Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

I feel like there's a middle ground in the calorie vs quality debate, in which we concede any of the following:

1) people absorb different kinds of calories differently based on whether they are paired with fiber, fats, proteins, carbs, dairy, wheat, etc.
2) people burn calories differently due to their metabolic rate.
3) people convert different percentages of calories into stored fat due to liver function or other factors.

I think we can see real-life evidence of these occurrences with the success of non-caloric dietary changes (low-carb, no dairy, etc), by observing people eating the same diet with different weights, by acknowledging people who exercise have more efficient metabolisms (this has been observed at the mitochondrial level), by noticing people give off different amounts of body heat, etc.

Calories are calories, but "calories in" are not the calories in your mouth. They are the calories you absorb and successfully deliver to your cells. People use that energy in varying ways and therefore have varying degrees in which they convert the excess to fat. They have different resistances to shedding that fat, too. That's why a low-carb or no dairy or blah blah works for Dick and not Jane. It affects absorption, or usage, or fat acquisition.

I think, given all these factors, weight loss is a complicated and highly personal thing, and saying one thing works for everyone is always going to anger someone.

I don't know if I'd try this unless I knew the person, due to my personal beliefs, but I am not opposed to people eating such things - breast milk, placenta, human blood pudding, whatever. If all parties were consenting adults, I'm alright with it and wouldn't be grossed out to see it served somewhere.

This is unanswerable as a general question. All sites have different audiences, which were created through the curation of the content. You made that audience yourself by writing what you did. If they don't like the new content, it's because you changed it somehow. You either don't do it again, or you do, if you intend to shift the audience.

For example, people would react differently to the cookie review if it was posted to Pioneer Woman, Cakespy, 101 Cookbooks, Steamy Kitchen, etc. They'd react differently in NY and California. I couldn't tell you if the reaction would be positive or negative, but it'd be different, because the people are different. The only thing they have in common in this case is that they love food. There is no 'foodie' as a group. It's like asking if all women 25-40 would like a grocery store cookie review. There are segments within that group that are far more relevant to the question - are they mothers, low-income, high-income, rural, urban, etc.

However, I don't think it's wrong for the audience to say they didn't like it. They're the audience! Their feedback is important. Negative feedback is the only warning you will ever get that your pageviews are about to go down and that, in some cases, your revenue will decrease.

Some people are rude but some people genuinely want to give criticism. You will never be a better blogger or a better writer if you only hear silence and a few good things. The writer in Houston needs to use this as a learning experience - did they miss the mark, are these people just squeaky wheels, was it the subject, the writing style, the photo, etc.

I think a low-calorie day is acceptable. The only way to lose fat is to go into a calorie deficit. You must eat less or exercise. When your job requires you to eat in a calorie excess, you need to consciously cultivate calorie-deficit days and meals to balance that out. Weight is only lost when you didn't eat enough to cover your activity.

Also, your diet is *important*. It's your personal life. Your health. Your remaining days alive, perhaps, if there are blood pressure and cardiac concerns. It deserves to be put first at least one day a week, and if that means 'No review meals on Thursday, don't even ask me' or 'From now on, I only do 5 review meals a week', then it just does. You can say no. I know that seems like a weird statement but it's typical that people with weight problems don't put themselves first so I just wanted to throw it out there.

I wish that articles that have a bulk of their content in a slideshow would have a link at the bottom of the article. Sometimes I miss things that are right below the photos because I already saw the photo on the front page and don't look at it again.

(I wonder if the above poster with the Dollar Menu comment thought the unrelated "You might like" links were part of the article itself since it seemed to end so abruptly? "Here are suggestions", except there weren't any, but then you hit those boxes..)

I wonder if a better solution would have been to pay Miguel fairly for being a chef only, and then take whatever pay you docked him and use that to get a cleaner. Use his strengths, compensate for his weaknesses - or at least try, even if he'd reject it. A warm body would have been better than nothing at that point, particularly when it led to Hannah working as staff with Mickey - a situation he tried to avoid by stipulating she should never be a waitress.

Corn + brown paper bag (lunch-sack sized) + microwave. No oil, no salt, no butter. Just popped corn to keep it light on the calories. (Sometimes I'll microwave a 100 calorie bag of kettle corn for variety.)

I think from the article it's clear exactly what kind of people they are talking about. They just dislike rude, pretentious, arrogant customers. Everyone does. Shocker!

Their mistake was calling that a foodie as if there aren't others out there. The people described aren't even foodsnobs. They're just obnoxious.

Basically, I'm not offended by this article because I'm pretty sure I'm not who they are talking about. I also think that the quoted chefs are not representing all chefs in their opinions.

I've never heard of barleywine before but will definitely have to look for it now.

Definitely a lot of beans - they are cheap and nutritionally well-rounded. If you want to provide everyone with ~1500 calories a day, every dollar has to yield 1,450 calories. That's doable if you supplement beans and carbs with cheap fats like vegetable oil, which can yield 5,000 calories per $1.

Alternatively, you can think of it as $1.05 a person a day, to provide 1500 calories. Refried beans would work well here at about 50 cents for ~700 calories. A lack of water would complicate things.

I had this a few months ago. It was delicious - creamy, comforting, and not gross in the way fast food eggs can be. The salsa packet jazzed it up nicely, too.

I'm biased, though. I never eat fast food as a rule, but I always make an exception for Jack in the Box. I wish they existed on the east coast.

I'd be a little creeped out. Seeing apartments before even seeing the restaurant is strange, and then the suggestion that you all eat somewhere else is also a red flag. It sounded like they thought you'd say yes no matter what. I'm sure it all worked out because this happened awhile ago but if this was a novel, I'd be nervous for the heroine. ;)