Photo of your unpretentious food
Discussion
Stan the Bat said:
droopsnoot said:
xx99xx said:
Mackerel = very good.
Are Mackerel one of these fish with thousands of tiny bones? That's the main thing that puts me off un-processed fish - the need to pick all the bones out and then have some cold fish at the end of it. I don't get that trouble with my Iceland fish pieces.
Jimjimhim said:
This is a thread about unpretentious food, boiling rice is very much unpretentious. It's also quick, cheap, easy and a million times better than that microwave crap.
But not as quick or easy as microwaving. And 'better' is subjective. I can't taste the difference which is why I always use microwave rice now. Used to always boil rice until I discovered microwave rice. Game changer. More often than not, the rice will be consumed with something else and that something else will be providing the taste. So I'm not all that bothered about the particular taste of rice. It's just a filler.
Jimjimhim said:
xx99xx said:
Jimjimhim said:
This is a thread about unpretentious food, boiling rice is very much unpretentious. It's also quick, cheap, easy and a million times better than that microwave crap.
But not as quick or easy as microwaving. And 'better' is subjective. I can't taste the difference which is why I always use microwave rice now. Used to always boil rice until I discovered microwave rice. Game changer. More often than not, the rice will be consumed with something else and that something else will be providing the taste. So I'm not all that bothered about the particular taste of rice. It's just a filler.
Your game changer is when you do your own, it's a lot cheaper, easy and quick to do and is far far far better.
Also, wholegrain rice takes about 25 mins which, by the time it's done, I've already eaten the stuff it was supposed to go with.
Chris Stott said:
Mr Roper said:
For me, food like this defines the thread… ‘unpretentious food’ shouldn’t mean random ingredients cooked poorly. Jimjimhim said:
Unpretentious doesn't mean crap food, it still needs to look edible and still needs to taste good.
Looks don't come in to it. You don't taste looks and looks don't fill you up.Unpretentious food is all about making hunger go away with zero thought about presentation or combinations of food items.
And what tastes good is subjective. My dinners are often cold (previously batch cooked) meat in a dry roll and they taste great, are quick to eat and there's no washing up/dishwasher to load. But I know some would turn their nose up at that, which is fine because food preferences vary. Some people even insist on sitting down to eat.
Jimjimhim said:
That's where you're wrong, its been scientifically proven that you do taste looks, Google it if you don't believe me.
Have you never heard the phrase "you eat with your eyes" ?
We obviously have a very different idea as to what unpretentious food means, to me it doesn't mean that food has to be crap.
Yes but that's my point. What's crap to one person isn't crap to another person. So yes, definitions of unpretentious will also vary.Have you never heard the phrase "you eat with your eyes" ?
We obviously have a very different idea as to what unpretentious food means, to me it doesn't mean that food has to be crap.
I'm aware of some of the experiments done to test tastes when food/drink is made an unfamiliar colour. I e. People like it more when it looks how it's supposed to look. As someone who is not fussy about what I eat though, presentation doesn't add any value. Fine dining, sure, presentation will enhance the experience. But eating a pot noodle from the pot Vs decanting into a china bowl would, for me, make no difference to how it tastes. I eat fast so putting effort into making it look fancy is just a waste.
illmonkey said:
Yea, Cotty’s wrong on this, crisp sandwiches are the b
ks!
Salted crisps with cheese and ham. Or go wild and have skips with marmite, don’t judge, just do it and tell me I’m right.
Oh yes.ks! Salted crisps with cheese and ham. Or go wild and have skips with marmite, don’t judge, just do it and tell me I’m right.
Ham and cheese, maybe a very thin layer of coleslaw with any flavour of walkers. I've tried using hula hoops but they just don't work in a sandwich.
The ingredients were:
- beef mince
- onion
- carrot
- red/yellow/green peppers
- celery
- mushrooms
- tin of lentils
- tin of tomatoes
- garlic
- thyme
- oregano
- black pepper
- wholegrain mustard
- Worcestershire sauce
- Oxo cube
- paprika
- tomato puree
- marmite
And a few hours of simmering.
It was very average and left with a feeling of 'it wasn't worth the effort'. I'm sure there's plenty wrong with the ingredients/method but I still prefer some cold meat in a roll for dinner. So much easier, quicker and tastier.
technodup said:
It's finest tinned haggis on a bed of curry noodles. Tiles are the previous owners, about to be replaced. The rest if the kitchen is equally retro, albeit in phenomenal condition.
We currently have no proper cooking facilities, hence the dog food in a bowl. Honest*.
Actually I love it and have been eating noodles with various additions for years, much to the disgust of my partner.
That looks fine. Thought it was beef mince first of all but haggis also works. Cheap, quick, easy and tasty - what unpretentious food is all about.We currently have no proper cooking facilities, hence the dog food in a bowl. Honest*.
Actually I love it and have been eating noodles with various additions for years, much to the disgust of my partner.
Chris Stott said:
Iceland steak pies, beans and (due to a provisioning cock up) waffle fries…fries were allegedly ‘spiced’… not noticeable once half a bottle of saraons was applied.
No problem with the waffle fries, they look good. And appropriate use of beans. But 2 pies?! Presume you skipped lunch!
Jimjimhim said:
This discussion has already been had. However, your theory falls apart when you try to apply it to food you've prepared yourself. You know what the food is, how it was prepared and what it tastes like so presenting it in different ways isn't going to trick your mind into thinking it's somehow tastier.I have my own theory though which is that if food was nicely presented, it was probably prepared by a competent 'chef' whose food would naturally taste good anyway, because they're good at cooking. If you tried food from a superb chef that was just thrown onto a paper plate, chances are it would still taste great.
I can confirm, the way food is presented - especially stuff I've prepared myself - makes no difference to how I taste or enjoy it. Other opinions may vary, which is fine because my opinion only applies to me.
Gassing Station | Food, Drink & Restaurants | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff