When I was younger, lots of my colleagues were perpetually on a diet or some weight-loss quick scheme. Artificial sweeteners were par for the course for most of them. We had a strict mandate to maintain our weight under a rather stringent limit and everyone was always scrambling for the Sweet N Low at tea time.

I never liked it. The saccharine, bitter-sweet after-taste put me off my food. Which will not do, as I love food. I rather exercise for hours than to be deprived of food. 

Also, there was always something about the chemical taste and composition of artificial sweeteners that made me nervous and dubious. I was always convinced that some weird-arse side effect will rear its ugly head somewhere down the line. 

Furthermore, I really did not see much difference in weight in the friends who swore by Sweet N Low & Equal.

So this article did not surprise me. The only surprise is that it took so long before they came to this realisation.

Sunday, Feb. 10, 2008
Can Sugar Substitutes Make You Fat?
By Alice Park
Time Inc.

When it comes to dieting, most of us are willing to resort to a trick or two to help us curb our appetite and eat less — drinking water to fill up when we're hungry, for example, or opting for artificial sweeteners instead of sugar to get the same satisfying sweetness without the offending calories. But new research suggests that the body is not so easily fooled, and that sugar substitutes are no key to weight loss — perhaps helping to explain why, despite a plethora of low-calorie food and drink, Americans are heavier than ever.

In a series of experiments, scientists at Purdue University compared weight gain and eating habits in rats whose diets were supplemented with sweetened food containing either zero-calorie saccharin or sugar. The report, published in Behavioral Neuroscience, presents some counterintuitive findings: Animals fed with artificially sweetened yogurt over a two-week period consumed more calories and gained more weight — mostly in the form of fat — than Animals eating yogurt flavored with glucose, a natural, high-calorie sweetener. It's a continuation of work the Purdue group began in 2004, when they reported that Animals consuming saccharin-sweetened liquids and snacks tended to eat more than Animals fed high-calorie, sweetened foods. The new study, say the scientists, offers stronger evidence that how we eat may depend on automatic, conditioned responses to food that are beyond our control.

What they mean is that like Pavlov's dog, trained to salivate at the sound of a bell, Animals are similarly trained to anticipate lots of calories when they taste something sweet — in nature, sweet foods are usually loaded with calories. When an Animal eats a saccharin-flavored food with no calories, however — disrupting the sweetness and calorie link — the Animal tends to eat more and gain more weight, the new study shows. The study was even able to document at the physiological level that Animals given artificial sweeteners responded differently to their food than those eating high-calorie sweetened foods. The sugar-fed rats, for example, showed the expected uptick in core body temperature at mealtime, corresponding to their anticipation of a bolus of calories that they would need to start burning off — a sort of metabolic revving of the energy engines. The saccharin-fed Animals, on the other hand, showed no such rise in temperature. "The Animals that had the artificial sweetener appear to have a different anticipatory response," says Susan Swithers, a professor of psychological sciences at Purdue University and a co-author of the study. "They don't anticipate as many calories arriving." The net result is a more sluggish metabolism that stores, rather than burns, incoming excess calories.

Swithers stops short of saying that the Animals in her study were compelled to overeat to compensate for phantom calories. But she says that the study does suggest artificial sweeteners somehow disrupt the body's ability to regulate incoming calories. "It's still a bit of a mystery why they are overeating, but we definitely have evidence that the Animals getting artificially sweetened yogurt end up eating more calories than the ones getting calorically sweetened yogurt."

Though it's premature to generalize based on Animal results that the same phenomena would hold true in people, Swithers says, she notes that other human studies have already shown a similar effect. A University of Texas Health Science Center survey in 2005 found that people who drink diet soft drinks may actually gain weight; in that study, for every can of diet soda people consumed each day, there was a 41% increased risk of being overweight. So even though her findings were in Animals, says Swithers, they could lead to a better understanding of how the human body responds to food, and explain why eating low-calorie foods doesn't always lead to weight loss. "There is lots of evidence that we learn about the consequences about eating food," she says. "And we have physiological responses to food that are conditioned."

