quiddities and agonies of the ruling class - a rolling new york times thread

rage: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/dining/19pets.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

That one seems pretty inoffensive. Rural people/hunters/etc. have been doing that for a long time - if some yuppies buy in as well, nothing wrong with that. Most of what we feed our animals is crap.

RAGE

Plz don't veganize your dog.

you have to love that photo though

I don't know about dogs but you def shouldn't veganize your cat. Not a bad idea to stop feeding either/both of them preservatives, though.

There is quite seriously a low- or no-carb "Catkins" diet for cats, which sounds like material for this thread until I read that if cats ate critters like they would catch in the wild (or "wild"), they'd be eating like 80% protein, 20% fat, and 0% carbs, or something like that.

i only read the first page but i didn't notice any veganizing of animals taking place?

tracer that made me lol so hard

esp. basketball-shooting sequence

I'm still trying to figure out how the fuck the cats in the pictures are 25 years old and don't look like they're half-dead.

The thing that annoys me most is the article just contributes to the unfair vilification of processed food and the perpetuates the idea that natural = better.

Most people are going to disagree with me on that. I wish I had more time to argue on the internet about it.

maybe they are mixing the blood of infants in with the organic offal

xp

bernard i am here all week

Just chiming in to say that I'm not horribly enraged by this article. The solution provided here is obviously extreme and impractical for most pet owners. However, it is certainly worth pointing out that typical off-the-shelf food for cats and dogs is horrible, it usually contains animal byproducts that really shouldn't be eaten at all. I know that most people are not willing to pay much more than bargain basement prices to feed their pets, but it is worthwhile pointing out that there are alternatives that do not contain byproducts, and that are much healthier and humane.

more humane that is...

It's ok guys, I have enough rage for all of us. Save your rage for other people.

The solution provided here is obviously extreme and impractical for most pet owners.

Eh, if it really is only $12 for a couple weeks worth of food and you can prepare a week's worth at once and store it in the fridge, it's not really that extreme or impractical.

But in all honesty, I buy the expensive dry food and occasionally give the cat a little canned food, after which he thinks I'm the coolest guy ever. So I don't know why I'd want to make him think he's going to get awesome food all the time. That's just setting up more work for me!

btw cats are obligate carnivores

btw mh and I say this in all honesty you have the outlook required to be a great parent

Plz don't veganize your dog.

Your dog is getting a lot closer to being a vegan by eating dry dog food (which uses some industrial proteins and a lot of carbs) than with this method.

If I had a small to medium-sized dog I could totally see cooking up a pot once a week and feeding him off that. Gets unwieldly with a big dog, but for a corgi or beagle or something not such a big deal.

my local Tom Thumb sells pre-packaged dog food that's like this, only it's ~$3.50 per serving (I guess it could serve a smallish dog for the entire day, though).

Jeff OTM re this story with "RAGE" and

The thing that annoys me most is the article just contributes to the unfair vilification of processed food and the perpetuates the idea that natural = better.

Most people are going to disagree with me on that. I wish I had more time to argue on the internet about it.

― Jeff, Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:56 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

Actually, I'm more "rage" than "RAGE."

Also, one of those folks was a vegan who was feeding her dog a vegan diet.

im curious to hear the defense of processed foods

me too

the defense is this, at least as i've heard it proposed by a scientist friend of mine: it's just molecules. whether you get glucose from an organic apple or from an apple-flavored microwaveable tart, it's still just glucose.

kinda misses some of the nuances (both of the argument, and of nutrition, in general), but i think that's what some ppl would suggest

and presumably the pros are: it's cheap and cheap stuff is better because there are poor people.

fwiw i think these ppl are dead wrong, but w/e

It's not so much a defense of process foods as a challenge to the unexamined notion that organic or "natural" is inherently better, and the usually equally unquestioning resistance to the green revolution.

