Forum Settings
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Doctors screaming at us about Sodium are uh...Follow

#52 Jul 17 2018 at 8:41 PM Rating: Good
35,567 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And that's just what happens when you put it on your tongue.

If you want to claim dissolving salt as the sole chemical process, then I'll grant you that. Most of the way salt interacts with food is physical, through osmosis.

I pointed out that it is "a" chemical process. I was disproving the claim that there was no chemical reaction involved with salt at all. I only need to point clearly to one chemical reaction to disprove that. I am, by no means, saying this is the "sole chemical process" possible with salt.

The articles' points about salt masking other flavors is ****. Yes, if you cover something in another flavor that is stronger, you will no longer taste the unpleasant flavor. The unpleasant flavor is just as much there as before, but being overwhelmed by something else. Yes, if I cover broccoli in salt it will taste less bitter, because it will taste more like salt. It will also taste less bitter if I smother in it honey, sriracha sauces, or lemon juice. It will in fact correspondingly taste a lot like honey, sriracha sauce, or lemon.

You're free to believe this if you want, but nearly every single food expert on the planet disagrees with you. You'll have to forgive me if I go with them being right and you probably being wrong.

The points about salt making chicken taste, finger quotes, "chickeny" and more "balanced" are just utter ********* That isn't an objective, measurable thing.

We're describing "taste", which is already well into being subjective. But even things that are subjective can be measured statistically, and that's what all of these food experts are basing their claims on. It's something that can be empirically tested. Blindfold someone and feed them something. Ask them what it tastes like. Give them the same thing, with salt added, ask them what it tastes like. Change when/where the salt is added. Ask them what it tastes like. It's not like no one has ever done this before. It's not like all of these food experts are just guessing here. They're basing their claims on long history of exactly these sorts of "subjective" tests and results.

Given that their field is largely driven by whether most eater's subjective taste of their food is positive or negative, it's a good bet that they have at least a decent idea of what combinations of ingredients and cooking methods will maximize the positive results while minimizing the negative. And all of these claims are based on observations of those results over time. Even if we can't perfectly describe the exact chemical reactions going on behind the scene, we can still measure the perceived results and make claims in the form of "doing X to Y will cause Z". And yeah, in this case, we can say pretty accurately how adding salt to various foods at different stages of cooking will affect the perception of the flavor of the food when eaten. That's a pretty easy trial and error correlation issue, and the field of cooking has had a heck of a long time to do that.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#53 Jan 11 2019 at 4:26 AM Rating: Decent
326 posts
Holy crap I suck. Sorry gbaji and all others except for Jophiel.

My sodium topics which at some point I really wanted advice and calculated stuff went bye bye soon into my insanity. But the salt topic was good. And the sexy Chefs of bygone past.

The only person who puts salt on things; the only person who has salt on hand in a jar or Hungarian Coastal Mountain Rock is a FOOL!!

It tastes like suck. If you like the taste just taste it on your own tongue, don't subject anyone else to this. As you rock the 1930s Woody Woodpecker eyeballs and devious snout. Buck tooth Woody Woodpecker, just ******* up everything. Like the mustelids, my favorite animals. Otters and weasels and martins, just totally ******* insane when they eat. And at all other times bobbing and yo-yo and zomg and doing the weasel tricks.

Pepper is even worse.

Salt--one of my best friends at age 8 was a large hog and...

well I apologize for my behavior in this thread and hope these forums will be Alive Again! Yay! No salt is wrong if you have God In Your Heart!!!
Necro Warning: This post occurred more than thirty days after the prior, and may be a necropost.
#54 Jan 16 2019 at 2:03 AM Rating: Decent
326 posts
I recently found out there the human fingers don't actually have muscles in them. And years ago discovered that the human ***** doesn't have muscles or even tendons, it's just a big blood balloon. So, many thousands of hours wasted.

Sea turtles, I mean why do they get to 80 years of age. They shouldn't even get to 2. They can't retract their appendages, such as say a ***** might retract into a fore-skin, or a pelvis if really scared. And they're slow as hell, relatively. And their stupid beaks can only best the lowly jellyfish, which is their main prey. And yet there are things called sharks who share same spaces. As well as barracuda and even tuna, big predatory fish yet here's this slow-*** defenseless 80 year old sea turtle. Easy just to bite off a tail or limb or bit of each. Or the head so afterwards to feed at one's leisure.

Even with this modern-day "the internet solves everthing" I can't find a good reason why slow useless sea turtles with big fat protein limbs still exist.

I mean, my theory would be that the only way is that sharks and 'cuda and sarcastic fringeheads deign to not kill them because maybe the turtles if followed will lead to good hunting grounds. Why eat a laughably inept sea turtle's limb for 3000 calories, if that same sea turtle could lead to big kelp gardens and skates and underwater crab monsters.

And since I got my giant HDTV, 55" a couple years ago I've been looking at mostly murder shows, and food cookin's, and nature shows. And in the hundreds of nature shows that feature the rascible and lovable and African-chasing-on-the-road and ****-flinging to the fish eaters...well I've never seen a nature show showing what these gigantic hippos, multi-ton beasts, ACTUALLY EAT. Have YOU, reader, ever seen a nature show showing a hippo doing his eat thingie? David Attenborough says "and of course the hippo beasts browse grass when out of their pond".

Horsecrap! Balderdash! I don't want to use curse words any more. The only nature things I've seen of the Hippo dining is a few dining on a dead zebra floating along. They also bite the crap out of gators. Would it kill a documentarian of Wild Earth by BBC to show hippos out of water grazing? They'e almost as fat as elephants so would graze almost the same amount of grass but they show endless hours of elephants out of water and only a few within. Where--the elephants are also graceful and ******** out nutrients, but not compared to the hippo.

What other things about nature documentaries do you think they are getting wrong and being poopieheads about?

My two instant change-channel of nature shows: 1. Penguins, utterly useless and boring animals. 2. Chimps. Way too close to humans, in that they're are invariably murderers and rapists and as--poopieheads.

Documentary: "now let's watch as a gang of male humans goes into an adjacent enemy territory, then rapes it's women and murders their men and eats their children". That's chimp behavior. There was a show for a couple seasons called "Chimp rescue" or something, some South African white boer or something saving chimps. And like--why would even PETA and me who cares about non-human animals care? It's a good thing to bring the chimpanzees to extinction because they suck.

And so on and on and on...
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help


Recent Visitors: 145 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (145)