So does that mean you should ditch the artificial sweeteners and welcome sugar back into your life? Not exactly. Excess sugar in the diet can lead to diabetes and heart disease, even independent of its effect on weight. But it's worth remembering that when it comes to counting calories, it's not just the ones you eat that you have to worry about. The calories you give up matter too, and they may very well reappear in that extra helping of pasta or dessert that your body demands. Your body may actually be keeping better count than you are.

But you know what I love? People who go to McDonald's and ask for a Diet Coke right after ordering a Big Mac Meal ... upsized.

Glossed Over Truth - Get Lippy With It

I love makeup. I am girly enough to gush over a cool lip gloss or a brilliant new shade of eye shadow. So when I received the latest ad for a new lip gloss, I was fairly open minded and interested.

Too Faced Cosmetics (if you still do not get a clue with that name, I have a bridge to sell you) recently launched a new lip gloss entitled Fuze Slenderised Guilt Free lip gloss.

Why slenderised and guilt free?

Because this fruit-flavoured lip gloss professes to suppress your appetite with "the same mix of minerals and ingredients found in Coca-Cola's Fuze energy fruit drinks".

The blend of the minerals chromium and L-carnitine, along a hydroxycitric acide extract called Super Citrimax, in Fuze is touted to enable the size-challenged "to drink a full bottle of the beverage to get the promised hunger-easing metabolism boost". 

The rocket scientist founder of Too Faced, Jerrod Blandino, claims that "the skin on the lips is very thin" so you "will ingest some of it" and that this is "playing with nutritional science in a girly way".

Since when is Coke Fuze a nutritional resource?

Nutritionists have, of course, been thin-lipped over this and given Too Faced some lip.

They wag that there's no hard evidence linking these [Coke Fuze & Fuze SGF] products to weight loss. One even expounded that you might lose weight if you kept putting on the flavored lip gloss which would be a distraction from eating, similar to chewing sugar-free gum.

What utter bollocks. 

My theory is that lip gloss would only work as a weight-loss tool if it tastes like absolute shite. It tastes so bad, you would rather bite your own tongue off than lick your lips. You will be tight-lipped throughout the day rather than risk the accidental inhalation and tasting of the noxious balm. You will cease to eat. Voila, weight loss.

I can say this with full confidence as I abhor Chanel lip sticks. Not because I am anti-Franco or dislike the shades. But because their lip sticks are tragically vile-tasting. 

Every time someone slicked a Chanel on my lips, I would cringe. It was the most torturous (and hungry) experience when Chanel was the official sponsor. The bitter, medicinal chemical taste would put a pained grimace on my face. Now that is a good weight loss tool.

See, Chanel? Never let it be said I did not give you some love ...

Bite Your Tongue

It's a good thing I'd already had my lunch as this article puts a foul taste on my mouth.

They always say hospital food is terrible but in Slovenia, it is not just a tongue in cheek statement.

A doctor was having a bite to eat in the hospital canteen when he spotted a strange piece of meat in his chicken risotto. Can I just say here that is is quite a marvel that he could identify it as "strange" as I have always been unable to sort out the mystery meat objects in hospital canteens.

Anyway, he complained about it and after some intense bickering, where the doctor insisted that it was not chicken, they actually sent it for tests. I certainly hope that it was not a state hospital as the idea that tax funds could be used so arbitrarily for expensive tests on mystery meat objects in hospital canteens ... well, I'll just bite my tongue.

When the tests came back, they were horrified to discover that it was part of a human tongue.

Much tongue wagging later, they concluded that a doctor must have accidentally dropped it into the food.

Raises hand. Question: Why would a doctor be walking around the canteen with a human tongue? Oh oh, and why was he so near the kitchen? Is there a Dr Hannibal at the hospital? There are more questions at the tip of my tongue but we'll leave it here.

