Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to think cooking two fillets of fish for one person is a bit much?

325 replies

MarianneSolong · 01/12/2015 18:43

I'm going out. Spouse is cooking two salmon fillets for himself. I think it's a bit greedy and he should either have just one - or save the packet for a night when we're both in.

OP posts:
FannyTheChampionOfTheWorld · 08/12/2015 20:35

Well there's one way you could help with that particular problem sarah! I'm not about to tell people whether they should or shouldn't eat a lot of salmon, it would be hypocritical of me since I eat more animal products than I need to survive. But it's undeniably true that those of us who engage in such behaviour are making a choice that can't be extended to the entire species at this point (may be different in the future eg genetically engineered meat). With that in mind we should probably not get on our high horses about cheap carbs...

We got to this point via modern medicine, I suppose. And things like vaccination, sanitation, and generally scientific advances that allow enough of us to have enough children surviving into adulthood to do more than sustain the population. Having said that, people having their diets decided for them by what resources the land could provide rather than optimal nutrition is hardly a new thing. If you were a 13th century peasant starving in a famine in Yorkshire, it wouldn't do you any good knowing there were abundant, easily caught buffalo roaming across sparsely populated North America.

SarahSavesTheDay · 08/12/2015 20:50

Fanny my criticism was intended towards the people who have continued to have huge families since we've worked out that it wasn't great for the planet.

limitedperiodonly · 08/12/2015 20:54

Seeing as we've got on to buying expensive fish, can I say that salmon, unless it's wild, isn't really that nice? Or that expensive.

Farmed salmon's quite fatty because they don't get swim around much, all crammed together in their big pens.

So it smokes the kitchen out.

They are also infested with sea lice which look like woodlice only bigger.

I found one in the gills of a farmed sea bass I cooked whole once. Luckily I managed to throw it away before paleo-eating, body-as-temple DH saw it because his dedication to protein doesn't extend that far. Neither does his caveman-type personality, so I'd have had to throw the whole fish away while he was squealing.

ovenchips · 08/12/2015 21:02

I agree. Wild salmon is in a totally different league to farmed. As is its price, unfortunately.

limitedperiodonly · 08/12/2015 21:08

I know ovenchips. I just felt it needed saying.

Even a woman who gets paid as much as me has to prioritise.

I buy handbags

ovenchips · 08/12/2015 21:12

Smile LimitedPeriod My post was in no way critical of yours and I hope it didn't come across as such.

Just meant when I eat salmon, I buy wild, so don't eat it as often as I'd like.

DeoGratias · 08/12/2015 21:14

limited, are you suggesting insects aren't good for us, though?

FannyTheChampionOfTheWorld · 08/12/2015 21:15

You'd need to stew a handbag for a long time to make it edible though. Salmon has the advantage of being ready quite quickly.

limitedperiodonly · 08/12/2015 21:28

are you suggesting insects aren't good for us

Of course not DeoGratias. Insects are very nourishing and add an interestingly crunchy element to salads.

In fact, every time I watch I'm a Celebrity, I wish I used to be famous because then I could go in.

I'd win all the bush tucker trials but what would let me down in the public vote is my tendency to self-righteously drone on about crap.

Still, we can't all be perfect, can we?

limitedperiodonly · 08/12/2015 21:38

ovenchips I'm not offended.

In fact, I imagined you casting your flies, waist deep in the crystal waters of the Dee.

I like to battle wild marlin meself. Just me against the noble fish. The sound of whining from the high tensile steel line. Or maybe it's coming from that private island nearby. It's hard to tell...

limitedperiodonly · 08/12/2015 21:43

You'd need to stew a handbag for a long time to make it edible though.

Not the kind of handbags I buy fanny

FannyTheChampionOfTheWorld · 08/12/2015 22:14

La di dah!

limitedperiodonly · 08/12/2015 22:20

You're not the first person to have said that about me fanny

MrsKoala · 09/12/2015 12:55

No cheap carby handbags for you limited!? Wink

DeoGratias · 09/12/2015 13:02

Edible animals skins all the way.

Werksallhourz · 09/12/2015 15:44

"I can't imagine many societies in the distant past were ever able to eat a lot of animal protein day after day after day. Hunter gatherers would have had some meat after killing a biggish animal but most of the time they would be living on plant matter (nuts, seeds and fruits in good times, roots, stems, leaves and shoots for everyday, bark and woody bits in very hard times) supplemented with insects and occasional finds/kills of eggs, fish, honey and tiny mammals/reptiles/amphibians/birds. We'd have been scavenging as much as hunting a lot of the time."

