Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 May 24

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 24

Name my tool

[1]

They call it a root cutter, but I use it to break ice (or I slide the blade under the ice to separate it from the ground). I've called it a Mutt, but I think that may be a trademark. Is there a general term for such a tool, when used for ice removal ? Do we have an article on it ? StuRat (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have heard it called an ice spade. Although in this illustration it looks more like the "chisel bar".[2]Rmhermen (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Isn't a spade normally curved, like a shovel ? StuRat (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Searching for "ice breaker" seems to work. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

An "ice chopper" is a tool with a long handle. You can break up sidewalk or driveway ice with it. It's shaped a little differently from your "root cutter", though. An ice chopper has a shorter, wider blade. OttawaAC (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks all. StuRat (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Any connection between "cauldron" and "seething pot" that is mentioned in the King James Bible?

In the book of Leviticus, in the Bible, it speaks a lot about the "caul" during animal sacrifices which was burnt on the altar, but there was also the "seething pot" where the priests would use flesh hooks to draw out their portion of meat. The writer of the article on CAULDRONS did a great job with the etymology, but I was just curious if there was something in the Hebrew or Greek that might not have been listed. Just curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdoidonext (talk • contribs) 05:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The Wycliffe Bible used "caudron" (closer the the French "chaud") in 1382, with the Coverdale version of 1535 using the modern spelling. Job 41:20 in the King James Bible indicates that "seething pot" and "caldron" were the same. The earliest recorded use of caul (1327) recorded by the OED was spelt "calle", with the modern spelling not being used until the late 1600s. It seems that the coincidence of modern spellings is just a preference of modern spellers. Dbfirs 09:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The word caul is in the KJV verse "And he took all the fat that was upon the inwards i.e. intestines , and the caul above the liver, and the two kidneys, and their fat, and Moses burned it upon the altar." Leviticus 8:16, also 8:25. The OP is incorrect to connect "caul" with "cauldron" derived from Latin caldārium "hot bath". Modern bibles translate "caul above the liver" as "the (long) lobe of the liver" (NI, NL, ES, NAS) or "the appendage on the liver" (IS, NW) or "the protruding lobe of the liver" (NET) or "the net of the liver" (DARBY) or "the cover of the liver" (WE) or "the redundance above the liver" (YL). Commentaries on the Old Testament by Keil & Delitzsch describes this portion of the liver as "the liver-net, or stomach-net, ...which commences at the division between the right and left lobes of the liver, and stretches on the one side across the stomach, and on the other side to the region of the kidneys...This smaller net is delicate, but not so fat as the larger net; though it still forms part of the fat portions." It is defined in Pentateuch with Rashi's Commentary as "the protecting wall (membrane) over the liver." 84.209.89.214 (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

what foods are good to take when you are on a diet?

?Zonex shrestha (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)zx

That will depend on the type of diet you wish to follow. Please see our article on dieting, which has links to the different types of diet, and come back here if you have further questions.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

But do be aware of the philosophical dilemma of wanting to lose weight by putting something in your mouth. HiLo48 (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, you want to limit the number of calories, and calories come from 4 sources: protein, carbohydrates, consisting of simple carbs (sugars) and complex carbs (starches), fats (consisting of saturated, unsaturated, and trans fats), and alcohol. Of those, some are more important to proper health than others. Trans fats are terribly unhealthy, so eliminating those is a no-brainer. Saturated fats are also somewhat unhealthy, so try to limit those. Unsaturated fats are quite healthy, and without them you can expect dry skin and other problems, so I wouldn't cut back on those, unless you are getting more than you need. (Unsaturated fats tend to be liquid, while saturated and trans fats tend to be solid.)

Similarly, protein is necessary for proper health. There are disagreements over how much each person needs, but something like 50 grams a day seems reasonable. If you don't get enough protein, you may suffer from "brain fog".

Carbs and alcohol are good places to cut calories. Simple carbs (sugars) and alcohol, which is rapidly converted to sugar, can both cause a glucose spike and then a glucose crash, so limiting both of those is a good idea, but don't substitute in artificial sweeteners, as they are both unhealthy and seem to cause weight gain. Complex carbs (starches) tend to provide energy over the long term, so are better, but many people on a western diet still get way too many. In particular, you might want to avoid white flour, and stick with whole grains, or other sources of healthy carbs, like sweet potatoes (not white potatoes). The goal here is foods with a low glycemic index. I suggest the web site nutritiondata.com for info on the glycemic index and other facts about foods.

It's also a good idea to reduce sodium intake, as salt is both unhealthy and can cause you to retain water, which results in weight gain.

