[bblost]

Originally Posted by DerAlte

Err... you are supposed to fillet it and remove the skin, just like all the other fish used for 'fish and chips'.

and miss that lovely crackling fried up skin.


About the different ways of cooking.

In my honest opinion:
A lot of people who eat non-veg food in India are vegetarians who also eat meat.
They are not meat eaters who also eat (sometimes) vegetables.

[DerAlte]

Originally Posted by bblost

... A lot of people who eat non-veg food in India are vegetarians who also eat meat.
They are not meat eaters who also eat (sometimes) vegetables.

True, but ... Indian cuisine is all about eating carbohydrates (wheat, rice, bajra, millet, ...) and everything else is supposed to make that interesting to eat.

For example, almost all the tribes from the hot arid zones in India make a potent paste of chillies and garlic to eat the rota (large thick roti). Eating a batasa (foamed sugar/jaggery hemispheres) instead is an indulgence. In the coastal regions it is about eating gravy made pungent with fish / seafood. Meat falls in the same category (though earlier it was associated with post-sacrifice consumption).

Eating vegetables follows the availability and cost logic, and forms a part of a meal apart from the carbs. Fried, roasted, boiled, curried.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by DerAlte

True, but ... Indian cuisine is all about eating carbohydrates (wheat, rice, bajra, millet, ...) and everything else is supposed to make that interesting to eat.

For example, almost all the tribes from the hot arid zones in India make a potent paste of chillies and garlic to eat the rota (large thick roti). Eating a batasa (foamed sugar/jaggery hemispheres) instead is an indulgence. In the coastal regions it is about eating gravy made pungent with fish / seafood. Meat falls in the same category (though earlier it was associated with post-sacrifice consumption).

Eating vegetables follows the availability and cost logic, and forms a part of a meal apart from the carbs. Fried, roasted, boiled, curried.

Definitely.
I believe a lot of that has to do with the fertility of land and conducive climate for agriculture prevalent in the subcontinent India.

Thus our forefathers, for the sake of convenience (which is always a precursor to civilization) became settled agrarian society. This has also influenced the religion and social beliefs (and the inherent stability).

The harsh lands of middle east produced a diametrically opposite culture - habits, cuisine, society, religion, (and instability) etc.

***
As a side note, I was reading up about the "Moghlai" cuisine.
(there are some simplified translation of persian Ain-e-Akbari which has the prices of materials, recipe raw materials etc)
Its nothing close to what is being dished out today!

In fact today whatever is marketed as Moghlai in pedestrian culinary circles is nothing but normal stuff with milk/milk solids based gravies. And the remaining "authentic" stuff is actually Awadhi cuisine.

The genuine Moghlai cuisine is starkly different from our taste bud's expectation!

[bblost]

Originally Posted by alpha1

Definitely.
I believe a lot of that has to do with the fertility of land and conducive climate for agriculture prevalent in the subcontinent India.

Thus our forefathers, for the sake of convenience (which is always a precursor to civilization) became settled agrarian society. This has also influenced the religion and social beliefs (and the inherent stability).

The harsh lands of middle east produced a diametrically opposite culture - habits, cuisine, society, religion, (and instability) etc.

I don't think people are influenced by what they eat.
The food you eat is NOT going to make you docile or brave.

Eat all the meat or all the vegetables you want but its not gonna make anyone change the way he or she is.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by bblost

I don't think people are influenced by what they eat.
The food you eat is NOT going to make you docile or brave.

Eat all the meat or all the vegetables you want but its not gonna make anyone change the way he or she is.

Of course I didn't mean that. I wrote quite the opposite!
I said because of the fertile land people in India started farming grains.
Eating grains predominantly. Their whole concept of lifestyle, religion and society started becoming influenced by the abundance and affluence of (grains) food.

Because of the harsh conditions in middle east, people continued with their gypsy-ish and tribal ways. They could not become a well settled agrarian society and thus a constant shortfall in food and uncertainty. Hence, their eating habits, lifestyle, religions and society.

If you look at Europe. The predominantly meat eating culture has come about in recent history. Even theirs was a mainly agrarian society, with only the rich being fortunate enough to consume meat daily for a considerable time period. Of course their adoption of middle east religion allowed them to shift towards meat consuming (with the rising standards of living) - or in other words did not explicitly forbid them from indulging in it.

[fine69]

Having gone through tarladalal, sanjeevkapoor and umpteen similar sites I still can't get 3-4 good chicken breast recipes, please advise bhpians.

Also, what would be some good high protein snacks made out of chicken/eggs that one can carry to office.

[DerAlte]

Originally Posted by bblost

... I don't think people are influenced by what they eat.
The food you eat is NOT going to make you docile or brave. ...

Not really. Read up on rajasik, tamasik etc. diet. There is a definite connection between diet and profession. Intellectuals and number crunchers are advised a pure veg (niramish) diet because onions, garlic and certain spices make them excitable and error prone. OTOH soldiers need the animal protein and a diet rich in stuff that would make them physically strong and excitable (amish).

[carboy]

Originally Posted by DerAlte

Read up on rajasik, tamasik etc. diet.

Yeah - all unverified stuff.
May be we should check how many Noble prize winners were vegetarian and how many weren't.

[bblost]

Originally Posted by DerAlte

Not really. Read up on rajasik, tamasik etc. diet. There is a definite connection between diet and profession. Intellectuals and number crunchers are advised a pure veg (niramish) diet because onions, garlic and certain spices make them excitable and error prone. OTOH soldiers need the animal protein and a diet rich in stuff that would make them physically strong and excitable (amish).

This reminds me of a scene from the movie Prem Rog where Padmini becomes a young widow and is destined to a life of tasteless food. So that she does not get excited.

