PRODUCT REVIEW: WhoNu? Nutrition Rich Cookies

The shtick behind WhoNu? cookies, aside from the baffling spelling, is that they are "healthy" cookies. I have to admit, this is something that I had long wondered: why had no company made cookies with added nutrients? I always assumed that it could be done cheaply and with little effect on the final product's taste. Well, WhoNu? has confirmed this. It can done.

Each serving of three cookies has 160 calories and a whole bevy of nutrients. Very cool. I'm glad to see a company trying to take something that is traditionally unhealthy and make it healthier. As the box states, the cookies have as much fiber as a bowl of oatmeal, as much calcium as a cup of milk, and as much vitamin C as a cup of blueberries. There is more on the back of the box that I won't bother listing.

Before I talk about the taste, I want to talk about the philosophy. I am very dedicated to dietary health, and as such, I don't like dodges. Not for some vaguely Christian moral reason about not enjoying anything, but because unhealthy foods are unhealthy. Trying to take something unhealthy and make it sorta'-healthy does not eliminate our reliance on the product. The same principle applies to diet sodas. Yes, they are zero calories, but the goal is not to continue drinking soda while simply dodging the calories with some ersatz sugar. The goal is to stop drinking soda altogether.

At the same time, sweets and treats are great. They are an important part of anyone's diet because we very much should be enjoying all elements of the culinary world. Cakes, pies, cookies, and candy, while something that should not be eaten constantly, should be eaten every now and then. They are great! And if, in your periodic treat-eating, you can find a product that is healthier than other, comparable products, it only makes sense to eat it.

So, I guess, my review comes with a caveat. These are STILL COOKIES. They are high in calories and do not fill you up. Just because they are better than other cookies does not mean that they are better than eggs and toast. With that said, on to the review.

These cookies are excellent. No, they are not gourmet, but the company was obviously not shooting for that. They wanted to make a direct competitor to Chips Ahoy and Oreos. I didn't do a direct taste test, but I could tell from memory that the Oreos rip-offs taste slightly different. They are not quite as sweet, but at the same time, they have a slightly better chocolate flavor.

The Chips Ahoy wannabes taste identical to their target. Two of my friends said that they tasted slightly different, though. I would have been happy that the cookies are made with no HFCS and no hydrogenated oils, but they went one step farther and loaded them with nutrients and fiber. Unfortunately, the Oreos use palm oil, which is made with the blood of baby orangutans. Cute ones.

The actual nutrition levels are quite high. These would literally be a better breakfast choice than many cereals. As such, it is impressive that the flavor is the same. If you treat these as cookies, and simply replace extant Chips Ahoy consumption with these, I cannot recommend them enough. But the danger of using them as replacements for otherwise healthy foods is very real. I repeat: these are cookies.

Truly, they needed to be cookies! These needed to not be health food. We already have healthy "cookies" littering the shelves of Whole Foods across the nation. Instead, what the market needed was Chips Ahoy without the crappy ingredients.They did that and did it perfectly. These taste like cookies. Are they the best cookies? No. But neither are Chips Ahoy. So if you eat Chips Ahoy, stop, and start eating these.

WhoNu? Cookies: RECOMMENDED

PRODUCT REVIEW: Starbucks Blonde Roast

Starbucks is making a big deal out of their first light roast, and rightfully so. This is far and away the lightest roast that they have ever produced. In fact, I think that they went further than they needed. Most people would have been happy with a coffee that was merely not charred to a crisp.

This shift in strategy is coming in response to huge pressure from McDonald's and Dunkin Donuts, both of whom offer lighter coffee that, in many taste tests, is significantly preferred over Starbucks house roast, and, as near as I can tell, universally preferred over Pike Place. I have never been a fan of the 'Bucks' blasted house roast, and Pike Place is too bland. Blonde, specifically the Willow Blend, is much better.

The light brown appearance and healthy, undamaged beans bode well.

The roast is such that there is little-to-no oil on the surface of the bean and has a very light-brown color. Compare this to oily-as-hell and nearly black beans of Starbucks' usual selection.

This bloom is slightly down from its peak. Not bad.

I liked that the beans appeared to be fresh, with a much better scent and bloom during brewing. I don't know how well the beans will hold up after sitting on a grocery shelf for awhile, but perhaps Starbucks was forced to use fresher beans because they couldn't hide low quality with an obscene roast.

The nose is significantly better than anything else Starbucks makes, both from the beans, grounds, and final brew. Talking about flavor notes in the coffee is not an academic affair like with everything else at Starbucks because the terroir of the beans has not be cruelly executed.

The initial flavor profile is obviously very similar to Starbucks' ordinary roast, but there's more of it there. Notes of toasted bread, berries, and small amounts of caramel, peanut butter, and chocolate are all noticeable. It is a much more interesting and pleasant roast to drink.

There is a huge caveat to this, though. The coffee brewed in Starbucks locations is weak, watery, and lacking all punch. The Veranda blend is partly to blame: it isn't as punchy as the Willow blend; but that's only part of the story.

