Well, I was to make chowed pork with pineapple and ginger this day,
but I've been pre-empted by SWMBO, who is opting for braised sirloin
tips. Asi es la vida.

Topic: Cooking.

SWMBO wants to get rid of our two refrigerators and get only (!) one
to replace them. So far, so good. We tend to overcook, and the
fridges get overloaded with leftovers, which, all too often, wind up
being discarded.

This is not about what kind of fridge to buy.... I know it's going to
cost me, and back problems suggest bottom-freezer types are not in the
running.

The nub is relearing how to cook.

Of this NG's exalted membership, I know there are some who are younger
and "starting out", with no/small families. Some are empty nesters.
Some have larger families, or entertain or maybe participate regularly
in church social suppers, or the like. So here's the question....

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?

Looks like this old dog is going to have to learn a few new tricks.

Thanks in advance.

Alex, practicing "Woof!" and rolling over.

Chemiker wrote:
>
> Well, I was to make chowed pork with pineapple and ginger this day,
> but I've been pre-empted by SWMBO, who is opting for braised sirloin
> tips. Asi es la vida.
>
> Topic: Cooking.
>
> SWMBO wants to get rid of our two refrigerators and get only (!) one
> to replace them. So far, so good. We tend to overcook, and the
> fridges get overloaded with leftovers, which, all too often, wind up
> being discarded.
>
> This is not about what kind of fridge to buy.... I know it's going to
> cost me, and back problems suggest bottom-freezer types are not in the
> running.
>
> The nub is relearing how to cook.
>
> Of this NG's exalted membership, I know there are some who are younger
> and "starting out", with no/small families. Some are empty nesters.
> Some have larger families, or entertain or maybe participate regularly
> in church social suppers, or the like. So here's the question....
>
> 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?
>
> Looks like this old dog is going to have to learn a few new tricks.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Alex, practicing "Woof!" and rolling over.

As a general rule, it is easier to cook for 4-8. Above that it's an
increasing logistical challenge and below that there is so little food
in the pan that it's difficult to make sauces and whatnot.

As a single person who likes to cook, I just cook with a 4-5 serving
target, and interleave leftovers with newly cooked dishes so I'm not
eating the same thing 5 times in a row before moving on to something
new. That batch size also works better with the more economical "family
packs" of meats, sometimes the same meat will be made in several
different preparations and last a week plus.

Perhaps if you have to refrigerators now, consider replacing one with an
upright freezer and freezing some of the leftovers for future use. I do
that quite a bit, and have BBQ in January or turkey dinner in July with
minimal fuss and no freezer burn thanks to Foodsaver vac bagging.

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.

-sw

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 16:42:49 -0600, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>Chemiker wrote:

>As a general rule, it is easier to cook for 4-8. Above that it's an
>increasing logistical challenge and below that there is so little food
>in the pan that it's difficult to make sauces and whatnot.
>
>As a single person who likes to cook, I just cook with a 4-5 serving
>target, and interleave leftovers with newly cooked dishes so I'm not
>eating the same thing 5 times in a row before moving on to something
>new. That batch size also works better with the more economical "family
>packs" of meats, sometimes the same meat will be made in several
>different preparations and last a week plus.
>
>Perhaps if you have to refrigerators now, consider replacing one with an
>upright freezer and freezing some of the leftovers for future use. I do
>that quite a bit, and have BBQ in January or turkey dinner in July with
>minimal fuss and no freezer burn thanks to Foodsaver vac bagging.

<G> I *have an upright freezer, and it's full. SWMBO cannot resist
sales from Omaha and Swann's. I agree with your thinking, though. Your
ladder approach is going to require some realignment in my (read: OUR)
thinking.

I'm hoping that the 0.9 cft cuisinart CV oven will get us on the right
path Still, I think I'll have to stick with the big oven for breads.

Alex

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

"Chemiker" > wrote in message
...
> Well, I was to make chowed pork with pineapple and ginger this day,
> but I've been pre-empted by SWMBO, who is opting for braised sirloin
> tips. Asi es la vida.
>
> Topic: Cooking.
>
> SWMBO wants to get rid of our two refrigerators and get only (!) one
> to replace them. So far, so good. We tend to overcook, and the
> fridges get overloaded with leftovers, which, all too often, wind up
> being discarded.
>
> This is not about what kind of fridge to buy.... I know it's going to
> cost me, and back problems suggest bottom-freezer types are not in the
> running.
>
> The nub is relearing how to cook.
>
> Of this NG's exalted membership, I know there are some who are younger
> and "starting out", with no/small families. Some are empty nesters.
> Some have larger families, or entertain or maybe participate regularly
> in church social suppers, or the like. So here's the question....
>
> 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?
>
> Looks like this old dog is going to have to learn a few new tricks.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Alex, practicing "Woof!" and rolling over.

Probably the easiest to cook for is 4 or 6. Things tend to come in those
amounts. Not all things of course. But a lot of things. I think 8 would
be the next easiest because you can buy things in bulk.

