On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 17:22:28 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 16:30:49 -0600, Chemiker wrote:
>
>
>> Is it easier to cook for 8? or 2? For those who've made the transition
>> from one to the other, what were the most difficult adjustments you
>> had to make?
>
>It's not much less trouble to cook for 2 rather than 6. I still
>buy in bulk, I just freeze more from the get go. The eception is
>things like last night pork butt roast. That you cook all at once
>and use the remainders for tacos, quesadillas, pork in gravy, etc..
>It's always easy to use leftover pork roast and other meats.
>
>I don't know if could easier to cook for 8 rather than 2. But it's
>certainly not 4 times as hard. It's more like 20% harder to cook
>for 8 rather than 2. But serving for serving and time wise, it's
>less expensive.

I don't doubt you at all. One prob is that we have a tendency to
decide "Oh, tonight I think I'd like Chicken picatta/stroganoff/
eggplant pizzaiola/quiche. I think one of goals is going to have to be
cooking in smaller quantities with fewer leftovers to be frozen for
future archeologists.

It really is a puzzle, because logic is not the major issue. It's the
age-old question: What's for supper? and WE get to choose rather than
eat what mom put on the table. That's one reason I like peasant
cookery, with cheap ingredients. Great flavor, low cost, often better
the next day.

Thanks for the thought.

Alex