There shouldn’t necessarily be a conflict between eating well and eating healthily, but the line between celebration and overindulgence has always been blurry, at best. The New York Times, fighting to put a new spin on an old conflict (Falstaff: “If to be fat be to be hated, then Pharaoh’s lean kine are to be loved!”), has constructed a group known as the “Fat Pack,” folks for whom pleasure comes first, second, and last in the list of reasons to consider eating a particular food.
Is diabetes a hoax? Is tofu really food, or merely fuel? Will the eGullet founders patch things up and/or survive their massive conditions? The Times piece pings back and forth between gourmands and reformed gourmands to try to find some answers.
The whole debate neatly dovetails with the Times extract from Eat This, Not That!, a book featuring a list of the 20 “worst” foods in the country.
Admittedly, they’re pretty bad. One outstanding choice: the worst “healthy” burger, the Ruby Tuesday Bella Turkey Burger, which boasts 1,145 calories.
The comments section contains an entertaining debate raging between the puritans …
Anybody who glances at any issue of ‘Mens Health’ magazine, where the author works, will immediately see that it leans in an extremely biased fashion toward consuming animal parts and fluids, which are not good for the human body in any sense no matter what the powers that be try to condition you to think. Please beware of any book or magazine that encourages the consumption of animal parts or fluids, that type of advice will land it’s adherents in the hospital, sooner or later.
— Posted by TomOfMaine
... and the hedonists:
TomofMaine is right — if you avoid eating any animal ‘parts or fluids’ you’ll live forever. Of course it’ll be a lousy life devoid of enjoyment, but hey, at least you get to keep converting oxygen into CO2.
— Posted by Dave