And if you think about all the prep such as chopping and shredding... You
have to do it no matter how many you are cooking for. It just takes a few
more minutes to do it for more people.

Most recipes are designed for 4 to 6 servings. Although it is easy (for
some) to do the math to scale that back for two people, the problem comes in
buying your ingredients. For instance, if you buy a package of ground beef
or a can of chopped tomatoes, chances are you are going to have more than
you need. So there are your leftovers.

Yes, some stores sell things in exact quantities. For instance if I need
celery, I try to buy it one rib at a time unless I know I am going to use
the rest of the bunch. Yes, it is more expensive to buy it that way and not
all stores do sell it that way. But that is one way to cut back on
leftovers.

Of course you can cook a large amount of meat (or other things) with the
idea of using the leftovers for other things later in the week. I did learn
to cook this way. But are you really going to do that? I know most of the
time, I do not.

I try to plan my meals out a week at a time. It is necessary for me to do
this for most weeks because my daughter eats a lot of her meals at the dance
studio. She has food allergies so I can't just give her some money and send
her to McDonalds or Subway or wherever like a lot of the other kids do. I
sometimes eat there too so we need to be sure that we will have something to
take. Sometimes this will be a planned leftover. Sometimes this will be
another planned meal. Other nights we need a quick meal before dance. So I
need to buy things that are quick to fix.

When my husband is home, that complicates things. For one, he eats a lot.
So I can not just cook for three. I tend to cook for 8. That's easy enough
to do but I have to make sure that I do have enough food. He will sometimes
go back throughout the night and maybe into the next day to eat leftovers.
It really depends on what it is.

I also find if my daughter doesn't have the dance classes, like now with
winter break, it is much less necessary for me to plan the meals. We do not
have to eat at set times. We do not have to take things with us.

My current problem is my freezer. Because I am usually cooking for 2, I do
tend to wind up with extra meat. With ground beef, I will usually just cook
it up and put the cooked meat in the freezer. I usually do find a way to
use this. But with chicken or other meats? I stick it in the freezer and
there it sits. I never look at it again. I might curse if it falls out and
hits my foot. Then I will vow to use it. But do I? Probably not. I might
take it out and try to defrost it but invariably it will not be defrosted
when I need it. Then I do all sorts of funky things to try to make it
usable and then daughter won't like it. She is the chicken lover. Not me.

Chemiker wrote:
>
> 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

There is nothing wrong with the "I'd like X tonight" as long as you
don't cook new when you have X in the freezer ready to heat and eat.
Once you've cooked larger portions and frozen the extra for a while,
much of the time what you're in the mood for will already be in the
freezer.

If it was prepared properly, vac bagged and frozen right away there will
be no perceptible degradation in quality of the leftovers. I have a very
low opinion of people who seem to think they're too good for leftovers
and constantly waste perfectly good food.

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?
>



Our two kids have been out of the house for over 15 years and I still
haven't mastered cooking for two. My heritage emphasizes that no one
should go hungry so I always make too much. I try to cook for two meals
and serve the leftovers on alternate days. I also try to make things
like spaghetti sauce, served over some kind of pasta the first night,
then in lasagna or chicken-with pasta or similar the following day I use it.

We had grilled pork tenderloin a few days ago. Tonight it will be
slivered and sauteed with peppers and onions and salsa and served in
flour tortillas.

Before I retired, I often had leftovers for lunch at work. Now I try to
have something lighter and save the leftovers for a second day's dinner.

It's not easy and I hate the effort involved in trying to figure it out,
but...ya gotta eat.

gloria p

"Chemiker" > wrote in message
...
> Well, I was to make chowed pork with pineapple and ginger this day,
> but I've been pre-empted by SWMBO, who is opting for braised sirloin
> tips. Asi es la vida.
>
> Topic: Cooking.
>
> SWMBO wants to get rid of our two refrigerators and get only (!) one
> to replace them. So far, so good. We tend to overcook, and the
> fridges get overloaded with leftovers, which, all too often, wind up
> being discarded.
>
> This is not about what kind of fridge to buy.... I know it's going to
> cost me, and back problems suggest bottom-freezer types are not in the
> running.
>
> The nub is relearing how to cook.
>
> Of this NG's exalted membership, I know there are some who are younger
> and "starting out", with no/small families. Some are empty nesters.
> Some have larger families, or entertain or maybe participate regularly
> in church social suppers, or the like. So here's the question....
>
> 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?
>
> Looks like this old dog is going to have to learn a few new tricks.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Alex, practicing "Woof!" and rolling over.

Our new kitchen has an LG French door, with two freezer trays under. Not
sure how the freezer trays will work out in the long run, as I broke my back
a couple of years ago.

I do like the French door top. I don't understand that half of one door is
the up top icemaker/water dispenser, but what the heck. It ends up having
slightly more shelf space than our old one, and about as much door space.
It definitely has more freezer space.

We, like you suffer from TWO maladies.

One, is making too much food. So, I either try to make dinner for two with
perhaps enough for ONE day's leftovers. Or I will make a big bunch, as
spaghetti sauce, then freeze it in two person portions, as I find it easier
to make a big batch of spaghetti sauce and have it taste better than a small
batch. Like, who cooks enough lasagna for two people? For that, I like
Stouffer's.

Two, my wife is the daughter of a depression era baby, and she's just like
her mom. She will keep two tbsp. of corn in a container in the fridge,
ending up with lots of things being thrown away. I had to make a deal with
her about two years into the marriage that if she couldn't tell me the exact
day on which the questionable leftover was made, I didn't have to eat it.
Both she and her Mom think a "Fridgerator" has pyramid properties in
preserving things. You can pull out some unidentifiable blob of slop with
an inch of green mold on it, and no matter what, the answer is, "Well, I
don't understand it, it's been in the "Fridgerator."

Our new kitchen will be totally functional this week, with God's help.
After that, cooking and preserving leftovers is going to change at our
house. I think that cooking the right amount, or just slightly more is the
answer, rather than coping with lots of leftovers, and throwing stuff away.
I can't go to the gizmo store and buy some goodies I want, but we can throw
$$$ away of leftovers.

Go figger.

HTH

Steve

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 17:32:28 -0600, Chemiker wrote:

> 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.

My biggest problem was cooking too much, and always wanting to cook
something new. And never eating the leftovers. I learned to cook
half as much and take leftovers to work for lunch. Which solved
most of the problem (and saves money at lunch). But not all stuff
was suitable for work, especially the smelly stuff: Pork and
sauerkraut, fermented fish fried rice, and all sorts of other
stuff.

I've been cooking too much lately and not eating what's already
there (haven't been working either, so I have more time to cook).
So the last few days I've been in "eat what's going to expire
first". I rarely ever freeze cooked foods. Rather I freeze raw
ingredients. I may prep a bunch of something like egg rolls or
flatten out a bunch of hamburger patties, but rarely ever foods
I've cooked. Those *always* got ignored. Try and avoid that.

-sw

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 22:14:06 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 17:32:28 -0600, Chemiker wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>My biggest problem was cooking too much, and always wanting to cook
>something new. And never eating the leftovers. I learned to cook
>half as much and take leftovers to work for lunch. Which solved
>most of the problem (and saves money at lunch). But not all stuff
>was suitable for work, especially the smelly stuff: Pork and
>sauerkraut, fermented fish fried rice, and all sorts of other
>stuff.
>
>I've been cooking too much lately and not eating what's already
>there (haven't been working either, so I have more time to cook).
>So the last few days I've been in "eat what's going to expire
>first". I rarely ever freeze cooked foods. Rather I freeze raw
>ingredients. I may prep a bunch of something like egg rolls or
>flatten out a bunch of hamburger patties, but rarely ever foods
>I've cooked. Those *always* got ignored. Try and avoid that.

If you're not freezing food you've cooked you aren't cooking all that
much... and what little you do cook isn't all that good or you'd eat
it before it becomes left overs.

In article >,
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?
>
> Looks like this old dog is going to have to learn a few new tricks.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Alex, practicing "Woof!" and rolling over.

I learned to cook for two with Betty Crocker's Dinner for Two Cookbook.
I don't think it is especially difficult to cook for two. Cooking for 8
is more expensive. :-) "-)

Ranee Mueller is the queen of menu planning, and she's got 7 kids. She
is adept at incorporating "leftovers" into new dishes.

--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella
"Always in a jam, never in a stew; sometimes in a pickle."
Pepparkakor particulars posted 11-29-2010;
http://web.me.com/barbschaller

In article >,
"Steve B" > wrote:

> ending up with lots of things being thrown away. I had to make a deal with
> her about two years into the marriage that if she couldn't tell me the exact
> day on which the questionable leftover was made, I didn't have to eat it.

> Steve

Can you get her into the habit of slapping a piece of masking tape on
the cover, with the date marked? It's a pretty easy habit to get into,
as is marking cans and packages with the date they were purchased. I do
it all the time.‹ask Tammy. :-)

--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella
"Always in a jam, never in a stew; sometimes in a pickle."
Pepparkakor particulars posted 11-29-2010;
http://web.me.com/barbschaller

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:20:05 -0500, Brooklyn1 wrote:

> If you're not freezing food you've cooked you aren't cooking all that
> much... and what little you do cook isn't all that good or you'd eat
> it before it becomes left overs.

Uh-huh, yah. Whatever you say, Cats.

-sw

"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Steve B" > wrote:
>
>> ending up with lots of things being thrown away. I had to make a deal
>> with
>> her about two years into the marriage that if she couldn't tell me the
>> exact
>> day on which the questionable leftover was made, I didn't have to eat it.
>
>> Steve
>
> Can you get her into the habit of slapping a piece of masking tape on
> the cover, with the date marked? It's a pretty easy habit to get into,
> as is marking cans and packages with the date they were purchased. I do
> it all the time. >

My short term memory was severely affected by a traumatic brain injury five
years ago. Since then, I have recovered from a person who could not
remember what two hole cards he folded in seven card stud to a person who
can remember what was cooked two or three days ago. After that, if it
becomes any question at all : I WON'T EAT IT.