Both home preparation methods produced wildly superior cups to what I got at-location. The siphon-pot (3:30 heat, no cold compress) brought out acidity to the detriment of the coffee. It gave it way too much bite and an astringency on the finish that was not hidden by milk. I didn't bother with an espresso double, but the espresso single worked well. I certainly would not opt for this method, but it wasn't bad.

The sweet spot was hit with pour-over, specifically the Clever Coffee Dripper (4-minute steep). It brought out every drop of rich flavor from the beans and produced none of the biting acidity of the siphon pot. There is much more body hidden in these beans than Starbucks' preparation method would indicate.

The brew at Starbucks is not something that I would buy. It is adequate, but compared to the drip coffee available from smaller cafes, and even sometimes McDonald's, it doesn't justify its higher price. The whole beans in a bag, on the other hand, are something that I would certainly buy. While, as always, I recommend finding a local roaster for maximum freshness and quality, both critical for good coffee, blonde is some of the best coffee that you can buy on the shelf. It more than earns its recommendation.

Starbucks Blonde Roast: RECOMMENDED

Peanut Butter Comparison Part Deux

My first, and thus far only, product comparison cum taste test was for peanut butter, which I did, like, a hundred years ago. That analysis resulted in Skippy Natural easily beating all of the other sweetened peanut butters. Since then, Jif has also launched a natural version of their peanut butter, but after trying it, my previous conclusion stands: Skippy Natural is the best sweetened PB available on the market.

In retrospect, I regret not having included natural peanut butters. My rationale was that, since sweetened versions make up the vast majority of sales, an analysis that focused on them would be more useful to buyers. Since then, though, I have given natural versions a fair shake, and let me tell you... once I tasted the rich, delicious, peanutty goodness of natural butters, I will never, ever, EVER go back.

Obviously, that makes the winner of this comparison a forgone conclusion; Skippy is most certainly not taking home any prizes. But does that mean that all natural butters are better than Skippy? Read on!

Yes. Yes, it does. You must admit, I can never be accused of circumlocution. Skippy is inferior to essentially every brand of natural peanut butter on the market. But within the natural brands, there is a great deal of difference.

I tried to find multiple natural, unsweetened peanut butters, but the market is pretty thin.¹ For example, aside from Skippy Natural, Wal-Mart carries Smucker's and nothing else.² Target, with a higher SES target demographic, carries a wider selection, but the majority of their offerings are still sweetened and buffered with some sort of oil. Real, natural peanut butter is, for some reason, just above a niche market. This is sad, because I think that if more people allowed it to become part of their diet, they would wonder how they ever did without.

And speaking of without, further ado. On to the ratings.

Smucker's Natural: 95
Delicious in every way I could expect a peanut butter to be. It's rich, with little bite, and fabulously mellow roll-off into a rich, roasty aftertaste. It tastes the best, but, strangely, I don't usually buy it. Why? Wouldn't you like to know!

Teddy: 88
Teddy has a more acidic bite in the primary taste. It's not as mellow as Smucker's and the roll-off isn't as smooth. It does have a subtle sweetness that Smucker's does not, which is pleasant. Ironically, I buy this more often than Smucker's. Why would I do something so silly? A cool trick to prevent a requisite mix of the peanut butter with every serving is to stick it in the refrigerator, which stops the oils from separating. This also increases the viscosity of the butter, which is helpful with natural PB as when it is warm it has a tendency to ooze out of sandwiches.

Teddy remains soft and spreadable when it is cold. Smucker's, oddly, acquires the consistency of cement after a couple of days in the fridge. This is only fixed with a warming period and a little re-mix. I find this annoying enough to avoid Smucker's and buy Teddy. Smucker's Chunky is not afflicted with this problem, but sometimes I just want creamy, dammit.

Woodstock Farms: 87
This small organic brand lacks the nutty texture of Smucker's and Teddy and is much more comparable to traditional butters like Jif and Skippy. It is very smooth and thus blankets the palate more, but this actually had the counter-intuitive effect of attenuating the flavor. It has a distinct sweetness to it and is brighter than Smucker's, but without the acidic bite of Teddy. Its smell is very weak compared to the rich, peanut flavor that explodes from a jar of Teddy or Smucker's. As far as flavor goes, I like this about as much as Teddy. But that nutty, somewhat crunchy texture of Teddy and Smucker's is far more appealing to me.

Smucker's Organic: 82
Almost like a cross between Teddy and Smucker's, it has a significantly weaker flavor than either. It has no bite, but it is also missing all of the mellow roast of Smucker's Natural. Quite a disappointment. While that bite from Teddy is unpleasant, it has a richer peanut flavor, making it better. Smuck-Org, as I shall now call it, also suffers from the same problem as Smuck-Nat in that it turns into carbonite when chilled. Letting it warm, re-mixing, then cooling alleviates the problem for a day or two, then it becomes carbonite again.

