Pasta with Butter and Sage

[cjsmith]

To my bemusement, every so often wine randomly appears with my name on it. This shipment's frou-frou newsletter included a recipe for something I have eaten three times in my life, all of them in Italy, all of them with extreme gastronomic bliss.

Naturally I misread the recipe. But such is the power of the scrumptiousness of sage that what I actually did came out very well anyway.

Here I present CJ's Misreading of Sterling Vineyards' Version of Pasta with Butter and Sage.




Pasta for 6 people
1/2 cup butter
2 tablespoons fresh sage leaves
1/2 teaspoon garlic powder
1/2 teaspoon onion powder
1/2 cup grated Parmesan cheese
ground black pepper

I used a pound of pasta, and I think it might have been too much for the amount of sauce I got.

I used unsalted baking butter, and there's no point; this recipe wants a touch of salt anyway.

I couldn't fit a sage leaf in a tablespoon so I took a wild guess.

The original recipe did not call for powders of any kind. Oops. It didn't even call for onion; it wanted shallots. I don't know how my brain made that leap. Well, this is the CJ Rendition.

Slice or mince the sage.



Are you supposed to use the stems too? I cut those off before mincing the leaves. Man did the kitchen start to smell good at this point.


Melt butter over medium heat, and when it is bubbling, add the sage, garlic, and onion powders. Remove from heat and keep warm for at least five minutes to infuse with the savory flavors.




Make pasta according to instructions; drain. In a bowl, toss with the sage butter and most of the grated cheese.




Transfer to individual plates and sprinkle with freshly ground pepper and the rest of the cheese.



Unlike the version I first had in a lovely restaurant in Florence, this one really does seem to want the cheese and the pepper. Fresh garlic and shallots might help, but probably still won't duplicate that version. That's fine though. I ate two helpings as it is.

I suggest insalata caprese with it.


Verdict: OM NOM NOM NOM

Comments

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

The side effects you have been referring to are NOT trivial! They probably won't kill you, but they sure don't make life a lot of fun.

Yeah, and we haven't gotten started on the ones that will kill you. I was lucky. I now know how incredibly easy I had it. And I'm still around to gripe.

I don't hugely blame my prescribing doc, because he's not an MD. He's a podiatrist (I forget which degree that is) and he sees a drug like this, or a case like mine, once in ten years -- maybe once in a career. On the other hand, he's licensed to prescribe this stuff and maybe he should read up a little. On the other other hand, I'm obviously the kind of patient who does a bucketload of research on my own, and he clearly trusts that.

Well anyway -- no lasting harm done, and I've learned never to skimp on my reading.

calorie calculus [...] So, essentially, WTF???

Exactly! Here are a few theories I have pulled right out of thin air:

- Calorie content numbers, particularly for carbohydrates, are vague and inexact. If it turns out that they're inexact enough for the test and control foods chosen in the study, it's possible that the whole study could be explained by this alone.

- Calorie burn numbers are vague and inexact, because extracting one kcal of energy from a pile of one kind of molecule might REQUIRE more energy than extracting one kcal of energy from a pile of another kind of molecule. The net payoff you get could be pretty different. The cost of digestion may or may not be taken into account by the food labeling methods. I simply don't know.

- The more protein you eat, even on an identical exercise plan, maybe the more muscle you build. Maybe some of those people in the study were building muscle while the others were busy building fat, or bone, or eyeballs. Muscle contributes to a higher resting metabolic rate, thus changing -- with no difference in measured intake or in an exercise plan -- weight loss rate. [I don't know whether this study had higher protein in the test group, higher fat, or both. Wish I could find it again.]

- I doubt everybody in the study put their, ahem, output, on a bomb calorimeter, so that whole piece of the equation was probably lost. (But if they did I am prepared to be very impressed.) Again, I don't know whether the original food labeling ditched the undigestible calories accurately.

I'm having way too much fun with this. It's so much better than trying to get work done...