/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.14167368]

Is pasta the biggest meme food in history of humanity?
I can't wrap my mind around the idea that some people are willing not only to eat that garbage but also praise it
It has neither nutritional value nor taste, literal trash food
How did this non-food boiled dough become a staple in so many cuisines?

[Anonymous No.14167376]

cheap carb

tasty sauce!!!!

[Anonymous No.14167377]

>>14167368
>I can't wrap my mind around the idea that some people like things I don't
God, I hate you incels

[Anonymous No.14167392]

>>14167368
The biggest meme foods in human history are:

>burger
>steak
>meat in general

Nothing speaks against those dishes but the nauseating circlejerk around meat and its preparation is tiring.

[Anonymous No.14167398]

>>14167368
Why are you here?
Not just on this board, but like, on Earth?

[Anonymous No.14167408]

>>14167398
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.14167413]

>>14167368
It's cheap and the fact that it has no nutritional value will only make it more popular because it's part of ((their)) plan to weaken us.

[Anonymous No.14167416]

So OP is a fag but we all knew that.

He does raises a good question in his contrarian way : why is pasta so satisfying to eat ?

[Anonymous No.14167426]

Before grains became common, there typically wasn't enough food to sustain a large population. With the agricultural revolution, grains such as wheat offered a cheap way to have enough calories for larger populations. Pasta is a good way to preserve wheat, as it lasts longer than wheat on it's own. Because agricultural societies had long surpassed the population that could be sustained on foraged or hunted food, most of what everyone ate was based on some grain (i.e. pasta).

OP, if you truly dislike pasta, I recommend adding some salt to the boiling water, and buying some higher quality pasta. It won't be extraordinarily delicious, but it will have some taste to it.

[Anonymous No.14167430]

>>14167426
nah, it's because of the jews, m8, trust me on this. I've taken the redpill

[Anonymous No.14167434]

>>14167368

Agreed, pasta is shit. Biang biang, on the other hand, or even a good pho... Comes down to the quality of the noodles and what dish they're in. Italian is always smooth-brain trash food.

[Anonymous No.14167451]

>>14167392
Yea beef stew, fried chicken, baked salmon, rare porterhouse with some butter they just they just are bad.
They don't taste good at allll.
When I smell them cooking my mouth doesnt water or anything.

[Anonymous No.14167462]

>>14167430
This but unironically.

[Anonymous No.14167520]

Claiming pasta has no nutritional value is just false.
Whole-grain pasta contains a good amount of fiber, manganese and selenium. Refined pasta is higher in calories, carbs, B vitamins and iron but lower in fiber and most other micronutrients. Dry pasta contains 7grams of protein in a 100 grams.
If you make your own pasta you'll likely add eggs to it as well.

[Anonymous No.14167615]

>>14167416
For me, it means childhood and comfort

[Anonymous No.14167632]

>>14167368
>non-food boiled dough
Nigger, how is "boiled dough" not fucking food?

[Anonymous No.14167644]

>>14167416
tastes good in several stages of cooking
having crispy lasagna sheets on the top layer, chewy near the edges, and soft in the center is GOAT

[Anonymous No.14167645]

>>14167413
>fact that it has no nutritional value
https://www.google.com/search?q=pasta+nutritional+value

[Anonymous No.14167648]

>>14167426
>recommend adding some salt to the boiling water
Chicken bullion's not bad either.

[Anonymous No.14167714]

use the water you boil it in for soup retard that way no nutrients are lost

[Anonymous No.14167761]

>>14167426
Pasta doesn't last any longer than the dry wheatberries from which it is made. Also there's like 8000 years between the agricultural revolution and pasta becoming commonplace and pasta doesn't become very popular until the industrial revolution, when it can be easily mass produced. There is no nutritional benefit or a practical benefit for turning grain into pasta, at least not until modern times, it's only done for culinary reasons.