Skippy Natural: 60
Once having the rich, smooth sweetness of natural peanut butters, Skippy is positively cloying and simple. The taste is hollow and has an almost metallic tinge to it. Because of the addition of palm oil as a stabilizer, the butter has an oily yet tasteless quality to it. Real peanut butter is oily, but the peanut oil tastes like peanuts. I could never go back to this peanut butter. If your kids absolutely can't do without sugar in their PB, this is certainly the best variety to buy. But trust me, keep some deliciously-delicious natural PB for yourself.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1: There is a wider variety of peanut butters available online, including variants from Smucker's such as Adams and Laura Scudder's, and smaller companies like Krema. The problem is that most of the time, you cannot purchase a single jar online. You can only buy a pack of three or more. If you do not like the peanut butter, you must either grin and bear it, give it away to friends, or throw the peanut butter away.


2: I didn't include any almond butter, pecan butter, or peanut butter that has been blended with something, since that isn't peanut butter.

The Problem With Fiber

Do you know what fiber is? If not, boy do I have some crazy shit to tell you.

First off, I should confess that I am a fiber nut... which sounds like a cereal. After researching the digestive tracts of all of our closest genetic relatives, it is obvious that our tracts have evolved to handle vastly higher amounts of fiber than the average American is getting. The USDA recommends between twenty and thirty grams of fiber daily for an adult. The average American is getting less than ten. TEN. It is truly amazing that anyone is able to poop.

Chimpanzees, by comparison, eat hundreds of grams of fiber in a day. Granted, they spend, no exaggeration, 90% of their waking hours chewing, so it is equally obvious that we should not be trying to eat the same diet as our chimpy cousins. But while our digestive systems may be structurally different for this reason, they are mechanically nearly identical. Our guts all operate on the same principles, as it were. Fiber is a critical element in our diets. It is far more important than we initially thought and its importance grows with each passing scientific study. We absolutely need to be eating more fiber. A lot more.

But what is fiber? Likewise, as we discover how important fiber is, we discover how different kinds of fiber do different things. Insoluble fiber is the kind of fiber that Grandma referred to as "ruffage" and aside from differences in water absorbtion, they all do pretty much the same thing. This is the fiber that you can get from bananas, whole grains, and nuts and seeds. How insoluble fiber works is being researched, but a likely-accurate guess is that it literally tears through your digestive tract, creating tiny cuts that elicits fluid production and peristalsis. This mechanical nature means that all insoluble fiber is pretty much the same.

Soluble fiber, on the other hand, has better-understood mechanisms. It's also here where the kind of fiber that you are getting is important. Soluble fiber, while initially not digestible by the human tract, is digestible by other little things living in our tract. These helpful little bacteria, which I imagine to be as cute as Water Bears, eat the fiber and produce biologically active byproducts. These byproducts have far-reaching benefits for our physiology. But as you would imagine, slight differences in fiber structure will result in different end-products after the bacteria eat it. It is simple chemistry.

It is this simple chemistry that flummoxed me after I discovered FiberSure and was confident in my high fiber intake. FiberSure, now called Metamucil Clear & Natural, is great. It mixes cleanly into nearly everything. Sadly, it's not nearly as good as I thought, and my earlier confidence affirms the danger of nutritionism when it stands unanalyzed.

FiberSure is made from inulin, a plant fiber that is actually a carbohydrate. In most cases, the type that you see on store shelves has been derived from chicory root. Inulin mixes so easily because it breaks down easily into the superfine powder that is Clear & Natural. Its taste in slightly sweet, but it is otherwise neutral. You can, and I do, mix it into almost anything.

So if inulin is so amazing, why did it suddenly explode on to the market? Because until recently, it wasn't classified as a fiber. After it got that label, food companies were free to exploit it. Unfortunately, as is infuriatingly the frequent case, they are increasingly exploiting this to your detriment.

Have you ever tried a FiberOne or Fiber Plus granola bar? Taste great, don't they? That's because they are candy.

NINE GRAMS OF FIBER?! That's amazing! How do they do it?!

With inulin, that's how. Take a butchers at the first ingredient: chicory root extract. As in, inulin. What is the second ingredient? Chocolate chips. Beyond that, and the sugar contained therein, let's count the sugars: Corn syrup, sugar, HM corn syrup, and fructose; four. That is candy with near-zero nutritional benefit aside from the added inulin which you could get more easily and cheaply by simply stirring it into a glass of milk.

Moreover, the damned thing has the same calorie count as two large eggs. You could make an entire omelette for only slightly more calories and a whole butt-load more nutrients. You could buy the 90-Calorie versions, but they achieve that energy reduction by simply reducing the size of the bars: 23g instead of 40g.

Kellog's Fiber Plus bars are an even bigger lie. Let's break it down...

