> but my
>question (though apparently asked wrong and very misleading) was more
>about if you could TASTE the difference... if someone could tell it was
>nofat by the taste... that was what I mean by "would I have to tell him."
Thanks for re-stating your question in different words. Although I did
find the answers to the previous question fascinating. And I am glad to
find myself in the company of some feminist.
But to answer the question as asked above....I would say the answer is both
yes and no.
Yes because: I don't think it is possible to cook in a no fat manner and
have it taste exactly like it's high fat version. And this is because fat
has a taste of it's own that SAD eaters have come to love. When we take
that taste out, we change the taste of the recipe.
Further, I have said it before and I guess i will say it again, I find that
most of the no-fat versions of things (such as sour cream, cheese etc) have
replaced the fat taste with a sweet taste ( the other popular tastebud
treat of Americans). Read the directions. You will find sugar in any of
one of a thousand forms listed as an ingredient and one that is fairly high
up there on the list. Anything that ends with "ose" is a sugar, I
Also, SAD recipes which rely on hight fat ingredients do so for the flavor
imparted to them by the high fat. Stroganoff relies not only sour cream,
but also on egg noodles not to mention red meat. Pizza relies on ooey
gooey whole milk mozzarella. ound cake has melt in your mouth flavor as a
result of 1 pound of butter. And I don't believe there is a no fat
alternative that has the same flavor.
But that's the issue...is the same flavor vitally necessary? And that's
why I think the answer to the question may also be no, but only if you
finace is willing to experiment with new flavors. Remember it is only a
perception that "meat and potatoes meals" are flavorful. And a false
perception at that, as i think members of this list will agree. The whole
issue revolves around whether or not your finace is open to new ideas, new
tastes or not. If he is not, and you are willing as you say to cook 2
meals every night, one for him and one for you ( although would that get
old real fast for me. And I wonder if it would be possible to raise kids
to eat in a more healthful manner with the SAD example in front of them?)
then I suppose that's what will happen.
I don't believe that any of us have the power to change another person. I
believe that only the (and please feel free to insert Deity or Higher
Power of your choice here) good Lord and the Holy Spirit have the power to
change another human being. And I find that is especially true of food
issues. People assign an emotional value to their food choices that is far
in excess of it's value as nutrition. And I am not just talking about
those with eating disorders. Or even only about kids who can't eat
something served to them because this isn;t the way mommie makes it
(accompanied by tears.) But there are a lot of adults out there who will
only make a certain dish in a certain way, despite the fact that it has too
much fat, too much protein, too much this or that and will kill them. They
don't care, because for them this particular recipe represents something to
them that they value more than nutrition, be it safety, security,
comforting, anxiety release, whatever. And an attempt to change the
recipe is seen as threat to the emotional core.
Personally, I don't have the patience to attempt to educate them.
Personally, I have exercised my right to choose and so I chose to avoid
people who cling to their faulty misperceptions. Some people are gifted to
be able to deal with such folk. I am not one of them.
Oh, this is too long and I am sure you all stopped reading halfway through
Gloriamarie, writing to you where San Diego's Perpetually Perfect Weather
"The moral is, build up that stash. You never know when you're
going to need to knit a scarf for the Dalai Lama." Jean Miles, Edinburgh