Period.

End of discussion.

It's just a me thing. If I have to use tape to tell how old any cooked
leftover is, I'm not interested in it. And, I have found foods in my
refrigerator and cabinets that were three years out of date. The most
recent, a bottle of beer bread mixture sealed in a beer bottle that, when
opened, christened the whole kitchen ceiling, my face, arms, and countertops
with pressurized flour bread mixture.

The more things I find defective in my kitchen, the more adamant I am over
gaining control over it, and just throwing out anything questionable, and
surely anything out of date or just suspicious.

Like Andy, this ain't yo mama's kitchen any more.

Or SWMBO's, either.

When you try to create a meal using week old ingredients, you forfeit any
claim to being a "cook".

Steve

"Chemiker" > ha scritto nel messaggio >

We tend to overcook, and the
> fridges get overloaded with leftovers, which, all too often, wind up>
> being discarded.

It was difficult at first but I soon learned I rarely liked leftovers, so it
was important. I moved into "planned-overs" so I didn't have to think of
3-5 identical meals from a piece of meat I wanted, but knew what I would get
from it. Corned beef for example I didn't want to give up and you can't
cook 8 ounces of it.

Packages of meat that cooks quickly get divided into meal sizes and frozen
like that the day it comes from the market. I would not like a cold pork
chop, but I can thaw and cook a single one very easily.

Big casseroles OTH can be portioned easily after a meal and frozen for the
future. My next kitchen will have an all-fridge and an all freezer (which I
already have.)

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 16:01:20 -0800, Christine Dabney
> wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 17:56:22 -0600, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
>
> >If it was prepared properly, vac bagged and frozen right away there will
> >be no perceptible degradation in quality of the leftovers. I have a very
> >low opinion of people who seem to think they're too good for leftovers
> >and constantly waste perfectly good food.
>
> Not only that, but quite a few leftovers can be used as starting
> ingredients for a brand new dish. However one has to be willing to
> put in the effort and think creatively on how to utilize them.
>

I find it very easy to cook for two. Divide a recipe for 4 in half.
What's hard about that? I don't follow recipes to the "T" in the
first place, so minor adjustments are absolutely minor for me.
However, I'm not creative with leftovers. I can do it sometimes -but
mostly not. My mind set is that's not real "cooking", it's just doing
something with leftovers... no matter what I do to it.

As far as what to cook, the internet is my friend and I wish I had
more time for it (like more than 365 days in a year). Unfortunately,
our waistlines can't take more food and life gets in the way - so I
don't get to cook every single day. On top of that, some days have to
be spent eating leftovers (which I try not to make much or any of to
begin with) just to clean out the refrigerator.

As it is, I have a backlog of recipes that I want to try - so what to
cook tomorrow is rarely an issue.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 15:38:51 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

> Probably the easiest to cook for is 4 or 6. Things tend to come in those
> amounts. Not all things of course. But a lot of things. I think 8 would
> be the next easiest because you can buy things in bulk.

I buy most things in bulk. Perishables, like boneless chicken pieces,
are packaged in 2 person portions and frozen for later. I just don't
buy into the "cooking for two is harder" theory. Either you calculate
an average of what you estimate each person will eat and buy what you
need or you throw a whole bunch of food in your cart and cook it. One
method produces a lot of leftovers, the other doesn't - and your
attitude toward leftovers will influence your shopping personality.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:01:30 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:

>In article >,
> 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?
>>
>> Looks like this old dog is going to have to learn a few new tricks.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Alex, practicing "Woof!" and rolling over.
>
>I learned to cook for two with Betty Crocker's Dinner for Two Cookbook.
>I don't think it is especially difficult to cook for two. Cooking for 8
>is more expensive. :-) "-)

Actually cooking for eight is less expensive than cooking for two per
serving. . . economies of volume.

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:04:11 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:

>In article >,
> "Steve B" > wrote:
>
>> ending up with lots of things being thrown away. I had to make a deal with
>> her about two years into the marriage that if she couldn't tell me the exact
>> day on which the questionable leftover was made, I didn't have to eat it.
>
>> Steve
>
>Can you get her into the habit of slapping a piece of masking tape on
>the cover, with the date marked? It's a pretty easy habit to get into,
>as is marking cans and packages with the date they were purchased. I do
>it all the time.‹ask Tammy. :-)

I mark the date on everything that comes into this house, even non
food items just because I'm curious about how long a package of soap
powder, roll of waxed paper, a box of kosher salt lasts. But I don't
need to date foods in the fridge I cooked, I'm not so senile that I
can't remember on Tuesday that I cooked that roast on the previous
Sunday... that after three days it's time to eat it, turn it into
soup/hash, or freeze it before tossing it out for the critters. I
have one of those library date stamps and ink pad... very handy for
when I bring in the groceries. I even mark the price paid on many
items, I find it interesting to note the rate of rise on so many
household staples... even actual staples have tripled in price from
five years ago. A 2 oz bottle of Gorilla Glue has doubled in price in
three years, now costs more than I paid for the last 4 oz bottle....
buy the smallest size, it has a two year shelf life and then quickly
thickens and becomes unusable.