Meanwhile, you don't want to reduce your intake of other nutrients, like vitamins, minerals, fiber, and phytonutrients. Some people who have an incredibly unhealthy diet manage to get enough of those just due to the quantity they eat, and then, say after gastric bypass surgery, still eat the same crap, but in much reduced quantities. Thus they lose weight but suffer from health problems due to a lack of nutrients. So, as you lower your total food intake, it's important to move to healthier foods, too.

Now for an example. Let's say you would normally have a bacon double cheeseburger with cheese fries and gravy (poutine) with soda to drink. That's high in saturated fats (and perhaps trans fats), sodium, white flour carbs, and calories. Instead, have a salmon fillet with salt-free spices, broccoli with lemon juice sprinkled on it, a baked sweet potato with butter or trans-fat free margarine, cinnamon, and (if you need a sweetener) some dark brown sugar. To drink, try an herbal tea without sweeteners, if you can handle it, or perhaps some honey, if you need it.

Unfortunately, your average fast food restaurant won't be able to provide a meal like that, but you can still do a bit better there. Some have grilled chicken, which is better than a burger, and you can ask for fries unsalted, and add ketchup if that's too plain for you, or better yet ask for apple slices, a yogurt parfait, etc. You can also get juice or milk at most places. This certainly isn't as healthy as the salmon meal, but is a lot better than what we started with. StuRat (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• We cannot provide professional advice, seek a registered or licensed dietician or nutrtitionist, no advice from strangers on the internet:

General Disclaimer: If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area.

American eating habits.

I know I am going to take some abuse for this but hey-ho, here goes. We recently invited some USA Americans for dinner. We are in the UK. They were all above mid 20's, well educated from University Level and upwards, and they were all above middle income earners. So we gave them traditional steak pie with a puff pastry lid plus vegetables, and we all set about eating. Now, we have been to America many times and know about the fork switching technique but have never watched so many Americans simultaneously eating a traditional steak pie dinner. It was frankly quite disgusting. All of them used only the fork in their right hand to both cut their food into smaller pieces including the pie crust, and then proceeded to lift the food to their mouths using the fork as a spoon. Their dinner knives were never touched. To prevent the food falling from the fork before it reached their mouths they bent their heads down close to their plates and almost threw the food into their mouths, sometimes missing. And when they did score a direct hit they proceeded to munch and chew and talk, all at the same time. I am a traditional knife and fork man and can adequately manage to cut the food with my knife held in my Right Hand, then spear some food of a small size and lift it to my mouth on the tines of the fork with my Left Hand without spilling any. And I never talk with my mouth full at the same time. I eat with my mouth closed and only speak when my mouth is empty, and I can hold my head upright so I can see and address my guests and give each of them my focused attention which I consider, and was taught, to be respectful of one's guests. I daren't describe the performance of them eating trifle, it was sickening and frankly put me off my own food. My dog has better eating habits and in his case, I can forgive him for sticking his mouth into his bowl. We were going to invite them for a meal in our favourite restaurant where we are well known to the staff and other diners, but decided against that course of action for fear of causing alarm and embarrassment. So what was going on there I ask. Is that behaviour normal in the USA? We were in Canada last year and don't recall seeing anything like that at table. Only asking in order to prepare myself for our next USA Vacation. 94.174.140.161 (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Talking with your mouth full is considered bad manners in the US, too. However, I believe the knife is only used here for things which actually require a knife, like steak. Anything which can be cut with a fork or spoon is likely to be. To me, this is better, as it doesn't dirty a knife if you don't need one, so that's less washing up and better for the environment. I don't follow why it would be necessary to lower your face to the food, but this is considered poor manners in the US, too. You just seem to have some rather slovenly friends who happen to be from the US. One possible difference is that few in the US would receive any formal etiquette training, basically the parents are expected to provide that. I suspect that some in the UK do have formal schooling in etiquette (certainly those who train as butlers do). StuRat (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaning over the plate compensates for spillage, although bringing one's face very close to the plate is kind of odd. I am curious why the OP was so focused on the guests instead of just eating. Jerry Seinfeld once said that eating in general looks fairly gross, so that's why we do it together - we can focus on our own consumption instead of others'. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

