i've been a bit lazy of late. i haven't cooked a great deal and when i have, i've resorted to old favourites rather than trying anything new. so i've eaten some spicy thai curries with okra and aubergines, prawn 'linguine' with lashings of fresh chilli, and summery salads to go with the sunny weather. there was also a barbecued rack of pork ribs, which was awesome, but i stupidly forgot to take pictures.
i also haven't felt like writing much if i am honest.
anyway, there'll be more recipes soon but in the meantime, here are two links to stories that made me think that the tide is slowly (very slowly) turning. i know other bloggers come up with academic research to support this way of eating all the time but this is mainsteam media, which is why it attracted my attention.
(i don't just read the telegraph, by the way. in fact, i almost never read it so finding these articles was a stroke of luck.)
this is interesting because of the cholesterol point. there seems to be plenty of evidence to suggest that the link between cholesterol and heart disease is not as straightforward as your GP would have you believe, or indeed that saturated fat is bad for you. i have stopped believing this to such an extent that i am genuinely surprised when i hear (mainly girls) say they like something because it's low fat and therefore good for you. give me lard any day.
the second article i find interesting because of its attempt to weigh up the costs and benefits of agriculture versus the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. whatever you think about that - i.e. what a particular choice of food meant for how our society is organised and what the consequences of it may have been - does not negate the point that we probably really are evolved to eat a plant- and meat-based diet, rather than a grain-based one. there is, of course, a whole debate to be had about farming and sustainability of alternative lifestyles but this is not the best place for it. there are plenty of blogs that deal with that sort of thing (i am only interested in eating).