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 00:54:24 -0800, sf > wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 15:38:51 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:
>
>> Probably the easiest to cook for is 4 or 6. Things tend to come in those
>> amounts. Not all things of course. But a lot of things. I think 8 would
>> be the next easiest because you can buy things in bulk.
>
>I buy most things in bulk. Perishables, like boneless chicken pieces,
>are packaged in 2 person portions and frozen for later. I just don't
>buy into the "cooking for two is harder" theory. Either you calculate
>an average of what you estimate each person will eat and buy what you
>need or you throw a whole bunch of food in your cart and cook it. One
>method produces a lot of leftovers, the other doesn't - and your
>attitude toward leftovers will influence your shopping personality.

Most everything I cook has left overs calibrated in... I wouldn't
bother to cook most foods unless I prepare enough for at least a half
dozen (or more likely a dozen) portions to freeze. A lot of time,
effort, and of course money is saved by cooking in bulk. I don't
consider the portions I freeze as left overs, they are absolutely
planned. I don't even like the term "left overs"... If I buy a case
of beer are the unopened bottles left in the fridge left overs, if I
eat half a box of chocolate chip cookies is the other half left overs,
of course not, no more than than the portions I freeze from when I
prepare a 16 quart pot of stew, or meat loaf that contains minimally 5
pounds of ground meat... I've never made a meat loaf with less than 5
pounds of meat, I wouldn't bother. To me left overs are what remains
in a half gallon package of ice cream I put back in the freezer
because I couldn't shovel anymore in... I *planned* to eat it all but
sometimes I just can't, so then what remains is left overs. And I
won't forget, the next evening that third of a container will be
calling my name. And of late half gallons are getting smaller and
smaller and have more air whipped in... it's not all that difficult to
finish those shrunken half gallons in one sitting, did that last week
with Breyer's Triple Chocolate; one third each of milk, dark, and
white chocolate... damn but that's good, especially that dark
chocolate. For me they can omit the white chocolate and call it Twin
Chocolate.

http://www.breyers.com/products/All-...Chocolate.aspx

In article >,
Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:01:30 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> > wrote:

> >I learned to cook for two with Betty Crocker's Dinner for Two Cookbook.
> >I don't think it is especially difficult to cook for two. Cooking for 8
> >is more expensive. :-) "-)
>
> Actually cooking for eight is less expensive than cooking for two per
> serving. . . economies of volume.

Not if you wind up throwing out leftovers, as a lot of people seem to do.
--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella
"Always in a jam, never in a stew; sometimes in a pickle."
Pepparkakor particulars posted 11-29-2010;
http://web.me.com/barbschaller

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:20:05 -0500, Brooklyn1 wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 22:14:06 -0600, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>My biggest problem was cooking too much, and always wanting to cook
>>something new. And never eating the leftovers. I learned to cook
>>half as much and take leftovers to work for lunch. Which solved
>>most of the problem (and saves money at lunch). But not all stuff
>>was suitable for work, especially the smelly stuff: Pork and
>>sauerkraut, fermented fish fried rice, and all sorts of other
>>stuff.
>>
>>I've been cooking too much lately and not eating what's already
>>there (haven't been working either, so I have more time to cook).
>>So the last few days I've been in "eat what's going to expire
>>first". I rarely ever freeze cooked foods. Rather I freeze raw
>>ingredients. I may prep a bunch of something like egg rolls or
>>flatten out a bunch of hamburger patties, but rarely ever foods
>>I've cooked. Those *always* got ignored. Try and avoid that.
>
> If you're not freezing food you've cooked you aren't cooking all that
> much... and what little you do cook isn't all that good or you'd eat
> it before it becomes left overs.

he doesn't have a small army of cats to help him out.

blake

Steve B wrote:

> When you try to create a meal using week old ingredients, you forfeit any
> claim to being a "cook".
>
> Steve

So are you saying the bag of fresh carrots I can use for a couple of
weeks in various ways aren't "cooking" ? Are they different because they
sit in my house for a week rather than sit in the store for a week?

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 15:38:51 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>> Probably the easiest to cook for is 4 or 6. Things tend to come in those
>> amounts. Not all things of course. But a lot of things. I think 8
>> would
>> be the next easiest because you can buy things in bulk.
>
> I buy most things in bulk. Perishables, like boneless chicken pieces,
> are packaged in 2 person portions and frozen for later. I just don't
> buy into the "cooking for two is harder" theory. Either you calculate
> an average of what you estimate each person will eat and buy what you
> need or you throw a whole bunch of food in your cart and cook it. One
> method produces a lot of leftovers, the other doesn't - and your
> attitude toward leftovers will influence your shopping personality.
>
> --

Then what about things like salad? Unless you are lucky enough to have a
store that sells things like greens in bulk (and you can just buy the amount
you need), you will have a lot of leftovers if you want a salad that
contains a lot of things. I have yet to see a store that sells one green
onion. Or six cherry tomatoes. This is why we often buy salad from the
salad bar. Costs a lot more but much less waste.