One suggestion, take them out for casual finger food, like pizza, where their eating differences will be less apparent. If you want them to experience British culture, then maybe fish and chips, wrapped in a newspaper page. StuRat (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Some of us eat even those types of foods with knife and fork. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to note that fish and chips is no longer served in old newspaper in the UK. The practice was banned some years ago.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that relates to this comment by Mike Royko: "No self-respecting fish would be wrapped in a Rupert Murdoch newspaper." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Too bad, as I get the impression that for the class of people who eats that regularly, that may well have been their only exposure to a newspaper. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Eating habits vary from country to country. Barring the apparent embellishments ("sometimes missing"), this is basically how I eat. I'm Canadian, but in my experience Americans eat the same way as me for the most part. It's only disgusting because it is deemed so culturally. Point being, yes, this is what you can expect should you travel to Canada or the US. Mingmingla (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• But there's also a huge difference based mainly on what I'll call class and parental example. I know plenty of people who don't have the slightest idea how to behave in a restaurant, from how to use their napkin, call the waiter, order, or tip. Just this week there was the story of a family who got a discount from their bill for well-behaved kids. One of my earliest memories is of an elderly couple coming up to my parents at Bookbinders restaurant in Philly and complimenting us on how well we children were behaved--and I couldn't understand why, although I do now. There are people who hold conversations across the street, or who sound like they are doing so when they stand next to each other. The Loud Family sketch from Saturday Night Live covered this. There was Shenehneh (sp?) from Martin (TV), there were the ghetto girls from Mad TV, there's the teenage student from the Katherine Tate show. Am I bovvered? None of this is typically or particularly American. PS, if the food you're serving drips before it gets to the mouth, set a tablespoon. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The biggest issue I can think of is: where were they from? Income and education doesn't matter quite as much for certain manners. I'm from the Southeastern United States (or "the South"), and I'd've been fussed at by my mom for most of what you described, and would get (at best) a glare from both my folks for talking with my mouth full of food (even if it was just the family). I can easily find friends and coworkers descended from slaves and sharecroppers who would tell you their mothers would spank them in front of God and all of earth for eating that way, bourgeoisie who wouldn't see what the problem is, and vice versa. That said, despite my region having (a honestly undeserved) reputation for being well mannered (and "friendly," I can't stand that reputation), I could head over to the nearest restaurant and easily find people eating like pigs and some eating in a more refined manner than I do. Same restaurant, even.

I know a lot of Americans have a pretty strong dichotomy between "formal" and "informal," instead of measuring between the two as a matter of degree. Since it wasn't black tie, they might've figured they should (not merely could) eat as they do when they're with just family.

It's actually not as bad as it used to be. I remember reading one travel journal from nearly 200 years ago where one traveler (either British or French, it's been years and I was only half-heartedly skimming) had mixed feelings of admiration and disgust at how a group of American strangers of varying social classes completely dropped all differences if you put them at a table with food. Admiration at the beauty of egalitarianism and universal fraternity, but disgust (even by my standards) at folks alternating between fighting over the last sausage while asking for unwanted food off of strangers' plates. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If one wishes to attract the stares of astonished foreigners, one should eat one's peas using the back (convex side) of the fork, as all well-brought-up English folk have been taught from early childhood. To be fair, the Americans that I've dined with did so in a civilised fashion, except for the disinclination to use a knife and fork in harmony, a skill which some Canadians seem to have retained. Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"I eat my peas with honey / I've done it all my life / It does taste kind of funny / But it keeps them on my knife." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I've never heard of this strange pea custom. How is that managed, exactly? Do you smash the peas to get them to stick? Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It's something kids do that might qualify as "playing with their food". You balance as many peas as you can on the side of the blade, and see if you can get them into your mouth that way. The inevitable result is peas rolling onto the floor. The mushier the peas are, the easier it is to keep them on the blade. StuRat (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about the upside-down fork thing. I've found various references online that identify this as "the British way" of eating peas, but haven't seen any pictures or an explanation of how it's done. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

In my experience, you either eat a very small number of peas at a time, balanced on the tines, or you mashing them down onto it. Personally, I find ketchup makes the whole thing a lot easier, which is when everyone quotes that old honey rhyme like they're the knights who say ni. Or you can otherwise lift the peas with other things on your fork, so they're held in place with a piece of meat or potato or something. The balancing act isn't quite as hard as you'd think, since it's easier to keep the tines completely flat with little arm movement when the fork is that way up. It does slow you down, though. Sometimes, you just have to pretend you don't have a knife and shift the fork to your right hand (leaving the left empty), at which point it is mysteriously acceptable and normal to use your fork as a shovel. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd forgive the Americans for having no idea how to manage the U.K. meal (speaking as a Canadian). Watching foreigners trying to eat poutine, KFC, pizza, etc., with a knife and fork has provided occasional entertainment for me. But also worth noting is that "fine dining" is not that common in the U.S., while eating out at fast food places or diners is much more common. Different level of service, different expectations for table manners. 99.245.253.81 (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

As American children in München in the early '60s, we were amused and amazed by weird eating habits of the Germans. When introduced to hamburgers, they would eat them with knife and fork. Amazing! Point being that arbitrary dining etiquette varies from culture to culture. Americans who consider themselves mannerly would never even consider slurping noodles Japanese style, much less burping in satisfaction to praise the cook (Saudi Arabia, I seem to recall.) We will not hesitate, however, to eat with our left hand should we please, a quite disgusting thing to do if raised a certain way. If you're going to live in international style, it behooves you to (a) learn what might disgust those you're dining with; and (b) learn to suppress your own opinions about what's disgusting. Because it's really completely arbitrary; the person eating with their mouth full might have completely different social cues. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