Inspectors have since closed the canteen in Izola, southern Slovenia, to review hygiene standards. I think they should also go around reviewing who's missing a tongue as well.

A hospital spokesman insisted: "I can say clearly that we have never used patients' parts in any of our dishes."

Yes, you can mate since you're not the one missing a tongue. 

Speechless indeed.

Cakey Question

Also spotted at The Sneeze was this cake.

What does it look like to you?

Death by Tuna

I think there's a plot afoot.  Someone hates sushi.  And it ain't me.

It's rather strange how much I love sushi, well, actually sashimi more than sushi, as the first time I had it I spat it out.  For various reasons, I did not try Japanese food till I was around 20.  At a work event, there had been a buffet spread featuring sushi.  A colleague encouraged me to try the sushi but I think the buffet had been sitting there for some hours and the sushi had started to turn and was more slushy than sushi.

So my first encounter with sushi was not an auspicious one.  I avoided the stuff for years till I met with a boyfriend who absolutely adored the stuff, and bugged me to give it another chance until I did.  And this time, we had proper, high quality sushi and sashimi.  And suddenly I was a convert.

Recently, an article in the komotv.com claimed sushi is dangerous.  Or at least bluefin tuna sushi is bad for you.  It stated a New York Times study found surprisingly high quantities of mercury in tuna sushi.  In 20 restaurants and supermarkets in Manhattan.  Obviously this study is very ethno-, even borough-centric as the survey sample size is so limited and small.

The writer of the komotv article, Herb Weisbaum, clarified that these mercury quantities are higher than federal sanctioned amounts.  He continued by adding that this does not mean that we should stop consuming sushi (well, thank God as I would have to start gnawing on his bones instead) but simply avoid tuna sushi.

It's called maguro sushi, mate.  And he claimed -

"Sushi is general considered a healthy food -- a good source of omega-3 fats, protein, and a variety of nutrients. Plus it's relatively low in calories." 

Well, that depends on what kind of sushi it is.  There are many types and not all of them made with raw fish.  So that statement is erroneous since, if was made with fried bacon and mayo, there will not be any omega-3 fats and would be highly high in calories.  Do not barf as there are such concoctions nowadays under the guise of sushi.

This well-researched article continued to dazzle with a statement that the writer had done his homework by bringing in expert opinion.  Weisbaum wrote that bluefin tuna should generally be consumed in limited amounts because the New York Times study says so.  And - 

" "That's because you'd likely get the same results if you tested tuna anywhere in the country, says Joanna Burger, a professor at Rutgers University who analyzed the sushi. "

The last I heard, Rutgers University is the state university of New Jersey.  I did not know it represented the whole of the USA or the world.  And I did not realise it had such extensive research facilities as to study all the bluefin tuna samples from all over the world.  

Because, in case Weisbaum and his learned colleague, Prof Burger, do not realise, a lot of sashimi-grade tuna is actually imported.  From Japan.  Yes, yes, you ask, what's wrong with good ole American bluefin tuna?  Well, obviously as you Americans (I am assuming Weisbaum & Burger are Americans) just claimed ... yours ain't safe.

So there is quite a bit of bluefin tuna swimming around in your sushi bars that are not local.  The 20 restaurants and supermarkets might not have these higher-grade raw materials out for easy access as frankly, they cost a lot more than their local counterparts.  And certainly out of the reach of university research.

Weisbaum penned that the mercury level in the bluefin tuna found in 5 out of the 20 samples is about 1 part per million, which is so high that the FDA could ban it from being sold.   20%!  Wow, that's a lot.  But 20 sample out of how many restaurants and supermarkets in the US?  And extrapolate that to the world?  How many percent would that be?

Prof Burger claims, "That's really risky because if you are pregnant you don't know if you're going to happen to get the sushi that happens to be made from the tuna that's quite high in mercury," she said.

I'm sorry, Prof Burger, but have you ever been pregnant or been around a pregnant woman before?  Very few of them want to eat sushi when they have morning sickness.  And the live bacteria in raw food is not advisable for them.  So it does not matter what kind of raw fish they eat, it's going to be bad for them.  