I even buy from the salad bar when I am making a pasta salad or meatloaf.
Otherwise I have either a ton of food or a ton of leftover vegetables.

"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:01:30 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> 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?
>>>
>>> Looks like this old dog is going to have to learn a few new tricks.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> Alex, practicing "Woof!" and rolling over.
>>
>>I learned to cook for two with Betty Crocker's Dinner for Two Cookbook.
>>I don't think it is especially difficult to cook for two. Cooking for 8
>>is more expensive. :-) "-)
>
> Actually cooking for eight is less expensive than cooking for two per
> serving. . . economies of volume.

Yes! I used to cook for my in-laws who lived in PA. Often there would be
other visitors so I always cooked for at least 8. I was able to take
advantage of larger packages of things and it really did cost a lot less.

"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:04:11 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> "Steve B" > wrote:
>>
>>> ending up with lots of things being thrown away. I had to make a deal
>>> with
>>> her about two years into the marriage that if she couldn't tell me the
>>> exact
>>> day on which the questionable leftover was made, I didn't have to eat
>>> it.
>>
>>> Steve
>>
>>Can you get her into the habit of slapping a piece of masking tape on
>>the cover, with the date marked? It's a pretty easy habit to get into,
>>as is marking cans and packages with the date they were purchased. I do
>>it all the time. >
> I mark the date on everything that comes into this house, even non
> food items just because I'm curious about how long a package of soap
> powder, roll of waxed paper, a box of kosher salt lasts. But I don't
> need to date foods in the fridge I cooked, I'm not so senile that I
> can't remember on Tuesday that I cooked that roast on the previous
> Sunday... that after three days it's time to eat it, turn it into
> soup/hash, or freeze it before tossing it out for the critters. I
> have one of those library date stamps and ink pad... very handy for
> when I bring in the groceries. I even mark the price paid on many
> items, I find it interesting to note the rate of rise on so many
> household staples... even actual staples have tripled in price from
> five years ago. A 2 oz bottle of Gorilla Glue has doubled in price in
> three years, now costs more than I paid for the last 4 oz bottle....
> buy the smallest size, it has a two year shelf life and then quickly
> thickens and becomes unusable.

Things do deteriorate. I was talking to a friend who lives in Australia.
His dad was elderly and he was going through the dad's home trying to get
rid of some stuff in an attempt to eventually move him in with his family.
He found toilet paper that he said had to be about 20 years old. He said it
just sort of ripped to shreds.

My dad attempted to give us a ton of old school supplies. The pencils were
all dried out and the lead crumbly. The paper was decrepit. We declined.

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 12:13:39 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 15:38:51 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> > > wrote:
> >
>
> > your attitude toward leftovers will influence your shopping personality.
> >
> > --
>
> Then what about things like salad? Unless you are lucky enough to have a
> store that sells things like greens in bulk (and you can just buy the amount
> you need), you will have a lot of leftovers if you want a salad that
> contains a lot of things. I have yet to see a store that sells one green
> onion. Or six cherry tomatoes. This is why we often buy salad from the
> salad bar. Costs a lot more but much less waste.

I don't call salad greens I didn't use leftovers unless you mean you
made everything into a salad. Then they really are left over.
Personally, I'd call leftover salad "garbage", because that's where
it's going. The lettuce, green onion and tomatoes I didn't use for
salad today might be salad tomorrow or they might be something else,
but they are not leftovers for me. They are future ingredients.
>
> I even buy from the salad bar when I am making a pasta salad or meatloaf.
> Otherwise I have either a ton of food or a ton of leftover vegetables.
>
I don't purchase from the salad bar either, unless I want one or two
pieces of celery. I can buy several types of salad mixes in bulk and
often buy enough for more than one day, but I do not call the salad
greens I didn't use today "leftovers".

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Dec 20, 3:13*pm, "Julie Bove" > wrote:

> Then what about things like salad? *Unless you are lucky enough to have a
> store that sells things like greens in bulk (and you can just buy the amount
> you need), you will have a lot of leftovers if you want a salad that
> contains a lot of things. *I have yet to see a store that sells one green
> onion. *Or six cherry tomatoes. *This is why we often buy salad from the
> salad bar. *Costs a lot more but much less waste.
>
> I even buy from the salad bar when I am making a pasta salad or meatloaf.
> Otherwise I have either a ton of food or a ton of leftover vegetables.

What's "a lot"? Virtually every evening we have salad. Lettuce
(romaine for me, iceberg for him), cucumber, radish, carrot,
cherry tomatoes. Sometimes a little bell pepper. (And less
perishable items, like feta cheese, olives, pepperoni, provolone,
in different combinations.)

We can rip through all of that produce before it goes bad.