JP Gordon. It is always normal and acceptable to eat with your mouth full. LoL. 94.174.140.161 (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Good braino there! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

But never eat on an empty stomach. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Eating on a full stomach would require that you place your plate on top of a haggis, which would be one way to get a balanced meal, I suppose. StuRat (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It is just a matter of culture. We're on a spectrum here. I'm British - I used to make frequent business trips to the Netherlands (I worked for Philips Research) - and one time we had lunch in the company staff restaurant. I chose a simple cheese sandwich (sliced bread - thin slices of cheese, some kind of dressing) and sat down to eat with my (Dutch) co-workers. I proceeded to pick up the sandwich and bite into it exactly as polite British *and* American people do. As I ate, I slowly noticed quite a few people looking at me - and several other people with sandwiches carefully cutting and eating them with a knife and fork. I felt like a barbarian. So should we make value judgements? I think not!

At the opposite end of the scale, there are cultures where almost everything is eaten with fingers.

I live in the US, and my (American) wife says that the (British) way that I eat seems very strange. She describes it as like in Medieval times when people would eat with just a hunting knife. She tells me that having both hands on the table and using the knife throughout the meal is considered a breach of formal etiquette. You cut up your food with knife in dominant hand - then switch the fork over and place the (now unneeded) non-dominant hand into your lap. Having both hands on the table is a faux-pas on a scale with leaning your elbows on the table in British dining etiquette. So the way I eat is considered somewhat barbaric on this side of the atlantic. My wife reports that she did feel uncomfortable with her eating style while we in the UK and worried about how people would perceive her - but decided that it would be physically difficult to use the fork with her non-dominant hand - so she didn't attempt to adapt.

So both sides think the other has bad manners - and both of us are out-done by the Dutch.

I haven't noticed a particular difference with leaning over the table - but I do notice that the Americans use their hands for a wider range of foods than British people do.

17:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I don't agree with your wife at all. Generally, only children get their meat cut up into bits before eating. What you do is, when you want a bite of meat, you hold the fork in your left hand and cut off a bit with your right. Then you put the knife down, transfer the fork to your right hand, and take it up to your mouth. For the next bite, you transfer the fork back, pick up the knife again, and repeat.

I'm afraid any shortcut to this procedure, including cutting up in advance, makes it look like you're too much in a hurry to eat. --Trovatore (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

But why the switching of the hands? Having cut a piece of meat off with the knife, and having held it down with the fork, why not just bring the fork containing the cut piece, in your left hand, up to your mouth? Or was I missing some irony there? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said, it makes it look like you're in too much of a hurry. I think it's inefficient-by-design. No irony. --Trovatore (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Having spent my entire life around people who do it the way I described, I have never once thought the thought you mention. Now, cutting the next piece while you're still busy chewing the first one may well make it look like you're in a hurry, but merely using the left hand to bring food to your mouth on a fork never produces that effect. I guess it all depends on one's upbringing and what one has been led to expect. I don't think there are any universal rights or wrongs with eating. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was understood that I meant, in an American cultural context, that's how it looks. --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I fully understand that. If I were visiting an American home and ate my way while my hosts all ate the way you describe, then yes, the difference would be apparent, and the thought "What's his hurry?" may well enter some of their minds. But then, I've seen many American movies where people were eating meals, and while the methods vary, they have often included using the fork in the left hand and the knife in the right and nobody ever switches hands. That says to me that there's no one universal American way of eating, and Americans, being cosmopolitan types, should expect to see all manner of variations and not jump to conclusions about the manners or lack thereof of eaters with whom they come into contact. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Deeper (but still "original") research: My wife called her grandmother - and verified that 90 years ago, she had been taught to eat with fork in right hand. The issue of whether to cut up all the food before transferring the fork over - or just some of it - depends on the social context. In more formal meals, one would cut up more of the food in advance in order that the non-dominant hand could be placed in the lap for more of the meal. She also mentioned that her grandfather (so we're now 4 generations back in US history) was a first generation Irish immigrant. She clearly recalls him scolding her if her left hand wasn't placed primly in her lap while eating...thus indicating that the US way of eating is least 90 years old. So now we have to wonder why someone who presumably learned eating etiquette as a child in Ireland would be such a strong advocate of fork-in-dominant-hand eating. I kinda doubt this is an Irish invention from at least 150 years ago (although it might be) - probably more that immigrants are often the most aggressive about blending into mainstream society by adopting their customs and etiquette.

Another point of interest is that my ex-wife is French - and they eat the English way - so this isn't just a UK-only thing.

