Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Cooking for Lame-O Males!

Japanese ramen technology is astounding. I haven't seen any of those little 25 cent packets of noodles that have the little flavor packets...you know, the stereotypical poor college student food?

The ramen they have here comes in big cardboard plastic-wrapped bowls. Inside, there's noodles and multiple packs of stuff. What is the stuff in the packets? Not sure. I can only loosely describe it as "flavor." There are packets of powders/liquids/dried meat/dried green onions/etc. The ramen I ate tonight was purchased at 7-11 for 298 yen, and had no less than FOUR separate flavor packet things inside. I was opening packets and dumping them in like crazy. It made me feel like I was cooking, albeit in a really sad apartment-dwelling lonely guy sort of way.

There's about 958 million varieties of these ramen bowls, all for less than 3 bucks. I have much work to do.

11 comments:

d said...

But, N, how much does it *weigh*?

Nate said...

Doesn't matter--the bowls have complete nutritional information on the side. Calorie-wise, they're all over the board. The smaller ones start at about 100cal, and go up to bigger ones of around 600, from what I've seen.

I use my gram scale for bulk items like granola, nuts, fruits, coke, pot, horse tranquilizer, etc. that aren't already parceled out into a serving. You should get a scale--mine was about 15 bucks, and it's pretty interesting to see what 200 grams of food actually looks like. You might be surprised by how little it is.

d said...

In a similar vein we heard a talk by a bird biologist tonight and his PhD co-worker was discussing a study that nobody wants to do to determine how much contamination exists in salmon that originate in the Columbia system. People kinda know already, but they don't really want to know for sure. A Big Mac is 200 grams, right?

Nate said...

yeah, it's funny, there have been a few studies that show how people low-ball their calorie estimation by about 30% usually...your mind is pretty amazing at rationalization, especially when it's for something that every finely evolved fiber of your body is telling you is good for your continued existence. the lawyer on the elephant, right? our higher consciousness isn't the boss we think it is...

Luke said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Luke said...

It's so true. I've decided that normally I probably eat close to twice as much as I need to and so have been cutting back. It's really tough for the first week or so because you're constanly hungry but if you drink a lot of water that helps. After about a week your body adjusts and now I feel fine (still have lots of energy, or at least enough to do a 10k steady state which is enough by anyone's standards.) It's totally mind over matter...

d said...

Ah, Luke, but your body will adjust to the lower caloric intake (i.e. set point adjustment) and then if you eat even one extra grape, the weight will come back. The Supreme Fascist laughs...

Avoid sweets, egregious starches (chips, fried potatoes, etc.) and beer. Do those 10K's and don't get a desk job or a wife and you'll be fine.

Nate said...

Wow, are you telling a British guy to shape up his diet by cutting out beer? Hey Luke, while you're at it, stop breathing air too.

Luke said...

It's true, your body may adjust to the lower calorific intake but at the end of the day, losing weight for all its complications is simply calories in calories out. So if you're working out at the same time as dieting, your body isn't able to adjust, it needs something to burn and as long as you're eating enough protein, will hit the fat as opposed to the muscle. I'm not a nutritionist but that makes sense doesn't it?

d said...

I personally think it's a combination of this
http://www.paleodiet.com/ (similar approaches include the Omega Diet or The Okinawa Diet), portion control and low body stress interval training (not lsd workouts).

And you are right: it is difficult to avoid imbibing the drink of champions. Maybe a dry red instead.

Nate said...

Good point Luke--it really is as simple as calories in vs calories out. BUT, that only applies to weight, and you're probably looking at weight and overall health and appearance. So if you simply starve off 30 pounds, you'll look like a floppy (but skinny) sack of mush. That's why people keep protein consumption high, train with weights, and only lose about a pound or two a week. That way, your body doesn't get rid of muscle, like it does when it thinks it's starving. Muscle has a very high metabolic cost, and if you aren't using it and aren't eating as much, your body is only too happy to jettison that liability.