Sizes

pouch, 5 ct, 6 ct (Limited Availability), 10 ct, 5 ct

Ingredients

CHICORY ROOT FIBER, ROLLED OATS, CRISP RICE (RICE FLOUR, SUGAR, MALT EXTRACT, SALT, MIXED TOCOPHEROLS FOR FRESHNESS), SUGAR, SEMISWEET CHOCOLATE DROPS (SUGAR, CHOCOLATE, COCOA BUTTER, DEXTROSE, MILK FAT, SOY LECITHIN, CONFECTIONER'S GLAZE [SHELLAC, HYDROGENATED COCONUT OIL]), INULIN FROM CHICORY ROOT, VEGETABLE OIL (HYDROGENATED AND/OR PARTIALLY HYDROGENATED PALM KERNEL, COCONUT AND PALM OIL)†, CANOLA OIL, FRUCTOSE, CONTAINS TWO PERCENT OR LESS OF HONEY, COCOA (PROCESSED WITH ALKALI), GLYCERIN, TRICALCIUM PHOSPHATE, WHEY, CHOCOLATE, SALT, GUM ARABIC, BAKING SODA, SOY LECITHIN, SORBITAN MONOSTEARATE, POLYSORBATE 60, VITAMIN E ACETATE, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, ZINC OXIDE, ALMOND FLOUR, NONFAT DRY MILK, WHEAT STARCH, PARTIALLY DEFATTED PEANUT FLOUR, SOY PROTEIN ISOLATE, BHT (FOR FRESHNESS).
†LESS THAN 0.5g TRANS FAT PER SERVING

First ingredient? Inulin. Then we have more inulin later on. Combined with that are six instances of sugar, and two examples of hydrogenated oil. Not only is there too much sugar, they are also making sure that you get your daily dose of trans fats. Because, remember, they can legally claim zero grams of trans fat per serving as long as it is below 0.5g... which means that they shoot for 0.49g.

In general, if you are buying anything with either Kellogg's, Post, or General Mills logo on the box, it is likely one step above eating garbage. Obviously, even these kings of crap produce a few good things. Both Fiber Plus and Fiber One cereals are actually quite healthy, being loaded with every kind of fiber there is. The gold standard is obvious original Fiber One, which is nearly equivalent to going into the woods and grazing. The downside is that it hasn't been blended with various soluble fibers. Likewise, standouts like All Bran, Grape Nuts, and the iconic Cheerios all make good decisions for part of  your morning routine.

I stress the part of element to that statement because you are insane if you are eating solely cereal in the morning instead of yogurt, eggs, chicken, bacon, granola, fruit, and vegetables. Not only are those options vastly superior to nearly ever cereal as regards nutrition, they also taste better. Make French toast with high-fiber bread. Make an omelet with cheese and a single-serving box of mixed veggies. Pour yogurt and some granola over berries. There is nothing saying that all of these options can't also be paired with some cereal. These simple meals take only slightly more time and you will charge out to greet the day filled with energy.

But back to fiber.

As the focus on national health has increased, all of the cereal companies are trying their level best to market cereal that is healthy, but still tastes like cereal. That means sugar. Frequently tons of it. Kellogg's Smart Start, most types of granola, Raisin Bran, Special K, Honey Bunches of Oats: all of them are masquerading as healthy when, in fact, they are far from it. They are only healthy as "part of this complete breakfast," which is one of the greatest lines of bullshit in the history of advertising; the breakfast would still be complete without the cereal.

That is the final point of this rant: marketing. It was marketing that confused me. I was taken in with dietary pick-up lines about easy fiber, high fiber, more fiber, digestive health, and other such statements that have not been evaluated by the FDA. Knowing what you know about a healthy diet, look at the borderline-criminal advertisements for Frosted Flakes, where they stress sports, and health, and an active lifestyle. Frosted Flakes Gold is packaged like it's some kind of exercise supplement. Which I guess is good, because you had better exercise like crazy just to burn off all of the calories that you are taking in from their sugar-bombed fat flakes.

If you can't tell, I have nothing but respect for the cereal companies, and very little of that.

I do not blame the companies, though. A company does what it does, that is, make money. It is legally obligated to the share-holders and only makes what it thinks people will buy. People have a habit of buying foods that are loaded with sugar and are shockingly unhealthy for them, so any smart company is going to make those products. We can't, nor should we, force companies to make foods that won't sell, but we need to make a system that doesn't facilitate disinformation and lies. It is from here where the problem springs, and with those who created this system where the blame truly lies.

I do not blame the cereal companies, I blame the politicians that accept their bribes. Oh right, I forgot. It is not bribes. It is campaign contributions. I expect companies to earn money and do whatever is legally allowed to do that. I expect our representatives to actually do what is best for us.

We have a simple task: make a rule set that is internally coherent, provides information to consumers, gives freedom to companies, does this based on the best science available, and is instituted to specifically be updated based on that science on a set schedule.

This is not hard.

I hope that this short introduction has shown you why it is critical that fiber gets classified as an essential macronutrient, and that the various kinds of fiber get separate classification. That we have no daily recommendations for it nor rigorously defined separation between those various kinds is a serious problem, one that is far greater than the busted Food Pyramid ever was. The nebulousness must be eliminated. Doing so would immediately remove the ability of food companies to trick us with nonsense like high-fiber grape juice. As it stands, we have crap-loads of products filling the shelves touting HIGH IN FIBER, and what they should actually say is "High in Inulin!".