The "slowing down the eating" argument is an interesting and compelling motive for eating the US way - but is flatly contradicted by the American tendency to eat more food with their fingers than we Brits do - which is undoubtedly fast. Also, when my wife and I eat, it's not the case that one of us always finishes first. So as a practical matter, the "slowing down" or "efficiency" arguments seem pretty specious to me. Eating can always be profitably slowed down by good conversation if there is something good going on - and if not, then why not be able to shovel the food down quickly so you don't miss that movie you wanted to see? SteveBaker (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure I've always cut things up just-in-time, no bit to be cut off before it's immediately ready to be eaten. It looks strange to me to do it any other way. But Jack is right; there are different customs even within the States.

I think part of the reason for just-in-time is that the food stays hotter that way.

As for "slowing down", I didn't say that was the actual reason for the fork transfer, in the sense of something reasoned out. I was talking about how violations are perceived.

Finally, I have to call you on the "dominant/non-dominant" thing. It's not dominant and non-dominant. It's right and left. There is no accommodation for lefties, sorry. --Trovatore (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That's dead right. How discriminatory. In this Era of Choice (where, for example, you have to undergo a half-hour interrogation about what precisely you want and do not want on your sandwich before the shop attendant feels confident enough to begin preparing it, and by the end of the grilling your lunch time is already over), it would be a simple matter to reverse the cutlery for lefties. When a booking is being made by phone, the caller should be asked how many lefties will be in the group and where precisely each of them will be sitting on the much-anticipated occasion. Simple. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The Dutch seem rather silly, to me, if they object to eating a sandwich with your hands. It is a British invention, after all, and the Earl of Sandwich specifically invented it so he could eat without utensils. So, if the Dutch wish to eat one with utensils or stuff it into a blender to make a drink out of it, that's their business, but they have no business ostracizing others for eating it as it was originally designed to be eaten. StuRat (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Now, now. Do you eat couscous with your right hand (with your fingers)? I don't, normally, but as a guest of my friend's relatives in Morocco I did (no cutlery was provided, the technique is not that difficult). Nevertheless, I'd expect and accept weird stares if I ate couscous with my fingers in most places in Europe or North America, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Just try eating a Sri Lankan curry and rice and other trimmings with your fingers. Sound gross? Well, that's their way, but they also provide Western utensils for those who can't quite bring themselves to go the traditional way. They recognise that most other cultures have a low opinion of eating with one's fingers, and that early childhood training goes deep and is hard to overcome. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Was couscous specifically designed so it could be eaten with the hands without getting them messy, like the sandwich was ? StuRat (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hard to say for sure - but as a point of comparison, having stickier food is common in cultures where they eat with chopsticks. Trying to eat modern 'long grain' rice with chopsticks is a pain - but the stickier kind of rice that's eaten throughout East-Asia clumps really well and is easy to eat with those utensils. Indian food is always served with a variety of flat breads (Nans, popadoms, etc). That enables one to use the bread as a scooping utensil - which makes eating with hands alone much easier. Same deal with tortillas in south and central American cuisine. Clearly, in all three of those cases, the food has adapted to the eating style rather than vice-versa. Heck even modern "fast food" is adapted to the desire to deliver it without utensils - so burgers and hotdogs come in buns, potato is made into french-fries or tater tots. So it wouldn't surprise me if couscous is indeed made the way it is to make it easier to grab a mouthful of it between thumb and two fingers...it's the way humans adapt their diet to the eating utensils available. SteveBaker (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Europe has a history of using bread as a plate too, a history older than John Montagu, and I'm wondering whether the (nameless) person who signed at 17:18, 25 May 2014, had his Dutch meal squeezed between two slices of bread, or whether it was actually an open sandwich, which exists in many traditions independently of the two-sliced sandwich. It is sometimes customary to eat them with knife and fork. In the Netherlands, for example, there are uitsmijters (Dutch Wikipedia has an article on uitsmijter linking to English WP's article on Strammer Max). These are not eaten by hand and they weren't invented in the United Kingdom. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Certainly - it had a name too: A Trencher was a piece of bread that was used as we'd use a plate - and it certainly dates back to at least Medieval times. So the tradition of eating foods with bread was nothing new when the Earl of Sandwich came up with his idea. We might call that an "open sandwich" in modern parlance - but Sandwiches' innovation was in using TWO slices of bread to make it easier to pick up and eat without the filling falling out. That's what makes it difficult to track the history. We find plenty of references in Shakespeare of people eating foods with bread - but no indication of whether this was a trencher or a sandwich.

