Monday, 18 January 2010
We waited for Hubby for supper tonight: roast beef, roast potatoes, buttered carrots and leeks, petits pois, cauliflower cheese and gravy.
Hubby began by announcing that he "eat(s) too much meat". He said that there was a top scientist today saying that we should ban butter, cheese and red meat. He said he had read it in The Metro. I presume it was this article. Actually it doesn't mention meat.
I thought this not an overly helpful observation to come out with in front of the Waif just as I was serving roast beef, and probably taken out of context. Hubby is on the skinny side and not in danger of needing a heart bypass operation. Waif (and indeed Hubby) is in much more danger from not eating enough than from eating too much saturated fat.
Later, when it came to pudding (syrup sponge pudding), Hubby said he would have some because he had been "good" and cycled home. This is just the kind of false logic that I do not want Waif to pick up on - the idea that she can only eat without guilt if she has been exercising.
Sigh, I had never realised until recently how loaded our language is when it comes to food: it is as if it has a moral dimension, but actually it is a fuel and should be also a pleasure. It is not "good" or "bad". One's diet as a whole can be healthy or unhealthy - equally for being too light on calories as for being too heavy in fat - but an individual item of food is not a moral item.
I am not sure that Hubby "gets it".