Meals that fall together, and a deficiency in Canadian Socialism
I love it when a meal just comes together. After class I wanted to pick up some light protein and decided on a fresh fillet of Dover sole—but, on the way (as so often happens) I was seduced by lovely produce I hadn’t planned to buy: I saw some luscious-looking Roma tomatoes, and thought, “Slow-roasted Roma tomatoes.” And I saw some fresh green garlic, available only in early Spring, so naturally I had to buy a handful of stalks of that, for something or other: get it while it’s available. And the fish was for dinner and I was peckish now, so I got four big shrimp to poach as a protein snack. But when we got home the first thing I did was to halve the Romas vertically and lay them out on my Silpat baking sheet, brush with the Fiery Chili Olive Oil, dust with salt and pepper, and put into a 350ºF oven. I know that 200º for 8-10 hours (or overnight) is good, but I was in a hurry.
Nice shrimp (with some chipotle sauce I had), and when dinner rolled around, I immediately took out three stalks of the green garlic and sliced those up. I still had a little liquid in the sauté pan from poaching the shrimp, so I started the garlic simmering in that while I considered my next move.
While I thought, I sprinkled a little salt in with the garlic, ground in some pepper, and shook in a bit of crushed red pepper—not enough to make it really spicy, just enough to give it body.
The tomatoes! Of course! They were far from done, but they had shrunk down a fair amount, concentrating the flavor, and I would simmer them some more. I took off four of the halves and returned the rest to the oven. The four halves I chopped and added to the garlic. That was simmering. I would add fresh parsley or basil but had neither. I needed a starch—and I had just the thing: the smoked couscous I had ordered from Quebec.
I took the package out and looked to see what constituted one serving, and—surprise! No nutrition facts! No serving size, no caloric content, not macronutrient analysis, no sodium content. So far as nutritional information, you are no better off then with a street vendor in a third-world country.
What’s wrong up there? I thought they were Socialist—a strange sort, if it is that deficient in government regulation. I knew already that they didn’t care much about the environment, but food, forchrissake!
So I went with about 3 Tbsp (scant 1/4 cup), let that simmer. I decided to give a little more flavor, oil, and liquid, and added a tablespoon of Bragg’s vinaigrette. It was pretty thick at this point, so I poured in about 1-2 Tbsp coconut vinegar, cut the Dover sole fillet (7 oz) into four pieces and laid it across the top, sprinkled it with one Meyer lemon, diced, put on the lid, kept the heat at low, and let it simmer slowly for 10 minutes. Perfecto.
Fresh strawberries for dessert. And I’m pleased at how, over the whole day, I balanced out my servings, even though eating lunch on the run (because of class). And with only 2 oz of protein in the morning (one egg at breakfast, another for lunch), I brought that up with the shrimp and the fish.
As I figured this out and totted up the counts and totals, I realized that this is what I now do. I don’t keep a written food journal, so to know what I’m eating in a day, I have to keep track in my head. And by now I feel right when it balances the way I want.
I also realized that this is exactly mindful eating: knowing what you are eating and what you have eaten, not eating anything unconsciously, without recognizing, acknowledging, measuring, and counting it. Without knowing what I’m eating, I would have trouble balancing my food intake. Some do it unconsciously, I suppose. I do it consciously.
I went back to all my packages from Smoke and realized that none of them have the nutrition information. Rest assured that anything in mass distribution absolutely requires it, and it’s very rare indeed to see it missing. I can only guess that Smoke is a small “mom and pop shop” manufacturer and that somehow they neglected to add the nutrition information (although it’s a crazy oversight, especially considering the high quality of the packaging).
Of course, both couscous and rice are very generic items and there is little variance in calories and other nutrients from one maker to another. I doubt that the smoke adds anything of significance.
Steve
13 April 2011 at 5:57 am
Interesting comment regarding mindful eating. I’ve been pursuing the path of intuitive eating for the last year. Intuitive eating and mindful eating are essentially synonymous, and I’ve had a chance to read extensively on both.