Early agriculturalists ate their grains in two main forms: porridge and bread. Porridge is probably the best method pragmatically speaking, since it takes minimal equipment, minimal fuel, minimal effort and works with any grain. Bread takes more labor to produce, typically uses more fuel to bake and the quality is more dependent on the quality of the grain, but it is often preferred anyway because of the flavor as well as the convenience of having a ready-to-eat piece of bread which doesn't need to be stored in a container. There's also a kind of in-between product, porridge that's boiled until it's so thick that it can be picked up with your hands and used to scoop up sauces, probably the most primitive kind of bread. Africans still eat sorghum like this.

Pasta wasn't popular until recently because it can take about as much effort to produce as bread, but is disadvantaged in that it's still not a ready-to-eat food. Also it's unfermented and thus less flavorful and less nutritious. Pasta didn't become a big part of people's diet until it started getting mass produced during the industrial revolution, so it no longer took many man-hours to produce and could be bought cheaply.

[Anonymous No.14167916]

>>14167426
Thats true of most staple crops, like Maize, Wheat, Barley, Rye, Rice, Potato, and various other staple foods crops.
Can't really have civilization without a decent carbs/protein/fat source that is shelf stable between seasons without super special preparation.

You also need enough tech to have mills, elevated dry storage, and some way to brine/cure various forms of meat and vegetables.

>>14167761
No, but the idea behind pasta is that you use the oil and eggs to enrich the nutrition value, of a food that has some shelf life while enriched.
But sadly the modern derivative tends to be durum wheat without anything else to increase protein or fat levels.

[Anonymous No.14168150]

>>14167434
>Italian is always smooth-brain trash food.

[Anonymous No.14168301]

>>14168150
>81 years female
>76 years male

LMAO imagine sending millions of men to die for Isr*el and this also lowers the male life expectancy

[Anonymous No.14169181]

>>14167426
>grains such as wheat offered a cheap way to have enough calories for larger populations.
Agriculture is not "cheap". It's far easier to feed yourself on hunting and foraging. Agriculture is back breaking labor for a less stable food source, which is also less diverse and less healthy.
We only started doing it because fucking cis-het breeder scum kept popping out babies and forced us into large scale agriculture.

>Can't really have civilization without a decent carbs/protein/fat source that is shelf stable between seasons without super special preparation.
You can. Göbekli Tepe was likely built by hunter-gatherers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe#Interpretation

>>14167368
Pasta keeps well, is easy to prepare, is filling and tasty with just a few other ingredients. It soaks up sauce and therefore taste pretty well.
It's also easy to produce in large quantities and supply others with.

Pasta is just very convenient all around.

[Anonymous No.14169261]

>>14169181
>Agriculture is not "cheap". It's far easier to feed yourself on hunting and foraging.
That doesn't sound right.
> because fucking cis-het breeder scum kept popping out babies
Ohhhh, you're an angry baby rebuilding reality to suit your selfish emotional needs.

>Göbekli Tepe was likely built by hunter-gatherers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe#Interpretation
Fascinating stuff.
Let's see, it is from the early neolithic, so I'd expect hunting/gathering behavior...
>Butchered bones found in large numbers from local game such as deer, gazelle, pigs, and geese
>have been identified as refuse from food hunted and cooked or otherwise prepared for the congregants.[38]
...but wait...
>an area that geneticists suspect may have been the original source of at least some of our cultivated grains
>(see Einkorn). Recent DNA analysis of modern domesticated wheat compared with wild wheat has shown that
>its DNA is closest in sequence to wild wheat found on Karaca Dağ 30 km (20 mi) away from the site,
>suggesting that this is where modern wheat was first domesticated.[40]
How'd you miss this part?

[Anonymous No.14169282]

>>14167392
How do I know everyone in your family hates you and that you're insufferable at family gatherings?

[Anonymous No.14169297]

A combination of several factors.

It's cheap and easy to make
It's got a neutral taste profile allowing it to be paired with LOTS of different sauces and meats/veggies.
Changing the shape/size/cut of the pasta can change the mouthfeel, or how much sauce the pasta can hold.
It can be filled with various substances and formed into various shapes, ranging from small bite sized tortellini, up to massive raviolo or stuffed shells.

Noodles are popular across a lot of cultures because they're easily adapted to the cuisine of many cultures, on top of being cheap and easy to make.