While that may not sound quite as catchy for the marketing department, I don't care. The marketing is lying, and we don't have the regulations to hold them accountable. That needs to change, because I read everything ever, and even I was fooled. What chance does a harried parent have?

REVIEW: Chain Casual Dining Restaurants (UPDATE)

Chain restaurants that fall into the "casual dining" market bracket have, over the course of the last twenty-odd years, come to dominate the landscape. They have been the catalyst to a nearly complete reorganizing of the target markets, have nearly killed the previously booming haute-cuisine industry in the US, have increased the amount many people are spending on food by multiple times, and have likely played a major part in the increasingly alarming size of the American waistline. They have, in a very literal way, redefined food in America.

I could write an entire book on the effects of casual dining has had on our fine country, but instead, for the more limited scope of this article, I will write mini-reviews of each one. I won't bother much addressing service, atmosphere, or design, since all of them seem to subscribe to the exact same philosophy. Also, I won't assign a $-rating to them since their prices are all similar. Instead, I will talk primarily about the food with brief mention of price. Again, the star ratings are based on my traditional ratings system and not in exclusive comparison to other casual dining restaurants.

My reviews are limited to what I have nearby, but living in the northeast, nestled between Boston and New York, provides me with access to nearly every major chain in the country.

An issue that I generally had with many of these places is that the menus are laughably similar, and they all followed the same strategies to hide poor ingredients. Cheesecake Factory is one of the worst, with nearly everything on the menu tasting heavy, greasy, and cheap.

UPDATE: I've added Johnny Rockets to the list.
 

---

Chili's- **1/2
Chili's is one of the "junk wall" trio, the other two being Applebee's and TGI Fridays. They have the same personality, the same menu, and the same goddamned "junk wall" aesthetic that was done three minutes after it started. Chili's is the most muted of the three, and as time has gone on, they have moved away from this design, but bits of it remain. Much like TGI Friday's, the food is mostly decent. Anything that is grilled is good. Avoid all of the fried foods because, one, they are ungodly bad for you, and two, frying hides bad ingredients.

Applebee's- **

Applebee's is the second of the trio, the largest, and also the worst. I've never had bad food at an Applebee's. Quality control is obviously high, and unlike some other restaurants, like Olive Garden, they don't overreach the quality of their ingredients in their recipes. But that also means that all of the recipes are either quite bland or taste like something that I bought at Stop & Shop and microwaved. The menu is borderline identical with both Chile's and TGIF, the only difference being inferior recipes.


TGI Friday's- **1/2
The third and final member of the "junk wall" trio is also the worst when it comes to bolting crap to the wall. I hated it the moment I saw it. As far as food is concerned, it has the genuinely good Jack Daniel's menu, and anything that is grilled is rather tasty. Ingredients are of acceptable quality. Chicken has good, meaty texture, and the steak, while a bit tough, is flavorful. It is in many of the other recipes where it falls down. Salads are literally DRENCHED in dressing unless you ask for it on the side. Fried foods are overwhelmingly greasy and heavy, as is the pasta. Still, it's a tasty, fairly-priced restaurant that can handle massive crowds, so there is rarely a wait. I generally don't go to TGI Friday's, but if friends were going, I wouldn't complain.

IHOP- **1/2
IHOP makes mostly acceptable food, with a few things that are legitimately tasty. Unlike Denny's, they do not totally screw up basic breakfast food. French toast, eggs, and other simple things are always cooked well. When you venture into more complex territory, such as omlettes, the menu becomes a bit more disappointing. Things like steak and other such dinner items are not terribly good, but nor are they bad. If I was in a bind, I would have no issues eating an an IHOP. Given the choice, though, I would always opt for someplace better, like T's.

Denny's- *1/2
How one screws up eggs and toast is beyond me, but Denny's manages it. The eggs are flavorless, the toast tastes like wonderbread, and the bacon is rubbery and overly greasy. Why anyone would pay to have this prepared when they could screw it up at home for less money is a mystery. The sweet stuff, a standby for both IHOP and Denny's, is cloying and simplistic, with the absolute pinnacle being their Sweet Ride nachos, which were fried tortillas covered in crappy chocolate syrup and aerated whipped cream from a can. I have never had anything even remotely tasty at a Denny's. The best that I can say is that I have never been poisoned. On the bright side, service is usually good, even though someone gets arrested at every Denny's location in the country at least once per day, and Denny's are always very clean. Every time I enter a Denny's, it is against my will.

Cheescake Factory- **

I have never had a fully satisfactory meal at the Cheesecake Factory. I don't want to go so far as to call it bad, but the food is always fatty, greasy, sugary, breaded, dipped, and slathered in sauce. Their website says:

"The Cheesecake Factory menu features more than 200 menu selections made fresh from scratch each day — using only the highest quality ingredients — which combines to create our remarkable tastes."