Gaspode, I am afraid I disagree.

I don't think people realise just how much food a typical livestock animal contains because we have become so removed from animal husbandry and butchery. Take a hog, which would have once been a wild boar: you can get enough muscle meat off a medium to large-ish hog to provide two "deck of cards" portions for 200 to 250 people. And that is just muscle meat, there's also the fat, skin, organs, blood and bones. All in all, I would estimate an adult wild boar could feed 200 to 250 people about 500 to 800 calories each, if they ate nose to tail, including all the fat, skin, blood, organs and bone marrow.

So if your everyday HG group consisted of about 100 people, with maybe 30 percent children, one wild boar is food for everyone for at least a day.

Hunting an adult boar of average size would not have been a particularly significant feat, particularly considering the overwhelmingly forested nature of North Western Europe at the time that was full of animals that no longer inhabit this part of the world, and the fact you would have somewhere in the region of 30 to 50 adult males in your group of 100. You are also forgetting trapping, and there is evidence to suggest that part of the "gathering" role involved making and setting traps, and retrieving caught animals: small as well as medium, particularly if you use pit traps.

We are talking about a lot of available meat here. And, in Spring, if you hunt or trap unreared baby animals, you are also talking about the availability of a limited amount of cheese (people forget what cheese actually is). And I haven't even talked about fish or birds yet.

The one thing that would have been more difficult in North Western Europe would have been plant matter, small animals and insects during winter. What's interesting in this regard is the recent find at Stonehenge where they have found evidence of large-scale animal consumption (some from large animals that appear to have been reared in Scotland and brought down to the site), but no sign of large-scale plant consumption, which I think is very telling.

Again, I think people forget just how much plant matter you have to eat to get anywhere near 1000 calories. You would be looking at over 4kg of spinach, for example. We have become very desensitised to this reality because of our food culture of processed grains.

TinklyLittleLaugh · 09/12/2015 15:53

I am slightly squeamish about what I imagine the cheese to be.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 09/12/2015 16:17

Werksallhourz, that's interesting but I'd still like to know what archaeologists/anthropologists say about this. Apologies if you are in fact one of the foregoing!

By cheese, I suppose you meant that a baby mammal's stomach would contain curdled milk at the point it was killed, and humans found by experiment that they enjoyed eating the stomach contents. Eventually of course they worked out how to make cheese by domesticating animals they could milk and putting some of the fresh milk into an animal's stomach where it would come into contact with rennet which would curdle it.

MarianneSolong · 09/12/2015 16:42

Interesting piece here. www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-paleo-diet-half-baked-how-hunter-gatherer-really-eat/

OP posts:
MarianneSolong · 09/12/2015 17:08

This video is also well worth watching, if anyone has a spare 20 minutes.

OP posts:
DeoGratias · 09/12/2015 19:49

The bottom line whether you eat 100% veg, 100% good fats/meat/fish or the usual natural mixture is you will be much much healthier and happier than the rest of humanity existing on junk food. I don't think people need to argue when we are all on one side of the line about what % of that healthy way of eating is best. Some of our ancestors had `100% animal fat/bits of animals and were healthy. Others had loads of roots with their grubs. Plenty lived by rivers and just plucked the fish out of the sea with lots of sea food and probably seaweed too.

So nothing on this thread is going to stop me eating a lot of fish not least because it's delicious and very good for me.

DeoGratias · 09/12/2015 19:49

(And paleo just means non processed so it could be 100% vegan if you want or 100% carnivore)

limitedperiodonly · 09/12/2015 20:09

By cheese, I suppose you meant that a baby mammal's stomach would contain curdled milk at the point it was killed, and humans found by experiment that they enjoyed eating the stomach contents.

One of the nicest things I've eaten was a thing in Italy called veal pajata. It's the intestines of a calf that's only been fed on milk and has curdled milk inside.

It was banned because of CJD but the ban has just been lifted. I'm sure you could get it like Hilary Briss's Special Stuff in The League of Gentlemen Wink, but I've only had it twice. Both times before the ban.

TinklyLittleLaugh · 10/12/2015 00:40

So cottage cheese filled tripe Limited? Sounds delishHmm

New posts on this thread. Refresh page