Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Ummm...Big Mac, anyone?

Holy Christ. When I clicked on this recipe page that was linked from the "front page" of the KC Star online today at lunch, I thought I might get a new idea for slow cooking a meal that I could do in my oven. (I don't own a crock pot. I've never bought one for myself...don't really have anyplace to keep it...)

I read through the first recipe, which is for the oven-cooked pot roast, and then I read through the second one, which is for a crock pot. And then I saw the calorie and fat content per serving in that recipe, and I thought, HOLY SHIT!! A number of people are gonna print this recipe out and make it for their families over the next few days/weeks. And I bet that not a one of them considered that they could go ahead and pick up a couple of Big Macs per person on their way home, and have dinner in a much faster and easier manner.

Go ahead...if you haven't already looked, just go check it out. It'll scare you out of ever making a pot roast in your crock pot, I bet.

Even though it's lower by only half (which is still a startling amount of fat and cals) why the hell is the one that's cooked in the over so much "healthier" to make? Same ingredients, it seems! I'm confused.

People are feeding their children this shit, y'all. Makes me wanna puke...

3 comments:

P. McB. said...

Looking over the recipes, and as someone who loves crock pot "Pot Roast", the big difference is the amount of liquids in the two recipes. The Oven method is using 4 cups (which I think is 32 ounces... I'm not great at these conversions but I think that's close) and the Crock Pot is only using 1/3 that amount. The amount of liquid during cooking is important because Pot Roast is a fatty cut of meat, and the more liquid you use the more fat will disolve. When I cook Pot Roast in the Crock, I cover it in water/soup while it cooks. Delicious!

Faith said...

So it's definitely an "evaporation" thing, eh? I noticed the lower amount of liquid used in the slow cooker recipe (didn't make sense to me at first, but then I realized, lower heat for several hours means less cooking liquid is necessary, I s'pose...), but didn't think it would have THAT great of an effect on the calorie/fat content.

Isn't it just a disgusting thought that one could knowingly be feeding their family a portion of dinner that has over 800 calories and 55 grams of fat in it? I mean, I ate a caesar salad and 3 chicken fingers on Sunday night, and probably met those same numbers, but I don't *know* that for sure, you know? So it doesn't count, IMO.

zagood said...

Yah, with a crock pot there's almost no evaporation, and you're pretty much steaming the meat in it's own fat.

Being a fatlover myself, I dig me some crockpots. And crackpots.

-z