If by remarkable tastes they mean remarkably average, then they are right on the money. The bit about highest quality ingredients is laughable. Chicken is gummy. Steak is tough. There are a number of recipes that are very good. It depends on if the ingredients for that item are naturally cheap. I suspect that much of the poor quality has to do with with offering over two hundred items. Two hundred?! No kitchen can produce two hundred items and keep quality at the utmost. It would be the size of a warehouse.

Cheesecake Factory also holds the distinction of being the Worst Restaurant in America, according to Men's Health Magazine. They say that "No establishment better represents the confluence of factors that have saddled America with an ever-worsening obesity crisis." Would you want to eat there?

California Pizza Kitchen- ***
The food is a mixed bag at CPK. Pasta is too salty, which is a common problem at these chain restaurants. Salads are, likewise, covered in dressings and toppings, turning what should be light and flavorful into something that is heavy and fatty. The pizzas are good enough to lift this place up to a full three stars, though. The topping selection is unique, prices are fair, and the quality is good. While I would always opt to make my own pizza at home (it's SO easy), this place beats out the legions of crappy little local joints that are named after some guy quite easily.

Red Robin- ***
Red Robin is another place that does what it does and does it well. They don't overreach their ingredient quality with their recipes. Their toppings are fresh, prices are little on the high side, but still fair. Some of their recipes, such as their chicken sandwiches, are light on the herbs and spices and lean toward bland, but nothing is bad. The design is a bit garish, with strong Junkwall aspirations inside, but they seem to be aiming Red Robin at the child market, and it works well for that. This is a great place to bring kids for a treat. But for the adults, avoid this place during kid-friendly hours like the plague. Everyone has kids. All of the kids are little psychos. And the noise combined with an aesthetic that looks like Pee Wee Herman's nightmare will drive you away such that you will never want to return.

Johnny Rockets- ***

I've never had anything that wasn't tasty at a Johnny Rockets. I hear tell that quality can vary wildly from location to location, but the ones in Providence and Cranston, RI. have never failed me. These dance a line between fast food burgers and burger-house burgers. By that I mean the size of the patties and the overall presentation of the food is similar to any other fast food joint. Here, you get things wrapped in paper and you buy all sides separately. Menu items are all very simple, but like Red Robin, this prevents them from overreaching their ingredient quality. The 1950's kitsch isn't overwhelming and doesn't seem bolted on, since the whole concept of a Golden Age diner is woven into the company's DNA. Most burgers are in the $6-$7, which places them just below the burgers at places like Red Robin and Smokey Bones, and just above the burgers at Five Guys. This is a tough spot, from a value perspective, but I think that it works. I like the atmosphere, service has always been excellent, and their milkshakes are the bomb, as you young folk say. I go to Johnny Rockets frequently.

Cracker Barrel- **

I hate absolutely everything about Cracker Barrel. I hate its kitsch. I hate its ambiance. I hate its decor. I hate its religious foundations. I hate that they make you wait in a "country store" for your table. Even if the food was amazing, I would never visit. Unfortunately for them, the food isn't amazing. It's greasy, overly salty, and poorly cooked. They have a good breakfast selection, but their food is no better or worse than IHOP. Like many chain places, nothing at Cracker Barrel is bad. But if it doesn't stand out in some fundamental way, why go? I see no reason, and as such, I don't.

Olive Garden- *1/2

How something like this succeeds in a state where half of the population is Italian leaves me baffled. First, the good: the salads are all acceptable, and the pasta is decent. The sauce is entirely unremarkable and herbs and spices seem to be something to which the chefs have never been properly introduced. The pathetically weak flavor is indicative of freeze-dried herbs used across the boards. Ingredient quality is noticeably poor. Chicken, something that is generally seen as bulletproof, is 100% borked at The Olive Garden. It is always rubbery, flavorless, and fatty on the palate. Steak is never cooked correctly, but not like it matters. The meat is very cheap. Olive Garden also holds the distinction of using my most hated advertising tagline in history: "When You're Here, You're Family." Fuck you. No I'm not. If I was family, you wouldn't be charging me.


Ruby Tuesday- ***
I remember Ruby Tuesday as being a Junkwall restaurant. They may have been, but they certainly aren't now, at least, which is great. Their menu is similar to the Junkwall Trio, but everything seems to be a notch above. There are no glaring piles of fried apocalypse, and few tricks to hide poor ingredients. They have a wide selection of burgers which are usually a hit, and with a wide selection of other foods, they are an entirely acceptable place to buy a meal.

Longhorn Steakhouse- ***
This is the reason why the meat at Olive Garden, the Junk Wall Trio, and Cheesecake Factory have crappy meat: it costs a lot! Outback Steakhouse is a chain, but all of their meat is of rather high quality, and, big shock, their steaks cost almost as much as many singular steak houses. As long as you stick to their steak creations, the food is good. Their sandwiches and salads frequently underwhelm, with bland flavors and no inventiveness. Longhorn has significantly toned down their kitsch in recent years, and the dining room is much more pleasant for it.