[Anonymous No.14169343]

>>14169261
>That doesn't sound right.
Better believe it. Wheat actually has a very poor rate of return on invested calories. It simply takes a lot of work to break the ground, take care of irrigation and get the calories from the wheat into a useful form. That's true even today, we just cheat by having machines and making use of petrol and artificial fertiliser to pay most of the calorie costs. Back in B.C., when the plants we had weren't as cultivated as modern ones, the work was even more difficult.

>How'd you miss this part?
I didn't. Having wheat in your diet is a far cry from being an agriculturalist. There are forms of grain production that are less intensive than traditional agriculture, such as the silt planting the Egyptians practiced or gathering semi wild wheat.

Also
>bones actually found
>area where wheat was domesticated
One of these things was provably eaten by the denizens of Göbekli Tepe, the other can only be suspected.

[Anonymous No.14169677]

>>14167368
Honestly imagine if somebody in real life actually said this to you. It would be fucking weird. I would immeiditely make an excuse to leave, and I would probably tell everybody I know to avoid you. I think some people would probably either contact the cops or a hospital and I wouldn't blame them. Do you realize who ridiculous the things you say are? Do you ever think how the things you type out would sound in real life? Well, it makes you sound like an absolute fucking freak.

[Anonymous No.14169687]

>>14167368
OP clearly needs roast pork lo mein.

[Anonymous No.14169695]

>>14169677
Too true but sometimes with a hangover what's a guy to do?

[Anonymous No.14169727]

>>14169677
A girlfriend or wife the tells one to shutup is good. The better half so to speak.

[Anonymous No.14169731]

you can say the same thing of bread

[Anonymous No.14169767]

>>14167416
Simple dish.
Usually presented with tomatoes and an assortment of vegetables and meat.
A touch of fresh herbs on top, it becomes perfectly well rounded.
Fuck, why is pasta so satisfying to eat?
Just like truth, I've approached this question, and only found myself further lost in truth.

[Anonymous No.14169804]

>>14167392
I think steak is massively overrated but that doesnt make it bad. Its good but just not as good as people make it out to be.

Burgers can be really fucking good though, if anything cheap tasteless burgers have become the norm when they could be so much better

[Anonymous No.14169854]

>>14167368
Pasta is gay. I like noodles though.

[Anonymous No.14170717]

>>14169343
>Better believe it. Wheat actually has a very poor rate of return on invested calories.
You say that, but everybody else is saying the development of agriculture enabled much larger populations.
Now I guess you could both be right, assuming pre-ag people put very little time into feeding themselves, and thus had an untapped supply of unused time.
But even there I think you're not counting the nomadic aspect. A larger group has to keep moving more often when they exhaust the supply of literal "low hanging fruit".
No matter how you feel about "muh breeders" larger populations only became possible with agriculture.

>takes a lot of work to break the ground, take care of irrigation and get the calories from the wheat into a useful form
Which it worked out first in places like the fertile crescent, and not Scotland.
But it still did work out in Scotland long before the industrial age, didn't it?

>>14169343
>I didn't. Having wheat in your diet is a far cry from being an agriculturalist.
I'll quote it again because you are still missing it:
>an area that geneticists suspect may have been the original source of at least some of our cultivated grains
>(see Einkorn). Recent DNA analysis of modern domesticated wheat compared with wild wheat has shown that
>its DNA is closest in sequence to wild wheat found on Karaca Dağ 30 km (20 mi) away from the site,
>suggesting that this is where modern wheat was first domesticated.[40]
This is the place where western agriculture started, they weren't just eating the local grains, they were domesticating it.

[Anonymous No.14170725]

>>14169343
>One of these things was provably eaten by the denizens of Göbekli Tepe, the other can only be suspected.
>can only be suspected.
>suspected.
Well, I guess if DNA couldn't convict OJ, your bullshit is in the clear too, huh?

[Anonymous No.14170760]

>>14167368
Pasta is no different than Rice. You can add your choice of protein and vegetables and it also complements a host of different sauce flavors. It is also cheap source of carbs.