There is a whole clusterfuck section about this in the "opinions that make you want to leave a conversation" thread.

the defense is this, at least as i've heard it proposed by a scientist friend of mine: it's just molecules. whether you get glucose from an organic apple or from an apple-flavored microwaveable tart, it's still just glucose.

kinda misses some of the nuances (both of the argument, and of nutrition, in general), but i think that's what some ppl would suggest

― ullr saves (gbx), Thursday, January 20, 2011 2:20 PM Bookmark

Well I think the point is not the glucose but rather all the stuff you're not getting from the apple tart and all the extra bad stuff you are getting.

Not to say that processed is per se worse. I mean I don't think there's much difference between eating white sugar, sugar in the raw, honey or agave nectar -- it's all pretty much pure sugar and all stuff you should eat as little of as possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sbgFFtKDrI

I wish I had more time to argue on the internet about it.

You don't hear this every day!

I think processed foods are cool as long as they're not pumped full of salt and hfcs to keep up their flavor and preserve them. Better flash freezing techniques and SCIENCE are helping people make frozen and ready-to-make foods that are closer to their original nutritional content and I can still microwave and eat them quickly so they're a-ok with me.

I also enjoy cooking, but sometimes, I just want to eat some microwaved junk.

Not to say that processed is per se worse. I mean I don't think there's much difference between eating white sugar, sugar in the raw, honey or agave nectar -- it's all pretty much pure sugar and all stuff you should eat as little of as possible.

― hey boys, suppers on me, our video just went bacterial (Hurting 2), Thursday, January 20, 2011 1:34 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this isnt entirely true w/ agave nectar its not going to spike your blood sugar -- low glycemic index

i mean i dont take 'no processed foods' as a strict rule but as a general guideline that if u eat food that isnt processed then u have a pretty good idea of what u are getting in it. ive never had an apple that turned out to have 800 mg of salt, but i have had soup like that -- oooops

the glucose in an apple also interacts with all the other things you're getting in that apple, whereas the apple-flavored PopTart you're just getting sugar without fiber or other nutrients, no?

yes. the fiber in fruit also cushions the sugar rush iirc. i mean a glass of orange juice is way worse for u that way than just eating an orange, its like the sugar of 8 oranges combined

Better flash freezing techniques and SCIENCE are helping people make frozen and ready-to-make foods that are closer to their original nutritional content and I can still microwave and eat them quickly so they're a-ok with me.

This gets to the heart of my problem with the Luddite movement that indiscriminately discredits advances in food processing and agricultural technology because of imperfections in those developments. Particularly when the push for organic/local/small/"natural" is at odds with advances that have improved crop yields, which reduces problems with malnutrition, starvation, poverty, etc.

didnt we have another thread about this?

I think that a discussion about processed food in the context of pet food kind of blurs the issue. The primary problem with lots of store-bought pet food isn't how it is made, but the ingredients that are used, which more often than not include lots of stuff that is just disgusting and would be criminal to put in even the cheapest processed human food.

Particularly when the push for organic/local/small/"natural" is at odds with advances that have improved crop yields, which reduces problems with malnutrition, starvation, poverty, etc.

I have to mumble a lot about this part and can't pretend to be impartial since I work for an ag company with a huge research department who pretty much work on increased yield/drought tolerance/etc. all day.

On another note, have you guys seen some of the crazy-ass pet foods that are available now? I bought something named "chicken and lobster" food for my cat and the ingredients list say it's actually lobster! Presumably that means some part of a real lobster and not that langostino ruse that LJS and the like get away with.

http://www.wellnesspetfood.com/images/Prod-Cat/product-lg-cat-can-completehealth-chicken-lobster.png

ah this is the one i was thinking about: Shallow, Pedantic Complaints People Make That Drive You Insane

lotta good stuff on that thread

Oh, that was the thread. I thought it was the "opinions when expressed" one. What a good time was had by all in the "shall, pedantic complaints" thread.

was this already posted

http://www.theawl.com/2011/01/the-most-emailed-new-york-times-article-ever

wonder how much parents emailing that to their kids correlates w/ like, xbox sales

was about to post that, xpost