OTOH, I've quit buying broccoli unless I know for sure I'm going
to use it. I've thrown away more elderly heads of broccoli than
I can count. We just don't do cooked vegetables all that
often.

Cindy Hamilton

>
> Yes, some stores sell things in exact quantities. *For instance if I need
> celery, I try to buy it one rib at a time unless I know I am going to use
> the rest of the bunch. *Yes, it is more expensive to buy it that way and not
> all stores do sell it that way. *But that is one way to cut back on
> leftovers.

I've never seen a store sell one rib (meaning piece) of celery at a
time. When I need smallish amounts of fresh items like bell peppers,
celery, radishes, carrots and the like, I go to the ever-present salad
bar and get just what I can use up.

N.

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 12:01:25 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:01:30 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
>> > wrote:
>
>> >I learned to cook for two with Betty Crocker's Dinner for Two Cookbook.
>> >I don't think it is especially difficult to cook for two. Cooking for 8
>> >is more expensive. :-) "-)
>>
>> Actually cooking for eight is less expensive than cooking for two per
>> serving. . . economies of volume.
>
>Not if you wind up throwing out leftovers, as a lot of people seem to do.

That's called not cleaning your plate (folks weren't raised right). My
"left overs" are an on purpose next meal.

Goomba > wrote:

>Steve B wrote:
>
>> When you try to create a meal using week old ingredients, you forfeit any
>> claim to being a "cook".
>>
>> Steve
>
>So are you saying the bag of fresh carrots I can use for a couple of
>weeks in various ways aren't "cooking" ? Are they different because they
>sit in my house for a week rather than sit in the store for a week?

Well, you didn't grow them and pull them within the hour. LOL

Steve B wrote:

>
> When you try to create a meal using week old ingredients, you forfeit any
> claim to being a "cook".
>
> Steve
>
>


I guess people who plan and buy a week or even a month's worth of
food should be listed on your "non-cooks" list, huh?

That's ridiculous. Pantries are full of ingredients for future meals.
If you are ever caught in a blizzard or hurricane that keeps you at home
for days, you'll wish you had those week-old-plus ingredients.

gloria p

Brooklyn1 wrote:


>
> Actually cooking for eight is less expensive than cooking for two per
> serving. . . economies of volume.



I was prepared to argue with you until I reread "per serving".
Meat is a large expense.

gloria p

In article >,
Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 23:04:11 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > "Steve B" > wrote:
> >
> >> ending up with lots of things being thrown away. I had to make a deal
> >> with
> >> her about two years into the marriage that if she couldn't tell me the
> >> exact
> >> day on which the questionable leftover was made, I didn't have to eat it.
> >
> >> Steve
> >
> >Can you get her into the habit of slapping a piece of masking tape on
> >the cover, with the date marked? It's a pretty easy habit to get into,
> >as is marking cans and packages with the date they were purchased. I do
> >it all the time.‹ask Tammy. :-)
>
> I mark the date on everything that comes into this house, even non
> food items just because I'm curious about how long a package of soap
> powder, roll of waxed paper, a box of kosher salt lasts.

Me, too. For the same reasons.

> But I don't need to date foods in the fridge I cooked, I'm not so
> senile that I can't remember on Tuesday that I cooked that roast on
> the previous Sunday...

Lucky you. I am.

> that after three days it's time to eat it, turn it into
> soup/hash, or freeze it before tossing it out for the critters. I
> have one of those library date stamps and ink pad... very handy for
> when I bring in the groceries.

I did that for a while; I prefer a black marker.

> I even mark the price paid on many items, I find it interesting to
> note the rate of rise on so many household staples...


<grin> I do that, too. It helps me remember when I bought something
on sale; it's likely to be on sale again at the same time.

--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella
"Always in a jam, never in a stew; sometimes in a pickle."
Pepparkakor particulars posted 11-29-2010;
http://web.me.com/barbschaller

In article >,
"Steve B" > wrote:

> "Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Steve B" > wrote:
> >
> >> ending up with lots of things being thrown away. I had to make a deal
> >> with
> >> her about two years into the marriage that if she couldn't tell me the
> >> exact
> >> day on which the questionable leftover was made, I didn't have to eat it.
> >
> >> Steve
> >
> > Can you get her into the habit of slapping a piece of masking tape on
> > the cover, with the date marked? It's a pretty easy habit to get into,
> > as is marking cans and packages with the date they were purchased. I do
> > it all the time. >
>
> My short term memory was severely affected by a traumatic brain injury five
> years ago. Since then, I have recovered from a person who could not
> remember what two hole cards he folded in seven card stud to a person who
> can remember what was cooked two or three days ago. After that, if it
> becomes any question at all : I WON'T EAT IT.
>
> Period.
>
> End of discussion.

Apparently not.