Outback Steakhouse- ***
Outback is like Longhorn's little brother. They are quite a bit cheaper across the board, but their quality is also noticeably lower. I've had a number of tough steaks, with more fat than there should be. Everything has always been flavorful, and their menu is much wider than Longhorn. For example, Longhorn has two sandwiches on the menu, Outback has six. Outback also follows the Junkwall aesthetic a bit, with weird shit nailed to the wall, but it's not too bad.

Bertucci's- **1/2

Bertucci's pizza is very good. They also have a gigantic array of available toppings. Their prices are just this side of insane, though. You are undoubtedly better off trying local pizza places until you find a good one. Either that or make pizza at home; it's very, very easy. Their pasta is universally too salty. They must honestly cook it in sea water. Their red sauce is watery and bland, with zero body and no punch. There are quite a few jarred sauces that are significantly better. Seafood quality is low, but not terrible. If I wanted non-pizza Italian food, the only place that I would prefer less is The Olive Garden.

Ted's Montana Grill- ***
Ted's has one of the best interiors of all of the chain restaurants. It still has the fundamental aesthetic of a designed restaurant, with large open spaces filled with tables. But the muted wood tones, large, impressive prints of paintings showing the wide open spaces of the Old West, and rustic design touches provide a genuine sense of splendor and charm. All of this is made hilarious when you find out that the restaurant has nothing to do with Montana, farms, or cowboys, and the eponymous Ted is actually Ted Turner... who just wanted to make a steak house.

Everything is of very high quality. Recipes are austere. The centerpiece of the menu is their selection of bison meat, of which I'm not the biggest fan. The only major knock against them is that their prices are quite high. Where most places sell burgers for $8-$10, Ted's starts at $10 for a naked burger, and gets as high as $15. Bison meat adds $3 to each burger. That is a pricey burger. With that in mind, Ted's is still a very good restaurant. You will enjoy your food.

Smokey Bones: ***1/2

Smokey Bones is great. They have a large, dynamic menu of high-quality food. Their BBQ options are all excellent. Their pulled pork is hands-down the best that you can buy at any chain. Their prices are fully competitive. Their kitsch is a little off-putting, and since they changed owners and were rebranded a "fire grill," whatever the hell that is, they have bits of "wisdom" posted around the place that read like something out of The Man Show scripts. It's not enough to detract from the food, though, which is great. If you want BBQ, I would recommend Smokey Bones over every other chain, and even most local places.

Carrabba's- ***1/2
This is one of my favorite chain restaurants. I very much enjoy eating at Carrabba's. Recipes are always thoughtful, decently-sized, and ingredient quality is good across the board. This is what Olive Garden should be.The dining room has little kitsch. Aside from the requisite fake wood texture, the bulk of the things on the wall are prints of old photos of the founders' mother. The whole restaurant is a bit dim, which is annoying, but the quality of the food more than compensates. Herbs and spices are present and they don't taste free-dried. The oil that comes with bread is a legitimate replacement for butter. And the dessert selection is among the best of all chains.

Texas Roadhouse- ***
I like Texas Roadhouse. It has good quality meats and recipes. I cannot stand the character or decor. You can eat peanuts as you wait for your table. Do not look for a garbage can in which to place your shells, though. There isn't one. They do this on purpose because they want you to throw your shells on the ground to really drive home how down-fucking-home quaint their restaurant is. It's practically a local bar down in Texas, h'yuk!!! Fuck you. This is forced charm. It is kitsch. When what makes your place charming is part of a corporate plan, it is not charming. It is annoying. Give me a damned garbage can.

Birthday celebrations are the most obnoxious of all restaurants in the entirety of the galaxy. They wheel out a saddle, scream, holler, and point a light in the face of the subject like they want information. Worse, people actually seem to enjoy this, because no less than nine hundred birthdays will happen while you are there. This horrifying show is enough to keep me away for ever.

---

I have a love-hate relationship with chain restaurants. On the one hand, they are an economic force that is causing local restaurants to either step up their game or go out of business. This is a good thing because local places have a tendency to simply do the same thing, and do that same thing, at times, poorly. The chains come in with brutal efficiency, marketing, style, cheap prices, and the ability to handle massive crowds.

It is also a bad thing because they force conformity upon the general market. Local restaurants will simply fall in line, and before you know it, all of the restaurants in the area are serving the same damned food. Unless you live in an urban center, your selections are very limited because of these restaurants.

Moreover, since the restaurants are usually not run by people who want to own restaurants, profit is the deciding factor in recipes and ingredient choices. Obviously, profit is always important, but most local places are run by people that simply enjoy running a restaurant. But since they have less to save by switching to lower-quality materials, as they are serving fewer meals, they are less inclined to do so. Compare this to the horrible quality frequently seen at chains. Because saving $0.25 per meal equals huge profits when your restaurant is pumping out fifty million meals per year.

That said, there are quite a few places out there that are truly a cut above. Restaurants like Carrabba's, Smokey Bones, and Ted's show that even a major chain can be a legitimate destination. They can be such because they don't shoot for generic food. Their menus have unique, identifiable character. There is quality out there in the din. Sometimes it is hard to find, but the quest is, without doubt, worthwhile.

