Quick meals (beans on toast, jacket potatoes)

Bumblebear

Another one against supermarket bread here. I don't believe in gluten intolerance as such, but some sort of sensitivity makes sense to me - though whether it be the actual gluten, or all the carp that gets added I don't know. I prefer to use "low gluten" grains such as spelt, barley and rye, and I make my own bread so I know what's in it. That's not to say that I never eat ready made grain based products (God, I love croissants), but it helps with keeping them in moderation. Mr S also now sells 100% spelt pasta (penne and spaghetti) for £1 a pack, which is very reasonable (for spelt). Sometimes I mix that with the cheap wheat pasta, again just to keep a variety. Our (Western society's) reliance on wheat products is pretty new and you don't need to go that far back in history to find that wheat was a more expensive grain and the masses were eating the 'rougher' grains - how ironic considering the price of barley/spelt/rye flour now!


Going back to the OP's original question - how about baked sweet potatoes, which have slightly (and I believe it is only slightly) fewer carbs and more vitamins? Perhaps tinned mixed beans rather than bog-standard baked beans? Another advocate of the egg here, an omelette solves many problems.


I also advocate the use of a slow cooker if time is not your friend, you can get single portion ones (though depending on how you use it, you may get two small portions). I have a large one now and use it for batch cooking. My frivolous cheat is those recipe spice mix things, 3 for £1 in Mr Asda or 25p each in Mr Aldi. No inspiration needed and reduces prep time further, though I'm a veggie so I'm just using frozen meat free sausages, mince or Quorn pieces for these recipes.

suki1964

arbrighton wrote: »

I like to breathe clean air at night so won't be subjecting husband to that!!

Can't be worse then the baked beans :rotfl:

Pop_Up_Pirate

arbrighton wrote: »

Fermenting is processing. Sorry.

Yes, in a technical sense of the word it is but then so is 'cooking'.

arbrighton

suki1964 wrote: »

Can't be worse then the baked beans :rotfl:

Thankfully they're rarely eaten too! :rotfl::rotfl:

PasturesNew

Bumblebear wrote: »

I also advocate the use of a slow cooker if time is not your friend, you can get single portion ones (though depending on how you use it, you may get two small portions). I have a large one now and use it for batch cooking.

As a "one", when I looked into it I firstly thought of getting a 1 litre one ... and didn't. In the end I got 3.5litres, oval, for the following reasons:

- there is the potential to cook something long, like a whole small chicken, or an 800 gram turkey breast, or even a cake in a cake tin in it. I've only "needed" this long-capacity once, but, without it, it'd have reduced my available options/choices.
- although you DO cook more than you need (serves 3-4 generous portions usually), the bottom line comes down to "the size of the basic ingredients" and if you're tossing in a pack of 500 grams of meat and opening a tin of tomatoes, a smaller one would already be packed to the gills, lessening the options of adding more stuff. With a 3.5 litre one you can toss in 500 grams of meat and open 3 cans and chuck them in.
- you don't need to fill it; there are many recipes that have no liquid in them to start with, ending with very little (e.g. just put a chicken in and nothing else/no water) ... so they don't explode if you only put a little bit of stuff in them.

They work best if you just find 2-3 things you think they "do very nicely", rather than trying to get them to master 200 differing recipes. So long as you have 2-3 nice things you like, that's enough use for one to justify it.

beautiful_ravens

GlasweJen wrote: »

Erm, what?

Coeliacs disease is autoimmune, nothing to do with gluten slicing your intestines open.

Right well, Ive edited my post as it was unclear.

Gluten intolerance is a myth, scientists have (on many occasions) fed "gluten intolerant" individuals unmarked food and these sensitive souls who can't tolerate gluten day to day either showed no symptoms after eating gluten without knowing or showed symptoms when they were in the no gluten group.


If you don't have coeliacs then you're not gluten intolerant.

Right. Theres no 'gluten intolerance' but there are the intolerances to food that has got into the blood via the rips made by gluten protein strings. As I said in my post.

Gigervamp

I've never heard of this gluten strings ripping the gut before. Do you have a link to the scientific studies?

arbrighton

Gigervamp, I very much doubt there are any

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

beautiful_ravens wrote: »

Right. Theres no 'gluten intolerance' but there are the intolerances to food that has got into the blood via the rips made by gluten protein strings. As I said in my post.

'Leaky Gut Syndrome' doesn't even exist as a recognised medical condition. Hasn't stopped it being accused of causing Autism as well as autoimmune conditions, mental illness and being fat, though. And being caused by massive fungal infection, eating meat, gluten, not eating meat, eating rice, not eating rice, not having enough vitamins, eating cooked food, etc, etc, whatever it is that's the focus of the book promising a cure for everything.


And how does the effectiveness of low FODMAP diets to combat symptoms of increased intestinal absorption (a real medical condition) sit with the suggestion to avoid exactly the same foods the quacks tell people to eat/vice versa?

jackieblack

Jox wrote: »

the summary seemed to be the less processed food the better for health and longevity and as much fresh fruit and veg as possible.

Well, there's a surprise, whoever would have thought that! :cool:
:wall: