Anti-Sugar Elitism

Health, Fitness, Insurance, ...
Dragline
Posts: 4450
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by Dragline »

"WALL-E" here we come!

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by BRUTE »

Smashter wrote:The first order of business is to look up the relevant metabolic ward studies, which are the most tightly controlled diet studies available. These studies consistently show that calorie content is the only known food property that has a meaningful impact on body fatness.
except most humans don't spend their lives in metabolic wards eating isocaloric diets. if food composition influences future energy intake (hunger) or expenditure (how much the body burns off), forced isocaloric metabolic ward results are completely useless.

the whole point of dieting is that most humans can't do it - so proving that it's possible to lock them in a room is pretty damn useless.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6116
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Ego said: We are just now starting to learn the generational consequences of behaviors and already we are seeing people put on blinders of denial because they don't want to believe that when they did X they caused their child's Y disease or grandchild's Z susceptibility. Preventative medicine is gearing up to include primordial or inter-generational prevention. La Leche League was way ahead of its time. Where once we shrugged and said, "He/she is only hurting her/himself so it is up to him/her," we are now learning that they are also hurting those who are yet to be born. Sticky issue.
Oh, this is really not all that new. Fetal alcohol syndrome, low birth weight due to smoking, babies born addicted to drugs, blinded by syphilis, with Down's syndrome due to maternal age or exhibiting recessive phenotype due to incest have all been accepted as scientifically valid.

One of my recent guilty pleasures was watching the series "Shameless." In one episode, when the hand-whores are no longer able to turn a profit, the bar-owner gathers up all the impoverished immigrant sluts who recently gave birth, hooks them up to pumps and sells their breast-milk on the internet to wealthy old Asian men. Meanwhile, the wealthy old Asian men who are trying to buy health at any price are likely dying of loneliness syndrome. Meanwhile the poor immigrant kids are being fed free government issue "whole" wheat toast with sugar topping sealed in a plastic bag for their breakfast, lunch and snack at school, but they are only given 15 minutes of recess for the whole day to burn it off because nothing can interrupt their rigorous and continuously tested training to be the robot keepers of tomorrow.

It's trivial to try to look at a linear measure of sugar or fat or ??? in our diets because the entire system in entirely f*cked up and not tending towards getting any better.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6116
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

jennypenny said: I have no problem baking someone a cake for their birthday or having cookies on Christmas every year. It's the other 363 days that are the problem. And I would never disparage someone who doesn't understand the issue or can't cook or doesn't have access to decent quality food. Honestly, I'd be ok with doubling SNAP payments if they included mandatory home ec classes that included cooking and nutrition.

I think the biggest issue for me is that sugar (in all its forms) has been added to too many products unnecessarily and should be removed from most of them. It's the 30-40g of sugar in every yogurt or the high sugar content in condiments, canned goods, and cereals that are the hidden culprits and where a significant amount of sugar could be removed from our diets quite easily. It's like the trans fat issue. Everyone complained about laws banning trans fats, but does anyone really notice a difference in the quality of the food? I'm a celiac and most of the time I don't notice when companies reformulate their product to remove the gluten. Same with products like Kraft Mac & Cheese which just removed the yellow dye.
The essential problem with packaged food is that it has to be processed in some manner to render it unlikely to go "bad" in short order. The reason why sugar has always been added to preserved food such as jams is that it inhibits the growth of bacteria through dehydration. IOW, when you add sugar from beets or sugar cane to a fresh wet fruit such as plums, you are just causing the concentration of sugars to be roughly the same as if you dehydrated the fresh plums into prunes. Obviously, salt is often used as a preservative for the same reason. People can't eat spoonfuls of whole wheat flour or dried rice, so some combination of water and fat has to be added to make grains palatable. If fat is primarily chosen, such as in cookies, then the food will stay shelf stable longer than if water is primarily chosen, such as in baguette. There is no magical ingredient that can be added to preserve foods that will make them as good as fresh foods. There will always be a trade-off between fat, salt, sugar, irradiation or natural/human-bred tendency towards dense,dry carbohydrate structure such as occurs in relatively cheaply stored/transported whole foods such as potatoes, bananas, carrots and apples.

I love Michael Pollan, and I believe that he is essentially correct when he suggests that most people need to spend more money on food. If you don't have money (or you tend towards frugality), then you have to spend more time/effort. Because the poor immigrant children I teach have mothers who know how to cook at home, their dinners are much healthier than their school lunches. They are also able to run around and play outside after school. This is in stark contrast with my affluent BF's 12 year old son who was tending towards becoming chubby under the influence of his obese mother, so she hired a male nanny to basically be the kid's after-school personal trainer. It's like we have all become our own pampered pets.

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6522
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by jennypenny »

I understand what you're saying and I didn't mean to sound so cranky. It's just that I don't understand why the small jar of salsa currently in my pantry needs to have almost 10 teaspoons of sugar in it. Dialing back the sugar by half would probably still be enough of a preservative and also palatable enough for most people.

The increase in sugar is even obvious when I see what people drink at parties these days. I stick with my red wine and seltzer with a little fruit tossed in while everyone else is drinking blenderific concoctions loaded with sugar. Seems silly since my drink looks just as festive as everyone else's and we all end up pleasantly buzzed regardless of how much sugar is in our drinks.

Chad
Posts: 3848
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by Chad »

7Wannabe5 wrote: I love Michael Pollan, and I believe that he is essentially correct when he suggests that most people need to spend more money on food.
I have found myself doing this over the last year as I tighten up my diet. I don't use any grains anymore during the week, so vegetables have to be the bulk food in all my dishes. Tastes great, but it gets pricey. Though, I feel awesome when doing it.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6116
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

jennypenny said: I understand what you're saying and I didn't mean to sound so cranky. It's just that I don't understand why the small jar of salsa currently in my pantry needs to have almost 10 teaspoons of sugar in it. Dialing back the sugar by half would probably still be enough of a preservative and also palatable enough for most people.
Likely I am the one who is being cranky. Part of my problem is that I understand the reason why mass produced food for the masses is such as it is. It's really just a logical extension of what any hostess/extended-family-cook who is attempting to prepare meal after meal for X people with varying tastes/allergies/preferences/taboos/nutritional-requirements for less than $Y will likely choose as default. For instance, if you are choosing to be rigid Atkins and I am required to spend money feeding you, you are going to be eating a whole lot of deviled eggs and dandelion salad. If you are a teenage vegetarian who doesn't actually like vegetables, beans or any sort of spice, then I will not be held responsible for the decline of your health due to the fact that I am not going to trouble myself with preparing anything besides cheese quesadillas for your consumption. Etc. etc. etc.

The other reason I am likely being cranky is that I am currently not in possession or dominance over one fully functional kitchen and storage pantry, yet I am likely to be overloaded with produce from my own garden and that of others in my social circle in the upcoming season. So, any stupid-narrow nutritional rule that will limit my ability to figure out how to process my way through the season will likely cause me to exhibit annoyance due to cognitive dissonance within my own functioning, as in "Was this mulberry jam sweetened only with locally produced honey which costs $16/lb.?" "No, it was sweetened with corn-syrup produced by greenhouse gas farting giant robot tractors or sugar-cane harvested by AIDS invested slave-labor."

Smashter
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 8:05 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by Smashter »

BRUTE wrote:
Smashter wrote:The first order of business is to look up the relevant metabolic ward studies, which are the most tightly controlled diet studies available. These studies consistently show that calorie content is the only known food property that has a meaningful impact on body fatness.
except most humans don't spend their lives in metabolic wards eating isocaloric diets. if food composition influences future energy intake (hunger) or expenditure (how much the body burns off), forced isocaloric metabolic ward results are completely useless.

the whole point of dieting is that most humans can't do it - so proving that it's possible to lock them in a room is pretty damn useless.
I agree the studies are not perfect, but I still think they can point us in the right direction. Taubes is saying the carbohydrate insulin model of obesity is the cause of pretty much every disease of civilization. The best studies available show that model to be far too simplistic. Therefore, I think it's safe to say carbs aren't the devil.

Also, many humans have success with low-fat diets. They don't need to be locked in a room to achieve the results.

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by BRUTE »

many is probably a little euphemistic - most humans in general have zero success dieting at all. what is the number, 95% of dieters fail?

it's probably not carbs period that are the problem, but refined carbs. what's tricky is that once a human metabolism is fucked up by enough refined carbs, even "regular, whole-food, plant-based" carbs can't be processed right any more. so it's not that potatoes and rice made humans fat, but once metabolic syndrome is achieved, even those relatively healthy carbs might have to be cut out by some humans.

metabolic ward studies ignore the most important part of diets - dieting. the hard part is not restricting calories for 24 hours, the hard part is eating a diet that tastes good, is socially viable, fits personal taste, AND fulfills certain health criteria, for the rest of a human life.

Smashter
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 8:05 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by Smashter »

BRUTE wrote: it's probably not carbs period that are the problem, but refined carbs. what's tricky is that once a human metabolism is fucked up by enough refined carbs, even "regular, whole-food, plant-based" carbs can't be processed right any more. so it's not that potatoes and rice made humans fat, but once metabolic syndrome is achieved, even those relatively healthy carbs might have to be cut out by some humans.
Totally agree with you here. The 37g of carbs you'll get from a medium Russett potato are not equal to the 37g you'll get from 12oz of Coca-Cola.

And yeah, I also think that people who already have metabolic syndrome shouldn't be downing orange juice in the morning. My brother is a family medicine doctor and a big Gary Taubes supporter. It drives him insane that his hospital's "Diabetic Diet" calls for things like wheat toast, juice and low-fat, sugary yogurt.

slowtraveler
Posts: 880
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 10:06 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by slowtraveler »

You don't get much more elite than Warren Buffet. He discusses the health benefits of sugar (when questioned on the ethics of holding Coca Cola) in the following Q&A clip from his last Berkshire Hathaway meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfAmcwjbME0

tldw; brittle, fudge, and coke tend to increase happiness more than broccoli and water and overeating anything leads to obesity.

ducknalddon
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 5:55 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by ducknalddon »

In other words my wealth is more important than your health.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 4809
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by Ego »

Felipe wrote:tldw; brittle, fudge, and coke tend to increase happiness more than broccoli and water and overeating anything leads to obesity.
My new favorite quote.....
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8682#p137933

We are certainly pre-programmed to seek pleasure from sweet things. Deriving happiness from it.... that is another kettle of fish entirely. That is a learned behavior and Buffet is using his position as oracle cult leader to teach it. He is telling people that the way to be happy is to do things that are unquestionable harmful to themselves. Shorten that: happiness by self-harm.

Now extend that line of thinking to other substances. That twisted-oracle logic works with cocaine and heroin as well since sugar stimulates the same pleasure centers as those drugs. Pleasure is not the same as happiness.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23719144

Overall, this research has revealed that sugar and sweet reward can not only substitute to addictive drugs, like cocaine, but can even be more rewarding and attractive. At the neurobiological level, the neural substrates of sugar and sweet reward appear to be more robust than those of cocaine (i.e., more resistant to functional failures), possibly reflecting past selective evolutionary pressures for seeking and taking foods high in sugar and calories.


Short answer: Pleasure is externally motivated and fleeting. Happiness in internal and more constant. Think about how happiness vs. pleasure applies beyond sugar and drugs.

Those two old codgers know exactly what they are doing by mixing up the biological pleasure centers in the brain with happiness. That is what evil looks like.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6116
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

But, but, but...

...the problem with targeting sugar as the root cause of all afflictions, and the relatively recent epidemic of diabesity is that humans have always eaten a good deal of sugar. I just finished reading a very interesting, well-written, memoir of pioneer living in my region of Michigan in 1835. Two of the very first food-stuffs the family wrested out of the then wilderness were maple sugar (boiled down 300 lbs. in one season!) and honey. They bought a cow and planted corn using an ax to make hatch marks in the stump-filled, just cleared ground. So, a typical meal was johnny-cake (corn bread), butter, maple syrup and venison. HOWEVER, the 41 year old father, who had a rifle and a 7 lb. ax, and the oldest son (age 12, author of the memoir) who had a smaller ax and a more primitive gun, spent almost every day clearing timber, building or repairing structures, or tramping through the woods hunting for game or triangulating the location of bee trees. The father working by himself was able to cut down enough logs to build the family's first small log cabin in just two weeks. When the father died decades later in a state of greater affluence and prosperity, able to sit on the veranda of his new brick house and spend his time reading voraciously, but still engaging in elaborate masonry projects and the harvesting of tree crops, etc...

"He was a man a little over 6 feet tall. He walked straight and erect until the sickness which terminated his existence in time, at the age of 76."


IOW, what any rational look at the historical record of what people ate and how they spent their days prior to the obesity epidemic clearly shows is that they consumed a good deal of meat, fat, dairy, grain and sugar, but they also exerted themselves a great deal more. How many kilocalories would a man burn chopping down enough logs to build a small cabin in the course of two weeks using a 7 lb. ax? What would the effect of a lifestyle that involved that sort of constant exertion, as opposed to either being locked in a laboratory lying in a bed hooked up to a glucose drip, OR working at a computer all day and then driving your SUV to the gym for a 45 minute HIIT workout, have on the metabolism of sugars and fats in the diet? Unfortunately, the memoir does not reveal the exact nature of the sickness which led to the pioneer father's demise, but are we going to assume, based on some modern pharmaceutical corporation study, that it was the syrup on his cornbread or the butter that was critical factor, and offer him a post-mortem prescription for Lipitor along with a case of tofu hotdogs and a sugar-free green smoothie?