Food does not make a person smart nor does it make person strong.

This rajasik, tamasik seems to be based on a massive superiority complex by vegetarians.

Anyways I fear we are going quite off topic in here.

[Aroy]

Mutton getting stringy and tough has less to do with cooking method and more to do with the quality of the meat. If the animal is old or a female at the end of its child bearing age, the meat will be tough. If the animal is young then the meat will be soft. That said the following will ensure that you have soft and succulent preparations every time.
. For mutton choose a small animal - < 8kg. Each rear leg should be about 1.5kg max.
. Always marinate the meat. The salt in marinade will ensure that the meat does not dry out while cooking. I normally marinate the mutton for one or two days when ever I make a large batch - 3kg or more, whether curry of Biryani. That may be excessive, but a couple of hours is the minimum.
. Never pressure cook. That will dissolve the bone cartilage before it softness the meat. Cooked in a heavy bottom pot (or kadahi) over two hours or more will give you the melt in the mouth mutton which at the same time is firm (and not mushy)

For chicken breasts, I have found that excessive time hardens the meat, and that hold for most of the white meat including fish. Here the minimum time is the best time. I now a days grill or fry the breats after marinating them for at least 4 hours (mostly one day) and then cooking them for a max of 5 min/side.

[DerAlte]

Originally Posted by carboy

... May be we should check how many Noble prize winners were vegetarian and how many weren't.

Perhaps you should. Maybe the only index of intelligence for you is a Nobel prize? In that case everything would be rocket science for you if you haven't won one? Or maybe colloquial knowledge is not knowledge if you don't understand it?

Originally Posted by bblost

... Food does not make a person smart nor does it make person strong. ...

Sure. Try telling that to a wrestler, or a farmer?

Originally Posted by bblost

... This rajasik, tamasik seems to be based on a massive superiority complex by vegetarians ...

Wouldn't it be superiority complex to brush it off without understanding it? Colloquial knowledge normally comes out of practical observations, not theoretical study, and such knowledge is not formed in isolation. Would you say the Kosher and the Halal rules are also bunkum thought up by idle minds with a superiority complex?

[carboy]

Originally Posted by DerAlte

Perhaps you should. Maybe the only index of intelligence for you is a Nobel prize?

No. Anyway, it's your claim about different types of food, so you should be the one to prove it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Others shouldn't be the ones having to prove you wrong.

Folklore also says that different castes are suited to different kinds of jobs. Thank God we don't rely on folklore.

[bblost]

Originally Posted by DerAlte

Sure. Try telling that to a wrestler, or a farmer?

Varinder Singh!

A wrestler or body builder needs a balanced diet that provides him adequate protein, fats and carbs.

All of which are easily available in Vegetarian foods.

IIRC there are a couple of vitamins that are missing in vegetarian foods. But nothing that stops someone from becoming stronger and fitter.

A non-veg diet on the other hand can easily make a person overweight and at a higher risk of cardio illness.

Also, I would like to add that strength is not directly proportional to the bicep size.

Wouldn't it be superiority complex to brush it off without understanding it? Colloquial knowledge normally comes out of practical observations, not theoretical study, and such knowledge is not formed in isolation. Would you say the Kosher and the Halal rules are also bunkum thought up by idle minds with a superiority complex?

Halal Cutting*
I have slaughtered quite a few goats and chicken.

I have observed that the amount of blood that comes out of an animal when I cut its jugular is a lot more than the blood that comes out if its full neck is cut.
The latter I see every Sunday at a Kali temple quite close to my house.

Plus first hand observation in a chicken shop back home in Chennai.
The closest shop did not belong to a Muslim. So while he would cut the bird the way he wanted, I would select a bird and cut it my way. we became very good friends and since its a small shop, one could easily observe the difference in the amount of blood that came out.

Now the reason behind Halal is that for some reason blood is forbidden. The only form of blood permitted is the liver and some organs. But blood in its liquid form is forbidden.

I have no idea why its forbidden. My dad once told me that blood contains hormones that are not good. Also that blood may carry some infection and draining as much as you can of it would be a good idea.

But I have no scientific backing for this. Hence I never ever say that eating Halal food is preferable to eating non-halal food.

But I don't eat anything that is not cut in a halal way.

The difference I am trying to make is. As far as I am concerned, its a personal choice. But to say that eating this or that will make you into this or that is non-sense.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by bblost

A non-veg diet on the other hand can easily make a person overweight and at a higher risk of cardio illness.

Not true. People living on a low carb diet (meat + fat) are very rarely overweight. It's the carbs that make you put on weight.
Also check the sugar buster's diet - it's a diet full of meat - it's a diet made by heart patients for heart patients.

For 3 continuous days, just eat meat and fat - no carbs or almost negligible carbs - you can eat as much meat and fat as you want. At the end of 3 days, you are guaranteed to have lost atleast a couple of kilos.

Originally Posted by bblost

But I have no scientific backing for this. Hence I never ever say that eating Halal food is preferable to eating non-halal food.

But I don't eat anything that is not cut in a halal way.

The difference I am trying to make is. As far as I am concerned, its a personal choice. But to say that eating this or that will make you into this or that is non-sense.

Very well put.

[bblost]

Originally Posted by carboy

Not true. People living on a low carb diet (meat + fat) are very rarely overweight. It's the carbs that make you put on weight.
Also check the sugar buster's diet - it's a diet full of meat - it's a diet made by heart patients for heart patients.

Boiled chicken and meat. Very good.

But how many people want to eat that.

Its sad when they take a lovely cut of meat and overcook it in oil and spices till there is no flavor left in it.