> It's just a me thing. If I have to use tape to tell how old any cooked
> leftover is, I'm not interested in it. And, I have found foods in my
> refrigerator and cabinets that were three years out of date. The most
> recent, a bottle of beer bread mixture sealed in a beer bottle that, when
> opened, christened the whole kitchen ceiling, my face, arms, and countertops
> with pressurized flour bread mixture.
>
> The more things I find defective in my kitchen, the more adamant I am over
> gaining control over it, and just throwing out anything questionable, and
> surely anything out of date or just suspicious.
>
> Like Andy, this ain't yo mama's kitchen any more.
>
> Or SWMBO's, either.
>
> When you try to create a meal using week old ingredients, you forfeit any
> claim to being a "cook".
>
> Steve



--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella
"Always in a jam, never in a stew; sometimes in a pickle."
Pepparkakor particulars posted 11-29-2010;
http://web.me.com/barbschaller

In article >,
"Steve B" > wrote:
> When you try to create a meal using week old ingredients, you forfeit any
> claim to being a "cook".
>
> Steve

Bullshit.

--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella
"Always in a jam, never in a stew; sometimes in a pickle."
Pepparkakor particulars posted 11-29-2010;
http://web.me.com/barbschaller

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 12:13:39 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
>"sf" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 15:38:51 -0800, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Probably the easiest to cook for is 4 or 6. Things tend to come in those
>>> amounts. Not all things of course. But a lot of things. I think 8
>>> would
>>> be the next easiest because you can buy things in bulk.
>>
>> I buy most things in bulk. Perishables, like boneless chicken pieces,
>> are packaged in 2 person portions and frozen for later. I just don't
>> buy into the "cooking for two is harder" theory. Either you calculate
>> an average of what you estimate each person will eat and buy what you
>> need or you throw a whole bunch of food in your cart and cook it. One
>> method produces a lot of leftovers, the other doesn't - and your
>> attitude toward leftovers will influence your shopping personality.
>>
>> --
>
>Then what about things like salad? Unless you are lucky enough to have a
>store that sells things like greens in bulk (and you can just buy the amount
>you need), you will have a lot of leftovers if you want a salad that
>contains a lot of things. I have yet to see a store that sells one green
>onion. Or six cherry tomatoes. This is why we often buy salad from the
>salad bar. Costs a lot more but much less waste.
>
>I even buy from the salad bar when I am making a pasta salad or meatloaf.
>Otherwise I have either a ton of food or a ton of leftover vegetables.

Any garden salads I prepare at home are of the "chef salad" genre, the
salad is pretty much the entire meal, may also accompany a bowl of
soup and crackers/bread. I may place a bit of lettuce and a couple
slices of tomato on a ham sandwich but I'm not going through prepping
ten kinds of veggies, a little of this/a little of that, just to make
a saucerful of salad that I can scoff down with four forkfuls... yoose
want a salad as a widdle side dish dine out, at home my salad is my
meal. Just about every week I prepare a 24 cup bowl chock full of
garden salad, at serving I often add pasta, cheese, canned beans,
tuna, cold cuts, chicken, sardines, etc... something different each
day until it's all gone. The produce will stay just-made fresh at
least four days when tossed with the juice of a fresh lemon or lime,
or even a splash of vinegar. I don't remember ever having to toss any
due to spoilage. Yummy: http://i56.tinypic.com/rldfn9.jpg

[quote=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?

[/QUOTE]

Back in the old days when I was a single, cooking for 1 was hard at times, then I was 2 and it was still hard. Then I was 3, 4 and 5 and it got easier, especially when 3,4 and 5 were teenagers. Then we were 4, then 3, now 2 again and you know what?. Cooking is easier than ever because of one tool called a food saver. Its a air sucking heat sealing machine that allows me to buy in bulk and freeze stuff for way longer than previously. Worth every penny.

However, there are somethings that just stay hard when it's just the 2 of ya. 8 is easier.

"Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 20, 3:13 pm, "Julie Bove" > wrote:

> Then what about things like salad? Unless you are lucky enough to have a
> store that sells things like greens in bulk (and you can just buy the
> amount
> you need), you will have a lot of leftovers if you want a salad that
> contains a lot of things. I have yet to see a store that sells one green
> onion. Or six cherry tomatoes. This is why we often buy salad from the
> salad bar. Costs a lot more but much less waste.
>
> I even buy from the salad bar when I am making a pasta salad or meatloaf.
> Otherwise I have either a ton of food or a ton of leftover vegetables.

What's "a lot"? Virtually every evening we have salad. Lettuce
(romaine for me, iceberg for him), cucumber, radish, carrot,
cherry tomatoes. Sometimes a little bell pepper. (And less
perishable items, like feta cheese, olives, pepperoni, provolone,
in different combinations.)

We can rip through all of that produce before it goes bad.

OTOH, I've quit buying broccoli unless I know for sure I'm going
to use it. I've thrown away more elderly heads of broccoli than
I can count. We just don't do cooked vegetables all that
often.

---

To me a lot is a three types of greens such as two heads of lettuce and a
bag of spinach. A whole container of small tomatoes. A bunch of green
onions. I can not eat salad every day because I have gastroparesis and
don't digest it well. At the most I can have two small salads a week.

Daughter loves canned green beans. I do digest those well. So we have
those a lot.