She continued her astute commentary by adding, "If I were pregnant or if I had a small child, I would not eat sushi made with tuna, nor would I give it to my young child."

Again I ask, do you have children or hang around any?  If you offer a kid sushi, they usually go "eeeuuwww" and/or spit it out.  At you.  Usually on your brand new Jimmy Choos.

The report advocated the limited and careful consumption of other high-mercury leveled fish such as mackerel, swordfish, tuna and shark.  Burger enforced that this means the fish is unsafe in any form, including sushi.  The only safe fish apparently is salmon.

Weisbaum ended his insightful article with an admonishment that bluefin tuna is being over-fished anyway.

Let's take it back a little, shall we?  The entire article, from title till end, implies that it is tuna sushi that has high mercury content.   If it is the bluefin tuna that is the culprit, why not state that it is the fish and not the culinary form that it comes in?  By stating that it is sushi that is dangerous, it casts negative shadows on the culinary style and technique, not the raw ingredient.

Why did the article not say that tuna steaks or sandwiches made from bluefin tuna is bad for you?

OK, let's take the statement that other fishes are bad for us too.  Shark.  Hello, environmentalists and ecologists might have more to say to you than "eating shark is bad 'cos it's high in mercury".

And about over-fishing.  You think salmon is not over-fished?

I have so many issues with this article that is not even funny.  I deplore such irresponsible journalism with a blatant ulterior motive and not-so-hidden agenda.  Such small (literally) minded and borough-centric perspective is not only an insult to the readers but more importantly, an insult to your country.  

It makes Americans look ill conceived and insular.  Get over it.  Go eat some tuna sushi.

Curry Flava

I adore Indian food and can eat it every day.  Just saw this fab recipe by Rupa Gulati which had me salivating like Michael Jackson at a boys choir.

STEAMED SEA BASS WITH COCONUT CHUTNEY (Patrani machi) This Parsee dish is traditionally cooked in banana leaves, but aluminium foil is a practical and more readily available substitute. Ready-grated coconut can be found at most good Indian shops, or crack open a fresh coconut and grate it on a box grater. Serves 4 4 x 175g sea bass fillets Juice of 2 limes 4tbsp grated fresh coconut 4 large green chillies, roughly chopped with seeds 4tbsp roughly chopped fresh coriander 2tbsp fresh mint leaves 1tsp cumin seeds, toasted and ground 1tsp sugar To finish: 1tbsp chopped coriander 1tbsp grated fresh coconut Lime wedges Put the fish in a shallow dish and squeeze the juice of one of the limes over it. Put the coconut in a food processor and add the green chillies, fresh coriander, fresh mint, cumin, sugar and the remaining lime juice. Process the chutney until smooth, adding a splash of water if needed. Tear off four large squares of foil - large enough to wrap around each sea bass fillet. Put a fillet on each piece of foil and coat with a generous layer of the coconut chutney. Wrap the foil around the fish to make a neat parcel. Using a steamer, cook the fish for 5-7 minutes, depending on the thickness of the fillets. Unwrap each parcel, scatter with chopped coriander and coconut, and serve straight away with a wedge of lime on the side. BANANA AND CARDAMOM LASSI Lassis are refreshing yogurt-based drinks. With banana added, they become Indian smoothies, perfect for breakfast or a healthy snack during the day. 7fl oz/200ml Greek yogurt 2 ripe bananas, sliced 10 ice cubes ¼ tsp ground cardamom seeds 2 tsp honey Put the yogurt in the liquidiser and add the sliced banana Tip the ice cubes into a plastic bag and give them a good bash with a rolling-pin to break them up. Add to the liquidiser along with the ground cardamom and honey. Blend everything until smooth, adding a few more ice cubes if it's too thick. Add a little more honey if you like. Pour the lassi into 2 tall glasses and serve straight away.