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by BRUTE »

too bad studies have also shown that thin, healthy hunter gatherer tribes exert themselves a great deal LESS than most modern humans. they just sit around and do nothing.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 4809
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by Ego »

7Wannabe5 wrote:But, but, but...

...the problem with targeting sugar as the root cause of all afflictions, and the relatively recent epidemic of diabesity is that humans have always eaten a good deal of sugar.
Image

https://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/ ... rcent.html

These numbers represent added sweeteners such as cane sugar, high-fructose corn syrup and maple syrup, but not naturally occurring sugars in fruit and vegetables.

Wrap your brain around this: in 1822, we ate the amount of added sugar in one 12 ounce can of soda every five days, while today we eat that much sugar every seven hours.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6116
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@BRUTE: I believe that what the study to which you are referring actually revealed was although members of modern hunter-gatherer group did exert themselves much more than average modern human, rough equivalent of walking 8 miles/day, their resting metabolism rates were so low that their overall metabolic burn was the same as an average modern human. Therefore, this actually shows an even more profound difference in the way they functioned. Also, they did consume a good proportion of their calories in the form of carbohydrate calories from tubers, honey and fruit.

@Ego: The chart you posted showing history of sugar consumption/person in the US would be quite stunning if it was likely that it was based on anything resembling relevant or accurate data. Do you really think the Department of Commerce kept accurate records of all the foraged, home produced and locally traded sugar foods in the 19th century? What the graph more likely reveals is something closer to the amount of commercially produced sugar products each person in the US purchased for consumption (on average) during that era when approximately 90% of all foodstuffs were home produced and never to be found for sale on a large, tax or tariff-subject, market. Here are some excerpts from the memoir (not damn lying statistic ;) ) of pioneer boy in wilderness of 1836 located less than 15 miles from where I currently attempt perma-culture project.

We made troughs, tapped hard maples on each side of the creek; took our oxen, sled and
two barrels (as the trees were scattered) to draw the sap to the place we had prepared for
boiling it.
Now I had an employment entirely new to me: boiling down sap and making sugar, in
the woods of Michigan. This was quite a help to us in getting along. We made our own
“sweet” and vinegar, also some sugar and molasses to sell. Some springs, we made three
or four hundred pounds of sugar...

We also secured some more very nice honey. Father said, judging from the amount we got, he should think the
tree contained at least a hundred pounds of good honey, and I should think so too. And
he said “This truly is a goodly land; it flows with milk and honey.” He also said, “I will make
a barrel of metheglin, which will be a very delicious drink for my family and a kind of a
substitute for the luxuries they left behind. It will slake the thirst of the friendly pioneers,
who may favor us with a call in our new forest home; or those friends who come to talk
over the adventures of days now past, and the prospects of better days to come.”

-"The Bark-Covered House"- William Nowlin
Since I taught myself to cook when I was quite young from a random collection of cookbooks, some of which were fairly archaic, including an older edition of this one https://www.amazon.com/UNITED-STATES-RE ... B000BRPEOOI have continuously been confused whenever somebody suggests that sugar, meat or grain foods in the diet is the cause of the much more recent epidemic of obesity. The oldest cookbooks in my collection of Americana,dating well back into the 19th century, all have entire chapters devoted to making candy, cakes and pies, as well as processing rhubarb, rendering carp edible, and pickling cabbage. When I was an 11 year old at Girl Scout Camp celebrating the Bicentennial we churned full fat butter and pulled taffy.

What I see as having really changed in the course of my lifetime during which the obesity epidemic started and has flourished, is that people eat more food at all times of the day, a very different combination of more and less variety typified by something like a Spicy Chik'n Sandwich, they do not sit down and eat at the table like civilized people, children do not run around outdoors as much, fewer people are employed in manual labor, adults drink and smoke less and eat more treats more often, the feminist/acceptance movements combined with invention of stretchy plastics in clothing resulting in adults now dressing for the symphony like toddlers used to dress for bedtime have led to overall decrease in vanity. What else?

Anyways, I would say the tenets of my own "food religion/science" would be that human beings are naturally omnivorous scavengers, and can thrive on a variety of diets, and the individuals most likely to suffer from nutritional based illness or syndrome are those who avoid variety of whole foods, and are sedentary in proportion to rate of consumption. Since I believe that people should eat fresh food in season when possible, I also believe that people should eat as much locally produced food as possible, because there is great unnecessary expense involved in transporting, storing and marketing food produced to be sold as fresh at a distance. Therefore, it makes sense for somebody who lives in Southern California to eat a diet not unlike that of somebody who lives in region of Asia found at similar latitude, just like it makes sense for somebody who lives in Michigan to eat a diet more like somebody who lives in the Ukraine or North Korea. Since the cold winters of my latitude result in a hunger gap, (the oxen of the pioneer family in my region at something they called "French bog" that grew in low-spots and stayed green all winter, I wonder what is was?) food must be preserved in some manner, and it is my belief that it would be "better" to eat raspberries I grew or gathered and made into preserves with local honey in January than grapefruits shipped from Florida.