I’m not sure measuring and counting actually figure into the “official” definitions of either intuitive or mindful eating. Most proponents of these approaches would argue that measuring and counting are actually counter-intuitive, i.e. they replace internal LOC with external controls. Mindful eating is above all, paying attention to how the food tastes, feels, and makes you feel afterwards. It’s basic tenets are slowing down and focusing on those internal signals and feeling, identifying discriminating between satisfaction and over-fulness as key signals for when to stop.
OTOH, there is also a lot of research to suggest that those of us who tend to put on weight easily, are very poor at “listening” to our bodies and discriminating internal signals for hunger vs. emotional needs. I agree with you that for many, some external feedback mechanism such as measuring and counting may be very useful, although, frankly, it is anathema to true intuitive (mindful) eating gurus.
Steve
13 April 2011 at 6:05 am
Re: the Canadian Socialism: I was just having a bit of fun with those who fear the terrible governmental power of Socialism—as in Canada, for example—and wanted to point out a benefit of government regulation that we enjoy and Canada does not. Except I guess they do.
And I agree: rice is rice, couscous is (are?) couscous, and I know now the amounts to use.
Re: mindful eating. I was just thinking how my version of mindful eating had changed its focus somewhat. Formerly, I would have thought I was eating mindfully if I was giving the food—particularly the sensory input (appearance and presentation, taste, aroma, texture, warmth, spiciness, etc., etc.)—my full attention. It was more or less “informed and focused appreciation.”
But now I realize that my mind is capable of much more than merely sensory experience, and balancing my food intake over the course of a day (appropriate amounts of protein, starch, veggies, oil, and fruit) also is a type of mindful eating and one that I’ve developed in the course of losing weight.
I have been following the path that makes sense to me, based on my reading and my own experience. It may not fit well with another person due to differences in lifestyle, physical differences, or both. Certainly we know that the same foods, even more than the same brand of razor blades, elicit very different reactions from different people. The gurus to which you refer have found a path that works well for them. YMMV.
LeisureGuy
13 April 2011 at 6:37 am
I agree with you. I was just referring to the “formal” view of intuitive/mindful eating. I found it interesting that within the formal view, counting and measuring are discouraged, although clearly it works for some; as you say YMMV.
Steve
13 April 2011 at 12:36 pm
I think that one can’t avoid counting and measuring: when you serve yourself you measure the portion by eye, and you normally know how many pieces of chicken you’ve eaten. Using a 1/4-cup measure to replace measuring by eye is useful if one’s eyes are not so accurate as they should be, and of course the trick is then to keep track during the day and to understand the impact of what one eats—knowledge hard-won over months of tracking weight and food intake and exercise…
LeisureGuy
13 April 2011 at 12:44 pm
BRILLIANT! I too have noticed that when I eat intuitively but supplement it with measuring and tracking, I do lose weight. It’s as if the weighing and tracking provide the missing feedback-loop that I don’t seem to have internally; a very poor sense of hunger and satiation. As the famous “constantly refilling soup bowl” experiments have shown, overweight people just keep on eating regardless of how much they’ve consumed, apparently oblivious to internal signals.
What you suggest is actually very significant. After all, we do intuitively measure by eye, so why can’t measuring by scale and then tracking our intake actually be part of an intuitive approach? This is breakthrough thinking!
Steve
14 April 2011 at 4:55 am
I realized when I was continually drifting into the kitchen after dinner for “just a bite”—and thus eating throughout the evening—that I would not stop eating until I went to bed. Except that I stretched it out over time and took the food one bite at a time, I was like a person at the buffet who piled food onto his plate until it was falling off the side—or like Richard Dreyfuss in Close Encounters of the Third Kind serving himself mashed potatoes and continuing to pile them on his plate until he had the model of a mountain.
Those who would disallow scales and measuring cups are like someone who can draw perfectly straight lines not allowing others to use a straightedge: “It doesn’t count unless you possess exactly the special abilities that I have.”
My motto in this arena: “Whatever works.”
UPDATE: I was prompted to make the comment originally by reflecting on the fact that people who say they don’t measure their food somehow do not serve themselves random amounts—a quarter-teaspoon of mashed potatoes, 2 pints of gravy, etc. By looking at the non-random amounts, it’s obvious that they are indeed measuring. They are simply not using tools because they are good at freehand measuring. I’m not.
LeisureGuy
14 April 2011 at 6:12 am