[Anonymous No.14170820]

>>14167377
>I can tell you've never had sex from your opinion of spaghetti

[Anonymous No.14170900]

>>14167368
Pasta is one of the only nutritionally complex foods with various sauces. I eat it everyday

[Anonymous No.14171037]

>>14170900
>Pasta
>nutritionally complex
Is this what fat people tell themselves?

[Anonymous No.14171295]

>>14167430

[Anonymous No.14171418]

>>14169677
But I see normalfags say stuff like that on mainstream morning television all the time.

[Anonymous No.14171427]

>>14171418
Yet you keep watching it, all the time.
Fucking faggot you are.

[Anonymous No.14171432]

>>14171427
Yes. I find it interesting. I observe the hosts and wonder what it would feel like to act cheerful all the time.

[Anonymous No.14171455]

>>14170717
>You say that, but everybody else is saying the development of agriculture enabled much larger populations.
That's because our population grew too much for other food sources to be able to keep up. The population density can be pushed higher with agriculture, but it's still a very work intensive form of feeding the people. It's so much less appealing, that our ancestors had to be forced into it by growing their population being mostly hunter-gatherers.

>nomadic aspect
That's a misconception because the good places for human habitation have been settled for millennia already. It is entirely possible to be sedentary and still a hunter-gatherer people. The trick is making use of several eco-systems at once. River wetlands next to plains and woodlands for example offer a lot to eat all year long. The region we're talking about doesn't really have winters after all. You got migrating species of game and fish, you have small birds and eggs to poach, nuts, roots, berries to collect

>I'll quote it again because you are still missing it:
I'll say it again, wheat in your diet does not make you an agriculturalist.
>This is the place where western agriculture started, they weren't just eating the local grains, they were domesticating it.
Domestication was not a directed process to create something usable from something useless. It was making use of a natural opportunity, which then shaped that opportunity to be better usable.
Wheat had to have a use before it was domesticated for agriculture. People didn't just pick up a plow and started growing wild wheat one day.
I gave you two examples of how early wheat could have been used by hunter-gatherers. Of course the adaptation of agriculture was a gradual process that took part over millennia.

>>14170725
We have found remains of bones, but have not found leftovers of grain based foods. One was provably eaten, the other can only be suspected.
This is grade school logic.

[Anonymous No.14171688]

>>14167368
it's only good with minced meat and sauce
otherwise it's crap

[Anonymous No.14171692]

>>14169677
>t. eats mac and cheese

[Anonymous No.14172049]

>>14170760
>Pasta is no different than Rice.
If I understand correctly, human civilization started in three different places, based on farming three different starches.
Rice in eastern Asia, wheat in western Asia and corn in central America.
So what about the potato? What went wrong there?

[Anonymous No.14172084]

>>14172049
you don't understand correctly since there are 0 anthropologists who pose neither out of africa nor out of araby

[Anonymous No.14172150]

>>14171455
>That's because our population grew too much for other food sources to be able to keep up. The population density can be pushed higher with agriculture, but it's still a very work intensive form of feeding the people. It's so much less appealing, that our ancestors had to be forced into it by growing blah-blah-blah
So many words, and yet? I'm not seeing anywhere you're saying I'm wrong, just that you don't _like_ the idea of agriculture.
And you're putting the cart before the horse here.
People weren't forced into inventing agriculture because they had "too many" babies.
They were able to have more babies because they first invented agriculture.
Sorry you hate babies, but that's not an argument.
Also, it wouldn't hurt for you to support your "labor-intensive" claims with something beyond "because I said so".

>It is entirely possible to be sedentary and still a hunter-gatherer people.
But not with larger populations.
Doing "well" means moving on when necessary
And even smaller populations can be forced to follow game migrations depending on circumstances.

>I'll say it again, wheat in your diet does not make you an agriculturalist.
You can say it a million times, but you're still not addressing:
> this is where modern wheat was first domesticated.[40]

> Of course the adaptation of agriculture was a gradual process that took part over millennia.
Nigger, the span between then and TODAY (space stations and all) is "millennia".