Since people benefit from an active lifestyle and there is some amount of manual labor involved in foraging, gathering, hunting, scavenging, planting, tending, raising, harvesting, processing food-stuffs, I think the first rational step towards the eradication of the obesity epidemic would be for all people to exert themselves for approximately 2 to 4 hours per day in local-as-possible personal food production. I defy anybody to achieve a level of morbid obesity eating cookies they baked from scratch in a wood oven for which they chopped the fuel, fashioned from ingredients such as maple sugar they walked into the woods to tap themselves, carried in buckets to boil down on more wood they chopped themselves, flour from grain they grew, threshed, ground themselves, and butter they churned from a cow they had to track down in the evening across field and woods by sound of her bell.

Of course, I must admit that I do not even come close to approximating this ideal solution I suggested in my own current behavior. -lol (typed from 12th floor suite of hotel where I very recently consumed free unnaturally varied breakfast from buffet.)

Smashter
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 8:05 am

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by Smashter »

BRUTE wrote:too bad studies have also shown that thin, healthy hunter gatherer tribes exert themselves a great deal LESS than most modern humans. they just sit around and do nothing.
Huh?

http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsod ... -gatherers

"It all adds up to about 135 minutes per day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. Contrast that to the current recommendations from the U.S. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion of at least 150 minutes per week."

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6116
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Smashter: Interesting link. Almost perfectly correlates with the behavior of the pioneer family in 1835, and my own, much more limited experience with pretending to be a subsistence farmer with few motorized tools or scavenger/forager. If you walk around 4 miles of alleys looking for useful refuse, and then spend another solid hour or two hauling around water and wood chips in a wagon, and have nothing but a giant bowl of black currants for your lunch, you probably won't die from eating some pancakes and bacon for your dinner.

Aggressive gardening was suggested as one possible activity in the article you linked which I also highly recommend, but I think what I refer to as "scavenge walking" is another good choice which also lends itself to frugality, improvement of environment and mental acuity. The way I do it is that I have to dress appropriately for whatever weather, and bring some bags/pack or a cart, and something on which to take notes. Then I have to go out scavenging for at least an hour or two, and I have to find at least 10 useful things, some of which may be information. Then I MUST process/upcycle the 10 things I found up at least one level that same day. (This last rule is to avoid becoming a dirty hoarder.) This activity can and should be performed in all sorts of environments from upscale urban hotel district to rural Georgia campground to middle-class suburban neighborhood. Traveling part of the distance by bike is okay, or even taking a bus to new starting point. It is WAAAAAY!!!!! more fun than going to some stupid gym or running around in circles on a track.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6116
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: Anti-Sugar Elitism

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

The frugal housewife, or Complete woman cook. Wherein the art of dressing all sorts of viands, with cleanliness, decency, and elegance, is explained in five hundred approved receipts ... to which are prefixed various bills of fare, for dinners and suppers in every month of the year; and a copious index to the whole. / By Susannah Carter, of Clerkenwell.
Carter, Susannah., Revere, Paul, 1735-1818, engraver.
[Boston]: London. Printed for F. Newbery, at the corner of St. Paul's Church-Yard. Boston: re-printed and sold by Edes and Gill, in QueenStreet., [1772]

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/te ... 3.0001.001

A BILL of FARE, for every Month in the Year.
In JANUARY.
Dinner.

BEEF-SOUP, made of brisket of beef; and the beef served up in the dish. Turkey and chin• roasted, with gravy and onion sauce; minced pies.

Or,

Achb•ne of beef boiled and carrots and savoys, with melted butter; ham, and fowls roasted, with rich gravy; tarts.

Or,

Vermicelli soup, fore quarter of lamb and sallad in season; fresh salmon, a sufficient quantity boiled, with smelts fried, and lobster sauce; minced pies.
Supper.

Chickens fricaseed; wild ducks with rich gravy sauce; piece of sturgeon or brawn, and minced pies.

Or,

A hare with a pudding in its belly, and strong gravy and claret sauce; ben turkey boiled and oyster sauce, and onion sauce; brawn, and minced pies.

Post Reply