My favorite thing about the Earl of Sandwich is that there is (of course) an actual town called "Sandwich" - that he was the Earl of. Nearby, there is another tiny village called "Ham" (see image at right!). SteveBaker (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

They should open a branch of the Mayo Clinic there. StuRat (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Colonel Mustard lived nearby (in the Dining Room with the candlestick). SteveBaker (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

He also lent his name to Hawaii for a time. Is there any other country or place named or formerly named after a person who was also the eponym of a type of food? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget the South Sandwich Islands. Meanwhile, eat your cheese danish while reading up on Dan (king). StuRat (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Odd coincidence: For fans of the "Car Talk" radio show on NPR, I bet you'd have a shot at winning this weeks' "Puzzler" competition:

http://www.cartalk.com/content/puzzlers

SteveBaker (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, judge the eating habits of 314 million people based on your sample size of two people you invited over for dinner. Nice troll. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"All Indians walk single file. At least, the two I saw did." --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

nice try Viriditas at discrediting both myself and my OP. I have taken the time and trouble to re-read my question, maybe you should too. Nowhere did I write that my guests numbered only 2 as you suggest. And nowhere did I attempt to judge the eating habits of 314 million people. What I did do in fact, if you care to check, is make some observational comments about the eating habits of those North American Dinner Guests at my house, and ask commentators here on Wikipedia if that was typical of wider American eating habits, a question that has elicited a vast group of responses, much more helpful I might add, than yours. 94.174.140.161 (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks are against the rules. Oh, but you're an IP, so you're exempt from that rule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Viriditas: The point here is not what did or didn't happen at some dinner party. It is an indisputable fact that almost all Americans handle their knives and forks in a way that is VERY different from the way that almost all Europeans do. It is also (evidently) a fact that our OP found this to be quite offensive. As such, this most certainly is a discussion of the eating habits of 314 million people who do the "switching the fork from hand to hand" thing. You're right that our OP judged all of those people from an unreasonably small statistical sample - but since the judgement was largely based on how those few people handled their silverware - and we know that the other 313,999,995 or so Americans do it the same way, this small sample of people turned out to be fairly representative.

@94.174.140.161: It's clear that the "offense" of eating in the American way is pretty mild for most people in the UK - a mere curiosity usually. I know lots of Americans and lots of Brits and I've seen more mealtime interactions between the two cultures than you ever will. At no time did I ever see either side take as much offense as you evidently did - so I think you were caught by surprise and rather than taking this as an interesting cultural quirk to be discussed and contrasted, you jumped to take offense...and I think that was a bad thing. I wonder how you'd react to Arab people eating with their fingers and only using one hand? When you invite people from other cultures into your home, you can't expect them to adhere to your cultural norms. Americans are taught from a young age to politely transfer the fork to their dominant hand, place the other hand into their laps and continue to eat one-handedly. Your guests were behaving with utmost politeness towards you. Your problem is entirely one of your own making. By failing to understand this cultural difference, you misinterpreted a bunch of people who were trying to behave with extreme politeness as people who were offending you.

It's also clear that Americans find European eating habits curious too. I've lived in the US for 20 years and have not switched to the American way of eating - and it's not uncommon for people here to remark upon it. I hope they don't take offense - and I can't think of any occasions when they did. They know I'm British (or possibly Australian) as soon as I open my mouth to speak...and they make appropriate adjustments for my cultural norms. For that reason, I think our OP has perhaps taken offense unnecessarily - although it's possible that these guests handled themselves badly in other ways that may have turned an unusual behavior into something that just made matters even more objectionable. However, it's just a cultural matter - we've deduced that there is no obviously better reason to eat one way or the other - and that in some cultures, the British style of eating is considered fairly barbaric too.

So - where does that leave us? User:94.174.140.161 should probably chill out a little and accept that people from other countries have different (but equally acceptable) habits. User:Viriditas should probably chill out and accept that people from other cultures may well find the habits of Americans to be sub-par for one reason or another. It's easy to assume that because Brits and Americans speak more-or-less the same language - and we've watched each other's TV shows and movies - that we're culturally similar - but that's really not the case. I find French people more culturally similar to Brits than Americans are.

As someone who has lived for 40 years on one side of the Atlantic and 20 years on the other (with a few years in other exciting places) - I can tell you both that you're pushing this one step too far. SteveBaker (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This European business of cutting a piece of steak and immediately shoveling it into the mouth with the opposite hand is considered gauche (literally) in America. We associate it with country bumpkins or hillbillies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and the idea of repeatedly swapping knife and fork back and forth between hands and massacring the presentation of the food on the plate before it's eaten are similarly weird to Europeans. So why complain? Neither side is "correct" in any absolute sense - it's a cultural matter. You do as you were brought up to do by your parents and teachers. We don't agree on how to spell "colo(u)r" either...get over it! SteveBaker (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, technically it's the OP who needs to "get over it", and just accept the cultural differences as part of the richness and variety of human existence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I know I am going to take some abuse for this but hey-ho, here goes. Well, that was a fairly accurate opening prediction eh? Hey-Ho. 94.174.140.161 (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In terms of references, I would start with Watching the English, and "Class" by Jilly Cooper, for the English end of things. I don't have personal recommendations for the American end, although it looks like Paul Fussell may be the author to read. Check your local library or favourite bookshop. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Where was Gautam Buddha born?

