Dig In!

Oh, it's my most favoritest time of the year! You know, when there's a string of sweaty 100 degree days and, without warning, your hot water gets shut off for an indefinite period.

But at least I'm eatin' good. Many of you U.S. urban dwellers may have ventured into a joint that claims it serves "Mongolian Barbeque." Pfft. This past Sunday I copped an invite to the gen-yoo-wine article out at a friend's summer house and, believe me, it don't have nothin' to do with pimply kids fryin' up yer vittles on a metal grill slab and whackin' a gong when you tip them.

This BBQ was dished up in three courses savored throughout the afternoon. The first course, sizzled up on the grill, consisted of sheep liver wrapped in fat. Swear. Brother Konchog tried a nibble to be polite but that's all he could manage. Another friend to whom I later related the menu remarked, "Well, maybe they were all suffering from low cholesterol and it was, in a way, health food."

I probably should have indulged that course because then I could have claimed to be too full for the next -- a great steaming pot (that's right, not technically BBQ) of the dreaded "inside meat". I just couldn't bring myself to taste even a little bit this time. Rather, I persuaded my hosts, in the interests of broad cultural understanding, to let me take a few photos. Put down your breakfast spoon. OK, ready?

I know! One photo just isn't enough, is it? Now, study this next one and in the comments I want you to provide a caption for what the baby is thinking. Keep in mind that she has, I think, been given a wee organ hunk that she's gnawing on.

My kind hosts, registering my distress, provided me with an alternative at this point. I was served a bowl of gruel studded with meat bits -- forget the name -- and cheerfully informed that, "this is what we usually give to infants or people who have drunk too much."

Finally came the outside meat, in the form of lamb kebabs, and then I got it. My friends are secret militant vegans who apply the same aversion therapy as the dad who makes his young son smoke until he's green. Almost did the trick, man, I'm tellin' ya. Except the kebabs were pretty tasty.

Just remembered a funny detail. Earlier in the afternoon, my hosts introduced their other friends by saying, again swear, "We were at their summer place last weekend. We had marmot."

As a corollary, my friend Sarah and I are quite fond of the irregular installments at The Sneeze under the title "Steve, Don't Eat It!"

Comments

[Mel]

Thank you for reinforcing my vegetarianism.

Actually, growing up in the rural South, I did my fair share of assisting with the butcherings. Now the only appeal is to my scientific mind.

[sarah]

Baby: "Wow, that little piggy shoulda stayed home..."

[Charlotte]

Hope they don't expect me to eat that next.

[Konchog]

Mel -- right. It's like school budget cuts forced the merging of the bio dissecting lab and the lunch room.

Sarah -- Good one! Except, um, it's a sheep.

Here's mine: "Wonder if they might whip some of that up in a blender for me?"

[Leamur]

No clue what she's thinking, but OMG is she cute!

Hey, I worked for a brief time for a nutrition journal right out of college before I realized schizophrenics were my true calling (heh), and one of the two journal articles going around for review that really stuck with me examined people's taste for sugar and for fat. It turns out that (on average) people's taste for sugar levels off at about 27% sugar. That is, something that is 25% sugar will be reported to taste better than something that is 15% sugar, but something that is 35% sugar will not be preferred to something that's 27% sugar. OK, fine.

Then they tried that with fat. There was no percentage of fat where something with higher fat content wasn't preferred to something with lower fat content! People always thought the higher-fat choice tasted better. Yikes, right?

OK, since I know you're dying to ask, let me tell you the other piece of nutrition science trivia that has stayed with me since those days: someone did a study about whether there was a correlation between a woman's weight and her educational level. Theory being, I suppose, that there should be an inverse correlation between weight and educational level so that the more educated a woman is, the less likely she is to be overweight. The study found this was not true. The inverse correlation the study found was between a woman's weight and her husband's educational level. Turns out, the more educated a woman's husband is, the less likely she is to be overweight. (!!!)

That's going to offend me to the end of my days, I just know it. There are some things you just wish you didn't know. I know you and your inside meat and unbidden marmot imaginations can relate, K. ;)

[KT]

Baby says: But I can't see the incision marks where they pulled THAT out of his naked belly.

[Sammons]

The baby is probably thinking, "I guess it doesn't really matter if Dad's belly hair gets in there or not..."