The truth is, you cited Göbekli Tepe as a per-agricultural megalith source, when it fact it wasn't per-agricultural at all, but more likely the first agricultural social center.
And since it's the earliest known megalith site, that makes all other megalith sites agrarian.
So tell me again how hunter-gatherers never had enough spare labor to build stone structures, but farmers did, and that somehow means agriculture takes more time out of the labor pool???

>only be suspected.
>DNA evidence = "suspicion"

[Anonymous No.14172162]

>>14172150
>PRE-agricultural
ffs

[Anonymous No.14172308]

>>14172150
>so many words
Yet you understand so little.

>People weren't forced into inventing agriculture because they had "too many" babies.
They were able to have more babies because they first invented agriculture.
Wrong! That's my point. Agriculture is harder, unhealthier for the body and gives a less reliable and less nutritious source of calories than hunting and gathering. Agrarian societies only popped up after the population density had reached a certain threshold. That threshold was that the land couldn't provide enough forage for the grown number of people.

>Also, it wouldn't hurt for you to support your "labor-intensive" claims with something beyond "because I said so".
What do you think is less intensive? Plowing a field or putting out fish traps? That claim isn't controversial at all.
Just compare the yields of wheat TODAY to other crops. Imagine the yields with 10k+ years of domestication less. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/in-defense-of-corn-the-worlds-most-important-food-crop/2015/07/12/78d86530-25a8-11e5-b77f-eb13a215f593_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.adecf2cc388d

> Doing "well" means moving on when necessary
And even smaller populations can be forced to follow game migrations depending on circumstances.
Sedentary hunter-gatherers have been a thing. Not all non agrarian people moved from where they lived. In fact, agrarian cultures very, very often failed because their main food source ran out. Crop yields decreased pretty strongly after a few years typically. Crop rotation wasn't advanced enough yet, in 8.000 B.C.

>I'm not addressing that wheat was domesticated in the area
What do you want me to address? That people in that area consumed wheat? You can forage for wild wheat while not being an agriculturalist. Wheat can be domesticated in your area elsewhen.

The rest of your post is too retarted to contend with. You fail to grasp the difference between a prove and assumption.

[Anonymous No.14172327]

>>14172308
>That's my point. Agriculture is harder, unhealthier for the body and gives a less reliable and less nutritious source of calories than hunting and gathering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit

>Agrarian societies only popped up after the population density had reached a certain threshold
You've still got the cart before the horse.
In your world people with an excess of babies said "hey! let's invent agriculture!", which somehow fed more people than hunter/gatherer mode, despite your claims to the contrary.

Nah, if you want, you "win", CTRL-F4, I'm out.

[Anonymous No.14172341]

>>14172327
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110615094514.htm

[Anonymous No.14172356]

>people actually take prairie grass found in a field
>and grow it on purpose
>and harvest it
>and dry it out
>and mill it down into a dust
>then they MIX IT WITH WATER and just enough fat to keep it sticky
>and either throw it in the oven as a boulder to slice and eat
>or flatten it into strips to boil AGAIN to eat in a pile
What the everloving fuck lol. And no surprise literally everything made this way is bad for you. It’s fucking cement, wallpaper paste at best, it’s like Dunning Kruger of civilization, some caveman early settlement shit, how can you like with yourselves

[Anonymous No.14172386]

>>14167368
It clearly has taste if the entire world finds it palatable. Not everything has to be aromatic or salty in order to be delicious. Also
>nutrition value
filtered

[Anonymous No.14172395]

>>14172386
>if it’s not offensive enough that you’re able to eat it, it has taste
Lmao people did not invent these foods because they ‘taste good’, food being desirable beyond the survival satisfaction of filling your stomach was invented far later

[Anonymous No.14172438]

>>14172395
Our palates are evolved to prefer food that is high in energy. Rice, potatoes, pasta, bread, etc. Rice was the reason I could never stick to a keto diet, no matter how much I enjoy beef and eggs. It's a primal craving.

[Anonymous No.14172460]

>>14172438
Rice and carbs have a mealy, substantial quality to them, but unless seasoned they are not flavored