The article Gautama Buddha mentions possible birthplaces in present-day Nepal, India or Himalaya; shown is a shrine in Lumbini. The infant's given name was Siddhartha (Pāli: Siddhattha, "he who achieves his aim") and there was no consensus that the baby had the quality of a Buddha. He became known to his followers as Buddha only after his attainment of enlightenment at age 35. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Kapilavastu

class=notpageimage|

The Shakya clan to which prince Siddhartha was born formed an independent republican state, known as Shakya Ganarajya, at the foothills of the Himalayas. Its capital was Kapilavastu (Pāli: Kapilavatthu) in present-day Nepal, 300km west of Kathmandu. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

?Zonex shrestha (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)zzx

According to Gautama Buddha, it was in the Himalayan foothill. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Only one foothill? I thought he was born in all of them, in order to exhibit bilocation at an early age and make people sit up and take notice. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

FoothillS. So sorry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It is thought that he was born in Nepal. Is there a reason that people on this board don't answer direct questions? This is the third question I've seen here that lacks an actual answer. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs answered the question in a perfectly acceptable way. The OP did not ask for the name of the country, but thank you for adding to the answer. It would have been more correct to say the area was then called Shakya, and is now part of Nepal. It would also have been more gracious not to criticise the earlier, correct answer. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Mockery of Siddhartha's unexceptional human birth just advertises oneself as a clown in a graceless way. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it would. Luckily, no such mockery can be found on this thread. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Retrospective editing of your clownery was probably the best that you can do. :) 84.209.89.214 (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I always operate here at far below my full potential, in order to leave myself some energy in reserve for that day when I finally enter the real world. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I Wanna know the recipe to make french fries?

Zonex shrestha (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find plenty of traditional recipes online, but I will assume you want a healthier version, since you previously expressed an interest in healthier foods and in losing weight. First, there are two approaches to forming the shapes:

1) Cut the potato into slices, possibly with the skin left on (steak fries). (Keeping the skin on is healthier.)

2) Mash the potatoes, then extrude them. The mashed version allows you to add spices to the interior, but don't add salt there, as you will need more salt to get the same flavor than if it's on the surface. Also, the extrusion process requires special equipment.

Then there's the choice of cooking methods. Deep frying is the traditional method, but baking is far healthier.

Also, there's the choice of potato. Sweet potato fries are healthier.

Fries may also be dipped in batter before they are cooked. For healthier fries, skip this step.

Finally, there's some seasoning to put on top. For white potatoes, salt is the most common (though unhealthy), while ketchup is a bit healthier. For sweet potatoes, on the other hand, butter, cinnamon and sugar would work. This can be made into a dip, making it less messy to eat and allowing everyone to get the amount they want.

In any case, thicker fries are healthier, as it decreases the surface area, so allows less fat, salt, etc., to be absorbed.

So, for the healthiest version, remove the "eyes", slice sweet potatoes up thickly, with the skins on, bake them, and serve them with a dip made from melted butter or trans-fat free (no partially hydrogenated vegetable oils) margarine, dark brown sugar, and cinnamon. StuRat (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The salt substitutes I've had the best experience with are Cumin (love this stuff on meats especially), Rosemary (love this stuff on fries), black pepper, and (in sweeter dishes) Jamaican Allspice (not other "Allspices" though). It's not always a 1 to 1 ratio (you'll want to use less cumin, pepper, and allspice), and you have to learn which goes with what dish (though you can usually tell by smelling the spice and the dish before mixing), but the flavor you get from those spices should satisfy your urge for salty flavors. I would not recommend using them all at the same time, though, except maybe with certain kinds of curries or chilies. For white potatoes, I know that Rosemary is great, and cannot imagine how cumin or black pepper would go wrong. For sweet potatoes, Jamaican Allspice tastes like a combination of cinnamon, cloves, and nutmug (hence "all spice"), but not as overly sweet as most powdered cinnamons nor as strong as cloves.