Funny Corn Syrup Video

I have a tolerate/hate relationship with the corn syrup ads that ran on television over the past few years. I can respect the corn industry's desire to protect public opinion of their product, but at the same time, they have to know that what they are selling is bad.

Bad because it tastes inferior to sugar,¹ bad because it's the final step in a massive government subsidy clusterfuck, and bad because the body might process HFCS differently from ordinary corn syrup and sugar.² That is something that they happily ignored in those television ads, in their twisted Socratic dialogue, with an interlocutor character who is plainly retarded.



I had to opt to embed a low-quality version that a YouTube user uploaded since the official versions forbid embedding and moderate the comments. You can find the second official video here. Some inventive spoofs on these ads were created that deserve posting.





High-fructose corn syrup should always be avoided. If a product has it in it, don't buy it. It is that simple. Do. Not. Buy. It. Not because it may be bad for you in some physiologically obscure way. Not because you only want to buy organic crap. But because it is indicative of a company that is cutting culinary corners. This eliminates basically the entire cookie aisle, I'll admit, and pretty much everything that your children want, but that's a good thing. HFCS is the Boy Scout badge of a bad dietary life.





At the same time, I do not like to treat HFCS as some bugbear that is the cause of our obesity problem. It is absolutely not. If that were the case, countries without significant HFCS consumption like those in Europe or Asia, would not be seeing large weight increases. They are. Everyone in the Western world is getting fatter, the problem is just more apparent in the US. This is most likely because we were the only Western Nation not obliterated by World War II. Thus, we were able to get down to the important business of consumption directly after the war ended.

No, it is our overall lifestyle that is causing obesity. And while the emergence of HFCS might have encouraged our increasing desire for sweetness in the food that we buy, it is not the cause. That does not mean that we all should not be aware of how our food is made and from whence elements of our diet come. Truly, the more aware we are, the more likely we are to make overall better decisions. Not because we are terrified of HFCS or some other dietary boogeyman, but because we recognize that good diet has as little sugar in it as possible.

There is some evidence to indicate that this happening. According to the USDA, from a peak in the year 1999, overall sugar consumption in the US is on a downward trend. It may even get back to pre-1980 levels within the next five years.

This is obviously not the only piece in the puzzle as US obesity rates are continuing the rise. The reasons for this may be very bad, indeed.

I fear that the reduction in sugar with a corresponding continued rise in obesity evinces the growing divide between the dietary haves and have-nots. Sugar consumption is going down, but only among those in the middle and upper areas of the Socioeconomic Status scale. As this chart shows, overweight levels have remained flat since the late 1980's, and saw a downward trend in 2005/2006.

 This next chart shows that overweight levels have actually remained flat for the past four decades. This indicates that the bulk of weight gain has happened in those genetically susceptible to weight gain and those too poor to buy better food. As the quality of cheap food has taken a nose-dive, as has the diet of those who will be attracted to ever-cheaper products.

Is HFCS worse for you than sugar? Maybe, but if there is a difference, it is likely small. But that doesn't mean that those inane corn syrup advertisements are correct. They ignore the fact that as HFCS consumption has gone up, obesity levels have gone up. They ignore the fact that the cheapest food is the only food loaded with HFCS. That does not indicate a causal connection, but it does indicate that they are likely somehow linked. If you care about your diet, you should avoid HFCS as much as possible. And as I have discovered, as much as possible means never eating it at all. Well, except for the occasional Milano.
----------------------------------------------------------------

1: In multiple semi-scientific studies, people are frequently able to tell the difference, but many actually prefer the flavor of HFCS-sweetened drinks to the sugar-sweetened varieties. I think that it is because the HFCS versions are sweeter. Just look at the Pepsi Challenge, where Pepsi was preferred by a majority of people. This was explicitly because Pepsi is sweeter than Coke.

2: This is a problematic aspect of the debate. A few studies have shown some connection, with one very strong study done at Princeton University being widely criticized. Other studies have shown no unique link between HFCS and health issues. I think that the debate is something of a canard. Sugar is bad in excess. HFCS is indicative of cheap, poorly-made products. So why would you want to eat sugar in excess in cheap, poorly-made products?

Pies, Pies, The Musical Fruit

As with every holiday, pies are on the menu. There's just something about them. I recommend making your pies because, first, it's incredibly easy, and second, there's nothing like a pie straight from the oven. If you don't have time, though, Rhode Island has two excellent locations to get top-flight pies made-to-order.

My number-one choice is, no surprise, my favorite bakery in Rhode Island, The Village Hearth, in Jamestown. Their crust is ultra-buttery, crisp, airy, and the pies are filled with immaculately prepared fruits and fillings. If I was to pick the best pies in RI, it would be them.

My second pick is, again no shock, Pastiche, in Providence. This choice also works much better for those in the Northern part of RI and on into Massachusetts. While I prefer the more provincial pies at Village Hearth, Pastiche's Dutch Apple Pie, Pecan Tart, and Pumpkin Praline Tart have their own merits. And, importantly, you won't find anything better for a good thirty-mile radius around Federal Hill.