Someone always feels the need to say something like this these days, when McD's is being discussed. If we call ourselves hackers we should question everything and notices the meaning behind these weird social rituals.
Please don't be offended, I do it too and am not claiming to be above you.
My take is that McD's is currently the symbol for poor people food. Poor people are both money-poor and time-poor, so fast food is one of the few options they have.
When people criticise MCD's, they are usually just signalling that they are not poor.
There are tons of good for you, cheap, quick to make meals if you have access to the most simple kitchen. A simple salad, sandwich or bowl at spaghetti at home is cheaper at McDonald's and much better for you. Lack of time shouldn't be a justification for fast food. When I worked in an office it would take longer to go out and get food than it would for me to pack a lunch and eat at my desk.
Sure, but they don't give you the serotonin rush that McDonald's does. The fat+salt+sugar+carbs+MSG combinations is a very affordable drug these days. With more resources you can adopt healthier pleasures. Poor people don't have that luxury.
It's very easy for people with confortable lives to prescribe rational choices for the less fortunate, as if they were characters in the sims. But they are human beings with all the usual human flaws like the rest of us, and they want their day to be less miserable, like we would.
Please don't perpetuate the myth of the MSG placebo effect here. It's a cultural meme with no basis in science [1, 2]; glutamate is widespread [3], yet nobody complains of "green tea headaches".
The book 'The End of Overeating' says that modern food is engineered to maximise this enjoyable aspect of food, to make it hyperpalletable. (It feels like a reasonable book, the biases are clear, it's just popsci so it's a bit flaky in parts and obviously a bit sensationalist.
Except the comment you replied to wasn't a criticism of McD's.
He's pointing out a very important fact: McDonalds is not that tasty. What I make without these recipes using incredibly simple methods (as described above) tastes better. Frankly, these are elaborate instructions on how to make disgusting food.
Garbage. They're signalling that they enjoy something commonly known as food. You know, the stuff that you cook and prepare without resorting to huge amounts of preservatives in a mass produced fashion.
Ok, maybe a little harsh. I actually enjoy eating Big Macs. But there is better and more delicious food out there. Try it, you won't be disappointed!
See, you're doing the same thing to me. You're implying that I am unsophisticated foodwise just because I said that people who attack McD's may be posturing. Why do you assume that I haven't tried other things? Actually I grew up in southern Europe and the first McDonald's opened in my home town when I was around 18.
I think the aspect of this is that it's trying to recreate the 1950's versions, which most of us have probably never eaten. It frowns upon and insults modern McDonald's food several times throughout the text.
if it were as simple as that where would the appeal be? Having read articles that investigate in depth the amount of research that such companies do in how their food looks, tastes, and even feels, it becomes obvious that at home recreation is not possible for all people.
The number one reason it is not, most are lazy. People will drop steps, drop ingredients, and such, because "it doesn't matter" or "I don't care". Whatever justification meets their current mood. These companies on the other hand live and and die by their consistent delivery.
A Coke is a Coke, Minute Maid Orange juice tastes like Minute Maid and not Tropicana, McDonald's French Fries are all so much different from Wendy's and so on. We expect this so in turn for many people they become comfort items. Day went to hell, well I am going to get some X because it always satisfies me.
I am always amazed at how something simple in appearance can have so much behind it, the recent article here about orange juice was a prime example.
I think I'd be more interested in articles that told me how to recreate a feature from a product, rather than a guess at the whole product.
For example, something that tells me what potatoes to use (or how to cook them, or what oil and heat to use) to make fries could be more interesting. Especially if it went into some of the science of food. (So, in the fries example, what the starch granules are doing and how that affects taste, or what the oil does at different temperatures, and how that affects mouth feel.)
This isn't a plea for molecular gastronomy either.
Problem is these recipes are only a guess at what is in most things, and others they only suggest similar tasting items. None of these are spot on exact, and Mcdonalds differ the ingredients in many things based on region and country. For example , where I live they use beef in the sausage patty and not pork. So really all this is , is an "alternative" recipe book for things maccas sell.
Oh. It was just a single '?' the first time I read it in the article (i.e. "Accent?"), so I (of course) assumed your quoting was making it even worse, but ignored that. :)
Heck yeah it is. I don't know anyone who keeps Accent / MSG on hand...
These are simple recipes, and I think the value to people who enjoy this style of food is learning about how to do the onions, where a bit of mustard or Miracle Whip comes in, etc. Most people would not put mayo on a burger nowadays, but it can add a lot (and provides a nice moisture barrier).
I keep MSG on hand for all dishes that involve meat. It's easy enough to get at most Asian/Indian stores and when combined with properly seared meat, is amazing.