As for a dipping sauce, using an unflavored strained yogurt (often sold as "Greek Yogurt" these days) as a base for the sauce instead of sour creme or mayo will help some (though they sometimes have more sugar to compensate for the reduced fat). This is something you'll probably have to experiment with, but start with about three-quarters the yogurt you'd use for the dip, and add the minimum amount of each spice, sauce, or whatever to get what you're looking for. I had a dipping sauce with some Sriracha sauce, cumin, and a few drops of Worcestershire sauce the other day that was great. Spicy mustard (regular mustard will lose all its flavor when mixed) and Balsamic vinegar are also good (my favorite salad dressing is just those two sauces and some olive oil). Of course, if you're substituting the spices for salt, you may not need a dipping sauce. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Those salt substitutes sound far better than potassium chloride, which is dreadful stuff. Capsaicin is also a good substitute for salt, although most hot sauces that contain it also have lots of sodium, so you may need to buy your own peppers (I use red pepper flakes). Not sure why you would want a substitute for cinnamon, though, as it's tasty, inexpensive, and healthy. StuRat (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Take potatoes, peel them, cut into matchstick sized pieces, fry in hot oil. That's all. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

All hail the Queen of Conciseness. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You really can't beat Alton Brown who, other than pronouncing greasy as greazy (as you'll see if you watch), always knows what he's talking about.--108.54.17.14 (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not so unusual. There's an old cliché, pronounced "Take it easy, greazy." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Back when Jim McGreevy was the married gay but not gay married mayor of Woodbridge Mall, NJ, I learned how to cook T.G.I.F.riesday. On monday you would clean, slice and blanch the potatoes in 1/4" strips along their length. You brought them to a very low boil in a 50 gal aluminum vat, and added ice chips if they boiled too quickly. This drew out the starch. You emptied the hot fries into a colander, discarding the starchy soup, and transfere the fried into what looked like kitchen-plastic trash can half-way filled with ice chips and let the combination sit over night while more starch leaked out. The process of heating, cooling and draining continued ad nauseam. (They employed a professional Prussian ex-Margravess for that purpose). Finally the fries were crunchy, rather than cakey enough to fry, for which they rounded up some illegal immigrants looking for work along U.S. Route 1 that ran through the middle of town. A surprisingly large proportion of this story except the Prussians (they were Cantonese) was true.) 06:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)

Excluding all mention of seasonings, the traditional method was to use freshly cut potatoes, and deep fry them in a mix of vegetable oil and rendered beef fat. Yes - McD's used to use beef fat. And one source of the beef fat is cooking hamburgers, resulting in a bit of synergy. If you serve with ketchup, do not oversalt as the condiment is salty. If you use mayonnaise, then I wot not what seasoning will work best. Using mashed potatoes was tried by Burger King, IIRC, with poor results. Collect (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"wot not" ? StuRat (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

[3] [4] I wot not who hath done this thing, [5] But, my good lord, I wot not by what power, etc. Collect (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if this has been mentioned but, fresh french fries are easy however, there is a trick.

Wash potatoes, pat dry and then slice into suitable sizes. You can either peel the potato first or leave the skins on (that is how I make them). Using vegetable oil in a large deep metal pot, heat oil to medium high (just below high) and cook for a bout 8 to 10 minutes or until just beginning to become golden. Remove them from the oil And take oil of burner) and rest for about 5 to ten minutes. Place oil back on the burner at full high. When oil is reheated add fries back carefully as to not splash oil (otherwise a fire may set from splashed oil on the hot burner and the cost to replace the stove/house could be more than the value of the fries) cook untill golden brown. Remove, salt or season to taste and repeat.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to take a moment to give a salute to those over at WikiBooks who put together this recipe for French Fries here, with helpful tips on how to french fry really good. ~Helicopter Llama~ 22:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Here are two links from food network [6] [7] (The first is a video by Alton Brown which has a really good explanation, the second is text instead. I recommend the first link.) RJFJR (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there any relation between aging and eating foods cooked(grilled, fried, roasted etc.) in high temperature?

Although free radicals are connected to aging. But on the other hand, I've heard foods cooked in high heat would yield harmful chemicals like acrylamide.

According to Frequently asked questions - acrylamide in food :

"Acrylamide is known to cause cancer in animals. Also, certain doses of acrylamide are toxic to the nervous system of both animals and humans."

According to - Food 'cancer chemical' reaction identified :

"Boiling potatoes should create less acrylamide than roasting them"

"in baking bread, the centre of the bread does not reach 100°C. You would only really get acrylamide in the crusts - but they're the tastiest part." (the browned crusts should be due to Maillard reaction if I understand correctly)

According to Maillard reaction :

"The Maillard reaction also occurs in the human body. It is a step in the formation of advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs)"

According to advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs) :

"These harmful compounds (AGEs) can affect nearly every type of cell and molecule in the body and are thought to be one factor in aging and in some age-related chronic diseases"

Per references above, it seems eating foods cooked in high heat will speed up aging and get you look older faster, but I'm not quite sure. Besides, eating grilled, fried or roasted foods is very usual in some western countries. I'd like to know how these coocking styles affect body in aging... and to what degree ... - Justin545 (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that only bread with a burnt crust contains the harmful compounds, as browning is just due to the Maillard reaction. Can anyone else verify or disprove this ?

Also, free radicals can be countered with antioxidants, so how harmful they are will depend on how many of those you get. StuRat (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)